Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 93

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 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

→

NoDQ.com - reliable source?

Didn't see this site listed in the style guide in any of the sourcing sections, and it is currently used as a reference in the Impact Wrestling article on Spike TV not renewing TNA's contract. ArcAngel (talk) ) 12:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No and I've replaced it with a PWTorch ref with the exact same info, which took me about three seconds to find. All of these Cagesideseats, TNAInsider and other BS refs can easily be replaced with reliable sources if people just took a few seconds to look around before posting the first thing they find. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Often, the first thing you read in the first recycled thing you find tells you exactly where to look. In this particular case, TNA President Dixie Carter tweeted the following today". Right here. Same thing the Torch says, but at least it adds the bit about Spike agreeing. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is the list of sources proven reliable. We should add Cageside Seats, Nodq, etc. to the unreliable section.LM2000 (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I've said before, this is not a problem for any member who reads this talk page. It's the IPs and newer users who are adding the unreliable sources. They don't read the style guide in the first place. starship.paint ~ regal 12:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

deletion

Can somebody give me a hand? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York Wrestling Connection--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veda Scott (2nd nomination) starship.paint ~ regal 12:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I !voted on the first one, but I am still on the fence on the second one. Where I stand is this - she has wonn an award (PWI's Rookie of the Year), but I don't know how "prestigious" this award is. Is it classified as a "major" or "minor" award? I also consider ROH a "major-minor" wrestling league, just about on par with say, FCW or OVW. That being said, with that criteria I feel that she just passes GNG - but just barely, therefore I am leaning towards a "weak keep" !vote in that discussion unless more "solid" references turn up. Not to say that yours aren't, SP, but I would just like to see something more "mainstream" rather than related to the industry, if that makes sense. ArcAngel (talk) ) 22:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

ArcAngel, I understand your concerns on Veda's "mainstream" references. Admittedly, I haven't actually tried to find them. However, I disagree that ROH is on par with FCW and OVW. As far as I know, FCW's television product only aired in the state of Florida on the Bright House Sports Network. OVW is also similar, it aired only in the state of Kentucky (not London, UK) when WWE owned it in 2008 and seems to still be the same case now from its article. ROH is a national television product in various states and I consider them #3 in the US actually. If TNA loses its television deal with Spike TV, ROH might even rise to #2. ROH's outreach just can't be compared to FCW or OVW. starship.paint ~ regal 04:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, last that I was aware ROH wasn't at the same level as FCW or OVW. I do know that Daniel Bryan came from there, so I think that says something about the promotion. I didn't realize that ROH was nationally televised as I really only follow WWE nowadays. Thanks for clearing that up. ArcAngel (talk) ) 04:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, ArcAngel, regarding PWI, I remembered a previous newspaper source I found which described Pro Wrestling Illustrated as the "foremost international wrestling magazine". However, I'm not sure exactly how big the "Rookie of the Year" award is. starship.paint ~ regal 05:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yea, I don't know that either. But I guess the bigger question now is - how "respected" is PWI outside of the sports entertainment business? ArcAngel (talk) ) 05:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

ArcAngel - I quoted a newspaper, isn't that out of the wrestling industry? starship.paint ~ regal 06:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes you got me on that one. :-) ArcAngel (talk) ) 13:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed a prod placed on Cauliflower Alley Club yesterday, today it has been nominated for deletion. I'm sure this move will make certain heads spin, so share your thoughts at the AfD.LM2000 (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Results table

I know you saw the header and likely went "AGAIN?!" I assure you, this is a different issue than prior threads with that header. Anyway, one thing I've noticed lately with our results table is that people, especially IPs and new users, are oblivious to our set consensuses here about what each results template should contain and how it should be set up. To help resolve that, I propose instituting a template that will not only cut down on the work of coding it each month, but also make the visual parts set it stone and only able to edited on the template's specific page, thus protecting us from vandals and good faith people who happen to be oblivious to how things are supposed to be.

To go with my proposal, I have coded a template in my sandbox to serve this. An example of it in use can be seen here and it's source code can be seen here. The example use shows the results of Battleground (2014).

I believe this template can be greatly beneficial, though I still think it needs some tweaking, and for that, all members of this project are welcome to help fix it up a little more. It will also help with any possible future changes our results table by having changes take effect across mass articles immediately.

That's my proposal. Thoughts? CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 09:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea. Any changes we make in the future can be applied to the template itself, rather than having to sift through hundreds (thousands?) of articles and change them one-by-one.

If you don't mind, I went ahead and cleaned up some of the code. You can revert it if I changed something you don't like. I limited it to 4 pre-show matches as anything more seems like overkill, also.

One problem seems to be the lack of differentiation between dark matches and pre-show matches. I assume the "preshow" parameter is there to add a disclaimer between the two when necessary? Still seems kinda odd. Prefall 17:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Add Sunday Night Heat matches to that as well (see WrestleMania X-Seven, WrestleMania X8). Some other things crossed my mind...

1. Topping off the point about differentiating between pre-show, dark and Heat matches: If we are numbering them, should we think about using individual symbols, or instead using background colors in their respective number column?

2. References. Some of these tables avoid overciting by including references in headers. We can add parameters to support those (|matchref=, |stipref=, |timeref=?). We could also take a play out of our List of Champions articles, and include a reference column. Improving the readability of these tables always helps. Prefall 22:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The differentiation between Heat, dark and preshow matches is one thing I thought of and yes, I do think they each need their own symbols with dedicated parameters. The references thing can certainly be improved with additional parameters, but I don't think they need their own column. CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 23:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

No, they don't need their own column. All part of the same event (same date, venue, attendance), however the illusion of television makes it appear. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

With no opposition, I'm gonna go ahead and put the template in to use, tweaks and changes can, of course, continued to be discussed here. CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 00:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. The border on the bottom row seems out of place, but otherwise it looks good in my opinion.

I submitted the header parameters and the pre-show/dark/Heat match differentiation (sans unique symbols). I'll join you with the mass implementation soon. Prefall 11:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Only thing I did not like is that the match and stip text is centered, just looks odd to me. MPJ -US 01:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)`

I agree. I'd also just use the term "dark match" instead of "untelevised". "Untelevised" doesn't sound right in talking about PPV results. Also also, I'd like a way to hide the "(c) refers to" thing when there are no championship matches at the event. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I was looking to avoid jargon there, but I went ahead and changed it. Feel free to suggest better wording for those notes. Also, we need ideas on unique symbols, otherwise we might have to go with that whole background color thing.

As for your suggestion, it's now implemented: use |hide=champs to hide the champions note while maintaining the visibility of other notes if any are present. If there are none, use |hide=all to hide the entire thing. Prefall 11:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The MOS requires that table be colorblind and blind accessible. So background colors alone won't solve our problems. CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 23:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware of that. Since we haven't come up with anything yet, I've changed the single symbol to separate letters until we can come up with something better. I've now converted all WWF pay-per-views up to 1996. Prefall 05:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism on Alberto Del Rio

Hey. I've been noticing and fixing vandalism on Alberto Del Rio on why he has been released, such as getting into an altercation with El Torito over the new Selena Gomez album. I recommend semi-protection onto the page. Future WWE Champion, DrewieStewie (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

No, no. It was Mantaur, about the new Manowar album. Also, he was stealing office supplies and selling them to Russia.

Seriously though, page protection couldn't hurt, until something more definitive comes out. My own gut feeling is this is the beginning of an angle, like when Jeff Hardy almost died. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure about that, I don't recall the WWE claiming that Hardy was released from his contract after that "event". Also, it would not be the first time that a well known wrestler was released suddenly. The Warrior and Lance Cade comes to mind.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it wasn't exactly the same. But it was a "legit"-looking article about an offscreen plot that built sympathy for a babyface. Something about the way this heel gets "If you're angry at anyone, be angry at Alberto" instead of "WWE wishes him the best in his future endeavours" strikes me as fishy. Especially since they plug his Twitter account.

Why should they want "the WWE Universe" to still boo and follow a guy who's headed to a competing promotion? This is the same company who started calling all referees "the official" to keep their name recognition low (treacherous Hebners!). But they'll help keep a top name warm for AAA or TNA? Maybe, but I don't think so. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Viva Del Rio. Pushed too fast, too hard and too long. starship.paint ~ regal 05:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

"David Hart Smith" to "Davey Boy Smith, Jr." McPhail (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

2300 Area to ECW Arena as well. The ever heated Mike Jones (wrestler) to Virgil move has been relisted so those who haven't voted still can.LM2000 (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Tag Team Championships

So there's this guy JMichael22 who thinks that instead of writing "Tag Team Championship", we should write "Tag Team Championships" as in "Time Splitters made their first successful defense of the IWGP Junior Heavyweight Tag Team Championships against reDRagon". I tried to explain to him how he was wrong and how while there are two championship belts, the championship itself is singular. Anyway, he came back at it with:

"The term Championship stands for a single title Championships are referred to for more then one which Tag Team Championships if that was the case you would say Time Splitters were Tag Team Champion but that's incorrect they are Tag Team Champions and hold the Tag Team Championships, also don't try to correct me if you have no solid ground for it".

Obviously, he's not going to listen to one editor no matter how right or handsome he is, so could some of you help me get through to this guy? I've pointed him in this direction to see the discussion. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

We discussed this issue this year. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 91#Randy Orton is still World Heavyweight Champion. The consensus (and previous consensus) is that there is one championship held by a team. But physically, there are two title belts held by two champions. Unless JMichael22 can come up with a new consensus, he should abide by the old one. starship.paint ~ regal 12:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I've unfortunately had a number of run-ins with JMichael22 recently. Starship and I have had one helluva time trying to explain to concept of WP:COMMONNAME to him on the Edge RM. The consensus in place is "championship", not "championships". He's been here long enough to know how consensus works, you would think this wouldn't be a problem at this point.LM2000 (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

We had this same discussion a while back. If it helps, here's the link: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 31#Tag title or tag titles.3F. For what it's worth, I'm still of the belief that it's one title, one championship, and two belts. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This is all Michael Cole's fault. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding title or titles... I thought it would be plural because I thought it meant title belts. If it referred to the championship then I guess it would be singular. starship.paint ~ regal 07:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Just ducked inside from yelling at clouds

Wikipedia:Consensus, second sentence: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote" (emphasis added). Now, if you'll excuse me, there's a heap of cumuli rolling in. Has anyone seen my cane? GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Your cane is behind you. No, not there. Behind you. starship.paint ~ regal 07:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought that you hid his cane at the bottom of the swimming pool, Starship.paint? Dang it, Paint, you had one job!

CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 10:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the game's up. I admit it, I gave his cane to Curt Hawkins almost three years ago. About time he noticed. starship.paint ~ regal 13:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Managers revived

This was brought up around this time last year, however a hard consensus was not reached. This subject seems to be under a cloud of uncertainty in terms of enforcement, or at least from what I've seen. I would like that to be settled. So, here are a few questions on the matter. A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Should valets be counted as managers?
Should bodyguards/enforcers?
Should mentors (e.g. NXT pros) who accompany and act as a coach? Prefall 12:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I brought up the question last time because of a separate issue. People listed stable-mates / tag team members as wrestlers, (Dolph Ziggler and Jack Swagger when they were with Vickie) and also those being managed became managers of their own managers (Dolph Ziggler and Big E Langston / Daniel Bryan and AJ Lee). But, to answer your questions, it's YES!, YES!, YES! All of them effectively fulfill the supporting role of a manager. It would not be right IMO to list Paul Heyman but not Ricardo Rodriguez. starship.paint ~ regal 13:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

- What about renaming the "managers" section (and potentially the article itself) "managers and valets"? McPhail (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Valets and bodyguards are fine by me, as long as they're fixed in that role. If a guy brings his tag team partner (or whatever ally he has that week) out to the ring to "watch his back" or something, that guy isn't any sort. He's just there to make a mockery of the concept of a rulebook. In the good old days, you needed a fake manager's licence to go ringside, and refs literally counted.

That is, yes, yes, no. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think WrestlingData knows best. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think managers it's fine. However, I prefer to use only WrestlingData and Cagematch as sources for the section. I see a lot, alliances (Layla as Summer Rae manager) tag teams (morrison as miz manager) double managing (fandango-rae)... I prefer to use both sources, not TV reports.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hulk, why did you say no to mentors? Actually, if Prefall could give a better definition of "mentors". If it's just NXT Pros, definite support from me. All the stuff HHH Pedrigree brought up is indeed nonsense. starship.paint ~ regal 12:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Because they were paired off as partners in some sort of pseudo-wrestling reality TV contest. They didn't (in fiction world) get to choose, there was no business agreement between them, no need to get their Rookie booked in matches because the contest format dictated that. If they were anything, they were more like cornermen. They all knew it was temporary. Nobody used their mentors as managers in "real WWE" after the contest, did they? I know they sometimes feuded. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

And, to a lesser but more authoritative extent, because WrestlingData doesn't count them. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, about the NXT Pro-Rookie thingy, funnily enough, 3 NXT Rookies stayed with their Pros by "managing" them. Alex Riley became the Miz's lackey. Brodus Clay became Alberto Del Rio's bodyguard. Aksana became Goldust's valet. starship.paint ~ regal 07:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Regarding "mentors", NXT pros are the main thought behind that. Though, there are two other examples I'm familiar with in recent memory. Natalya was sold as being AJ and Kaitlyn's mentor, accompanying and coaching them, while also doubling as a tag team partner. The other is Daniel Bryan coaching AJ (albeit that lasted all of about two weeks). Under those circumstances, would you consider that to be managing? Prefall 07:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Natalya - yes. She was like a Player-coach in football. Her main role was not as a tag partner, but as a coach -> manager. Bryan - no. Because he was already being managed by AJ (the valet). It's not a gender thing. Daniel Bryan was the bigger deal, therefore he was the one being managed. I remember Alberto del Rio being at ringside for Ricardo's matches, and Fandango for Summer's. The smaller deal is the manager. I would consider if Bryan wasn't being managed by AJ at the time. But he was. starship.paint ~ regal 07:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point on the Bryan thing, I can side with that. Just to weigh in with my own opinion on the whole matter, I think we should list all three. Prefall 08:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I think only managers should be counted as managers. Saying that Brodus Clay managed Alberto Del Rio is just silly. Or that Big E managed Dolph Ziggler. Or that Luke Harper managed Bray Wyatt. Valets and bodyguards shouldn't count. I do think that these things are notable to list, but they shouldn't be conglomerated with "wrestlers managed". That just completely misrepresents their role. Replacing the word "manager" for bodyguard/valet should work. As for lackeys and partners, they shouldn't be mentioned at all. Feedback ^☎ 08:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Slammy Awards in championships list

I would love everyone's opinion on this. There are so many Slammy Award categories and I feel most of them do not belong in the wrestlers "accomplishments" section. IMO, only the big ones should be there like 'superstar of the year'. Do 'beard of the year', 'couple of the year', etc, really belong in the list? I vote no. What say you? (T23tran (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC))

How do you define "major"? Are we qualified as an authority to define major/minor awards? IMO, we are not. Either we list all or don't list all. starship.paint ~ regal 12:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I go for not listing any of them. WWE's superstar pages don't list them in the accomplishment sections, so why should we? Feedback ^☎ 14:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I hate slammys. Fake awards from WWE to the wrestlers they want. I think the slammys are no notable, because most of them are kayfabe. Also, most of them are a joke (best hair, best tatoo, best double vision). PWI and WON give awards, but they are people outside WWE and the people are journalists who know how wrestling works. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Then I agree with the two people above me; the Slammy's don't even have the same categories every year. They make up new ones all the time. The Slammy's are bogus awards.(T23tran (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC))

I find them stupid, but that doesn't mean they don't exist (at least for a while). We can't always be proud of the facts we relay on Wikipedia. But these are accomplishments of sorts, and come with officially recognized titles. If it weren't for the sad fact that they're presented by the same promotion that presents the championships, it'd be easier to ignore. But millions of people are aware of them, and something like hundreds will try to readd them if they're deleted. If you're up to the challenge of continuously explaining how you know they exist, but just don't like them, good luck! I'll stay in the neutral corner for that war. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

They may be stupid, but they're really not much different than the Oscars when you think about it, even when you consider Kayfabe. In the Oscars, The Academy created the award, the Academy chooses who gets it. It's the same for the Slammy. WWE created them, WWE chooses who gets it. Granted it's prestige is lower than even the Nickelodeon Blimp, but how the awards go about their business is the same as major awards, even with Kayfabe considered. CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 23:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

They are actually extremely different than the oscars. Movie studios don't give out their own awards. The oscars are similar to PWI where someone else names who wins the awards. Also, go to any NBA, NFL, etc players wiki pages. They aren't listing every award they get. Why don't we just tell these wrestler's stories of every episode of Raw they've ever been on? Or every house show they appear? Talk show appearances? It's about presentation and not clogging up these pages. So, I am a very strong proponent of removing the Slammy's altogether. They have their own wiki page and I think that's more than enough. (T23tran (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC))

They can be quite annoying but we do list silly awards in actor bios, like the Nickelodeon Bimp, even Golden Raspberry and Stinkers. I think that the major awards, like Wrestler/Diva/Match of the year are helpful to readers. Even though these awards aren't handed out by an independent organization I think it says a lot about a wrestler if they are able to get one of those awards. Notably, in the cases of Owen Hart and Michael Cole, even winning (or stealing) lesser awards is treated as a big deal. I think it's best to leave them.LM2000 (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they should be removed completely. Superstar, Diva and Match of the Year are the three main awards, in my opinion. Those should at least be recognized. Another idea would be to simply list something like...

WWE
- Other championships, accomplishments, etc
- Slammy Award (5 times)

That cuts down on the drastic amount of space they tend to take up, like with the Daniel Bryan article. However, the downside is that it is extremely vague. Prefall 00:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's do a strawpoll with 3 options and see which one has the more backing and the best arguments for a consensus.

Option A- Keeping the Slammys as they are.
Option B- Keeping the main Slammys that repeat themselves on a yearly basis like Match of the Year and Superstar of the Year.
Option C- Brock Lesnar... I mean, eradicating the Slammys from the accomplishment sections entirely.

What do you think? I'm for Option C. Feedback ^☎ 04:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Count me in for option C as well. I am also fine with option B. It's just way too sloppy to leave as is. (T23tran (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC))

I'd favour removing them altogether. I'd also suggest removing the Pro Wrestling Illustrated/Wrestling Observer awards - I don't think they're particularly meaningful. McPhail (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Talking about Oscars, it's different. Yes, the Academy chooses the films and the winners, like PWI or WON. However, the Academy doesn't have any relation with the films, WWE does. Also, the winners are choosen by film experts who knows how cinema works. WWE doesn't have criteria, they give the awards as one more storyline, like Rusev Russian medal.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer they stay as is but I'd settle for Prefall's version. Superstar and Diva of the Year are notable enough to mention in the body and intro of the article. I'm fervently for keeping the PWI and WON awards, but that's a separate conversation.LM2000 (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm voting for A, with Prefall's (5 time) version as an alternative.LM2000 (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

So the majority votes removing them altogether. I'll go ahead and do that now. Thanks for voting, all. (T23tran (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC))

You couldn't wait a bit for people to chime in? Again, majority swings in a different direction.LM2000 (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Majority? As per the strawpoll, two of four said to remove, two thought option B was OK. I vote Option B.RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Option A here. Picking and choosing the "important" ones will leave us with a rough consensus opinion, which will constantly change. Just reflecting reality is much more consistent. Whether it happened is important, not whether it's important. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Option A, mainly because I've yet to be convinced by any arguments on Option C's side. starship.paint ~ regal 07:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Option A. I don't like the way they currently are, but removing them isn't the answer. If anything we should be thinking of means to display them in a way that isn't so obtrusive. Prefall 07:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Starship, you've yet to heard any good arguments for removing? How about they aren't real awards? The only argument you guys have had for keeping them is simply because they exist.(T23tran (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC))

The Oscars also exist, yet everybody knows they're a backslapping sham too. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

You know what other awards are made up? Every single pro wrestling championship; the Slammys are storyline fodder, just like the belts, and the winners are decided by creative, just like the titles. So I think they should stay. If anything should be removed, it's the PWI and OWN awards. The former are from a magazine that is written with an in-universe perspective (despite not being affiliated with actual creative) so is not really a neutral observer, while the OWN awards are from a single dirtsheet website that may be valid for facts, but is just one opinion when it comes to editorial material, which awards are. oknazevad (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Except the championships don't change every year. There's no "best beard" or "tweet of the year" championship belt. (T23tran (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC))

The Royal Rumble's different each year, and nobody gets a belt. Still exists, as a fake accomplishment. Even among the championships, the criteria for winning changes. Triple H won the big gold belt because he was a solid foundation, going into the brand split. Alberto del Rio won it because Mexico's sometimes a demographic they consider. Who knows why Prince Albert was IC champ? Not me. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean the Royal Rumble changes every year? It's a once a year, 30 man, over-the-top-rope challenge. How does it change?(23:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC))

The contenders are different, the entry order's different, last year's champ doesn't get any sort of championship advantage. One night, depending who's popular, one guy just wins this year's Rumble and the new Road to WrestleMania begins. Same with a Slammy (except for all the rumbling). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Lol that was a terrible argument but I give up anyways. You guys seem to REALLY care about the prestigious awards like "best couple" and "hashtag of the year". (T23tran (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC))

I don't make bad arguments. You must have misread it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

His argument, long story short, is that they are all scripted accomplishments. If Wiki includes scripted championship belts, why not include scripted award ceremonies? Hardly "terrible", is it? If it is being judged on "prestige", then pretty much every championship in the entire wrestling industry would rank below the Slammy Award for Superstar of the Year. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

And my argument is that the Slammy's are just for laughs and not meant to be taken seriously. WWE doesn't even recognize the awards. (T23tran (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC))

Well, WWE is 62 years old now, so it's understandable if he doesn't recognise them as he's probably senile. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No real argument so you go with a joke. Classic. (T23tran (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC))

T23tran, you said it yourself. The Slammys exist. They are awards given by WWE. Therefore, they are real, I don't know why you think otherwise. As for your argument that they are just for laughs and WWE doesn't recognize them, prove it. With reliable sources, hopefully. I don't see how they don't recognize the awards when they dedicate one whole Raw to them. They are canon (fiction) and on TV, unlike Zack Ryder's Internet Championship or TNA's One Night Only PPVs. starship.paint ~ regal 02:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I would just like to add that WWE does in fact recognize the awards whenever it fits a narrative they're going for. I recall them citing Bryan as "Superstar of the Year" quite a bit since he won last year. Prefall 04:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Go to their profiles on WWE.com. Do they say "Superstar of the Year" on their career highlights? (T23tran (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC))

Nope, but certain Diva profiles do. [1] [2]

Whether or not they do has no bearing, though. I mean, WWE.com lists authority figure roles as career highlights, but we don't list them. Prefall 04:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

But you just said before they do recognize them and now it doesn't matter if they do or don't? And that's why I also said I'd be fine with keeping the big three. "Tweet of the year"? "Best dance moves"? Or how about "Most resemblence to a Muppet"? How can you justify that in the accomplishments section? (T23tran (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC))

We are not WWE's parrot. We don't do things 100% like WWE does. Tweet of the Year? Because it happened. starship.paint ~ regal 05:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

So you you don't do everything that WWE does but you feel obligated to do the Slammy's. Interesting. (T23tran (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC))

I don't feel obligated to present things exactly the way WWE or WWE.com does, because we are WT:PW, not WT:WWE. But, I do feel obligated to present what WWE does. starship.paint ~ regal 06:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@T23tran: My statement was referring to them acknowledging it on TV. WWE.com tends to be really inconsistent with these things, anyway.

And again, I've been suggesting this entire time that we rethink how these awards are presented in the C&A sections. We should acknowledge how many Slammy Awards they've won, and maybe even list the important ones, but outright removing these things and acting like they don't exist just because they may not hold the same weight as other accomplishments is just silly. Prefall 05:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, finally some progress. Anything but leaving them how they are. I mean Daniel Bryan's Slammy's list takes up half his accomplishments section for goodness sakes. (T23tran (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC))

Exactly. I don't like that any bit more than you do, believe me. But we've got to figure out the best way of going about this. Prefall 05:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Prefall:How about we list "Superstar","Diva", and "Match" of the year, and we group all the others in "Other Slammy's" or something like that?(T23tran (talk) 05:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC))

The 1986, 1987, 1996 and 1997 Slammys had no such categories. Also, what about Tag Team of the Year? Couple of the Year? starship.paint ~ regal 06:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

We can't just list some awards and not list others. Who are we to decide which awards are noteworthy and which are not?LM2000 (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Who are we? People with common sense. At least I know I am. We don't need the prime minister to let us know "Trending now hashtag of the year" isn't a real award. (T23tran (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC))

If not a prime minister, how about a reliable source? starship.paint ~ regal 13:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Lol, okay, you guys win. Don't even care anymore. (T23tran (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC))

I missed most of this conversation, but this seems to be the argument of choice for including them in the articles: The Slammys exist. They're real. They're given out by WWE. The winners are predetermined just like the championships.

While all of that is true, I think the argument is missing a fundamental point: Is the Slammy Award an accomplishment?

We need to establish a definition for what is an "accomplishment", because if winning the Slammy fanvote on WWE.com is an accomplishment, why aren't we listing all the Taboo Tuesday, Cyber Sunday and Viewer's Choice polls?? What about all the times a wrestler was a #1 Contender?? When Zack Ryder cut promos, he'd tout that he's the guy that retired Tommy Dreamer, and that he was a former #1 Contender to Sheamus' WWE title... He never cut a promo saying he's the 2011 #Trending Superstar of the Year. In my opinion, the Slammys are a joke. And that's not a jab. I mean they are literally humorous in nature. "Best Hair"? "Cole in Your Stalking"? "Best Head"? "Crime of the Century"? "Outstanding Achievement of Baby Oil Application"?? These things are meant to be laughed about and then to move on. You're not meant to consider it an accomplishment. The awards existing on their own is not a sufficient argument for inclusion. We need to decide why they are considered an accolade, because there are plenty of things in wrestling that "exist", but shouldn't be included. Here's an example:

World Wrestling Federation / World Wrestling Entertainment
- Slammy Award for Knucklehead Moment of the Year (2010, nominated) – with JTG

You can add more and more stuff that happened and existed. The question is whether they're all notable accomplishments or not. I'm of the opinion that the only things listed up there that are worthy to be called accolades are the titles, and the King of the Ring. Nothing else, especially not the Slammys. Feedback ^☎ 09:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It's true. Problem, Wrestling is fake and everything can be an accomplishment. For example this. So, we should talk about it. Championships? Of course, they are notable. However, matches, tournaments, awards... I think we should thnk the criteria. PWI and WON are awards from notable sources and magazines and they are neutral because they don't work in the promotions. Also, promotions mention sometimes the awards in TV. (Goldberg best rookie, Rosita Most inspirational, KOW tag team of the year...). Tournaments/matches... it depends. Rumble, KOTR, King of Voladores, G1 Climax, King of Trios, King of the Mountain yes. Tournaments to crown a champion, to #1 contenders... I don0t think so.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

A tournament win is a tournament win. Winning the Royal Rumble is just as fake of an accomplishment as winning a four-week long number one contender's tournament. Either we list all tournaments or none of them. We are not the authority on anything. We list facts. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

We're no talking about real-fake, legit-scripted. Its about notable - no notable. As feedback said, in pro wrestling we can find a lot of "Accomplishments" and facts. However, every fact isn't notable, like a tournament to find the #1 contender. However, tournaments like KOR, G1 Climax, the rumble are notables. We list facts, but every raw result is a fact and we don't list them because aren't notable (except, some notable results).--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You throw out terms like "notable" and "no notable" like they're some clearly defined terms we can just look up and use to eliminate some tournaments from C&A. But they're not. How do we define which tournaments are notable and which are not? So #1 contender's tournaments are not notable? Then out go G1 Climax, King of the Ring and the Royal Rumble. With articles we use AfDs to determine notability, are we going to start doing votes on every single tournament that ever comes into existence to find out if they're notable too? リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Is winning the slammy for "best hair" in the top 10 most notable things Triple H has done in his career? By voting to keep the Slammy's you are saying it is. We should have another vote. (T23tran (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC))

Kathy Bates is a lauded Academy Award winning actress, who was also nominated for a Golden Raspberry Award (an award I've seem many people call a "joke" in the past) for her role in North. Her nomination is listed in her article. Do you think getting a nomination like that is in the top 10 moments of her career? Do you think that that movie was even in the top 10 moments of her career? Imagine how short articles would be if we only mentioned the top 10 most notable things the subject ever did.LM2000 (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday, you said "I give up". Thirteen hours later, you said "you guys win". Maybe you're like Lionel Hutz and think "I rest my case" is a figure of speech, but in this court, that counts as surrendering. Twice. So I vote to disregard your vote. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Another vote is useless, at least at this stage, and as our friend GaryColemanFan points out, consensus doesn't necessarily have to involve voting in the first place. Why can't you just wait out a discussion, which Feedback has tried to start? I'm not swayed by any of the arguments presented this time around though, number one contender spots, runner-up positions, and things of that nature aren't championships nor accomplishments... Not unless anybody can find a (reliable and independent) source which claims them to be.LM2000 (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Every argument that's been stated for removing them has been far better than the ones for keeping them. We've had multiple points for our arguments and the only ones you guys have had is "Well, they're already on there." We're winning right now as far as I'm concerned unless you guys want to provide ACTUAL points and arguments for your case. (T23tran (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC))

Here is a source explicitly stating "you guys" have won. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't generally trust dirtsheets named The Sun, but this one suggests The Royal Rumble is possibly prestigious, as far as number one contendership melees go. No word yet on whether it was still prestigious after Sheamus ruined it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The Royal Rumble didn't even always ensure number one contendership, so it's an odd one. I don't think it's very difficult to tell when something like this is a "notable" achievement and when it isn't and it really depends on how a company hypes it. Royal Rumbles, MITBs, WW3s, King of the Mountain/Ring, G1 Climax, etc. are obviously more notable than makeshift Raw battle royals to fill the contender spot because the original guy got injured at a house show before the go-home show right before the PPV. I understand that this can be challenging especially with TNA because they've thrown so many useless tournaments, but there isn't much about TNA that isn't challenging these days. Also, I have no idea who made the argument to keep them because "they're already there" but this has been a long thread so I'll just take your word for it and assume that at some point somebody said that and that I just missed it. I know for a fact that wasn't the only argument presented by us folks though, so you're still wrong.LM2000 (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Gentleman, take it easy. We're progressing. 1, as LM2000 said, it's easy to see differencs between notable tournaments (rumble, g1) and random torunaments. I think we can use Common Sense. We aren't talking about prestige. 2 if common sense doesn't work, we can find other criteria, like hype or sources. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

WWE Raw's "History" section

Just thought I'd point out that this section of Raw's article could use a little love, it hasn't been updated since Raw's 700th episode and last night was the 1,108th episode. CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 23:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

List of tallest professional wrestlers

List of tallest professional wrestlers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is being randomly edited with people changing numbers and adding probably made-up stuff ("after undergoing back surgery (and cutting his hair)". Any chance someone with an understanding of the topic could monitor it? Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is this list even on Wikipedia? I just don't see the need for it here. Moreover, the one external link points to a site that hasn't proven to be eithe reliable, or unreliable. Plus a few references are broken. ArcAngel (talk) ) 20:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it supposed to be in some sort of order? I can't figure the pattern out. But there's a pattern with André: Every claim is dubious. If there's one certain thing, it's that Rick McGraw was a skyscraper of a midget. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I nominated the article for deletion. Just seems too trivial to me for an article. CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 02:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The AfD has closed as a snowy delete. *poof* CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 02:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Those damn Armstrongs.

Just did a bit on Bullet Bob's lead, but had to question myself a bit. When we're talking about the kids he had, should we use their stage names or birth names? Seems like in a family context, they should be real (he didn't name his newborn "Jesse"), but on the other hand, Brad and Scott are more familiar sounding. On the other other hand, we have Wikilinks to clear that up.

This sort of thing should be consistent among all five articles. Advice? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

We should use both names. maybe something like "his sons are Brian James (better known as Road Dogg Jesse James)" or "his sons are Brian "Road Dogg Jesse James" James". We say Paul "Tripe H" Levesque in the Stephanie McMahon article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, could do that. It would be much longer, though. I sort of like the way only the first names were linked in Bob's, just couldn't decide which first names were best. Maybe parentheses? Like "His four sons, Joseph ("Scott Armstrong"), Robert ("Brad Armstrong")...became wrestlers."

Another thing I hadn't considered till now is how I remember Shawn Michaels saying it's common for people to use their middle names most in the southern US. That would make them Scott and Brad, after all. Not sure how that worked, in their real lives. Wouldn't that make The Road Dogg "Gerard"? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with describing them as "Scott, Brad, Steve, and Brian", as those are their billed names, common names (except for B.G.), Brad and Scott's middle name, and Brian and Steve's real first name. When you first brought this up I thought you meant listing their billed names/gimmicks, which would be too much as listing all of Brad's would take over the lede. I don't take issue with naming Road Dogg though considering he's the only one that had a unique common name.LM2000 (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I like the parentheses with wikilinks: "...Joseph (Scott Armstrong), Robert (Brad Armstrong), Steve (Steve Armstrong), and Brian (Road Dogg/B.G. James)." We'd just need the best known name for each (Brian would probably get two, since he achieved substantial success under both). GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather ("Road Dogg" Jesse James) for Brian. Covers the nickname and the last name (as opposed to Armstrong). "B.G. James" was pretty big in TNA, but that's basically just repeating his real name. If we're going for consistency, everyone should have one ringname. There's a case to be made that a pure WWF fan would only know Steve as "Lance Cassidy", and Arachnaman was fairly notorious. But Scott was just Scott, unless you want to count "Dixie Dynamite". So no consistency there, either. Damn Armstrongs. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

List of ECW pay-per-view events

Having a revert war with a guy on this page, trying to make it more inline with similar articles (List of WCW pay-per-view events, List of WWE pay-per-view events and List of TNA pay-per-view events). Also I question the inclusion of a TNA PPV that happens to have former ECW talent on it. MB1972 (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

– Offending user in question claims the issue is resolved.

CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 12:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The offending user, User:Lukejordan02 is newer to Wikipedia and wasn't aware of many standing WP:PW consensuses. Despite making the mistake of reverting a few too many times, I fully believe all his edits were in good faith. In fact, he showed a great sense of maturity that is not seen from many newer users in an edit war. He is now aware of WP:PW and our consensus, and has since joined the project. I expect him to be a welcome addition to the team. Feedback ^☎ 14:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

About locations

This is just to basically try to get a consensus on this location BS that I see going on. Looking at this project's featured and good articles I see that locations are simply listed as "Orlando, Florida", Phoenix, Arizona", "West Newbury, Massachusetts", etc., without "United States" afterwards. I have absolutely no problem with this. What I do have a problem with is people then going to articles about Mexican and Japanese events and wrestlers and adding "Mexico" or "Japan" to the ends of locations. This isn't Americapedia and we non-Americans are not foreigners here with different sets of rules. So, which way is it going to be? Countries for all or for none? リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, we should put United States. If the rest of the world uses the country, why USA doesn't?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

For none, I say. Just city and state/province/whatever. If the names are unfamiliar to some reader, that's why they're Wikilinked. Geography lessons belong on Wikipedia, but not in articles which only mention places. For the big cities (Rome, Tokyo, New York, etc.), I'm generally fine with just that. Whatever the place's COMMONNAME is, basically. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Another peeve that I may as well bring up now is when cities and states get separate Wikilinks. We should link West Newbury, Massachusetts, not West Newbury, Massachusetts. Cena's relevant to the specific city, but only very barely to the whole state. Context matters. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't agree with the OP, I don't see how that makes this "Americapedia". It's just the naming convention. I don't know a person the world that refers to cities with their city, state and country attached. It's usually just city and state. And I know quite a few people over the world. It's just the common name to refer to American cities by only their city and state. CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 23:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Canada, too. But in WWE, they like to say the country name to get over that part of the gimmick. At least twice, Lillian billed Jericho from Winnipeg, Alberta, Canada. Still geographically closer than "the Orient" or the "Isle of Samoa". In a perfect world, we could say Jim Duggan was from "USA, USA!" InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all, don't you mean Manitoba? Second, IMO, it doesn't matter. They're a US-based company. It just seems redundant. CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 00:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

She usually said Manitoba. But yeah, I agree it doesn't matter. WWE does things their own way. Just s side-ramble to the "Canada, too." part. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a pet peeve of mine as well. I've been copy/pasting all the world title reigns into a large list and I'm always fixing all those Mexico links. I haven't fixed the Japan ones yet, because I'm not really familiar with the provinces as I am with Mexico. People also seem to make an exception for Mexico City, Mexico but it should say "Ciudad de México, D.F." or Mexico City, F.D. Feedback ^☎ 02:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Mexico City is one of those that doesn't need anything, in my books. Huge and clearly in Mexico. But yeah, better "D.F" than "Mexico". InedibleHulk (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I can see some logic here, but the original poster's way of trying to get his message across is abrasive at best. If you've got a concern, Ribbon, just bring it up peacefully. To be honest, your comments seem intended to be an America-bashing rant. There's no need for that. As for the topic at hand, I would imagine we should go with whatever is common in the countries in question. Do people in Mexico use "city, state"? Do people in Japan use "city, prefecture"? If so, we should do the same. Certainly, Americans and Canadians use "city, state" and "city, province" (respectively) and would be offended by any attempt to use city, country. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Japanese towns on Wikipedia include the prefecture. Mexican towns seem to usually leave the state off. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

We should be consistent. Either include the country in all fields or not at all. I think it makes sense to include the country, particularly when you have wrestlers who live in one country and work in another. McPhail (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Profightdb

Profightdb has an excellent record-keeping system of matches that should undoubtedly be used for reliably sourcing match results. Here's an example page listing William Regal's entire match records. What do you guys think? Feedback ^☎ 18:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's been on our "Proven Reliable" list for a while, but as "The Internet Wrestling Database". InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Uh, "entire match records"? About 5 or 10 seconds worth of searching reveals that it begins approximately a decade into his career. You know, there once was a time when "I read it on the Internet, it must be true" was stated strictly tongue-in-cheek. Now, I'm not so sure anymore. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I obviously mean "William Regal"'s match records. Feedback ^☎ 05:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

RadioKAOS is correct that some of Regal's matches are missing. You see, profightdb doesn't cover some promotions (the smaller ones). However, that doesn't mean that the info which is already there isn't accurate. starship.paint ~ regal 13:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Like Wikipedia, this database is also a work in progress. If anyone knows of any missing matches, the nice thing would be to drop them a line. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I felt it was high time

This user is a
Paul Heyman guy.

I've never done a userbox before, so feel free to tell me how badly I screwed this up. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 16:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That's some damn fine work. Welcome to The Danger Zone! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The blue and red don't really go together, I'm afraid. Also, guy may be capitalised. starship.paint ~ regal 13:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

They're supposed to contrast. If they went together, they'd disappear. Especially in sports and politics, red and blue have a clear and visible feud going, and Heyman's a manager. All about sports politics.

Guy should only capitalized if it's a brand name. RadioKAOS (probably) isn't a "WWE Superstar", just a guy who likes Heyman. Maybe not even, since he isn't wearing that badge, but whoever does won't be an "official" Guy, like that Hennig Guy. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Now we just need one for "My client [name] broke the Undertaker's....." you get the idea 92.12.18.106 (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, the problem is that the red and blue don't contrast well. They are both too dark in my opinion. Since the blue can't be changed, the red should be changed to a darker color. starship.paint ~ regal 05:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I just saw this. For the record, the blue can be changed (which I guess you should already know considering your signature is purple). Feedback ^☎ 17:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

List of WWE alumni

I vaguely remember an older conversation where it was decided that this page should not be alphabetically ordered, and instead be divided chronologically. Does anyone else recall this consensus, and if so, do you know why it was thrown on the backburner? Feedback ^☎ 14:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Is this the one? If so, I think we're waiting for you to do it. Not sure. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess I was confused. It doesn't look like we had an official consensus at all. You and I agreed on it, but Gary seemed to have an objection. I would gladly start making the changes right now, but I want to make sure there's no opposition. Feedback ^☎ 20:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that there will ever be no objection. With that said, there seems to be a consensus. I'm not thrilled with the idea, but I can't honestly say that I even look at those articles. However, if everyone except me is on the same page, it looks like a consensus has been reached (and good arguments have been put forward in favor of sorting by debut). I have a few thoughts about the new splits: (1) in the previous discussion, it seemed like the original plan was to separate into debut decades, but then the idea was also put forward to split the lists equally. I prefer splitting by decade, as it's a more natural break than (for a hypothetical example) February 18, 1994 - November 4, 1998. (2) It would be nice if it could be sortable, including by family name (and possibly the most notable ring name, although I can see that this might be open to interpretation). (3) I don't get the current sorting. Sorting the A-C list by tenure, I see the first three debut dates are 1958, 1957, and then 1960. Later on, I see Brooke Adams (debut 2006), Chris Chavis (debut 1991), Mark Canterbury (debut 1994). It looks like it might be organized by last appearance, but then at the bottom (again, sorted by tenure), I see Sin Cara (2010-2014) listed before Edge (1997-2012). Maybe this is a moot point, since sorting by debut could eliminate this problem. (4) The image captions all have periods at the end, although none of the ones I've seen have been complete sentences. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

All right. I'll start a prototype with about 50 entries and try to fix all those issues you mentioned. I'll present it here before implementing it in the article. Feedback ^☎ 00:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I may have been sidetracked by real life and not spoken. Two very compelling reasons against ordering chronologically are: 1) The list is gargantuan as it currently stands, even though at the same time it's obviously very incomplete. By ordering alphabetically, you only list an entry once. Otherwise, some individuals will be listed as many as four or five times. 2) Take a look at past discussion on the talk page, and you will read years' worth of agitation on the same issue: the belief that the primary purpose of the list should be to inform readers which performers have recently been released by WWE. For all the to do about "What Wikipedia is not", there really should be "What an encyclopedia is not". Too many people wrongly look upon Wikipedia content with this idea that we're here to be a fan site or news site like everywhere else on the web. Wikipedia's surge of appeal and popularity during the previous decade was specifically due to the fact that it offered an alternative to that. Today, I can't necessarily say that this is the case. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

So what are you proposing, we just delete the list? Feedback ^☎ 05:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Well??? Feedback ^☎ 05:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

World Championship Wrestling

A newb has been doing some huge ridiculous changes on the WCW article under everybody's noses. I have reverted him as did User:HHH Pedrigree a week ago, but he will undoubtedly revert again. Feedback ^☎ 22:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

He changed the name to WCW Inc. I think his editions are some kind of weird. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

He also made a huge mess in Hulk Hogan.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User:ClassicOnAStick made a lot of weird edits like that a few weeks ago. Has there been some recent news with WCW, Inc. recently that I missed or do you think the users are connected?LM2000 (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I made a mistake thinking the newb was right. That's why i made weird edits on WCW.

Rewind Wrestling (talk)

I also noticed that the user in question created File:WWEHomeVideo NewLogo.png and placed it at the top of the page replacing File:WWEHomeVideo.png moving that down lower on the page. Considering that previous edits made have been questionable can someone please confirm that File:WWEHomeVideo NewLogo.png is legit?--67.68.22.129 (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

WWEShop continues to use the scratched logo, while the one he uploaded seems to be a composite of the older logo with the new WWE logo pasted on top. There is another version on this page, but I doubt it's the same one. He just had the same idea as that website in updating the old logo. Still, it isn't official, and is a blatant copyright violation, so I'll be nominating it for speedy deletion until WWE uploads one of their own. Feedback ^☎ 05:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Also still the scratch one on the DVD packages themselves. What's really weird is how they think a Batista retrospective is worth seven dollars more than Battleground. May not have been the best PPV, but at least it didn't drag on for five years after the main event. $8.33. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

WCW Inc. does exist, but it's not a wrestling promotion. It's a name to be used on certain forms and labels, for legal purposes which interest a very tiny minority of people. The promotion itself is the thing people have seen or heard of. So "WCW" is right. But I can kind of see where WrestlingRing is coming from. If she'd like to create a WCW Inc. stub (can't see how it would be more than three sentences), she has my full support. Or he. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me like the newb got caught up in the legalities of the WCW deal. Strictly speaking, the then-WWF didn't actually buy the "World Championship Wrestling, Inc." subsidiary of Time Warner, but a large package of key assets, namely the rights to the name, other trademarks and intellectual property, the tape library, some physical property (such as the title belts), and couple of dozen wrestler contracts. These were the placed under the control of a newly formed WWF subsidiary called "WCW, Inc.", as the original plan was for WCW to get its own TV show and continue somewhat separately (that of course didn't happen, leading to the Invasion, and the subsequent reworking of the plan as the Brand Extension, with Raw and Smackdown, instead of WWF and WCW as the brands.

Meanwhile, the Time Warner subsidiary reverted to the "Universal Wrestling Corporation" name it briefly used when first formed to manage the former WCW assets retained by Time Warner, mostly some guaranteed wrestler contracts that the WWF didn't want to take on and for which the wrestler didn't take a buyout (Kevin Nash, Goldberg, Bret Hart, and others, notably). The subsidiary basically continued to exist on paper just to pay out those contracts until their original expiration dates, though it may still exist on paper (one would have to check the Time Warner annual reports with a microscope to see if it it's still around).

Seems like this spate of editing was prompted by a discovery that the WWE's subsidiary was actually legally formed as "W. Acquisition Company" some months before the deal was struck, as rumors of a sale were ramping up and the WWF wanted to be ready. Either way, the legal trivialities are not important, as we at Wikipedia do not typically care about such corporate structures (note that we only have one article for General Motors, even though the current company is technically a legally separate entity from the one that declared bankruptcy a few years ago). Even if someone were compelled to cover these legalities (which we really don't need to), the one WCW article is the place for them. oknazevad (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I was gonna point this one out a few days ago but I was on a 2 day forced wikibreak. But yeah, The main article needs to stay at World Championship Wrestling, though it may be worth having a section on the fate of the two.... splinters... of the company in WCW Inc and UWC and the state they are currently in Crisis.E X E 08:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I think someone needs to keep an eye on this user since they have made several questionable edits. (ie placed a see also to DX on the authority article calling it a quazi renuniin, adding a see also on Rybaxel to the Nexus since his previous personal was in the group even though the WWE does not acknowledge that Ryback was Skip Sheffield etc).--67.68.22.129 (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Any support for moving Rybaxel to Silvereevelarryplex? Sounds a little less stupid. Yes, be suspicious. But friendly. Like a neighbour. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The "weird" editor in question has been changing the infoboxes of many wrestlers who have previously had careers outside of wrestling, like this Summer Rae edit. Thoughts?

His changes. First, he put togeter all the WWF/E sections in one giant section [3]. According to him "All wrestling bios must be restructured per promotion debuts. (See Hulk Hogan)" He did it in Hogan, RVD and R-Truth articles. Second, infobox wrestler o person. Ambrose and Rae are notable because their pro wrestling career and the articles are focused in wrestling. Maybe others like Rock or Austin, but to appear in a movie doesn't make anybody in an actor (the same way, jay Leno had a wrestling match and he isn't a pro wrestler). Also, can somebody ask for deletion for this template? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Edge (wrestler)

Page move is recently proposed; join discussion. --George Ho (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This is stupid. That's not how Wikipedia works. Read WP:STAGENAME and WP:COMMONNAME and don't bother anyone with silliness like that again. Feedback ^☎ 05:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I hope this post was a reply to George Ho's original move request. Because notifying WT:PW is perfectly fine. starship.paint ~ regal 13:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's in response to the move request. Pro wrestling articles are plagued with people who start proposing and voting on move requests by ignoring WP:COMMONNAME. And they aren't harmless. Nelson Frazier, Jr. is currently named like that despite no one ever hearing that name outside of Wikipedia. Feedback ^☎ 19:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It was proposed 12 days ago. Looks like the result will be "Not moved" --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the use of Nelson Frazier, Jr. is likely due to the fact that he had numerous stage names and in his case he was not really best known as either Mable/King Mabel, Viscera, or Big Daddy V. This is clearly not the case as it relates to Edge so that is not a problem there.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere in WP:COMMONNAME and WP:STAGENAME does it say that if people struggle finding the most common name, you should settle for his birthname (the least common one). That's absurd. Nelson is the most uncommon name imaginable to refer to this individual. People know him as Viscera, Big Daddy V and Mabel. You can make an argument for any of them. But not for Nelson Frazier, Jr. I don't even know why the "Jr." is even there. His dad doesn't have an article. That's a very unnecessary disambiguation. I'm telling you, this article title is absurd. Feedback ^☎ 02:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm still cool with that one (for reasons stated there), though you have a point about the "Jr." part. Pointless for disambiguation purposes, only pretty good for accuracy. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

LOL Feedback and InedibleHulk, look at this requested move: Nelson Frazier, Jr. → Nelson Frazier starship.paint ~ regal 13:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Back after 2 year hiatus

Hello everyone, long time no see. Just letting folks know I'll be trying to get back to editing/watching pages after being on a 2 year break. I'm sure a bit has changed, I'll try and glance through the talk page. For the most part I was citing/sourcing (trying to put my zillion books and dvds and whatnot to use) and fixing vandalism. I'll be doing that again for the most part unless there are some other pressing issues I could help out with. Thanks everyone! InFlamester20 (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I sort of remember your name, but not much else. Welcome back! I'm the new top heel in town. I think I've feuded with every regular babyface/"hero" here over something or another (including that), so we'll probably clash somewhere down the line. When we do, just know that it's what's "best for business", not personal. Unlike that other heel Hulk.

Every extra set on eyes on vandals is definitely appreciated here. Wrestling attracts some odd beasts. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back InFlamester20! :) We definitely need more helping hands here! starship.paint ~ regal 09:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The Independent

Dunno where to post this but here seems the most obvious place: just a heads up, incase you guys are unaware, that the highly reliable The Independent now provide wrestling news on their website, particularly weekly results, so as a great source independent of the wrestling industry should be put to good use. Here's a quick link. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Great find RealDealBillMcNeal! At the same time, may I point out the possibility of using Grantland.com 1 2 as a source. "The Masked Man" David Shoemaker contributes several articles, including a glossary of jargon. Shoemaker is an author of a book on professional wrestling which has been reviewed by the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, Kirkus and the South China Morning Post amongst others. starship.paint ~ regal 14:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Shoemaker himself can be reliable, without making everywhere he writes reliable. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Slayers (professional wrestling)

Using the fact that 3MB didn't have an article despite being in existence for close to two years, should this article really exist? They've done nothing of note apart from have a short feud with Fandango, which can easily go in the individual articles for Layla and Summer. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't look promising. Are they still doing anything? Are they "The SLayers" or "Slayers" or what?

And holy hell, WWE, enough with these portmanteau names. Doesn't "creative" get paid in real money? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, we could always take a look at Wikipedia notability guidelines, which indicate that notability is established not by length of time or "having done enough" (as the phrase often goes around here), but by sufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not exactly "sufficient coverage", but "significant". The sources should show how the team is notable (which can be through talking about a long stay or their big spots), not just acknowledge their existence or cover a TV match, like all reliable news and results sites should for anyone. Even Haruka Eigen, with his 40-year, 2700+ match career. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, Eigen. Wikipedia now acknowledges you by name in NWA World Tag Team Championship (Central States version). Only took 41 years for that minor edit. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a couple of valets. Ask for deletion, maybe. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as LM2000 nominated RybAxel for deletion ... surely this is next. starship.paint ~ regal 14:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Just for comparison, The Funkadactyls didn't get an article until after they'd been around for quite some time, had broken from Brodus to have a run on their own, and had been featured prominently on Total Divas. I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know if they'll be to notable someday, but I don't think they "have done enough" to satisfy WP:ENT and I can't see anything which points to them meeting WP:GNG. It's similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blondetourage and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Chickbusters, but frankly I think they came closer to meeting the GNG than SLayers (or is it Slayers?) does.LM2000 (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was a Blondetourage, till now. That's Laycooler than the whole Dam Jerishow. In other words, just as stupid a name. Rybaxel's debatable, as for notability at least, but those two weren't. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Just for clarity, I was comparing Blondetourage and Chickbusters to SLayers, not RybAxel. I did compare RybAxel to similar teams in their AfD though.LM2000 (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

And just so I'm clearer, I didn't mention (The) SLayers because I'd already forgotten about them. I'll try to remember to spell RybAxel with the big A. Wouldn't want to sound dumb. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

WWF UK Rampage in PPV chronology

I'm seeing a bit of an edit war on my watchlist, and I was hoping we could come up with a consensus. 173.68.94.198 has removed the WWF UK Rampage events from PPV chronologies in PPV infoboxes. 178.132.219.1 has added them back. 173.68.94.198 has taken them back out. I lean toward keeping them in, as UK Rampage was an actual pay-per-view. I can also see that, since it was specific to one country, some people might not consider it to be one of the big ones and worth mentioning. Any thoughts? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

PPV is different from pay TV. The Brits paid for a package, and Rampage came with it, but so did a bunch of other stuff. Like HBO. There's no "per". They "didn't happen" in the WWF's main market, and didn't affect the "real" storyline (or barely). Whole other ball of wax, I say, but good shows. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the clarification. If it was not, in fact, a pay-per-view, then I don't think it should be in the chronologies. That would make it little different in my mind from all of the Madison Square Garden shows that were broadcast. .GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Most PPVs in the UK have been either given away for free or sold as part of a package. That shouldn't be the reason it's kept out of the chronology. The current special events are on the WWE Network, essentially part of a package as well, and we're still including them. Feedback ^☎ 18:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't make any sense. We're talking specifically about the UK Rampage events from the early 90's. Those events didn't air on PPV anywhere in the world. Thus they shouldn't be considered PPVs. As long as the events air on some form of traditional PPV somewhere in the world then they should be counted as a PPV. The UK Rampage events, Battle Royal At Albert Hall, Royal Rumble 1988, Mayhem In Manchester, Global Warning Tour, The Big Event and WWF Xperience should not be counted as PPVs as they did not air on PPV anywhere in the world. This really shouldn't be so complicated, but apparently it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.94.198 (talk)

It's plain and simple, One Night Only on September 20, 1997 was the very first UK-only ppv event. All of the UK events held prior to that were not on ppv. That includes all the Rampage events as well as the Battle Royal At Albert Hall event. They aired on Sky. Which is the equivalent of a show airing on HBO or Showtime. They aired on premium channels, not PPV channels. There's a big difference. The same holds true for The Big Event in 1986, Mayhem In Manchester in 1998 and Global Warning Tour in 2002. Not only were those not PPV events, but they didn't even air as TV specials. They were live house shows that WWE recorded and later sold as edited VHS tapes(Big Event and Mayhem In Manchester) and an edited DVD (Global Warning). I honestly have no idea why The Big Event is included in the PPV section of WWE Network. Could be someone working for the Network saw it listed on Wikipedia as a PPV as well. I've also noticed people including WWF Xperience from 1996 in the PPV chronology also. That show was never fully recorded by WWE. It didn't air anywhere or any place. There is handheld camera footage of the event taken by fans, but that's about it. Some people have that show listed as an iPPV, but that isn't true either for many reasons. For starters, WWE has never done any iPPVs, especially not in 1996 when that technology would've been almost impossible. Second of all, WWE has never released that show anywhere, not on tape, DVD, WWE Classics On Demand or the WWE Network. The reason for that, like I said earlier, is because the show wasn't fully taped. There was only a couple of segments of that show that were filmed by one WWF cameraman just so they can show a clip of it on Raw. Again, it was never set up to be recorded as a full show. Another show that keeps getting put in the PPV Chronology list is Royal Rumble 1988. It was not a PPV, it was a USA Network special. That one should be a no-brainer, but some people keep including it in the PPV Chronology. In this case I understand why WWE Network included it in the PPV section because it belongs with the other Royal Rumbles to make it simple to find. It doesn't retroactively mean it should now be considered a PPV. It absolutely should be in the Royal Rumble Chronology, no question, but not the PPV Chronology. I hope this clears up this confusion and hopefully people will understand now what exactly should and should not be considered a PPV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.94.198 (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and all 2014 PPVs will air on the WWE channel on Rogers in Canada. That doesn't mean they shouldn't count. I know they are still featured on PPV elsewhere, but when the WWE Network completely cannibalizes the PPV business model, are we just supposed to remove them all from the infoboxes? Feedback ^☎ 18:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

How can all 2014 PPVs air on the WWE Network in Canada when the Network has only been available in Canada for like a month? From January through July all the events aired on traditional PPV in Canada. Also, as long as the events are still airing on traditional PPV somewhere in the world then yes, they should be counted as PPVs. Once WWE events are off of traditional PPV altogether then that becomes a different topic. As of now the events that air on WWE Network are still sold on traditional PPVs in most of the world. So nothing should change. What any of this has to do with the UK events from the 90's, I have no idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.94.198 (talk)

Indeed, the 2014 PPVs (they still are in some parts of the world) are not like the 90s UK events, if the description of the 90s UK events are indeed accurate. starship.paint ~ regal 05:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll agree the Internet (and the general future) will fuck us yet again, as far as calling everything a PPV goes. The Network is like Sky Sports, except on a computer screen instead of a TV screen. For now (the general present), we're OK. Some PPV companies still carry them. But once everything falls apart, I support listing the Rampages in with whatever we end up calling the big shows. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Once the WWE Network specials(or special events or whatever you want to call them) are no longer being carried by PPV companies anywhere in the world then the PPV chronology will need to be adjusted. If you're agreeing to include the UK Rampage events as "Special events" then you might as well add the Saturday Night's Main Event episodes, the WWWF MSG shows that aired on HBO in the 1970's, the USA Networks specials from the 80's and 90's(Survivor Series Showdown, SummerSlam Spectacular, etc.) and everything else that currently falls under the special events category. One solution to that problem would be to end the PPV chronology with whatever the last official PPV will end up being whether it's a year from now, 2 years from now, who knows. A new chronology should then be created called "WWE Network Specials" that begin with NXT Arrival from February 2014(the first live special event the Network ever aired) and include all the PPVs and live events from that point on. If you rename the current PPV chronology to something like "WWE special events" then you just complicate the situation. There will obviously be an overlap period of PPV chronology and WWE Network Specials chronology. But I definitely would not completely rename the current PPV chronology to just "special events" and then go back and include all of the events that weren't actually on PPV. It would only make things worse doing it that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.94.198 (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No, once a PPV, always a PPV. Even a WWF PPV. Even a WWF PPV most people watched for free online, years later. Even if it's cheaper WWF PPV most people watched later named for the main eventer who didn't bother to show up, either. Even if that title is now a registered trademark of Bruce Buffer, like how his brother doesn't let Shawn Michaels (or any of the 30 men) get "ready to rumble". InedibleHulk (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Umm, ok then. OldSkool01 (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess I could have stopped after the first sentence. But then nobody would have wanted to watch In Your House 12. At least now, you're considering it. You know it's a special event when Brakkus shows up (in a dark match). InedibleHulk (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

List of WWE personnel#Producers

Keeping this section is up to date is a little difficult since WWE doesn't really publish any of their hirings and firings when it comes to producers. So I decided to look up all the script leaks I could find and make a list of all the producers listed. The earliest I found was a 1999 script, but it didn't list any of the producers. Then I found one of 2000 that showed only 4 guys. After that I found 9 different scripts ranging from 2012-2014, and here are all the producers:

Agent	9/25/00 Raw	3/1/09 Raw	8/13/12 Raw	8/27/12 Raw	1/21/13 Raw	1/27/13 RR	2/1/13 SD	3/11/13 Raw	4/7/13 WM29	4/14/14 Raw	9/1/14 Raw
Arn Anderson			N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Billy Kidman										N
Blackjack Lanza	N
Brian James			N	N		N		N	N	N	N
Dave Finlay		N	N	N		N			N	N	N
Dean Malenko		N		N	N	N	N	N	N		N
Gerald Brisco	N
Jamie Noble				N		N	N	N	N		N
Joey Mercury										N	N
John Laurinaitis		N		N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Michael Hayes	N (Doks?)		N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Mike Rotunda		N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Pat Patterson	N		N			N	N		N
Ricky Steamboat		N

With the latest Raw script from last week, we are able to deduce who the current producers are.

• Arn Anderson

• Brian James

• Dave Finlay

• Dean Malenko

• Jamie Noble

• Joey Mercury

• Mike Rotunda

In addition to those listed on last week's script, I think we should also list:

• Billy Kidman

• Michael Hayes

• John Laurinaitis

• Pat Patterson

Both Billy and John were listed on the script back in April, but were not listed on last week's show. This doesn't necessarily mean they've stopped producing since it's clear that some producers are left off some shows. Until we get confirmation that they aren't producing anymore be it via another script or news report, they should be added. Pat and Michael weren't listed on neither of the 2014 scripts. It could be that they have transitioned into other roles, or that they had those 2 shows off. I would keep listing them until any change is confirmed.

Now, most importantly, I think we should remove Blackjack Lanza, Tony Garea, Harvey Wippleman and Brooklyn Brawler. They might have produced at some point, but the only one that is confirmed in the scripts is Blackjack Lanza in 2000. Despite that, neither Lanza nor the other three have produced matches in the above 10 scripts since 2009. I think it's fair to say there has been no confirmation that they are still producers. Without a source, it's fair to remove them. Feedback ^☎ 20:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

And on a related note, due to this article, I'll be adding Tara Halaby and Brian Duncan as NXT trainers.

Do you guys agree with these changes? Feedback ^☎ 20:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree. It's complicated to find sources. Did you find any SD script?.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

There's 1 SD script in the table above from 2013. It looks like the same group of producers, there's nothing different. Feedback ^☎ 21:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Maybe WWE made two teams for two shows. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought you might think that, which is why I said: "It looks like the same group of producers, there's nothing different." Feedback ^☎ 01:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember exactly when WWE started calling its road agents "producers", but it was after they got the F out. Might explain why there weren't so many in 1999 and 2000. Then, the term was still used exclusively for people like Kevin Dunn.

No problem with your changes, but their's still seems weird to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

They listed the "agents" in the 2000 script. But they didn't list any in 1999. Maybe they just felt it wasn't necessary knowledge for the scripts since wrestlers had way more freedom to do whatever they wanted in the ring. Feedback 02:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm still a bit confused on how it works now. More of them, so it seems they have different guys for different departments, and more of them work on TV nights than actually on the road. Can't just have one guy between "the boys" and "the boss" now. The pyro guy, the camera guy, the lighting guy, the writing guy, the rewriting guy, Dunn's guy (I think that's Hayes) and Vince's guy (Patterson). Arn Anderson just needs to be Arn Anderson. We should find some notes for the notes column, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you fix the Template too?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes.

3 name changes

I'm gonna ask for 3 moves, but I want to know your opinion. First, Renee Young and Lana. Both had many jobs, but I think they are more notable for their work in WWE. Also, I don't know the new name for Lana (Lana (wrestler), Lana (wrestling), Lana (wrestling manager)...??) 2nd, Jorge Arias/Hunico/Sin Cara. Original Sin Cara stills as Místico. Sin Cara talks about the gimmick (Místico and Hunico). However, Arias is Sin Cara and he won the NXT title. What do you think? Is now Sin Cara the commonname for Hunico? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea about Lana and Renee Young because I'm not familiar with their careers outside of wrestling. There's an individual Sin Cara article for the character and I think Mistico is the more popular Sin Cara anyway, so we can't move Hunico to Sin Cara. Arias' portrayal of Sin Cara is probably more notable than his work as Hunico, but since we can't move it to Sin Cara a move to Jorge Arias would make sense but I understand that some here oppose moving articles to real names when multiple ring names are a factor.LM2000 (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, Looks like Renee Young is a protected article. Maybe, we can move Hunico to Sin Cara (wrestler) and Sin Cara to Sin Cara (gimmick/character). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Lana (wrestling) would be the appropriate page title. McPhail (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Reserving judgement on the others, having one article explain that Sin Cara is a gimmick used by two wrestlers, but another saying Sin Cara is the name of one those two wrestlers doesn't add up. Forces the reader to suspend disbelief, which is fine, if they're used to pretending an armpit drop is an elbowdrop, but general audiences might be rightly confused.

I'd stick with real names for those two, especially now that the gimmick is its own topic. Assigning the same name to one over the other isn't neutral.

By the way, Sin Cara's edit history is crazy big next to Tiger Mask's, which is crazy small next to anybody's. But that character's a legend! Isn't he? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think all of the current placements are fine aside from Renee Young. She needs to move. I think CJ Perry needs a bit more time as Lana before it surpasses her previous career. Feedback 07:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, Stardust and Cody Rhodes are separate people, and Wikipedia is perpetrating a nasty theory. That's according to Stardust, anyway. I think we should wait to hear from Rhodes before deciding how fooled we are.

Speaking of lies, there's only one Cosmic Key. Period. No way home without it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I opened the request in Lana and Young's articles. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

And I'll open a portal. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Me Too Talk:C.J. Perry --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Feedback/List of WWE personnel

So this is what I think the article should look like. What are your thoughts? Feedback 11:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Well... 1, I think the first data should be the character, not "biller from" (thanks for the spanish flag). 2, I think additional role and notes can be merged. 3, Previously know/worked as... it's dangerous. For example, Kane worked as Diesel 20 years ago, I think it not necessary in a current roster article. 4, Debut. You use different criteria, right? Nemeth debuted in 2006, but you use the Ziggler debut (character). This is a real life, not kayfabe article, so maybe is a good idea to use the first date the wrestler appeared, no matter the gimmick. . However, it's nice and gives us more information. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not kayfabe to say that the character of "Dolph Ziggler" first appeared in 2008 on WWE television. While WWE acknowledges that Curtis Axel and Stardust are the same as MM and Cody Rhodes, they do not acknowledge that Ziggler is the same character as Nicky. It's a list of current characters after all, Dolph Ziggler's appearances as Nicky are irrelevant to the article. However, I understand that confusion might arouse, so that's why I put a note next to everybody who has portrayed a different character in the past. I believe this is the more precise way to list today's characters in the article, but I'd like to see other's opinions about the issue as well. As for the flags, I think listing them first is a good idea. It's much more aesthetically pleasing to put both pictures first and then the name. List of current United States governors is a nice example. Feedback 14:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Are flags really allowed in this context per WP:MOSFLAG? リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Why not? If you're arguing that where they are billed from isn't important to the list then that's a conversation we can have, but there's nothing in MOSFLAG that prevents us from adding a flag next to the character's name when the character is in fact billed from that place. Feedback 17:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what the subsection at WP:FLAGBIO says not to do. It's exactly the sort of thing the guideline was written to prevent, namely associating a person with a country too strongly. Especially for a fictional nationality. I must strenuously object to the inclusion of flag icons at all. oknazevad (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC) PS, besides what flag would we use for "parts unknown"?

Kitchener's, per The Missing Link. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @Vjmlhds: as he's one of the main contributors to the article.

First appearance doesn't seem necessary. Especially since it's bound to cause some confusion.
Additional role and Notes can be merged
Not necessary to list "previously known as" or "previously portrayed"
Not necessary to list Total Divas

I kinda like the images being there─not entirely sure on "billed from"─but at the same time it takes a long time to scroll through the article in comparison to how it currently is. Also, would the tables for the non-roster personnel be affected by these changes? Prefall 18:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the point of an article like this is so people can recognize the people they see on TV. That's why I think pictures is an improvement. If we decide to implement pictures, I'll crop them all to an equal aspect ratio so each row will look even. Scrolling will hopefully be better. I don't think it's necessary to add pictures for the broadcast team and referees. As for everyone else, I propose to nix them all. Executives/Board members could be added to the main WWE article about the company. NXT trainers are already content forking over at WWE NXT. And the producers are too difficult to source. What we have is basically my best guesses due to my research a few sections above. By lessening content forking, removing unsourced information, and focusing the article on the characters portrayed on TV, we will have a much healthier article that could possibly even reach FL. Feedback 18:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd just leave it as is...I appreciate the effort, but it just opens up too many cans of worms. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

We used to have flags next to each wrestler, but there was a debate about whether we should count the wrestler's actual country or the fictional one. It was eventually removed because we couldn't come up with a compromise. Focusing the list on specifically either the fictional characters or the actors portraying them removes that issue. Other than that, I don't know what other issues or "worms" you might be referring to. Feedback 18:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

A bit too in-universe. The article should be about real people who work for a real company, not the characters they play. I know you still mention the person, but the emphasis is backwards and doesn't jibe with your own lead. "...consists of professional wrestlers...", not gimmicks.

So I also don't like the kayfabe flags, but the photos are definitely handy. I also like how you mentioned previous roles, but think those would be best together in a "Portrayed" field, with the current gimmick bolded or something. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

What it comes down to is, there's too much going on in the new chart. All you have to do is click on someone's wikilink to find out all you need to know about them. I'm just afraid that if we include more sections to the chart, it's gonna turn into a fuster-cluck...and God knows this article has been fuster-clucked enough over the years. That's why I'd prefer to keep it as is. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You know what could really cluck things up? Win-loss records. Can't even find them in the articles. Good idea, in theory, but let's not even consider it! Fun Fact: Dolph Ziggler is having an abnormally good year. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

My comments: 1) Not sure if first appearance is needed. 2) The flags should absolutely not be first, maybe after portrayed by. 3) The pictures are a good idea, but the thumbnails are quite small to see the wrestler clearly. Should focus on the face or something. 4) Everyone in the article should get a picture, if available, not just the wrestlers. 5) Seems like the NXT, unassigned, corporate and off-screen personnel are missing.. starship.paint ~ regal 07:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It took me a while, but I finally found the old WWE roster revisions that used to have the flags. They were listed first and it seems that in most Wikipedia lists that feature someone representing a location, the flag is put first, like in the aforementioned List of current United States governors. But I have no problem with them appearing second, or they could be away with and just list the "billed from" location. I just thought the flags added a nice visual touch. Feedback 20:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

For the United States governors, the state is more important than the governor. That's why it was listed first. For WWE, the Bahamas isn't more important than Adam Rose, nor is Tyler Breeze's seasonal residence (which changes from week to week). For the old version of the list of WWE personnel, I suspect this was to standardize the positioning of the flags in one column rather than all over the place. In your proposed table, all the flags' positions will be standardized anyway. Anyway, what do you think of cropping the free use pictures to show only the faces of the wrestlers? I believe this will help recognizability, which is the whole point of the pictures. starship.paint ~ regal 05:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it necessary to crop everything? Seems redundant when the media viewer makes it easy enough to expand them in a second. But then again I'm the kind of person who hates sifting through Commons and seeing three different crops of the same image. Prefall 06:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Square pics are great for tables and thumbnails and can be used in various articles so I think cropping the pictures into a square ratio would be a good idea. That being said, I think someone needs to start cleaning up all those redundant pictures on commons, but that someone isn't me. Feedback 18:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

OMG, Chris Benoit. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Fun Fact #2: While 2007 is often remembered as Benoit's worst year, that was actually 1987, when he went 32-72. The idea that 2004 was some sort of magic time for him is scientifically confirmed. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

All right, so the consensus seems to be that everyone approves the addition of pictures. There also seems to be a consensus that my dividing the "Notes" and "Other Roles" sections was unnecessary. There still seems to be debate on the flags and the debut dates, especially on their location in the table. I think we can add the pictures to the article now, and continue to discuss the possible additions of the other sections. So what do you guys think? Are the pictures a go? Feedback 22:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If we're going with how the article is at the moment, just adding photos, then here is how it would look. I've only done one section thus far, but you get the idea. Prefall 23:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

They could certainly use some square cropping, I think. Quite long and creates a lot of empty space in the other columns. Five names in one screen, by my screen. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll get to cropping right away, but I want to make sure consensus is clear before doing all that work. Feedback 01:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Hulk. Square cropping is definitely needed to not stretch the article. I think I've mentioned above, but just crop the face. Anyone against just showing the faces? starship.paint ~ regal 05:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Beats a kneepad. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Kane (wrestler) → Kane (professional wrestler) .... and many more

Big bunch of proposed moves at Talk:Bayley (wrestler)#Requested moves. Proposer rightly points out that all articles with (wrestler) have an inconsistency with The Ascension (professional wrestling), The Nexus (professional wrestling), The Shield (professional wrestling). starship.paint ~ regal 02:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency isn't good, but neither is being overly specific. Can't think of any situation where we'd have to distinguish a pro wrestler from a general one. Might be a Bob Jones or two out there, but none of the ones you mention. (Wrestler) for all! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If you visit the page why not come thinking of the qualities that you honestly like about Pro-wrestling. It has its strengths. Be happy with them. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Happy Humphrey had his strengths. Hayabusa had his. Room for all kinds in pro wrestling. Everybody weighs the same on the "real mat" and there's pretty much only one transition to a German suplex and no way in Hell to pull off a delayed vertical. I like suplexes. More the merrier. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The other way around: Blading (professional wrestling) -> Blading (wrestling)

The previous move request was denied. All may wish to weigh in at Talk:Blading (professional wrestling)#Requested moves. Thank you. starship.paint ~ regal 14:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Worst promo ever!

Just for the good of the community, Triple H's first promo as Jean Paul Levesque is at 18:30 of his second Talk is Jericho interview. Certainly worth hearing, if you haven't. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The link is currently X-rated, I'm afraid. starship.paint ~ regal 14:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding to style guide on sources

I added new reliable sources to the style guide. See my changes here. RealDealMcNeal originally proposed the Independent here, while at that time I also mentioned David Shoemaker on Grantland. I have also added Baltimore Sun as a mainstream source. How about Philly? starship.paint ~ regal 14:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Aviv Maayan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aviv Maayan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aviv Maayan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.--Sismarinho (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Battleground 2014 note

Is the fact that this was the last PPV to use the old WWE scratch logo notable for inclusion in the article? 97.96.33.181 (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Royal Rumble (2008) was the first HD PPV. Also, Judgment Day (2002) was the first WWE PPV. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The HD thing had more actual impact than the logo or name changes. But yeah, all three are good enough for a short referenced note, I'd say. Not everything in every article is going to interest everyone.

The real problem is in saying it had two main events. Though, to be fair, this original research problem extends to pretty much every WWE PPV article except WrestleMania VIII, which indeed was promoted with a double main event. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hell in a Cell is being billed as a "double main event" as well. Feedback 23:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Funny. That's the one article that doesn't say this. And holy crap, it's on right now. Thanks for the reminder. I should get away from this spoiler zone for a few hours. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The overall booking of the two main events in HIAC was awful. I am so disillusioned with the product. starship.paint ~ regal 13:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I see Jason Powell was a guest on The Ross Report, reviewing the show. I think I'll just listen to that instead of watching for myself. What's really disillusioning is reading that Ashley "I Wear a Hat" Massaro main evented WrestleMania 23. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Templates

Every PPV article seems to include a lot of the same text disclaimers. Instead of copying it to each page how about we just make a template for it?

X is an upcoming professional wrestling pay-per-view event produced by WWE
X will feature professional wrestling matches involving different wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feuds, plots, and storylines that played out on WWE's primary television programs, Raw and SmackDown. Wrestlers portrayed heroes or villains as they followed a series of events that built tension, and culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches.

As annoying it is to see that on EVERY single PPV article, if Wikipedia will be repetitive like this, we should just use a template. 64.228.89.180 (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't we still see the template on every article? Wouldn't be worse, though, so I support it. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrestling News World

I've mentioned for a while now that I've always thought of Wrestling News World as a reliable source and have tried to get approved for use as such here on WP. However, I've never been able to provide the credentials list or a source list that WNW uses because they've simply never provided one, until now. In today's "Ask WNW" feature, the head writer/editor Richard Gray touched on his credentials and sources after he was asked by Road Dogg. Here's the article. And with that, I'm officially asking our WikiProject to see WNW as a reliable source for future publications. CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 18:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Reading that, it's not totally convincing. Gray admitted that his coverage of wrestling before 2007 was a "part-time hobby". He also admits that he hasn't been a part of the business. (PWInsider's editors were) Has he been quoted or covered by mainstream media? (Meltzer and Keller of the Observer and the Torch have) There's three times he's been accurate (Lashley, Rock and Ryback) but is just three times good enough? He sums it up here with I don’t even have a degree in journalism. What I do have is a passion for the business, a record of aiming for accuracy and a dream of impacting an industry I grew up on. It's just a bit iffy. starship.paint ~ regal 07:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't most journalists start out as a part-time hobby? Why does it matter? And in the end, how does his start in the business matter as long as he's accurate? And he's never been in the business? Was Ken Rosenthal ever a MLB player? Was Paul Krugman ever a politician? Him never being a wrestler says nothing about his his accuracy either. And yes, he lists only three times he's been accurate, but you also have to consider it was an article not a resume. He's been right many times before, and when he's not, as he has stated, he prints a correction. And no, he doesn't have a degree in journalism as stated, but in the end, it's accuracy that matters, not degrees. CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 18:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

For me, it's not so much that he wasn't in the business. It's his "vision to cover the wrestling business with a humble attitude, giving it the respect it deserves." He has a passion for it, and dreams of impacting it. That may sound like a good thing, but in news, it's not. It's a conflict of interest and a lack of objectivity. Combined with the lack of formal training and relative lack of experience, I wouldn't feel right giving this source a blanket OK.

That's not to say we should never use it. Just case-by-case. Is there any specific topic you think it can help? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

American references won't help, I'm not American. Nevertheless, being a part of the business boosts credibility especially due to the "insider" nature of wrestling. Also, I don't recall reading that and when he's not, as he has stated, he prints a correction. Anyway, the main problem is that his accuracy is not very verifiable. Are we supposed to collect all of his exclusive insider reports and see if they're accurate? How can we even do that? How do we know that he doesn't take his mis-predictions down from the Internet such that they are not available now? What percentage of accuracy are we even looking for? starship.paint ~ regal 13:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

4th American TV product

Just some news. Lucha Underground, a weekly series, has started airing on the El Rey (TV network) which broadcasts nationwide in the US. It's an offshoot of the Mexican promotion AAA. As far as I know, it's the fourth promotion to have a national (instead of within a state) television show in the US other than WWE, TNA and ROH. Recommended for jaded fans. starship.paint ~ regal 07:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

In that case, LU should be in the National promotions section of the Template:Professional wrestling in the United States --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Not very "underground" of them. But congratulations! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

About the article Slater-Gator

Hello! I know a few things about professional wrestling but I'm no expert, so I thought to ask advice to the fellow editors of this WikiProject.

A new editor has created the article Slater-Gator. This article is a giant mix of sections copied-and-pasted verbatim from other Wikipedia articles. Per se, this is not necessarily a bad thing, but I'm not able to understand two important things: 1) if results of the mix make sense and 2) if the article adds something new about the team Slater-Gator that is not already available in other articles (see the section Slater Gator in the article dedicated to Heath Slater). Could someone more expert than me shed some light on this matter? Thanks in advance! LowLevel73^(talk) 02:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the article to what it should look like but I personally don't know if this team passes WP:GNG. Tag team articles should not summarize the entire careers of all its members, it should summarize just the tag team itself. As long as nobody opposes, I support your move to redirect the page to Heath Slater.LM2000 (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you would be hard pressed to find tag teams that haven't won a Tag Team Championship that are notable. Even some tag team champions are not notable (Cena and Miz???) Only exceptions are teams in divisions that don't have tag team titles (LayCool). Slater Gator have done nothing of note but job. starship.paint ~ regal 13:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Cryme Tyme, Test and Albert, real americans, Jesse and Festus... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

From all your comments it seems to me that, even assuming that this tag team could become notable in the future, it's difficult to find any notability right now. At best, this seems a case of WP:TOOSOON. Since in its present form it doesn't add anything to what can be found in the Titus O'Neil article and in the Slater-Gator dedicated section of Heath Slater, I'm going to redirect the article. LowLevel73^(talk) 19:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

HHH Pedrigree, great that you brought up teams which I had forgotten. I think Cryme Tyme and Jesse and Festus and good examples because they had longevity. Both teams were together for more than a year. But the Real Amercans and T & A weren't even teaming for a year. starship.paint ~ regal 23:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The Powers of Pain, The Killer Bees and The Fabulous Rougeau Brothers didn't win any major belts. The important thing is they had matching outfits. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so what about 3MB....? Duffs101 (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

They matched generic black pants, jobbed and got lost in the crowd. Basically Wagner and Renslow, but with long-term contracts and more time to fill. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The Magical Search Tool For Pro Wrestling Reliable Sources

Inspired by Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/sources, I present to you, the TMSTFPWRS! It can be accessed by clicking this link. It is in accordance with our style guide's list of WP:RS. Please also distribute to (new/red/blue) users who keep using LordsofPain or Bleacher Report. You're welcome! starship.paint ~ regal 12:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

In addition, I propose moving the Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Sources out of the style guide and into it's own article. starship.paint ~ regal 12:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like we can just forget about creating Insert search target here. Not sure about moving the Sources. Why should we? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

IMO the style guide is talking about how the article should be written as well as what should its structure be. That to me is distinct from sourcing. WP:MMA has a separate page for sources, that's where I got the idea from. Also, it would shorten our Wikilinks to the page... starship.paint ~ regal 22:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

If this thread is archived without serious opposes, I'll do it in December or so. starship.paint ~ regal 06:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You have my support for a split.LM2000 (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The Authority

Right now, the Authority is full of members. IP's include members like harper, rusev or henry because they're part of Team Authority. Do you think these people are part of The Authority? For example, in 2006-2007 (I don't rememebrs) The Hardys and CM Punk wrestled as part of Team DX, but they never were DX members. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, this seems different from the Team DX thing. Rusev, Harper and Henry are also mercinaries for the Authority against Team Cena and get the benefits and protection of The Authority (Seth Rollins helping Harper win the IC Title.) I don't really think this is cut or dry in either direction. CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 20:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should list Team Authority in a separate table from the regular members until we get some clarity?LM2000 (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Protect the article if we have to. The Survivor Series team is called Team Authority, not the Authority. Did Rusev and Henry get protection as well? starship.paint ~ regal 23:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

That's the point. Henry & Cia joined Team Authority, not The Authority. I vote include them only if they still with the stable after SS.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Fun Fact: Tito Santana was not part of The Alliance, despite captaining The Alliance at Survivor Series in 1990. It would have also been impossible, since Tito can't turn heel. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

On a related note, why does everyone on Team Cena get fired if they lose, except Cena? The article could explain that a little better, if possible.

Also, Survivor Series 1994 was twenty years ago today. Bray Wyatt's dad and his brave friends heroically tried to save The Usos' cousin from being cast into the darkness for five months, but the real authority had to be a dick. How will that affect them tonight? Fun Fact #2: There are seven wrestlers and one Stephanie McMahon eligible to get Survivor Series Screwjobbed by their sibling this year. I think that's a record. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

1) Goldust, 2) Stardust, 3) Nikki, 4) Bray, 5) Jimmy, 6) Jey... But I can't figure out who is #7. Do you mean Kane? Feedback 22:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. Not exactly Undertaker's brother, but close enough. I think I counted Jimmy and Jey as one person, because I counted Diego, too. Rowan and Harper were something like brothers, but already enemies, so didn't count. El Torito has brothers, but they weren't in WWE ~~and were murdered by hookers~~ (wrong Torito, my bad), so didn't count. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Does Survivor Series (2014) explain it well now, Hulk? starship.paint ~ regal 00:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Sort of. Some sort of comment about responsibility, Triple H puts responsibility on his shoulders, but slightly less than if his own job was also on the line. That part's a bit fuzzy. But the video package will probably set me straight. On with the show! (Also, Cody and Goldust won their first tag title together in this building. Ominous?) InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Triple H just implied it in a long RAW-style in-ring promo on a PPV. His unemployed partners will see him on TV and hate him for it. Man, that was long. Go Sandow! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

WWE's booking of some wrestlers is so inconsistent Ziggler losing to Rusev just before Survivor Series and even illogical Big Show, Ryback, Brie Bella that it seems to me that I can probably book that match better than they can. They have a whole team of writers so the problem must be Vince stifling them. Jack Swagger is too injured to wrestle for Team Cena... so he wrestles on the pre-show. Additionally, PWInsider's credibility has shot up, they publicly leaked out beforehand Sting and Reigns appearing. Oh, and in other news, NJPW is coming to American TV screens in 2015... starship.paint ~ regal 09:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The most illogical part for me is the removal from power stipulation. If The Authority are running things, what's to stop them from continuing to run things? Honour system? And if someone else has the power to remove them, The Authority wasn't in power in the first place. Also, Ziggler was out from that Pedigree for about ten minutes, then woke up right after the three count. Next time someone kicks out of that finisher, he's going to look like a huge pussy. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget Rollins popping up after Zig Zag #1 in under 1 minute and being KO'ed by Zig Zag #2 for 6 minutes or more. starship.paint ~ regal 23:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, WWE finishers are basically finished. In New Japan, even submission moves are potentially dangerous, not rest spots. I hope they hire the Toukon Retsuden commentators, but I doubt it. Speaking of commentary, did you notice how many times Cole called the new guy "Stinger"? Should we move the article? Also, I think the man in the bunny suit was a woman last night. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Damien Sandow

You are invited to join a discussion regarding everyone's favorite stunt double. starship.paint ~ regal 13:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Jacob Goodnight

I know it's a movie character, but it's a movie character played by a wrestler in movies made by a wrestling company Anyway, I'm not so sure this article should just redirect to See No Evil (2006 film) as the character was also in the sequel. But the character isn't notable enough for a standalone article. I guess we could do a disambiguation page, but I don't know. Ideas? CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 03:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@CRRaysHead90: - I did something, but I don't know if Jacob Goodnight is a disambiguation page like that. starship.paint ~ regal 07:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, we know May 19 was special for Kane. Next year, that day will be the 1300th anniversary of Pope Gregory II. Kane won the tag championship with Gregory Helms on September 23, 2002, as Dangerous Dan Toler of the Gregg Allman Band turned 54. 40 years earlier (by the Gregorian calendar), Gregory Peck inspired Robert De Niro to inspire Dangerous Dan Spivey to inspire his tag partner's kid to terrorize a troubled teen for the sins of his father, leading to a rushed sequel where Mr. Jacobs plays a wacky concession stand owner feeding more to the guy who already upstaged him last May 19.

In other words, leave it as is. See No Evil 2 is the lesser of two evils, straight-to-DVD. Seems the first movie is where more people would know Jacob Goodnight from. A disambig page makes everyone searching for him click to continue, the current way just slightly delays some of them. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Anoa'i family

Savelina "Lina" Fanene should be added to the Anoa'i family tree diagram. Peter Maivia is her great-uncle. She is working for WWE as a ring announcer and training to wrestle. (article) I'd add her myself but it'd take me a while to figure out the code for the diagram. McPhail (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. Counting any Maivias in on a "blood brother" link is sketchy enough, but even assuming it isn't, this says she's related to The Rock through his great-grandmother (her great aunt). Whether that's Peter or Lia's mom, it's one level above whatever Peter and Amituana did to bond.

If she was a direct descendant of either of those two, we could count her as a "blood relative" to the Anoa'is. But as is, she's only on the Maivia side. It would be like including nieces and nephews in whatever family Afa and Sika's wives came from. Even if we wanted to, there's nobody in the article we could connect her to with a line. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have a similar concern with Hulk, how do we even connect her with someone in the table? We don't know the direct linkage.
The table does need some fixing. ~~Lia Maivia should move to where Ata Maivia is. Ata Maivia and Toa Maivia should go beside Solofa Fatu. The Rock needs to go down a level to match his cousins (eg Rikishi).~~ I tried to fix the table. Hopefully it's still correct. starship.paint ~ regal 09:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Brooke (wrestler)#Requested move 2

Another move request has been formed. --George Ho (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Wrestling iFunny Community (WiFC)

I've seen "WiFC" spammed on a couple of articles over the past few months, tonight there was some sort of raid on Big Show where this got spammed. I'm not sure what the fuck WiFC is but according to this seemingly legit source it was founded by Ric Flair and Goldberg in 2010. In any case I'm sure that sock/meatpuppetry is involved in these edits, so I opened up a sockpuppet case which you can find at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hovsep10 if you have any additional information.LM2000 (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Never heard of these guys. But LOL at Big Show drawing real heat. starship.paint ~ regal 13:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

According to this seemingly more legit source, Big Show was complicit in the 2012 destruction of the universe. These idiots may still be holding that against him. If I see anything similar, I'll let you know.

What's really shocking is that a new editor named "I Am Awesome 061796" claimed Big Show won a Match of the Year award with Mark Henry, and it wasn't a dumb joke. Even the king and the talking dragon sounded like they couldn't believe what he was reading. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"People's jobs were on the line, and I did what any WWE Superstar would do. I did everything I could to entertain each and every one of you." And then he says they all deserve the award, without mentioning any of the nine other guys in the match. Only Sting, who literally carried the actual winner to the finish. I like Ziggler, so it's weird that he'd be the one to sum up what I hate about modern WWE psychology. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I found something "funny" at Gorilla Monsoon. This Omaha IP says Monsoon has a wrestling grandson in Omaha named Michael. That same minute (Omaha time), "Michael Monsoon" tweets "Made it into Wikipedia, so it has to be true". Two hours later, he maybe realizes he's killed whatever small chance he had with that gimmick. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Toukon Retsuden

I stumbled across something the other day that made me wonder why I hadn't seen it sooner. It's a two-hour show about puroresu, with matches, in English, with smart mark commentary, history and analysis. The smarks are pretty smart, big tape trader nerds, and funny enough. Not saying we should use it for sourcing, but for a general education, it gets the Hulk Seal of Approval. It came from the pre-YouTube days, broadcast only in Parts Unknown, but now it's on YouTube for everyone. Many, many episodes over many years. I've seen four. The rest might suck.

Also the name of a series of PlayStation games which are entirely redlinked on Wikipedia, if anyone's into creating game articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If nobody posts a timestamped signature in this section, it won't be archived. Doesn't have to be a reply, just anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

09:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

European Championship return.

It's a bit hourglassy, but Lana posted this on her twitter and then quickly deleted it; it's a picture of the European Championship belt with the new logo. So it appears it's coming back.

http://i.imgur.com/0fRGkkD.jpg 97.96.33.181 (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

Adam Birch → Joey Mercury. McPhail (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Lana (wrestling) → Lana (wrestler) not proposed by me.LM2000 (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:PW/RS

As per this recent discussion, I have split the sources section from WP:PW/SG into its own article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!LM2000 (talk) 08:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

No problemo starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 08:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Article for deletion

Undefeated WrestleMania streak of The Undertaker McPhail (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I also created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UWF Live and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Xtreme Wrestling (2nd nomination)

IP making unhelpful edits

2.31.126.154 has been editing PPV results by changing ring names to real names. I'm not familiar with anything more recent than 1996, so it would be great if someone could help go through the IP's recent edits ([4]) to see which ones need fixing. Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Issue seems to be resolved, good job everyone. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggested section split

I have proposed the results section of WWE Tribute to the Troops be split in to it's own article. The discussion is here. CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 18:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)