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 User:MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 39. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

External Broken Links

Please look at Archive.org to see if you can fix the links.

Featured Articles

CM Punk

has 12 broken links; I think that's terrible for one of our "best articles".

Only 4 broken now (1 from WWE.com). D.M.N. (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to fix them myself, but couldn't. What do you suggest? Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 07:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

December to Dismember (2006)

3 broken links

Now has 0 broken links D.M.N. (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Montreal Screwjob

Our first Featured Article has 7 broken links

Fixed, it only had two.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 01:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There is still one that is supposed to be a webcast with Mick Foley, but it redirects to the site's homepage. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 01:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It worked, and now reads as working through the tool.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 04:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Featued Lists

AJPW Triple Crown Championship

2 broken links

CZW World Heavyweight Championship

4 broken links

1 broken link«»bd(^talk _stalk) 14:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

List of members of the WWE Hall of Fame

2 broken links.

Fixed.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 14:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

List of WWE Intercontinental Champions

6 broken links

Removed one (Wrestleline.com), Archived four (Benoit), moved one (Warrior). Fixed.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 14:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

List of WWE United States Champions

3 broken links

Fixed this one. Nikki311 02:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Good Articles

All Star Pro-Wrestling

4 broken links

Amy Dumas

4 broken links

1 broken links, comes up on a search of the site, but then is broken.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 19:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Candice Michelle

10 broken links

John Cena; Current COTW

7 broken links

Fixed, 100% working.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 00:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Katsuhiko Nakajima

9 broken links

Konnan

11 broken links

Fixed, one reports as still broken by design.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 19:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Kurt Angle and Trish Stratus

These articles do not have broken links; however, there are 6 links in Kurt Angle and 3 links in Trish Stratus that redirect to the homepage of their respective site, because the articles don't exist. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 19:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Nora Greenwald

6 broken links

Rena Mero

3 broken links

Shawn Michaels

3 broken links

 Done --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Please someone fix them. I have been fixing some other articles with broken links, but obviously I need some help. Cheers, Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 18:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

xcuse my newbieism. When you say broken links, are your referring to internal links or external links?LessThanClippers (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, they are External Links. I will specify it above in the heading. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 19:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification request re: Good Article reviews

I was interested in reviewing a Good Article nomination. I noticed that it needed copyediting, so I went through the article and fixed it up. Does this count as "contributing significantly" to the article, thus disqualifying me from reviewing the article? I made no major changes, but I just wanted to ensure that this is not considered a conflict of interest (the article is not a WP:PW article). Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, some reviewers prefer to let the regular contributers make all the necessary changes, while others (like me) make some changes themselves. As long, as you didn't contribute significantly to the article before the review, I think it's okay. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The big problem I have is that I haven't been able to find a definition of "significantly contributing" anywhere on Wikipedia. The main things I did were add or remove commas, change references to the subject by his first name to his last name, and add wikilinks to a few words for clarification. There were also a few places where I thought the sentence structure could be improved, so I fixed those as well. Does this add up to a "significant contribution"? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not in my view. I think "significant contribution" means when you've virtually written the whole article, or done a copy-edit of it. The wikilinking and stuff, anybody from this project wikilinks stuff. Unless you've written parts of the article, I say, go ahead, review it. D.M.N. (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh you mean the copyedit you did on Roberto Clemente? it was done really well (I must admit that my prose can be wordy) but doesn't really constitute "contributing significantly", all around you copyedited the article within less than ten edits and most changes were puntuation and tweaks to the prose, I have seen experienced reviewers do simmilar edits as well as minor referecing, in any case if you decide to review it I am ready to attend it, cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

championship pages

I suggest all wrestling title page's should should have a image of the title belt just the belt not somebody holding it and a image of the current champion so please could somebody just do it please if so thanksKTsuka (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Not all titles have fair use images, so we get images of people holding that title belt, as it is the closest thing we have. Unless you have a fair use image of the belt upload it if not then it will remain as it is.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 17:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is free use images. If an image exists that can be used without infringing on copyright, Wikipedia rules say that it must be used instead of a copyrighted picture. In many cases, a picture of someone holding the belt (or even a current or foreign champion without the belt) is the best that can be done with a free use image. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

With WWE belts, somebody could buy one of the replica belts WWE sells and take a picture of it. It should be a picture of one of the real replicas, not one of those cheap $30 toy ones like the one at WWE Championship. The problem is that the replica belts are pretty expensive, the deluxes ones (the ones that are the same size as the real belts and made with real leather) are $300+. TJ Spyke 22:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The one at WWE Championship isn't the $30 toy version though. -- bulletproof ^3:16 01:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure looks like the toy versions. It's not the real belt, that's for sure. TJ Spyke 01:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Its a $300 replica! Guess the way the picture was taken makes it look like a toy... Still, it is better than most belt images in other articles.-- bulletproof ^3:16 07:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Phil Theis

So I have stumbled on this article, and cleaned ups oem vandalism a few days ago. Since then, the vandalism has been OUT OF CONTROL. What is the history of this article, and why is it being subjected to soooo much vandalism by IP edits that have never been on before. It just seems strange.LessThanClippers (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the history of the article, but two very distinct possibilities are: 1) It's the same guy who keeps coming back with different IPs or 2) A forum has been talking about the article and various people have come here to vandalize the page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It just seems like a strange one to target.LessThanClippers (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, might be. I've put it on my watchlist. D.M.N. (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

it's probably because of his youtube account. He apparently posted videos criticising everyone and everything in wrestling. That could possibly have something to do with the vandlism. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Due to the continued vandalism, I have requested semi-protection. LessThanClippers (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And, its been approved. Good, good. D.M.N. (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, Theis' article has been identified on the stub article subpage as a WP:PW stub article that needs expansion. If anyone is able to add to it, it would be appreciated. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards

Does anyone know of any sources that can be used on the page? It's never had a single source on it, and it's been tagged as such since May 2007. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. A quick Google search didn't bring up anything. Sorry. Nikki311 15:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we remove them from the articles? Speed CG ^Talk 17:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoever has the magazines can use the CITE:BOOK template. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 20:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they have magazines, at least I have never seen any (unless the only way to get them is by subscription because I have never seen any in stores). If it's online only, it would be the cite web. The only award from them I know can be sourced is their Hall of Fame, which is included in PWI's annual "Wrestling Almanac and Book of Facts" since PWI considers it the official HOF for wrestling. TJ Spyke 22:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, TWO is a newsletter. The site mostly doesn't give you ANY information. They don't say anything on the site, so you can look for it in the mag. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 01:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

i would think that you could cite the awards issue newsletter, its a recognised publication in the industry so there shouldn't be a problem. Skitzo (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think scorpion is asking for a actual source though. Right now there is no way for anyone to check and see if those awards and winners are correct. TJ Spyke 23:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you can order back issues from the site. Anyway, the past awards are reprinted in each year's awards issue. At least they were last year. This year's awards issue comes out in a couple weeks, so now's the time to subscribe if you want a copy (geez, I sound like I'm trying to sell the thing!). I could cite the entire article using my copy of last year's awards issue, but that seems kind of flimsy to me, since it would basically be one citation over and over again for the whole thing. Maybe I'll start by citing last year's awards. - Geoffg (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If its one source that covers most (or in this case all) of the article you don't need in-line citations. Just put the source in the reference section. Nenog (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone else would have to do it. I'm not gonna support a dirtsheet by giving them my money. The only thing I use Meltzer's site for are SmackDown spoiler reports and WWE/TNA PPV coverage. TJ Spyke 05:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, you say dirtsheet like it's a bad thing. Mshake3 (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No Newsletter this week?

It's late Tuesday and no newsletter. What gives? Is Mizabot on the fritz? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking that it might be because we don't have the information in yet. Nobody seems to know what's going on with the Collaboration of the Week. Personally, I think Dusty Rhodes could use another week, because not many people had a chance to contribute last week. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, one more week won't hurt. But, what's going on with the newsletter? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, there was news out there, but none of it was reliably sourced, and apparently (again), the newsletter requires sources. Mshake3 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe Mizabot just glitched. I just received the very first newsletter on my talk page (November 1st issue). Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Same... hezekiah (talk to me) 20:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just coming to see if there was already a discussion about this. I recieved the 1st Edition of the Newsletter too heh. --Naha|^(talk) 01:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I realize this. Misza13 has been notified about this. The Chronic 04:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. The error has been corrected. The Chronic 05:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Collaboration of the week

I just nominated a article for next week and was wondering if we should archive the nominations that are there wich were intended for last week, I just asking because I wasn't active that week and don't want to post an nomination that would break the limit. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if it was ok to nominate an article considering the previous articles are still up. What can be done about this? iMatthew (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Dusty Rhodes should be removed from the Collaboration list. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Dusty Rhodes should be promoted as this week's COW and the other articles should probably be archived or given later dates. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That would work. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Certain WWE Superstars

A lot of WWE Superstars/Announcers/Development Stars/ are not yet notable to have their own profile. Yet, they are still under contract to the WWE, or appear on the shows regularly. I propose that we create one article for those Superstars (the Superstar would have a section on that page with basic information about them). Basic information that would be enough to know who the person is, what they do, why they are here, etc. Superstars such as Ranjin Singh aren't ready for their own article, but maybe we could give him a section on the new page, with basic information about him. iMatthew (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

and once/if they become notable, they can move off of the page and into their own article. iMatthew (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont think so because most of these un-notable people dont have reliable sources that we can use to cite in this "new article". Some of them dont even have their own WWE.com profile. I think with just what's listed in the WWE roster article is enough for them.TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the article would serve well for someone who doesn't have any knowledge of the person being written about. It would just be some background information about them. iMatthew (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You see, if someone who didn't give a shit for professional wrestling knew who the wrestler is, then the wrestler must be notable. In other words, it will be very hard to encounter someone who knows who Ranjin Singh is and yet doesn't know anything about pro wrestling. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 05:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We could note in the article that these are all non-notable superstars, and for a Roster of the notable WWE Superstars please see, (WWE Roster). iMatthew (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Shermanvermin

Just a little heads up, this user is going around and changin birthdates to multple wrestlers articles without citing any sources. I have reverted several, but haven't gotten all of them and he/she may continue. TJ Spyke 02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

All Star Pro-Wrestling and sequels

I've been going through a bunch of WP:PW stub articles, and this video game series stood out. The article for the first game, All Star Pro-Wrestling, is fine. The articles for the others (All Star Pro-Wrestling II and All Star Pro-Wrestling III) have two sentences each. Since the sequels are already mentioned in the article for the first game, would it make sense to just merge them into one article and make II and III into redirects? If so, is that the sort of change that would need to be voted on? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I for one support it. I'd say to merge everything into an article on the series, and if someone would like to expand seperate articles for each game, then they can do so. But until an editor who wants to do so does not speak up, then they should be merged. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 08:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am against merging multiple video games into one article. They should be expanded, yes, and that's what {{Template:Expand}} is for. TJ Spyke 01:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Todd Grisham

can you all add this to your watch list, someone keeps adding a statement about him having 6 toes unsourced, i have removed it twice but i only have 1 left under the 3R's rule. Skitzo (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This looks like an edit war in the making. Could we get the page semi-protected? ArcAngel (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a violation of WP:BLP, so I protected the page for 36 hours. Hopefully, that'll deter the IP. If he comes back after the protection expires, I'll protect it longer. Nikki311 19:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

COTW Updates

I got a few things updated on the COTW subpage. I updated the template and I added the notice to the Dusty Rhodes talk tage. I added the Former COTW template to the John Cena talk page, and I updated the diffs on the Former COTWs table. I'm not sure how to add Dusty Rhodes to the COTWs table or how to archive nominees (Cena and Rhodes, at the very least, need to be archived). After that, I think the page should be up to date (unless anyone wants to do some pruning). If someone has a chance, could they please update the table and archive those two nominations? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed Rhodes' nomination, pruned nominations, updated "past collaborations" and "removed nominations" lists. --202.180.171.153 (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Colin Delaney

Anyone feel like a PROD? Nenog (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, it looks like he could be a regular in WWE now since he's wrestled 3 weeks in a row (not counting the "ECW Best of 2007" recap show), albeit as a jobber against Shelton Benjamin/Big Daddy V/Mark Henry. It's not like all these other indy workers that make only 1 appearence. The article is in bad shape for sure, but IF he's a full time wrestler on the roster now (i'm not sure), that pretty much makes him notable. TJ Spyke 01:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

He's not signed with WWE (and contrary to the article he still wrestles for CHIKARA). Nenog (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If it makes any difference, he isn't on the ECW roster page. Nikki311 01:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know then. At the very least I cleaned the article up a little (although it's still bad). TJ Spyke 01:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There's also KAFU, although he is a tad more notable and has signed a contract with WWE. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² —Preceding comment was added at 02:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I say we PROD it, there is nothing on that article that tells me about this kid. No sources, no bio, this is just a waste of article. IT doestnt matter if he is signed to WWE or not, he will just keep getting squashed. Its not like he is the next "world champion".TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 02:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

it depends they could be doing a mickey whipwreck with him, getting him over by being the guy that ju8st keeps trying no matter how badly he gets battered, then giving him a big "upset" win.Skitzo (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

it's up for deletion here. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Houston we have a problem...

I just noticed that the all of the TNA references are failing, see this section for example, I suspect that the first ones became disabled when TNA changed his website but the newer ones are giving me "You are not authorized to view this resource. You need to login." now if login is required that means that reviewers at GAC will not consider this a relible source since it requires the creation of a account, this is bound to affect all of out TNA articles, has some alternate source already been established? if not, are there any suggestions? - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we're pretty screwed on that one. TNA seem determined to shift their site around every other week and now appear to be hosting some material on outside sites. I suppose we could try to wait it out, TNA have been known to have parts of their site vanish or simply go down, only to reappear after several days. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I reckon we're screwed. There's a load of references from TNA's PPV writeups that I put on Samoa Joe months ago and all of them now redirect to the TNAwrestling.com main page. "Annoying" is putting it very mildly. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive.org? D.M.N. (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha! It works! Cheers DMN! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Anastacia McPherson

someone with an annominous IP keeps removing her from the WWE roster, we need to keep an eye on this, unless we have a source for her release.Skitzo (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the blurb at Pussycat_Dolls_Present:#Anastacia_McPherson needs verified also. ArcAngel (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition to the newsletter

I think it would be a good idea to provide a link to currently active wrestling-wrestled deletion discussions each week in the newsletter. It would keep project members informed about articles being discussed for deletion every week. I know that I often don't find out about the discussions (and frankly, it would probably be a little much to have every single one of them posted on the talk page here), but it might be good to have a link that people can click to see what's being discussed each week. Any thoughts? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Nikki311 20:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's normally sheer blind luck that i find out about them. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added the new section to next weeks newsletter. iMatthew (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

I've just read that there is allegedly some kind of campaign to prevent WP:PW members from commenting on FAC debates. As I have been on a lengthy hiatus from Wikipedia I was not aware of this (and possibly other issues). Is this the case? Have there been any similar anti-WP:PW political developments? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes this is the case because if only WP:PW members voted in FAC's then articles would easily be passed as FA, so it is encourage that WP:PW members dont vote in FAC's so other non-WP:PW members vote in them as to a different point of view on the article. This is also true for Feature List candidates, as you see in the 2007 WWE Draft, I got bashed for asking WP:PW members to vote in it and that was a wrong choice so the issue was brought up that WP:PW members shouldnt vote in FLC's either.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 20:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. So the Wikipedia "community" do not trust WP:PW to take an objective stance in such matters. Ah well, I guess independent review is always good for maintaining standards, particularly given that high-quality articles must be fully comprehensible to some with no knowledge on the subject matter. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoever came up with the idea that WP:PW members voting in FACS stops other non-project members from voting, is really irrational. I find that we should always assume the members are not trying to violate WP:COI. We should alway (like Suriel states above) trust WP:PW to take an objective stance in such matters. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 10:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 22:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Team Pacman

Is this really notable? The article is basically stuff that is on Pacman's article. The team was only together for 2 months? This is an example why the Shannon Moore and Jimmy Wang Yang shouldnt be created now.. Thoughts?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 21:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think, because of the attatched contreversy, a wrestler who couldn't wrestle, and the fact that they won gold, makes them notable enough for an article, even if it is quite weak.LessThanClippers (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok but still, an article built on info in the Pacman article and an article for 1 short title reign? But if you all insist so..--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 22:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's actually not stuff in the Pacman Jones article since I removed the redundant information and put a {{main}} template a month ago.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 22:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

World Title recognition

Is there any particular reason this project only recognises Pro Wrestling Illustrated's World Title criteria? PWI's list of wrestling World Heavyweight Title reigns states "There is no ultimate source that declares which of the various wrestling promotions top championships have that status and views differ from promotion to promotion. The same happens with PWI. Hence this page is not supposed to represent the official view on which titles have world title status, it just represents PWI's point of view.". Prior to my 6-month hiatus I remember putting forward a viewpoint that it was inappropriate for an encyclopaedia to solely recognise one organisation's definition of what consitutes a "World Title" and suggesting that we either include every belt that carries such a name or none of them (and so delete all catagories/lists relating to "World Champions"). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Because certain members of this project have a stiffy for PWI and the specific titles it recognizes. If I had my way, we'd delete that article and its tag team equivalent. I see no value in them. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

PWI is generally accepted (in the wrestling world too) as the definitive source of wrestling. Also, most indy belts call their main title a world title, that doesn't make it so. TJ Spyke 23:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You've never provided any proof that the majority of the wrestling industry holds PWI's opinion over those of any other magazine and/or "dirt sheet". PWI has recognized the WWE Championship as a world championship since the 70s, but when was the last time WWE referred to the WWE Championship as the WWE World Championship because PWI said it’s a world championship? Nenog (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it violates WP:NPOV and WP:LISTCRUFT. I'd say AFD. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 10:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

New editor's contributions

Just a quick heads up: Peteash802005 (a new Wikipedia editor) created an account today and has been editing articles. His edits seem well intentioned, but they seem to consist of adding redundant wikilinks, adding unsourced trivia, and accidentally deleting parts of sentences. I'm hoping to have a chance to go through and revert some of them if I have time tomorrow unless anyone gets to them first. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

can this image?

Can this image be uploaded? I have never uploaded an image before, and I believe this image is significantly important to the Over the Edge (1999) and Owen Hart article. Help?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 02:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would meet Fair Use criteria - I doubt we'll get a free-use image of Owen Hart dying. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So it can be uploaded? Do you know how (if it can be uploaded)?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 02:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, it seems Wikipedia's interpretation of Fair Usage has been tightened during my hiatus. Having double-checked WP:FU and WP:IUP I would say that inclusion hinges around whether the photo would (to quote WP:FU policy) significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, i.e. Owen's death. I personally don't think it does. If you disagree then all you have to do is follow the instructions at WP:UPIMAGE and be prepared to justify the necessity of using the image on its discussion page. It isn't an issue of good taste, simply an issue of copyright (as BBC own the image). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Another category being discussed for deletion

Just wanted to let people know that Category:WWE celebrities is being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 9#Category:WWE celebrities in case anyone wants to comment. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Article statistic updates again

Tomorrow will be time for the next newsletter, and it would be nice to provide an update on the focus on stub articles. The article statistics haven't updated again, though. Does anyone know if there's something wrong with the bot? If so, would it be possibly to update them manually (the way that D.M.N. did last week). Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Done it. There's no problem with the bot - its been decided here that the bot should be run differently. However, I'll run it every week for this project. :) D.M.N. (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Three categories nominated for deletion

An umbrella category and two subcategories based entirely on unofficial, unrecognised opinions of a magazine. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_12#Professional_wrestling_champions - you can read my reasons for nomination there. I've decided to go for deletion as unfortunately I don't believe discussion here would have any fruitful results (I share Tromboneguy0186's opinion on this). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

New look for the Newsletter

I re-arranged the look of the newsletter, as well as adding the Article Stats box, where we can also mention the focus on stub articles. Check it out and please provide some feedback. If there is something wrong, I can put it back to the way it was. Also, I hadn't realized until I was done, that I was not logged in, so the changes were made while under my IP. I do that often =] iMatthew (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

John Cena & Shawn Micheals

Does anyone else feel like this article should be deleted? Cheers, LAX 20:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's up for AFD. D.M.N. (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It was already deleted once before (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Cena and Shawn Michaels). Nenog (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Then in that case: SPEEDDDDDYYYY DELETE. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 10:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Updated List of External Broken Links

Please look at Archive.org to see if you can fix the links.

Featured Articles

CM Punk

has 4 broken links

December to Dismember (2006)

2 broken links

I've had to remove the two broken links - luckily there were two references next to the broken one, so nothing is unsourced. Don't archive anything from this website because the new link will still not work. D.M.N. (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, I'm not looking forward to when WWE remove their D2D sub-section from WWE.com..... D.M.N. (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured Lists

AJPW Triple Crown Championship

2 broken links

CZW World Heavyweight Championship

2 broken links

Good Articles

All Star Pro-Wrestling

4 broken links

Amy Dumas

3 broken links

Candice Michelle

9 broken links

John Cena]

2 broken links

Katsuhiko Nakajima

11 broken links

Konnan

1 broken links

Kurt Angle and Trish Stratus

These articles do not have broken links; however, there are 2 links in Kurt Angle and 2 links in Trish Stratus that redirect to the homepage of their respective site, because the articles don't exist.

Nora Greenwald

6 broken links

Rena Mero

3 broken links

Shawn Michaels

2 broken links

---

I just thought that I would update everyone because the previous one is about to be archived. iMatthew 21:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think when this one gets to the very top of the page, it should always be reposted. Some projects never check up on dead links, but I think we should. D.M.N. (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed iMatthew 23:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've setup the automatic link checking. It checks all the articles linked from the project's front page. They are reported here. I get next to no feedback on the tool so basically its designed whatever way I'm using it. You'll be able to search archive.org by just clicking the row, it'll also give you some rather pointless details about the server and how the links are redirecting. It is typically more preferable to use links that are still alive, those usually can be found by searching for the link title on the website, which is the default search setup BTW. Finally, the interface includes buttons to merge the changes back to Wikipedia. —Dispenser (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WWE & ECW Head to Head

Delete? Cheers, LAX 23:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Nenog (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. Its been deleted before. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE vs. ECW Head to Head-- bulletproof ^3:16 23:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Speeeeeeedy Delete. Wat a waste of space... —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessThanClippers (talk • contribs) 23:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. -- bulletproof ^3:16 00:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

2007 WWE Draft

Could this article be given a "B" rating due to its sources?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 23:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it deserves a "B" (that accidentally rhymed) =] iMatthew 00:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bret9.jpg

This image of Bret Hart has been tagged as a candidate for speedy deletion. It's the only free use picture we have of Bret Hart from this time period (1994). I'm assuming that the only way it would be allowed to stay is if the uploader specified the source, but would it be reasonable to place the {{hangon}} tag to give the uploader a chance to respond? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, give the uploader a chance to provide the source. TJ Spyke 03:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with the speedy deletion process. Does it give the uploader more than a day or two to provide the source? Thanks,GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you can't for images, you can only switch it to a regular deletion nomination. I went to do that, but an admin deleted it between the time I went to the image's article and when I clicked "Edit". TJ Spyke 03:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Help request: King of the Ring (1994)

Sorry for filling up the talk page so much, but I've had more time than usual over the past week, so I've been busy. I'd like to add a free use picture to the KOTR 1994 article per the GA reviewer's request. The best candidate I can find would be Img:Roddy_Piper.jpg. However, I'm having trouble placing it in the article. Would someone be able to help? No matter where I put it, it either seems awkward, splits up paragraphs or creates too much white space. It would work well in either the Background section (near the end) or the Event section (near the end). Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Another AFD..

I put Kafu up for and AFD, click here for reasons.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 04:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for help

Hey folks, can someone look at Edgar Hugo? It smells hoaxy to me, (I can't find any hits for "Edgar Hugo" Wrestling in Google.SirFozzie (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I say delete it.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 04:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Where IS the Big Show...

Well, according to this, apparently heading back to WWE. Yeah... this might be a good time to add Paul Wight to your watchlists if you haven't already. -- bulletproof ^3:16 08:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL states Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. At the moment the Observer (though I cannot find their original article online) are only saying that he may have signed or will probably do soon. No doubt we will have some decent sources available when it is confirmed (and probably not WWE, I'd expect them to try and keep it "hush-hush", Jericho-stylee). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've read it on several websites. Added to watchlist. D.M.N. (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles to watch

There seems to be speculation that Chris Harris (wrestler), James Storm and Ron Killings have all signed with WWE (even though a couple of the fanboy/blog sites have admitted they've incorrectly reported Harris signing!). Would anyone mind keeping an eye on them? I'm perilously close to 3RR on Paul Wight and Ron Killings! (edit: limit reached on Paul Wight) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Harris' article is Semi-protected, but the others are not. If the speculation continues, it might be worth putting in a request for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. D.M.N. (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Where was did you read about James Storm signing with the WWE? I've heard of the others, but not James Storm. iMatthew 16:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

James Storm is under contract to TNA and scheduled to face Eric Young at Against All Odds 2008. Any reports of a wrestler signing with WWE or TNA have to have a reliable source, otherwise it should be removed (per WP:V). TJ Spyke 18:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

AFDs

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Lee Stone (his article is worth a look, if only for a laugh) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted iMatthew 16:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CWF Heavyweight Champonship (and no, that isn't a typo! Well, not by me!) (article speedied ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted iMatthew 15:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domino (wrestler) another one. iMatthew 15:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Massive number of AFDs

As I'm sure everyone has noticed, a bunch of articles have been deleted and/or nominated for deletion over the past week. My concern is that no effort is being put into expanding the articles before deletion. Most of the time, the rationale given is "non-notable". But rather than shooting first and asking questions later, how about either trying to expand them or listing them on the stub article subpage with a notice that they will be nominated if they're not expanded with a given number of days? I've been doing a lot of work on stub articles because I'd rather give articles a chance than just delete them without putting in an effort.

There also seems to be a belief in this project that notability should be equated with long-term employment with Vince McMahon. Please keep in mind that many wrestlers who have not signed with WWE or TNA (or have only recently signed) may still be notable because of their accomplishments in various independent promotions.

Of course, some articles should be deleted. But, unless it's a hoax, giving project members a chance to improve the articles would be nice. And please avoid speedy deletions unless it's a hoax. If an article is nominated and deleted within a span of 6 hours, there's no way anyone would have a chance to fix it up. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but the thing is some of them dont have sources, so where are we to get information from? I engine searched most of the previous AFD's and could barely find 1 source for them. --TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 18:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Colin Delaney, Domino and Kafu all have multiple hits on search engines. And remember, many of these wrestlers may have used different ring names, so a meaningful search would have to look at any ring names used (eg. Colin Delaney has few hits, but Colin Olsen has many). GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if that was so, you should had informed us all that that was the case. Now its too late. =(, well now we know that some may have different names.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 18:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the nominator should have read the article. I think the statement "He has worked for the CHIKARA promotion as Colin Olsen" makes this quite clear. Discussing the article here before nominating it for deletion would have avoided the problem. Nominating it and giving a one-sided explanation designed to convince other people to take your side doesn't help anything, as it leads to a bunch of people supporting the deletion before anyone has a chance to expand it. It's pretty hard to save an article if it has 6-8 deletion votes before anyone has an opportunity to work on it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea well we should save some of the current ones who are under AFD...TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 18:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if you make a committment on an AFD to expand/tidy the article then the closing administrator will allow extra time for this to happen (and if they don't then one can request undeletion). Truco's absolutely right about the general lack of sources for such articles. Taking Kafu as an example, I Googled the guy but found nearly all the links were from fanzine/blog/fanpage/forum type websites. The few serious links I found just referenced him signing a contract with WWE. A combination of those and a citations from his personal website are not really enough to prove his notability. AFD's being closed with delete within 6 hours is something I am rather new to and reflects a new admin strategy called WP:SNOW (if an admin thinks an AFD is certain to be decided a certain way they will close it early - VERY early!) and there is little we, as non-admins, can do about that. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

SNOWed after 6 hours, and you think that you can expand it? That is probably the single greatest rational to have an article undeleted I've ever seen, seriously. If you think that you can expand it, file a deletion review. SNOWed articles are notoriously vulnerable to being undeleted upon a good rational being presented, and this is probably the most vulnerable given how quickly it was SNOWed. Peace, SexySeaBass 18:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem that I have is that I'll never know if I could have expanded some of these. For example, CWF Heavyweight Championship was nominated for deletion because it didn't have sources. It was speedy deleted in 53 minutes. But, at this point, the article history is gone and I don't even know which CWF this was. If the article had stayed up, I probably could have seen who the champions were, found some sources, and fixed up the article. I definitely don't want to blame the nominator for this, as I think the administrator erred in giving the article less than an hour for improvements. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Gary, if you want to, you can ask Rudget - the admin who deleted the CWF Heavyweight Championship article to undelete it so that you can work on it. I'm sure they won't mind. D.M.N. (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You're wasting your time on that CWF Heavyweight Championship. It was the main title of a small Welsh promotion (allegedly, I can't find it on Google) and the article was created by a now-banned user who stated he was the reigning champion. This hoaxer has also claimed in previous edits to work for the WWE, to be related to Rob Van Dam, and to be the 12 yr old lovechild of Gail Kim and Sheamus O'Shaunassey. Yep. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I started to wonder about that when I saw that the article's title said "Champonship" instead of "Championship". Now that I know the story, speedy deletion sounds like it was the right way to go. In fact, giving it 53 minutes was probably too much. Thanks for the clarification. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on Colin Delaney right now. D.M.N. (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have expanded the article on Kafu. There is still a little more to be added, but I need to get back to the real world for a while. Thank you to everyone for your understanding and assistance with my comments about AFDs. It was not my intention to criticize anyone for nominating articles, and I appreciate the fact that you have responded so well. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have finished expanding Kafu's article. It's looking quite a bit better and might actually qualify as a Start-class article now. Any opinions on the rating? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Year's Revolution (2007)

Last post was on January 5. It would be great if more project members can address their concerns. Cheers, ŁΣҲ ^T/_C Guest Book 18:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It was brought up in the 2007 WWE Draft FL nomination that project members should not vote in FA/FL nominations. And you will be attacked by other non-project users about asking members of WP:PW to vote.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 18:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to force them to support the nomination. I am asking the members if they have a problem with the article, that I will address them.

Oh, ok. But you never know how users may interpret things.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 18:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

GA articles?

Why does achieving GA status for some articles take so long? I have posted No Way Out (2004) for GA nomination over half a month ago. How long does it take?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 18:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no set time. Any user (admin or not) can review a GA candidate, so it depends on who decides to review an article. It shouldn't take 2 weeks though, that seems a little too long. TJ Spyke 18:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a huge backlog over at WP:GAC thats why its taking so lnoger for someone to review it. D.M.N. (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, cuz its taken a while now.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 18:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It took two months for someone to get to "my" article Briscoe Brothers, but it eventually was reviewed, and passed! Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I need some help condensing lists into prose

Instead of a cluttered long list, a prose should be done for all wrestling video game articles. See WWE_SmackDown_vs._Raw_2008#Roster for a good example. Also: arena lists should be put in prose (or described in gameplay), as they are technically level lists, which typically aren't in list form on a game articles. Plus, the non-playable sections should just go. Many video games have these types of characters, and a majority of game articles don't just list them for "completeness" sake. Anyone care to help out? RobJ1981 (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not interested in getting involved with a dispute between you and several other editors. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WT:PW section archival (This is getting to long)!

What is up with the archiving of this talk page, there are a couple of discussions here older than 7 days. The links update is good to have but I feel it should be somewhere else because it is taking up a rack of space. Suggestions?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 20:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

None is older than 7 days. (It is archived by the date of the last post, not the first) Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 21:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That makes more sense. iMatthew 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was the first post. But still this a bit too long. Can't we have the broken links thing updated somewhere else?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 21:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have them here since I first posted it (User:Alex Roggio/WP:PW External Links) Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 21:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Should I move it to a WP:PW page? Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 21:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea mayby something called "updates" or something like that.TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 21:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Broken external links

It's incomplete though. D.M.N. (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys do realize that this is probably the most active WikiProject on Wikipedia? D.M.N. (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Other than the GA WikiProject, I think it is. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 22:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow really, we should be awarded..=D, now that is much better (the new page).--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 00:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal

What happened with it? Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 22:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's still here. I haven't had a lot of time to expand it. I will get to that in the near-future (or whenever I feel like doing so, unless somebody else does it for me). The Chronic 22:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the exact reason people objected the creation of the portal; that people would just leave it there and not update and construct it; and this is exactly what's happening. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. It'll be built up. WP:DEADLINE. Of course, I can't take thetask of building it up alone. The Chronic 23:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I say if it isn't being actively maintained within two months, have it deleted. While there aren't actual deadlines, there comes a time when something is clearly a mistake, and should be abandoned and attempted again at a later date. IMO, two months is really generous. Peace, SexySeaBass 23:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Unforgiven (2005)

I wanted to give everyone a heads-up that Unforgiven is done and to check if everything is in place. Also wanted say that I will start expanding Unforgiven (2004) in my Sandbox. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing that stands out is that you go very in depth about the matches, that's good but try to avoid that.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 00:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I really summarize the "big" thing that happens in the match. I'll try not to do that with Unforgiven '04. Thanks for the comment Truco. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, check December to Dismember (2006) as an example, reached FA status and just summarizes the big matches and the undercard matches by saying how one superstar won. Try following that and Over the Edge (1999), which is still under cons.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 00:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll do that. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WWE Roster (poll)

I was talking to iMatthew about the article and then It reminded me about someone mentioning in the past that we should remove the Corporate people and create a separate article for them. Should it be done, because it literally is called "roster" not employees/management?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 01:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I was that "someone". And I really believe now that they should be ridden of completely from the article. And it's all practically unsourceable anyway, because WWE does not announce backstage hirings, firings and replacements. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 03:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why I am proposing this poll. But I feel we should just do it, or we should move the developmental rosters somewhere else because this article is huge and messy.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 03:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, they are two separate things. The WWE Roster page should be for talent that is under wrestling contracts for the WWE. They should be separated from the management staff. iMatthew 01:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Except how many articles on Wikipedia are list of people who are part of a corporation? FedEx for example doesn't have a list of executives, much less have everyone who does every little thing. Same with Microsoft, Coca Cola and Wal-Mart. You make a separate list for people who have office jobs with WWE you might as already go ahead and AFD it as not notable. I say keep in on the WWE roster of just get rid of it all together. Nenog (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if that's the case we should rename both the TNA and WWE roster pages to something else because when I hear "roster" I expect to see people who are doing something in that particular field. Like in Wrestling I expect someone to be wrestling, who is listed under the "roster".TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 01:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we should compare this to other corporations. FedEx, Microsoft, Coca Cola, and Wal-Mart all have employees, but they don't have another group of people doing a completely different thing. We do, as there are wrestling employees and there are wrestlers, who are in another department. iMatthew 01:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The roster page is headed by This is a list of people employed by and/or contracted to World Wrestling Entertainment, which is correct for content. Maybe the article title should be changed to World Wrestling Entertainment employees? Maybe not, I don't like the way it sounds. I don't think we could get away with a seperate page for the producers/execs though. iMatthew is right, we can't really compare WWE to those companies - they're product-driven and WWE is employee-driven. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Lena Yada

Well looks like someone has created the article using a non-free image. The article looks like crap and I dont think there is enough info for here to have an article. Should we PROD it?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 01:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, it's total crap. I say we PROD it. iMatthew 01:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done-mayby it can be created after a year.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 02:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week updated

The newsletter is supposed to go out today, so I updated the COTW based on the votes received. This week's collaboration is Ricky Banderas.

One other thing that I wanted to mention is that I think that the nominations that were pruned last week should have their waiting period waived because there was a lull in activity for the COTW and Dusty Rhodes was used for two weeks. If anyone wants to nominate Shane McMahon, Rikidōzan, D-Generation X, Eddie Guerrero, Sting (wrestler), Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, Professional wrestling, André the Giant or Booker Huffman sooner than the normal two month waiting period, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Of course, if anyone objects, I can go with that as well. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and there are currently only two nominations for next week. Be sure to stop by and vote and/or nominate an article that needs some improvement. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added one: Jim Ross. Nikki311 03:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WrestleFanFest Malice in the Palace

I just came across this article and was thinking of PRODing it. Any thoughts?-- bulletproof ^3:16 05:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was pretty noteworthy when it was taking place (mostly due to its piss poor planning). I say turn into an article on the whole fan fest, not just the ppv part. Nenog (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I was also considering that option.-- bulletproof ^3:16 05:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Was it even a PPV? This is the first i've heard of the event, and neither of the third party sources mention it being a PPV. TJ Spyke 05:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well here is some stuff courtesy of the Wrestling Observer: 1) "The three-day fan fest that starts tomorrow at the San Francisco Cow Palace which includes a nostalgia show Friday, an MMA show Saturday and ROH on Sunday, has this update...There is an Eric Bischoff dinner at 6 p.m. and a wrestling show at 7:30 p.m. taped for PPV and DVD." 2) Latest insanity from San Francisco. 3) “The San Francisco convention continued to be a disaster as wrestlers leaving without being paid had to be driven to flights to San Jose and Sacramento's airport because so many weren't even booked to leave out of San Francisco.” Nenog (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would feel more comfortable if there was more than 1 source to back up the claim (so far that means there is only 1 link saying it was a PPV, and it was from before the event was supposed to take place). TJ Spyke 06:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that source comes from promotional material. I have never read anything about the wrestling event actually being taped for PPV although ROH's event at the Fan Fest was taped for DVD. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

New Year's Revolution 2005

Alright. As much as I tried, I haven't been able to get any time to properly dedicate to the creation of the article. Therefore I'm going to have to put it in the open and give someone else a chance to create it so we can make the WWE New Year's Revolution page a lot cleaner. Some of it has already been done and I can still attempt to contribute to it if I can snatch some time: The work in progress is here. Sorry again and hopefully I can still get around to actually contributing to this project. AdaManiac 08:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have decided to practice what I preach

And actually do something instead of simply kvetching about it. The three articles relating to PWI and their titles have been AFD'd here. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How come a Talia Madison page can't be created?

Just wondering, cause she's been wrestling for quite a while, yet her page hasn't been made yet, and she's on TNA's roster —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBoy (talk • contribs) 22:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Because the article has been created time and time again after it was originally deleted (see here). Cheers, LAX 23:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There is currently an active deletion review on this at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_January_14#Talia_MadisonLessThanClippers (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just give it up. The wiki-powers that be have spoken, and I think it's highly unlikely that their minds will ever be changed. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why give it up? Are you saying that people can't ever achieve notability with time? if they don't instantly have it they'll never have it? In this case I think a good argument can be made that she is now notable unlike when the article was initially deleted - everything after the initial deletion is just sheeps going "Oh it was deleted once, can't possibly be notable" and deleting it again. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Gotta agree here - there seems enough on the page now to at least assert some notability. Keep trying and you'll eventually beat the sheeps. AdaManiac 07:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why give it up? Are you saying that people can't ever achieve notability with time? No, but that certainly seems to be the case here. Articles at various titles for Sky/Szantyr/Madison have been deleted something like 20 times and all three potential titles have been salted. Even now the deletion review "vote" is about 60/40 if they don't instantly have it they'll never have it? What I'm saying is there are plenty of people who think that way, and their minds are notoriously hard to change. In this case I think a good argument can be made that she is now notable unlike when the article was initially deleted Good luck. I don't think much of anything has changed. If there's an easier way to respond point-by-point (or maybe we should just not ask/say a hundred different things in one comment? :p ) please let me know. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If somebody really wanted to create an article on her they could always do so in their userspace, try and source it, then submit the page as evidence to justify undeletion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

New category up for deletion

Category:World Wrestling Entertainment model to appear in Playboy. Yes indeedy. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Chris Benoit Quesiton

So I didnt really follow this well when it occurred but Wikipedia reported the Benoit death before police found it. So did any actions take place, or they know who did it? (I know this really isnt a question of improving WP:PW articles, but really curious:And I know this question is late).TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 03:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the IP who did it admitted that it was just a joke (this type of vandalism happens a lot, an IP will add that a wrestler was killed when they weren't). It was just a said coincidence that it actually happened. TJ Spyke 03:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that is horrible. Did the IP get arrested or had legal action against them?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 03:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That i'm not sure of. I don't know if any legal action could be done though. TJ Spyke 03:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 03:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he was detained and his computer was seized. However, he was released after it was all found out to be a huge and unfortunate coincidence. -- bulletproof ^3:16 03:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, this person must live with this his whole life. Reporting a death before anyone knew about it..WOW!. Thanks BulletproofTrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 03:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I know, it must be a difficult thing to go through. -- bulletproof ^3:16 04:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Theme songs

Maybe this should just be scrapped from articles, because people have no clue what they're talking about. Aside from countless fake titles to make themselves feel smart, idiots are calling WWE-made tracks "production themes." Do you know what production music is? Going by this, you don't. Production music is music created by companies to be used by whoever wants to pay to license it. So stop calling WWE-made tracks production, and quit giving them fake titles that look like a 6 year old made them up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.140.20 (talk • contribs)

Examples? Mshake3 (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I sorta agree. I see a lot of unsourced names for theme songs in wrestlers articles (like the remixed version of Kurt Angle's TNA theme. The remixed version includes lyrics). If a source isn't provided, I say remove it. TJ Spyke 20:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there are some cases where it's verging on listcruft, but if a particular song or two is strongly associated with an article's subject, I don't seem the harm in including that. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Or if a song has notability as a release, e.g. Rollin and American Badass for Undertaker, Walk Idiot Walk for Christy Hemme or Genie In A Bottle for Spanky. We have to be careful about claiming a song is strongly associated with a subject (per WP:OR so TJSpyke's comment about sourcing will have to be followed. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Shawn Michaels finisher?

Did anybody catch RAW last night? Because, in Michael's talk page, there are some users stating that Michaels has a new finisher, the "New Inverted Figure Four Submission Finisher". Is this true? Zenlax ^{T C S} 20:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just using a move once doesn'tmake it a finisher. Look at Angle a few months ago when he hit a 450 splash, and hasn't done it since. TJ Spyke 21:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought. So, do we revert the finisher? Because it comes after Sweet Chin Music; see here. Zenlax ^{T C S} 21:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

of course...--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 21:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I just did it myself (while doing a general cleanup of his page). I also left a comment on the talkpage. To say he will continue using it as a finisher violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. TJ Spyke 21:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently this new finisher is going to be a problem. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

WWE new sets?

WWE corporate announced that with the HD update, they would make new sets for RAW, SD! and ECW. Should it be added? (now or later)--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 23:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think that if we can't add announced matches at upcoming PPV's, I don't see why this would be different. Wait till it actually happens. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm.. look at this year's No Way Out, sourced with a reliable source. WWE corporate is as reliable...so...y not?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 23:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. If we can pull out WP:CRYSTAL and say "They might decide not to have the match" or "Wrestler B in this scheduled match might drop dead tomorrow," surely the same logic applies to something even bigger, like changing sets? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we even have talk pages anymore for each article? Anyway, set design is mentioned in detail in these articles, so I don't see what the issue is. Mshake3 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The RAW article only mentions sets in the pictures of the different sets. SmackDown is the same, except for a small paragraph about the first set. Based on these, once someone takes a picture of the new sets that will be it. TJ Spyke 23:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok. Because I saw a couple of reverts on the new set info. "comment to MShake"- i guess we dont because no one really replies on those pages except IP's.TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 00:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well now we know why you asked this question. Saying this information at the beginning will save us a lot of time and typing. Someone wanted a source, and it was added. Mshake3 (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Royal Rumble (2008)

Might want to keep an eye out (even though i'm sure some people already do it, like me). Some people keep adding that Punk/Chavo for the ECW Championship will happen at the RR. Some "genius" tried putting it in with a source, the problem being that the source (wwe.com) says that the match will take place next week on ECW. This happens everytime WWE has a match with a title shot going to the winner, some posters will add it to the next PPV without any proof that it will happen (and most of the time the match ends up happening on TV). TJ Spyke 07:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Already on my watchlist. People assume too much...*sighs* Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

New category

User:RLipstock is at it again. He created Category:McMahon Stables, which is the definition of un-needed. Can somebody take care of that for me, as I've never done a CFD and don't have a lot of time right now to go learn how. Thanks. Nikki311 15:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added it to the to the list of categories for discussion. You can go here and have it deleted. Zenlax ^{T C S} 16:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to get the mop out on this user at long last.... D.M.N. (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nikki could probably do that or have someone else do it. Zenlax ^{T C S} 18:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No Way Out (2008)

User:LifeStroke420 has been removing the indemand sourced Elimination chamber match from this article. Anyone else care to help me watch this? Consensus has changed, and he doesn't seem to understand that.... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

So much for "Fuck it I dont care anymore add the shit." Mshake3 (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As an advanced warning, that section will be getting shifted to No Way Out (2008) just after the Rumble. I would do it now, but don't wish to get into a edit war. As for LifeStroke, again, I think he should listen instead of being disruptive again. D.M.N. (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

We can do that or just have the article protected until the day of No Way Out. Zenlax ^{T C S} 18:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have left a notice on his talk page. And I strongly oppose full protection, since that would not allow us to add matches as they are announced. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry didn't clarify completely, until the matches are fully announced then the protection should be out. Zenlax ^{T C S} 18:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Have it protected until the first Raw after the Rumble. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 21:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Undertaker

I am having a minor dispute with User:NickSparrow over whether Calaway's ring name is "The Undertaker" or just "Undertaker." See these recent edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Wrestling_Entertainment_roster&curid=2337812&diff=184808107&oldid=184807610

How is this a reason to contact an admin, dear god... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

it's not, I left a note on his page. This is what WWE refers to him as, so that's how it will stay.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 21:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

His ring name is "The Undertaker". He is called Undertaker and even Taker, yet he still is The Undertaker. Just like The Great Khali, The Major Brothers and The Boogeyman. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 21:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, he actually has an argument. WWE.com's SmackDown superstars pages, lists him as "Undertaker." But that doesn't change his ring name.... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)