| Revision as of 06:43, 27 February 2009 editMoe Epsilon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers119,292 edits →Organisation: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:45, 27 February 2009 edit undoCena Jr (talk | contribs)85 edits →OrganisationNext edit → | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
| ::::It was easier to read previously. Is there any way to combine the two styles?] (]) 06:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC) | ::::It was easier to read previously. Is there any way to combine the two styles?] (]) 06:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::::If your referring to it being in order by date which the were released as compared to now, you can still read it in that order by pressing the box next to the word "Tenure(s)" at the top of the wikitable. — ] ] 06:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC) | :::::If your referring to it being in order by date which the were released as compared to now, you can still read it in that order by pressing the box next to the word "Tenure(s)" at the top of the wikitable. — ] ] 06:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::Or you can just change the article back to where people can read the damn thing.] (]) 06:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mike Mayo Jr./Mike Kruel== | ==Mike Mayo Jr./Mike Kruel== | ||
Revision as of 06:45, 27 February 2009
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of former WWE personnel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Professional wrestling List‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Many references are unreliable
If this is being planned to being taken to WP:FLC, it will be quick-failed due to the unreliability of the references. WrestleView, PW Torch, Solie.org, official promotion websites, and the Wrestling Observer newsletter are the only reliable references that may be used, but if thats not the main goal, the refs can stay as stay. If they stay, the references need to be formatted correctly using {{cite web}} and filling out the appropriate paramaters, such as the publisher and using the YYYY-MM-DD format.--TRUCO 01:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- "<insert websites> are the only reliable references that may be used"? That is a load of crap.. — Moe ε 04:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, that is the consensus of this project. If you cannot abide by that, then you might need to stop work on the article until you can "bring it up to code", so to speak. ArcAngel (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- There are references from CNN, Fox News, The Sun and various other websites that are most certianly reliable, even more so than the ones you named above. If you want me to stop, I can revert back to the previous revision that included defamation of individuals that most members of "the project" liked. — Moe ε 12:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- In fact, if you're going to say that, why don't you go find the references for this article? If you think finding references for this is easy, go ahead, do it. In fact, I'll give you the freedom of going outside of: WrestleView, PW Torch, Solie.org, Wrestling Observer Newsletter and official promotional site. You can go to any site you consider reliable. Find references for when, say a, Wayne Cowan or Jack Reynolds left WWE. Watch your day pass by you while you sit and try to find one reference, because your not going to find any there. — Moe ε 13:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Dude, you need to chill. No one is depriving you of the hard work you have done to this article. I know it takes time, I've worked on over 10 featured lists, its hard work. But the featured process is strict on sourcing. I forgot to mention that newspapers, books, news outlets, and magazines (depending on who publishes them) are reliable. However, the other sources like "Online World of Wrestling", "Obsessed with Wrestling", "Wrestle truth", and "411 Mania" are unreliable. In addition, some of the refs are missing fields in the {{cite web}} template, like the publisher. If a reliable source cannot be found it will be best just to add a footnote stating a reliable source cannot be found to verify when this person left WWE.--TRUCO 22:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- I planned on fixing the citations, I just wanted to post the place where I got it first. A site like Wrestle Truth, 411mania and even Lords of Pain can be reliable if they are reposting a story that was originally written and credited to a reliable source like Wrestling Observer Newsletter or PW Torch. If the story itself was written by one of those sites, that is when that becomes sketchy. I already started the footnote you were mentioning, instead i just placed n/a in the box temporarily. Later I will put a symbol and a footnote saying this. I know Online World of Wrestling isn't the most reliable, but if their claims are accurate it is a good starting place to look for better sources. In addition to that it has been proven a reliable source of information and articles such as Bobby Eaton have been promoted to featured article using that site as a source of information. — Moe ε 14:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes if those sites report it and its a reliable source's work, then it is reliable. But you got to fill out the cite web fields correctly. Lets say 411Mania.com reports something PW Torch reported, the publisher is 411 Mania but the work is from PW Torch. In addition, Bobby Eaton was passed before the sourcing guideline for the featured process was made stricter last year. So thats a bad representation, if at all, it will be removed possibly in the near future for the sourcing issue. --TRUCO 21:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- I planned on fixing the citations, I just wanted to post the place where I got it first. A site like Wrestle Truth, 411mania and even Lords of Pain can be reliable if they are reposting a story that was originally written and credited to a reliable source like Wrestling Observer Newsletter or PW Torch. If the story itself was written by one of those sites, that is when that becomes sketchy. I already started the footnote you were mentioning, instead i just placed n/a in the box temporarily. Later I will put a symbol and a footnote saying this. I know Online World of Wrestling isn't the most reliable, but if their claims are accurate it is a good starting place to look for better sources. In addition to that it has been proven a reliable source of information and articles such as Bobby Eaton have been promoted to featured article using that site as a source of information. — Moe ε 14:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Dude, you need to chill. No one is depriving you of the hard work you have done to this article. I know it takes time, I've worked on over 10 featured lists, its hard work. But the featured process is strict on sourcing. I forgot to mention that newspapers, books, news outlets, and magazines (depending on who publishes them) are reliable. However, the other sources like "Online World of Wrestling", "Obsessed with Wrestling", "Wrestle truth", and "411 Mania" are unreliable. In addition, some of the refs are missing fields in the {{cite web}} template, like the publisher. If a reliable source cannot be found it will be best just to add a footnote stating a reliable source cannot be found to verify when this person left WWE.--TRUCO 22:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, that is the consensus of this project. If you cannot abide by that, then you might need to stop work on the article until you can "bring it up to code", so to speak. ArcAngel (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Organisation
Why are the wrestlers list alphabetically instead of by the date they left? It's much less efficiant e.g someone wants to see if someone has been released, they wouldn't be able to simply scroll down to the date. Jay —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC).
- If you payed attention to the conversations above, the table has a sortable wikitable feature. At the very top of the article, next to the words "Date of departure:" there is a box, if you click the box it will auto-arrange the list into choronological order so you can view it the way you want to. As to the reason I choose for it to be alphabetical is because this is a list of people, specifically alumni, not a list of events that occurred. — Moe ε 14:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
ah ok I didn't read the other conversations into much detail. Jay
This is way to confusing, change it back to the way it was, when it was listed by years User:244pupil6 —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC).
- Read what I wrote above on how to read it in chronological order. — Moe ε 02:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, this is ridiculous. Not only is that **** confusing, but it's also making the page load up slower. Change it back NOW. Cena Jr (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Using caps and making smart ass comments doesn't make you correct. — Moe ε 06:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, this is ridiculous. Not only is that **** confusing, but it's also making the page load up slower. Change it back NOW. Cena Jr (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree, The table was much better back when it was organised by the date wrestlers left the company. No offence to the person who spent endless hours creating the table, and the people who agree with it, but it doesen't even have a date of departure box. To make it worse, it has a Tenure box, that lists when wrestlers worked for the company, that is half complete. I absolutely oppose the new table, and I am going to get Tj's opinion. Altenhofen (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is only half done because of me being only half-way finished. There is no way to make the process quicker than sitting there and manually referencing it as I have for the past month. In addition, the date of departure is in the tenure box. It doesn't need a stand alone category as this article isn't about when they were released, its about a list of people. All the recent releases (meaning 2000s era) are currently sitting as a stand alone date in the tenure box until i can add references and the date they came into WWE as well. — Moe ε 23:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree, The table was much better back when it was organised by the date wrestlers left the company. No offence to the person who spent endless hours creating the table, and the people who agree with it, but it doesen't even have a date of departure box. To make it worse, it has a Tenure box, that lists when wrestlers worked for the company, that is half complete. I absolutely oppose the new table, and I am going to get Tj's opinion. Altenhofen (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, sure, go ahead and delete what I put on here that is a very valid point, very mature of you. I'm reporting you. You never once put on the discussion board the changes that you were going to do, that constitutes vandalism. If you're only halfway done with it than you should of completed it BEFORE publishing the changes. Jcm431 (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Very mature of me? First off, you are hardly a good faith contributor. You called me a Nazi and vandalized the article by blanking it. You make a feeble attempt at "reporting" me and you get yourself caught. I have done nothing wrong. I have removed violations of biographies of living person and verifiablity and added 300 references for information. I am hardly at fault here. On Misplaced Pages there is hardly a thing called publishing. There is no deadline, and there is no hurry for completion of an article. I have nothing to prove to you. I have better things to be doing other than arguing with a racist troll. — Moe ε 21:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Moe, your act is very immature and selfish. You seek only to please your unnecessary greed. The table was fine the way it was before until you went back and changed it. Now it loads very slow and is too difficult to read. I'm reporting this to the Admin boards.Cena Jr (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Erm, go ahead. — Moe ε 22:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's fairly hard to fathom what I am reading here. Moe spent much of his time working on this list, and you want to report him for it. He's done nothing but make the list better quality, and the reasoning, "I don't like it" is not sufficient enough for the page to revert back to the old poor quality tables. If you don't like it, then come up with a better look in your sandbox, and propose it. However, consensus would need to be gained before it is switch. I'd like to see anybody try to report him for improving this article, because not only will it be considered trolling, people are just going to laugh. iMatthew // talk // 22:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Erm, go ahead. — Moe ε 22:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Moe, your act is very immature and selfish. You seek only to please your unnecessary greed. The table was fine the way it was before until you went back and changed it. Now it loads very slow and is too difficult to read. I'm reporting this to the Admin boards.Cena Jr (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Problems with WWE Alumni Page. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) - 22:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Bollocks. I can see if the article was in need of a revamp, but it wasn't. Like I said before, Moe has made it much more difficult to view the page now since it takes too long to load up. And not only that, but it's too cumbersome to look through since the order it's in is too complex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cena Jr (talk • contribs) 03:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- The number of pictures doesn't cause anymore of a loading time pause than without it. I have already reduced the number of pictures from 60 to 50 to 25 + 1 for the lead paragraph. I have already addressed the issue of what order it should be in. Chronological order of a list of people is not logical, and despite your apparent frustration, alphabetical order is not that hard to comprehend. — Moe ε 03:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Who died and made you consensus? Majority of us thought it was best left as it was. Just because you have nothing else better to do to occupy your time gives you no right to butcher an article that had no problems to begin with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cena Jr (talk • contribs) 04:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Consensus lies in policies like WP:V, WP:BLP and guidelines like WP:RS that say to remove crap that is harmful to the encyclopedia, not in the editors of this site who come here to look for the latest happenings. And by the way, the article did have problems, many problems. Ones you fail to realize since you aren't an established editor on this site. — Moe ε 05:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- If it makes you any happier, I removed 5 more images, making the total, 20, with 1 in the lead. There is absolutely no concern in relation to load time with the number of images. If there is something still causing your computer to see the images differently or causing you to load it more slowly (like an outdated browser), I would troubleshoot that first, as opposed to the article. — Moe ε 05:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Bollocks. I can see if the article was in need of a revamp, but it wasn't. Like I said before, Moe has made it much more difficult to view the page now since it takes too long to load up. And not only that, but it's too cumbersome to look through since the order it's in is too complex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cena Jr (talk • contribs) 03:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- It was easier to read previously. Is there any way to combine the two styles?Qazox (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- If your referring to it being in order by date which the were released as compared to now, you can still read it in that order by pressing the box next to the word "Tenure(s)" at the top of the wikitable. — Moe ε 06:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- It was easier to read previously. Is there any way to combine the two styles?Qazox (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Or you can just change the article back to where people can read the damn thing.Cena Jr (talk) 06:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Mike Mayo Jr./Mike Kruel
I don't think he belongs on the list as he never made it to television. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.78.247 (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- I removed that pseudo rule from the article. Regardless if they were on television or not, they should be able to be listed. If they meet Misplaced Pages's policy on Notability by having a Misplaced Pages article and they were contracted, they should be listed. Besides, the first WWE television program wasn't until the 70's, if we base criteria of listing people on that, everyone from the 50's and 60's would be deleted from the list. — Moe ε 02:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Well I disagree on including Developmental talents on the list, but its obvious I'm in a losing argument here. So anyway you can include Dominic DeNucci as he competed in the old WWWF. I don't know the dates though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.78.247 (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll add Dominic DeNucci. I'll add dates when I reach his name, right now I'm going in alphabetical order and have only reached C so far. — Moe ε 19:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Manu
Don't forget to add him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.78.247 (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- He was added earlier today. — Moe ε 23:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)