Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:45, 13 December 2009

Misplaced Pages:PW-Nav

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Angel Williams → Angelina Love

Per common name, please discuss as usual.--WillC 05:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It would help if you provided a more detailed rationale. iMatthew  at 21:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless she gets resigned to TNA (*fingers crossed*) then she may go back to using her indie name which she already so I'm not sure. Tony2Times (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought giving the links and allowing editors to look would be enough. Not sure where to start. She worked in TNA for two years under the Angelina Love name where she won the women's title twice and led The Beautiful People. She was under contract to WWE, but never appeared on the main roster. Seeing as she has had more exposure in TNA under this one name, it would suggest that is her common name. She has worked as Angel Williams, but only on the indy circuit and in a few dark matches for WWE. I do believe she is still using the Love ring name even after her TNA release. I don't see how her working on the indy circuit under Williams, would change her global exposure as Love. A quick google search of "Angel Williams wrestling" and "Angelina Love wrestling" turns up 1,440,000 for the later and 250,000 for the first.--WillC 07:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I would support a move if you want to make a request, she is by far mor known as Angelina Love. TJ Spyke 15:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That is really what this is. Thought dicussing it here would be easier.--WillC 15:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

just make a redirect and put the page as her real name and make reference to the aka. Steve Bordens page says steve borden and goes to mention he has an aka. Sting is also used as a redirect. This isn't a situation like The ultimate warrior. Even hulk hogan signs his checks under his legal name.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

First off, her legal name is Lauren Williams. Second, speak english please. I only understood one thing out of all that. Per WP:COMMONNAME it should actually be Angelina Love. I just need a consensus so I can get an admin to delete Angelina Love and then move the article there.--WillC 13:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for it, per COMMONNAME. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Book-class

Since a couple of Misplaced Pages-Books are wrestling-related, could this project adopt the book-class? This would really help WikiProject Misplaced Pages-Books, as the WP Pro Wrestling people can oversee books like Hardy Boyz much better than we could as far as merging, deletion, content, and such are concerned. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process, so that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts. I'm placing this here rather than on the template page since several taskforces would be concerned.

There's an article in this week Signpost if you aren't familiar with Misplaced Pages-Books and classes in general. Thanks. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone for/against this? Or who's not entirely sure what this is all about? Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 07:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I personally think it's a pretty good idea. I'd be inclined to say go for it. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, since no one said no, I went ahead and created it. Just use {{Pro-wrestling|class=book}} and it'll place the book in Category:Book-Class Professional wrestling articles. I found 7 Pro-Wrestling books, but feel free to browse Category:Misplaced Pages Books to double check if I missed any.

If you want to write more books, simply start the book creator (click "Create a book", in the print/export toolbox on the left of your screen), and follow instructions. The easiest/fastest way to create a book is to go to a category, add all the pages in that category ("Add this category to your book"), and review the book ("Show book") to create chapters and whatnot. See Help:Books for details. It's pretty easy to use, just toy around with it and you'll figure it out in no time. If something's unclear or confusing, just drop me a line and I'll help as best I can. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the how-to guide and help. I don't really know what I'm doing when it comes to this sort of thing so if that eventuality arises, it should be easier now. Tony2Times (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, there's also a manual way to create books if you don't like the book-creator, but I'd still suggest using the book-creator at least for the first 2-3 books just so you get the hang of it. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

New section on Shawn Michaels

I've already proposed it on the Shawn Michaels talk page, but I don't think we'll go anwhere with only 3 users. I would like to add in a new section named Return of D-Generation-X. The Various feuds section is way too long and I'm not the only one complaining, also, I don't think DX reuniting is a feud, it's a storyline--The Celtic Cross (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well if there are no inconvenients then I'll proceed to make the new section--The Celtic Cross (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I was gonna post but then I realised I'm on the fence about it. Tony2Times (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the fence?--The Celtic Cross (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It is an expression. It means that the user in question is unsure what to decide.--76.66.191.83 (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh rigt, sorry. If anyone else would like to share their opinion please do--The Celtic Cross (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing question

I've been doing a little bit of research in terms of city bids for WrestleMania (and in a sense forward as well with XXVII) and I've been searching for the original article in which Vince McMahon mentioned Las Vegas and Paris as rival front-runners against Orlando for WrestleMania XXIV. Sadly, the original article is now a dead link. It took me a while to find the original article but the problem is that the copy I've found is from a message board post. I think it would be an interesting addition to the article but I'm not exactly sure how to handle the sourcing of this. Any suggestions? --  Θakster   00:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Web Archive is your friend.  :) ArcAngel (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You're a life saver, thanks. --  Θakster   10:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

TNA Global Championship... again

I think its time to go ahead and move this, there is no indication that TNA in any way does not recognize the name change. They are announcing him as the global champion, its on the website, and they have not forced him to defend it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Give it some more time, the common name of the title is still the Legends Championship.--WillC 09:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Phi Delta Slam

They're like Cryme Tyme and The Edgeheads: Barely any unique info of either member that's enough to warrant them each a seprate article. Can anyone merge them into Phi Delta Slam? PCE (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--WillC 22:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

WWE DVD articles

Hey, I was just wondering if it is possible (read:notable) for WWE DVDS Ex: Tombstone: History of the Undertaker to get their own articles. If they are allowed I will create some articles, if not I won't bother. Thanks Tech43 (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the title. If you can show that it passes the general notability guidelines from Misplaced Pages, sure. I would suggest working on them in a sandbox first though. TJ Spyke 02:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me a link to Misplaced Pages notability guidelines? Tech43 (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:N. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, Misplaced Pages:Notability (films). Personally, I would be against separate articles for the majority of them. I feel a single article would be sufficient, to provide information, and to create a nice record, anything beyond that is just promotion, IMO, and will create a bunch more small articles under our purview. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Chris Benoit article consensus

For those who aren't aware (I assume most members are, but just in case), there was a consensus on the wording of the opening paragraph of this article, but some users are refused to acknowledge. So I suggested a vote purely to show consensus in an easy to see format, and this is now in progress. Could as many members as possible come on over and voice their view? Thanks. !! Justa Punk !! 06:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Watch

Monday Night Wars II page... 07:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Bullet do you just have shit watchlisted in case it gets created? Surprising catch, we may want to watch all articles related to that subject.--WillC 14:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with him listing it here? Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think he was remarking how well Bullet is at finding pages one wouldn't normally search for (and thus likely aren't notable enough to have their own article). Tony2Times (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Second stub drive

The number of stub-class articles has been falling, but the bot that tagged wrestling articles has picked up a few more. We are within striking distance of meeting the New Year's Resolution of getting the percentage of stubs below 10% by the end of 2009. To help with this goal, I am announcing the second Professional Wrestling Stub Reduction Drive, which will last until the end of the year. Please see details at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Stub drive 2. To see how the last one went, you can check out Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Stub drive. Thanks in advance (and barnstars in January) to anyone who can make a significant contribution toward achieving the resolution. (P.S. - If someone can add this to the newsletter, that would be greatly appreciated.) GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea Gary. We jumped back up to 12.63% this week with the new taggings - we were down at 11.68%. I only wish I had more time to help out. :( I've added it to this week's newsletter, but I wouldn't expect it to be delivered until tomorrow - I was a little late with the message today, and I don't think Misza is online after a certain point. Hope nobody minds too much. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, excellent idea to close out the year, it's not an impossible task at all. Has anyone figured out approximately how many stubs articles need to be expanded to reach the goal? And I'm definitly in.  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk  22:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm in, too. In hindsight, I probably should have waited to do the bot thing until the year was over...but I'm always up for a challenge. Nikki♥311 00:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the stubs, it seems like a lot of the ones that have been added are songs that happened to be used as WrestleMania themes or arenas that were the site of wrestling matches. Some arenas are definitely important enough to the sport to be under the project's scope, but I'm not convinced about all of them. Perhaps a discussion is needed to determine whether or not these should be considered professional wrestling articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think arenas that have hosted wrestling events (with the rare exception like the Impact Zone) or songs should be included in the project. Should "Live and Let Die" be covered by WikiProject NFL just because it was peformed at the Super Bowl a few years ago? What about songs used in movies? Unless something has significant connection to wrestling, I don't see why it should be covered by us. TJ Spyke 01:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. So something like Madison Square Garden should be covered, but RiverCentre should not? Nikki♥311 04:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, MSG has a very strong connection to wrestling (hell, Vince McMahon is in the MSG Hall of Fame and WWF used to do a weekly show there). TJ Spyke 04:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm in--The Celtic Cross (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems that the bot has tagged characters such as Mammothman which I don't think is appropriate at all. Maybe it'd be helpful to go through the unassessed articles to see if anything is mis-tagged.  MPJ-DK  (42,3% Done) Talk  14:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm making a list of articles for various reasons. As I look through the project's accessment cats, I'll check and remove any that don't seem to have a reason to be tagged.--WillC 16:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Billy The P notability

Any thoughts on whether this IWA-MS manager is sufficiently notable for inclusion? He apparently thought he was worth including, so he wrote the article himself. I know very little about the promotion, but I'm always more open to deletion when the article is an unsourced vanity article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of possible PRODs, I can't find any information at all about the NWA UK Central Counties Championship. The only link on the page is to Opentopia, which definitely doesn't meet the requirements for a reliable source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything on either. Nikki♥311 00:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The article should be deleted; per lack of notability and due to the fact that he was only active for two years--The Celtic Cross (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible mergers

I know I'm loading the board with a bunch of topics today, but I'd really like to get some work done on the stub article reduction. There are a few articles I'd like some feedback on. First of all (and last for tonight), could Ring of Honor Wrestling and Survival of the Fittest (wrestling) be merged into the main Ring of Honor article? GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ring of Honor Wrestling, yes, but I'm not so keen on Survival of the Fittest (wrestling)--The Celtic Cross (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Survival of the Fittest, but ROH TV no. That show is covered by numerous sites, we have enough info to expand the article to a decent length if someone is willing to.--WillC 16:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Paul Burchill

Sorry to bring this up here, but I'm getting at this is the most active page of the pages that cover the matter. Anyway, I read a section here, and I was wondering has anyone got a source that says that the wrestler that ambushed The Hurricane last thursday, is Paul Burchill? Because he is currently listed in unassigned talent, which would be proven wrong if we had a reliable source saying it's Burchill.--The Celtic Cross (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The ongoing report on PWTorch points out that his moveset gave away it was Burchill. Slam! Sports' column also pointed it out. Do these count? Arguably these are just reporters make the same assumption we are but then again Wiki guidelines also state to use common sense and he's quite obviously Burchill so I think it should be safe. Tony2Times (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.--The Celtic Cross (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Zack Ryder and Curt Hawkins Split

They now have notable singles careers so split them. Split Zack and Curt Talk to me

What has Hawkins done? His whole singles career has been in FCW, he hasn't even appeared in WWE on his own yet. TJ Spyke 23:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What has Ryder done? He's had matches here and there, almost never with the same person twice to make any kind of storyline and now he has a girlfriend. Tony2Times (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate, Ryder has been getting a push in ECW. He had a feud with Christian where he looked pretty strong, he's feuding with Shelton Benjamin right now. He has a stronger case for getting his own article than Hawkins (I am not saying I support or oppose, just pointing out that he has a better shot at getting one than his former partner). TJ Spyke 23:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that they should be split. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't Ryder the number one contender to the ECW Championship for a minute? Hasn't he wrestled in the main event match on ECW at least a couple of times? I think the case for Ryder having his own article has vastly improved, so I'd give my weak support to creating a separate article for him. Hawkins, however, really hasn't done much, so he should probably stay a redirect for the time being. Nikki♥311 00:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it still be considered content forking then? We would have to delete Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder to give even one their own page. Defacto, they would both have to get pages. Outside of a few months of singles matches in ECW, I don't see how Ryder is notable on his own. Getting a title shot on tv on the C show isn't that big of a deal. Hell, Funaki got a title shot on SD in 2007/8. Never knew a few matches on tv and a title shot made someone notable enough for their own page.--WillC 00:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ryder getting a article doesn't mean Hawkins would. The Hawkin and Ryder article will never be deleted as they were a notable tag team, so the article on them will continue to exist and Hawkins could continue to be written about there. TJ Spyke 00:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yah I see I change my idea on Hawkins bot not Ryder. Give Zack his own page Talk to me

@ Will: Being the number one contender to the top title on a brand of WWE and appearing in main event matches on its weekly TV show is enough to meet WP:ATHLETE, IMO. I'm confused as to why you don't believe that warrants an article for him, when in the past you've insinuated that merely appearing once or twice in WWE is enough to have an article (). In any event, the team article wouldn't be deleted...it would be as TJ said. Nikki♥311 01:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Have we reached a consensus yet? Reach a consensus Talk to me

Are you all forgetting we have an article for him? It is just in the format as the same as the Briscoe Brothers. I feel this is more along the lines of content forking. You are going to be giving the same info on two seperate articles.--WillC 01:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's just as Nikki said he meets notability guidelines. Ryder meets notability guidelines Talk to me —Preceding undated comment added 01:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

There's nothing of his singles career that isn't already on the current tag team page and it amounts to a very brief paragraph. He was number 1 contender one week and lost the match the following week, it's not much of a notable storyline if you can even call it a storyline. His current story of having fantasies of Rosa Mendez is still ongoing and may amount to nothing. Tony2Times (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Check my last entry. Check it Talk to me

Curtis, of course he meets the notability guidelines. He has a page, which is shared with the history of Hawkins. Nothing has been shown as to why there should be a split. He got a title shot. Well countless others have had title shots that have their history joined with their tag team partner. That doesn't change the fact most of their history was apart of a tag team. Crap, The Briscoes should be split if this is split. I believe it is Jay who has had title shot after title shot.--WillC 02:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Curtis is now disrupting this page? Give it a rest already. I'm not sure why you think coming here will help your effort out. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Make Ryder his own page, but blast Hawkins; he's not notable enough--The Celtic Cross (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep them together, neither deserves a separate article at this point. And Curtis, throttle it back, you're becoming an irritant. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What no i'm not I just won't stop until there is a real consensus. Not an irritant Talk to me —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

No you just want your way in all honesty. There has been discussion after discussion on Talk:Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder, with them all ending up on not seperating. You continue to bring it up because you want your way. We have had a consensus on the matter, just one you do not agree with.--WillC 22:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A consensus is a general agreement and I don't agree and I see a few people who don't agree so you don't have a consensus. Get a real consensus Talk to me —Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC).

Since September you've been making the same lack of a point, much to the degree of "goooooo ooooon, make a page" with no support aside from when you started faking signatures of frequent editors to fabricate support. That's three months you've been going on when everyone else has said the same thing about his page not being worthy of a profile. You do just want your way regardless and it's just by luck that some people here are considering it, I'm fairly certain if no-one agreed you'd continue to bug this page on a daily basis anyway. Tony2Times (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

After reading that I've got to say I'm against making the new page--The Celtic Cross (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

He meets notability guidelines and he doesn't have a page his team has a page bu he doesn't have a page give his one.--Curtis23 (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The article follows the same format as Briscoe Brothers. If that can reach GA, then there is nothing wrong with the format imo. Please Curtis, show why having them merged is a bad thing? The information regarding Ryder is all there. No rule around here that I am aware of that says a wrestler must have a single page.--WillC 01:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Give Ryder an article!!!!!!!!!!--The United States Champion Bask in my glory 01:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Curtis, acting like that, is not helping your cause.--WillC 01:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Why should we give him his own page why you wont state any reasons why we should instead all you do is tell us we should give us something to back up you clame.--Dcheagle (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly Curtis, stop being so juvenile--The Celtic Cross (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone who knows how to do these things prod Zack Ryder (WWE) for speedy deletion and notify that the pictures provided aren't copyright free. Even if we do give him a page, we surely won't even need this as a redirect. Tony2Times (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Done--The Celtic Cross (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I had already redirected it since it IS a plausible search target. Doesn't matter if it's deleted now, but there was no point. TJ Spyke 15:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as there is a consensus, I just wanted to state that no sepearation: WP:Fork. --Truco ₅₀₃ 17:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No there isn't a consensus I don't agree Ryder meets notability guidelines has been #1 contender to a world championship has had a very noteable storyline and is now in another storyline with Rosa Mendes that's why he deserves a page.--Zack Ryder Give me a page 17:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

While I once agreed with the argument for creating invdiviual articles, the behavior of Curtis23 has made me reconsider my position. I no longer feel like I can support any position that is backed up by frequent name changes (which, depending on the way you look at it, is either annoying, deceptive, or both) and a simple repetition of "they are notable" without supporting evidence. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

By my count the consensus is 8:2 to not split the pages for either wrestler. And Curtis's last statement makes no sense because there is no punctuation. Can we top and tail this, as the ever-changing signatures are not making any policy points anymore. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Dude "consensus" does not mean that everyone has to agree, just that the vast majority of the you might benefit from taking a deep breath, step back and calm down.  MPJ-DK  (48,07% Done) Talk  18:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously man, you're making a fool of yourself--The Celtic Cross (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You people just don't understand i'm doing this because i'm the only one who's right you people are just rebelious and don't stand for what's right once you change your mind you know where to find me.--Zack Ryder Give me a page 23:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying my hardest to not feed any trolling here, but seriously, you're calling us rebelious? Please Curtis, take a modesty pill. Your recent comments have already turned people against your cause, pretty much the opposite of what you wanted. --  Θakster   00:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody agrees with what's right that's just sad.--Zack Ryder Give me a page 00:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

People agree with arguments that are well-presented and give sufficient supporting information. Repeating a non-argument + Annoying signatures + Canvassing = Lack of support. I think it's time to archive this discussion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've given sufficient supporting info and i'm not changing my signatures to be annoying and I didn't even know about that rule so Zack deserves a page.--Zack Ryder Give me a page 00:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think that vandalizing my talk page will help your cause, I urge you to read up on Misplaced Pages policy before you make any further edits. As things stand now, you have 11 warnings on your talk page for vandalism and adding unsourced content. Any more will get you blocked. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not supporting Curtis, but he didn't vandalize your talkpage. Looking at the history of your page, his only comment was asking you to support him. TJ Spyke 01:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Not the talk page, no. But he did vandalize the "to do" list on my talk page. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything about quotes (or whatever you call them) being changed constantly? Curtis has done it how many times now and it's getting to be annoying/disruptive. Plus some people could argue he is pretending to be other people, which is just sneaky and not needed. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me that a pretty strong consensus has been met and along with the fact that Curtis seems to be disruptive with the constant signature change which i believe is against policy i'm not sure ill have to check on that. Plus with the fact that this same subject has be talk about many times on Talk:Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder and in all that talking the out come is still against the split.--Dcheagle (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Frequently changing signatures is NOT forbidden. However, having messages like "Zack Ryder Give Me A Page" can be considered disruptive per WP:SIGNATURES. Pretending to be another user is also banned and can lead to a user being blocked. Curtis, I do think Ryder is almost notable enough to get a page; your actions are not helping thoughTJ Spyke 02:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok how much more noteable does he have to get (calm)--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 03:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to redirect

I've started a discussion at Talk:Pop (professional wrestling) about merging and redirecting Pop (professional wrestling) to the List of professional wrestling terms. Please feel free to voice your opinion, whatever it may be. Nikki♥311 19:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure; on one hand I don't see it relevant enough to have it's own page, and on the other hand, I do see it relevant. I'm 50-50--The Celtic Cross (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Try merging pop and heat into one article about general crowd reactions, seeing as they are really the same thing. 92.1.179.166 (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

@ Celtic: That's why I'm proposing a merge and redirect as opposed to a deleton. It is important in the wrestling world, but it doesn't meet notability requirements on Misplaced Pages. Nikki♥311 00:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah then, I agree--The Celtic Cross (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)