Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 65

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 60

←

Archive 63

→

One Night Stand

Latest comment: 15 years ago76 comments16 people in discussion

Anyone want to weight in on this? Some people are trying to change the name to "WWE Extreme Rules" just because the PPV sidebar on wwe.com says "Extreme Rules". It's speculation to say that is the new name, especially since that same sidebar also has "Great American Bash" instead of "The Great American Bash" and "WrestleMania 25" instead of "WrestleMania XXV". While a name change is possible, there is nothing official right now. TJ Spyke 21:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Tell those people that until wwe announces the name change, NOTHING will be changed. ←Kala jan→ 21:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Neutral - considering that WWE used it as a secondary name last year, and I'm not surprise WWE is trying to lure themselves away from the original ECW, its possible that this is the new name. But WWE has announced nothing and the schedules have not stated this change, so its best to wait.--TRUCO 22:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Neutral Per Truco SuperSilver901 (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Wait, waiting for offical confirmation is best. Nikki♥311 23:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Change - How can you say schedules have not stated this change, when we're talking about the official WWE PPV Schedule? It's the most up-to-date thing we have, and nothing official from recently conflicts with it. Mshake3 (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- A consensus has not been formed yet, taking matters into your own hands without proper discussion can lead to your temporary blockage from Wikipedia.--TRUCO 02:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Sigh, since there are multiple editors involved and we are all near the 3RR limit, I have requested full protection of the article. It won't cause any harm though since the article is just a list of the other ONS articles. Mshake, I am kindly asking you not to revert again without an explicit source from WWE stating that the event is now called "Extreme Rules" (not just pointing to the sidebar). TJ Spyke 02:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- No, I don't have to provide anything else. That is an acceptable source. Mshake3 (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  - I actually requested full protection from User:Juliancolton, so I guess it depends who grants it first. Mshake if you keep reverting I will report you for violating 3RR.--TRUCO 02:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  - Mshake, that doesn't say the events name will now be Extreme Rules that, you are speculating and that violates WP:OR. TJ Spyke 02:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    - It's not speculating. The graphic there changed, and I'm making the associated changes here. Really, it's speculation on your end by saying "well it might not be an actual change." Mshake3 (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
      - The most revent confirmed name is One Night Stand, there is not any confirmation that the 2009 one will be called Extreme Rules. TJ Spyke 03:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
        WWE.com. ;)

I'd like to direct everyone's attention to this similar discussion. Vengenance: Night of Champions became Night of Champions once the schedule graphic changed. Mshake3 (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

- - - - WWE has not given an official link to the new name, the current name on the WWE article is "One Night Stand". In addition, the article has been fully protected until this matter is resolved. That decision occurred after WWE placed the actual name "Night of Champions" on the list of live events article, which this ONS and ER one is not on.--TRUCO 03:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
        Year old article. Mshake3 (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Mshake, you are a good editor but are being really disruptive. You helped cause the ONS article to be fully protected, and not you are disrupting the List of WWE pay-per-view events article. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia. You are clearly in the minority here and not presented any actual evidence to support your claim (only original synthesis, which violates WP:OR). TJ Spyke 03:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say whining to admins once reaching the 3RR limit to lock articles is called being distructive. Mshake3 (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  - That's not whining, that's following the MoS. That is not disruptive in anyway. Simon^KSK 22:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Well on the Upcoming pay-per-views list, Extreme Rules is in place of One Night Stand, mainly due to the WWE moving to a PG format, and the sexual inuendos that come with a PPV name like One Night Stand. However as the current One Night Stand website if you will, hasn't changed the name, well I guess you can claim its still up in the air. 58.6.86.198 (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait per Truco. Genius 101^Guestbook 13:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Wait until they actually put out promotional material with the new name. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, I am up to renaming it since WrestleView also confirmed it but WWE has not promoted the event yet as "WWE Extreme Rules". Until WWE promotes the event under that name, it needs to remain as "WWE One Night Stand".--TRUCO 19:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That's so arbitrary. "We'll only change it if the company promotes it in this manner and this manner only!" Mshake3 (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In this case yes, because last year WWE used it as a secondary name to the "One Night Stand" name, so its best to wait for production and promotion begins.--TRUCO 21:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And now it's being used as the main name. If it wasn't, then they wouldn't have made a change on WWE.com. And since reliable sources are confirming it, it's a mute point. Mshake3 (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Mshake, stop disrupting Wikipedia now. You are speculating that the event has changed names based on that sidebar. You have been warned multiple times and there is a consensus to leave it where it is now. You cause the ONS article to be protected so you decided to start disrupting the general WWE PPV article. Take some time off from Wikipedia before you get yourself blocked, you clearly have no intention of working within the rules right now. TJ Spyke 22:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the point Mshake brought up, last year when Vengeance was changed to Night of Champions, it was after WWE placed a link to the advertisement of the tickets for the event. If WWE does that, then we will change it, but WWE has not released that yet, and until then it will not be changed. I think its best to leave the page protected until that time comes. In addition, you have been warned (final warning) for violating 3RR, if you revert again you will be reported to WP:ANI.--TRUCO 22:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

TJ, I'm following the rules of (multiple) reliable sources. It is not Original Research! And Truco, I havn't violated anything regarding 3RR. I've made changes to each article three times or less, and each time it involved, once again, reliable sources. So do not threaten me. Personally, I find it hilarious that you two are getting articles protected to prevent users from adding reliable information. As implied with the Notability issue, this project is just too strict on everything. Oh, and you wouldn't want me banned, especially after the thousands of photos I've taken at live events over the last couple of weeks, including the Royal Rumble. Mshake3 (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

1)The source is reliable but the way the information is presented is questionable. 2)You are on the "edge" of violating, as the warning states. 3)The project doesn't take bribes.--TRUCO 23:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Change Why not change it? If the WWE has it named as "Extreme Rules" it should change. Also If you scroll down on the WWE website, it says Extreme Rules. http://www.wwe.com/ --Pookeo9 (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read the entire discussion as to why it should not be changed.--TRUCO 20:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait with a qualification: it's probably at least worth mentioning on WWE One Night Stand that WWE.com has at least one reference to the event as "WWE Extreme Rules." It's not original research, and it's relevant to the article without crystal balling. Jeff Silvers (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Done--TRUCO 16:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The graphic that airs on RAW, SmackDown, and ECW for WWE on Pay Per View shows the event as Extreme Rules. There is absolutely NO reason not to update this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.234.65 (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel the need to weigh in on this since I tried to update the article and it was reversed before I even finished. How can anyone seriously claim that WWE's OFFICIAL WEBSITE is not a reliable source. Also, when I changed the article, I provided an extra source, just to be safe, and one that is used three other times as a source in the same article. Also, the article mentions the Wrestlemania calendar, but THAT is an unreliable source because WWE's printed publications (i.e. that calendar) are written THREE MONTHS before they go on sale. So, there are TWO reliable sources stating the name change and ZERO that can dispute it.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus, as state #Third opinion below, is to wait until WWE formally announces it (through a link to their event details/ticket information subpage).--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 02:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the third party source is just saying that WWE changed the listing on the sidebar. TJ Spyke 02:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And I would like to point out that the same third party source is used two other times in the same article. If it isn't considered "reliable" then how can it be used in other places?Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No one said they aren't a reliable source. It's just that they are just saying what is on the sidebar, they are not stating that it is a actual name change or different source. TJ Spyke 02:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Where is this consensus located? I've read everything above and it seems to me that it's split down the middle between the people who can provide reliable sources that show the name has been changed and those that have nothing to prove otherwise, but keep erasing any changes made to the article because for whatever reason they seem think WWE would just change the names of their events on their website and in their television commercials just to mess with the fans.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually read it? Only 2 editors and 1 IP think it should be changed. Everyone else wants it to stay at One Night Stand (at least until WWE officially announces a name change, like when tickets go on sale or WWE Corporate says something). TJ Spyke 02:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

WWE does mess with the fans, and your arugment is terribly poor, as we have reasons and your just keep on shouting meaningless word like "OFFICAL WEBSITE" Simon^KSK 02:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I did read it. It is the same two or three people arguing for changing it vs. the same two or three people arguing against it. The problem is, even if you forget about the wrestle view page, wwe.com AND their television commercial both have the pay per view listed as Extreme Rules. No one has yet to explain to me how that isn't reliable enough to present it as fact. How is my pointing to two official WWE sources a terrible argument? Saying that the words OFFICIAL WEBSITE are meaningless in a dispute over whether or not a company's listing for their own event is reliable enough is a terrible argument. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

1)WrestleView.com has been found reliable only for pay-per-view and television results, not general news as such. 2)Per the differenciating calenders released by WWE, and the speculation whether "Extreme Rules" is a new PPV or one that is a name change of One Night Stand, it has been found (by consensus) to wait until WWE officially and formally announces the change by a subpage stating the event details and ticket information, like they do with the other pay-per-views. The key is patience.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 03:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There are more than 2 or 3 people against the move. See the above for why it's not official. WWE has not said anywhere "One Night Stand is now Extreme Rules" (or something similar), you are speculating based on the sidebar changing. Also, are you seeing some secret TV commercial that the rest of us aren't? The only PPV commercials WWE is doing right now are No Way Out and WrestleMania. TJ Spyke 03:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

1. The differentiating calendars you are talking about: One is a calendar that was written three months before it was release and printed and released BEFORE the name change was made. The other is a live, up-to-the-minute, updated-several-times-a-day website. 2. The name Extreme Rules CLEARLY replaces One Night Stand on both the WWE's website calendar and on the television commercial that they air during their shows. Any "speculating" on whether this is a name change or a new event is just plain silly. No one has yet to provide a reasonable explanation as to why the article shouldn't be updated and how the WWE website and television commercial's changing of the name isn't an official announcement. The only explanation I've been given so far is basically amounts to "because I said so." But since there seems to be a few of you hawk-eyeing this page 24 hours a day, ready to change it back before the person trying to update it even has time to blink, I will stop trying.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Again with this phantom commercial. Why is there no video of this commercial and no mention of such a video on relaible sites? TJ Spyke 03:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:ZOMBIE commercial? Simon^KSK 03:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

1)(edit conflict) Re:They update that calender like what every month? Its not as accurate as you say it is, in addition, other subpages, like WWE's Voices subpage has the same calender and has "One Night Stand" listed. So there is a lot of confusion (1 calender released earlier and the 2 web calender released by both WWE) 2)What in the hell is this commercial you are speaking of?! There is not commercial on pay-per-views, only promotional videos for WrestleMania XXV and No Way Out (2009). 3)You have your opinion, but the WP:CONSENSUS (consensus) is to wait until WWE publishes ticket information on a subpage for the event to determine whether "Extreme Rules" is a name change for One Night Stand or a new pay-per-view. --TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 03:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The television commercial I am talking about and was mentioned earlier aired during every single WWE broadcast this week. It shows the highlights of past pay per views and ends by saying "WWE on Pay Per View. You should have been there." The end of the commercial shows the WWE logo in the middle with the word Pay Per View below it. In the background there is a rotating graphic showing the logos for all of the WWE pay per views. When the commercial first started airing (the first time I remember seeing it was during the Royal Rumble pay per view), it had the logo for One Night Stand. The graphic was recently changed to show the name change to Extreme Rules. If I can figure out a way to get an image of this off of my DVR I will show you. THAT should be proof enough. How did none of you manage to see this commercial?Wwehurricane1 (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What? I did not see any such commercial during Raw, ECW, or SmackDown. Nor did any of the TV reports on it I read mention it. You seem to be the only person to have seen such a commerical. The only PPV highlights WWE has shown recently is of past WrestleMania's. TJ Spyke 03:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

He's talking about this commercial [date the 20th of January], which has the ONS logo. So I'm not sure where he is getting the "Extreme Rules logo change" video from.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 03:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That link you provided is the video as it aired during the Royal Rumble. On RAW this week, which I have recorded to DVR, it aired with the One Night Stand logo replaced with Extreme Rules.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally that means over time, no after ~10 days after the previous consensus. If such a commercial aired on Raw, when did it air in the show so the rest of use can check? TJ Spyke 03:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh, TJ? Besides, there is no video available to support your statement wwehurricane, unless you give us a screenshot, then maybe it will be considered.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 03:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

My first or second statement? My first one is that the current consensus was formed in late January (it looks like hurrican edited his statement, originally he cited "Consensus can change"). My second statement was asking when on Raw it aired (i.e. "after Orton attacked Shane and Stephanie") so that others would not have to go through the entire show to check. TJ Spyke 04:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I did edit it because I can provide proof. Provided you agree to let the article be changed once I do. Otherwise, I'm not wasting my time.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It will be discussed. We won't just change it because of that. If you don't provide the proof, it won't be changed at all. TJ Spyke 04:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I'll go with that. This commercial SHOULD be enough proof for anyone to see that the name change is official. I can't imagine how anyone would try to dispute it.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As soon as I get home, I will rewatch RAW, provide you with the exact point in the show the commercial aired, record the commercial either with my video camera or cell phone, AND take screen shots of it. If I can provide all of that, you will have to do more than "consider."Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh huh, sure we will.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 04:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I would love to see your argument against both a change on wwe.com AND a WWE television commercial.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Again with an invisible commercial. Does your TV have the ability to show you hidden commercial? Simon^KSK 21:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The pay per view will DEFINITELY NOT be called One Night Stand this year. Please direct your attention to JR's Q&A: http://www.jrsbarbq.com/jrs-qa about the third question down.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

JR said no such thing, he said "I thought it was "Night of Extreme." Could be wrong.". Try again. TJ Spyke 00:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The "it" in question is obviously the new name for the event. You can not deny that. If the name had not been changed at all, he would have said so. This confirmation by JR along with the event calander on wwe.com should be enough to change the article to at least show that the name has been changed. We can even compromise and say that the new name is still in question as it could either be Extreme Rules as listed on wwe.com or Night of Extreme as stated by JR.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

JR also says "could be wrong", meaning not guaranteed. TJ Spyke 00:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't support, I think the name should offically be changed. On many sites it has confirmed that it is now titled Extreme Rules to fit the TV-PG rating. User:Mrpengo88 —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC).

Oh, now we have to explain it again. Those sites are not reliable per Wikipedia's policy of reliable sources.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 02:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In the end it is speculation that it has been renamed. WWE have yet to release a statement regrading it and JR never aknowledged a change. From what he said, he seemed to be joking, but never said it was renamed. We can't accept his word either, look at Rourke, he said he would be in a match at Mania, but he isn't.--WillC 03:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose but do you only consider official websites "reliable"? Is there any other sites regarding WWE other than WWE.com that are considered reliable? User:Mrpengo88 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrpengo88 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Apparently they don't consider wwe.com a reliable source since it also lists the event as Extreme Rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.162.25 (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

READ the comments above... And Wwehurricane1 I think your confused with the scroll on the bottom of the tv that was saying Night of Champions tickets are on sale.Super Silver901 _Contact 00:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to direct everyone's attention to JR's Blog at www.jrsbarbq.com/jrs-qa. The last question on that page JR says "All I know is that the name One Night Stand has been omitted and changed to "Extreme" whatever." Is THIS proof enough? Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to "Extreme Rules", but maybe a name change to something. TJ Spyke 23:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I will not change it, but at this point do we not have enough evidence to support that the name of the event will be Extreme Rules? JR has confirmed the name One Night Stand has been dropped and wwe.com lists Extreme Rules in it's place. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Royal Rumble Title Shot

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

On this weeks Raw Randy Orton said that him winning the royal rumble match guarantees him a shot at the wwe championship or the world heavyweight championship and not mentioning the ecw championship this makes me ask is a shot at the ecw championship been faded out it would also suggest it in jrs wwe universe blog "since 1993, has sent its winner to face the WWE Champion in the main event at WrestleMania. Now with the World Heavyweight Title representing the Raw brand, the winner of the Rumble match gets his choice of titles for which he would like to challenge." Adster95 13:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

1.Jim Ross never considered the ECW title to be a world title to begin with and as for the lack of mention of the ECW title on blog, the ECW title was a choice for the winner since 2007 at least. 2. Randy Orton's reference was merely just for the purpose of relevance. In any case, these references all seem pretty vague. Its an "only time will tell" type of thing. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 19:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I was with friends so I wasn't listening to commentary during the match but I remember last year they talked about Tommy Dreamer potentially cashing in a Rumble win for the ECW World Championship when he entered the match. Back then they still called it the ECW World Championship, since then they've shortened it to ECW Championship and the strap itself has been changed to reflect this. None of this is definite proof but it all points towards it no longer being considered a world title. Tony2Times (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Could be. However, as of Matt Hardy's last reign, the ECW Championship is still a World Title. From WWE.com - In 2008, Hardy was drafted to ECW as part of the WWE Draft. A few months later, at Unforgiven, Hardy satisfied his career-long hunger for a World Title when he won the ECW Championship Scramble Match against Mark Henry, Finlay, Chavo Guerrero and The Miz. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 22:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Think back a few years to when Undertaker won. All World Champions were in the ring (that means the ecw champion bobby lashely). Not that it really matters, because would anyone really pick ECW over the other two? KP McZiggy ^{(they talk 2 me)} 23:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Jr did recognise it as a world title at least once during the April 21, 2008 edition of Raw, the Brothers of Destruction (kane reigning ecw champ) teamed with John Cena and Triple H to take on the team of JBL, Chavo Guerrero, and the one night only reunion of Rated-RKO (Edge and Randy Orton) he mentioned there were 20 something world titles (can't remember) but i remember counting them and kane and chavos ecw were both counted. BTW I would pick the ecw over the other two.Adster 95 10:20 12 February 2009 (UTC)

We all know the ECW Championship was once a world title because they used to refer to it as the ECW World Championship. It's pretty self-evident. We're talking about it's current status which, between the comment about Matt and the comment about Randy, seems ambiguous at best. Tony2Times (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Logo question

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Since the 2009 WWE Draft has just been announced, and they are using the same logo as the one from 2008, is it possible to upload the logo used on WWE.com for the 2009 Draft, although its an exact replica of the 2008 logo, or what, since its not generally acceptable to use two FUR's on one image.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 03:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet that's just a placeholder until someone in the art department designs the '09 logo. ArcAngel (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That logo is really a generic logo, which has been used since 2007. So I think it will be best to just put in the main WWE Draft article.--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 01:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Independent wrestlers and retired ones

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

I suggest splitting the list of independent, retired and non-affiliated wrestlers into 3 different lists:

The basis is, because these three statuses are completely different and when someone looks at the list, the person can't see which is which, and there are a LOT of wrestlers, so IMO the three lists are notable. THoughts? Ra agg io 20:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about categorys? If not then Category's would be a lot better. --Numyht (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think "inactive" and "non-affiliated" are pretty much the same thing, but agree that "retired," "deceased," and "inactive/non-affiliated" could be three different lists or categories. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No, "inactive" and "retired" are pretty much the same thing. Tyler Black is an independent wrestler who doesn't compete for WWE or TNA, so he would fall under non-affiliated. That doesn't mean he's an inactive wrestler. When Chris Jericho took time off from wrestling from 2005 to 2007, that was being inactive. Nenog (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize that by "non-affiliated" you specifically meant with WWE and TNA. I assumed that people in ROH or NWA would be considered affiliated. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

NWA is basically just a governing body made up of different individual organizations. ROH is a little odd in that they use a lot of wrestlers without signing them to contracts (so they aren't really affiliated with them). TJ Spyke 03:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

So can we split the list into three? 70.11.119.219 (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Attitude Adjustment and STF

Latest comment: 15 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion

Should past articles that mention John Cena using the STFU and the FU be edited to reflect the new names of those moves? At least make mention to the fact that the names are changed by adding something like "a move now known as the Attitude Adjustment."Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No. We use the names that were used at the time....just like with other name changes (ring names and companies like the WWF/WWE). Nikki♥311 01:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

KWwehurricane1 (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoever does the Rumble write up don't forget it was the Throwback for that brief fortnight period. Tony2Times (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they ever actually called it that, but I could be wrong. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

They did, according to the footage. Tony, no one writes up an article, the entire community contributes, and a lot of people contributed to its expansion. So you can also change it if you wish for the accuracy purposes.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 01:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My whoever wasn't necessarily singular. As far as I know, whoever can refer to a group of people and thus it was intended. I would contribute but a lot of people work on WWE pages, I try and do upkeep of the indies and their ilk. Tony2Times (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It was never called the Throwback. Mshake3 (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy, here we go again with this. To avoid a long embarrassing debate for the project, and runining its reputation more than what it is over drama, Mshake, all I have to say is go watch the John Cena vs. JBL match, and listen to the commentators call it the Throwback, which was the name of that move for that brief period.--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 03:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've got the match cued up. So please tell me the exact moment it was called that. Was it when it was hit? Was it an attempt? Was it during a replay? Mshake3 (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to cause anymore trouble, but I just watched the entire match and the move was never referred to as the Throwback. The first time Cena goes for the move Cole simply says "Cena going for the victory." The second time, Cole says, "JBL in trouble." The third and final time, Cole says, "Look at, look at, look at Cena! Cena! Cena connecting! The cover! John Cena retains the World Title!" During the replay of the end of the match, Jerry Lawler says "Cena hits his... his patented move on JBL and it's all over." Wwehurricane1 (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

We can't have illegally uploaded videos on here (even if it's the only way to shut up the "typed internet sources only" crowd). But you're right, the move wasn't named that night. But the RR page reflects that, so whatever. Mshake3 (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

We could go by JR's blog where he states the move has been renamed: The Throwback. This was before RR.--WillC 08:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It was speculation that never actually occured. Mshake3 (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

JR stated Speaking of Cena, I hear his FU finishing maneuver is being renamed 'The Throwback' which works for me - this was before and during the Royal Rumble week, after this, the move was renamed once more by Cena officially as the 'Attitude Adjustment'. Which is dated by many websites to being in February. So for that time being [Royal Rumble], it was called the Throwback, because I also remember it being called this on an episode of Raw before the 'Rumble.--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 22:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked through the Raw reports around the time it was The Throwback and no reports or picture notes call it that unfortunately. I do remember watching an episode of Raw where Michael Cole had Throwback diarrhea obviously trying to push the new name but I can't remember which and it's not as easily cited. Tony2Times (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael Cole never referred move in question as The Throwback on television. On every Raw after the JR said they planned to change the name of the move, they simply referred to it as Cena "going for the finish" or "going for the victory." The first time it was referred to by ANY name was last week's Raw when Cole said Cena "calls that the Attitude Adjustment." You may be thinking of Cena's flipping neckbreaker which IS called the Throwback and has always been called as such by Michael Cole. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I just watched previous episodes of Raw after it was stated that the 'Throwback' was the new name of the move, however, WWEhurricane is correct, they never referred to his move as such, so it is best to leave it in the Royal Rumble (2009) article as the 'F-U', since that was its name until its official renaming.--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 01:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought you said they did, according to the footage. Mshake3 (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wrong MasterShake =P--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 14:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal followup on the WWE Hall of Fame

Latest comment: 15 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

I don't think I can merge these two because there are no reliable references towards the information. Like the dates/venues/locations of these ceremonies (before 2004). Information like how some of them took place during the weekend of King of the Ring, DVD information, television ratings information, etc. Unless someone can help me find these sources.--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 00:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Haven't the last couple of years been included on that year's WrestleMania DVD? If someone has them, that would definitely be helpful. There might even be some of the clips on the net somewhere. I'll see if I can help any. Nikki♥311 00:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The last couple of years isn't the problem, the problem is the ones before 2004.--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 00:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just reread what you wrote and somehow missed the "before 2004" part the first time. Nikki♥311 00:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

So we can agree that its best to leave it where it is?--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 01:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've got a little bit that might help. The 1994 induction ceremony took place on June 9 in Baltimore at the Omni Inner Harbor International Hotel.{{cite journal||year=1994|month=September|title=A Blast From The Past—The Federation Hall Of Fame|journal=World Wrestling Federation Magazine|pages=54-57|id=8756-7792|volume=13|issue=9}} The 1995 ceremony took place on June 24 in Philadelphia at the Marriott Hotel.{{cite journal|page=35|title=King of the Ring Results|first=Keith Elliot|last=Greenberg|year=1995|month=September|id=8756-7792|volume=14|issue=9}} I'll keep looking for information about 1996. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

In 1996, the ceremony was moved to November 16 (see [1] or [2]). It took place in New York City at the Marriott Marquis, but I haven't yet found a reliable source for the venue. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Got it. A source for the venue would be the broadcast of In Your House 11: Buried Alive, as it included an ad for the ceremony and discussed the venue. In 1994, the event took place ten days before the King of the Ring tournament; the following year it was the day before the tournament. In 1996, it was moved to the day before Survivor Series. As for television ratings and DVD information, I don't remember the ceremonies ever being televised or included on videos/DVDs. Brief footage was shown on the television programs, but the event was never shown in its entirety. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help, I will see if I can do it now with this new information. However, which source cites the information about taking place before KoR and Surivor Series?--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 14:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of sources that specifically state that about 1994 or 1996. The 1995 source I gave says that the ceremony took place the day before King of the Ring. In the case of the other two, it is simply the dates of the ceremonies. The 1994 ceremony took place on June 9 in Baltimore, and KOTR took place on June 19 in Baltimore. In 1994, the ceremony was at the Marriott in Times Square on November 16 and Survivor Series was at Madison Square Garden on November 17. As for 1993, rhere was no ceremony. The induction was simply announced on the (live) March 22, 1993 episode of Monday Night Raw. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool thanks.--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 02:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge is done

Here. I still have to revamp the table to like the recent promoted HoF FLs, unless someone else would like to do so, since I won't be able to do it soon.--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 04:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Xcitement Wrestling Federation merge with Jimmy Hart

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Per a previous discussion should these two articles be merged? It only lasted a few months. SAVIOR_SELF.777 02:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Although it lasted a few months, it has enough information to warrant a separate article. All that information, even in summary, could clutter Hart's article.--<TRUCO> ⁵⁰³ 02:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Low Ki

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What's up his inverted facelock camel clutch being changed to the Dragon Clutch and his corkscrew 450 splash being changed to the Phoenix Splash? The former names of both moves are the actual and technical move names whereas. PCE (Talk) - 2:17 February 15, 2009 (ET)

Because they are the names of the moves and what they have been refered to as by commentators. So you have two choices, either make it "Dragon Clutch (Dragon sleeper to a facedown opponent)" or "Dragon Clutch". Sidenote, let it be pointed out 25 minutes after his post here insinuating that the names of the moves shouldn't be posted on Low Ki's article because they are the generic names of said moves, user PCE removed mention of them being the names of the moves from their description on Professional wrestling holds, meaning if the names aren't posted on Low Ki's page there would be zero mention anywhere on Wikipedia of Low Ki using a move known as the Dragon Clutch. Nenog (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"this is NOT what we do for title lists and you know it"

Latest comment: 15 years ago16 comments7 people in discussion

Why is it that every time I try something new, I get a message along those lines? [3]

So, just after the Rumble when Edge won the title, I decided ago to try adding a template to his row in the combined reigns section in List of WWE Champions [4]. Edge was in his fourth reign, so I calculated the number of days he held the title, and subtracted it to a new date. I felt it was a benefit because then people wouldn't have to update the page every day. In the cited case, it looked like this: {{age in days|month1=09|day1=29|year1=2008}}. It said he won the title on Sept. 29, but he didn't. Sure, the day listed in the template is wrong, but it doesn't really matter because it's just code and that date does not show up in the article.

Anyway, tonight Triple H won the title and I added the template. But for some reason, TJ Spyke decided he didn't like it, and everted it, and accused me of being disruptive. His "logic" is that it's OR because the date in the template isn't the day they won it. (actually, I did the math using the sources provided in the article, so it's not OR) He also said that none of the other pages used this. He was right, so I added it to the Women's page, and was promptly reverted.

As I see it, there are three solutions:

Don't use a template and update the section daily.
Use the template as it is
Develop a new template.

I would prefer #2, but some people like to make things unnecessarily complex, so we'll see. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 03:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's original research because you are coming up with a hypothetical date for when the wrestler would have won the title if all of their title reigns were combined into 1 (for example, you had Triple H winning the title in September). Right now, the editors who actually edit the title articles on a regular basis (including myself) have come up with the simple solution: use the template for wrestlers in their first reign only. If you can come up with a template that allows us to add up their reigns (without using original research like you wanted to do), then I would be all for that (maybe something that automatically adds a series of numbers together). As for the disruptive comment, that was because you continued doing that even after I explained the consensus of what we do for the title articles. TJ Spyke 03:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"the editors who actually edit the title articles on a regular basis" What the hell does that mean? I'm the top contributor to that article (and many of the other WWE title pages).

"have come up with the simple solution: use the template for wrestlers in their first reign only." - Please link me to the discussion where this consensus was reached. In response to you're comment on my talk page, it's not OR, the new date is not even shown on the damn page. It's not even a date, it's just a set of numbers inputed so that the template can calculate the current reign length.

Why spend a lot of time and energy coming up with a new template for a couple articles when we already have one that does the job? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 03:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point you too WP:SYNTH. Taking reliable sourced info and combining it to come up with original info (which is what you are doing with things like Triple H and September 2008) is not allowed. TJ Spyke 03:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's just a set of numbers entered for the template, it's not saying he won the title on Nomber 3, 2007. You're the one making a big deal out of this, so you should be the one to design a new template. I'm not going to waste my time coming up with a complicated solution simply because one user likes creating unnecessary conflict. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 03:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Number 2, these templates are used in FLs, such as the recently promoted List of ECW Tag Team Champions. They help in updating the combined reigns. don't see the problem here, its confusing as to what you two are warring over.--TRU CO 03:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's about the combined title reigns list (i.e. him listing Triple H's title reign as starting in September 2008 and pretending that it's 1 long reign). This is basically OR since you have to come up with a fake start date. We are not talking about the individual reign list, just the combined reign list. TJ Spyke 03:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well wouldn't the start date be the first day they won their first reign?--TRU CO 03:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Really in this case OR doesn't really matter. No one sees what day the template is set on unless you edit the article and people probably don't even look in the first place. I would go with option two because it doesn't hurt anything, but would be nice to make a new template to solve this problem once and for all (3).--WillC 03:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Now I see whats going on. I say Scorpion's way works fine. The date is simply for coding purposes not for mainspace encyclopedic content purposes. The best thing to do is add a hidden comment stating that its for coding purposes. Its actually easier to do it in that way.--TRU CO 03:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't edit the title reigns anyway, but #2 definitely sounds like it would make things easier and still show accurate information to the viewing public. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks that the "days held" column clutters the table and serves no purpose? While I'm at it, does anyone else think that the wikilink to "real name" could be removed from the lead? It seems like the poster child for overlinking. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the days held column serves a purpose like in the prose of FLs to explain the length of reigns, like List of ECW Tag Team Champions. Yeah that link can be removed.--TRU CO 03:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the reigns for single or combined help at all. Does it really matter that Batista held the World Heavyweight title for 8 days or that Sting held the TNA title for 2. It seems like non-notable information that only wrestling fans would want or need to know.--WillC 04:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

They were added when it was decided to merge the articles with the length of title reign articles (like "List of WWE Championship reigns by length"). It's useful. I'm all for removing the combined length table though, especially since there is an arbitrary cutoff date for some. 04:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I know when they were added, but I don't know why we even keep track of them in the first place. They are useless. They come in handy when you want to know how long someone's reign was but other that any record breaking reigns, shortest reigns, etc can be mentioned in the prose.--WillC 04:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Scorpion. The "fake" start date won't appear to anybody reading the article, but it will add information, and ensure that it doesn't need to be updated every day. And TJ, you might want to look at WP:OWN, for your comment about "the editors who actually edit the title articles on a regular basis". The date is just for coding. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 16:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

SD Titles

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I would be bold, but this seems controversial. Should we wait for the world title situation to be cleared? According to [5], both the WWE Championship and World Heavyweight Championship now belong to SmackDown. I have no doubt this will change on Raw, but should we move the WHC to SmackDown for now since even WWE's website says that? The exact quote is (bolding is mine) "The most intriguing fact behind the mayhem, however, is that the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania is a mere six weeks away and the two top titles in WWE now belong to the Friday night brand. With newly crowned World Heavyweight Champion Edge and WWE Champion Triple H sharing the SmackDown stage, just how erratic will the Road to WrestleMania get?" TJ Spyke 04:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I was going to revert your revisions regarding the title situation because of this situation but waited. I believe we should wait. All things should be cleared up tomorrow or on Friday.--WillC 04:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

At least this isn't like the Tag title situation where WWE.com has never said they are ECW Titles. I think it would be curious for WWE to leave them on SmackDown and have Orton announce he will use his title shot to bring one of those titles (likely Triple H's WWE Title) back to Raw, leaving Raw with no world title for 6 weeks (although Raw superstars can compete for the ECW Title). TJ Spyke 04:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be changed to reflect what wwe.com says. Both titles are officially part of SmackDown now. To say that it will be cleared up tomorrow night, however likely that is, is speculation (crystal balling). Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, according to this: http://www.wwe.com/shows/ecw/superstars/ the world tag team championships are currently considered ECW championships. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you TJ, that is a seeemly senario. The savor of the Raw brand. But anyway, lets wait to see if WWE follow that path or just have the title change back after one night because they have house shows promoted with a World Title match between Orton and Cena.--WillC 04:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

New tournament brackets

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hiya, I've been working on the Rey de Reyes page and I've updated everything except the early shows which were nothing but the tournament. I'd like to put some kind of tournament bracket on there but there isn't one where there are 4 competitors/teams in each semifinal and final - I guess it's not that used in other sports. Can anyone help out??MPJ-DK (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a way to do that with the current tournament bracket. I would suggest asking someone to create a new template, but that would probably take a lot of work for whoever did it and they might not think it's worth it since even you said this is not something that would happen a lot (the only other time I can think of is the Gold Rush tournament a few years ago when it was 3 wrestlers in the final). TJ Spyke 18:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Survivor Series (2006)

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Before I made the edit, I wanted to discuss it here first. It says there that Team DX was the first clean sweep in history, but shouldn't that milestone be awarded to Jerry Lawler and his team 12 years earlier at Survivor Series (1994)? Ra agg io 19:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

DX was the first to do in the traditional 5 on 5 format, Lawler's team was 4 on 4. TJ Spyke 19:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in all honesty, since the 3rd Survivor Series, most matches have been 4 on 4. So I don't think 5 on 5 should be considered more "Traditional", because even at that same 2006 PPV, The Legends vs. Spirit Squad match was considered a "Traditional Survivor Series elimination match, and it was 4 on 4. Ra agg io 19:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

By traditional I meant the original format of the match. We originally had it noted specifically to say it was the first 5 on 5 match to end that way, I guess someone decided to delete for some reason. TJ Spyke 19:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Listcruft

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is this list necessary? This user keeps on adding lots of uncited information to pages and more annoyingly lots of lists and splitting of grids and pointless subheadings, I've tried sending him messages to stop or improve the quality of his writing (he doesn't even capitalise proper nouns) and he just wipes his talk page and ignores me. I don't wanna be accused of trying to own articles but I doubt m/any people here check the British circuit to keep it up to standard so was wondering if I was just being possessive or he is being unproductive? Tony2Times (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

To me, if he doesn't capitalize proper nouns, and is as bad as you say, then I would think that it's him, not you. That list is definitely unnecessary, especially as a part of the main article. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 21:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It is listcruft, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ring of Honor events (2nd nomination).--TRU CO 21:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

1 Pro Wrestling

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The name change seems simple to me, but I didn't want to take a chance of just moving it myself. If you want to comment on the move request: Talk:1 Pro Wrestling#Requested move. TJ Spyke 23:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happened to the concept of being BOLD? ArcAngel (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Normally I would, but 1PW is pretty well known and I decided to play it on the safe side. If enough people agree it should be moved though, then I would have no problem just moving it sooner. TJ Spyke 23:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

TNA signs a new girl

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

WrestleView.com is reporting that Sarah Stock, A.K.A. Dark Angel, has been signed by TNA. Though their source is PWInsider. I was wondering if this is usable since both WrestleView and PWinsider are questionable sources these days.--WillC 21:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

For these cases, none are reliable. It will be best to wait until TNA makes a confirmation or she appears on TNA television.--TRU CO 22:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is PWInsider not reliable? Mshake3 (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No website, not even the reliable ones should be used to cite this type of information because the reader has no way in verifying where they get their information from, and whether their "inside sources" are legitimiate with WWE/TNA/ROH/etc. or not, which is why none are reliable, not event WON.--TRU CO 02:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

And people say this project isn't that strict. Listen up, if these websites, and specific reporters, are deemed reliable, then it does not matter who their inside sources are! Now, you don't say that Stock is signed. You say that Stock has reportly (by a reliable source) been signed, and leave it at that for the reader to determine. You know Truco, I'd love to see you expand to other sports and politics. That way, you can challenge all newspaper and magazine reports, such as the Alex Rodriguez steroid report, since "we don't know who the inside sources are!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mshake3 (talk • contribs)

I don't appreciate you insulting me. I as a matter of fact do other work on Wikipedia, thank you very much. I've expanded football articles, reggaeton biographies, and review FLCs (which is why I know what is reliable and what is not). Second, the source reviewer User:Ealdgyth stated that the website are reliable for results, historic facts, columns, but not news such as signings, rumors, or speculation. That's left for the official promotion website, the person themself, or a person close to the person in question, to specifically source reliably.--TRU CO 22:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Who said this project is not strict? For some reason, this project is MORE strict that any other project on Wikipedia (and more strict than is needed on some things). TJ Spyke 22:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe it was sarcasm. Nenog (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

With the current version of Mshake, you never know. TJ Spyke 23:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Splitting articles

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I've just updated the Triplemanía page with full results etc and when I look at it it's rather long (22 shows) - at what point should it be split up into a page per show? I also just created Verano de Escandalo and Guerra de Titanes which both clock in at 12 shows and run the risk of becoming too large and unwieldy too. Does WP:PW have a rule of thumb when they should be split up?? MPJ-DK (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well one, the background section is only needed once they are in their individual articles, as well as the table. That is only needed when they are moved to their own articles. PPVs should only get their own page once they are going to be expanded fully. Unless each one is going to get a full background, lead, Event, aftermath, and results, as well as being fully sourced, then there is no reason.--WillC 19:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly would be nice to have some good Lucha Libre articles to read if you're feeling like taking on a mission MPJ. Tony2Times (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I did them with the intent that each of them are seperate entities, if you click through the event links you'd only see that section and I do intent to expand the background sections as well as probably add other sections normally found on PPV articles, once I do that I'll start splitting them out on seperate pages. And well they're ready made to be split right now when the time comes. As for the Lucha Libre articles I'm already on it - check out my user page :) MPJ-DK (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Colt Cabana

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I was just curious about the top bit of the page, all those tag bits about citation and things. Is it needed all of that? The quality of the article isn't that bad to warrant that whole lot of questioning over the article!!!! Govvy (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be best to try and figure out who placed the tags and ask him/her. I looked at it briefly, and there are some problems, but I agree that it could definitely be worse. I can try and do some preliminary cleanup and remove some of the tags, hopefully. Nikki♥311 23:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Colt_Cabana&diff=268621824&oldid=268302852 Nenog (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nenog how is that helping the cause? The revision I added those tags in had all those issues. --TRU CO 16:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Nikki said "it would be best to try and figure out who placed the tags and ask him/her", so thats what I did. Nenog (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops. =) I guess I'll clean that up.--TRU CO 00:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Lucha Libre

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I've been looking at the articles related to Lucha Libre and found a lot of them to be in a very sad state (check out Ari Romero for what may be the worst of them all) and well I've decided that I will work on them, I got a few sources, insides and knowlege from being a longtime fan of the Luchas so why not. Now I've got a list of the articles I've found that need work but I'm just one man I don't roam that much of Wikipedia so I'm sure there are plenty of articles I've missed that need to be fixed or articles that haven't been created yet. So I'm asking this project for a bit of help compiling the list, if you could please let me know when you find a Lucha Libre related article in need of cleanup or one that's totally missing then I can add it to my list. You can either post here or on my talk page. And hey if someone wanted to pitch in and help improve these articles I'm not going to get offended :) it's my hope that every article currently listed on my user page will be brought to at least a "B" level and some (like Santo, Hijo del Santo, Blue Demon & La Parka) made GA or even FA. Thanks in advance. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You do know this project has a clean up list already don't you? So all you have listed are probably already listed on the project's subpage. Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Cleanup listing--WillC 06:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I know there is a clean up list here yeah, but I'm not a actual part of this project and I'm just looking to map out Lucha Libre articles in need of help. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh and the list doesn't list lucha libre articles without cleanup tags, there are plenty of untagged articles that still need some TLC. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

TNA lists

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

First I want to know if anyone has a problem with creating a list about monthly PPV events. Something like this which is no where near finished: User:Wrestlinglover/List of TNA monthly PPV events. I feel it could be useful. Though not all of TNA's PPVs are expanded, it could still be useful in the see also section instead of List of TNA pay-per-view events being there. Just an idea, or is it list cruft? Next I want to know if anyone has a problem with me moving the history of the TNA World Tag Team Championship out of the article and into a list. There have been 10 reigns, that is including an unofficial reign with Kaz and Eric Young which could exist considering Cornette stripped Young and Kaz of the belt and didn't just state it never existed. That way I believe it meets the FL criteria and I could easily source and improve it afterwards.--WillC 06:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Also to work out a problem with TNA's Tag Team Title history, should we place the day that the TNA Titles were awarded to Team 3D or the day the NWA stripped them of the NWA Titles. The TNA World Tag Team Championship title belts were first revealed on May 17 on TNA Today. Just wondering to work that out.--WillC 08:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be more interested in seeing a List of PPV events for WWF, WCW and ECW because they changed titles of them a fair bit but I have no problem with the TNA one getting a list. If the Divas Championship can get a seperate history, TNA Tag Belts certainly can and are probably long enough now to get them. I didn't see Sacrifice so I don't know how it was worded at the time, though I remember them being stripped (and remember thinking it'd be nicer if they just waited till Slammiversary) but seeing as their win at Sacrifice counts them as 1 time TNA Tag Team Champions then the date begins there I believe. Tony2Times (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(1)The list of TNA PPV monthly events is listcruft and content forking because that information is in the respective TNA PPV article pages and the List of PPV events for TNA. (2)Considering the controversy surrounding that reign, reviewers, like myself, at FLC will question that reign. I would wait until one more reign is made because that is just controversial and it may not be exempt from the 10-item-limit-rule.--TRU CO 16:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If there's a ten limit rule then why does List of WWE Divas Champions exist? Tony2Times (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well (1)That's not a Featured list. (2)It's an audit addition to the Current WWE Champions Featured topic, which is why it exists.--TRU CO 20:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to make sure I get this right, the TNA PPV list is listcruft (crap), but no one has a problem with moving the Tag title history to a new list?--WillC 21:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Your idea on the PPV list is not crap, its just redundant (or WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:CONTENTFORKING). Its no problem moving it into a separate article, but its a bit premature for FLC due to the controversy on that reign, I would wait for at least one more reign.--TRU CO 21:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the crap meant "crap it is list cruft". Well there isn't alot of controversy on the reign, it is just weird. Kaz and Young won a 3 way match with LAX and AJ and Tomko. Eric at the time had a super hero gimmick, which I'm guessing Mantel taught up, that he used when he was afraid or something along those lines. Eric left the match and returned as Super Eric. Pinned Styles and won the title. Eric nor him playing his Super Eric character announced they were each other in a dumb storyline. Cornette stripped them of the titles, considering Styles and Tomko were saying that there was interference in the match by Super Eric. So, in a way their reign did happen, since Cornette never said they weren't champions ever. And TNA at the moment have taken down all of their title histories.--WillC 22:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess it could possibly be exempt from that rule, but I'm just one reviewer of many. It still could be thought otherwise.--TRU CO 00:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

WWE Hall of Fame logo

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I recently uploaded the enhanced and new version of the WWE Hall of Fame logo. As a result, [[Image:File:Wwehalloffame247.png]] [the original logo from 2004] is orphaned. Unless someone can think of an article that could benefit using this logo, it will end up being delete because per WP:FAIR Criteria 4A, multiple uses of non-free content should be avoided if one can cover for the other, and the new logo covers for the old one. --TRU CO 20:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Stipulations" column in tables of PPV

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Since we 99% of the time list the match type why not state it as Match type and/or Stipulation(s)?--TRU CO 04:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No comment?--TRU CO 02:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe "Match type/Stipulation". TJ Spyke 03:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

More like "Match type/Stipulation(s)".--TRU CO 03:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't "match type" imply stipulations? Nikki♥311 04:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No really. Match type is the type of match that the wrestler fought in while the stipulation is what they are fighting for (purpose)--TRU CO 22:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The terms are used interchangably. I've heard commentators refer to a match's stipulation being that it's a Last Man Standing match. Also if they're fighting for a shot at the belt, it's a #1 Contender Match, that's a match type. If they're fighting for a manager, it's a Managerial Services match, that's also a match type. The two are both similar enough. Tony2Times (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WWE Championships template revamp

Latest comment: 15 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

I've made some changes to Template:WWE Championships. Simple changes but hopefully helpful ones. I added sub-groups and sub-lists to the Brand and Developmental Championship boxes. This basically gives Raw, ECW, SmackDown, and FCW their own subfields. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really like how it looks, for one because its not really organized. Some have subcats others dont, which makes the table look unorganized. I prefer the old way, it was more straight-forward and organized.--TRU CO 01:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

WWE also always goes in the order of Raw/SmackDown/ECW. I think it should go back (and the order in the WWE article should also go back the order WWE has the brands in). TJ Spyke 01:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

WWE has always gone by the order of Raw/ECW/SmackDown. They do this to reflect the weekly schedule order of the brands. In fact, for try-branded PPVs near the end of the brand exclusive PPV era in 2007, WWE ordered the brands as such during the PPVs [removed links due to copyrights by WWE] ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed your links to the videos because Wikipedia can't link to videos that are not uploaded by the copyright holder. In addition, that may be true, but on PPVs we go by Raw, SmackDown, and ECW [IDK if that can apply here]. --TRU CO 02:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

bulletproof, WWE's website has always done Raw/SD/ECW. Also, I don't know about all PPVs, but Great American Bash 2008 had "Raw, SmackDown, and ECW present The Great American Bash". TJ Spyke 02:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually TJ, following One Night Stand 2007, all PPV intros no longer mention brands. So your statement is false. Additionally Truco, we have gone by that order because it has been a default order. In my 3 years of being part of this project there has never been a reason as to why "on PPVs we go by..." Finally bringing a sense of structure to the order doesn't hurt.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel that since WWE no longer states "...and now Raw, SmackDown, and ECW present.....". I think we should just remove references to it from PPVs after the last PPV to have that saying.--TRU CO 02:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The final PPV to mention brands in intros, which was One Night Stand 2007, stated the following; "...and now Raw, ECW, SmackDown, and Gillette Fusion Power Present...WWE One Night Stand. Extreme Rules". So could you please elaborate more on your response above.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Who me?--TRU CO 02:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't quite understand your last reply. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I said that it would be best to remove references to the brands in PPV articles after ONS 2007. Like in the infobox, the brands are listed, which I find redundant. In addition, the brands being represented are already in the intro prose in the background section.--TRU CO 02:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Subject for another discussion though. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Like here? Tony2Times (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well a discussion has been started below. Now for this discussion, is it possible to make the width of the FCW bar to match the width of the brands?--TRU CO 16:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

WWE PPV Infobox change

Latest comment: 15 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

As a result of the discussion above about the brand listings for championships, a topic about whether we should continue listing the brands in the infobox for WWE PPVs. From research we have found out that WWE stopped stating in their introduction to PPVS ...and now Raw, SmackDown, and ECW present... after One Night Stand (2007). From then on, the introduction has stated ...and now World Wrestling Entertainment and Snickers presents... Since we state in the background section (the intro paragraph) that talent from the 3 brands will be involved it seems irrelevant to list the brands in the infobox since the pay-per-views are not brand exclusive anymore. I propose that we should either remove the brands from the infobox from the Backlash (2007) PPV and beyond (since WWE made the announcement of stopping brand exclusive PPVs after WrestleMania 23) or remove them from One Night Stand (2007) and beyond, after WWE stopped referencing the brands in their introduction. (Please discuss don't vote, since this project tends to turn many discussion as such into votes; consensus will be built upon a general agreement.)--TRU CO 15:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed for after Backlash. At this point, it's a waste of text space. Mshake3 (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already asked for this a bunch of times before and it didn't happen, I don't see what's any different now. Tony2Times (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe proper elaboration wasn't done.--TRU CO 17:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean just not including the info? I assume you don't want to change the infobox template (since that would affect every PPV). Technically the brand split still exists and maybe we should keep them in, but I don't feel that strongly about it and wouldn't oppose removing it for some PPV's (although I would suggest trying to find a source for WWE changing it with ONS 2007). TJ Spyke 18:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I just mean removing them manually from the articles after ONS 2007 or Backlash 2007 (whichever is agreed upon). I don't mean to remove the field from the infobox just the articles. Well since we can't link to Youtube videos on Wikipedia, search the introduction to ONS 2007 on Youtube or any other video site and then pay-per-views after that and you will be able to see that (if that's what you mean by citing them). If you mean to cite them in articles, we will have to use {{cite episode}} or {{cite video}}.--TRU CO 18:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The Great American Bash 2007 was the first PPV to no longer mention the three brands in the intros. I suggest that the proposal should take effect beginning with the GAB07 and beyond.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This press release says it all. Start with Backlash 07. Mshake3 (talk) 05:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, we know that. However Truco was referring to when they stop mentioning the brands as in "...and now Raw, ECW, and SmackDown present..." during the PPVs intros. One Night Stand 2007 was the final PPV to have such intro and The Great American Bash 2007 was the first to no longer mention the brands. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

But so what? Mshake3 (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just sayin'^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 06:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"So what"? So what is that WWE still mentioned that the brands specifically presented each PPV. After ONS 2007, WWE presented the PPVs.--TRU CO 11:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

But you can't use that as a reason to list brands for a few previous PPVs. Mshake3 (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It was only for 3 more PPVs. PPVs before that had brands. But in a way I also agree since they were not brand exclusive and all talent was featured. So from my view point I think we should remove them from Backlash (2007) and beyond.--TRU CO 22:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Its strange. I proposed this exact samething not too long ago and it didn't get this many replies.....anyways I support obviously per the same reason Truco stated. Cheers, JakeDHS07 04:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

List of current champions in Total Nonstop Action Wrestling

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm going to turn the above list into an article since it is not long enough to go to FLC and then I'll just take it to GAN, does anyone mind if I rename it to Current champions in Total Nonstop Action Wrestling?--WillC 05:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I would ask one of the FL directors whether that can be an exception to the 10 limit "theoretical" rule since TNA only has those titles.--TRU CO 11:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WWE Hall of Fame

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I've been considering making a few changes to the page and I need some input.

The first would be seperating the singles inductees from the tag teams. The problem with this is that it gives the impression that there are official categories when there are not. Another problem is that in the case of the Briscos and Funks (and should the be inducted, the von Erichs) is that they were also largely inducted because of their singles careers.

The other change would be adding a "Notable tag teams where both members have been inducted table". ie. (NOTE: The table is not complete, so don't bother posting and pointing that out)

Team	Members	Notes
	Tony Atlas (2006) and Rocky Johnson (2008)	One-time WWF World Tag Team champions.
The Executioners	Killer Kowalski (1996) and Big John Studd (2004)	One-time WWF World Tag Team champions.
	Ivan Putski (1995) and Tito Santana (2004)	One-time WWF World Tag Team champions.
	The Iron Sheik (2005) and Nikolai Volkoff (2005)	One-time WWF World Tag Team champions.
	Gorilla Monsoon (1994) and Killer Kowalski (1995)	One-time WWWF United States Tag Team champions.

The problem with this one is that some might consider it OR, and what makes a tag team notable? Should a pair of inductees who briefly tagged together (ie. Piper & Flair) be included? For example, Pat Patterson has been involved in tag teams with at least five different Hall of Famers. Which ones do you include? Anyway, all opinions are welcome. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 15:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the tag teams should be separate. As you said, that might imply there is a separate category. There is also the fact that all the wrestlers in a year are inducted together (i.e. "Class of 2008"), so the Funks are gonna go in with Austin and whoever else gets announced. TJ Spyke 19:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel that it should stay as it is because their inclusion into the Hall of Fame is individually, if it weren't WWE would have a separate category online that only lists the tag teams and not the individual members. In addition, I feel that the original table should list tag teams separate and not together like it currently is.--TRU CO 21:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not only include the tag teams that were inducted together? For example, the Wild Samoans were inducted simultaneously, just like the Blackjacks, the Briscos, etc. Don't list tag teams that were inducted seperately. (For example, if Jim Neidhart is inducted, don't include The Hart Foundation, just because Bret was inducted beforehand.) Ra agg io 11:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

WWE Alumni Page

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I've been following this page for a good couple of years. It's stayed, relatively, the same that whole time. When I went there earlier this year it was changed into a Wikitable, which isn't a bad thing. The bad thing was that the table was unfinshed, and it still is and it's been 3 months since the change happend. There have been numerous requests for it to go back the way it was as it was at least organized and with all the dates, even though some were not cited. I think that the wikitable would be a good stay if it was just completed. Also, Moe has been deleting most of the talk about the quality of the article on the talk page. He has stated that it is halfway done because he is only half finished with it, which I find very unprofessional, would an actually encyclopedia only publish an article that was half completed? I think not. Jcm431 (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Take note of the false civility as evident by this, this and this. And you even admit the table would be good if it was just finished? Why don't you stop bothering me so I can go ahead and finish then. And if you look through the history, it has only been since late January that the article had this formatting, so you're argument of "it's been like this for 3 months" is crap. — Moe ε 21:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I havent personally viewed the edits, but if it's indeed halfway done: next time use a sandbox, finish it and then put it in the article. Partway isn't a good way to go. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The past version of the article contained violations of WP:BLP and WP:V (as well as violations of the GFDL were occuring because of people trying to split the article) so taking out the content and slowly resourcing the article until it is finished is clearly better than having those violations be as is. — Moe ε 00:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the past version of the article and can find nothing that violated BLP. TJ Spyke 00:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I find something like, under the "reason for being released" section: Requested released after "she was harassed by Randy Orton" without a reference, to violate BLP. BLP isn't the primary reason I removed a majority of the content, it is because most of it (meaning the reasons and dates) was not referenced. — Moe ε 00:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

On a different note, there may be a issue with the number of templates on the page after I am finished because of all the references I am adding. Due to template limits which will be surpassed, I am going to insert refs but remove the {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, etc. so that the refs will still be visible. The only difference is that instead of:

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://corporate.wwe.com/company/contacts.jsp|title=Contact WWE|accessdate=2009-01-31|publisher=[[World Wrestling Entertainment]]}}</ref>

It will be written as:

<ref>[http://corporate.wwe.com/company/contacts.jsp "Contact WWE"]. [[World Wrestling Entertainment]]. Retrieved on 2009-01-31.</ref>

If I do not make this change and continue inserting references with {{cite web}} the article could have massive errors occuring like the List of Brazilian football transfers 2008 (note the reference section with the repeated errors saying "cite news", "cite news", "cite news". — Moe ε 21:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael Fury > Big Guido

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

PER WP:COMMONNAME. He used other names but none of 'em are notable. RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD and WP:COMMONSENSE, I moved it to the latter because he gained the most prominence as Big Guido in ECW and briefly in WWE.--TRU CO 21:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Does this shed some light on the WM 25 name?

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

In the recent press release of WrestleMania XXVI [6], WWE constantly refers to it as WM XXVI, like in "The City of Glendale, Ariz., Global Spectrum and World Wrestling Entertainment® announced that the University of Phoenix Stadium will host WrestleMania XXVI on Sunday, March 28, 2010." Now for this year's WM, they refer to it as the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania: "This year’s 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania will take place in Houston’s Reliant Stadium on April 5th where it is expected to set the stadium attendance record." If it was really going to be named "WrestleMania XXV" or "WrestleMania 25", I'm sure as hell they would have used it here since they refer to the 26th edition as "WrestleMania XXVI". I'm just saying.--TRU CO 21:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds pretty clandestine to me unfortunately. If we do change the name, can we make a point of how this isn't really the 25th Anniversary, it's the 24th Anniversary because there was no WrestleMania 0? Original Research doesn't extend to basic numeracy skills does it? Tony2Times (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It already says that. WWE also calls it "WrestleMania 25th Anniversary" though, and that is even what the logo for the event is. TJ Spyke 23:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah Tony the article already states that. WWE calls it many names but the one they don't use the most is WrestleMania XXV.--TRU CO 23:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You know what, it doesn't even matter, they use WM XXV on the MITB preview so I guess they want to call it that for chronological reasons and promote it as the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania.--TRU CO 23:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It already says that. WWE also calls it "WrestleMania 25th Anniversary" though, and that is even what the logo for the event is. TJ Spyke 23:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You all need to lsiten to them say it on TV, it isn't the name, it is promotional purposes the entire way. They don't go "The 25th anniversary of WrestleMania". They go "The 25th anniversary of...WrestleMania". Plus JBL clearly without stopping said WrestleMania 25 during his promo with HBK last week on Raw. That is the first time, I believe, that they have even referred to it outside of a promo video hyping up the event. Most other times it is just WrestleMania.--WillC 23:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

They have many names its not even funny how they are tricking us. I think they did it on purpose [for Wikipedia :D]. I think it should just stay where it is now since that's how they have it on their site and they just want to promote it otherwise, so I think its fine where it is now.--TRU CO 23:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is now. Remember guys, redirects are cheap! Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 13:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Cleanup listing was updated today by the bot for the first time since October. It turns out we have some FAs and GAs with problems (along with a bunch of other articles). All help greatly appreciated! Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 21:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Corporate.WWE.com

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I was attempting to revert Crystal Balling on WrestleMania XXVI and apparently, corporate.wwe.com has just been blacklisted. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that too, i've already made a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist to have it unlisted. I assume this is just an error (I think has happened before with another reliable site we use). TJ Spyke 01:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is very strange. I noticed there that Flickr.com has also been blacklisted. Someone has gone rogue.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What the hell?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there might be bugs in the system, hopefully it gets fixed quickly. TJ Spyke 02:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You all are so quick to call people rouge, laughing out out. It was a regex mistake. — Moe ε 03:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Rematch clauses?

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I understand that they are a kayfabe part of title changes, but they are used after every title change it seems lately (Atleast in the WWE). What I am suggesting is that in the Title pages a blurb be added to all of the title pages, something like

"Wrestlers who are unsuccesful at defending their titles are granted a rematch, under a (kayfabe) contractual rematch clause, where they are offered a chance to regain the title."--DonJuan.EXE (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

How does that even help? It is completely storyline and only help in PPV articles or in bios when the title changes back because of the rematch. Other than what was mentioned it is just trivia.--WillC 05:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's actually a very important part of being the champion. How is it trivial, if EVERY SINGLE champion in the WWE automatically gets a rematch. If it was only one or two champions for storyline purposes, but the rematch clause is used for EVERY SINGLE champion, and though sometimes the rematch clause is not used, it's because of the impossibility of using it (usually when someone is injured like Flair&Piper, MVP&Matt Hardy, DiBiase&Rhodes, The Undertaker [when Edge cashed in MitB], etc.). Every single title has a rematch clause, and i think dedicating a sentence to the past 4-5 years of title matches is noteworthy. Ra agg io 11:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I think it has a valid place within the article. If you wanna know about the way wrestling championship belts work, that's an important part of the rules, kayfabe or no. Does anyone know if it happens in TNA, ROH, NOAH, NJPW &c? Tony2Times (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not every single champion gets a re-match. They use that from time to time when they use it for an angle. TJ Spyke 15:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the WWE uses it as an all important plot Macguffin alot during most of there storyline. Purhaps a better line would be

"Wrestlers who are unsuccesful at defending their titles are occasionally granted a rematch, under a (kayfabe) contractual rematch clause, where they are offered a chance to regain the title--DonJuan.EXE (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)."--130.113.89.94 (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

WWE Hall of Fame (again)

Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

I'm once again considering making some changes to the page, namely splitting off tag teams. My main concern is that wrestlers like Jack Brisco or Terry Funk are known a lot more for their singles career than with tag teams, and they probably should have their own row (complicating things, Gerald & Jack Brisco each have their own section at WWE.com but none of the other tag teams fo). However, having a seperate row for both Jack and Gerald Brisco would lead to repitition problems. Anothger problem is that the von Erichs will likely be inducted this year. This means there will be at least four (possibly five or six if they decide to include Mike and Chris) and they were a stable, with a variety of singles accomplishments and various combinations of them held tag team championships. As I see it, there are three solutions:

Give each member their own row (less preferable because this would have to be done with all of the tag teams)
Use the rowspan option. This, however, would sacrifice the sortability.
Seperate table for stables and tag teams. Now, yes, this does give the impression that there are categories, but we could add a note that stresses that there aren't.

For number 3, this is what I was thinking of:

Year	Tag Team	Notes	Inducted by
1996	The Valiant Brothers	One-time WWWF World Tag Team Champions, first tag team to be inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame.^[1]	British Bulldog and Owen Hart
1996	Jimmy Valiant (James Harold Fanning) - four-time NWA Television Champion Johnny Valiant (John L. Sullivan)
2006	The Blackjacks	One-time WWWF World Tag Team Champions.^[2]	Bobby Heenan
2006	Blackjack Mulligan (Robert Deroy Windham) - two-time NWA United States Heavyweight Champion and one-time NWA World Tag Team Champion. Blackjack Lanza (Jack Lanza) - one-time AWA World Tag Team Champion
2007	The Wild Samoans	Three-time WWF World Tag Team Champions.^[3]	Samu and Matt Anoa'i
2007	Afa (Arthur Anoa'i, Sr.) Sika (Leati Anoa'i)
2008	The Brisco Brothers	Held over twenty Tag Team Championships, including the NWA World Tag Team Championship on three occasions.	John "Bradshaw" Layfield
2008	Jack Brisco (Freddie Joe Brisco) - two-time NWA World Heavyweight Champion.^[4] Gerald Brisco (Floyd Gerald Brisco) - one-time NWA World Junior Heavyweight Champion.^[5]
2009	The Funks	Held several tag team championships, including the NWA International Tag Team Championship on three occasions.^[6]	Dusty Rhodes
2009	Terry Funk - one-time NWA World Heavyweight Champion, two-time ECW World Heavyweight Champion and one-time WWF Tag Team Champion. Dory Funk, Jr.: one-time NWA World Heavyweight Champion.

Thoughts? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 16:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer if the entire list of hall of fame members looked something like this, with accomplishments, etc. in the bottom half. I edited the table above though, sortable function doesn't work for tables with bottom sections (where the list of members are listed). — Moe ε 21:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This looks good for tag teams not singles wrestlers. Since in the future we may want a future topic out of all the hall of fames, there needs to be consistency in the formatting of the tables, so the above proposal should only apply to tag teams.--TRU CO 21:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it can do well with singles wrestlers, with the accomplishments at the bottom. How about, creating a prototype, and then checking it out? Ra agg io 22:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

One thing I was considering (although not seriously) was adding several columns for the various major championships and then you could check (or add numbers for) which wrestlers have held them. It would save a lot of repition. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 22:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

For example. Note that this is just a quickly whipped up table. Any final version would look much better

Ring name (Birth name)	Notes	Heavyweight championships				Tag Team				Other
Ring name (Birth name)	Notes	WWE	ECW	WCW	NWA	WWE	ECW	WCW	NWA	Int.	U.S.	Royal Rumble?	King of the Ring?
Stone Cold Steve Austin (Steven Williams)	^[7]	6				6		1		2	2	1997 1998 2001	1996
Ricky "The Dragon" Steamboat (Richard Henry Blood)	^[8]				1			2	6	1	4

Thoughts? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 22:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing is we would have to change all the Hall of Fame articles to this format, which will take a long time. In addition, not all inductees are wrestlers so most of these fields would be empty.--TRU CO 22:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

very true, which is why I wasn't sure about it. Also, a lot of inductees only held a few championships, so there would be a lot of empty columns. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 22:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no AWA section?--WillC 22:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, it was a quickly whipped up sample. There are a lot of titles missing that would be in a finished good version. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 22:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering how there are many championships that WWE may recognize, it will be a challenge to make a table to list all those titles. The current format for individual wrestlers/inductees is fine, the tag teams one you propose above is fine as well.--TRU CO 22:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because WWE recognizes the title, it should be added? o.o It would be sort of silly to make columns for titles that nobody in the Hall of Fame won.. — Moe ε 21:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I meant as in the titles they recognize for each inductee.--TRU CO 22:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Warning about Night of Extreme and One Night Stand

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

WWE has just released the details of their Night of Extreme pay-per-view. It is still uncertain, however, whether it will replace the name 'One Night Stand' or whether it will be a new event replacing the ONS event itself, so watch out for the movement of WWE One Night Stand if it isn't already move-protected. You can also discuss this at Talk:WWE One Night Stand#Night of Extreme.--TRU CO 00:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The page was move protected after all those editors kept moving it to Extreme Rules (which of coarse they can now see they were wrong and should have listened to us, I wonder if Mshake likes the taste of crow?), so it won't be moved anytime soon. If WWE says it's part of the same event history, we can have an admin do it. TJ Spyke 00:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh that silly Master Shake... ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I just realized that he was wrong. Well, I guess that's what happens when you speculate information. Good thing we did not give in project! Yeah, once more details are released we can move/create/add info accordingly.--TRU CO 00:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

All I'll say is that it's not speculation to take the name on the company's calendar, and that it was always speculation to say that the said company's calendar "might be wrong", or in some cases "is wrong." Quite simply, the name changed again, focus on the word again.Mshake3 (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It is if it cant be solidly confirmed, which is what happened here.--TRU CO 02:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Today the live event schedule says Extreme Rules [7]. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah we know.--TRU CO 22:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess those comments on my talk page were premature. Mshake3 (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Admin

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

How do you report an IP that keeps on removing the same piece of sourced information from the same page? Tony2Times (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV. They have templates their too report them on that page. TJ Spyke 18:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The same way you would deal with it from a registered editor. Leave escalating warnings (I would use {{subst:uw-delete}} from WP:WARN) on the IP's talk page, and report the IP to WP:AIV if it continues after a level 4 warning. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You also don't have to go through every level (meaning you don't have to do level 1, then level 2, then level 3, etc.). TJ Spyke 18:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If they start IP hopping, let me know and it is likley the page could be semi-protected as well. What page are you referring to? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he may they may be refering to Lowkey. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Lowkey or Low-Ki? SAVIOR_SELF.777 02:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The first, he's a UK rapper. It's just I'm only familiar with users in PW so thought it'd be easier, and quicker to ask here. And all the helpful replies proved me right. Tony2Times (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, alright. I was wondering since the two names look and sound similar and thought it was a mistake. SAVIOR_SELF.777 03:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Good Article drive

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This may be of interest to project members, as many are also active GA reviewers. There is a backlog elimination drive currently underway. If anyone wants to get involved, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/Spring 2009. It would be a great way to help reduce wait times for the 11 wrestling articles currently awaiting reviews. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

WWE alumni

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I encourage everyone to put this article on their watchlist because of users like User:Cena Jr blanking images for "copyright violations" that don't exist. — Moe ε 07:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing concrete to base it on, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is a sockpuppet of Cheatum Jr, who was blocked indefinitely the day before Cena Jr's account was created. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised honestly, although there may be no connection at all. — Moe ε 05:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Split

It was recommended at Talk:List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni#Load times that the article be split in half or so to save on load time. So I would like opinions on what you think about splitting it from A-M and N-Z or maybe A-H, I-Q, R-Z with the latter (A-H, etc.) being more preferable since I did a test and template limits would have stopped at letter H or so to begin with and this way I could continue refing it normally. — Moe ε 05:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I would split it half way, either at letter L or letter M. In addition, since I can't really look at that page, how many references are you placing for each entry? One is generally needed.--TRU CO 16:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Splitting it half way at letter L or M would present problems with template limits, but I can change it to a different kind of citation if half way is what is desired. The number of citations vary, really. I am trying to provide a minimum of one reference for every name, but if one reference doesn't include some information I would add another (i.e. one reference may list the date they joined WWE and another might tell when they left). — Moe ε 00:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Trying to follow in the example of other long lists that are featured, I am thinking it should be split by the number of names, rather than what letter it is, like for example the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people (split like A, Ba-Bh, Bi-Bz, C, etc.). Each article has about the same number of names and references and they are featured lists, so I think this would be most appropriate. A-M/N-Z presents many problems, mostly being template limits and rendering for load time. The same amount of references currently on the article could easily be on a subpage as wide as A-M once it is finished. Even my proposed A-H, I-Q, R-Z would present the subpages having a ton of references like the article is at present, so the number of names per page like List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people would be a good solution. — Moe ε 02:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WWE= World Wrestling Entertainment

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

While you guys bicker about the titles, I just want to clear the statement that if WWE calls their WWE Tag Team Championship the WWE World Tag Team Championship, it would be considered redundant, because WWE is an abbreviation for World Wrestling Entertainment

World + Wrestling + Entertainment = W + W + E

So, WWE can easily state that every single title owned by their company includes the word World. By this logic, WWA, WWC, and others can state that they have World in their titles. Promotions like FCW cannot, because they officially limit their titles to Florida

Florida + Championship + Wrestling = F + C + W

Ra agg io 17:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

By that logic, ever title in a promotion with World in their name would be considered a world title, which is wrong. The name of the promotion is different from the name of the title. Literally, the WWE Championship is the "Championship of World Wrestling Entertainment". Like the World Tag Team Championship of WWE is called the "World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) World Tag Team Championship" is the World Tag Team Championship of World Wrestling Entertainment. The WWE Tag Team Championship, is a World Tag Team Championship either way because it has been defended in other countries and is one of their top tier tag titles of their promotion. --₮RU CӨ 17:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Stating that the promotion's name has nothing to do with the name of the title is erroneous. Same for the titles, if the name of the company includes "World", its because they consider themselves to be a company that supplies their product to the entire world. So, all WWE titles that include their name are championships that reach out to the entire world. Ra agg io 18:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the discussions above are for the World Heavyweight Championships, (top tier title of the company) not the lower card individual titles. I don't know what you are trying to prove here, the WWE Tag Team Championship is a World Tag Team Championship either if it has or doesn't have the "World" part in its name. (See the above criteria for World Tag Team Championships). Only the top-tier championships for a company will be classified as a World Heavyweight Championship (see the above criteria for World Heavyweight Championships). There is a separate discussion (above) for the classification of other divisional World Championships.--₮RU CӨ 18:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow so it's come to this? Basically there once was a "World European" title? Doesn't this project have more important things to do? I dunno like improve quality instead of bicker over infintesimal details? this gets reply after reply while requests for help to find bad articles or reviews and the likes usually dies a quiet death from being ignored? MPJ-DK (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well your comment isn't helping any better. This is an important discussion because there are actual websites that look here as a point of reference, and the "World" status of titles is a major part of professional wrestling. --₮RU CӨ 19:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is world does not exist. It is just a name. The title is a prop. World means as much as Triple H saying he is the King of Kings, but no he isn't. He is just an asshole from CT. Really the World Heavyweight Championship article isn't useful. World Status doesn't exist in pro wrestling. Only to the fans it does.--WillC 03:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame and Museum

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

A know a couple of people are working on Hall of Fame lists at the moment. Is anybody working on Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame and Museum? I'd like to fix it up if nobody else was planning to. Nikki♥311 23:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I was planning on working on it for FLC, but you can go ahead and work on it ;)--₮RU CӨ 23:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

How about we work on it together? I am planning to work on it in my sandbox User:Nikki311/sandbox3 if you want to help or give any advice for FLC. Nikki♥311 23:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

How about we split the work?--₮RU CӨ 23:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll do the even years; you do the odd? Nikki♥311 00:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but did you read whether the inductees are inducted by specific people?--₮RU CӨ 00:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Not yet anyway. There is a ceremony, though. Nikki♥311 00:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the inductees are also in the Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame. To cut down on the research time, please feel free to take information from User:GaryColemanFan/Murphy, which I've been working on. I've got about 120 entries finished, with real names, accomplishments, and reliable references. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Issues when citing WWE in references

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

In most cases when citing information from WWE to their official websites or to their corporate websites, we have done the following.

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wwe.com/|title=The official website of World Wrestling Entertainment|publisher=[[World Wrestling Entertainment]]|accessdate=2009-03-01}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.corporate.wwe.com/|title=Corporate WWE|publisher=[[World Wrestling Entertainment]] Corporate|accessdate=2009-03-01}}</ref>

While expanding a new article in my sandbox, I ran down to both websites copyright information at the bottom of the sites and noticed that the copyright publisher is formally called World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.. So this needs to be fixed accordingly..

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wwe.com/|title=WWE.com|publisher=[[World Wrestling Entertainment]], Inc.|accessdate=2009-03-01}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.corporate.wwe.com|title=World Wrestling Entertainment Corporate|work=WWE Corporate|publisher=[[World Wrestling Entertainment]], Inc.|accessdate=2009-03-01}}</ref>

The corporate website is published by WWE, Inc. but the work is separate from the official website, so the work field is called "WWE Corporate" (like the name of the site states), while WWE.com is just its official website so no work field is needed. Its a minor change, but a makes a big difference.--₮RU CӨ 23:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That is not needed, it is only meant to let people know the publisher. Using the full legal name of the company is not needed. For example, if were to cite Nintendo we would not write "Nintendo Co. Ltd.", just "Nintendo". You are right about "WWE Coporate" being the work, but once again "World Wrestling Entertainment" would be the publisher. TJ Spyke 00:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is correct. Both are correct as a matter of fact, but the ", Inc." version is more formal.--₮RU CӨ 01:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't correct, I just said it wasn't needed. It's like writing a persons full name, would you always write "William Jefferson Clinton" when you can just write "Bill Clinton"? TJ Spyke 01:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just saying. Its optional I guess.--₮RU CӨ 01:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

NWA title status

Latest comment: 15 years ago122 comments15 people in discussion

There is a dispute between myself and Bulletproof over the status of the NWA title. Bullet accepts it's status as a "world" title. I do not - and neither does Pro Wrestling Illustrated, which if I recall correctly has already been established by consensus as an authority on the subject. There are only three world titles - two in WWE and one in TNA. Bullet claimed that PWI says that the WWE title (the one held by Triple H) is not a world title, but I put that down to simply differing it from the "World" title (the one held by Edge).

To allow Bullet's edit will open up a whole can of worms as to what constitutes a world title. Promotions are known to call a title "world" even though it's not, but Bullet's precedent would mean that any old "world" title should be noted as such. That is hardly encyclopaedic IMO.

I ask for other views on this, and also seek a final consensus on;

PWI's relevance to the status
What actually constitutes a "world" title

!! Justa Punk !! 08:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Though it is arguably reputable, PWI is by no means a, much less, the definitive authority in world title recognition. Pro Wrestling Illustrated is nothing more than a magazine publication with their own set of views. Now what determines "World" title status? Well the fact is that there is no official universally accepted method of determining what constitutes a world title, which leaves fans to decide for themselves which titles they believe have "World" status. Professional wrestling is not a sport and does not have a governing entity that regulates any aspect of the industry. What we do have, however, is the stance of the entity which owns a specified championship. The National Wrestling Alliance declares its championship to be a World title. Therefore as the owning entity, they are entitled to this claim.

Regarding the latest issue of PWI, 2008: The year in wrestling...

It is well documented that PWI has recognized the WWE and World Heavyweight titles in WWE as world titles (differentiated as Raw World Championship and SmackDown World Championship) as well as the TNA World title. However, a concern was soon brought to my attention. Looking through the past issue I noticed that PWI's differentiation of WWE's Raw and SmackDown world titles has been abandoned. In fact, the only use of the term "world title" has only been in reference to the World Heavyweight Championship of SmackDown and the TNA World Heavyweight Championship. PWI now refers to prominent heavyweight titles as follows with only the TNA and SmackDown titles being referred to as world titles...

WWE World Championship - currently held by Edge
WWE Heavyweight Championship - currently held by Triple H
ECW Heavyweight Championship - currently held by Jack Swagger
TNA World Championship - currently held by Sting
ROH Heavyweight Championship - currently held by Nigel McGuinness
NWA Heavyweight Championship - currently held by Blue Demon, Jr.

This, however, is currently irrelevant. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 08:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It is NOT irrelevant. PWI would refer to the title held by Triple H as WWE title to avoid confusion with it's other world title. They would also put ECW ahead of TNA only because they would be putting the WWE major titles together. To read that as PWI mixing the whole thing up and using it to make this encyclopaedia inaccurate is unacceptable. The NWA has NO claim to a world championship no matter what they call the title. That's the bottom line on the NWA aspect of matters. It doesn't alter the fact that BOTH Edge's and Triple H's titles are world titles. As is Sting's title. Blue Demon's is not. !! Justa Punk !! 08:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

First, as noted above, per recent issues of PWI, the differentiation of WWE's Raw and SmackDown world titles has been abandoned.

Second, using your argument, PWI has no claim to the NWA title or any championship over what pertains to a world titles. Again, there is no method of determining what constitutes a world title. Professional wrestling is not a sport and does not have a governing entity that regulates any aspect of the industry. What exists is the stance of the entity which owns a specified championship. The National Wrestling Alliance declares its championship to be a World title. Therefore as the owning entity, they are entitled to this claim. PWI is not.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 08:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

First - the abandonement took place to avoid confusion between the two titles, NOT because they were abandoning the status full stop.

For this reason, PWI is a guide to world title status. The fact that pro wrestling doesn't have a single controlling body is irrelevant (sport or otherwise). The NWA title is not a world title and hasn't been since TNA stopped using it. They are not entitled to that claim and it should not be recognised. To recognise it - as I said - opens a whole can of worms, and would provide for even bigger inaccuracies. That would make the entire pro wrestling section in possible contradiction with many WP rules, such as WP:CORP amongst others. !! Justa Punk !! 08:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Your argument for the abandonment is based off WP:SYNTH, which is unacceptable, rendering the argument baseless.

Additionally, the argument over PWI having supreme and undisputed entitlement over that which it does not even have the authority to regulate, fails. "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s." Unless you can find a recognized source which grants PWI governing authority over professional wrestling, your stance is also rendered baseless.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 08:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I must say this is funny to read you two argue, I love it. But anyway I must agree with Bullet, mainly because of the fact it was determined a few months or weeks ago, that PWI has no control over a title's world status and that we shouldn't use PWI as a governing body. So, a world title in my opinion is a title that is defended around the world. That would include the NWA Title and the ROH Title. If a title is defended outside of the country it was created in and primarily defended, it would make it a world title. PWI in this case means nothing.--WillC 08:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Funny? "Just for kicks and giggles?"^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 09:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, at the moment most of anything I read is funny since I'm watching the infamous Cornette vs the drive-Thur video. And I thought it was shits and giggles?--WillC 09:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

PWI is not the definitive authority on what is and is not a world championship in professional wrestling, nor is there a consensus on here. There is however a consensus that states PWI isn't the definitive source, and what they say has no bearing on Wikipedia outside the Pro Wrestling Illustrated article. Nenog (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm insulted that Bullet and WillC seem to find humour in ascertaining accuracy on WP. My point about the abandonement is that there is NO evidence that either my point or the other point is actual fact. Is there verifiable evidence that PWI HAVE abandoned their recognition of the WWE title (HHH's) as a world title? No there isn't. So I put the only other explanation for the change that I could think of. Hardly a violation of WP:SYNTH.

Having said that, let's assume that we leave PWI out. WillC, where is the evidence that the ROH title has been defended outside of North America at all. Where is the evidence that the NWA title has a similar claim since May 2007? I have seen none. Whereas the TNA title has - and of course so has both of WWE's titles. And WWE DO claim both titles as world titles, and unlike the NWA they are entitled to claim that because they - unlike the NWA - can back it up.

I maintain that calling the NWA title a world title is inaccurate and fails WP:V under the criteria suggested by WillC. !! Justa Punk !! 09:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"Evidence that the ROH title has been defended outside of North America", are you serious? Nenog (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Good God...I think I know who we're dealing with here...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 09:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't just if the title has been defended outside of the US recently, it is about the entire title's history. The NWA Title has been defended in Japan, Canada, Mexico, etc. The ROH Title was defended in Japan not too long ago when ROH held a show over there. Also TNA didn't even leave the country until 2005 for a show I believe. The TNA title wasn't defended outside the country until No Surrender. Considering that, the only reason that PWI gave the NWA Titlle world status while it was in TNA, was because TNA was on PPV. ROH doesn't hold calim to the NWA Title, but the title was defended in ROH. Seeing that ROH have a PPV deal and now a TV deal, well not really a TV, just a less lucky weekly PPV deal on HDnet, which is really just foxsports.net's retarded cousin, but anyway, back on subject. In that mind, the NWA Title is still defended around the country and out of the US from time to time. So, in that mind, both titles gain world status seeing the have been defended outside the country and are also defended on PPV, so using common sense, they gain world status.--WillC 09:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

ROH World title history You will see that it has been defended in Germany, UK, Japan, among other countries... Oh thats outside of North America BTW. The NWA world title history After tours in the UK where the title was defended, the title changed hands in Mexico city in 2008. In case you want to argue the ECW title as well, the ECW Championship has been defended in the UK, Italy, Germany, and Japan under the WWE brand.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 09:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Mexico City is in North America so that doesn't count. Adam Pearce rarely ventured out of NWA Pro - the only time he did was when he went to the defend the title in ROH. As an additional point - NWA Pro is based in California so a trip to Mexico City is hardly a huge trip.

Promotions own websites aren't reliable as a general rule, especially on this subject matter. Do you have evidence independent of the ROH website of their overseas touring and title defenses? To rely on the promotion's website without back up means that Pat Patterson won the IC title in Rio in 1979 - as an example (we know that was fiction). See where I'm going?

Pay per view is a valid thing to consider. WWE and TNA are the only pay per views available outside North America (unless you use a pirate system which I believe may be available in parts of Asia). ROH pay per views are limited to North America. NWA doesn't have them at all and hasn't since TNA left them.

The ECW title is not relevant because WWE note it as a major secondary title and not a world title. They have two higher titles. !! Justa Punk !! 11:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, you do know Ring of Honor records all their events, and then releases those recordings on dvd? Nenog (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, WWE "Notes" the ECW title as a World title In 2008, Hardy was drafted to ECW as part of the WWE Draft. A few months later, at Unforgiven, Hardy satisfied his career-long hunger for a World Title when he won the ECW Championship Scramble Match against Mark Henry, Finlay, Chavo Guerrero and The Miz.

As for ROH 2008 2007 history... from an independent source. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 12:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

<--My two cents: if a title is defended outside of the country in which it was created and primarily defended, then it's a world title, i.e. if it's defended around the world, it's a world title. PWI's opinion doesn't count in ths instance. At Justa Punk, why doesn't the ROH title changing hands in Mexico count? ROH is an American complany, as in the US of America. Mexico to the best of my knowledge isn't part of the US, so technically that would count. In my opinion anyway. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

And even if Mexico somehow did count as part of the United States (and presumably Canada too in this strange continental system) the ROH Championship was declared the ROH World Championship after it was defended at Frontiers of Honor with Frontier Wrestling Alliance in the UK. Even the promotion waited to give the belt 'World' legitimacy. Also in terms of the WWE belts, of course the WWE Championship is a world title, it's lineage goes back to the World Wrestling Federation Championship and has been defended in lots of places, it's only not called World anymore because World Wrestling Entertainment Champion would sound stoopid. Tony2Times (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A title is called a world championship if it's promotion deems it should be called that. Mshake3 (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Rarely I agree with Mshake, but I agree with what he states. PWI magazine has not definate authority over the titles of professional wrestling or is an official magazine that has the authority to call any title "world". Its just their opinion, and there is no proof of them even calling any title a World title since their website doesn't have it and I haven't ever seen a magazine issue that deems that. I think the real discussion is whether PWI is acceptable (which it should be not) and whether the top-tier(s) title(s) of a promotion have (or have had) the "world" name in its name, then it should be classified as a world title. Remember last year when the ECW Championship was called the ECW World Championship and yet PWI didn't "supposedly" recognize it as a world title, so its really best to make a judgment call on this.--TRU CO 17:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Here my two cents. I think in order for a World Title to be recognized by us it needs to meet guidelines that have been set by us. For example

1) Title must be the top championship of said promotion (Or in the WWE's case, top championship of the brand)

2) Title must have been defended in a foreign country.

3) Title must be recognized as a World Championship by the company itself. (Prevents us classifying the Interontinental Championship as a World Championship at the moment)

4) The Promotion must have some level of international recognition. (For example, ROH travels over seas, TNA travels overseas, a small independant promotion like UWF in Ontario did not)

Of course we can bicker over the guidelines if we decided to go this route, it's just an idea.--DonJuan.EXE (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Here we go. Good work, Don Juan! Now THIS is how we get a consensus!

1 I have no problem with at all. That's pretty basic.

2 I have an issue with, because that confers the title on the person and not the promotion. I pick up the example of the ROH title being defended on an FWA show. That should not confer it world title status, because ROH does NOT tour as a promotion. The champion might but that's not relevant. When the NWA champion travelled in the old days, that was different because the title was defended in NWA member affiliates.

3 in combination with other factors, I agree with this. This is important because it prevents willy nilly promotions doing what they like with the phrase "world title" (which was one of my main concerns with this whole issue).

4 may cover for my concerns in 2, but it must be a full tour by the promotion and not just one or two people - and with that promotion's name being the promoter of the show (again - see what I said about ROH and FWA).

I just want to address this continent thing. We have to be careful regarding international travel and defining it. It's quite easy for a Canadian promotion to go to the northern states of the US. It's also quite easy for a Californian or Texan promotion to go to Mexico. We can't allow that to define a world title. That's why I made the point about North America - particularly between the US and Canada. There are many examples in Europe as well, and it also applies between Australia and New Zealand.

The NWA does not fulfill this criteria. I need to look further in ROH history to judge that one, but I question the international recognition outside of the Internet and outside mainstream wrestling fandom. !! Justa Punk !! 23:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This has all been hashed out in the past and the outcome is going to remain the same. PWI is entitled to its opinion as to which titles it recognizes as "world" championships. That, however, does not make its opinion the one and only that matters. There is not, nor has there ever truly been, any official means of granting "world" status to any championship in professional wrestling. Even if professional wrestling was a single, unified organization, PWI's opinion would still be just that, its opinion. They ultimately have no control over the NWA Championship, or any other professional wrestling championship for that matter. They can't dictate to any company as to whether or not it can call a title a "world" championship. Ultimately, any company can grant "world" status to any championship under its control. As to whether a title has a "legitimate" claim to such an honor is a matter of personal perspective and opinion. Everyone's heard the old addage about opinions and assholes: everybody's got one. PWI can recognize any "world" championship that they want to, that's their right. However, PWI doesn't speak for all of professional wrestling promotions, professional wrestlers, or fans of professional wrestling and any attempt to make it seem otherwise implies a personal agenda rather than accuracy.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, lets get a sure fired consensus here. The NWA Championship is a world title, because a title can not lose its world status because it left one company. The NWA Title has been defended in multiple company's around the world and on PPV. Because it is no longer toured actively does not grant the reason of removing its world status. The ROH Title was defended in Japan when ROH held a show over there. ROH also sell their produces, such as shows, PPV, and any other merchindise in other countries. Hense so it is an international company. Believing in that thought, the NWA still obtains its world status, and the ROH title gains its world status, seeing that the NWA Title was really the first world title, and the NWA and ROH both believe that their top titles are world titles.--WillC 23:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If the promotion calls it a world title, we're in no position to tell them that it isn't. If NWA calls it a world title, it's a world title. If an obscure promotion in rural Kentucky calls their title a world title, it's a world title. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

By that logic if I declared I was John Cena, then I must be John Cena. We cn't walk up to them and tell them they aren't allowed to call it a world title, but we can refuse it world title status from our standpoint, ie if we have a set of guidelines that we must follow before we delcare a title a world title.--DonJuan.EXE (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you know where I live do you not Gary? But I disagree, we should go by the definition of a world title. A Title that is defended around the world. No way the OVW Heavyweight Championship is a world title.--WillC 23:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have no idea. To be honest, I just named a completely random location.

I agree with Gary. We can't dictate to a promotion which is and which isn't a "world" championship any more than PWI can. The OVW isn't a "world" championship, nor has it ever been referred to as a "world" championship as far as I know. Hoever, if OVW had ever decided to name teir title a "world" title, then that would have been their right.Odin's Beard (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh Punk, Punk, Punk.

Ok so it has been asserted by this project that PWI is irrelevant and bears no authority over world title recognition.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It really depends. The OVW Heavyweight Championship would be a top tier title but not a World title because its never been referred to as such, even if it had been defended around the world (although it hasn't just a reference). Plain and simple is that if the promotion calls it a world title, then it is a world title. Yes Bullet, basically--TRU CO 00:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not true about PWI being considered irrelevant. My opinion is that PWI is the best source for this and that titles like the NWA and ROH titles are not world titles. My opinion on the NWA situation is that more neutral wording should be used (something like "the NWA World Heavyweight Championship is the top title in the National Wrestling Alliance"). TJ Spyke 00:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What gives PWI the authority to state that a title is a "world title"? Where is their publications of this information? I don't see any promotion accepting this, or any national media accepting this as a specific source of authority for referring titles as "world".--TRU CO 00:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

TJ PWI is nothing more than a magazine. A magazine with its own set of views. Good God man. You are looking at this from a fans perspective. As if professional wrestling were an actual sport. Do you really think it matters whether a title is a world title or not? For professional wrestling promotions a world title is just a name. The classification of a world championship only exists in storylines. That’s why there is no such criteria as to what constitutes a world title. For crying out loud man. Think of it this way. If a circus were to declare its top performer "The greatest performer in the universe" as other circus promotion would do the same and then I started a magazine and said, "No no no no, only this circus and this circus and this circus can call their guys The greatest performer in the universe" do you think I should force my views as the only withstanding legitimate view over all in the circus industry? As if I were to take the title of "The greatest performer in the universe" seriously. It’s just a name. For the wrestler that wins the title, its an honor. Winning the top title or any title of a promotion is the promoter’s way of recognizing you as a very important figure in his promotion. The person that makes his promotion draw. Winning the top title of a promotion represents the panicle of your profession as it is your boss's way of telling you that you are the top performer of all of his performers and it is you that he views at the top draw. That is a huge honor, someone telling you that you are the best at what you do and that you made it to the top. That is how a professional wrestler views this. However, a world title is just a name. A title being called a world title makes it no more important than one that isn’t unless it is the top title of the promotion. But again, a world title is just a name. I am training to be a professional wrestler and even I understand this. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree, the classification of a world title is scripted by the promotion and since pro wrestling is not a legit sport, there is no clear classification of a world title. Like bullet said, PWI is just a magazine with its own views, its not a generally accepted magazine by pro wrestling promotions. Right now the argument should be turned over to what titles are currently world titles, and which ones were world titles, as seen in World Heavyweight Championship (professional wrestling).--TRU CO 00:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Now PWI is irrelevant, that has been established.

As for a proposal over creating criteria that would affect what titles Wikipedia would list as World titles, that is unacceptable. Wikipedia is to record information based on facts, not record information that has been swayed by our own personal opinion. Professional wrestling is such a complex subject because most of us fail to differentiate that which we see on television as reality and in-universe. That is understandable. For what a world title is, there is nothing that states how a world title is made. The closest thing people have agreed on, and not just here but the general public, is that a world title is the top championship of a promotion which has gained national exposure thus asserting the promotion's notability, and that has been defended in different places of the world. We can note this. However, because there is still nothing that verifies this as fact, nothing that verifies that any promotion recognizes these criteria, we cannot use it as fact either. The only thing we can do is list information as it is presented by its closest source. In this case, the closest source would be the entity that owns a championship. If the entity declares their property to be a world title, then it should be listed here as such. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if that is agreed upon. The World Heavyweight Championship (professional wrestling) needs to be revamped to reflect this. So should the fact that titles are scripted to being called "World" be included in the article and the rest of the info relied upon PWI be removed?--TRU CO 00:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

All mentions or references to PWI being an authority were removed a while back. I believe the article currently does a good job at specifying what a world title is, noting that it is generally the top title in a prominent or notable promotion if the promotion refers to the title as such and also noting that there is no criteria as to what constitutes a world title. Unless you wanted to point something out in detail that should be changed. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Bullet I completely disagree with that last assertion further up. No promotion has any right to call their top title a world title unless it travels the world. That has nothing to do with the status of pro wrestling as a sport - it's to do with the promotion being an active business. You don't do business with a company that lies or sells a false bill of goods now do you? Are you telling me you would? The claim is in violation of WP:CORP unless it can be verified otherwise. When the NWA stopped touring (as they did in May 2007) the title did indeed lose it's world status. The same thing happened in 1993 when the NWA and WCW parted ways.

The closest neutral judge we have on world title status is PWI. Now I'm not going to argue that point beyond that, but we can't go to the point of querying PWI's WP:RS status. That is undisputed in my opinion. !! Justa Punk !! 00:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll never find a source that grants PWI full authority over professional wrestling. You disagree because you actually think a world title is more than a name. You view this a such because you are a fan that fails to differentiate reality from in-universe. That is your view, your opinion, and your belief. No one can change that. However, the reality of it all is that world titles in professional wrestling are non-existant outside of what you see as storylines. Just as Kane and Undertaker being brothers, Just as Boogeyman being from the bottomless pit, just as anything that relates to this. It is non-existant outside of storylines. Sorry to burst your bubble but this is reality. PWI will not be recognized as an authority. That consensus has been established. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

PWI is not nor has it ever been the "Bible" of professional wrestling. Wrestling promoters do not base what they do with their company, wrestlers that work for them or championships under their control based on the whims of PWI.Odin's Beard (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I kind of agree with the consensus. PWI does not matter in this situation. I think we should go by if the company calls it a world title and if it has been defended outside of the country in-which it was originally created. Because I'm sure if we say the CZW Championship is a world title, then alot of ips are going to disagree.--WillC 01:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Bullet said; You disagree because you actually think a world title is more than a name. You view this a such because you are a fan that fails to differentiate reality from in-universe.

I ask that this flagrant untruth be withdrawn please. I am referring to the business side of pro wrestling, not the storyline side. To suggest otherwise is actually a violation of WP:SYNTH by proxy as you are going on an assumption that is completely incorrect, and personally insulting. !! Justa Punk !! 06:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for new World Heavyweight Championship classification

A)The title must have (or have had) the name "World" in its name.

B)The title must have been defended in at least 2 countries.

C)The title must be the (or one of the) top-tier championship(s) of the promotion (or brand of a promotion)

IMO, the title must meet the above 3 criteria to be classified as a World Championship and to be listed as such on the World Heavyweight Championship (professional wrestling).--TRU CO 01:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Same here.Odin's Beard (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. Off the top of my head, the titles that fall under those criteria so far are: the TNA World Heavyweight Championship, the WWE Championship, the World Heavyweight Championship, the ROH World Championship, the NWA World Heavyweight Championship, and the ECW Championship. Inactive titles would also have the AWA World Heavyweight Championship, WCW World Heavyweight Championship, and for a brief time the WCW International World Heavyweight Championship.--WillC 01:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think its perfect. Using the WWE titles as an example...

The World Tag title fits "A" and "B" but not "C"
The WWE Tag title fits "B" but not "A" or "C"
- This is wrong, WWE stands for World Wrestling Entertainment, effectively making the title World Wrestling Entertainment Tag Team Championship. So, it has World in its name. Ra agg io 17:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  - Not exactly, thats the name of the company, not the name of the title. WWE has ownership of the title, so the name literally reads the "Tag Team Championship" of World Wrestling Entertainment.--₮RU CӨ 17:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The WWE IC title fits "B" and arguably "C" but not "A"
- Same here
The WWE US title fits "B" but not "A" or "C"
- Same here
The WWE Divas title fits "B" but not "A" or "C"
- Same here
The WWE Women's title fits "A" and "B" but not "C"
The WWE title fits "A" "B" and "C", therefore its a world title
The ECW title fits "A" "B" and "C", therefore its a world title
The World title fits "A" "B" and "C", therefore its a world title

Checks and Balances...sort of. I love it.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

We have a small problem though, some titles are considered world titles and they don't have the world in its name. i.e. a title that is the top title, been defended in two countries, but does not have world in its name. I'm talking about the WWA Universal Heavyweight Championship. That can be considered a world title. Seeing that Universal and world mean almost the samething. Some promotions just do not want to use world.--WillC 01:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Universal also means World, but for those who don't want to use "world" in their name, then that means the promotion doesn't want it as such, and thus we can't list it as a World championship.--TRU CO 01:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I disgaree, some promotions want it considered a world title. They call it universal to be different. Multiple promotions use universal over world to make it seem more respectable or along those lines.--WillC 01:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I mean if they didn't want to use "Universal" or "World" (or any synonym of the 2) in the title's name.--TRU CO 02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean the WWC Universal Heavyweight Championship. The championship was established in July 1982, as the WWC World Heavyweight Championship, meaning it had the word "World" in its name. Thus, it falls in "A".^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No I was thinking of the WWA World Heavyweight Championship. I was wrong.--WillC 01:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok so you were mistaken. Can you provide any other example so that it can be addressed before we move on the Tag titles Will?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Other world titles

No, I don't believe we have anyother articles on titles that have Universal in their name. Though we do have two more types of titles to address. Women's Titles, if they are world titles or not and the TNA X Division Championship. Can it be considered a world title. It says it in the article that it is a world title, but what makes it so.--WillC 02:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The X Division Championship is not a world title and i've never heard anyone call it that (not even TNA). TJ Spyke 02:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The TNA X title is not a world title because it does not have that in its name and is not the top tier title of the company. In addition, I'm not sure, unless the ~~title~~ promotion is all female ~~related~~ based, and if their top tier title has the "world" name in it, then it is a world title if it was also defended in other countries. The WWE Women's Championship wouldn't be a world title and there is no article for World Women's titles to classify them as such.--TRU CO 02:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the TNA Women's Knockout Championship has been defended in at least two countries, use to have world in its name, and the top title of its division. The only reason I wonder if the X title is world is seeing that the title was the first of its kind, is part of another division, was once refereed to as the NWA-TNA World X Division Championship, and been defended in at least two countries.--WillC 02:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't mean that in my previous comment, I striked it to clarify what I meant. Well The X title was the top in the division, not the promotion. Per my comment fix, it wouldn't be a world title [the TNA womens].--TRU CO 02:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that it must be the top title. Some promotions don't place one title over the other. ROH frequently places the tag title over the world title. I think it should be the top in their division. Tag, X, Women's, hardcore, heavyweight, super heavyweight, etc.--WillC 02:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

By division? That would make almost every title a "world" title. I won't get into the debate over the "X Division" (which is not really a division since the title is open to every wrestler). TJ Spyke 02:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Really, there have been many occasions when division "limits" have been crossed.--TRU CO 02:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Only if it passes the other two criteria. Does it or did it have world in its name? I remember Borash saying NWA-TNA World X Division Championship on an old weekly ppv. Has it been defended in two different countries. The X Title has and changed hand in two as well. Crap, the tag division belt can be won by one man alone. The heavyweight title can be won by a crusierweight. the women's title can be won by a man dressed up as a woman. There is no restictions on a division.--WillC 02:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I know that wrestlers can cross the division limits, but there is no criteria for the X Division. Anybody can compete for the X Division title, I would compare it to WWE's IC and US Titles in that it's open to everyone but not on the same level as the world titles. I am not ragging on the X Division title since it has led to lots of great matches, but there isn't really a "X Division". TJ Spyke 02:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree there is no limits, but there are no limits for anyother division in TNA or WWE. Hell are we really sure that Awesome Kong is a woman, because I didn't order Bound for Glory 2007, so I never got to see the infamous video. The X division is nothing more than a crusierweight division. Joe and Angle are the only heavyweights that have competed in the division.--WillC 02:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In theory 7 of WWE's 9 titles have limits and 3 of TNA's 5 titles. They ignore those when they want to for storyline reasons, but they technically do exist. TJ Spyke 02:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In theory, only "heavyweights" are to challenge for "World Heavyweight Championships" yet that has always been bypassed in professional wrestling history. Bottom line, divisions are not promotions. Brands are different from divisions. Clearly, the TNA World Heavyweight Championship is regarded higher over the TNA X Division Championship, maybe by stating in the criteria that the title must have been defended in at least 2 countries when it met criteria A and criteria C. Yet the TNA X title has never met that. Even if that is disagreed upon, it never meets criteria C.--TRU CO 03:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Lets see, none of the world titles have limits. They can be won by anyone, even if a woman dresses up as a man. Chyna won the IC Title. No limits for it. The US is on the same platform. So it doesn't either. The tag titles can be defened by one person by himself and won by-himself. The woman's title was won by a man in 99 or 2000. Though he was dressed as a woman. So, in theory, no title in wwe have limits. TNA X Title doesn't have a weight limit, but that is the code. It isn't about weight limits, it is about no limits. The tag titles have been one by two men by themseleves. The heavyweight title has yet to be won by a crusierweight but AJ will one day and he is somewhat a lightweight. The woman's title has been won by a he/she (unknown at this moment in time). I think we should go by the top title in a division. Crusierweight, legitweight, x are all divisions. If they are the top title in their division, been defended in two countries, and the promotion believe it is a world title, then it is a world title. Now that we are saying it must be the top of a promotion, then there is no other world titles than heavyweight titles. No world tag period.--WillC 03:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In theory and In practice are different, in theory 7 of the 9 WWE titles DO have limits but in practice these are ignored when WWE wants too. The Women's Championship is supposed to be only for women, but Harvey Whippleman got around that by dressing up as a woman and calling himself "Hervina". This is all a moot point though since that's not what is being discussed here. TJ Spyke 03:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel if we are going to recongize tag titles as world, when they aren't the top title in their company or brand as a world title because it is the top tag title in their division, then why not a woman's title or an X title. There are very few companies that are just about woman's wrestling. Probably the most known is Shimmer. Though they don't have a world title.--WillC 03:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding this proposal. This proposal is for the top-tier title(s) of a promotion, which will be classified as a World Heavyweight Championship (individual not tag-team). Actually, the WWF Light Heavyweight Championship had strict weight limits, as did the WWE Hardcore Championship. Those, however, are not World Heavyweight Championships because they were never regarded as such in WWE/F. The WWE Cruiserweight Championship had limits also, and it was often announced by Tony Chimel as the WWE Cruiserweight Championship of the World, yet it was not the top tier title of WWE. Will, you are regarding as TNA as an exception to every rule. In professional wrestling, nothing is legit, everything is scripted, and anything can happen with every title in professional wrestling. The TNA X Division is like the WWF Light Heavyweight Championship, which had clear limits, and only the "Light" division of WWF had access to that title, but it was never the top tier title of WWF. I'm pretty sure the TNA World Heavyweight Championship has been challenged by a wrestler under "250lbs", thus having no restrictions. If you want to make a new list out of Cruiserweight (professional wrestling)#Major championships for that title, but it is not in any way a "World Heavyweight Championship" that is or has been the top-tier title of the promotion. The World Heavyweight Championship division is a individual division, like any other individual title. The tag-team division is a division where two wrestlers challenge for titles, this has always been the two divisions in professional wrestling.--TRU CO 03:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The X Title is not a lightweight, cruiserweight, or anyother weight division title. In that way there are no limits like a heavyweight title. It can be won by anyone from 50 pounds to 400 pounds (Amazing Red to Samoa Joe), from not flyer to flyrer (Shawn Davari to Amazing Red). Also TNA have time and time again in their early days had the X Title in the main event. On Impact, on weekly ppv, and it even main evented TNA Unbreakable. So, in that thought it is a tie with the heavyweight title, well it use to be before Jarrett became an idiot. All I'm asking is, why are we going to give world status to tag titles, when they aren't the top title, when that is all I hear. The criteria given above for world titles should apply to all titles. If the company believes it is a world title, it is the top title of its division, and if it is defended in two different countries then it gains world status. World Heavyweight Championships are not the only titles considered world titles in the wrestling business.--WillC 03:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you even thoroughly read my comment. This discussion is for the individual titles to be classified as the "World Heavyweight Championship". The tag team championships have their own classification called the "World Tag Team Championship". The above criteria is for individual titles only. I'm searching through many articles and none have the title ever being called the "NWA-TNA World X Division Championship". There is no published sourced to verify it, and thus it would not meet the above criteria. One more time, a "division" is not the same thing as the "promotion". If TNA wanted the X Division Championship to be on the same level as the "World Heavyweight Championship", then they would have made it more clear (like WWE does with their World, WWE, and ECW Championships) by stating it or publishing it as such, but they have not, and thus, the title is not one of the top-tier titles. Like you said, the X Division title has no limits, so thus their is no "division". The X Title is like the counterpart to the I.C. Title. Hell, even the WWE Women's Championship has been defended in the main event of Raw and the I.C. title has been defended in the main events of many past WWF PPV events. They are not different.--₮RU ₢0 03:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand what this section is about, but I didn't want to start a new one. Clearly multiple companies believe that there is more than one world title in their company i.e. when TNA called their woman's title a world title. Just because it wasn't the top title in the company makes that void. No I don't think so. I heard it on a weekly ppv. I don't have a source. I'm just stating that. A title does not have to be the top title to be a world title. I'm just showing that TNA believe their title means more than just a secondary title by placing it in the main event.--WillC 04:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Many titles less categorized then the "World Championship(s)" of a company have main evented main PPVs in professional wrestling history, TNA is no exception. In theory, no U.S. promotion can deprive women of challenging for any title (even in scripts), as that would lead to legal action against the promotion for violating the U.S. constitution. Other countries may be different, but none really call or classify their Women's Championships to be "World Heavyweight Championships". There are many promotions that have strict division limits to their titles around the world, and if all those titles met the criteria (imagining if criteria C was about divisions) then more than over 100 titles would be listed. In a promotion, there will always be a title or titles that are higher classes than the rest.--₮RU ₢0 04:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think that is true about the Constitution thing, it's the same way that private golf courses can choose to not admit women (like the one in Georgia that hosts the PGA Masters Tournament). I also don't think UFC could be forced to allow a woman to challenge Brock Lesnar for the UFC Heavyweight Championship (why the hell is there a "interim" champion when Lesnar is healthy? The whole idea of "interim" champions is idiotic, if a champion is injured they should be stripped of the belt right away and not create a fake "interim" belt and then have the real champ face the fake champ in a "unification" match). I can't speak for other countries, but I am pretty sure any such lawsuit would be thrown out since WWE and other promotions wouldn't be breaking the law by not letting women challenge for the belt (I am applying this to real sports promotions like UFC and K1 too). TJ Spyke 05:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but those are legit sports, WWE is a scripted business so they could script a women to challenge for the title but script her not to get injured or attacked a lot. Hell, no women would want to challenge for the title, but it could happen in sports entertainment.--₮RU CӨ 05:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is being made more complicated than it has to. Rather than trying to guess what the company intends based upon which part of the show a title is defended or who its defended against or how much that person weighs or what color their eyes are or whether they were born on the Fourgh of July on a day when it happend to be raining hot coals or any of the other stuff, just go by the name of a title and be done with it. TNA doesn't use the same formula for championships that the WWE uses. Whereas the WWE has multiple world heavyweight and world tag team championships, TNA doesn't. TNA has prided itself as being a mix of tradition and innovation, or at least trying to to variable degrees of success. Tradition in wrestling dictates that there be one world heavyweight championship, one world tag team championship and various secondary championships. If TNA viewed the TNA X-Division Championship as a "world" championship, I'm sure we would have heard about it by now.Odin's Beard (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just saying we should recognize more than the heavyweight title as a world title. Because I'm not saying World Heavyweight Championship status, I'm saying world status. A title that is defended around the world. A title does not have to be a heavyweight title to be a world championship. Look at boxing. Lightweight, etc titles are world titles. So having just World Heavyweight Championships being the only world titles is wrong. I have no source or proof at the moment and probably will not anytime soon, so I'm not pushing the x title anymore. I just believe we should have an article about world status. Stating that a title does not have to be a heavyweight championship to have world status. Any title can be a world title, as long as the company that owns the title states it is a world title, it is defended in more than one country, and is the top title concerning its division.--WillC 05:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh well no duh. But you should place that in a different discussion because this is for the "top-tier" titles only. The thing is many other mid-card titles could be considered world, and there is no clear definition as to "world mid-card titles", just World Heavyweight and Tag Team Championships.--₮RU ₢0 05:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has drifted way off course. This really isn't all that complicated at all. The criteria that is being proposed goes as follows.

A)The title must have (or have had) the name "World" in its name.

B)The title must have been defended in at least 2 countries.

C)The title must be the (or one of the) top-tier championship(s) of the promotion (or brand of a promotion)

All of these arguments over the Women's title and Knockouts title and X Division titles are really unecessary. This critira is simple, effective, and really not that complicated. Allow me to explain. The WWE Women's title was argued. From the proposed criteria above, the Women's title fits the first two; the title has had the word "world" in its name and the title has been defended in at least 2 different countries. However it is not what we would call a world title because it fails to meet the third requirement. The championship is not and has not been the top championship of the promotion (or brand for that matter). Therefore the title is not a world title. There was confusion over the terms "Division" and "Brand". Allow me to differentiate. The is unlike any other professional wrestling promotion. The division of the company that was instituted essentially created three different promotions: Raw SmackDown and ECW. In a way, the WWE has become what the NWA was. So essentially the brands are their own promotions opperated by a single entity, the WWE. A division however is differnt. Championships such as the Women's and World Tag titles on Raw, and the Divas and WWE Tag titles on SmackDown serve as the top prizes for those particular divisions. However, they are not the top titles of the promotions/brands. If Raw was a brand that featured ONLY tag teams and SmackDown was brand that featured ONLY women, only then would the World Tag and Women's title be the top titles of the brands and only then would they be world titles.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is the source that a world title must be the top title of a brand or promotion? That is totally original research. Also when the man who held the WWE Woman's Title, after he won it he called it a world title. Plus multiple divas have called it a world title. Stating it must be the top title is totally wrong. A brand is just a storyline, they aren't like promotions. They are like really be stables. I'm totally against it having to be the top title, seeing that multiple promotions name other titles that are not the top title with "World" in its name. I'm alright with that in the heavyweight championship rules because there are multiple heavyweight titles in companies. But not for all titles. If we are going by the top title, then we can't say a tag title is world because no matter what you say, just like all are using, it is not the top title.--WillC 05:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Will you are blowing this way out of proportion. There is no source that specifies any criteria for what constitutes a world title. We just argued for an hour over that. We are way past that. What I was basing my argument on in my comment above was Truco's proposed requirements for what titles could be listed as world titles in World Heavyweight Championship (professional wrestling). ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not blowing this out, I'm just trying to make sure everything is covered. Look at the TNA Title article. An entire year of arguing over Cage and now ips are trying to add Cage into the article. Just trying to make sure everything is covered so we have a consensus over all titles and that we have everything covered. I think the criteria should be this for all titles.

A)The title must have (or have had) the name "World" in its name.

B)The title must have been defended in at least 2 countries.

C)The title must be the (or one of the) top-tier championship(s) of the division it belongs to

That way we have a rule for all titles. No double standards. That way, any title can be a world title, which is true. The X Title is not a world title at the moment. The Knockout Title is a world title for woman. The IC Title is not a world title. This is all I'm trying to say. Get a full system for all titles. That way the heavyweight championship article can be moved to World Championship, and we can write an article stating this.--WillC 06:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No - completely disagree. It should read like this;

A)The title must have the name "World" in its name.

B)The title must have been defended in at least 2 countries outside of the continent where the promotion is based.

C)The title must be the top-tier championship(s) of the promotion (or brand of a promotion) unless special circumstances exist within a brand

If it's not a current world title then any past becomes irrelevant. B needs to wider because any title in the US that is defended in Canada and Mexico is not truly international, and the ECW title is clearly a secondary title to the WWE Heavyweight and World Heavyweight Titles. !! Justa Punk !! 06:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sucks though that the majority agrees... I feel for you.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 06:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I disgaree, because a title can have world status and not be a heavyweight title or be the company's main championship. Plus the ECW is not clearly a secondary title. Remember Cyber Sunday 06, it was a world title.--WillC 06:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Two points, Will. One - if I recall correctly, when the ECW brand was first created (I mean the WWE version) it was Paul Heyman who called it "World". And he was wrong. I think he was still there in October 2006. But ECW has changed a lot since then, and it has become WWE's proving ground. This is explained further with their "new talent initiative" which is being promoted as a storyline but actually has a element of fact to it. It's how Evan Bourne started and I can see Jack Swagger going the same way. Also - part of Matt Hardy's reason for the heel turn (kayfabe again of course) was jealousy because his ECW title PALED in the face of Jeff's WWE title.

I do agree with your first sentence, Will. There are many indy primary titles that aren't heavyweight. Heck, I think most of the indy wrestlers would be under 200 pounds or about that. Well that's the case in Australia anyway. Anyway - since when was "heavyweight" part of the dispute?

Bullet I'm getting sick of your lase fare attitude. I would appreciate it if you would be more professional in your conduct if you wouldn't mind. Just because the majority disagrees with me doesn't make the majority right. Let's see some contradictions of my corrections to point 2. That seems to be the main sticking point right now. !! Justa Punk !! 11:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The ECW Title does have world status. It is still the third top title, is still considered a world title by WWE, with all the top champions fighting on SD's debut on My Network TV (Matt vs Jericho vs Trips). The ECW Title never lost its world status. Only its activity. from 01 to 06 it was not around, but as soon as it was brought back, it gained its world status with already being defended around the world and being called a world title by the WWE.--WillC 11:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm guessing this discussion is on "World" class titles in general right? Not the World Heavyweight Championship (professional wrestling) right? Will, where are we going to list the rest of the championships? They are not classifiable as World Heavyweight Championships, they can be classified as World Championships of some sort but not WHC.--₮RU CӨ 14:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

When I talk about world status I mean a status. Not World Heavyweight Championship. So everytime I say world title, I do not mean a heavyweight title. I believe WHC should be moved to World Championship. One article for all tiles that have such kayfabe status. There aren't alot. Mainly just 7 of WWE's, three from TNA, 2 from ROH's, etc--WillC 03:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems like this is generally being accepted for a consensus.--₮RU CӨ 14:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not, Truco.

The ECW title is not a world title. I have not heard Todd Grisham or Matt Striker use the word "World" - as recently as Christian's shot at Swagger - in relation to the title. It's clearly a secondary title in the WWE structure, if anything because ECW is a secondary brand as I referred to earlier about ECW being used as a proving ground by WWE. The ONLY reason for the triple threats (the SD debut on My Network and Cyber Sunday in 06) was for the three brand champions to get it on for show and nothing more. That is how WWE run their operations - and I'm talking from a business perspective and not a storyline perspective. I'll change my tune only when an ECW title match main events a pay per view, and it hasn't done that since 2001. !! Justa Punk !! 20:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I know it was the lowest rated WWE PPV ever, but I know I wasn't imagining the ECW Championship main eventing a WWE PPV in December 2006. TJ Spyke 22:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean that you weren't imagining that? Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 22:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha, yes that's what I meant to type. TJ Spyke 23:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the WWE Chamionship doesn't really have the word "World" in it. It is the World Wrestling Entertainment Championship, but in this case the word World refers to the company, not the title itself. It does occasionally have "World Heavyweight" tagged on, but I believe it is officially the "WWE Championship". This presents a problem with the WWE Championship applying to the first guideline, but we can all agree that it is a World Championship and is the top title of the company.--DonJuan.EXE (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the criteria carefully? The title must have (or have had) the name "World" in its name. It used to be called the WWF World Heavyweight Championship and was defend in at least 2 countries and it was the top tier championship of the WWF during that time.₮RU CӨ 17:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Truco, note in my correction that the part you bolded was taken out. I maintain it shouldn't be there. And for the record, the WWE title and the World Title (you know the two I mean) have always been treated as equals. Despite the World Title only having a proper line back to 2002 as such, they continue to recognise holders from the WCW period as having held the title. Despite storyline provisions we must be consistent with the spirit of WP:CORP. !! Justa Punk !! 20:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No they don't consider WCW champions to be former "World Heavyweight Champions" (meaning this specific title). They do consider they former world heavyweight champions (meaning world titles period). It's like how they call Triple H a 13 time WWE Champion even though he is actually a 8 time WWE Champion and 5 time WHC. TJ Spyke 22:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There was no reason to remove it because if you remove the bolded part the WWE Championship will not meet the criteria, when it clearly is a "World Championship". ₮RU CӨ 22:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is reason to remove it, Truco, because if you don't it brings a lot more inaccuracies into the debate. The WWE title must be a special exception to the criteria because it is clearly the World Title's equal (unlike the ECW title). And TJ, they have specified that title belt (ie Big Goldy) not the generic "world title". !! Justa Punk !! 01:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No they don't. They make a clear distinction between the belts and do not consider former WCW Champions to be former WHC's (i.e. the belt started in 2002 and held by Edge). It would be incorrect to call Hulk Hogan or Randy Savage a former "World Heavyweight Champion". TJ Spyke 02:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually TJ, I would be interested to see just how many titles they recognise when they talk about Hogan and Savage. They recognise all of Ric Flair's WCW titles. That's included in the 16 they give him. The only world title I know they won't give is that falsey with AWA - when the "new owner" (yeah right) claimed Hogan to be a former AWA champion. The AWA title WAS a world title as well just by the way. Just like the NWA WAS. And they have definitely mentioned Harley Race and Dusty Rhodes just to add to that. !! Justa Punk !! 04:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we may be talking about 2 different things. WWE does consider them former world heavyweight champions, but not World Heavyweight Champions ("World Heavyeight Championship" meaning the title created in 2002 and currently held by Edge, "world heavyweight championship" being a generic term to decribe all world titles). TJ Spyke 03:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for World Tag Team Championship classification

(ec)All the examples are perfect. Now second question is, what classifies a tag team title as a World Tag Team Championship? Can we use the same criteria, except making criteria C the top tag team title of the promotion or brand?--TRU CO 01:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So the World title deal is settled.

Now about the World Tag Title situation...

Hmm... the WWE Tag Title never had the word "World" in its name. Something has to be modified for World tag titles.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

How about..

A)The tag team title must be the (or one of the) top-tier tag team title(s) of a promotion (or brand of a promotion).

B)The title must have been defended in at least 2 countries.

C)?

There has to be one more criteria point to nullify and simply the list, because A and B would make a big list for titles. Suggestions?--TRU CO 02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Must be considered a world title by the promotion. Either stating it on tv or not. Seeing that the IWGP Tag Team Championship is considered a world title by TNA and NJPW. Tag Titles are going to be harder to deal with, seeing everyone kind of believes all of them are world belts.--WillC 02:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

But WWE has never referred to their WWE Tag Team Championship as a world tag title, A and B is a solid criteria, but possibly to vague.--TRU CO 02:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

They have on WWE.com and have loosely referred to the tag team champion as the SD World Tag Team Championship. Plus they state Matt Hardy is an 8 time world tag team champion. 7 world tag, 1 wwe tag.--WillC 02:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Very true. I guess A and B is okay as the criteria?--TRU CO 02:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes they are. Proceed. Damn it seems the discussion regarding World titles above has drifted way off course. I took my family out to eat. Now that I'm back we can hopefully get the above conversation sorted out. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If it helps, this week on Smackdown during the WWE tag team championship match, JR kept saying that Miz and Morrison could become "undisputed world tag team champions." This seems to indicate that the WWE tag team championship is considered a world title by WWE. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of this discussion?

I'm not sure where this is all coming from. The project generally refers to titles by the names given to them by the promotions. At what point is it necessary for an article to distinguish between a world title and a non-world title? I seriously can't think of why this would ever be important. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The accuracy of WP, GCF. That's why it's important. And consistency with the spirit of WP:CORP. !! Justa Punk !! 20:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

To distinguish between what individual titles are classifiable as World Heavyweight Championships and tag team titles as World Tag Team Championships.--₮RU CӨ 20:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest removing the lists altogether, if that's all this is about. Wikipedia does not need to be, nor should it pretend to be, capable of making a distinction that has never been agreed upon in any wrestling circles. The articles could discuss the debate and give examples, but a comprehensive list is obviously not going to work. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Error in newsletter

Latest comment: 15 years ago23 comments9 people in discussion

It says that WWE discontinued One Night Stand in favor for Extreme Rules on February 25. That is not true, as it was changed weeks ago. I feel it should have said "the date changed weeks ago, but this project refused to acknowledge it until now."

I'm not sure if there's an official newsletter discussion page, but like everything else, I felt putting it here would be the best. Mshake3 (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WWE officially released the details of the event on February 25, the thing on the side calender was not official. Remember, it first stated 'Night of Extreme' and then was changed to 'Extreme Rules', so due to the mishaps and all the speculation, we went by the official date of when WWE released the details.--₮RU CӨ 18:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't matter what the newsletter says. This project is for creating and improving articles. Plus, Truco is right, it was only official on Feb. 25. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 19:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest MFD'ing the newsletter and everything surrounding it. Editors' that do the newsletter could better spend their time improving Stub articles into B/C class. We don't need a newsletter, this is the page to communicate on. D.M.N. (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, especially since the newsletter is only bi-weekly. TJ Spyke 20:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The newsletter is a part of every project, even WP:GA has it. The signpost is also another one. Its no different. --₮RU CӨ 20:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot of members contribute to those projects. How many people are very active on this project? D.M.N. (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good question. I would love to know the answer. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 20:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if you feel deeply about it open a discussion here to stop the process of the newsletter. We can't delete it, it extends back to 2007, when the project was very active. You never know, we could get an activity boost and the newsletter might be needed again. But since the activity has died down, you can propose to halt the newsletter until we get an activity boost I guess.--₮RU CӨ 20:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I remember this time. It was a cool time. I had written around 3 or 4 articles, and reviewed others too, and we were all always on top of everything that went on in the project. Dav (DMN), you (who had just started I think), The Hybrid, Nikki311, Nahallac Silverwinds, and some others too... but you know what, it was the discussions that killed it for me. There was a new member every week who had to fight about different things. Remember the debate between Four way and Four-way? I just started editing less and less till I basically could be considered inactive. This project needs a huge revamp. Ra agg io 02:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, the reason activity is down is because this project always seems to have arguments every five minutes caused over a very small thing. People need to think before they write and do things. Why does this project have a bad reputation may I ask? D.M.N. (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Must we seriously even discuss this (you are stating the obvious, yet you are doing the same thing). Get to the point.--₮RU CӨ 20:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well for a start off... I don't think the newsletter is needed as there are not that many active members plain and simple. Out of all the people listed on the members list only about 20/30 are active. D.M.N. (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay thank you for stating that. Now sir, do you feel we should halt the process for now until more activity restarts in this project? If so, make that proposal in a subsection.--₮RU CӨ 20:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop being sarcastic, Truco. I've already stated I think it should be MFD'd. The newsletter's that have already been brought out can be kept as an archive. D.M.N. (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for MfD. All you do is place a {{historic}} tag on the newsletter page after a consensus is reached here.--₮RU CӨ 20:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with both of you. The newsletter is unnecessary, but doesn't need to be MFD'd. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 21:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The newsletter is a good idea and the best place to consolidate important information. Much of the information in the newsletter is not discussed here. As an editor of professional wrestling articles who is not a member of the project, I stop by and check out the newsletter from time to time. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from deleting it or declaring it historical. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You guys should really stop trying to change things. The project is not broken, it's members are. iMatthew // talk // 21:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Gary and Matt. Most members refuse to accept guidelines and want it their way, which lead to these ridiculous conversations at times. We could possibly be one of the most less-respected project on WP. I think we should rebound from that and work ourselves back up in becoming a respectable project.--₮RU CӨ 21:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I wouldn't go as far as saying most members... a few/small minority refuse to accept consensus and thus edit-war to get consensus... I won't name names (hopefully they realise who they are); the more they edit war the more it damages the projects morale. D.M.N. (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say that the biggest problem is editors constantly trying to tear down the project with unfounded statements about the rest of Wikipedia looking own on it. Aside from this, the only real problem is administrator-hopefulitis, of which an insistence on overbureaucratizing everything is the most troubling symptom. Overall, though, the project is very active and does a better job than most of producing quality, highly-rated articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

My two cents. Gary's right. We have editors producing a lot of good quality content, whether it's GA, FA, FL, whatever. Yes, there is drama here too, but instead of moaning about it either just do what I do, which is to keep working on the articles and then just check this talk page every few days, or just not check this talk page at all. There's no rule that says you must get involved in discussions here if you don't want to. Personally, I think one of the big problems is that we start off with a discussion about the newsletter and it ends up in drama with editors claiming that the editors/project/everything in general is broken. If people stayed on topic I don't think we'd have such a problem.

Regarding the newsletter; a) there is a talk page for the newsletter, here, but I doubt many people apart from me and maybe Truco and Will watchlist it, so.. *shrugs* Next thing, to respond to DMN's comment "Editors' that do the newsletter could better spend their time improving Stub articles into B/C class". There are 3 people who actively contribute to every issue of the newsletter, me, Truco and Will. We all do a lot of expansion/improvement work on articles as well, so I personally don't consider that to be a valid argument. I would also like to point out that no-one has to get the newsletter if they don't want to; if you'd just like to know that a new issue has been released then you can add your name here, or of you don't want any notification/newsletter at all, add your name here.

Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 09:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone verify the existence of the WWWF United States Championship?

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I am currently expanding a list on the defunct championships of WWE in my sandbox, and I have a source which gets its information from the "Wrestling Title Histories" book by Royal Duncan and Gary Will. This title, however, is not listed there. I also researched and I only find that wrestling-titles.com verifies it, an unreliable source, especially since they consider the title lineage to be the same as today's WWE United States Championship, which is wrong. I also researched on WWE.com and found nothing, weird since WWE does acknowledge the existance of the WWWF United States Tag Team Championship. So was this a real championship? If can't be verified, then we can't verify its existence and it should be deleted.--₮RU CӨ 16:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The WWWF Championship match between Pedro Morales and Ivan Koloff on the History of the WWE Championship DVD shows Morales wearing the championship. While it doesn't show a close up of the title, given that the camera was stationary, the center piece of the championship is in the shape of the continental United States. It can be clearly seen. I can't exactly remember what the announcer announced Morales as, I'll have to find the DVD and look it up, but he was announced as the United States Champion or at least some variation of that. Other than that instance, I can't recall a mention of the WWWF United States Championship from any WWE material.Odin's Beard (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you look that up for me? Because I have no reliable sources that list the history of reigns for that title, which is why I question its notability or existence. Basically, I need a reliable source to verify those reigns and wrestling-titles.com isn't one of them.--₮RU CӨ 22:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because we can't find many reliable sources for the title history doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Maybe tagged for lacking additional sources or something, but deleted is just absurd. The championship did exist. Even WWE.com acknowledges the existence of the title and the rivalry between Bobo Brazil and The Shiek on Bobo Brazil's Hall of Fame profile: [8]

Brazil made perhaps his biggest fame in the local Detroit area, where he became one of the biggest rivals of local legend and promoter and fellow WWE Hall of Famer The Sheik. Brazil and The Sheik drew each other’s blood for decades, often times trading a version of the United States Championship back and forth in Michigan, Ohio and Ontario.

And bleacherreport.com acknowledges it: [9]

Brazil was a four-time WWWF United States Champion, and a NWA Champion in numerous territories.

If research is coming up short on "reliable" references, maybe expanding what you consider reliable out would help or searching for something related. WWE was part of the NWA back in the day of this championship, so less sources are likely to exist for things back then, but thats no reason for deletion. — Moe ε 00:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I considered deletion if no source could verify it, but it did exist so no need for that. Well, that's not really going to help me because I can't find a source that gives me who was the first ever WWWF US Champions and the final one, which is what I need for my list. --₮RU CӨ 00:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It gives credibility to other sources who list the other title reigns, though. Like I said, doing some research through Google for related terms to the championship should provide results of some kind. — Moe ε 00:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I did, and I found nothing. I only found sources verifying his win of NWA US Titles not the WWWF one. I can't use his HoF profile to verify it since it doesn't formally state that he was the first champion. Sigh.--₮RU CӨ 01:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. User:MPJ-DK verified its existence and gave me the reigns that were listed. Interestingly, WP had the wrong information (mostly about it was about a version of an NWA US Title). I went ahead and did the according fixes.--₮RU CӨ 03:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What did I miss?

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

So, I'm back at least temporarily after a long absence. Have there any major policy or formatting changes I should know about? I'd hate to go start editing and screw something up. If I've been reading some comments correctly, tables should now be completely wikilinked on every line, right? If so, I thought maybe I'd start there and standardize the championship articles. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back Gavyn!! Mostly tables have changed they are now primarily used on the WWE and TNA roster pages. Cheers, JakeDHS07 03:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that. I think it looks horrible, but oh well. What about tables elsewhere? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Jarrett and the rest of the TNA roster

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Someone please keep an eye out on Jeff Jarrett's wikipedia page. Someone vandalized it a few times. So I had to change it. Also please check on the rest of the TNA roster wikipedia pages too. I think someone vandalized Booker T's wikipida page too.Miss Lindsie (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Maryse Ouellet#Is this notable?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could a few people add their opinions to this discussion please, as currently only me and the user with whom I'm having the disagreement have commented. More opinions would be welcomed. Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 08:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Robert Bruce (wrestler)

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If anyone has a few extra minutes, some help with this article would be appreciated. It's nominated for a DYK, but it's 12 characters short and the reviewer says the stub tag needs to be removed for it to be promoted. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well you could add a "Championships and accomplishments" section, or expand on his title runs in the text, I even found a source for you on it - http://www.wrestling-titles.com/nz/nz-be-h.html (the Wrestling titles book equivalent is found on page 430 in Chapter "New Zealand") just so you can get a bit more sourced info in there. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wade Keller

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there, I'm not a member of this Wikiproject or even a fan of wrestling but I came upon the article Wade Keller and it is a disaster. Someone who has a massive problem with this guy has done a hatchet job on it and there are serious WP:BLP issues. Just thought I'd let you know. Intesvensk (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

[10] It was done by someone named DaveMeltzer2009 (talk · contribs). The user also created a page for Michael Shane and said Jeff Jarrett was dead. We've actually had someone claiming to be Keller edit (I believe his user name was WadeKeller2008). -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 17:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Good grief. Sounds like there are some very strong opinions on this subject :) Anyway, glad that it got changed back to something looking like a Wikipedia article now. Good luck with it all Intesvensk (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Vacated Title Periods

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Just a thought, but when a title is vacated, the "Days Held" is a zero. I know no real reign exists but the 0 somewhat implies that it was filled in the same day, much like Andre's and Ortons reigns which last a less then a day and are places with a 0. My proposal is that for vacated periods we list the days that it remained vacant, but we differentiate them from normal reigns. For a crude example

Wrestler A..... 12 Wrestler B..... 0 Vacated ....... (12) or *12

The Brackets or star should hopefully keep all the vacated reigns together when the table is sorted. And just with a note at the bottom of the page "Days in brackets represent a title being vacant and is not a part of the title history. --DonJuan.EXE (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not just use a dash (-)? The sort template would allow us to treat that as 0. TJ Spyke 00:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

A dash might also be acceptable. My only issue is that the "0" implies no time passed inbetween the vacated reign.--DonJuan.EXE (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I meant to suggest putting in the days for vacated titles because there are occasions (NWA when WCW and then ECW depart springs to mind) where they can be vacant for a long time and it would be an extra factoid there that's not OR. Tony2Times (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My two cents: I usually do a grey bar that spans all the columns with text instead of trying to make it fit in with the various boxes, it makes it obvious something out of the ordinary happened and you can just use prose. It doesn't count when you sort by days and if you put when it's vacated it's easy to see if it was a long or short period by looking at when the next champion was crowned. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Chris Raaber

Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

I just read on a dirtsheet site that he signed with WWE, and I don't believe it at all. But, for curiosity, I searched his Wikipedia article, and it just came to my knowledge, he doesn't have one. I think he's notable enough, and heck, it's not like if he doesn't have articles on other Wikipedias (See what I mean?). Ra agg io 19:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Never heard of him. How is he notable? Just signing with WWE doesn't mean anything, WWE has signed tons of wrestlers (usually to developmental deals, which is not the same as a real contract) and never brought them up to WWE. TJ Spyke 20:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Same as TJ. We are not de.wikipedia. we are en.wikipedia. What they do at the others does not concern us. IMO, he is not notable. Simon^KSK 21:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TJ and Simon. What the German Wikipedia does is their business, not ours. Besides, it looks like no one's even heard of him anyway. SAVIOR_SELF.777 23:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Who? Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

^Exactly. Simon^KSK 23:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Raaber is an Austrian wrestler known in that part of the world, hence his inclusion on the German Wikipedia. However, he is not known to English speaking fans, making him not notable enough for this Wikipedia. It has been reported that he was under contract a while ago, but it was either false, or he was under contract for a very brief time. Just like with other, until he can be confirmed by reliable sources, he stays off the roster page. --James Duggan 04:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait a moment, are you SERIOUSLY saying that someone can be more notable in one language and not in another? That is lunatic. Languages don't belong to anyone, and each Wikipedia project isn't belonging to a country, they belong to the people. And the German Wikipedia doesn't belong to only Germans, they belong to everyone who wants to read it, globally. So, yeah, notability doesn't diminish with translation. Ra agg io 19:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If he is notable in one language he can be notable in all languages. Wikipedia:Notability in a nutshell is defined as a topic that has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. If Chris Raaber is defined as notable on the German Wikipedia, of course he can/should have an article on the English Wikipedia. The only difference between other language encyclopedias and en.wikipedia is just that, their in a different language. — Moe ε 19:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

While I can see the argument that each language Wiki deals primarily with notability as peculiar to them, isn't Wikipedia an encyclopedia? Encyclopedias are meant to be as unbiased as one can manage and also to give people answers to questions they might not know. Also, if Raaber isn't notable for the English speaking world, are the myriad of Japanese wrestlers? I've stumbled across by happenstance articles for many wrestlers that don't wrestle outside of Japan; but they are notable in their homeland so I'm glad to have the information. Tony2Times (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did this get into a discussion of 1 language Wiki being notable? My original comment was only meant to say that just because he has a article on the German wiki (which only has 1 third party source and his official site) doesn't mean he is notable. If someone can prove he is notable, then he can have an article just like anything else. He may or not may be notable, I can't tell because i've never heard of him and a Google search on the US Google doesn't show his notability. WWE's site has a interview with him after he got selected to attend an open try out for European wrestlers back in 2005 [11]. So is this the second time he signed with them? TJ Spyke 00:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be so, but no reliable source can confirm that. However, I don't think that a contract with WWE and TNA is what makes someone notable. Tony2Times made a valuable statement, in which many Japanese wrestlers have articles and its because of their notability and exposure in their territory. And of course this is an encyclopedia, and Raaber obviously has exposure in Europe, heck, the article you linked says that WWE chose him as a selected few of Europeans for a tryout. Ra agg io 02:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I ignorantly forgot about this discussion, but it seems to me that a small consensus was confirmed. Does anyone disagree with creating a Chris Raaber article with reliable sources? Ra agg io 02:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been around 18 days since someone other than me posted on this discussion, and apparently, no one is against creating the article. I hereby officially state I'll begin research for the Chris Raaber article soon. Ra agg io 06:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Latest comment: 15 years ago18 comments9 people in discussion

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we need a coordinator?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Gwalla was the creator of the project, and is still active. They also seem very neutral considering that they rarely edit pro wrestling articles or the project. Then again, there are also other "founding fathers/mothers" of the project that could coordinate the project, or maybe editors from the "recent era" or should we not even think about listing ourselves there with a coordinator?--₮RU ₢0 04:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Gwalla is basically only semi-active (50 edits in the last 5 months) and hasn't been involved in wrestling articles in an even longer period of time. I would suggest we pick someone who is active with the project (or at least active in editing wrestling articles). TJ Spyke 04:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we need one or not or who would be it. But if anyone would be right for the job in my mind it would be Nikki.--WillC 04:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If Nikki is willing to put in the time, I would be fine with that. TJ Spyke 04:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Nikki would be my choice as well. --₮RU CӨ 15:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm a bit late to the party, but I agree as well. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 21:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! I'd be willing to do it, but sometimes I get pretty busy with school/work, so I think having 2 co-coordinators would be a good idea. Anyone willing to be my partner in crime? Nikki♥311 22:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if people would agree with me?--₮RU CӨ 22:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd support you. Plus, I think we would work well together. Nikki♥311 00:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Another problem with this project is the content thirst for power that many editors here have. Nikki - I've never seen that in you, so if a coordinator is needed to hold this project together, you'd do fine. However, I don't think you should need a "partner". iMatthew // talk // 00:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Nikki you have our full support. As for a "partner", I also see no need for that. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. If everyone feels that way, I'll try it solo for awhile. Nikki♥311 01:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Um... What in the BLUEST of blue hell was that?!?!^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Just let it go Bullet.--₮RU CӨ 02:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Too soon? :) ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but if you really want to know I guess you could email me.--₮RU CӨ 02:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

^ "The Valiant Brothers". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2007-04-24.
^ "The Blackjacks". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2007-04-24.
^ "The Wild Samoans". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2007-04-24.
^ "Jack Brisco". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2008-03-10.
^ "Gerald Brisco". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2008-03-10.
^ "The Funks". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2009-02-17.
^ "Stone Cold Steve Austin". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2009-01-13.
^ "Ricky Steamboat". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2009-02-24.

[Valiant-1] "The Valiant Brothers". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2007-04-24.

[Blackjacks-2] "The Blackjacks". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2007-04-24.

[Samoans-3] "The Wild Samoans". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2007-04-24.

[4] "Jack Brisco". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2008-03-10.

[5] "Gerald Brisco". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2008-03-10.

[6] "The Funks". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2009-02-17.

[7] "Stone Cold Steve Austin". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2009-01-13.

[8] "Ricky Steamboat". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2009-02-24.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]