Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Moe Epsilon (talk | contribs) at 21:51, 10 July 2005 (→Hulk Hogan). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archived discussions:

• /Archive 1 (archived May 2005)
• /Archive 2 (archived June 2005)

Bias towards current events

I am wondering how specific the biographies are intended to be. For instance, many biographies contain information on recent storyline happenings in the wrestler's career, which over the long-run may end up being completely insignificant on the whole, compared with the rest of the wrestler's career. For instance, will anyone really care five years from now that William Regal issued an invitational for a team to challenge against his tag belt during an episode of Sunday Night Heat (one of the least-watched or cared about programs)? I severely doubt it. This problem becomes larger when people go into this sort of tedious detail for wrestlers who haven't even had significant public careers, let alone significant roles in current events. It has to be kept in mind that the wiki is not a news site, and it also has to be kept in mind that many wrestling websites already go into extremely fine detail on these sorts of things, and it would be a mammoth effort to even rival them on this basis. --Pathogen 05:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. We have a problem with systemic bias regarding wrestling bios (and wrestling articles in general) in favor of relatively recent events in the major American promotions. I've tried to balance things out a bit nationality-wise by doing some work on Japanese puroresu-related articles, but I'm limited by my lack of familiarity with the subject and my atrocious Japanese language skills. The bias towards recent events, though, seems more challenging, and I don't know how we can effectively counter it short of deleting mentions of minor events. — Gwalla | Talk 20:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

You have you points in that arguement but the fact is it may be significant in the long run... even your example is flawed and biased, first of The Heart Throbs (Antonio Thomas and Romeo Roselli) made their WWE debut on the April 18 edition of RAW, as the first team to respond to an open challenge, made on Heat by then tag team champions, William Regal and Tajiri. Is it not biased of you to say that Sunday Night Heat is "one of the least-watched or cared about programs" just because something happened on Heat does not make it any less noteable, esspecially as multiple title changes, debutes, and other important events have taken place on heat. Paulley 13:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I just deleted the "recent events" sections from SmackDown! and WWE RAW, because they encourage this bias towards current angles and are not encyclopedic. I think updates on recent plot points belongs on WikiNews, if anywhere in the wikiverse. — Gwalla | Talk 04:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

There are plenty of websites with huge sections devoted to recent recaps, wwe.com included. I agree that only really important things, like major feuds and PPV matches, should be posted. --Chrysaor 18:23, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

I think the "recent events" just contained the last title change and if anything that should be noted on the titles article... if it wasnt then thats where it should be and not on the Smackdown and RAW articles.--- Paulley 20:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I use terms like "least watched or cared about" here because I am free to do so--this is not an article. And the fact remains that Heat and Velocity get about 1/4th the ratings of Raw and Smackdown. Only TNA gets worse ratings, and they have generally awful timeslots. But enough about my opinion. (Page history indicates Pathogen1014) made this comment; please sign your comments. --Chrysaor 21:21, May 16, 2005 (UTC))

Many articles are very short right now. As Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia, there is no need to limit articles to "really important things". Of course, I'm not suggesting that every minor fact should be reported in excruciating detail, but the "bias towards current events" is a problem that should be solved by researching and writing more about the past, not less about the present. McPhail 12:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages may have the advantage of not being on paper, but irrelevant information, or information that "may" be important, does not warrant inclusion in any encyclopedia IMO. For instance, George W. Bush probably signed at least one bill today. Does that make that bill important in the scheme of things? Yes, it may be important later, but the relevance of information is much easier to determine in hindsight, rather than writing it down simply because there's space to do so. --Pathogen 20:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciations

An anonymous user added "Include pronounciations (sic) for most names for non-English speaking readers" to the to-do list. I removed it, since we haven't discussed it here, but let's discuss it. Is this necessary? I would guess that most people who read the English Wiki speak English, so it isn't necessary, but I wonder if anyone thinks it might be useful on most names rather than just the ambiguous ones. --Chrysaor 21:45, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. This is the Misplaced Pages In English, after all. We should include notes on pronunciation only if it's particularly unclear to English speakers; the same standard as every other article. The request seems more applicable for the Simple English 'pedia. — Gwalla | Talk 23:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, pronounciations should only be added if the name is difficult to pronounce, or can easily be mispronounced. FYI: Someone put a pronounciation template on top of Kayfabe. --LBMixPro 07:56, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions

My suggestion: when a term used in pro wrestling has another meaning used more often outside of pro wrestling, append "(professional wrestling)" (without the quotes). When a name or stage name of a professional wrestler has another meaning or can refer to another person, append "(professional wrestler)". This should make things a bit more clear. However, if the term or name only has meaning in professional wrestling (as in kayfabe), do not append anything.

I'd also like to point out that this goes for when you add a link in an article, not just when you start a new article. Just today somebody added a finishing move for "Halo" to the list of finishers, and linked to Halo, which is of course about the ring of light in Christian religious art.

• Isn't this something we have been doing already? I see many articles which already have "(professional wrestling)" added. --LBMixPro 22:26, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • The only difference is specifying (professional wrestler) for bios. I believe I've run across a couple that had (professional wrestling). Plus, I wanted to start some discussion on formalizing it. — Gwalla | Talk 00:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Wrestlers' bios should be under their real names when those are known, but their best known gimmicks should be redirects. If a gimmick has been portrayed by more than one wrestler, it should either be a disambig to the wrestlers or a more comprehensive article on the history of the gimmick (such as Tiger Mask). Don't refrain from writing a bio on a wrestler just because you don't know their real name, though—the article can always be moved when that information is known. — Gwalla | Talk 21:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

• Since any wrestler's stage name can change frequently, I think we should do this ASAP. But what about article names which consist of a middle name (Dawn Marie Psaltis, for example)? Should we keep them the way they are, or drop the middle name? What about real names which are changed from their birth name? Should we use their birth name, or their legally changed name? --LBMixPro 22:26, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it's a matter of whether they usually use their middle name or not. For example, Dawn Marie Psaltis usually goes by "Dawn Marie" as a sort of double first name, so it makes sense for the middle name to be there. As for names that have changed, I think the name they are best known as should be the one we use (like Antonio Inoki), but I'd personally make an exception for the Ultimate Warrior, because that's just goofy (and he was legally Jim Hellwig at the height of his popularity). — Gwalla | Talk 00:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I was thinking in a Lisa Marie Varon sort of way. Unlike Dawn, her stage name is Victoria. I doubt she used Lisa Marie at any point in her career, despite similarities to Lisa Marie Presley. --LBMixPro 01:21, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the point in moving established wrestlers like The Rock, Steve Austin, Trish Stratus, etc. Entertainers such as Cher (entertainer) and Madonna (entertainer) are listed under their professional / stage names, not their real names. Fair enough if it's an anonymous indy wrestler who changes their name every week, but Stratus, Hogan, etc. are marketed under their ring names outwith wrestling, and so should be listed by their professional names. McPhail 23:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

• Remember, redirects are cheap. — Gwalla | Talk 00:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• • But we also have people who aren't into pro-wrestling, more than willing to move the articles back to their original article names. That's what just happened to Trish Stratus. I moved her article, then someone from her hometown who wasn't a wrestling fan reverted it back, claiming in my talk page that nobody uses her real name. I'm starting to doubt if changing any of the phenominally big stars's article names will be effective. --LBMixPro 01:21, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

• The entire point of using the most common name is so Misplaced Pages will get more hits off of search engines. Situations like naming Roddy Piper's article "Roderick Toombs" is unnecessary and goes against Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (common names). Unless the person achieved significant fame under different names such Ron Simmons or their name is very bland and would need to be disambiguated like Edge, I think we should use the most known gimmick name. There is also the problem that some sources for real names are not very reliable. Perro Aguayo's article was listed under "Pedro Damien Aguayo," which is incorrect. I moved it to "Perro Aguayo" since he wrestled under one name his entire career, thus no reason the use his real name. La Parka's article under "Adolpho Tapia" is another example of an incorrect real name.--Darren Jowalsen 02:14, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

• • Trish Stratus wrestles under that name. She works as an advertising mascot using that name, and modelled using that name. If she ever appears in a film I'm pretty sure she'll use the name Trish Stratus. I'm also confident that the vast majority of searches for her will use her stage name. She is of note because of the feats she accomplished using the name Trish Stratus. McPhail 17:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• I'm going ahead and moving kayfabe to kayfabe if nobody objects. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Good call. It's not like it needs disambiguation. — Gwalla | Talk 06:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ditto. Can we only use the (professional wrestling) suffix for those articles which have may have other meanings outside pro wrestling? --LBMixPro 08:59, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

So, what should our policy on wrestler article titles be? The most popular stage name, or their real name if they've had multiple popular stage names? How does that sound? Let's come up with a standard so we can be consistent. — Gwalla | Talk 06:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'd say to use the wrestler's real name unless their stage name is so signifigant, their real name isn't used AT ALL outside their company and becomes an asterisk compared to their stage name. (Steve Austin, Ric Flair, Roddy Piper, Trish Stratus, for example). Adam Copeland is popularly known as "Edge" in the ring, but he goes by "Adam Copeland" outside it and kayfabe as well. Since the term Edge is already disabiged up the ying yang, it's likely not worth creating an article called "Edge (professional wrestler)". We also have the wrestlers who got noteriety by their actual names; although Jackie Gayda goes by "Miss. Jackie", the majority of wrestling fans and possibly marks know her by her real name. There's a chance a new wrestler who's stubbed at WP gets so over, that their real name doesn't matter anymore? Will we eventually change the article's name, leaving all its references as redirects? WP aims at having as little redirects as possible. --LBMixPro 08:59, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I've said my piece about this earlier but I'd just like to say that we should think about what people are going to put in the search and what they are going to type in articles. For example, it is unnecessary to put Shane Douglas' article under "Troy Martin" because no one is going to type that into the search and having to type when he is always refered as "Shane Douglas" is wasted effort. So, I like Gwalla's proposal, gimmick names are what people are going to type up, so unless the name would need to be disambiguated, the person has had success under different names or other people have used the name (La Parka, Tiger Mask, Psicosis, etc.), use the gimmick name. Seems consistent with people like Butch Cassidy, Bono and Woody Allen, who have articles under the names they were famous as.--Darren Jowalsen 20:52, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I believe I had the same discussion with Paulley a while back on his discussion page before this WikiProject got set up. While I agree with you, I also agreed with Paulley's contention that stage names only be used for legendary wrestlers. We haven't really stuck to that convention - The Undertaker still redirects to Mark Calaway after all. I definitely think that we should go back the names that wrestlers are more likely to be searched as though. :P --Jtalledo (talk) 01:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• All i will say is "Chav...errrr Kerwin White" --- Paulley 6 July 2005 07:43 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that the Undertaker will be changing his name anytime soon. --Jtalledo (talk) 6 July 2005 11:33 (UTC)

You can't know that for sure... anything could happen in the WWE, even firing the likes of all the Dudley's, Oh! and if you told me two weeks ago Chavo was gonna change his name to Kerwin White i would have laughed in your face. also like "Test" (Andrew Martin) 'Taker is often called by his real first name backstage... esspecially during the time of Sarah getting staked by DDP --- Paulley 7 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)

Sarah got staked? Was she a vampire in the angle? Just kidding of course but we should be considering what normal people are going to look up. Like I said before, the most common name is appropriate. No one is going "Salvador Guerrero III is doing a WASP gimmick," they're going "Chavo Guerrero (Jr.) is doing a WASP gimmick. And since we are doing what people call each other backstage, shouldn't Wladek Kowalski be Walter Kowalski?--Darren Jowalsen July 7, 2005 19:09 (UTC)

thank you for pointing out my spelling misstakes, in an ever so polite manner :P (hehe i will proof read these things one day), and the backstage names were in reference to a comment made earlier --- Paulley 7 July 2005 21:58 (UTC) anyway in my oppinion unless you have a damn good reason not to, all wrestlers should be placed under real names.

I'm not much better in the proof reading department (looking now, I see I forgot to close my quotation marks). Actors, musicians and rappers have their articles under their stage names because that's what people know. I don't think wrestlers are any different.--Darren Jowalsen July 7, 2005 23:39 (UTC)

The problem is, unlike actors and musicians, wrestlers don't always own their stage names. Often, a wrestler's stage name will change drastically when he moves between companies ("Road Dogg Jesse James" -> "B. G. James", "Billy Gunn" -> "The Outlaw", "La Parka" -> "L. A. Park"). More rarely, the copyright owner might choose to put another wrestler under the gimmick (as AAA did with La Parka, or WWE has done with Smash of Demolition, Max Moon, Razor Ramon, Diesel, etc.) A wrestler can even change names during a tenure with one company (Witness "Headbanger Mosh" -> "Beaver Cleavage" -> "Chaz"). Unless we can be certain that a given wrestler will be referred to by a gimmick name throughout his career, using gimmick names for the articles makes little to no sense. Using the wrestler's real name creates a stable place for the article, and we can always toss in as many redirects as we wish.--HBK July 8, 2005 01:18 (UTC)

I have always supported using real names if more than one person has used the gimmick. For people like Billy Gunn who have used the same name for ten years, that name is burned into people's minds, even when they change gimmicks or names. But my main gripe is with people like Dean Malenko being under Dean Simon. Is there really a chance that he is going to come back as "Mr. Wrestling III" on Smackdown with a mask on? (Wait a minute, if Charlie Haas was still around they probably could have done with him...) People know him as Dean Malenko and he'll be referred to in an article as Dean Malenko, so it only makes sense for the article to be under "Dean Malenko." Sometimes you just have to play it by ear though.--Darren Jowalsen July 8, 2005 02:08 (UTC)

Capitalization of move names: proposal

Right now a lot of moves in Professional wrestling throws, Professional wrestling holds, etc. have inconsistent capialization. This is partly my fault: when I started the throws article I capitalized all moves, unaware of the general policy of capitalizing only proper names in headings, and when I started the holds article I didn't. So it was an inconsistent mess from the start. We should work towards getting these in line with the Manual of Style.

But this isn't just about headings in those articles. It's capitalization of moves in general. Part of the problem is that people who write about wrestling (for fansites and the like) have a tendency to Capitalize Practically Everything, in ways That make No Sense, and it's bled over into our articles. I propose a general style rule for wrestling articles: moves under generic names (450 splash, hurricanrana, suplex, etc.) are uncapitalized, while the names of explicitly named signature moves and finishers are considered proper nouns and capitalized. So the crossface is uncapitalized, but the Crippler Crossface, Chris Benoit's finisher, is. There's a grey area for moves that were once named signature moves but are now generic (like the sharpshooter): the rule should be that when one is referred to in the context of its original namer or preceding its adoption as a generic term, it should be capitalized, but outside that context it should not.

Proper names for signature moves should be used only in the context of the wrestler who uses them under those names, and avoided outside of that context, unless there is no other generic way of referring to those moves (which should be rare—you can almost always construct a generic name like "tilt-a-whirl sit-out powerslam" or something unless it's totally unprecedented). — Gwalla | Talk 23:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Signature moves

Does anyone else think that some of the the signature move lists are getting too big? I mean, some of them are approaching 10 moves, some of which the wrestler don't even perform in every match. If the move is a wrestler's unique variation of a common move, then that would obviously merit entry to the list, but a wrestler can only have so many "signature" moves and some moves like a generic spinebuster don't seem to be unique to a particular wrestler. Then there's the "Signature illegal weapon" information – it's not like every wrestler has a signature weapon. These weapons may be mentioned in the description of the wrestler, but I think that putting them in a list seems odd.

Happy editing. :) --Jtalledo (talk) 01:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. A common move should not be in a "signature move" list unless the wrestler has given it a special name of his own, the wrestler invented the move, or the move is specifically identified with the wrestler (e.g. Ric Flair and the chop). On the flip side, we should probably try to keep individual finishers out of the main generic move lists. For example, the "Haas of Pain" is only used by Charlie Haas, and should be described in his article, not the main list of holds. — Gwalla | Talk 02:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, that people should have more discretion when adding signature moves (moves that by definition should be highly specific to that wrestler), but i dont like the idea of moving someting like the "Haas of Pain" off the holds list, that just seems silly, what happens in say five year if the the move becomes popular among other wrestlers... its kinda like saying the asai moonsault should only have been described on the Ultimo Dragon page. Remeber all moves have to be invented by somebody at one point or another. As for signature illegal weapons again more discretion, if a weapon is very wrestler specific then add it to the list aswell as mentioning it in the profile. I have said before the profile system is mainly a quick reference to what is written in the main text, because i know i wouldnt wanna have to read a whole artical just to find out specific information --- Paulley 10:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Currently it's a section in a general article that is only meaningful in the context of a single wrestler, and therefore belongs in that wrestler's article. We shouldn't be guessing whether or not a move will catch on. If it does, we can move it back into the list under whatever name it becomes known by, but until then it's just Charlie Haas' finisher. — Gwalla | Talk 23:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lol, many moves on these lists are like that, i would prefer the move to have a more technical name though. Anyway, how do you know that this move hasnt been used by another wrestler somewhere round the world, and im sure the article isnt called "popular wrestling holds" now is it --- Paulley 15:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) sorry i dont want to argue, move it onto Haas' page if you wish to

I realize there are several moves like that on there. I'm not happy with that fact; I think they should all be moved to their respective wrestlers' pages unless they have become known outside the context of their namers. I don't know that nobody else has used it before, but we shouldn't be basing things on assumptions. Our articles need to be based on verifiable data. — Gwalla | Talk 20:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

fair enough we both have points, and they are both valid. but, i respect your oppinion. so try it and see what people think or if they even notice --- Paulley

Personally I've been trying to trim signature move lists for a while now. Basic moves like punches, clotheslines, etc. don't warrant inclusion. If a move has a name given to it by the wrestler then it should definitely be included, and if that move is strongly associated with the wrestler (such as Batista's spinebuster) then it should also be included. However, just because a wrestler performs a move semi-regularly doesn't mean it should be added. McPhail 15:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also while we are on the subject, i just wondered if anyone could confirm that when The Undertaker wrestled as "Mean Mark" he didnt use the any of his current finishers... im sure his finishers were the "Hart Punch" and a Rope Walking Elbow Drop but i just wanted to know if any of you could confirm this before i added it.--- Paulley 16:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Professional wrestling events

Events (pay per views, etc) comprise about half of all the entries on the category:professional wrestling page (here), and are likely to consume more space as time passes. I think a subcategory along the lines of "Professional wrestling events" would help to organise the page. Any thoughts? McPhail 15:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, but maybe we should name the category "Professional wrestling shows" as it would suit annul and one time events the same, plus we can place RAW, Smackdown, HEAT on it too --- Paulley 16:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Professional wrestling events for specific events, Professional wrestling television shows for RAW/SD/etc, and Professional wrestling pay-per-views as a subcategory of both? Or would that be excessive? — Gwalla | Talk 20:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

a little excessive maybe as there isnt that many TV shows, maybe if you did a Professional wrestling events with the sub of Professional wrestling television shows ---62.253.64.14 21:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There don't appear to be any objections, so I'll take Paulley's original suggestion and create "Professional wrestling shows", with an option to sub-cat. McPhail 11:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tables used in wrestling

Today, i found this article Spanish announcers' table... i cleaned it up a little, but there is something i just dont like about it... anyway i was wondering if someone had enough info to write an article on the tables used in professional wrestling (Table (professional wrestling)) and have a sub section on that article about annoucer's tables in general and then merge Spanish announcers' table in with that. Your thoughts? --- Paulley 19:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think that article looks okay. It could do with some cleanup, but overall it seems fine, if not exactly FAC material. — Gwalla | Talk 02:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fixed the article up a small bit. I am fine with the way it is, also. --Pathogen 19:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ok, well i still think it would be good idea to make apage about the tables used in ro wrestling... i mean does anyone actually know the company that makes them or does the WWE and other onrganisation make them themselfs... well i have seen sites that sell rings and stuff sell them... but someone must make them somewhere --- Paulley 13:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I always thought they were just plain old plywood folding tables. — Gwalla | Talk 20:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the WWE just uses some specific model of table made by some company. I doubt that they're specifically designed for wrestling. Some ECW wrestler, probably Foley, mentioned in an interview that they used any tables that were available at the location, which varied in hardness, etc.

--Lakes 06:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An article on tables in professional wrestling? Sounds a bit like overkill to me. *shrugs* --Jtalledo (talk) 01:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some interesting articles

These links may prove helpful, particularly as references for old-time wrestling:

• A Day to Rest and Wrestle: Benjamin Franklin Roller, Master of Angles and Feuds has several newspaper quotes regarding vintage wrestling
• Cumberland and Westmorland Wrestling Fashions 1815-1999 is an excerpt from a book on catchwrestling
• Purring, also known as "shin-kicking", an English folk sport incorporated into some catchwrestling styles
• The "Wrestling As We Liked It" papers

I find the Wrestling Rollercoaster's biography page to be an invaluable information resource. --Pathogen 19:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Obsessed With Wrestling is a great resource as well. --HBK 03:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Here are some of the links I use a lot-

• TNA finishers
• ECW finishers
• title histories
• The gimmick databank
• Slam wrestling (very useful for Canadian wrestlers

McPhail 12:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GMW

• I can't see any reason to retain this article, so I've listed it on votes for deletion, along with the linked stubs. I thought I should probably announce this in case anything thinks they should be retained. McPhail 12:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• A google search for "GMW Wrestling" spawns many references to a promotion called Green Mountain Wrestling. After googling "Green Mountain Wrestling" (In quotations), it has ties with NWA. I'm not sure it's the same GMW mentioned at the article, but I don't think we should delete it if the NWA GMW is worth an article here --LBMixPro 13:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• The "GMW" wrestlers seem to be English, whereas Green Mountain Wrestling seems to be based in Vermount. It definitely needs work either way, though. McPhail 13:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can it. No one here even knows what it actually is, and the article has no subtance whatsoever. --Pathogen 21:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• There is no such promotion in the UK, and no wrestlers working under those names, it is and always will be a fake thing written by a vary bored wikipedian - Paulley 7 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)

pwstatbox

The current pwstatbox template has some bad points, which I suggest we correct. The biggest problem is the fact that values are centered. I changed the alignment to "left".I moved the name inside the box. I also changed the statistics title background color and changed "Vital Statistics" to "Statistics". I also added some padding between the content and the border.

Some typography experts suggest that the item names should be right-aligned (Eg. Height, Weight here). However I don't see other stats boxes using this in Misplaced Pages, so I decided not to change it. I also tried giving the {{{name}}} the same background color as Statistics, but this doesn't really work for the imageless version.

--Lakes 21:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No objections so I'm applying the changes.

--Lakes 06:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think debut should be left-aligned. It makes the stat box look cramped. In actual fact, now that the changes have been made, I think the original was more aesthetically pleasing. ::McPhail 09:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I made some changes. Better? (See the actual templates, I didn't update the ones in this thread)

--Lakes 10:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That looks a lot better, thanks. McPhail 14:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a way to make parameters optional using {{if defined call1}} amd {{if defined call2}}, but it's sort of odd. I tried applying it to a temporary copy of the pwstatbox in my userpage, but couldn't get it to work. If somebody could figure it out, though, it'd be nice to make the image optional so we don't have to have two different templates. — Gwalla | Talk 04:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I got it to work. See {{pwstatbox}} and {{pwstatbox/billed}}. But now we need to go and add billed= to every page that uses the template. I'll go and start. We should probably make a list of every possible thing that could be in the box and them add them at the same time.

--Lakes 08:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added billed= to every page that uses the pwstatbox. Currently the only page that has a value for it is Lane Huffman.

--Lakes 08:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I made image optional and changed all articles that used pwstatbox/nopic. Pwstatbox/nopic can now be deleted. One problem seems to have arised, the thumb|200px doesn't take effect anymore. I'll try to fix it.

I suggest we add "Died" and "Retired" to the box.

--Lakes 13:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fixed the image size problem. There were leftover image parameters from when pages were converted to use the statbox. The empty parameter (Eg. |thumb) following the image= seemed to break the syntax. I removed the leftover junk from all pages that use the template (they were never actually used with the template anyway).

--Lakes 14:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

{{pwstatbox2}} includes the entry "obituary date". McPhail 15:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We should merge it then. So far we have "died", "retired", "entrance music". We can have a lot of entries, and if the a box gets too long some of it's content can always be split in to the Profile section.

--Lakes 16:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added "died" and "retired". Pwstatbox2 is now obsolete.

--Lakes 07:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It might be my browser settings, but the Randy Orton article seems to have PWstatbox problems. Right now there's a block of gibberish at the top of the page related to the stat box. McPhail 13:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) Okay, I added the died and retired parameters and it seems to be okay. McPhail 13:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Shouldn't it be "date of death" or "Obituary date" instead of "died" if we are going with "birthdate" for the sake of parallelism?--Darren Jowalsen 22:06, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I was actually thinking that "Birthdate" should be changed to "Born". Not necessarily the parameter name but the label. "Obituary date" is completely wrong since it doesn't mean the day the person died, but the day it was publicly notified of. The reason I'd go with "Born" and "Died" is because they are shorter and easier language. Like "Retired" is better than "Date of retirement" or "Retirement date". Of course having the parameter name different from the label could be confusing, but the content format both would be in is the same. The reason I wouldn't change the parameter is that I've gone through all the pages that use the template twice already, and don't want to do it again. If no one objects I'll just change the Birthdate label to Born.

--Lakes 00:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As long as it has the same structure, I don't mind it either way.--Darren Jowalsen 01:21, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

What about changing "professional debut" to "debut"? This would remove the unsightly gap, and "professional debut" could be confusing, as it implies that the wrestler previously had an amatuer career. McPhail 2 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)

Entrance themes

Given that a lot of wrestlers now use songs played by actual bands rather than in-house stuff, should there be a list of wrestling entrance themes, like List of professional wrestling finishing maneuvers but with song names and band names? McPhail 11:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Could be a good idea, also we could place the entrance music as part of the profile section and/or statbox ---Paulley 15:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Let's not. It should be mentioned in the career section. Too many wrestler bios look like data dumps already. The prose is the most important part; everything else is just extra. — Gwalla | Talk 20:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • how about in a "facts/trivia" section, i see in some articles the entrance themes are already placed there --- Paulley 11:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Personally, I think the facts/trivia section is already overused. It contributes to the rampant List Of Facts Syndrome our bios suffer from. I wouldn't mind if we got rid of them entirely. — Gwalla | Talk 00:10, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• No objections, so I'll create it at List of professional wrestling entrance themes. McPhail
• Is anyone going to try to look up a wrestler by their entrance music? It seems unlikely. — Gwalla | Talk 28 June 2005 19:58 (UTC)
  • I think you should rename it "List of music used in professional wrestling", or something and add all theme music from Pay-Per-Views and such aswell -- Paulley 29 June 2005 10:46 (UTC) (People may know of a song they like being used for professional wrestling and may what to look and see who uses it or for what event it was used for/for finding out who does whos music in general)

Championship navboxes

I have to say, I don't like the titleholders navboxes very much. Each one basically duplicates the contents of a ...Championship or List of ... champions article, and for any wrestler who has held more than one title (which is practically any wrestler who deserves an article) they quickly pile up at the bottom of the article in an ugly mess. Navboxes should be small and unobtrusive; the current situation is just clutter. They're particularly pointless given that we also have the "championships and titles" section in bios and in many cases use small tables that show the preceding and succeeding titleholders and link to the titles' articles. I think we could safely do away with the navboxes. — Gwalla | Talk 02:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I definitely agree that multiple navboxes clog up an article. I was looking at the Chris Benoit article the other day wondering if it's anywhere near being a featured article candidate, and thought that all the stuff at the end was really distracting. --Chrysaor 04:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree. They are an excellent way of concisely expressing the lineage of a belt, without the need for locations, dates, etc. which are already included in the championship articles. They are by no means as obstrusive as the championships section, which in the case of the Chris Benoit article is totally superfluous, as just adding the name of the belt and a link to the article on that belt will take the user to a page where the dates and locations of title changes are available. McPhail 13:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But a person looking for information on, say, Chris Benoit doesn't need to know who all of the WWE Intercontinental Champions are. If they want to know, they can click on the link to the title history. Most is not directly relevant to a given wrestler; the only other titleholders relevant as such to another wrestler who has held the same title are the ones who immediately preceded and succeeded him. — Gwalla | Talk 20:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They might not always be relevant, but the navboxes are valuable when the list of champions is relatively short, or in championship articles. McPhail 22:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I've never liked those navboxes that much myself. The same goes for those tables that give details about the wrestler's championship reigns for each title won. If someone wants to know the championship lineage of a belt, they should go to the information page for that belt linked from the wrestler's biography. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we should keep them for the major titles like the WWE World title, maybe the WCW and NWA World heavyweight titles and take other navboxes out of biography articles.--Darren Jowalsen 01:30, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think the navboxes should remain for the same reason McPhail mentioned. But I think that should be the only reference to the lineage to the belt. The templates make the "reigns tables" obsolete. But in the same essence of the pwstatbox, I think we should use the navboxes only in an article which has enough detail about that champion, although it may not work well if someone is following the line, checking out information about each champion along the way. Also, should we also add tag-team navboxes for stable articles? --LBMixPro July 2, 2005 20:51 (UTC)

Lists

Looks like there's a mini edit-war going on involving myself and McPhail on the Jason Reso article. I should explain my recent edits. The thing is, the page seems to violate the guidelines set forth in Misplaced Pages:Embedded list, which states, in part:

"As a basic principle, you should avoid list-making in entries. Misplaced Pages is not a list repository. Lists of links, if warranted, should have their own entry: see Misplaced Pages:Lists (stand-alone lists) for detail. Instead of giving a list of items, the significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text."

"Having lists instead of article text makes Misplaced Pages worse, not better.".

My primary issue with this in this article and other wrestler is that a lot of this information can be included in the article as prose and some information such as managers and birthdate is actually mentioned elsewhere in the article. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that prose is generally superior to lists, but integrating data into large blocks of text makes it hard to quickly locate a particular piece of information. If someone visits the Jason Reso article to find out who he was managed by, I'm sure they'd prefer to have the information displayed clearly rather than have to read through several paragraphs to find out what they want to know. The wording of the policy is that lists instead of article text is a bad thing, and I agree with that - I think the profile should be used to give a quick summary of the data, while the prose itself should elaborate on this data. For example, anyone merely wishing to know who Reso has been managed by could look at the list (which in most cases is not really a list, it's generally a single line consisting of three or four entries) and see that he has been managed by X, Y and Z, while anyone wishing further information could read through the text and learn the context and circumstances in which Reso was managed by X. McPhail 22:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some of the list-of-facts can probably be shofted out of the main article body into a statbox. The information should also be covered in prose form in the article, however: the profile/statbox is there to provide a quick summary of basic facts in the article. I agree with Jtalledo that our wrestler bios are a little too preoccupied with lists. Our main focus should be on the articles; lists-of-facts are tangential to that. — Gwalla | Talk 19:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I definitely think lists have their place in the pro wrestling articles but I think we should look into focusing on the prose – it's a lot more "encyclopedic" as some Misplaced Pages editors like to say. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:08, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Spoilers" policy

Should we rethink the "no spoilers" policy? Misplaced Pages is primarily an information repository, and I don't see why we have an obligation to suppress information for two days after it becomes available. McPhail 28 June 2005 17:34 (UTC)

Definitely not. There is no reason why Misplaced Pages should spoil people's fun in watching entertainment.

--Lakes 28 June 2005 17:52 (UTC)

I agree. Usually, when people post spoilers, they aren't even marked with a spoiler warning, or they give it away in the edit description. Having to avoid most pro wrestling articles like the plague for two days every week when something important happens on SmackDown!, and not being able to look at my watchlist, is really annoying. There are plenty of other places to read spoilers on the Net. --Chrysaor June 28, 2005 19:04 (UTC)

I agree with Lakes and Chrysaor. This is Misplaced Pages, not 411mania; our job is not to be a source for breaking news. — Gwalla | Talk 28 June 2005 19:58 (UTC)

I cant believe anyone even brought that up as a question... of course we have no right to spoil wrestling shows. im more annoyed that i dont get to see Smackdown! til the friday... im really annoyed i couldnt get through the week without finding out that *spoiler* (i know we all knew it was gonna happen but still) Im just really glad i stay up til two in the morning to watch RAW ---- Paulley 29 June 2005 10:51 (UTC)

Damn it Paulley, I managed to get this far without finding that out! I figured reading this page was safe but...argh! I figured that was going to happen, too, but still, that wasn't cool. I removed the spoiler. Please don't do it again. --Chrysaor June 29, 2005 21:33 (UTC)

lol, if i wasnt allowed to make it, no one else is... ;-) lol, i am sorry, but i was really pissed off as i had just seen the edits on his page, and i kinda was just still in a mood when i wrote it) --- Paulley 1 July 2005 06:58 (UTC)

List of professional wrestlers

Isnt the list we have already good enough? i dont think we need these:

• Talk:List of professional wrestlers/More names
• List of every professional wrestler

Paulley 4 July 2005 10:59 (UTC)

Where did those come from? I agree, they're unnecessary (and the one in the talk namespace doesn't belong there anyway). — Gwalla | Talk 4 July 2005 19:35 (UTC)

Yea i tend to browse through much of wikipedia picking up on these sorta things, mainly its just a case of add a category and stub but sometimes i come across silly things like this --- Paulley 4 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)

I was the one that created both List of every professional wrestler and Talk:List of professional wrestlers/More names. See I created List of professional wrestlers/More names one night to build a dynamic list of everyone, including names of wrestlers I've never seen, and put them in categories List of professional wrestlers doesn't have. Talk:List of professional wrestlers/More names was originally called List of every professional wrestler. When someone reverted it into Talk:List of professional wrestlers/More names I had to create a new one to continue this; hence * List of every professional wrestler. I intend on doing this, meaning the new names and categories, to List of every professional wrestler that is currently there. Do you guys think I should do this new page or add the new names and categories to List of professional wrestlers? --SWD316 19:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello Everyone

Hi, Im SWD316 and I would like to be a part of your professional wrestling WikiProject, is there something special I have to do to join you guys? I have made numerous edits on professional wrestling articles and I think it would give me something better to do with my time if I could to join. SWD316 9 July 2005 1:19 (UTC)

Nope, just add your user name to the Participants list on the main project page. --Chrysaor July 9, 2005 07:34 (UTC)

Hulk Hogan

I keep reading List of professional wrestlers and RAW an seeing Hulk Hogan's name added to the roster. I posted a message in between the space you would put his name, to not add his name, but someone keeps on adding Hogan's name regardless. If its someone on this project please stop adding his name. SWD316 9 July 2005 14:49 (UTC)

Who was it? — Gwalla | Talk 01:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Dont know who it was. SWD316 9 July 2005 23:01 (UTC)

The page history should say. — Gwalla | Talk 04:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I added Hogan. He appeared on RAW for two straight weeks and appears to be beginning a programme with Shawn Michaels. There's more logic to including Hogan than to including The Rock or Stone Cold Steve Austin. Your only explanation for removing him was that he "hasn't signed any contract" which is pure speculation. I imagine he's on a per-appearance basis. McPhail 11:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Dont add Hogan's name, hes only appearing until SummerSlam

to promote his new reality show, Hogan knows best. He is NOT going to be a full time wrestler. --SWD316 18:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Then keep him on there until SummerSlam. McPhail 20:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

No, the list is for the actual roster, not for wrestlers who appear sporadically. --SWD316 20:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

No, the list is of "Current RAW wrestlers". Hogan is a current RAW wrestler. Whether or not he has signed a contract is irrelevant. The Rock has no contract and hasn't been on RAW for half a year and he is still listed. Austin appears "sporadically" and he is listed. Hogan stays until you can provide a convincing reason for his removal. McPhail 20:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Youre right Austin and Rock are on there but they shouldn't be. Thats why all three should be removed. --SWD316 21:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Dudley Boyz names

PWInsider.com has reported that the Dudley Boyz will have full use of their stage names when they leave WWE. Should we change Mark Lamonica and Devon Hughes to Bubba Ray Dudley and D-Von Dudley now. I believe if this development is true, we ought to. If this isn't an outright case about when to use the stage name as the article name for a wrestler, then there aren't any outright cases about this issue. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

There is always the questions of Buh-Buh versus Bubba and D'Von versus D-Von, though. McPhail 20:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists