Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WP:PW	Talk • PPV expansion • Members • Style guide • Templates • Assessment • Newsletter • Stub articles • Cleanup listing • Article alerts • Broken external links

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

This talk page is automatically archived by User:MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 70. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70

Contents 1 Name of Finishers 1.1 Conclusion? 2 Championship and accomplishments sections 3 Ideas 4 Nicknames 5 Tazz 6 Headers 7 Solie 8 My attempt at a FL 9 Title info box on "list pages" 10 Eyes? 11 PPV GA 12 ECW on Syfy 13 Anyone up for bringing back Collaboration? 14 User:Samgibbs 15 Protection 16 General source 17 Night of Champions 18 Edge Injured

[edit] Name of Finishers

Consistency is the fruit of Wikipedia. I know we love to be consistent, in everything we do. But I have noticed some inconsistencies. Namely, in regards to finisher names. Just looking at the Facebuster page alone, I see two. Early in the article (in the leaping reverse STO section) Shelton Benjamin's finisher, Paydirt, is written exactly like that. Later, Triple H's finisher, the Pedigree, written like that. But it doesn't stop there. Elsewhere (no particular instances come to mind) I have seen finisher names written like this. I know that in the "In wrestling" sections, finisher names are Bold and Italicized. How can we fix these inconsistencies? --Oxico (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The move names shouldn't be bold in the prose, that much I'm 100% on (MOS:BOLD). I like the idea of italicizing them in the prose, though, to show that is a special and to differentiate with other wrestling terms. I've never been a fan of the bolding in the "In wrestling" section either...I've always thought it would be better to have a list of "Finishing moves" and "Signature moves" to separate them, because someone who wasn't familiar with the wrestling articles would have no idea what the bolding meant. Other opinions? Nikki♥311 19:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Pretty good point, though I do like the bolding there for aesthetic purposes. That being said, there is little point in it being there if the sections are separated as they are in some articles. Consistency is definitely needed though. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think capitalizing them in prose differentiates them from other wrestling moves enough. But you're right about non-wrestling fans not knowing what bolding meant. Tony2Times (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The thing with the bolding is that, in some wrestling articles (Cyber Kong's page comes to mind) there are not distinct "Finisher" and "Signature Moves" sections, and bolding is used to differentiate. I vote for using Italics for finisher names outside the "In wrestling" sections. --Oxico (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm just throwing wild ideas out here but we could always make distinct finisher and signature move sections. A lot of British wrestlers, particularly the older kind, don't have finishing moves, just lots of signature moves and so they just need the one list, while I think a lot of indie wrestlers don't really need a signature moves list because they have too many whereas WWE wrestlers tend to have a limited move category. Chris Hero for example has a list longer than both my arms. Tony2Times (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

But to go back to my point of consistency, I don't think WWE superstars and ROH wannabes should be treated differently. Indie and WWE wrestlers' pages should have the same format and, uh, "In wrestling" section length, am I right? Gettin' back to the main point, is it agreed that finisher names are to be italicized in prose? --Oxico (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, though I don't think "ROH wannabees" is an appropriate term. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I kid, I kid, I love ROH. Danielson FTW! As for the "In wrestling/Wrestling" sections, I think many of them can be shortened by just removal of some trivial information. I mean, I think it is universally agreed that every wrestler below 250 lbs (and few above) uses a Dropkick at least once a match.--Oxico (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What does FTW mean? 173.136.124.5 (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I pretty much thought it meant "fuck the world".

For the Win! Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It can mean both, it depends on the context (I am pretty sure Oxico is talking about "For the Win" in this case). TJ Spyke 05:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Other than some exceptions (like Booker T has used a missile dropkick as a regular move for years), I agree that some of the more common moves can be removed from many wrestlers articles. TJ Spyke 23:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Now let's define "common moves". I think sunset flip, lariat ("a" or "e"?), clothesline, some diving moves, and some kicks can be common moves. More uncommon moves are ones that are slightly modified by the user (ie Tyson Kidd's dropkick) or are used excessively (and I am talking about the moves that are shown in promos).--Oxico (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Common moves: Dropkick, clothesline, etc. Instances where these are notable mentions: A.J. Styles, JBL, etc. We should only list common moves when they mean something. A.J. is known for his dropkick combo type thing. The clothesline from Hell is JBL's finisher. I believe we shouldn't even list not meaningful moves. Only ones used as finishers or the wrestler is known for. Look at Randy Orton. The only ones needed are: O–Zone, RKO, Running punt to an opponent's head, Randy Orton Stomp, and Rope hung implant DDT. The rest are done by everyone else.--WillC 05:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that. European Uppercut isn't a generic move, nor is the bodyscissors and a few other moves listed there. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The uppercut I somewhat agree with then disagree with. The uppercut is used alot by Orton, but so is the headlock and some even call him Randy "headlock" Orton. Should we list that very common move as well? I see multiple people use the uppercut. Both Hardys, Trips, Angle, etc. Mostly all submission wrestlers or strong style wrestlers use the uppercut. Orton rarely uses the bodyscissors and the move isn't that notable in the first place.--07:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We should list the headlock, yes. He uses it multiple times in every match. And I can't offhand think of another current wrestler who consistently uses it. I'm aware of how many people use the uppercut, but now go ahead and list those that don't. I think said list would be much longer. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sykes has a point, IMHO. But to truly grasp which moves are common and are tied to the wrestler, we'd have to edit and argue over just about every wrestler....ever. I think we should set some sort of guideline to determine which moves to keep, and which ones to dub "common". To me, Randy Orton has a notable moveset. A Fave Five, if you will, is a common practice amongst wrestlers, even though some (like Randy) use a dropkick in there. I think Orton's dropkick is notable in its height. Our current Orton moveset is almost perfect: just the gutwrench elevated neckbreaker, the forearm shots and the wrenching chinlock, I believe, are expendable. --Oxico (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It's true, this could lead to huge edit warring. But Like I said earlier, a Fave Five may work for WWE and some TNA wrestlers, but folk on the indie circuit have a much wider reportoire and don't necessarily use the same sequence of three or four moves every match. I think it's very much a play-it-by-ear situation. I'm still very much opposed to finishers being in italics in prose - words in italics tend to be published works (novels, albums, television programmes &c) whereas a finisher is merely a special move, capitalising it where other moves are lower cased makes it obvious enough. Tony2Times (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If they aren't italicized in the prose, then they shouldn't be italicized in the "In wrestling" section either. Either way we decide to do this, it needs to be consistent. Nikki♥311 19:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I never understood why we italicised them for In Wrestling anyway. Tony2Times (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

MOS:ITALICS seems to support your argument that it isn't necessary...italics can be used for emphasis, but I don't know if that's really what we are going after here. Nikki♥311 20:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion?

So...from this conversation and the other section above started by iMatthew...should we implement the following changes?:

• Limit "In wrestling" sections to moves, managers/wrestlers managed, and entrance themes (but only if they can be properly sourced).
  • Unsourced moves, in particular, frequently violate the "no original research" policy. Good sources for moves include reviews of pay-per-views and episode recaps by sources deemed reliable on the Style Guide page. Online World of Wrestling can be used for wrestling moves if no other source exists.
  • Nicknames relevant to a storyline or ones that are frequently used, can be mentioned in the prose, if sourced.
• List "Finishing moves" and "Signature moves" in separate sections to differentiate between them, and remove both bolding and italics in the move names.
  • Lists should not include generic moves used by most wrestlers unless in exceptional cases. Ex: JBL's Clothesline from Hell.
• Moves listed in prose should be neither bold nor italic per MOS:BOLD and MOS:ITALICS.

How's that? Anything I should add, remove, or modify? Nikki♥311 20:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, are you saying that nicknames should be moved into prose and not included In Wrestling anymore, or saying keep it IW but also put it in prose - reliant on sources? Everything else, I'm in favour of. Tony2Times (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The MOS:ITALICS says italics can be used sparingly, which is about as often as names of finishers show up in articles. I like the idea of using italics (just italics) for names of finishers differentiate them from names of moves. To simplify, a non/new wrestling fan may become confused when they see "RKO (Jumping cutter)". I know that when I started, I didn't know what an RKO or jumping cutter was, so to differentiate between the wrestler's name for the move and the move itself, I think italics would be sufficient. "RKO (Jumping cutter)" ftw. On another note, I would just like to say that I found the other "In wrestling" sections quite informative. --Oxico (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think putting moves in italics helps at all and looks ugly. Just putting them in quotations is sufficient IMO. TJ Spyke 21:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

To Tony: not listed in "In wrestling", but written in the prose (reliant on sources), if the nickname is worthy of mentioning or is relevant to a storyline (for background and context). For example, Randy Orton began attacking legendary wrestlers, which led to him being dubbed "The Legend Killer"...or something like that. To Oxico: I missed that part, maybe we should discuss the italics thing more thoroughly (b/c I really do like them as well). Nikki♥311 21:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, looking at WWE.com and some SLAM Wrestling recaps...they both just write them out with no italics or quotations...so now I'm really torn. Maybe we should ask at one of the MoS talk pages or something and get some outside opinions? Nikki♥311 21:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've asked the question here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Special names for wrestling moves. Let's see what they have to say (if they respond), and move on from there. Nikki♥311 21:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

<--To go back to entrance themes, I'd like to suggest that they be in prose in the In wrestling section, for example, like the way it's done in John Hennigan#In wrestling. I think it makes much more sense that way, as most of the time there's explanatory notes after each theme like if they used as part of a tag team/stable/etc, e.g Randy Orton#In wrestling, Triple H#In wrestling. Putting it in prose makes it look a lot better imo. I'd also quite like other editors to be stringent about removing unsourced theme names added by random ips. About 4 different names have been added to Milena Roucka just today, all of them unsourced and most likely made up by fans. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm entirely against music being in prose as something like John Hennigan's is only after 2 or 3 years in. After a seasoned career it could grow to an unwieldy size, look at Foley's, and that's without descriptions on quite a few songs. If the style of song is important to the character it can be mentioned in the article when the gimmick changes. It's a bullet point section for quick facts, prose is unnecessary and can encourage vague and ambiguous description of music. All it needs is, where available and sourceable, the title and artist, preferably with the years used. A clamp down on unsourced theme names is a wise idea. Tony2Times (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good compromise...a description in the prose if important to the character/storyline/what-have-you and a quick list in the "In wrestling". Lots of times, the song has nothing to do with the character so a description wouldn't even be needed. On the other hand, Foley's list would probably only be half that size if we sourced it and removed unsourceable names. When removing names, I usually try and do a quick search for a good source before just removing it. Nikki♥311 00:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I kind of like that compromise, but the problem is that people don't just list the name, artist and years used. They start listing stuff like "used for promos" (from HHH) or "used as part of ____", which is why I think it should be in prose, becuase I think it looks better to have it in sentences. Or should we just remove the extra notes? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This all sounds good to me, especially OWOW being allowed if no other source exists. Quite often, that's the case. That being said, I'd assume anything at WP:PW/MOS#Sources in the first two lists is acceptable. When I source moves, I tend to go through those sources first, then if I can't find anything there, I try 411Mania, then OWOW. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Most notes probably can't be sourced anyway (like the promo thing). Maybe if we have a standard sentence for when the song is used as part of a tag team or stable... "used while a part of ________" or "used while teaming with ________" and that be the only sort of note added. I can't off the top of my head think of another instance where a note would be necessary, unless someone else can. Nikki♥311 00:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Would "Line in the Sand by Motorhead (with Evolution)" not be enough? Brevity is the key I feel. Tony2Times (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That would work! I was just giving the first example that popped in my head. I like that better because it would work any either a tag team or stable situation. For Stephanie McMahon: "My Time" by Whomever-it-was (with Triple H) or "No Chance" (with The Corporation. Not sure if that's factually correct, but you get the idea.... Nikki♥311 02:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't think of anything myself. One thing we haven't discussed is "signature foreign objects." In general, I think these can be removed. The few wrestlers that have them like Edge and Triple H can simply have them listed somewhere in the prose. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

<--So, since all discussion appears to have died, does anyone object to me updating the relevant parts of WP:PW/SG then? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Championship and accomplishments sections

When titles are won by the one person under a few different names, i.e. Jeff Hardy won the World Tag Team Championship (WWE) under the names World Tag Team Championship and WWF Tag Team Championship, how is it listed? On Jeff Hardy's for example, it is listed as "WWF/E World Tag Team Championship", with the names combined. This seems inaccurate, my reading of that would be that the Championship was called the WWF World Tag Team Championship when he won it (false according to the World Tag Team Championship (WWE) article) and then he won it another time when it was called the WWE World Tag Team Championship (again false). Is this simply for brevity or aesthetic or what? I ask mainly because this affects other wrestlers like Davey Richards, who won the PWG World Tag Team Championship when it was known as the PWG Tag Team Championship and the PWG World Tag Team Championship. What do we do then? Just list it simply as PWG World Tag Team Championship, even though it's inaccurate? Or do we list it as PWG Tag Team Championship/PWG World Tag Team Championship? Or even PWG (World) Tag Team Championship? Has there been a consensus formed on this before that I'm not aware of, or did people just start writing the championships in this way? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say if a wrestler only ever won a title under one name then list it as that name with a piped link to the right page (eg Randy Savage only every won the WWF Heavyweight Championship, so it should be listed as that then piped to the WWE Championship). If the belt changed name and then they won the title again then I would say list the two differences (eg Jericho has won the IC title in WWF and WWE so it would be WWF/WWE Intercontinental title). Darrenhusted (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I like it the way I did it with Davey Richards amoung other wrestlers who have won the PWG Tag, ROH Tag, etc.--WillC 10:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Will, how did you write it? PWG Tag Team Championship/PWG World Tag Team Championship? Because I would agree with you, that's the way I feel it should be written, but PCE (talk · contribs) disagreed, so I thought some more opinions would be useful. Re: to Darren, so in Jeff Hardy for example, how do you think we should write his WWF Tag Team Championship/World Tag Team Championship reigns? The way it currently is in his article, the way I just wrote it^^, or a different way altogether? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 01:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I wrote it as such. For the PWG tag if someone held it under the PWG Tag Team Championship and not while it was world I left the World out. Now if they won it under both I wrote it PWG Tag Team Championship/PWG World Tag Team Championship. The same with the ROH World Tag Team Championship: ROH Tag Team Championship/ROH World Tag Team Championship.--WillC 04:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

@Nici, yes. Hardy's WWF wins are listed as such and piped, and the titles won under different names are doen with a /, this seems like the most logical format. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If the title has changed titles properly, I would prefer a slash. Eg NWA European/World Championship whereas if a word has just been added I prefer brackets eg ROH (World) Championship. Plus with Jeff the belt was called the WWF World Tag Team Championship when he won it the first few times, and then the World Tag Team Championship recently so it does make sense. Tony2Times (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the title was just called WWF Tag Team Championship, not WWF World Tag Team Championship. TJ Spyke 21:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The two were used interchangably for a long time, certainly during the time Jeff was winning it they said both. Tony2Times (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Unofficially maybe. Officially it was just the WWF Tag Team Championship when Jeff held it and they always said "World Wrestling Federation Tag Team Champions". TJ Spyke 23:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

<--So, just to summarise this, and btw, I intend on adding this to WP:PW/SG so more opinions are very welcome,

1. If a championship is won under two separate names, they both should be listed, e.g. WWF Tag Team Championship/World Tag Team Championship.
2. If the name of the championship, however, has be renamed purely by the addition or subtraction of a single word, it should be listed with the differing word in parentheses, e.g. ROH (World) Championship.

Does anyone have any objections/comments? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

My feeling is that the combo names look ugly. Look at Edge. He's held the gold so many times when the title had so many different names. He's held it as WWF, WWE, World, and now Unified WWE. I generally think the more common name of the belt should be used, for easy readibility, and to avoid confusion. Mshake3 (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how that would look. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well what we should do is go on a case-by-case basis, going with what looks best, as opposed to a universal rule where half of them look ugly. For example, refering to Edge again, I'd list the two titles under accomplishments as simply World Tag Team, and WWE Tag Team, that way, the reader can easily tell what belts they're refering to. Mshake3 (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What about this - why not just use whatever the title was named AT THE TIME IT WAS WON? ArcAngel (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Because merging five different names into one looks ugly. And technically, he didn't win a title under that merged name at any point. I suppose you could spell out the full name at each encarnation, and say how many times he won the title under each encarnation. But that would be so repetitive. Mshake3 (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ideas

I've been working on a main article or I guess you could say a season article for all of TNA's 2008 PPV events for the passed few months. Today I went to the subpage and removed alot of the info so that I could rewrite it. Now I'm drawing a blank on what else would be useful to add to the article. I was wondering if anyone would have any ideas. Each event will have a small section summarizing the matches, production, reception, etc. The format I have now seems like it is missing something. To see what I have so far check User:Wrestlinglover/2008 Total Nonstop Action Wrestling pay-per-view events. I had an idea to have a section comparing the reception of the entire year to that of WWE's. I think that would be useful. Plus comparing it to TNA's previous year's events reception.--WillC 12:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No reason to have every event listed outside of the table when it is already inside the table. Better to remove all those useless subsection which all they do is link to the main article (something the table already does). And maybe you could just keep it as a list and eliminate the reception. Comparing it to WWE is trivial. Wikipedia is not a Venn Diagram. Raaggio 17:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be list cruft if I removed all you say I should.--WillC 17:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nicknames

This may have been brought up already but if it hasn't here it goes.Does anyone find it a bit redunant to put nicknames that are just shortened versions of the persons' birth name such as Matthew "Matt" Hardy.I just find it odd to include the shortened version of the birth name when it is stated in the infobox.What does everyone else think? If people believe that this is just to include the persons' most commonly used name then it should be on everyone's page and not just a few pages.Thanks.(MgTurtle (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)).

• Nicknames are not the same as ringnames or shortened versions of birth names, so yes to say "Matt Hardy" is a nickname is way off and frankly silly. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tazz

Would anybody mind giving their opinion on the paragraph about TNA Wrestling in Tazz's article? The conversation is on the article's talk page here. I already have, but I would like to see more than two people's opinions (mine and the IP that added it) on the topic. Thanks guys! Bmg916^Speak 15:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Headers

I know this was discussed at least twice before, but the discussions never came to a satisfying conclusion. Does anybody have a problem with me adding into the style guide that headers should be five words or less (not including dates)? I think, at least for now anyway, it will solve the problem of people making them too long. We can always go back and change it if the "5 or less" rule doesn't work out. Nikki♥311 19:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me.--WillC 19:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The debate turned into a conversation about something else on both occasions. I would be in favour of less. Years and feds, but if others want feuds then I'd say cap it at five. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that's fine. We can always change it if it doesn't work out. Thanks, gENIUS101 19:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Anything to get away from headers like Super Chico Dethtour 2007, Texarkana Title win and aftermath. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think 5 words is a good limit. The headers should really be mainly years and the names of the promotions in their career section.--Truco ₅₀₃ 22:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Added. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Headings. I've also added some other general rules from WP:HEAD that I see a lot of break. Nikki♥311 01:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't career the relevant section? Darrenhusted (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not. It could also apply to Promotions, tag teams or stables, etc. Nikki♥311 19:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm in support of it being five words or less, also can we make it clear that it doesn't need to cover everything, just the main story/angle of that period like winning the Rumble and then a world title can just be covered by Royal Rumble winner, because one leads on to the next. Tony2Times (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Solie

We use Solie.org is many GAs and FLs. Why? It says on the MoS that it is still questionable. Can anyone tell me why it is reliable enough to be used in these articles? Likewise with Wrestling Titles.com.--WillC 19:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the ref being used is the Wrestling Titles book by Duncan and Royal, but some page on Solie say at the top "information from Wrestling Titles by..." so it is used for verifiability (so people have something to look at to verify without having to have the book in front of them). If the title page doesn't have that disclaimer, I don't think it can be used as a ref. I think. Nikki♥311 19:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrestling-titles.com is an absolute no. It still has not been proven reliable. Solie.org is only reliable when it is publishing information from Wrestling Title Histories by Gary Will and Royal Duncan, and the promotions themselves. But if its published by their staff, it may be questioned for verifiability because the staff writer may not be reliable.--Truco ₅₀₃ 22:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably responsible for adding Solie refs to a lot of articles. Generally, I used them regardless of if they part of the Duncan Royal book or not, due to lack of anything better to use for listed championships. I generally think that something is better than nothing unless a source is proven to be unreliable. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well we really should find a reliable third party source for championship histories. Sometimes the company history is not enough, so somehow we are going to have to prove that a site has reliable fact checking.--WillC 00:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's more of an issue of companies whose sites don't keep title histories. That being the vast majority of indy feds. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A 3rd party source is always preferable over a company source, any day. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] My attempt at a FL

Here I decided to get Dream Gate to FL. But I'm having a problem with the table. It's just keeps disappearing. Anyone can help? --Numyht (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've cleared up some of the mess for you, the problem is you are forgetting to end some of the Wiki Code. AfroGold - Afkatk 10:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you just asking to help the table from disappearing or would you like some more input on the article in general? I've got 3 lists to Feature and have 2 candidates on there right now, every time I put a list up I learn something and I'd be happy to help you get this list "Feature list" ready. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Once I finish it in a few days time, I'll give you a message. --Numyht (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Title info box on "list pages"

I've been wondering about this for a while - why is there not an info box on the "List of XXX Champions" pages that have been split from the main Championship article? What would the problem be to have the info box on both pages?? MPJ-DK (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking about, for example, why WWE Women's Championship has one but List of WWE Women's Champions does not, my only answer would be that it would just be the exact same thing in two places. I don't have an opinion either way at this point, but I'm assuming that's the reason. Nikki♥311 19:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably the same reason that articles of episodes of TV series don't have the TV show infobox on them. List of King of the Hill episodes (for example) does not have the same infobox that King of the Hill has. I don't think it would hurt the articles, but it wouldn't really help them either. The "List of X champions" articles already have all the same info (picture of the title, when it was created, past names of the title, longest and shortest reigns, etc.) TJ Spyke 19:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It woud be quite tautological to have a list of champions infbox on the list of champions page. Tony2Times (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Eyes?

Hey all. I'm going out of town until July 6, so my computer access will probably be limited for the next couple of days. I'm only mentioning it here, because I have several of our articles nom'ed at WP:GAN and at Template talk:DYK. I'd like some eyes watching in case I can't answer or fix something in time...it would be appreciated! Also, any admin requests would probably get done faster if someone else was asked. Thanks guys! :) Nikki♥311 19:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll help watch.--WillC 19:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] PPV GA

Okay, a few weeks or months ago, I can't remember, we were talking about whether WWE No Way Out, etc should be FLs. There was talk of them being made into articles. I said I was working on TNA Bound for Glory to see if we could get one to GA. Well I just finished the article with an interesting format. Any comments on it would be nice, just leave them on the talk page.--WillC 08:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ECW on Syfy

Due to the Sci Fi Channel renaming itself to Syfy, ECW on Sci Fi will have to be renamed to ECW on Syfy next week (which WWE have already started to use now [1]). I was wondering what would be the best time to move the page, on Tuesday when the channel renames itself or next Thursday when the next episode airs? --  Oakster   08:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the best time to move would be when the channel effectively renames itself as that's when the renaming of the program will also come into effect. AfroGold - Afkatk 08:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

WWE is still using ECW on Sci Fi too [2]. We should wait for now. TJ Spyke 15:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The renaming should take place on June 7, 2009 at 12:00am when the channel officially renames itself. Please note everyone that all mentions of ECW before this date should remain as ECW on Si Fi and please do not go around changing each redirect to ECW on Syfy its not necessary because that's the purpose of redirects.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, after the actual channel is re-named officially. iMatthew ^talk at  13:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

When the channel does it doesn't really matter. If WWE continued to call the show "ECW on Sci Fi" (which they currently still do) even after the channel changed its' name, we would still call it "ECW on Sci Fi" as that is the official name of the show. TJ Spyke 15:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not even see that WWE is fully using the new name of ECW on Syfy now. [3] But I still do think that it should be moved on the day of the channel's official renaming, because that's what it seems what WWE is targeting.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I recommend just getting the move over with. WWE has confirmed that the show is renamed, so the name of the article should reflect this. Otherwise, it will just lead to edit wars for the next two days, at which point it would be moved to the very name the edit wars would be moving it from. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. WWE has already updated their website to reflect the change. We should do the same.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

TJ's right, it should reflect what WWE call it not the TV channel. It's not Raw on USA. If GCF is right and WWE have made it clear they're renaming the show, move it now. Tony2Times (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that WWE calls it 3 different things: "ECW on Sci Fi", "ECW on Syfy", "ECW on Sy Fy". TJ Spyke 22:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The only variation that I've been able to find (without digging too deep) is on the capitalization of the letter "F" in the name. The official name of the channel is "Syfy" with a lowercase "f" so I think that's what we should go with. If there are any instances of "Sci Fi" being used on WWE.com, it's probably because they haven't gotten around to changing every single reference yet.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not some deep obscure page on their site, it's the main page fore the shows from WWE that calls it ECW on Sci Fi. So WWE still considers the official name of the show to be "ECW on Sci Fi". TJ Spyke 23:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say there weren't any, I just said that they probably haven't gotten around to changing their whole site. This page has been completely redone, complete with Syfy's new logo: http://www.wwe.com/shows/ecw/?cid=2009NEWTOPNAV-00 Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

William Regal's section on this article even refers to last week's episode as ECW on Syfy. http://www.wwe.com/shows/ecw/articles/10573924/newfaces/ Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

See this is what GCF was talking about, look at all the commotion. The best thing to do is wait until Tuesday, because I'm sure WWE will make the necessary changes when the channel is renamed, because they will look stupid still calling it "Sci Fi" when the new name will be "Syfy". The official name will be ECW on Syfy (the official name of the channel).--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I entered this discussion against my better judgment. I regret my decision. I'm out. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone up for bringing back Collaboration?

I really think we need to bring back Collaboration. HHow about everyone else? PXK ^T /_C 15:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There is not enough activity in the project to warrant another collaboration. The main reason why it was shut down.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If we could somehow get activity going with this I think it'd be a pretty cool thing for the project again. AfroGold - Afkatk 21:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Truco would be correct. There are not enough active members to do this, and I believe that editors are still getting articles done without it. However, I'm sure that if you have an article to collaborate on, many editors here would be willing to do so. iMatthew ^talk at  13:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Matthew. I don't know that it would work to have a set amount of time to work together on an article, or that a large group of people could agree to work on one article for an extended period of time. However, how about you (PXK) suggest an article that you are planning to work on? I think people would be willing to help out to some extent. It's certainly worth a try if it will improve one of this project's articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree here as well. A set collaboration every few weeks isn't the way to go. But suggesting any user suggesting a collaboration here once in a while (with no set time limit) could work out quite well. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Samgibbs

I don't know what is wrong with this kid, but it has to stop. Okay, first he is creating all these articles that aren't needed, though he says he is going to expand them. Now he has nominated WWE Backlash for FL. I opposed it saying it should go to GAN, now he has nominated it for GA. It isn't talking much. So can we somehow get some order. I'm gald to see some expansion, but he is causing more harm than good at this point.--WillC 18:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Can you provide a link to the articles that aren't needed? Also, when you say "It isn't talking much," do you mean him? I fail to see how he is causing any harm, he just might need a little guidance. WP:AGF, he's not trying to bother anybody. iMatthew ^talk at  13:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think by "It isn't much" he means that if it isn't too much to ask we can hopefully calm him down a bit, he recently moved WWE Extreme Rules to Extreme Rules (2009) and I think we need to a have a little chat with him about stuff like this. AfroGold - Afkatk 17:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• • He is creating more PPV articles. All the Backlash and Judgment Day events have articles now. They aren't needed at the moment. There are plenty of articles already created that need expansion. Moving articles without discussing is another thing. Plus above with the nomination at FL, then nominating it for GA without getting the FLC closed. He is causing a bit of harm. I see he is trying to do good, but he isn't doing much.--WillC 20:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to warn this kid before, as nice but firmly as possible. He constantly made new and unnecessary articles for UK indie federations and didn't even do the bare basic of sourcing even after I told him how to - and he replied on my talk page so he is aware of messages being left. I thought he'd disappeared, evidently not. Tony2Times (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well there has to be something we can do. I don't believe he needs to be blocked because he has done nothing to warrant one. But if users keep creating articles that aren't going to be expanded, then we are going to have tons of stubs. We already have too many to begin with. If I could get him to talk more I would help him understand the process more if that is possible.--WillC 03:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You may want to gather up the evidence and head over to ANI. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

ECW on Sci Fi - I feel we should request this page to be put on protection till July 7 Noon, I feel we are going to get quite a few edits concerning the SyFy change, I've already had to revert 1 today. AfroGold - Afkatk 21:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Currently, there is not enough vandalism going on to call for protection. If it gets worse for any reason, feel free to leave a request at WP:RFPP. iMatthew ^talk at  13:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] General source

Hey guys, don't know if anyone has already found this website but I know it's sometimes hard to find sources for the basic facts of wrestling, as we all tend to know them. US Pro Wrestling has a rules and history section that might provide sources for this kinda thing. Tony2Times (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• What makes this a Reliable souce?? MPJ-DK (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Another reason I brought it here for discussion. Tony2Times (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Night of Champions

Since no one seems willing to explain it to me in a way that makes any sense, I need some clarification on something if possible. On Night of Champions (2009) there is a match listed as Randy Orton vs. TBD. It was my understanding that we do not list matches without knowing the participants so I tried to remove the listing. I was then told that since it was stated on Raw that Randy Orton will defend the title at the pay per view, the match can be listed, even though we don't know who the participants will be (non spoilers) and that removing it would be vandalism. Using that logic, I added a listing for the other championship matches since we know that every championship will be on the line as has been officially announced since the birth of the event in 2007 and is written in giant gold letters on the poster. Those listings were removed and I was told they could not be added because those matches have not been announced. By that logic, the Randy Orton vs. TBD should not be listed either because the participants have not been officially announced. I'm trying to go by the guidelines here, but in this case, the guidelines(at least how they've been presented to me) directly contradict each other. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone else may want to explain it more, but matches are only added one they are officially announced. It was announced on Raw that Orton will defend the WWE Championship. Yes we know the other titles will be on the line, but no matches involving them have been announced. It's the same thing we do with the Royal Rumble, we know the Royal Rumble match will happen at the PPV, but we don't add the match until it is announced. TJ Spyke 02:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Edge Injured

Edge suffered a severe ankle injury (thought to be a torn Achilles tendon) at a house show this week and could be out of action for up to a year depending on if the tendon is actually torn or not. Be on the look out for edits to his page, the Unified Tag Team Championships pages, and the the pages for Cody Rhodes and Ted DiBiase (WWE is rumored to be trying to find a way to get the titles to Priceless as soon as possible). Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)