Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:05, 14 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.

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)

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)

We've got another editor doing the same thing. For some reason, articles on Mexican wrestling seem to attract this sort of thing (a few months back, I had to tag about 20 pictures for deletion). That is, of course, unless this editor is an amazing photographer (see here for an example of the type of picture to which he claims to own the copyright). GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've also got my doubts about the infobox image for Sting (wrestler). It's not often that a fan just happens to get a professional-quality posed shot of a wrestler standing in front of a perfectly white background. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone check Image:Ronsimmonscrop.JPG to see if it shows up anywhere else online? –– Lid 07:11, 12 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)

OK, I'm going now, wish me luck (and look out for me, I'm the emo in the AJ Styles shirt and brown hoodie) PXK /_C 15:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Have fun. Also if J.J. is there take a picture of him no doubt. With a guitar would be awesome.--WillC 18:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

well that sucked. After I saved the second day of my pass for the iMPACT tapings, when I got in Studios they said its moved to tomorrow. This "free" TNA show is gonna cost me another 1 day, 1 park pass. PXK /_C 02:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that is too bad.

Your fault man. Tapings have been pushed back a day after road PPVs for months now. Mshake3 (talk) 02:47, 12 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)

• I'm not against splitting the pages (I'm for anything that can be done well), but I do think we should wait until we get all (or most) of the PPVs done. It also might be a little harder to find good sources. Nikki311 01:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It might be harder, but at the same time, SNME during the 80's was huge, so I'm pretty sure there will be book sources and web sources. D.M.N. (talk) 16:27, 10 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)

I guess my main problem with all these changes that have been proposed, and now apparently will be incorporated in the PPV articles (at first) is the fact that we feel the need to have a "disclaimer" of what professional wrestling is all about. I'm from the school that most everyone knows what professional wrestling is (staged athletic combat with pre-determined match outcomes). If we were to say, for instance, "SummerSlam was a professional wrestling pay-per-view event," and then link professional wrestling, that would suffice. If someone wanted to find out about professional wrestling, they would just click on the link. Think of it this way: Take for instance the page about the Chicago Bulls basketball team. The current version, as I write this, does not have an explanation of what basketball is. By your arguments for putting the "disclaimer" in (to explain what professional wrestling is and to make it conform to good article and feature article status), the same should apparently be true for articles about professional basketball teams (putting in a disclaimer of what basketball is, purportedly to "help" the reader understand what basketball is). Yet, I highly doubt that anyone with the NBA basketball project would agree to that. The same would be true for, say, an article about an episode of the TV series M*A*S*H — nobody would publish a "disclaimer" in each article stating that M*A*S*H was set in the Korean War and that it centered on the lives of the members of the 4077th. Most people who link onto one of the M*A*S*H articles probably have some idea of the show's general premise. I just have a hard time believing that a "disclaimer" would only be necessary for professional wrestling articles, and not any other pop-culture medium. Do we have enough Wiki readers who believe everything they see in professioanl wrestling is real, thus making it necessary to include the "disclaimer"? I ask that seriously, because it definitely seems to have affected the way we introduce professional wrestling-related articles. I do think this apparent decision to place disclaimers at the beginning of articles — if only to make them featured articles and good article candidates — has been made too hastily, and yes, I realize not everyone has had time to or decided to participate. Sorry for the rant, but I had to weigh in on this, even though the issue has apparently been decided. ]

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)

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)

Agreed, this project does not need any one person to have more power than the next. -- iMatthew _T.C. 16:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we don't need one, I was just wondering about it. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 18:19, 11 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)

Too bad TNA's buyrates are only a 10th of the WWE's on average. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

PXK, that comment doesn't contribute anything constructive to this discussion. Take comments like that to forums. D.M.N. (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If it somehow becomes notable, then yes. But now, it means nothing. -- iMatthew _T.C. 16:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we'll wait. re to TonyFreakinAlmeida: so your telling me that WWE gets at least 300,000 or more for every ppv they do. TNA has a average of at least 30,000. That is pretty good for a 6 year old company when it took WWE 60 years to get where it is at today. Anyways, I was just wondering if it was notable at the moment.--WillC 17:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

COTW

I'm just wondering - how many people !vote on a specific article, but don't work on in? If someone supports a certain article, surely it means that they want it promoted to the COTW so that they can work on it? 6 people !voted for Gail Kim, yet only one of the six has made constructive edits to it, while 6 people !voted for The Kliq, yet only two of the six have made constructive edits to it. Out of everyone that is "voting" on the COTW's, only one user (who I'm not pointing out whom, because it's obvious from the article history) is trying to improve the articles (me also on the Kliq - I didn't vote for Kim because I'm not really interested in TNA). I think this is unfair, people are !voting for certain articles, yet don't actually contribute during the 2 weeks as COTW. I mean, what's the point of the COTW, if only one or two editors are going to work on in - it serves no point. If all the 6 users were going to edit it, fair enough but if only two editors are going to work on it; it's pointless, and unfair to the users in question who dedicate their time working while the other editors that supported the article don't contribute whatsoever to improve it. D.M.N. (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel the same way. What really bothers me is when someone nominates an article and doesn't even work on it when it becomes the COTW. Nikki311 19:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I would help work on them, but I have alot on my plate right now with TNA ppvs plus I just got some really bad news so I might not be on for a while.--WillC 19:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The new way PPV and event articles are written

I don't like it. It doesn't provide much detail into how the events played out and how the matches went. For instance..all it does is present the result now.. it doesn't even state that X wrestler won by cheating or use of a weapon. I know there's some whole deal that a lot of people have about wanting to get their articles featured, but why sacrifice the detail, and the allusion of pro wrestling all to get a star on your article? I don't like reading through all that and seeing real names every where... all the brackets make the article look like a mess. As someone said in the Hard Justice discussion page, why not present a disclaimer that the event is scripted and present the article in a kayfabe form? I don't understand why everything has to be simplified and just have things listed as "Todd Grisham defeated Michael Cole" - "Standard wrestling match". It's a given that it's a standard wrestling match in the old way the articles were written if no stipulation or match type was specified. It just seems stupid to me. If these articles now are going to be presented in this manner, will championship articles now present real names in addition to ring names in the title history? If you don't, that's a double standard right there. If you're going to do it for events why not do it for the fake championships as well? I'm just really complaining because there's a real lack of detail in how the results for the event are typed out. It kind of insults my intelligence by saying "standard wrestling match". Not saying any match gimmick for a regular singles contest would be enough for me. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is your second thread on complaining about the new format, if "Misplaced Pages's best work" is written in that format, other articles should follow the same way it is written so they can be classified as Wiki's "best work." Let me ask you this, do want to read about a sport or subject that is written in a language or in a universe that can only be understandable by those readers who understand that language or universe? --S_RX 20:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's only my first complaint on this page and to my knowledge...EVER on[REDACTED] about the new PW PPV page format. Get your facts straight on that sir. I don't see how the old format for PPV articles was confusing at all. If a non wrestling fan couldn't understand the old articles than honestly they are probably braindead, retarded, or both. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's the second time you complain in a thread, how about they are unfamiliar with the language of wrestling.S_RX 20:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I always complain. I don't contribute to articles really, but I'm all for improving the way they are done and all for fact checking. Why not complain? You trying to say I can't complain? If no one complained then every article would be shit. And I am complaining because the PPV articles are now so horribly written and a jarbled mess...moreso than the old way they were done which was the simplest and most straight forward way they could be done possible because it gave you every necessary detail..match times, the match type, how a guy won, events that occurred, interference notes etc. This new format sucks. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well you are free to express your opinion. Users have the choice to write in the new format if not, their articles will less likely be classified as Wiki's best work. Why don't you think about this, if you were a non-wrestling fan and you came by the wrestling jargon and you did not want to interrupt your reading by clicking on the links, would you want it explained or not?--S_RX 21:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing I'm pissed about, is that we now have to write like this all the time, even if, in the short term, we are only nominating them for GA status. Like when I nominated No Mercy (2005), I immediately received a message on the talk page saying I should be writing it like SummerSlam (2003). GA and FA reviews are NOT the same. If they were, NONE of our GAs would have passed a GA review. Point is, the is a huge, distinct difference between GA and FA reviews. So, IMO, it should be fine to write "in-universe" if we are only nominating them for GA (in the short term). Once they pass that, then we should take the time to write them in an "out-of-universe" style. --LAX 21:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what Tony is talking about. Since all of the information he is looking for is already contained in every expanded article, I can only assume this is in reference to non-expanded articles. Yes, they suffer in the short term from a lack of detail. However, once prose is added in addition to the results table, the problem will cease to exist. I do think, however, that the project is making a mistake by dismissing any feedback about the changes. Since they were implemented without discussion, there is room for improvement. Unfortunately, that improvement will not come as long as project members cover their ears when someone voices a concern. Some of the problems could be fixed quite easily, but I have been shut down anytime I have proposed a solution. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

@LAX - the way you say that we should write our articles makes the project look bad, if I am interpreting what you said correctly. From what you said, I understand that you want the project to expand articles in universe and let them pass GA then improve them later on to the out of universe style (even though they already passed GA). IMO, that makes the project look mischievous. Before, the SummerSlam 2003 format was never heard of, so our GAN's passed easily. Literally, GAN's and FAC's should not be treated the same, though, they should have the same format and be less distinctive from each other.

@GCF - Well you've been shut down, and I feel that is my fault. What is your complaints about the new format so the project may discuss them, even though the format is already incorporated to a FAC.S_RX 22:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sentences like "Seven professional wrestling matches, performances with pre-determined outcomes between wrestlers with fictional personalities that are portrayed as real, were featured on the event's card. The buildup to the matches and the scenarios that took place before, during, and after the event were planned by TNA's script writers." on articles like Hard Justice (2008) are just vapor text. What if on every article about a basketball event, there was something like "48 minutes of play, not including temporary stoppages of play between two teams of equal numbers of a five and five with points that are either worth two or three points. The winner of the game is the team with the larger number of points at the end of the 48 minutes, or failing that, the team with the most number of points after as many 5-minute overtime periods as are necessary to determine a winner."

I don't care what some non-professional wrestling fan peer reviewer says. It's not our fault that they don't know about professional wrestling. If they want to find out more about the nature of professional wrestling, they can read the articles about the subject. I don't know anything about quantum physics, but I don't expect every single related article on the subject to map it out for me and other newbies ad infinitum. General information about a topic doesn't belong in related articles, especially not in the lead. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason this is treated differently from other sport related articles is because wrestling is a work of fiction and acting, which is why jargon and in-universe writing should be avoided per WP:FICTION and WP:IN-U. If we were talking about amateur wrestling, this would be a different matter.--S_RX 22:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This Jtalledo guy knows what I'm talking about. There are many other articles that are detailed in such a way that normal, not in the know people wouldn't understand...why is it that now pro wrestling articles have to be made easier to read for the mentally retarded? Makes no sense. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and articles should be written in a format that all readers can understand not just one particular type of reader. The old format, like I pointed above, violated WP:FICTION and WP:IN-U, if you do not accept this or like it, go to our sister wiki, Pro wrestling wikia.--S_RX 01:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Fuck FAs and GAs. There, I said it. Your obsession with getting articles into that level has completely destroyed them. I hope you're happy. Mshake3 (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, I cannot see why getting a GA or an FA is necessary. I am not trying to belittle wrestling, but these are articles on wrestling PPVs, not particle physics. 99.196.39.2 (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Kansur

Mshake you know so I'm not even going to say it. This is a encyclopedia, not a magazine or a wrestling site. Do you write a report and just write it to write and not care how good it is. No. You write it to be good and to get a good grade. FAs and GAs show that the project did something good. It shows you did something good. It also helps wikipedia.--WillC 04:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But we're not being paid for this, nor do we get any sort of grade that counts in the real world. Therefore, once this stops being fun for editors, editors will stop contributing. I'm not usually one to agree with MShake3, but I'd rather enjoy editing than get a Featured Article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe I have to come out every few months and state this - wrestling articles are not the domain of wrestling fans rules, lingo or guidelines. Wrestling articles are the domain of[REDACTED] and must be written in accordance with[REDACTED] and the assumption that the reader has not been following wrestling since they were five. I can not understand how editting has "stopped being fun" because the articles are now written is verbose and brilliant prose in addition to being incredibly well sourced.

If for some reason you are finding this change to being less of a walled garden of articles and instead a move towards being articles for everyone I would really like to know how it is justifiable? –– Lid 07:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I cannot help but disagree with Mshake and Kansur. Yes, if you only want to work on an article short term, fair enough just do it to B-class (hell, I'm doing 1995 PPV's and I never even watched wrestling then! - just to fill in the gaps), however if you want to get it for FA, fair enough you have to make extra effort, which means out-of-universe. Mshake, we are not destroying the articles - not everyone knows what a powerbomb or a clothesline is, therefore explaining it to the user for FA is necessary. Remember this rant a user thrown up last December? Back then, some dismissed the users points. Turns out in the long run she was correct. Also, I'm annoyed with the topic above, which is something that is occuring week on week on week at the COTW. D.M.N. (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I think most of us editors realize this is the general, all-purpose Misplaced Pages encyclopedia, not a wrestling fan site, and yes, we want articles everyone can understand. That said, I attest that most people realize that professional wrestling is a work (i.e., the matches have pre-determined outcomes), and that's why I believe that the disclaimer that has been appearing on PPV articles as of late is not needed. I had stated in my earlier post that most people realize that TV dramas and comedies (e.g., M*A*S*H) are fiction, yet we don't have any extended "disclaimers" with those articles as we do now with the PPV articles; the same goes with an article about a sports team (such as basketball's Chicago Bulls — i.e., no extended intro explaining what basketball is to readers unfamiliar with the sport who just happen to click on the page.

Again, I ask — with all seriousness — do we have readers on here who, by clicking on a professional wrestling PPV page totally at random — would somehow conclude that, absent the disclaimer everything they are seeing in the ring is legitimate (i.e., the wrestlers are actually injuring each other), even if they knew that professional wrestling was composed of matches with pre-determined outcomes and was a work?

As with any other article, we link words to articles that readers might not readily understand; hence, if someone doesn't know what professional wrestling is, all they need to do is click on the link and Misplaced Pages will take them there. Also, I believe that one requisite for GA and FA status should be to have less-wordy introductions, which is one more reason for my complaint about the "new introductions" — instead of a mere three- or four-paragraph intro summarizing the basics — what (name of the event), where and when (date and venue location) and who (i.e., which organizations the PPV involved) — we also get this several-sentences long explanation of what professional wrestling is, which should be covered adequately in the main professional wrestling article.

I will soon be proposing my own structure for PPV articles, which I hope will clear up some of this recent debate and still allow us to write good, meaningful articles. ]

As this is the fourth (fourth!!) thread covering this then I feel maybe I should say something. I think some in the project do not seem to realise that all articles need to explain themselves, and not rely on inside knowledge or jargon. For a time the PPV articles were just results pages, then they expanded to cover events before and after and explain what happened at the event (there are already a thousand pages giving results after all). But when they began to explain they also fell back on to jargon and kayfabe tersm (even kayfabe is jargon). So now they are evolving to clearly explain what happened but also explain what wrestling in the "professional wrestling" context is. This is an encyclopedia, not a wrestling fan forum. I prefer the new way of writing the PPVs, because it should mean that if you have never seen one minute of WWE in you life then you could understand what happened. It is not perfect, and even some TV series episode articles are difficult to understand (try reading an episode of "Lost" if you haven't seen the TV show), but this is not the last stop, no doubt in a year this will change again, but going back to each article be a result page is not the answer. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Darrenhusted — Nowhere have I stated that these should be "results only" pages. And yes, I do agree that some mainstream terms should be used in lieu of jargon in our articles. I just believe that if you say "professional wrestling" in the lead, it should suffice and that most readers would understand that the events depicted therein are a work (i.e., "scripted"). Also, the M*A*S*H and Chicago Bulls examples were just that ... fill in the blanks with any one of millions of other examples. ]

BTW — the term professional wrestling is not jargon. ]

Really, I don't see what the problem is by writing two sentences in the lead explaining that pro wrestling is fake, then just write the ring names (real names) and explain a couple of jargon terms, I don't see how that is hard? Like other users stated this is like the fourth thread about this subject, currently the FAC is going well with 2 supports and no opposes, it's time to deal with it because Misplaced Pages is an Encyclopedia.S_RX 13:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am fully with you, SRX, on this. And in reply to Briguy, the term Professional Wrestling may no be jargon, but "sports entertainment" is, and kayfabe is and all terms which derive from that are as well. If an article is to be an FA and on the front page then it needs to be understood by all that click on it. Real names, move descriptions and stipulation explanations do just that. GA and FA reviewers understand wrestling is fixed, but if the you have never seen wrestling the some of what project members take for granted needs to be explained. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I would avoid using the term "sports entertainment" as it is anyway on PPV pages, because I believe that is irrelevant to explaining a PPV and its background. The "sports entertainment" term, IMO, should go only on a few biography pages, perhaps TV shows from the 1980s-era and a couple of the early "supercard" (e.g., WrestleMania (1985)) articles (because they played on the sports entertainment concept); by the time we get to 2008, it's pretty much a given that professional wrestling is "sports entertainment" and the concept has since been de-emphasized. BTW — what wrestling article is up for FAC (so I can go to it, read it and if appropriate, lend my opinion)? Also, I have not started any of the threads, but rather I have continued them here at the encouragement of editors after beginning a discussion on the SummerSlam (2008) talk page; I sure wish I would have gotten in on this discussion earlier (and kept it at one thread, if it were up to me). ]

Sports entertainment is not jargon, it is a term used by many subjects not just professional wrestling. SummerSlam (2003) is currently up for FAC, it's on the project page.S_RX 14:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

SRX — thanks for directing me to the article page. Anyhow, I read the SummerSlam 2003 article briefly, and to briefly explain my opposition, I stated that the section for the undercard matches and feuds went into way too much detail, and that such detail was best left for wrestling fansites. A good try, just not FA quality. You can read my full comments here ]

I do not want to explain this again here, so I direct you to SummerSlam 2003 FAC page for my response.S_RX 15:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And you shouldn't have to. Sorry if this upset you. ]

Folks, this is Misplaced Pages! What is it that we enjoy about it? The wikilinks! If someone doesn't understand a term in an article, then 99% of the time, the term in question is a blue link, which'll take them to a better understanding. There is no need to explain what professional wrestling is, when a link to professional wrestling will cover it. Mshake3 (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

So do you support the new style or oppose it? Because if we relied on wikilinks most PW articles would fall foul of overlinking. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MShake's first comment here to a certian extent. While I dislike the new format, I don't oppose as as I want GAs and FAs. However, I don't contirbute to PPV expansion at all, really, I mainly focus on sourcing wrestler articles. I still oppose the tables in the results section, but let's not open up that can of worms again. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Mshake3. Yes, we want GAs and FAs, and yes, some explanation of wrestling terms is necessary to make it understandable and a good article. But most people also understand what professional wrestling is, even if they had never watched one match in their life. Which has been my whole point all along, even if several editors might disagree. If only there were a template that could be placed in these articles ... let me think that one over for awhile. ]

No other articles on Misplaced Pages have templates; nothing is different with professional wrestling. D.M.N. (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well then, it may be an idea that could be floated to the general Misplaced Pages community, but such a discussion would then be appropriate elsewhere, not here. ]

Having to explain what wrestling is (like being predetermined) would be like having to explain the sames thing about movies or TV shows in every single article on them. The first paragraph on professional wrestling's article already explains that, so we don't need to do it for every PPV article. TJ Spyke 17:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe we need to get around to actually having a constructive discussion and realize that, if we are to keep the current "consensus", it needs fine tuning, as it isn't perfect. People who dislike it are giving unhelpful criticism without offering solutions (other than going back to the way things used to be) and people who have been involved with creating it are too emotionally invested in it that they are unwilling to compromise. I believe that, as long as the explanation of professional wrestling is written to fit the context rather than just interrupting the prose with a general statement about professional wrestling, it shouldn't be a problem (ie. "The event featured ten professional wrestling matches, performances with pre-determined outcomes between..." works but "Professional wrestling is..." doesn't). It's given minimal space in the article, so I'm not upset about it. I think the explanation of moves does so much to meet Misplaced Pages's guideline on jargon that it actually goes against the spirit of the guideline. If you take a look at baseball articles that have recently been promoted, jargon terms are not explained in the text (eg. the article on Art Houtteman, promoted on June 22, 2008, simply wikilinks terms like shutout, earned run average, sandlot, pennant, scout, runs, optioned, extra innings, bullpen, no-hitter, relief pitcher, spot starter, World Series, etc. Likewise, J. R. Richard, promoted May 11, 2008, wikilinks fastball, doubleheader, wild pitch, walks per nine innings ratio, ace, fielding percentage, slider, etc.). My suggestion would be that, if an editor feels that an explanation is necessary, to include a "short, clear explanation". I find that some of the explanations being given go on for too long and lose my interest. The setup to the move (eg. twisting the opponent's arm) isn't important. A figure four leglock is better described as a "submission hold that puts pressure on the opponent's leg" than as a hold in which the wrestler grabs the opponent's foot, twists the leg around so that it is bent at a 90 degree angle, crosses it over the other leg, then falls backward, places his foot over the ankle of the first leg and presses down. Both get a point across, but I find the first explanation much more clear and precise. It also avoids grammatical issues that I believe are hurting articles and need to be addressed, but I've said enough for now. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GCF and made similar suggestions at Talk:December to Dismember (2006). The move explanations were too wordy to be helpful and made for boring reading. We just need to get the point across. EX:

• "Van Dam was the third person eliminated by Test, as he stood on The Big Show's pod and performed a diving elbow drop, a move which is executed by diving onto a prone opponent with the wrestler's elbow cocked, driving the elbow into the opponent's chest, onto a folding chair." --> "Van Dam was the third person eliminated by Test, as he stood on The Big Show's pod and dove toward Van Dam, driving his elbow into his chest onto a folding chair, a move known as a diving elbow drop."
• "Burke pinned Mamaluke after performing an Forward Russian legsweep on him, a move where the attacking wrestler stands side-to-side and slightly behind an opponent (facing in the same direction) before reaching behind the opponent's back to hook the opponent's head with his/her other hand extending the opponent's near arm, then while hooking the opponent's leg with his/her own leg the wrestler falls forward, pushing the opponent forward to the mat face-first." --> "Burke pinned Mamaluke after pushing him into the mat face-first by performing a Forward Russian legsweep on him."

See the difference? I think that we can definitely incorporate the change without going overboard. We can still link the terms if a non-fan needs more explanation, but it makes it possible to follow the action through the text. Nikki311 03:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

BY JOVE, I think they've got it! Finally a style of explanation that explains it to non wrestling fans (who aren't going to read it unless they are part of WP:FAC anyway, but that's besides the point,) and isn't like watching paint dry or more painful than falling on a razor wire net (this has happened, it's why I don't yard tard anymore) PXK /_C 05:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

List of ECW Champions

Someone has decided to mark the article with WWE revisionism once again and claim that all reigns prior to Shane Douglas' throwdown of the NWA Title aren't recognized or official. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Listing Real Names (PPVs)

I would like to know if we can not put the Wrestler's/Diva's real name in parenthesis inside the table for matches. I think it clutters it up and since we have to look in the Event Section to see how the match was won, we should just look in the Background/Event/Aftermath sections for their real names.Qwerty36095 (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly right, that is how it should be per WP:OVERLINK.--S_RX 20:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just letting members of the project know..

Even though there are many discussions about the opposition of the new out of universe pay-per-view (PPV) article format, If there are any members of the project that need help or need a copyedit to their PPV articles to remove wrestling jargon or to aid in rewording to avoid wrestling jargon, just drop a note on my talk page ;)--S_RX 00:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well before the OOU format was adopted I'd begun to cover 1998 pay per views but I was writing them as I watched them, so they are very sloppy and probably have too much detail in. They need subediting quite badly I'm sure, although I tried my best for hyperlinks and citations. Still, they wouldn't be up to standard before, so they really won't be now. I wrote from the Rumble to No Way Out of Texas:In Your House, Mania and Unforgiven: In Your House and then got distracted. I might pick it up again as I'm up to SummerSlam but all the backgrounds are so confusing. Tony2Times (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey I can't find anything to put in the reception paragraph for Vengeance 2002 I'm User:Adster95/sandbox nearly done though if anyone would like to help i'd much appreciate it! Adster95 (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Before that touches the mainspace, the Background section needs sources. D.M.N. (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

WWE Championships Article Name Changes

Right now there are two WWE Championships at ANC that have been on there for over a month now, and their is support for the move but their are votes for opposition (but less than support). So this can be fair, the survey needs more opinions before it's archive, I highly plead the project to vote in this survey. P.S. The renaming is for the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) and World Tag Team Championship (WWE).--S_RX 13:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've archived done/not done page moves, and archived some discussions, with them being moved to article talkpages. D.M.N. (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet another assanine change just because a FA or GA reviewer has an issue. Mshake3 (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Assanine? Perhaps. But where does it say that this has anything to do with a GA or FA reviewers? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "Look at the article, if that articles were to ever go to a GA review or FA review (hypothetically) they would notice, why isn't World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) written anywhere else in the article?" Maybe there isn't an issue yet, but he's clearly suggesting that there will be one. Mshake3 (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

List of WWE Women's Champions

Somebody keeps adding an extra day to Mickie James' reign length. Camelglue22 (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can be more specific. She is the reigning champion, I'm guessing your talking about her other reigns.--WillC 00:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about information that was at the Mickie James article, because I can't find it; if it was there, probably would be a good idea to bring it up at the talk page for the Mickie James article. If not, what article are you speaking of, then go to that article's talk page and let them know. ]

This thread contains win (and TNA spoilers)

Ok, I got lots of pics to upload when I get home. Taylor, yup. Roxxi, wasn't there. Kong, the Camera guy got in the way. Abbys, I got a backstage pic of HIS REAL FACE! WIN! Brother Ray tried to steal my hat to throw away (Watch this part, the camera goes right close up) JJ, back stage pic.

Spoilers from this

LOOK AWAY NOW!

Matt Morgan and Abyss formed a team, AJ and Kurt had a match for the medal, when the ref got knocked out, Stings music hit and Angle had a bat (he took it from the ring post) when the blackout stopped. Then as he was about to hit this wrestler's music hit and a second blackout gave AJ his signature weapon. But the most important event was me donating a dollar to Sonjay's "Save your damn gimmick" fund. (as I called it) -- PXK /_C 01:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

When you get the chance to upload them tell us. I got a good place to put the Abyss one.--WillC 01:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the image post, but the spoilers post is not needed per WP:FORUM, its not relevant to the project.--S_RX 02:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

We need to do something!!!

Okay, we need to make a banner or something now to tell people to leave the lead and background on PPVs alone. I'm tired of people removing the stuff from the lead and background on Hard Justice (2008), I got so fed up with it I'm now working on it in my sandbox. Also their doing it to No Surrender (2008) and the build for it doesn't start till Thursday. We've had to protect SummerSlam (2008) and Hard Justice because of this. Unless we want to keep dealing with this for many more weeks or months, I suggest we make something that tells them to quit, because I've told a few about the changes and they go right on and remove it again.--WillC 22:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think a banner is going to make much difference. Judging from the reactions of some of the users reverting to the old style, they don't really care. In fact, they'd probably just remove the banner, too.  Hazardous Matt  23:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could ask to have the page protected for a few days. ]

With the amount that is going on at No Surrender, I doubt it will get protection. Hard Justice only got 2 days and it had just as much as SummerSlam has and it got a week.--WillC 00:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)