Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

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

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

Taunts

What happened to the "taunts" section on the Glen Jacobs (Kane) article --Brothers of destruction (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. You can try looking in the page history. Thanks, Genius101 _{T. C.} 12:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Period marks after the end of matches

I know that this is as minor of an issue as it can possibly get, but are period marks necessary at the end of matches under results? I bring this up since there are several articles that either have a period at the end of a match result, or do not. Again, I know that this really isn't anything to worry about, but there's really no harm in having a customary, traditional format for all professional wrestling PPV articles regarding the matter. Superslammin (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It was something I was going to bring up but never bothered to. I don't think full stops are necessary in the results tables because it's not a sentence, it's more akin to a bullet point. I've been taking them out of as I go through '98 and '99 but if we're gonna set a precedent, I'd vote for without. Tony2Times (can't find tildes on this keyboard)

I think that they aren't needed, but that we shouldn't waste our time going through all the PPV to remove them. Thanls, The Genius (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources?

This is just something I came across today and wanted to clarify. Looking at the style guide for the project, it mentions Online World of Wrestling as being discussed for reliability and Lords of Pain as a dirt sheet/blacklisted website. I then noticed that featured article CM Punk references both these websites (especially Online World of Wrestling, extensively). So I'm just trying to puzzle this one out. If they can't be trusted, how can a Featured Article be allowed to have them? Or can they be trusted, and the sources page is simply outdated? If a Featured Article can have these sources, I don't see why any other article can't. (PS: Just checked out another FA, Bobby Eaton, it references three of the so called unreliable websites as well). Cheers, DoomsDay349 15:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Punk's article was promoted to FA before the FA criteria was tightened up. OWOW can be used (in my opinion) to source non-controversial things such as move lists and match results. I wouldn't every use it for something like personal life sections though. LOP should definitely be taken out of that article, though I believe OWOW can stay. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

OWOW shouldn't be used period, unless its really minor. Like at SummerSlam (2003), an FA, it uses completewwe.com to source the other on air talent, and it stayed because it is sourcing non controversial items.--S_RX 15:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed the to-do list also explicitly states to put OWOW references back in from the former blacklisted obsessedwithwrestling. I can understand not referencing Lords of Pain, because it's blacklisted/dirt sheet (whether that's valid is a different discussion), but Online World of Wrestling is in a seperate category...it's a bit unclear. At the top of the section it says don't use the third list, which OWOW is in, but at the end of the section it says the above are all reliable. So basically I think what we're getting here is that OWOW is okay for match results and moves and the like, but not for extensive prose? And LOP should not be used period? (Should we take out the LOP reference in Punk's article as well?). Cheers, DoomsDay349 16:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "period", though it definitely shouldn't ;be used for controversial BLP things like martial status and that sort of thing. If OWOW is really that bad, I question why no one has told me to cease adding it as a source for move lists to a large amount of WP:PW's articles. I would tend to think that move lists are not controversial material, but others may disagree. I've fixed the WP:PW/MOS#Sources. I had the numbering wrong and was no counting the official website list among the list numbers. Fixed for clarifiaction. If anyone disagrees with how that section reads, please discuss. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that besides the IP addition of week-by-week, editors changing the moves lists are a big chunk of the edits around here. Because a lot of the moves look alike, sometimes it is a matter of interpretation (which leads to edit warring). Isn't it better to have a source for a move, so people will stop changing it to what they think the move is? Nikki311 18:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Very true. In that case, I'll continue adding OWOW as sources for that sort of thing. But would it be acceptable for FA in this case, since it's not controversial. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Star ratings on articles

Seeing as pro wrestling articles have recently updated - though of course not TOO recently - to having a "Reception" section, does having a "Professional Reviews" section, similar to that of what's seen on articles regarding music albums, sound like a good idea? The idea itself most likely wouldn't pass, but I'm just "throwing" it out there for the purpose of having different reviews from professional sources (according to what I've seen, Canadian Online Explorer, and Dave Meltzer's Wrestling Observer, just to name a few) listed on PPV events. Superslammin (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty good idea, IMO. D.M.N. (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's sounds like an OK idea.. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean like having the stars in the infobox like albums? I've never really liked that personally. Unless you have the same reviewers in every infobox it ruins the uniformity and I don't think the colouring of the stars stands out enough. Tony2Times (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the stars placed in the infobox serve the purpose of being "eye candy"; they're simply there to give the reader an idea of how an event did, quality wise. And speaking of "same reviewers", a couple of suggestions regarding the idea would be J.D. Dunn and/or Larry Czonka from 411mania (experienced writers that had reviewed tons of WWE PPVs), Dave Meltzer's Wrestling Observer, Canadian Online Explorer itself (given that it's already on several PPV articles) and perhaps DaveyBoy from LordsofPain, each of whom give a thorough insight of what occurred during a certain PPV event. Superslammin (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration

Since no one responded to my earlier suggestion, and only Wrestlinglover to IMatthew's, I'm just going to be bold and move the page from Collaboration of the Week to just Collaboration. Thanks, 99.240.224.232 (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to sign in! Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I don't think anyone mind anyway. I don't think many people even remember the collaboration. Crap I forgot about it for a few minutes. That reminds me, I need to work on Team 3D, WrestleMania, and Samoa Joe.--WillC 03:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

List of professional wrestling terms

Do you guys think this list might be good in table form? I've made an example with the "A"'s and I think it looks more organized. See User:IMatthew/Sandbox2. iMatthew (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah looks neater and easier to read. Just looking over that A section, considering our OOU policy and just the fact that it's for people unfamiliar with wrestling terms, it would be best to limit the wrestling slang used in descriptions such as "an angle may be retconned if it is not over with the fans", when popular would suffice. Tony2Times (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks much better and readable as a table. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah the the table is a lot better than the list. It's neater and easier on the eyes. Thanks, 99.240.224.232 (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I'm editing on a public computer, so I haven't set it to remember me. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added B's and C's. Still ok? iMatthew (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be sortable, since it is already in alphabetical order. Nikki311 18:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, can I finish the list and move it into the mainspace? iMatthew (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Forget the tables, everyone! Someone helped me put the page in definition format. iMatthew (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Capitalising moves

Is there a standard on this? I ask because of these edits. I know personalised names like "Batista Bomb" are capitalised, but what about ordinary moves? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No ordinary move names (not specially named by the wrestler) are not proper nouns and should not be capitalized. There are exceptions, though, like forward Russian legweep or Irish whip. Nikki311 18:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What happens in cases where a wrestler does not have a personalised name for their finishing maneuvre? ie Owen Hart uses a sharpshooter as a finisher, while Rock uses a sharpshooter as a normal move, but both give it the same name. Tony2Times (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be lower case unless it's in the wrestler's move listing, since in that case it's the start of a line. Ankle lock should be "ankle lock." In the above case, both versions of sharpshooter should be in lower case. On that note, when linking moves, be careful of caps, since even one wrong capitalization will break the link and cause it to direct to the top of the target article. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Prince Justice Brotherhood

Should there be an article about them? They've seemed to have become a major stable in TNA. SAVIOR_SELF.777 21:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking at this earlier today (it's in the articles to create section). It was, however, created on August 31 and speedied. On the one hand, you think that yes, they do deserve an article as an emerging TNA stable, but then again, they haven't won a title yet nor do they seem like they're getting close...perhaps we should see what some other opinions of them are before going and recreating it. I'd personally be more in favor of Beer Money, Inc. first, since they're the tag champs and that has to be worth and article. DoomsDay349 21:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. They've already been tag team champs and have been used numerous times on TNA, so they should get an article. And, you also have a point on PJB. SAVIOR_SELF.777 22:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Prince Justice Brotherhood isn't notable yet. They have had one ppv match and are used for comedy segments. Not notable right now. After a year maybe. If they become multi tag team champions then yes but now, no. Beer Money, Inc can wait. Plus I asked the guy who deleted it last to re-create it and he placed it in a user subpage for me to improve so that it meets standards since that was the only real reason it was deleted is because it wasn't sourced. So give me a little while and I'll have the article ready and move it back to its original place.--WillC 01:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I see a link to the subpage? I'd like to check it out and help out if I can. DoomsDay349 01:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. I haven't worked on it yet, been too bussy, but here is the link: User:Wrestlinglover/Beer Money.--WillC 01:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool, looks like a good shell to start with. I might throw it over in my own sandbox and toy around with it some, since I don't really have anything else to do right now. See if I can't make an article out of it. Thanks. Cheers, DoomsDay349 02:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing PPV discussion?

Did this get lost somewhere? We still have NOT come to a consensus it looks like. I seriously am still annoyed at how ugly the articles look when you go into them. It's not an improvement, it makes it cluttered and chunky? Who agreed that this was the way it needed to be done? That lead-in paragraph especially! --WestJet (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes there has, its called WT:PW/S. Plus consensus was already made and two article have passed FAC per this, SummerSlam (2003) and The Great American Bash (2005), as well December to Dismember (2006).

Overall, the new style was more imposed than discussed. Most people commenting on it agree, however, that it needs some fine-tuning. In response, all the project chose to do was cut and paste all discussion to a subpage so that it was easier to ignore. A serious discussion is still needed, and I think it should take place here, where people will actually see it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Watch out for Spoilers this whole week

Watch WWE Friday Night SmackDown#Champions, Curt Hawkins and Zach Ryder, Carly Colon, Primo Colon, WWE Tag Team Championship, and No Mercy for spoilers from the SmackDown tapings that occurred Sunday.--S_RX 03:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers are not against wikipedia policy. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, but I'm sure he knows that. We need to get out of the habit of reverting due to spoilers and simply reverting to to lack of an RS. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Added sources for the Colons thing, referencing to [1]. On Friday, we can change this to WWE.com ref. D.M.N. (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one that thinks mentioning this: "Currently, he is one-half of the WWE Tag Team Champions with his brother Primo Colón on SmackDown." in the lead is kind of stupid? I mean, it will undoubtly bring revisionism as soon as they drop the titles. - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the same with other champion articles (i.e. Jericho, Marella etc.), they all have it mentioned in the lead. D.M.N. (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have anything against mentioning the championships in the lead, they are notable, my concern is with the wording, there must be a way of writting it without the recentism. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone recognise this image

Here. It says the source is 24wrestling.com but I doubt that very much. If anyone can find the proper source (as I'm pretty sure it's a copyvio), I'll send it off to IFD. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Found it.[2] I've put it up for speedy deletion. -- Oakster  Talk  16:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Third times a charm for No Way Out (2004)?

Remember this article? Remember this revision for FA and the new improved version? Remember how I nominated it twice for FA earlier this year and failed in a landslide twice. Wouldn't it be great and to prove to people outside of WP:PW that we can make quality articles. To do this, I would appreciate if project members commented on the peer review to get it ready for FAC, and hopefully it passes before November, in that way I can nominate it for featured article of the day on the anniversary of Eddie Guerrero's death :)--S_RX 02:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

AfDs?

Resolved

 – All have been redirected

iMatthew (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Dirt Sheet, Santino's Casa and Word Up. Can't see how they're notable enough for their own articles. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was about to suggest a merge into a WWE talk show article, but that's hardly notable either.  Hazardous Matt  18:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say send Word Up! And Casa to the Raw segments section and Dirt Sheet to the ECW segments section. I can do that if we reach a general consensus for it. DoomsDay349 23:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to the above mentioned locations. Nikki311 23:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Word Up and Casa have NEVER been on Raw. They should redirect to Cryme Tyme's and Marella's articles respectively. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I was gonna suggest moving them to Raw until I realised that they aren't part of the show, just the superstars are on those brands right now. They should redirect to the wrestlers' pages and maybe those articles can have some description of them. I think it warrants a section, or sub section though, rather than on Miz&Morrison's where it's a far too long bullet point. Tony2Times (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and have moved to proper place.S_RX 01:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

For those who haven't noticed... yet

October 26th. D.M.N. (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean CM Punk is nominated to be the featured article for his 30th birthday? w00t! SAVIOR_SELF.777 04:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That's great! The project'll get a lot of attention out of it. Wahoo! Genius101 _{T. C.} 23:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Expect someone to object to it being a FA since they hate wrestling on the talk page, but claim it doesn't meet FA criteria. Actually, we do need to take it OOU. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Enough of that thought. Nobody objects to it being FA because they dislike wrestling. If you saw the FAC for The Great American Bash (2005) an FA reviewer even states, "I've put my extreme dislike of wrestling to the side to help the article." iMatthew (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not in FA reviews. When we had Montreal Screwjob as TfA, a few people complained on the talk page and attempted a de-nom, IIRC. The FA reviewers are usually quite neutral on the whole thing. this is the incident I was reffering to in my above comment. I expect there MAY be something similar on Punk's talk page when it's the TfA, but I'm speculating. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of FAs, an IP is questioning the neutrality of the Montreal Screwjob [3] but he hasn't left any constructive comments on the talk page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. It was placed 11 days ago and the only comment left by the tagger was that it claim that a Bret Hart fanboy wrote the article. It seems likely to be simple vandalism and even if it wasn't there has been more than enough time to come up with more specific problems than that to justify the article being POV. --70.24.176.228 (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ranjin Singh (Dave Kapoor) nominated for deletion

Non notable article nominated for deletion at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ranjin_Singh_(Dave_Kapoor) Feel free to state your opinion there. JakeDHS07 18:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Attires

I just got an idea, how about in each's wrestler article we can put an "Attires" section (in the "In Wrestling" section) listing the attires that he has had through his career--Brothers of destruction (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It'd be very hard to cite references for that. Also some wrestlers have had a plethora of gimmicks and it would become a huge section, further the attempt to describe it while keeping the word limit down would be very difficult - I think the In Wrestling sections should be bullet point style, not prose. Also some wrestlers change their attire every week. I'm against it, I think it's better suited to the rest of the article if a wrestler changes gimmick. Tony2Times (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That is redundant, serves no relevant information and is listcruft. I.E. The Divas, who where many different attires.--S_RX 20:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No. It's bad enough we list music. --Endlessdan and his problem 20:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Can this perhaps turn into a discussion about eliminating wrestler's "in wrestling" sections. I find them pointless. iMatthew (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think they are useful, but I think that it should only list the championships/accomplishments and "real finishers" and not every move they perform.S_RX 20:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

But the attire thing for Divas they can wear like in every match like different colors and logos and symbols but for example instead of this

• Blue shirt with a black W, Black tights with red and orange fire like design, black boots with tribal symbol on it

like this

• Blue shirt, Black tights, and black boots

(Well not exactly like that) look in Talk:Glen Jacobs (Archive 1) Attires that's what I mean--Brothers of destruction (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Still no, they alter their design too much, that's like listing all the different designs for celebrities, or other people. It's redundant and cruft.--S_RX 21:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think at most you could say something in the prose if it is notable. Examples: Jericho wearing long tights his whole career until his recent gimmick shift, Michelle McCool's crosses on her clothes due to her Christian faith (in the personal life section), or if it is something very identifiable (like a mask) Nikki311 22:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

@ IMatthew and SRX: Why would you want to eliminate the In wrestling section? If cited properly, it can be very informative. It's hardly pointless. As long as having the section there is not a MOS violation (with three FAs, I doubt it), why remove it? And removing it would also cause more IP complaints and vandalism. Honestly, I've always thought that the In wrestling and Championships and Accomplishments section are among the most important sections in wrestler bios. Rarely do I evern want to read their full career. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say no on the attire section, for the fact that it does change often and really, a simple in ring picture is better than a description. But, the in wrestling and championships and accomplishments sections? I don't see how you could even consider removing them. They're a quick facts sheet that often suffices to give the desired information someone is looking for. Think about a new wrestling fan who didn't catch the name of CM Punk's finisher, or wants to look up the band that plays his entrance music, or wonders what titles he might have held in the past. Should we make it hard on them, and make them read the whole career article and maybe still not get the answers? Or make it easy with a quick section that hits the facts and bullet points, with a main career section for people who want to get more in depth? We should write articles that appeal to both those who want an in depth look at the wrestler's career, and the ones looking for a quick fact. DoomsDay349 00:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we definitly should keep the In Wrestling section. I agrre with Gavyn in that tt's one of the most important parts of the page. It should stay. Thanks, Genius101 _{T. C.} 20:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Doomsday. No to the attire section, and keep the In wrestling section. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 13:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

ROH Top of the Class Trophy

Hey everyone, I just created the page for the ROH Top of the Class Trophy. Frankly, I'm surprised it didn't exist yet. Anywho, there it is. I did my best for references and I think it turned out rather well. Tell me what you rhink! Dahumorist (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks good for a brand new article. Could use a history section, and also, the in line citation in the header for the title section is probably not a good idea style wise. Aside from that, nicely done. DoomsDay349 00:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Another possible good topic?

Paul London and Brian Kendrick

• Brian Kendrick - Good
• Paul London - Good
• Ashley Massaro - B Class
• Paul London and Brian Kendrick - B Class

Does anyone think this one is a good idea? (If it was already suggested, please punch me) PXK ^T /_C 20:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Punches PXK - It's already been talk about, and unless this is a message that you are going to work on it, I don't see the point. iMatthew (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• SRX Punch to PXK - per Matt.--S_RX 20:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Two Things

1. Why is Nigel McGuinness' name withheld from his article? Isn't his ring named patented, so his real name is publicly known?

2. Why does WWE Raw and WWE Smackdown have a list of episodes article, or an individual article for episodes? Other television shows have them, so why not?

Kris (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Looking at the logs, it appears McGuinness does not want his real name mentioned from the OTRS request, which only a certain group of people can see I think.
2. WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

D.M.N. (talk) 08:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Are they really.

Okay, we said all the GA articles and FA articles have to be taken out of Universe. Now I've heard this alot as well as the criteria for GA and FA have changed since some were promoted. I think we should do something that in my mind needs to be done. All articles that are GA and FA in out project should be placed back under review for either GA or FA and lets find out if they are really FAs or GAs. Like taking CM Punk and Shelton Benjamin back to FAC. Also SS 97 screwjob. That is an FA. Lets make sure it is since the criteria has changed since it got promoted. Over time IPs have been screwing with each of these articles and they are not at what they once were. This way we know the project really do have these accomplishments. We then see if the out of universe really does work and we are updated. When December to Dismember got listed again the project seeked a way to make it better so it would pass. If we do this then we could find a better way at doing out of universe and easier ways to make more articles FAs without just going by peer review, GA review, and another peer review just to get to FA and be told this and this is wrong with it. I know most of the project will be against this but we don't have a good article to really copy off of to make more wrestler bios FAs. I feel I'm probably going to be the only one to think we should do this but if we don't then we are just kidding ourselves by having CM Punk, Shelton Benjamin, and the Montreal screwjob FAs. The articles I believe should be taken back are articles from before June of this year. All articles that were promoted to GA and FA in that time period should be taken back by either the project as a whole or the user who expanded it. Then all of our articles are at their best.--WillC 03:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you will have a hard time finding people with time to go back and add (unpopular) content to 80+ articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with this at all. I know where your getting at, Will, but, speaking for myself, I don't really have time to go and fix all the articles I got to GA. Having the articles delisted won't be of good use. If the articles passed because they were good articles, then be it that they are good articles. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 04:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(re to Gary) Then it can be done as a whole. The collaboration can be used to do it instead. So far the new way collaboration is being done isn't working that greatly, though I wish I could work more on the articles I just do not have a alot of time, we could instead of nominating articles that need alot of work we can just nominate articles that are GAs and FAs. After all are completed we can go back to the old way. I'm not sure what your opinion is on this matter but seeing how hard it is said to be to get articles to FA. I think if we get at least one bio article to FA then it will be easier to get all the rest at the same standard. Lets not have another repeat of the December to Dismember thing. A article get under a review again and almost get delisted. If CM Punk gets chosen to be the featured article of the day, people are going to start questioning if the article really meets the standards.--WillC 04:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Another attempt at working this out

Maybe we can try this again. The new way of writing article has been working alright, as we have two new FA's. But there are still some things that we need to pan out. Lets start out by listing some pro's and con's about the new OOU writing, and such. I suggest that anybody who is dealing with complaints about the new system on any article's talk page, send those users here so that we can work with them as well to fix any problems. iMatthew (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Pros - has gotten us two FA's, is more comprehensible for all readers, and at the end of the day you are proud of what you have written (I know I am).

Cons - takes too long, too many people complain (mostly those who don't write PPVs).

Other than that, I think the OOU is a great thing.--S_RX 13:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Cons - I feel like quality and readability is being sacrificed in favor of Featured Articles.

1. Wrestling fans find the long-winded explanations and disclaimers patronizing.
2. I already felt proud of what I have written.
3. Many descriptions are confusing (why say "hit him with his foot" [or was it "boot"?] instead of "kicked him"?) or too complex for the average reader to follow.
4. The attempts to explain moves has led to numerous grammatical errors and abrupt changes in verb tense.
5. The project is taking the "jargon" guideline way too literally, as articles on other sports are promoted to FA even if they include jargon (eg. a baseball article doesn't say "hit a fair ball out of the playing field while teammates were occupying every base"--it says "hit a grand slam"; perhaps a more direct comparison would be that the names of pitches are used rather than explaining how the pitcher holds the ball, the pitcher's movements as the ball is thrown, and the effect on the ball in mid-flight).
6. The artificial, point of view distinction between "Preliminary matches" and "Main event matches" often disrupts the chronological order of the "Event" section, which makes it hard to follow.
7. This main event vs. preliminary distinction also leads to one of my least favorite phrases on Wikipedia: "featured preliminary match". If it must be referred to as a preliminary match, don't put it in the "Main event matches" section. That's like making a distinction between "apples" and "oranges" but including "small apples" in the "oranges" section. Please, please, please...just say "a featured match" and drop the "preliminary". GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This is something that came to me last night while trying to sleep, I hope I can get it out here so that it makes sense. I think there may be some confusion over what counts as "in universe" and "out of universe". Take a look at the page for The Sopranos, for example. When it describes the characters, it talks about their "scripted" history, if you will, but I don't feel that is considered as writing "in universe". It's the same with the synopses of episodes. Think of it as you are reporting what you saw on TV and describing it for someone who hasn't seen it. When you watch TV, you see Shawn Michaels superkick Razor Ramon, you are not seeing Michael Hickenbottom, who, as part of a character named Shawn Michaels that was created by WWE's writers, appearing to use his foot to pretend to attack Scott Hall, who was portraying a character named Razor Ramon, whom the WWE's writers created as a persona based on a Cuban gangster. Well, you ARE seeing that second thing too, but I think you get my drift. Going back to The Sopranos reference for a moment, you'll notice the first line in the synopsis for Season 1 says "The series begins with Tony Soprano collapsing after suffering a panic attack.", not "James Gandolfini, portraying the character of Tony Soprano, using his acting skills to pretend having a panic attack".

Somewhere above, someone said that pro wrestling doesn't follow the same rules as other fictional TV shows because "wrestling presents itself as legitimate competition". I think we can all agree that this is not true. Maybe 20 years ago you could still make that argument, but not now. Essentially, RAW is no different than any other two hour TV show. Just because some of the "characters" are really just extensions of the "actor's" normal self, writing a synopsis of an "episode" (or PPV) shouldn't have to follow rules any different than writing a recap of an episode of The Sopranos or House.

Man, I hope that made as much sense typed out as it did in my mind. --Smart Mark Greene (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This is what I propose, revert back to the original style guide, in that way having it in in-universe format, and Users who work on expanding articles can have the option of doing what they want. Though if they want GA/FA's they might have to use the OOU format, but in this way the IP's and new users can stop complaining, i.e. on every future PPV. That's just my last proposal for this format, which was agreed upon almost three months ago, why can't we just move on.S_RX 18:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That won't work at all. If people want to do different things (i.e. one wants OOU + other wants old format) it'll lead to an edit war. And also, I believe that would violate WP:OWN (i.e. I expanded the article, so I get to chose what format its in). ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it probably will, but I don't see what we can do. We use the OOU format, we get more Featured content and Good content. But then Ips and New Users and others who aren't as active on the project page don't understand the format to a full extent, leading to threads and threads on complaints. I think we should tidy up our Style Guide so they can understand it as well. In other words, we should reformat our style guide so it can be accepted as a "Wikipedia Policy," like the style guide for Video Games is.--S_RX 18:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That still ignores the problems that currently exist. I listed seven of them in this thread. I don't consider myself to be an IP editor or a new user, but I do think we should strive to improve articles rather than stick our fingers in our ears and say, "Everything is already perfect." The fact that so many people are upset or concerned should be an indication that everything is not perfect (and please remember than length of time on Wikipedia has absolutely no effect on how seriously an editors concerns should be taken). GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You're still missing my point, the style guide is what should the project should basically adhere to, just as other projects do and every user (well most) do to the MOS. Which is why we should compromise to improve it and have a say to what include and what to not include.S_RX 18:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Try to keep in mind that the main reason someone would look up Summerslam '91, for example, to find out who beat who, not got a lesson in how pro wrestling works. --Smart Mark Greene (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My problem is that members of the project have imposed the current style guide (while falsely claiming that it came as the result of discussion and consensus). The same members are unwilling to compromise and instead point to a couple of Featured Articles. This ignores the fact that the writing style should be a work in progress rather than set in stone, as there are significant problems that are being ignored because people don't care about what IPs and new editors think (once again, ignoring the fact that longtime editors have the same problems). GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The specific problems in the articles need to be pointed out. For example, I'd say that for pay-per-views, the OOU needs to take a step back, as GCF suggested.

• Animal and Heidenreich then performed the doomsday device, executed by one wrestler lifting his opponent atop of his shoulders thus allowing his partner knock him down by jumping off the top rope, on Nitro and got the pin to win the match and capture the title. - I feel like this writing style interrupts the sentence. Maybe we should re-write it for example like - Animal and Heidenreich won the match via pinfall after they performed the doomsday device, where Nitro sat on Animal's shoulders as Heidenreich jumped from the top rope to knock Nitro down.

iMatthew (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with "Animal & Heidenreich won the match after performing the Doomsday Device."? If you want to know more about the move, that's what the link is for. --Smart Mark Greene (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Re to iMatthew, I don't write my articles like that I intergrate the explanation. Re to Mark, for the final time clicking on the link will not suffice, it disrupts the flow of the article, if you don't know, you want to read a small explanation and if you want to know more you click the link. Also, people constantly refer to other sport jargon, pro wrestling for one is much more different and complicated than real sports since it is 'scripted.S_RX 20:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sport jargon is sport jargon. Whether it's scripted or not doesn't have and effect on that. People aren't more likely to understand all the important concepts of a "knuckleball" than a "clothesline" just because one is scripted. You will never find a baseball article, however, that says, "He struck out the final batter with a knuckleball, a pitch gripped with the knuckles bent and the back of the fingertips against the ball, which leads to the ball having little or no rotation and thus creates a more erratic trajectory as the ball approaches home plate." As for disrupting the flow of the article, the long explanations (particularly in the middle of a sentence) are much more disruptive than clicking on a link. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I can't speak for everyone, but most of my sentences aren't like that. I thought this was fixed at the SummerSlam FAC, since it was agreed that they also disrupted flow, I though it was already taken care of?S_RX 20:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It still appears in several articles. In addition, it should be noted that this is only one of the seven concerns I listed above. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well 3,4, and 5 all tie in, as do 6 and 7. 6 and 7 can easily be fixed, 3,4, and 5 will be based on the User and the way the write explanations. 1 and 2, well that is preference in my opinion.S_RX 20:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This may be another matter altogether, but the word "scripted" isn't exactly accurate. Scripted means that they know everything they're going to do, in order. With very few exceptions, matches are not laid out like that.

And something else. Two of the articles I just looked at on GCF's page, The Mega Bucks and Over the Edge (1999) are GAs, but don't contain any of the stuff we've been complaining about.--Smart Mark Greene (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You can get GA articles without the out of universe but you can't get an FA witout it.--WillC 21:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically, if not having the disclaimer, explanation of moves, real names, etc. violated Wikipedia policy, articles wouldn't be passing GA reviews without them. They are passing, however, which should lead us to wonder how much of the new additions are actually necessary and whether we interpreting policies and guidelines too literally. I also think it's extremely important to ask ourselves if our goal is to get Featured Articles or to write articles well. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

We should just try to write articles well. People who care about FAs will do anything to get it FA'd. If an FA reviewer told them to link every word, they'd do it. We might as well write them like this:

No Mercy (2008) (meaning the name of the professional wrestling pay-per-view event was that the wrestlers [real people with real names having stage names that aren't their birth names] weren't going to show mercy against each other on October 5). The 2008 in brackets means that the professional wrestling pay-per-view event (which features WWE's creative staff writing matches for guys with stage names that pretend to hit each other) took place in the year 2008. Lots of people with birth names wrestled (pretended to hit each other) at the event. The main event was decided after x took x's arm and buckle it under his knee, fold it in half, cut it off, and slammed it down towards the mat (the professional wrestling [mock combat with fake characters] ring).

Notice the errors in the deciding move, too. People can't write it without making those mistakes. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)