Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 64

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

→

Archive 70

List of current champions in World Wrestling Entertainment

I tried redoing the table with images [1], and I need opinions because I have mixed feelings. It looks good, but it also looks cluttered, and most of the images are too tall. Thoughts? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I like it, but what about when their is no image available for said champion(s)?--TRUCO 22:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually really like it. specially the Melina and Maryse pics =)  ←Kalajan→  22:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I kind of like it, too, but I agree about some of the images being too tall. You could try resizing them or using alternative images (Melina has others, for example, but none that I know of with the belt). I also foresee the problem of having champions with no pics. If there was more than one without a pic, the tables would look off, IMO. Therefore...I have to say that I am overall neutral on this issue. Nikki♥311 23:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, unless Kizarny wins a title tonight, we're not going to run into a problem with lack of images any time soon since most of the active wrestlers have at least one image. We can figure out what to do when that happens. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Question. See here.

"Hickenbottom is one of the senior performers in WWE, having joined in 1987. He is one of only two wrestlers, the other being The Undertaker, to have appeared on the very first episode of Monday Night Raw who are still with the company today." Is this needed. It is merely trivial that he appeared on the first RAW. WWE doesn't even mention it. Same thing with the Undertaker? Simon^KSK 21:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the more info the best, if it's not true, well find a source!  ←Kalajan→  21:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that it needed a source. I said that it is Trivial and not needed. We are a n Encyclopedia, not a trivia site. While it may be fact it is not important. Simon^KSK 21:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well he is a senior, but the Raw thing probably isn't notable.  ←Kalajan→  21:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the biggest problems I see is that the info isn't located in the article anywhere (which makes it new info introduced in the lead, a no-no). If it was mentioned in the article, it would be part of the summary ("he's been here awhile, see article below for explanation"), but I think it can definitely be worded to sound less trivial: "Hickenbottom is one of the senior performers in WWE, having joined in 1987." Just removing the second sentence makes it sound less trivial, IMO. Nikki♥311 23:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll fix it. Simon^KSK 23:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Simon^KSK 23:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Brian Adams (wrestler) under GA review

Hello there, the above article, which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the WP:GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've started this, but would appreciate some help. Nikki♥311 01:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Prowrestling.com

Should this site be avoided as a source? It's a malicious site. I know on my old computer it caused a lot of viruses, and apparently it's still doing the same. I decided to check out the site since a user s using it for the RR 2009 page and got this warning:

"What happened when Google visited this site?

Of the 1447 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 101 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2009-01-26, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2009-01-26." [2]. So basically anybody checking the site will have to run their security program afterwards. TJ Spyke 00:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If its that malicious, then hell yeah it should be avoided.--TRUCO 00:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. Is it possible to have it blacklisted and get a list of articles that currently use it? I know there is a list of articles that use obsessedwithwrestling.com. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about Beer Money Inc's luck?

Why has that got no article? Just James Storm and Robert Roode articles? Am I wrong or something? If they don't have an article they should, they are TNA Tag Team Champions! Speedboy Salesman (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

They are not notable, the tag-team itself. The duo has not been around for a long time, and one TNA Tag Team Championship reign does not warrant their notability or warrant themselves an article. If they tag team, for at least over a year, then maybe they can get an article, but for now, no.--TRUCO 23:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because they are champions does not mean they are notable yet. Lets discuss this though, since it might be timeto make an article. Two time tag champions, beenteaming since June 08.--WillC 23:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Two tag team championship reigns does not establish notability, especially in seven months time. This is like another Cody/Holly discussion. Give them at least a year, if they make it that long.--TRUCO 23:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, considering TNA has built the entire division around Beer Money, they have a crap load of merchidise made about themseleves, and have been featured on a few rough cuts. They are the new AMW.--WillC 23:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally think that they have kinda passed WP:N. Will is right. Time to make a new article? Simon^KSK 23:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's one's opinion. Let's say if they abolished right now, they would not be notable. Notability is not garnered through merchandise or through how the promotion scripts its storylines. More time is needed to establish notability.--TRUCO 23:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's my opinion - if they manage to stick together for a year, THEN they might pass WP:N standards. As of now I would be hard pressed to support an article for Beer Money. ArcAngel (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this project takes the notability guidelines very seriously. That's not necessarily a bad thing, though. But looking at some of the recent articles created on Wikipedia, WP:PW is much more strict than many other editors. For example, at WP:GAN, there is a series of articles: each player on a cricket team during a competition has his own article about his performance in that competition. In addition, each of the four games in the competition is given an article. This is the equivalent of giving an article to each member of the Phillies and Rays about their performance in the 2008 World Series and then making five more articles, one about each game. As another example, there is a 16-article hook nominated at T:TDYK. ONe of the articles is about a store. There is nothing noteworthy, aside from the fact that it is near where the Civil War ended. Likewise for nearby law offices — each one gets its own article. Likewise for each of four houses and two cabins. And so on and so on. If Wikipedia accepts these sorts of articles, an established tag team that seems to compete exclusively (or at least close) as tag team partners, has held title belts for a substantial period of time, and has been the subject of news stories should be considered notable. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Gary could not have said any better. Simon^KSK 23:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(edict conflict)Not all new articles stay on Wikipedia, some are AfD'd. Well considering the media coverage other sports get, it is generally notable for them to have an article per WP:ATHLETE, on the other hand some tag-teams aren't as notable. Beer Money has feuded with a couple of teams, and won the tag titles twice, in a way, that can warrant an article, but it would be better if a year since their formation would warrant their article. Priceless is a similar team, and are no way gaining any notability in WWE as a tag-team.--TRUCO 23:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(3 conflicts later!)Priceless is a good example. So far I have YET to see them compete as a tag team since the return of DiBiase. In fact, right now they seem to be in the "supporting Randy Orton" role right now, and will wrestle just a handful of times, if ever. Does being part of an alliance warrant an article? Not in my view. Maybe if BMI were to lose and re-gain the titles again, or simply hold onto them for a few more months, then they would warrant an article - in my view. ArcAngel (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If an article can be put together with independent reliable third party sources...so be it. That's what it takes to pass WP:N for most things/people. Is there any articles that mention the team? In my opinion, new teams are less likely to warrant articles than older teams, as there is more time for them to be mentioned in books and articles. Older teams that never received that coverage don't get articles...it should be the same for present teams. Nikki♥311 23:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I probably could build an article about them that would suit all the guidelines. This is in the future though, unless my work load in reallife just vanishes.--WillC 23:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I will try working on Beer Money, k? And, Priceless is no where near as notable as Beer M. They did not have ANY notable feuds. Will, You have too much Simon^KSK 23:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Simon, Priceless didn't really have any notable feuds (not too surprising considering the poor state of the tag team division in WWE). The Legacy looks like it could end up deserving an article in the future though (not right now) and Priceless could get a paragraph in that article since the 2 main members of Priceless are part of The Legacy. Beer Money, Inc. have pretty much been the focus of the tag team division in TNA for over 6 months and are 2 time TNA World Tag Team Champions, it is also a tag team made up of 2 very notable wrestlers (it's like how a band can be considered notable just because it's made up of already notable musicians). I would compare it to how Rated-RKO was considered notable much soon than normal due to it being a regular tag team of 2 main event wrestlers. TJ Spyke 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It can be created, but it must have an engaging prose that proves its notability and is well referenced, not just an ol' stub article.--TRUCO 00:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't do stubs. Simon^KSK 01:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO, Beer Money, Inc. is already notable. And if you guys don't think that it deserves an article, then let me know, so I can recommend Rated-RKO, ECW Originals, The New Breed, T & A (professional wrestling), and especially The Main Event Mafia, which have only been together for 3 months. Raaggio 07:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to take a look at Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, too bad I'm not disrupting, and my comment actually made factual sense. No one can dispute the notability of an established tag team in the 2nd biggest promotion in USA, which is composed of two wrestlers who have/have had main event status, have held 2 tag team championships and have been together for 7 months, when articles about non-famous tag teams which had been around for 3-5 months and didn't have much impact like T&A and ECW Originals are comfortable with their own articles. PS. basically, your wrong accusing of me violating WP:POINT is a violation of WP:POINT itself. Raaggio 03:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No Way Out (2009)

Enjoy your watching and reverting. Nenog (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It was granted semi-protection, that should help it for awhile.--TRUCO 14:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, what exactly am I suppost to watch out for? Mshake3 (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism about the Elimination Chamber, and other matches/feuds. Genius101^Guestbook 13:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

So basically what we're suppost to do for every article. Gotcha. Mshake3 (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

HBK-JBL employement

Is this notable or is it not?  ←Kalajan→  21:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's definetly in way, way too much detail. That's practically the definition of week-by-week. And, by the way, wouldn't this discussion be better suited to Talk:Shawn Michaels? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 21:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

SimonKSK told me to ask for a 3rd opinion here. If you could make a few edits here it would be great -  ←Kalajan→  21:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be written as an encyclopedia article, if at all. I'm not in a position to comment on notability, but the average reader wouldn't know who is being referred to as "the first ever Undisputed Champion." There's a bit of a point of view problem as well. "Coveted" isn't encyclopedic, and things like "conflicted", "torn", and "more than happy to oblige" would be original research, as you don't actually know what is going on in someone's head. No "an" is needed in "an employment", and the next sentence is confusing because it starts with "which" and it refers to a "crisis" that is not explained. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I fixed it, so is it ready?  ←Kalajan→  17:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. It's all just a summary. People might know what "The Champ" is. Simon^KSK 21:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Could use some checking for WP:TONE. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 22:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone give me an update on what's going on in TNA? (for the newsletter)

I don't follow TNA, and Will hasn't been as active, so can someone bring me up to speed about what has happened in TNA since January 18 to the present. (Mostly notable news like championship exchanges, returns to television, injuries, releases, or official signings). Its for the newsletter.--TRUCO 23:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Awesome Kong is injured, I think. And I think AJ might be out due to what happened to him on the last iMPACT. But, no title changes, and signings. Simon^KSK 23:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this all after the 18th of January? You have links to these stories?--TRUCO 23:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The AJ one is a visual source. I don't know about AK, but I heard she's out. I'll look online. Simon^KSK 23:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

[3] It's wrestleview, I know. But I couldn't find anything from PWTorch. I check Again. Simon^KSK 23:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That link is dead, WV is an okay source for the newsletter. Does TNA's site have anything?--TRUCO 23:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Simon^KSK 23:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No news like that. The only news I can think of is 2 matches announced for Against All Odds (2009). Actually, TNA has announced (on their site) that they are in negotiations to do a PPV in the UK this year (http://www.tnawrestling.com/content/view/1253/84/ check the results for the January 21 show). TJ Spyke 23:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

TNA making its second tour of the UK should count as news, in fact it's the first tour of the UK as before it was just England, this time it ventured to Scotland too, and the Irish Republic. It seems more likely that they'll do a televised show than a PPV due to costs, Dixie Carter inferred as much in her promo in Glasgow at least. Also IGN's wrestling recap review discusses the injuries to Kevin Nash, Christy Hemme and Amazing Kong if that's a reliable enough source. Tony2Times (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture copy vio

File:Melina-Perez-Entrance.jpg looks to be a copy vio from the closeup straight-on shot (that would be close to impossible to get from the audience when she is at the top of the stage like that) and graphics to the right. Anyone with an account on Wikipedia Commons want to take care of this? Nikki♥311 02:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I would, but I'm waiting for them to take care of several other copyvio images. Mshake3 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Has been tagged for deletion. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Championships within stables/tag teams

I know that the style with stables is to only list championships held during their existence. Is this the same for tag teams? If so, New Age Outlaws need some adding because Road Dogg held the Hardcore belt and Gunn the IC belt while they were together in early '99 and perhaps more later in their tenure. Tony2Times (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have only seen belts the team won together listed. I don't know if we have a set policy on it though. The reason for stables is that they are just a collection of wrestlers, whereas tag teams are more like a single unit. Not the best wording, but I hope you got what I mean. TJ Spyke 00:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's always been my understanding that any championship won (singles or tag) when a tag team or stable is active is listed. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 01:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean TJ, a stable is an alliance of wrestlers while a tag team is an entity. I agree with Nici though personally but I thought I'd open it up. While NAO are set like TJ says, The Hardy Boys are like Nici says. I can't think off the top of my head of any tag team with a page who held more than the tag belt to see if there's any slight consensus. Tony2Times (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, i'm not against listing the singles titles. Like you said though, there are not really that many tag teams that had members win singles titles while the team is still together. TJ Spyke 02:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, this makes it all the more relevent that we do include them, as it is rare and more notable. Tony2Times (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

TNA World Heavyweight Championship

I'm working on the article because I've been trying to find time to get it sourced and long enough to take to GAN. Now I've been going back and forth for a few weeks whether or not to take the title history and move it into a separate list. Seeing there has only been five champions, does anyone think I should move it there or just leave it? Thought to ask if anyone had a problem with a new list even though it is not long enough to be taken to FL.--WillC 06:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no point in a separate list, for one because of the length of the list, and two because as long as you explain in the lead why their were unrecognized TNA reigns, the history for it will be fine. In addition, FLC's must list at least 10 contents.--SRX 14:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying I support it, but the WWE Divas Championship had a separate history page when McCool was still champion (meaning just 1 champion in the titles history).— Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ Spyke (talk • contribs)

That was because it needed to be created for the Featured topic of current WWE Champions to be entered into the topic as an audit article.--SRX 17:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

SRX you misunderstand. The correct history of this title begins with Angle and ends with Sting. Those are NWA Champions you are thinking of. TNA themselves credits Angle as the first TNA World Champion and Ken Shamrock as the first World's Heavyweight Champion i.e. NWA Championship. I'm making a different history for that to comply with TNA's history which has been removed from their web site for some reason because of the this talk page's discussions agreement. I want to make a list of all five champions in a separate page so I don't have that in the way at GAN.--WillC 18:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm confused, can you please clarify what you want to do because your description above doesn't help.--SRX 15:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think (based on the talk pages) that he wants to make one article called "List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions" that would just count the actual TNA Champions (starting with Kurt Angle) and another called something like "List of World Champions in TNA" that would also include all NWA Champions in TNA history (starting with Ken Shamrock) since for awhile TNA would consider wrestlers like Shamrock and A.J. Styles as former TNA World Champions. TJ Spyke 17:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

TJ has it mostly right. On Talk:TNA World Heavyweight Championship it was decided to make a list that held all World Champion in TNA, for an example see User:Wrestlinglover/List of World Heavyweight Champions in TNA. That is decided. I'm not asking about making that list. I'm asking to make a list of TNA World Heavyweight Champions, to get the list out of the title article. I've begun working on it, see User:Wrestlinglover/List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions. I hope this clears everything up. I'm wondering if no one has a problem with me moving the TNA Title history from the main article to a list, though it is too small to go to FLC.--WillC 22:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Whats the point of "List of World Champions in TNA"? And if it does have one, then why not have "List of World Champions in WWE" which spans 5 different titles? (WWE, World, WCW, ECW and Undisputed) 99.205.244.125 (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC) (this is [[User:Feedback]|Alex]], ex-member of the project)

Read the above discussions and the ones on the TNA talkpages. TNA has (or at least used to) consider wrestlers who won the NWA World Heavyweight Championship between June 2002 and May 2007 (when TNA controlled it) as former TNA World Heavyweight Champions, even though they also state that Kurt Angle was the first TNA World Champion. So while they acknowledged that the TNA World Title started in May 2007, they consider people like Ron Killings and A.J. Styles as former TNA World Champions even though they won the NWA World Title instead. WWE does not consider Rey Mysterio or Goldberg to be former WWE Champions (they do use the generic term "world champion" though for all 3 titles). Also, the Undidputed Championship was just the term they called the WWE Championship between December 2001 (when Jericho merged the WWF Championship and World Championship) and August 2001 (when Brock Lesnar announced he would only defend the title on SmackDown, forcing Raw GM Eric Bischoff to create the World Heavyweight Championship and making the WWE Championship no longer undisputed). TJ Spyke 04:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe you're mistaken. You just dont understand the grammar TNA is utilizing. When they refer to someone like AJ Styles as a former TNA World Heavyweight Champion, it doesn't mean that AJ Styles held the TNA World Heavyweight Championship. The term they use is grammatically divided, and not a term reffering to said championship. It's the same case as in WWE [which you denied, but you're wrong], because eventhough Triple H never held the World Heavyweight Championship 12 times, he is still considered a 12 time World Heavyweight Champion. When WWE and TNA use the term World Heavyweight Champion, it means that they held a world title, and when TNA adds TNA in front of it, it means they held a world title in TNA. This does not necessarily have to mean the recent TNA Championship. You guys are obviously misunderstanding the English language. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 04:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No, TNA has specifically called them "TNA World Heavyweight Champions". They haven't done in recently, but they have in the past. TJ Spyke 05:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with TJ, they never say World Heavyweight Champion. They always say TNA World Heavyweight Champion. If they said World Champion, this discussion would not be taking place.--WillC 05:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Understand, that Champion in TNA in correct grammatical English is the same thing as TNA Champion. Just like President of United States is equal to United States president. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 05:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. I have heard Tenay specifically call A.J. Styles a "former TNA World Heavyweight Champion". Lately they have stopped doing that though and just refere to people like Jeff Jarrett and A.J. Styles (who won the NWA Championship and not TNA Championship) as just former "world champions"). TJ Spyke 05:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If what you say is true, you have effectively explained and added to my explanation of why it is completely unnecessary to create the List of World Champions in TNA article, without creating a List of World Champions in WWE article. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 07:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

WWE doesn't consider Rey Mysterio or Goldberg former "WWE Champion"s, they don't consider Hulk Hogan a former "World Heavyweight Champion", etc. TJ Spyke 16:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think what Alex means here, is that they call A.J. Styles, Jarret etc former TNA World Heavyweight Champions as in calling them people who have won a World Heavyweight Championship in TNA. As the NWA title is a World Heavyweight Championship and just happened to be in TNA at the time A.J. and Jeff Jarret both won it, that made them TNA's World Heavyweight Champion recognised as a World Heavyweight Champion by TNA and NWA. The terms, while TNA had the championship, were available to be interchangeable, it's just that they weren't. PXK ^T /_C 16:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to be consist with WWE in this case. This extra article is only being made to settle the problems with the TNA Championship. Seeing TNA likes to mix the title histories and still say Angle is the first TNA Champion and Shamrock is the first World Champion. Either this article gets made or the TNA Championship article continues to have edit wars after edit wars.--WillC 22:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No, because there are no problems with the title. The only apparent problem is people misinterpreting what TNA is saying. I already explained and defined that former TNA World Champion means former world champion in TNA and not literally former TNA World Champion. It doesn't matter if you accept it or not, because honestly, that wont change what TNA is trying to infer. The fact of the matter is, that opinions don't matter, only facts do. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 23:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem with the title. Users and ips agree that the NWA Championship history should be added and others disagree. This was an established consensus made on the talk page and has been discussed for over a year. Plus TNA last night just called LAX three time TNA World Tag Team Champions. They continue to say TNA in-front of mentioning their former champions. The fact is, TNA calls Angle the first TNA Champion, but continue to refer to people who won the NWA Title as TNA Champions. People are going to continue to add in the NWA Championship history. This was agreed upon on the title talk page to end the edit war that has been going on for more than a year.--WillC 23:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OMG Im sorry. I forgot TNA valued your opinions so much. The reality of life is, that us users can't really change what the info we write in here is, we can only type it down. So making an irrelevant list-cruft article which is basically just putting 2 articles together for the sake of satisfying bored people who have too much time on their hands and waste it battling over Wikipedia articles is utterly ridiculous. The reality is that YOU and everyone else you anonymously mention are misinterpreting. Read the above threads I posted on what Tenay means when he calls LAX 3-time tag team champions. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 04:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact is, this list is not cruft. This list is being made to settle a year and a half dispute over the official histroy and to comply with TNA's official title history on their website. Plus this discussion isn't about if this list is needed or not, it was already decided to be made. This is a discussion about if anyone has a problem with moving the correct title history from the TNA Championship into another article.--WillC 04:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The decision you say? The decision of what? Merging the histories of two titles that don't belong to you, us or Wikipedia? Look, TNA doesn't merge the title histories. You're just misunderstanding their words. And you can't go around and ask bored wrestling-obsessed users if you're opinion is right, because frankly, its not and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 04:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You must not be able to understand. I've not said shit about my opinion, I'm not saying shit about TNA speaking. I'm talking about a visual image seen on TNA Wrestling.com where it says TNA World Heavyweight Championship history. It begins with Shamrock and goes to Sting. The List of World Heavyweight Champions in TNA is to comply with that revisionism history. I found a solution to the problem of people adding in the NWA History into the TNA page. We can't just keep reverting people who add that history. In the end there will be the official history list called List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions, which will encompass people who actually won that belt, starting with Angle and ending with Sting. Also List of TNA World Heavyweight champions in TNA, which will begin with Shamrock and end with Sting. The same will be done for the World Tag Team Championship, since it suffers from the same problems. All I asked was if anyone had a problem of making a list of five champions: List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions. I want to take the TNA World Heavyweight Championship article to GAN and wanted to get the history out of the way. That is what this discussion is about. Why are you questioning a list that has been discussed for more than two months on Talk:TNA World Heavyweight Championship?--WillC 04:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just go down the path of dispute resolution so we can get this sorted once and for all? PXK ^T /_C 05:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine, lets re-open this discussion at the bottom of the page so more people will see it. This discussion has been going on for more than a year on the TNA Championship talk page to figure out how to slove TNA's revisionism. I'm fine re-dicussioning an already sloved solution.--WillC 05:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is not something you discuss. This is not something you ask people for the "consensus" so you can change. The only thing needed is that before the lead, we insert a small note mentioning that all reigns previous to these are "NWA World Heavyweight Championship reigns" so people can immediately note the difference. Because frankly, someone who actually considers this a "problem" is so bored out of their minds, that they can't find anything to do than find and/or create more problems. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 11:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Your simple fix idea is already in the page and did not stop people from adding them. Plus this will still not stop people from adding them because of TNA's TNA Championship history. They don't even acknowledge the NWA Championship was ever in TNA. Plus a consensus was already established on the talk page so a dicussion must happen. You might want to read the discussion first.--WillC 11:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I just spent my time reading the whole discussion. I saw the umm... "consensus", because you know what, other people on the same page were criticizing YOU for making up imaginary consensus. There was absolutely no consensus, just your consistent need to impose your decisions as if you owned the article or TNA for that matter. You did not care for anyone's decision, unless they agreed with you. Oh, and the "consensus" was in a conversation between 3 to 4 users including an IP, so I think there's a problem with how much people it will appeal to. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 12:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A consensus can be established between two users and in that discussion there were two users and an ip. The two users agreed while the ip just bitched. Plus the idea for the new list came from here, I just mentioned it on the talk page. Seeing the only one with a problem with the new list is you and the ip from the talk page, while there are a few on this page that agree plus one or two on the title talk page, I would take that as a consensus. Plus I don't think I own anything. I'm looking for a fix to the problems on that page.--WillC 12:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I have no "problem" if you want to create the list. My "problem" is that you go on ranting about your imaginary consensus to create it, when you didn't even ask anyone to reach a consensus. Instead, you gave an idea, and when anyone went against it, you mentioned it was already accepted by a consensus which never happened. Secondly, I understand you want to create the page so you can match TNA's history, but the fact of the matter is, you don't even understand it. Until you can even understand exactly what they're saying instead of insinuating and making things up as you go, you shouldn't write anything. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 13:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to impliment a consensus. I've only heard two ips have anything against it. Other users are fine with it and I wasn't the one who decided to make the list. Gavyn Sykes came up with the idea a few months ago on here. A few users agreed to the idea, I believe. I took that decision into consideration and talked about it on the talk page. Right at the moment only one person is against it while others are for it. I'm here dicussing it and not working on it. I'm trying to establish a consensus all the time. It isn't like I'm saying, it is final and walking away.--WillC 13:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Christian Cage's blank reign from May 13, 2007 should be noted. Because techincally if he wasn't NWA Champion, then he had to have been TNA Champion. Even TNA at one time listed him as being stripped of the NWA Title, then being TNA Champion, losing it to Angle and then it was vacated. Revisionism!=Stupid TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

On iMPACT, people who held the belt are called Former TNA Champions of whatever kind they are. Kurt Angle was called the first belt holder when he WON it, when it was the big storyline. He is not called that anymore. That information is outdated and irrelevant. They call the champions Former TNA Champions. I have not looked for much proof, but the video on this page http://www.tnawrestling.com/content/view/243/37/ at 1:20 should be PROOF ENOUGH that TNA refers to people who won the NWA belt as TNA Champions. Just watch. Rhino says he won the TNA World Heavyweight Championship. He won the NWA one. These bios are to replace the outdated text that used to be on the pages. They were done under TNA's supervision and probably slightly scripted. There is no way TNA would let that slip. This is the proof everyone wants. Now, can we get the first TNA Champion recognized as Ken Shamrock and actually fill this list out? It is important for the history of TNA, and users coming to the page for research, for learning, for information that we have an accurate and easy to read list. Not searching through the NWA list and then switching to the TNA Belt page. One, concise page full of information. There is a similar thread I started at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:List_of_TNA_World_Heavyweight_Champions#Should_there_be_a_combined_TNA_and_NWA-exclusive_belt_holdings_page.3F I hope that the link I have provided will convince any naysayers. I don't see how it could not unless you are UnquestionableTruth who wants Dixie Carter to call him and tell him to do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.214.207 (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with placing in the NWA Champions is it goes against common sense. That belt was not made until May 2007. TNA has yet to say that the TNA Title keeps the NWA History. Just a few weeks ago they said Angle was the first official champion and still say Shamrock is the first World Champion in TNA, not the first TNA World Heavyweight Champion. This can not be done because it goes against all that is known. They are called former TNA Champions because TNA refuses to state they had the NWA Championships.--WillC 02:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

TNA mentions NWA Champions when it is appropriate, for an Indy Wrestler or something. When did they say Shamrock was the first World Champion in TNA? Or that Angle was the first official one? I have no memory of this and it completely contradicts everything that I have seen on TV. You're going to need proof for this one. Besides that, if TNA refuses to state they had the NWA Championships, then that makes it even more logical TO extend the TNA Belt history to before the NWA Changeover. Besides all this - it is important for research that they all be on one page. It simplifies and accurately represents things. Of course, a disclaimer should be on the top of the article and more, but it is foolish to say that the belt history should not start with Ken Shamrock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.214.207 (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

We go by facts on here no matter what TNA says on TV today. The belt's history officialy starts with Angle because that is clearly who was the first champion having won it at Slammiversary when TNA themsleves stated he was the first champion. TNA also just a few weeks ago stated that Angle winning and becoming the first official TNA World Heavyweight Champion was his second or third biggest moment in TNA. Plus it is original research which is a guideline here to believe that since TNA calls them champions means they are apart of the history when TNA has yet to even state the history moves over. A reliable source is needed in this case the history has moved-over. One from TNA that officially states this, not a believed theory.--WillC 09:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if TNA officially states that the NWA champions from TNA are one in the same with the TNA world title holders, it's still revisionism and shouldn't be recognized here. It's not a fact if they say it, it's made up. It's even noted on here how WWE made up the tournament to declare the first IC Champion held in Brazil which Patterson allegedly won. We shouldn't give in to any form of revisionism that TNA or anyone may try to push. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well my plan was to have a joint NWA-TNA Belt History Page, as that gives a more complete picture of TNA's Belt History and should be the main one we showcase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.214.207 (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That's original research just letting you know. Essentially "rewriting" history. It'll be deleted, no one will support it. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Rewriting history? Where did you get this stuff? How do you know no one will support it? Especially considering I have seen many people who liked the idea. TNA needs a COMPLETE belt history. The only way you do this is by providing a list of World Heavyweight Champions in TNA. This is not rewriting a damn thing. Nothing is original research. It's merely a page with the combined NWA and TNA Champions on one list so it is easy to see the entire heavyweight history in TNA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.214.207 (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, go write the article, but for consistency purposed, a List of World Champions on Smackdown and a List of World Champions on Raw pages would be in order, considering the different world championships defended on each brand, and the same matter as in TNA, where a superstar claims they are former "WWE Champions" when they held the "World Championship". Raaggio 03:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the ip wants a list simular to this one: User:Wrestlinglover/List of World Heavyweight Champions in TNA. In the end one would not have to be made for Raw and SD since it would be no use. The problem with TNA's history is way different than JR being a dumbass and calling everyone a wwe champion.--WillC 20:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Last chance for a new consensus to go in effect

The above straw poll has no opposition and a majority of support, this is the final chance to have your voice heard before I mark it as resolved and the new consensus going into effect.--TRUCO 22:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Consensus" among a small number of editors can never override the community consensus that is presented in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; instead, consensus is the main tool for enforcing these standards. The focus of every dispute should be determining how best to comply with the relevant policies and guidelines. So really, until you argue that what I'm doing is original research, it won't override the reliable sources policy. Mshake3 (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We are not talking about the ONS thing, Mshake. Simon^KSK 00:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyways Mshake, its not original research, but its speculation because that side bar is a questionable source to rely on, a direct link to the promotion webpage in which tickets and the promotional information is present. In addition, the consensus enforces WP:SPECULATION and WP:OR, because you are speculation that the sidebar, which is a questionable source of information, has the official name. The official name of this year's WreslteMania is not "WrestleMania 25" its "WrestleMania XXV" (yet its pronounced WM 25). This years GAB is not called "Great American Bash", its "The Great American Bash" (see the questionable names), thats why we can't rely on the sidebar.--TRUCO 01:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Truco, Truco, Truco. There is a significant difference between an extra "the" or an use of Roman Numerals, and a completly different set of words. With the former, they are examples of alternative uses of the names. Considering how often WWE uses both forms of those names, you can't say that WWE's choices in that list are inaccurate. Now with the later, it was a significant change from one set of words to another. Mshake3 (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

But the name "Extreme Rules" was used as a secondary name for One Night Stand, at the moment you can only speculate. Like seriously dude, can we just wait till WWE places a link to the advertising ticket info? In like a month or two? It won't kill.--TRUCO 03:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It won't kill? I thought it was killing you. As soon as you couldn't revert again, you requested full protection. It is speculation on YOUR part to take the only source on the company's website regarding the 2009 event and say it might be wrong. Mshake3 (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Mshake, I don't mean to be rude but do you have a pinecone stuck up your bum? You won't let this go, your disruption led to 2 articles being fully protected because you speculated on WWE changing the name with no concrete evidence. I see you now moved the 2007 and 2008 events too (2008 only had it listed on the DVD cover and the 2007 one only had it as a tagline). Maybe Truco shouldn't have requested protection and just let you keep disrupting the page and get blocked so you could cool off. I have a feeling that once the protection expires you will be start right back up again. TJ Spyke 02:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe by the time the protection expires, everything will be straightened out and project members can work together in peace while realizing that situations like this are unimportant in the grand scheme of things. The editors on both sides of this dispute make great contributions, and the project would suffer if it lost any of them. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WrestleMania Posters/Logos

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was to use posters on WrestleMania articles (when available) and add logos as thumbnails to a collage--TRUCO 19:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Never understood why we just use logos for the WrestleMania articles instead of posters as we do for every other event article. Is anyone for the use posters in WrestleMania articles?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 06:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm for the posters. There is no reason to use logos. WWE releases posters. TNA Bound for Glory uses posters, Starrcade uses posters, November to Remember uses posters, what is the point of having all of them use posters and not WrestleMania.--WillC 06:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I already have I-XXIV uploaded. Any opposition?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 06:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

None from me, but we should wait a little bit. I can see alot of people having a problem with this for some reason.--WillC 07:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and replaced the logos with the posters in good faith. Anyone is free to revert if they disagree. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 12:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I would check the archives for that because there was a recent discussion and it was agreed to keep logos. I'm for the posters, but others want the logos. If I remember correctly, It may be due to the many posters that WWE releases for the WrestleMania events, and there isn't an "official" one.--TRUCO 14:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

WWE releases different versions of posters for all of its events, not just WrestleMania. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 14:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the original consensus was here in this archive.--TRUCO 14:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked through this and a more recent discussion. Both of which abruptly ended as talks just randomly discontinued which point to anything but a consensus. Though the discussion you presented was certainly the more productive of the two, there are a few things that just need to be pointed out. The discussion took place some ten months ago and certainly most of the opposition has since retired the project. On another note, the discussion involved a sock of User:Hornetman16. So yes discussions did take place but no consensus was formed, and understandably so as this does seem like a pretty ridiculous discussion to be having. Nonetheless, if there is any present opposition, they are free to revert my changes and discuss a proposal again here. Cheers.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 19:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Straw Poll

This issue has been discusses so many times before and no consensus was ever made; these discussion probably extend back to when the project was known as WP:MOW. IMO it will be better if a straw poll is conducted over the matter. Topic: Posters should be used on WrestleMania pay-per-view articles, as opposed to logos. (Support, Oppose, or Comment)--TRUCO 19:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I never saw the reason as to why posters shouldn't be used: the logo is on the poster, and an illustration of what is to occur at the event is on the poster.--TRUCO 19:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - The articles looks much better with posters. Simon \\ KSK^{Yes we can!} 19:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - As per above. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 19:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral I prefer logos, but don't feel like fighting this anymore. TJ Spyke 19:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Question - What is the different between a "straw poll" and a "vote"? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Very first line of Straw poll. Basically a staw poll is a vote with non-binding results (meaning you don't have to go by what wins the straw poll as it can't be enforced). TJ Spyke 19:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • IF we keep the posters, what should happen to the logos? I don't think they should be deleted, maybe added to the main WrestleMania page. TJ Spyke 19:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • How 'bout I make a collage out of all of them?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 19:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply, voting is against WP:VOTE because it shouldn't be used to reach a consensus, but a WP:STRAW (straw poll) is used when consensus cannot be reached by a discussion. I think the logos can remain on the respective WM pages, but they can also be added to the main WM page.--TRUCO 19:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
      • And put it where? (That was to 3bullet16)Simon \\ KSK^{Yes we can!} 19:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Main 'Mania page. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 19:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
        • To Truco: We can put the logo in the article like this: thumb|roght|The logo used for Wrestlemania XXIV. Simon \\ KSK<sup>Yes we can! 19:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
          • That can work, it can go in the background/production section.--TRUCO 19:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I believe that would be a Fair Use violation as the poster basically depicts what the logo does. Its like using the same exact image twice. I suggest my alternative. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 19:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Also: if you look here and look at the pic, we can do something like that with 316s collage but with mor row than one. Simon \\ KSK^{Yes we can!} 19:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Then making one big collage will be the way to go, or if nothing else, we must FfD them.--TRUCO 19:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
              • If you can give me 24hours it'll be a done deal. I'm on my way out. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 19:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
                • Sure, (23:59 left) :P--TRUCO 20:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
                  • Ooh, I saw a collage of them on a forum once and it looked good. I'm excited. (17:39 left). Tony2Times (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I've uploaded the image. A higher resolution version can be viewed here. The original is 1700x1000 pixels and can only be obtained through e-mail. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 06:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Once the XXV logo is confirmed and added in I may just e-mail you for what will surely be a lovely desktop wallpaper. Tony2Times (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

3 Supports, 1 Neutral vote, 0 Opposes - anybody else want to voice their opinion?--TRUCO 02:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

support —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony2Times (talk • contribs)

Support per above. Genius101^Guestbook 20:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Support--WillC 22:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Support per above. Super Silver901 _Contact 00:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Command & Conquer Red Alert 3: Uprising

Ric Flair is reported to play Commander Hill. Therefore, is this game in the PW spectrum? --Numyht (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It features a retired wrestler, but has nothing to do with wrestling. No. Nenog (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's trivia to me - and we all know WP hates trivia in articles. ArcAngel (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Correction; WP users hate trivia, wikipedia is a website.  ←Kalajan→  14:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So then I suppose I dreamed of this? ArcAngel (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur, not within our scope. Same reason mobie articles like Mr. Nanny are not within are scope just because they star a wrestler. Movies like See No Evil might be since they are also produced by WWE. TJ Spyke 16:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Little help?

I'm on 3 reverts on Evolution (professional wrestling), so I can't revert again. An ip kept adding a trivia section to the article, despite my warnings, and now a new account has joined the fun. All help appreciated. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 02:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist. ArcAngel (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of this article, the "Original concept" section should be rewritten (perhaps moved into the "Formation" section). Copying and pasting 500+ words from another website (even if quotation marks are used) is bad form. The important points should be summarized in an editor's own words. This isn't a criticism of anyone, and I'm not addressing anyone in particular. If anyone wants to take on the task, however, it would be appreciated. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

All the semi-protections

Isn't there a way to have a semi-p on articles that only affects IP's and 1 day users? It's really unfair for users like me. Mecha13 (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is. You could be a sock or something. It would be better if you were autoconfirmed.Simon^KSK 16:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

yea, the current semi-p policy is pretty good at preventing trouble makes from creating SPA's (single purpose accounts) and using them rapidly to disrupt this project. I dont know who would do something like that though.....Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, you've been registered 2 days, and made 1 mainspace edit and 24 talk edits. I applaud your willingness to talk, but you need to make more real edits, rather than complain that you can't edit semi-protected pages after two days of activity. Darrenhusted (talk)

Like Darren said, the best thing you can do at the moment is wait a week before being able to edit semi-protected articles.--TRUCO 16:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This user is a sock. I would also appreciate any similar, new editors that appear here in the upcoming weeks that you drop a line on my talk page with a note about it so I can research future sock abuse. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni

This list has been split into 5 lists (1960s-1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2009). Each of the first four has been split onto a separate page, while the 2009 list is still on the main alumni page. Is this a good thing? There is a bit of an edit war going on over these changes, so I was hoping we could get some opinions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

2009 is still part of the 2000's, so I'll do my part to keep it there. ArcAngel (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I thought of doing that myself once because the separate articles would be easier to edit and turn into Featured Lists. I agree that 2009 should be part of the 2000s, though. Nikki♥311 23:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder whether we can make an FL out of the deaths while under contract list, any oppositions?--TRUCO 23:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to it, but I think a little more info about each person's death should be included in the notes (if any can be found, some seem pretty short). Nikki♥311 23:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, if I can get it going, I will completely revamp it. But I was wondering whether we could make it happen, but I just have a question, how do we verify that they were under contract?--TRUCO 23:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of them will be easy like Guerrero, Benoit, and Owen Hart. Pillman was also in the midst of a storyline when he died (there's sourced info about it at Terri Runnels if you want to use it in the article). If they were regularly appearing at the time (or working backstage), that would be easy to source. The "lifetime employment" for some of the others may be difficult, though. Nikki♥311 23:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, because I don't know how verifiable the Fabulous Moolah's contract was, or even Vince Sr.--TRUCO 00:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick question. Does changing the list into a sortable list have any sort of benefit? The list is alread chronological, and having an alphabetical list of why someone left a the company, seems to be, well, a useless feature.--DonJuan.EXE (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

DonJuan.EXE, sortable wikitables have the benefit of letting the reader choose which way they want to read the article, alphabetically or chronologically. In addition to that it seems that people are forgetting something, this article is a list of people, specifically alumni, not a list of events that occured, i.e. said alumni being released. Lists of people should default be alphabetical order. The sortable wikitable feature will be enough for those who want to view the list chronologically. — Moe ε 09:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

First off, the branching of the articles into five seperate articles was improperly done, and turned into a GFDL violation for not giving credit to the original authors of the article. Second, I am in the middle of revamping the article. Most dates of their release or reason were unverifiable, unsourced or in some cases liable. I changed it to alphabetical order by real last name and included the 'sortable wikitable' function so you can resort it by date or by name by just clicking the square at the top. I am not done yet, so the dates are currently out of order, they will be fixed later. — Moe ε 22:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Somebody better talk to those on the talk page of that article because there seems to be a lot of objection to the new format. Personally, I also thought the old format was better. ErikNY (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Most objections to any change is because it goes from chronological to alphabetical order. The choice between which way is moot in the new format since there are sortable wikitables. For those who were confused on the talk page about how to work the wikitable, most of which were new to Wikipedia or didn't have an account anyways, I explained it in pretty plain language. — Moe ε 10:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be a way of identifying employee's who died while under contract. The page seems to suggest that superstars like Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit just left the company like they were just released from contract.--DonJuan.EXE (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

They way the content is listed is preventing that. There should be a column added that states "Reason for termination" or just "Reason", and in that way it can be made aware how everyone was terminated.--TRUCO 01:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Article under GAR

Brian Adams (wrestler) - see Talk:Brian Adams (wrestler)/GA1. D.M.N. (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Although this affects the entire project, it should be made aware to the original GA nominator User:MPJ-DK that it is currently under reassessment.--TRUCO 15:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There's also a note at Talk:Nora Greenwald and Talk:Konnan to fix up the personal life sections. I've been working on the former, so I think it might be okay, but Konnan still needs work. Nikki♥311 16:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WWE Superstars (2009 TV series)

I have redirected this article to WWE Superstars Did I do good? --Numyht (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You did good, however, has WWE stated in anyway that the two shows have any connection to each other?--TRUCO 15:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not from i've seen. WWE has only mentioned it in a couple of press releases, none of which even mention the old series. TJ Spyke 15:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That's my worry, we can't speculate that they will be the same show just because they have a similar name.--TRUCO 15:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

But until we know anymore about the programme is it worth having an article about it? I think we're better off leaving it as a redirect rather than a stubby stub. Tony2Times (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WWE Corporate website found malicious?

Resolved

--TRUCO 15:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I searched for the WWE corporate website to look for a source for the WWE Raw article, but google stated that the site may be malicious. I find that odd considering it is an official website, how do we treat this?--TRUCO 15:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? I just checked the corporate website (both by going right to the site, and by using Google Search to go to it) and it was fine for me. Someone might have hacked the site and WWE caught it. TJ Spyke 15:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Could be, I just checked again and it was fine. It could have been a one time thing.--TRUCO 15:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine for me. Probably a false-positive. D.M.N. (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah.--TRUCO 15:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be happening with every website - not just WWE Corporate. D.M.N. (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay, sigh of relief.--TRUCO 15:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

--TRUCO 15:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles use of the word alumni

Professional wrestling articles, in Category:Professional wrestling rosters, use of the word alumni is inaccurate. Alumnus, specifically alumni, is defined for those who attended a college or university. Clearly the term alumni is wrong for this usage and needs to be changed. I am going to change those articles title from 'alumni' to 'former <promotion name> talent' unless someone has a better suggestion. — Moe ε 18:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily, it is also a former associate, employee, member, or the like: He invited all the alumni of the library staff to the party.--TRUCO 18:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The definition is based on a rather random dictionary. Webster's Dictionary and American Heritage Dictionary both conflict with that definition. Don't believe everything you read on the internet. Even the Wikipedia article for alumnus doesn't acknowledge that definition. — Moe ε 19:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is also why WWE uses that term here--TRUCO 19:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I always thought it could be used under that broad definition too as I went on an academic conference many years ago and was given a certificate declaring me an alumnus. However the OED also states that it is for schools, colleges and universities and lists only these. Tony2Times (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So? WWE can be wrong too.. it's not like everything wwe.com says is true anyways.. — Moe ε 19:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Merriam Webster's secondary definition for Alumni [4]: "a person who is a former member, employee, contributor, or inmate". TJ Spyke 19:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't think WWE is that stupid to imply their own definition of that word.--TRUCO 20:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) [first championship article GA]

The above article was recently listed as a GA and can serve as a good model to other championship articles that have GA potential. Congrats to the project.--TRUCO 21:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

SummerSlam (1993)

Could someone please keep an eye on this article? A user (User:Ronald Jose Carlos) keeps removing properly cited content and replacing it with unsourced speculation. The sources (WrestleView and the book source) clearly state that Hogan changed his mind about dropping the belt to Hart. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I watchlisted it, reverted and warned him.--TRUCO 00:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning roster lists on pro wrestling articles at WT:VG

I encourage the project to discuss this here.--TRUCO 00:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Changing the "image" parameter to "file" in infoboxes?

Should we change the name of the "image" parameter in the infoboxes to "file" since the system was renamed recently?--TRUCO 01:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? It doesn't really matter. It won't have any effect (just like how the images will still show up if you write "Image:" instead of "File:". Changing it will just cause us to have to get a bot to go and change every single article that uses the template. Not a big deal either way though. TJ Spyke 03:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That does seem like a lot of work for something that doesn't really matter either way. Do what you want. Nikki♥311 03:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Just let be. :)--TRUCO 03:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Wrestler 2008

Are you guys aware of this template? It seems like an exact replica of {{Infobox Wrestler}}. Redirect?--TRUCO 01:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be exactly the same to me. I'd say redirect unless the user who created it has a specific purpose for it. Better ask him/her. Nikki♥311 03:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I did that, but that user is rarely active, I think I will be WP:BOLD (bold) and move it myself per WP:COMMONSENSE.--TRUCO 21:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Crash Underride - seems to disagree with your assertion. D.M.N. (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

One edit today? I meant that he is not as active as some of us.--TRUCO 22:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

TNA Frontline

I... Can't help but bring this up again... TNA Frontline... What exactly is it that makes it any less notable then MEM? If I can bring something to your attention, Stables in WWE like "Vince's Devils" and "La Familia" got an article pretty quickly. The first of which didn't last all that long, and really didn't accomplish anything. "La Familia" was a pretty big impact on Smackdown, but even so, it also didn't last that long. Both of those articles got put up almost immediately. Now, to come to the second part of my statement, certain people from TNA didn't even get articles within 3 months of joining (namely Velvet Sky, but there are others). I know that WWE is far more well known then TNA, but even so, they are both national wrestling organizations. And as far as I'm concerned, if they are both in that class, then TNA Frontline deserves an article, especially since there really wouldn't be much of a MEM without TNA Frontline. I guess all I'm really asking for is why... It's notable enough, and it's been quite a while since it's inception... KP317 21:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak on La Familia, but Vince's Devils is mentioned in book sources, which helps prove notability. If an article can be made in a sandbox that incorporates book sources, magazine sources, news sources, and reputable wrestling sites (like SLAM! Wrestling, for example), then more than likely, it can be moved to mainspace. Nikki♥311 21:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Has the Frontline done something notable? They didn't win anything, or make an impact at all. Simon^KSK 22:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"TNA Frontline" basically seems like just a loose term for anybody not in the MEM. MEM has been acting like a stable, all male members have held world titles, they've commited nWo-esque gang attacks, they took over and ran this weeks Impact. MEM is notable, TNA Frontline less so. They deserve a paragraph in the MEM's article, but I am not so sure about them having a separate article right now. TJ Spyke 22:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I see the Frontline getting an article after the storyline is over. Namely in April. They've held the TNA X Division Championship (Eric Young) and the Tag Team Championship (Lethal Consequences). Those that doesn't name notability since both reigns were less than 30 days combined. Once they do something besides just having a feud with MEM, like actually hold a title that last lonnger than two impacts, I feel it would be more notable.--WillC 00:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel what you guys are saying (especially about it being very clear who's in the MEM and it's not so clear on screen as to who's in TNAFL) but at the same time, Rhino, AJ Styles, and Samoa Joe are all former world champions, you have former 20 time World TAG TEAM Champions in Team 3D, and you forgot about Alex Shelley. He still makes group appearences with them, so he's still a member. And also (and I know that speculation has absolutely no place on Wikipedia) but, this whole "Daniels Rumor" seems like it would make an impact (and I know we'll decide that whenever/if it happens), and one more thing... Does Mick Foley have any real association with TNAFL? KP McZiggy ^{(they talk 2 me)} 06:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Background/Aftermath sections in ppv articles

Exactly how far back and forwards should these go, and when do past/future happenings become completely unnecessary? For instance, is it relevant for Wrestlemania XXV to know that Steve Austin didn’t compete in the main event of WM after winning the '97 Royal Rumble, or Vince McMahon after winning in '99? For Royal Rumble (2008), is it really important to know that at WM 24 (which was not the next ppv, but the one after that) Randy Orton retained the WWE Championship against Triple H and John Cena, Undertaker defeated Edge to win the World Heavyweight Championship via submission using the gogoplata submissive choke, and Shawn Michaels defeated Ric Flair to retire him? Nenog (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I reckon they go back and forward as is relevent to the storyline. Ausin and McMahon's mention is relevent because it sets a precedent for the Rumble winner not cashign in their WM main event and as Flair had a retirement match at the Rumble it makes sense to note when he was finally retired. Also because the Rumble is the road to WrestleMania, it makes sense to mention Orton retaining his belt against HHH and Cena; Undertaker and Edge makes sense although it's not as directly related as everything else. Basically if the storyline is still continuing, mention it. Tony2Times (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It really depends. If a storyline has been built up substantially for a long time, lets say for over a year, then the writer can summarize how it began and state that it continued since then up to the production point for the said pay-per-view article they are writing. In this summary, they can also state any significant points that affect the rivalry. Sometimes its not even necessary to summarize the rivalry and just begin a new slate without mentioning it, but if a summary is required, then it should be outlined like I mentioned here. For the WM XXV article, that information about Austin and McMahon is listed for the purpose of the process in which WWE has the winner of the Royal Rumble match go to WrestleMania to wrestler for a World Championship, because the article states Since 1991 [I believe], the winner of the Royal Rumble match has received a World Championship match at WrestleMania. (something along the lines of that) Sine were saying that since 1991 that has happened, the reader may believe it has been a continuous process, which it hasn't because of those exceptions, which is why they are listed there.--TRUCO 15:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel the setions should just mention what is relevate to the feud. Like for Turning Point 08, which I'm part-time working on in a subpage, it should mention the previous Turning Point event results considering that is when the feud between Samoa Joe and Kevin Nash had its inception. Though the Taker/Edge match has no reson being in the aftermath of the Royal Rumble. Taker didn't get a spot at the Rumble or have anything to do with Edge. I understand about the WWE Title though and Flair.--WillC 01:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I also feel like there should be more emphasis on the storytelling side, especially with American promotions that are as much entertainment as they are sports. Too often articles say "[A] was booked for a match with [B], they had a tag match..." but it doesn't say the things that made it personal. Or in the build up to this year's Rumble it doesn't mention that JBL qualified for the match because he'd bought HBK, which also explains why HBK is with him at ringside on the match card. I think the only reason Undertaker was mentioned in that situation is because the editor felt like all roads should lead to WrestleMania. Tony2Times (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Error in this week's newsletter

Hey project, I would like to inform you that this week's issue of the newsletter had an error in the coding causing any messages under the section of the delivered newsletter to appear inside the newsletter itself. This is caused by a coding issue that User:CFountain found, as seen below (the bold is what should be changed if you want to keep the newsletter on your talkpage):

Before:{{col-end}} |} <div style="float:right; font-size:60%;">Delivered: 16:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC) by [[User:MiszaBot|MiszaBot]] ([[User talk:MiszaBot|talk]])</div>

After:{{col-end}} |} |} <div style="float:right; font-size:60%;">Delivered: 16:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC) by [[User:MiszaBot|MiszaBot]] ([[User talk:MiszaBot|talk]])</div>

You can remove the newsletter from your talk page to resolved the issue or you can add the |} as pointed above in the bold to resolve it. Sorry for the inconvenience, this has been resolved in the next issue's coding as well.--TRUCO 22:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I was rather surprise myself that this weeks edition also contained the signpost. lol. PXK ^T /_C 23:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Simon^KSK 00:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It was fixed by Miszabot, so we should be good to go now.--TRUCO 00:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A proposal...

It has occurred to me, and some other users, that Template:WWEPPV's links only go to the PPV's main page, not the upcoming PPV. (No Way Out gos to No Way Out, not No Way Out (2009). So I have have made a new template. It's a template for the PPVs for that year. For Example, Summerslam 2008 would have this template so people can go to another PPV page, without going through the main page. I would like a consensus on whether we should us this template for PPV articles or not. Simon^KSK 00:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I like it.--TRUCO 00:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is needed unless you are making a topic out of them. Category:2008 in professional wrestling is just as good as a template at this point.--WillC 06:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Not needed whatsoever... its meant to be like that. When you view it for instance here in the NWO article, there's an NWO subtemplate encorporated in it. If it's not broke, don't fix it. D.M.N. (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice idea but the bottom of the page would look cluttered. Tony2Times (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per the above SAVIOR_SELF.777 21:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DMN, however, its not really needed since the WWE PPV's template and 2008 category do the same thing.--TRUCO 22:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Rename round 2: WrestleMania XXV -> The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was oppose renaming per promotional reasons by WWE.--TRUCO 21:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Unlike the argument above about WWE One Night Stand and WWE Extreme Rules, the required evidence is published for a renaming.

• Event details - If this were to be called WrestleMania XXV it would state WWE presents WrestleMania XXV, however, it states WWE presents The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania
• Venue event details from the Reliant park - this used to say WrestleMania XXV, however, now they are calling it WWE presents The 25ht Anniversary of WrestleMania
• Royal Rumble match results - In the 2009 Royal Rumble, 30 men collided with the shared aspiration of performing at the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania, but it was only one individual (with help from his two associates) who ascertained the opportunity to solidify his “Legacy.” That man is Randy Orton.
• RAW results - although this article uses WrestleMania XXV, this is one of the few that uses that.
• Stone Cold HoF announcement at the corporate website - The induction ceremony will take place on April 4th at the Toyota Center in Houston, Texas during the weekend of the '25th Anniversary of WrestleMania.
• Official website - the official website states it in the logo bar as The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania
• As I see it, WWE uses WrestleMania XXV when spacing is an issue like on the main website in the side bars, and on occasions. But the official website, the event details, and the venue event details, should be enough evidence that states it how the event is being called The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania. As I see it, it should be majority rule (like in the constitution =]) I also see this as an argument as one that could have started when WrestleMania 2000 was being produced, people could have probably argued that it was really WrestleMania XVI. I think we should really take this all in consideration.--TRUCO 17:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a horrible name, but it seems official. I don't think we should include "the" though, just "25th Anniversary of WrestleMania". TJ Spyke 18:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Rename to The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania. This discussion should be taking place at Talk:WrestleMania XXV though not here. D.M.N. (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think its a horrible name as well, but thats how WWE wants to call it, like they did with WrestleMania 2000. I don't know, but they capitalize "The" when they refer to it by this name, so its a part of its name. (Per WP:THE) Well, this is the best place to get results, and I will redirect a discussion to this place again.--TRUCO 18:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Just a listen to broadcasts going forward will support this. Mshake3 (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose All for promotion purposes. Still have yet to refer to it on tv and I'm pretty sure the DVD will say WrestleMania and not The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania.--WillC 01:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Wrong, look at [video removed due to copyright purposes], in addition, if it were for promotional purposes, then they would have called the event under the event details and the venue details WrestleMania XXV, have you taken the liberty to read the above links?--TRUCO 02:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I still believe it is not the official name. Not once other than articles has it been refered to as the 25th anniversary of WrestleMania being the official name. The sign at RR would have said that and it didn't; that I know of. Usually what it says is the official name.--WillC 02:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Once again, Wrong, check Image #34. In addition, the video I showed you from Raw clearly shows that they refer it to The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania.--TRUCO 02:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
        • That image doesn't say The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania that says WrestleMania, The 25th Anniversary. In the end I still don't think it is the official name. Plus if you look at the first image it just says WrestleMania with no aniversary what so ever and if that was involved in the name it would be there.--WillC 02:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Truco, since YouTube doesn't hold the copyright to that video, it shouldn't be linked to from Wikipedia. Doing so is a form of copyright infringement that opens Wikipedia up to potential lawsuits (Wikipedia:Copyright#Linking to copyrighted works). I don't want to refactor your comments, but the link should be removed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Oh okay, removed.--TRUCO 02:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Since WWE is using both. Merchandise/Promotional Material also seems to be using WrestleMania 25. Also if the logo is to be used as reference it should actually then be moved to WrestleMania 25th Anniversary.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - The 25th anniversary bit is still promotion. We might as well call WrestleMania 21 "WrestleMania Goes Hollywood" while we're at it. The way the article opens now, "WrestleMania XXV, also promoted as The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania" is the best way to handle it. WWE is using both, and it makes far more sense to go with the shorter, logical name over the promotional name. Cheers, DoomsDay 03:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thats promotional, and thus cannot be used as a source of reference for this case because for promotional purposes they changed the names of a lot of things on WWEshop.com. In addition, the logo just verifies how its not being called "WrestleMania XXV" or "WrestleMania 25". I don't know why users don't see that in the event details and the details released by the venue, they are calling it "The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania", which is not promotional because that is the official name of the event that they are using to call this year's WM. If this were untrue, then the name of last years WrestleMania wouldn't have been called WrestleMania XXIV, which the event details called it, and as it turns out, that was the official name. Thus, this year's WrestleMania event details should also be accounted for as it was for last years.TRUCO 03:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Truco get off your high horse. The fact is that both names are being used. In addition to that, the most commonly known name at this time is WrestleMania XXV. The lead of the article as DoomsDay pointed out is an appropriate compromise for this. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Sigh. Just because it will stand out is all of your arguments. In addition, Doomsday, WWE never promoted WM 21 as that, it was just used as a tagline, its a complete difference. If you guys disagree with this, show me hard-evidence that WWE is calling this years 'Mania WrestleMania XXV/25 (meaning published articles by WWE from 2009 [not promotional items from WWEshop.com]) like I did to show that a renaming should occur. If it can't be proven, I will request and RFC, because its ridiculous how users are not seeing the "majority" [The 25th Anniversary of WreslteMania] and "minority" [WrestleMania XXV/25]. --TRUCO 03:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Watching the Royal Rumble right now, and there are so many instances where "25th Anniversary of WrestleMania" was used. Watching SmackDown, there were several instances of that being used. Combined with this recent article, and the fact there is no logo that says WrestleMania XXV or WrestleMania 25, and all the official articles, and the structure of the official WrestleMania website, this is a change that needs to be done. Mshake3 (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Support As disappointing as it seems, it looks like they are referring to it as 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania all over the shop unless they are short for space. I'd still like to wait till after No Way Out but I can see why people would wanna change it. Tony2Times (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - They are using both names. They just use "25th anniversary" to make a bigger impact. Simon^KSK 00:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support It1s the official name. Brady4mvp (Talk) 16:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Per SimonKSK Super Silver901 _Contact 20:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - This is just a note that occurred to me, I don't know if anyone else has pointed this out, but this is not the 25th anniversary of WrestleMania. It's the 24th - WrestleMania 2 was the 1st anniversary, WrestleMania 3, the 2nd, so on, so on. WrestleMania 25 is thus the 24th anniversary of WrestleMania. Cheers, DoomsDay 03:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Done.--TRUCO 21:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame

I'm working on this list in my sandbox (User:GaryColemanFan/Murphy). If anyone ever feels like helping out, I'm certainly open to that. I'm having a really hard time finding reliably sourced information about some of the wrestlers (I'm up to the "F" section for the 1996 inductees so far, and I can't find anything about Perro Aguayo, Negro Casas, the Fabulous Kangaroos, and Jackie Fargo). Anyhow, it's a huge project, so I'm definitely up to collaborating with anyone interested. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not having any luck so far with the individuals you named, but I did find this article from the WON webpage that goes through the history a bit. It also describes how someone can become eligible to be in the HOF, so you might find it useful. Nikki♥311 02:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't really sure what I was going to do when I got to the prose itself. That article will help quite a bit. Thanks for letting me know where to find it (and for looking for sources for those wrestlers). GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling alumni

I am working on this article on one of my sandboxes, but I foresee a big problem when I start to try and source it. In the lead, it says that only wrestlers with contracts should be included, but not people who have multiple appearances without contracts. How do we tell the difference?...I doubt sources exist for that. What about the early days when wrestlers appeared one or two times and then never again? What about wrestlers that made one appearance at a house show, like Madison who lost the NWA Women's Championship but never appeared again? So, I propose this...why not change it to those who have appeared in at least three episodes (just throwing a number out there...)? Should there be special cases? Any thoughts would be great. Nikki♥311 23:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is just a spur of the moment thought: could there be any trouble of doing a seperate list of wrestlers who have made a limited number of appearances/people who appear in largely non-wrestling roles for the ones who seem to to be uncontracted. I doubt you could find the information for these because it's a private LLC. Tony2Times (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That list will be very hard to source even into the future. I say just go by people who appeared on multiple weekly PPVs. Recently, Louthan and Knuckles can be removed since Mickie Knuckles was never under contract and Lothan still appears on the TNA web site but has been inactive for many, many months. Also Scott Hall can be removed as well as Randy Savage since I believe neither were ever officially under contracts, probably just spoken agreements.--WillC 04:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a specific guideline. Otherwise, people will keep adding wrestlers who were only on a show or two. Nikki♥311 04:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Cheers, JakeDHS07 06:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Assist in helping rewrite the project's MOS

I'm currently rewriting the MOS for our pay-per-view articles, by updating, copyediting, and fixing some of the statements per the recent FACs. However, since this also applies to biographies, can someone help me by writing a guideline for the OOU policy for biographies? I can't seem to get the right wording.--TRUCO 02:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

History of World Wrestling Entertainment

Similar to what happened to the List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni article a few weeks ago, this has now been split off into two separate article, History of World Wrestling Entertainment, and History of World Wrestling Federation. In his edit summary, the user who split them, said he moved info to History of World Wrestling Federation, because the old article was too long. Thoughts? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 11:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well accroding to WP:SPLIT 40kb+ should maybe be split but i see no real point in spliting them.--Numyht (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point either...it is the same company with the same history, just a different name. I support having separate History of World Wrestling Entertainment and World Wrestling Entertainment articles for size purposes, but not the separate History of World Wrestling Federation. It isn't that far over the size requirements to justify it. Nikki♥311 19:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that they should be merged back together and have added the templates to the articles. TJ Spyke 20:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree; no need for another article. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 20:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I also agree; there is no need for a separate article for the history one company. Two different names does not meet the company was under different management, it was all McMahon owned since its creation.--TRUCO 21:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support merging back per the above SAVIOR_SELF.777 03:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The Style Guide of this project

After revamping the PPV guidelines, I noticed that our style guide is in need of major rewriting. I got no response above on assistance to rewrite it, so I would like to turn this discussion into a project-wide discussion on how to rewrite the style guide. Seeing it in it's current state is not a respectable style guide to follow for many of our articles, except our PPV's. Can we decide on how to revamp the style guide to make it look similar to WP:VG's Style Guide? Lets compromise on the contents of the style guide.--TRUCO 01:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Is a interview a reliable enough source for a signing

Resolved

 – It's best to wait until Cage or WWE confirms it.

Simon^KSK 20:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if everyone saw it but there was a interview posted with Dixie Carter (President of TNA for those who dont know) stating on Christian Cage and I quote "He was the first big star to jump to us and he's been the first to jump back". This would seem to confirm a WWE return for Cage. My question is this given Dixie's position and status is her word a reliable enough source to add Christian Cage to the Unassigned Talent portion of the WWE roster page? Just want everyone's opinion before I go searching for a reliable source of the interview. Cheers, JakeDHS07 05:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Here you go! ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean you agree with me that he can be added based on that source? I just want to achieve a consensus first to avoid a possible edit war. Cheers, JakeDHS07 05:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would think it is reliable enough. It isn't like she gets anything out of saying that (say self-promotion, the way WWE would if it was interview with them claiming to have stolen him back or something), and I see no reason why she would lie about it. Nikki♥311 19:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this being used. Dixie would have something to gain by this. Stating that Cage has left would make more of a surprise if he returned to TNA. Just like in 2005 when Abyss was said to have left TNA and signed with WWE. However, that was completely false. Like we decided on the roster page, we should only mention it once Cage or WWE announce it.--WillC 04:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I wouldn't take her word as gospel although I still think Wiki has a place for popular rumours as long as it explicitly states it's a rumour. It could be a worked shoot though like Kurt's Sun interview ripping into TNA's gimmick matches seemed to be; TNA seem to make everything seem like a shoot and although Carter stays off screen I still wouldn't think it trustworthy. She could just be assuming like the rest of us that he'll be going back after leaving there, when all she knows is the latter. Tony2Times (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

First off Will its great to have you back. Second Dixie Carter never made any statements about Abyss signing with WWE. Unlike Vince McMahon Dixie is not a tv character she is the behind the scenes only president. Abyss did in fact leave TNA and negotiated with WWE however shortly thereafter resigned with TNA. I know this because he was at a independent show in Danbury (where I live) last year and I asked him during a meet and greet. Anyway I think Dixie's comments are genuine as she is not a kayfabe character and has no reason to be making things up for storyline purposes. If it were Jeff Jarrett giving the interview that would be a different story. Seeing as how it is Dixie Carter I believe its use is justified. Cheers, JakeDHS07 17:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually Will, Dixie is stating that before TNA gained prominence to the level they are now, WWE was the big show. So she states that Reso was the first big name to jump ship (which means he jumped from WWE) and he is the first to jump back (back to WWE), plus she says its a wrestling secret mis-kept, so she is basically stating that he is going back to WWE. --TRUCO 21:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It really is best to wait until Cage or WWE states that he has signed. And, do you need have a whole section about him "signing," when he has not even appeared inside the WWE? It seems pointless, and has a pint of crystal-balling as you don't if he will even wrestle. I know, that it sounds stupid, but hey, Shane Sewell was a wrestler and when he signed with TNA, he was a referee, even though it didn't last long. Simon^KSK 00:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The person does not have to actually appear on television for them to be officially confirmed as being signed with a specific promotion. Carter clearly states that he has gone back to WWE, have you read the article in its entirety? --TRUCO 00:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes Dixie said that he jumped back, but how would she know he signed. She doesn't work for WWE and I doubt Cage called her up just to tell her that he signed. Everyone thought Cage would debut at Royal Rumble and that was false. We should wait till we get full confirmation that he has signed. As such as WWE announcing it or Cage showing up on TV.--WillC 00:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt Cage called her up, are you Jason Reso? So I don't think you can speak for him. But to avoid this drama, it will be best just to wait for a press release by Reso or WWE.--TRUCO 00:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not William Reso, but I can use Common Sense and ask questions that no one is thinking about, like how does she know he signed. If WWE didn't know Cage was going to TNA or Angle was, how would TNA know that Cage is going to WWE.--WillC 00:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh huh. Lets wait, best thing to do now.--TRUCO 00:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Idea for a change to the WWE PPV info box

This has been bothering me for awhile. Since all ppvs do we really need to list the brands since all ppvs are tri branded? I suggest removing the Brand(s) line of the info box. Support/Neutral/Oppose? Cheers, JakeDHS07 06:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Support but do it for the most recent ones since all WWE PPVS were tri branded after Backlash 2007 --Numyht (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Support but only for the ones since Backlash 2007. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 20:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - 1)WWE pay-per-views before March 2007 were brand exclusive, so that parameter is needed. 2)We still need to list the brands even though all 3 brands are represented at each pay-per-view because it shows that WWE is still relying on their brand extension 3)WWE is not the only promotion that uses the brand extension, NJPW is another promotion that features a brand extension.--TRUCO 21:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Then NJPW should keep using the infobox while WWE post WrestleMania 23 should start using the plain infobox that WWF and TNA uses. I don't see the point of listing something that's a given; everything else in the infobox is required and changes from month to month (aside from the company name which changes from promotion to promotion) but every WWE show from March 2007 has all three brands, it's a given and doesn't need to be there. Tony2Times (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

^^I agree. This is why I proposed this. Cheers, JakeDHS07 17:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

They are listed because WWE's brand extension is still in operation, if it weren't and wrestlers weren't assigned to specific brands, then we could get rid of the need to list them, but since matches are brand exclusive at the events and not interpromotional (only at times), until WWE officially abolishes their brand extension, then we will remove them, but for now, they should remain.--TRUCO 00:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

All those points are irrelevent. For the last two years, it's been a waste of space, and they should go now. Mshake3 (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You say they are irrelevant (which I disagree with), but you provide no point for not including them. TJ Spyke 03:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If the last 20 or so consecutive PPVs use all the brands, and there are no plans to change from that anytime soon, then they shouldn't be listed. Mshake3 (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

With that kind of reasoning then there was no reason for them to make them single branded in the first place. Considering there are WWE PPvs that are single and tri-branded, the link should stay just so there is no confusion.--WillC 03:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge WWE Hall of Fame and List of members of the WWE Hall of Fame

Originally it was thought that these needed separate articles due to the length problems, but now that the WCW Hall of Fame and NWA Hall of Fame, which include the list of incuctees are about to be promoted to FL status, I think its time to think about merging the above two articles into a similar format. The main article has many sections but the amount of prose in those sections can be placed in the lead or in one separate section. The list of ceremonies can also be in the prose like in the WCW list, and then the inductee list can be integrated there. If people support this, I can begin to merge them in my sandbox. Support/Oppose/Comment?--TRUCO 22:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, the WWE Hall of Fame article needs to be sourced and brought up to standard before anything happens. The list article is a FL, so I don't want to see the quality decreased. Nikki♥311 23:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm certain that's what Truco intends to do. Having looked at the WWE Hall of Fame article, it's not big enough to require a second page for the list. All of the information in the Hall of Fame article seems important, so I'd prefer if none of the information was dropped. Aside from that, merging them seems fine. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I will source the information thats in the main article and information that is unverifiable will be removed.--TRUCO 00:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I thought so, but I figured I should mention it anyway. I have no problem with the merge either. Nikki♥311 01:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support per GCF SAVIOR_SELF.777 01:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - just to let everyone know, I'm working on the merge in my sandbox here.--TRUCO 23:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • So is there no opposition to this, so I can make the move later this week? Last chance.--TRUCO 03:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support I have trust that Truco will do well with this merge and support it wholeheartedly. Have at it Truco. Cheers, JakeDHS07 04:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to suspend this project for about another week, I am tied up with things in real life, hopefully I can have it by next week.--TRUCO 16:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)--TRUCO 16:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Dirt Sheet Duo

Someone moved John Morrison and The Miz to this name. It will not allow me to move it back. So could one of the project's admins move it back. The name is not official and the move was not discussed.--WillC 22:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It needs an admin because there's been edit history at the old page. Damn, a smart vandal... I thought that was an oxymoron. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 00:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked User:DGG to help, so that should be fixed soon. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 00:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Smart? Nah. Looks like they moved it to "Dirt Sheet (tag team") and then to "Dirt Sheet Duo". Not sure that was on purpose. TJ Spyke 00:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had it moved it back. In the future, slap a {{db-move}} tag on the redirect and it should be deleted within an hour or so. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I know it's a bit pedantic but as far as I've noticed everyone seems to refer to the team as The Miz and John Morrison, or Miz & Morrison informally. Tony2Times (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, per this and this, they refer to the duo as both tag team names.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 01:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Legacy

Once again someone has taken to making a page pre-emptively, and not very well either I might add. Nominate for deletion? Tony2Times (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I just re-directed it, unless anyone has a problem with that. Tony2Times (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I just re-re-redirected it back to Orton's page with the reason I gave in the undo. This might bear some watching from folks. TrekFanatic (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

THis was my fault. I do apologise and I realise I should have checked here first.Sorry. Lemon Demon (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, sorry, I'm going to bring this one back up. I made a good quality article on The Legacy, who - in case anyone noticed - just finished in the final four of the Royal Rumble Sunday night. The article, despite SimonKSK's claims, was all verified and crossreferenced, and yet it was deleted because 'they aren't notable yet'.

Could someone please explain to me how a stable which has been active for months and are now the main focus of Monday Night RAW, could be 'not notable'? TheDingbat (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that they were unreferenced. They are not notable, cause they didn't do anything notable together(Not by themselves). Besides, the only refs were from the WWE, which is not that good. Simon^KSK 01:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, most of my references were from OnlineWorldofWrestling.com, with only a few from WWE.com, so you clearly didn't notice that. Secondly, they formed an alliance in the Royal Rumble which enabled a member to win the event (something which will be made clear in VOD, DVD and BluRay versions of the event for years to come) and the name of The Legacy has been used all over Monday Night Raw since Rhodes and Manu attacked Cena before Armageddon two months or so ago. Had they not aided Orton in his Rumble win I could completely understand but the fact is that, when it comes to the Rumble, many will look at the Final Four, three of which were from the same faction. Not only do I think that's notable, it's clear that other people have thought of them to be notable in the past without even this acheivement. TheDingbat (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OnlineWorldofWrestling.com is not a reliable source as per the style guide. Secondly, you assert that the alliance will be made prominent in digital media - in my view that is crystalballing as you don't know what kind of information will be included. If they do anything in the next few months, THEN they might make notability. ArcAngel (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Not true, OWW is in the "not yet proven" section. That is not the same as being unreliable (it means it's not conclusive enough to decide whether to consider it reliable or unreliable). From my own experience with them I would consider them mostly reliable (no site is 100% reliable). TJ Spyke 01:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the assertion of DVD/VOD notoriety is crystalballing but the fact is that RAW and the Rumble already happened. It's documented and has been shown that The Legacy made this impact at these shows, so surely that qualifies for notability? Especially since there was significant coverage of the Rumble during last night's Raw, as well as The Legacy being prominently mentioned during the main event interview slot. TheDingbat (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected on OWW then - but I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the impact is as big as you think it must be. Raw always goes over the previous night's PPV, that's nothing new there. ArcAngel (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

By "been around for months", do you mean a fortnight? Rhodes and Manu did attack Cena months ago, yet Manu isn't in The Legacy so really this isn't officially them. I know I'm being a technical git and of course when the article is written that whole formation thing will have to be narrated however the stable did not officially come into being until Ted came back a fortnight ago. Up until that point Randy was running tests for everyone. At one point it did seem as if they were a stable but this was very quickly retconned and made apparent that Randy's selection wasn't final. Manu and Sim were never part of The Legacy as one version of the article states, they were merely being tested for it. This will make up part of the article should the stable become notable which I'm sure they will do, they just aren't for now. It's a great idea to keep the article sandboxed somewhere though like WillC did for Main Event Mafia until they are notable enough which I would think would happen around the time of WrestleMania should they keep being so prominent. Tony2Times (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See, I would've thought that technically, The Legacy began when Orton, Rhodes and Manu came together, and that Orton simply changed its members. However, I've seen your suggestion, so I'll save the article I wrote and keep it sandboxed. Should The Legacy still be around come WrestleMania time, I'll keep adding to the article Sandbox style and perhaps put the article up at that time. TheDingbat (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really too hard to understand, The Legacy is a stable, and notable it be. What is all this not notable yet stuff for anyway, I've got a really good article in my sandbox that me and Adster95 have made and edited. The Legacy.  ←Kalajan→  16:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really too hard to understand, The Legacy is a new stable, and notable it ain't. Oh wow, I can be just as pithy and argue my point too. However if you read up you'll also find salient points for why it's on hold. Tony2Times (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Also your article has some formatting problems with indented paragraphs. Furthermore it lists Sim Snuka as a member of The Legacy. When did that happen? It also lists Ted and Cody as having 2 World Tag Champ reigns while they were in The Legacy. When did that happen? Tony2Times (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What happened was: Snuka was a member of the legacy, and that's were he's listed. Secondly Nikki311 told me to have them as the same team, so that's what I did, she said that she supposed that they could be added.  ←Kalajan→  14:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What happened was Snuka tried out to be a member of The Legacy and never passed the tests Orton gave him. If I sit an exam to join the police force and fail, I'm not a former member of the police force. I have to disagree with Nikki too, unfortunately; while I believe Priceless' formation should be discussed in the article as there is no Priceless page, they weren't part of The Legacy, as it didn't exist, while they were tag champs. Tony2Times (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should clarify what I meant, which I meant to do sooner because I noticed you misunderstood me earlier...I meant that the Priceless information should be in the article (as it is pretty much the same team, DiBiase, Rhodes, and Orton as a mentor), as background information in an "Early history" or "Formation" section. Then we could redirect all the Priceless links there instead of Rhodes' article. However, I agree that the tag championships should not be listed in a C&A section (maybe in the prose about Priceless' history), as the article is about The Legacy only...I never meant to make a hybrid of Priceless and Legacy, just include a little Priceless info in there. Nikki♥311 22:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah well that I agree with. Tony2Times (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I think it's notable because Orton WON the Rumble match, and they're now feuding with THE MCMAHONS. Mecha13 (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly. This is WikiProject Professional Wrestling - seemingly, normal Wikipedia logic doesn't exist here. Notability is earned by existing for more than a few months... unless you're the New Breed, that is. TheDingbat (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

According to its infobox, the New Breed existed from February to June. Five months counts as a few doesn't it? Tony2Times (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Just my two cents but i think they DO deserve a page the group, while still in the early stages, have done alot of stuff includint tag title reigns and Ortons Rumble Win. We just need to put it up to a vote IMO :)LifeStroke420 (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No they haven't won a tag title. That was months ago before Orton was even talking to Rhodes and DiBiase. All they've done is survive to the final four of the Rumble and win it and are currently engaged in a feud with Shane McMahon which is one week old. The discussion here would be longer than their page. Tony2Times (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong they lost the titles on October 27th. Orton started talking to them before unforgiven which was in September.LifeStroke420 (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And those talking tos mainly consisted of him telling them they weren't good enough or impressive enough and no use of the word Legacy was used until December's Raw, nor was there even talk of a group. And The Legacy didn't exist until a week or so before the Rumble, up until then Orton was forcing them all to try out for the group. Trying out for something doesn't mean being part of it. Tony2Times (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

WrestleView

The project's manual of style has been changed to say that WrestleView is not a reliable source for most things. This was never discussed here and no link has been provided to any other discussion to that effect. It was found reliable because (among other things) it has editorial oversight, an established staff of qualified and knowledgeable writers, and they were mentioned in a positive light by a writer from SLAM! Wrestling. Why has this changed? GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Per the FAC of Lockdown 2008. Source reviewer User:Ealdgyth only found it reliable for things as PPV and TV results.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 03:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well mainly because of the Lockdown 08, WrestleMania 24, Armageddon 06, and No Way Out 04 FAcs it was determined to be reliable for results only. The reviewers didn't trust it that much. But it is reliable for results and small things, like venue announcements.--WillC 03:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

WrestleView was not mentioned in most of the reviews mentioned here. As for Lockdown 2008, Ealdgyth didn't comment at all. One user said that he/she wasn't convinced about WrestleView but did not oppose on that basis. Nobody has ever said that WrestleView is only reliable for match results, and it remains on Ealdgyth's approved list. The project's manual of style should be changed back accordingly. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion somewhere, but I can't remember where, I'll ask Ealdgyth about it.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 04:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You could check my talk archives. I had a discussion with the two users who opposed Lockdown's first FAC. One of them said he based his oppose mainly on the prose and WrestleView's reliablity.--WillC 04:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked Ealdgyth to clarify her view on WV's reliability.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 04:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I am not looking for it to be accepted for current rumors. I don't write about anything current, so I don't care about that. Being told that it can't be used for historical information (eg the FAQ section) bothers me a bit, especially as the reasons given for delisting it have either been untrue or "someone said something somewhere". This is the reason that I believe things should be discussed here rather than imposed because someone once opposed an article because of it (but in reality gave a list of other reasons for opposing that were unrelated to the sourcing). I'm not trying to accuse anyone of doing something wrong, but rather looking for a way to avoid confusion in the future and to preserve the ability to use what I believe has been accepted as a reliable source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh for that, that's fine because its published researched work. Its not for current stuff, so its fine.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 23:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds great. That's pretty much what Ealdgyth said on her talk page. I can understand not using it for rumors, etc., but I just wanted to clarify its status for historical information. Thanks for the help. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

One Night Stand: Third Opinion

As suggested by an admin, a Third Opinion on whether WWE One Night Stand should be moved to WWE Extreme Rules, and perhaps more specificly, whether the conseus is valid, and if whether the claims of policy violations are valid, has been requested. 05:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

An old discussion is above for reference. 05:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

The 'Upcoming PPV' sidebar at wwe.com does indeed list an event as Extreme Rules instead of One Night Stand, and the name change is widely reported on a number of wrestling websites - however, this name change is (rather annoyingly) not mentioned on the WWE website. In all probability, I think it would be better for official confirmation that this is an actual name change and not a new PPV before going ahead with the renaming - methinks an email to those lovely chaps in WWE Towers is in order.... Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 15:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done - E-mail sent to WWE. D.M.N. (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like most of those sites are just going by the sidebar. Good luck DMN, WWE rarely ever answers e-mails sent to them. TJ Spyke 19:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No mail back from them yet. They've probably seen my mail and sent it straight to the trash. D.M.N. (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I sent an email as well when the above discussion took place, but I never got a reply. My 2 cents is this, WWE tends to release ticket information here about their future events, which includes pay-per-view events, here. In the ticket information subpages, links are given that give the all ticket information and the name of the event, such as The Great American Bash here. Now for the PPV in question, WWE publishes a mini-schedule to the right on their official website with upcoming pay-per-view events, which states that on June 7, WWE Extreme Rules will take place, however, last year WWE used the name One Night Stand: Extreme Rules to promote the event, so Extreme Rules could well be a secondary name once again. In addition, WWE has not released ticket information in the above link I presented to formally announce that change, so at the moment we can only speculate, which should be avoided, until WWE formally announces it. If this were official, they would have changed the URL and name of the event at the One Night Stand official website here.--TRUCO 14:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If "Extreme Rules" was an offical part of the name last year (and I'm not arguing against it), then it needs to be reflected in the article name. I suggest you thus move the article. Mshake3 (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And please stop bringing up last year's webpage, because, well, it's talking about last year's show! Mshake3 (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the official ONS page talking about lats year. If not, the link would be http://www.wwe.com/shows/onenightstand2008, but it is http://www.wwe.com/shows/onenightstand. Simon^KSK 17:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And where is it talking about this year's show? Mshake3 (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

They are not, because, in case you didn't notice, this year's show is 4 months away. They have nothing else to talk about other than last year's. Simon^KSK 21:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And if they're not talking about this year's show, then you can't say that part of the website refers to this year's show. Mshake3 (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Bettia, you're suggesting that the name is official, but it's unknown if it follows the lineage of the previous PPVs. Correct? Mshake3 (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No she is stating that indeed WWE has replaced the previously called "One Night Stand" on the calender with "Extreme Rules", but WWE has not formally announced it with the link here. Until then, we can't speak for WWE. In addition, WWE released a WrestleMania 25 calender which calls this years event "One Night Stand", and now they have replaced it with "Extreme Rules", since both are official publications of WWE, they are contradicting each other, so until a direct statement is released, such as ticket information, it can't be changed.--TRUCO 18:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, who the hell are you to say that the events page is the only official source of an announcment? When that calendar was released, it was considered an official announcment by everyone here, as various articles were updated. And contradiction? The calendar was released two months earlier. WWE.com, being a live website, is a more up-to-date source. Mshake3 (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I don't need your uncivility. How about you edit an article for once in your life and stop complaining all the times. Okay, let me ask you, does WWE directly state "Hey WWE Universe, One Night Stand will now be known as Extreme Rules". No, its best to wait until the change happens and so they can update their ONS link accordingly, if its the same PPV lineage, like they did with NOC and Vengeance, where they stated that it was the same lineage.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 23:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be good for you to read WP:CIVIL, Mshake. Again, we do not know if it the official name. If we only followed the calender sidebar, The Great American Bash would be Great American Bash. Simon^KSK 23:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Lets all wait a little bit. Maybe WWE hasn't pulled a TNA, what is the arena which ONS is taking place at? What are they promoting: Extreme Rules or One Night Stand? I believe we should go by the first calender, since the the department that makes the scheduale must have took it into deep consideration.--WillC 06:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I say we wait until this even becomes relevent. It's 4 months away and no matches will be made until very close to it due to its proximity to other PPVs. Tony2Times (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats the best thing to do, is to wait. I don't understand why Mshake can't get that through his head.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 16:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of you have terrible excuses, simple as that (especially the "the" argument). In fact, you completely blew off the third opinion, where it was stated the name change was acceptable, but there's not enough evidence to say it'll carry the same lineage. Mshake3 (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You're just misinterpreting her opinion, she says its best to wait.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 01:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Mshake, Huh? The person making the opinion said they think we should wait for official confirmation on whether it is a new PPV or a name change before doing anything, meaning keep all references to the event as One Night Stand for now. TJ Spyke 01:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it is you who has a terrible excuse, where your only source is a calender which can list list different names instead of the official name. And being uncivil is not helping you at all. Simon^KSK 01:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Who is being uncivil? TJ Spyke 02:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

He was directing it at Mshake. Bottom line, consensus is to "wait until WWE publishes their event details/ticket information subpage for ONS or ER".--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 02:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You being uncivil, TJ? I think not... Simon^KSK 02:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I assumed you were talking to me since you just said "but is is you" and it was right after my comment. TJ Spyke 02:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"I think it would be better for official confirmation that this is an actual name change and not a new PPV before going ahead with the renaming." She's opposed to moving the ONS article, but has no problem with ER being the official name. Mshake3 (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That makes no sense, we need an official confirmation as to what the hell "Extreme Rules" is.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 01:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's the name of an upcoming PPV, according to WWE.com. ;) Mshake3 (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

WWE never said that. That's OR. ;) Simon^KSK 22:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

An calendar of upcoming PPVs on the company's website is considered "saying that." Mshake3 (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Tyson Dux

I require a source for his real name but I can't find it. Does anyone know one? Govvy (talk)09:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Textbook Tyson is listed with the other X-Cup competitors by various news sites with his real name (Tyson Moody). Whether these sites would be notable enough really isn't up to me... wrestlingnewsworld.com, NODQ.com, wrestlingattitude.com - KP McZiggy ^{(they talk 2 me)} 23:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

PWI Almanac

I had a copy of the first almanac that PWI ever put out, but I visited my parents tonight and did an unsuccessful search of their basement (although it did turn up a few autographed programs from some shows I attended in the mid-90s). I don't quite remember what was in it, although I think it had title history lists. Anyhow, I noticed that the 2008 edition was on sale for $5.95 on their website, so I ordered a copy. Just so that I'm not eagerly anticipating something that will disappoint me, can anyone let me know if it does contain title histories? If so, is it just for the major promotions? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have the 2008 one. They have the title histories for WWE Championship and World Heavyweight Championship (although annoyingly mix them up, they have them based on Raw and SmackDown. That means they have "Raw World Title" covering the WWE Title up to September 2002 and then have it switch to the WHC from September 2002 June 205 when it goes back to WWE), WWE and World Tag Team Titles (same problem), WWE IC Title, WWE US Title (starting at 1980), WWE Womens Title (although it's the WWE version and not the real version, odd since they DO include Antonio Inoki's reign in the WWE Title section), WWE CW Title (including the WCW LH Title), ECW Title, NWA Title, NWA Tag Title, TNA Womens Title, TNA World Title, TNA X Title, TNA Tag Title, ROH Title, ROH Tag Title, IWGP 3rd Belt Title, IWGP Title, IWGP Int Tag Title, IWGP Jr. Heavyweight Title, AJPW Int Tag Title, AJPW Triple Crown Title, NOAH Title, NOAH Jr. Heavyweight Title, NOAH Tag Title. They got rid of the section for past titles. TJ Spyke 05:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...well, it should still be useful. The past titles are really what I'm looking for, though. Sourcing the Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame list is a little difficuly at times (although I'm now on to the "P" section in my sandbox). Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The 1996 edition has only a basic title history. The covered active titles, as of 1996, include WWF, NWA/WCW, ECW, SMW, USWA & IWGP (pages 124-151). Inactive titles include AWA, Florida State, Georgia National, Mid-South North American and Missouri State Heavyweight titles (pages 152-159). 72.74.202.204 (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know where I can find a reliable source for AAA title histories? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally have used http://www.wrestling-titles.com/home.html a lot, they have almost every title out there. TJ Spyke 06:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrestling-titles isn't reliable. Try searching Solie.org, they have almost every title history as written by the Wrestling title history book.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 21:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for giving that link, I haven't looked at the site myself yet until now, those sources will help me with TNA's Title histories.--WillC 21:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but use it carefully because the Wrestling-Titles book was released well before got an extensive history with their titles so its mainly reliable for past title histories and I guess you could state that they get their TNA info from TV, except that TNA just doesn't list their history.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 22:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Truco, how is wrestling-titles unreliable? I have never noticed anything wrong on the pages I checked. TJ Spyke 22:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

They don't explain or give evidence for their fact checking, probably. Nikki♥311 22:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)It was proven unreliable at FLC, I tried to use it before for one of my FLs (when it was at the FLC stage) and they deemed it unreliable, which is why I started using Solie.org because they published the info from the Wrestling Titles book. In addition, I asked Ealdgyth long ago about it and they told me it didn't have an accurate/reliable fact-checking system, you can search her archives for it.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 22:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that is ridiculous to be honest. It's not a big deal since I have not used them for sourcing, but I have never found any errors on their site and they have title histories for lots of indy titles too. TJ Spyke 22:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Truco, was Solie.org deemed reliable? If so, do you have a link to where someone said it was reliable? It would be very useful if we want to use it and are questioned about the reliability. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk)

I started using it with the List of WCW World Tag Team Champions FLC, I explained its reliability and it was deemed fine, since then I have continued to use it without a problem.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 23:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've found errors with wrestling-titles.com before which is why when I revamped MsChifs' page recently I tried to use all other sources. I'm not sure if her ones had mistakes on too, but I definitely remember reading some British titles which had some errors on it, incorrect dates (off by a year) and also missed out reigns. It's also a pretty cheap looking website :p Tony2Times (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looled up British titles on that site, i've only checked major promotions (WWE, WCW, ECW, TNA) and for those I have found no problems. TJ Spyke 01:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I assumed you hadn't so I thought I'd pop it in. Is there any need to use it for the US Four though? Aren't they all on WWE/TNA's website? Aside from the few WWE don't acknowledge of course. Tony2Times (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't advocating the use of the site, just thought I would point out that for major titles it is accurate and useful for. Like you pointed out, there are also titles that WWE doesn't talk about (or they might mention them but not have title history for). I won't lose any sleep if we don't use the site. TJ Spyke 05:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoops ignore me I'm an idiot. I confused it with title-histories.com. Ignore me. Tony2Times (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

WWE Legends of WrestleMania

With the new policy and approaching release date this will be a source of vandalism and roster lists. I suggest everyone add it to their watchlist at least until the release passes. I am also going to request semi-protection. Cheers, JakeDHS07 19:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Backlash (2006)

This article is currently nominated for FA status, anybody want to help? One of the concerns is why certain sites are considered reliable. I wasn't here when it was decided what sites were considered reliable, so I don't know why it was agreed that they were reliable. I think everybody here would love to see another PPV article become a FA. TJ Spyke 05:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well Lords of pain is a dirtsheet site, so it isn't reliable on any grounds. Online World of Wrestling does not have accurate fact checking. PWWEW, look at The Great American Bash 05's FAC. IMatthew used that source in there but for some reason reviewers didn't accept it. So none of them are reliable and it would be better to just remove them than trying to prove them reliable.--WillC 05:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed LOP. OWOW is a good site though and are generally reliable, not to mention they are used in a lot of the sources in that article (so replacing them would also be a pain). I will take a look at PWWEW tomorrow, i'm about ready to log off for the night. TJ Spyke 06:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"it would be better to just remove them than trying to prove them reliable." Because nothing is ever going to be reliable in the eyes of this place. Seriously, OWOW has no history of fact checking? According to who? Mshake3 (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

According to User:Ealdgyth, she is one of the reliable sources checkers on Wikipedia.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 21:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

She didn't say OWOW wasn't reliable or didn't check its sources, her comment just asked what made those 3 sites reliable. I already removed LOP. TJ Spyke 21:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

She probably missed it, but per her reliable sources listing for Wrestling articles, its not reliable. This source was also used in previous FACs and it was not acceptable.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 01:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that doesn't say OWOW is unreliable. It's just a brief list of sites she currently considers reliable. That and her comments in the Backlash 2006 FAC review makes it sounds like she just wants someone to prove that its reliable to her (she doesn't appear to be a wrestling fan, she admits to having never heard of TNA). So she just may be asking for proof and not saying those 3 aren't reliable. TJ Spyke 01:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this may be an opportunity to attempt and prove OWWOW's reliability, but I doubt it due to its fact checking system, however, its worth trying. --TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 01:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to prove them reliable. What I mean is what would make them be considered reliable? You mention fact checking, but I could ask the same question about several sites considered reliable by our project. Where is the proof that PW Torch has a good system or is reliable? That's not a slam against them, I just picked that site as an example. It's easier to prove a site unreliable than reliable. TJ Spyke 02:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Because Ealdgyth proved and found their fact checking system to be up to standards, the list we got of RS's are from Ealdgyth's list.TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 02:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I made some edits to this article to try to improve it and tighten it up a bit. None of them were reverted so I assume they were acceptable. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

OK... Look...

Ok, so I would like to state for the record that I got off on the wrong foot with you people. Even though I still completely disagree with the decision regarding One Night Stand/Extreme Rules, I am clearly out numbered and I shouldn't have lost my temper over it. I would like to start over and do my best to contribute to this community rather than butt heads with it.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Everyone will disagree at some point. It's no biggie. I can see that you can be constructive, and that you know when to say sorry. Thank you. Simon^KSK 23:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had so many of my ideas shot down here that I think are perfectly valid, it's just the way a democracy works. No reason for you to bugger off over it, it's always good to have new people on board. Tony2Times (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going anywhere. In fact, I just broke the news on the 2009 WWE Draft.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

YouTube Effing Sucks

I was just using the List of Champions template on some British titles which some bozo deleted all the information for and suddenly when I previewed it, the date section has been replaced with a headline that reads a sort of lazily spelt title. It seems to be effecting articles already in place now too like List of WWE Champions. Anyone know how to fix this? I sure don't. Tony2Times (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Which article is this and what exactly was changed? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it something wrong with my computer then? Look at the List of WWE Champions; to me it's coming up with big bold 'you tube fckin sucks' in every block of the grid in the Date column. Tony2Times (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Must be someone screwing around with one of the templates. Damn vandals. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The parameter which adds name to the template you stated was vandalized with those words in another template.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 01:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 01:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

ECW Title History

I understand that we merged the WWE version and "real" version, but I really think that the WWE championship reigns combined and the Original championship reigns combined need to be seperated. KP McZiggy ^{(they talk 2 me)} 00:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No because WWE considers the original reigns as part of the title in operation today. So we must abide to what the official lineage is.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 00:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Truco is right. It is the same title, not different ones. Same title, same lineage, WWE owns ECW, no reason to split. TJ Spyke 00:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Try the Pro Wrestling Wiki, where it seems they've done just that. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a shame, really hurts the credibility of that wiki (assuming they had any to begin with). To me it would be light having separate articles for WWF and WWE. TJ Spyke 00:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Really. They don't treat it with high priority like the English Wikipedia does.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 01:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)