Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:48, 7 September 2007

Misplaced Pages:PW-Nav

• ]

Archives

Archive 1 (archived May 2005) Archive 2 (archived June 2005) Archive 3 (archived August 2005) Archive 4 (archived October 2005) Archive 5 (archived December 2005) Archive 6 (archived January 2006) Archive 7 (archived March 2006) Archive 8 (archived April 2006) Archive 9 (archived May 2006) Archive 10 (archived June 2006) Archive 11 (archived July 2006) Archive 12 (archived August 2006) Archive 13 (archived September 2006) Archive 14 (archived October 2006) Archive 15 (archived November 2006) Archive 16 (archived December 2006) Archive 17 (archived January 2007) Archive 18 (archived February 2007) Archive 19 (archived March 2007) Archive 20 (archived March 2007) Archive 21 (archived April 2007) Archive 22 (archived April 2007) Archive 23 (archived May 2007) Archive 24 (archived June 2007) Archive 25 (archived June 2007) Archive 26 (archived June 2007) Archive 27 (archived June 2007) Archive 28 (archived June 2007) Archive 29 (archived June 2007) Archive 30 (archived July 2007) Archive 31 (archived July 2007) Archive 32 (archived July 2007) Archive 33 (archived July 2007) Archive 34 (archived July 2007) Archive 35 (archived August 2007) Archive 36 (archived August 2007) Archive 37 (archived September 2007)

FMW, a major promotion??

Hi, I was wondering if someone out there could help me out. I am having an editing war with someone over Template:Professional wrestling in Japan. He keeps reverting FMW to the major promotions portion of the template and has not responded to the talk page. I attended school in Japan for 3 years and had the privlage to see several promotions over there, including FMW. FMW was never considered a major promotion as evidenced by the lack of coverage by any newspaper and the way it was covered by Fight magazine - as an indy. Can someone help me out with this matter? Thanks --Endlessdan 20:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

FMW is certainly notable, but it was far from on par with NJPW, AJPW and the like. Not major. --MarcK 21:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! How does somebody lock a template? There really shouldn't be anything edited on the template (unless a new Japanese promotion springs up overnight). --Endlessdan 13:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is Universal Fighting Organization listed on a template of professional wrestling promotions? UFO is an MMA promotion that has housed fighters like Royce Gracie, Matt Serra, etc. I am going to remove it from that template unless someone can give a valid reason not to. Mr. C.C. 05:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Article nomination suggestion

If you look further up this page you’ll see discussions about GA nominations and concerns about WP:PW flooding the GA nomination board with nominees, especially some that are substandard. Well working on the suggestions given there and some of our own input Naha and myself have put together a suggestion on a WP:PW pre-GA/FA/FL "pre nomination procedure" which means that we as a project go in and do a bit of quality assurance on articles before they’re nominated for GA/FA/FL. The idea is that the better then articles are before nomination the easier they pass, the less they annoy the reviwers and the better we as a project look. So please check it out and then vote here if it’s something that you’d participate in and something you thing WP:PW should adopt as official policy (maybe it can replace the dead "Collaboration of the week" section and actually do some good). Check out the suggestion: User:MPJ-DK/Update 3 and let us know what you think. MPJ-DK 06:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good. Maybe we could make that actual PW policy, and hopefully it won't go down the drain. Davnel03 09:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If we adopt it as official policy then I'll do my best to see this actually work, I know that 1 or 2 others have already indicated that they're onboard with this idea. If this works it could be a real boost to the project so I encourage everyone to chime in with their opinion (and with time also their attention). MPJ-DK 09:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Aye, I am all for this and am willing to help make sure it actually gets used if approved by members.--Naha| 12:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Should we program a bot to run a notification to all of the project members? because someone just added Shane O'Mac as a GAC and it seems he/she wasn't notified of this. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't inform anyone untill people have said "Okay" to this, until then it's not official in any way and he didn't actually do anything wrong beyond having three articles up for GA at the same time. It's just a shame that not that many people chime in. "Approval by silence" doesn't work here, we need to know if you're pro or con here please. MPJ-DK 06:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

He certainly didn't, when I say "notification" I don't mean a desicion notification but a notification that lets them know this discussion is happening. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think we need to send out a message to all active members of WP:PW asking them to please come "vote" on this because we REALLY need to get it going and SOON. There are a handful of us who work together and keep each other notified of certain things, simply becuase we have collaborated in the past on various articles/issues, and while no one HAS to "join" a wikiproject to work on certain articles, it seems that being an acitive member would benifit them, the Project, and Misplaced Pages as a whole because in the end, its all about communication. So anyway yes yes yes ..lets send out a notice to everyone to come read this new proposed policy and state whether they agree with it or not. What is the best way to go about sending out the notification? --Naha| 21:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a way to directly send a message to everyone but we could put something big and obvious at the top of the talk (or project) page. That would attract the attention of the active members anyway. DrWarpMind 20:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it wouldn't hurt, but attracting *active* members is like preaching to the choir. I'm more concerned with the people who aren't coming here much, if at all currently. I see other Wiki Projects and/or other Wiki organizations "send out news letters" (in mass) to people's talk pages. So I'm wondering if there is an automated way to do this with a bot or some other means? --Naha| 20:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Question

For wrestlers such as Brock Lesnar and Ken Shamrock, would they receive a wrestling infobox or a MMA infobox. Or is there a way to combine the two since they have different information? Eggy49er 01:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Oooh good question, and I don't have any idea, but am now waiting intently for someone else to answer. Will be good information to have if this crops up again with other articles. --Naha| 03:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There should definitely be either an MMA extension for the wrestler infobox or a full MMA fighter/wrestler infobox for guys like Lesnar and Shamrock, Minoru Suzuki, Kazuyuki Fujita, etc. --MarcK 08:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Naming of Articles

I think WP:PW should impose guidlines/ rules about whether to name articles by ring names (eg. Hulk Hogan,The Undertaker or real name eg.Booker Huffman,Chris Parks. If there is already a rule, sorry, but perhaps consider improving it. George bennett 14:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)George bennett

It depends on what they are most known as for instance, people know Mark Calaway mostly as Undertaker, but Edge is widely known as Adam Copeland. Davnel03 16:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we name the articles on a case-by-case basis since there isn't any universal rule of thumb we can use to determine the most common name of a wrestler. Cheers, The Hybrid 20:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In Edge's case, I thought it was more of a "the word 'edge' has to too many other meanings" thing? And while we could do "Edge (professional wrestler)" he is (as was pointed out) known by other names. Personally, I hate the "(professional wrestler)" tags as part of article names, but understand why they are used in certain cases.

At any rate, George, I think you are probably looking for this page: Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions which states that Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Hope this helps! --Naha| 20:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Do not comment on these articles here. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything. If you think the article merits keeping, the remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.

• 28 August - expires 2 September
  • Billy Reil (PROD by User:Nikki311; professional wrestler from South Philadelphia, debuting in 1995)

  I'm currently now working on this article. --Naha| 04:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Nick Mayberry (PROD by User:Nikki311; "...an independent professional wrestler and promoter;") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Taylor McKnight (PROD by User:Nikki311; "...a professional wrestling broadcaster....") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Billy Reil I only know of because he was a JAPW Tag Team Champion. Never head of the rest of them. Mr. C.C. 07:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed this section, so I'll go ahead and list all the articles that I have prod'ed at the moment: Wcw championship challenge, Taylor McKnight, Nick Mayberry, Stephen Earl Maxwell, John E. "Dropkick" Murphy. The last four are non-notable independent wrestlers and the first one is, well, I'm not sure because it's kind of unintelligible. Keep in mind, I only prod articles that I'm almost 100% certain that nobody would have a problem with. Nikki311 17:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Professional Wrestling Portal?

Is there a professional wrestling portal? I don't ever remember reading or seeing one. Just thought I would ask. Mr. C.C. 07:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think there is. Davnel03 10:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, and I don't think we are ready for one yet either. There is still too much disorganization among this project to start anything new heh :P --Naha| 15:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but agree with Naha's point. With the amount of disagreements and disorganization in the project (amount of GA's; spoilers; references; notability etc.), and with what's going on currently in wrestling (releases; steroids; suspensions; congress), this certainly isn't the right time for a portal. Davnel03 16:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That's why I asked. I have thought of starting one. But will have to work it out in a sandbox or something. Mr. C.C. 05:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

For those of us who might be behind in the times, what exactly is a pro wrestling portal? - Eggy49er 19:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Portal. A list of all portals on Misplaced Pages can be found at Portal:List of portals, and for an example of what I consider to be an outstanding portal, see Portal:Scouting. That being said, some day in the future we may want a portal for Professional Wrestling. Right now is not that time. They take a lot of work to keep up properly, and there are many portals on Misplaced Pages that are severely neglected, see Portal:Baseball (which has actually come a long way since the last time I looked at it, but still has a long way to go as far as being kept up). The reason we do not need a portal now is because the professional wrestling wikiproject is not where it needs to be, not even close. We need to focus on streamlining and organizing this project, settle most if not all major disputes, and come up with a lot more guidelines and policies ..this thing can run like clockwork, I've seen it in other projects, we just have to put the necessary effort into it. At this time, my personal feelings are that ..anyone who wants to spend time on creating a portal, should first (please please please) look into, help figure out ways to, and actually see WP:PW improvement all the way through first. At that point, and at that point only, should thoughts of a portal start circulating. Its a good idea, for sometime in the future, but right now this project needs anyone/everyone passionate about pro wrestling to get this thing where it needs to be. I just feel like we need to focus efforts before we greatly expand them. The people that stick with this project and keep it up, are going to be the same ones maintaining the portal so we need to get them (us) organized first. This project needs to be a well-oiled machine. Again these are just my personal feelings and opinions and do not necessarily reflect that of the project or any other individual. --Naha| 21:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It'd be a good idea in the future, but we're clearly not ready yet. — Gwalla | Talk 05:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge!

I have proposed to merge Personas of The Undertaker into The Undertaker. The discussion is here. Thanks - Davnel03 10:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

John Cena

I have put the article up for Peer review as the article recently failed FA. After the peer review, I hope I can renominate it for FA status. If you which to comment on any concerns you may have with the article, please do so here. Thanks, Davnel03 17:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, Randy Orton failed on hold by a GA re-review made by LaraLove. The re-review is here. Davnel03 20:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

War to Settle the Score/Brawl to Settle it All

I was wondering if these events are considered noteworthy enough to warrant articles. I was editing some links yesterday, and I was surprised to discover that they don't have articles. GaryColemanFan 20:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

NWA World Heavyweight Champions

I've been having this problem with an anonymous user in regards to Adam Pearce's page. I changed his championships and accomplishments to list the actual promotions within the NWA in which he won the Heritage and World Heavyweight Titles. Those being NWA Pro in regards to the Heritage Title, and International Wrestling Association for the NWA World Title. I have noticed that this is the way it is done for many of the former NWA World Champions as well, like Harley Race's page where it lists every NWA World Championship reign separately for each promotion he won the title in. Also of note, the NWA Title changes that took place in WCW, just an example. Is there a policy in regards to how the Championships and Accomplishments should be structured for cases like these? Thanks. TonyFreakinAlmeida 01:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The NWA Title isn't defended in any one promotion anymore. IWA just happened to host the final match (other NWA promotions hosted earlier matches in the tournament). I would just list it under the general NWA name since it is not exclusive to any one promotion right now. TJ Spyke 01:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I know this........ I'm asking should the accomplishment be listed for the individual promotion it was won under, or the NWA itself? TonyFreakinAlmeida 01:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I gave my opinion, the NWA itself. The only time we really listed NWA World Title changes under specific promotions was when it was exclusive to the promotion or really only defended in one (WCW/TNA for example). TJ Spyke 01:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case here though, I'm talking about the territory days, those being pre-TNA and now with the belt. The belt wasn't exclusive to each territory who got each change, look at Harley Race's page, it lists the every promotion he won the title in separately. I don't know how to be any clearer. TonyFreakinAlmeida 01:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And I'd actually disagree with the way the Harley Race page is done, since the NWA world title is non promotion specific but ruled on by the board of the NWA, it should be listed under "National Wrestling Alliance" both in the territory days and now that it's gone back to being a territory title like it was in the past. so like TJ has already said twice, "list it under the NWA" not the promotion that happens to host the title change. MPJ-DK 04:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we can change the Harley Race situation to reflect whatever the decision here is. As for what I think about the situation, I agree with TJ and MPJ-DK. It is a national title currently, not a territory title, and our articles should reflect that. Cheers, The Hybrid 05:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

With exception of TNA, NWA World Heavyweight Championship was never a one promotion championship. It's just that some promotions get to host an NWA World Heavyweight Championship match more than others. Mr. C.C. 05:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Still, my question remains, is it the promotion the title was won in, or the promotion that controls the title. Jarrett won the NWA North American Title in the WWF in 1997. There was a time when the NWA World Title was defended exclusively in another company, and that was WCW for a few years. I can go on and on, but what is the criteria for championships and accomplishments here, the promotion where it was won, or the promotion for. Either way, Pearce won the title in IWA(an NWA territory once again), a decision made by the NWA board. You certainly can't say that Jeff Jarrett won the North American Title in the NWA, or that the Headbangers for that matter won the NWA World Tag Titles in the NWA. TonyFreakinAlmeida 00:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should list the title under whichever promotion was controlling it at the time. In other words, we shouldn't go back and change the historical record to match the current situation. In Jarrett's case it would go under WWF, and in Race's case it would go under NWA. As for where the match was held, I think that's incidental. It might merit a mention in the body of the article, but an inter-territory belt should be listed under the overarching body, like the NWA, not what promotion happened to host the bout. - Geoffg 06:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well put, I totally agree MPJ-DK 14:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Angle GA

There is now a brand spanking new GA article as Kurt Angle has been passed. Congratulations to all those involved. MPJ-DK 05:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright! Way to go everyone! I had a lot of fun reviewing the article :) --Naha| 05:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Great stuff! On a side note, Randy Orton is currently on GA Hold. I would be much appreciative if you could help me address the points raised, thanks. Davnel03 11:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Evolution pic

Can anybody get a good copyright notice on this pic: Image:Evolutiontitles.jpg RAGE! 19:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a fair use rationale. Hopefully that'll help. Davnel03 20:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Trish Stratus

Deep Shadow and I have been working on Trish Stratus' article, trying to get it ready to be nominated for Good Article status. According to that discussion we had while back on the nomination process, everyone decided it would be a good idea to post here first so other members can look over the article. If you have any suggestions or comments, you can post on the article's talk page (rather than here). If everyone agrees it's ready, then I guess either Deep Shadow or I will nominate the article. Thanks. Nikki311 17:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks for mentioning this here first rather than just nominating it. Would you two mind taking a look at User:MPJ-DK/Update 3 please? This is something MPJ and I are going to offically propose to the project soon, but since you have gone ahead with the pre-nom notice, I thought you might want to check this out. I'll look at the article too but may not be able to make any suggestions till later tonight :) Thanks, --Naha| 17:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I just read the article, scanning for redirects and I found none. There is something to fix in the first paragraph though. It listed her as a former "WWF Hardcore Champion" with no mention that the WWF became WWE. That could cause confusion to a non-wrestling fan reading the article. Gavyn Sykes 19:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I clarified it. Nikki311 23:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know I haven't forgotten what I said earlier today, I am currently looking at this article and making list of suggestions. I haven't found anything too major, but I will post my when I am done in a little while. It looks really good overall. Cheers, --Naha| 23:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Nikki311 23:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok I've nitpicked it to death! Pre-GA review posted on Trish's talk page :) --Naha| 00:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

List of NWA World Heayweight & World Tag Team Champions list

I need help in improving the list of NWA World Heavyweight Champions and list of NWA World Tag Team Champions lists. I've improved it some, but I can't completely improve it all alone. I need help. I would consider improving the lists to match the quality of the WWE championship lists (cite sources, cleanup, etc.). Perhaps we could get them to featured list status. Please help! MITB LS (t·c) 03:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Title change at house show - what do we do?

At a house show a new champion(s) were crowned. I respectfully will not give away spoilers, but here is where it says about the title change. WWE.com (as of yet) has nothing on the title change. What do we do? Davnel03 14:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well considering that the event isn't suppost to be televised, it's not really a spoiler. Mshake3 15:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough but should we revert the edit on sight just because WWE have yet to confirm it? Davnel03 15:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, because it's not verifiable. Mshake3 15:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

How isn't it verifiable. Why don't we (for the time being until we get official announcement) state that the title change occured on related articles and link it to the link I provided above? Davnel03 15:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A title change is a major deal. Unless it is acknowledged by WWE it doesn't really "count." If WWE plans to acknowledge this title change, they basically have no choice but to do so by time of the airing of Monday Night RAW on September 10. If it is not acknowledged by that time, it never will be, and at that point we could include something in the article like "the title changing hands at a house show but because it was not acknowledged by WWE, as often happens with house-show title changes, it was not an offical reign and Cade and Murdoch are still the offical champions blah blah." --Naha| 15:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Come on! It's 2007. WWE always acknowledges these things now. Just take the current show report as a reference and change the articles accordingly. Mshake3 15:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Was that sarcasm? --Naha| 15:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. There's Mickie James this year, and then Nunzio a couple years ago. These events are now acknowledged and not ignored. Mshake3 15:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, they only acknowledge house show title changes when they are planned. Sometime earlier this year or late last year (I'm sorry I can't remember exactly when), Victoria won the Woman's title at a house show because the title holder "forgot to kick out." Later during the event, the two woman had another match where the belt went back to the original holder. Now, I do realise that this case is different as the reports are of London and Kendrick finishing this particular house show with the belts. However, whether this is because WWE meant for them to change hands, didn't mean for them to change hands but didn't have time to hold a rematch to get the titles back (or some other reason prevented them from doing so), they flat out didn't mean for it to happen and don't plan to acknowledge it at all, or something else entirely, we don't know.

Also I'm confused why your previous comment stated that we should revert on site because " isn't verifiable" and without giving reason you have now seemingly changed your stance to "change the articles accordingly." ? --Naha| 15:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think WrestleView would be reliable, but I changed my mind. Oh, and the incident where the champion "forgot to kick out" was the Mickie James incident I mentioned above, and it WAS mentioned on WWE.com. In the last few years, all title changes at live events have been mentioned a day or two after they happened. It's WWE admitting the sign of the times. Mshake3 16:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to add the source. Please don't bother reverting. Davnel03 15:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added the title change. Please, as I said don't revert. Hopefully WWE will clear up the situation within the next few hours or days. Until then, I don't wish to get into a edit war. I did this as it's being bold. Davnel03 16:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

–– Lid 16:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"You are not authorized to view this page." Please elaborate on the purpose of your link and comment, Lid. Thanks --Naha| 16:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

fixed –– Lid 16:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats great, good picture. Unforunately that still doesn't mean WWE will acknowledge the title reign. At this point, whether or not they will be recognized as the tag team champions still remains to be seen, and anything currently stating otherwise is crystal balling. --Naha| 16:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

THis is silly, officially recognized or not it did happen and it's not a TV show spoiler so I say put it in, if the WWE choses to "magically undo" it, then that goes in the article as well because that's what's happened. Remember people Misplaced Pages is fact based, they did win the titles that is a fact (unless it turns out this fan report is a hoax ;) )MPJ-DK 16:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's crystal balling on when you say that WWE have recognizing it, because as of now they haven't. However, until we get clear clarification, the information is vital and must be entered into the article, like it or you don't. Even if WWE don't recognize it, the point stays in the article, but after it carry's on WWE didn't recognize the reign...... Hang on, I remember a few years back that (with the Hardcore title) the title changed constantly at house shows in between TV shows, but always went back to the first holder before the next TV show. My guess (yes guess) is that C&M will win it back tonight at the next house show. It's highly unlikely the report is a hoax, that picture is on several websites, including this one, and same goes with the report. Davnel03 16:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend all day arguing this. However, (1) I don't like being threatened ("don't bother reverting"), and (2) www.wrestleview.com shouldn't be used as the only source, especially for something as significant as a title change. More sources are needed, and not ones that simply say "as reported by wrestleview.com ..." because that defeats the purpose. I don't understand why people are so quick to put information into articles using fansite information only. Rarely is there much if any thought given to holding off or trying to find confirmation. The particular source in question is a e-mail from a single fan who says they were at the house show. Again, I'm not saying any of this didn't happen but this seems like premature insertion.--Naha| 16:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this good enough (scroll to bottom)? Davnel03 17:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as OWW's source wasn't wrestleview.com, adding that source would be helpful. --Naha| 17:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to throw in my two cents, I agree with you, Nahallac. Dirtsheet sites aren't usually acceptable sources. OWW is the most trusted one, but even then, I don't believe it should be the only source. Gavyn Sykes 17:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Observer source, for what it's worth. I say add it but note that WWE hasn't acknowledged it yet. Then by the time Raw comes we can edit accordingly. Normally that wouldn't be purdent (for tapings and the like) but house shows are different. --MarcK 17:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In the past, we have always said that a dirtsheet site isn't a reliable source, and we should stick by it. OWW is bascally getting its sources from the dirtsheets, and dirtsheets tend to get their information from other dirtsheets, so I think until the WWE announces that the titles did indeed change, we can't really be sure that it did or did not happen. The dirtsheet that I read allows anyone to send in information to be posted by the webmaster. I don't consider that reliable.--ProtoWolf 18:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I, but Im guessing we should go with what WWE has posted, if they havent noted the title change in any of their pages it shouldnt be added until they add it into the history of the title. (For Example, when Mickie James won the Womens title at a house show, but then Melina won it the same night, the title change was listed by WWE), so im saying we should wait a couple of days or weeks to see what will occur.--TrUcO9311 01:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read anything posted above this comment but the introduction, so if I'm repeating things then forgive me. If the WWE confirms a house show title change on their website, then add it with the source. If not, then wait for it to be announced on TV so it is confirmed, or if a reputable source such as WrestlingObserver.com announces it, and not some rumor/dirtsheet site, then it can be added as well. House shows aren't televised, so there aren't any issues with spoilers and such. The only issues would be with verifiability, and following what I just said should negate any issues there would be. Cheers, The Hybrid 01:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I found this, for what it's worth. http://www.wrestlezone.com/article.php?articleid=191103278 --ProtoWolf 02:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• TitleHistories and Wrestling-Titles have both listed it. --MarcK 07:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: NEW Spoiler Templates

Over the past hour or two, I have been designing spoiler templates in my sandbox that go in liine with the vandalism, 3RR, spam templates here on Misplaced Pages. However, the templates I have designed are only for use with WP:PW. Obviously they would only be used with spoilers, in case somebody goes and adds in a spoiler, that user (or IP in many cases) gets one of these warnings. I wanted to get other peoples opinions on possibly having spoiler templates just for use at WP:PW. I have designed some in my sandbox, located here. If many people like the idea, I will pull it into the mainspace. Also, would this possibly need to be discussed with the whole Misplaced Pages community on a wider scale? Thanks, and I look forward to the response - Davnel03 18:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I'd definitely vote "yes" for something like this
2. The WP:PW would definitely need to vote on this
3. I am unsure if this needed to be brought up with the larger Misplaced Pages community or not, I don't know what the policy is there.
4. (Not to steal Davne's thunder, but) I would like to make a further proposal to create a "voting booth" subpage, where all "polls" (or whatever you want to call them) regarding pro wrestling issues on Misplaced Pages can be all listed in one neat place. This way, instead of having having to post every poll on this talk page (which sometimes get lost among all the other threads on the page), or go around to individual user talk pages to solicite voting, we all know there is one place we can go check daily to see if there is anything currently up for vote/poll that we need to comment on or vote on. While I'd like to have the actual voting occur on that "voting booth" page (and it probably should be for project-wide votes that do not address a specific article), a simple "notice" on that voting booth page, stating that a vote is occuring on Wrestler01's talk page would be sufficient in cases where the vote/poll only addresses one article. Also, while people sometimes do leave a notice here on this page that a particular article's talk page currently has a vote going on..it doesn't always happen; sometimes I just randomly happen across the poll doing normal wiki work and had I not just happend upon it, I would have never known there was something to vote on/discuss in the first place. Please comment! --Naha| 20:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of both of your ideas. The templates would help immensely and a voting booth is indeed a good idea. Gavyn Sykes 20:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Two things: a) When should I pull them into the mainspace, and b) do I need to tell the wider community possibly at the Administrators noticeboard? Also, if the idea goes ahead, please try and use it even at the slightest spoiler otherwise the chances of the templates being deleted are very high. If we get it into the mainspace by Sunday, it will probably be used there and then (I think SD! + ECW tape on Sunday). Davnel03 20:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You guys know we don't actually have any power, right?«»bd( _stalk) 20:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That's why it's a proposal. If the template gets unaminous support from us, then I'll take it to a higher level and get this accepted. Davnel03 20:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(or try to) :) --Naha| 20:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

They won't work, I had create one awhile ago and it got deleted while I was blocked (the main excuse was that they said a wikiproject doesn't have the authority to overwrite Misplaced Pages guidelines. This pissed me off because the Dragon Ball Z Wikiproject is allowed to ignore the policy of using the most common English names and instead using the Japanese names of characters). TJ Spyke 23:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to misrepresent what Hybrid said in a conversation that was just archived earlier today, so please read this discussion yourself. The relevant part starts with Hybrid's third post on the thread ..."Here's one important thing that I left out of my withdrawn proposal:..." (But keep reading from that point till the end of the conversation). Given what he said there, (and assuming I understand correctly), if we had a Consensus, against using spoilers on the grounds that they hinder the ability of the community to improve articles by driving members of it away for all but Saturday-Monday, then that would be perfectly acceptable within Misplaced Pages's policies to remove them from articles. And at that point, if it was against policy to add spoilers, then I don't see how it would be against policy to issue warnings (using the proposed templates or something similar) for infractions of the policy. Again, I am getting this information from another conversation, and it was said by someone else (Hybrid). It is not my intention to misrepresent what he or anyone else said, and I don't think I'm doing so but there is always a chance I misunderstood something. --Naha| 23:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Time for me to chime in. I love your templates, but I'm afraid that these templates need some additions and modifications for them to have a chance at working. As Bdve and TJ mentioned before, a project has no official power to declare what is and is not vandalism. When we remove spoilers, we are simply enforcing a consensus. Due to this, those that insert spoilers into an article are not committing vandalism; rather, they are simply violating a community decision. While they can be blocked for violating this decision, certain benchmarks must be met.

1. They must be shown the decision. This can be accomplished by cutting and pasting the conversation we had above, moving it to a project subpage, and then linking to it in all of the templates.
2. We will have to discuss the issue again periodically, perhaps quarterly, to make sure the consensus stays current. WP:CONSENSUS makes a point of saying that a consensus can change, so we must make sure to keep the discussion on the project page recent.
3. We cannot threaten to block them. What we can do is tell them that we will bring this issue to the attention of the appropriate noticeboard (ANI) so the admins can decide. Like I said, this isn't vandalism, so the AIV board won't work.

Now, even with these benchmarks met, there is no guarantee of a block. Things such as this are up to admin discretion, and all admins are different. If the admins refused to block, which is very likely, then we would have to take this to WP:RFC and attain the community's opinion on the matter. Also, these templates cannot be kept in the main-template space. They would have to be kept as project subpages, and then transcluded as templates. However, I'm feeling some bad vibes from this. This seems like the type of thing that could cause an Arb Com case. However, if the consensus is to create templates for the insertion of spoilers, then I would be more than willing to help you write them. And that is what the poll needs to be: do we want templates for this, or not? The ones currently used as examples won't work, but we could write some new ones. For the record, I am neutral as to whether or not we create templates for this, leaning to oppose. Peace, The Hybrid 00:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

When you say "templates for the insertion of spoilers" do you mean templates to put in the wikipedia articles stating there is a spoiler somewhere in the article, or templates to put on user talk pages to ask them if the would please comply to the project consensus against spoilers (if we ever came to that consensus)? As I have already stated a few times, I am completely against the insertion of spoiler tags into pro-wrestling related articles because thats like sending up a red flag saying (most commonly) "look, there was a title change here!!!!!" which defeats the purpose of the tags to begin with. --Naha| 01:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The user warning templates are what I was referring to. The Hybrid 01:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sweet. --Naha| 02:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I give a HELL YES to this, finally someone comes up with something that will avoid spoilers. THANK YOU. If you agree with this give me a HELL YEAH--TrUcO9311 01:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to set up the vote, I'll be happy to cast mine. Nikki311 01:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to give me a little time, I'll set up the voting page that I was talking about (if there are no objects to that) and we can use this dicussion as the first vote to grace that page. --Naha| 02:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Or not ..Hybrid beat me with his below poll :P --Naha| 02:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

;) sorry The Hybrid 02:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Poll

This is a poll to see whether or not the members of this project support the creation of user warning templates to warn users that the insertion of spoilers is in violation of a community consensus which follow the following guidelines: As Bdve and TJ mentioned before, a project has no official power to declare what is and is not vandalism. When we remove spoilers, we are simply enforcing a consensus. Due to this, those that insert spoilers into an article are not committing vandalism; rather, they are simply violating a community decision. While they can be blocked for violating this decision, certain benchmarks must be met.

1. They must be shown the decision. This can be accomplished by cutting and pasting the conversation we had above, moving it to a project subpage, and then linking to it in all of the templates.
2. We will have to discuss the issue again periodically, perhaps quarterly, to make sure the consensus stays current. WP:CONSENSUS makes a point of saying that a consensus can change, so we must make sure to keep the discussion on the project page recent.
3. We cannot threaten to block them. What we can do is tell them that we will bring this issue to the attention of the appropriate noticeboard (ANI) so the admins can decide. Like I said, this isn't vandalism, so the AIV board won't work.

Now, even with these benchmarks met, there is no guarantee of a block. Things such as this are up to admin discretion, and all admins are different. If the admins refused to block, which is very likely, then we would have to take this to WP:RFC and attain the community's opinion on the matter. Also, these templates cannot be kept in the main-template space. They would have to be kept as project subpages, and then transcluded as templates. However, I'm feeling some bad vibes from this. This seems like the type of thing that could cause an Arb Com case. However, if the consensus is to create templates for the insertion of spoilers, then I would be more than willing to help you write them. And that is what the poll needs to be: do we want templates for this, or not? The ones currently used as examples won't work, but we could write some new ones.

Support

1. --Naha| 02:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
2. --Gavyn Sykes 02:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
3. --Davnel03 06:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak Oppose leaning towards neutral - Nikki311 02:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose, «»bd( _stalk) 02:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

   Partly because I'm not sure we're allowed to actually warn (and certainly not to threaten to ban) but mostly because I honestly feel they would serve no purpose. Wiki is run by consensus, good editors would be people who care about that and just pointing them to where that discussion was had (and, I assume, is ongoing) should be enough to get them to stop violating it without having to "warn" them. Perhaps a "template" explaining the projects viewpoint on spoilers with a link to where it's explained in the project style guide (someone wanna write it in to the style guide?) would be better.«»bd( _stalk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdve (talk • contribs) 02:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

   That's what I've been proposing, actually. The Hybrid 02:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

   Perhaps exactly what you are proposing should be up by the header of this discussion describing it? We don't want people to cast their vote under what they think is being proposed, but rather what is being proposed. Also, yes, Misplaced Pages is a consensus, which is why I thought we were having this poll :) --Naha| 03:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose, this is an encyclopedia and may contain details that people do not wish to know but information trumps personal feelings about "spoilers" (not to mention the wikipedia policy on spoilers is that they are allowed to be featured.) –– Lid 03:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

   We already have a consensus that spoilers are not allowed because it would hinder the community's ability to maintain these articles. It would do so by causing many of the editors to not edit the articles except on Friday-Tuesday. This is perfectly acceptable within the policies since it keeps the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. This poll is just about whether to create project warnings following guidelines that I just cut-and-paste above here so that everyone can read it without scrolling. The Hybrid 06:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

   If it's in the best mind of the encyclopedia bring it up at WP:SPOILER, not here. –– Lid 06:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

   I've brought it up on the spoiler talk page, with a link to this conversation. Davnel03 06:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

   Hi, I'm responding to your post on the WPTalk:Spoiler page, but I'll comment in the discussion section. Milo 09:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Weak Neutral leaning towards oppose The Hybrid 02:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

We need to set up a standard time frame for all polls. It needs to be long enough to make sure enough people have time to see it and vote, but not overly long either. 5 days? 1 week? Other thoughts? Do we need a poll to decide on polls? :P --Naha| 02:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A poll sounds like a good idea to me. We need to set some sort of standard for the length of our polls. The variance poll length has shown in the past is unacceptable, and we have a responsibility to put an end to it. ;) All joking aside, the typical length is 5 days, and if the result after that time is no consensus we'll generally let it go the full week before declaring it closed and maintaining the status quo. Cheers, The Hybrid 02:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good :) --Naha| 02:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to ask the reasoning behind people's votes? Specifically "oppose" votes? (not just here but on any poll). On this particular poll, I have already stated my current reasoning behind my own vote on more than one occassion. While I do have, what I consider to be very firm beliefs on a lot of things, I always consider other opinions and viewpoints, and have even been known on occassion to change my mind about certain issues if I believe a particular point is well founded and/or has a strong argument or good point. I'd wager that there are others who feel this way too. I won't be offended either way and hope I don't offend anyone else by asking this. --Naha| 02:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed. I changed the bolded header of this section to discussion in light of this. Cheers, The Hybrid 02:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok then I am offically asking people to comment on the reasoning behind their votes if they don't mind doing so. --Naha| 02:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally think this is a very good idea, IF it can be pulled off correctly in a way that won't be a waste of time. Based on the above discussion, it would seem to be a big "if" but I'm willing to support it. If this goes through, it should generally make life easier for the project. Gavyn Sykes 02:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm neutral because I think that this has a 50/50 shot at working. If we follow everything that we need to follow in the creation of the templates, are careful in explaining our reasoning at ANI when that time finally comes, and show respect and open minds to the admin's thoughts on the matter, then we have a shot at the templates being respected as a legitimate way of getting across a consensus to new users. I lean towards oppose because if someone who doesn't know how to talk to the admins on their territory is the first one to report a user after using these templates, and doesn't ask the project for help, then it could push this project even more into the doghouse than it is currently. It would paint this as a vigilante project claiming ownership over its articles, and as a project telling the admins to go, well, you know. However, I can vote neutral in good conscience because several users who are members of this project watch the noticeboards, myself included, and I'm sure that the scenario just described won't take place without someone noticing before it's too late. The Hybrid 02:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to be online for several hours, but I really don't mind if anyone wishes to make adjustments to the templates I made (located in my sandbox). Davnel03 06:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by long-time pro-spoiler-tag debater

Recent history of Misplaced Pages spoiler tags In May 2007, a group of about six editors including famous admins, and led by anti-spoiler-tag philosopher Professor Phil Sandifer, used the automated editing tool AWB to remove about 45,000 spoiler tags from Misplaced Pages articles. This action, which I have described as a revolutionary coup, was unpopular among about 40+% of Misplaced Pages editors (by poll) and perhaps a million fiction fans in the external web (estimated by my Google test).

This situation has led to a contentious three month debate at Talk:Spoiler. After a million-some bytes of debate, there is no consensus and no compromise, but there is ownership by majoritarian force over the Wikiguide text. The text is strongly biased against spoiler tag use. What little use it does allow tends to be crushed in practice by vigil-antis who search daily for spoiler tags and send "chilling squads" (my term) to suppress any local consensus which dares to insert them.

Meanwhile, some of the maybe-million spoiler-tag supporters on the outside (maybe or maybe not a resistance movement) are reinserting about five homemade tags per day via IP edits. Possibly it is these IP spoiler tags that you are seeing inserted into the professional wrestling articles.

I don't speak for anyone but myself, but I haven't seen noticeable opposition among pro-taggers to my position that use/not-use of spoiler tags, deciding what statements are spoilers, and placement of tags, should all be decided by the "local consensus art jury", which just means the usual consensus decisions as applied to subjective issues like what looks good and what doesn't. The precedent for this is that the opera project decided that opera stories shouldn't have spoilers. Bionicle toys-with-stories editors apparently do want them.

Spoiler tag template proposals at WikiProject Professional wrestling You probably won't have any internal problem with your 'please don't insert spoilers' template; the anti-taggers will think that's just great. However, it suggests you are struggling with at least some external readers who disagree with you, possibly part of that million I mentioned who may not be happy with the Spoiler Tag Coup of 2007.

I don't know much about pro wrestling, but what I have heard about the fans/readers tells me you don't want to get into a perpetual fight with them - which they may be "spoiling for".

As an alternative to fighting with them, you could experiment with the Hidable Spoiler Tag Compromise, which is a win-win solution. The idea is that the spoiler tags are hidden by default using .css, and a clickable template at the top gives instructions for turning them on. If this template is on every page, there will be no visual clue as to which pages actually have spoiler tags and thus avoid the red flag of "look, there was a title change here!!!!!".

The template you are currently working on could be made to read, "Please don't insert any visible spoiler tags - click here for instructions on inserting or showing hidden tags." And if they do insert visible tags, just make them properly hidden.

While the hidable spoiler tag approach is experimental and is certain to have bugs, it has the philosophical advantage of not setting up the pro wrestling editors for a constant "vandalism" battle with readers that they want to serve. I hope this helps. Milo 09:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Milo, thank you for your comments and for recapping the history of spoiler tags for us. I actually do remember when all across Misplaced Pages all of a sudden all the spoiler tags were gone for films and such, but I had no idea until now how or why it had happened. I would, at the very least, be up for giving your proposed system a trial run. If it worked out, it has the potential to solve at least some of our headaches. However, will the spoilers still be visible when the page is in "edit view"? If so, on second thought, it might not be as helpful as I first thought. Hmm --Naha| 14:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Dave Bautista

You may want to keep watch on the Dave Bautista article. The Wrestlecrappers have struck again, and are bragging about it on this thread on the Wrestlecrap forum. Duo02 *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 23:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added the page to my watchlist. Thanks for the heads-up. Gavyn Sykes 23:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

List of professional wrestlers who died young

Hello. I am not a member of this project, and I have made very few edits to pro wrestling articles in general. However, the attention given recently (thanks to the Chris Benoit incident) to early deaths of pro wrestlers led me to search for a WP list of wrestlers who died young. Finding one did not exist (at least not that I could find), I ended up creating my own: User:Skudrafan1/List of professional wrestlers who died young. I modeled it on List of ice hockey players who died young. The hockey article is currently up for deletion, though, on the grounds that it is an indiscriminate list of players. However, I think a list of wrestlers who died young is more than an indiscriminate list: again, given the recent attention on wrestlers' health. The list of wrestlers who have died in their 30s and 40s of heart attacks and drug overdoses is staggering. Do you, the members of WP:PW, think that this should be moved into the mainspace and expanded? If so, feel free to use what I have already created. If not, just leave it on my user page and I won't be offended. :)

Also, I apologize if you have already considered this type of a list and rejected it. As I said, I am not a member of this WikiProject. Skudrafan1 23:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand the point of this list, or any other lists similar to it. "Young" is a relative and subjective term in the first place. Also, I'd have to agree with lists of this type being indiscriminate, its not like they all died of the same causes. There is a pretty wide range of causes actually: suicide, murder, car accident, heart problems, other health issues, etc. That is my take on it anyway /shrug --Naha| 00:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. This is why I brought the idea here before I put it on the mainspace; I wanted to gauge opinion rather than just creating and then going through the shame of an AfD :) Skudrafan1 00:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

History of professional wrestling

I recently read the History of professional wrestling article for the first time. While it is rather well-written, it is mostly a "history of professional wrestling in the United States". There is no history of puroresu, history of lucha libre or history of professional wrestling in Europe article either. I also propose that some information of catch wrestling should be merged into it. Professional wrestling in the United Kingdom also has some interesting tidbits, that might be merged into the main article, as do some biographies of wrestlers such as Rikidozan and Salvador Lutteroth.

But as far as puroresu and lucha libre are concerned, there is virtually no real history to be found in Misplaced Pages (I am not sure if there is more/better info in the Spanish- or Japanese-langage versions of Misplaced Pages, since unfortunately, I don't speak those languages). Also, history of wrestling in Canada (Stampede et al, although I am sure Stampede was not the beginning) and maybe also in Germany/Austria (CWA/Otto Wanz was really big here in the 1970s and 1980s and continued to promote well into the 1990s) should be collected and put into the article, respectively should get their own articles.

My expirience with Wikiprojects is limited, so please bear with me if this has been discussed before. I would be willing to help out with the history tidbits though, as far as my time allows and would also be willing to dig into finding out more about the early periods and find verifiable sources. --Darkguy 07:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Professional_wrestling_in_the_United_States

Why is there no template:Professional wrestling in the United States as there is for puroresu and lucha libre? I was thinking of something more similiar to the puroresu one with major and indy promotions, maybe divided into active and defunct promotions. I'd be willing to get into it (we could easily sort through List of professional wrestling promotions for a start and for the U.S. just list any promotion regularily covered by the Observer or Torch in theor respective daily news/indy sections).

On a related note, I also noticed there is hardly anything listed for Germany/Austria - I'll go through the local promotions that come to mind in the next couple of days and put up new articles for those (and mabe get into doing a Template:Professional_wrestling_in_Europe) while I'm at it. Please tell me if this is undesired, but I think this project deals with pro-wrestling worldwide, not just in the U.S.? --Darkguy 07:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Voting booth

Per the previous discussions about this higher up on the page, I've gone ahead and done this. Please let me know what you think. I'm sure it could be improved, so please make suggestions also. Thanks, --Naha| 04:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

TNA Bound for Glory pages

It has come to my attention about a somewhat "page move conflict" around the TNA Bound for Glory pages. A user redirected each of the BFG pages (2005, 2006 & 2007) to include the prefix "TNA". Another user would undo that a few days later. It now seems that a consensus from the WP:PW community is needed to settle this: whether to keep the pages at "Bound for Glory (200X)", or at "TNA Bound for Glory (200X). I will put a {{Multimove}} on each of the BFG pages. I would suggest keeping the pages at "(without prefix) BFG" until a decision is reached. MITB LS (t·c) 14:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists