Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Crisis (talk | contribs) at 13:12, 3 August 2008 (→Did I Miss Something?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

This needs to end, it's just ridiculous

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ideas/Suggestions/Comments about Out of Universe writing

Getting into too much detail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following is written in kayfabe and depicts fictional events, unless otherwise noted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrestler A (Wrestler A's real name)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ideas/Suggestions/Comments about the Tables format for PPVs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AfD

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ranjin Singh
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anastacia Rose McPherson

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

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ted DiBiase and Cody Rhodes

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

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rycklon Stephens

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

Merger proposal

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

Time to see what can pan out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using WON as a source

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

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

I want to know

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I recommend

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

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

Murphy Claire Levesque

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think they should be redirected to Stephanie McMahon IMO. Alex /_C Guest Book 17:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Protect Mike Adamle

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

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

Freddie Prinze, Jr.

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

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

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

Now, it's confirmed. Alex /_C Guest Book 15:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Changes to the project's MOS for PPV's

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GAN=FAC

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

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

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

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

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

Another infobox change

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

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

Review of "out of universe"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

=The time has come

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

The tables suck

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

I would like to direct your attention to...

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

Fully Loaded

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

The Undertaker's streak

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

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

Did I Miss Something?

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

Basically...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New book references

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

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