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 when more than 1 section is present.

This is a pretty minor thing quibble so pardon my indulgence but it's across the board of the project. On championship lists, in the event column I see no reason why years are mentioned in so many of the event titles when they aren't in that event. As this poster suggests, the title name for this event is SummerSlam, yet in the List of WWE World Heavyweight Champions events column it would read SummerSlam (2009). No-one calls it that on air, in any promotional material or even in any of the articles on Wikipedia. Compare this with Best in the World 2011 where the year IS part of the title and thus in the List of ROH World Champions events column it does read Best in the World 2011. Similarly WrestleMania IV and WrestleMania XI or Slammiversary IX would have that Roman numeral attached to them to differentiate them as they currently do, because that's what they're advertised as, but Final Resolution or Genesis or No Way Out need no year because it's not in their title, it's merely a disambiguation link.

If you disagree with this method, then I propose we be consistent. So as not to confuse anyone as to which Raw, SmackDown, Nitro or Impact that a title changed hands on, we should put the full date in brackets after the title. Tony2Times (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are named with the year in parentheses, so I can see how it would be slightly easier for editors to type. But yes, it is technically inaccurate to refer to 2006's SummerSlam as SummerSlam (2006), and unnecessary when the date is just to the left. Article names obviously need disambiguation, but text does not. I support changing the link text, while leaving the link targets. TV shows should remain as they are (with the date only in the Date column). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I meant to change the link text but not the link targets. It should still link to the specific year of the PPV, but that year is obvious because of the date of the title change. By the way Hulk, it's easier to read comments on talk pages when replies are indented by starting the line with a colon. Tony2Times (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which should I be putting in square brackets and why? I've seen a lot of changes lately and I'm not sure if it's someone being lazy or how it should really be done. Tony2Times (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first one. A Three Way Dance is, by definition, not a four player game. And the Three Way Dance article redirects to the first page anyway. I think that could be potentially confusing. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well that wasn't quite what I was getting at. Should links be to Professional wrestling match types#the match type| or should they be linked to The Match Type| which will be a redirect. Tony2Times (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, got it. I still say the first one. That way clickers are brought to the proper section, instead of having to find it themselves in the table of contents after the redirect. Unless it's supposed to redirect to the #section. It didn't for me. Redirects shouldn't be used purely as link shorteners. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those who haven't seen it yet, 2012 in WWE events was created. I have no idea what the intention behind it is, and Feedback, before you start ranting at me for trying to delete WWE PPV articles, take a look at the article history, I had nothing to do with it's creation, as of this post I have only added a category. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the point to the article, but the format is flawed and so is the name. It is similar to the idea I have over PPV years for a GA/FA topic. I think it can be useful but it is too soon and if created now it would just cause too much trouble and be a poor addition to the project. I say delete for now.--WillC 09:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Talk:2012 in UFC events isn't an indicator of how this is going to go. Maybe we can actually learn something from it instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my warning a few weeks ago about that very real possibility, and my recommendation to come up with some solid policy-based arguments before it made its way here. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And even THAT got heated. Touchy subject, notability. Not quite as bad as discussing the "fakeness" of it, but close. You're right, though. Anyone looking to keep the articles once the inevitable happens should study up on (and cite) policy guidelines. Keep arguments short and to the point. Read the opposing arguments carefully and refute points clearly. Don't rant, don't whine, don't compare anyone to Hitler. That crap NEVER helps. Aside from that advice, I'm probably sitting this one out. Good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the person who created the page Paul "the Wall" to come here to discuss it, as he's started linking to the new page from the ppv chronology section in the info box of ppv articles, stating the articles will be "removed shortly". I only really deal with vandalism on wrestling articles, so it doesn't make a huge difference to me, but a consensus clearly needs to be made sooner rather than later BulbaThor (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Article has been nominated for deletion here. – Richard BB 21:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am discussing it there Paul "The Wall" (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I wanted to use that articles deletion to prevent it from happening in the future as well as for an example of failure to use against what is currently going on against UFC events. MtKing has nominated each and every UFC PPV for deletion and has already successfully deleted the non-PPV events. It is only a matter of time until that format makes its way over to Wrestling. If you care at all about this you should be worried and speak out against it.

I think that it's time to create some articles. I read the articles of the members, but I think that we can create the Tag team article, also delete some individual artcicles, because we can write them entire carrer in the Tag Team article.

• The All Night Xpress
• The Barvado Brothers (delete Harlem Barvado and Lance Barvado, like the Briscoes)
• The Dark City Fight Club

What do you think? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]