Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:28, 2 January 2010

Misplaced Pages:PW-Nav

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Zack Ryder and Curt Hawkins Split

They now have notable singles careers so split them. Split Zack and Curt Talk to me

What has Hawkins done? His whole singles career has been in FCW, he hasn't even appeared in WWE on his own yet. TJ Spyke 23:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What has Ryder done? He's had matches here and there, almost never with the same person twice to make any kind of storyline and now he has a girlfriend. Tony2Times (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate, Ryder has been getting a push in ECW. He had a feud with Christian where he looked pretty strong, he's feuding with Shelton Benjamin right now. He has a stronger case for getting his own article than Hawkins (I am not saying I support or oppose, just pointing out that he has a better shot at getting one than his former partner). TJ Spyke 23:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that they should be split. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't Ryder the number one contender to the ECW Championship for a minute? Hasn't he wrestled in the main event match on ECW at least a couple of times? I think the case for Ryder having his own article has vastly improved, so I'd give my weak support to creating a separate article for him. Hawkins, however, really hasn't done much, so he should probably stay a redirect for the time being. Nikki♥311 00:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it still be considered content forking then? We would have to delete Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder to give even one their own page. Defacto, they would both have to get pages. Outside of a few months of singles matches in ECW, I don't see how Ryder is notable on his own. Getting a title shot on tv on the C show isn't that big of a deal. Hell, Funaki got a title shot on SD in 2007/8. Never knew a few matches on tv and a title shot made someone notable enough for their own page.--WillC 00:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ryder getting a article doesn't mean Hawkins would. The Hawkin and Ryder article will never be deleted as they were a notable tag team, so the article on them will continue to exist and Hawkins could continue to be written about there. TJ Spyke 00:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yah I see I change my idea on Hawkins bot not Ryder. Give Zack his own page Talk to me

@ Will: Being the number one contender to the top title on a brand of WWE and appearing in main event matches on its weekly TV show is enough to meet WP:ATHLETE, IMO. I'm confused as to why you don't believe that warrants an article for him, when in the past you've insinuated that merely appearing once or twice in WWE is enough to have an article (). In any event, the team article wouldn't be deleted...it would be as TJ said. Nikki♥311 01:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Have we reached a consensus yet? Reach a consensus Talk to me

Are you all forgetting we have an article for him? It is just in the format as the same as the Briscoe Brothers. I feel this is more along the lines of content forking. You are going to be giving the same info on two seperate articles.--WillC 01:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's just as Nikki said he meets notability guidelines. Ryder meets notability guidelines Talk to me —Preceding undated comment added 01:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

There's nothing of his singles career that isn't already on the current tag team page and it amounts to a very brief paragraph. He was number 1 contender one week and lost the match the following week, it's not much of a notable storyline if you can even call it a storyline. His current story of having fantasies of Rosa Mendez is still ongoing and may amount to nothing. Tony2Times (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Check my last entry. Check it Talk to me

Curtis, of course he meets the notability guidelines. He has a page, which is shared with the history of Hawkins. Nothing has been shown as to why there should be a split. He got a title shot. Well countless others have had title shots that have their history joined with their tag team partner. That doesn't change the fact most of their history was apart of a tag team. Crap, The Briscoes should be split if this is split. I believe it is Jay who has had title shot after title shot.--WillC 02:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Curtis is now disrupting this page? Give it a rest already. I'm not sure why you think coming here will help your effort out. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Make Ryder his own page, but blast Hawkins; he's not notable enough--The Celtic Cross (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep them together, neither deserves a separate article at this point. And Curtis, throttle it back, you're becoming an irritant. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What no i'm not I just won't stop until there is a real consensus. Not an irritant Talk to me —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

No you just want your way in all honesty. There has been discussion after discussion on Talk:Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder, with them all ending up on not seperating. You continue to bring it up because you want your way. We have had a consensus on the matter, just one you do not agree with.--WillC 22:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A consensus is a general agreement and I don't agree and I see a few people who don't agree so you don't have a consensus. Get a real consensus Talk to me —Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC).

Since September you've been making the same lack of a point, much to the degree of "goooooo ooooon, make a page" with no support aside from when you started faking signatures of frequent editors to fabricate support. That's three months you've been going on when everyone else has said the same thing about his page not being worthy of a profile. You do just want your way regardless and it's just by luck that some people here are considering it, I'm fairly certain if no-one agreed you'd continue to bug this page on a daily basis anyway. Tony2Times (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

After reading that I've got to say I'm against making the new page--The Celtic Cross (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

He meets notability guidelines and he doesn't have a page his team has a page bu he doesn't have a page give his one.--Curtis23 (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The article follows the same format as Briscoe Brothers. If that can reach GA, then there is nothing wrong with the format imo. Please Curtis, show why having them merged is a bad thing? The information regarding Ryder is all there. No rule around here that I am aware of that says a wrestler must have a single page.--WillC 01:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Give Ryder an article!!!!!!!!!!--The United States Champion Bask in my glory 01:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Curtis, acting like that, is not helping your cause.--WillC 01:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Why should we give him his own page why you wont state any reasons why we should instead all you do is tell us we should give us something to back up you clame.--Dcheagle (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly Curtis, stop being so juvenile--The Celtic Cross (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone who knows how to do these things prod Zack Ryder (WWE) for speedy deletion and notify that the pictures provided aren't copyright free. Even if we do give him a page, we surely won't even need this as a redirect. Tony2Times (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Done--The Celtic Cross (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I had already redirected it since it IS a plausible search target. Doesn't matter if it's deleted now, but there was no point. TJ Spyke 15:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as there is a consensus, I just wanted to state that no sepearation: WP:Fork. --Truco ₅₀₃ 17:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No there isn't a consensus I don't agree Ryder meets notability guidelines has been #1 contender to a world championship has had a very noteable storyline and is now in another storyline with Rosa Mendes that's why he deserves a page.--Zack Ryder Give me a page 17:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

While I once agreed with the argument for creating invdiviual articles, the behavior of Curtis23 has made me reconsider my position. I no longer feel like I can support any position that is backed up by frequent name changes (which, depending on the way you look at it, is either annoying, deceptive, or both) and a simple repetition of "they are notable" without supporting evidence. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

By my count the consensus is 8:2 to not split the pages for either wrestler. And Curtis's last statement makes no sense because there is no punctuation. Can we top and tail this, as the ever-changing signatures are not making any policy points anymore. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Dude "consensus" does not mean that everyone has to agree, just that the vast majority of the people agree on it - so yes there can be consensus even if you don't agree with it, I think you might benefit from taking a deep breath, step back and calm down.  MPJ-DK  (48,07% Done) Talk  18:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously man, you're making a fool of yourself--The Celtic Cross (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You people just don't understand i'm doing this because i'm the only one who's right you people are just rebelious and don't stand for what's right once you change your mind you know where to find me.--Zack Ryder Give me a page 23:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying my hardest to not feed any trolling here, but seriously, you're calling us rebelious? Please Curtis, take a modesty pill. Your recent comments have already turned people against your cause, pretty much the opposite of what you wanted. --  Θakster   00:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody agrees with what's right that's just sad.--Zack Ryder Give me a page 00:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

People agree with arguments that are well-presented and give sufficient supporting information. Repeating a non-argument + Annoying signatures + Canvassing = Lack of support. I think it's time to archive this discussion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've given sufficient supporting info and i'm not changing my signatures to be annoying and I didn't even know about that rule so Zack deserves a page.--Zack Ryder Give me a page 00:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think that vandalizing my talk page will help your cause, I urge you to read up on Misplaced Pages policy before you make any further edits. As things stand now, you have 11 warnings on your talk page for vandalism and adding unsourced content. Any more will get you blocked. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not supporting Curtis, but he didn't vandalize your talkpage. Looking at the history of your page, his only comment was asking you to support him. TJ Spyke 01:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Not the talk page, no. But he did vandalize the "to do" list on my talk page. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything about quotes (or whatever you call them) being changed constantly? Curtis has done it how many times now and it's getting to be annoying/disruptive. Plus some people could argue he is pretending to be other people, which is just sneaky and not needed. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me that a pretty strong consensus has been met and along with the fact that Curtis seems to be disruptive with the constant signature change which i believe is against policy i'm not sure ill have to check on that. Plus with the fact that this same subject has be talk about many times on Talk:Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder and in all that talking the out come is still against the split.--Dcheagle (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Frequently changing signatures is NOT forbidden. However, having messages like "Zack Ryder Give Me A Page" can be considered disruptive per WP:SIGNATURES. Pretending to be another user is also banned and can lead to a user being blocked. Curtis, I do think Ryder is almost notable enough to get a page; your actions are not helping thoughTJ Spyke 02:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok how much more noteable does he have to get (calm)--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 03:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Dude, STOP. Do NOT alter other peoples comments like you just did. This is why people are getting pissed at you. TJ Spyke 04:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What? I didn't alter anybody's comment.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 05:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC) I think my computer is messed up because when I try to put in my signature it goes somewhere else sometimes so I didn't do that on purpose.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 05:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't have anything to do with signing comments. As for the problem you speak of, that is a simple mistake that happens to all of us from time to time.--WillC 06:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice one Curtis, admitting you can't win so you start to manipulate other people's words?  MPJ-DK  (48,07% Done) Talk  08:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That's done it, he should be blocked.--The Celtic Cross (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously I didn't do that on purpose please believe me.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 23:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC) (add-on to last comment) Please don't block me.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 23:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The action that was done seems too exact to be an accident. Most times I would prefer no block, but at the moment, I'm not sure.--WillC 00:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not kidding please don't block me.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Do to the fact that this isn't the first time that he's been busted for changing comments i think its time that a temporary block be issued.--Steam Iron 00:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 00:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok people stop discussing a block, this isn't the correct place for it. Bring this matter up at an admin's talk page or an admin notice board if you strongly feel Curtis deserves it. I personally think he needs to just stop obsessing over Zack Ryder and edit elsewhere. This has gotten out of hand, and just needs to stop. Ryder will get his page whenever he does. Complaining at numerous talk pages will NOT change things. Changing your signature or whatever else numerous times will also not change things, so just knock it off. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither should get the page split. They have a section in the team's article to talk about their accomplishments, neither of them have done enough to deserve separate pages. If either of them needed a split right now, if you just forgot all about rules, it'd have to go to Hawkins since he's won a title with someone OTHER THAN RYDER plus he's started a stable in FCW with people other than Ryder. Also he's had a shot at the top title in FCW. But anyway, I'm not saying they should get an article split, just saying that Hawkins is actually more notable than Ryder.TheRealEeL (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not donating to Misplaced Pages until Zack Ryder gets his own page, and I implore everybody else to do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.10.147 (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You're immature. Just because you can't get your way you refuse to help a worthy cause. If you don't donate to Misplaced Pages there could be no Misplaced Pages to have a Zack Ryder page on...190.59.13.81 (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah well, it's my money and if I donate to Misplaced Pages, there will continue to be no Zack Ryder page. I don't think it's too much to ask to make a separate page for Ryder who is becoming a star while Hawkins rots in FCW. If/when Hawkins gets released, is the page really going to remain like this? It's ridiculous. They're most certainly no longer a tag team, and might not be ever again. I think it's safe to create two articles now, but the sperge lords that be will continue to ignore it.

So, I will refuse to give a penny to Misplaced Pages until the separate articles are created. Then I will "help a worthy cause".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.10.147 (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Remain civil and stay on the subject. If the articles were really needed to be split, then give a logical and guideline correct reason. Not, "he is a star". That doesn't matter. Anyone who shows up on TV is automaticly a star. You must present sources and enough information to establish the separate article.--WillC 06:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Zack was involved in the ECW Homecoming.--Curtis23 (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC) And retired Tommy Dreamer.--Curtis23 (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats not enough to distinguish him from Curt Hawkins. Afro (Not a Talk Page) 02:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, add it to the article (and source it), but that's still not enough to warrant two different articles. Just maintain the article as it is any maybe in a few months something might happen with both guys to warrant a split. HAZardousMATT 02:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Lists

I think we need some sort of discussion on this as there has been a little bit of bickering as of late over the Notes on the lists most notably on the List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE) which did involve TJ getting blocked for 24 hours, one of the many issues with the Notes section is the Gimmick matches and there's also the little detail of the {{small|}} template as well, anyway just thought we could have a small discussion on this. Afro 15:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page, there was already a discussion on stuff like that there.--WillC 18:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Besides, a discussion will change nothing. TJ follows his own rules, consensus or not. -- Scorpion 18:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That I would have to agree on. But attempting another discussion doesn't hurt. I've tried numerous times to get that article and others up to date (to match the other recently passed articles). At times match types are notable, but just having a match be a TLC or cage match is no more important than a normal match. Wrestling is scripted so either way the title would've changed hands. Now if it was to determine a new champion after the title was vacant or something very important happened in the match, which played with the gimmick, I would say that is important as well.--WillC 19:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think some type of project consensus is necessary to straighten out any future edit wars on the subject of the lists. Afro 19:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--WillC 20:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think match types are notable if they deviate from the standard of which that title is normally contested under - if the WWF Hardcore Title changed hands in a non-hardcore match that is of note, if the ROH Pure Wrestling Title changed hands in a non-pure match that would be of note, if a standard singles title changes hands because someone was put through a table or someone climbed a ladder rather than pinning the opponent, that is notable in my book. If it didn't change hands through the conventional method then there's likely a reason for it, if there's a reason there's a cause and if there's a cause it's noteworthy. Tony2Times (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Now I could understand that if such facts were mentioned. But just saying this was a ladder match doesn't help show reason. Three Way matches should only be mentioned if the champion wasnt pinned. Noting the champion wasn't pinned would be important.--WillC 20:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if the champion is still pinned it being a multiple person match changes the dynamic of the match. Styles pinning Angle at No Surrender doesn't factor in the fact that Sting and Matt Morgn were also beating up Angle. I don't think we should go crazy with notes but there is a notes section there and especially if we utilise {small| - which I think looks neater in a grid anyway - it doesn't clutter it up. Tony2Times (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the small template has begun to be removed because it makes it harder to read. I don't see why listing it was a 5 man match if it didn't effect the title's history anymore than a singles match.--WillC 03:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

1 I think is why the Small Template shouldn't be used. Afro 23:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that's a drag but I guess I can't argue with that. And I just explained why it being a five man match effects the title history. AJ didn't beat Kurt one on one, two other people (because it was essentially a four way) were wrestling Kurt and tiring him out too and Sting had a major influence in the match. If it's not a singles match then the champion was up against extra odds than normal seeing as the third wrestler doesn't just sit at ringside grateful for just being in the match. In a tables, ladder or TLC match it's notable because the champion wasn't pinned to lose the title which is what you'd assume if you weren't otherwise noted. Being as the list says what the previous champion is and then the next champion, that tacitly presents the reader with the two men involved in a singles match but in a multi-person match the match dynamics change, even more so if it's a corners match.

Also saying that some things are notable and others aren't is opening the flood gates. Who says what stipulations outside the normal parameters are notable and what aren't, this could start massive edit warring. Furthermore, having some match stipulations/details noted and others not tacitly implies that the ones not mentioned didn't have any stipulation or anything of note outside a regular singles match. Tony2Times (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some are notable and some aren't. Wrestling is scripted. The 5 man idea can only work in a real situation. Angle was going to be pinned by AJ with it being a 2 man, 3 man, 4 man, 5 man, or 50 man match. The situation of others involved isn't a problem because AJ pinned the champ. In a TLC I could understand, but no one ever states that the titles were removed. It is just stated that it was a TLC match. That doesn't show why it is significant.--WillC 01:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because wrestling is a work doesn't mean AJ would have won the match regardless of competitors. If he would have, why did they make it a five man match? Because that's part of the story and we recount the story of wrestling on here. Ric Flair was never going to lose his Career Threatening Match against MVP during the 2008 Rumble but we still mention it because that's part of the story. AJ had assistance in beating the champion. In a TLC match you win by removing the belts, not pinning the opponent; noting that it's a TLC match tacitly states that's how the belts were won. If we don't assume that part of common sense then we must list every way the championship was lost, be it pin or submission. Tony2Times (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

When did and encylopedia ever become about the story? It has always been about the facts. AJ pinned Angle, why is noting there were 3 others in the match important? That can be noted in the PPV article and the bios. If he didn't pin one of them to become champion, then it doesn't matter to the title history. The lists should be about the champions and championship, not who had a chance to become champion in the storyline. Just saying "This was a TLC match" still doesn't show significance. It doesn't show why that should be noted. It is trivia almost. Now saying "This was a TLC match in which Michaels removed the belts that hung above the ring" I would understand. But that is never noted. The lists are quick references.--WillC 02:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well as a for instance on our CM Punk FA it says in ROH Punk began a storyline where he teased the fans that he'd take the belt to WWE. He was never going to, it was a story, a story reported on an encyclopedia about the subject of a story just like any pro-wrestling championship belt is the subject of a story and thus is on an encyclopedia as a story. Later it says he relinquished his title when he was unable to compete due to an Orton punt. He wasn't, it was a story. These are the facts of the story just like the fact that most singles titles are contested for in standard rules singles matches and if it isn't that's of note because the subject of the storyline, which is also the subject of the article list, changed hands in an unusual manner and unusuality is notable. As I said before if it's a TLC match then of course the winner won it by retrieving the belt that hung above the ring. Why would we bother to put "This was a Table Match in which Sheamus put John Cena through a table", that's just a tautology seeing as it says to the left that Sheamus is the champion after the match, Cena is the champion before the match and it's a Table Match. Although I do think if it's a multiple person match and a non-champion is defeated for the title then it should be noted who was pinned. Tony2Times (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the inclusion of gimmick match types. I think it's definitely relevant, and leaving it out gives readers an incomplete summary of the facts. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

IP opinion pushing on Wrestlemania 23

Bullett and TJ are already aware of this IP, who is trying to push a trivial note about the attendance at Mania 23 in Yahoo Sports as a major controversy - when all David Meltzer did was mention in attendance (incorrectly) in passing in an article about Bobby Lashley's move into the UFC. I put a general warning on his page, but he's ignored it and done the revert again. I've restored it and labelled it vandalism and given him a Level 3 warning because I think this is now bad faith. He was invited here by Bullett, and then by me in the general warning - but he is yet to show up here. Would appreciate some help as Bullett isn't always around and I don't know what TJ is doing now. !! Justa Punk !! 10:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

There certainly seems to be an edit war brewing here. I've invited the IP here to discuss the matter. Mad Dog Dunstan (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Justa Punk is aware that WikProject Pro Wrestling has already come to a consensus on Meltzer as a source (he is included as "reliable" under Sources on WP:PW/SG. The source in question is Yahoo Sports; I'm unaware of any debate regarding its reliability as a citable Misplaced Pages reference.

Twice, Justa Punk deleted comments from my talk page and replaced them with warnings. The second deletion was in response to being warned about doing so, and included the incorrect summary "rules do not apply to IP talk pages."

Despite the tone above ("push a...major controversy"), the material in question is handled in the same bland manner as the intro for Wrestlemania 3, which includes a quick mention of that event's attendance discrepancy. Incidentally, the WM3 section also links back to a Meltzer-related reference.208.120.152.75 (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Justa Punk calls my edit "vandalism," and hopes 3bulletproof16 will turn up. He may not know that 3bulletproof16 already asked User:Wrestlinglover to "keep an eye on WrestleMania 23." But Wrestlinglover responded on 3b16's talk page, "As for the Mania 23 thing, I actually agree with the ip, sorry. That is why I haven't involved myself." I posted a note on Wrestlinglover's page two days ago asking him to consider mediating, but he hasn't responded-- quite sensibly, no doubt. I would appreciate any third party wisdom in this matter.208.120.152.75 (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Note - the Meltzer reference in the reliability list comes from Wrestling Newsletter, and NOT Yahoo Sports. That's a key difference because Meltzer owns Wrestling Newsletter. The reliability issue lies in Yahoo Sports and not Meltzer. A passing reference to attendance is NOT notable as a reference to be used in the manner 208 is trying to use it. The current version is more appropriate. This is what 208 doesn't get, and by wording it in his manner he is making it look like a major issue - when it's not. He speaks of the bland manner. Sorry - I disagree. The bland manner is contained in the current edit and it should stay that way.

Mentioning other users doesn't help, because there are many more users than just the ones he mentioned. I also call on more opinions - after all that's why I started this thread. The article concerned should stay as is until this is sorted out once and for all by a proper consensus on which version is appropriate and accurate. My view is that the current version is correct and of course 208 does not. !! Justa Punk !! 11:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is about the attendance number. The issue was discussed more than two years ago when Dave Meltzer first disputed the 80,103 number recorded by Ford Field and WWE. That same discussion then spilled over to the WrestleMania III talk page over the same issue. In the discussion over the WrestleMania 23 attendance number, it was concluded that Dave Meltzer's work failed to meet WP:RS due to falling under what would be classified as "dirtsheet" or rumor reporting material. The discussion was closed after noting the amount of Third Party sources (that's non-WWE and non-Wrestling News Sites) that reported the 80,103 attendance number. 12:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Meltzer is reliable in his own right. In fact, WP:MMA considers anything published by Meltzer as reliable. There is too much trying to determine what is fact instead of just writting what is held up by sources. I would say in the reception section just talk about the attendance problem. Don't list an attendance in the infobox or the lead. Explain WWE states this is their reported attendance on the event, while journalist Dave Meltzer published through Yahoo Sports that ??? was the attendance.--WillC 23:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Bulletproof, thanks for the two discussion links, which I've just read. However, neither ended in a vote, ruling, policy statement, etc. Could you point us to where the consensus conclusion is that declares Meltzer's work invalid under WP:RS? And in light of such a conclusion, why does WP:PW currently list Meltzer as a reliable source? Also, why is the Wrestlemania 3 approach unsuitable for WrestleMania 23?

Justa Punk, the Yahoo Sports ref was chosen because it's a prominent, reliable online news source. There are a huge amount of other "passing reference" mentions being used and accepted as sources on Misplaced Pages. (You won't find many full articles about the year someone was born, for instance.) As a compromise, I would be happy to use text from the Wrestling Observer newsletter as the source rather than Yahoo Sports, since that is what you say meets the RS standard. Incidentally, while we're discussing this, it's hard to read good faith into your December 20 post on 3bulletproof16's talk page ("whoever catches him first"), or your post on my talk page that the "official" warning "stands."

BTW, I wasn't citing Wrestlinglover's talk page comment as the one-man end word on the subject-- it was merely to illustrate that the edit was patently not "vandalism," and that I hadn't been ignoring the dispute or rejecting consensus. I hope that uninvolved editors will review both the content of the edit, and the tone of the reaction.208.120.152.75 (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussions aren't ended with votes (WP:NOTDEMOCRACY) to come to a close. The discussion ended when the opposition to the 80,103 number was referred to the Third Party sources that recorded 80,103. Will, as for your views on Meltzer, that is subject for another discussion. For now, per WP:RS (3rd party sources) and consequently WP:NPOV, and until the consensus changes, 80,103 will be recorded in the article. 00:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

3bullet: No, in light of your previously posted comments on WrestleMania 23 ("not necessary TJ. written by Meltzer and that alone fails WP:V"; "this says bye bye to Dave Meltzer"; "Its not about Yahoo. its about Meltzer"), it's very much a subject for THIS discussion.

Despite the certainty of your reply, you did not address the direct questions posed to you:

• If, as you claim, Meltzer fails to satisfy WP:RS and WP:NPOV, why does this talk page's project, WP:PW, currently list Meltzer as a reliable source?
• And again, why is the Wrestlemania 3 approach unsuitable for use for Wrestlemania 23?

The WM23 discussion you linked to doesn't appear to have the clearcut outcome you describe. But even if we accept your interpretation of that debate, a project guideline offered in December 2009 carries more community weight than an equivocal talk page discussion from April 2007. And so, I intend to replace the Yahoo Sports source with a direct Wrestling Observer Newsletter ref, as per current WP:PW guidelines, as well as the preference Justa Punk expressed with his previous comment.208.120.152.75 (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: WrestleMania III had different attendance numbers reported by multiple sources, many of which note that the figures are debatable...which is why I believe it is safe to note the different figures in the article. Can this be said for WrestleMania 23? If multiple sources give the different number, then it would be okay to mention it IMO, otherwise it just looks like Meltzer reported wrong information (which happens to even the most credible sources sometimes), and it shouldn't be mentioned. Nikki♥311 21:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

208, unless you can prove that there is a major issue with the attendance, you can't change a thing. Consensus supercedes project policy, and besides - the policy you are claiming assumes that a noted "reliable source" is always right, and as Nikki rightly said this is not the case. Multiple sources (as indicated in the discussion Bullet linked) agreed with the WWE figure AND the Ford Field figure. That alone destroys your claim no matter what policies you quote.

Reality check - Meltzer got this wrong, so it should not be added. For the record, I think his scoop about Bret Hart is BS (as an example) but that's just my opinion based on his refusal to appear at Wrestlemania when he went into the Hall of Fame because of the presence of Shawn Michaels. Just because someone is listed as an RS doesn't mean every word they utter is gospel. !! Justa Punk !! 22:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Nikki-- Meltzer didn't make an inadvertant reporting error in this case. He published analysis of WWE's figures that indicated the publicized attendance total was inflated, and has since returned to it. This isn't to say that his data is right or wrong, but it's not a mistake. It's worth repeating that the 'lower attendance' sourcing currently being used on Wrestlemania 3 goes back to Meltzer's claim for that event.

Justa-- So, Meltzer is a reliable source only until he publishes something you disagree with? Interesting argument. You are incorrect on a significant point. The edit does not assume or assert that Meltzer is right, let alone "always right." Nor does the policy. Again, here's the first sentence of WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." What about this core content policy is unclear to you?208.120.152.75 (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What about the fact that he IS wrong in this case - as proven in the April 2007 discussion that Bullet pointed to - is unclear to YOU? The verifiability battle is won by WWE and Ford Field because that figure has WAY more support that Meltzer's. Through reliable sources as well. !! Justa Punk !! 07:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Justa is right since Wrestlemania 23 was a WWE event what WWE states as the attendance is probably right I mean what reason do they have to lie? Also since it was a WWE event exactly as Justa says WWE is more reliable in THIS case (i'm not saying all cases) than Meltzer.--Curtis23 (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In the case of reporting attendance, WWE has it in their own self-interest to inflate their numbers. However, as their numbers have been corroborated by another source there is no reason to doubt them for this instance. HAZardousMATT 15:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't we just put in something about Dave Meltzer disputing the figure? it can't be that hard can it to just slot in something so simple, Meltzer is somewhat a reputable source and if he is disputing it we don't necessarily have to say its wrong or right just that he disputes it. Afro (Not a Talk Page) 15:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why we should they didn't in Wrestlemania 3 when there was a dispute.--Curtis23 (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

What if we compromise by writing the WWE/Ford Field figure in the prose and infobox, but adding a footnote that says something along the lines of "Dave Meltzer, however, disputes this claim, reporting that the attendance was actually blah blah etc etc."? Nikki♥311 21:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sentences 3 and 4 from the Misplaced Pages intro to Wrestlemania 3: "The event is particularly notable for the reported attendance of 93,173, the largest recorded attendance for a live indoor sporting event in North America. Though the attendance number is subject to dispute, the event is considered to be the pinnacle of the 1980s wrestling boom." 208.120.152.75 (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I know, but that's because other sources have reported that there was a dispute for WM3 (even if that can be traced back to Meltzer). The reason it shouldn't be added to the prose of WM23 article is because Meltzer is currently the ONLY one reporting a dispute. If you can show me some links that prove differently, my mind can be changed. Nikki♥311 21:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Dave Meltzer the only person reporting this because I know that a lot of people are reoprting the figure WWE said.--Curtis23 (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes he is, Curtis - and for everyone's benefit, the dispute is already mentioned in the Mania 23 article. 208 is trying to expand upon it, when there's no need. !! Justa Punk !! 21:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have with even just mentioning Meltzer's number is that he is the only source that disputes the 80,103 number. The biggest difference between the WrestleMania III dispute and this particular one is that there were multiple sources that cited conflicting numbers for WrestleMania III, which resulted in a compromise on the event's Wiki article noting that in fact, the number is disputed. Here (WrestleMania 23) its just one guy disputing millions of other sources... Noting it just doesn't seem warranted. 02:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY is an absolute principle, but a simple one. Has the material already been published? Yes. Is Meltzer accepted as a reliable source? Yes. Does the edit assert that Meltzer is correct, or that WWE is wrong? No.

The dispute is not already mentioned in the Mania 23 article.

Nikki-- some other sources claim the lower attendance figure. Here are a few of them, and the relevant text within.

http://www.thehistoryofwwe.com/07.htm

"WrestleMania 23 - Detroit, MI - Ford Field - April 1, 2007 (74,687; 68,500 paid; announced at 80,103; sell out; new attendance record)"

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:KZ0U7nBx7WIJ:www.prowrestlinghistory.com/supercards/eventinfo.xls+74687+wrestlemania+nbc&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

"Wrestling Crowds of 25,000 and Greater -- #8 WWE; Ford Field; 04/01/07; 74,687; $5,380,000; Detroit, MI USA; HBK vs. Cena; Batista vs. Undertaker; Trump vs. Vince hair"

http://www.wrestling101.com/101/article/AdamS/1038/

"Following the excellent Royal Rumble and decent No Way Out, WWE presented WrestleMania XXIII, their biggest show of 2007 in front of a billed attendance of 80,103 (although apparently the real figure was 74,687… impressive enough in it’s own right) at Detroit’s Ford Field."

The print version of the Wrestling Observer published an analysis in June 2007, using WWE's public business finances for April 2007. A shorter account of the same discrepancy was published in the Observer two weeks ago.

Those, and the additional sources that cite the smaller number are no doubt getting their information from the Observer, perhaps indirectly. But all of the sources that cite the larger number have gotten it from WWE's WM23 press release-- again, sometimes indirectly. There is no direct "all-time Ford Field record" citation from Ford Field itself. 208.120.152.75 (talk) 04:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Its no longer mentioned in the article because I removed the note. The two main problems with your argument...

1. all of the links you provided aren't reliable sources for the matter.
2. your entire argument is based around your opinion that Meltzer is right and that WWE and the thousands of other news orgs are wrong...

You're not making any progress for your side of the argument. 05:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

To repeat (and repeat), the edit absolutely does NOT claim that Meltzer is right, and that WWE is wrong. How many more times will that misrepresentation need to be corrected?

The two main problems with your rebuttal are...

1. All of the links provided were for this discussion only, as a response to Nikki's direct request. They needn't be used at all in the WM23 article. A single ref verifying Meltzer's alternate claim will more than satisfy Misplaced Pages's RS standard.
2. Second, in mischaracterizing what you say is my "entire argument," you didn't address a central issue: "the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." Whether Meltzer's analysis is correct is not the criteria, according to immutable Misplaced Pages policy. I have no idea, none at all, whether Meltzer's numbers are correct. But I do know that Meltzer has been deemed a credible analyst by consensus, and I do know that Meltzer's earlier views on the WM3 attendance are considered notable.

I understand that you are unhappy with using the Wrestling Observer as a reliable source, but that ship has sailed. This site's policy and guidelines carry slightly more weight than either of our personal opinions. 208.120.152.75 (talk) 06:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I mean literally, its Meltzer's word against, The Seattle Times, ESPN , The New York Times, Sports Illustrated, The Detroit News, The Sun, some international for yah, PrimeraHora , IndianTV, ...LiveDesign, The New York Daily News, MSNBC, FOX News, MLB.com... I mean it's not even funny... 05:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you realize that a half dozen of your links are the same AP wire service article? Or that others include phraseology from WWE's press release?

The WM3 dispute has gained more traction for several reasons, with the 20 years' headstart being just one of them. For one, the discrepancy between the two claims is much larger for Wrestlemania 3: approximately 18% of the announced total, as compared to less than 7%. Also, the Wrestlemania 3 claim is historically significant ("the largest indoor attendance in North American sports history") as opposed to negligible {"the all-time attendance for a particular arena that opened 5 years beforehand"). And most obviously, the attendance dispute did not exist at the time of WM23, and those publications have had little reason to write about WM23 since. It would have required a time machine to mention the dispute in the links you provided.208.120.152.75 (talk) 06:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Pressing the last point, the dates for those articles are, in order, April 5, April 1, April 23, April 1, April 4, April 2, April 2, April 2, April 3, April 2, April 23, April 2, April 3, April 2, and April 2 (all 2007). Meltzer first wrote about the attendance dispute that June. 208.120.152.75 (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It think we should end this the consensus is not to add what Dave Meltzer said.--Curtis23 (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Closed? 00:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Closed IMO, Bullet. Suggest we watch WrestleMania 23 and revert on sight any further attempts by 208 to violate WP:NPOV by pushing that view of Meltzer's that is outnumbered by miles. I call that tetentious (sp?) editing as well. IMO if 208 does it again in the face of this evidence, he is editing in bad faith and has to be considered a vandal. !! Justa Punk !! 01:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need to go that far. It's not a string of IPs constantly adding the text. We just need to keep an eye on it. If the situation escalates, additional measures will be taken. For now, the discussion is closed. 03:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's lovely that you've reached consensus with yourselves. Since you've repeatedly refused to address "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true", sure, why not skip WP:CONSENSUS as well?

• "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right."
• "Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality and verifiability in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on."
• "An option that is narrowly preferred is almost never consensus."
• "A consensus by a small group of editors cannot override policies and guidelines that have been agreed to by a wider range of editors."
• "When in doubt, defer to WP:policies and guidelines. These reflect the consensus of a wide range of editors."

And a freebie from WP:VAN: "edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW"

See you after the holidays. 208.120.152.75 (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

*shakes head* Your italicised quote has been addressed. It has been verified by multiple reliable sources that the 80K crowd figure is correct. That is verifiability at work. And if anyone is preferring a narrow option, it's you - relying wholly on Meltzer's opinion and ignoring the multiple contrary sources. That's it. Case closed. !! Justa Punk !! 07:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly it's like me with Zack Ryder everybody against 1 doesn't get you what you want.--Curtis23 (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The IP user makes a good case. The question is whether or not it is verifiable that there is a dispute over the attendance figure. The dispute is verified by Meltzer's statement, which means that Misplaced Pages policy supports the addition of the material. It doesn't matter which attendance figure is correct, since Misplaced Pages is about a balanced presentation of information supported by reliable sources. I see no problem with a statement like "Most sources give the attendance fugure as (whatever WWE's number is); Dave Meltzer, editor of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter disputes this number, however, stating that the true attendance was (whatever Meltzer's number is)." Stick with WWE's number in the infobox, but include all reliably sourced information (both sides) in the prose. Problem solved, in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what I was trying to get off above. I agree with Gary.--WillC 22:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

When I tried suggesting something similar to the IP, they seemed opposed to any wording that made it clear that Meltzer is claiming that WWE and Ford Field are wrong (the IP basically wants the article to say that Meltzer's number is the correct number). TJ Spyke 22:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Stating that Meltzer's number is correct would go against the verifiability policy. There are two versions. Both can be attributed to reliable sources, but it seems clear that Meltzer is claiming that WWE is wrong. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

So GFC what your saying is any source the reliable that says something about a certain things has to be in an article. So if Dave Meltzer said that the attendance number is 24 would we have to put that in the article?--Curtis23 (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't deserve a response. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

lol. I think GCF's wording in neutral enough to work, and since there really is no way to verify a correct number...that might be the solution to end this argument. Nikki♥311 01:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

How do we know he didn't pull that number out of the water?--Curtis23 (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Regardless of whether or not Meltzer's number is accurate, he is a reliable source. As such, including information from his in a neutral manner meets Misplaced Pages's standard for verifiability. It is not Misplaced Pages's place to determine the correct figure any more than it is Misplaced Pages's place to solve the JFK assassination. We just report which reliable sources said what and leave the decision making up to the reader. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of reliable sources agree with the figure given by WWE and Ford Field. This is the reason why Meltzer's figure isn't being used. Just because he is also regarded as a reliable source as well does not mean he should be noticed in the face of the number of other reliable sources. Remember that 208 wanted to put Meltzer's number on a pedastal. Because Meltzer is the ONLY person to claim that the figure is incorrect and without verifiable back up, his figure in this instance alone has to be considered unreliable. It's the weight of verifiable evidence against him that kills this whole discussion outright. It's not a slight on Meltzer's reliability in general. Usually he's pretty good. He just blew it this time. Nobody's perfect. !! Justa Punk !! 12:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You're still trying to solve the JFK assassination. Misplaced Pages reports what is verifiable. In this case, that would be the fact that there are two different attendance numbers stated by reliable sources. It doesn't matter if the IP editor wanted to give preference to Meltzer's number. That's just not going to happen. Forget about that suggestion. Remember, however, that ignoring Meltzer's number altogether is also a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Meltzer's claim is NOT verifiable. There is a difference. Just because he's listed as a reliable source doesn't mean he passes WP:V in this instance. Show me a reliable source that backs Meltzer up. Until then - the claim fails WP:V purely because of the sheer number of reliable sources that agree with WWE and Ford Field. And the lack of coverage of the "controversy" (which as I understand it is what the difference is between this and Wrestlemania 3). So - ergo - it gets ignored, and rightly so under WP policy. !! Justa Punk !! 21:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand WP:V. Meltzer's statement is verified by Meltzer's statement. It cannot be denied that a reliable source states that the attendance figure is different from the one given by WWE. That is all that should be stated—that a reliable source reports a different attendance figure. Not that Meltzer is correct, because this has absolutely nothing to do with truth. You have verifiability and truth mixed up, which is a serious misreading of Misplaced Pages policy. Perhaps the phrasing taken directly from the policy page will help clear things up: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." - WP:V. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

YOU don't understand WP:V from the point of view of number of reliable sources. Ever heard of 1 against 100 proverbially speaking? When 100 reliable sources say one thing, only a fool would add the 1 that goes against it. This is to do with a controversy over the figure - which there isn't. THAT is what is not verifiable. If you don't get that..... !! Justa Punk !! 10:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Words right out of my mouth.--Curtis23 (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be at an impasse. Policy supports my position, but JustaPunk is apparently unwilling to even read the policy before claiming that it supports his. For some reason, he believes that the number of sources is relevant to inclusion or exclusion. Since the number of sources (many of which are the same source, but that's another issue altogether) shows that the majority is on the side of the higher number, it should be indicated in the article that the majority of the sources support the higher number. Since a reliable source gives a different number, though, it should also be indicated that a different figure exists. JustaPunk is unwilling or unable to understand this, so we apparently need to waste time by seeking some sort of dispute resolution. Suggestions for how to proceed? RfC? Personally, I think RfC is also a waste of time, because it ends up with the same people arguing the same points, with only one or two other editors giving opinions but getting lost in the shuffle. Something needs to be done, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Remember my question about if a "reliable source" gives a number that couldn't be right at all would we have to put it in the article. You didn't give an answer because it would prove mine and punk's side is correct.--Curtis23 (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Your question was ridiculous. A reliable source wouldn't give a stupid attendance figure. People would stop reading Meltzer's work if he made up stuff that was obviously incorrect. He is considered a reliable source because of a long track record of investigating information before reporting it. The only possible way that you and JustaPunk could be considered correct is if Misplaced Pages suddenly did away with WP:V, WP:AGF, WP:VANDAL, WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, and WP:NPA. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Almost all websites that reported the attendance as 80,103. Meltzer is the only big (and probably the only) source to report the lower figure.--Curtis23 (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Antiochus IV was the Greek ruler during the Maccabeean rebellion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy holidays, everyone.

For those people with an interest in Misplaced Pages policy, WP:TPG says "Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context." WP:TPG calls such misrepresentation "unacceptable," and says that repeated violations can lead to sanction.

From the original post by me on the WM23 talk page two weeks ago: "...as there are generally accepted sources for both numbers, they should both be included in a NPOV way (e.g. WWE claims the higher number, other sources cite the lower)."

Me again, from this discussion we're reading right now: "The edit does not assume or assert that Meltzer is right, let alone "always right." Nor does the policy."

Me yet again, from this discussion page: "To repeat (and repeat), the edit absolutely does NOT claim that Meltzer is right, and that WWE is wrong. How many more times will that misrepresentation need to be corrected? ...Whether Meltzer's analysis is correct is not the criteria, according to immutable Misplaced Pages policy. I have no idea, none at all, whether Meltzer's numbers are correct."

Subsequent responses, from TJ Spyke and Justa Punk:

TJ Spyke: "When I tried suggesting something similar to the IP, they seemed opposed to any wording that made it clear that Meltzer is claiming that WWE and Ford Field are wrong (the IP basically wants the article to say that Meltzer's number is the correct number).

Justa Punk: "Remember that 208 wanted to put Meltzer's number on a pedastal."

Finally, here's the wording of the edit: "However, other sources including Yahoo Sports claimed the attendance figure was 74,687." 208.120.153.110 (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WHAT other sources? This is the point. Meltzer is the ONLY reliable source giving this number. Who else is doing it? Every other reliable source says that WWE and Ford Field'd figure is right. This comes to a blatant number situation. When you have one source ONLY claiming a number - without back up - the remaining sources take precedence. Especially in such numbers (I think Bullet gave something like 20 sources that all fulfilled WP:RS - and I don't even include WWE and Ford Field in that count). I note that GCF is calling on me to read policy. I think he's the one who needs to read it, but then that goes back to him being his usual stubborn self. We've clashed before, and this is no different.

So - either provide reliable sources that back Meltzer, or this discussion is clearly over per WP policy. !! Justa Punk !! 21:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Need a policy-based decision for WrestleMania 23 - we'll see if anyone there can help. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

They suggested seeking help elsewhere, so I've posted a question at WT:V, since the big problem is different interpretations of the policy on verifiability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Make that WP:RSN. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents - the problem isn't different interpretations of WP:V, it's not seeing WP:V alongside WP:NPOV. That numerous sources say the attendance was 80,103 is verifiable. That Meltzer lists a different figure is also verifiable. WP:V does not allow for one statement to be more verifiale than another. You now have to decide if Meltzer's view is significant enough to include. WP:UNDUE (part of WP:NPOV) says -

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority."

I don't know how many sources claim 80,103 as the crowd figure, or if that number is significant enough to exclude Meltzer's claim. Personally, I don't see any harm in including Meltzer's figure as long as it is given appropriate weight. Given that the attendance figure is a fairly trivial detail anyway, I would probably only include Meltzer's number in a footnote.

As this is an NPOV issue, you could try WP:NPOVN if you can't agree. --hippo43 (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Bullet gave the sources that contradicted Meltzer further up, Hippo - and I don't think that was all of them either. The Seattle Times, ESPN , The New York Times, Sports Illustrated, The Detroit News, The Sun, PrimeraHora , IndianTV, ...LiveDesign, The New York Daily News, MSNBC, FOX News, MLB.com.

I read what was at WP:RSN, and actually I like the idea of a footnote. As was said, this is about weight - which was my point as well. The difference was I was wiping it out altogether, because I disagree that Meltzer's figure is verified (WP:RS notwithstanding) because he has no verifiable sources to back him up. So..... !! Justa Punk !! 11:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that we agree to edit WrestleMania 23 to add a footnote noting Meltzer's figure dispute. That way the balance of reliable sources is held to. What say we all? !! Justa Punk !! 11:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As I stated above, I can live with that (I don't like including the claim at all, but as long as it is made clear that it is just Meltzer's claim and not factual I can accept it). TJ Spyke 16:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I support the footnote without specifying the claim as non-factual. How about instead of saying it's not factual we say it's an unsubstantiated claim? HAZardousMATT 17:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The two sides can be given appropriate weight by including WWE's number in the prose and Meltzer's in a footnote. Using words like "not factual" or "unsubstantiated" would violate WP:NPOV, however. What about stating in the prose that "The majority of sources give the event's attendance as xx,xxx" with a footnote stating "Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter reports the figure as xx,xxx."? That way, the number found in the majority of sources is given more weight in the article, and Meltzer's in relegated to a footnote but presented in a neutral manner. Of course, the phrasing for the 80,103 number can be different from how I presented it above (the footnote could simply be placed at the end of the sentence that is currently in the article ("The all-time attendance record at Ford Field of 80,103..."). GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggested "unsubstantiated" 1) because I personally don't view it as a non-neutral word, and 2) because I found it to be an accurate description of Meltzer's claim as no other source has confirmed it. However if many are satisfied with GCF's above suggestion I won't argue for the inclusion of "unsubstantiated". HAZardousMATT 17:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Matt about "unsubstantiated". That word basically just means "without evidence". Melzter offers no proof of his claim, so his number is unsubstantiated. TJ Spyke 18:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

In order for it to be considered "with evidence", according to the project's guidelines, it would have to be claimed by at least one reliable source. That source is Meltzer. Let's just add a footnote without any of these point-of-view words and move on with our lives. This time would be much better spent contributing to the project's stub reduction drive (only 3 days left to expand 21 more stub-class articles!). GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to go with just the footnote. Now that I think about it "unsubstantiated" may have been suited for a less-reliable source in general. HAZardousMATT 19:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The footnote is fine (Like TJ I wouldn't like it at all) just as long as it doesn't have a spot right in the introduction.--Curtis23 (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd support a footnote, too. In fact, I suggested that seven days ago... ;) Nikki♥311 01:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts? 01:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we can all live with that. HAZardousMATT 01:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Should this article also be used? The Detroit Free Press reported 75,736 already sold days before the event took place. The number is greater than the final number tallied by Meltzer of 74,687. 01:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As it stands now, I don't love it, and I don't hate it. Let's leave it alone and get back to the final two days of the stub reduction drive. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Good edit, Bullet, and well placed as well. Looks like we are all in agreement - so we have a consensus to point to if 208 wants to try and push his line again. !! Justa Punk !! 03:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As always, Justa's posts define the concept of good faith. It's amazing how far this discussion has come since "case closed."

I've deleted the MLB ref in the infobox-- because that article never cites an exact number, it can't be used for that purpose. I replaced the Seattle Times link with the NBC Sports one, because the wire service text is identical for both links and NBC is presumably higher-profile. I replaced the Yahoo Sports link with the more direct Observer link, which also eliminates the "in an unrelated..." commentary. For the Meltzer sentence, I put the majority of the sources and their refs ahead of Meltzer, since they came first chronologically. I included a brief NPOV description of his methodology, since that was a concern in the above discussion, while making it clear that his version remains outnumbered. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I also got rid of the ugly run-on sentence in the intro, which had nothing to do with any of this but kept getting reverted anyway. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"based on his own independent analysis of official WWE business figures" That statement alone is an unverifiable claim. The way you've worded the note clearly shows the author's (Your) point of view, a bias for Meltzer. 04:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Seattle Times article and NBC Sports article may contain similar text but it is clear that one is written by the Seattle Times reporter while the other is taken from the Associated Press, thus making the two sources unique and perfectly acceptable. The Yahoo! Sports article written by Meltzer was about Bobby Lashley's move to MMA and not about the subject that is being cited (the attendance number), thus making "in an unrelated article" entirely accurate. The source you provided directly from the Meltzer's Newsletter wasn't a link at all and didn't even contain a direct quote from the supposed article. 05:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You want a direct quote? Here's the June 2007 text from the Observer:

"WWE publicly claims that 80,103 fans were in attendance at WrestleMania 23 at Ford Field. They claimed this number so that they could claim it as being a Ford Field record. As it turns out, 80,103 isn't the real figure. The show actually drew 74,687 total fans. And the real paid attendance was 66,670 fans. WWE's corporate website released business figures for the month of April and listed seven domestic shows for the month, averaging 16,900 per event as paid attendance. The same chart notes that if you take away WrestleMania from skewing the average, you have 8,605 fans as the average for the other six shows. Doing the simple math, you come up with 66,670 fans in attendance at WrestleMania. The 74,687 figure comes from WWE releasing the record merchandise numbers along with the per caps (how much the average fan spent on merch at Mania). That number comes out to be 74,687 real people who were able to buy merchandise."

Would you like a December 2009 quote instead?

"WWE made up a number for WrestleMania 23 at Ford Field. As to why they did so, it was to be able to claim a building attendance record so they find the old record, and give a number that is several thousand above that and that nobody could actually get into the stadium, and that way they can claim the all-time record that isn't going to be broken. Since that time, in Ford Field newspaper stories, the Detroit media has pretty much accepted the Mania 80,000 figure as a work and when stories list the biggest crowd in the arena, it's a college basketball crowd that they use."

Do you really want Meltzer's direct quotes in the article text, or footnoted, or as reference text, or anywhere else? Doesn't "However, based on his own independent analysis of official WWE business figures..." summarize it in a MUCH less provocative way, while making it clear that it's just one person's analysis?

Meanwhile, the "despite the majority of sources.." phraseology creates a new POV problem, because it implies a nonexistent "X vs. Y" faceoff. Meltzer was NOT reacting to the immediate coverage of WM23, which merely repeated WWE's press release information. Meltzer didn't dispute the WWE claim until subsequent data emerged and he got out his calculator.

The revised text explains where Meltzer's alternate total came from, without making the smallest suggestion that it's correct. In fact, it directly addresses the concerns and skepticism that you (and other editors) have previously expressed about the sources of Meltzer's information-- both in the discussion on this page, as well as the 2007 one you linked above.

Here's the full text: "However, based on his own independent analysis of official WWE business figures, the Wrestling Observer's Dave Meltzer has reported a lesser attendance figure of 74,687." Could you please quote the biased part? 208.120.153.110 (talk) 05:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... you're not getting the point. "based on his own independent analysis of official WWE business figures" is unvarifiable. 05:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"WWE made up a number for WrestleMania 23 at Ford Field. As to why they did so, it was to be able to claim a building attendance record so they find the old record, and give a number that is several thousand above that and that nobody could actually get into the stadium, and that way they can claim the all-time record that isn't going to be broken. Since that time, in Ford Field newspaper stories, the Detroit media has pretty much accepted the Mania 80,000 figure as a work and when stories list the biggest crowd in the arena, it's a college basketball crowd that they use." ... Now you're just being a troll... 05:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The entire dispute is so trivial it deserves no more than a simple mention. "Dave Meltzer noted in an unrelated Yahoo! Sports article an attendance figure of 74,687 despite the majority of sources reporting the 80,103 attendance record at Ford Field." This note establishes two things. 1) Dave Meltzer reports a different number than other sources. 2) His number was reported After the other sources reported their number. Isn't that what you've been fighting about this entire time? We'll do this... I'll split it into two sentences. 05:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

3bulletproof wrote:

"The source you provided directly from the Meltzer's Newsletter wasn't a link at all and didn't even contain a direct quote from the supposed article."

This is absurd. YOU want direct quotes from the Observer, I give them to you, and then you call me a "troll"? You guys need to knock this name-calling off.

The 2007 Observer quote explains the methodology behind Meltzer's claim. That's how he calculated it. That's what he published. HOW is that unverifiable?

Whenever you're done fake-sighing, I'd still like to see you follow up "The way you've worded the note clearly shows the author's (Your) point of view, a bias for Meltzer" by citing the precise wording that shows the bias. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(1) This has gotten really stupid. (2) 208 is correct. The quotations have been given as evidence. (3) The phrasing that was added (after people had pretty much agreed to a neutral footnote) was definitely not neutral. (4) That run-on sentence is terrible. (5) End this dispute and expand stub-class articles instead. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are you so obsessed with that?--Curtis23 (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

With what? Expanding articles instead of spending time bickering over phrasing issues? I would hope that would be self-explanatory. Add to that the fact that the project set a goal of getting the percentage of stub-class articles below 10% by December 31 and that there are still 16 or 17 articles to go, and you should be able to see what would be of greater benefit to the project and the encyclopedia. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Though the attendance was reported to be 80,103, a Ford Field record, Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter contested the claim, reporting an attendance figure of 74,687.

How's that? Work for everyone? Can we move on now? HAZardousMATT 17:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the phrasing. I think it would be important to include multiple references for the 80,103 figure to demonstrate that the number has been reported by several reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I just re-worked what was already in the article. I didn't have time to edit or re-arrange any of the sources. I felt once we had decided on the copy the sources would be easy to tack on. Hopefully we can all agree on this and we can leave this issue in 2009. HAZardousMATT 18:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

His "own independant analysis" may need to be taken out because he probably had help from a few other people.--Curtis23 (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't include "own independant(sic) analysis" in my proposal above. HAZardousMATT 20:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. It's opinion and has no business there. !! Justa Punk !! 23:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Not so. Calling it "opinion" is as accurate as your previous estimations of "consensus" and "vandalism." Here's the relevant excerpt from the Observer: "WWE's corporate website released business figures for the month of April and listed seven domestic shows for the month, averaging 16,900 per event as paid attendance. The same chart notes that if you take away WrestleMania from skewing the average, you have 8,605 fans as the average for the other six shows. Doing the simple math, you come up with 66,670 fans in attendance at WrestleMania. The 74,687 figure comes from WWE releasing the record merchandise numbers along with the per caps (how much the average fan spent on merch at Mania). That number comes out to be 74,687 real people who were able to buy merchandise."

"Based on his own independent analysis" is an objective, concise summary of the above process. You're the second person to call it "opinion," so it must be a very simple matter to explain precisely where and how the description fails the NPOV standard.

The wording should satisfy both sides. It makes it clear that he didn't just pull a randomly lower number out of the clouds-- but just as importantly, it verifies that it's Meltzer's personal research, rather than an official audit. Also, the edit acknowledges the preceding suspicions about Meltzer's methods and/or sources; most recently, Curtis just speculated about whether Meltzer might have "had help."

You can't say "The number's unverifiable, how do we know where the heck Meltzer got his cockamamie math?" and then say that addressing the existence of the full explanation of Meltzer's cockamamie math equals bias. We can and will work over the phraseology to everyone's satisfaction, of course. But the context of the dispute needs to be referred to, in as few words as possible. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, all I said is he might have had help you don't have to make a 4 paragraph argument about it.--Curtis23 (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"Based on his own independent analysis" is an objective, concise summary of the above process. By who? That's the point. No one has said that - except YOU. That's an instant opinion right there. Do we have to go to the dictionary to explain the definition? The context of the dispute is covered to the satisfaction of WP:RSN. To add more detail would be to give it too much weight. !! Justa Punk !! 13:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this a serious reply? "By who?" Only by Dave Meltzer himself. Meltzer's blow by blow description of his own arithmetic is part of the very Observer text that's being mentioned and cited. It's already been posted twice on this talk page.

Another option is to include the verbatim Observer text, but as part of the ref instead of the article itself. The quote would appear in the smaller font at the bottom of the page, down in what's currently Reference #41. That approach has been used in many other Misplaced Pages articles. Will that put an end to this? I've made the edit to demonstrate what it looks like. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.153.110 (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see what's wrong with saying: "Though the attendance was reported to be 80,103, a Ford Field record, Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter contested the claim, reporting an attendance figure of 74,687." It's simple, it's effective, and it's accurate. HAZardousMATT 22:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If we're keeping the Observer text in the -ref- at the bottom of the page, I agree. MATT's suggested wording works. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, why is it so important to have the text listed in the reference? The link is there, can't the reader click on the reference and access the material just like they would on any other reference? HAZardousMATT 01:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not, Matt, and Bullet removed it. If he hadn't I would have. If people want more information, they just go to the source and read for themselves. Adding it here - even within the reference - is actually too close to WP:COPYVIO for my liking. The quote that 208 wanted to add stays off. Under WP:RSN the current situation as I type this is right. It's balanced and gives appropriate weight to the sources. !! Justa Punk !! 03:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Another day, another pretext. Meltzer's methodology needs to be addressed, either by the wording or by the reference. Although there are a ton of Misplaced Pages articles that use text-in-ref-- e.g. Abraham Lincoln; Philosophy; The Godfather; and many many more-- I would also prefer to keep it in the article. But wiping out the fundamental basis of the claim is not an option. Omission can also go against WP:NPOV.

MATT-- the reader can't access the bare reference with a click because it's a print source. The edit now relies heavily on your wording, with an added mention of WWE's monthly data. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 12:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. A source is a source. Adding stuff like that adds weight against WP:RSN. The current edit per my last edit is the correct weight and makes appropriate mention of the claim per WP:NPOV. To add to it goes against both these policies. The article is balanced on this issue, and should be left alone. !! Justa Punk !! 03:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Misplaced Pages on "other aspects of reliable sources and undue weight":

• "Opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work should be cited and attributed to their authors in the text."
• "Declaration of sources — A source which is explicit about the data from which it derives its conclusions is more reliable than one which does not, ideally a source should describe the collection process and analysis method."

The "collection process and analysis method" has to be acknowledged in the article, either by summary, by direct quotation, or excerpted within the reference. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious that neither side, that is you and everyone else, will come to an agreement, even on something as simple as wording. A result of your stubbornness and refusing to be flexible. This has dragged on longer than it needed to. You will not push this project any further. That is all. 05:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Let me make some quotes 1 vs. 100 and consensus is the answer (my quote). Exactly as the point Bullet is trying to make. We've made a consensus just leave it as it is this discussion is over. P.S. if 208 talks on here again just ignore it.--Curtis23 (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Stub reduction drive update

For the first time since the project decided to focus on reducing the number of stub articles in 2007, the percentage has fallen below 11%. It's currently at 10.95%, which is down more than a full percentage point in the past 10 days. There are still 8 days left to meet the project's goal of ending the year below 10%. Any help is appreciated—even one or two articles would be wonderful. Thanks to everyone who has been helping out. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: 10.89% GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What is it now?--Curtis23 (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

10.33% GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we still do it today or is it over?--Curtis23 (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's still 2009, and will be for 26 hours (in the the Eastern US)/21 hours (GMT). I

Where do we go to find out these percentages?--Curtis23 (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Simple, look up the number of stub-class articles at Category:Stub-Class Professional wrestling articles, add in the articles from Category:Future-Class Professional wrestling articles, then divide by the total number of wrestling articles at Category:Professional wrestling articles by quality. 518 articles are stubs or future class and there are 5,000 total wrestling articles. 518/5,000= 0.1033 (10.33%). TJ Spyke 03:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Update= 10.3--Curtis23 (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

10.26--Curtis23 (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

How many more article until we hit 9.99?--Curtis23 (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

13 more articles will bring it down to 9.98% (12 will make it 10%). TJ Spyke 03:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

10 article to get below 10%. We're currently at 10.18%.--Curtis23 (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Remember, though, that the main focus is to expand articles, not get rid of them just to get the numbers down. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, i'm not sure if you are really helping. Technically you are reducing the number of stubs, but only because you are going around and redirecting articles (like redirecting 3 different Fire Pro Wrestling articles into the main article, or redirecting Earl McCready to Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame#1996 inductees). The goal is to reduce the number of stubs by expanding improving the articles and expanding them, not just redirecting them. TJ Spyke 21:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of those articles really don't have information to add.--Curtis23 (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The movie should have plot and reception information added, McCready has several reliable sources (, , , , , etc.), and Kimura has a biography at and has won multiple titles: , , and (the last one being a title in the men's division). GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the 11 Fire Pro Wrestling articles that were redirected, but the ones I saw all had at least a paragraph and infobox that could have been merged rather than deleted in a redirect. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for Big Gold Belt and all mentions of it to be redirected to World Heavyweight Championship (professional wrestling championship belt)

The "Big Gold Belt" is merely a nickname among fans. There's no such thing. WWE, who OWNS the belt, refers to it as the "World Heavyweight Championship". Now don't jump the gun, people... yes, this is the name of the championship title, but THE BELT ITSELF is also known as such by WWE. The WWE recently released "The History of the World Heavyweight Championship" (with the "Big Gold Belt" used as the sole cover image), which traces its NWA, WCW and WWE history and features "World Heavyweight Championship" matches in all three promotions. This is cemented by WWE.com: "The World Heavyweight Championship that has recently been carried by such greats as Batista and Triple H got its start in WWE back in 2002... for years, it was known as the NWA Championship; then when WCW pulled out of the NWA in the early 1990s, Ric Flair was recognized as the first-ever WCW Champion." I propose an immediate move, as a fan given nickname will not do when the organisation who owns the physical belt refers to the belt, throughout its entire history, as the "World Heavyweight Championship". KorjokManno (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose this move is not needed or warranted IMHO, and there are enough Ghits on it that it simply cannot be allowed to vanish from Misplaced Pages. See also this entry on one of the many Misplaced Pages mirrors. ArcAngel (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The belt has a notable tradition under the name of Big Gold Belt and therefore must be recorded here. The physical belt and the championship is not the same thing, as the NWA championship belt underwent several changes. So has the WWE title belt. Note that the proposing user has already begun changing the link before making this proposal. !! Justa Punk !! 23:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been reverted by Bulletproof pending the outcome of this proposal. ArcAngel (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No real points have been made. The belt was NEVER officially known as "Big Gold Belt". This IS an encyclopedia, right? WWE has 100% ownership of the physical belt design, and it is known as the World Heavyweight Championship (again, not the title - as previously stated, WWE refers to the NWA, WCW and WWE "Big Gold Belts" as the "World Heavyweight Championship" both in the recent DVD and on wwe.com). That simple. Sure, "Big Gold Belt" can be mentioned as a fan nickname on the renamed page. But the belt is the World Heavyweight Championship. There shouldn't even be a discussion. Rather than referring to a belt by the name officially designated by the organisation who owns it, we are using a fan-given nickname.

"Note that the proposing user has already begun changing the link before making this proposal". No - as there was no need for discussion, I redirected. I was told that I couldn't do this, so I then raised the issue here. Let's get that straight. Let us now continue with this unnecessary discussion. KorjokManno (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

KM, please note that it doesn't matter what the official name is, WP:COMMONNAME will likely come into play here. Any reason why we cant merge? That will retain the information, therefore retaining its history and legacy. No need to actually change the links, just merge and create the redirect. Either way, the article needs some references. Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, the belt is referred to as the "Big Gold Belt" in at least five books , so it isn't just a fan name. It is also mentioned in some reliable sources as such . Nikki♥311 01:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment It seems that your desire to move the page to World Heavyweight Championship belt was influenced mainly by the release of the History of the World Heavyweight Championship DVD, which documents the history of the actual physical belt. While you can argue that the belt was never "officially" known as the Big Gold Belt, it can certainly argued that it is by far the most commonly used name for it. Now as for WWE having 100% ownership of the physical belt design, that is something that doesn't seem entirely 100% factual. Allow me to explain... Professional belt makers such as Reggie Parks, Dave Millican, and others (, , , , ) receive orders from a wide variety of clients. The galleries from the links provided show images of completed works with many featuring design elements from the Big Gold Belt, WCW Television Championship, WCW United States Championship, the Classic WWF Intercontinental Championship, and former versions of the WWF Championship such as the "Winged Eagle", though all of course lacking the various WWE Trademarks. However, nowhere will you find belts with even the slightest similarity to the belts currently used by WWE such as the WWE spinner, ECW, US, and Divas. A recent issue of WWE magazine claimed that these belts were designed by WWE's art department and made by Joe Marshall, WWE's exclusive belt maker. The other belts including the current Intercontinental, Women's, and Tag Team were designed and made solely by Marshall. According to the available information on the matter, these designs are "owned" by WWE. The Big Gold Belt however was originally produced well over two decades ago and the limited information that is available on the belt doesn’t assert anything regarding WWE's complete and total ownership of the designs. From what I understand, WWE added its logo to the belt in 2003 for only branding purposes. 02:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • P.S. I Know Who You Are... 02:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As I stated in the edit summary, WWE is also very loose in using the term "world heavyweight championship". For example, on SmackDown this week The Undertaker was called a 7-time World Heavyweight Champion (or them calling Triple H a 13-time WWE Champion). bullet, you think this user is the same guy we had to deal with a couple of years ago (the one who went to a messageboard to complain about us and get his friends to come here and help him?). For the record, I oppose it and think the article should be at Big Gold Belt. TJ Spyke 05:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No... Think this past October... Think ECW's world title... Freddie Mercury... and Gary Oldman... Too easy 06:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think its him again.--Steam Iron 06:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ugh... Yeah! His so called "sleeper socks" are easy to spot. 07:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

yeah it sure is his edit history's match up. here we go again.--Steam Iron 07:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The pattern from edits to Booker Huffman, Bret Hart, and Goldberg is consistent with that of his other socks, especially the edits to non-wrestling related subjects like Gary Oldman and Freddie Mercury. Yah can't miss him! 07:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets move the sock investigation elsewhere please? What about a merger? I know it is popular for having its own article, but I don't see a need for it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't going to report him anyway. He hasn't done anything to cause disruption on a grand scale since the ECW world title thing that went on for months... Even though he is banned... meh... You're all free to do what you want with the situation. 07:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't done anything to vandalise the last time either... your masturbatory pedantry and baseless accusations simply made it clear to me that there was no point in editing constructively. Anyway, that's in the past, and has NOTHING to do with this discussion. And I am not banned at all... I received a 24 hour ban which las long expired. Get a grip. KorjokManno (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You still refuse to admit you did anything wrong? And for the record, you received an indef block (not 24 hours like you claim) and that block is still in effect for sockpuppeting. That means you can (and probably) should be blocked just for evading it. You have admitted to being a sockpuppet, so this is open and shut. TJ Spyke 16:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I did wrong, oh yes. But then I started editing constructively and was banned again for nothing. What's this "indefinite ban" garbage? My previous username was banned indefinitely, and my IP for 24 hours. After that I was free to set up new usernames. If people want to dish out bans, why not give them to vandals. I vandalized WIkipedia before... so what. Its a national hobby. KorjokManno (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Weren't you banned for being a sock once? Just pointing that out. Mshake3 (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No I wasn't, not really. It was a Meatpuppet (I was having my brother help me out on some issues and it was from the same house, so I couldn't prove it wasn't me). Plus, it was only temp. Wiki Troll has a history of trying to avoid blocks with sockpuppets and has just openly admitted to doing it again. TJ Spyke 17:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You are banned and blocked . Suggest reporting his account immediately. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As for the article itself... I think it certainly is notable enough to have its own article. It just needs to be cleaned up, rewritten and sourced. 07:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, and block evasion is a ban-able offence. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose and lets block this guy before he causes any more problems.--Steam Iron 01:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• It's clear that bias will not allow for a level-headed discussion. Then again, this is Misplaced Pages. KorjokManno (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I chose not to report you again to let you argue your proposal. I'm staying out of it... 03:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment- KorjoManno, although a douchebag sockpuppeteer, has a point about his discussion not being taken seriously. Guys like Darren and Steam simply opposed without expressing any reason of why they did so. All they stated was he should be blocked. Its a sad problem, but Korjo stated it correctly "Then again, this is Misplaced Pages." I really believe we should give Misplaced Pages a better name and stop this nonsense. Raaggio 18:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. I believe the bastard should be banned too, though. Raaggio 18:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agreed with the point made above on the oppose arguments, my comment on the block evasion was a reply to the separate discussion. Maybe I should have formatted it as Oppose for the reasons stated above, and Comment block evasion (for any reason) is a block-able offence. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I see the Big Gold Belt, with its extensive history, as a concept or idea rather than a specific title owned by one promotion. I don't think the history would be represented well by stating that the Big Gold Belt is nothing more than World Heavyweight Championship (professional wrestling championship belt) and leaving it at that. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Per GCF above. HAZardousMATT 18:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason that i oppose this is the fact that The Big Gold Belt it self has a long extensive history wither the title was owned by WWE, WCW, or the NWA. And for this reason it would not do the big gold belt justice by listing it just as a World Heavyweight Championship. So it should stay the way it is and we should improve the article.--Steam Iron 04:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well it needs to be done quickly. Article has been tagged as unreferenced since 2007. As for the replies above, I actually that it could be notable enough to have its own article, but only because the same belt was used in the various promotions. I still think that this establishes a dangerous precedent. We could theoretically have separate articles for WWE, WWF, any titles that transferred, etc. Each is notable, and technically rate their own articles, but we don't do it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTIMELIMIT says otherwise on the timeframe. As for the slippery slope, I strongly doubt that anyone would see this as a precedent to split any title articles, much less WWE titles from WWF, so I don't think that straw man argument works. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about straw man? And as for NOTIMELIMIT, I am indeed bringing this to the attention of the project, as was also noted in the previous redirect proposal. However it should be noted that for an article to be included in wikipedia it should be referenced. There is no reason the article can't be referenced except for lack of interest, which is strange considering the amount of support for the article. In any case, like I said above, I Oppose merging the article. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Would anyone object to the contents of Powerteam USA being merged into the Blade Runners article? It seems to me that taking the relevant paragraph from the Powerteam article and putting it in the History section of the Blade Runners article would keep all of the information and avoid an unnecessary split. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Same with Phi Delta Slam. Bruno Sassi and Big Tilly should be merged into it. PCE (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Dustin Runnels birthday

His lead section says "April 11, 1969", his infobox says "April 11, 1961", but the source that cites both of these statements says "April 11, 1966"... what the hell happened here? Raaggio 18:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

IPs have probably been messing around with it and it just hasn't been noticed. Afro (Not a Talk Page) 20:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sting

Sting (wrestler) Currently redirects to the wrestler's name. There is a very small discussion on the talk page from 2006 but I think this should be reviewed, He is almost singularly known as Sting, I never knew his real name, and I have never heard of him referred to by another name, and if he retires, he will likely forever be known as Sting. Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, his talk page should probably be archived. I suck at them. Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Archived. There was a discussion in 2008. The new link for it is at Talk:Steve Borden/Archive 1#Requested move. Nikki♥311 03:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Even though I nominated the article to be moved to Steve Borden. I now agree that it should be at Sting (wrestler).--WillC 09:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave this open for a few more days, just in case there are any dissenters before making the move. Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)r

Are you actually proposing a move here, or asking about the move that was made in 2008, because if you are suggesting a move to Sting (wrestler) then I would be opposed to that move. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposing a move. Reasoning? Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

As in "why do I think you are proposing a move"? The phrase "in case there are any dissenters before making the move" suggest you are thinking of moving the page over the redirect, which would have to be a requested move, and would have to be proposed. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Any proposed move or discussion of moving would need to be done on the articles talkpage, not here. TJ Spyke 19:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh. I'm too lazy right now, maybe later... I was asking why you were opposed to the move to Sting (wrestler). Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Awkward phrasing in some articles

I was reading through some old PPV articles and found some sections that were just really oddly written. I've changed them to make more sense, but they've been returned to what they were. This is an example from the Survivor Series 2007 article.

The fourth match was the 5-on-5 Survivor Series Elimination Tag team match between Team Triple H and Team Umaga. Before the event, it was announced that Matt Hardy would be unable to compete in the match due to a scripted injury. Kane was the first wrestler eliminated off of Team Triple H, after Big Daddy V dropped his elbow across his chest. Umaga then pinned and eliminated Team Triple H's Rey Mysterio, after he struck his throat with his thumb to execute the "Samoan Spike". Only Jeff and Triple H remained for their team, while MVP was Team Umaga's first elimination; Jeff Hardy pinned and eliminated him after pulling his head over his shoulders down to the mat to perform a "Twist of Fate". Team Umaga's second elimination occurred after Big Daddy V accidentally dropped his elbow on Mr. Kennedy, which led to a pinfall by Triple H. Big Daddy V was Team Umaga's third elimination, which occurred after Hardy and Triple H drove his head to the mat to perform a Double DDT. Finlay and Umaga were then eliminated via pinfall, after Triple H drove Finlay's head to the mat through a "Pedigree", and after Jeff flipped on top of Umaga to perform a "Swanton Bomb". As a result, Team Triple H won.

I've bolded the parts that really stick out as awkward to me. Wouldn't it be better to just say "Hit a Twist of Fate" and have it link to the actual move in the list of wrestling maneuvers article? Or do we really need to say "pulled his head over his shoulders down to the mat", which really doesn't make much sense at all?

Also, should there really be references to wrestling being scripted throughout the entire article? The standard paragraph at the top of each PPV page does a good enough job on its own. Everything that is written afterwards is assumed to be scripted, since things being "legit" are the outlier? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capcaisin (talk • contribs) 09:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

We no longer need to go in depth on the moves. Just give a simple showing of what is going on. Like he performed a Twist of Fate by forcing his head into the mat. Not a step by step detail, just enough a reader knows what is going on and can move onward.--WillC 09:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

2009 WP:PW progress

Well, it's that time of year again. Looking over the progress made by this project over the years, it looks like this was another good year. The number of articles increased even more than it did in 2008, which could show that the project (or, at least, editors writing about wrestling) is picking up in activity. Another Featured Article was added, along with 32 Featured Lists. 63 more articles were elevated to GA status. The focus on expanding stub-class articles has continued to pay off, with an even bigger drop in numbers this year than in 2008. For those of you who are intersted in tracking the progess over the years, the end-of-year statistics for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 (in that order) are:

Professional wrestling articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Class
	FA
	A
	GA			2		1	3
	B	1	11	16	15	6	49
	Start		4	7	18	28	57
	Stub		1	3	11	37	52
	Unassessed	1	4	10	48	1429	1492
	Total	2	20	38	92	1501	1653

Professional wrestling articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	Total
Quality
	FA			3	21	24
	GA		4	3	18	25
	B	1	9	30	160	200
	Start	1	43	180	2030	2254
	Stub		1	27	704	732
	Assessed	2	57	243	2933	3235
	Total	2	57	243	2933	3235

Professional wrestling articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	Total
Quality
	FA			4	6	10
	FL			12	12	24
	GA		6	32	73	111
	B	1	17	68	199	285
	C		2	15	100	117
	Start	2	53	227	1791	2073
	Stub		2	25	579	606
	List		2	22	592	616
	Assessed	3	82	405	3352	3842
	Total	3	82	405	3352	3842

Professional wrestling articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA		2	5	4		11
	FL			25	31		56
	GA		11	61	102		174
	B	6	20	82	244		352
	C	1	8	64	291		364
	Start	7	51	289	2214		2561
	Stub			15	462		477
	List		3	30	647	1	681
	Assessed	14	95	571	3995	1	4676
	Unassessed					5	5
	Total	14	95	571	3995	6	4681

I haven't taken a look at the New Year's Resolutions yet, but I know they led to a lot of great progress as well. Once again, great job to everyone involved, and thanks for the great effort you put into the articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Good, I would like to say good work to all those who helped raise content to GA, FL, etc. Hopefully 2010 will be a even better year. Speaking of the NYRs, I was wondering if anyone would object to doing them again? I think they helped the project overall. Gaves us some goals and we met a few of them.--WillC 07:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I was going to suggest doing them again. We can even put it on a project subpage like the stub drive, so it looks more "official" ;). I was thinking about a "start class" reduction drive (which is something GCF mentioned to me a long time ago) and , maybe reducing the percentage of articles with a cleanup tag in them. Nikki♥311 21:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

We could always try the start class drive if that succeeds we can go to a C-class drive.--Curtis23 (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:3bulletproof16
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=WrestleMania_23&action=history
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:WrestleMania_23