Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:34, 21 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.

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)

• You must find out the original source of the images. Without the origins, it is impossible to state them as "copyrighted". Alex /_C Guest Book 13:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Look familiar? I don't even get why this guy gets the benefit of the doubt. --Endless Dan 01:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone please speedy request this. I don't mess around with pics and tagging. --Endless Dan 01:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: He's been indef blocked. --Endless Dan 03:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

New user to take a look at Dj master2 (talk · contribs). The images uploaded have a flair of... not being theirs. –– Lid 07:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Warned by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs) here. D.M.N. (talk) 08:10, 20 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) Consider this argument then: Is the real name of actors mentioned like this when they're mostly known under some sort of stage name? No articles on films have the name they're known under and then link it in case someone is interested in knowing more about this person - frankly I don't see why this should not aply to wrestling as well. I mean otherwise we're saying that wrestling is a special case and different than anyone else using a stagename of some kind? 62.253.205.129 (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC) An encyclopedia should be objective: that means that the world is round, the tooth fairy does not exist, and wrestling matches are works. Lafraisne (talk) 19:31, 20 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 wikipedia 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)

I dont think the new additions to the professional wrestling event pages are needed, 'an unknown number of professional wrestling matches (performances with pre-determined outcomes between wrestlers with fictional personalities that are portrayed as real) will be featured on the event's card. The buildup to the matches and the scenarios that take place before, during, and after the event are planned by WWE's script writers.'

I think it gives too much detail, simply because its a well known fact that professional wrestling is scripted, and for those who dont know, they can simply click on the link to professional wrestlins main artical to find out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.229.222 (talk) 14:31, 18 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 wikipedia and must be written in accordance with wikipedia 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)

It's not just "for pro wrestling fans", but seriously. Does every TV show say "This episode featured actors (real people pretending to be other people for the purpose of humor and entertainment acting in a way that is not the way that they would act in real life"? No, of course not, because that would be idiotic. You don't have to smark the hell out of an article, but this has absolutely RUINED every PPV recap that it's been applied to.216.84.35.70 (talk) 22:39, 18 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)

I'm hoping to change the direction of this discussion to create solutions. Criticizing editors' contributions as "more painful than falling on a razor wire net" doesn't help move toward that goal. Do you have any suggestions or ideas to improve the quality of writing in articles? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

PXK, do you have anything constructive to say? Your contributions, quite frankly (and your sarcasm), help nobody. For the record, I agree with Nikki. D.M.N. (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Nikki — I think the examples you gave work. It's clearer, more readable and — as you correctly state — doesn't go overboard. For me, the goal with any article in any discipline is readability and comprehension, and your examples are a big step toward appealing to everyone (not just our fellow pro wrestling fans). Keep up the good work. ]

I agree with Briguy. I think Nikki's example above works out quite well. It's a happy medium.  Hazardous Matt  13:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I gotta say, as someone who is a casual fan of wrestling and not invested in this argument any more than the effect it has on me reading an article, it is way too wordy. To use Nikki's example:

Burke pinned Mamaluke by a Forward Russian legsweep.

conveys the same exact thing as the long winded explanation, but leaves the article clearer and saves a lot of time if you're using long winded explanations to explain (to actual wrestling fans) simple moves. For the non-fans, they click on the move and get the same explanation. Being concise is a part of an Encyclopedia. -- Me 15:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Both the Survivor Series 08 and WM XXV articles now have that ridiculous explanation of what wrestling is. There is an entire article explaining what wrestling is and that it's fake and it's beyond silly to explain that again in every PPV article. Why not go ahead and explain what WWE is, what the rand seperation is, what a arena is, etc. Why not go to every movie article and make them say something like "The Matrix is a film (a fictional piece of audio-visual entertainment..."? TJ Spyke 17:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

TJ, its only a brief explanation that explains the background to the event. Per

Wait, so if that notice is there then we never have to use words like kayfabe or booked or scripted or fake? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Only when needed, like if someone fell off the titantron or they tried to run away from the arena, stuff in that nature.--S_RX 17:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I absoultely hate the new lead in. The paragraph where it states that the match is predetermined is SO horrible. Anyone who watches WWE knows that it's decided before hand, and the identities are fake. Do we need to point it out? Not really. WestJet (talk) 07:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrestlers' real names

Now that we have some sort of compromise about explaining moves, let's talk about listed wrestlers' real names. The more I see it, the more I like it. Let me explain: Wrestlers' gimmicks are (for the most part) fictional or exaggerated to an extreme. They are not exactly the same as the person who portrays the character. Television and movies list the actors who play characters. Does it interrupt the text? Yes. Is it completely necessary for understanding the plot? No. However, this is the way they are written, so I think we should follow suit. Besides, the real names are only listed the first time they are mentioned, so I really don't see how it keeps anybody from reading the article or how it makes the text un-understandable. Now...let's discuss this in a civilized manner. No insulting others' or their work, but constructive criticism is welcome. Nikki311 23:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that the television and movie articles should not do this as well. I feel like it is disruptive and unnecessary. I am very much opposed to it, however if it becomes a consensus, I will not go against it, I just will not agree with it. If it must be done, however, I feel that it like the stage name, ex. Shawn Michaels (Michael Hickenbottom). -- iMatthew _T.C. 23:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the adding of the names. At first I was skeptical, now I think it is needed. I think the ring names and the real names besides it is fine to add, I want to keep it in there. I kind of like seeing "A.J. Styles (Allen Jones)".--WillC 23:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? Come on! I just removed them from the FAC because people didn't like them, argh!S_RX 23:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why I wanted to discuss it. The articles need to be based on policy, guidelines, and consensus...so let's figure it out. Nikki311 23:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I liked and proposed the idea from the beginning but people kept complaining that it "bothers you to read." It does not, it's like reading a script you have to know who is who and who is playing what, what if George Bush was playing Diesel 2000? Wouldn't you want to know who was acting his role, Diesel 2000 (George Bush)?S_RX 23:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I also think it helps with wrestlers who change their ring names. The real names were recently incorporated into Gail Kim's article. Early in the article, it mentions a match with Nikki Roxx (Nicole Raczynski) and later a match with Roxxi Laveaux (Nicole Raczynski). It helps the reader understand that they are the same person. This will be especially helpful in The Undertaker or Shawn Michaels, where their careers are so long that they've wrestled the same people under many different ring names. Nikki311 00:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, in the Gail Kim article it is done alot. Like with Traci Brooks. One point it is Traci Brooks, then Tracy Brooks, then Ms. Brooks, and last Traci. Also with Angel Williams, then Angelina Love in under six months. As well as with Roxxi, it was the two you mentioned, then after Sacrifice she was changed to just Roxxi. It helps on those standards since we can't overlink their names.--WillC 00:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe instead of just discussing the real names, lets discuss everything we've done. From the first new things added to the last. From the adding of Tables to the adding of the PPV box at the bottom of the article. Then we can make a fully new consensus and have no more problems with anything. Then we'll have proof of the new consensus instead of just a few people complaining and being told because of the FA review we are adding this. Then we will actually have a decided vote and not what a FA reviewer's opinion.--WillC 23:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss one thing at a time, or we are going to have too many opinions about too many subjects flying around. Nikki311 00:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I hated this edition at first, but have grown to like it and find it very informative. Keep. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's my take — if a wrestler is so known by his performing name that he/she is credited that way in other pop culture mediums (e.g., movies, television, political events, etc.), then there is no need to use the wrestler's real name in parenthesis. A couple of examples are The Rock (yes, he has also been billed as Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson) and most notably Hulk Hogan. Otherwise, use your judgement; read the affected wrestler's bio and consider other evidence, for instance "Was said wrestler referred to by his performing name at a political rallly or at another event?"). Yes, I agree that more often than not, the real name will need to be put in parenthesis, but it shouldn't be a hard and fast rule. Yeah, I still don't like it for reasons I stated earlier (mainly, clutter and the fact that people should know that professional wrestling is staged), but I want to make peace so I offer that as my statement, so as to respect the concensus. ]

I like the Hogan example, as he even refers to himself as Hulk Hogan on his VH1 shows and American Gladiators. In some articles Trish Stratus is linked as "Trish Stratus (Patricia Stratigias)" and Randy Orton is linked as "Randy Orton (Randal Orton)". Trish and Randy are their real names (and the names that they go by in life) so in those cases, as well, I think the linking is not necessary. When you remove instances such as these, it really cuts down on the "clutter". Nikki311 02:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a good example. So let's say we're talking about Bollea, but he's using a different gimmick. We would write something like "Sterling Golden (Hulk Hogan)." Correct?

Or Mr. America (Hulk Hogan). Nikki311 22:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should be done by the title of the wrestler's article. The Undertaker and Shawn Michaels are very well established under those ring names, hence why their articles are named after their ring names. 70.105.164.43 (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason their articles are after their ring name is per WP:COMMONNAME, they are known in their sport more as The Undertaker or Shawn Michaels. Now to people who have never really watched wrestling they don't know who they are.--WillC 05:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

PPV succession box vs. listing in infobox

Yeah step by step, but when did we incorporate the consensus about the PPV box? No consensus was built on that.S_RX 00:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There never was one, but there was no body opposing it, so I went ahead and added it. I'm the only one adding it since I feel it will help. It is only in Hard Justice (2008), No Surrender (2008), Lockdown (2008), and Sacrifice (2008).--WillC 00:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Last comment about this- you shouldn't incorporate things into an article in that important nature until consensus is built at WT:PW with many users and not just one or two users or when the discussion goes dead, I highly recommend reverting back to the original format, you need to follow the current format, then we can discuss whether to incorporate the new boxes.--S_RX 00:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but lets discuss it soon, because we didn't discuss any of this other stuff and I don't see anybody reverting back to the old format right now. Plus I took it as a consensus since there was like 5 against 0 who wanted to make the change.--WillC 00:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Because no one else talked about it, you can't make a conclusion based on a small hand of votes. Personally, I agree with having the box but I would like to have the event chronology there (i.e. SummerSlam chronology) that is relevant to the article, but I feel that the PPV chronology is worthless. Why do we have it, because we like it to move from one PPV to another in an order, but as brought up in the SummerSlam '03 PR, it is not needed because it is not doing anything relevant to the article. We don't even have to add the PPV box at the bottom, we can just remove the PPV and event chronology parameters and add a parameter that just says "Succeeded by" and then the next "event" PPV (i.e SS'03 and succeeded by SS'04) and that's it.S_RX 00:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. I think the PPV chronology is similar to the list of all the television episodes for an entire season in the infoboxes for television episode articles. You can click from, say, Vengeance 2003 to SummerSlam to Unforgiven and it will help with following the storylines. I think it has more of a purpose than listing the previous and following SummerSlam events (as they happen a year a part and don't even affect each other), but I don't see the problem with just keeping both succession lists in the infobox. User:Brianboulton, who commented on the PPV chronology, "didn't see the necessity" because he "doesn't understand wrestling" (which he admitted himself). He didn't understand that like in the television episode articles, it aids with understanding plot development. How many times in a PPV article does what happened at the previous PPV affect the current one? A lot, especially in the main events and title defenses. Nikki311 01:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

We could remove both chronology's, and add the PPV chronology to the "See also" sections. In SummerSlam (2008), the "See also" section would include links to: List of WWE pay-per-view events, SummerSlam, The Great American Bash (2008), and Unforgiven (2008). -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel, the table at the bottom of Lockdown would be better. The see also section doesn't tell which came first and next. Plus it is a little prettier.--WillC 05:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

So do we have a decision yet? Just to make sure so that this one doesn't go dead either.--WillC 21:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Not even close. We need some more opinions... Nikki311 02:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

How exactly does the PPV chronology not add anything? If you're following events/angles from one pay-per-view to the next then it's there, plain to click. If you wanna compare the attendance, the buyrate or if you can't remember when something happened but you remember some PPVs near it, then there you go click. How does event chronology do anything constructive? SummerSlam 2002 is barely related to SummerSlam 2003 in anything but name and the comparable information (where it is, what the date was) can be found at the main SummerSlam page. Ergo I'm pro PPV chron but against event chron for the main box, if it needs to be there use the bottom box. Tony2Times (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe it would be better if it looked like this.

and have nothing in the info box. Like so=

It looks nice and doesn't distract from the page. That is what I'm for if no one knew already.--WillC 03:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is it a problem just keeping both sets of chronologies in the infobox? Then the people who like the event chronologies are happy, and the people who like PPV chronologies are happy. Nikki311 15:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a problem, I just seem to like it better this way. After I placed it in Lockdown I thought it went with the flow. Someone is reading it down the page, they look at the results then go past the references to see if there is anything left, then they see the boxes. It goes with the flow and makes ppvs look like TV episode articles. The next ppv in the storyline and the last ppv in the storyline. It just works to me.--WillC 21:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

TV episodes don't have succession boxes. Nikki311 21:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

They use too. I haven't looked at one in a while, but I like the succession box at the bottom. That is just me, it works with the flow in my mind.--WillC 21:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Style Guide/PPV tables

I feel we should make this like a COTW or a group editing process so we can make the WP:PW/MOS an official guideline classified by Misplaced Pages and make it a policy to be followed for all articles, what do you think? In this way we can cite WP:MOSPW (a shortcut we can create once the page is classified as an official guideline) and it will be easier than to try an figure out what to cite from other MOS pages.S_RX 00:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I still say there needs to be more detail in the match results summary. I saw people saying "what you want is already listed in the expanded articles." I've looked through the PPV articles for these so called expanded results and show breakdowns and don't see them. I don't get why people have to lie to my face about this stupid shit. My thoughts still stand that the new way the articles are done sucks. It's like seeing seeing the super bowl result on the sports page and only seeing the score and nothing about the amazing plays and drives that both teams put through. It's a joke. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Would it be a good compromise to add the finishing move used to the results section of the table?:

Would using row 2 instead of row 1 help? As long as it isn't an overboard summary in the table, I don't think it clutters it or anything. Nikki311 13:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

But the table would be filled with jargon, wouldn't it? -- iMatthew _T.C. 13:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the moves will be explained in the text. I kind of see the table as the exception to the rules. I think the names should be linked in the table, too. The point of the table is to be a quick reference, but it defeats the purpose if you have to scroll up to click on a name. I think it is okay to list the moves in the table, too. I'm just trying to think of some alternatives here to make people happy. Nikki311 13:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well its great to see suggestions to improve the style guide, but how are we to improve it to make it an official policy guideline? I also agree and disagree about the tables, I agree that it is for quick references, but I disagree to link the subjects per WP:OVERLINK. Also, what if the finishing move is complicated? How are we to explain it.--S_RX 14:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the names should be wikilinked, as table entries are an exception specifically mentioned on the page you referenced. I agree that it is for quick reference, similar to a Discography for a singer or a Filmography section (both of which are wikilinked, even though the names of the albums and films are already linked in the text). GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding the finishing move to the table and wikilinking the names would be a wonderful compromise, IMO. On that same note, I think two rows for each match looks sort of crap. Come to think of it, why is the match time noted. That can be noted in the prose and I sincerely doubt that anyone looking for quick results cares if the match took 8 minutes or 12 minutes 50 seconds... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think she's asking if the example shown in row 2 (with finishing move) is better than the example shown in row 1 (without). I believe that the table is the best place for match times, though, as incorporating them into the Event section would lead to awkward and repetitive prose. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right. *smacks head* That should have been obvious, but I hadn't had my coffee yet. I like the second example. And that's another fair point about match times. But really, how are they even notable unless it's a very odd circumstance (like a very short match or a very long match)? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well on occasions it's needed, like in Bad Blood (2003), the event did not last the entire 3 hours, so the match times would be something to look at to see why it didn't. I just have a problem with adding the finishing move outcome, what if it was a controversial finish that requires details, you know the table is limited so..how do we that?S_RX 16:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Give me an example of "controversial" and I'll see if I can shorten it. I think that really depends on the situation itself. If you mean like Backlash (2006) then that's simple enough. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would need an example of a controversial finish to figure it out. For example, though, in WrestleMania (1985), Cowboy Bob Orton mistakenly hit Paul Orndorff over the head with his arm cast, which led to Hogan pinning him, so the results in the table could state "Hulk Hogan and Mr. T (with Jimmy Snuka) defeated Roddy Piper and Paul Orndorff (with Cowboy Bob Orton) after Orton interfered in the match." The details are in the text, but at least it gives you an idea of what happened. If it is way too complicated to describe it all, then we can stick with "so and so beat so and so" (as the description is still in the prose). Nikki311 16:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see with Backlash is that it isn't right to list the scoring condition for one match even if it DQ just for one match. Controversial I mean like in a hardcore based environment, like if a person fell of a stage or if the set fell on them or in a steel cage like they were thrown through it and the cage broke, things in that nature.S_RX 16:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"A pinned B after a chair shot." "A and B went to no contest when they both fell off the stage." "A defeated B when B threw A through the cage door." Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. A pinned B after interference from C. There just needs to be explanation of how the finish happened, and notes of interference and any other events during the match. I understand the simplicity part, but simply, you're not giving the reader a more complete story of how Edge beat The Undertaker in TLC. How Cena took Edge out of the picture in their TLC match, etc. That's the main reason I really don't like the new articles. Just the who won and who lost and or what the score is is not really what people just want to read. If it's an article people want a story. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want that much detail, we should think about a seperate wiki for wrestling,(Actually I think that would solve a lot of problems that WP:PW is having: the kayfabe question, the question of assumed prior knowledge, etc. I'm pretty sure that people who e.g. do not know who Brian Danielson is and believe that C.M.Punk is a genuine practitioner of Muay Thai would not go on it.) as pages would simply become too unwieldy. A description of the various moves used, in sequence, is not that interesting. What would be interesting, however, is a description of what happened viz. people being put over/people being buried: i.e. if someone had a squash, or if a match was obviously rushed, or if someone heel-turned, or did something unexpected: (for instance, the main event at Victory Road 2008, or the World Tag Team Championship match at Night of Champions 2008) Lafraisne (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention

I know that per this, we are to name the events with the year in paranthesis, but in some article we only use that title in the infobox and the lead and thats it. After that we use the title without the paranthesis, like SummerSlam 2003. Then in other articles we mention other PPV events, we write them as SummerSlam 2003 and not SummerSlam (2003). So what's wrong here, the policy or the way it is written?--S_RX 13:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

SummerSlam 2003 wouldn't be the official name, so it shouldn't be used when referring to the event in its own article or other articles. I like to write it as "SummerSlam in 2003". Nikki311 13:55, 17 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)

Any better? Adster95 (talk) 18:40, 14 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)

Some of them are plain vandals and idiotic think its funny. We don't need a banner - as I said a few days ago, no other articles have banner of a similar nature, so we shouldn't have one. D.M.N. (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Lockdown (2008)

Hey, can someone please do a copyedit on Lockdown (2008), I haven't got alot of time to work on it much anymore. It is under GA review and if the problems aren't fixed on its talk page then it will fail and I don't want that. The problems are mainly the new out of universe thing and brung it too much into detail. Someone please help me out because I'm not good at explaining it shorter, I really hate the article now.--WillC 19:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Find, who knew who were used :)

--S_RX 23:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Good find. At least we have something to cite to in the future, if anyone tries to start a PPV page war. D.M.N. (talk) 09:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question

I'm going to attempt to take Matt Sydal out of universe and have run into a snag. Two wrestlers mentioned on his page Delirious and Daizee Haze have no real known names. They are known only by their ring names and no reliable source I can find reports their actual names. So, what to do? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Delirious' page says his real name is William Johnston (or is that a different Delirious?). As for Haze, I'd just link her ring name without listing a real name. There's nothing you can do, IMO, if the info isn't available. Nikki311 02:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I swear that wasn't there a week a ago when I last checked, XD, but good enough. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I would write a footnotes section and explain that their birth name is not available.--S_RX 02:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, I believe Daizee Haze's real name is Daizee Haze. It seems so real to me.--WillC 05:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it is. Every site I've checked says that her real name is withheld by request. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Survivor Series (2003)

Shouldn't you rate the article better than a Start rating? Govvy (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Changed to C. Still needs to be completed though. D.M.N. (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Jon Heidenreich

I have mentioned it before and on it's talk page ages ago, but again, the references and external links are very poor and need fixing up for him. Govvy (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Govvy, if no one's referencing it, why don't you try and fix it by adding references yourself? D.M.N. (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Because I am only using the wrestler articles for cross referencing for another project I am doing. It's something the wrestling project needs to do and I did ask before. Govvy (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the articles need referencing...he's kind of low on the list, IMO. His article will be fixed eventually, though. Nikki311 13:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU for WP:PW?

What do you guys think of creating a HAU-like page for this project. For the same purposes, if users have questions and/or need help, we can point them to our own HAU list. If you guys think this might be a good idea, I created a list here of those who would probably be on the list. -- iMatthew _T.C. 14:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, most of us know who is who around here and its always only around 20 members who are highly active, IPs and newbies don't give a crap about the project, just MO.--S_RX 14:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

But that's because all we ever do is revert them and warn them. I think that we should start warning them, but leaving a message stating "if you need help learning how to use the tools of Misplaced Pages, to constructively edit articles, see our highly active users that are available to help you" or something along the lines of that. This isn't about the project, it's mainly about giving them assistance and help when they need it to edit articles. -- iMatthew _T.C. 15:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, its a great idea. Thanks for letting WP:PW know about this feature. SRX — I don't know if its about IPs and newbies not giving a crap, but what IMatthew said (I'd just be repeating him, so I won't go any further). Give it a try and see how it goes. ]

I like the idea.--WillC 03:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree. And as for newbies and IPs not caring about the project, I'm a newbie (210~ edits) and I'm here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genius101 Wizard (talk • contribs) 16:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

SummerSlam (2003) FAC Restart

So the FAC was restarted for voting purposes as it was difficult to distinguish what was going on in the FAC. So it was restarted, maybe this time it has better fate.--S_RX 17:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

SRX — I left a note back at my talkpage, but I think I'm going to sit this one out for the time being. No disrespect or anything, but I want to be fair and I think new and different opinions need to be heard. ]

Extreme Championship Wrestling --> ECW_ECW-2008-08-17T23:40:00.000Z">

I brought this up before, and now I think it's the time to bring it up again. Yes the letters "E" "C" "W" literally stand for Extreme Championship Wrestling, but quoting from WP:ACRONYM (or Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (abbreviations)), Acronyms should be used in page naming if the subject is almost exclusively known only by its acronym and is widely known and used in that form, e.g., (NASA and radar). When was the last time "Extreme Championship Wrestling" was referred to as on WWE Television or .com? Looking currently at , nowhere is it used, only ECW. In the SmackDown and Raw articles they spell the shows name entirely e.g (Monday Night Raw/Friday Night SmackDown), but in ECW, they just say "catch ECW this Tuesday on Sci-Fi." I think it's time we officially go by policy, and rename the ECW article. IF we do rename it, I was thinking..

• ECW (WWE)

or

• WWE ECW

--S_RX 23:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)_ECW"> _ECW">

I think a better option is to name the article "ECW on SciFi." No quantifier and no awkward acronym combo Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)_ECW"> _ECW">

One, didn't we have this discussion already and, Two, why isn't this listed on the Article Name Change sub page, is that not what that is for? Darrenhusted (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it went nowhere, now I'm bringing it up here so the entire community can have a say as not everyone pays attention to ANC, plus I am doing this to go by Wiki's policy.--S_RX 14:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I admit ANC isn't getting the views it should, but "went nowhere"? 10 Votes, 7 against, 3 for. That seems like a conclusive vote to me (bearing in mind 37 active users that is a 27% turnout). This looks like re-running a vote because you didn't like the result. At least message all those who took part in the previous vote to see if they have an opinion on this matter. Darrenhusted (talk)

Wrong. 10-7, thats not a big difference, a more conclusive vote is needed. As not everyone had a say in the last survey, thats what the project page is for, so everyone can look at it and have a say. It's not because I did not like the result, it's because I want the article to go by policy and not because "wrestling fans" dont like the title of the article.S_RX 14:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same thing, I saw ten votes in total, 7 against moving, 3 for moving. That's more than 2:1 against. Not a massive vote but still large enough for consensus. That was opened on the 18th June and closed on the 4th August, a seven week window. To open it up after two weeks seems like running the vote to change the result. Darrenhusted (talk)

ECW (WWE) should not even be an option. The current ECW and the previous ECW share the same lineage, even though they share nothing in common except name alone. ECW (WWE) suggests a seperation where there isn't one.-- Me 15:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

@Darren, I was unaware of when it closed. Only 10 votes is not enough for consensus, and the people who voted were mostly those who are unaware of the Wikipeida MOS policy of WP:ACRONYM, I am not trying to change the result I am trying to go by policy.@Me, ECW is just an acronym, it just is a shortened version of "Extreme Crappy Wrestling, I mean Championship".S_RX 16:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that the point of this? Aren't you wanting to change "Extreme Championship Wrestling" to "ECW (WWE)" (or something of that ilk)? I'm saying that it should be called "ECW" because that's the name of the brand.-- Me 16:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• ECW (WWE)
  • Shortening of original title.
• WWE ECW
  • The literal term of how tv programs are names.
• ECW on Sci-Fi
  • The name as it appears on WWE.com, commercials and tv ads.
• ECW
  • The actual name of the brand.

State which you prefer or state if you oppose this whole thing with an explanation.

• Support WWE ECW - It is the official name (ECW) and like WWE Raw and WWE SmackDown this is WWE ECW.S_RX 13:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support WWE ECW - But, reluctantly, for comformity. My main issue with this is I never hear it referred to by the commentators as "WWE ECW". I've heard "WWE Raw" from Jim Ross and "WWE Smackdown" Michael Cole, but never "WWE ECW". Additionally, since this is a re-use of an existing trademark, it's dificult to concede which should be the focus, the trademark itself or the parent company.  Hazardous Matt  13:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support WWE ECW per WWE RAW (Which itself is originally an acronym of Real Action Wrestling) and WWE Friday Night Smackdown PXK /_C 13:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• 'Support ECW on SciFi on ECW (WWE) - It's never been referred to as ECW WWE or WWE ECW. But ECW on Scifi is said just about every week. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• ECW (WWE). "ECW" is the official name of the program, "ECW on SciFi" is just something they say like "Monday Night Raw" or TNA sometimes says "Thursday Night iMPACT!". TJ Spyke 15:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• ECW. That is the name of the brand and should be refered to as such. -- Me 15:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

ECW is not on the list of options. Darrenhusted (talk)

Keep as is - per previous vote.--Endless Dan 16:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)_ECW"> _ECW">

Why because its not broken? It is broken because it is against WP:ACRONYM.S_RX 16:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What the fuck?? Because I am exercising my right to vote. Why are you pestering me? Because I didn't side with you?--Endless Dan 16:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No. First of all remain civil because that is not the reason why I am pestering you. You said you oppose because of your previous vote, and I saw your previous vote and you said because its not broken so I explained why it is broken, you take things out of context my friend.S_RX 17:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that's my vote, pal. Per previous voting and all discussions that lay within. --Endless Dan 17:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support WWE ECW But, like Hazardous Matt, reluctantly. My second choice is ECW (WWE). Genius101 Wizard (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep as is - per previous vote, per the fact that it's not broken, per Endlessdan's reasons, and per search results on wwe.com. A search for "Extreme Championship Wrestling" gets 9 pages of results, a search for "ECW (WWE)" gets no results, and a search for "WWE ECW" gets no results. I don't understand why, if the argument (which has been proven false by search results) is that the name "Extreme Championship Wrestling" isn't used, the article would be moved to a different name that is never used. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)_ECW"> _ECW">

• Keep as is per Endlessdan and GaryColemanFan. -- iMatthew _T.C. 21:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This is seriously crap, it is broken because when in the hell was the last time WWE said "Welcome to Extreme Championship Wrestling?" This Tuesday on Extreme Championship Wrestling, go to Extreme Championship Wrestling.com for more info. The title of the article should be what it is most commonly known as, per WP:NAME. Quoting from there, The names of Misplaced Pages articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. As I see editors want it to be as is because the acronyms are crap and "its not broken," but would the general audience be looking up for Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE) here on Misplaced Pages? I think the acronym is more search-able. Also, GaryColeMan Fan, you should not base you vote on an engine search, per WP:SET. ECW would also be WP:COMMONNAME. Another thing, following if ain't broken, dont' fix it, it's an essay and not a guideline so it should only be used when appropriate. I may be sounding like a dick and want it my way, but I just want it to go with Misplaced Pages's policies.S_RX 22:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Then why don't we just rename National Hockey League to NHL, Major League Baseball to MLB, National Basketball Association to NBA, or even World Wrestling Entertainment to WWE. -- iMatthew _T.C. 23:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Because those organizations use their entire name in promotions unlike ECW, seriously iMatthew, when was the last time you heard Extreme Championship Wrestling referred to as on ECW on Sci-Fi?S_RX 23:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

When was the last time you heard World Wrestling Entertainment (on television)? -- iMatthew _T.C. 00:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In every WWE press release, on every WWE show, and event on "OMG!" WWE.com. But unlike ECW, it is only referred to as Extreme Championship Wrestling on rare occurrences versus "commonly.--S_RX 01:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that "I haven't heard it lately" constitutes original research. As this press release from May 2008 shows, WWE does still refer to the program by its full name. I also find the argument that readers wouldn't be able to find the article confusing, as a redirect could easily solve the problem. Please also note that my vote is not based exclusively on search engine results, as was claimed above. The search engines results was one of four reasons I listed. Obviously, referring to the brand by its acronym happens quite a bit in the age of text messaging (3 letters is shorter to say than 8 syllables, and it's shorter to type than 28 letters), but the same can be said for "Taker" in place of "The Undertaker" all over the internet. I certainly don't think that would be grounds for redirecting The Undertaker's article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it is rare that WWE refers to ECW as Extreme Championship Wrestling, and per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ACRONYM an abbreviation covers for the most common titled subject.--S_RX 21:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

IRC channel

I was wondering if there was any interest here in having a project specific IRC channel so that we would be able to discuss project related things. Several other projects do have them, and if there is interest, perhaps we should have one. -- Scorpion 00:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea. I'm up for it.--S_RX 01:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and created one, #wp-pw. Enjoy. -- Scorpion 01:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance (I never use chatrooms or whatever this is), but how do I enable it? I clicked the link and already had Java installed. It says not connected and no channel. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's working for me at current. PXK /_C 14:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

info box namings

I've been noticing across a lot of biographies that the top of the infobox just above the picture is the name field. But with the wrestling articles a lot have the alias and not the real name of the person. Shouldn't it be the real persons name as there is a collection of aliases underneath? Govvy (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be the name of the article. Nikki311 21:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Per Template:Infobox Wrestler#Parameters. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Championship Succession Boxes

One user seems to have a thing for succession boxes. They have been added them for KOTR, GMs, RR winners and WWE Champions. As per consensus I have been removing them (as have others). But with so many other things up for discussion maybe now is the time to properly discuss them. I know the argument against them, and it seems to consist of "Jerry Lawler's page will be massive", or any other wrestler who has won twenty titles. And I'm not saying USWA reigns should be included, but if the list of successions was limited (to the top titles, WWE/WHC, Tag, IC/US, and Women's) then very few wrestlers' pages would be massive (Edge, Kane and Mick Foley would bloat because of Tag reigns). Or another alternative is the idea of a navbox with surnames, as an idea I offer these three pages. They all have massive succession boxes (15, 15 and 17) and also surname only navboxes at the foot. I would be in favour of some limited list of succession boxes but what do others think?Darrenhusted (talk) 10:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I like them for commentator and for accomplishments like King of the Ring, Royal Rumble, Diva Search and Money in the Bank. But I don't think you should do it for titles. And Darrenhusted please sign your posts using 4~ thanks Adster95 (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I had six tabs open. Darrenhusted (talk)

Surely IC and US aren't top titles, they're second tier? Anyhow, my feelings on succession boxes are ambivalent mainly because I see them for comics writers and you can never navigate your whole way through it. But if we were to have them, I wouldn't see a problem, like Adster said, for accomplishments like KoTR, Rumble and MiTB, perhaps King of the Mountain too, because they are annual events and thus the winners are limited, plus the winners are rarely repeated. Anyone who wrestled in the late '90s will have their page almost doubled in length. WWF Hardcore Champions tripled. Tony2Times (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured_list_removal_candidates/IWGP_Tag_Team_Championship

Just a quick note to say that this FLRC will probably be closed, soon. --Dweller (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

OOU is costing Lockdown (2008)

I've been told by the second opinion for Lockdown's GAN, that it is too in depth. Mainly because of the new additions for the out of universe. Can I please get someone's opinion to know if it is too in depth on Moves and to know if it is GA or not. I would really like it to not fail. Since it looks like it is going to fail.--WillC 19:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In wrestling and Championships and accomplishments

Does anyone one else feel that these sections are meant for quick reference and thus should not be subjected to WP:OVERLINK much like PPV result tables? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Nikki311 00:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Now for the real question. Is it possible to make an exception for that and still comply with WP:MOS and all other guidelines? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope I read that right...are you asking that if we still link the "in wrestling", are we still complying with MoS and the guidelines? I think so...as mentioned before, reference lists (filmography, discography, results tables, awards) tend to be the special exception. I don't know of a policy that says otherwise. Nikki311 00:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. In other words, moves are linked even if they appear elsewhere in the article, same with managers. For the C&A section, titles and tag partners are linked regardless of the rest of the article. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Good news for project, if it happens

Currently their is a proposal to add Misplaced Pages:Good topics as a policy, which is like Misplaced Pages:Featured topics, but instead of high/featured quality, they are of good quality, which can help the project with articles like WWE No Way Out and it's GAs, so I encourage the project to vote here in a straw poll.--S_RX 01:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

*sighs*

A little help, please? Talk:Glen Jacobs#Edit War. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Feedback from WP:PW requested at ANI

Hey all. Can you guys take a look at this thread on ANI, and maybe weigh in with your thoughts? I know that the editor in question was a member here, and that this whole issue revolved around the wikiproject here. Thoughts? - Alison 07:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

December to Dismember (2006) - Still an FA!

The FAR was finished today, and I am happy to report that D2D is still an FA. D.M.N. (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful. I thought it was a sure thing once SandyGeorgia of all users supported it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Great work everyone! Nikki311 15:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Promo (professional wrestling)

I strongly believe this article should be redirected to List of professional wrestling slang. It's just plain out of hand. The entire article is a series of point of view lists. This has encouraged other editors and IPs to add anyone who ever had a good (or bad) promo. All but one of the lists are also heavily skewed toward recent wrestlers. Nothing significant is actually stated in the article that isn't already included in entry for "promo" on the list of slang. Would anyone disagree with redirecting it? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with a redirect.  Hazardous Matt  16:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

These two slang articles also seem unnecessary and could be merged into the slang list. Thoughts?--Endless Dan 16:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Also a good idea.  Hazardous Matt  16:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been systematically redirecting those sorts of pages (plus merging sourced info, but most of them don't have any of that) so I, of course, support redirecting all three of those articles, as well. Nikki311 16:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, but List of wrestling slang is really coming out of hand with the sources and original research.S_RX 17:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Totally. "Arm color"? C'mon. --Endless Dan 18:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about it that way, but I could easily find at least 40-50 terms on that list that aren't notable enough to include (From A to G alone: Arm color, Around the Horn, Boys, Broadway, Bozark, Bull, Bump ring, Ceiling, Crimson mask, The Deal, Feeding, Fire, Geek, Gig mark, Gizmo, Go home, Good hand, etc.). I think things like this are the reason it was proposed for deletion in the past. That sort of glossary is better left to Wiktionary or wrestling fan sites. The reason that WP:PW members gave for keeping the list was that it acts as a useful reference for other articles. I have never seen any of the terms I listed in a wrestling article, though, so I think some trimming is in order. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think they should only be kept if they can get verified by wrestlers books, i.e. Shawn Michaels makes reference to a few in his book, same with Batista, Jericho, Foley etc.. D.M.N. (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A lot of them can be verified by this list from Pro Wrestling Torch. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me that something like a promo is more significant than most of the terms in the list of wrestling slang. Could we not have a list of a wrestling slang, like there is, and then a seperate page or sub section, where the more common and frequently used terms, are elucidated. I don't know what the title of that article or sub section would be but I imagine it to read like the List of Professional Wrestling Match Types. Tony2Times (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This has got to stop, this is ridiculous

We need a way to let these newbies and IPs know about the new format, I am sick of every thread on the upcoming PPV's complaining about the new format, we need to think of something..--S_RX 19:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the world doesn't need every wrestling PPV to be a featured article, we all notice it. --WestJet (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

FA does not matter, its policy to be written that way FA/GA or not.--S_RX 19:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, but seriously, I have no issue with it besides the ridiculous lead in paragraph. Come on? Really? That's my ONLY qualm with it. --WestJet (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No it's not ridiculous because the lead is to give the overview of the event and it's nature, and that's exactly what the lead is in that way we don't need to write in every sentence that it was scripted, a small sacrifice for a big deal. Plus, I did not create this thread for complaints.--S_RX 19:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Look why don't we just put how the match ended example

Match - CM Punk defeated John "Bradshaw" Layfield after a GTS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brothers of destruction (talk • contribs) 19:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that above makes absolutely no sense. Where exactly? D.M.N. (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The point of this particular thread is not to discuss changes to the current criteria for writing a PW article, but the possibility of formulating a solution to avoid the commotion that occurrs on every PPV talk page. Not to say that you can't bring this point up, you'd just want to branch it off.

As for a proposal for a method to alert IP edits and those who have been against the new method, we have to take into account the numerous times they've already been directed to WP:PW and have not even contributed to the discussion. I don't believe there is a significant desire to adapt to the new style by the vocal majority of that faction.  Hazardous Matt  19:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me a lot of the previously ongoing 'when to add SmackDown announcements' argument that raged for months. Like then, I don't think there is a way to stop people not accepting on it. Other than directing them to WP:PW I can't think of a way. Tony2Times (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Guys, what you have done with the Summerslam 2008 article is needless. If anything, describing the matches as staged and scripted is demeaning to the business. Just link to Pro Wrestling if anyone does really need to be assured wrestling is scripted. As wrestling fans, I'm sure you know, it offends wrestlers when their trade is bashed and kayfabe broken. Also, if this happens, then surely every TV show and movie page also needs to be described as scripted with a predetermined plot. From Anon (views expressed by many on other wrestling forums). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.142.62 (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree, Misplaced Pages is not a wrestling newsite, it's an encyclopedia. It should cater to all readers, not just wrestling fans. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles needs to be written with a real world perspective. Nikki311 23:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

These Ips and newbies are now removing information, if this continues it could may as well be counted as Vandalism as they have been warned and redirected here already.S_RX 23:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If they keep doing after several warnings, it is disruption. Nikki311 23:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel we should explain for the benefit project members and IPs alike, why we can't apply WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR to this instance. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am fully behind this new way of writing, if it gives the project a chance to be seen as something other than a bunch of wrestling fans writing articles for each other. We have been merciless in deletion, we have applied strict levels of notability, now we need to reach out to all readers, not just fanboys (or fangirls). I say use 3RR to our advantage, n00bs and IPs will run through 2RR quickly, hit them with a warning then report them to 3RR. Or go to RFPP quicker. We know which PPV is going to be next to be vandalised, we all have extensive watchlists, I don't want to fall foul of OWN but either we are working towards a common goal or we are not, and if not then why not just let the vandals run the asylum. I will contact all members of the ultra secret wrestling cabal or USWC (remember the secret handshake) to inform them as to how we can conspire to control this project. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%, I almost got blocked for reverting 3 times at Unforgiven (2008).--S_RX 14:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, it seems that all these anon editors don't like your new format. And yet, you continue to shove it down their and our throats. Mshake3 (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Well they should deal with it because its new policy and consensus."--S_RX 14:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

@Mshake, I shall pass your opinions on to the Cabal. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If they feel so strongly about the project they should also voice their opinions, reasonably, and offer ways to enhance the articles as well, not just revert articles to what they prefer.  Hazardous Matt  14:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Mshake, most of the anon's love professional wrestling and want to see it here portrayed as real. We must portray our articles in a out-of-universe style. Why don't you agree with that? D.M.N. (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, who is going to a page called "WWE Unforgiven" that isn't a wrestling fan? Thus, why is it necessary to explain that it is predetermined on every page? I am not suggesting that these articles be written in a "shoot" format. But by the same token, it needlessly adds superfluous and redundant text to every page. Look at episode descriptions of TV shows on Wiki (which are there for better or worse). For example, you won't see a Heroes episode description stating, "Sylar was then scripted to chase the cheerleader." There clearly has to be a better middle-ground than this. --ECWAGuru (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"superfluous and redundant" made my day. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason you don't see it on television articles is because with the exception of reality shows, television shows are not passed off to the viewers as real. NBC doesn't try to pass of Heroes as a series of real conflicts, whereas Pro-Wrestling is in a far more gray-area, trying to pass off a scripted program as spontaneous and legitimate.  Hazardous Matt  19:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

True in the 60s, but not now. Many wrestling matches are now self-referential (watch some PWG, please), and all organisations now realise the existance of smarks, and are changing approach as a result: i.e. Batista being referred to as 'Dave'. Yes no-one watching Thesz-Rikidozan knew it was worked, but promotions have given up all-out preserving kayfabe for 15 years. Lafraisne (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering Vince McMahon has openly called it "entertainment" on numerous occasions (including in front of a court of law), I don't really think this argument holds water anymore. In fact, take a look at Beyond the Mat, where McMahon matter-of-factly states, "We make movies." The secret's been out for quite awhile.--ECWAGuru (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since you have sources that say it is openly-admitted by Vince McMahon that it is fiction, then there should be no trouble stating it is fiction. The issue is that he only says this in behind-the-scenes documentaries or on interviews. This is never said on television. In fact, the exception that proves my position on the issue is Jim Ross from Over the Edge, stating that the situation regarding Owen Hart was not part of the "entertainment" and "as real as it gets". They intentionally blur a line between reality and fantasy, and it comprimises the integrity of the article by keeping it In-Universe.  Hazardous Matt  19:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is the intent? Look at last year's Raw episode after the Benoit tragedy. McMahon stood in the middle of the ring (mere weeks after being "blown up" in a limo), and openly stated that the initial "intent" of the episode was to solve the mystery of who blew up the limo of the "Mr. McMahon character". In terms of only saying this "in behind-the-scenes documentaries or on interviews," how many sitcoms have there been where an actor/director breaks character mid-show? Are they misleading their audience because they don't offer constant reminders that what they are viewing is entertainment? I have no problem stating that it is fiction in the main professional wrestling article. Heck, in each of the articles, I don't even have a problem with coming up with some (very) brief description of the "fiction" of professional wrestling. Again, to borrow an example from Heroes, Episode 1's article begins, ""Genesis" is the pilot episode of the NBC science fiction drama series Heroes. " If there can be some brief descriptor along those lines, I think that would be a fair compromise. And even as such, I would limit that descriptor to the introductory paragraph of a particular event. Saying, "The main rivalry written into the pay-per-view on the Raw brand is a Championship scramble for the World Heavyweight Championship..." is just beating a dead horse. Ok, it's scripted -- we got it. --ECWAGuru (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Can this stop being WP:PW 'policy', since it is insanely controvertial, and less people seem to like it than dispise it?

It's a little more complicated than just WP:PW policy. It's been adopted as WP:PW policy. It has to do with rules for writing about fiction and writing out-of-universe.  Hazardous Matt  20:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC) As far as I know, there is no rule that you must point out that Superman comics, for instance, are fictional, at every possible opportunity until every possiblity of maintaining a crisp, professional, and more importantly, comprehensible style of article has been ruthlessly eradicated. Of course it's fictional, only a child could think it wasn't. We're not trying to sabotage attempts to get most wrestling articles to GA status, we're trying to aid them. I hope I speak for most dissenters for this over-pessimistic, naive policy when I say that we are not opposed to presenting pro-wrestling as worked, but opposed to doing so in a style that is unbelievably condescending. Lafraisne (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. For example, look at this statement on the No Mercy page, "The buildup to the matches and the scenarios that take place before, during, and after the event are planned by WWE's creative staff." To expand upon Lafraisne's previous Dark Knight example on the Unforgiven talk page," this would be the equivalent of saying, "The events before, during, and following the climactic battle between Batman and The Joker were planned by Christopher Nolan." It spells out the scripting process which, yes, is condescending to your readers. Again, those of us respectfully disagreeing with this policy are not insinuating that pro wrestling should be written as if it is a legitimate, "shoot"-style athletic competition. The style of writing is the main source of contention; as it is written now, it simply comes off incredibly condescending.--ECWAGuru (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

But wait...it does just that. Quoting from The Dark Knight (film), "The Dark Knight is a 2008 American superhero film co-written and directed by Christopher Nolan." You don't seem to have a problem with a writer being named in this article, so why can't an explanation of the writing process be included in No Mercy (2008) as well? Likewise, the Dark Knight article gives the real names of the actors next to the roles they play. Come to think of it, the Dark Knight article goes much farther than the No Mercy article, as it dedicates a full section to production (development, filming, and design). It even includes much of the information (writers, producers, director, lead actors, editor, cinematographer, and distributor) right in the infobox. By comparison, the No Mercy article does very little to "spell out the scripting process" (and, by extension, should be considered far less condescending). GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Very fair and reasonable argument. And please note I have not argued against the use of real names of the wrestlers (though I admittedly removed them in one of my edits for Unforgiven). However, not one of these in-question wrestling postings notes who the writer of a specific storyline is. We know who wrote The Dark Knight. Productions of movies vary greatly from one film to another -- and the behind-the-scenes processes for each individual film are often made public through the internet (AintItCoolNews), television specials (HBO Behind-the-Scenes), and periodicals (Variety). The production information you mentioned is essentially public (and often published) knowledge. In wrestling, very few are privy to such intricate details of the backstage inner-workings (unless you subscribe to the Wrestling Observer and, even then, you're not getting the same level of detail that you will find in Variety). Therefore, perhaps the argument really lies in the notability/specificity of such information. In the case of The Dark Knight, very specific details are provided, almost all of which are notable to the process of making the movie. In the case of professional wrestling, the same, "Such-and-such was scripted beforehand, during, and afterwards" line is hardly notable enough to be repeated ad nauseum on every PPV or event posting. That would be like saying, "A scriptwriter wrote this movie" for every Batman, without detailing WHY that's important. A Tim Burton Batman is much different than a Christopher Nolan Batman, just like a Dusty Rhodes-written storyline is likely to be quite different than a Brian Gewirtz-written storyline.--ECWAGuru (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In regards to script readers, we would indeed specify who wrote what if there was anyway to find out. But WWE tends to be quite secretive about that. If you can find an reliable source, feel free to add it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That is my exact point. If that information were readily available and (more importantly) specific to that particular event, then by all means, it should be included. WWE may be secretive about who writes what. But, like I said in a previous post, I highly dispute that WWE is "secretive" about its predetermined nature. Their book division sponsored, promoted, and helped to distribute Mick Foley's various autobiographies. Each of those autobiographies would very specifically and openly discuss the backstage inner-workings...many of which came at the total expense of kayfabe (example: Mick's before-and-after discussions with both Terry Funk and The Undertaker regarding the infamous table bump at King of the Ring 1998). We're no longer in the territory era where heels and babyfaces dressed in separate dressing rooms and were banned from socializing together in public. Finally, as one more bit of proof that WWE literally CAN'T be secretive about its predetermined nature -- it is a publicly traded company. Look at any press release over the past few years. Listen to any conference call. They openly use words such as "characters" and "storylines." Therefore, I argue that pro wrestling needs to be treated like any other scripted medium. It doesn't need to be beaten over people's heads anymore. And if someone truly is confused as to whether or not wrestling is "real" or "fake", all he needs to do is head over to professional wrestling. The information is easily accessible to anyone who wants it.--ECWAGuru (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

List of matches in match type articles

Are these necessary? See: Elimination_chamber#Match_history, Iron_Man_match#Ironman_Match_history, Ladder match (most of the article is simply listing matches that have taken place for WWF/E, WCW, TNA and elsewhere), Ultimate_X_match#Ultimate_X_matches, these are just some examples. I would bet a majority of the match type articles list matches. I see this as both trivial and just clutter. I can understand an examples section, but a full on list isn't necessary. I'm not completely sure, but these might be violating Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. RobJ1981 (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

We've been working on that, we are doing it step by step which is why first we are trying to get rid of Hell in a Cell.--S_RX 13:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

List of celebrities at WrestleMania

I was thinking of whether this is a good idea? expanding over 20 years with over 100 celebs at the event, I think a list of them and their role and what they do could do good and then we can eliminate the horrible prose at WrestleMania#Celebrity involvement no?--S_RX 15:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It could be a good idea, especially if you describe their role (as you mentioned). Most WrestleManias have quite a bit of coverage, so that should be helpful. Nikki311 15:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and the table could look something like this..

S_RX 15:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I like this idea. It's definitely more information to add to the article, and since it branches outside of the PW industry, it could be considered quite notable.  Hazardous Matt  16:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I started expansion in my sandbox.S_RX 17:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

would Mayweather count as a celebrity, or is he exempted because he was part of the talent for the event? My opinion is that he should be included, as should Arquette for any WCW equivalent. Lafraisne (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I also kept meaning to suggest this, but mainly the reason I brought it up was because there now tends to be that drop down box of "Other on-screen talent" including commentators and interviewers. I'd argue celebrities should be put in there, like Rayven Simone this year as she's currently not there because she didn't compete or interview, but her appearance is noteworthy as celebrity is part of the WrestleMania phenomenon. Tony2Times (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC) (Why did someone delete this comment? :s)

I think Talent in that case refers to those employed full time by WWE and not guests. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Not so, this year included Kim Kardashian (sp?) on the list because she took the role of an interviewer. This makes sense, because she was doing something on screen but seeing as people like Rayven didn't have a role but their appearance was still hyped up somewhat, I feel they should be mentioned somewhere on the page and that table seems to be the best place, so as to avoid bullet point trivia. Tony2Times (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah don't worry, I have a reliable source that lists every celeb at the 'Manias.S_RX 12:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Trying to consolidate the discussions

So, I figured since most of the contention regarding the new MoS for WP:PW is showing up at just about every recent PPV article, we could at least try to consolidate the discussions by using a talk page header (and only on the talk page) directing those who wish to discuss the issue to this very page. I've worked something up in my sandbox. Agree? Disagree?  Hazardous Matt  20:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree but why redirect them here? All they will do is complain.--S_RX 20:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Still claiming guys are "complaining?" Thats getting old, fast. And I agree, that box is a good idea, it'll keep the clutter off of the talk pages and bring them to where they should be discussed. Killswitch Engage (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course they complain; they're dealing with something they don't agree with. Personally, it seems like a lot more people are against these new guidelines than for them, which completely defeats the purpose of Misplaced Pages's base in consensus. There should be a page created now formal discussion on this new policy, and all the "complainers" and "vandals" should be immeadiately redirected to that page and asked to voice their opinion. Also, I'd just like to note....people in support of the new policy like to point out that the "complainers" don't offer any alternatives to what it is already there. This isn't because they're lazy, it's because they think what's there is not needed and an alternative is unecessary. 70.105.164.43 (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that as a "complainer," I have offered both reasons for my argument AND alternative suggestions which, while not fully fleshed out, are at least starting points to get an intellectual compromise going. Since I posted my feelings last night, they have since gone uncontested...which, to me, indicates that the alleged willingness to compromise has fallen on deaf ears.--ECWAGuru (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What comprise? To summarise you previous posts: who is going to a page called "WWE Unforgiven" that isn't a wrestling fan? are you suggesting that only wrestling fans read the wrestling pages, if so this is not what Misplaced Pages is for. why is it necessary to explain that it is predetermined on every page? because every page may be a persons first page, if you found Misplaced Pages today your first page may be Usain Bolt, could that page assume you know he holds the world records for 100m and 200m? I don't even have a problem with coming up with some (very) brief description of the "fiction" of professional wrestling., but there already is one, and you have made no solid suggestion of an alternative, and an alternative that will be approved for FA. The style of writing is the main source of contention; as it is written now, it simply comes off incredibly condescending., so says you, I find it to be quite dry. Therefore, I argue that pro wrestling needs to be treated like any other scripted medium. It doesn't need to be beaten over people's heads anymore. Any more? This has literally started a month ago, are you suggesting every person who reads Misplaced Pages now knows that wrestling is fake and we can simply assume everyone is up to speed? As a self confessed "complainer" you have made no credible alternate suggestion on how articles can reach FA standard, neither have any of the other complainers. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said but this is an encyclopedia not a newswire. If you are not interested in working towards that goal then don't bother editing. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You guys win. Clearly, I'm in the wrong, and I concede to those bastions of encyclopedic integrity who think "any more" is two words and that "pre-determined" is hyphenated. Oh, and let's not forget that we must stick to using wrestler's real names -- yet the main page for Ricky Ortiz (real name: Richard Young) is still Atlas DaBone (a gimmick that few outside of OVW fans and smart marks will be aware of). Now, you can go ahead and blast me, or you can see that I made the suggestion for said change weeks ago on Young's talk page. --ECWAGuru (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's at Atlas DaBone per WP:COMMONNAME. However, you're right the article's name should probably be changed, since that being his most commonly known name is not true anymore. And in response to the typos, they happen, and rather than firing at us for it, why not go and fix the ones you see. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have consistently been doing as such. I just find it ironic that the crux of the argument for this policy is, "It's an encyclopedia, not a fansite." Yet, I see the same typos and run-on sentences in said encyclopedia, often made by the very people defending this policy. I agree -- we're all human. We all make mistakes, and said mistakes often include typographical errors. But if we as run-of-the-mill editors are expected to be held to some encyclopedic standard, then those individuals making this policy should hold themselves to the same standards. --ECWAGuru (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If someone can point me to an IP or complainer who has raised a WP:PW article to FA or GA standard then I'll listen, otherwise the moaners are doing nothing but clogging up talk pages with the same discussion repeated over and over. I like Hazardous Matt's banner but the existing WP policies should be enough, were are here to make an encyclopedia, not a wrestling fansite. If IPs want results then google "Wrestling results" there are thousands of sites that will cater for them, Misplaced Pages is not for that. As I said before, revert, warn, revert, block. Any page under FA upgrade can be protected, I think the nature of what this project is doing has evolved and those who don't want to come down from the trees and walk upright can stay up there picking the insects of each other's backs while grunting their complaints (to stretch a metaphor to breaking). If they want to help then feel free to join in. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just kind of throwing this out there because I find it interesting. Both sides of this argument ("for" and "against") have pretty good arguments. The "for" people are arguing that this is being done because its Misplaced Pages policy. But the "against" people's argument is pretty interesting, since it's essentially "Misplaced Pages policy is detracting from the quality of these articles". I personally fall into the latter category. Would it really be that awful to have a policy for Pro Wrestling articles that doesn't fit Misplaced Pages policy? I'm pretty sure it even says somewhere that if something is keeping you from improving the encyclopedia, then ignore it. Let me take the new leads for example. We don't need all these disclaimers about wrestling being staged when it's already written out much better in the pro wrestling article. I've shown the PPV articles to a couple of people just to see their reactions; I find it condescending, and 3 out of 3 friends read it and laughed at it. Is that what we're trying to go for here? 70.105.164.43 (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of "Ring Name (Real Name)" is being missed here

I really don't think we need the "Ring Name (Real Name)" guideline to appear in pro wrestling articles. I haven't seen the argument I'm about to make anywhere else, so I hope you'll all take it into consideration. The main argument for this policy seems to be that movies and TV shows do it. My argument is that music articles do not. Before you say "Wrestling is more like movies/TV than music", hear me out. Yes, wrestling itself is more like movies/TV than music, but articles on wrestlers look a lot more like those on musicians than those on actors and characters. A few examples:

• Ex. 1 - Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) - In this case, it is necessary to link both names because they link to two separate articles. The Harry Potter article has no info on Radcliffe's personal life, and the Radcliffe article has no info on Harry's fictional bio.
• Ex. 2 - The Love Guru (Mike Myers) - In this case, it is again necessary to separate the names. There is no info on the Love Guru on Mike Myers' page because the article is about the person, not the character he plays.
• Ex. 3 - 50 Cent (Curtis Jackson) - This one is a no-no. The article on 50 is about both Curtis Jackson's personal and professional lives, and thus no split is needed.
• Ex. 4 - Kane (Glen Jacobs) - Here's the controversial one, to which I say...no. The Kane article is about Kane and Glen Jacobs, so no split is necessary here.

Unless the intention of this project is to split pro wrestling articles into the character and the wrestler, it is simply unecessary to do the "Ring Name (Real Name)" deal. Articles on wrestlers are much closer to articles on musicians than to those on actors/characters, so they should be treated more like those on musicians when linking. Remember, articles on wrestlers here are about the wrestler and the person. No split in linking is necessary. 70.105.164.43 (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

THANK FUCKING CHRIST! Finally someone explained that those things are redundant as well as horrible! (Now to wait for DMN to get WP:FORUM on my ass) PXK /_C 16:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)