Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

→

Archive 60

We're on the main page!

Under the DYK section:

... that after years of inactivity, the Inferno match returned at the Armageddon (2006) pay-per-view event produced by World Wrestling Entertainment (participant M.V.P. pictured)?

Great stuff! =D D.M.N. (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And my image is featured. Awesome. Mshake3 (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

YES!!! -- iMatthew _T.C. 21:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice :) Gary King (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Was anybody aware?

..that Insane Clown Posse is a Featured article candidate? (link).--S_RX 19:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I had no idea ICP had anything to do with wrestling. Interesting. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well it's tagged with our project's talkheader, and they actually did do something in wrestling, interesting. Looks like its 50/50 at the moment.--S_RX 20:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I knew. The ICP has their own wrestling promotion, and they've had matches in TNA, WWF, and WCW. The article needs to go into their wrestling history a bit more, IMO, to be comprehensive enough for FA. Here's a link to their Online World of Wrestling profile if anybody wants to know more. [1]. Nikki311 20:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is its second time there and it hasn't had much luck both times. I think the article is still in need of copyediting, so if you guys have got the time... Gary King (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

First/Last in Titles held

Hello, I wonder whether there is any basis in the project's consensus about adding "First" and "Last" to titles held by a certain wrestler/team (e.g. in this edit) and if so, whether they should really be put in bold. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a little un-necessary to start adding that all over the place. I've also seen users add "Longest reign" and "Shortest reign". Usually, all of that is already in the article itself. Nikki311 23:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nikki. It's really unneccessary, and will be mentioned in the actual article prose. Plus, it always ends up looking really messy. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 11:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the "first" and "last" can be useful (not all readers actually read the prose), but reing lenght is completely redundant, that is the purpouse of the lenght lists. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ted DiBiase:The Million Dollar Man (Request for help)

If anyone owns a copy of the above book, could you please leave me a message on my talk page? I need to cite something from it. Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 13:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Chavo Guerrero

I think that the page Chavo Guerrero should be a disambiguation page, with links to Chavo Guerrero, Sr. and Chavo Guerrero, Jr.. That's just my opinion, but any feedback would be great. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Why not? Feedback ^☎ 04:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The Zodiac?

Has anybody else been seeing strange messages from an apparent hacker? A couple of days ago, I happened upon Johnny Valentine and there was a message from a person called the Zodiac that said he was taking over Wikipedia. I couldn't edit the page to remove it, either. Just now, a similar message popped up on my userpage which says, "Jimbo Wales is dead. The cite is closed". Once again, I couldn't edit my page to remove it. Can anybody else see it on my page? Is it happening to only wrestling articles/editors? Nikki311 02:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't see it on your page, but it's likely some idiot attempting to become known as the Zodiac Killer of Wikipedia. It seems that "The Zodiac" isn't an actual user either as User:The Zodiac is a redlink. Odd.Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I just checked again, and it isn't on my page anymore. Everyone just be on the lookout. Nikki311 03:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I took a look at a couple of threads at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and it seems to be happening all over Wikipedia (not just our articles). It is an idiot trying to be the Zodiac Killer of Wikipedia, and he is vandalizing templates, which is what is messing up the pages. If you see it anywhere, report it to ANI, and they'll fix it and protect the proper template. Nikki311 03:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Will do, Nikki. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

PPV expansion page is becoming too long

Is this a good way to trim it down? -- iMatthew _T.C. 11:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I like it, but I don't think it's gonna decrease it's length in that way, unless you are planning to do that in many columns.--S_RX 12:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to do it in columns, but I can't figure out how to do that. -- iMatthew _T.C. 12:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

GOT IT! Yeah, I just figured it out. Maybe we should sort it by PPV, and give each PPV it's own table? -- iMatthew _T.C. 13:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

For the columns, you have to use the column codec, like it used in here. If we do the second option nothing will really change, I think the page will be even longer. Right now, I think that the PPV expansion page is redundant, why do we need it? Users are expanding PPV's every here and then and some aren't even put on the table, I feel we should just leave the page for our GA's and FA.--S_RX 14:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the page is also supposed to be an organized way of keeping track of which PPVs are done/GAs/being worked on, ETC. -- iMatthew _T.C. 14:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the page is a side project for WP:PW, by the end of next year that page will be enormous. Now it would only make sense to list the GAs, GANs, FAs, FACs there, that already makes a portion of the list. --S_RX 14:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you convinced me, and I'm all for that. in my sandbox, only FA and GA's are listed. -- iMatthew _T.C. 14:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah because so many people are expanding articles these days. Also, people barely pay attention to the page anymore. Just GA's, GANs, FAs, and FAC's, are to attract more Users to the page.S_RX 14:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

We just need some more opinions before making the change. -- iMatthew _T.C. 14:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the current format with multiple sortable columns. It doesn't seem to need fixing. It's long, but it can be sorted easily to find information. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

But what do you think about making the page a track of only GA/GAN/FA/FAC's? -- iMatthew _T.C. 17:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would stop serving its intended purpose. Currently, it's useful to see who is working on specific articles (which helps prevent two editors from developing the same one in their sandboxes), it's useful to see who has worked in a specific area (eg. TNA PPVs or 1980s-era PPVs) to find help with articles, and it's useful to see which ones are complete and which ones need to be expanded to fill in the gaps. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well then that page is going to be redundantly long by the end of next year, if this project is still going, who knows.S_RX 19:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Long pages are okay, especially when they are easily sortable. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GCF. The purpose of the table in the first place was to see who was working on what. If we remove everything but the GAs/FAs/noms, it defeats the original purpose. Besides, it is a project page...it doesn't have the same size limitations that other articles do. Nikki311 20:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nikki. It should stay the way it is.--WillC 20:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

WWE Night of Champions

Alright guys now hear me out here. I propose that we split this article between Vengeance PPV's and the one Night of Champions PPV.

The Defense

The pay-per-views have two different names, and are two different pay-per-views. Night of Champions is now taking the place of Vengeance pay-per-views, so Vengeance is not a former pay-per-view event, and Night of Champions is the current one. Night of Champions should have it's own article, and Vengeance of course should as well. On the Vengeance page, it will be noted that Vengeance became a Night of Champions type pay-per-view in 2007, and then in 2008, Night of Champions replaced Vengeance.

The Other Side

They seem to be connected in a way, as the 2007 event was titled "Vengeance: Night of Champions." They are somewhat the same.

My pick is the defense, that we should move the Vengeance information, including the 2007 event to it's own article, and in the article mention that 2007 was the final Vengeance pay-per-view as Night of Champions took over in 2008.

I'd like other's opinions, because both sides of the coin are well justified. Cheers, -- iMatthew _T.C. 18:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm with the other side, I see no reason to split this, we may as well split WWE Cyber Sunday then. Length people, does not matter, the longer the better, these ppv's carry the same lineage and are basically the same thing, with the exception of dropping the Vengeance Name, that's all they did. Also per here], where it states that Before WWE's June pay-per-view event was called Night of Champions, it was dubbed Vengeance. Take a look back at the many memorable moments. Thus me taking The Other Side.S_RX 18:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Enough with Cyber Sunday! Those two shows are linked because they are both a yearly interactive PPV. Mshake3 (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Mshake you really have issues, always looking for trouble. You come here and rant on what I said instead of actually responding to the question itself.S_RX 18:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Guys, remain civil, and stay on topic. Personal issues should be resolved on your talk pages. -- iMatthew _T.C. 18:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey I didn't say anything wrong to be uncivil, and I am on task as I already responded to the concern.--S_RX 18:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

But you see therein lies the problem: "2007 was the final Vengeance pay-per-view as Night of Champions took over in 2008." Night of Champions didn't take over in 2008, the 2007 event was also called Night of Champions. You'd have to say that Vengeance's last event was in 2007 and NoC's first was in 2007, at which point people will think either they were two seperate events, or that the lineage is the same much like if you search for WCW Cruiserweight Championship it now redirects you to the WWE Cruiserweight Championship. Also, though this is purely speculation, I've often thought the reason that they made the decision to make Vengeance an NoC out of all the events is because the first Vengeance saw the first Undisputed Championship for a significant amount of time, the significance of champions in Vengeance's history led it to become Night of Champions (again, just my postulation. Tony2Times (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The Great American Bash

I'll do it like Mshake3 did it.

There is a 99% chance I'm going to see The Great American Bash, and I will be bringing my camera.

Can we collect a list, maybe, of those articles in need of new pictures? -- iMatthew _T.C. 12:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, remember that since this is a pay-per-view, it is unlikely that some of the jobber-type guys will appear, but I guess it's always kind of possible. -- iMatthew _T.C. 12:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to wait to post more requests until some more matches are announced, but I'd really like a picture of Edge pushing Vickie G. in her wheelchair. Nikki311 16:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The way things are going based on this past weeks SmackDown, that's unlikely to happen. While I'm on the subject of the Bash, see the message on my talkpage. In brief words, do not contact me between those 2 dates, otherwise your message will go unanswered. A pic of Rhodes/DiBiase would be good together should a article be warranted in the not to distant future. D.M.N. (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I missed SmackDown because I was mid-road trip. :( I just thought of another couple: CM Punk with the title and any pics of the Divas Championship (or the match for the championship), as those are probably going to be on the card. Nikki311 17:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

One would be a picture of Kofi Kingston as the IC Champ.SRX^--LatinoHeat 17:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'm also going to look to get Mark Henry with the ECW Championship. -- iMatthew _T.C. 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Cherry's article need a better pic, though I doubt she'll be on PPV. Paul Burchill's article needs a pic, period, but he'll likely only be there if Katie Lea has a title match. She could use an additional picture too, something of her in ring gear. Also Estrada. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Bam Neily needs a picture as well Adster95 (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Now, Definite

Above I said there was a 99% chance. I now have the tickets in my hands though, so it's all good. Keep your requests coming, because it is this Sunday! -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

WWE Divas Championship - one of the belt, and one of whoever becomes the first champion (with the belt if possible). ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 01:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the above: one of Paul Burchill, one of Katie Lea, and maybe one of them together. One of Cryme Tyme, either in the ring or with John Cena (should they show up). Also, one of the stage set-up and one of Micheal Cole and King commentating together (if you are located in a position to get a good shot). Nikki311 01:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Damn, my seats are behind the announcing tables. -- iMatthew _T.C. 10:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sudden thought. One of Shannon Moore would fantastic (I don't expect him to be on the PPV, but maybe in a dark match) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 01:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if you'll check this one more time before you leave....but one of Tony Atlas (if he is there with Mark Henry) would also be great. Nikki311 18:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Back from the Bash

I just got home, and I got a couple of good pictures, but due to my seats, they are not the best quality. When I post them, you can see what you like. Also, Nikki...I got a few with Atlas, but I believe they were mostly crappy. -- iMatthew _T.C. 03:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a lot of pictures. So what I'm going to do, is download all of them, place them in a subpage, and you can pick and choose if you want them or not. -- iMatthew _T.C. 21:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The Great American Bash root page

WWE The Great American Bash was seperated from The Great American Bash quite a while ago back when none of the events had invidual pages on the grounds that the page was getting too long. Now that all of the WWE events have their own pages and only exist as a grid, should we merge the two grids on the original page and thus be done with the disambiguation, with the grid being given the title of WWE just like it has for NWA and WCW. Tony2Times (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not, and with work, we can make it similar to the WWE No Way Out list page.--S_RX 17:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really like the idea, because it was two different promotions and stuff. -- iMatthew _T.C. 18:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

True, but it is the same event and carries the same lineage, where is WCW now? Merged with WWE. --S_RX 18:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

But as I said up there, I suggest adding it to a grid that already has NWA and WCW on it, two seperate promotions so why would adding a third be so different? Tony2Times (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not any different, I am just agreeing with it.

Yeah, I meant that in reply to iMatthew saying they were two seperate companies. Tony2Times (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Any other opinions? I'm never sure how long to leave it before doing it or leaving it. Tony2Times (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:TNA World Heavyweight Championship

There is currently a survey up on Talk:TNA World Heavyweight Championship#Inclusion of Cage and_Angle.27s pre-Slammiversary reigns resulting from May 13 stripping of NWA titles. Its intention is to assert that a consensus is present based on previous discussions on the matter and to put an end to the continuous disruption and edit warring of the talk page and the main article. I would appreciate it if you would take the time to voice your opinion in the matter to put an end to the yearlong dispute recently reignited by an IP. Thank you. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 14:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Candice Michelle under GA review

Hello there, the article Candice Michelle, which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a problem has been identified and listed on the talk page. If this problem has not begun to be addressed within seven days of this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is with the personal life section, and honestly, I agree that it needs improvement. If anyone wants to help me find some more information to expand it (so it doesn't resemble a trivia section anymore) that would be greatly appreciated. Nikki311 18:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. I fixed it, and it passed. Nikki311 19:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

GAB 2008 aftermath

To be honest, I'm just posting this here to give people a bit of a laugh. It might be noteworthy to the article, I dunno if we ususlaly include this kind of info. After GAB on Sunday, 2 people were arrested for trying to steal the commemorative chairs from a backstage area, and ended up assualting a WWE employee. [2] I gotta admit I think its one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, but should it be included? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That was hilarious, and I had no idea what was going on, I just saw a guy running with a WWE chair, and I was like "Are they selling chairs!?" But anyway, I don't think it should be included.-- iMatthew _T.C. 10:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't think so either. Things have a tendecy to get a bit heated/stressed around here, so I thought I'd try and give everyone a bit of a laugh. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 10:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WrestleZone

Is there any chance that WrestleZone can be considered reliable in only pay-per-views. PPV's are not spoilers, rumors, speculation, dirt. They are always 100% correct with their PPV's an they give the most detailed reports on the internet. -- iMatthew _T.C. 22:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So are all the rest of the dirt sheet websites that post PPV results. What makes WrestleZone any different? If FA/GA reviewers can't find it reliable, then it won't do any good. Though, WrestleZone is one of the few sites I trust because they have their own radio show and have established writers, but I guess you could take it to User:Ealdgyth.--S_RX 01:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

PPV FA

I think we should try to go for another FA with our PPV's, I propose, SummerSlam (2003), I know it's not a GA yet, but I think it can go straight to FA, (after the PR is closed) because the article doesn't fail sourcing wise, ( a major problem), and is well written and doesn't suffer from alot of the wrestling jargon as mentioned in SS'07, what do you guy's think?--S_RX 01:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The main reason why SS '07 failed was because it didn't go into detail on who wrote the storylines for the event, which SS '03 doesn't do at all. Therefore, I believe it would fail just as SS '07 did. –LAX 01:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is bull. It's unknown who writes what, because let's face it, no one really cares, do they? Other than "ZOMG, Russo wrote this and he sucks" I hear next to nothing about any wrestling storyline writer. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure. The last pic overlaps the table (at least on my screen). It doesn't have anything about writing/production or reception. Also, the reviewers are going to say it is still too "in-universe" and the moves need to be explained better. That's what they said at SummerSlam (1988)'s FAC, anyway. Nikki311 01:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ouch, I guess I shouldn't have mentioned this. Anyways, I see what you all mean, I think adding the writers is redundant, the only reason that was brought up at SS'07 was because it was mentioned how jackass wasn't going to be involved in the event. We really have to come up with a consensus on how to write not "in-universe", which I see that's why the links to terms are there, but anyways comments to build consensus or a style guide to write out of universe?S_RX 02:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I would most definitely have to agree with LAX. SRX, get SS03 up to GA. Then you can work on getting it to FA. But jumping from B-Class to FAC never works with this project. -- iMatthew _T.C. 11:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think I just said I agreed with everyone else, and then that's why I proposed a new consensus.S_RX 14:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, I got here late and threw my two cents in. -- iMatthew _T.C. 21:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't impossible

Right... with reliable sources for PPV results/TV results, we should be sourcing towards:

• 2005 to 2008: WWE.com: RAW archive; SmackDown! archive; ECW archive; WWE.com has detailed PPV things for most pages.... if not.... go to:
• 2000 to Present: WrestleView.com: In case no one has realised, WrestleView in some cases has results back to December 2000. Hell, it even has Velocity and Heat results!
• 2002: McAvennie, Michael (2003). WWE The Yearbook: 2003 Edition. WWE Books. ISBN 0-7434-6373-0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) - A whole yearbook covering anything WWE; has match results within reading; covers things within detail. If anyone needs page numbers for anything at all, leave a new message on my talk.
• 1997 to Present: SLAM! Sports: Has detailed reports like for PPV's a detailed events. Also has interviews with real superstars.
• FindArticles.com - I cannot guarantee you will find something related to wrestling, but if you don't look, you'll never know.
• A LOT of wrestling books, a WWE Quiz book (actual quiz book, not something for the kiddies), Mick Foley has a book, Shawn Michaels, Eric Bischoff, Y2J, HHH I believe has just released a book.... I am almost certain information will be found in them. I only have the Bischoff book, but if anyone's working on an article where he was semi-related/related, message me, a hidden gem may be inside.
• WWE DVD's.... they've released many.. not all PPV's. The Monday Night Wars DVD is a great DVD for citing opinions during the war, or just for citing mini things... same goes for The Rise and Fall of the ECW DVD. The RAW 15th Anniversary has a collection of great matches, some of which I'm sure are sourced towards OWW or something.

If all above fails....

• Cite the episode!!! This can be done for older episodes of RAW... there is nothing against that prohibits this on the MOS whatsoever. Internet/book sources are preferred, but nothing stops you doing this.

Of course, if you are only getting an article to GA level and you think FA would be a step to far (for instance me working on In Your House 2: The Lumberjacks) - do not go this far, but if you are planning to nominate a certain article for FA, I suggest the sourcing issues are sorted beforehand. D.M.N. (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Also, The Wayback Machine helps in many cases for WWE results.
  • Many Users have thought that 411Mania isn't reliable, however, per this it is, and I remember reading somewhere that the Ealdgyth found it reliable.--S_RX 14:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, because many users have begun the inclusion of the buyrate and ticket sales for the PPV. How can we source it if PWH is not reliable?--S_RX 14:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The only sources Ealdgyth finds reliable are WrestleView, WWE.com and TNAWrestling.com, see this. Can't see anything mentioned about 411mania in this discussion. D.M.N. (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't in those discussions, I saw it in another user's talk page (non-wrestling related) who used 411Mania, and Ealdgyth showed the same URL I put up there and said it was okay.S_RX 15:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Out-of-universe

I talked to a FA reviewer about this and they said I was correct on how I wrote out of universe and avoided jargon.

Example of in-universe with jargon: The feud escalated into a No Disqualification match at SummerSlam.

Example of out-of-universe without jargon: The staged rivalry escalated into a match where neither competitor could be disqualified for malicious actions.

As you see in the last example, the terms are fully explained in proper english which is how FA-material articles should be written, I believe if SS'07 was written in this way, it may be able to pass FAC.S_RX 21:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This brings up the same point I mentioned above. Do we still wikilink. Or should we just get rid of all the jargon articles. If we write like the above in every article, those would become useless and orphaned (the jargon articles I mean). Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Slowly but surely. –LAX 22:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to write the same way at SS 88. It is kind of hard at first when you are used to writing the other way... Nikki311 22:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, since most wrestlers don't use their real names (and this is "fiction"), should we write their ring name like we normally would, and wikilink their real name in parenthesis? (ie. CM Punk (Phil Brooks)) –LAX 22:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is great, if we all work together on this we can make it happen. Over time, we should get used to writing it in this way. I think the project's goal for the rest of the year is to get 2 or more PPV's to FA status by the end of the year, lets see if this new style of writing can help. ;)--S_RX 22:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to LAX, I think we should, since ring names are fictitious.--S_RX 22:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what I thought. But, of course, we should only do it for the first time they're mentioned. –LAX 22:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah because if we didn't, Michaels (Hickenbottom) attacked Jericho (Irvine), their last names would look awkward every time mentioned.S_RX 22:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is good, but what if their real name is the same as their wrestling name (e.g. Jeff Jarrett)? D.M.N. (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering how CM Punk passed FAC in the first place if it had all these in-universe writing issues...Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It was promoted a year ago. Since then the standards for FAC have been tightened up massively. D.M.N. (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh right. As far names like Jarrett go, we could just leave it as Jeff Jarett. If no name is listed, I thin it would be self-explantory that no ring name is being used. But since that probably won't work, we could put in parenthesis/small type "no ring name in use" or "real name" or something along those lines Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the Punk article today for the first time in awhile, and you were right about the in-universe issues. I did a bit of cleaning up, so it should at least be okay for now. Nikki311 21:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool. In that vein, Bobby Eaton and Shelton Benjamin would likely need the same thing done. I'll take a look later if I have time once I finish catching up. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In the same vain, we should change "legit" to the correct extended version "legitimate(ly)" but try to avoid over use of "Example was booked to win the Exampleweight title" because it looks like you're about to say "but he couldn't attend, died, spontaneously combusted or some other indiscriminant reason" and of course, half finished sentences are quite - PXK ^T /_C 19:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC) (see what I did there?)

Please tell me this is some sort of delayed April Fool's. Seriously, instead of writing the occasional succinct (and linked with explanation) word, we're gonna have to write long verbose explanations to remind everyone of the common knowledge that professional wrestling (as the page on that explains) is scripted and booked, unless otherwise stated. Doesn't it make sense to point out the exception rather than the norm? Is there nothing else we can do rather than change pretty much everything thus far written about wrestling, like couldn't we have a banner that says "This section is about the fictional wrestling character" or something more clear than that? How often will we have to remind the reader that a feud is a pre-written fictionalised hatred between two wrestlers who might or might not be friends in real life? I really can't see any way this isn't going to make articles pointlessly verbose and rather patronising. I do agree about the "was booked to win" thing though, it does seem as if something to the contrary happened. Tony2Times (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not whether we like it or not, it's new consensus, and the new standard of writing for the FA criteria. --S_RX 22:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I agree, but consensus is consensus. I do find it rather redundant that a banner or something can't just say "the following sections are fictional unless otherwise noted" or something of the sort. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to put in my vote how ridiculous the "was booked to..." is on a professinal wrestling wiki entry - it woudl be not different to include in every movie entry something like, "Luke Skywalker was scripted to learn the force, and then was scriped ito destroy the death star". It's absolutely unnecessary, and as others have said, is actually confusing, as it creates the expectation that something happened other than the "booked" result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.13.85 (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it woudln't be. The movie industry doesn't pretend to be real. It's acknowledged that movies are fake. Wrestling doesn't break kayfabe often and generally portrays itself as a legitimate athletic competition. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Now is probably a good time to point out that we used the real names in parethesis on Carlito's article for some time, but it was finally rewritten because several established users opposed it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Does it really though? Throughout the Attitude era they used to run vignettes which had montages of wrestlers saying "I'm not a real athlete? I've broken bones &c" the basic tone of which was: sure this is scripted, but it's not fake. They do drop hints. Sure, during the regular programming they pretend it's real but then I've seldom seen a film stop at some point, have the main actor turn to the camera and say "hi, I know I'm dressed as Batman, but actually I'm Christian Bale, a Welsh actor just pretending to be Bruce Wayne. Kooky this fiction stuff isn't it?" Wrestling says on screen that it's real, but you go to a fan access signing and Kurt Angle and AJ Styles will sign your programmes side by side. Tony2Times (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well that's typical, I asked for that to happen months ago and it was to no avail, I caved in this time because I feared someone would get PO'ed with me for beating the WP:DEADHORSE PXK ^T /_C 23:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I know it's out of our hands if we want the articles to all be FA (why I don't know, it's not like we get paid for them when they become FA) I was just enquiring if there was a possibility of an alternative or compromise. Tony2Times (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the only way as to meet the FL criteria, it's not what we want, it's the way we write our articles to meet the FL criteria. No one gets paid for editing here, but its an honor to get an article to FA.S_RX 02:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And there's absolutely no way of making it less intrusive to the articles and less ridiculously long? Tony2Times (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Length does not matter in an article, if a user does not want to comply with these new guidelines suggestions, the article may never reach GA/FA level. S_RX 02:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean the length stopping it from reaching GA/FA. I meant the length making it cumbersome to the human mind and English language. "Michaels then had a short feud with Batista ending in a stretcher match at One Night Stand" versus "Michaels (Hickenbottom) then had a short scripted rivalray against Batista (David Bautista) ending in a match where the winner is the first person who has been planned to put the other wrestler on a stretcher and wheel him up to passed a certain line on the ramp, at the One Night stand pay-per-view event." Really gonna be inviting to people to read that. My own problems with it aside, given that it seems we're taking this direction how far do we have to go to avoid using wrestling nomenclature? I'd argue a lot more people know that wrestling is scripted than know what a DDT is. Are we going to have to now describe every move in each article? Do we have to point out at every junction that it is staged or can we do it once per paragraph/section/article and assume the rest is in the same manner? Tony2Times (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

We are only following WP guidelines, it is to be written in a format that all English speakers are able to understand, do you really think a user who is not familiar with pro wrestling is gonna know what "booking, Tombstone Piledriver, Spear, etc." are? Also, per WP:WAF.S_RX 03:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That was partially what I was asking. A non-pro wrestling fan won't know what a tombstone piledriver or a spear are. So in every PPV article, instead of writing "Undertaker then delivered a tombstine piledriver and won the match" are we going to have to write "Undertaker then delivered his finishing move where he picked up his opponent over his shoulder, then stood belly to belly, with his opponent facing downwards and then dropped to his knees dropping him on his head." Are we gonna have to do that with every move now when describing the event part of a PPV, or the biography of a wrestler?Tony2Times (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If an articles passes FAC then yes, if no, we are going to have to try new approach, but this is most likely what out of universe is.--S_RX 13:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

GA/FA consensus should be treated the same

If we are to do this to get articles to FA level, it should be done with articles hoping to get a GA review. GA and FA should not be treated any differently, though they may differ on the state of the article, a user should not go about thinking that writing it in jargon with unreliable sources is good for GA but not FA; that should not be the case. Comments?--S_RX 02:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Reception

Since this was also brought up in an FAC, I think we should include a reception into the events.

1) Would it look better like

==Aftermath==

===Reception===

or

==Aftermatch==

==Reception==

2)I think we can style it after the reception of video games, or similarly in that nature. Like it is here and here.

3)Thoughts?S_RX 22:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a reception section. And I believe we should use the first format, since the reception is part of the aftermath. But either one to me is fine. –LAX 22:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Other than Canadian Online Explorer (AKA SLAM! Sports), what other reliable critics reviews pro wrestling PPV events? Also, I don't think we should use DVD reviews because WWE edits them and improves the quality, so it's better to get reviews of the event itself. So yeah, sources?--S_RX 17:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

For reviews, I don't think we need to use reliable sources. –LAX 03:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it ready now?

I've completed the out-of-universe and reception for SummerSlam (2003). Would the community review it to see whether it lives up to FA standards or if something needs to be addressed, thanks.S_RX 16:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's looking good, but I wanted to mention a few things: (1) a five-paragraph lead is pretty long, especially when the paragraphs are all developed that fully, (2) "positive" in the Reception section is point of view. And is 16,000 a great attendance figure? SummerSlam 1992 has 80,000+. And is the buyrate good? No mention is made of how it compares to other events. And no mention is made of how much the company made from pay-per-view sales, so describing this all as positive seems to be a case for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Let the facts speak for themselves, (3) copyediting is needed before the article can be nominated. A few things (it's/its; "proceeding" used incorrectly; commas being used to join clauses; commas placed incorrectly after the subject of a sentence; etc.) need to be fixed. I don't mean this as criticism, but it would be good if we could catch as many things as possible before nominating it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:GCF - 1) I reduced it to a four paragraph length, due to WP:LEDE#Length. 2)I reworded to satisfy NPOV. It does, it says the comparison to the following year's reception. I added how much the PPV revenued for the company. 3) Nikki said she was going to copy edit it, and she just did. --S_RX 18:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole article still needs some thorough copyediting, with particular attention paid to punctuation. For example, a semicolon cannot be used in "The fifth match was the predominant match from the SmackDown brand; a singles match for the WWE Championship, where Kurt Angle defended the championship against Brock Lesnar." In "Bischoff, as apart of the scripted events...", apart needs to be written as two words (or simply written as "part")...this is used in multiple locations in the article. In "Vince McMahon, who was managing Lesnar, came into the ring and hit Angle's back with a folding chair to break the submission hold, as a result of the referee being knocked down, Lesnar could not be disqualified for the interference," a semicolon needs to be placed before "as a result". I would go through and do this myself, but I'm going to be leaving town later today. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I fixed some instances, I probably missed others, I will get another user to copyedit it. Another thing, Nikki told me to explain the moves, do I have to explain every move?--S_RX 20:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I had less moves linked in SummerSlam 88, and I was told there were too many. Nikki311 20:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Image up for deletion in commons

Image:WWERawHD.jpg is up for deletion over at Commons (discussion can be found here), just to let you guys know. It might affect the stage photos that some of us have uploaded. -- Oakster  Talk  08:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:FLRC of IWGP Tag Team Championship

IWGP Tag Team Championship has been nominated for the removal of its Featured list status. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/IWGP Tag Team Championship. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WrestleWar or Wrestle War?

Also, see here: User talk:TJ Spyke#Re: Copy and paste RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Triple Crown Championship

I just noticed something: why isn't Kane listed as a Triple Crown Champion? He held tag team championship gold many times, was a 1-time IC champion and a WWE champion for 1 night.. — Moe ε 22:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

He is listed. –LAX 22:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah he is, and he's a two-time IC champ for the record. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

PPV results

It's been a few months since I checked Wkipedia, but when was it agreed here to change the results section of PPV's? The table format is terrible. For one, it doesn't tell you who beat who in tag team matches (i.e. wrestler A of team 1 pinned wrestler B of team 2), and it also doesn't tell you what move they used and other important info that the previous (and superior IMO) format used. I will suggest more later, but I think we should go back to how we did it before. TJ Spyke 16:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

here and here. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

All PPVs are working towards having the Background/Event/Aftermath section. The Event part will commentate on who made what pin following which move or what caused disqualification &c &c. Tony2Times (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We've been through this many times. Much of the project hates the format, but consensus is consensus and we want featured articles. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with tj. I know im probably beating a dead horse with this, but the chart thing SUCKS! If anyone is starting something to get rid of it and go back to the old form, please let me know. User:CTUnick

I don't like the current format, but I guess I have no choice. I still think we should go back to the old format (which worked much better and got us plenty of GA's and some FA's when editors actually tried). TJ Spyke 16:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The current format sucks, just take a look at This Tuesday in Texas, WWF Mayhem in Manchester, Chi-Town Rumble and many others.... --KingOfDX (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason they look so bad, is 'cause they haven't been expanded yet, so the results section is a little screw-ways. Of course, you're more than welcome to expand them... ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 11:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Or you can add {{-}} after the text, and they won't overlap anymore. Nikki311 17:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Royal Rumble

Someone's sourced WrestleView on the 2009 Rumble date as 29th January, which is a Thursday. The date as per WWE.com is 25th. I'd edit it myself but the grid its on seems to have been merged with the PPV infobox unsuccesfully and I can't do grids. Tony2Times (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Nikki311 21:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WWE No Way Out

..has been promoted to Featured List status. Now because of this, I feel we can do the same to other PPV pages from any promotion by following this example I helped to create. Also, sources were not challenged in the table, so presuming, WrestleView and PW Torch are reliable. Comments?--S_RX 13:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You just got lucky on those. I suggest trying to replace them if its possible. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually WrestleView was found reliable. PW Torch was never addressed, but It has been running since 1987 and has established writers like WrestleView.--S_RX 18:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If so then I have enough references no matter what to get Bound for Glory IV to FA. If this is the case then I guess PWWEW.net is reliable as well since their articles are really just exact copies of PWTorch's.--WillC 08:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not yet. PWTorch hasn't been proven reliable. Nikki311 17:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To me it's reliable per being like WrestleView, having a newsletter, and running since 1987. That website can easily be proven reliable.S_RX 18:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WrestleView was proven reliable because of the people that work with them, not because of their newsletter/age. Nikki311 18:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well PW Torch also has an established staff of writers. Like WrestleView and WON.S_RX 19:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The National Inquirer also has an established staff of writers, but I wouldn't use it as a source. You have to prove that they are credible. Nikki311 19:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Could these pan out? [3] [4].S_RX 19:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

More than likely, especially if you can provide a link to one of the major publications in which Wade Keller has been featured. Nikki311 20:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

He was featured on ABC news during the Benoit murder. Though they took it down, but if you go here you can see the article but from another source, but if you go to the google news and this is what you will find (the link here. He is also featured in another ABC news story (courtesy of ESPN), here. Is that enough?--S_RX 20:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO, yes. Nikki311 22:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Italicizing

I tend to think that subjects like WWE No Way Out - which are television shows - should be italicized, as television show titles are. This is different from something like the Rose Bowl, which is a specific game that may be broadcast on television. I guess that's kind of a pedantic distinction, but... Has this ever been discussed? (53 archives!) Tuf-Kat (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly some articles italicise Raw is War, which would extend itself to PPV titles being italicised. I'm not aware of any consensus on the issue though as equally many articles don't italicise Raw too. Tony2Times (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "Raw is War" concern, see our Project's MoS AT WP:PW/MOS#Italicization. As for the Pay-Per-View events concern, I don't know if its ever been discussed before but I think it should. Not just for wrestling Pay-Per-Views but other sports related events like UFC and boxing as I've seen numerous inconsistencies there as well. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 20:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop it with the incorrect music info

1. If something is production/stock music, then obviously it isn't by Jim Johnston. 2. Stop with the fake titles of tracks where the titles are unknown. No one thinks you're clever. Maxwell7985 (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It isn't us. It is the IPs and random fly-by editors. Just remove incorrect or unsourced info when you see it. Nikki311 02:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

And jokers like PCE. Maxwell7985 (talk) 02:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Remain WP:CIVIL and do not attack other users.--S_RX 02:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please...hahaha. Maxwell7985 (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

See here--S_RX 14:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Time to see what can pan out

SummerSlam (2003) is complete and is written completely out of universe. With this big discussion above about this format I say we see how it pans out. I plan on nominating it for FA later this week. Discussion?--S_RX 00:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I say nominate it and see how it goes. The result (either way) should have a huge bearing on our new consensus and the above discussion. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't believe it is ready, but as Gavyn said, try it out and see how it goes. Also, who would be against me re-nominating 2008 WWE Draft for FL, because the other one just closed due to a lack of comments. -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Why do you, Matt, Personally believe it is not ready?
  • Because of the above section, about how I believe that we are taking the "out-of-universe" too far, and the article, by far, takes the statement too far. -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• I asked FL director about renominating it, I am still awaiting a response because it is too soon to renominate it.

--S_RX 01:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK so do I have to put it on the waiting list?S_RX 01:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just be patient. -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Using WON as a source

In many articles, WON is used to source a lot of things, but most of the references simply lead to the main WON page, such as here. I've done searches on the website, but have been unable to replace the refs with the actual WON interview. Any help from those more experienced with Meltzer's site? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Meltzer changed the URL of his site so the original URLs have been moved or not replaced.--S_RX 02:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to know

..when did "we" as a "community" agree on a "waiting list?" Not that I am against it or anything but It just seems like we are the only project with this. With the discussion above, it seems that what would wrestling fans care about a "waiting list," we should be able to nominate articles freely. Many people are even violating the "2 noms per person" rule. So whats the point? 1)Link to an archive on the consensus. 2) Whats the point?--S_RX 02:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the waiting list was for other people to have a chance and make comments/copyedit nominations before they are nominated. In theory, it is a really good idea, but in practice it sucks. I'm assuming that I am the only one who ever looks over the articles on the waiting list, because when I put an article on there...I don't get any suggestions or changes. Also, the "2 nom" thing was never made a rule, just discussed. 1) I would look through the archives for the discussion, but I no longer care. Nikki311 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the reason I am bringing this up because no one else pays attention to them, no one else reviews them. I see no point of adding things to the waiting list if no one is going to review them. I feel if you put it for feedback or peer review, the problems should be addressed there.--S_RX 18:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would have been useful if people thought about it more like a tool to help them instead of another step they had to go through before GA. My free time seems to be dwindling down these days (and it'll be even less when school starts back in a month), so I have less and less time to review the articles. If nobody else is willing to utilize the waiting list...there is no reason to keep it up. Nikki311 22:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I also have to start school next month. I see the waiting list as WP:IAR, its just preventing us from improving Wikipedia articles and holding us back to nominate them.S_RX 23:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware it existed and I don't consider myself au fait enough to judge. Does it have to be accepted on the waiting list before being nominated? Perhaps there should just be a short time limit on the list so that it is possible for other users to peruse it, but that it doesn't prevent them from going on to be GA and FA if no-one looks. Tony2Times (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that most of the GA nominations at WP:GAN under "Sports and recreation." If we did not have the waiting list, and nominations were popping out, left and right, then it would fill of nominations from WP:PW. With the waiting list, it gives a seven day time span for any articles to get reviewed and removed at WP:GAN, and time for new articles (from the waiting list) to move on. -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I recommend

..for any user who writes articles or edits articles daily, especially PPVs, to add WP:REFTOOL by installing it on their monobook, or going to their preference and clicking the "gadgets" tab and check it off there. Reftools adds a "cite" button to the toolbox and can automate the cite template for web/news/books/etc and all you have to do is fill in the missing parameters. I also recommend checking off on that same page, where the assessment appears in the header of the title of each page, which makes it easier to see the quality of the article. Just suggestions for easier writing of articles.--S_RX 13:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks. Always end up opening up other pages and copy&pasting the citation pages, filling in the blanks, it's all rather laborious. Hope this helps. Tony2Times (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Protect Mike Adamle

Yeah...recent events are really bringing the idiots out. Yes, I said idiots. Don't bother telling me to be civil, I'll ignore it. Besides, I don't plan to wait and look at replies on this. Just thought I'd bring this to your attention so you can ruin the morons' fun. Maxwell7985 (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested semi-protection. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This needs to end, it's just ridiculous

I'm sorry to burst out (you might say), but I'm really sick and tired of this endless drama about the table format, and removing the jargon from wrestling articles or whatever. Seriously, why does it matter, what is the point, and why do we need to waste out time talking about it? It's really just SummerSlam (2008)'s talk page that has me ticked off.

I find it plain stupid that we have to write "enclosure based match contested under a roofed steel cell". Professional wrestling articles are 'not read by those who dislike wrestling, and those who like wrestling and want to read the article know what a "Hell in a Cell" match is. We should be writing these articles for those who want to read and understand it, not for those who do not want to read it, and get into the technical things about it.

The table format: I'm tired of seeing so many complaints about it, it is now necessary for FA reviewers to pass PPV articles. For one reason or another, it is necessary, and needs to be followed. It is more organized, anyway!

Also, "It is not required for GA, but it is for FA." That statement needs to be killed. If it is an FA requirement, it should be followed through the GA process. Nothing should be fixed "just to get it through the GA process" but then changed back when reaching for FA. Thats just dumb.

The removing jargon this is just the most annoying of all. We are expanding these pay-per-views for those wrestling fans who want to read about them. Not for somebody who dislikes wrestling to read.

Sorry if this seemed un-civil at all, or if I sounded like a dick, but this all needs to stop. It's pointless drama, and this is become more of a dog-eat-dog environment, where users are turning on each other to make themselves look good, and it's making me sick.

-- iMatthew _T.C. 14:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with you, but that is just me.--WillC 15:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps we could move and create old-style PPV articles to the Wrestling Wikia? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try and divide this section up as it involved various topics. -- iMatthew _T.C. 22:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ideas/Suggestions/Comments about Out of Universe writing

Getting into too much detail

Amen to that. I don't want to start a Lame war though, which is why I don't wanna keep bringing it up. My main contention is that there must be a simpler compromise that can be reached whereby the articles can be indicated to be fictional, unless otherwise noted - with a '(legit)' - by a banner at the top, or a warning in bold or something rather than having to write in every sentence that feuds are scripted, results are planned and rivalries aren't personal. Show me an FA about a film and I bet it won't tell you time and time again that the actors in the film aren't the same as the characters in the film and that the film never happened. Wrestling, like naturalistic film, is fiction portrayed as reality so why should it be treated any differently. Also, anything that isn't linked would need to be explained, but why do we need to say what a Hell in the Cell match is when it has its own page that succinctly, and then in detail, discusses what it is. Also, why is this limited to wrestling match types and rivalries. If you really want to keep it out-of-universe then you take it upon yourself to describe every single move uncommon outside of wrestling and MMA during the event type. Surely this kind of consistency is what is needed. I'm sure that'll be a fun article to read. Tony2Times (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What we need is a happy median. There is a line, as Tony pointed out, where we can go way overboard to the point where it is ridiculous. Nikki311 16:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Nikki (well Matt more. This removing jargon, like I saw in one article "No Holds Barred match or No Disqualification match or something was "taken out of universe", by saying "match where people couldn't be disqualified for malicious actions". I always though "No disqualification" was a pretty easy concept to understand, but maybe that's just me. They're the same thing, except one is shorter and a hell of a lot more succint.) And can I point out, that making the article too verbose is just going to annoy people. If we have to explain things, the explain them, but try and do it within a few words. "enclosure based match contested under a roofed steel cell" is too verbose for my liking. What's wrong with "match inside a roofed cell", if we're going to do this at all? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Match inside a roofed cell is bad too. All it needs to say is "Hell in a Cell" match. -- iMatthew _T.C. 18:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

But can we agree that this "removing jargon" crap should be stopped? -- iMatthew _T.C. 18:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Lets just make a template type banner that says the following my seem confusing to those that are not familiar to Professional Wrestling.--WillC 18:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If a banner can get us to FA or GA, it should say "The following is written in kayfabe and depicts fictional events, unless otherwise noted." But the chances of having that pass a review are slim. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyway to create a "roll-over button" that would state what you said, Gavyn? Something that would go in the top right corner of the article, maybe a tiny image, that when you roll-over the image it would state "The following is written in kayfabe and depicts fictional events, unless otherwise noted." -- iMatthew _T.C. 19:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, I have no idea how rollovers work. But I agree that something larger is necessary to get the point across... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Something like this should work, only maybe we should try to give it the show/hide feature, and make the height/image size smaller:

-- iMatthew _T.C. 20:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe we need something bigger than a picture in the corner. Because not many people are going to see it. Though if we make it big enough it might get a few more people's attention. It just depends on how big it is to me so people will notice it.--WillC 19:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I also think the "match where people couldn't be disqualified for malicious actions" is a bit too far. Instead, you can say "Shawn Michaels and Triple H were in a No Disqualification match, a match where people cannot be disqualified for any reason." Then later in the article, you can just use "No Disqualification match" because the reader already knows what it is. The same thing for steel cage match. Write it out, link it, and explain it, so you can just use the term steel cage match later in the article. Nikki311 19:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So is it safe to say that we should stop taking the articles out of universe to the extent that it has been occurring? -- iMatthew _T.C. 19:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends. The match/move terms need to be explained once, but then the jargon can be used in the rest of the article, IMO. For words like heel/face/stable...there are plain English alternatives that can be used that don't isolate non-wrestling fans or wrestling fans (fan favorite, villain, alliance). Nikki311 20:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well yeah but when making a article a FA you should use more out of universe there. Just less when it is becoming a GA or when your just writting the article to have it written.--WillC 20:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Dude that completely goes against my point above, with the general stupid idea of "It's good for GA but not FA." That is just plain dumb. -- iMatthew _T.C. 20:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, dude. I'm not sure what I'm doing right now since I only got about 10 minutes of sleep last ight and I've been up for 48 hours. I'm sorry I can't understand what you're saying.--WillC 20:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that the "Good for GA and not FA" idea is dumb. -- iMatthew _T.C. 20:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well I'm against the whole Out of Universe. Only on certain occasions should it be out of Universe. Less work for me in writing articles the happier I am.--WillC 20:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Holy hell, WTF! is going on here. People are snapping everywhere. I understand where everyone is coming from, and I feel that this whole "out of universe" thing is my fault, which it is :(. Now Matt you are right when you say that only wrestling fans come here to read these articles. But if that was so, then what in the hell is the purpose of this project? This is a "Wiki"Project, to enhance articles related to pro wrestling for every English speaker's understanding. If we are only doing it for pro wrestling fans then just move this project to Pro Wrestling Wikia, and disband this project. Over time, our PPV GAN's will not pass, most of our current GA's will be reassessed, and our FA right now is already about to be delisted. But if people agree to keep with "in-universe" then go ahead, but don't expect to be seeing an GA's or FA's next year. I also find that template to be placed in every article redundant, if it absolutely necessary, then make it into something similar to List of Harvest Moon titles (the language box template in the right hand corner). --S_RX 01:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You're totally right, SRX, it would be redundant to write these articles so esoteric that only wrestling fans can understand them, but if a non-wrestling fan reads them then they'd probably learn a lot more about wrestling if we used a healthy amount of terminology, because an article on a Hell In A Cell match can go into much more detail than an aside that describes it as a caged enclosure with a roof (this doesn't, for example, tell them that it doesn't attach to the ring like a cage would). Isn't one of the proposed reasons for making it less knee-deep in slang because it's hard to understand? Well isn't it equally impenetrable with each wrestling term being elaborated into a 10 word description. If there's an out-of-world synonym maybe we should use that just as much, start using rivalry as well as feud, but if we don't keep feud in there, then we won't be educating non-wrestling fans who want to be more au fait with wrestling about its ins and outs. I know I learnt the majority of my wrestling slang from Wikipedia, and I wouldn't be able to read a lot of wrestling media elsewhere if it wasn't for it. And I can see what you mean, SRX, about it being good to have FAs and GAs because it reminds us to reach a benchmark &c but I don't see how you think a template warning people that it is written in fiction is redundant, while a 10 word description of each and every wrestling term on every PPV and, presumably, biography page is a good option. Tony2Times (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrestler A (Wrestler A's real name)

Also, I find it strange to write Shawn Michaels (Michael Hickenbottom). Again, non-wrestling fans don't need to know that in the first place, and wrestling fans reading the article will want to read the article without the constant interruption of the real names. It looks bad and is annoying. -- iMatthew _T.C. 21:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It does look strange. Again less work, I'm for it. It isn't needed in the article in the first place. If they want to know his real name then they can just go to his bio page.--WillC 21:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's very awkward to read and write like that. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to be beating a dead horse, but 300 (film) is an FA, in the plot it opens "young Leonidas is cast into the wild" as opposed to "young Leonidas (Gerard Butler) is cast into the wild" So if they don't need to for fictional films, why do we need to for fictional wrestling? Also, I can't at the minute find an FA that talks about Michael Caine, but I'd be willing to bet that even in the out-of-universe sections it doesn't say "Michael Caine (Sir Maurice Joseph Micklewhite, Jr.) was sought for this role". But that's his real name. Like Michael Hickenbottom, no-one refers to him as Maurice though, everyone refers to him by his screen name just like everyone refers to Hickenbottom as Shawn Michaels.Tony2Times (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

But in the 300 article the characters are mentioned in the intro and real names are given, and the MOS for films is to link the name of the character to the actor as least once then refer to the character afterwards. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, ignore me. I didn't read that paragraph. Tony2Times (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Very true. I think the reason for it may be that wrestling attempts to present itself as real, while everyone in the film industry acknowledges that it is fictional. Compare WWE.com to any official move website. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Like the The Dark Knight promotional material that presented criminal files on the Joker and produced vote Harvey Dent literature and had pro-Dent vans driving round cities shouting slogans &c. Okay, I know what you mean, wrestling presents itself as real more than films do, but if a person read an article on Wiki, they know its fictional because they see 'film' in the intro. So put the kayfabe banner at the top, or put something like 'a professional wrestling (wrestling that is scripted or fictional)' or something a bit more succinct, that's the only indicator films give, why should we have to beat with a dead horse the fact that its fictional throughout the entire article? Tony2Times (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ideas/Suggestions/Comments about "Good for GA and not FA"

I only got one thing to say about this, both GA and FA format/criteria/style of writing should not be treated differently. I currently feel that this project doesn't take GA's seriously and just use them as points or just to brag themselves that they have one.--S_RX 01:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been getting the same vibes lately. -- iMatthew _T.C. 02:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean not taken seriously. Anyone and everyone that works on articles to get to GA takes them seriously. Also if GA and FA aren't different then there would be no reason in the first place to work it for GA and instead just shoot for FA since their going to be written the same exact way.--WillC 02:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The part of the statement I agreed on was "to brag themselves that they have one," but that has only been one or two un-named users. -- iMatthew _T.C. 02:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I hope I'm not one of them because my reasons are simple. Make the articles sound good, expand the TNA section, and know I did something helpful.--WillC 02:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The only reason people don't shoot for FA is because the review process of GA and FA is different and not all (less than 305 of FA reviewers, review a GA), which is why not all the problems are pointed out. That is the reason.S_RX 02:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ideas/Suggestions/Comments about the Tables format for PPVs

I only got one thing to say about this. I opposed it from the beginning, I oppose it now.--S_RX 01:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Strangely enough, despite my protestations against the other modifications being made, I'm very much in favour of the table. At first I wasn't keen on it but I've really warmed to it, I find the text being split up much easier on the eye. I don't know if we've hit the right table yet, it's a question of columns over pedantry I suppose, but I think the table as an idea works very well. Tony2Times (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer going back to the old format, but if tables are to be kept, I believe finishing moves should be listed. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, finishers should be noted in the table.--WillC 20:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah, that would make the table to big and bulky. -- iMatthew _T.C. 20:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely one more column in addition to the present three wouldn't be that much larger. hell, I'd be happy with simply the finishing move being listed - without "submission by" or pinned after a." Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

But that's covered in the events description. Also, if you want to remove "submission by", "pinned after a" to keep it less wordy, then what about when someone loses as a result of interference from an outside wrestler, or in a four corners tag match so you won't know who did the final move. Tony2Times (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone even think people read the event section or even the aftermath and Background. People only read stuff like that if it is a movie or TV show, not in wrestling. Fans already know what the storyline is or was. They just want to know how it ended. And the so called people that come to wrestling related articles when they don't know the first thing probably aren't going to read it either. Because even it is out of universe or in universe they aren't going to know what was just said. So their going to leave.--WillC 00:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, no-one comes to Wikipedia to learn anything. We just come to reinforce facts that we already know. Let's replace the entire website with a big bold "Just Remember It" sign. Tony2Times (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you being sarcastic or being truthful? Because for the longest time that is all came for. To see what matches were on the ppv cards. I actually only read the Wrestler articles if I read anything.--WillC 00:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I was being entirely ironic. The notion of writing wrestling articles on Wiki just for wrestling fans is elitist and misguided seeing as this is the people's encyclopedia, pardon the Rock pun. However, I also feel that going too far the other way and hammering home the point that it's staged &c gets tiresome. When I first watched wrestling (99-01) I was a complete mark, when I came back into wrestling (07) I used Wikipedia to catch up on what had happened in the interim period, and in doing so I discovered lots of wrestling nomenclature that otherwise I would have been unaware of. I think the problem with making it too out-of-universe is that people don't learn enough about wrestling, but that's certainly more favourable than writing it so esoteric that only dedicated wrestling fans can read it. If you just want to know PPV cards, there are umpteen amount of wrestling websites out there, Wiki needs to be more than just that. Tony2Times (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranjin Singh
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anastacia Rose McPherson

-- iMatthew _T.C. 10:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted DiBiase and Cody Rhodes

-- iMatthew _T.C. 01:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rycklon Stephens

-- iMatthew _T.C. 11:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Murphy Claire Levesque

It was just announced that the name of HHH's and Steph's new child is Murphy Claire Levesque. As an article was created for Aurora Rose when she was born, I expect the same here.--Bedford ^Pray 01:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source 1362^talk 01:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually 1362, he is just warning us about the creation of that article. Any source can do for this, they can't make up such a thing like that.--S_RX 01:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

PWInsider.com. If they say it, it will be picked up. Even if you don't accept it as a credible source (which you should), there will be individuals who will find it from somewhere else and add it. I just wanted to give a heads up.--Bedford ^Pray 01:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Why was a article created for their first child. What makes the first one so notable?--WillC 01:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Guys you are missing the point. He came here to let us know that there is a possibility that the Murphy Claire Levesque article might be created, because the first child had one created. The first was created, for no reason, but was obviously deleted. If the red link above turns blue, notify the project. -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It happened right after they announced the birth on RAW. They haven't announced Murphy Levesque on RAW, so maybe it won't happen for a while. Aurora's didn't stick around long.--Bedford ^Pray 01:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Lets just make it a redirect so they don't create the article. Though that would be creating one, but so they don't write a whole one.--WillC 01:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

create as redirect an protect (this is PXK)92.232.201.13 (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Do not get alarmed, I am creating both pages as redirect's to...HHH. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think they should be redirected to Stephanie McMahon IMO. Feedback ^☎ 17:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Freddie Prinze, Jr.

Random IPs keep adding unconfirmed rumors of a job in WWE creative. Should be protected. Maxwell7985 (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Both the Observed and PWInsider have that story, It's credible; just not confirmed by WWE.--Bedford ^Pray 21:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

But it may be wise to ask for a lock. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Now, it's confirmed. Feedback ^☎ 15:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Bedford, I hardly find WWE, PWI among others that confirm the story are uncredible, it is time to stop with denying facts from going into articles. — Moe ε 11:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The tables suck

Read title the table format compeletly and utterly sucks, it's difficult to understand what happend take Night of Champions for example; it has no information in what happend. It just says "Triple H deafeated John Cena" but it doesn't say how he won the match. I know everybody is saying that the old format was messy, but I didn't think it was messy at all. Then everybody is saying that it's the only way to get GA or FA but WWE PPV's were Featured Articules before the table format was even thought of. --L0W3R1D3R | TH3 L0W3D0WN 20:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's just gonna take some time to get use to. It says how HHH defated John Cena in the event section. 1362^talk 22:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to pick up on aniother point, the only PPV article we have at FA is December to Dismember (2006), and it's currently at FAR. All the reviewers are saying have tables format, so we have the table format. People need to accept this and move on. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I read the December to Dismember review and not one person said anything relating to needing tables so i was wrong about having FAs before. but you were wrong about tables having anything to do with it. --L0W3R1D3R | TH3 L0W3D0WN 01:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

She means other recent (failed) FA reviews. Some reviewers actually threatened to fail the articles solely due to the non-tabulated format. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm sticking with that the tables are useless and that they make it difficult to get quick information. it would be the it was all right there, now you have to read like a paragraph to find out how they won the match. And I still don't know how people won at NoC --L0W3R1D3R | TH3 L0W3D0WN 02:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The tables don't add anything to the article, and are actually more cluttered. You have to look in multiple cells to get the same information that you could with 1 line before (like "Edge defeated The Undertaker in a Ladder match to win the vacant World Heavyweight Championship", see how simple that is?). The whole point of the results section is so people can quickly see who won the match and how they won, not they have to find the match in the even section and check the whole paragraph just to find out how a wrestler won. Whats worse is that I am seeing people put the tables into PPV articles where there is no event section at all, meaning there is no way for someone to know how a wrestler won or what move they used (see Victory Road (2008) for an example). TJ Spyke 13:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I found a request somewhat like this, and I'm not sure if it's a good idea or now. It was suggested that we split the event section into individual sub=headers (for the individual matches). If we do this, we can make it easier to find the match results without having to look at the result table, and as a result, we can just delete the result section completely.

Deleting the results section would avoid all of the drama about the table/old format. -- iMatthew _T.C. 21:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

But then you'd not have the details of the belt on the line for quick reference, and if it was a tag team match, especially a large team (Survivor Series) you'd have the same problem unless you finished each match section with "and Austin pinned Road Dogg, meaning that his team of Owen Hart, Cactus Jack and Chainsaw Charlie beat Billy Gunn, Savio Vega and Triple H." You'd also not have the times. I think the idea of the results table is to have a very quick reference, and the method of winning is not a quick reference unlike the contestants, belts, match type and time. Tony2Times (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to direct your attention to...

...Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Cleanup listing. It is the cleanup listing that I signed our project up for. Need something to do today? Help eliminate our cleanup backlog. Nikki311 18:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Fully Loaded

I did this before reading Nikki post above. I was bored for a bit today so I copied the Fully Loaded page to my user page and turned the match results into the new table format. How does it look? The spacing between years needs a bit of fixing in my opinion but it is ok to copy to the main Fully Loaded page? (Loosie (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC))

Changes to the project's MOS for PPV's

I've been busy with the SummerSlam (2003) peer review. It has been reviewed by a couple of FAC reviewers and they pointed out many problems.

• Infobox
  • Add more figures to present the event's popularity.
  • Change instances of SummerSlam (2004) ---> SummerSlam 2004

• Lead
  • Write it to attract non-wrestling fans, as apparently SS' 03 is not written like that.
  • Tone down the lead, so do not give away to much detail like I have in SummerSlam (2003).
  • There should be an explanation that the event was scripted.
  • Quoting from Peer Review: There should be more emphasis on providing a general explanation of the event, such as might draw in the general reader and enable him/her to make more sense of the main narrative. In particular the unwary reader needs to know at an early stage that what is being described is a scripted, quasi-theatrical event, rather than a genuine sporting contest.

• Event
  • Suggested by FA reviewer that we put a series of subheadings in this section.

Aside from that, they are still finding the article with Jargon because of the many links, but the explanations are there. Though, I have many comments and I am in seek of any help to address these comments, so this article can have a chance at FAC. Thank You.--S_RX 13:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've lobbied before for PPV buyrates but was denied, I think it's a good way to present event popularity of course I don't know if there are any sources considered reputable. Didn't everyone already say the lead was too long? Would a banner saying it's scripted be enough to warn them? About the series of subheaders, would they want it to list each match? In which case, and this is a bit of an odd idea but it's just come to my mind so I thought I'd bring it up, would we be able to write articles by match rather than section, with there being a paragraph build up, event and then aftermath to each subheader. Probably a bad idea, just thought I'd suggest it. Tony2Times (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree about removing the year from parenthesis, I don't know why it was agreed to add them in the first place while I was gone and I support taking them back out. Buyrates are never reported by WWE (except sometimes for WrestleMania), very few sites ever report them and I don't recall any saying where they got the numbers anyways, so I support keeping them out. TJ Spyke 13:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Buy rates are always reported by the WWE as part of their quarterly financial reports, and that is where most websites (and PowerSlam) get them from. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Buyrates don't necessarily have to be in "0.48" form, they can just be with "400,000 buys."S_RX 22:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think people should try to make them in terms of raw numbers as I doubt many people will know what the decimal system equates to. Also in terms of reporting on how it was received, on SummerSlam 2003 there's a subsection to aftermath on reception. I think it's a great idea whoever thought it up, it mostly cites a variety of internet articles so I suppose it'll be harder to do the farther back we go but it's a start. Tony2Times (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

GAN=FAC

I don't think Users are taking this serious, many Users are just making PPV GAN's in however way they want it, but if we are doing new changes for FAC, this should be incorporate as also a GA style guide. In the SummerSlam (2004) Good Article review page, they also state why is there no reception? IMO, if I were to review that page, I would fail it because it lacks so many necessities.--S_RX 12:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

So, you nominated a page that you would have failed. I'm not sure how you can say that you would have failed it, considering you were the one who nominated it. -- iMatthew _T.C. 21:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

iMatthew, if you checked the history page of SummerSlam 2004, I did not expand it, I just nominated it to get it off the waiting list backlog.--S_RX 21:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

But if you do not think it is ready, you should just be bold and remove it from the list. Not just nominate it when you know it's going to fail. -- iMatthew _T.C. 21:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well back then, I was unaware of a new format iMatthew. I was just being helpful in clearing the backlog, and did not take care in looking at it. Anyways this subsection is to discuss the new style of writing for PPV's on how it should be for GANs like FACsS_RX 21:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Another infobox change

A FA reviewer suggested we change the chronology of the event in the infobox (the most recent addition we did like 1-2 months ago.) And change it into a format similar to the infobox for the SuperBowl. I personally like the idea, as it would save space. Also, in now writing with new consensus, the paranthesis of the events in the chronology should not be there (i.e. SummerSlam (2003) ----> SummerSlam 2003). Another issue was, why do we have the PPV chronology? It is doing no good to the article, and is there just for (really) "our personal use" (IMO). --S_RX 12:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The PPV chronology is like TV episode chronology, look at an episode of The Simpsons and they have navigation to all episodes of that season plus the previous and next season. PPVs happen in an order this is like navigating between episodes (to follow the storylines, if you will). If you want to know what happened next then this helps follow that. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Review of "out of universe"

One of the main issues was that we had to write "scripted" "a part of the storyline" "in a scenario" like everywhere in the article. Now we just have to introduce the definition of professional wrestling and that the buildup was scripted by the promotion's script writers, and those terms above should only be used when deemed necessary like if "Lesnar tried to walk away", --> "Lesnar was scripted to attempt to walk away." Another thing is many Users are placing BG, event, and AM in the lead. That is unnecessary, the article is about "the event" itself, so the first paragraph should introduce the event and pro wrestling, the second should be the event, and the third should be the reception (which IMO should now be mandatory in the style guide), even when writing in-universe. Another FA reviewer also stated that once we mention the character i.e. Kane (Glen Jacobs), we do not need to mention the real person's name again (like in a film article). Another thing that people need to take notice is overlinking, Users are linking the subjects in the Background, Event, and Aftermath sections. That is overlinking, when you introduce and wikilink the subject once in a section, that should be it, because the purpose of PPV articles is to get the reader to read the entire article. Also, when expanding PPV articles, the event section (if it is long, i.e. a big event) should be made into sub sections, with any dark matches placed in the main level 2 header, and then making a sub section for "preliminary matches" (which all undercard matches should go), and then making a sub section for "main event matches" (which the featured undercard matches should go and the main events). I know this is a lot, but it is more organized and makes our articles look a lot better.S_RX 12:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of that. Nikki311 12:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As do I, most of it. -- iMatthew _T.C. 21:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well what do you two disagree on, since you only agree with "most" of it?--S_RX 21:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm requesting feedback of the opening lead paragraph, and the opening paragraph of the background for The Great American Bash (2005). -- iMatthew _T.C. 21:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, wait. A FAC reviewer said that the out-of-universe is only neccessary in that we have to make it clear the pro wrestling is scripted once early in the article? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In the lead, because it is redundant to say that is scripted in the lead, and keep saying it throughout the article, the purpose of the PPV's is for readers to read the entire article from lead to references, so once they read the lead they are aware of what to expect in the rest of the article. The other thing is we still have to avoid jargon, and explain those terms like in SummerSlam (2003).S_RX 21:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Then this is the greatest news since I've joined this project. Does that apply to wrestler articles as well? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO it should, as it is a guideline that could apply to all articles in the project. S_RX 21:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I did that a long time ago in SummerSlam (1988). What do you think of the sentence in the lead that "reveals" that it is scripted? The part I don't agree with 100% is the lead. The lead is supposed to summarize the entire article. If you have several paragraphs on the background and aftermath, I think it should be mentioned in the lead. Nikki311 01:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I also felt that all that info should be in there, but FAC reviewers stated that the lead should summarize the "event itself" and not what led to it. I like the way SummerSlam 1988 "reveals" about pro wrestling, {how did I not notice that?}. I feel that SS' 98 has a good chance at FAC with a just a little bit more work. S_RX 01:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well. My ultimate goal is to nominate it again. I'm having trouble finding good info for production/reception, which is what I'm working on now. Not many of the normal sites we use have reviews up for the event. Nikki311 01:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The time has come

I plan on nominating SummerSlam (2003) for FAC later tomorrow. Please take the time today and the time available tomorrow to review the article for any mistakes or errors not pointed out in the (long) peer review. I plan on nominating it as a learning experience, if the article does not pass the first time, the project as a whole can learn what to fix and the second time around it may have a better chance. Thanks.--S_RX 15:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Which I have done, here. Lets hope for the best.--S_RX 13:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

PWTorch

Is deemed reliable. D.M.N. (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The Undertaker's streak

There seems to be an emerging revert war as to whether or not it needs to be in the article as a table as it is mentioned in the prose. I think it needs to be in as otherwise why list moves or championships as they could be (and are) mentioned in the prose as well. Thoughts? Darrenhusted (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This issue is already being discussed on Takers talk page.Killswitch Engage (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

New book references

Since no one told me that there was a Library where we kept hardcopy references of books/videos/etc. I never knew to add what I have. I went ahead and added two books that i knew where I kept, a couple of biographys of The Rock and Stone Cold Steve Austin (included in that is a couple of glossaries of wrestling terms throughout the books, so those will help when there are unreferenced types of matchs, moves, etc.). I also know I have a huge book covering details of every WrestleMania up until WrestleMania 20 or so, so if I find that book, I'll add that to the library too. — Moe ε 11:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

One more good search and I found it, "WrestleMania: The Official Insider's Story", this will definitely help with our WrestleMania articles that could be lacking references. — Moe ε 11:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone actually updating that page with new books and stuff. I've got a few books to add, but I don't think anyones really been looking at it. D.M.N. (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the ones I've gotten, but I believe I'm probably one of the only ones. PLus, I only have 2/3 so, it hasn't made that much difference. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter Mishap?

Sigh, seems as if Misza bot has sent the wrong issue: instead of issue XXII, issue XXIII was sent.--S_RX 15:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I asked him to try to fix the situation. -- iMatthew _T.C. 16:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Bloodymania

I am planning on creating a page for Juggalo Championship Wrestling's annual event Bloodymania. It is their Wrestlmania-type event which is taped live and released on DVD. The second annual event is being held on August 10. I was just wondering if these sources would be enough for me to create the page:

1) Sources directly from JCW. This includes their official website, the DVD of the first Bloodymania, a radio show which they host, and videos released directly by JCW which advertise the event and who is appearing. (about 5-8 sources all together)

2)Outside sources, being a review from 1wrestling.com and results from onlineworldofwrestling.com of the first event. (2 sources all together)

These sources pass what is needed for a PPV according to the guidelines, but I thought I'd ask anyway because Bloodymania wasn't aired on PPV, but rather released straight to DVD.Juggalobrink (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

1wrestling.com is not reliable and onlineworldofwrestling hasn't been proved reliable yet. But other than that the other sources are reliable just use the appropriate {{cite}} template.--S_RX 17:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

O_O It's not? I moved it to that section in our style guide since you gave me the impression that it was reliable. I also moved several other sites. You might want to check my edit then. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I will, thank you.Juggalobrink (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr. TNA

Either we change it to a full article or we just get rid of it completely. because on A.J, Styles' page it says under Championships and accomplishments that he was Mr. TNA for three years, and it has a hyperlink and it takes you to what you see in the headline. --L0W3R1D3R | TH3 L0W3D0WN 02:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Give me time and I'll make it a page. I have alot to do right now so it might be a month.--WillC 03:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Did I Miss Something?

It seems like (from the above topics) that a lot of discussions have been taking place recently regarding PPV's articles. I don't have much time to read through every argument as I need to watch all the WWE episodes and get back to normality, so could someone (for me, and for those that may of got lost in the discussion) summarise the changes that will have to be made to PPV's articles (on a side note, I've bought four books related to professional wrestling, which I'm planning to implement as references into the related articles). Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Basically...

• A reception section is now necessary in the aftermath section.
• In the lead there should be now only three paragaphs:
  • One describing the event and describing professional wrestling, to give the readers an idea that it is all scripted and follows storylines.
  • One describing the main event and featured undercard matches.
  • One about the reception of the event.
• Writing in "Wrestler A (Wrestler A's real name)" format is not necessary for writing out of universe anymore.
• Above all, it must be made clear in the article's lead that professional wrestling is scripted, follows storylines, and features real people portraying fictional villain and fan favorite characters. (See: The Great American Bash (2005), SummerSlam (2003), and SummerSlam (1988))

If I missed anything, anybody can just add it. -- iMatthew _T.C. 11:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Who said writing Wrestler A (real name) is not required anymore? It is necessary only to do it once the name appears and then just write Wrestler A's name throughout.

• Another thing is, no more jargon, we have explain the terms out.
• The event section should be split between subsection named "preliminary matches" (the undercard matches) and "main event matches" (the featured undercard matches and the main events)

That's basically it.--S_RX 14:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

iMatthew, which of those three is the best to use as an example? SummerSlam (2003) looks the best, but, hell, they should all look consistent in the writing way. D.M.N. (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

GAB 2005 needs fixing. As someone who is actually called Jordan, I get annoyed when people say "Jordon" as you have with Orlando Jordan's name every time in the event section apart from the first. (I can't because I'm on a crappy hotel computer) PXK ^T /_C 13:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again with you, stop coming here to complain, and instead be bold and fix it yourself. GAB 2005 is very close to FA quality, but if there is something that needs fixing, fix it. -- iMatthew _T.C. 13:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually. It is more formal for people to be referred to by their last names. Sorry. Nikki311 17:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

@iVendetta - I already said my hotel computer won't let me. also, see WP:CIVIL and WP:STOPBEINGSODAMNANGRYFORNOFECKINGREASON

@Nikki - I was reffering to the fact someone spelled it JordOn when I know for a fact it is JordAn PXK ^T /_C 02:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't call iMatthew, iVendetta, that classes a personal attack. Also, if you need it fixing, do it, it would take about a minute at least. If in IE or FireFox, hold Ctrl and press "F" on the GAB 05 article and search "Jordon", and change the second "o" for a "a" in all of the times it's spelt like that. No need to get het up like that. Also, don't say your hotel PC won't let you, you managed to comment here, so nothing stops you editing the GAB article (unless I'm missing something). D.M.N. (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

WWE.com references

Just a heads up, but wwe.com has changed the url of all their ECW results. People might want to check those article on their watchlist, and fix the sources. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe they haven't. Now, I'm confused. The references work fine on Shannon Moore, but I had to change a load of them on James Yun. Maybe they were just screwed on Yun's article. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Lockdown (2008)

Hello everyone, as instructed in the GA review for Lockdown, because of the new consensus of out of universe writing, I need a copyedit for that. I'm not sure exactly how to write out of universe. I've done the best I could with it so far. Would someone mind to help me out a little here and fix my mistakes? As well as check and see if there is any grammar issues with it since I suck at English (school subject). Just do a full copyedit for me if you will since I've read it a billion times and it sounds all the same to me.--WillC 06:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

December to Dismember (2006)

Just letting you guys know that the December to Dismember (2006) article is still undergoing an FAR, and therefore at the moment still classed as a Featured Article. I would really wish to keep this as an FA, however, my biggest fear is is that it is not up to standard with other PPV articles as a result of recent "out-of-universe" developments to get other articles FA. So, could some of you guys leave "peer-review"-like comments on the article on the talkpage, so I can try and improve the article and save it from the chop. At the moment, it looks like it's going to get chopped back to GA, and that's not what I really like to see. So, if you guys could leave comments at the talkpage, that would be great. D.M.N. (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't iMatthew withdraw the nomination 3.14 years ago? Sheesh, that's a system that sure is following its own rules. PXK ^T /_C 12:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is not needed.--S_RX 13:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously man! Please stop coming here with complains/sarcasm/attitude, as it is pretty uncivil. -- iMatthew _T.C. 20:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on. I was just saying that iMatt withdrew it so surely it should be taken off the list. And if sarcasm violates WP:CIVIL then most of wikipedia needs banning. *waits for someone to yell at me and claim I'm being uncivil PXK ^T /_C 02:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

He did withdraw it. Someone else renominated it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. If someone said that before it would have been really helpful PXK ^T /_C 04:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not as far as I know (link to FAR); he did ask for it to be withdrawn, but his request was ignored, hence why the FAR is continuing. On that note, this "dispute", "petty argument" has led to my original point being ignored. D.M.N. (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting new table addition

A user has started adding a "Brand" column to the Results table, see here. He's done this on a few PPV articles so far. I'm not reverting - as it's a good faith edit. What do people think about adding a "Brand" column like this user has been doing. D.M.N. (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good! I think its quite useful! Adster95 (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the FAC reviewers didn't know what "brand" meant when they first encountered it, and it had to be explained out in prose. I'm not sure this will help us get article to FA. Also, I'm not entirely sure of how useful it is. Is it really that important what brand the match is from? The only case I can think of it being useful in, is when a match is interpromotional, and then, don't we say that in the "Stipulations" column? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 13:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, I really don't think that the addition is necessary and as Nici said, FAC reviewers did not know what "brand" meant. -- iMatthew _T.C. 22:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated New Project Pay-Per-View Style Guide

I took the liberty to update our style guide, please review it and comment any questions or comments about it. Check it out -->>WP:PW/MOS#PPV Guidelines--S_RX 14:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I did edit one thing - and that's to replace "PPV articles" with "wrestling articles" As it was was written, it appeared that our reliable sources only applied to PPVs and not wrestling bios. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Move sections

Was there any ever consensus on if "Finishing and Signature moves is correct with the finishers bolded, like here or if having separate subsections for each is the right way, such as here? We should really make our articles consistent in this field. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a preference yet, but I think if they are in separate sections, there is no need to bold. I think we should avoid bolding as much as we can. Nikki311 19:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

True. I prefer having them all listed with the finishers bolded, but I guess that is sort of discouraged in WP:MOS, IIRC. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)