Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55

RFC:Reliable Sources?

I have made a request for RFC for SummerSlam (2007), because during its FAC, it failed due to unreliable sources. The discussion can be found here. --~SRS~ 03:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Cage of Death V

Is this event notable? No promotion is listed, so it's hard to tell. There are no articles for other Cage of Death events, but that doesn't mean much (eg. there is also no article for King of the Ring 1996). GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Guess you missed the CZW World Tag Team Championship, CZW Iron Man Championship, and CZW World Junior Heavyweight Championship references in the results. :) I would say it's not notable since CZW only runs twelve events per year. and that one isn't even on the list ArcAngel (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I say AfD it, non-notable.--~SRS~ 20:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, found the date of the event - 12/13/03. Apparently this article has been around since February, and most of the wrestlers listed are red linked. Still not quite sure about notability despite the fact two titles changed hands. ArcAngel (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I did a google search once and twice, and found few to none relating to the event.--~SRS~ 20:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, you were searching for Cage of Death 4 rather than 5. I did a little bit on the article, but that was mainly due to it being on the "orphaned" list. As to whether the tournament is notable or not I couldn't say, not being an authority on CZW, but it is mentioned specifically in the CZW page [1],and cited here [2] if that helps people decide--Apsouthern (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of wrestling events with questionable notability, how about Deuces Wild Tournament? GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Since that event is a TNA! produced event, it's more notable that the CZW one, in my eye. ArcAngel (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's non notable, not even King of the Ring's have their own articles (except for PPVs).--~SRS~ 20:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about placing a prod on that. King iMatthew 2008 20:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be Proded, non notable tournament, if we are to make this tournament, we should just make one for King of the Ring 2008, King of the Ring 2006, every Beat the Clock tournament ever held, every #1 Contender Tournaments, You get my point :), its just non-notable.~SRS~ 20:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Charley Manson/Charly Manson

This appears to be a duplicate article. I am not sure what to do in such a case. Could someone please let me know? If someone wants to be bold and fix it, that would be great, but I'd also like to know what to do in the future.

Likewise, both articles have copyrighted images in their infoboxes that have no fair use rationale. Again, what is the proper thing to do about something like that? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like merging is in order here. The articles are not exactly the same, but one would need to research to see what is common name is. ArcAngel (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that I've ever merged an article before. Do you just cut and paste the relevant content into the article that will be kept? GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That's how I would do it. Looks like Charly is his more common name, so I'd take what is salvageable from Charley into Charly, and create a redirect from Charley to Charly. ArcAngel (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Instructions here.  :) I'd do it, but I am about to leave work and will be off-wiki for awhile. ArcAngel (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have merged the articles, tagged the pictures (and several others), and informed the uploaders. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Our AfD's

There seem to be a lot of current AfD's for our project, with most of them requiring some more votes, please vote in our AfD's here. King iMatthew 2008 21:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

New article for watchlists

WWE Legends of WrestleMania was just announced and created, expect vandalism and speculation, add to watchlist, thanks.--~SRS~ 23:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Article name change

I feel we should move Chavo Guerrero, Jr. to either Salvador Guerrero, or simply Chavo Guerrero, because he is never referred to as Chavo Guerrero, Jr., and that needs verifiability, and it can't since he isn't called that. Similar to the Rey Mysterio's, Oscar Gutierrez is today's Rey Mysterio, and he is best known as Rey Mysterio, but we title his page by his real name, since he isn't called Rey Mysterio, Jr., since his uncle is Rey Mysterio, Sr., thoughts?--~SRS~ 17:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Rey Misterio, Sr. should be moved to simply Rey Misterio.

Oscar Gutierrez should be moved to Rey Mysterio.

Chavo Guerrero, Jr. should be moved to Chavo Guerrero.

Chavo Guerrero, Sr. should be moved to Chavo Classic. Feedback ^☎ 18:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree to that, they are all best known as that, good thinking Feedback.--~SRS~ 18:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Chavo Classic? He made his debut 32 years before taking that name. To people who are familiar with his career (not just his appearances with WWE in recent years), he is best known as Chavo Guerrero. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, Chavo Classic was a short-term name he used, similar to King Booker. Moving Chavo's article to Chavo Classic would be like moving Booker T to King Booker. iMatthew 2008 19:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well he can remain as Chavo Sr., but today's Chavo has to be renamed, no one calls today's Chavo, Chavo Guerrero, Jr.; first of all, what was the consensus over the Rey Mysterio's (before this discussion?)--~SRS~ 19:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Definate no to Chavo Sr being renamed Chavo Classic. I have no real opinion on the Chavo Guerrero (Jr) rename, but I think Oscar Gutierrez should be renamed to Rey Mysterio, which is a redirect to Oscar Gutierrez anyway. He's definetly better known as Mysterio. Also Rey Misterio Sr. to just Rey Misterio works in my opinion, as it is a redirect to Rey Mysterio, Sr. anyway. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

How come some wrestlers have their ring names as article names, and others have their real names. E.g. Undertaker is just undertaker, but MVP is Alvin Burke, Jr. Why don't we just make them all the same and then there will and can be no more confusion! ^{-GuffasBorgz7-} 08:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME. D.M.N. (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if its common name, Alvin Burke, Jr. is commonly known as MVP, Oscar Guiterriez is commonly known as Rey Mysterio, Chavo Guerrero, Jr. is commonly known as Chavo Guerrero, and Glen Jacbos is commonly known as Kane.~SRS~ 14:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the possible Chavo Jr. move; if it's not broken - why fix it? He may not be refered to as Chavo Jr. in the WWE, but he was during his WCW run. --Endless Dan 19:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Because there is a verifiability tag on the name Chavo Guerrero, Jr., which is questioning whether or not he is really called that, and he isn't, so he should just be referred to as Chavo Guerrero, and his son can remain as Chavo Sr., no big deal IMO, also Oscar Gutierrez can be moved to Rey Mysterio and Rey Mysterio Sr., can be moved to Rey Misterio, and there will always be a little note to avoid confusion (i.e. For his nephew, see....)~SRS~ 20:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, GCF verified the name, but I don't see how it is his common name., same applies to Glen Jacobs, Oscar Gutierrez, and Alvin Burke, Jr.--~SRS~ 20:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

He went by "Chavo Guerrero, Jr." for a long time, and it is the name under which he became well-known to wrestling fans. I have added a reference to his Slam! Wrestling biography proving the name Chavo, Jr. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for adding a source. This has got to be the most retarded debate ever on WP:PW... and that's quite a feat. --Endless Dan 14:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope Nope Nope, don't forget the debate over Fatal Four-Way/Four Way that got us on WP:LAME But yes, this debate is a bit much. LessThanClippers 18:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. --Endless Dan 13:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

List of World Wrestling Entertainment championships

This list was created yesterday. It doesn't appear as though this is a duplicate list, but I'm assuming there was a reason that it didn't exist before. Is there an existing consensus on this? GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy or Afd it - it serves no purpose other than to duplicate this list. ArcAngel (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD or Speedy.--~SRS~ 23:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. This list actually lists past championships as well, which the CURRENT list does not, as it only lists current championships. I think a list of different championships in the wwe, as well as their times in use, would be a useful article, but definately this article would need some help from where it is at. 67.52.102.250 (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The list does not intend any purpose, all the championships in WWE history are at here and here, sections all in the same page. So there is no reason for that page.--~SRS~ 23:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with this IP. I think that this article might be helpful. It can be used similar to List of TNA tournaments, where each title will have a short summary/description of the title, all on one page, you know? King iMatthew 2008 23:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no purpose, why should championships need a brief description, thats what their articles are for, and you will be just duplicating the section I pointed out above.--~SRS~ 23:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It makes it easier for a reader, that wants to know which title is which or brief information about a title, to just look at the page and read a brief description, rather than having to go to 8 different articles to find out the basics of each title. King iMatthew 2008 23:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but thats just redundant, IMO even if the article were created, it would be challenged.~SRS~ 23:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

List articles are redundant almost by definition. That is not necessarily a bad thing. The point is to aggregate and consolidate information for the convenience of readers. — Gwalla | Talk 16:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it serves a purpose. It serves a distinct purpose from the list of current champions (which is primarily a list of people, not titles). And it provides a useful ordering of championship (by brand extention/unbranded/"unsanctioned") not found in the main WWE article or the championships category. Also, it clearly does not fall under any of the criteria for speedy deletion, so I'm not sure why the term "speedy" is ebing tossed around. — Gwalla | Talk 17:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL reading the responses to my support, I see that I wasn't logged in, for the record the I.P. was me :) LessThanClippers 18:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Stacy Keibler

I would like some opinions concerning a statement in Keibler's article, per the good article review, The September 2005 edition of the tabloid Star, claimed that Keibler was involved in a love triangle with Geoff Stults and actress Jennifer Aniston. Any comments would be most appreciated. Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

To expand, What I'm asking the WikiProject is "Are those love triangle rumors significant and widespread enough that some people would be looking for that information?" The Star comes up with crazy stories and most don't belong in an encyclopedia article about the person. Does this story belong? I don't have a good feel, so I am asking for consensus. Royalbroil 20:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I definitely remember hearing about it on several of those entertainment programs (E! News, Access Hollywood, etc) and reading about it in a couple of tabloids. I'm not sure if people would be "looking for that information", though. What do others think? Nikki311 21:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)In my view, The Star is a very unreliable source, so any story that comes from there should NOT be included. ArcAngel (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't other sources replace the Star claim? Zenlax ^{T C S} 18:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as they are more reliable than that rag, sure.  :) ArcAngel (talk) (Review) 18:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Then, can we make the consensus about it? Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea, works for me. ArcAngel (talk) (Review) 19:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the info. I looked around the net, and it seemed to be more of a rumor than fact. If anyone can find a legit news source with the information, I have no problems with it being added back in. Nikki311 19:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, then the decision has been broken into. :) Zenlax ^{T C S} 20:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

WWF/E change mid paragraph

There are, apparently, a handful of articles wherein a paragraph or section begin with the company being referred to as the World Wrestling Federation/WWF and end with it being called World Wrestling Entertainment/WWE, though the only one I know of offhand is Tazz. Anyway, until yesterday it was handled with a note at the section header explaining the sudden change to people with no familiarity with the change until it was decided that wasn't necessary. Instead of just unilaterally changing it and changing it back and violating whatever rule, I figure I'll bring it up for discussion.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 15:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:TNA roster

There is currently a dispute going on at this page over whether Daizee Haze should be on the template or not. I have left a note on both editors talk pages about edit warring, but I thought we should get a consensus to stop this edit warring. Thoughts? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, who took abyss off? As far as we know, he is still with the company awaiting repackage (like Daniels/Curry Man) Sexy Sea Bassist 17:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deuces Wild Tournament

I've nominated it for deletion due to some users belief that it is non-notable, which I agree with. King iMatthew 2008 19:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

WWE SmackDown! (video game series)

I revamped the whole article and I plan to nominate it for FLC soon, but before I can do that, may the community tell me what you think of it, and if you have any comments please feel free to tell me here, thanks =)--~SRS~ 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I just clicked on a couple of random pictures, but I'm going to assume this is a problem for all of them: the pictures have fair-use rationales for their individual articles, but they also need one for the WWE SmackDown! (video game series) article in order to be used there. Nikki311 23:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Anything else?--~SRS~ 00:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The info under the various notes sections aren't complete sentences, so they shouldn't have periods. Can anything else be added to the roster section? It seems too short. Nikki311 01:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the period from the notes that were short, and removed the images per WT:VG, and for the roster, mayby I can just rename that to 'features'? There I could put like the various recurring features?--~SRS~ 01:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A bit of help?

Please see here. I'm not really sure what else to say on this subject beyond quoting policy. This, however, is a bit different.. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

New AfD's

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro Wrestling Alliance: Africa
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parow Civic Centre
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blacksmith (wrestler)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meltdown: The Music of TNA Wrestling Vol. 2

-- King iMatthew 2008 00:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Update with another. King iMatthew 2008 14:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox wrestling event

I was looking at the code and I realize that there's a field that would add the year after the {{{name}}} and before the "Pay-per-view chronology" line. I don't recall ever seeing this used, and I was wondering whether or not we should remove it. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 00:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Example: {{Infobox wrestling event |2005 |name=Taboo Tuesday (2005) |lastevent=[[WWE No Mercy#2005|No Mercy (2005)]] |nextevent=[[Survivor Series (2005)]] }}

I think we should remove it, because it ruins the "name of the article", in the name section, and it should read the title of the article, so it would make sense to remove it. --~SRX~ 00:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, because the infobox is supposed to match the article name. And if the article name is "Taboo Tuesday (2005)" then the infobox should not be "Taboo Tuesday 2005" without the parenthesize. Or am I mis-interpreting this? King iMatthew 2008 00:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting it, look at the example, the parenthesis is used to match the article name, and the "2005", is still placed to the right of the (2005), so it reads "Taboo Tuesday (2005) 2005" so that field isn't needed.~SRX~ 00:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically what Im saying is, remove the field in the infobox.~SRX~ 00:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the feature. It appears to be added by LAX. Must've been the early days. Some articles were also changed to use this format but were reverted. Guess the template was left out. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

EOTW

Voting closes next sunday, and there are only three votes, so please go over there to vote! King iMatthew 2008 12:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't the EOTW supposed to be given an interview? (according to Newsletter Issue 015) Sorry if this was discussed before. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

They were, but I was basically doing this solo, nobody helped me on it, so I didn't get the chance to come up with one, due to lack of time. King iMatthew 2008 00:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Over the Edge (1999) GAN failed, reassed

I asked for reassesment of its GAN, because this article was on the top of the GAN list for over a month, and a chance was not given to address concerns, follow this link for further explanation.--~SRX~ 20:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

TNA Sacrifice

With the PPV over, I went to wikify it. I'm running into some problems. Check here. Should the matches remain the way they are with the tournament first even though the matches were dispersed throughout the PPV? Should there even be team listings at the beginning or should it go straight into the matche? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend formatting it like the King of the Ring tournaments (see King of the Ring (1994)#Results). The matches could go in chronological order, but it could also include the tournament brackets. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. The first part is done, it's formatted properly now. As for the brackets, I believe that Deuces Wild Tournament is going to be merged with List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling tournaments, so the brackets could appear there. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

SummerSlam (2007) an FAC, again

Since its previous FAC, an RFC has taken place to determine if two of our major sources, CompleteWWE.com and WrestleView, are reliable, which was the reason why it failed. Based on the comments and external links provided, the sources appear to be reliable. With that being said, if nobody objects, I plan on nominating SummerSlam for FA status once again in one week. –LAX 21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

WOOO! Lets go for it, another FA PPV to the project, OH YEAH! =)--~SRX~ 21:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would ask for more opinions on the matter. You could ask the FAC director, Sandy Georgia on how you can prove whether the sources meet WP:RS or not. D.M.N. (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably should keep an eye on this for a bit

Triple H is rumored to be one of the leading contenders to play Marvel Comics' adaptation of Thor, the Norse God of Thunder, in a flick scheduled to be out in the summer of 2010. http://www.wrestlezone.com/article.php?articleid=212638877 Might not be an issue, but I just figured I'd bring it to everyone's attention if they hadn't read the rumors already since it might mean keeping an extra eye on the Triple H article.Odin's Beard (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

List of WWE European Champions

Odd glitch here. When you go into the above article, Helmsley's first reign now does appear in the table. Attempting to edit the article reveals that his reign is in table, right where it should be, but appears to be invisible for whatever reason in the actual article. It does not have the hidden note tags in the edit box, so I have no idea what the problem is. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. One of the ref tags was messed up. Nikki311 17:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

TNA titles

Keep a watch, or review the TNA World Heavyweight Championship and TNA World Tag Team Championship pages. MC511 is claiming that just because TNA says that the NWA belts they had since day one are the same as their current ones that the pages on here have to reflect that and are "truth". I'm pretty sure that's revisionism and something that's against Wiki policies. It's skewing facts and confusing. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Eddie Creatchman

Here is one for your, need to be improved list. Govvy (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Stubs. Nikki311 19:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Survivor Series (1994)

After stalling for quite a while, I returned to this article and finished it today. I would like to nominate it for a GA review some time in the future when the list is a little smaller. The other four events from 1994 are already GAs, so it would be nice to finish off the year. I would really appreciate it if anyone could look over the article and provide some feedback. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks awesome and has GA-potential, but the lead paragraphs need sourcing, such as the tagline, and the event overview (in the lead). --~SRX~ 00:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The tagline doesn't need sourcing as it is on the poster to the right. –LAX 00:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I missed that. Most PPV's today, dont have that. But not the tagline, but the other content in the lead.--~SRX~ 00:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Leads do not have to be sourced. They can either be fully sourced or not at all. King iMatthew 2008 00:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

New Logo

According to this, Raw has a new logo, much different then the current one in the article. I however, cant find the source for a bigger image to upload, if someone is able to locate it, please notify me so I may upload it, or if you could upload it. Thanks.--~SRX~ 03:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

SummerSlam (1988)

It's been brought to my attention that SummerSlam (1988), which I recently put on our GA waiting list, might actually be a good candidate to skip the GA process and go straight to FA. Because the pay-per-view is older, I was able to use mostly book sources, so it doesn't have the sourcing problem that the other newer pay-per-views have. Also, it had a very successful peer review, which I think ironed out all the major problems. If anything is brought up during the FA nom, I'd be able to fix it fairly quickly.

I know that LAX is also considering nominating SummerSlam (2007), but I think it might be a good idea to have two of our articles nominated at once. It will show the reviewers that we are serious about getting our articles to FA quality, and they might be more likely to review and/or give opinions. It is harder to ignore two articles than it is one. We can try it, anyway. Are there any thoughts on this? I'm really interested in everyone's opinion. Nikki311 17:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

For SummerSlam 1988, I say go for it. There aren't any unreliable sources in the article (the only one that could get questioned is Wrestling Digest and if you could prove it is reliable against WP:V, WP:RS and WP:SPS, there will be no problem) so it could pass easily. I say nominate it. Who knows, we may have our 2nd FA PPV. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I 'think Wrestling Digest would be questioned because it is a bimonthly magazine, and the articles are just re-published onto the internet.--~SRX~ 20:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say to take the chance and see where it does take you. I've read through the article and its Feature Article material, that I can see the chance of it becoming Feature article. Nikki, nominate it and see where this idea takes you with. Speaking of future Feature articles, ThinkBlue and myself would like to get Vengeance (2005) to Feature criteria, but suggestions would be of good of help. Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

EOTW

Should this be deleted? I seem to be the only person working on it, and I can't handle it all by myself. I am receiving no help, or help offers and I don't have the time to run it by myself? Should we just delete it? King iMatthew 2008 21:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, no one really owns or runs an article by themselves, the whole project has to contribute to it. The thing is, this project has lost activity, alot, so there are less active users and few aware of EOTW. But if you feel this way, I would be happy to assist.--SRX 21:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not own the article, but I am the only person running it, and that is a fact. Anybody willing to help by creating an interview for the winner, or helping created the awards, please let me know! King iMatthew 2008 22:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I will create the interview. Just tell me what the concept is, like will it be a basic interview like we used to do with the former user interviews?--SRX 22:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The interview would be best if divided into three sections: Wikipedia Related, Help Related, and Personal Related. If you can, try to come up with about 5 questions for each section. King iMatthew 2008 22:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

For wikipedia related, do you mean related to WP:PW? Also, for help related, do you mean like advice they can give to other users? Personal do you mean like, who is your fav. wrestler?SRX 22:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

WP Related: About this project and general questions about what they do on wikipedia, where and stuff. Help: What can they help you with? Do they work on this, or that or that? Personal: About themselves, and questions about wrestling if you'd like. King iMatthew 2008 22:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha.SRX 22:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What's EOTW? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Editor of the Week. (even though it's fortnight, week sounds better) King iMatthew 2008 23:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The Undertaker

Does this relate to the Undertaker's article? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that is clearly a joke.--SRX 01:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, can I warn the user then? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the edit, and I would give him a general notice about it.--SRX 01:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, he did twice and I left him a notice about introducing "humor" to the article. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Great Work Blue. Mission Completed. =]SRX 01:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Truco, I mean SRX. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I must assume good faith here and say that this was not done as a joke. If you look at the album, it apparently has a song titled "The Undertaker", so the user probably added it in good faith, realizing that somebody might be looking for that song. King iMatthew 2008 01:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

But, is the song common? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by common? King iMatthew 2008 02:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean, would someone actually know the song instead of the Undertaker. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Somebody who knows the song, might want to look up the song, and if they type in "The Undertaker" their get our Undertaker, but they want the song, so that note might have been helpful, I'm not sure. Either way, per his response to my comment on his talk page, I believe no harm was intended, and no warning was necessary. King iMatthew 2008 02:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. He just apologize and I apologized back. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's alright. It was all a misunderstanding, but for the future, just remember to assume good faith. Cheers! King iMatthew 2008 02:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability

I appreciate this has probably been argued back and forth numerous times, but I am still new to Wikipedia and am interested in knowing the result. JC Bailey is currently marked for deletion, and while I agree that the article needs a lot of work, I am confused as to the reasoning behind deleting the article. Mr Senseless has stated that there is a notability guideline for pro-wrestlers here ("Wrestlers in tiny wrestling leagues are not notable"), but I would argue that CZW and IWA-MS are not "tiny" promotions. Admittedly they are not drawing WWE-size crowds, but they are up there at the top end of the "indy" promotions.
Has there ever been an agreed upon list of promotions that would confer notability to a wrestler? If a wrestler has held titles in both the previously mentioned indy promotions, would that not qualify as notability? Or, if the reasoning given is not valid, is there an official notability qualification that would have to be met for a pro-wrestler?--Apsouthern (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are...if there's enough info, and sources, pages should remain regardless of how unknown a wrestler or organization is. I hate how biased wikipedia of all places, the WP:PW is towards mainstream, big time wrestling organizations. It's pretty stupid being that the internet community there's gonna be a lot more people wanting to learn and read about the indy and Japanese wrestling scene. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 04:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Question about Raw, ECW, SmackDown! articles

Is it against regulations to include previously used theme songs by the show?--SRX 01:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean copyrights of the songs? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No, like listing previously used theme songs in a prose or table or list.--SRX 13:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The Rock (entertainer)

I'm nominating this for GA today, but my question is, do I nominate him under Games and Sports, or Actors and Actresses, etc.? King iMatthew 2008 11:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The majority of the article would fall under Games and Sports so nominate the article under that category. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, under Sports and Recreation, but perhaps leave a note beside it sdaying he's also an actor. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 11:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Nominations consensus time

I think it's time that we reached a consensus on this. I don't intend this to criticize anyone, but I think it's something that needs to be discussed. Our project is doing an amazing job of improving articles to a GA level. We've also done a great job of reviewing Good Article Nominations for other projects. With that said, I feel that we simply have too many articles nominated. Currently, we have 12 articles nominated for Good Article reviews. The nominations page is backlogged, and 12 of the 28 unreviewed Sports and recreation articles come from this project. I believe that we should have some sort of limit. In the past, we have had discussions of capping the number of articles that the project can nominate at once, capping the number of articles that an individual editor can nominate at once, or ignoring the idea of a cap altogether. I don't want to go straight to "voting", but I think it would be helpful if editors made their opinions known here. If we have a discussion for the next few days, it would be helpful in getting opinions so that we can achieve a consenus. Opinions, anybody? GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree Gary, I think the limit for each user should be 2 article nominations, every 2-3 weeks/or month. The project should have a limit of 5-8 nominations per month. I think that seeing too many wrestling articles, is preventing users from reviewing them.--SRX 16:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

My thought is that an individual editor should have no more than two nominated at anytime. When one of theirs is reviewed, they can nominate another one. Having five or six articles nominated makes the GA reviewers angry, especially if you don't review any articles in return (ex: Kaypoh), and makes them less likely to review your articles. Nikki311 18:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, my bad, I meant at anytime, not every 2-3 weeks. I however think the limit from the project should be like 5-8.SRX 18:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that there should be no limit. It is unfair that our articles take more than one month to become reviewed, so we have to wait months at a time to nominate new articles. Other projects will nominate it, and it's getting review before they click "Save page". If our articles got reviewed after a week or so, then I'd agree that there should be a limit, but it's proven to be over a month at a time, which is unfair. King iMatthew 2008 22:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Gary, Nikki, and SRX are saying. There should be a limit when nominating articles. I have two nominated right now, so there's no rush in nominating a whole bunch of them. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Joezone and User:Wcwnitro

These are clearly operated by the same person, and this person clearly has no intention of making constructive edits. However, in one of my few merciful moments, I decided to give this person a second chance. If any of you see the person vandalizing a page again, report both of the accounts to WP:AIV please. Somehow they've survived blocking for a while. Cheers, -The Hybrid- 04:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well they now have been blocked for sock puppetry. --SRX 14:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

*Bonk* I should have caught that one. -The Hybrid- 05:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Since when did this board become the "tell on editors" page? Warn and report them elsewhere next time. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This week's newsletter

I will have this done and ready to be sent out by late afternoon today, I need to finalize the EOTW, and proofread/update the newsletter. It will be done later. King iMatthew 2008 10:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

We need to get Nikki to complete the interview (the first EOTW).--SRX 14:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I left her a note on her talk page earlier today. King iMatthew 2008 14:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I finished them. Nikki311 19:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've put it off for tonight. I'll finalize it early tomorrow morning, and add any notable info from JD. King iMatthew 2008 02:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Bloodstained Memoirs

Dear all, Bloodstained Memoirs, a wrestling film starring Chris Jericho, Rob Van Dam, Mick Foley, Roddy Piper, Jimmy Snuka, Ultimo Dragon, Keiji Mutoh, Christian Cage, Molly Holly and others is up for deletion review on the main Wiki. Link of DRV and Article bellow:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_15#User:Commoncase.2FBloodstained_Memoirs

I honestly believe it is getting overlooked as it is a "wrestling" production. The article is on the wrestling Wiki, but perhaps some support of some of the members here could ensure iots return to the main Wiki. Commoncase (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Notable?

The Age of Orton? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO, hell no. I say tag it for speedy deletion. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I took a quicker approach and redirected it to Randy Orton. Nikki311 20:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Ring of Honor events

This was brought up here before (which didn't result in anything from what I see). The article is just a general list of every event they have had. While the company puts most (or even all) events on DVD, that doesn't justify we need a list of all of them. They don't have a full touring schedule like other promotions: that also doesn't justify a complete list of every event they've had. I personally think this list either needs condensing, or just outright deletion (or even redirecting/merging). RobJ1981 (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Need something to do today?

Since we have so many GA noms, I think everyone who knows how should go review an article at WP:GAN. I think it is a good idea anyhow...it helps familiarize you with the GA criteria, and it is a great learning experience. I've been doing it a lot lately, and I think my article writing skills have improved 100%. It also trains you to notice the small stuff that other editors might miss. Plus, you learn about new MoS and other guidelines that you may not have known about, which we can then apply to our articles to continue to improve them.

Another good thing about reviewing is that really prominent editors become familiar with your name. A lot of the people who submit and review articles at GAN, also review at WP:FAC and WP:FLC. When an editor recognizes your name and your work, they are much more likely to comment on your nominations. Plus, if you review for them, they might review for you. If you don't know how to review yet, just look on the talk pages of a few articles that are on hold. Reading the comments left by reviewers is also beneficial.

Oh yeah...congrats to ThinkBlue who was a GA reviewer of the week a couple of weeks ago and GaryColemanFan, who is in the top 5 every week. Nikki311 20:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes Ma'am. Im on my way ;)--SRX 21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(e.c.)I am in the process of giving One Night Stand 2007 it's GA review. It seems to be ok, per the discussion at WT:GAN. I look to set an example here of what a non-biased GA review of one of our project's articles should look like. Also, congrats to Nikki for also constantly being in the top 5! King iMatthew 2008 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki, I really appreciate that. ;) And, if its cool with everyone, I'll review the Royal Rumble '05. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anything conclusive was decided on the WT:GAN page. I think we should stick to WP:PW consensus and continue to not review our own articles. It means a lot more if there is no possibility of conflict of interest, and it's particularly important for specialized topics like wrestling that need a lot of work to be made accesible to non-fans. I think we should stick to reviewing other articles to get ours higher up on the list, and I think people should feel free to contact a potential reviewer directly to request a review if it's taking a long time. I did it for Money Inc. and the review was done within a couple of days. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll review one PW article and leave the rest to other non-PW members. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already reviewed One Night Stand (2007) and failed it. King iMatthew 2008 00:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it of hurt to put the article on hold? I'm sure L.A.X. would of gone back and commented on the comments (in fact, he actually has!). And also, if a suitable wikilink can explain a term, why explain the term in the article? iMatthew, some of suggestions seem a tad ridiculous to say the least. Could someone else look at the review and see if they agree? D.M.N. (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Failing it was a bit harsh. It definitely did not meet the quickfail criteria, and the points brought up in the review could easily be fixed in seven days. Nikki311 17:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not reviewed an article in a while, and I guess I did everything wrong. I'd appreciate comments against me to be held back, I will stay away from the reviews in the future. Thanks, King iMatthew 2008 19:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt, don't be like that. You're review wasn't "bad" as such, you did point out some good things, like the lengths of one or two of the match descriptions. I just felt that one or two things really didn't need changing, I hope it didn't sound like your review was "crap" because it certainly wasn't. For a start off, and this goes for all my edits within the past few weeks, I apologise if I seem to be "hot headed" as such, and if some of my edits seem a tad angry as such, that's possibly because I've had the small matter of a few exams yesterday (you may of noticed the note on my userpage). However, I do mean what I say, for instance, SummerSlam (2007) was apparantly heading for FAC, trust me, the FAC director (Sandy Georgia) will ask you almost immediately to prove how WrestleView and others are reliable per WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:V. If she doesn't think the sources are reliable, even if consensus is bending towards support, the article will not be promoted. Onto a second point.... D.M.N. (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand why there is a review process at all if Sandy Georgia makes the final decision, which does not always seem to be based on the established consensus. At any rate, I have never considered WrestleView a reliable source. I've changed my mind today, however. I believe that a few factors combine to make it a reliable source: (1) it is well established, as it has been around for ten years, (2) per this, they do not publish unsolicited articles, and they have an established staff that has gone through an application process, and (3) according to Sandy Georgia, sources may be considered reliable if well established sources claim that they are credible. I believe that the mention in the Toronto Sun and Ottawa Sun (see here) and the fact that a SLAM! Wrestling reporter is appearing on a radio show with a WrestleView reporter (see here) indicate that SLAM! Wrestling, an unquestionably reliable source, accepts WrestleView as a reliable source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Good research. That might be interesting to point out in a FAC to see what the other reviewers say. It might (once and for all) decide whether we can use WrestleView or not. Nikki311 17:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Notes sections

One of the points iMatthew put down during the review was that the "References" section name should be changed to "Notes". Do we have a consensus as to what those particular headings should be? Onto a third point.... D.M.N. (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for an example, John Cena. King iMatthew 2008 21:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a difference, per Help:Footnotes, At the point where you want the text of the footnotes or references to appear (usually at the end of the article in a "Notes" or "References" section), so it could be either one.--SRX 22:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

December to Dismember (2006)

I came across this comment also by iMatthew. I hope this isn't how people on the whole about the article. People should be bold and address the problem, preferrably at a centralized location where everyone will notice. Anyway, anyone else think this shouldn't be an FAC? D.M.N. (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about not being featured, but I do believe that the article should go through Featured Article review. I believe it should because in the FAC, all votes came from WP:PW members, and I believe more opinions from outside editors is necessary. –LAX 21:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Word! Just kidding, but I agree with LAX. King iMatthew 2008 21:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with LAX, it should go through Featured Review, because of the votes mainly coming from the project.--SRX 21:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about Featured Review and all of that, but in my personal opinion, if it was only a GA and nominated today, it wouldn't pass. I don't want anyone to take offense to that, because I also don't think Shelton Benjamin (one of the articles I heavily worked on) would pass either. If everyone remembers, D2D and Benjamin passed around the same time, and I think the current reviewers are much more picky than they were back in November 2007. Nikki311 22:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, instead of a Review, I think we should just continue to improve the articles ourselves. Nikki311 22:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We need to be bold. Improve the article, do not take it to FAR. If it did get delisted, I would have to force myself from flipping. Same goes for Shelton Benjamin, improve instead of FAR. D.M.N. (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I still believe that this article needs too much work to maintain FA status, so if that's the route you wish to take, make sure you improve that articles to the best of your ability! King iMatthew 2008 10:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Chris Benoit double murder and suicide

It is worth trying to get this passed for FA for the anniversary (25th June)? It failed GA on 07th August 2007 but has been transformed since. It is worth trying for FA for one month's time? Darrenhusted (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. I can't see why not. It needs a bit of clean up, but I'm sure we can do that. There's no hassle gonig straight to FA and even ignoring the one-week "rule" we have. At least most reviewers are more than likely to support/oppose this article as it was a high media topic last year. If it did manage to get TFA on 25th June vandals are going to hit hard fast. D.M.N. (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. There is still a lot of work to be done. There is still some unsourced info, the lead needs to be expanded, pics would be nice, etc. etc. I'm willing to work on it (and in fact, I have as part of the COTW), but I don't want to be the only one. If a few more people are willing to help (and I mean really help, with sources, etc) then I'm willing to try. Nikki311 17:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm almost certainly willing to help. Now that my first few exams are over, I have no exams until the beginning of June so I've got most of next week free before I have to start revising again. Also, this article probably won't have sourcing things either. :) D.M.N. (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul London

I plan on nominating it for GA in 1 week. Comments are welcome! King iMatthew 2008 10:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to see this which may affect any other GA nominations. D.M.N. (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Matt you have too many nominations. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not have too many, there are three. I see no harm in this, as I am right there when the article gets reviewed. King iMatthew 2008 20:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Since we're discussing limiting nominations to two at a time per editor, planning to nominate a fourth would be quite a bit. I'm also not sure how being "right there" has anything to do with the large backlog or the frustration of reviewers when they get flooded with wrestling articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, two's the limit. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

WWE Wreckless Intent needs some watching again

I've mentioned this here before (as has others I would bet). IP editors continue to mess with the track listing, dispite the warnings on the page. I requested protection before, and it didn't happen (or was just ignored). I think we need to several people to watch the page. I've stopped giving them warnings at this point, as their contribs show only Wreckless Intent and once in a while a few other edits. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

On my watchlist.--SRX 01:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nominations

The Fingerpoke of Doom

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Fingerpoke of Doom, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fingerpoke of Doom (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Endless Dan 20:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Crash TV

Crash TV, a professional wrestling-related article, is currently nominated for deletion. You can share your thoughts here. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? IRK! _{Leave me a note or two} 07:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

I know this was discussed before, but it didn't really get anywhere, but why don't we have a future class?--SRX 02:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, but my guess is: it wouldn't be used for much. Video games, DVDs, CDs, and pay-per-view events are the only things I can think of. In my view, the future class doesn't help a lot. Why wait until it's officially released to rate? It obviously has content (and many things have a lot of content before they are released), so rating should happen right away. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok.--SRX 20:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

SummerSlam (2007)

This article is currently going through a Featured Article nomination. Ealdgyth, who is pretty strict about reliable sources, is satisfied with everything except Pro Wrestling History. The site is only used for the attendance, and Ealdgyth has said that, since the attendance was apparently mentioned on the broadcast, that the broadcast could be used as a reference because it's not a controversial fact. Does anyone have access to a copy? Jim Ross apparently announced the attendance figure just before the Cena-Orton match. Can anyone check their copy of the event to verify the number he gave? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that WWE.com provides the attendance and adding the DVD as a ref. works too, since its the broadcast of the event. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find it anywhere on WWE.com. The DVD works, assuming someone can watch that section and verify that what is stated in the article is the figure given on the DVD. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I watched the DVD earlier, and it clarifies that the attendance was indeed 17,441. –Cheers, LAX 22:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Problem solved! I tried watching a few SS 07 youtube videos earlier hoping one would have the attendance info, but no luck. I'm glad we resolved this so fast. Nikki311 23:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

I came across this image, which states that the uploader is the copyrighted holder of the photo, but the photo has both the WWF (at the time) and the UPN logo, and looks like a screenshot/photo from a website. I'm not sure, and don't know much about images, so could someone take a look at this please? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Screenshots are definitely not public domain, so I added a screenshot template and tagged the image as having to fair use rationale. I also notified the uploader that the image has no source or fair use rationale and may be deleted if this is not fixed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Kane

The article is not GA material, right? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It needs work, but it's very close. But the user who added it to the list is doing so without discussing it first. They also nominated NYR 2007 without other's knowledge of it. King iMatthew 2008 00:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but NYR was already like GA material. Kane, in the other hand, needs work. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I left a list on his talk page about some things to work on to improve the article. If he does them...cool...he can go through with the nomination and I'll personally help him get it promoted. If he ignores my suggestions, I think we should remove the nomination from the waiting list. Nikki311 01:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, that works. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Warning for Future PPV Talk Pages

Sometimes spamming, speculation, and rumors on talk pages for future PPV's could get out of hand. So I proposed this warning template (similarly used on WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009). Just a first step to aid the cost. Comment on it, and say whether you agree with the template, if so, if anything should be added to the template (i.e, the reliable sources). Thanks.

WWE One Night Stand was a professional wrestling event produced annually in June by World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), a Connecticut–based promotion; it was broadcast live and and available only through pay-per-view (PPV). The event's name refers to its original format, that being a one night reunion show for former Extreme Championship Wrestling (ECW) alumni. The event was first announced in 2005, just as WWE released The Rise and Fall of ECW documentary–DVD, although Paul Heyman, Rob Van Dam, and Tommy Dreamer all assisted in having the concept approved by the WWE board. For the first two shows, the event remained strictly to the reunion format and was promoted under the ECW acronym; however, after WWE launched their own version of ECW (from 2006 until 2010) as a Brand Extension to Raw and SmackDown, the 2007 event and onwards was promoted under the WWE acronym and added it to the regular lineup of annual WWE pay-per-view events. In 2009, WWE replaced the "One Night Stand" name with "Extreme Rules"; however, the new name was adopted as a new event that would not continue the history of One Night Stand, although it would retain its concept of hardcore type matches only.

The reunion shows featured hardcore wrestling bouts, known as "Extreme Rules" matches, which was how every match in ECW was originally contested in. After 2007, WWE kept this concept, adopted the "Extreme Rules" moniker for hardcore bouts, and promoted the event as the only night when WWE featured only Extreme Rules matches on the card. Every match, distinct from one another, followed these regulations. The reunion shows featured mainly ECW alumni fighting in matches, but also featured storylines and bouts that involved anti–ECW wrestlers from the WWE roster. For the last two years of the event's production, the event featured all three WWE brands in matches that involved wrestlers from the brand they were assigned to work on; rarely would interpromotional matches be held. The undercard consisted of various matches that developed or ended rivalries or were for lower-tier championships; the main card was similar to the undercard except that these matches received more promotion on television and were contested for top-tier championships. In its four events, all were held in an indoor arena in the United States. SRX 22:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Only these sources? Lame. Mshake3 (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well instead of ranting on the sources above, why don't you be bold, read the comment I placed above "Comment on it, and say whether you agree with the template, if so, if anything should be added to the template (i.e, the reliable sources)", and since you find it lame, tell me more sources that you find "reliable"--SRX 19:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already made my opinions known about the treatment of sources around here. As for this, just say there should be a source, without being specific. Mshake3 (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No because not everything is reliable, WrestleView.com is currently advertising Mark Henry vs. Big Show, while WWE is not. Which tada, makes only reliable sources acceptable.--SRX 19:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that WWE.com was the site that initially listed Show vs. Henry, and later removed it, right? Mshake3 (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of sources around these parts need to be justified against WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:V. D.M.N. (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, a simple discussion about a minor template turns into a major discussion about sources. Well should we take call for an RFC about sources? Or a third opinon? Also in response to Mshake, can you show me in an internet archive where WWE advertised that match?--SRX 14:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing of the site has been archived since August. And considering how strict you're making the talk pages, I'd hardly consider that a "minor template." The fact is that the match was up on the site, but later removed. Remember, just because you didn't see it, doesn't mean it wasn't there. Mshake3 (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion is only for disagreements between two editors. I tried asking there about the "retirement"/"career ending"/"just a regular" match, but my question was removed because more than two editors are involved. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said that Mshake, if I didn't see it then that's my loss, but remember WWE is the one that makes their matches, so they have the right to do whatever they want. They can add and remove matches as free as they want to. Also, the way you are saying about me making the talk pages stricter, sounds as if you are implying that I am trying to own the talk pages. Which is not the case, I just wanted to propose a template for good use. Then I asked for comments about the sources, but all I am getting in response is how the sources I put above are bad. How about you tell me what you consider reliable?SRX 20:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone sees or hears something about a subject that can be beneficial to the article, they should be allowed to add it or talk about it, as opposed to being censored from saying anything due to an arbitray list of "acceptable" sources. Everything should be at least be considering on a case-by-case basis. Mshake3 (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's all you had to say. Now how does it look?SRX 20:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine now. Mshake3 (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. Quote from the template: If you wish to make a change to the article, cite it with a source. - so I could use any website as a source. So your telling the person reading that that they could use even a MySpace blog for it? Please, it needs to be more specific. D.M.N. (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It used to read like this..

but Mshake keeps disagreeing, because he thinks the above sources shouldn't be the only ones.--SRX 01:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Then change it to "reliable sources." The only thing I'm against is having an arbitrary list of sources that are allowed, especially when the project is always having disputes over what ones are "reliable." Mshake3 (talk) 01:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

How about now?SRX 02:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

WWE TV Taping Changes

PWInsider is reporting that ECW will now be taped at Raw events beginning mid-June, with HeAT being cancelled. IMO, this should be included in the notible articles, but should not be considered "official" until an official announcment occurs. Mshake3 (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It may be true, but if something like that is gonna go down, WWE usually posts it on their website or announces it on TV, I say wait until they do so.--SRX 22:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

WWE Friday Night SmackDown! article title

I know this can easily turn into something lame, but there are two things I propose for the title of the article. 1) Remove the exclamation mark from the title, as WWE does not use it anywhere in their articles, [3] [4] (and not to mention their logo). 2) I think it should be renamed to just WWE SmackDown, because of the logo and that is basically the name of the program. Some of you might argue because here it says that its called Friday Night SmackDown, but the thing is, that is the name that the shows are advertised under. Just like ECW is advertised under ECW on Sci-Fi on TV ads, and on the above link. Now if consensus is to keep it the way it is, we should rename the ECW article then, comments would be appreciated.--SRX 15:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that is should be re-named to WWE SmackDown. King iMatthew 2008 22:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure wwe.com never used the exclamation mark. Archive from '05 - [5] - SmackDown! is wrote SmackDown, but Wikipedia always had it wrote with it. So why are we changing it now. Also, wwe.com capitalizes "match" - ie. Steel Cage Match, and Wikipedia never has. So should we be following that?

RandySavageFTW (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That is not capitalized per MoS, and this is not the time to complain about other things, this is a discussion about the renaming of the above article.SRX 01:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

MoS says nothing about it. I didn't complain about anything by the way.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? I suggest you read MOS:CAPS. Now more opinions would be appreciated.SRX 20:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Also to support the move, not even MyNetwork TV is calling it Friday Night SmackDown'!', they are calling it simply SmackDown (without the '!'). [6]SRX 20:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Post a link to the part where it says SmackDown! shouldn't have the exclamation mark.RandySavageFTW (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What? In MoS or by a website?--SRX 01:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

MoS.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There is none, and this discussion is not about how the title of the article violates MoS, its about how the article should be titled, per what its called officially.SRX 01:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Try watching how the show is advertised during other programs on the CW. Still Friday Night SmackDown. What My Network TV does is irrelevent when they aren't broadcasting the show today. Mshake3 (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if that is so, then we should rename Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE) to ECW on Sci Fi (since that's how it is advertised on SCI-FI..SRX 14:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

WRONG! On SciFi commercials, it's just called ECW. Mshake3 (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Support

• King iMatthew 2008 20:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• -The Hybrid- 05:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• MATT^talk 05:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• #1 Metallica Fan Your Hancock 21:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• -- bulletproof ^3:16 Check out the archives on the article's talk page. We had already decided a while ago that the exclamation mark had been officially removed with the HD premier episode. As for the removal of the "Friday Night" part, I'm all for it.
• SimonKSK-makes sense. —Preceding comment was added at 15:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Mshake3 (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• That's not the title of the show per TV Guide, the weekly Neilson ratings & my cable system guide. Endless Dan 13:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, its the way the show is advertised.--SRX 21:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Still advertised as FNS. Mshake3 (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The way the shows are advertised is different than what the actual name is. --SRX 01:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept cash or a money order. Mshake3 (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

GASP! Factual information! --Endless Dan 19:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is unneeded, also you make a point, however, they only refer it to that name once then they just say SmackDown!, last week on SmackDown, how come they don't remain consistent and use FNS through the whole article, also, since the HD move, WWE introduced a new logo, and theme, to lure themselves away from the FNS name, which is why the logo does not say "FNS" anymore, because that is not the name of it. Just because WWE says it on occasion does not prove anything, due to the fact the, the show is on Friday Night, but the official name is SmackDown.--SRX 19:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

TV Guide and The CW list the show officially as "Friday Night SmackDown!" The logo is just a logo, not a title. It does not support the argument at all to say "they just call it Smackdown, like, 'last week on Smackdown.'" Shorthand and nicknames aren't official titles. Wiki articles for TV shows are to be listed under official titles.--Endless Dan 20:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Still not believeing me? BAM!, BAM!SRX 20:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is unneeded..--Endless Dan 20:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you not noticed, that both those sources have not updated the information since the move in 2005, they still have the same old logo, old pictures of former superstars, and no information since its HD premiere.20:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)SRX

Your "source" is the WWE page listing the shows. Again, it's not the official longhand anything. It's just the logo. The logo isn't the title. The brand is SmackDown, the show that showcases the brand is Friday Night SmackDown!. Your second link is a blog. While not a WP:RS, the blog has the name changed tied to the network switch, which hasn't occurred yet. Bam! --Endless Dan 20:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

But that's where TV Guide lists their news. Also, if this is to remain, we should rename ECW, to ECW on Sci Fi, per this. Also if the article remains like this, consensus is still to remove the exclamation mark. ;-)SRX 20:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, not quite. The ECW article seems to be about the actual ECW brand. The article discusses things such the WWE's obtaining properties that belonged to the old ECW and brand storylines which took place at ONS & December to Dismember, as well as the TV show ECW on Sci-Fi. BAM! ;-) --Endless Dan 20:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well more opinions are welcomed.SRX 21:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

this is Wikipedia:LAME good! ZACH

This is not lame, as it is discussion about a renaming of an article. Lame would be like the Fatal Four Way and the "-"SRX 19:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Wrestlevision the true name for WWF The Wrestling Classic?

If you see the talk page of Wrestling Classic, someone posted a YouTube link (which also was posted here if I remember right). Is there a more reliable source that proves Wrestlevision was the actual name? RobJ1981 (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If the actual video shows that the event was under that name, shouldn't that be enough? Can't we just site the event? Mshake3 (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, if the current title is correct, how about renaming the article to The Wrestling Classic? --13 of Diamonds (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)