Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
::::I think the best way to achieve a consensus is to start off by calling everyone who doesn't agree with you a hypocrite. From there, continue repeating the accusation. There's no better way to start a discussion and it's always sure to make people want to engage in a civil debate. [[User:GaryColemanFan|GaryColemanFan]] ([[User talk:GaryColemanFan|talk]]) 12:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
::::I think the best way to achieve a consensus is to start off by calling everyone who doesn't agree with you a hypocrite. From there, continue repeating the accusation. There's no better way to start a discussion and it's always sure to make people want to engage in a civil debate. [[User:GaryColemanFan|GaryColemanFan]] ([[User talk:GaryColemanFan|talk]]) 12:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::Still, there ''is'' a lot of hypocriticy on this issue, and it must be resolved. [[User:Mshake3|Mshake3]] ([[User talk:Mshake3|talk]]) 13:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
:::::Still, there ''is'' a lot of hypocriticy on this issue, and it must be resolved. [[User:Mshake3|Mshake3]] ([[User talk:Mshake3|talk]]) 13:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
:I honestly can say: this problem does involve hyprocites in action. Why leave that note out? Many of the people against certain names and taglines, are just fine with certain ones as well. There's no reason to have it both ways. WWE (as well as other promotions) heavily promote matches as something, so it shouldn't just be ignored in articles. [[User:RobJ1981|RobJ1981]] ([[User talk:RobJ1981|talk]]) 18:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== WP:PW/PPV March Statistics == |
== WP:PW/PPV March Statistics == |
Revision as of 18:38, 7 April 2008
PW Discussion Board | |
---|---|
Welcome to the WikiProject Professional wrestling discussion page. Please use this page to discuss issues regarding professional wrestling related articles, project guidelines, ideas, suggestions and questions. Thank you for visiting!
|
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/archive box
Is "Raw" capitalized?
ummmm........ is it.......?
142.162.187.79 (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Monday Night Raw? you mean as in RAW? - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yup. The argument is from the Backlash (2007) article. –Cheers, LAX 22:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- WWE.com doesn't seem to care about such trivial details, they always use "Raw" in the results. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes or no?
RandySavageFTW (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, Raw is not capitalized. Per this. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 02:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Again with this discussion. WWE Raw--> this is the name of the TV show and the whole thing is not capitalized and is italicized. WWE RAW-->This is the name of the WWE brand which is capitalized, so TV show (not), the brand (yeah). Also, why is this conversation continuing, its not like the IP will return to comment back, plus this conversation has been going on way too long. I think its time to establish Wikiproject:Professional Wrestling:Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)'TrUCo-X 03:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Truco's right, we need to get over this. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 03:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Something like a Manual of Style would be nice. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Truco's right, we need to get over this. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 03:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- The show and the brand's official names are the same. ("RAW") They are different here because MOS changed the show to "Raw". The brand was unaffected. Am I correct? --13 of Diamonds (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Again with this discussion. WWE Raw--> this is the name of the TV show and the whole thing is not capitalized and is italicized. WWE RAW-->This is the name of the WWE brand which is capitalized, so TV show (not), the brand (yeah). Also, why is this conversation continuing, its not like the IP will return to comment back, plus this conversation has been going on way too long. I think its time to establish Wikiproject:Professional Wrestling:Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)'TrUCo-X 03:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
A lot of things can be broken off from the to-do list. Also should be guidelines for capitalization of moves/match types, and which moves should be preceded by "the" and which should be by "a/an". --13 of Diamonds (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:PW/MoS
Well its clear that we need this for the new users, and for most of us users who forget sometimes. Please list what should be included, as I will create it in my sandbox and then move it to the main space. Thanks.--TrUCo-X 14:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Could we not just expand Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Most of the items under "Changes" in the to-do list. I think we should only use "WWF" or "the WWF" for consistency. The issue with moves/match types capitalization. Whether to precede "Royal Rumble" and "Survivor Series" with "the". The RAW/Raw discussion. Whether to drop the exclamation mark in SmackDown! (the MOS:TM argument and the correct name argument). --13 of Diamonds (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I went ahead and added it to the style guide, not that anyone ever checks it. We can't make blanket rules about when to precede something with "the" because different situations call for different things.«»bd(talk stalk) 20:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Bolding
I thought bolding in the match/results section was to be discouraged, but i see at WrestleMania XXIV it has bolding (the match names)?--TrUCo-X 20:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- The bolding can say "au revoir" when the event concludes. :) D.M.N. (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh. lol--TrUCo-X 23:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Well its been nominated for FA; its here. NimiTize 03:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- I thought it was going to be nominated on April 4. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
OMG! Why can't people just wait until they say?? There's even a citation needed tag in the article. I suggest finding a source for that or nobody will support. It won't kill anyone to wait the extra couple of days. Nikki311 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Whatever. I removed the info altogether. You really need to be careful about things like that when nominating articles. Nikki311 14:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Nikki, to me it felt like a well written article and better then meeting the FA status, Its not that I didnt want to wait, its that, why wait? NimiTize 19:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, like I said...to finish fixing the article...like the citations needed tag in the article, for one. Here's an update, though: all the problems pointed out by the commenter have been fixed or the reliability of the cites explained. Special thanks to Zenlax for helping me out. Nikki311 20:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Also, since it is the day after WrestleMania, where HHH had a match, there is likely to be a lot of vandalism and additions of useless/trivial information. Stability of an article is an issue when nominating at FAC. Waiting until April 4 would have helped to eliminate that problem. Nikki311 21:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I feel so fuc_in stupid. NimiTize 22:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
:(
O.K guy's I think I'm going to take a wikibreak for a while. Some of you might not know me, and some of you know me pretty well, I will probably be back in a couple months maybe not that long lol, and if you leave a message I will respond trust me but i'm not gonna go out of my way to help on article's for the time being. Nothing personal, look forward to seeing you guy's real soon :) SexySteelerFan 19:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Fire at Wrestlemania
Anybody else here about this [1] S—PAC54 19:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Um, the article has been created. Thought I should let you guys know. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Match names and taglines: let's settle this already
This problem has been going on for a while. Let's try to reach some sort of consensus on them. As of now: many people seem to be just hypocritical when it comes to them. Things such as money in the bank (which is just a special name for a ladder match that features a title shot as the prize) are kept, while things such as career threatening (which is a special name for a retirement match) are removed from the article. On the subject of money in the bank: I think a merge into ladder should happen. A list of qualifying matches, and a list of matches/results of every MITB to happen is listcruft/clutter in my view. WCW had World War 3: and it was just a special name for a battle royal that they did yearly. TNA does the same thing with matches: slaps a name on it, and puts it on pay-per-views each year. Then there is taglines. Some of these could be argued that they are match names, and should be listed in the results section. The problem with both names and taglines is: several editors control the articles and just jam everything they personally love into the report and remove it from the results section. My view on this is, that all special match names and taglines should be either listed in the results or the report ONLY... it shouldn't be some of this and some of that. That just makes it sloppy. Can we try to come up with a solution, instead of ignoring this problem (which has been ignored for quite a while). RobJ1981 (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with a lot of the things you're saying, except the Money in the Bank merger, which I do not think should happen. This is because the match itself, sure, is just a glorified ladder match, but it happens annually at WrestleMania, which awards some merit of its own list, in my humble opinion. I also thought the fact that we wern't referring to Ric Flair's "Career Threatening" Matches as such was kinda stupid, when WWE Broadcasts referred to them as such. Again, this is my humble opinion.--ProtoWolf (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- If WWE mentions the tagline and/or match name regularly on televison, the pay-per-view event, it's listed on the DVD back (and so on), that certainly shows it's an important thing to list. Why even have a results section in the first place if it's just sloppy and doesn't list important details? Many people read the event section, but many people don't. People shouldn't be forced to read one section to find every special tagline and match name. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I do not have problem with using tag lines because I feel we should display it just as WWE promotes it. The reason we have not reached a consensus is because people are very hypocritical and cannot decide whether they want taglines or don't want them, so they are happy with some and not for others. Also, I do not think MITB should be merged either. It's like having the Royal Rumble merged with a Battle Royal article. Just doesn't happen because that it is an annual event etc. -GuffasBorgz7- 11:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think the best way to achieve a consensus is to start off by calling everyone who doesn't agree with you a hypocrite. From there, continue repeating the accusation. There's no better way to start a discussion and it's always sure to make people want to engage in a civil debate. GaryColemanFan (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I do not have problem with using tag lines because I feel we should display it just as WWE promotes it. The reason we have not reached a consensus is because people are very hypocritical and cannot decide whether they want taglines or don't want them, so they are happy with some and not for others. Also, I do not think MITB should be merged either. It's like having the Royal Rumble merged with a Battle Royal article. Just doesn't happen because that it is an annual event etc. -GuffasBorgz7- 11:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- If WWE mentions the tagline and/or match name regularly on televison, the pay-per-view event, it's listed on the DVD back (and so on), that certainly shows it's an important thing to list. Why even have a results section in the first place if it's just sloppy and doesn't list important details? Many people read the event section, but many people don't. People shouldn't be forced to read one section to find every special tagline and match name. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I honestly can say: this problem does involve hyprocites in action. Why leave that note out? Many of the people against certain names and taglines, are just fine with certain ones as well. There's no reason to have it both ways. WWE (as well as other promotions) heavily promote matches as something, so it shouldn't just be ignored in articles. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:PW/PPV March Statistics
I've updated the stats today and we now have 100 articles expanded or partially expanded. Thank you to all that have contributed. However, the amount of articles marked as "Incomplete and Inactive" has increased significantly. (from 7 to 26 over the last month) --13 of Diamonds (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Jeez, I guess we will need to work on the vacant articles. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- People need to be careful when updating the page. I've noticed that a couple of the pay per views that I've worked on have been removed (one after reaching Good Article status). GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Question about championships
In the Championships and accomplishments sections of Wrestler articles, is there an exact order of how the championships should be ordered?--3L VaK3r0 02:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Alphabetically. –LAX 02:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, alot of these articles are messed up then, I see that the triple crown championship is always the last one for some reason.--3L VaK3r0 02:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- The TCC and Grand Slam are in order that they were acheived. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Wrestler pages, tag team pages, and redundant information
As a project we need to decide how much information we need to include on the separate wrestler pages when there is also a tag team article (e.g. MNM, Johnny Nitro, & Joey Mercury or 3-Minute Warning, Rosey, and Jamal). Like, if there's a dedicated tag team article, do we need tag team exclusive signature moves? Managers that only managed them when they tagged? In the case of a team like 3 Minute Warning, which went through gimmick changes in a short time, do those need detailing on the individual articles or can it be left in generalities as long as there's a "see (x)" link?
If we do need all this information on the individual articles, why do we even have tag team articles for teams that have individual articles? «»bd(talk stalk) 03:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- In my opinion, if there is a dedicated tag team article, then all the information in the individual members' articles should be very bare minimum summary style with the "see (x)" link. Nikki311 18:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyone else? Opinions? Please?«»bd(talk stalk) 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Stub article expansion
As I'm sure you've heard, one of the goals of this project is to reduce the number of stub articles by expanding them until they are at least start class. Since mid-December, the number of stub articles has dropped by 129 (while our overall number of articles has grown by almost 300). The stub expansion has slowed down, though, and this looks like the first week in which the percentage of stubs will actually increase. It would be great if a few people could choose an article to expand this week. A list of some of the more famous wrestlers is given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Stubs, but there are quite a few more to choose from. I would like to see the number of stub articles drop below 600, so help would be appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Took a quick look, and the Oliver Humperdink article appears to have been expanded enough that it's no longer tagged as a stub, though it is in your list of stubs. I'll take a closer look at the list when I get home and decide who I want to work on. ArcAngel (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oliver Humperdink should be a stub, it has zero references, and is a very short article. D.M.N. (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else think the page could be deleted? -- Scorpion0422 15:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- The article might fail WP:N, but I don't see that as a reason to can it at this time. He's a wrestler, so he still falls within the scope of the project I would think, despite the fact he hasn't done anything up to this point. ArcAngel (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- It has some notability, and he has just reported to FCW I believe so we may hear his name quite a bit in the next few months. D.M.N. (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- It definately can be expanded. If I am not mistaken, he did have a match against Bischoff during the horrible heart attack storyline in WCW. LessThanClippers 23:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hang on. The article says he was born in 1988, which makes him twenty. The article says he wrestled in WCW in the late 1990's. Bascially, it's trying to say he wrestled at the age of ten. I'm pretty sure the age is badly wrong. D.M.N. (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- That sounds about right. Or at least close. This recap and this recap both note that he was 12 years old at the time.«»bd(talk stalk) 21:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hang on. The article says he was born in 1988, which makes him twenty. The article says he wrestled in WCW in the late 1990's. Bascially, it's trying to say he wrestled at the age of ten. I'm pretty sure the age is badly wrong. D.M.N. (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- It definately can be expanded. If I am not mistaken, he did have a match against Bischoff during the horrible heart attack storyline in WCW. LessThanClippers 23:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- It has some notability, and he has just reported to FCW I believe so we may hear his name quite a bit in the next few months. D.M.N. (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I posted a message before, but Scorpion0422, removed it because "this is not the place for good-bye comments", as I am retiring from Wikipedia, but "project wise" I would appreciate it if the project would respond to any queries that would come up on the APA's and OTE's GA-Review. Thank you, and good luck to this project in the future.--3L VaK3r0 23:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- The box at the very top says "Please use this page to discuss issues regarding professional wrestling related articles, project guidelines, ideas, suggestions and questions." -- Scorpion0422 23:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes "Wikipedia Officer", but now, I am talking about the "Pro Wrestling Articles and their GA review".--3L VaK3r0 23:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is just an attempt to get sympathy, you'll probably be back in a week. If you're leaving fine, have fun, but it has nothing to do with the project so I fail to see why you need a goodbye thread. -- Scorpion0422 23:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- You have serious issues my man, but no I will not be back. This is not to gain sympathy for my leave, you can think of it that way, w/e, but I want to inform the project of the "professional wrestling articles" that are current "GAC"'s, and that they should be noticed if something is to come up in their GA-review.3L VaK3r0 23:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is just an attempt to get sympathy, you'll probably be back in a week. If you're leaving fine, have fun, but it has nothing to do with the project so I fail to see why you need a goodbye thread. -- Scorpion0422 23:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes "Wikipedia Officer", but now, I am talking about the "Pro Wrestling Articles and their GA review".--3L VaK3r0 23:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Same here. I am also leaving, so I'm leaving Matt Hardy, Brock Lesnar, and Brian Kendrick's review in your guy's hands. Bye mostly everyone. iMatthew 2008 23:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Aah, your leaving. Yet, you can't for some reason be bothered to review the GA's when they come around, your leaving it for us to pick up the work? And is there any specific reason why your leaving Wikipedia, the amount of bickering I've seen on your, Trucco's, NimiTize's and LAX's talkpage is beyond belief and in my view plain stupidity. D.M.N. (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- You're right D.M.N. that is rude. I will stick around for a short while, but only to answer to those reviews. And you're 100% right, it's plain stupidity. iMatthew 2008 10:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Scorpion, you've got to loosen up and chill out. A member leaving our group is important information for the pro wrestling group. Is it really such a big deal that you need to go out of your way to remove the message? Kris (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Please use this page to discuss issues regarding professional wrestling related articles, project guidelines, ideas, suggestions and questions" -- Scorpion0422 14:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Backlash 2008
I have used up my three revert rule. Please see the edit history of WWE Backlash as well as User talk:DeadmanUndertaker. That user insists that I am wrong and that Wikipedia's policy is trumped by WWE. Thanks. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll take a look at it, but you should be careful because some admins don't like it when users ask others to revert for them. -- Scorpion0422 00:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm aware of that, but this user is failing to heed to policy his edits are becoming disruptive. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- He's disruptive? He's saying that only matches announced by WWE should be listed, and you're saying other reliable sources are allowed, save for "dirtsheets" (there's no trusting on here), which basically also means "only announced by WWE." And this edit war involves hidden tags that have no baring on the article. Mshake3 (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- That was my argument. He was wrong, in that he would not accept that other reliable sources could exist (WON, for example). Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I misconstrued one of your reverts as one of your edits, I apologise. You are in the right and he is in the wrong. –– Lid(Talk) 21:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I understand. I reverted my own edit since I have impulsively reverted one of his, but then I realized I had violated the 3RR so I reverted back. It would have been confusing to someone just briefly checking the history. :) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- I misconstrued one of your reverts as one of your edits, I apologise. You are in the right and he is in the wrong. –– Lid(Talk) 21:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm aware of that, but this user is failing to heed to policy his edits are becoming disruptive. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I have put this fed up for AfD, and bundled in all its titles and wrestlers, none seem to be notable and three are already up for AfD. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
A sock?
I discovered the talk page of this user: User talk:Palmer-Ridge, who uses the page to list the moveset of a fictional wrestler. This immediately reminded me of Jeff Money (talk · contribs) who had dedicated his user space to chronicling the fictional career of one Jim Samuel. Jeff Money was a sock of Asadaleem12@hotmail.com (talk · contribs) and I was wondering if anyone thought this guy could be too. -- Scorpion0422 19:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Seems like him alright. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think I may have discovered several sock puppets, he's edited the user page of JerichoOfWalls (talk · contribs) whose user page was also edited by Palmer-Cat (talk · contribs) and there is also Palmer-Out (talk · contribs). -- Scorpion0422 20:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think Di-Hardcore (talk · contribs), Hardcore Sentence (talk · contribs), and Hardcore07 (talk · contribs) might be a part of it, as well. A checkuser might be in order here. Nikki311 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Um... and El Hardcore (talk · contribs) and HardcoreTen (talk · contribs). Nikki311 20:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- And Flyerman (talk · contribs), he and two of the above ones vandalised the page of Derek Bryant and replaced it with the bio of a fictional wrestler. -- Scorpion0422 20:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Um... and El Hardcore (talk · contribs) and HardcoreTen (talk · contribs). Nikki311 20:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think Di-Hardcore (talk · contribs), Hardcore Sentence (talk · contribs), and Hardcore07 (talk · contribs) might be a part of it, as well. A checkuser might be in order here. Nikki311 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think I may have discovered several sock puppets, he's edited the user page of JerichoOfWalls (talk · contribs) whose user page was also edited by Palmer-Cat (talk · contribs) and there is also Palmer-Out (talk · contribs). -- Scorpion0422 20:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have time to deal with this right now...so I suggest taking it to either the suspected sockpuppet noticeboard, the admin noticeboard, checkuser, or wherever. I'm logging off for the night to deal with a crazy load of work I have to do for school. Nikki311 21:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Entrance music on wrestler articles
Do we really need this? Half the time people who are trying to look smart make up fake titles for songs, not to mention the music notes are almost always unsourced. It really all isn't needed and just makes the articles look worse. I propose a movement to remove this stuff. If someone wants to start one of those support/oppose battles, do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvp119 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think entrance themes are notable enough to be included. There are enough folks here in the know to spot a fake title fast enough to revert the change without much of an issue. Speaking of which - I see no issue here. ArcAngel (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Since the Freebirds it's been pretty important, not that you'd know it from the music article which has devolved into a horrid list.«»bd(talk stalk) 02:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah and most people in the pw feild know like "The Game" by Motorhead for Triple H's theme music but I know what you mean someone might know "Sexy Boy" but would PROBABLY not know The Great Khali's theme music. -- CrymeTyme-94 16:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
SummerSlam (2007) FAC
Since it has been one week and no one has objected my request above, I have gone on and nominated SummerSlam (2007) for FA status here. –LAX 10:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone please fix
[2] will be deleted tomorrow. Needs sourcing, which shouldn't be hard. I have no access to the net. --Endless Dan 18:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
If anyone has time, can feedback be given for Backlash. As I would like to see if the article meets Good article criteria. Zenlax T C S 20:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
WrestleMania X now a Good Article
Just a quick note to inform project members that this article passed its GA review today, bringing our total to 43. Thanks to everyone who helped. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Great stuff! I think I should note that it's probably best to resist nominating any GAN's for the next week or so. There's 24 noms in the Sport section, 10 alone are from this project. Yet again, to help the list decrease, I suggest reviewing another article on the list. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's also best to focus on completing PPV articles instead of improving completed ones to GA. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Minor addition to PPV Guidelines - Aftermath
I've changed the Aftermath guidlines on the PPV Guidelines page. The addition is in bold:
The aftermath section should contain details of feuds that occurred after the event, whether feuds just completely stopped, or whether they continued for several months afterwards. It may also contain details of any backstage disagreements that occurred or if anyone legitimately quit the company immediately after the event. It should also contain the details about the buyrate for the event, in contrast to previous years. It should also show whether the event was (dis)liked as a whole, giving sources to three/four different websites.
IMO, this needs to be in the aftermath, it's buyrate in contrast to previous years, and whether people liked the PPV as a whole. If you are (or have) been working on a PPV, I strongly suggest adding a bit on the buyrate or stuff. For examples of how this can be worked into articles, please look at the December to Dismember 2006 aftermath, the SummerSlam 2007 aftermath and the IYH1 aftermath. If you disagree with the above, please leave a comment underneath so it can be discussed. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- You mean this? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 44#PPV Article Layouts Results and Aftermath --13 of Diamonds (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Rock 'n Rave Infection - Notable?
Someone has gone and created the article for this team (Lance Hoyt and Jimmy Rave w/ Christy Hemme. They've been teaming together for around six months, but haven't really done anything too noteworthy besides destroy our eardrums and develop a disorder where they think Orlando is a different city every week. I really don't think the team is notable. Should we AfD it? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well they are kinda like the Highlanders of the WWE, if you deleted it in my oppinion you can go ahead and delete most tag teams. CrymeTyme-94 23:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
PPV Name Change
Hello everyone, Its me Truco, I am still here until two of my GANS are reviewed, so I noticed on WWE.com's live event schedule, that they have replaced the name of WWE Vengeance to WWE Night of Champions, should I go ahead and make the move? Source--3L VaK3r0 14:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Triple H FAC failed
The Featured Article candidacy for Triple H was closed today. It was clear that almost all of the issues brought up had ben resolved, but the closing editor decided not to give the oppose voters a chance to change their votes. The whole FAC thing has my vote for the stupidest aspect of Wikipedia, as there doesn't seem to be any common sense behind the decisions made by closing editors. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. The opposer's comments were posted this morning, and I didn't even have enough time to resolve them all. Well, at least we got some comments, unlike some previous FACs. Once we do resolve all the issues, it can always be renominated in the future. Nikki311 19:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- What the hell? That is ridiculous. Only three people had even cast their opinion, and there was ONE oppose? *sighs* Oh well. Like Nikki said, there's always next time. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I've started a new topic at WT:FAC, with a link to this discussion, see here. D.M.N. (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Guys, take a look at this and this. D.M.N. (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- We really have a big problem here. Most of the sites WP:PW deems reliabe are not considered reliable otherwise. The fact is that if we can't find soucres that the rest of WP communit considers reliable (which are nonexistant, from what I can see. Even WON is disputed), I wouldn't be surprised if we get our current FAs delisted! Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not all of our FA's use them sources. I know for a fact December to Dismember (2006) uses none. D.M.N. (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- It uses WrestleView, Hoffco Inc. (Complete WWE), Wrestling Observer, and The Wrestling Post. All of these (except The Wrestling Post, which I'm sure would fall under the same argument) have been challenged as sources. In addition, most of the references are from WWE.com, which at least one reviewer said we shouldn't be using (who was then backed up by several others at Good Article Reassessment). It seems like some reviewers want to discredit 80% of the most common wrestling sources while the rest want to discredit the other 20%, so I don't see how we can win. Even wrestling-titles.com, which appears to be one of the most reliable sources, is now challenged regularly, so I'm not sure how we can even get a Featured List. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly my point. There may come a time when the community agrees and thinks that 100% of our sources are unreliable which could result in a consensus to de-list our FAs and GAs...Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not all of our FA's use them sources. I know for a fact December to Dismember (2006) uses none. D.M.N. (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- We really have a big problem here. Most of the sites WP:PW deems reliabe are not considered reliable otherwise. The fact is that if we can't find soucres that the rest of WP communit considers reliable (which are nonexistant, from what I can see. Even WON is disputed), I wouldn't be surprised if we get our current FAs delisted! Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- While this may be a disappointment, I do believe it's reasonable. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is indeed. WP policy is paramount to any article, of course. I do still think that the FAC of Triple H being close so quickly is unjust though. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- So lemme get this straight. Virtually all of the primary sources that WP:PW has been using for the articles for years are being challenged and that's reasonable? It's bullshit is what it is. How can WWE.com be considered unreliable? What source is going to be more reliable regarding information presented in articles of wrestlers, championships, and pay per views that are all fall under World Wrestling Entertainment? As for wrestling-titles.com, it's another mystery to me. It's a listing of every major wrestling championship for the past 100 years with a listing of every man or woman that's ever won said championships. I'd say that solie.org is probably in the same boat as wrestling-titles.com. I can't help but wonder if it's prejudice against wrestling. A few of us have encountered it before I'm sure: editors that personally despise pro wrestling, try to claim that sources that are known to be reliable are otherwise, and wouldn't mind at all seeing it disappear from Wikipedia altogether.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think the logic is that "wrestling is fake. WWE.com can change and edit results, thus they are not reliable." 404 Error: Logic not found. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- So lemme get this straight. Virtually all of the primary sources that WP:PW has been using for the articles for years are being challenged and that's reasonable? It's bullshit is what it is. How can WWE.com be considered unreliable? What source is going to be more reliable regarding information presented in articles of wrestlers, championships, and pay per views that are all fall under World Wrestling Entertainment? As for wrestling-titles.com, it's another mystery to me. It's a listing of every major wrestling championship for the past 100 years with a listing of every man or woman that's ever won said championships. I'd say that solie.org is probably in the same boat as wrestling-titles.com. I can't help but wonder if it's prejudice against wrestling. A few of us have encountered it before I'm sure: editors that personally despise pro wrestling, try to claim that sources that are known to be reliable are otherwise, and wouldn't mind at all seeing it disappear from Wikipedia altogether.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is indeed. WP policy is paramount to any article, of course. I do still think that the FAC of Triple H being close so quickly is unjust though. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
If wrestling isn't good enough to be covered by reliable sources, perhaps it's not good enough for Wikipedia. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Can someone with rollback rights please take this page back to my last revision? There were about 19 unconstructive edits overnight, and I don't have the patience to revert each individually. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Done. I'm going to WP:RFPP about this. D.M.N. (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Maybe I do need to look into getting rollback rights. I normally just revert one-by-one, but that was too big a task for first thing in the morning. Anyhow, according to the feedback at RFPP, 19 in one night and a long history of vandalism and unconstructive edits is apparently "not enough" to justify protection. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Somone to add to managers category...
I don't know how to add this, but Matt Striker needs to be added to Category:Professional wrestling managers and valets, as he's been managing Big Daddy V for a good while now, plus he managed Mark Henry for a bit. People who have managed less are in that category, so Striker should be added.