MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 7d) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 85. |
|||
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
:I'm don't want to get into a discussion about the merits of each PPV having an individual article. Regardless of my position on the matter, I just wanted to suggest to the Pro Wrestling contingent that giving rationales like "''This article, along with every other WWE pay-per-view, is highly notable.''" (like I saw at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elimination Chamber (2012)]]) is not likely to hold much weight in a deletion discussion because it is not backed up by Wikipedia policy. also, there was a lot of talk of the same thing at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Capitol Punishment (2nd nomination)]], which was kept as no consensus. I don't know if anyone here has been following the train-wreck at [[WT:MMANOT]], but that is basically what the keep votes at those AFDs are (i.e. all UFC events are notable by default). Those votes have not held up, and they likely wouldn't here either. I was just offering friendly advice should a good faith editor come along and nominate WWE pay per views for deletion, as I said, heed it nor not, it's your decision.--[[User:kelapstick|kelapstick]]<sup>([[User talk:Kelapstick#top|bainuu]]) </sup> 06:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC) |
:I'm don't want to get into a discussion about the merits of each PPV having an individual article. Regardless of my position on the matter, I just wanted to suggest to the Pro Wrestling contingent that giving rationales like "''This article, along with every other WWE pay-per-view, is highly notable.''" (like I saw at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elimination Chamber (2012)]]) is not likely to hold much weight in a deletion discussion because it is not backed up by Wikipedia policy. also, there was a lot of talk of the same thing at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Capitol Punishment (2nd nomination)]], which was kept as no consensus. I don't know if anyone here has been following the train-wreck at [[WT:MMANOT]], but that is basically what the keep votes at those AFDs are (i.e. all UFC events are notable by default). Those votes have not held up, and they likely wouldn't here either. I was just offering friendly advice should a good faith editor come along and nominate WWE pay per views for deletion, as I said, heed it nor not, it's your decision.--[[User:kelapstick|kelapstick]]<sup>([[User talk:Kelapstick#top|bainuu]]) </sup> 06:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
so i then thank for the friendly advice ;) --[[User:Nakurio|Nakurio]] ([[User talk:Nakurio|talk]]) 08:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC) |
so i then thank for the friendly advice ;) --[[User:Nakurio|Nakurio]] ([[User talk:Nakurio|talk]]) 08:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
{{outdent}} |
|||
Anything advertised on national television should have guaranteed notability. It's dumb for anyone to dispute that. If the only mention of a PPV is during a commercials for a few weeks of Monday Night Raw, guess what, that's millions of people world-wide who could all testify to the fact they know what this PPV is, what it's about and when it will take place. Even if you can't find an online source, it doesn't matter. That isn't the only way to find notability. We're talking about MILLIONS OF PEOPLE here. It's so stupid that someone actually thinks their time is well-spent deleting these articles on Wikipedia. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em; class=texhtml">[[User:Feedback|<big><font color="#039">'''''Feed'''''</big>]][[Special:Contributions/Feedback|<big><font color="#008000">'''''back'''''</big>]] <big><sup>[[User talk:Feedback|'''☎''']]</sup></big></span> 12:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:20, 11 May 2012
WP:PW | Talk • Article alerts • Assessment • Members list • New articles • Notability • Recognized content • Sanctions • Sources • Style guide • Templates • Top priority articles |
---|
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!
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Vandal
Keep an eye out for this guy's edits. He seems to be making a lot of pointless edits that weaken articles, or inventing a large amount of bunk. Tony2Times (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- It also made me discover that Apple_(professional_wrestling) is an article. Tony2Times (talk) 10:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to bring to attention Ouloul94 as well. This guy's not exactly a vandal, he's probably editing with good intentions but he keeps removing old finishers from wrestlers' pages even when these old finishers are properly referenced. Examples of what he's removed are Jack Swagger's Red, White and Blue Thunder Bomb and Miz's Mizard of Oz. I'm speculating this is because these particular finishers were used early in the wrestlers' careers and few people knew of these finishers so maybe he removed them because he assumed they didn't exist. If you look at Ouloul94's talk page you'll see that repeated attempts to warn him about his disruptive editing are apaprently ignored because he has never replied to his talk page. Is there something we could do about it? Starship.paint (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've joined the conga line and asked that he discuss his edits here. I'll reiterate what Starship's said; he seems genuine, but does not respond to talk pages or warnings and that what he does falls under the vandalism umbrella (deleting old but valid references to past finishers and breaking the styles guide in general). Papacha (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it looks like Ouloul94 has ignored Papacha's comments on his talk page and continued on his disruptive editing. Just look at this edit for example. The names of the moves are properly sourced and he just removes them like that. He's been given enough last warnings already. I think a block might be in order but I do not know how to report Ouloul94 to a relevant authority. Could somebody help me out here? Starship.paint (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- reported at Ouloul94 at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism Starship.paint (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it looks like Ouloul94 has ignored Papacha's comments on his talk page and continued on his disruptive editing. Just look at this edit for example. The names of the moves are properly sourced and he just removes them like that. He's been given enough last warnings already. I think a block might be in order but I do not know how to report Ouloul94 to a relevant authority. Could somebody help me out here? Starship.paint (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the Template:WWE personnel
Posted this on the template's talk page on 22 April but got no replies. Anyone have any opinion? I propose merging the Raw/SD/NXT/Multibranded sections. Given the virtual end of the brand split where upper-card wrestlers from any brand appear on both Raw/SD as they wish, whereas lower-card wrestlers don't even appear on Raw/SD but on NXT/Superstars and also given that even WWE (through its newest version of its website) doesn't even bother to track which wrestler belongs to which brand, I propose we simply merge the sections. Also, can we separate the commentators/announcers/hosts from the wrestlers... just like we separate the Spanish commentators and the referees? I also propose that we remove the "appearing on the SmackDown brand" from the wrestlers' pages. i.e. Bryan Danielson (born May 22, 1981) is an American professional wrestler signed to WWE and appearing on its SmackDown brand. --> Bryan Danielson (born May 22, 1981) is an American professional wrestler signed to WWE. Starship.paint (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Totally agree. It's been bad for years, but every RAW is a "Supershow" lately, Johnny Ace is Supreme Commander, and Smackdown guys were "Beating the Clock" Monday to determine the contender for the WWE Title (allegedly RAW's championship). I'm sure someone will say the truth needs to be verifiable, and they're right. But so are you. Good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Made the changes. Starship.paint (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Do we agree a tag team title is a singular object?
A team wins the title, not the titles, yeah? I say yeah. And I change articles accordingly. But I'm just one man, with a PS3 controller (not very efficient for Wikipedia!). If you omnipotent folks at the top with your high-tech marvels are in agreeance that this very common mistake should be widely eradicated, could you please assemble a crack team of editors, or build some sort of bot? The truth must be known! Mustn't it? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- When has this ever been a problem? It's always been "title" and I'm pretty sure all members of WP:PW are aware of it. If inexperienced editors are making mistakes, you can try orienting them yourself, but you don't need a consensus on WP:PW for something so obvious. Remember one thing though: The tag team championship is a single title, composed of multiple title belts. One title, two belts. Feedback ☎ 18:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is something I've meant to raise for a while but is kind of minute so I figured no-one other than me noticed. This trickles down to a much more often used, and I feel incorrect, piece of diction: "one half of the Tag Team Champions". To me you're just a Tag Team Champion. Tony2Times (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Feedback, I have fixed multiple instances of pluralization in the last four wrestler articles I've edited. I'm not so much requesting a consensus as I am a massive "find and replace" mission for a capable bot. Something that can quickly correct every single instance of "WWE Tag Team Titles" (or AWA, ECW, whatever) on Wikipedia. I know the technology exists, but not how to use it. Replacing "them" with "it" or just "titles" with "title" will need a human brain, but since there is no reason to leave any "tag team titles" text string intact, the robot should suffice. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- The title is a singular "Tag Team Championship", but it's held by two performers who collectively are "Tag Team Champions". So it's completely correct when they say one person is a half of the tag team champions. If you and I both owned a house, you would be "one half of the homeowners". It is only one house, but we both own it. Same thing goes with the championship. If we both held the Tag Team Championship, you would be "one half of the tag team champions". Their is only one Tag Team title, but we both own it and are therefore both champions of said title. Feedback ☎ 05:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Feedback, I have fixed multiple instances of pluralization in the last four wrestler articles I've edited. I'm not so much requesting a consensus as I am a massive "find and replace" mission for a capable bot. Something that can quickly correct every single instance of "WWE Tag Team Titles" (or AWA, ECW, whatever) on Wikipedia. I know the technology exists, but not how to use it. Replacing "them" with "it" or just "titles" with "title" will need a human brain, but since there is no reason to leave any "tag team titles" text string intact, the robot should suffice. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is something I've meant to raise for a while but is kind of minute so I figured no-one other than me noticed. This trickles down to a much more often used, and I feel incorrect, piece of diction: "one half of the Tag Team Champions". To me you're just a Tag Team Champion. Tony2Times (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
"One half of the tag team champions" makes grammatical sense, but it's unnecessarily wordy. "Tag team champion" would be preferable for Wikipedia, which encourages conciseness. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Fun fact: "Tag team champion" has exactly half the characters of "One half of the tag team champions" (including spaces). InedibleHulk (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- That is a fun fact Hulk. Aye, Feedback my wording was probably wrong. It is conceptually correct I suppose but it is unnecessary when "a Tag Team Champion" fits the bill just as well. Tony2Times (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Triple H-Undertaker rivalry
So... do y'all really need an article about the Triple H-Undertaker rivalry? --Jtalledo (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I say we don't. Good candidate for Articles for Deletion, but I won't nominate it myself. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, I believe that we do need an article about the Triple H-Undertaker rivalry. Their ultimate fight at WrestleMania XXVIII resulted in the end of an era for Triple H as he relegated himself to backstage roles while the Undertaker continues to wrestle. GVnayR (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- The second statement here to support the existence of such an article can hardly be backed up. Triple H just appeared on Raw, did he not? And Taker has not appeared or wrestled after WM28. Starship.paint (talk) 05:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Far too much detail about mundane events, plenty of original research, non-neutral and poorly worded. Much like this user's other articles/essays John Cena-Edge rivalry and Stone Cold Steve Austin-Vince McMahon rivalry (all linked through See Also sections, which smells a bit fishy). These feuds are covered sufficiently in each wrestler's article. I would suggest GVnayR publish these on a personal website after reading WP:NOTESSAY. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete them all, they are all covered elsewhere. WrestleMania 27 and 28 cover HHH vs Taker completely; as well as their bios do. Edge vs Cena is also covered in the same fashion while Austin vs Vince is covered in The Attitude Era article, Monday Night Wars, bios, Events, etc.--WillC 08:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Deletion debate of a lot PPV
Someboidy did at least 6 or 7 articles nominate for a deletion i did answer in some but i guess there has to be more opinions then one to keep this articles like Night of champions and royal rumble or extreme rules--Nakurio (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've speedy closed all the discussions as speedy keep, as the nomination was clearly in bad faith. Further to that, I don't think that there is anything that clearly states that all WWE pay per views are notable by default, so I would suggest not using that as a keep stance in deletion discussions, as if these articles are nominated again, by a good faith editor, that rationale will not likely hold water. Feel free to take my advice, or not. --kelapstick(bainuu) 06:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok so how you would proof that this articles are notable, for sure not every ppv is as important for the Storylines and the impact on fans as the big 4 but as a fact there are not very often title changes at raw or smack down this most happens at ppvs and at the ppvs are the long matches which never happen on raw due to the little time they have compared ti their talent.--Nakurio (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm don't want to get into a discussion about the merits of each PPV having an individual article. Regardless of my position on the matter, I just wanted to suggest to the Pro Wrestling contingent that giving rationales like "This article, along with every other WWE pay-per-view, is highly notable." (like I saw at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elimination Chamber (2012)) is not likely to hold much weight in a deletion discussion because it is not backed up by Wikipedia policy. also, there was a lot of talk of the same thing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Capitol Punishment (2nd nomination), which was kept as no consensus. I don't know if anyone here has been following the train-wreck at WT:MMANOT, but that is basically what the keep votes at those AFDs are (i.e. all UFC events are notable by default). Those votes have not held up, and they likely wouldn't here either. I was just offering friendly advice should a good faith editor come along and nominate WWE pay per views for deletion, as I said, heed it nor not, it's your decision.--kelapstick(bainuu) 06:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
so i then thank for the friendly advice ;) --Nakurio (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Anything advertised on national television should have guaranteed notability. It's dumb for anyone to dispute that. If the only mention of a PPV is during a commercials for a few weeks of Monday Night Raw, guess what, that's millions of people world-wide who could all testify to the fact they know what this PPV is, what it's about and when it will take place. Even if you can't find an online source, it doesn't matter. That isn't the only way to find notability. We're talking about MILLIONS OF PEOPLE here. It's so stupid that someone actually thinks their time is well-spent deleting these articles on Wikipedia. Feedback ☎ 12:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)