Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TrueCRaysball (talk | contribs) at 18:07, 14 July 2007 (→‎WWE Champ). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:PW-Nav

Shortcut


Archive
Archives


Notability guideline

If you've been following along with AFDs lately there seems to be a lot of hub-bub about notability guidelines with some taking the "Notability for Athletes" guideline of "Working in a professional league" as a blanket approval of everything pro wrestling related because it's called Professional wrestling. Generally it's a problem where wrestling really falls somewhere between a sport and entertainment - so wrestlers lay somewhere between "Athletes" and "Actors", yet isn't fully neither one.

It's been tried before but maybe, just maybe if this project (and those of us with an interest in pro wrestling) got together, took suggestions for a guideline and then tried to establish a consensus we could avoid lengthy AFD debates like the one going on for Chuck Taylor right now (it'll probably be "No consensus" due to flawed arguments from multiple voters). I think it's time for WP:PW to do more than argue over match tag lines etc and really DO something to improve the standard of pro wrestling on Wikipedia MPJ-DK 08:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean try to establish a general WP guideline (meaning it would be official)? It's been brought up before, but people didn't really do anything. I think we should do it. For it to be official though, I think it needs to be approved (see Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines for the ones already in place). Even porn has a notability guideline, so should we. We should try and set up some of the standards here though before setting up the official proposal. TJ Spyke 08:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd be great if we can get a proposal together for a guideline and then make it official, like you said even porn stars have a guideline. MPJ-DK 09:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all know what is notable at first glance, and most editors know a bad article when then see it, and this latest bunch of PRODs and AfDs have removed a lot of clutter so we can concentrate on making the current set of articles (mainly bios) Burntsauce proof. And as I have been responsible for the AfDs I think I should say what I'm doing. If I see an article and it does not establish the notability of the wrestler or fed then I will PROD, but if there seems to be a small group of editors maintaining one article, and they are likely to have only that article on their watchlist and remove the PROD straight away then I'll AfD. Sometimes there is one editor with who really wants the article to stay and will post endlessly, other times the article will be re-written and I will withdraw the nom [1]. I'm not sure a guide at this point would do anything different that WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS don't do. Of course re-writing and referencing the articles will nearly always save them and will improve the article which, in the end, is the point of an AfD, becuase if an article being deleted can't motivate editors to improve and article then nothing will. Darrenhusted 09:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a HUUUUUUUUGE difference between a "bad article" and a "non-notable article", don't make the assumption that bad=Non-notable and well written=Notable because that's simply not true. And considering that not all your AFDs are clear cut "keeps" from the majority I'd suggest that maybe we all need a guideline to make the process easier and also more obvious and easily explainable to new people as well. If there is clear cut official guideline then it's a lot easier to figure out of certain articles should even be created. MPJ-DK 09:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying bad and non notable are the same, just that there are few well written articles for non notable wrestlers. The Stan Stasiak article is pretty dire, but I know he's a WWWF champion, the Chuck Taylor article listed 36 entrance songs, not the kind of thing notable wrestlers need. If an indy wrestling article is relying on myspace as their main reference then they probably aren't notable. In the end this is an encyclopedia and not a directory for indy wrestlers (or any wrestlers), sometimes some editors forget that. Darrenhusted 09:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly why it'd be better with an official guideline, it's a good way to remind editors that think that it's an indiscriminant directory for Indy wrestlers that it's actually not. MPJ-DK 10:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the major things we need to tackle is the difference in notability between a tag team and a singles wrestler. Any team that's made up of two mostly singles wrestlers and together for 4 months to be involved in one or two angles (Rated-RKO, Two Dudes with Attitude, The Two-Man Power Trip) probably doesn't need an article, that information can easily be placed on the singles wrestler pages and probably won't take a paragraph.«»bd(talk stalk) 12:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ANother thing to ponder - in the territory days which promotions were deemed "the top"? can't just say "NWA" because it was a bunch of promotions - back in the day there were promotions where they're deemed so notable that working for them in a non-jobber, non-one shot manner makes you notable since they were the top promotions of the time (like WWE today) MPJ-DK 12:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I once was in favor of such an idea, I am not sold on this idea anymore. Any notability guidelines are just that...guidelines...guidelines are NOT policy and should NEVER determine what stays or goes. If fact, WP:N is NOT even a criteria for deletion in the deletion policy...likely because it is not a policy and only a guideline. WP:V and WP:RS are what is supposed to determine whether or not something or someone is "notable" enough to justify an article. If we just went by those two policies then people can argue the WP:N guideline all they want, but they will still lose if WP:V and WP:RS are on your side. - T-75|talk|contribs 16:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They would still just be guidelines, simply written down so everyone has an idea what everyone else is talking about when they revert something and simply put "NN" in the edit summary. I, for one, am sick of people taking things that I think should be in articles out without bothering to discuss it.«»bd(talk stalk) 22:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quote fom start:"so wrestlers lay somewhere between "Athletes" and "Actors", yet isn't fully neither one." My Words: Actually they are athletes cause you havge to be in grat shape to do this work!--Hornetman16 22:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree they are athletes, but I think the point being made is that they aren't "professional athletes". Also, they don't necessarily have to be in the best shape. Mick Foley, The Big Show, The Blue Meanie, Viscera come to mind. Sometimes, they just have to be large. Nikki311 22:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Viscera is a finely tuned (love) machine.«»bd(talk stalk) 23:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Well, I guess you got me there. Nikki311 01:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright my mistake to think this would actually get the project to do something other than argue over minor edits and list of announced matches on a PPV, I give up on this project completly MPJ-DK 05:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guideline part two

Okay...let's get serious people. How about we do it like this. Add * Your suggestion here. ~~~~ to the list below and then people can comment on the different points for establishing notability. Sign your comments and points. I'll start. If I missed a category, feel free to add that, too. Remember, not every point has to be met to be considered notable, but if a wrestler/promotion/stable/whatever meets a couple or more, then they are notable. Nikki311 06:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Singles Wrestlers
    • Has won a major title in World Wrestling Entertainment, Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, World Championship Wrestling, or Extreme Championship Wrestling Nikki311 06:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: They don't have to have won a title in these promotions, but winning at least one makes them notable enough to have an article. Nikki311 06:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Been a member of the WWE/TNA/WCW/ECW main roster and appeared on TV for at least one year. Nikki311 06:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nikki's work well. However, the ones so far are biased toward modern wrestlers. Here's a suggestion. Won a major/top title in a notable regional federation (aimed mostly at the Territories era, but I'm sure RoH etcetera qualify, as do the top UK feds and of course, Japan) SirFozzie 16:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree, we can't forget the AWA, USWA, WCCW, PNW, NJPW, ALPW, UWA, WWC, WWA, etc, etc, etc. There is a lot out there in the history of wrestling that shouldn't be neglected. - T-75|talk|contribs 19:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it should be clear that "indy wrestler works for seven indy promotions" does not a pro wrestler make, especially if their only claims to fame are listed on their myspace page. Darrenhusted 22:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • In general, I agree with you, but just cause they are an indy wrestler who has worked for seven indy promotions does not mean they are not notable...nor does it mean they are. Remember, these are GUIDELINES and under no circumstances ever should guidelines be used to circumvent WP:V and WP:RS in establishing whether an article should exist. WP:N is only a guideline and does not determine whether an article should or should not exist. We are simply talking about making our own WP:N GUIDELINES for people to use as a guide, not as the final word. - T-75|talk|contribs 22:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tag teams
    • Held at least one of the tag title belts in the WWE/TNA/WCW/ECW and spent more time as a tag team wrestler than a singles wrestler. Nikki311 06:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: This wouldn't include articles like John Cena and Shawn Michaels, as they are better known as singles wrestlers. Nikki311 06:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tag teams that won multiple titles while they were together, participated in major storylines, or were together for some significant amount of time (ex. Edge and Christian, Rated-RKO, and The Rock 'n' Sock Connection). Nikki311 19:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This would include teams that the individuals were better known as singles wrestlers but the tag team was significant, too. Nikki311 19:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This makes me think of the Rock N Roll Express, Souther Rockers, Midnight Express, the Freebirds, the Blackbirds, the Moondogs, the Samoans, Volkoff & Shiek, Valentine & Beefcake, Piper & Orndorf, Piper and Orton, man...the list goes on...
    • Tag teams that have been together across several promotions (ex: New Age Outlaws) Nikki311 06:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promotions
    • Had a notable television deal. Had numerous NOTABLE wrestlers wrestling full-time in them at one point or another. (people making "Special appearances" does not count) SirFozzie 16:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are more sources available about the promotion than a myspace and official website. Nikki311 19:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Otherwise the promotion may be a vanity or self-promotion project by a small-time fed wanting attention. Nikki311 19:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Backstage politics/people
    • Being a major player in WWE/TNA/WCW/ECW, with documented evidence of their contributions as writer/booker/chairperson/etc (ex. The McMahons, Vince Russo, Eric Bischoff, Ric Flair, The Clique, Dusty Rhodes). Nikki311 07:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No guideline should mention the "Big 4." Wrestling goes back much further than 1995. In the early late 80's there were the big 4, but they were WWF, NWA, AWA & PNW. In the early eighties the big four were WWF, NWA, AWA & WCCW. In the 70s the big four were WCCW, AWA, Mid-South & WWF. There are promoters and bookers who played a major roll in wrestling in its early days who are notable enough to have articles, their notability should not be questioned because they were never a part of the post-1995 big 4. - T-75|talk|contribs 23:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • These guidelines aren't to exclude past wrestlers. They are to include wrestlers that meet certain criteria. If I wrestler meets several of these points, then they are notable. I just don't have enough knowledge of the past promotions to include guidelines on them. That is why I'm focusing on the current and very recent past promotions. Someone else needs to write the guidelines for NWA, AWA, etc. etc. Nikki311 00:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nicki, don't get me wrong, I know you are not proposing such a thing, but if it's not drafted right someone else will. Too many people do not realize that guidelines are not policy, they are just there to help people understand policy. - T-75|talk|contribs 00:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Event/PPV happenings
    • Wrestler debuts (This was MVPs debut after weeks of promos and contract talk on SmackDown!)«»bd(talk stalk) 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notes when a wrestler was a "surprise opponent" up until the PPV «»bd(talk stalk) 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree with this one to be honest. TJ Spyke 22:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think we should do this one because people unconnected to this project have voiced a concern about PPV pages being nothing more than a list of results, at least this way we're putting things in some sort of context.«»bd(talk stalk) 00:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why someone is disqualified«»bd(talk stalk) 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a show has a gimmick (all hardcore matches, all cage matches, all titles), that should be mentioned in the intro.«»bd(talk stalk) 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: all the previous points in this category have to do with what should or should not be included in the pay-per-view articles. That is not what this discussion is about. We should stick to why an event should be included in wikipedia. Nikki311 06:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • An event should be included if it aired on television. Nikki311 06:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling this discussion is going to get long, so I've moved some of the guidelines (as well as adding a few more) HERE. We can discuss changes on the talk page there, and then change the guidelines accordingly. That way, we won't have to worry about this very important discussion getting lost in the shuffle. Nikki311 07:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

That NO new wrestler pages be created by PW folks until the ones already here are sourced as well? That way we A) Have better existing articles and B) reduce the # of crufttastic ones that we have to deal with. SirFozzie 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i agree, but how do you plan to stop people doing it? Not alot of people come here before the create a page. Also, what happens if someone was to go ahead and make a page? Delete on spot? The Steelers Fan ponders...--SteelersFan UK06 20:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, the non-notable indy wrestlers are created by people not within WP:PW. I had to do a lot of searching to tag the articles with the WP:PW template on the talk page. However, I agree that no new pages should be created by us, at least until we get the ones we have up to snuff. I'd suggest patrolling the newly created pages, to help weed out the pages created by other folks. Also, if anyone sees a page without the WP:PW tag on the talk page, it would be a big help to add it. Nikki311 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what do we do about the indy's? --SteelersFan UK06 21:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If members of this project want to agree to such a limitation, that is one thing, but I don't think it is right to put a blanket rule like that out there for all people. I know there are at least a handful of contributors who are out there doing a good job putting articles together who don't really work with this project because they have found it difficult to work with. Personally, I work with the project as much as I can, but I have my own goals (not a personal agenda) when it comes to what I'd like to do here at Wikipedia (part of which does include sourcing many articles...but the ones I am interested in). Such a rule could eventually hinder me from doing what I'd like to do here (which I would enjoy) and force me to source a ton of freekin articles that should have been sourced a long time ago (which I would not enjoy). So, all that to say this, I'll agree to try my best not to start a new article, and if I do I promise that I will source it to the best of my ability. I do not think we should force this on everyone though. - T-75|talk|contribs 21:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, I agree. So is a WP:PW-wide stoppage (however brief) on the creation of new articles agreed? You never know, this could be the start of something big. --SteelersFan UK06 22:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've been doing my best to remove what looks like cruft, and others have sourced AfD articles which are not cruft, saving them from deletion. If a new article is created then it should be tagged so it can be checked and if people are adding cruft then PRODs and AfDs will always sort the wheat from the chaff, so long as there aren't editors with boy-crushes on indy wrestlers filibustering AfDs we should be fine. Darrenhusted 22:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WCW Cruiserweight and Light-Heavyweight titles the same? (continued from Archive 30)

Agreed. ---SilentRAGE! 08:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think they're the same. However, the fact is that the LHW title was very insignificant in it's own right that quite frankly it doesn't deserve it's own article (which is probably why WWE combined them together), so it's best to be just mentioned in the CW article.

Ladder match

The page NEEDS a clean up and sources, I just removed some month old vandalism that included a statement that RVD won a match between Bret Hart and someone else. -- Scorpion0422 23:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if it needs sources, add it to the pages needing sources.«»bd(talk stalk) 00:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions

This article is undergoing a severe edit war between those who think Christian Cage became the first champion at Sacrifice when NWA withdrew its titles, and those who think Kurt Angle became the first champion at Slammiversary by winning the King of the Mountain match. Personally I fall into the former group. Is there anything we can do to sort this out? --MarcK 01:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Former. NWA didn't strip the belts in parallel with Angle winning the title. Cage was still champ. Wasn't he? --SteelersFan UK06 01:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TNA considers Angle the first champion. However, they also try to claim that Angle is a former NWA Champion and is the current IWGP World Champion (neither of which are true). TJ Spyke 01:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't paint TNA as the villian in the IWGP situation. It's 100% clear what's happening there (champion leaves company with title and continues to defend it, original company refuses to recognize it). Mshake3 02:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. What happened was that Lesnar refused to defend the title, so NJPW stripped him of the title back in June 2006. Lesnar then started training for MMA. His match against Kurt Angle was his first wrestling match in over a YEAR. I'm not saying it's TNA's fault, but they shouldn't be reconizing the title (they only are because they have a working relationship with Antonio Inoki). Angle is not the IWGP Champion since the man he beat was not the IWGP Champion and hadn't been the champion in over a year. TJ Spyke 02:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "IWGP" title Angle holds is an actual title as he received it after defeating a recognized promotion's (NWA Japan/IGF) World Champion. As for who is the first world champion, I only reliable source I can find says that Angle was the first TNA World Champion, but also notes that Cage should be listed as the first champion because he was stripped of the NWA title prior to Angle's "controversial" win therefore TNA can not determine who was the NWA champion at after that time. - T-75|talk|contribs 19:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it isn't a title, i'm just saying that it is not the IWGP World Heavyweight Championship (well, it is the physical title belt that NJPW used to use, but it's not the championship). TJ Spyke 02:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional categories?

Do wrestlers belong in fictional categories for gimmicks? (Fictional kings for King of the Ring winners, fictional vampires for Gangrel & the brood) They weren't really kings and vampires...but they weren't fictional either. Opinions?«»bd(talk stalk) 03:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the King of the Ring winners definitely should not be considered fictional kings, but maybe King Booker should(?). However, The Brood was a stable full of vampire-characters, so maybe. Actually, I'm not sure...because gimmicks are fictional, but articles are about the person and the character. Nikki311 03:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say an individuals page should not include them in those categories, and here's why. If you go to Tom Cruise's page, I bet it does not list him as a fictional vampire even though he has played one; nor does Sean Connery's page list him as a fictional king, though he has played one. Now, if the article is an article only about the wrestlers character, then I could see including them in those categories, but only in that instance. Wrestler's bios should be written in a way that it is perfectly clear that everything in their wrestling career was fictional/acting/staged/whatever, nothing that was scripted should be written as if it was real. - T-75|talk|contribs 19:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the category name says that it's fictional, I don't see the conflict. — Gwalla | Talk
The problem is that the person is not fictional, see the Cruise and Connery examples above. - T-75|talk|contribs 00:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that they themselves are not fictional? The King of the Ring may be a fictional king, but Ken Shamrock actually exists (unlike, say, Shakespeare's Macbeth). Kevin Thorn is not really a vampire, but he is a real person, unlike Count Chocula who has never drawn a breath. See the difference? «»bd(talk stalk) 00:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something to take a look at...

Just wondering if I could direct everyones eyes to this which has sat in place since June 28 without much involvement from anyone here - when really I would have thought it was a total no-brainer. Contribute, if you would --SteelersFan UK06 03:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for WP:PW

The Special Barnstar
It may be unorthodox to give a project a barnstar, but I just want to say you are all doing a great job. MrMurph101 04:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! Look at that! well done guys =) --SteelersFan UK06 04:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm arguing :), but I wonder what in particular we did to deserve this. Nikki311 06:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe archiving six talk archives in June? But thanks Mr Murph. Darrenhusted 10:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

I don't know if anyone has noticed, but I've been cleaning up the assessments on most of our pages. There are some truly terrible articles listed as B class, when they really are no more than stubs. Most of the current B articles, need major cleaning up or the addition of sources before they can be considered B class. I've been downgrading some B articles articles to start class, so don't get offended if I downgraded an article you've been working on. The first ones I changed to start class were the ones that I work on myself. Anyway, the point of this post is...to get the article back up to B class, add footnotes and references (make it blank proof, basically). This will also help us sort out which articles need referencing and attention, and which articles are alright for the time being. Nikki311 20:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested, here is the list of everything (i think) that has been downgraded:

Nenog 01:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just after briefly scanning the list, I didn't downgrade Lance Cade and Trevor Murdoch...other than that...I think everything else is more or less correct. I did upgrade some, too: Barbie Blank from stub to start, Candice Michelle from start to B, and some other ones I can't remember. Nikki311 02:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Style Guidelines - "In wrestling" section

I'm kinda new to the project, but I wanted to bring a proposal concerning the style guidelines (I'm imagine it could have been discussed before, but I think it needs brought back up). I noticed that the style guidelines there is a "Finishing and signature moves" section that has become an "In wrestling" section (so the guidelines have already been changed without being discussed it seems). This section typically contains finishing moves and managers, but is increasingly including more and more information such as quotes, catch phrases, taunts, intro songs, signature foreign objects, nicknames, wrestlers trained, commercial endorsements, and on, and on, and on and on. I think this "In wrestling" section is getting cluttered up with too much information and is becoming nothing more than a long list of largely useless information in the middle of an article.

I had an article go through GAR, and I received comments (among others) that the "In wrestling" section was too big and seemed like a lot of junk (and I couldn't disagree with them, I had just left that section as it was). I looked through the existing wrestling GA and above articles to see what they looked like. I liked how the Konnan article had the managers and moves listed in a table, it makes the article look a lot cleaner, so I decided to go with that pattern, making tables for moves and manager. The rest of the info in the "In wrestling" area I merged into the article (where it really should be) or deleted it. I was complimented for doing this (thanks for the idea whoever it was I copied) and was told it made the article look much better.

I think we should change the style guidelines to using the tables as they are in the Konnan article. I believe this will help the project in a couple of ways. It makes the article look cleaner and thereby presents this project as being interested in making our articles look the best they possibly can. By doing this I believe it will also eliminate a lot of the junk that is collecting up in these "In wrestling" sections since the section will not be there. This will also present the project as caring what kind of content is in the wrestling articles (right now we allow a lot of junk). These would both be positive things for this project. - T-75|talk|contribs 16:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't disagree more about the tables, and especially their placement on the Konnan article. They seem really random, especially if you don't already know anything about his career. It seems to imply that he used the Tequila Sunrise or the K-Factor if not in AAA, at least starting with his time there. That might be fixable by adding dates, but that might make the table even bigger than it is. On top of that, if we used those kind of tables on an article that has good era-specific pictures (John Cena) where would we put the them?
I agree that some of the stuff in the "in wrestling sections" is unnecessary. "Quotes" and "taunts" should probably be excised, and any truly notable nicknames should be moved to the lead or mentioned, where appropriate, in the body of the article. Theme music is tough. It can be important, especially in companies that used popular music (ECW, CZW) or sound-alikes of popular music (WCW, TNA). Especially in those cases it tends/tended to be important to the character, but not so much that it would always be mentioned in the body. Mentioning it, especially in list format, gets that information out there.«»bd(talk stalk) 19:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, the way it is predominantly being done now is already contrary to the established PW Style Guidelines. Second, the Konnan article seems to be the earliest and longest lasting GA bio that the PW project has. Third, using the boxes is no more random than making a giant list of mostly useless information in the middle of an article. People are not idiots and understand that tables of information is just that, tables of information. You can't tell me that when there is a picture of a person at the top left corner of the article that they think that is a birth picture because of it's placement. Fourth, we are writing an encyclopedia, not a wrestling digest. We should be putting information in the articles in a way it can best be read and understood, I believe tables is a lot easier (especially on the eyes) to read, particularly to the uniformed. Fifth, placement of the tables doesn't have to be in any specific spot, it can be anywhere they fit best in the article. If you have a good era specific picture, put it where you think it belongs and place the table somewhere else where it best fits. Sixth, even if you excised quotes and taunts, you still have (at a minimum) catch phrases, intro songs, signature foreign objects, nicknames, wrestlers trained and commercial endorsements (YES, I've seen all of those in wrestler's bios). Seventh, the information may be "important to the character" but we are not writing about the character, we are writing about the performer. Eighth, most information getting shoved into this non Style Guideline "In wrestling" sections should be easily included into the article if it is truly notable or worthy of mention. Ninth, placing it in tables not only makes the article look cleaner, but it als "gets that information out there." Tenth, and final point, I suggested this as a way of improving the way the articles look and hopefully in turn improving the reputation of this project. - T-75|talk|contribs 21:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "In wrestling" / "Wrestling facts" sections should eventually be replaced by tables. This is one of the points that was raised during the peer review of the Konnan article. At present, however, the tables used in the Konnan article are somewhat awkward. If tables are to replaces the "In wrestling" / "Wrestling facts" sections, then the tables in question must first be retailored. McPhail 23:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could we just turn the In Wrestling/Wrestling Facts section into a series of tables perhaps with some next to each other to conserve vertical space (not sure how good/bad that'd look)? The Konnan tables seem to be in there almost randomly and it does look awkward. Also, I think we can definitely start condensing those huge lists down by either eliminating altogether for the really crufty parts or integrating into the article for the really important. The move lists especially are out of control. DrWarpMind 02:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me the tables in the Konnan article are placed in there the same way non-era-specific photos are placed into an article (which is what I did when working on the Brian Adams (wrestler) article). I'm not particular about how or where the tables were placed in the article, but right now the way it is done breeds cruft and doesn't look help the look of the article. - T-75|talk|contribs 06:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So do I understand that the pro-wrestling project requested that the Konnan article go through peer review to see how they could improve articles, and the result of the review was a recommendation (long before I made it) to put the "in wrestling" info into tables. So the project took that recommendation and did nothing with it? Do we want to improve our articles or not? - T-75|talk|contribs 06:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that most things like nicknames, taunts, foreign objects, etc. should be cut out of the articles. Also, the signature and finishing moves on some articles are ridiculously long because IPs or random fanboys/girls come in and add every move a wrestler has ever used to the list. There definitely is room for improvement. Nikki311 03:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you eliminate the section then you won't get people popping garbage into it. If you have the finishing moves in tables then you will probably have less people adding to it because not as many are familiar how to work with tables. Kills two birds with one stone...well actually three...cause it also makes the article look better. - T-75|talk|contribs 06:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading all this stuff about the tables, which I'm really not against in theory (really just the random placement), but in trying to place a table in an unrelated article it seems this kind is actually frowned upon by wikipedia per Wikipedia:When to use tables. Since they're mostly short lists, and at most two or three items wide (name, description, maybe dates) they should be formatted as lists. Maybe someone can come up with one table that will hold all the information? Or a way to display it with CSS?«»bd(talk stalk) 17:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Style Guidelines - Format

While the style guidelines don't say so, it seems to me that there is an "unofficial" style guidline that in wrestling bios all non-wrestling info should be at the end of the article underneath the "In wrestling" and "Championships & accomplishments" section (see the John Cena or CM Punk articles for an example). This, to me, really breaks up the continuity of the article and makes the non-wrestling stuff seem less important (being burried beneath a list of stuff). Personally, when I come to lists like that, I don't read anything beyond them (even in wrestler's bios) unless I am reviewing them for a GAC or GAR, so everything else underneath get's overlooked (and I'm sure I'm not the only one to do this). It makes a lot more sense to have the body of the article (including the non-wrestling stuff) all together instead of broke up by a couple lists (see Hulk Hogan and Jesse Ventura articles for examples of this), it allows the article to flow through to the finish and then the reader can see a list of all the other stuff and/or read them in tables (as I proposed above). Again, this would be positive to the project as it wouldn't make it seem that we think the wrestling info in an article is more important than the non-wrestling stuff, plus it would allow the articles to take the form of a more all inclusive biography (which they are supposed to be like already) instead of a play-by-play of a wrestlers career. - T-75|talk|contribs 17:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like Nikki311 said on the Cena talk page, doing it this way groups all the wrestling stuff together instead of making people read wrestling-acting-politics-personal issues-wrestling again.«»bd(talk stalk) 19:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It still doesn't make sense, and it doesn't conform to the style guidelines of any other type of bio within wikipedia, nor does it conform with the style guidelines of this project. The wrestling part of the body of the article should be a part of the rest of the body of the article, it shouldn't be a sub-article within the article that takes prescedence over the rest of the article (which is what is being done) by segregating itself at the top of the page and pushing all other info to the bottom. If you look at the Hulk Hogan and Jesse Ventura pages they flow much better and look A LOT cleaner. But hey, what do I know, I'm just a new guy to wikipedia who noticed something looked strange and didn't conform to established patterns of wikipedia. - T-75|talk|contribs 20:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a problem with this theory in articles in which wrestlers competed in two separate yet notable wrestling promotions at the same time (see Samoa Joe). Mshake3 16:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't think I understand what you are saying. A wrestler competing in two different promotions at the same time doesn't have anything to do with how non-wrestling related info is formatted into the article. - T-75|talk|contribs 16:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You want the entire article to be in chronological order, right? That will be a problem with Joe's article as he's had extended simultanious stints in TNA and ROH. Basically, we'd be forced to fill the article with "In January, Joe did this in TNA, while doing this in ROH". That part wouldn't flow that well. Mshake3 16:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, didn't say that. I said keep the body of the article together with the body of the article and don't divide the body up into two different bodies with the non-wrestling half-body being placed in a position of less importance under a bunch of lists. Since you bring up the issue of chronology, yes, articles should be in chronology as best as possible, but that isn't always possible, and you work around those issues. Sometimes simultaneous happenings flow well together, other times they don't. Look at the examples cited above, see how the first two mentioned are broken up by three pages of lists and how the second two include the lists at the bottom. - T-75|talk|contribs 17:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? - Part Deux

A modified version of my suggestion from The Machines (professional wrestling) article that I expanded from a stub to a full article on July 1.

*…that in 1986 André the Giant’s back was so injured that the WWF invented The Machines storyline to keep the popular Andre on television without having to get in the ring that often?

Is currently displayed on the Main Page's "Did you know?". My second DKY in less than 2 weeks MPJ-DK 05:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, although I wish they had made sure the links were correct (since André's article uses an accented "e"). Nice job. TJ Spyke 06:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional posters

Now, it seems pretty obvious that stating who is on the promotion poster (when the poster is right there in the article) is not OR, right? Well, this new user named (User:BlueShrek) keeps removing the note about Cor Von and Lashley being on the ONS 2007 poster by claiming it's OR, and even removing a compromise that just says it's Lashley (which even wwe.com says). The noob even tried to intimidate me by claiming he would report me (even though I hadn't broken any guidelines or policies). Anybody care to weigh in on it? TJ Spyke 20:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're performing your own research by trying to deduct who's face(s) is/are on the poster when it's not entirely clear. Sounds like OR to me. Of course, another compromise is to not even include who's on it. Mshake3 22:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided him proof that at least Lashley is on it, and he hasn't reverted yet (although I think that's more because he has violated 3RR or is close and doesn't want to risk reverting). 23:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It's Lashley. Darrenhusted 23:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Id like to comment on this situation. First off, TJ has been blocked for breaking the 3RR rule SEVERAL times and his claims that Im a "newb" are offensive. Second off, I dont see the point in putting the line about the promo posters bc #1 some form of the poster is there and #2 Its not significant to the article. I request we remove all the promo poster lines from the article only to help better them. Thank you for your time.BlueShrek 16:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I diagree. For one thing, most PPV's here use the DVD cover. Second, the promotional poster and DVD cover are usually vastly different. Three, they actually help the article since it gives an insight into what companies were pushing (or planned too). Unless there is a consensus to remove them, they should stay in. Lrrr IV 03:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offence intended: I think BlueShrek is (offensive comment removed) and the articles are perfectly fine the way they are.--Hornetman16 04:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Austin's Real Name

Steve Austin's article says his real name is Steve Williams, yet Debra said on FOX News a couple of weeks ago that he legally changed it to Steve Austin. Should something be done? Koberulz 23:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that would have to be proven (and I don't think her word is enough since they divorced after he abused her and she might be bitter). TJ Spyke 23:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a Steve Williams (Dr Death Steve Williams), this being the exact reason Austin changed to Steve Austin. As far as I know Austin may have changed his name to get around copyright issues for when he wanted to wrestle outside of WWE (like The Rock paid for the use of his name), but there has never been any evidence provided and I wouldn't trust Debra Marshall-McMichael-Williams-Austin as a WP:RS. Darrenhusted 23:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Covers as opposed to Promotional Posters?

I know there are more important things to worry about. But this is still bugging me. It seems that the promotional poster images are being removed in favor for DVD covers. Check out the edit history of WWE Backlash as an example. Is there a valid reason for this? Mshake3 03:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know. When I said something before (on one of the PPV articles), another user said we should be consistan and use either all DVD posters or promo posters on a page (since the other events on that page used DVD covers). I think we should use the promotional poster if it is available. TJ Spyke 04:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3bulletproof16 leaves the project

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3A3bulletproof16&diff=143195320&oldid=134011085— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.225.167 (talk • contribs)

That's a shame, he was a good contributor. I think he is right about who hacked his account. He showed me a messageboard that JB hangs out at, where JB bitches about Wikipedia in general and me/bulletproof specifically. TJ Spyke 04:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is being discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI#User.E2.80.99s_account_was_hacked. An interesting hypothesis was brought up that this may be a "joe job."

It's a possibility. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Style guide update

I was just browsing through the Pro Wrestling style guide. Maybe you guys should like update the Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Professional wrestler biographies section to reflect the use of infoboxes, the height, weight and birthdate/age templates etc because as it stands now the section does not reflect how it's actually done in articles.

Just an idea MPJ-DK 14:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rico Constantino

I noticed Rico's article was in the need of references, as stated on WP:PW's references page. I've referenced the wrestlnig part, but am finding it really difficult to find sources that are not on Online World of Wrestlnig.com. Anyone know any good places to get the other info? Thanks in advance. Davnel03 15:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, another user has removed the parts I can't find sources for. Davnel03 15:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, that was the users [2] first edit..... Please don't tell me Burntsauce has created a new account... Davnel03 15:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt it. Burntsauce would never suggest IMDb as a reliable source. -- Oakster  Talk  17:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After a discussion with MPJ-DK, he suggested that checuser could be done. I have filed a request for checkuser. If it's not Burntsauce, we might have another user blanking articles on our hands. :( Davnel03 18:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
could be another JB account SirFozzie 20:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever he is, he's been blocked indefinitely. Davnel03 15:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser said it waas likely JB (open proxies and sleeper accounts blocked) SirFozzie 15:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rrrr.... JB....-- bulletproof 3:16 16:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Collaboration of the week

I've just noticed this one at the header at the top of the page, expect it's been inactive for several weeks. Just thought I'd let you know. Is it going to get back up and running, or not? Davnel03 19:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New article to look at

On May 18, a new article was created called Corkscrew wrestling moves. Most of these moves are already are could be covered in the existing moves articles. What should we do? Merge the moves not already in other articles and prod it? Clean it up, wikify it, and keep it? Nikki311 20:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If all of it is already coverd in the article listed on the bottom then PROD it, and if that fails AfD. Darrenhusted 20:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could just merge the information, then do a redirect from Corkscrew wrestling moves to the other article. Davnel03 20:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just went ahead and prod'ed it. All the info that already isn't in Professional wrestling aerial techniques can be added there if sources can be found for the moves. Nikki311 20:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be merged to the aerial techniques page. Corkscrew moves are in general just variants of other aerial moves. — Gwalla | Talk 23:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New possible JB sock - Mouse Pad of Doom

He made a new account and less than a minute later he made this fishy edit. As you can see, he's asked for CZW World Heavyweight Championship to be delisted from it's FA status. His edit is being discussed here. Davnel03 17:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alarming research

I've been researching professional wrestling history for a time now, and I have seen a plethora of websites that are far from good sources. What alarms me is that many wrestling sites are text dumps loaded with info that was not published or researched. Worse still, I can see that, in the case of Pro-Wrestling Illustrated, for example, a good site, the bios and info on wrestling is dependent on wikipedia! see: http://www.pwi-online.com/pages/hallofame.html

I hate to say this, but wikipedia is already the dominant source for wrestling information. you can interpret that as you wish, but I find it a little alarming. I mean, that means that info that was left on wikipedia for a few months could have "looked good" to a programmer, made into a site, or worse yet, a fansite that holds poor info, and then could be referenced into wikipedia as fact!

The WikiProject for Pro-Wrestling should get much tougher on references.--Screwball23 talk 21:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're driving at. A vast majority of the internet sucks, this is shocking?«»bd(talk stalk) 22:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to bitch about that, couldn't you come up with a better example than this? A website doesn't want to write a bio. Alert the authorities! The non-wrestling fan media fails once again. Mshake3 00:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate gimmick change day

I'm just sayin'. The one day I watch ECW live something happens and I decide to change it. What was I thinking.«»bd(talk stalk) 02:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bad thing is what it causes some editors to do. How is he well known as Big Daddy V when he just started using that name less than 1 hour ago? Lrrr IV 03:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence said he's better known by his ring names than his real name. The sentence was correct. «»bd(talk stalk) 13:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions

Things were so peaceful the last few weeks. Anyway, here's the dispute. Bullet is saying that at the end of its existance, the WCW Championship, at that point known as the World Championship, was retired (and renamed) AS the WCW Championship. The reasoning? This page, which refers to the title as the WCW title.

Here's my beef (thanks Murph): 1. You're saying that the title was renamed as a WCW championship on December 9, three weeks after WCW was put out of business. 2. You're saying that a title can be refered to as ANYTHING new going forward after it is deactivated. 3. You're saying that WWE.com is the above all, end all source. Shouldn't we start removing ALL references to the letters WWF from all articles, since that's how WWE sees it? 4. WWE.com skipped over the name change from WCW to World, mainly because it was a minor thing. So, does that mean it never happened?

And speaking of, the only reason that page refered to the belt as WCW was because 99% of the time, that's what the belt was known as. The webmaster (the WWE.com and TNAWrestling.com webmasters are apparently WP:PWs messiahs) was simply trying to keep things simple.

ANd bullet, if for some reason you still havn't changed your mind, then I'm going to remove just about all of Benoit's WWE section from his article, as according to WWE going forward, it never happened. Mshake3 04:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think WWE just wants to call it the WCW World Championship (which it was known as from June 2001-November 2001) to avoid confusing it with the World Heavyweight Championship (the same way they call the current SmackDown Tag Team Titles the WWE Tag Team Championship, and call all previous champions like Bret Hart a "World Tag Team Champion"). The title was called the "World Championship" from the night after Survivor Series 2001 until it was unified with the WWF Championship at Armageddon 2001. Lrrr IV 04:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, no question. But what about this nonsense about the title retiring as a WCW championship? How can it retire as a WCW championship when WCW had been dead for three weeks? Mshake3 22:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three very important articles, but no references...

I've just come across Monday Night Wars, History of World Wrestling Entertainment and History of professional wrestling, which all have literally not many references. All three have the potential to one day be a feature article, but with no references thats impossible. I would just go onto Online World of Wrestling to get info, but for an article like this, that's a little impossible. Apart from OWW, is there any other places that I can get reliable sources from? Thanks in advance. (Please provide a hyperlink to the websites listed [if any!]) Davnel03 16:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Online Onslaught has a writeup on the Monday Night Wars as a whole. There's also the Monday Night Wars DVD.«»bd(talk stalk) 18:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a book that I finished reading awhile ago that can be used to cite some of the info in the articles. Monday Night Wars has been on my list to work on for awhile now. Nikki311 20:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a new book out called Ringside, the History of Professional Wrestling in America. That should be comprehensive enough, but if you like, there is also Sex, Lies, and Professional Wrestling, whihc is a good read if you want to know more inside of Vince McMahon and his company, controversy creates cash by Bishoff, which I found to be very good in laying out WCW's history in a lively narrative, and Hooker, by Lou Thesz, which is probably the only source of older wrestling history (1920s-1950s).--Screwball23 talk 22:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrestling's One Ring Circus: The Death of the World Wrestling Federation (Paperback) - Found this one a while ago, always had such an interest in the concept of this book. It talks of WWE's ... "Fall from Grace" between 2001-2003. This could possibly be used for History of World Wrestling Entertainment. --SteelersFan UK06 05:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce

I happened upon a random article which on the talkpage had a link to this taskforce, and looking down the list I noticed that here is no section for wrestling, would it be worth interested parties adding a section for Pro-Wrestling and then members of the project or those with an interest adding themselves to the taskforce, then PW articles could be filtered through this taskforce, and other members of the taskforce (that is to say those who are not project members) may be able to help ease the burden of tidying up some of the worse PW articles, and bring a fresh eye to some articles. Just an idea but given that there are a number of PW editors already acting in this way unilaterally this may be a way to pool resources. Darrenhusted 11:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know I didn't know about this, thank you this is perfect for me - it's what I want to do on Wikipedia so I joined up. Feel free to drop by and gimme some pro wrestling related work MPJ-DK 18:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Undertaker - GA passed!

Just letting you know that The Undertaker's GA has passed! :) Just hope now that no one delists it like last time. Well done anyway to those who contributed! Davnel03 20:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's in a debut?

Should live event (house show) debuts be included in articles, or should it solely be when they debut on television? Mshake3 00:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe mention the day they made their debut, but I don't think who they defeated matters (unless it's something like Hogan's first WCW match being for the WCW World Championship or Santino Marella winning the IC Title in his first WWE match). Lrrr IV 00:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well how about this? Basham and Damaja debuted for TNA at a house show in Louisville on April 20, as a surprise replacement for the injured Abyss. Should it be noted as their TNA debut? Mshake3 01:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like most things, I think it's a varying degree of importance. When Michelle McCool comes back from injury, does three house shows, then nothing for a month, it seems non notable. But when Chuck Palumbo works out his gimmick at house shows for at least a month before it's tv debut it seems (to me) like it should be mentioned alongside the TV debut (He debuted on xx with y gimmick after having used it at house shows from blah blah).«»bd(talk stalk) 13:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another GA

Shelton Benjamin just passed the Good Article process, as well. Just letting everyone know. Nikki311 05:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations everybody on a job well done. Two articles passed in two days. We must be doing something right. - Deep Shadow 09:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little skeptical. Someone needs to go through it and take it "out of universe" for sure.«»bd(talk stalk) 12:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done for the GA, now we've got to try and get it to FA status, which would be good. On that note, I've nominated CM Punk for FA status. Davnel03 15:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, today, Brian Adams failed GA for the third time. Davnel03 15:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just fixed most of the comments left in the failing review, I've done as much as I can do on my own I think but it's already improved the article. A few outstanding points left on the talk page if someone here cares to look at them, toodles MPJ-DK 10:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dave Bautista has also been failed, again, like Adams' article, by The Rambling Man. Davnel03 17:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with most of the review notes left for both Brian Adams and Batista. I feel both articles weren't ready to be nominated. - Deep Shadow 17:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question regarding week-by-week updates

When has enough time passed that you can edit a wrestler's article without violating the "no week-by-week updates" policy? Gavyn Sykes 20:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How long is a piece of string? No, but seriously. A match should only be listed when it is notable within the career of the wrestler. I think PPV matches are OK so long as they fit within the overall context of a feud, Batista vs Edge is a good example of a recent feud. I think we are looking towards history for a guide, The Rock vs HHH fued that started with the NOD vs DX in 1999 then ran through 2000 and finished in 2001 is a good example. But The Rock vs D'lo Brown one week on Raw, probably not worth noting. Bare in mind PPV results are easily available so it's better to leave a match off and wait to see if it was important rather than adding every match. Darrenhusted 21:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That rule has always been misleading. It should be "no week-by-week updates of every little event." If something notable happens, then it should be mentioned as soon as it's allowed (Mon, Tues, Fri, or Sun). Mshake3 22:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up, as much it can be. Gavyn Sykes 23:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I always took it as. We have people going in and adding every TV match (they would do things like add Finlay defeating Ric Flair last week, even though it was just a one-off match with nothing that notable about it). Lrrr IV 03:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Champ

I think the page WWE Champ should be redirected to WWE Champ (disambiguation) and the contents should be:

WWE Champ could refer to:

or

Vote shall we??--Hornetman16 02:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we really need a disambig page, as both of those should redirect to WWE Championsip (which does have a link to the current champion). What is next, wanting to created a disambiguation page for "WWE Intercontinental Champ", "WWE Women's Champ", etc.? Lrrr IV 03:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People don't look at those championships like they do the WWE and World Heavyweight Championships. How many Intercontinental Championship belt replicas do you see at a live airing of WWE Raw? None. But the WWE CHampionship, God...you see 25 to 200 of them. Just goes to show that the WWE Championship is the most popular World title there is (disputed).--Hornetman16 03:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have seen some (although not a lot of them). I've seen replicas of all the belts on RAW at some point. Lrrr IV 03:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point it you see more WWE Championship replicas then any others.--Hornetman16 03:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely with Lrr IV on this one. Also, the fact that there are a lot of replica belts doesn't do anything for your argument. Gavyn Sykes 03:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said before:"Some people type in WWE Champ wanting the champ, John, others type it in wanting the championship it's self." I'm just wanting to make it easier for both.--Hornetman16 03:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you're coming from with this, but I think that it should stay the way it is, because when directed to the championships page, it is not hard to find your way to the current champion's article. --ProtoWolf 06:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's not really much point of a disambig. page because there's not going to be much on the disambig. page, there will only be, what, two items? Davnel03 10:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When someone says "Champ", it's always in reference to the person holding the title. So it should direct to Cena. Mshake3 13:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I'd take this even further. Create similar redirects for all the titles and redirect them to the champions. Mshake3 13:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. What are we doing? Putting in redirects for people who can't figure out what they're looking for, am I looking for the belt or the person?, this makes no sense. If you want WWE Champ then put in WWE and click on links, wrestling wikis have hundreds of wikilinks, sometimes too many, we cannot be creating redirects and disambigs for every possible variation of every search. Darrenhusted 14:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mshake3. Most likely when people type in Champ they want the current title holder. Like, right now, when people type in WWE Champ, they want John Cena. You get where I'm coming from?--Hornetman16 18:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&oldid=144637959"