Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:53, 10 August 2008

Misplaced Pages:PW-Nav

Archives

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

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

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)

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 /_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 /_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)

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)

Can we shorten the infobox?

By doing this...

I think that we should remove the "Pay-per-view chronology" and "Event chronology" from the infobox and into succession boxes. If we make the succession boxes, it would go in the external links section and look like this:

And the shortened infobox would look like this:

-- iMatthew _T.C. 22:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --LAX 22:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Great idea. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ;) -- iMatthew _T.C. 00:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The succession box for the specific event (eg. The Great American Bash) seems redundant, as the table in the external links section already has the succession of The Great American Bash events. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's true. I guess that should go. --LAX 00:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with new idea, but remove the "even chronology."S_RX 00:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the event chronology. Is this enough of a consensus to begin making the change? -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be the odd woman out, but I like having the last and next PPVs listed. As Darrenhusted said (somewhere), it is analogous to having all the episodes listed in the TV episode infobox. Removing the event chronology will make the infobox shorter, but I really think the other should stay. Nikki311 01:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying that you think no change should be made, or that a change should be made, and the event chronology should be included in the succession box? I would agree that the event chronology should be included though, just don't have an exact reason. -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep the "PPV chronology" (Vengeance 05, current, SummerSlam 05) in the infobox, but remove the "event chronology" (the one that lists all the SummerSlams, for example). Nikki311 01:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I disagree with that, because the chronology does not really provide basic information of the event, as infoboxes are supposed to. -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the "event chronology" is already listed in the table in the EL (as GCF pointed out) and having the "PPV chronology" makes it closer to the TV episode format, which is kind of what we are striving for anyway (with the production, reception, and real names). Right? Nikki311 02:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, definitely. D.M.N. (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want a visual aid to what it would look like in the article, well I've done it to Lockdown (2008).--WillC 21:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Are we going to add it or not?--WillC 21:20, 6 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)

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 /_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[REDACTED] needs banning. *waits for someone to yell at me and claim I'm being uncivil PXK /_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 /_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)

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)

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)

User:Padillo

This user has uploaded several questionable pictures. He is claiming his pictures are his own, but he has cropped other pics that did not belong to him and claimed them as his own. The main article John Cena pic is what raised my eyebrow. He is claiming he took the pic at a concert (a little vague - it's from that VH1 Hip Hop Honors show), but the pic has a WWE microphone at the bottom. I have a feeling its another pic he stole and cropped. Can someone look into this? --Endless Dan 14:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Some look fine, but some are questionable, like the Cena one you point out. I'd be tempted to take this to WP:ANI. D.M.N. (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DMN, some look fine others are questionable, either he is a good photoshopper or he just stole them.--S_RX 15:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

They look like pics he may have taken from wrestler MySpaces so they would seem fine. I could be wrong, but given that some of the pics are obviously stolen or cropped, I think every thing should be examined closely. --Endless Dan 15:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I stumbled across Image:DaveyBoySmith012.jpg when I was writing the article for SummerSlam 1992, but I figured the picture was a little too perfect to be legitimate. It would be a great picture to include if it was really free use, but I'm fairly certain it's copyrighted. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad this was brought up, too. He uploaded Image:Ashleylondon.jpg to Ashley Massaro and Paul London's articles awhile ago. I thought I had seen it before on Massaro's MySpace, but since I don't frequent it all too often I couldn't be sure, and when I looked for it there...I couldn't find it. I think it should be taken to ANI...as I'm not 100% sure how to deal with this (delete the pics + slap on the wrist?). Does anyone have any more proof or have they seen any of the pics anywhere before? The more evidence the better. Nikki311 19:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Add: Image:Tagchampslondrick.jpg can be found on the net --> and . It is plausible that these sites borrowed the pic from Misplaced Pages, but that usually isn't the case. Nikki311 19:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mercuryandnitro.jpg. Recently uploaded to MNM, Adam Birch and John Hennigan. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And this: Image:Wwfedge&christian.jpg Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I know that image from a news article on the wedding it self. He definitely does not own that image. –– Lid 23:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not only wrestling related, the user has uploaded a tonne of images under self-owned licenses that are blatantly false i.e. Image:Promise spoken.jpg, , etc. There's more than enough here to warrant a pretty much outright scrapping of all his images as they are likely to all be copyrighted, bring it to an image admin's attention. –– Lid 23:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Soooo... what course of action will be taken? I think this user shouldn't be given the benefit of doubt and all his pics should be deleted. --Endless Dan 01:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going through the process and we'll see what it results in, but it's looking like if he uploads another one he's getting indefblocked. I also tracked down where I had seen Image:Wwfedge&christian.jpg before - on this article here. –– Lid 13:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

New Quick Results Archives page?

Hey everyone, I wanted to propose the idea of setting up quick result archives of wrestling TV programs such as TNA iMPACT!, TNA Xplosion, TNA Weekly PPV's, WWE RAW, WWE SmackDown!, WWE Velocity, WWE Heat, ECW on Sci Fi, ECW on TNN, Ring of Honor live events, WCW Monday Nitro, WCW Thunder, etc. Over the years I have collected this original data all on my own and I think it would be a great addition to Misplaced Pages.

It would look something like this for example:

TNA iMPACT!

October 1, 2005: Orlando, FL

• TNA X-Division Champion, AJ Styles defeated Roderick Strong, in a Non-Title Match.

• Monty Brown defeated Lex Lovett.

• Three-Way Match: Chris Sabin defeated Petey Williams and Alex Shelley.

• Jeff Hardy wrestled Rhino, to a no-contest.

Let me know what you all think. MC511 (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the TNA weekly ppvs should be made but there is no reason to at the moment because it would just be a big list. Though I was going to create it later. The results to tv shows shows is a okay idea but that is just my opinion.--WillC 19:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That has been proposed before. The ECW brand had a results page, but it was AfD'd as listcruft. I'm not sure if any other weekly wrestling show has had a page. Nikki311 19:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

We are not a wrestling site, that would fall under WP:NOTDIRECTORY I think. D.M.N. (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That would cancel out all the WWE, TNA, WCW, ECW, and ROH program results but surely not the TNA Weekly ppvs since they are ppvs and went around 2 hours, just as long as the ROH ppvs today.--WillC 20:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. This is why we don't have results for the weekly ROH reports, which is why List of Ring of Honor events was deleted a while ago as List cruft, which applies to TNA's weekly PPV shows.--S_RX 20:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well yeah, the lists would be long which is why we can do a page for each year, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, etc. MC511 (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree SRX, the ROH events were house shows and DVD shows. The weekly ppvs were two hour live ppvs for 10 or 9 dollars each week from Nashville. These would fall under regular ppvs like SummerSlam 2003. If it was possible to get a hold of a weekly ppv from TNA then we could expand them as well. I believe something like 2 years of weekly ppvs that added up to 136 ppvs is something that deserves a article instead of a foot note in Victory Road (2004).--WillC 20:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree again, the weekly PPV's were just shows promoted like television shows to build up storylines, like Raw, ECW, and SmackDown, with the exception that they were not on regular television. Thats what the pro wrestling wikia is for.S_RX 20:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

To build up storylines to what? They had every match on their weekly ppvs. They build up to nothing but the next weeks episode. There was and is really no difference between them and a three hour ppv. And plus it is a ppv and not a free broadcast tv show. Because they are ppvs I feel they should have a page. 136 I believe is enough since TNA refers to them all the time and there is enough sources at prowrestlinghistory, Online World of Wrestling, Wrestling observer, and PWtorch to make a good sourced list. Maybe enough for a FL with time of expanding many of them and finding new sources.--WillC 21:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the fence. They were PPVs, but at the same time, they were essentially earlier versions of a two-hour Impact. At the least, I think a page should be created to explain the concept. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of how you think, they were PAY-PER-VIEWS and just because you have a biased opinion, that doesn't mean you're right. You can't change the fact that they were Pay-Per-Views and to this day TNA says their first Pay-Per-View was on June 19, 2002 in Huntsville, Alabama. They DON'T say their first Pay-Per-View was on November 7, 2004 in Orlando, Florida with Victory Road. MC511 (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Testing Out of Universe

Well just and update on the FAC, no current votes of support of opposition, just comments on fixes, which is a good thing. But if we are going to do this, how are we going to apply this to future PPV events when their are IPs and Newbies always getting into a conflict over the consensus here. Suggestions?--S_RX 00:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The same as with the tables, revert and tell them. Unless you want to place a banner that says leave contents alone.--WillC 02:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you placed a banner, I think that might border WP:OWN, by saying a group of members in this project "own" that particular article. D.M.N. (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

How is that a problem if we are "owning" it per Misplaced Pages policy. If we created a page with a banner than had an crapload of MOS and guideline violations, then I could see your point. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding a hidden note wouldn't be bad to add, since most PW articles have that. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hidden notes these days don't mean nothing to the Ip's or newbies. I like the idea of the banner but could go against WP:OWN, I guess we should just go ahead and do it and add a hidden note and revert if they change it and let them discuss it and we will explain why. Is that okay or should we come up with something else?S_RX 15:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, they need to know that if they make the "changes" that they will be warned for doing so. But, we would have to discuss some kind of consensus. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Things like hidden warnings are like placing signs up in real life; people will ignore them if they want to, but at least this way they can't claim that they didn't know what they weren't supposed to be doing. TJ Spyke 17:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the concern that people will create/expand new articles in a way other than the "consensus" here or that people will change articles that have been completed according to the "consensus"? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Changing the consensus of the Manual of Style. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The new changes that have been made to the PPV's. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What about them? I'm still not sure what the concern is. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The concern is that they will continue to revert from the new style of writing back to the original jargon/in-universe format. What did I guys tell you it's already starting.S_RX 02:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep in mind that the new format is "consensus" in name only. With the exception of the tables, none of the recent changes were discussed and debated here. It all came from individual editors in peer reviews and/or FACs and was put in place immediately as "consensus" without discussion. It would have been nice to see some of it discussed, as it would have given an opportunity to point out that there are definite problems. For example, I just finished expanding SummerSlam (1992). According to the new "consensus", I should have split the "Event" section into two subsections: (i) Matches # 1-8 and Match 10, and (ii) Matches #9 and 11. How I would make paragraph transitions there is beyond me, as is the intended benefit of the subsections (which, in many cases, will be point of view, as main events aren't always clearly identified by the promotions). GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed, this spans from like the month of June. The community agreed with out of universe style, and then it was enhanced with the FAC reviews. Then it was disagreed, but then agreed after it was explained that their were easier ways to doing the format. Like I said above the guidelines have been updated and they can be seen there.S_RX 04:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I know where to find them. I just don't think they should be referred to as "consensus" when no consensus was sought or formed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk page banner

How about we make a talk page banner and state the explanation of the new format and reference to WP:PW/MOS#PPV Guidelines or the shortcut WP:PW/PPVG?S_RX 03:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hell yes. Seriously. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well what should it state? Lets discuss community.--S_RX 03:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it should be worded but it should go right to the point and even a three year old should be able to understand it that there has been a new consensus that ppv articles are now going to be written out of universe and to not revert the edits and instead open a discussion about the problems you have about it on the talk page.--WillC 03:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How about The following article is written in an out-of-universe style of writing for the understanding of all readers on Misplaced Pages. Pay-per-view articles should not be written for one specific type of readers, but to all English readers. The original format of pay-per-view articles violated WP:JARGON, WP:IN-U, and WP:PW/PPVG. If you have any questions, please discuss here or at WT:PW.? or something along those lines.S_RX 03:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That would work but I believe someone who doesn't know the behind the scenes of WP:PW would be confused. Maybe a little less confusing and it would be better.--WillC 03:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How, they are just shortcuts to long titled project pages.S_RX 04:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Mainly when you said out of universe. I don't believe IPs would understand that.--WillC 04:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

TNA Spin Cycle

We need an article page for TNA Spin Cycle. MC511 (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, what is "TNA Spin Cycle". --LAX 19:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Fan created videos aren't notable.TrekFanatic (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

At most a foot note in Total Nonstop Action Wrestling is needed. Also now I see that WP:PW is just about WWE. Because Spin Cycle is a youtube tv show that TNA does with four members from its roster and they talk about current events. TNA is trying to get it on Spike tv as a half hour tv show. WWE isn't the only company you know, there is also ROH, TNA, PWG, NJPW, FIP, and Shimmer.--WillC 20:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well, in that case let's make articles for every reoccuring segment on WWE.com --Endless Dan 20:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, a foot note in TNA will do just fine.--WillC 20:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe that there is a complaint that this project is "discriminating" TNA when the major problem is that we must improve material covering companies outside of the US. There is wrestling in other countries you know ;-) WWC, IWA, AAA, CMLL, NJPW even new companies like RXW in Panama... Compare the coverage that we give to those with TNA. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

To me about the same amount. I would be glad to work on any of those companies articles if I new anything about them. I also have a good reason to say that the project is more about WWE than other companies. I'm the only one, besides a few others, that have worked on the last 3 ppvs by TNA. I've wrote the background to Destination X to Hard Justice this year. I've mainly been working on them alone, besides a very few others helping out.--WillC 22:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It is hardly the same, TNA has articles about all their PPVs and other events. Heck, each one of the World X Cup teams have its own articles, when each incarnation changes every two years. As far as coverage goes, I know that IWA, WWC, AAA and NJPW get a decent ammount; IWA even publishes "inside" articles where they discuss hirings and firings in English. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I misread your statement. I don't follow TNA (or current wrestling for that matter), but is this contest/segment/whatever really that notable? Fans submitting their own youtube videos?? --Endless Dan 21:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Here watch it.--WillC 22:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll pass. There's a reason why I don't watch wrestling. Is this something that has been around a long time? Is it new? Would it be equivalent to the WWF's Byte This program?

Is Youtube even a reliable source??? Even so, I don't think this is notable enough even as a blurb on the TNA page.TrekFanatic (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fan created videos? Seriously? Wow. Mshake3 (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a TNA fan, I watch Impact every week, but I've never even heard of Spin Cycle. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

First off if you would check the link you will see that it isn't created by fans. It is from the TNA youtube account, it is relible. It is from TNA and they even post it on their web site. It deserves a foot note in TNA programs or Total Nonstop Action Wrestling.--WillC 02:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If this is TNA-produced you'd think they could do it in better quality than "low". Sorry Will, but I disagree with you that this is notable. TrekFanatic (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now it is TNA's product. It has TNA's logo on it; Gail Kim, ODB, Traci Brooks, Salinas, Jeremy Borash, and Don West are all seen in the video. I don't believe a fan could make the video. It is note worthy of a foot note in Total Nonstop Action Wrestling.--WillC 19:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Going to iMPACT! on Monday

Anyone got any article picture requests? PXK /_C 23:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Taylor Wilde needs a pic, and one with the Knockouts Championship would be even better. We also need closeup single shots of Angelina Love and Velvet Sky (if you have really good seats, I guess). Nikki311 23:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt Morgan, Jimmy Rave, Rhaka Khan.

Roxxi could use a pic of her bald. An in-ring shot of Abyss would be nice. A pic of Karen Angle that doesn't include Kurt. Tomko also needs a pic, but he may left the company. The ring announcer, Dave Penzer needs a pic, as does Hermie Sadler if he's there. The referee, Mark "Slick" Johnson as well. And a pice of Creed in TNA could work too. And a pic of Christopher Daniels as Curry Man would be great. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a idea, just take a picture of anyone and everyone because it would be great to place in their articles as well as PPV articles that I'm expanding and ones I'll do in the future as well as ones others will do in the future. Instead of just request, because you never know who you'll see; never know, Jeff Jarrett might show up or RVD might make a return to wrestling by signing with TNA and showing up there, just take a picture of almost anyone.--WillC 01:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude, calm down. That sounded really bad faith to me. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Clam down why? I'm acting normal. I was just saying to take a picture of anything because really every article in TNA's section needs a photo. Most of them are old photos. New ones would be great.--WillC 03:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The tone (which is easily misinterpreted over the internet) seemed more "Hey you idiot, here's an idea" then "I have a good idea" to me. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I might have been a little excited though. More pictures for the TNA section. Something good for that section is rare.--WillC 19:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Man, I should pay more attention to my galleries. I have some other things I can add, such as Roxxi and Kong from the last SHIMMER show. Mshake3 (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Good that would be helpful, the Kong one would do great in Final Resolution 2008 when I create it and write it.--WillC 01:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Some help, por favor

I'm not really active in this project anymore, but I do maintain my pet article Briscoe Brothers, and I've run into a problem with User:ROH Historian that....well, quite frankly, it's making me laugh my ass off (see his talk and mine {I've removed the comment, but it's in a past revision} for the lulz), but it's disruptive all the same. ROH Historian insists on the following text being in the article:

On August 1, 2008 in Manassas, VA The Briscoes defeated Sweet N'Sour Inc's Adam Pearce and Shane Hagadorn when Jay pinned Hagadorn following the Springboard Doomsday Device.

On August 2, 2008 in New York City they defeated The Vulture Squad (Ruckus and Jigsaw) when Mark pinned Jigsaw following the Springboard Doomsday Device.

Which is patently unnecessary and best covered by a single line referring to Mark's return to the active roster (which I've added......several times). User:Gavyn Sykes reverted ROH Historian once and included a comment tag discouraging the addition of the sort of material he was trying to put in, but obviously ROH Historian paid that no mind. He even called me editing out the above quoted text "vandalism," which is just sinfully hilarious.

Humor aside, this is still a problem that needs dealing with. Thanks for any help. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow ROH, but Briscoe Brothers is on my watchlist just because it's a GA, for the record. I haven't checked the history of the page, so I had no idea ROH Historian had been constantly adding that. But he seems like troll to me. "I know you wish you for me to kill myself?" WTF? Anyway, I'm not really sure where we could go from here. We've cited WP:V, WP:RS and most notably (excuse the pun) WP:N. Might be something to ask an admin about. We have three on the project now (LAX, Nikki311 and Lid, though Lid isn't as active as the other two. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind, thanks. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I added a note on that user's talk page. Let me know if he continues. Nikki311 02:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Crap, look at his contributions. He's been doing this to easily a dozen different articles. Tromboneguy0186 (talk)

After his latest statement on his userpage (which has since been blanked), I've taken this to ANI. D.M.N. (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who blanked his user page, and I have also templated him with some warnings, maybe he can be redeemed, but if ANI can sort it then he is next to 3RR. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

All right, I've trimmed down the excessive recentism that was in Kevin Steen and El Generico, Naomichi Marufuji, Claude Marrow, Go Shiozaki, Delirious (wrestler), Adam Pearce, Claudio Castagnoli (this article needs a lot of work, by the way, it is still heavily kayfabed-up), and Brent Albright. Other users had already done the same to Bryan Danielson, Larry Sweeney, Chris Hero, Austin Aries, and Motor City Machine Guns. These seem to be his targets. I did not edit The Age of the Fall, which similarly received attention from this goofball. I was unsure what, if anything, ought to be trimmed. Now, when/if this guy returns from his block, he's probably going to go right back to these articles. As I said at the top of this section, I'm not exactly active in this project any longer and to be a little blunt I don't particularly care to be. I'll be able to look after my own talk page (though thank you to the user who reverted the latest insane rantings the Historian posted there) and surely Briscoe Brothers, but if you don't want this sort of crap seeping into other WP:PW articles, you'd best keep an eye on the ones he's targeted, and probably more, to be frank. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

When did..?

....we incorporate the "defeated" parameter into the television programs under the Champions section? See here, here, and here.--S_RX 03:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

August 6 at 19:56. According to the edit summary in the page history, the editor stated, "I added some text to the top article and add the defeated section to the champions." GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the precise time, but should we remove it? I find it irrelevant to the article itself or the section, as that is what the respective pages is for.--S_RX 12:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, it is pointless as any link to the championship will give the information. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Darrenhusted. D.M.N. (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The same user also made WWE Title Holders which has since been redirected, and TNA Champions which I have now redirected. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for you to know now TNA has a current champions page. So if anything like that is made agian, redirect it there.--WillC 05:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Branding storyline?

I've been a vocal critic of the OOU style of writing but accepting it briefly, I'd just like to ask why every PPV article now contains (or will contain) "The event starred wrestlers from the Raw and SmackDown! brands: storyline expansions of the promotion where employees are assigned to wrestling brands under the WWE banner." I don't really see how the branding thing is a storyline. The wrestlers are assigned to brands and they do wrestle almost exclusively on them. Sure, which brand they are on is arbitrated and not lottery, but that doesn't stop them wrestling on that brand. Could we not put show or programme instead of brand and cut out the explanation. In fact, now that all PPVs are non-brand exclusive, why do we even bother to put that on there? It's like saying this WWE event features WWE wrestlers from all WWE shows. Obviously it needs to be said for the 2002-07 PPVs. Tony2Times (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This is how FAC Reviewers understand it better and it is doing no harm to any reader. Articles should be written so all readers of Misplaced Pages can understand. We should not base our articles on one set of eyes (wrestling readers). Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia not a news site or a site built on wrestling. If you don't appreciate the new format, head over to our sister Wiki, Pro Wrestling Wikia and you can have it your way, but here we are wording it for a better reputation of wrestling articles and an opportunity for more Good articles and Featured articles.--S_RX 14:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my point. As I said I was briefly accepting the OOU writing style. My point was that the brand extension isn't a storyline because the wrestlers are assigned to brands so to tell non-wrestling fans that it is storyline is misleading, I reckon. Moreover, why complicate things by adding that on current PPVs where there is no brand exclusivity? Tony2Times (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

WWE Saturday Night's Main Event results >> Spilt?>_Spilt?-2008-08-07T14:30:00.000Z">

This in currently undergoing an AFD, which looks like it'll end in keep. Now, I think this article should be split like what we've been doing with PPV's. For the original run, from 1985 to 1992, I believe some storylines built up to the SNME events, which means it'd be easier to put information in, of course, it may be a bit harder for the recent SNME events, but it is still "do-able". Of cause, we don't have to do it all at once, one at a time like with PPV's. But overall, I think it is a completely feasable option to split them into "PPV style" articles. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)>_Spilt?"> >_Spilt?">

That sounds fair enough. I'd be happy to write the sections on the most recent three SNME's since I've actually seen them. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarify: My proposal means that each SNME event will have it's own article. D.M.N. (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Should the results list be on its article? Like Clash of the Champions is.. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Anyway, I'm creating a "!vote" for my proposal:

Why isn't Saturday Night's Main Event results just moved to Saturday Night's Main Event? RandySavageFTW (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Support split>_Spilt?-2008-08-09T09:01:00.000Z">

1. D.M.N. (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
2. --WillC 09:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
3. RandySavageFTW (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose split>_Spilt?">

Comments>_Spilt?-2008-08-09T09:01:00.000Z">

I've created the "!poll" to see what you guys think about splitting them into event articles like with PPV's. D.M.N. (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Style Guide should take effect in September

The new guidelines should take effect beginning inSeptember. Currently their are GAN's that are written in-universe, which will be the last ones to be in that format. After September, articles that are not out of universe, should not be able to go to GAN or FAC. This gives the project some time to get articles in shape. If anyone disagrees, say it here, we can extend the time period or if there is anything else wanting to be discussed.--S_RX 02:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Says who? GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

My bad, should have restated that, Style Guide "should" take effect in September, there we go.--S_RX 02:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If this is true then I don't have to take Lockdown out of universe, though I still should, it doesn't mater to me.--WillC 02:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't all FAs and GAs be converted? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If those who created them don't take the liberty to do so, everyone from the project is going to have to pitch in. Eventually, these will be new standards for GA, and GA Reviewers will take many of our articles to WP:GAR, where they may get delisted.--S_RX 03:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Being that I am the principal author of a pro wrestling GA, Briscoe Brothers, and I still wish to maintain it, I'd like to ask if it's sufficiently "out-of-universe" for your standards. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the changes for all GA PPV articles will be gradual, hell, it's not going to happen overnight, it's a process it will take a while (I've got five PPV articles at GA - but I don't really wish to feel like I'm in a rush to do it otherwise they'll get the chop). D.M.N. (talk) 07:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

At the moment we should not worry about biographies or tag team articles, those can be done later. The PPV's should come first, and like D.M.N. said, this is not an overnight process, this will take time, hell, we may finish come January.S_RX 12:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I will likely not be much help in this regard. I'm not good at writing PPV article nor do I have much interest in them. I will probably ignore the conversion altogether unless someone specficially asks me to help with an article. I will stick with wrestler bios for now, and can perhaps make some improvements while most others are focused on PPVs. I'll least maintain them. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sticking to my belief that all of this is being pushed too quickly without sufficient thought put into it. The current style of "Per this edit at a peer review, all pay-per-view articles must be changed to include this" doesn't work. I don't mean to criticize the editors who are trying to make the changes, but a quick glance at a few articles shows me that there are numerous problems:

1. Who decides what is a preliminary match and what is a main event match? The promotions don't always make it clear, so separating them can be point of view. I know that the WWF used to call all title matches "main event matches" back in the mid-90s. Is that what we're going for? And, of course, not all main event matches involve titles.

Well main event means "most hyped" match, and the featured preliminary matches are most hyped than the other preliminary matches.--S_RX 14:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's still an artificial, point of view distiction. For example, with WrestleMania X, should the opening match (Bret Hart vs. Owen Hart) be considered a main event match because it was heavily promoted? GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

1. People are making subsections for "Preliminary matches" and "Main event matches" but then beginning the main event section with "One featured preliminary match was..." This makes no sense, and it won't fly at FAC.

Actually it will fly because the FAC reviewers suggested it and currently it is "flying."--S_RX 14:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the phrase "featured preliminary match" named as a concern in a GA review because some readers have no clue what that means. In addition, it makes no sense to separate preliminary matches and main event matches and then discuss preliminary matches in the main event section. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

1. The division into these subsections ignores the fact that events with two or more main event matches may have another preliminary match thrown in between.

It doesn't matter, a side note can be thrown in to explain that a preliminary match was thrown in.--S_RX 14:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It makes much more sense to discuss them chronologically. Dividing it into subsections is just superfluous headers for the sake of superfluous headers. Again, take the WrestleMania X example from above. Would I begin the discussion of matches at WrestleMania X with the second match on the card? As a reader, I would wonder what was going on if I saw that in an article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Extensive descriptions of holds don't always work. Unless you've seen Dean Malenko use a Texas cloverleaf, reading a two-line description of how it is applied won't make sense (I had a hard time following, and he was one of my favorites). Linking it and calling it a submission hold that hurts the leg would work better.

Have you not paid attention to the recent expanded articles or the FAC for SummerSlam (2003)? The holds should not be explained anymore and should just be linked.--S_RX 14:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't. It doesn't interest me. The reason I edit articles about wrestling in the early-1990s is because I think wrestling became unwatchable midway through 1996. I just checked, though, and it seems as though this new change (which will soon be named a "consensus" is because Brianboulton said so. Since when do we change every article, without discussing it here, because one editor said so? And if you look at SummerSlam 2003, many of the moves are still given extensive descriptions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

1. The description of holds is leading to poor grammar. There are many switches between past tense and present tense, and "their" is being used as a singular pronoun, and the reader is being addressed with "your".

Like I said above, they aren't explained any more.

But they are, both in SummerSlam 2003 and several other articles that were written according to the "consensus". Looking through a few, they contain exactly the type of writing errors I mentioned above. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Descriptions are getting way too wordy. Why say "for malicious actions" instead of "for cheating"? By definition, most wrestling moves would be considered malicious (eg. punching your opponent), but they don't cause disqualifications.

Sigh, like in the FAC, we don't need to say that anymore, No Disqualification is self explanatory.--S_RX 14:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think it should have been changed in the first place. Again, matches are still described in detail in other articles and contain the same writing errors I mentioned with the holds (In the example, "The only way to win a "Bra and Panties match" is to strip your opponent's clothes off until they are left in their underwear", "your" addresses the reader and should not be used in an encyclopedia, and "they/their" are plural pronouns being used incorrectly to refer to a single person). GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

1. The articles are about pay-per-views, not about professional wrestling in general. Throwing a sentence discussing staged rivalries and scripted matches doesn't work unless it discusses this in relation to the event itself. Otherwise, it's just choppy prose.

That is what "flies" at FAC, and I find it necessary because I find it redundant to say every sentence that it "was part of the scripted events" "as a part of the storyline." It's not like its in every section, it's only in the lead for the reader to comprehend what pro wrestling is about.--S_RX 14:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You missed my point: "unless it discusses this in relation to the event itself". A stand-alone sentence about professional wrestling as a whole doesn't work in the middle of a paragraph. It should be rephrased to describe what professional wrestling is while discussing the specific event. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

These are a few of the more obvious problems I've seen. I think some of the recent changes are for the better, but I think some thought still needs to go into how to implement all of it (or perhaps just some of it). I'm also not trying to point out problems without proposing solutions, so I'm willing to discuss this. I just think someone needs to say something before all of the articles are changed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I responded to your concerns. (Sorry to sound like a dick)--S_RX 14:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I am currently on vacation, just found a computer. I will be able to help make the change to our GA's when I get back. Without going into detail, I agree with GCF, and I'd have to say some of this is just being taken to far. -- iMatthew _T.C. 14:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

How? So if SummerSlam (2003) "goes to far" and it passes FAC, what does the project plan to do?S_RX 14:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Guess so. Guess we have to do that to get our articles to FA, like it or we do. Although the FAC (as of yet) doesn't have any supports, it also doesn't have any opposes... D.M.N. (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Vengeance 2002

Hey i was expanding this in my Sandbox for a while. I'd just like to see if you's think its ok before I move it into main space. here it is Adster95 (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

December to Dismember (2006) - Attempt #2

I attempted to post a similar message above, but the very first comment of that discussion directed the discussion directly off track and left my request going un-noticed. My request asked for users (of this project) to do peer-like-reviews for December to Dismember (2006), and leave comments on the talkpage. It seems like it's going unnoticed that its currently undergoing an FAR, hence why I'm leaving a further comment to try and get you guys to comment on the article on the talkpage. D.M.N. (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Kayfab vandalism

Somebody is going into the articles breaking the kayfab and putting the regular names beside the wrestling names. LifeStroke420 (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Out-of-universe. This isn't a wrestling website. See a few topics above. D.M.N. (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. It's taking the article out of universe, per FA critria. I'm sick of everyone changing it, there's no reason too. If I came back from a wikibreak, I'd check WT:PW before editing a damn thing. Come to think of it, based on what I just had to edit out to stay civil, maybe I need a wikibreak... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I for one dont support vandalism but its whatever vandalise your hearts out.LifeStroke420 (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

....What? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. What do you prefer? a) Have our articles in-universe and have 0 GA's and therefore 0 FA's OR b) Have our articles out-of-universe and attempt to get FA's? D.M.N. (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Another thing I want to point out, it is not vandalism. Does a discussion on writing articles in that way violate WP:VANDALISM in any way?--S_RX 17:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Note, LifeStroke is now using IP's to change back to his preferred version, see the Hard Justice 2008 history. D.M.N. (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that LifeStroke is partially right, but not for the reasons he/she gives. First of all, it's obviously not vandalism. However, LifeStroke's concern about kayfabe has no place in an encyclopedia. The fact that it is general information is a problem, as it breaks up the flow of the paragraph. If it was rephrased to clarify what professional wrestling is and who writes the storylines while discussing Hard Justice 2008, that would be a great improvement. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead Co-ordinator

I just read the Signpost's coverage of WikiProject Military History, and it mentioned their lead co-ordinator. I was just wondering if we have one, and if so, who it is. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No we don't have one, and I don't really think this project needs one as it would give some members a lot more authority over other members. D.M.N. (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

John Morrison and The Miz

An article has been created for this team. I believe that by now, notablity has been established and the article can remain. Thoughts? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. They've been a tag team for nearly a year and have their own talkshow, so I think that establishes notability. D.M.N. (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. JakeDHS07 20:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Move purposal

The WWE roster page is now located at list of World Wrestling Entertainment employees. As this is the same type of article and the template has been set I move for this page to be moved to list of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees or move the WWE one to include the current part. They should be consistent. Thoughts? JakeDHS07 20:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Crap I forgot, this might need to go to Article Name Changes instead.--WillC 20:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude your killing me lol. JakeDHS07 20:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been able to think straight lately, I have lot a crap on my mind as well as I have alot of stress.--WillC 20:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

List This?

Does anybody know if WWE.com's List This is voted for by the fans or just made up by the writers? Nikki311 20:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is by the writers as I have never seen a vote put up for it. And I would know WWE.com is the only site I vist more than this one lol. JakeDHS07 20:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

December PPVs

Okay, I guess WWE wants to see what TNA is made of, they have changed their date for Armageddon (2008) to December 14. This is also the same day as Turning Point (2008), TNA's December ppv. Should we acknowledge this in the articles or just wait to see if WWE or TNA changes the dates of their ppvs? P.S. I hope they don't change anything.--WillC 22:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I say wait and only mention it if they affect each other. Nikki311 23:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking just to wait, I was just asking because a IP keeps placing it in on the Armageddon page. Though it does seem notable to me. As far as I know this will be the first time two major professional wrestling promotion's ppvs are going to go head to head.--WillC 23:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Survivor Series (1987) and Starrcade (1987) were both held on November 26, 1987. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that, interesting, well it is still notable to me, because this will be the first time TNA and WWE fight. This one will be live and against the real WWE and not ECW.--WillC 23:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It may just be that WWE wants to hold the PPV earlier to give it's wrestlers more time off for Christmas. It could have nothing to do with TNA. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but why not just change it to the 28. But anyway I feel it is note worthy.--WillC 00:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If the iMPACT vs ECWWE event was anything to go by, it's TNA PXK /_C 00:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)