Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 88

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

→

Reception/Review tables

I was reading one of the PPV reception sections and it was pretty bad reading. It just listed numbers over and over again. I know this is somewhat unavoidable given the nature of reviewing, but I wondered if we couldn't make the section better with a table like for music albums. Down the first column would be the reviewers (WON, PWTorch, The Sun, Slam! Wrestling, Baltimore Sun) and then the second column would have the reviews either in stars or out of ten. It might be too complex and overegging the pudding, but I wondered if instead of that we could maybe do a table where the matches go down the left side and the reviewers go along the top, with the review of each individual match. But as I say, that might be a bit too much. I think either of these options would hopefully force more quotations that actually evaluate and describe the matches rather than just rate them. Unfortunately I'm not very good with tables and Wikifying so I thought I'd throw out the possibility to anyone who thinks this might be a good idea and fancies having a crack at it. Also, I keep seeing the phrase "Slam! Wrestling gave the match 7 out of 10 stars." Well, maybe I'm wrong about this but as far as I can see they didn't. Slam! Wrestling doesn't rate in stars, it just rates out of ten. They don't ever say 7 stars, or *******. Stars in wrestling are rated out of five. Tony2Times (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If we take 21 (Adele album)#Critical reception as an example... we'll still need a table for each and every match? That'll be six-nine tables? Starship.paint (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't sound that way to me. One table per show, seven rows (or however many matches there were) and four columns (or however many raters). I'm no good with tables, either, but it seems like a decent idea. How many sources do we have that rate every match on every show? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

From what I know, PWTorch does *****, SLAM! rates out of 10. WON probably, but only paid members can see. 411mania while not exactly a reliable source usually has ***** ratings as well. Starship.paint (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Then yeah, I like the idea. Reliability isn't important, since we're dealing with opinions. If I give a match two stars and you give it five, we're both right. As long as the source verifies the rating, it's all good. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

@Tony, "bad reading" is a result of bad writing. Repetitiveness can and should be avoided in all articles. That's not a fault of the structure of the ppv articles, it's the fault of whoever wrote the section. My most recent ppv GA was Over the Limit (2010), and the reception section in that isn't just a list of numbers, although it obviously includes numbers. I'm curious as to which article prompted this post. Imo, inserting a table is not a substitute for having a well-written section. We have a few ppv FAs as well, and I don't recall complaints about any repetitiveness in those reception sections either. NiciVampireHeart 12:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

To clarify my stance, I'd like to see tables added to the sections, not replace all the prose. The words say a lot that stars or numbers can't alone, but it would be nice to also have the ratings in a "quick view" format. Good work on Over the Limit. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh I definitely don't want there to be no writing in the reception section. I just think if you have a table, it eliminates some of the number lists and encourages editors to quote reviewers. And in terms of the table, if doing table of matches proves to be too difficult, I still think one that contains the reviews for the shows as a whole would be a good idea. Nici, I'm sure there is a good way to do it and no doubt you are the one to do it, but I think if we make the tables a standard in each/most articles it would invite the bad writers to change their ways. Tony2Times (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Necessity of mentioning scripted on individual PPV articles

Talk:Royal_Rumble_(2013)#Background_Section brought up what I think is a valid objection. I think it is a repetitive waste of space to mention the 'scripted' aspect on every single pay-per-view article. It's also somewhat inaccurate because, even if it is reduced nowadays, some ad-libbing and on-the-ball changes DO occur. The idea of scriptedness (and all necessary elaborations on the concept) belongs in the primary article on pro wrestling, but I don't see why it needs to leak onto every single article about it.

Each article related to pro wrestling inevitably links back to the primary article if people want to read about it. Royal Rumble (2013) links to professional wrestling and Royal Rumble and WWE, for example. Both the PW/WWE articles will mention the scripted part. We distract from organization of information pertaining to the events themselves when we inject reminders like that.

I'd like to move that we restrict this information to primary articles about the topic as a whole, the companies that deal with it, and perhaps in the collective articles about ongoing PPV series (such as WrestleMania as a whole, TLC as a whole, etc), but that we keep it out of the individual pay-per-view event articles produced each year. Ranze (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Support abolishing this system. No other general topic gets this strange treatment, even the obscure and confusing ones that would benefit from a little dumbing down. This kind of disclaimer is about as insulting to the average person's intelligence as explaining what a cartoon is everywhere, in case someone was confused by Who Framed Roger Rabbit. It also really breaks up the flow of reading. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose on event articles, it needs to be clear to those that do not know wrestling that it's not a true athletic competition compared to a SuperBowl. Just like you cannot have an article on "Han Solo" without pointing out he's a fictional character. It's part of the effort to make it not "in universe". It's like 2 lines of text, not a big deal and frankly is part of the wrestling articles being something more than just fan-boys writing for other fan-boys, but making them generally applicable. MPJ -US 14:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Han Solo does not mention "fictional" in the body. Just pipelinks "universe" to Fictional universe, the way I think we should simply Wikilink Professional wrestling. I also don't think one needs to be a fanboy to know wrestling isn't a legit sport. Seems to be the one thing non-fans generally do know about wrestling. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It says he's a "character in a movie" though. Movies are pretty well known everywhere, wrestling is not as much of a common concept and needs a tiny bit more explanation. And we're stressing the "scripted" aspect, not "fake" (Angle "fake broke" his neck from fake moves?). MPJ -US 22:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Our PPV articles start with "...was a professional wrestling pay-per-view event". Same deal as mentioning "in a movie". Yes, wrestling is slightly less ubiquitous than movies in the English-speaking world, but only just. If we were having this conversation in the 1970s or even '80s, I'd completely agree we need a disclaimer. But this cat is long out of the bag. And yeah, I'm talking about "scripted", not "fake". I'd bet far more non-fans are confused about that distinction than about the difference between Taboo Tuesday and the Olympics. Yet, we have no disclaimer for this, possibly misleading ignorant readers into thinking it is as fake as a movie. All the more reason to let the Wikilink to wrestling speak for itself, in clearer detail, like we do for all other art media. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per MPJ-DK. Longstanding consensus, designed in collaboration with Featured Article reviewers, established to comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. It's actually in place to eliminate the need for longer descriptions of the nature of wrestling throughout the article. People who don't like it are free to skip it--not everything in an article needs to be a profound, previously unknown fact. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Anybody want to play tiebreaker here before MiszaBot sweeps it under the rug? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Support removal. Reads like an unneeded aside that's a bit of a non-sequitor in placement, and needlessly elaborates on the definition of "professional wrestling", which is already linked. It's not like the scripted nature of professional wrestling is somesort of big industry secret anymore; I'm going to give credit to readers as having some prior knowledge. oknazevad (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If we must keep the disclaimer, change heroes and villains to faces and heels?

These are where the Wikilinks lead, and are the proper terms in this context. Seems strange to pipelink like this, when the actual terms would work as well. Yes, they are not as familiar terms, but they are precise. If someone is momentarily confused, they'll learn a new word by clicking. We should also probably Wikilink "feud". Seems strange to have every word except the one specifically about wrestling linked.InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Or do we already have a consensus on this? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, seems like consensus was already established on that. I agree with this proposal and the feud thingy as well. Starship.paint (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed as well. No need to avoid the jargon with simplistic terms when wikilinks to articles explaining the terms explicitly exist. Again, I'm going to give some credit to our readers being able to glean meaning from context. oknazevad (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Joe McHugh

We're fast approaching the 20th anniversary of the death of Joe McHugh. To answer the inevitable "Who?", the weekly recitation of (in part so as not to tax the patience of those who have none) "The referees assigned for this hour of wrestling: Dusty Feldbaumer, Dick Woehrle, Bil-ly Ca-POO-to, and my name is JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOEEMcHugh!!!" was oftentimes the best part of old school World Wrestling Federation squash match wrestling. A lot of times, these introductions lasted longer than the matches which followed.

There appears to be enough sources out there to create an article, what does anyone say? The only thing I can't readily access is the 2nd Edition of the WWE Encyclopedia. Some of the ancient documents dredged up in response to Linda McMahon's Senate campaigns would indicate that McHugh worked these shows more due to the Pennsylvania Athletic Commission than due to the McMahons. That may provide a clue to further research. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 09:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Found a 1984 and 1991 article and two Times Union pieces. PWTorch, SLAM! and Wrestleview have nothing. Observer has this. Three passing mentions in PWInsider. Historyofwwe Starship.paint (talk) 12:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems like nobody is interested in the creation of the article but you, Radio. Starship.paint (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your last comment would aptly describe what many editors seem to view as "collaboration" (read: "If you feel strongly enough about it, we'll sit back and let you do all the work"). Despite saying that, thanks for what you did contribute. There does appear to be enough to establish notability. Perhaps I could just add the name to the requested articles graveyard and maybe someone else will take notice however many years from now. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 01:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Nelson Frazier, Jr.

I want to have a discussion here about Nelson's article title. Frankly, I find "Nelson Frazier, Jr." to be the most inappropriate title for the article among all the candidates (Mabel, Viscera, etc.). Join me there for the discussion! Feedback ^☎ 14:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

TNA PPV moves

I notice that the TNA Turning Points pages have all been moved, e.g. Turning Point (2012) to Turning Point (2012 wrestling). This was flagged as an "uncontroversial move". Personally I don't think "2012 wrestling" makes much sense - I'd propose moving the pages back to the former titles. I'd welcome any input. McPhail (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You have my full support. Starship.paint (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. No need for it, there's nothing else with the old titles to have to awkwardly disambig them like this. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Why wasn't a consensuses formed for this in the first place.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 05:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes people would rather just do something than talk about doing it. I can sort of see the point behind it; there are a three movies named Turning Point in '09 and '12, but they already have the "film" qualifier. "2011 film" sounds English, "2011 wrestling" doesn't. Even if we keep the qualifier (for some reason), "wrestling" should be "PPV". Shorter and clearer. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Mayne we can write TNA Turning point (2012). It means that is the TNA PPV, celebrated in 2012. Also, it can help with The Great American Bash (WWE and WCW)--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I like that idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any difference between WCW or WWE's Great American Bash. WWE own the lineage to WCW, it's the same event. Either that or someone needs to create a new page for the three or four WCW World Heavyweight Championship reigns that took place on WWE in 2001, as well as a new US Title article and the like. But for the TNA problem, that solves it. Tony2Times (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

ok, bad example, i only want to say that we can explain in the title also the company that held the event, like nwa, wcw and wwe great maerican bash. For example, in 2013, danny trejo starring a new film, vengance, as Vengeance (2013 film). I think that is better to change all the vengance events to WWE Vengenance (year), better than vengeance (2012), vengeance (2013 wrestling). We can put all the events alphabetical only writing WWE, TNA, WCW... Before the name, without the word wrestling.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that bit makes sense. It's a little long but it's what we do for a lot of the non-year specific articles about PPVs. Tony2Times (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

What is this?

Hello. Today, I find his template Template:WWE Legends. Sorry, but I think that it must be delete. It is a very open template. What is a WWE Legend? I don't see any sources. Does any criteria exist to be a WWE Legend? I think that it is usless and a pure invention (Brock Lesnar, Michelle McCool and Sabu as WWE Legend? Really) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a list of WWE/WCW/ECW alumni. Starship.paint (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Should certainly at least get a name change. WWE Legend (capitalized) is a trademarked term, and only applies to specific alumni who have signed a special contract. An alumni navbox wouldn't be so bad, if it weren't for the fact that there's something like 2,000 former W/WWF/E wrestlers. It'd either be missing people or too big. It also has Chris Von Erich in it, for some reason. I wouldn't mind at all if you deleted it. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Tony2Times (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Definitely a candidate for TFD. A navbox featuring WWE alumni (which this one appears to be) would be so unwieldy that it would defeat the purpose of navigational convenience. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I creat'd this template mixin' the alumni sec o' WWE.com w/ WCW Hall o' Famers and added others like Hillbilly Jim that's part o' Legends' House and Eric Bischoff and Tazz that're part o' Legends Roundtable, but didn't list the ones workin' onscreen on WWE programmin' or on Nxt administration. I'd added the WWE Hall o' Famers 2, but delete'em coz it'll be redundant a lot. We'd take that Legends sec on the personnel template out. What'd u think? AARDJ (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi AARDJ. Here is the thing. First, the alumni section on WWE.com is not stable. Entries are added and deleted on the whim of WWE. In addition, there are other, more accessible ways to organize WWE alumni than to lump the whole lot of them inside a navbox. It also runs contrary to guidelines on WP:NAVBOX, particularly "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template" and "The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article." --Jtalledo (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that it's a bad idea. We have the WWE Alumni aritcle with over 2000 wrestlers. This template shows only 30 wwe wrestlers. Also, to use wwe.com alumni its a bad idea:every month wweincludes one wrestler (last inducted, la parka) and deletes one if is signed with tna (like rvd). Also, it's used for storylines. In 2008, when the undertaker was "fired", wwe includes him in the wwe alumni.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

AARDJ remamed the template to WWE Legends. I don't see what's his point given that Tyler Reks and Tiffany are on it, to name just two. Starship.paint (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This template needs to go. It is definitely POV and serves no discernible purpose. Someone has arbitarily decided that Duke Droese, S.D. Jones, Max Moon, The Boogeyman deserve the title "legend" and that there is a reason that they need to be linked. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Given the title "WWE Legends", this might make sense if it contained those who actually are under a Legends contract. Instead, what we have here is only slightly less of a random, half-assed assortment of names than a navbox entitled "People named Didier" would be. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 01:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I just though it's a good idea. I used "legends" in its real meanin' not what it's mean to WWE. U can delete the template if u want. Ain't a problem for me. AARDJ (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

As HHH Pedrigree said, we have an article for Alumni. These people aren't "legends" in that they haven't all signed a Legends contract. Calling any of them a "legend" is a matter of opinion and there by PoV and original research. I'm going to nominate it for del now. – Richard BB 12:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

King of the Ring error

Vandal alert some fool thought it was funny to place The Rock as the 1991 King of the Ring Winner. I do not know where the error occurred but place tell me that Bret Hart was the legit winner of 1991 and 1993 King of the Ring event. Sundogs ^{Wikia UserPage} 00:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The King of the Ring article looks alright to me. I didn't notice anything on Rock's page, either. But yes, Hart won those two. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Twitter?

Do you think that we can use official twitter accounts as source? I saw today that Marty Wright (also, I think that we can change the name to The Boogeyman or similar) signed a contract with WWE because he confirmed the information in Twitter. But I don't know if it is true. I see a lot of information like that (Buff Bagwell and Honkey Tonk Man signed with TNA). But I don't read that WWE hired Boogeyman. What do you say, can we use Twitter as source or not? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why not, as long as we're reasonably sure the account is who it says it is, and the tweet actually backs the claim. Not long ago, Heath Slater tweeted something like "Encore, baby!" and that became the name of 3MB's article. That wasn't cool. Not sure I see him confirming anything here. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think if you include that information in the article it should only read as, "Wright confirmed via Twitter that he had signed a contract with WWE" or something similar, rather than just saying, "Wright signed a contract with WWE". – Richard BB 22:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, found it in the article. That's not a good source at all. He says he's "coming back" (actually just says "Yes" to a question). That could mean in 2020. Jumping to the conclusion that he's signed a contract already is as wrong as The Encore was. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Suplex article

I have noticed the Suplex article has recently had a number of random sections removed with the editor claiming uncited information. I know this article has had problems with it's citations since it's inception, but just what would be considered as valid sources? The ones normally used don't detail individual move techniques or how to perform them. I've had a little scout around to try and find something but these are all I can come up with:

http://wrestling.isport.com/wrestling-guides/how-to-suplex

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts93oddwWRs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpiqr3buI5k

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/german-suplex

http://wrestling.wonderhowto.com/how-to/perform-regular-vertical-suplex-wrestling-move-316755/

http://wrestling.wonderhowto.com/how-to/do-northern-lights-suplex-pro-wrestling-move-417507/

http://wrestling.wonderhowto.com/how-to/do-butterfly-suplex-315172/

http://headlockbackdrop.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/17-exploder-suplex/

http://headlockbackdrop.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/12-tiger-suplex/

Would any of these be considered valid? and if not where does this leave the status of this article and others like it? Duffs101 (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I consider the Big, Big Book of Wrestling Moves to be something like gospel. Not sure if Wikipedia agrees. I don't think any of those sources pass the WP:RS test, sadly, except maybe the first one. They all seem to be "anyone can contribute" types of sites. TheSuicidalDragon is a cool channel, though! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll try to give the whole article a re-vamp when I get chance. Duffs101 (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Real WWE Championship.jpg is up for deletion here

I'm the original uploader and think this deletion discussion is rather silly. It's an excellent photo of the WWE Championship and has been the main picture for the past few years. Now that there is a new title, the picture is serving its purpose along with the other "past designs" in the article's infobox. I frankly think this discussion should be snowballed, but as the uploader, I feel I don't have the right to bring that up. Those who are commons users should voice their opinions there. Thank you, Feedback ^☎ 19:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen the need for it since we have this picture but that doesn't seem like a practical reason to delete the image either. Surely all of them would be deletable by that line of thinking? Tony2Times (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You do realize you just linked me to a picture of a toy, right? Mine is a picture of the real WWE Championship [or at least the one they use at house shows]. No picture of a toy is going to compare to it. Feedback ^☎ 11:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I've heard in a shoot interview that, aside from real leather, the replicas and the real belts are identical. Not sure how credible a source Justin Credible is, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That image is now up for deletion as well by the same person who nominated the first and for the same reason. Here's the discussion. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 00:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

He nominated three others from what I can tell: here, here and here. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 00:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Explanation: The design of the belt is copyright, any photograph of the belt is a derivative work. You can't take a picture of a copyright object, work of art, etc. and licence it as free. See Commons:Derivative works. It's the same reason you can't take a picture of a Micky Mouse toy to illustrate the article on Micky Mouse (to use the same example they use). It will likely have to be reuploaded as fair use.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The same is technically true of all in-ring wrestler images (and the term "Stone Cold Steve Austin"). We could theoretically face "liability for up to three times actual damages". But yeah, should be an easy fair use claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Aside from re-uploading everything under fair use rationale, someone could simply e-mail permission@wwe.com and ask (nicely) to use all derivative works in the limited, non-commercial way Wikipedia already does. I'll bet they'd be cool with it. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

All images on Commons must be available for any use, even commercial. That is their mandate. Unless WWE is going to allow commercial use, they will not be allowed at Commons, and I highly doubt they will. I think there is a way to move them from Commons to here (similar to the way we can copy images from here to there), they would just need a Fair Use Rationale for all articles. I would suggest asking to do that if participating in discussions. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case, WWE almost certainly will not be cool with it. ~~Can the licensing info be edited without deleting and reuploading the image?~~ I see it technically can, but is this allowed? Seems like a quick fix, if so. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Wwe2013title.jpg and File:Original WWWF Championship.jpg are up for deletion as well on the grounds that they violate WP:NFCC#9.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

As a non-free image they should not be used outside of article space, and they should not be used in articles that they don't have a Fair Use Rational for, I didn't think that would be a deletion rationale however, they should just have their use restricted. By policy belts shouldn't be used in userboxes or navigation templates.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, according to WWE's official copyright policy, they reserve every right on every single picture ever taken at one of their events. Are we to remove every single live event picture from Commons? That would mean removing hundreds (or thousands) of pictures of wrestlers, titles, venues, etc. Feedback ^☎ 11:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Feedback, I really hope you have not opened up Pandora's box... hopefully WWE images are not reduced to something like this, which contains all the Pokemon pics on Commons. Starship.paint (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikilinking theme songs to CD track listings.

I've noticed the theme songs in "In Wrestling" sections are often Wikilinked to the article about the compilation CD they're on. This adds nothing to the understanding of the song, just repeats the track name and who uses it. Seems the only purpose is promotional, letting readers know where they can buy the song. Not what Wikipedia is about, is it? Or is there something I'm missing? I've unlinked a few, but am certainly not about to unlink the millions without consensus (and bot help, preferably). Thoughts? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. I think that it's promotional. Only a CD music.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone have an objection before Miszabot does her thing, or do we have a consensus here? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

So we're only talking about removing links to compilation CD's put out by WWE, TNA, etc., right?Ribbon Salminen (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Wikilinks to songs with their own articles (or even to non-compilation album articles) are fine by me, since they actually provide further information. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Okey dokey, sounds good to me.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

WWE '14 or WWE 2K14

Since Take-Two Interactive's 2K Sports announced that they will be working on the WWE video games, different names for the next game came out with WWE 2K14 and WWE '14 being confirmed so far. Problems appeared when a user changed the WWE series into the WWE 2K series and reverted back. We need on a consensus on the name of WWE/2K Sports series. Keith Okamoto (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what the next version is called, the last two are '12 and '13. That won't change. If they have a new developer and title, it seems to me that would be the start of a new series. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

But I see now that we have all the series lumped into one article. I guess we just move "WWE" to the "formerly known as" parentheses once we have a solid source for a name change. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's the official website for WWE Games' 2K Sports. http://www.2ksports.com/wwe The site also has a logo that might of started all of this confusion.

That announcement makes it pretty clear (to me, anyway) that the product line is called "WWE Games" (so WWE (video game series) should be retitled) and the game is called "WWE '14" ~~(so WWE 2K14 should be retitled)~~ (Done). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I started this discussion elsewhere because I didn't see this discussion here until now and I think you jumped the gun, Hulk, no consensus has been reached. Most reliable third party sources, including IGN, refer to the game as WWE 2K14. The publisher's logo says WWE 2K. Only once, in an announcement that could have been written before the name change if one has taken place, do they refer to the game as WWE '14, the name it had before THQ went under. It seems pretty cut and dry to me that a name change took place and the announcement wasn't updated to reflect that. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 02:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Even ESPN notes that the series got a name change. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 02:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Only ESPN is saying this, the rest are just echoing with attribution (as far as I can see). And they don't say the name has been changed, they say to "look for" a name change. A billion articles can repeat it, but it's still only one source. When it comes to titling games, the people making the game carry more weight. And they say it's called WWE '14. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

So should we also change the name of WWE Games to the WWE 2K series? Keith Okamoto (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say so, the source (and new logo) seem to support that as well. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 02:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Same as with the game name, the ~~developer~~ publisher has called it "WWE Games", never "WWE 2K" (unless you read into the logo). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

No, the publisher called it that, not the developer. And they did so in an announcement where it was mentioned once, in an announcement that was written likely before the title change. Every major reliable third party source says the name is changed. The two I mentioned before are just the tip of the iceberg. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 02:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I meant to say publisher. Speculating whether something was written before or after a title change that may or may not exist isn't going to lead anywhere. (And we don't have to speculate. This press release, speaking of "WWE '14" is dated 7 hours after the ESPN story was uploaded, as this article spells out.) If there are reliable sources out there for "WWE 2K14", independent from the ESPN story, please share. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I did, you ignored them. But I will give you five more. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 04:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Reference 1: "2K announced that WWE 14, which will likely go under the name WWE 2K14, will be available across all major platforms and distribution channels."

Reference 2: "ESPN's report at 9 a.m. said "Coming this fall: WWE 2K14." A news release issued by Take-Two at noon said the game would be called WWE '14. This post has been amended to reflect that disparity."

Reference 3: "...reports ESPN"

Reference 4: "...aims to combine the studio’s signature gameplay with 2K’s commitment to authenticity in WWE ’14, the latest iteration of the popular, long running series."

Reference 5: "Here is the press release. Is the offical name WWE '14 or WWE 2K14?" InedibleHulk (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Y'know, I'm done, I've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that reliable third party sources say the name of the game will be 2K14. But you refuse to concede your point because you believe the statement is a trump card, which it is not. It is the exception to the other reliable sources. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 05:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if you missed the point of the bold letters. Three of the five secondary sources you give support WWE '14. One uses the word "likely". The other is attributed to the source the other three have shown to be contradicted by a more current and official source. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

lol gaming journalism seems appropriate here. Btw, notice one source is written by a Forbes "contributor" and not "staff". Nice nitpicking InedibleHulk. « Ryūkotsusei » 05:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hulk's arguments are pretty convincing. That and reading 2K's press release. Starship.paint (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

WWE (video game series) encompasses all situations and there is no reason to deviate from that, as for anything else, Wikipedia is not a news site and it is not important to be making up the minute changes based on a few sources, we can wait until things are concrete, though even if it were WWE 2Kwhatever, it wouldn't be necessary to move the video game series page. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The point?

I am not sure I see the point of this list List of independent circuit, non-affiliated or retired professional wrestlers, basically it seems to be "Anyone not working for WWE or TNA that we can think off"? it's crufty and it is too easy to put in joke names like Seymour Butz etc. Am I the only one that feels that way? MPJ -US 00:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the link so that people don't assume that it has already been deleted. I agree with you. A catch-all list that couldn't ever hope to be comprehensive, and that doesn't add to anyone's understanding of anything. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to its contributors, but the list has to go. Starship.paint (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. All these guys are better covered in the various category listings (by nationality or place of work or whatever). Speaking of pointless, also see Lists of wrestlers. This page is in a category by the same name, which has the same lists (aside from List of professional wrestlers, ~~for some reason~~ because it's a redirect). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

photo's description

Hi. I want to say something. I saw that an user uploaded a lot of photos, like the rock in the 90s. But Isaw that the description that the user used in Wikipedia are different to today photos. Two examples

The oldest have good descriptions, because the description helps the photo. But the news are horrible, only describes the photo very bad. Thing like "Miz in 2012" are usless. For example, an improvement.

The two useless photos for the article (cena adressing the fans and the miz in 2012) were deleted because don't help to improve the article. The other photos, I use a description that, with the photo, explain the article (before, the description only explain the photo). I mean, I think that we have to change our mind, because descptions like "Cena in 2012", "HHH in the ring", "Miz is angry" are to useless. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

NXT's Champ and Tag Champs

WWE.com's listin' the championships at http://www.wwe.com/shows/wwenxt includin' who the champs defeated when got'em. Can I list'em on the WWE's championships template as developmental titles since they are recogniz'd? AARDJ (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, they're on the NXT section of WWE's site, so they're NXT titles, not WWE. WWE owns NXT, but they're still rather distinct promotions. Like if a kid wins a hockey or spelling bee trophy, it's not the parent's, even though the parent was a huge part of winning it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Just saying, Template:WWE personnel lists the developmental roster, so that is a case for listing the NXT titles under Template:WWE Championships...? Starship.paint (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

But NXT ain't a distinct promotion. There ain't no own wrestlers like OVW durin' its WWE develop days. It's more like a develop brand. And like Starship guy said if we list NXT wrestlers on WWE articles and templates why not the NXT champs? AARDJ (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Not distinct in the same way OVW or HWA were, no. I wasn't aware we listed the NXT guys in the WWE personnel template. It would make sense to be consistent and list the titles that way, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

So to add'em we need to have a consensus right? Agree or disagree (being bold)? AARDJ (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree Add another section below Divisional called Developmental for them. Starship.paint (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Fine by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose They do NOT list them here, which is the definitive list. so clearly the WWE doesn't consider them WWE titles, and it would be OR to list them as such. oknazevad (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

They are certainly not WWE titles. They are NXT titles, and would be listed as such, in a distinct (but not separate) section underneath the main section. Just as NXT is a distinct (but not separate) promotion under the main promotion, and is featured in a distinct (but not separate) section of WWE.com. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

agree with Hulk Starship.paint (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree here 2 add another section below Divisional call'd Developmental for'em. How many votes we need? AARDJ (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. The championships are never mentioned nor seen on WWE TV. The last and current NXT champions are on WWE TV and yet they have not even gone as far as mention the title exists. The show WWE NXT is a distinction from the main roster shows. This would be the same as add the OVW champions to TNAs page, it doesn't really make sense. Also the main article from which this template spawns from, List of current champions in WWE does not list NXT and should not because the two television products are completely different. As pointed out they are not listed here here so it is obvious they are not considered WWE titles. STATic message me! 15:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

NXT is WWE TV. Just another brand of the same company. The distinction is a work, just like Kamala's diet or The Undertaker's powers. As an independent encyclopedia, we're allowed (and encouraged) to shoot from a real world viewpoint. The titles are only limited to each brand because that's the way the show goes. McMahon is free to put his NXT title on any "WWE Superstar" he wants. TNA doesn't own OVW, though. If they want the OVW title on Impact, they need permission from Danny Davis. I imagine that once we update the template, we'll update the associated page, so that won't be a problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, the titles

Can somebody help us with the deletion of the WWE Championship? The WWE Championship will be deleted and I don't know all the rules in commons about copyright. The bad news are that the Brahama Bull, the Smoking Skull, the undisputed championship were also nominated. I think that, in a few months, we'll have not any photo for wrestling. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

They just need to be re-uploaded here instead of commons with an appropriate Fair use rational.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 20:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to automatically or at least conveniently transfer any at risk photos before they are deleted on Commons? Photos may be deleted without our knowledge, then they will be lost forever if we don't even know they were deleted. We need to transfer them before deletion. Starship.paint (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

There's an edit button in the Licensing section. I imagine someone could just replace the free license with a "{{Non-free biog-pic|Real WWE Championship|image has rationale=yes}}", replacing the "biog" part with whatever relevant category. But maybe that only works for pics on Wiki, not Commons. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't work for commons as they cannot host fair use images. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. No helpful transfer process? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if a fair use will work in this case since in at least one of the deletion debates that the images would violate WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#9, which means the there is a good chance that the images will be deleted even if there was a fair use rationale.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say they have contextual signifigance (NFCC#8), at least in the articles about the championships. A belt is the sole visual representation of a championship. Useful for readers to know which belt(s) stand for which championship, so if they come across a picture or video of someone wearing/carrying the belt, they can instantly realize "Oh, he must be the WWE Champion" (or whichever champion). Not sure how NFCC#9 applies. Are we currently using these images in places other than articles? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The undisputed title was already deleted and I managed to get it temp restored to retrieve it and the description wikicode. I've put it here for possible reuploading with a FUR. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 17:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed page move: Mark LoMonaco > Bully Ray

Comments welcome. McPhail (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Team 3D again?

Now, Bully Ray is the leader of Aces & Eights. However, I saw that the Team 3D/Dudley Boys article says that the are a tag team again. I don't think so. They are members of the same stable and yes, they will have a reunion, but I think that they aren't an active tag team. They are members of the same stable, but they have sigles ways. It's like we say "AJ Styles and Christopher Daniels was active in Forune." No, both were members of Fortune, but they don't compete as an active tag team. We can put that they are members of Aces & Eights, but no put Team 3D as an active Tag Team. Also, erase the tv and WHC titles from the section C&A. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, stablemates are different from tag team partners. If they start regularly tagging in two-on-two matches again, then we'd say that. Not before. And yes, the singles titles were won separately, and don't belong in their tag team article. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that being in the same group does not mean that they are in a tag team together. Its possible that they can be in a tag team while they are in the group (ie the New age outlaws were still a tag team when they were in DX) but we would need to see if that happens first.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, stablemates can be regular partners, too. Bradshaw and Faarooq were The Acolytes, within The Ministry of Darkness. Before they took the name, The Road Warriors were part of a wider Legion of Doom. Didn't mean to imply it's either/or, if I did. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I was not trying to suggest that you were implying that, I was actually trying to saw that they could become a tag team as members of their current group but he should wait to see if it happens before we say that the team has reunited.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

And I wasn't hinting that you were suggesting that I was implying. But I thought someone might. I think we can both agree that we are not arguing, or misunderstanding anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Kelly, Maryse and Kharma

There's sources stating that WWE is contacting former Divas to return. Only known to still be in talks are Kelly Kelly and Maryse while WWE re-patented the name "Kharma", adding her name to the rumored list of former divas. While these are still rumors, can I add a hidden note to the List of WWE personnel page(either under Female wrestlers or Unassigned employees) stating that those names are rumored and not officially resigned with WWE? Keith Okamoto (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Those are usually used to discourage people from constantly adding/changing things by explaining why not. Doesn't seem to be happening here. Is there another reason? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to prevent the page from being vandalized before anything is concrete with Kelly, Kharma and Maryse returning. Plus, is there anyway we can protect their individual pages too? Keith Okamoto (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Understandable, but until vandalism becomes a problem, I don't see the need. We could theoretically add invisible notes for every particular thing we think someone might wrongly add, but it seems like overkill. We already have a note that says "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" everytime someone edits. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Admins have to protect pages. Currently, Amazing Kong or Kharama in the WWE is working for Resistance Pro as she is their Women's Champion. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

File Maintenance

Although this is more of a Commons issue, I think it's logical for us to talk about it here on WP:PW. I think there are way too many redundant pictures on Commons regarding pro wrestling. Let's take CM Punk for example: commons:CM Punk. Look at all these pictures. I'm thinking we should start getting rid of the ones that are useless. For example, why do we need both of these pictures: File:CM Punk IC Champion.jpg & File:CM Punk Hammond, IN 013109.jpg? One picture of him with the IC title suffices. Same thing goes for pictures like File:Edgecution.jpg and File:Edgecution's.jpg. They seem so redundant to me.

I also think we should also begin a new naming standard. If the picture is a specific representation of a wrestler with a title , we should name it "Name of Championship- Name of wrestler". Like that, we will only have ONE picture of "WWE Intercontinental Champion- CM Punk" and ONE picture of "WWE World Heavyweight Champion- Daniel Bryan". If a wrestler has multiple reigns as champion, you'll add a (2) next to it (i.e. WWE World Heavyweight Champion- Christian (2)). We need to start organizing these, because it seems like there are so many orphan images out there which are hidden to most Wikipedias because they just can't find them. Some of them have ridiculous names like the aforementioned "CM Punk Hammond, IN 013109" image.

Also, if the picture is used to represent a specific move then it is unnecessary to mention the wrestlers in the title. We need to keep these things simple like File:Edgecution.jpg, and unlike File:Punk bulldogs Del Rio 1.jpg.

What do you guys think? Do you think what I'm saying makes sense or should we just leave our wrestling pictures cluttered like they are? Feedback ^☎ 19:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

All sounds reasonable. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd strongly disagree with removing pictures (unless they are very low quality). Commons is an image library - the more images there are, the more useful a resource it is. I think a more logical naming system is a great idea, though. Also, you could create subcategories, e.g. "CM Punk wrestling", "CM Punk holding championships", etc. McPhail (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

That "Hammond, IN" one seems low-quality enough to me, at least for illustrating the IC belt. Looks like Ric Flair's censored belt from '91. I suppose it's a half-decent pic of Punk, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

2 things. 1, File:Edgecution's.jpg has copyright. The photo was taken inside the ring. 2, I don't think that we need to delete photos (except no low quality, POOR quality). Look the dates, the "low quality" was upload on February, the "high quality", on June, so between February and June, we had only the "low quality". For example, File:Shelton Benjamin .jpg is the only image of Benjamin as USA Champ. If we delete due to "low quality", we delete the only photo of Benjamin as USA Champs. Also, we are talking about Commons, we can't delete a photo that use all the wikis (spanish, french, german, chinese...) maybe other wiki prefer to use the low quality photo, maybe a wiki use both photos. I don't know what's wrong, I prefer to have 20 photos of Cena as WWE Champion and choose my favorite to ilustrate the article than have one and put it in 20 articles. Also, we haven't any responsability. It's Commons, no English Wikipedia. Commons has his own users, his own rules (for example, the categories are real names, no ring names). We aren't the center of the universe, If we take a decision about Commons, it will affect all the wikis. About the names, that's not my problem. I don't car if a photo it's call WWE Champion - John Cena (3), John Cena as WWE Champ, The Champ Cena is here or Ey buddies, this is Cena, my favourite wrestler. I know that in Commons I can find a category about Cena, I choose an image, I put a name in Wikipedia and a photo appears. It works for me, without delete any photo. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Some good points for the second part. As far as the Edgecution picture, it does look pretty professional. But consumer cameras are pretty snazzy lately, and have great zooms. Hard to be sure if this is a ringside pic or taken by a front-row fan. Still the whole "derivative work" thing to it, I suppose. But yeah, that's a problem for Commons people (doing whatever Commons people do). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

HHH, I know this is a "Commons" issue, but I'm posting this under the assumption most of us are Commons users anyway. But the things on Commons do directly affect the English Wikipedia. Every Commons upload gets a "File" page here on the Wiki, and having so many random names is pretty ridiculous. I for one am guilty of disorganized naming. I have uploaded pictures of Punk that range from "CMPunk.jpg" to "CM Punk .jpg" because "CM Punk.jpg" was already taken. And if you go to "CM Punk.jpg", it's a horrible quality photo that shouldn't reasonably be used in ANY Wikipedia article due to all the alternatives out there.

I disagree entirely with deleting low quality photos if there is no free alternative. Shelton's pic needs to stay until we can find an alternative. If we ever get an alternative picture of Shelton with the US title that looks pretty darn amazing, I wouldn't see the point of keeping that low quality pic. Contrary to what HHH says above, I think that if out of 100 wackily-named pictures of Cena, 40 of them represent exactly the same thing, then 39 should be deleted. We're wasting too much space on Commons and Wikipedia with this sort of cruft. We should keep these things concise.

Another reason I believe we should do this is due to the "Derivative Works" rule. According to Commons' policy, and WWE's copyright policy, absolutely 'NO WWE picture should be posted on Commons. WWE reserves the right to every picture taken at its event as a derivative work. That's a big no-no for Commons. Maybe we can make an exception for a few necessary pictures, but what's the point of flooding Commons' file space with useless orphan images? Let's appreciate the fact no one has mass-deleted all WWE pictures from Commons and try our best to keep things neat. Feedback ^☎ 11:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Various AFDs!

I nominated List of independent circuit, non-affiliated or retired professional wrestlers for deletion a few days ago, but very few have commented on it. I also nominated both The Blondetourage and The Puerto Rican Nightmares for deletion as well. To me, these seem uncontroversial, but I have been wrong before. The one that seems most controversial is my nomination for Curt Hawkins and Tyler Reks. I say "controversial" because the team was together for a little less than a year. That being said, I don't think they accomplished much and the very little they did of note fits in their individual articles. I think we have to make a precedent that just because a team was together for a good amount of team doesn't automatically make them notable. Agree, disagree? Join the discussion. Feedback ^☎ 11:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I also nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hade Vansen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andre Tyson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachelle Walker. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I made a list at the top so they could be easier for project members to find. Feedback ^☎ 23:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that we have a problem, specially with the tag teams. I see a lot that I think that aren't notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I bundled three of them together per WP:BUNDLE. Way too similar to avoid having the discussions in the same place. Some of the others could use some bundling too like Eli and Novak. I voted on some, but refrained from voting on others to avoid the appearance that we're ganging up on all these AFD's. I'll voice my opinions once other editors add to the discussions. Feedback ^☎ 02:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

To reduce the backlog, and entice more participation, I have bundled four discussions of four former developmental wrestlers who never made it to national television at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hade Vansen. Hopefully, we can keep the conversation in one place while setting a consensus on what to do with these sorts of articles. Any other article of similar background should also be added to the AFD. Feedback ^☎ 16:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Question Beyond WrestleMania XXX

As I noted on WrestleMania XXX, I would like to draw attention to its next event, assuming it be true, WrestleMania XXX (or WrestleMania 31) that it is not confirmed by the wrestling event promoter, (cough cough World Wrestling Entertainment cough cough), did not confirmed the WrestleMania in 2015, which is approximately 2 years in advance, while 2014's WrestleMania (WrestleMania XXX in New Orleans) is actually confirmed as of March 2013. My problem, as noted on WrestleMania XXX talk page, is that we can not assume, speculate, or make judgment without any citation or actual prove from the wrestling promoters website, in this case W.W.E.'s Corporate Website (or the official W.W.E.'s website; not sure of which since I have not followed the sport since September 2002). So my argument is to use To Be Determined on the WrestleMania XXX's article until we know one hundred percent sure it is coming true. I am not discrediting that WrestleMania XXXI (or WrestleMania 31; I know for one hundred percent one of the two will be use; see WrestleMania 29 naming issue). The actual stylist of "speculated" WrestleMania event in 2015 is unknown without any press release or actual visual effects of said event in that year. As noted on the article talk page, hindsight is 20/20 and, saying this with clear judgment, that we may not be here in 2015 or if World Wrestling Entertainment even exist in the future beyond 2013, it is assumed in good faith that W.W.E. may be here for 2014, but, hindsight is 20/20 but we cannot forecast the future that is approximately two years in advance. As noted in WrestleMania XXX's talk page, rules of Wikipedia should be followed for events that are NOT confimed by the company. If it is mentioned, then I would suggest keeping a close eye on things of future WrestleMania events to be talked about on the overall view of the event; thus on WrestleMania's talk page as mention yet not confirmed. I know the follow is not wrestling related but it does bare mentioning, that The Sims 3 Island Paradise, The Sims 3 stuff pack (#10) and The Sims 3 eleventh expansion pack are mention on its main The Sims 3 article page with citation link to The Sims 3 website, but, the later, the tenth stuff pack and the eleventh expansion pack (at this time are untitled) are not made into article pages due to mention prior to this, the two are untitled and little to no further details are announced by Electronic Arts (EA Games/MAXIS). So, someone please correct me if I'm wrong here, but, I did mention the similar issue (in another area of this site) and unsourced items should not be on the page (i.e. further installments of the event where there aren't details made public as of the time of question). Sorry for double posting but I am letting the Wiki Project leaders of Pro Wrestling know that unsourced items like this, are mentioned in the Wikipedia's Manual of Style and/or the Wikipedia's Rules for unsourced and/false information. As I noted before, not discredit that "it may happen" but as good faith and should not rely on presumption of what we think is fact. Thanks. Sundogs ^{Wikia UserPage} 23:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed the metion of wm 31 A few mins ago the issue is fixed.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 23:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Sundogs ^{Wikia UserPage} 23:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sporadic nag

Hey what's good and happening? So I'm pretty much not doing anything here anymore although I have been noticing a few things here and there that have been keeping me up to date with whatever's going on here. Anyway, yeah just noticed some dude a while back deleted every mention of notable events (WrestleMania, SummerSlam, etc.) from venue articles

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Intoronto1125&offset=20121221164608&target=Intoronto1125

So yeah dude's been blocked for a while now too but I was hoping you guys could help restore these notes if deemed notable to their respective articles... yeah ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Dead links in FAs and GAs

According to this very nifty tool, there are a bunch of dead references in our FA and GA articles. It should be a big priority for us to replace them because if we don't, these articles are basically full of unsourced information and could lose their GA and FA labels because of it. To those who have the time, please help in this urgent matter. If a suitable replacement isn't found easily, let's try using the Wayback Machine. Feedback ^☎ 06:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That Machine has pretty much everything we're missing, I'd guess. Definitely easier to use that first, then resort to finding the same info elsewhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been proven wrong by the first one I tried. The Machine redirects to the main page, just like the link does. I miss the days when every page ended in .html. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandal Watch: User talk:Nheques

This guy has been editing the WWE championship articles removing the sortable functions from the tables. I'm in the process of rollbacking most of his edits and I will be posting a notification on his talkpage. I'll update if he reverts anything so someone could get an admin to block him. Feedback ^☎ 22:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

After about 20 minutes, I think I got them all. I posted a message on his talk page. My tone might not have been the best, but WP:BITE is really hard to follow when he goes ahead and removes content from every single WWE and FCW championship page. It's not like I enjoyed reverting vandalism for 20 straight minutes. Anyway, I told him to post here if he had any questions. Let's hope he goes that route instead of disrupting the pages again. Feedback ^☎ 22:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it was his intent to vandalize the pages. When I looked at his work, he was just trying to streamline the list of reigns. I think we need to actually look for a consensus and a way to streamline and sort the reigns at the same time. Keith Okamoto (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by streamline? They look great. How more organized can they get? Feedback ^☎ 22:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

What he was doing was removing the vacated spots due to them not counting as official reigns. He was making notes to replace the removed vacant spots. Keith Okamoto (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to sacrifice the sortable function of the table for him to do that. I'm assuming he was trying to make it more like WWE's website histories, but that isn't how it's done here. In fact, common sense should have kicked in at some moment during his 1-month tirade of editing for him to realize "wait a second, there must be a reason why the tables are like this!". Feedback ^☎ 23:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess he didn't know since he appears to be new here on Wikipedia. Keith Okamoto (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this, and noted that I sort of agreed with him here. If anybody feels like reading that and weighing in on the table thing, there you go. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Image deletion

See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:WWF_Undisputed_Championship.jpg#File:WWF_Undisputed_Championship.jpg for details.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Same issue two sections below. Discuss there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

What makes a "World Heavyweight Championship"

We need to have a clear consensus on what criteria we use for deciding if a major promotion's main championship can be considered as a World Title.

I have on numerous occasions tried to clean up the World heavyweight championship (professional wrestling) article, but it keeps getting reverted due to other editors claiming that some Japanese promotions never call their titles "World titles".

Yeah, they call them "Sekai titles". Hope that helps. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 01:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I feel this is because some people are too hung up on the actual words "World Heavyweight Championship", and not taking into account that all promotions consider their top title as THE biggest in the industry, and it shouldn't be up to one's individual taste as to whether consider it a World title.

Such factors as a promotion's history, legacy and prominence should be considered.

No promotion will ever come out and say that their top championship isn't World Championship caliber...I would just to see a clear concensus as to what we as editors can and can't count as such, and whatever the consensus is is what we'll live with.

My $0.02... promotions such as NJPW, AJPW, and NOAH in Japan should count as World Championship level due to their history in the country. Japan has a very rich tradition in puroresu, and wrestling there may even be bigger than it is here in America. The same goes for AAA and CMLL in Mexico, which has it's own rich wrestling history in lucha libre. It almost looks as if some folks want only the major American based promotions to count as World titles, and as the citation in the article says itself, that viewpoint doesn't hold a world view. Vjmlhds 01:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You'll find all the world championships (and world champions) here: User:Feedback/List of professional wrestling world heavyweight champions. Feedback ^☎ 02:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, if it's a major promotion's top title and has been defended abroad, it's a world title. It doesn't need to have the word "world" in its name, and if it does, it still needs to meet the other three criteria. But yeah, this is one of those arguments that will likely go on forever. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What do we do about the WCWA World Heavyweight Championship? The title was originally called the "NWA American Heavyweight Championship" and was made very clear that it was a regional title and inferior to the NWA World title. However, once the company split from the NWA, it was rechristened a World title. Chris Adams who held it 4 times when it was a regional title and once as a World title was called a "5-time World Champion" by the company. They basically rewrote history and called everyone who held the title a World Champion. So do we call them World Champions? I don't know if I should include, say, Mike Von Erich, on my list of World Champions when he only held the title during its "American Heavyweight" days. I think this is a tough conundrum. Feedback ^☎ 04:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No, only those who won it after it became a world title (Fujinami won it in Japan) should be considered "World Champions". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Or...say that I'm the "world heavyweight champion of Parma", and I travel to Don Mills to defend my title. Does that now make me a legit world champion? After all, I've defended my title internationally. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 05:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Is your Parma Wrestling Federation a major promotion? If not, it fails the first criterion. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors have absolutely no business determining what makes a title a "world title," since any decision would be simply point of view. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

We're not determining it ourselves. We are simply

...brainstorming? (I only wrote this second line, by the way)InedibleHulk (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Going back throught the archives as to the criteria used (A - must have "World" or a synonymous word in the title; B - defended in at least 2 countries; C - considered the top title in the promotion), then some of the titles that should be in meet the criteria. The AAA and CMLL World Heavyweight titles fit all 3 criteria - they have World in the title, they've been defended outside Mexico (AAA holds events in the SW U.S., CMLL has held shows in the U.S. and in Japan), and are the top titles in the promotion. The IWGP titles fit, as the "I" in IWGP stands for International (Wrestling Grand Prix), they've been defended in the U.S. (New Japan has held shows in the U.S., and they've been defended on PPV on TNA shows), and they are the top titles in the company. Regarding AJPW, they call their tag team titles the AJPW Unified World Tag Team Championship. In NOAH, they refer to their titles as the GHC Heavyweight and GHC Tag Team Championships - the "G" standing for Global (Honored Crown) So AAA, CMLL, and IWGP meet all 3 criteria, while AJPW and NOAH meet at minimum 2. Vjmlhds 21:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

in that case, czw also enter in the definition, because it was defended in germany and japan. Also pwg, was defended in germany, france and england. One more question, by World Heavyweight Champion? I think thats better world champion. For example, WWE says that ric flair is 16 times world champion, no world heavyweight champion.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, the world titles are all at User:Feedback/List of professional wrestling world heavyweight champions. The only ones that are missing are the aforementioned WCCW title which confuses me due to its lineage as a non-World Championship, the WWC Championship that has gone like 30 times to the same guys, and both the PWG and the CZW Championship which frankly I know very little about. If anyone knows about any others who could make the list, let me know. Feedback ^☎ 03:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Other than watching occasional footage, I'm not that famililar with modern-day puroresu. "Back in the day", local "governing bodies" (IWGP, PWF) were clearly intended as subservient to the American "governing bodies" (AWA, NWA, WWF). Wrestling on television was miles ahead of its American counterpart, but their weekly television show covered a promotion which did not run a 52-weeks-per-year schedule like American promotions did. To cover breaks between tours, Inoki and Fujinami and Sayama, or Baba and Tsuruta were regularly appearing abroad, with Japanese-based titles being defended throughout Mexico and the United States. New Japan stars also appeared in Canada, due to their association with Stu Hart. Asahi TV or Nippon TV were literally throwing money at promoters for the rights to air footage from these shows. Believe it or not, there were promoters who were uninterested in the money, taking issue with featuring wrestlers on a major show who weren't being regularly featured in their booking programs. So yeah, All Japan has a long history of their titles being defended outside Japan, including components of what became the Triple Crown. OTOH, did Stampede ever call their top title a world title? After all, they ran the occasional show in Montana, which is a real-life example of my earlier comment (which was intended to be somewhat absurd; obviously, "crossing the pond" normally refers to the Atlantic Ocean, not Lake Erie). As for why "world heavyweight champion" versus "world champion"? If we are taking a world view here, there are likely world champions in other weight classes who later became heavyweight champions (obviously Fujinami, probably also Rey Misterio, though it's likely that examples proliferate throughout lucha). To have to include those also would just cloud the issue further. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 21:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why the article has a section for "Examples of other extant world championships" under "Active world championships". Is there some difference between extant and active? Why is one a list of championships and one a list of "examples" of championships, and in two different formats? The one external link lists the Mexican titles along with the American ones, but we split them. What's up? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No rationale for the separation. I've begun merging the two lists. McPhail (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

VERY URGENT MATTER

commons:User:Stefan4 has decided to individually request the deletion of plenty of title belts on Commons, but this discussion has to take place on one page. He has nominated another one of my uploads for deletion (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Real WWE United States Championship.jpg) so I have decided to bring up the fact that instead of doing these individually so he can delete them one by one, we should be discussing a mass deletion request. If this is successful, every single one of our title belts will be deleted. So please, voice your opinions. Feedback ^☎ 17:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#FOP.3F Trophies are copyright of the sculptor and need permission to photograph in many countries. Mexico is one of the few that allow FOP on temporary displays, I think. See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:FOP for country laws. I have emailed WWE corporate for permission and possibly official images.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have emailed them as well. A couple of times. I've also left them messages. They don't ever respond because they don't care enough to give us permission or to send us a copyright claim. I would like to believe we would take down all these images if WWE ever sends us a copyright claim, but as of now, it's not like we haven't TRIED to get their attention.

Also, I'd like to point out that I uploaded a lot of these pictures on Wikipedia and they were moved to Commons by a bot. I think we should just move all WWE-related pictures to the home Wikipedia projects of their uploaders so each project can decide what to do regarding the copyrights, the derivate works dilemma and fair use rationale. Feedback ^☎ 20:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to User talk:Jimbo Wales and see if he is willing to explain it to them officially. The WWE can benefit vastly from allowing the images here. Mr. Wales may not contact them himself but he may have a friend that can or give some good advice.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, after someone deleted File:Real WWE Championship.jpg, I reuploaded it under fair use here File:WWE Championship (2010).jpg. But the original deleter has gotten a bit obsessive and It's now up for deletion here. Feedback ^☎ 18:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I had an idea last night that may fly. We could include 'protest images' in some or all of the WWE articles. A big black square with text like: "The subject of this article is being selfish, ignorant, and not helping the projects in regards to their articles." This could be a smaller version of the WMF SOPA blackout. If this project seeks consensus to protest with article images then the rest of the en:wp may agree and allow it. If a notable wrestler like Hulk Hogan were to have a protest image in his main infobox then others including the subjects themselves may take notice. There is a movement to change the FOP laws in the USA and many editors from the WMF projects are helping. A few sculptors, artists, photographers, and others have sent 'blanket licenses' through OTRS to allow images of their works here. I see no reason why the WWE can't respond to email and at least provide a license for photos of their belts.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably a violation of WP:POINT. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention that SOPA being passed would have been a much bigger issue, not just for Wikipedia but Internet as a whole that a lack of pictures of the WWE Championship belts. I think we should have them but I doubt that we would get much support if we try to associate this with SOPA.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If so, then WMF are very guilty of WP:POINT when they did the blackout. Feedback ^☎ 20:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Feedback, that's actually true - which was why I voted against the blackout. Heh. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

All good points. I think we would need a strong consensus from one WikiProject to get approval from others. A statue/art project may be the best to start it with unless this project wants to take it on. I made a lame sample image already. File:Protest info image draft.png.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Where would we go when we clicked here? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Any rule about sticking a text link to an offsite picture where the picture would normally go? It wouldn't look as good or be as convenient, of course, and it seems like the quitter's way, but it would give readers who want to know what the belt looks like something. Just throwing it out there. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

We can't link to a site with copyvio images. That would leave the only link to the WWE site on the belt. This would also defeat the purpose of any protest. Freedom of panorama is a big issue in the USA with Wikipedia photographers at commons and other projects. It may not be as big as SOPA but any politicians seeking votes would gain more from photographers and wikipedia users than any they may lose from sculptors. With The Little Mermaid (statue) the family of the dead guy makes lots of money suing people for images of it. If we can start a protest on en:wp to change the law in the US then other countries may do it to gain votes the same way. Most politicians don't care but if they see all the fuss we may kick up it may become a bigger issue to them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, defeating the purpose of protest was what I meant by "quitter's way". If you're set on protesting, I won't get in your way, but I personally don't think it's worth the trouble. You have my moral support, though! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That is all we need to really to get consensus. I am amazed that a country like the USA that prides itself on freedom chokes on images of 3D statues etc. The sculptors wouldn't lose anything by allowing images of them. I assume they would still have legal rights regarding clones/copies of them though. 2D art photos should remain as protected because they would lose out from cheap knock-offs.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of public domain images of the belts being worn/held by wrestlers. We don't need to have a close-up studio photograph of every belt. McPhail (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If you use them in articles where text refers to the belt then they may not qualify as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:De_minimis File:Oscar statuette.jpg could technically be deleted here for the same reasons. The rationale is 'no free replacement possible' is untrue if we can easily find an Oscar image taken with Freedom of panorama or email the Academy for permission and/or an official photo with a free licence. See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ernest_Borgnine-oscar.jpg --Canoe1967 (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Stop the signature move madness?

I've noticed (and think I've brought it up before) a lot of "Signature Moves" are being backed by by match reports, like this. Monkey flip? Hurricanrana? The only thing these sources say is that someone once used the move (usually in recent matches), not that they're signature moves. They're also a lot of text. We should stick to profiles and such that specifically list "trademark", "signature" or "favourite" moves. If anyone feels like helping correct the problem, that'd be nice. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Strongly support this McPhail (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hell yeah. My question is, do we have some page where I can see a section call "Signature moves"? I every bio I see finishing moves, but no signature. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Create: Unique wrestling moves? Include histories and decriptions etc?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the question, HHH. Onlineworldofwrestling, WrestlingData and Cagematch all have signature move lists in bios, if that's what you mean. Others, too, I'm sure. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Cool. That's what I want to know. A better way to find signature moves. Thanks. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

When did Cagematch and Wrestlingdata become good sources?Ribbon Salminen (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, since when did Cagematch and Wrestlingdata become good sources? Even OWOW isn't listed as reliable. Sources like PWInsider and PWTorch are both reliable. A wrestler using the move on frequently on multiple occasions is equivalent to that of a signature move listed on a website; I was told this when I first joined up. I understand the deal with there being a lot of text, which there is, but websites like OWOW are not up-to-date where movesets are concerned whereas PWInsider, PWTorch, etc. provide weekly match reports with instances of wrestlers using these moves. A better, reliable way to find signature moves would definitely be more practical, but are there any? Rockyrock632 (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

They're in the "not yet proven" list in our MoS, but are pretty widely used here already (in German and English). Sort of de facto good sources. But yeah, this signature practice is also widespread, and that's wrong. I haven't seen anything suggest these sites aren't reliable, though. We may not know their fact-checking process, but WrestlingData/GenickBruch seems solid to me. OWW, on the other hand, is still rife with typos. These aren't so bad with words, where you can tell what they meant, but for numbers and dates, it can get pretty bad. Ivan Putski's profile, for instance, has him winning the NWA American Tag Title in 1970, from a team that won the title in 1973. And they list his partner as Ivan Putski. A little off-topic, but worth mentioning. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

As for taking 2-3 match reports saying Cena used a monkey flip, and coming to the conclusion that it makes it a signature move, that's synthesis. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Those sites look decent, but they all list the Sharpshooter as Rock's finisher, which is inaccurate. So, what do you guys suggest we do? Do we remove all the match report references and replace them with ones like OWOW even though those sites don't contain a more detailed list of moves like the current versions of the Wikipedia articles? Rockyrock632 (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I remember The Rock finishing a few people with it, but details are fuzzy. He hasn't for a while, I think. I know you already know my answer, but I

Support using sources that explicitly refer to the move as a signature/trademark/favourite. We may never know for sure just how some sites go about fact-checking, but it beats the synthesis option. Verifiability is key, not absolute truth. Keep in mind, with option B, there'd be nothing stopping someone from adding clothesline, hiptoss, punch and Irish whip to every signature move list. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that this is the way to go. If we use previous opinion we risk several things. First, there could be an issue of moves often being used by a wrestler but are in fact quite common, such a a suplex etc. Second, there could be a case where a wrestler uses a move they don't normally use in an important match in an attempt to catch the opponent off guard. For example, John Cena used a Hurricanrana against CM Punk it their last match, and I think its safe to say that should not count as a signature move.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

WrestleMania XX issues... Help?

I keep having a user with an IP of 41.254.5.246 who [keeps adding a section] in the WrestleMania XX article (specifically in the "Aftermath" section) that is completely unrelated to WrestleMania XX. I've warned him and reverted his edits 2 times. I'm concerned it will be a repeat offender and was wondering if some of you would also keep an eye on him and flag him if he continues the activities. Let me know what you think about his edits. Thanks! $srsrox BlahBlahBlah...$ 14:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Will keep an eye on it. I'm not even sure what the hell he's trying to add (other than the Rock's return, obviously. I just don't know why...). – Richard BB 14:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, EXACTLY my thoughts. Very odd. Anyways, thanks. $srsrox BlahBlahBlah...$ 13:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Possible AFD?

Does this seem notable to you? It seems like cruft to be honest. Feedback ^☎ 07:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Well played sir! McPhail (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It's one of 16 Top-Importance articles for the project. A question like this doesn't need to be asked. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

see April Fools' Day. Frietjes (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

With the way things are going around here lately, it was only natural to take a comment like this seriously. But I see what you did there (at least, I do now). GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Alex Wrights Promotion New European Championship Wrestling

As Alex Wright is one of the most Important and most influenting european Wrestlers of all time and his promotion is growing really well i did ask my self if its important enough to start a article about it. Any opinions on that? --Nakurio (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

That first part must be a joke, but if you're serious about creating the article, I think it seems like it would stand a chance, just going by a quick Googling. Gather sources before writing it, then ask yourself if they're reliable and independent, and if they really do show notability. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

k i guess i keep an eye on the progress and start the article in my sandbox and then suggest it here in the Project when i´m done.--Nakurio (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Archiving changed to 14 days

I want to try this out unless there is some objection. A lot of threads keep getting archived without much response. The project isn't as active as yesteryears so I think changing the archiving time to 2 weeks might be better for all discussions on this page. If I'm wrong and the page gets too cluttered, we can change it back, but I think this is the right call for now. Feedback ^☎ 15:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

AFDs Update

Closed AFDs

The following AFDs have all been closed:

AFD Discussions (scrollable)	Result
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andre Tyson	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blondetourage	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Chickbusters	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davina Rose	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dude Busters	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eli Cottonwood	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gatecrashers	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hade Vansen	Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Airstrike	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Novak	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachelle Walker	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of independent circuit, non-affiliated or retired professional wrestlers	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wrestling tag teams and stables	No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lo Down	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Puerto Rican Nightmares	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarlett Bordeaux	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ShoMiz	Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tons of Funk	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Reks and Curt Hawkins (2nd nomination)	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Union (professional wrestling)	Merge
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alliance to End Hulkamania	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team McMahon	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team SmackDown	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lena Yada (2nd nomination)	No C.

Current AFDs

Here is a list with the current AFD about wrestling. Please, comment about this. I prefer that the people of the Wikiproject say who is notable and who isn't, better than people who don't know about it and only says "he make srpot, he is notable".--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Current AFD Discussions (scrollable)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Can-Am Connection

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heath Slater and Justin Gabriel

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nighthawk

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Rusev

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brittany Beede

Thank you. Voice your opinions before a consensus is reached without your input! Feedback ^☎ 04:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, everybody should get involved. That is, if you agree with deleting them. Otherwise, you'll get argumentative responses from people who refuse to tolerate any differing opinions. It's a barrel of laughs. So, if you agree with the nominators or are looking for an argument, come on down...Gee, why aren't more people getting involved? GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Huh? You do realize what AFD is, right? "Argumentative responses" is pretty much the whole point of AFD. Feedback ^☎ 21:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Longer-term, would it be worth having articles such as List of minor professional wrestlers and List of minor tag teams for wrestlers who have a degree of notability but don't warrant their own article? This would help contain WP:CRUFT. McPhail (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but has a verifiability problem. We'd need sources showing each wrestler is "minor", not just a lack of sources showing they are "major". Don't think we'd find (m)any of those. And without setting the bar somewhere, it would turn into an indiscriminate list of every backyard and student wrestler, as well as the sort of major. Better to have the cruft in its own article, but best to just not have cruft. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

April Fools?

I noticed someone removed "fictitious" from the first IC title tournament in Rio. Surprisingly, s/he had a source saying the card had been discovered. After 33 years, someone just happened across it today, of all days. Should we take this seriously? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, just finished reading. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Any case, can we add the tournament to the ficticious history of the title? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No, because even in the fictional WWE universe, the brackets didn't exist. But I guess we could note that WWE made a joke saying they did. Seems a bit trivial, but I don't mind trivia as much as some people. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

A few proposals

A few ideas on things we should try to fix and/or criminalize:

Mentioning where/when/how matches are announced, after the fact. I see this a lot. "On the January 1 episode of Wrestling, GM announced that Babyface would face Heel in a Stipulation Match at PPV. At PPV, Babyface defeated Heel." Does anyone really care about the match announcement, in hindsight? Or is just a lot of words?

To be clear, I think this should go for all announcements of things that have happened, not just matches. But while they're still in the future, I have no problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Saying "episode of" I think simply "The March 17 RAW" would work. Not so wordy, one-by-one, but they add up over an article.

"episode of" should be kept. "would go on to" should not. I don't care about any of the rest. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"Episode of" isn't bad, but I think its rather worthy when used repetitively. I think it should be used once and then be inferred in the rest of the section (i.e. "On the January 1 episode of Raw, Kevin Federline pinned John Cena... On the January 8 Raw, no one remembered."). Feedback ^☎ 05:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Your version is too informal for an encyclopedia. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The Manual of Style says to avoid unnecessarily complex wording. I don't think "episode of" is so complex it's going to confuse anyone, but still slightly unnecessary. I appreciate your position, though, and I'm not trying to force anything. Just seeing what consensus looks like. You can revert this if you'd like, but it illustrates how repetitive this gets. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Calling a PPV "The WWE's SummerSlam PPV event" SummerSlam works fine, I think.

Thoughts? Fit them under the relevant thing, please. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with all three. Feedback ^☎ 22:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I see your point, however, the wordiness is necessary for readers that aren't familiar with professional wrestling. Yes, who on this planet will actually come to wikipedia to read pro wrestling articles, but WP has to be readable to everyone. The March 17 RAW, I would ask myself what is a RAW? The announcement of matches is important in PPV articles, because it adds to the background. If its in biographies, it depends on the feud, but more than likely those can be reworded to "Babyface was booked into a match with Heel at WresleMania, upon which Heel won." Finally, where do you see the last point you mentioned in an article?? --Truco ⁵⁰³ 14:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

We'd still have a Wikilink to WWE Raw (or whatever show). And in the first mention, we could say its a TV show. But lots of these articles use "episode of" several times per paragraph. Nobody is going to forget that quickly.

I was thinking of biographies for the announcement thing. Wherever he have one sentence and reference for the announcement, the sentence and reference for the event follows. Only one is really notable. If we say Johnny Fivecount wrestled The Masked Jobber at Hog Wild, it should go without saying that the match was previously booked and promoted.

The last point is in Christian (wrestler). I removed a few I ran across while changing the "would go on to do" bullshit to "did". In other places, too, but can't recall off the top of my head. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Every title is up for deletion at Commons... and nobody cares

Well, not EVERY title, but it certainly feels that way. Anyway, a bunch of titles are up for deletion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:WWE championship belts ever since April 1. They will probably all be deleted in the next 2-3 days. Most of the WWE championship articles will be affected as well as the WP:PW userbox. Feedback ^☎ 06:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

All the Batmobile images as well. It seems a recent court case about copies of it have declared it as 'art' and not a vehicle. I brought this up days ago on Mr.Wales' talk page and he has yet to respond. Contact from him to the WWE may get some images released under license. We may yet still put pressure on the WWE if we use an image like: File:Copyright information image.png. Click the links below in the 'other versions' section. If we put this image in the infobox of some of the belt pages with urls to official belt images then that may rattle a few chains. We would need some sort of consensus from this project and possibly the policy pump. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't care if the titles are deleted. Images that can be replaced with alternatives aren't necessary to understanding an article. My bigger concern is the people who feel the need to delete the articles themselves. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

WTF How are these images replaceable? Feedback ^☎ 17:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure. Even if one of us could draw well, those drawings could technically be seen as infrigements on the design. Laws are a pain in the ass sometimes. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Have an eight year old draw them and that won't violate copyright as too close to the original. That may work better than my bold yellow on black text. Readers would see that, link to the FOP article, then maybe put pressure to license some images from the WWE. I am still tempted to put the fair use Oscar image up for deletion. If we can host images of the Academy award then we should be able to host the belt images for their articles. 300px wide is normal size for fair use upload to English Wikipedia if you want to scale and upload here. The other languages can do the same. If they try to delete the fair use then tag Oscar, the Emmy, Nobel, etc. If the politicians pick up on it then they may change the FOP law in the USA and then we can host real images of 3D works. They will gain more votes from readers of Wikipedia than any lost from sculptors.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how many elections swing on issues like this. But yeah, it does seem unfair to allow the Emmy man and deny the belts and the Batmobiles. The whole deal is a bit rotten, considering we're using these for educational purposes only. I like your shitty drawing idea. Good luck with that! I don't think I have a paint program, but if I find I do, I call dibs on the WWF Junior Heavyweight. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Turns out we never had a picture of that one in the first place. I could make the Hardcore title look even worse, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Penyulap is blocked here but does good graphics over at commons still. He is aware of all of these discussions and may create a sample or 10 that can be used in articles if you ask nicely. Or offer Tobasco sauce. Politicians will jump on any lame bandwagon to get 3 votes. This issue should gain far more. The present Archivist of the United States really supports us and is helping upload many of the images in his control. An email to him for thoughts may help. He probably has many statue images he would like to see here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In the past, images of people wearing or holding the belts were used, and that worked just as well. If copyright law won't allow that, a picture of a current or former champion is just fine. An image of the belt itself isn't necessary for a reader to understand the history and lineage of the title. I just don't understand why we're being asked to get up in arms to defend a copyright violation. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to defend anything. People can go on over there and clamor for the deletion of everything involved. I'm just bummed there's a lack of participation on an obviously major issue that will affect a lot of our articles including some very important ones. I for one don't consider them copyright violations though. WWE has been asked to comment on the situation plenty of times and they just frankly don't care. If they don't think it's a big deal, I don't see why we should. Feedback ^☎

The problem isn't that we're hurting WWE's revenue or image. We aren't. And they haven't said we are. Wikimedia will probably never get sued over this. But they have rules in place to ensure they can't possibly be sued. And until WWE totally gives up the rights and makes the belt designs free for anyone in the world to use, it's pretty open and shut, as far as Commons goes (but it seems to me we don't need Commons). Not that I don't care, but it's a doomed battle, according to their rules. And Coleman is right, a picture isn't terribly important to understanding the title. We do what we can, and for what we can't, there's a wider Internet we can "See Also". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, we also didn't have a WWE Hardcore title image. At least not for the past 18 months. I may still draw one, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Still not entirely sure what would be wrong with reuploading with one of these nifty boxes, if we're just using these on the English Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_March_29#File:WWE_Championship_.282010.29.jpg represents the current consensus, then we definitely should. Let's ask the Commons admins to move them over to Enwiki. A lot of them were moved from Enwiki to Commons anyway. Feedback ^☎ 02:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

We don't really need to ask. We could just download the pictures we want before they're deleted, and reupload them here. But yeah, might be easier somehow for them to do it, maybe in bulk. I really don't know much about how that place works. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There are many issues involved here. English Wikipedia only allows fair use images if a free licence image is near impossible to obtain. An image of a sculpture violates the copyright holders rights. Free licence images of sculptures do not release rights to the sculpture; but just the rights to one image of the sculpture. If you use an image of a belt on a person in an article about the belt, then that violates their copyrights under De minimis because the belt becomes the focus of the image where normally it would focus on the wearer. Is this making sense?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense, but not sure if it applies. Because all pictures are derivative works, it is virtually impossible to find a free picture. If we can upload a decent image of the belt design(s) of each title with "2D picture of 3D art" rationale , we don't need a picture of any person wearing it. Would we rather have a wrestler wearing it? I wouldn't. Images of wrestlers wearing belts in wrestler articles are a different story. They're cool with me, but they'd need their own rationales. Like you say, fair use doesn't extend to the belt design, just the picture. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone should tag File:2004 WorldSeries Trophy.jpg for deletion for the same reasons. That may wake up a few Americans and possibly get the Freedom of panorama laws changed down there. David Ferriero likes us a lot and may know the political climate on the issue, which is probably: "Will I gain 3 votes if I push it?". Should I track down his email for his thoughts? He is the first librarian in that office, I think. He probably has many images of statues his people would like to upload. He has factions on commons that are busy uploading archives now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about this tit-for-tat tagging. Someone being a bit of a dick to us is no reason we should be dicks to other, uninvolved people. Personally, I hate baseball. Boring as hell and costs what could feed a country. Emmys are the same deal, to a lesser extent. But the people at those Wikiprojects are probably decent folk who just want their articles looking nice, like us. We'd ruffle their feathers a lot more than we'd ruffle anyone in Washington. Grassroots campaigns are noble, but they're ultimately useless, most of the time. No point making enemies down here on this rung. But yeah, email whoever you think might help. I don't think you need to ask our permission. It might work. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

All the Spanish soccer trophies are up for deletion now. FOP for Spain states they need to be on permanent display outdoors. Most the images we have are indoors and the outdoor ones aren't permanent display. I just sent an email to Mr. Ferriero requesting his thoughts. --Canoe1967 (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Using that logic, can't I just nail my £10 replica belt to my outside wall and it count as being on display outdoors permanently? 151.225.139.148 (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You can if it isn't a pirated knock-off. Does the WWE sell replica belts? That would make it a permanent display of a copyrighted work that was sold by the rights holders.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

So CommonsDelinker has stolen your belt...

Fear not.

Step 1 Did someone get the pictures before they vanished? I guess that's a question, not a step, but whatever.

Step 2 Do we know who photographed the best candidates, and have they released the rights to that particular photo?

If the answer to either step is "yes", we're probably good to go. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I have all the pictures, but I'd have to sit here for over an hour to upload them. I'm busy today, but I'll hope to find that time tomorrow. Feedback ^☎ 22:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if anyone wants to help, here you go. That's all of them, but we need to keep organized and make sure no one uploads the same one all over again. They're considered Fair Use now. So please link here to the ones you upload. Feedback ^☎ 22:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do a few later. Good idea to share the load. But remember, people, they're only Fair Use if they have a decent rationale, and meet the criteria at WP:NFCCP. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I did the North American Heavyweight, but haven't added it to the article yet. Might be useful to look at the file for an example of how to fill rationale, if someone doesn't know. For older belts, Reggie Parks is a safe bet for creator of the original work. Info about photographer, original source and licence are all in the relevant text files. Thanks, Feedback. Saved a lot of time. Starting a subsection to list finished uploads. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't be shy, people. Uploading is fun! Well, not fun fun. But there's a slight sense of accomplishment. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Finished uploads

Urned recognition?

I figure this might be met with a bit of "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard", so figured I'd ask first. Do you guys (do we have any girls) think The Undertaker's urn deserves an article? That thing has its own sort of history. As a traditional foreign object, it's won a fair number of matches. As a stage prop, it's done some strange things. As a character, it's been kidnapped/ransomed/melted by various wrestlers. As far as wrestling props go, it's in a league of its own. Not sure of the policies on fictional objects, but I recall seeing some other similar articles on something or another. Sourcing shouldn't be a problem. Or maybe just a subsection in The Undertaker or Paul Bearer? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Just did a quick search and it seems that there are enough reliable sources are out there. I have no idea what this article would look like, but I think it could be argued that it is notable enough. It has that longevity, was used in plenty of feuds, and did seem to develop a character of its own. In the very least it could easily be featured as a Paul Bearer subsection, especially because of how it was used in Taker's recent feud with Punk.LordMaldad2000 (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you notice what Heyman was doing when Punk kicked out of the Tombstone? That urn doesn't care who's holding it. But sometimes it does, if I remember correctly. Would be great if we could find out exactly how many urns there were, like we know the Doinks and Lassies. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

. Feedback ^☎ 22:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Duly noted. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I have considered making this article for a long time. I think it's definitely notable enough for a separate article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You can start it if you'd like. I'm not calling dibs or anything. I'd help, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move

Johnny Curtis > Fandango (wrestler)

Vote here

McPhail (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Why somebody change the name to Fandango (entertainer) ? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure. Maybe a "wrestling is fake" point. I've asked Canoe1967 about it, in case she's not watching this page. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I did that because Fandango (wrestler) was deleted and salted. It wouldn't let me create it. Should we have an admin move it to wrestler?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the redirect from (wrestler) and cut and pasted the entire article over. ~~Not sure if that screws something up in the Wikimachinery. If it does, feel free to revert.~~ It screws up the history, and I reverted myself. I think I've done this before with a Speedy Delete tag, but can't remember quite how. I'll look into it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

I had an admin fix it for us.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Please respond...

Someone wants to add information about the April 8 Raw. Can someone respond to this? Keith Okamoto (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Responded. Clear case of undue weight. Removed the section. Judging from the history, I'll probably be reverted soon. No problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the events of that show would be relevant for the articles about the wrestlers who won titles that night (as well as those who lost them) though I see nothing to indicate that this particular episode would be important in the overall history of the show itself.--174.93.164.125 (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

User:AmericanDad86

User:AmericanDad86 has destroyed the WWE Raw page with his constant vandalism. We need to protect and restore the page and talk with him before he completely wipe the page clean. Keith Okamoto (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sigh! Please look at the edits. What has been removed from WWE Raw is all loads of unsourced material. I have removed edits that weren't sourced/undue weight. My own personal edits that WERE well-sourced were completely removed altogether by the above editor and his wiki-friend because they were 2 small paragraphs long, accused of being too lengthy and going against the "undue weight" wiki policy by the above editor and his friend.

I simply told them that if my well-sourced and well-supported edits go for such a reason, then how can the bulk of unsourced information remain in the article? The above editor's wikifriend suggested we follow wiki policies strictly and ENCOURAGED me to trim and rid the article of unsourced information on the talk page. (Please see the Raw talk page) So what I did is per consensus on the talkpage and wikipolicy. Labeling it as vandalism, it's rude and insulting Okamoto so knock it off and stop trying to recruit people you know better than other editors to exercise article ownership. As said on the talkpage of the Raw article, if the rules only apply to my edits and not the above editor and any of his wiki-friends he's trying to get involved to execute article ownership, then I have every mind to get an administrator involved. Btw, The above user has failed to even discuss anything on the article's talkpage. Rather, he's come here and tried to get people to side with him to take over the article.AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

All this talk of friends and conspiracy isn't helping your case a bit. You have some points about the unsourced material, but they're getting lost in the bullshit. If you're genuinely interested in helping, familiarize yourself with policy, explain your "undue weight" removals and change your tone. While you can remove unsourced stuff, a "citation needed" tag, {{cn}}, would be a better place to start, if you want regular editors to take you seriously. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Free belt pictures.

If there's anything here you'd like to use for championship articles, we have permission. There are some good ones! No worries about scaling them down to shit or filling out Free Use rationale. Just remember to attribute them to WildcatBelts.com, with a link, preferably.

I won't link to the email, for obvious reasons, but here's the gist of it: InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I've come across your belt gallery at http://www.wildcatbelts.com/wrestling-belt-gallery.php. Great work! Hadn't realized Wildcat Belts had created so many.

I was wondering if you (or whoever the appropriate person is) would mind granting limited permission to use these images in the relevant articles at http://wiki.riteme.site. They would be used only for educational, non-commercial purposes, fully attributed and linked to your site, and of great benefit to the encyclopedia.

If you could get back to me with a yes or no soon, it'd be appreciated.

Thanks

Reply:

yes, go ahead, that is fine. thanks for asking

Andrew Lazarchik

Wildcat Championship Belts

412-427-0569

www.WildcatBelts.com

Find us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/wildcatbelts Follow us on Twitter: @wildcatbelts

Bloody fantastic, well done. You would need to send the email to commons:OTRS and add Template:OTRS pending to every image you upload. That being said, this was a great score! Cheers! Feedback ^☎ 23:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

There's an option to link to an online agreement as evidence. I linked to this talk page for the Celebrity Championship Wrestling belt. Should be good, I think. If there are any doubters, Wildcat's contact info is there for confirmation. Guess I should have linked to the archived version, though, for once Miszabot does her thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I uploaded two and both have quickly been tagged for speedy deletion. Not entirely sure why, as I have permission to use them non-freely and they meet the non-free content criteria. I contested the deletion, but might need some expert help. Might not. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Which ones did you add? If someone tagged it, it was probably Stefan2. He's Wikipedia's very own Inspector Javert. Like I said, you need to forward that email to OTRS. Once you do, add the template to the page and tell whoever tagged it to wait until OTRS responds. Feedback ^☎ 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It was these two. And yes, Stefan2. Like I say there, I don't see why we'd need to deal with Commons for a picture exclusive to en.wiki. And if the option for linking to permission isn't valid, why does it exist (first option, no less)? Not big on sharing my name and address with strangers, especially to fix something that doesn't seem to be an actual problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Reading a bit. Saw that OTRS permission grants are only for free licences, not limited ones. "Permission grants must specifically contain a free license grant and may not merely give permissions for Commons or Wikipedia". What we have here is an agreement to use them on only on English Wikipedia and only where relevant and educational. Mostly asked that way because I figured it would be an easier sell than a free licence. And partly (like 10%) because I'm biased toward English and Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Not really getting a clear answer on what to do next. Seems we either ask for and get a free licence, or we go fair use, and fill out the rationale like we would for a picture we don't have permission to use. Seems a bit silly to me, but meh. Thoughts? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

One criteria to rule all them

I have seen a lot of titles articles and we say that we have only a criteria to the titles table, but I see a lot of differences between them. I think that we need, maybe in a month, to unified all the title tables under one criteria. Look the sigles titles. List of WWE Champions, WWC Puerto Rico Heavyweight Championship, IWA Undisputed World Heavyweight Championship, NWA Florida Heavyweight Championship, List of early world heavyweight champions in professional wrestling, AJPW Triple Crown Heavyweight Championship, Open the Dream Gate Championship, GHC Openweight Hardcore Championship... every title is different in one aspect (table, cells, no days of reign, vacant format, when the title change his name...) Other, the tag team titles. One time I see the Team name first List of WWE Tag Team Champions, one time I see the members name first List of CZW World Tag Team Champions. I think that we have to choose one criteria for the tables and, In a period of time, maybe 1 or 2 months, change every title's table. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I said this because, here Hulk proposed to change the table for vacancies (no green, grey colour) but I think that we can do nothing if we have near 10 tables.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Why does this matter? Does anyone really care if all tables look the same? GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Because we are an encyclopedia and we have a project with a Style guide. All the wrestlers have the same structure, imagine that now, every wrestlers follows a different style. And look, in the style guide we have a section, "List of Champions articles". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It may make sense to then update that section with two things, 1) how to indicate vacancies, 2) tag team titles - Team name first or second? That way there would be a standard we can all refer to. MPJ -US 15:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that the best idea comes from Hulk, separete the vacancies in color Grey (no green). In the tag teams, I think that is more important the tag team name, so I think that it must be first. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I like the team name first, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a team title, team name first I agree. MPJ -US 01:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Great. I think that Tag team is an easy problem. Vacancies. I think that the Hulk idea is interesting: in grey and isn't part of the reigns list. One more thing (I think that we must hear the Ribbon Salimen opinion). In the CHIKARA titles, we can see, List of Defenses. Not bad, but if we put the table, I think that we have to put the table in ALL the titles with a list of defenses. Opinion? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd imagine it'd be pretty hard to list defenses on TNA/WWE titles, since those things are defended pretty much on every single house show. Promotions like Chikara and pretty much every Japanese promotion put more emphasis on defenses and don't just hold title matches just for the sake of holding one. These promotions also specifically list every defense on their websites. Also, I've usually listed members before tag team names on tag team championship articles I've created, just because of the sorting issues created by the fact that not all team's have team names. However, I have no problem switching them around if the project decides that it should be the other way around.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that the rule is that we put the number of defenses If the company has a list of defenses, am I right? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Defenses for WWE titles are numerous, yes, but WrestlingData can help. They have lists of every title match (every one on record, anyway) for all titles. For example, the 4,031 Intercontinental title matches. Not hard to count the numbers between the highly visible "TITLE CHANGE!!!" notes. Actually, we don't even need to count. Just subtract. Of course, that all depends on whether we count WrestlingData as a reliable source. I still say it is, for practical use. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Fun Fact: With 3,901 defenses and 70 champions, the average number of defenses per IC champion is 55.7. Not saying this is a good idea, but we could differentiate the "above average" champions from the "below average", as an objective and verifiable measure of success (red/green, thumbs up/thumbs down, smiley/frowny). But the pace of stories has increased so much, I don't think it would really be that informative a stat. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Anycase, anyone want to help me with the titles? We have a lot of titles with the incorrect table, but if everyone of us change one article per day, we can end next month. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll do a few. But I'm pretty ignorant about tables. What's the colour code for the grey we want? It should be different to the shade we use in the header, but I don't really care exactly which shade we choose. And how and where do I put it to shade a row? If you've done one yourself, share it here as an example. Also, what do we change "Days held" to? If we're counting vacancies, vacancies can't "hold" anything. "Length in days"? "Duration"? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

How about simply "Duration" instead? If someone could whip up a page with all the lists that we need to go through I can chip in, I just don't want to do double work you know? MPJ -US 22:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Some titles may not have a fully documented history, something I've had to deal with in some of the Mexican titles. One example is found in CMLL Arena Coliseo Tag Team Championship, which actually sorts etc. MPJ -US 22:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the black holes in the titles history are a pain in the ass. I support "days duration". Also, I did an example in my user page with the tna legends/tv/global championship, I only chnage the vacated section with this

|-style="background: #e3e3e3;" |colspan="9" Reason for the vacancy |-

I think thats simple and useful. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to do it like that there's no real need to change "days held", is there? Also, remember to put the day vacated in the "reason for the vacancy". I thought, we were just coloring the vacancies and didn't expect this kind of a change in format. Personally, I'm not a fan, but will go along with it if the project agrees to it.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

.Of course, Ribbon. The vacancy is a minor change, I only want to put the same table in all titles, because we have near 10 different tables in the championships that I show at the beginning. If you don't like the vacancy change, don't worry and say it, it's a minor change, but the real matter, I think, is to put the same table in all the championships. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Stefan2

Am I the only one that has noticed that this guy has been on a hell binge lately of nominating (and getting deleted) championship belt images regardless of license status? Something needs to be done to prevent this further, not to Stefan, but our images because we're quickly becoming inhibited from being able to show what championships look like. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 18:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think someone mentioned the belt pictures somewhere above. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't find it. Could you link me to it? Feedback ^☎ 07:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I get it, I didn't read above before making a thread, no need to be a smart ass.

CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 16:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've been talking to Lazarchik about a free licence for the ones Wildcat Belts made. He says he intends to release them under the ShareAlike 3.0, but hasn't sent his official consent just yet. In the meantime, the four in "So CommonsDelinker has stolen your belt..." above all seem to be fine, as fair use images. If somebody wants to help, Feedback has made it very easy with his zip file. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

World's Strongest Tag Something League

I'd always thought the word was "Team", but Ribbon seems to think it's "Determination" and has changed all of them (I think). As I just recently noted on my user page, I speak no Japanese. So he might be right. But there isn't a single non-Wikipedia use of "World's Strongest Tag Determination League" on Google, and it seems like "team" makes a lot more sense. He says on my talk page that the name on the official All Japan site translates this way, and it isn't his problem that English-speaking sources haven't figured this out. I say that's original research, and the translation most sources go with should trump one that no sources go with. Thoughts? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

"Team" makes sense, but in Japan the word "tag" is almost never followed by "team". Tag team championships are "tag championships", tag team matches are "tag matches" and tag team tournaments are "tag tournaments". The official name of the tournament (per All-Japan.co.jp) is 世界最強タッグ決定リーグ戦, where the word "決定" or "kettei" means determination. In other words, the tournament is used to determine the world's strongest tag team. There is definitely no "team" in the name. "Tag team" in Japanese would be "タッグチーム", where "チーム" is "team", but like I said, it's very rarely used. I was first just going to remove the word "team" from the article name and rename it "World's Strongest Tag League" as there are sources for that, but in the end just decided to go all the way. "Team" should definitely not be there, you decide whether "determination" should.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

"Tag league" works for me. It's called that by enough English sources, and I personally say "tag match" more than "tag team match". "Determination" may be correct, but it seems that nobody else on the Internet has noticed this. Verifiability, not truth, and all that. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

1998 Hell in a Cell match

I think this page should be merged with King of the Ring (1998). Yes, it's a very notable match. And if there wasn't a page for the ppv, I would agree that it needs a page. But there IS a match for the ppv, so it doesn't need one. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 15:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I agree. But should the Montreal Screwjob then be merged with Survivor Series (1997)?-LM2000 (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

No. This match involved a few individuals during one event. But the Montreal Screwjob was a complex event with consequences reaching far beyond the match and the event itself. To merge it with the Survivor Series 1997 article would completely hijack it, especially when much of the information doesn't directly relate to Survivor Series. In this case, most of the 1998 Hell in a Cell match article is simply detailing the on-screen build-up, the match itself and the aftermath (all of which would easily fit in the King of the Ring 1998 article). It's not particularily long (and neither is the one for the event), so there's no reason why it needs a branch article. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 19:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for your input. I agree completely.LM2000 (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, sorry I haven't been involved in the discussion, but I've been busy with the real world lately. Thanks for the invitations, though. Jgera5 (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to apologize to Scorpion. Someone asked the same question I did on the KOTR98 talk page, I should've checked there before I wasted your time.LM2000 (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

New sports related IRC channel.

There is now an WP:IRC channel for collaboration between editors in various sports WikiProjects. It's located at #wikipedia-en-sports ^connect. Thanks Secret ^account 03:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

PPV Dark Matches Removed

Hello, I usually don't edit wrestling related articles but I've noticed that in many PPV articles the dark matches have been removed along with many other things. An IP address: 82.196.45.210 has been removing them. GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 18:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not cool. I'll take a look. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Already seems to be reverted everywhere, but I'll keep on eye on him/her. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been reverting some of this guy's edits not only because of him removing dark matches, but also because of him insisting on capitalizing every word on every match type (for example "Six Man Tag Team" instead of "six man tag team", etc.), which I believe goes against MOS:CAPS. It's getting quite tiresome to be honest.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be a static IP, and has been warned. Maybe give another, more recent, final warning? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

TNA KO Tag Titles

I have a question. What happend with the KO Tag Team Titles? I mean, according to TNAWrestling, Young and ODB still as champions. But, we all know that TNA updates the roster page too late and Young hasn't the titles when he wrestled in Lockdown and OBD is a referee and she hasen't the title. Sooo, the TNA KO Tag Team title is a defunct title or isn't? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

They certainly look defunct to me. But in wrestling you never can tell when things are going to come back or be resolved randomly... Hornswoggle was revealed to be the Anon GM a year after that storyline was completely phased out. I don't think that we can do much with the article until we can find a source stating that they're defunct. Being taken off the roster page should be enough though, if that ever happens.LM2000 (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)