Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling - Wikipedia


12 people in discussion

Article Images

Wikipedia:PW-Nav

WikiProject Professional Wrestling
Welcome to the WikiProject Professional wrestling discussion page. Please use this page to discuss issues regarding professional wrestling related articles, project guidelines, ideas, suggestions and questions. Thank you for visiting!

I know this has been discussed before, but with the events at Smackdown this week it seems to be of greater concern again. What's the general viewpoint on posting material that's sourced only to online wrestling sources, based on fan reports, before the show airs? Currently, we've got a major spoiler sitting in the lead paragraph at Jack Swagger's article, and Chris Jericho has been active as well; the issue I see here is that the show reports are all essentially based on a fan sending an e-mail to an online mag, which then posts the spoiler. That, to me, doesn't meet WP:RS. This obviously needs some more consideration, and some more eyes on the articles. (I doubt there will be a resolution before Smackdown airs on Friday, knowing Wikipedia, so we'll probably have what I'd consider badly-sourced information in the lead of an article that may get lots of hits before then, but at least a discussion would be useful.) Tony Fox (arf!) 17:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Have you considered that people who are writing about it attended the event? This is unnecessary. The event has taken place. The information is accurate. –Turian (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, so you've said over and over again on the talk page. The simple fact here is that online wrestling magazines using a fan report as the basis for a "hey, y'all, so-and-so won, according to a fan" should emphatically not be considered a reliable source, in my eyes, especially considering the fact that the show can and often is edited prior to broadcast. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
1. We aren't quoting anybody, so we won't have to worry about editing. 2. People could have attended the event and write about it. How is that not reliable? –Turian (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the event took place and what is being reported seems to be an accurate description of what happened. But, and I don't know why this is so difficult to comprehend, there is no title change until it is aired on WWE programming or referenced on their programming or website. What happened Tuesday night was a television taping. They can air it in its entirety, making Swagger's championship official. We all know that is what will likely happen. But, for some reason, they could edit the program, they could even choose to completely not air it at all, and act like it never happened, which would mean Swagger was never a world champion. Bottom line, 10,000 people saw a television taping on Las Vegas on Tuesday night - but Chris Jericho is still the World Heavyweight Champion, at least until Friday. You seem to struggle with this basic professional wrestling concept, which has been standard for decades. -tazz20200 76.111.13.156 (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
(ec) You know, I could go on and on and on about primary sources and the concept of tape delay and stuff, but I have better things to do than continue to argue this right now, especially as I see that I'm going to be stonewalled unto the end of time over it. (I certainly remember why I usually only limit myself to vandal reverts on these articles now.) Reread WP:RS a couple times, and see if any of the online dirt sheets meet it for something like this; in the meantime, I'm going to go do something productive and wait for other views here. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) And you are? They are not going to update it because they would lose viewers, as I have stated multiple times. I don't give a fuck about spoilers and neither does Wikipedia. I have no need to argue with anything else. If there are better sources out there, then add them. But what is not going to happen is the information will not be removed. –Turian (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
It's not even an issue of spoilers - it's just the fact, and I'm sorry, but it is a fact, that Swagger is NOT the champion until it airs. Plain and so, so simple - what is the issue here? 76.111.13.156 (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
And under what authority do you presume to place yourself under to make such a statement? I have sources. You don't. –Turian (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Where are your sources that show that title victories at TV tapings begin the day of the taping? You'll see on WWE's website that TV taping title reigns begin the day they are aired on television, not when they actually happen. As I said this has long been the case, going back to at least the NWA in the 1980s, and probably earlier, though I could be wrong. 76.111.13.156 (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
And the TV announcers say it's Friday, when they recorded it on Tuesday. So we must believe them! /sarcasm –Turian (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The first example that comes to mind is John Morrison's Intercontinental Title victory in September of 2009. The taping was on Tuesday 9/1 but the match was aired on Friday 9/4. As per WWE's website, John Morrison became the Intercontinental Champ on Friday 9/4. http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/intercontinental 76.111.13.156 (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

According to The WWE[1], Chris Jericho is still champ.Inhumer (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Read Reliable sources and tell me how "a guy who claims he went to the event" is a reliable source. For this kind of information there has to be a reliable source or it's fair game to delete it IMO. Not a matter of it happened, or if hes the champ or whatnot, it's a matter of finding a reliable source for it.  MPJ -DK  18:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) x3 Apparently I am either talking to myself or a dense wall. Read my statements above as to why that isn't enough. And what, pray tell, would you consider a reliable source? I consider the whole entire internet stating the same thing as a good source. I just picked one. Oh no, he must be lying, yet everyone else is saying the exact same thing! Nope, lies. See how silly you sound? –Turian (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't think anyone is debating what happened at the Smackdown taping on Tuesday night. The point is that it is nothing that happened that night is official and actually "happened" until it is broadcast or referenced on WWE programming or their website. This is a most basic concept, and it is one of the foundations of the wrestling industry, as multiple shows have often been taped at once, or taped ahead of time. Just because you were there and saw it with your own eyes doesn't make it official. If you've seen it on TV, then it's legit. That may be unique to the wrestling business, but it's the way it is. 76.111.13.156 (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I dunno how it can be reliable - it's only just a video of the freaking thing, so unless someone has mad editing skills (and should win an Oscar) I'd say that seeing is believing. How is that not good enough? As for "it has not happened yet", bull - it HAS happened, it IS a fact, he IS the champion - it just has not been officially acknowledged, which is different. The match took place, he did win, he was announced as the winner and did leave with the belt. Those are facts, indisputable.  MPJ -DK  19:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Got any video of Pat Patterson winning the intercontinental title in Rio hanging around? The point that I believe people are making here is that until the event reaches television, it should really not be considered canon. This is the wrestling business. Strange stuff happens. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
This is Wikipedia, not WWE. We are not a branch of WWE. We go by facts, not by what information they feel like giving out. –Turian (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Very true! And the fact is that, until the show airs - as pointed out above, with regards to title dates being determined based on airing date - Swagger's not the champion. But whatever. I don't have the patience, time or inclination to argue the point further - it's obvious that it will never end, and Swagger will have lost the strap by the time some semblance of consensus forms in this mess. You have fun. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well, it seems to me that we cannot use WP:RS here, if the sites are concidered reliable sources for other information, I would see it as prejudicial to withhold the information. In reality, according to policy, while we should endevor to present accurate information, as long as it can be attributed to a previously established reliable source, it should be allowed, albeit, I would notate these changes in the body of the article, instead of the lead, to avoid confusion. As for "official" for quite a while Chris Benoit was not a World Champion, "officially", but there he was. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Per WP:SPOILER, spoilers are allowed on the basis of reliable information/sources. The event has happened, its not like the information is being speculated or made up. In the past this issue has come up with Edge doing the same thing with his MitB contract. We added the information on that basis. This is similar to the accepted championship guideline we abide by, which is that the day the title is won is the day of the taping not the day of the airing show.Truco 503 22:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

We CAN use WP:RS. There's a list of acceptable sources on the Manual of Style page in this project. For those who attended the event - information can't be added on that basis because it violates WP:OR. I'm involved in this because the World Wrestling Entertainment article is also involved in this and I already reverted it twice because there wasn't a source. The latest edit by Turian I'm looking into because I think three of the four sources are unreliable. Just saying that "many sites are reporting it" doesn't mean a thing because it has happened that "many sites" are reporting the same information from the same source, and that source ends up being wrong. Have we forgotten what happened with the Rockers and the Hart Foundation and the tag team titles? !! Justa Punk !! 08:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

It sounds like you are being more disruptive than helpful. We can use these references until the unchallengeable WWE ref gets placed in the articles. We can change it tomorrow, there is really no reason to freak. –Turian (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Given that response appears to show a lack of understanding of WP content rules, I rather think you are the one being disruptive. For the record, two sources are confirmed as okay. I'm about to take one out per below in the query about the two remaining sites in question. Once Smackdown airs in Australia (the first to see it) then the sources are no longer needed. !! Justa Punk !! 21:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Please stop on the disruption claims. In any case, we agree that if there is reliable source, then the information can be added, regardless of the airing of the event, is that correct? If so, the only issue is to find 1 reliable source that states it. If one cannot be found, then wait until tomorrow when it is reported. As far as any WWE references go, they can be included, but per my last reading of WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, they should be used to empericly state anything as fact, they should be used as secondaey verification of previously reported information. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
This WikiProject needs some kind of guideline regarding this. Currently, the disclaimer on most active wrestler bios warns against writing about matches that "have not occurred." It does not resolve whether "occurred" encompasses taped matches that have not yet been acknowledged by the promotion. Personally, I don't think it does - taping a pro wrestling match is the equivalent of taping a segment of a dramatized television show. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
The match has occurred, of course it has happened already. This is about saying "Long John Silver will receive a shot at the Pirate World Order title next week, because he may not.  MPJ -DK  05:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Cant we compromise? "On March 31st in Madison Square Garden, Long John Silver won a number one contenders match against Captain Ahab." We state what happened when, where under what conditions. If the segment or show does not air, when it is supposed to, then we state that. Obviously this would exclude house shows. Sephiroth storm (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Se now that's the way to phrase it, factual and not crystaballing, the Peglegged People's champion would be proud of that :)  MPJ -DK  18:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

If a reliable source chooses to report something like this, then we should allow it because it's being reported by a reliable source. It is not up to us to determine if the writer is getting faulty information. If we're going to question a reliable source, then why did we apoint them reliable to begin with? We can not cherry pick the stories of a reliable source and say "this one is OK" and "this one is not OK." Either everything they say is credible, or nothing is. Mshake3 (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

For the record, the whole "WWE says the title reign began on this date, so it did" argument is silly. WWE also says:

  • Brian Pillman was a WCW Cruiserweight Champion before that title actually existed.
  • Taka Michinoku was the first WWF Light Heavyweight Champion.
  • Shane Douglas was the first ECW Champion.

This is also the same company that has said before that at WrestleMania XX, Triple H lost his World Heavyweight Championship in a match "that also included Shawn Michaels." Not questioning the reasoning behind why they manipulate their own history, just saying they do it. If a bunch of people see me set fire to my house on May 1 but I say "well, I don't recognize that I set my house on fire until May 3," I'm still wrong. Jeff Silvers (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Wrestlemania example isn't them changing history. Triple H DID lose the World title in a match that also included Shawn Michaels. That statement is still true. Just because they don't say who the other person was, doesn't mean that they're trying to change history or that it's a lie. I agree with the point you're trying to make, but that wasn't a good example. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

User:Raaggio/List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE). What do you guys think? Raaggio 19:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorting is off numerically all throughout the table. In respect to the addition of images, the main problem is that not all championship articles will have images enough to suffice. Luckily you've found all images for the entries. Not every image is also from their respective reigns, which could potentially be a problem if ever going through FLC again.--Truco 503 20:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
It is alright, but several problems occur with an image format. ips always changing the pictures, we not having enough photos for lists thus inconsistency, columns sort oddly..throws off the entire table, etc.--WillC 21:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Pictures make it look extremely skewed and uneven. Plus, they are so small you can't make out much detail. It would just be easier to expect people to click on the link to see the image. –Turian (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
That looks a lot bette than I would have expected it to do, but I do worry that it's something you could only do for a handful of titles. Any championship that goes back before the '90s, which is most of them, would be hard to source and even modern ones like the ROH World Title would only have a few pictures. I suppose not everything has to look uniform, but I kinda think it should. If you could make them all look like that though, I would be very impressed. Tony2Times (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I know that not all of them will have pictures, but there are many list articles that implement pictures and don't have one for each installment like List of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees. Raaggio 03:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't see what pictures add to the articles. They are just another hassle and the main point is the information being established. Not a photo of a guy with a prop. Instead of thinking about adding photos, we need to worry about getting these lists updated, reliable sourced, and in good condition. Adding a format of pictures to an article like List of WWE Hardcore Champions or List of WCW World Television Champions would be extremely difficult and downright hurtful to the format.--WillC 20:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
You're right, it would be difficult. But the articles are already reliably sourced and in good condition. Pictures can only add to the article. I've made prototypes for User:Raaggio/List of ROH World Champions and User:Raaggio/List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions. Personally, I think the format looks great. Raaggio 21:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think with images, there is a fine line between a nice addition and a hampering. Take a look at List_of_tallest_buildings_in_the_United_States. A while ago, there was an image for each building, which made the page unbearably slow. So now, you see a reduced version of the images. I think it is superfluous, especially when we are going to have trouble finding 7 appropriate images of John Cena. –Turian (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Chris Mordetzky --> Chris Masters

  Done

Terry Gerin --> Rhino (wrestler)

  Done

No opposition. Went ahead with the move. Raaggio 01:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Rhino wrestled for three years under this name in the final three years of ECW. After that, he debuted in WWE where he used a variation of his name (Rhyno) for four more years. He gained notability by winning the US Championship, Hardcore Championship, Tag Team Championship and competing for the World Heavyweight Championship. After being released in 2005 and competing at One Night Stand, Rhino debuted in TNA where he has been contracted for the past five years. In the past five years, he has used the name "Rhino" and has had many notable feuds and championship main events. "Rhino" is obviously his common name. The qualifier should not be an issue (WP:QUALIFIER) because Rhino is the most common name. The issue is similar to Eric Young (wrestler). Raaggio 05:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Support  MPJ -DK  13:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Support Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Support--C23 C23's talk 16:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jason Reso --> Christian (wrestler) or Christian Cage

  Done

The clear consensus is to change Jason Reso to Christian (wrestler). Closed.--C23 C23's talk 22:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

When Christian began wrestling in 1995, he utilized the name "Christian Cage". However, when he debuted in the WWE in 1998, he shortened his name to "Christian". Christian became a very popular wrestler winning various championships and competing numerous times in WWE main events. Although his gimmick changed a few times, Reso always maintained "Christian" as his ring name. Even after quitting the WWE in 2005, he moved on to TNA and continued using the name (with the "Cage" surname). For the next four years, he became one of TNA's top main-eventers under the "Christian Cage" moniker winning two world championships. He jumped ship to the WWE in 2009, dropped the surname once again, and became the headliner of ECW with two ECW title reigns on his resumé. I think it is obvious that Christian is the most common name. Due to naming conventions, a qualifier is necessary if we would rename the article "Christian" (like Eric Young (wrestler) and the aforementioned Rhino), but I think the best compromise is moving the article to "Christian Cage" which is not exactly the most common ring name, but it includes the most common one in its title (similar to Bob Holly). Raaggio 05:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Probably should stay where it is or moved to William Reso. His common name is up in the air. Christian and Christian Cage are both equally known these days.--WillC 08:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I have to agree with WillC on this one--Steam Iron 09:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Like MPJ-DK stated, "Christian" is the most common name end of story. Christian Cage was used for four years in TNA while Christian was used during his mainstream run in WWE from 1998-2005 (8 years) and from 2009 forward. Also, because Cage was just a surname, he was popularly being referred to as Christian during his TNA run. Raaggio 03:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Support Christian (wrestler). People may pretend that his time in TNA got him as known as Christian Cage than Christian despite his much longer time in the WWE with more world wide exposure, but it's just not true.  MPJ -DK  13:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Have people forgot not only during his 4 years in TNA was he using Cage, but he was also working on indy promotions and had a few appearences in Japan as Christian Cage? His return to WWE has been over looked and most forgot he was even there because he was on ECW. Also, a google search of Christian Cage and one of Christian Wrestler only is apart by 20,000. Common name is rather close.--WillC 05:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
People forget nothing, a few additional indy appearances does not make it more common. IT's either the name he's worked under for like a decade in the biggest promotion in the world, with shows and tours world wide, TV ratings leader and top PPV seller - or it's the name he used for four years in a promotion that were happy to get as high ratings as WWE's third brand ECW. Also you cannot really use the name search for much, you had "Christian Cage" vs. "Christian wrestling", the first search term is not specific enough plus it would actually also include every single reference to "Christian" anywhere there was a cage match mentioned at all. Sorry but since both Christian and Cage are common terms a google search does nothing.  MPJ -DK  06:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes WWE is the largest promotion, but Cage worked in England, Japan, Canada, and the US as Cage. TNA also aired in several countries all over the world. Common name would be established by published articles on the subject. Not the belief in what a person remembers someone as. Looking at Christian Cage searched results, not one single article on the first page says anything about a cage match or anything unrelated to Christian Cage. The search in general on Christian would bring up all sorts of subjects. Most pro wrestling writers still refer to Cage as Cage. Obviously, Cage's highest accolades were in TNA with two world championship reigns, a stable, several main event matches, and a DVD released on his wrestling career. Though, it isn't about what happened under the ring name, it matters how well published they have been under that name. Per common name, Google should be used to help determine a common name. Search results were under the exact titles that are being discussed. Christian Cage and Christian Wrestler..minus the parenthesis.--WillC 07:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
You do not use a qualifier in the google test, Will. Raaggio 15:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

He's worked in England, Japan, Canada and the US while working for the WWE as well - for longer time too. As for "how well published", the first 8 years of Christian he was published as that, then four years at TNA where he was Christian Cage or Christian and now two years again as Christian potentially with references to how he used to be known as Christian Cage. Prove how he's consistently referred to as Christian Cage after returning to WWE please because I believe that's flat out wrong. Search for "Christian Cage Wrestling" gives 217.000 hits, "Christian Wrestling" gives 1.310.000 more than four times as much.  MPJ -DK  07:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can't we agree on using "Christian Cage" as his name? Note that it includes the name "Christian" in it. Therefore, it really represents both ring names. Raaggio 15:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm in favour of that. Tony2Times (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I cannot support Christian Cage. I wish I could, but unfortunatly, WWE has a larger fan base, and he was known as Christian in WWE. In addition he was known there for a longer time. Finally, it is unlikely for his tenure in WWE that he will become known as Christian Cage, therefore, the recognition of CC is unlikely to overturn recognition of the name Christian. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Looking at it from a wider range, we can say, most know him as Christian and as Cage, because for the past few years mainstream fans heard about him in TNA besides the casuals and the children. The names are about equal since Christian is just a breakoff of Christian Cage, since he was originally supposed to use that in WWE and at last minute chose to remove the Cage part. However, to remain fair it should stay where it is or be moved to his real first name William Reso. It is all heresy on common name if it can't be proved.--WillC 20:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
You keep insisting that he's as known as Cage but cannot prove it, now you're saying the opposite can't be proven either. Neither Jay Reso nor William Reso is the name he's most known as, but frankly in the end it's about which name he's listed as and which is just a redirect so I officially change my vote to "not caring" any more.  MPJ -DK  20:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
He's gone by Christian for almost a decade or so in the WWF/WWE. Those years outweigh any number of years spent in TNA. –Turian (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Support Per Above. Also, Christian is known mostly as Christian we're not saying he's not known by some as Christian Cage we just think that's he's known more as Christian.--C23 C23's talk 15:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Around 2 million in the US alone watched him as Cage in TNA. Around the same have watched him as Christian since he returned to WWE on ECW. I don't think that is some. He has appeared in two world-wide promotions under two names. To establish a common name would be difficult and most likely breaking of a neutral point of view.--WillC 20:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Its not breaking WP:NPOV when we say WWE is more notable than TNA. Its just the fact of the matter. Raaggio 00:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yeah... if you think TNA is more notable... you might want to check that info. –Turian (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
So now you're saying that TNA gets the same ratings as the WWE? He's been a long time mainstay on Raw & Smackdown and even you cannot claim that the ratings are about the same - sure TNA and ECW were close in ratings, though ECW more often than not won, let's not even begin to talk PPV buys or the fact that in the 8 years before he went to TNA he appeared on shows that were multiple times higher rated than even the best ever TNA rating. It's not "not-neutral" to look at the ratings since ratings means "number of people who watch" and thus "number of people who see him wrestle as Christian".  MPJ -DK  00:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

If it is so easy to show that Reso is more known as Christian. Then actually show it. Don't give heresy and show bias which is easily seen during this discussion with the constant put downs of TNA and anything not WWE from this project. All I've heard is "because", and not here is the evidence.--WillC 01:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

This has nothing to do with notbility of TNA and WWE. This has to do with how known each name is. To establish a common name, the name has to be clearly justified. With two wide names being used by Cage. Neither can be clearly called the common name without being bias.--WillC 01:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Do a quick search. Most TNA ratings have a share of 1-2, while WWE has rating shares from 3-4. It is not bias; I don't even know why you are using that word. Your bias of TNA is evident. –Turian (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
If I was bias of TNA, then the last episode I watched wouldn't have been 4 weeks ago and I would be going for a move to Cage rather than keeping it where it is. The nelson rating system is flawed you do know that? More people are actually watching the shows than are counted. And plus you have to incorporate the viewers from other countries, such as India which the system does not do because it is American based. I see the bias, there has always been a bias around here. If it isn't WWE, then it doesn't matter. MPJ has seen that with Mexican wrestling. I've seen it with TNA and indy wrestling. I can see it with your comments. But yet, still no one has shown anything to establish a common name other than ratings. When you have forgotten internet wrestling sites, etc. Just looking at a google search of the names being discussed, you can see the names are very close is published articles. Thus, a clear common name can not be establish. To choose any name is more popular, would automatically declare a bias since it isn't proven.--WillC 01:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I am so biased everything I saw and use as a source is biased, including TV rating shares. I must be making this stuff up! –Turian (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Will, WP:DRAMA would like to see you in his office. Raaggio 02:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I just want the article to follow the right guidelines. ThinkBlue and I spent a good amount of time trying to get it to GA, so I kind of have this "editor's bond" with the article if you will.--WillC 03:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I understand, the guideline that needs to be implemented here is WP:UCN. No one is disputing that "Christian Cage" is not a common name for him, but the most common name is "Christian". Regardless of his time in TNA, Christian has been more time in WWE. Also, he currently is in WWE, and has been for more than a year. Most people will now him as Christian without Cage even if TNA viewers remember the surname. I understand where you are coming from, but the fact of the matter is that "Christian" is more common than "Christian Cage". Like I stated above, I'm in favor of whichever, because they're very similar titles. But regardless I'm not going to ignore the fact that "Christian" alone is the most adequate title. Raaggio 03:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
And I can see the idea of Christian being the most common name since WWE is the largest promotion in the world. However, we are talking about two world-wide promotions and one wrestler have two different names in each one where he has had big accomplishments in both. It would be better to just keep it where it is currently at until it is widely clear there is a common name. Lets say, when Cage wins the WWE or WH Titles. Then it would be common sense to suggest such a thing.--WillC 05:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
We both know Vince is to hard-headed to ever let that happen. We might try other consensus-seeking alternatives, but we cannot leave him under "Jason Reso". It is definitely not his most common name and heck, we don't even know if thats his real name. I think Christian Cage is a great solution due to the title including both of his primary ring names. However, others don't agree. In response, I have to firmly state my belief that "Christian Cage" is second to "Christian" which is his most common name. Raaggio 05:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
His real name is William Jason Reso, stated in all sorts of material. His friends just call him Jason. We are forced to keep it where it is or move it to William if we can't clearly prove a common name. I would agree with the Cage idea, but remaining in a more neutral role on the article title would be better. If it must be moved to one of them, I would say Cage due to your suggestion and the fact that his original ring name was Cage and WWE just wanted to break off the Cage for his gimmick.--WillC 06:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
That is a falsehood. There is no guideline that says that we must "keep it where it is" if we can't find a common name. WP:UCN says if there are more than one name that might be considered common, that we must achieve a WP:CONSENSUS among the community. This is what we are trying to do right now. Raaggio 20:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

You are totally right, it's complete guesswork that Christian has been with the WWE for 10 years, total rumor that he has spent most of those 10 years on Raw or Smackdown, utter supposition that those two shows have crushed TNA in various ratings ever since TNA begun and nothing but speculation that even the ECW shows consistently outdrew TNA. Let's not forget the figment of all of our imaginations that the WWE PPV buyrates are much higher than TNA's PPVs. You're right we're just pulling this stuff from our asses without any proof - after all it's not a very commonly known fact that Christian wrestled for the WWE before TNA even existed or that the WWE is indeed the world's largest wrestling organization with more international tours and more international exposure than any other wrestling organisation. I think it's horrible that we assume that ratings = number of people that watch, even if there generally are "More people watching than the ratings indicate" then we are such no-goodnicks for assuming that if TNA's ratings are actually higher than the ratings so are the WWE's and thus the numbers are actually comparable. Oh wait... what part of the argument for Christian is NOT a fact? Time in the promotion? Ratings?? Buy rates? International exposure? please tell me how that's all "hearsay" and does not in fact support the "most known as" argument?.  MPJ -DK  06:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

And as for your "Internet search" thing - compare "christian cage wrestler" and "christian wrestler" to get a fair view of things. Also would you like me to find sources that say that the WWE have higher ratings or am I biased in suggesting such things? Everything that's been said by the "Christian (wrestler)" group are commonly known facts while your TNA bias has led you to argue that TNA can compete with the WWE ratings and buyrate wise, something which is not common sense.  MPJ -DK  06:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Will, you have it right on your page that you like TNA more than WWE and now you come along trying to prove TNA has better ratings so you can get the page to stay the same because you don't want him known as Christian when it is obvious that Christian is the most commonly used name and i'll give you proof. Christian worked for WWE for 7 years (1998-2005) under Christian before he went to TNA for 4 years (2005-2009) under Christian Cage and now he's back in WWE and he's been here for about a year that makes 8 years under Christian 4 under Christian Cage. Besides a few years in an un-noteable wrestling organization where he wrestled under Christian Cage. And about the ratings you've never heard on ECW or anywhere else that TNA almost tied ECW a few times but ECW came out on top and obviously ECW had lower viewers than that of Smackdown and Raw so obviously WWE would have better ratings than TNA so with a longer time under Christian and using it under the world's most viewed wrestling promotion it is pretty obvious that Christian is the most common name for him.--C23 C23's talk 14:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am pretty sure consensus can be called on this one. Change it to 'Christian (wrestler)'. –Turian (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree, consensus is not the same as 100% agreement after all.  MPJ -DK  22:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Move it. We know that a millions watched TNA, we don't know how many knew Reso, that they watched his segments or didn't know him first a Christian. We are making a logical, and overall unbiased judgment that the common name is Christian.Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oleg Prudius --> Vladimir Kozlov

  Done

Because there seems to be a consensus here among 7 different users then I will go ahead with the move. Raaggio 20:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Prudius debuted on WWE television in early 2007 in a non-wrestling role under the name "Vladimir Kozlov", but was taken off TV for a little over a year until his wrestling debut on Smackdown. During this year, he used the "Vladimir Kozlov" name in WWE's developmental territories where he wrestled in many of its main events. Shortly after his debut, he became one of the top heels of his brand and even challenging Triple H for the WWE Championship. He was then became part of a big faction and had some notable feuds upon being drafted to ECW. After ECW's closure, Kozlov was drafted to Raw and has not done anything of notability. However, in my opinion, 3 years with the same ring name and on WWE's 3 different brands is definitely enough to be considered the most common name. Raaggio 05:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't see a problem with this one ether--Steam Iron 09:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Support  MPJ -DK  13:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
How many people known him as Oleg Prudius? Most pro wrestler articles are title under the names they are known by. For instance, if you asked some of the WWE fans who Matt Sydal is, they couldn't tell you. But if you said Evan Bourne, then they would know who you are talking about. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 16:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I believe that is the point...? –Turian (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Support Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Support Per above.--WillC 20:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm having trouble moving over the redirect. In need of assistance. Raaggio 03:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Contact an admin. The admin will have to delete the Kozlov page and merge the histories.--WillC 04:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
For some reason, they are taking years to respond. Raaggio 20:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I would have just asked Nikki to do it.--WillC 02:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I did, but she apparently hasn't seen it or hasn't had the time to do it. RaaGgio (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

They have finally responded to both Chris Masters and Vladimir Kozlov and they have been moved.--C23 C23's talk 13:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sheamus O'Shaunessy --> Sheamus

  Done

Consensus achieved with 5 different users, so I'll go ahead and carry out the move. Raaggio 20:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

This one isn't really much of a big deal, but on WWE television it is constantly noted that Sheamus "does not have a last name" and therefore having this non-notable fictional surname attached to his ring-name is counterproductive. Sheamus did utilize this name during his developmental run, but his run on ECW and Raw are much more notable and although a short time has passed since his debut, he has accomplished much (WWE Championship, match with Triple H at WrestleMania, feuds with Randy Orton and John Cena, etc.). I think it would be better to have the article under "Sheamus". Raaggio 05:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree on this on its obvious that he is known more as Sheamus then Sheamus O'Shaunessy--Steam Iron 09:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Support  MPJ -DK  13:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Support per commonname. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Support Per above.--WillC 20:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Paul Wight --> The Big Show (wrestler)

Has used the name The Big Show for all but a few weeks of his 9 years in WWE previously known as The Giant for 3 years in WCW but I don't think a lot of people would go to an event and say "Hey, there's the Giant".--C23 C23's talk 14:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Support I don't see a problem with this hes been know as the big show for quite some time now.--Steam Iron 17:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oppose All of his movie credits and some of his TV credits are under "Paul Wight". Also, he has wrestled under Paul "The Great" Wight. Noticing that Wight is notable enough to be the title, let us avoid the qualifier and leave it where it is at. Raaggio 20:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Of course credits would be in his real name.--C23 C23's talk 20:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not necessarily, some wrestlers do get credited under their wrestling names (The Rock and I'm pretty sure Hulk Hogan). But I think the biggest thing against Show having his name changed would be the five years he spent as The Giant during WCW's most watched period, including time as a World Champion, so I Oppose. Tony2Times (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Mike Mizanin --> The Miz (wrestler)

Has used this name since he went to OVW 6 years ago and before used it as his nickname not known as any thing else except the Calgary Kid for 1 match.--C23 C23's talk 14:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • Comment, he was on a bunch of reality shows using just his first name Mike. Nikki♥311 18:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose- He debuted in WWE under "Mike Mizanin" and at the time "The Miz" was just a nickname. He was on The Real World, on 5 differentReal World/Road Rules Challenge, on Fear Factor and on Battle of the Network Reality Stars under his real name. He actually won 2 of the Challenge series and won Fear Factor also. Both "Mike Mizanin" and "The Miz" are notable, but I think the priority goes with Mizanin because its his real name. Raaggio 20:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Glenn Jacobs --> Kane (wrestler) or Kane (WWE Wrestler)

He has used the name Kane since 1997 and for the whole time it was in the WWE so I don't think people would call him Glenn Jacobs.--C23 C23's talk 14:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oppose- There is another man, Lane Huffman who is a retired professional wrestler billed under the name Kane. Raaggio 20:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes but he only wrestled under that name for a few weeks this Kane has wrestled with it for 11 years.--C23 C23's talk 20:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Support for the reasons given by Curtis23. I'd like to point out that in Jacobs' only major film role, See No Evil, he is credited either as Kane or Glenn "Kane" Jacobs. As far as the argument that Stevie Ray wrestled briefly as Kane, I doubt anybody would read "Kane, the wrestler" and think it might mean Stevie Ray. It probably warrants a disambig link on Jacobs' page if it's moved to Kane (wrestler), but the association isn't nearly strong enough to prevent such a move. Jeff Silvers (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Support, Huffman can get a tophat as it's only two people so no disambig needed. Mr Jacobs has been Kane for 13 years, has held a World Title for sadly one glorious day, was a top carder during the first year of Attitude Era upturn and has been there ever since which by far outshines his real name and his two former gimmicks. Tony2Times (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
top hat? Raaggio 23:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't know what it's called but I thought I recalled someone calling it that. Those notes in italics at the beginning of an article that say "If you were searching for the wrestler who used the ring name Kane in World Championship Wrestling, see Lane Huffman."Tony2Times (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think you mean {{about}}. So something like:

This page is about the WWE wrestler. For the WCW wrestler, see Lane Huffman.

In any case, I Support the move. –Turian (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oppose - Known under several other names, and, as already mentioned, there is another wrestler known as Kane. That would necessitate additional clarification in the qualifier—"Kane (WWE wrestler)" or something to that extent—at that point, I believe that there is a more natural way of identifying the subject—by his real name, or at the very least, by the misspelling that Wikipedia erroneously claims to be his real name. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • SupportThere is no doubt though that Kane is the name he's most known as, has worked under the longest and is identified as. Should Hulk Hogan not be listed at such because he wrestled as "Sterling Golden"? Don't think so, neither does WP:COMMON. As for Stevie Ray working as Kane for a bit and this "needs additional clarification" - that's bunk, it can be solved with a hat note. Stevie Ray wrestled as Kane for like six months maybe at the beginning of his WCW career, it'd be plenty with a hat note. MPJ -DK  05:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Support - truth be told he was known as other names before his Kane persona, but Isaac Ynakem DDS and Fake Diesel are really the closest to his common name and they obviously aren't going to be his article title. Afro (Blah Blah Here) - Afkatk 18:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Response No, it is certainly not "bunk". This very issue has been discussed on Wikipedia many times, and the consensus seems to be that a specific qualifier is required when a generic one would apply to more than one article. For example, there have been multiple movies named "Avatar". As you know, the most recent one is obviously the most successful and the one that most people would be searching for if they type in "Avatar (film)" or something similar. However, that is a redirect to a section of the "Avatar" disambiguation page because each Avatar film has a specific qualifier—Avatar (2009 film) for the most recent, which is not given preferential treatment over Avatar (2004 film), despite the facts that most readers will not have seen the latter and that the latter was released under a different name in several large markets. In a case like this, and with Kane (wrestler), one is certainly more well known, but Wikipedia policy on naming conventions supercedes a WP:PW-wide "IDONTLIKEIT" vote. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
There are two Brad Pitts, and the actor takes the article title because he is more famous and more well known. Just because something has a similar name does not mean that a disambiguation is necessary. A few months with a stint is not enough to force a disambiguation. IDONTLIKEIT and neither does Wikipedia. Funny, huh? –Turian (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Yet another response: Yes, there are two Brad Pitts. Please note that one is an actor, and the other is a boxer. Therefore, your example is fundamentally flawed. If they were both actors, the example would work, but it would disprove what you are saying. Let's run with that idea...if both were actors, you could not give the lesser-known Brad Pitt the article title "Brad Pitt (actor)", since that would apply to both. Likewise, you could not give the more famous Brad Pitt the article title "Brad Pitt (actor)". At that point, just as with the "Kane (wrestler)" problem, further clarification would be necessary in the qualifier. Perhaps one would be "Brad Pitt (American actor)" and the other would be "Brad Pitt (Kenyan actor)". If both were American, a different form of clarification would be necessary. Perhaps "Brad Pitt (born 1963)" and "Brad Pitt (born 1981)". In the case at hand "Kane (WWE wrestler)" would be the most logical choice, as Jacobs spent his entire time as Kane with WWF/WWE, and Huffman was only Kane in WCW. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Huffman is most notable under that name. Jacobs is most notable under Kane. There is no other point to really even bring up. –Turian (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok Gary I added a possible move as Kane (WWE wrestler). Is that ok with you?--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 00:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Taryn Terrell --> Tiffany (wrestler)

She used her real name just for the Diva Search and in OVW and those only lasted 1 year and she has used the name Tiffany on ECW and Smackdown for 2 years but since she used her real name only in OVW I don't think I would here people calling her by her real name.--C23 C23's talk 14:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I would wait on this one just a little bit longer seeing as shes only been with WWE for 2 years let her get a little more work under the belt before we move the page.--Steam Iron 17:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Oppose - Apparently unbeknownst to the nominator, she was a Playboy model under her real name and also did other photo shoots with other companies. Definitely notable under her real name, and probably even more notable than "Tiffany". Raaggio 20:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Angel Williams --> Angelina Love

With a consensus of 6 editors I think we can make this move.--C23 C23's talk 13:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

While we are at it, might as well move this due to common name. Won the Knockout Title in TNA three times. Only competed in one major promotion, that being TNA, in a major role. Simple common name move.--WillC 04:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Support--C23 C23's talk 13:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adam Copeland --> Edge (wrestler)

Nelson Erazo --> Homicide (wrestler)

The bulk of his career has been as Homicide. He was the first FIP World Heavyweight Champion and one-half of the first PWG World Tag Team Champions as Homicide. He has also worked in ROH, PWG, FIP, TNA, etc as Homicide. Held the NWA and TNA World Tag, TNA X Division, and the ROH World Championship as Homicide. Simple common name move.--WillC 01:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Chris Parks --> Abyss (wrestler)

Held the NWA World Tag and NWA World Heavyweight under Abyss, and been using it in TNA and other promotions for several years now. Common name move.--WillC 14:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • Support- He has used the name for several years now and is a former world champion. RaaGgio (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Mild Support, he apparently wrestled for 7 years before TNA under a variety of names. If someone showed me evidence suggesting he was at all notable for any of this work I might oppose or go neutral, in lieu of that I support. (and is there really no reliable source for his birth date?) Tony2Times (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Shawn Hernandez --> Hernandez (wrestler)

Held the TNA Tag and NWA Tag under Hernandez. Competed for the TNA Title as Hernandez. Working in other promotions as Hernandez. Simple common name move.--WillC 14:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Common name is common name. I would say Finlay though is up in the air though. WCW and some of WWE as Fit Finlay, while just Finlay recently in WWE.--WillC 17:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Scott Levy --> Raven (wrestler)

Must I explain this one? Out of all of his ring names, this one has been used in TNA, ROH, WWE/F, WCW, ECW, NWA, etc. Common name clearly imo.

Shantelle Malawski --> Taylor Wilde

Simple common name move, two time Knockout Champion and one time knockout tag champion. Been in TNA for about two years now.--WillC 14:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Jessica Kresa --> ODB (wrestler) or O.D.B.

Worked in several promotions as ODB, and is a 3 time knockout champion. Simple common name move again.--WillC 14:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'd say ODB (wrestler) as ODB could just as easily, in fact more likely, mean Ol' Dirty Bastard. Also, most of the time I've seen the acronym without full stops. Tony2Times (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Support- Like Raven, there is no doubt this is her common name after using the ring name in various promotions. RaaGgio (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well I'm nothing if not a bandwagon jumper ;) (Actually it just reminded me to get off my duff and do this.) I have also requested a number of moves from real names to ring names for a series of luchadors who are all definitly better known under their ringnames both in Mexico out outside. I've actually put a request on each page, seperately as they're all for the same reason but not related articles as such. Please click the links to agree or disagree.

    •   Done Its his WP:COMMONNAME, but the bigger picture is that the term "Rafael García" should definitely be a disambiguation page because of the various people with that name. I moved both the article and the disambiguation page to the rightful locations. Raaggio 17:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks in advance.  MPJ -DK  13:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm willing to bow to your seniority on lucha libre and assume every one of these luchadores are better known by their ring names. Tony2Times (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the vote of confidence ;) in Mexico they're usually even MORE secretive about their personal lives, wrestlers who have never been unmasked in their career often have not even revealed what their real name is. While they are more mainstream in Mexico and appear in newspapers, advertising and various television series they're almost always called by their ring name.  MPJ -DK  16:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yeah that was my thinking for why their ring names would be better known, because it's still more respected mainstream. Presumably all of these luchadores either didn't have, or had but lost, masks but even so being made to announce your name at an unmasking once isn't gonna change the years of wrestling under a ring name. Tony2Times (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes they are all unmasked, but continue to use these ring names even after being unmasked, if the destination wasn't already a redirect I would have moved them as uncontroversial, but well them's the breaks.  MPJ -DK  17:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
After researching them all, I support the moves 100% per WP:COMMONNAME. Raaggio 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

There might be problems with the other two, because after some research there is no clear cut common name for them. César could easily be under "Black Tiger III" as well as "Silver King". While Ortiz is known as Halloween, he was known in America as Ciclope, so I don't know about this one exactly therefore I didn't carry out the move. Anyone else have opinions on the matter? Raaggio 00:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • Black Tiger III - Yes he worked as Black Tiger for a little, but the Black Tiger gimmick already has a page that lists all of them and he's worked as Silver King since the mid or late 1980s for WCW, CMLL, AAA, NJPW and a lot of other places. He worked as Black Tiger for a couple of years which is true but he's much more known as Silver King and he'll never work as Black Tiger again since there is a new black tiger. MPJ -DK  04:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Ciclope - He played the jobber character Ciclope in WCW in the late 1990s, but also wrestled as Halloween in WCW and everywhere else he's worked since then (10 years+) including the "big two" of Mexico where he's won titles and all over the US Indies he's been Halloween.  MPJ -DK  04:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
While you guys are at it, shouldn't Jake Hager be moved to Jack Swagger? Who the heck is Jake Hager anyway? I know who Jack Swagger is. He's the World Heavyweight Champion and a former ECW Champion. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
It is titled as Jack Swagger. –Turian (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Oh... so it is. Must have been moved in the last few days. My bad... Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

All of the championship reign lists articles are deemed "List of ____ champions", but technically, the articles aren't "lists of champions". If they were lists of champions, the champions wouldn't be repeated. In reality, they are lists of reigns. So I think we should rename all the championship reigns articles. Isn't it more appropriate? Raaggio 15:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think it is kind of splitting hairs. Essentially, the lists are both. What do other lists do for MMA? –Turian (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
It's a fair point, I wouldn't stand in your way if you wanted to do it. Tony2Times (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Never really been a problem before, it is kind of obvious.--WillC 19:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Meh, you're right. Ignore it. Raaggio 20:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I created a prototype for the merger of the two articles here: User:Raaggio/Triple Crown (professional wrestling). What do you guys think? Raaggio 22:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

That would do fine, but article name I'm not so sure of. Triple Crown and Grand Slam Championship seems kind of awkward. I think the key tables should go first before the champions table, like in today's FLs.--WillC 22:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think we can do without most of the color scheming, but I'll place the key at the beginning as you wanted to. Personally, I dislike the whole color scheming all together. Is all that trivial information really notable? Does it really matter which brand someone belonged to when they achieved the Triple Crown? Raaggio 22:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
If the brand extension was followed to the letter it would be notable. But since it has lost significance since then, probably not.--WillC 22:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Then what could we do about the color scheming in the tables? Raaggio 01:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Remove it.--WillC 02:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't think the branding is notable in anyway. If the titles never moved across maybe, but even they do so it's not like there's a SmackDown Triple Crown and Raw Triple Crown. Tony2Times (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

So guys, what do we do about the article title? Do we leave it at "Triple Crown Championship", should I move it to "Triple Crown (professional wrestling)" or are there any suggestions? Raaggio 12:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

"Triple Crown Championship" is fine. By definition a Grand Slam Champion is also a Triple Crown Champion, so I don't think it would be necessary to have it in the article name (it'd be like having an article called "New World Order and The Outsiders"). Jeff Silvers (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
We do have the articles New World Order (professional wrestling) and The Outsiders (professional wrestling).--WillC 02:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Allstarchampionshipbelts.webs.com has authorized the use of their ROH belt photos in Wikipedia related projects. I'm currently working on a confirmation. --UnquestionableTruth-- 02:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Confirmation from owner. The owner noted via email that he would take down the note once members saw it so here's a screen cap [2] --UnquestionableTruth-- 03:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is Neal Snow from All Star Championship Belts and I've given permission for any of our ROH belt pictures to be used for the Wikipedia site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.200.173 (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Great, this can be very helpful. I'll help upload some pictures. mainly an ROH TV Title photo right after I finish my re-expansion of the article for GAN.--WillC 03:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Will--UnquestionableTruth-- 04:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
No problem, been wanting to get some good ROH Title pictures to match the TNA Title pictures. Plus will help solve a problem from the first GA review of the ROH TV Title.--WillC 05:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
You may want to make sure that the owner agrees to a specific license so that they can go through Wikipedia:OTRS. See commons:Commons:OTRS for more information.--WillC 09:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I added a template in WWE Raw that would update the number weekly. Does that cause a problem or is it okay? Raaggio 04:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm cool with that, that template will help alot of our articles.--WillC 05:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm just saying two words "dog show" - according to the counter Raw has never been preempted even once since 1993? I do believe the USA network has done it in the past. Just saying that this may not be accurate.  MPJ -DK  05:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think that's been taken care of. The show's start date was January 11 while the template's start date is May 24, essentially excluding any week when the show was pre-empted and giving us the correct value. If another occasion happens in the future, all we'd have to do is adjust the template's start date to May 31, etc. --  Θakster   09:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I have just realised a potential problem with using an automated template though. The template adds another episode to the count right on midnight of the Monday rather than the actual airtime hours later, which goes against WP:CRYSTAL in that it assumes an episode would be aired that night no matter what, when a last minute cancellation could very happen. --  Θakster   10:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Crap, I also forgot that Wikipedia uses UTC so Raw technically ends at 3:00am Tuesday. I will change the template to change on Tuesday, but there are still three hours of apparent WP:CBALL violation. Hmmm what to do... what to do Raaggio 01:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
This is an occassion where we should ignore the rule.--WillC 03:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yeah I think ignoring the rule would be best; is there no code to allow you to choose a specific time of day when it changes? Tony2Times (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I searched for it thoroughly. If it exists, it is buried in the deep vowels of Wikipedia. RaaGgio (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Edits to Ted DiBiase, Jr., Million Dollar Championship, and List of current champions in World Wrestling Entertainment that reflect Ted, Jr.'s status as the current Million Dollar Champion (as of April 5) have been reverted on the basis that he might just be appearing with the belt as a prop. That said, Jerry Lawler actually referred to DiBiase as the current champion on that edition of Raw; he listed the previous champions (Ted, Sr., Austin, and Virgil), then said "and now, Ted DiBiase". Given the "unsanctioned" nature of the Million Dollar Championship it's unlikely we'll see a title history appear on WWE.com, so isn't a WWE employee actually calling DiBiase the champion a good enough reference? Jeff Silvers (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Jeff and was gonna make the same point. It's an unsanctioned championship so WWE won't list him as champion, they don't list Austin or Virgil either and the commentators said he was the holder of it. Tony2Times (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
"show off his father's Million Dollar Championship, which he brought with him to the ring" Really doesn't sound like WWE consider him to be the champion to me. Also, I looked up that segment on youtube again to remind myself of what the commentators said. Neither Cole nor Lawler said he was the current champion - they both said he got the championship from his father and went on to list the other champions. Jr never called himself the champion either. I've searched all the reliable sources for Raw results and they all just say he brought the belt out to the ring and cut a promo on his dad. No mention of him being the Million Dollar Champion. We can't add it without a source. Saying he's the champion is pure WP:OR and speculation on our part. In my opinion the obvious thing to do is wait and see if the situation is clarified next week on Raw. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
You have me convinced. :D RaaGgio (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
unsanctioned? Really? The company has to agree for a title belt to appear on their broadcast. It isn't owned by WWE persay, but it certainly isn't a non-recognized title by WWE. Unsanctioned titles don't really exist. It is just a storyline.--WillC 03:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
It's just a storyline. –Turian (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
So is anyone winning any championship in wrestling and in storyline this championship is unsanctioned. Just like the Intergender Tag Team Championship wasn't really unsanctioned by ROH but in storyline it was and guess what: it isn't on their title history. Tony2Times (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ted Junior's WWE bio is now listing the Million Dollar Championship as a career highlight; is this sufficient to source articles with? Tony2Times (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Whoa, in my opinion, yes. But I want to know what Nici has to say first. RaaGgio (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yeah I wanted to hear from Nici too, save on reverts. Tony2Times (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
So is thing active or what?--UnquestionableTruth-- 01:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I say it is active. If he is credited with a reign in his bio on WWE.com. Then that would make it official.--WillC 02:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm thinking of merging Trent Beretta and Caylen Croft into one page, since they're a tag team in the WWE. Does anyone agree to it or do they remain seperate?--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'd be inclined to say no as Barretta spent 3 years in NYWC winning four titles and also had that bizarre gimmick where he tried to win the Queen of FCW Crown while Croft has been wrestling for 7/8 years under his belt without Barretta. It'd be better if we could expand their pre-tag team time tbh but I think there's sufficient solo information to be kept apart. Tony2Times (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok. How about just starting a separate tag team page for them?--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, they aren't notable. They have done nothing of notability in the WWE or outside the WWE for that matter. I closed the merger on Pavone's talk page per WP:SNOW. Raaggio 23:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WikiProject Wikipedia books is undertaking a cleanup all Wikipedia books. Particularly, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of the books. Title, subtitle, cover-image, and cover-color can all be specified, and an HTML preview of the cover will be generated and shown on the book's page (an example of such a cover is found on the right). Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Professional wrestling articles should have covers.

If you need help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 22:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot (owner • talk) 22:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is the time line really needed Timeline of all PPV events Is sloppy and hard to read is it really necessary.--Steam Iron 05:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not really. I feel it would be better in a list of all WWE PPVs. The table can be redone. I believe it was placed in there by a novice user or ip. List of WWE pay-per-view events really should be turned into a prose article imo.--WillC 05:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
What do you mean?--Steam Iron 05:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
That we create a List of WWE monthly pay-per-view events and move the above article to World Wrestling Entertainment pay-per-view event titles. Then turn the above article into an article about the history of ppvs, and not a schedule. An actual article, rather than a list. The timeline can be placed in the new list. See the rough draft of what I'm talking about being done with TNA: Total Nonstop Action Wrestling pay-per-view event titles and List of TNA monthly pay-per-view events.--WillC 21:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
That could be a good idea so one would be about the monthly events then the next one would be about all the ppv's WWE has ever held right?--Steam Iron 22:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
If the first one is an article, the second one is unnecessary, IMO. RaaGgio (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Not exactly, the second is alot like an episode list that tv shows have. Instead swtiched with PPVs, while the main article is history of event titles. See TNA Bound for Glory for an example to a degree.--WillC 23:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Still seems like a list to me; just one full of list cruft. RaaGgio (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
If a list of that nature is listcruft, then that means that plenty of lists over events and episodes would have been deleted for the same reason. Also, the list can be completed and fully sourced so right there establishes a bit of notability. List of WWE pay-per-view events would classify as listcruft and any lists of held events in any title article would aswell. The only difference, is that the proposed list would list every PPV event ever held by WWE.--WillC 04:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, this was created a while ago. I've tried to redirect it but a user keeps reverting saying a discussion is needed so instead of edit war, here we are. Now imo this is obviously listcruft and not notable. Should we redirect, delete, or keep the article?--WillC 13:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

We decided a while back with the huge List of World Heavyweight Champions tally type of list, that these were cruft and never could be fully accurate. Afro (Blah Blah Here) - Afkatk 14:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Crufty list where we'll never be able to agree on the criteria for inclusion - what is a "world champion" in wrestling after all? Delete, delete and delete.  MPJ -DK  18:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Prod it--Steam Iron 19:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Prodded. –Turian (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
This should be speedied... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of multiple world heavyweight champions in professional wrestling (2nd nomination)--UnquestionableTruth-- 20:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Took care of it. --UnquestionableTruth-- 20:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have a question about the following section. I have seen that the tag teams have a normal section, but a tag team breaks the section, because we have wroten the month and the year when the wrestler won and lose the championship. You can see the New World Order's section. Why the article has antoher section?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think someone tried this as an attempt to stop people adding all title reigns to stables, making it clear that they had to come from a certain time frame. Personally, I quite like it like that for a stable but I think consensus is not to do that as The Hardyz and DX have had theirs changed since being like that. Tony2Times (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The information about the game is in this link. Information has been updated.

--XOTERS (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was planning on making a new page called List of ____ Championship Matches. I'v googled it and there is nowhere on the internet that actually has a full list of all title matches. I thought maybe if I made it then someone would delete because it too much like the list of world champions page. So I thought either I do the new page or, the title of the other page is changed to list of ____ champions and defences. I would then add to the page. I'll do a page for all the title. Just wanted to make sure it was ok before I go through all the trouble. JasarDaConqueror (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • the problem is that, as you said yourself, there is nowhere on the net with a full list of all title matches, which means it's near impossible to determine if the list is complete or not - after all how do you prove a negative? How do you prove that no other title matches took place than the ones you list?? I think you are dangerously close to WP:LISTCRUFT territory, if not actually in it. That being said - if you make a list in your own userspace and show the list full sourced with reliable sources then maybe. Frankly this is an impossible task to do for "all the titles", do you know how many there are? and how few reliable sources cover wrestling in enough detail for such a list?  MPJ -DK  11:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Another problem is for WWF/E, WCW and TNA at least, and maybe for the latter days of AWA and WCCW but I'm not sure, is the debate about whether house show/non televised defences count or not. The title matches at house shows almost never play into storylines so it feels like they should be discounted, but then it has been known for titles to change hands at non-televised events so they can't be entirely ignored. Maybe for ROH, IWGP and GHC Titles which keep track of every title defence it would work, but definitely not every title. I also don't know if it would look that good either. Tony2Times (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, it'll save me the time anyway. JasarDaConqueror (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's the time of year to do a survey to determine which members of WP:PW are actively editing. I'll create a message to be sent to all the members and have a bot send it out. RaaGgio (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

How does that work, a certain number of edits omung PW articles will keep them on the list? Sephiroth storm (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
No, a message is sent to each member and they confirm their membership by placing themselves on this list. RaaGgio (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind putting a template of the message here first?--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 23:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why have we stopped updating the portal? I remember a few years ago when we were discussing to make a portal and some people like Naha objected due to the portal "eventually being abandoned by the project". I guess we all deserve a big "I told you so". RaaGgio (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nici usually updates it. She and I had plans to make it featured, but we never got around to it. Now that I think about it, maybe I'll try to make it featured.--WillC 02:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply