Gracias por el reconocimiento. No sabía nada de esto. PD: Hice una corrección ortográfica en el título. -- JDC808 ♫ 21:18, 19 de abril de 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias hoy por God of War (serie) , "sobre la serie de videojuegos God of War, una de las franquicias de videojuegos más importantes de la última década. Se ha convertido en un título emblemático para la marca PlayStation, y el personaje Kratos es uno de los personajes más populares de PlayStation. La serie consta de siete juegos (con un octavo en desarrollo), que han aparecido en PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3 y PlayStation Portable, y puertos remasterizados que aparecen en PlayStation 3, PlayStation Vita y PlayStation 4. También hubo una entrega lanzada para teléfonos móviles. La serie se expandió a una franquicia con el lanzamiento de una serie de cómics, dos novelas, una novela gráfica basada en la web, juguetes, réplicas de accesorios y otros productos. También se está desarrollando una película". - Gerda Arendt ( discusión ) 07:33, 22 de marzo de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
... siete años ya -- Gerda Arendt ( discusión ) 06:09 19 abr 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias :) -- JDC808 ♫ 21:11, 8 de mayo de 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Felicidades, han sido un par de meses muy largos, lo sé, desde enero, ¿no? Feliz cumpleaños. Darkwarriorblake ( discusión ) 22:17 8 may 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Noviembre...pero sí, gracias. -- JDC808 ♫ 02:16, 9 de mayo de 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Barnstar para ti.
Gracias. -- JDC808 ♫ 02:17, 9 de mayo de 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Feliz cumpleaños
¡Feliz cumpleaños! Y felicidades por el zar de la FA · · 03:27 9 may 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias. -- JDC808 ♫ 03:59, 9 de mayo de 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
WP:VGentrevista de boletín
Hola, ¿te interesaría responder algunas preguntas para una entrevista para el boletín de VG? Si es así, tendríamos que terminarla lo antes posible, con suerte para el fin de semana. Avísame y las reuniré y publicaré un enlace para ti. — Torchiest talk edits 13:08, 29 de junio de 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Por supuesto. -- JDC808 ♫ 16:48, 29 de junio de 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Genial! Entra aquí , responde todas las preguntas y deja una nota en mi página de discusión cuando las hayas completado. La revisaré y corregiré la gramática, etc., luego dejaré una última nota para que la apruebes y debería estar lista con el boletín este miércoles. Gracias. — Torchiest talk edits 00:01, 30 de junio de 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
Está bien, le hice algunos cambios menores. Avísame si te parece bien y lo daremos por terminado. ¡Gracias de nuevo! — Torchiest talk edits 00:05, 1 de julio de 2013 (UTC) [ responder ]
ElVideojuegos de WikiProjectBoletín informativo, segundo trimestre de 2013
Para darse de baja o inscribirse para recibir futuras ediciones de este boletín, haga clic aquí para actualizar la lista de distribución. (Entregado a las 14:33, 9 de julio de 2017 (UTC))
Boletín informativo de videojuegos de WikiProject, tercer trimestre de 2017
Para darse de baja o inscribirse para recibir futuras ediciones de este boletín, haga clic aquí para actualizar la lista de distribución. (Entregado ~~~~~)
Gracias, eso fue rápido. -- JDC808 ♫ 00:51, 23 de abril de 2018 (UTC) [ responder ]
Campeonato AWE
El artículo sobre el Campeonato de la WWE comienza literalmente con "El título se introdujo en 1963 y Buddy Rogers se convirtió en el primer campeón". Por lo tanto, no es necesario mencionar la historia de una empresa en un artículo sobre el campeonato en sí. MPJ-DK ( discusión ) 01:37 27 may 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ MPJ-DK : Comienza con eso, pero justo después de esa oración, dice cómo se creó el título cuando Capitol Wrestling se separó de la NWA para convertirse en la WWWF y, por lo tanto, se estableció el Campeonato Mundial de la WWWF. Una sección de historia adecuada indica cómo llegamos a la creación del título, no simplemente indicando que "se anunció por primera vez en un canal de YouTube". Eso no es historia de cómo se estableció el título. -- JDC808 ♫ 04:46, 27 de mayo de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, "la creación del título", lo que no significa "All In", AEW financiada por el bla-bla-bla de Kahn, así es como se creó AEW. En el Campeonato de la WWE, en realidad, había una historia de fondo para el campeonato que es lo que explica el trasfondo, no la creación de Capitol Wrestling. En cuanto a decir "apareció por primera vez en un canal de YouTube", simplemente eliminé la información irrelevante y nadie parece haber agregado nada relevante al campeonato real . MPJ-DK ( discusión ) 11:38 27 may 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, no explica la creación de Capitol Wrestling, que ya existía, pero sí explica brevemente la creación de la World Wide Wrestling Federation (en la que se convirtió Capitol), y por ende la creación del campeonato WWWF. Eso es exactamente lo que está pasando aquí. Breve historia de la fundación de la empresa (que comenzó con All In), que es lo que llevó a la creación del título. -- JDC808 ♫ 11:57, 27 de mayo de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
En realidad, todo gira en torno al campeonato, la razón por la que se creó para reemplazar el título de la NWA como el título más importante de la empresa, la historia del campeonato en sí. "All In" es la historia de la empresa, el "se presentaron marcas registradas y se produjo especulación" es definitivamente una trivialidad sin fundamento que no tiene nada que ver con el campeonato. Si se redujera a que AEW se fundó en XX y en la preparación de su primer programa introdujeron el campeonato" o algo por el estilo, sería apropiado para el artículo, pero el resto del texto que básicamente se copió y repitió casi palabra por palabra de otros artículos de AEW es solo para rellenar un artículo con información irrelevante. MPJ-DK ( discusión ) 12:04, 27 de mayo de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
No has entendido el punto. Aún así, se da una breve descripción de la fundación de la empresa. Por eso se creó el título. Esos eventos, comenzando con All In, son los que llevaron a la creación del título. -- JDC808 ♫ 12:14, 27 de mayo de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
No tiene sentido "entender" ya que no dice nada sobre la "fundación de la empresa" más allá de que en la década de 1950, Capitol Wrestling Corporation (CWC) era miembro de la NWA y en 1963, sus ejecutivos tenían una participación mayoritaria sobre las operaciones de la NWA, por lo que 13 años o más en una oración, no un párrafo completo sobre unos 10 meses y sin detalles intrincados. El equivalente de AEW sería básicamente "la empresa se hizo oficial el 1 de enero, anunciaron la creación del campeonato antes de su show debut DON" porque desde la perspectiva del título eso es todo lo que necesita. ¿El título 24/7 necesita tener "Bueno, Capitol Wrestling se creó en 1953, bla, bla, bla y es por eso que la empresa tiene un campeonato 24/7" en el artículo? Por supuesto que no. Pero puedo escribir hasta que me ponga azul la cara, ya se perdió el punto y a esta altura no me importa si se convierte en trivialidades de fanboy. MPJ-DK ( discusión ) 13:19 27 may 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Qué demonios? No hay ninguna curiosidad de fanboy aquí. El Campeonato 24/7 es un título nuevo presentado en una empresa que ha existido durante décadas y no hubo especulaciones ni nada sobre ese título hasta que se anunció al azar en Money in the Bank que iban a debutar con un nuevo título. Este es un título nuevo presentado en una empresa completamente nueva. -- JDC808 ♫ 21:25, 27 de mayo de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Entonces no hay ejemplos?
No tiene sentido, excepto que todos y cada uno de los artículos del campeonato son así, por lo que tenía sentido para cada editor que trabajó en esas páginas. Y supongo que "Bold, Revert, Discuss" se detiene en Revert para ti. MPJ-DK ( discusión ) 01:05 28 may 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, muy bien hecho, citando muchos ejemplos en los que la lista de campeonatos está dividida. ¿Hiciste clic en las listas? ¿Tomaste nota del encabezado que tiene cada lista? Entonces, la mayoría de tus ejemplos realmente respaldan lo que agregué para la parte de la lista, pero gracias por hacer mi investigación por ti. Una abrumadora mayoría está a favor de que la sección de la tabla esté etiquetada como "Historial de títulos", como dije. MPJ-DK ( discusión ) 01:52, 28 de mayo de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Qué? Bueno, no me jodas, miré cada artículo que trata sobre campeonatos . Este es un artículo de campeonato , no una lista de campeones , que ahora parece ser lo que estás confundiendo. Y con los ejemplos, como se dijo, solo dos tienen un encabezado titulado "Historial de títulos", debajo del cual hay una subsección titulada "Reigns" (no separados entre sí). El resto son en realidad de MOS y no tienen un encabezado titulado "Historial de títulos". Entonces no, ninguno de ellos respalda lo que dijiste. Separaste "Reigns" e "Historial de títulos" entre sí en el artículo del Campeonato WWE 24/7 . Pusiste "Reigns" como su propia sección separada sobre "Historial de títulos" mientras que "Historial de títulos" era su propia sección que contenía solo la tabla de reinados (tu revisión). El MOS establece que la tabla va debajo del encabezado "Reigns" hasta que la tabla llega a 10+, después de lo cual, se divide en un artículo de lista de campeones. El artículo del Campeonato 24/7 no ha alcanzado tantos reinados como para tener su propia lista separada de campeones. -- JDC808 ♫ 02:40, 28 de mayo de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ah, claro, ninguno de los ejemplos respalda que la tabla de campeonatos vaya debajo del encabezado "Historial de títulos", ¿verdad? ¿Quieres ver artículos sobre títulos independientes, japoneses o mexicanos en los que no estén divididos? O simplemente salta a donde se te ocurra alguna otra razón por la que algunos artículos deberían ser inconsistentes con el 99% de artículos similares. MPJ-DK ( discusión ) 04:00, 28 de mayo de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mira, tú eres el que originalmente citó el MOS, que no es compatible con el formato que estás indicando para los artículos de campeonato , independientemente de si hay otros artículos sin una lista separada que tienen lo que estás indicando. He citado el MOS y lo que realmente dice y he proporcionado varios ejemplos que están en línea con el MOS. Ya que mencionaste los títulos mexicanos, veamos el que nominaste para FAC y yo revisé y apoyé: el Campeonato Mundial Peso Pesado CMLL . Oh, mira eso, también está en línea con el MOS, al igual que los ejemplos que di. Si miramos el Campeonato Peso Pesado IWGP (que en realidad es una lista y no un artículo), tiene encabezados "Historial de títulos" y "Reigns", pero no tiene otro encabezado titulado "Historia" (y realmente, "Historia de títulos" debería simplemente cambiarse de nombre a "Historia"). Pero, si te fijas ahí, la tabla está debajo de "Reigns" y no como habías cambiado el artículo del Campeonato 24/7 (pusiste la tabla debajo de "Historial de títulos" y al mismo tiempo tenías una sección "Historial" separada). -- JDC808 ♫ 04:28, 28 de mayo de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Así que te aferras al 1% para demostrar tu punto, como dije, pasa al punto en el que se te ocurre alguna otra razón por la que algunos artículos deberían ser inconsistentes con el 99% de artículos similares . No te molestes en responder, ya leí tu respuesta varias veces. MPJ-DK ( discusión ) 04:39 28 may 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, el MOS, que estás ignorando por completo. He citado varios ejemplos que lo respaldan, pero tú no has citado ninguno. Miré todos los campeonatos activos que figuran en 2019 en la lucha libre profesional#Cambios de título . Algunos están en línea con el MOS, otros no. Los que no lo están son en realidad listas y no artículos reales, lo que en realidad prueba aún más mi punto de que estás confundiendo el artículo del Campeonato 24/7 con una lista. -- JDC808 ♫ 05:17, 28 de mayo de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Fallo en "D"
Al igual que en WP:BRD , una vez más solo se obtiene la parte de reversión y se comunica a través de reversiones y resúmenes de edición en lugar de participar en una discusión. MPJ-DK ( discusión ) 02:02, 29 de mayo de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
No lo volví a escribir. Supongo que te refieres a la parte del miembro del Salón de la Fama con Bret Hart. Wrestlinglover lo eliminó y sugirió poner "luchador retirado" y eso fue lo que hice (aunque lo redacté como "leyenda de la lucha libre"). -- JDC808 ♫ 02:04, 29 de mayo de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy seguro de que Crystalball signifique lo que crees que significa.
Disculpen la cita de La princesa prometida, pero no hay garantía de que el encuentro se lleve a cabo realmente, con esas personas, en esa fecha y de que el encuentro tenga un resultado concluyente. El encuentro ya está anunciado, que es todo lo que podemos decir en este momento. MPJ-DK ( discusión ) 00:42 2 jun 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, sé lo que significa. La única información (incluida la información oculta) es la que se ha anunciado. No podemos predecir que exista la posibilidad de que algo pueda cambiar. -- JDC808 ♫ 06:44, 2 de junio de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bayley - Grand Slam femenino
El único que parece tener un problema con la inclusión del título NXT eres tú.
En lugar de tomarlo tú mismo, llévalo a la página de discusión del artículo, mira lo que piensan los demás, llegarán a un consenso y veremos qué sucede.
@ Vjmlhds : El problema es que no hay una fuente oficial de la WWE que respalde su inclusión. Hay una fuente que enumera los títulos y lo llama Grand Slam, que no incluye el título de NXT. En este momento, te basas en el boca a boca de la propia Bayley (que no podemos usar, de lo contrario, también estaríamos enumerando a Charlotte Flair) y fuentes de terceros que no tienen verificación de que la WWE respalde la inclusión del título de NXT. Nosotros, como en Wikipedia, no decidimos los requisitos de un logro. Lo que tú o quien sea debe hacer es encontrar una fuente oficial de la WWE (y no que Bayley simplemente lo diga) que realmente incluya el Campeonato Femenino de NXT, porque en este momento, estás revirtiendo información de fuentes que describen qué títulos están incluidos. -- JDC808 ♫ 04:24, 4 de junio de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bandera
¿Qué intentas agregar aquí? ¿Algo que indique con qué marca ganaron? No creo que puedas hacerlo con este tipo de tabla. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 17:55, 5 de junio de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Galatz Sí. Intenté agregar el código de color pero no hizo nada. -- JDC808 ♫ 00:45, 6 de junio de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Cambio de título 24/7 en Frankfurt
Hola, vi que revertiste la edición que hice sobre la pérdida de R-Truth en el aeropuerto de Frankfurt. Como alguien que vive a una hora de Frankfurt, puedo decirte con certeza que no hay tres aeropuertos. Supongo que viste la página de desambiguación, pero puedo aclararte eso. En primer lugar, los tres van juntos. Flugplatz Frankfurt-Egelsbach es un pequeño aeródromo para aviones ligeros. El aeropuerto de Frankfurt-Hahn es una pequeña subsidiaria del aeropuerto de Frankfurt (y no está cerca de Frankfurt, en realidad está en un estado diferente) que solo opera vuelos dentro de Europa y el mar Mediterráneo. El aeropuerto de Frankfurt es el único aeropuerto que realmente puede albergar vuelos transatlánticos y aviones del tamaño que usa WWE. Así que sí, espero que esto aclare un poco las cosas. -- DasallmächtigeJ ( discusión ) 10:50, 9 de junio de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ah, vale. Sí, me basé en los aeropuertos que figuran en Frankfurt#Aeropuertos, pero, sinceramente, no leí sus descripciones. -- JDC808 ♫ 12:50, 9 de junio de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Joya de la corona
Solo quería agradecerte rápidamente por tu trabajo en la GAN. Por cierto, no tenía la intención de pasar por alto a ningún otro colaborador con la nominación, solo supuse que si la incluyo como una GAN en el proyecto de lucha libre profesional, la gente lo notaría. -- DasallmächtigeJ ( discusión ) 16:47, 17 de junio de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Gracias
Sé que no estamos de acuerdo en muchas cosas, pero solo quería agradecerte todo lo que aportas. Haces muchas ediciones muy valiosas y revisas y corriges muchas cosas, como el campeonato 24/7 y los eventos. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 12:40, 26 de junio de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Nunca te digo que te vayas a la mierda. ¡¡¡CÓMO te atreves a acusarme de eso!!! Parece que tienes un gran problema conmigo. Te sugiero que encuentres un poco de paz interior. Eliminé todo lo que pusiste en mi página de discusión porque era irrelevante. PD: escribiste mal "umpteenth", revisa tus ediciones la próxima vez. Zerobrains94 ( discusión ) 10:16 15 jul 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ Zerobrains94 : Pareces olvidadizo, porque en el resumen de tu edición en tu página de discusión dijiste "Deja de contaminar mi página de discusión con idioteces JDC808" (es decir, básicamente me estabas diciendo que me fuera a la mierda). No era irrelevante, simplemente elegiste ignorarlo mientras continúas cometiendo los mismos errores.
Aquí está mi problema contigo. En marzo, dijiste "Empecemos de nuevo desde cero" y estuve de acuerdo. Pero luego, en junio, después de que corregí algunos problemas con explicaciones razonables y civilizadas, vas y haces un comentario como este: "En serio, JDC808, debes darme algunas clases de inglés ya que eres un maestro en el idioma. (1) ¿por qué se hace referencia a McIntyre/Shane como "los dos"? y (2) ¿cuál es la necesidad de la palabra "de repente"? No hay necesidad de ser dramático". Básicamente, te convertiste en un completo idiota conmigo a partir de ese momento, ya que traté de explicarme, pero lo borraste, luego traté de explicarlo más, y fue entonces cuando me dijiste que "dejara de contaminar" tu página de discusión. Además de eso, haces reversiones sin explicación a pesar de que hay una disputa obvia. -- JDC808 ♫ 11:20, 15 de julio de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, "Deja de contaminar mi página de discusión con idioteces" y "vete a la mierda" son dos comentarios diferentes. Es tu interpretación, no la mía. Zerobrains94 ( discusión ) 12:24 15 jul 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
No estoy seguro de cómo decir esto sin sonar grosero, pero tienes poca comprensión, lo cual es otro problema. Hay muchos temas sobre los que ni siquiera estaríamos discutiendo si supieras cómo comprenderlos (en particular los significados detrás de las frases y palabras). Sí, son dos comentarios diferentes, pero solo en las palabras que se están utilizando. Cuando dijiste que "dejara de contaminar" tu página de discusión, eso fue básicamente lo mismo que decirme que me fuera a la mierda (si querías decir algo más que eso, entonces por favor ilumíname, porque cualquiera que lea ese comentario llegaría a la misma conclusión que yo). -- JDC808 ♫ 12:38, 15 de julio de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, no tengo problemas de comprensión, no me juzgues si es por mis ediciones, mis errores tipográficos o lo que sea. Cuando dije "deja de contaminar mi página de discusión" quise decir que estabas explicando algo que ya sé, así que no había necesidad de escribir un párrafo largo una vez más. Es así de simple, te lo diré directamente como es. Si quisiera decirte que te jodan, lo habrías visto en mis comentarios. De todos modos, me pareces una persona grosera de todos modos. Zerobrains94 Zerobrains94 ( discusión ) 15:54, 15 de julio de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
En serio, ¿ya lo sabías? ¿Entonces por qué sigues cometiendo los mismos errores a pesar de que te han dicho varias veces por qué estás equivocado? Eso es tener problemas de comprensión. Ha habido innumerables veces en las que se te han tenido que explicar cosas porque no las entendías (eso que borraste es una de ellas). Puedes intentar todo lo que quieras decir que básicamente no me estabas diciendo que me fuera a la mierda, pero realmente lo estabas haciendo o de lo contrario no habrías hecho un comentario tan grosero e infantil. Puede que suene grosero, pero al menos no soy lo suficientemente grosero como para hacer ese tipo de comentario. -- JDC808 ♫ 21:20, 15 de julio de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Entonces, te ofendes porque te corrijo por un error tipográfico, pero ¿qué pasa cuando me dijiste que revisara mis ediciones y corrigiera mis errores tipográficos también hace poco? Eso no es infantil ni es un problema insignificante. ¡Qué vergüenza, búscate una vida! Zerobrains94 ( discusión ) 09:40 16 jul 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Entonces, en lugar de responder a lo que dije en mi publicación anterior, ¿vas y cambias de tema a algo completamente irrelevante (y algo que ni siquiera me ofendió)? Esa es una gran refutación (eso fue sarcasmo en caso de que no te hayas dado cuenta). Pero si estás hablando de este resumen de edición, eso fue solo en respuesta a que mencionaste un error tipográfico que cometí ya que decidiste hacer un gran problema al respecto. Un resumen de edición no se puede editar para corregir un error, a diferencia del contenido de un artículo, que puedes volver a leer después de enviarlo y corregir cualquier error que hayas pasado por alto. Cuando dije corregir en el pasado, esto es a lo que me refería porque ha habido varios errores, no solo un pequeño error tipográfico (siento que estoy teniendo un déjà vu). De nuevo, comprensión. Sí, ese es un tema insignificante y comentarios como "deja de contaminar mi página de discusión", diciéndome que me consiga una vida y burlándose de mí son infantiles. -- JDC808 ♫ 10:15 16 jul 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Cuanta razón tienes, no se me ocurrió ningún contraargumento ni respuesta a tu pregunta. Por cierto, ¿cuál era la pregunta porque no veo ninguna en tu comentario anterior? Zerobrains94 ( discusión ) 11:02 16 jul 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
No sé cómo no lo ves, ya que fue literalmente lo primero que se dijo en ese mensaje. Con respecto al problema de la repetición de nombres y la eliminación de lo que había publicado en tu página de discusión, habías dicho "estabas explicando algo que ya sé, así que no había necesidad de escribir un párrafo largo una vez más". Respondí con "En serio, ¿ya lo sabías? Entonces, ¿por qué sigues cometiendo los mismos errores a pesar de que te han dicho varias veces por qué estás equivocado?" -- JDC808 ♫ 11:17, 16 de julio de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Boletín informativo de videojuegos de WikiProject, segundo trimestre de 2019
Para darse de baja o inscribirse para recibir futuras ediciones de este boletín, haga clic aquí para actualizar la lista de distribución. (Entregado ~~~~~)
Si tienes alguna pregunta o inquietud, déjame saber.
Observo que se han añadido enlaces Wikilinks en los campos correspondientes de las citas. Sin embargo, se ha enlazado cada instancia de IGN o CBS Interactive, por ejemplo, no solo la primera instancia. Dado que los términos generalmente solo se enlazan una vez en su primer uso en los artículos, supongo que se aplica la misma regla a las citas, pero no puedo encontrar dónde se cubre esto en el MOS. Quizás usted lo sepa definitivamente. Aparte de eso, no veo problemas con el artículo.
@Twofingered Typist : Gracias, y con respecto a los enlaces repetidos en las citas, MOS:REPEATLINK establece que "Las citas se utilizan de forma independiente, por lo que no hay problema en repetir el mismo enlace en muchas citas dentro de un artículo" -- JDC808 ♫ 02:12, 25 de julio de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ya expuse mi caso en la página de discusión del artículo del WWE SD Tag Team Championship.
Por favor, no revierta las cosas ciegamente, especialmente si tienen fuentes confiables.
Una vez más, ninguna fuente dice que Kofi NO SEA un campeón, solo se supone.
Es mejor tener una fuente que te diga algo directamente (como el video que confirma el reinado de Kofi), que unas en las que tienes que adivinar/asumir/inferir ("Bueno, la foto de Kofi no se muestra aquí, por lo que no debe ser campeón").
@ Vjmlhds : En primer lugar, no fue una reversión a ciegas. Expliqué la situación por la que revertí (hay una discusión en curso sobre el tema). Poner "tu caso" en la página de discusión no significa automáticamente que tu edición deba mantenerse. No, cuando hay desacuerdo, el artículo (o esa cosa en particular en el artículo), debe permanecer como estaba anteriormente hasta que se llegue a un consenso mediante una discusión. Eso aún no ha sucedido. Lo que veo son fuentes contradictorias. Sí, es molesto, pero es con lo que nos han tratado. Además, en realidad es mejor para nosotros no incluir algo que incluirlo y estar equivocados. -- JDC808 ♫ 03:59, 3 de agosto de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Desde entonces he hecho una edición que sí reconoce las fuentes contradictorias. En este compromiso, Kofi no recibe todo el crédito, pero tampoco se lo ignora. A veces el mundo no es blanco y negro, sino gris. A fin de cuentas, no estamos tratando con lo correcto y lo incorrecto, sino con interpretaciones (cosas que se arrojan contra la pared y nosotros debemos descifrarlas). Vjmlhds (discusión) 15:12 3 ago 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Repetición
Vale, es cierto, pero Stratus solo se menciona dos veces en el párrafo (excluyendo su nombre completo), así que ¿cómo es esa repetición? Flair se menciona tres veces en el párrafo. No estoy seguro de cómo es esa repetición. Mira el párrafo que detalla el Campeonato Universal. Lesnar y Rollins se mencionan repetidamente, pero afirmas que es una repetición para Stratus. Oh, ¿es porque Trish es "la más grande", por lo que todos deben saber que es siete veces campeona? Además, sigues agregando "(con Paul Heyman)" junto a Brock Lesnar en la tabla de combates. De todos modos, he decidido no revertir la edición porque conducirá a un bucle interminable de pequeñas discusiones entre nosotros. La verdad es: "¡Lo que tú digas, siempre se hace porque eres el presidente de Wikipedia!" Zerobrains94 ( discusión ) 05:37, 6 de agosto de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Todo depende de cómo esté estructurado. Hay suficientes pausas en el combate por el Campeonato Universal entre los nombres (con la excepción de la última oración, pero necesita una aclaración). ¿Y por qué mencionaste algo que ya pasó hace mucho tiempo y que no tiene nada que ver con el tema en cuestión (con respecto a agregar a Paul Heyman nuevamente, lo agregué como dos veces, pero no lo volví a hacer desde entonces para apaciguarte)? Además, deja de hacer comentarios infantiles (¡llamándome el "presidente de Wikipedia!"). -- JDC808 ♫ 05:50, 6 de agosto de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Agosto de 2019
Tu historial de edición reciente en SummerSlam (2019) muestra que actualmente estás involucrado en una guerra de ediciones ; eso significa que estás cambiando repetidamente el contenido para que vuelva a ser como crees que debería ser, cuando has visto que otros editores no están de acuerdo. Para resolver la disputa de contenido, no reviertas ni cambies las ediciones de otros cuando se te haya revertido. En lugar de revertir, utiliza la página de discusión para trabajar en la creación de una versión que represente el consenso entre los editores. La mejor práctica en esta etapa es discutir, no hacer una guerra de ediciones. Consulta el ciclo de negrita, revertir, discutir para saber cómo se hace esto. Si las discusiones llegan a un punto muerto, puedes publicar una solicitud de ayuda en un tablón de anuncios relevante o buscar una resolución de disputas . En algunos casos, es posible que desees solicitar la protección temporal de la página .
Si participas en una guerra de ediciones, es posible que te bloqueen para editar , especialmente si violas la regla de las tres reversiones , que establece que un editor no debe realizar más de tres reversiones en una sola página en un período de 24 horas. Deshacer el trabajo de otro editor, ya sea en su totalidad o en parte, ya sea que involucre el mismo material o uno diferente cada vez, cuenta como una reversión. También ten en cuenta que, si bien violar la regla de las tres reversiones a menudo conduce a un bloqueo, aún puedes ser bloqueado por guerra de ediciones, incluso si no violas la regla de las tres reversiones , si tu comportamiento indica que tienes la intención de continuar revirtiendo repetidamente. ¡ Envíame un mensaje de StaticVapor ! 21:03, 9 de agosto de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Me parece que no tiene sentido volver a publicar tres veces en 24 horas... sobre las palabras de una oración. No entiendo por qué alguien volvería a publicar cuando dos editores diferentes no están de acuerdo con ellos. Haces un buen trabajo aquí, pero también he visto que rara vez agregas contenido sin fuentes a los artículos. WP:V nunca debería ignorarse ni siquiera un par de veces. ¡Envíame un mensaje de StaticVapor ! 21:05, 9 de agosto de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
@STATicVapor : La última reversión no fue solo por ese problema de repetición (se había revertido más que eso, lo que básicamente hiciste a ciegas). Este problema va más allá de este artículo. Le he explicado innumerables veces a Zerobrains94 que intente evitar la repetición, pero simplemente no me escucha y no entiendo por qué (lo he explicado en su página de discusión y en la mía, y si miras justo encima de esta publicación, dijo que no lo cambiaría, pero luego fue y lo cambió al día siguiente). Me sorprende que en realidad estés de acuerdo con él aquí. Deberíamos esforzarnos por un lenguaje mejor y más fuerte, no un lenguaje repetitivo (a menos que sea inevitable).
En cuanto a "raramente [agregar] contenido sin fuentes", todos lo hacen de vez en cuando, y las veces que lo he hecho, no tenía la fuente a mano, pero sabía que alguien más se encargaría de ello. -- JDC808 ♫ 21:34, 9 de agosto de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Alguna otra sugerencia?
Solo por curiosidad, además de siete veces campeona, ¿a qué le dirías que se refiriera Trish Stratus para evitar la repetición? Supongo que es porque Flair le mencionó "siete veces campeona" a Stratus durante su enfrentamiento en SmackDown. No estoy siendo sarcástico ni nada, solo me gustaría saber el razonamiento detrás de eso. Zerobrains94 ( discusión ) 13:25 10 ago 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
En parte, sí, fue porque Flair dijo eso y posteriormente le agrega más importancia a quién es Stratus y por qué es una lucha importante para Flair en su afirmación de ser la mejor luchadora femenina. Podría haberse usado Hall of Famer, pero ya se ha usado. Se puede usar cualquier palabra que describa quién es ella. Las dos cosas más importantes con respecto a la carrera de Stratus son que sea miembro del Salón de la Fama y que haya sido siete veces campeona femenina, que fue la mayor cantidad (sin contar los reinados no reconocidos de Fabulous Moolah) hasta que Flair rompió ese récord. -- JDC808 ♫ 20:49, 10 de agosto de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Revisión de FA?
Hola. Me di cuenta de tu nominación actual de FAC y me preguntaba si te interesaría intercambiar reseñas . Me encantaría recibir la mayor cantidad de comentarios posible esta vez para mi nominación y estaría más que dispuesto a revisar la tuya a cambio. Sin embargo, entiendo si no tienes tiempo. Saludos cordiales, Homeostasis07 ( discusión · contribuciones ) 01:06, 29 de agosto de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
24/7
Por favor, recuerde la Guía de estilo para la columna de notas.
El nuevo campeón derrotó a alguien distinto al campeón anterior.
Si el nuevo campeón obtuvo el título por medios distintos a un partido.
Tipos de partidos que no eran partidos individuales estándar.
¿Por qué se dejó vacante o se abandonó el título?
La fecha en que se transmitió el partido.
Si la promoción reconoce la fecha de inicio o fin del reinado de forma diferente a la realmente ocurrida.
Cosas como si el árbitro estaba vestido de enfermera, R-Truth se viste de mujer embarazada, ser atacado antes del cambio de título son cosas que no incluimos en la sección de notas. Estoy de acuerdo con el "dónde sucedió", ya que la gente puede ver que no es un combate de lucha libre, pero creo que esta información es inútil y demasiado detallada. Muchos luchadores perdieron sus títulos después de ser distraídos, ataques ilegales, pero no están incluidos en sus artículos. Miren el título de la WWE, el reinado del título de Mankind. Es solo "Este fue un combate sin descalificación. La WWE reconoce que el reinado de Mankind comenzó el 4 de enero de 1999, cuando el episodio se emitió con retraso", no "Durante el combate, Steve Austin interfirió, atacó a The Rock con una silla de acero y tiró a Mankind sobre él para el pinfall". o "Yokozuna cubrió a Hart después de que el Sr. Fuji le arrojara sal a los ojos" de Yokozuna. -- HHH Pedrigree ( discusión ) 10:06 18 sep 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lo único que dudo es la suspensión por regla 24/7, pero fue solo en ocasiones esporádicas (no una suspensión prolongada como el título Hardcore) y no tiene relación con el cambio de título, ya que sucedió después de que se levantó la suspensión. Además, está cubierto en el artículo principal. -- HHH Pedrigree ( discusión ) 10:09 18 sep 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Por qué las reversiones?
Vaya... te volviste loco haciendo reversiones en un montón de mis ediciones... ¿qué pasa con eso?
En cuanto al motivo de mi regreso al Campeonato Universal de la WWE , agregaste los títulos de NXT a los títulos del roster principal (y viceversa), pero NXT no se considera un roster principal (al menos todavía no). NXT todavía se considera separado de Raw y SmackDown (ni siquiera están incluidos en el próximo draft, lo que es una indicación de su estado). No necesitamos mezclarlos como intentabas hacer. -- JDC808 ♫ 23:36, 19 de septiembre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, la WWE no usa el término "lista principal" (que en realidad es un término originado de Smark), en su lugar se refieren a NXT como la tercera marca global junto con Raw y SD, por lo que eso indicaría que consideran a NXT (al menos marginalmente) en el mismo nivel que las otras 2. Vjmlhds (discusión) 00:24 20 sep 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Además, en cuanto al draft, NXT acaba de debutar para un público más amplio, por lo que lo que está haciendo la WWE es establecer a esos luchadores para un público general, y no quieren comenzar a reorganizarlo justo después de su debut. Una vez que NXT se afiance, es probable que los veamos involucrados en los drafts. No es un desaire a NXT, es solo que quieren establecer límites claros con Raw y SD, en lugar de todo este asunto de "Wild Card" a la ligera. Vjmlhds (discusión) 00:31 20 sep 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
No importa de dónde se originó el término "roster principal". Es un término de la industria ampliamente utilizado, y la WWE de hecho ha usado ese término. El hecho de que sea la "tercera marca global" no significa que sea el roster principal . Tu respuesta sobre el draft es toda una opinión personal O. Hubo una discusión sobre el estado de NXT. Fuiste una minoría al intentar llevarlo a un nivel esencialmente igual o al mismo nivel que Raw y SmackDown. NXT prácticamente se considera una entidad separada (es decir, tiene su propia designación de Triple Corona separada, y el hecho de que después de que los luchadores llegan a Raw y SmackDown, sus récords de campeonato son esencialmente una cosa separada o inexistente, por ejemplo con Charlotte Flair, no incluyen el Campeonato Femenino de NXT cuando hablan de cuántas veces ha sido campeona femenina). -- JDC808 ♫ 04:18, 20 de septiembre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si te refieres a la discusión en la página WP:PW , entonces nunca se llegó a un consenso. Fue un punto muerto que simplemente se abandonó sin que se llegara a una decisión definitiva. No voy a entrar en guerra por esto, pero creo que estás siendo un poco demasiado estridente aquí. Vjmlhds (discusión) 04:31 20 sep 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sí, me refiero a ese. Independientemente del consenso, comenzaste a agregar información a estos artículos, a pesar de ser una minoría en esa discusión. La discusión se estancó, pero la mayoría estuvo de acuerdo en que NXT no estaba al mismo nivel que Raw y SmackDown y aún se lo considera por debajo de ellos. -- JDC808 ♫ 05:02, 20 de septiembre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Travesuras 24 horas al día, 7 días a la semana: hay que amarlas.
Deje los combates por el título 24/7 en la tabla.
Dijiste que nunca habían sido incluidos antes, pero eso es solo porque nunca antes ha habido cambios de título en un PPV, siempre han sido en Raw o SD, o en Youtube/WWE.com cuando han estado en el campo de golf/aeropuerto/boda/consultorio médico/etc.
Eso es falso. Ocurrió en Clash of Champions (el título no cambió de manos, pero se produjo una "defensa del título"). Nuevamente, estos no fueron combates disputados reales en la cartelera, por lo que no, no deberían incluirse en la tabla de combates (aunque pueden incluirse en la prosa de la sección de Eventos). Además, deja de intentar usar fuentes de terceros para respaldarte como lo hiciste aquí. Sí, las fuentes de terceros como CBS son confiables y deben usarse, pero este no es un caso en el que uses a un tercero para contradecir a la primera parte. CBS puede incluirlas, pero WWE, quienes dirigen y operan el programa, no las enumeran como combates disputados en la cartelera (porque no lo fueron). -- JDC808 ♫ 20:08, 7 de octubre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Título GGR
Dejen de eliminar esto ya. Tiene toda la información necesaria, aparece en el historial de títulos de campeonato en wwe.com y se menciona constantemente en la lista de logros de Braun Strowman, ya sea en wwe.com o en los gráficos de SmackDown el viernes pasado. El hecho de que la WWE haya abandonado inmediatamente el título es francamente irrelevante porque encaja en la definición de un campeonato anterior. Así que no importa si crees que debería estar ahí o no. Si crees por alguna razón (porque aparentemente esto te afecta) que no fue un título lo suficientemente largo como para ser incluido, entonces súmate a la página de discusión.
PD: Acabo de revertir tus ediciones porque estoy cansado de volver a agregar manualmente un cinturón de título de origen, así que lo siento si hiciste alguna edición adicional que deba agregarse nuevamente a la revisión actual. Simplemente deja de eliminar una entrada perfectamente genuina... No es como si alguien estuviera tratando de agregar el Campeonato UUDD (no es que esté inactivo ni nada) 174.125.60.159 (discusión) 20:12, 7 de octubre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Con respecto a esa edición de Hell in a Cell
Vaya, mi error. Supongo que sabes distinguir el bien del mal. Zerobrains94 ( discusión ) 19:48 8 oct 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Zerobrains94 , a menos que estés intentando resolver algún tipo de problema o necesites explicar las razones de una edición, no publiques cosas como esta en mi página de discusión. No tiene sentido y no sirve para nada más que para que intentes molestarme. -- JDC808 ♫ 19:56, 8 de octubre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Para darse de baja o inscribirse para recibir futuras ediciones de este boletín, haga clic aquí para actualizar la lista de distribución. (Entregado ~~~~~)
Aguilón
Por favor, dejen de cambiarlo de nuevo a Chad, hacerlo se considerará vandalismo porque el cambio de nombre tiene su origen (https://www.wwe.com/shows/smackdown/wwe-friday-night-smackdown-oct-11-2019/article/king-corbin-def-shorty-gable). Es una estupidez, pero esto es oficial, así que déjenlo así. Fue anunciado como tal varias veces, en varios combates, tenía la placa de identificación que decía "Shorty Gable" y los comentaristas se referían a él como tal sin parar. Así que déjenlo. 75.121.31.179 ( discusión ) 19:01 12 oct 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, el cambio constante de su nombre por uno que obviamente es una broma se consideraría vandalismo. Su perfil en WWE.com sigue siendo Chad Gable. -- JDC808 ♫ 04:04, 13 de octubre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Actualmente eres la única persona que insiste en que se cambie de nuevo a Chad. Por favor, deja de hacerlo. El cambio de nombre es oficial, tiene fuentes y es definitivo. Entiendo que te guste el nombre Chad Gable, a mí también, pero mira, aquí está la cuestión. Eso no importa. Deja tus opiniones personales a un lado y simplemente informa los hechos. Los hechos son que la WWE ha cambiado oficialmente su nombre en el ring. No tienes fuentes para afirmar que esto es "solo una broma recurrente" e incluso si lo fuera, la pancarta, los locutores del ring y los comentaristas lo nombraron así, así que es definitivo. Por favor, deja de hacerlo. 75.121.31.179 ( discusión ) 18:44, 13 de octubre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
No importa si soy el único que insiste en NO cambiar su nombre a Shorty (en realidad, eso es falso, ya que otros también lo han revertido). Tú eres el que aquí debe parar. Su perfil de WWE.com no dice Shorty Gable. Sigue siendo Chad Gable. Eso prevalece sobre la fuente que estás tratando de usar. Esta no es una opinión personal sobre qué nombre me gusta más. Esto se basa en su página oficial de superestrella en el sitio web de su empleado, que una vez más, dice Chad Gable, no Shorty Gable. Además, como mencioné en un resumen de edición en la lista de candidatos para el draft, aparece como Chad Gable, no Shorty Gable. -- JDC808 ♫ 18:50, 13 de octubre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
WWE lo cambió esta mañana por el nuevo nombre del ring. Los cambios de nombre que evolucionan siempre son complicados, ya sean los nombres artísticos de las personas, los nombres de las empresas, los apodos de los equipos... — C.Fred ( discusión ) 19:45 14 oct 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
D-Generation X tiene 2 palabras para ti: https://www.wwe.com/superstars/chad-gable (ignora la URL en sí...)
No necesitamos editar la guerra por esto. Si aún no estás de acuerdo, las páginas de discusión existen por una razón. 75.121.31.179 ( discusión ) 19:24 14 oct 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Esta es una página de discusión, sin embargo, intentabas cambiarla antes de que el cambio se hiciera oficial. Ahora que es oficial, se puede cambiar. ---- JDC808 ♫ 19:26 14 oct 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bro, ya es oficial desde hace días... Esta es una página de discusión de usuarios, no la página de discusión en cuestión. 75.121.31.179 ( discusión ) 19:32 14 oct 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, se hizo oficial hoy (a través de su página de superestrella, que es como la conocemos). Esta es una página de discusión de usuarios, pero sigue siendo una página de discusión y se refería al contenido del artículo (publicaste en mi página de discusión y nunca dijiste nada sobre la página de discusión del artículo, así que en lugar de dividir una disputa en dos páginas de discusión, la mantuve en una). ---- JDC808 ♫ 20:12, 14 de octubre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Está bien, mira, ni siquiera te estaba hablando a ti 192.73.23.2, así que no sé por qué estás aquí. Fue oficial hace días cuando su placa decía "Shorty Gable" y los comentaristas dijeron que era oficial... 75.121.31.179 ( discusión ) 20:17 14 oct 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ese era yo. No había iniciado sesión cuando hice esa publicación ---- JDC808 ♫ 20:19, 14 de octubre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Siguen siendo estadísticas
Siguen siendo estadísticas sobre los luchadores que las ganaron en ese momento actual. Incluso si es uno, siguen siendo estadísticas válidas para llevar un registro. Puedes cambiarlas cuando haya más luchadores que las hayan ganado, ¿no? Incluso si lo consideras redundante, estoy seguro de que todavía hay personas que lo encuentran interesante (como yo, por ejemplo) — Comentario anterior sin firmar agregado por Shad2810 (discusión • contribuciones ) 20:03, 11 de noviembre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Wikipedia no funciona así. Solo ha habido un campeón. Jericho cumple automáticamente con todos esos requisitos, ya que ha sido el único campeón. No hay necesidad de que Wikipedia diga lo obvio. -- JDC808 ♫ 20:08, 11 de noviembre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
(No tengo idea de cómo responder, así que lo haré así. También son las 4 a. m. aquí, así que la ortografía puede estar mal, por favor, discúlpenme). Hay páginas de Wikipedia sobre lucha libre independiente que siguen así incluso con un reinado de título. Yo seguí así. Aún puedes enumerarlas como corresponde. Cuando haya otro ganador, podemos editarlo también como tal. ¿No sería mejor? — Comentario anterior sin firmar agregado por Shad2810 (discusión • contribuciones ) 20:13, 11 de noviembre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Lo hiciste casi correctamente. Lo único que necesitas hacer es sangrar tu respuesta con dos puntos más de lo que tenía mi respuesta (yo tenía dos puntos, así que tú tendrías dos, y así sucesivamente). Pero en respuesta a tu publicación, no, no sería mejor. El hecho de que existan otras cosas no significa que hagamos eso en todos los artículos. Además, la palabra clave es lucha libre independiente. Esas no reciben el tipo de atención que reciben las grandes promociones y cosas como esta se pasan por alto. La información sigue ahí, solo está oculta hasta que se corona al próximo campeón, luego podemos mostrarla y editar las partes que necesitan edición. -- JDC808 ♫ 20:24, 11 de noviembre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
(Espero que esto sea correcto, ¿cómo firmas tu publicación entonces?) Está bien si solo está oculta. Pensé que podrías haberla eliminado, lo cual no aprecio, además de llamar a las estadísticas inútiles ya que trabajo como una persona de estadísticas. También diría que "el campeón más pesado y la edad aún deberían estar allí", no obstante, ya que no son exactamente "obvios". Más reinado y reinado más largo, puedo entender por qué. — Comentario anterior sin firmar agregado por Shad2810 (discusión • contribuciones ) 20:29, 11 de noviembre de 2019 (UTC)[ responder ]
La sangría es correcta. Para firmar tu mensaje, en la parte superior izquierda del cuadro de edición, hay botones para negrita y cursiva. El tercer botón desde la izquierda (parece una firma en cursiva) es el botón que debes presionar para agregar tu firma (solo asegúrate de que el cursor esté al final del texto cuando lo presiones). También puedes escribir cuatro tildes (~) al final de tu mensaje (el botón es más fácil). En respuesta a tu mensaje, no, no se elimina, solo se oculta. No dije que las estadísticas no tuvieran sentido. Son importantes, solo que es un poco tonto enumerarlas en este momento cuando solo ha habido un campeón, por lo que no hay nadie con quien compararlo. Debido a que ha sido el único campeón, técnicamente lo convierte en el campeón más viejo y más joven y en el campeón más pesado y más ligero. -- JDC808 ♫ 22:27, 11 de noviembre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Aite lo encontró. Espero que esto también sea correcto. Sin embargo, podríamos simplemente ocultar los fragmentos repetidos, como en el caso del campeón más antiguo y el más joven, podemos eliminar al más joven (ya que diría que, en teoría, la mayoría, si no todos, serían más jóvenes que él). Y, como tal, las estadísticas del campeón más antiguo seguirían ahí, ya que bueno... es un campeón. --Shad2810 (discusión) 05:31, 12 de noviembre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Edad
No lo entiendo. ¿Por qué hay un límite cuando Jericho ganó el título? Está envejeciendo, es el campeón más viejo con 49 años, no 48. Algunos títulos independientes y mexicanos se mantienen durante años. -- HHH Pedrigree ( discusión ) 20:07 11 nov 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Es cierto que se está haciendo mayor, pero lo seguimos en función de la edad que tenían cuando ganaron el título. Esto es lo que dice el MOS. -- JDC808 ♫ 20:18, 11 de noviembre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Bueno, a veces el MOS está mal o podemos cambiarlo. Para mí es una tontería, el límite debería ser cuando perdió el título. -- HHH Pedrigree ( discusión ) 21:13 11 nov 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eso sería algo que se podría abordar con el proyecto. -- JDC808 ♫ 22:17, 11 de noviembre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ HHH Pedrigree : No tenía 49 años cuando ganó el título. Tenía 48. No se puede juzgar por la edad actual. Si lo hiciéramos, eso significaría que tendría que cambiarse cada año si lo mantuviera durante años. Así no funcionan las cosas. No lo cambie. Sr. CC ¡Oye! ¡ Yo no lo hice! 08:06, 13 de noviembre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Defensas
No reviertan el artículo del Campeonato Mundial de AEW. AEW lleva un registro de los récords de victorias y derrotas, no de la cantidad de defensas por reinado. Lo quieren como parte del historial del título. Eso significa que la carga de demostrar que AEW lleva un registro de las defensas recae sobre ustedes. No lo agregan simplemente porque creen que debería estar ahí. Así no es como funciona esto. Sr. CC ¡Oye! ¡ Yo no lo hice! 08:12, 13 de noviembre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
En primer lugar, no lo hagas como si "lo quisiera ahí". Otro editor lo colocó ahí al principio y yo lo cuestioné, pero no lo quité. Luego, comenzó a eliminarse después de este último PPV, particularmente por Galatz bajo el argumento de que no lo rastrean. Sin embargo, ni tú ni él tienen ninguna prueba real de que no lo rastrean, por lo que he estado restaurando el contenido basándome en el hecho de que todos sus combates sí lo rastrean, lo que incluiría los combates/defensas del título. -- JDC808 ♫ 18:01, 13 de noviembre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sigues volviendo a la normalidad, así que lo quieres ahí. Hacer un seguimiento de las victorias y las derrotas no es hacer un seguimiento de la cantidad de defensas por reinado... Muéstrame dónde hacen un seguimiento de la cantidad de defensas y solo entonces se agregará. Revisé páginas y páginas de resultados y eso no es algo que hagan un seguimiento. Pero, de nuevo, la carga recae sobre ti para demostrar que hacen un seguimiento de la cantidad de defensas por reinado a medida que sigues volviendo a la normalidad. Sr. CC ¡Oye! ¡ Yo no lo hice! 18:39, 14 de noviembre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
No es una cuestión de que yo lo quiera, es una cuestión de que lo eliminen sin pruebas que respalden su afirmación de que no lo rastrean. Sepa la diferencia. Yo digo que la carga de la prueba recae sobre todos ustedes, ya que esa estadística ha estado allí durante más de dos meses y recién ahora la están eliminando. -- JDC808 ♫ 19:27, 14 de noviembre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
No debería agregarse simplemente porque usted u otros consideren que debería estar allí. No puede decirme que debería estar allí porque no ha aportado nada que demuestre que está allí. He hecho mi debida diligencia. Usted debería hacer la suya. Sr. CC ¡Oye! ¡ Yo no lo hice! 03:09, 15 de noviembre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
El WP:BURDEN siempre recae sobre la persona que desea que se agregue, no sobre la persona que desea que se elimine. Trabajo para AEW, así que me agregaré a su lista de personal hasta que me puedan proporcionar una fuente que diga específicamente que no trabajo allí. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 16:11, 15 de noviembre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
El rey de los luchadores XI
No sé si te interesa, pero recientemente nominé The King of Fighters XI para GA. Si te interesa revisarlo o simplemente editarlo, te lo agradecería basándome en tu experiencia con este proyecto. También edité el artículo de The King of Fighters, pero no me interesa nominarlo. Un simple consejo estaría bien. Saludos. Tintor2 ( discusión ) 00:41 15 nov 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Puedo echarle un vistazo, pero voy a estar ocupado básicamente todos los días de la semana que viene (me acaban de pedir que toque en la orquesta del foso para un musical y esta semana es la semana técnica seguida de espectáculos a fines de la semana que viene). Si nadie ha comenzado la revisión para fines del próximo sábado, puedo hacerlo yo. -- JDC808 ♫ 02:50, 15 de noviembre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
No hay problema. Cuídate. La vida al aire libre es lo más importante. Tintor2 ( discusión ) 18:48 15 nov 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mensaje para los votantes de la ArbCom en las elecciones de 2019
WP:VG/LEAD
Basado en tu edición aquí [5] "No se ha llegado a un consenso sobre" WP:VG/LEAD . Te recomiendo que discutas esto en MOS:VG ya que pareces tener algunas reservas al respecto ya que actualmente es parte de MOS:VG . Saludos Spy-cicle💥 ¿Hablar ? 20:18, 21 de noviembre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hay una discusión en curso sobre este mismo tema en la página de discusión de VG, de la que ambos somos parte, y no se ha llegado a un consenso allí. Tu edición introdujo un problema que se planteó allí sobre la redundancia. -- JDC808 ♫ 20:23, 21 de noviembre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sobreenlace
¿El WikiProject de lucha libre tiene pautas diferentes sobre enlaces que otras comunidades de Wikipedia? ViperSnake151 Discusión 15:09, 28 de noviembre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ ViperSnake151 : los enlaces múltiples son una política que se aplica a toda Wikipedia – MOS:REPEATLINK . -- JDC808 ♫ 22:05, 28 de noviembre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
¡Feliz Feliz!
"Los cuatro grandes"
Hola, veo que has añadido información a los artículos de Royal Rumble. Me preocupan algunas de las frases relacionadas con los PPV de los "Cuatro Grandes". Este no es un término que se haya utilizado cuando se emitieron algunos de estos eventos. En el artículo de RR88, dices que se convirtió en uno de los Cuatro Grandes. Eso parece correcto. Sin embargo, para RR94, llamarlo uno de los Cuatro Grandes no funciona bien, en mi opinión. Había cinco PPV anuales en ese momento, y la WWF no los distinguió en niveles. La idea de diferentes niveles de PPV no llegó hasta los eventos de In Your House, y King of the Ring todavía se consideraba uno de los niveles superiores (los Cinco Grandes, si se quiere, aunque no recuerdo que nadie los haya llamado así). ¿Hay alguna forma de ajustar la redacción para que se ajuste a cada artículo? Gracias. GaryColemanFan ( discusión ) 22:04 21 dic 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ GaryColemanFan : He hecho algunos ajustes. Como no sé exactamente cuándo empezó la frase "Big Four", llegué al evento de 1997 o 1998 y decía "Se ha convertido en uno de los "Big Four"..." (en lugar de "Lo es" en los anteriores). Si crees que no es suficiente, no dudes en modificarlo más. -- JDC808 ♫ 01:48, 22 de diciembre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Diciembre de 2019
Tu historial de edición reciente en Elimination Chamber (2019) muestra que actualmente estás involucrado en una guerra de ediciones ; eso significa que estás cambiando repetidamente el contenido para que vuelva a ser como crees que debería ser, cuando has visto que otros editores no están de acuerdo. Para resolver la disputa de contenido, no reviertas ni cambies las ediciones de otros cuando se te haya revertido. En lugar de revertir, usa la página de discusión para trabajar en la creación de una versión que represente el consenso entre los editores. La mejor práctica en esta etapa es discutir, no hacer una guerra de ediciones. Consulta el ciclo de negrita, revertir, discutir para saber cómo se hace esto. Si las discusiones llegan a un punto muerto, puedes publicar una solicitud de ayuda en un tablón de anuncios relevante o buscar una resolución de disputas . En algunos casos, es posible que desees solicitar la protección temporal de la página .
Participar en una guerra de ediciones puede resultar en que se te bloquee la posibilidad de editar , especialmente si violas la regla de las tres reversiones , que establece que un editor no debe realizar más de tres reversiones en una sola página en un período de 24 horas. Deshacer el trabajo de otro editor, ya sea en su totalidad o en parte, ya sea que involucre el mismo material o material diferente cada vez, cuenta como una reversión. También ten en cuenta que, si bien violar la regla de las tres reversiones a menudo conduce a un bloqueo, aún puedes ser bloqueado por guerra de ediciones, incluso si no violas la regla de las tres reversiones , si tu comportamiento indica que tienes la intención de continuar revirtiendo repetidamente. Toddst1 ( discusión ) 03:48, 31 de diciembre de 2019 (UTC) [ responder ]
Para darse de baja o inscribirse para recibir futuras ediciones de este boletín, haga clic aquí para actualizar la lista de distribución. (Entregado ~~~~~)
Para cambiar
Pero el estado de demonio ya está en SmackDown Abhishek Gandha ( discusión ) 16:38, 12 de enero de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Supongo que estás hablando de mi edición del Campeonato Universal de la WWE . Sí, el estado de The Fiend era SmackDown, pero el título no cambió a SmackDown hasta después de que lo ganara. -- JDC808 ♫ 16:42, 12 de enero de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Cambios en el Campeonato WWE 24/7
Lamento no haber actualizado el resto del artículo, pero quería esperar y ver si al final de la noche R-Truth recuperaría el título, como suele hacer, antes de cambiar el artículo por completo. He cambiado el artículo por completo antes solo para volver a cambiarlo debido a que Truth lo recuperó más tarde el mismo día. Solo quería esperar y ver si al final de la noche lo recuperaría y luego lo habría cambiado. I Am Awesome 061796 ( discusión ) 03:06, 14 de enero de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Si bien puedo entender el hecho de que el título a menudo cambia varias veces durante un programa (lo que puede ser molesto de seguir en términos de actualizar los artículos aquí), todo el artículo aún necesita ser actualizado ya que cualquiera puede leer el artículo en cualquier momento y parece incorrecto si el encabezado dice una cosa pero la tabla de reinados dice otra (siguiendo su enfoque en la espera, probablemente sería mejor esperar hasta que termine todo el programa antes de actualizar el artículo con el primer cambio de título de la noche; aunque, por supuesto, alguien más podría actualizarlo mientras estaba esperando). -- JDC808 ♫ 03:16, 14 de enero de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Pedido
Por favor, consulte el título oficial de los Estados Unidos de la WWE y luego deshaga los datos Abhishek Gandha ( discusión ) 05:37, 19 de enero de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Patrullaje automático concedido
Hola JDC808, solo quería informarte que he agregado el permiso " autopatrolled " a tu cuenta, ya que has creado numerosos artículos válidos. Esta función no tendrá ningún efecto en tu edición y simplemente está destinada a reducir la carga de trabajo de los nuevos patrulleros de páginas . Para obtener más información sobre el derecho de autopatrolled, consulta Wikipedia:Autopatrolled . No dudes en dejarme un mensaje si tienes alguna pregunta. ¡Feliz edición! firmado, Rosguill discusión 05:49, 13 de febrero de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Dios de la guerra (franquicia)
Este es el mensaje que le informamos que el artículo anterior ha sido programado como artículo destacado de hoy , 22 de marzo de 2020. Por favor, compruebe que el artículo no necesita modificaciones. Si está interesado en editar el texto de la página principal, puede hacerlo en Wikipedia:Artículo destacado de hoy/22 de marzo de 2020 .— Wehwalt ( discusión ) 23:12 18 febrero 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Batalla real
No voy a hacer un escándalo por el Rumble 2020, pero ¿podemos estar de acuerdo con esto de ahora en adelante?:
Para futuros Rumbles, ahora que se ha establecido que los títulos NXT también son opciones para el ganador, ¿podemos incluir automáticamente a NXT en la mezcla, ahora que se ha establecido el precedente?
¿Qué precedente se estableció? Llevan varios años con luchadores de NXT en el Rumble. No se ha promocionado nada en NXT en relación con este evento. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 14:51, 20 de febrero de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
El precedente de que los títulos de NXT son opciones para el ganador del Rumble, ¿no le daría eso a NXT una participación en el Rumble automáticamente (de nuevo, esto es para futuros Rumbles, no para 2020, ya que ese barco ya zarpó)? Vjmlhds (discusión) 18:53 20 feb 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Supongo que sí. Todo depende de lo que decidan hacer el año que viene. -- JDC808 ♫ 08:36, 21 de febrero de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Salón de la Fama
Al igual que en otros artículos, como las ediciones de 2011 y 2012, solo incluimos los títulos más prestigiosos. No se incluyen los títulos de Michaels y Edge, solo los más importantes. -- HHH Pedrigree ( discusión ) 11:44 7 mar 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Eso parece incorrecto. Dice "reconocimientos reconocidos por la WWE". No incluir los campeonatos que ganaron en la WWE da la impresión de que la WWE no los reconoce. Esos artículos más antiguos deberían actualizarse. Y en respuesta a los títulos Hardcore y Europeos que no figuran en la página de JBL, aparecen en su página de Superestrellas. -- JDC808 ♫ 23:46, 7 de marzo de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
No es necesario actualizar los artículos. Es un breve resumen de sus logros, no todo. Si quieres ver todos los títulos que ganaron Edge o Michaels, lee su artículo. -- HHH Pedrigree ( discusión ) 00:08 8 mar 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Ese no es el punto. Se trata de "reconocimientos reconocidos por la WWE", no de "algunos de los reconocimientos reconocidos por la WWE". Sus artículos enumerarían todo lo que entra y sale de la WWE, lo que no reconocen (con algunas excepciones). -- JDC808 ♫ 00:13, 8 de marzo de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Así es como lo hacemos. [6] [7] -- HHH Pedrigree ( discusión ) 00:17 8 mar 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
El hecho de que se haya hecho en ese momento no significa que haya sido correcto. -- JDC808 ♫ 00:26, 8 de marzo de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Para mí, no hay nada malo en esta sección. Solo un pequeño resumen de su carrera, no una cobertura detallada de cada título que ganó el luchador, ya que la mayoría de ellos no son relevantes para su ingreso al Salón de la Fama. -- HHH Pedrigree ( discusión ) 01:04 8 mar 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿No son relevantes? ¿Según los criterios de quién? WWE cree que son lo suficientemente importantes como para incluirlos en su página de Superestrellas, así que ¿por qué no los incluiríamos en sus galardones del Salón de la Fama? -- JDC808 ♫ 01:10, 8 de marzo de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
De nuevo, eso es lo que funciona. Si un luchador ha tenido varios títulos, incluimos los más importantes. Si quieres saber más, lee el artículo sobre luchadores. WWE incluye en el perfil de JBL, ya que es su perfil oficial, todos los títulos que ha ganado, no solo algunos. -- HHH Pedrigree ( discusión ) 01:32, 8 de marzo de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿No es eso lo que funciona? ¿Qué? Reiteraré una declaración anterior, pero con una revisión. Son "reconocimientos reconocidos por la WWE", no lo que unos pocos editores selectos de Wikipedia decidieron que eran los más importantes. -- JDC808 ♫ 01:48, 8 de marzo de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Detente. Si crees que el proyecto debería reevaluarse, inicia una discusión en la página de discusión. Hasta entonces, el consenso es que los títulos más destacados son los siguientes. -- HHH Pedrigree ( discusión ) 10:54 16 mar 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ HHH Pedrigree : En realidad, no lo es. No hay ninguna directriz en la guía de estilo que diga eso. La discusión a la que haces referencia se detuvo, así que no, en realidad no hubo consenso. -- JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 16 de marzo de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Como te dije, así es como el proyecto ha funcionado durante varios años y, según WP:CONSENSUS , "se puede asumir que cualquier edición que no sea disputada o revertida por otro editor tiene consenso. Si esa edición es revisada más tarde por otro editor sin disputa, se puede asumir que se ha alcanzado un nuevo consenso". Como te mostré, hay varios usuarios que trabajaron de esa manera durante años. Si quieres un cambio, pídelo. Hasta entonces, el consenso sigue siendo el mismo. -- HHH Pedrigree ( discusión ) 11:14, 16 de marzo de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ HHH Pedrigree : Pero hubo y hay una disputa, así que no, no hubo ni hay un consenso, algo que parece que no estás entendiendo. No importa "cuántos usuarios trabajaron de esa manera" si estaban equivocados. Somos Wikipedia, una enciclopedia. No somos nosotros quienes decidimos qué es y qué no es reconocido por la promoción que alberga/posee este Salón de la Fama. Y una vez más, la sección se titula "Reconocimientos reconocidos por la WWE", NO lo que unos pocos editores selectos de Wikipedia decidieron que eran los más importantes. Se titula "Reconocimientos reconocidos por la WWE", pero no estamos enumerando todos los que reconocen. ¿Qué sentido tiene eso? -- JDC808 ♫ 11:21, 16 de marzo de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Tú crees que estamos equivocados, yo creo que tenemos razón. Eres libre de iniciar una discusión en la página de discusión del proyecto: HHH Pedrigree ( discusión ) 11:30, 16 de marzo de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ HHH Pedrigree : Es porque estás equivocado. Estás diciendo una cosa pero quieres decir otra. De nuevo, ¿qué sentido tiene eso? He señalado los fallos de tu argumento y lo único que se te ocurre es "Creo que tenemos razón" basándote en un falso consenso. -- JDC808 ♫ 11:34, 16 de marzo de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Así es como han trabajado varios usuarios desde, al menos, 2012. Nuevamente, comience una discusión en el lugar correcto: HHH Pedrigree ( discusión ) 11:40 16 mar 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ HHH Pedrigree : No utilices los errores del pasado para sustentar las decisiones actuales. Una vez más, no has respondido a mi pregunta sobre qué sentido tiene hacerlo. -- JDC808 ♫ 11:43, 16 de marzo de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
La idea de la sección "WWE reconoce..." era incluir solo los títulos reconocidos por la WWE (WWE, WCW, ECW, AWA y, últimamente, algunos títulos de NJPW como Liger). Solo excluir los títulos de otras promociones que los usuarios incluyeron, como los títulos de TNA para Sting y Kurt Angle. No significa "todos los reconocimientos reconocidos por la WWE", solo los más importantes [8]. -- HHH Pedrigree ( discusión ) 11:50 16 mar 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ HHH Pedrigree : Pero eso no es lo que dice. Dice "elogios reconocidos por la WWE", no lo que algunos editores de Wikipedia decidieron que son los más importantes de lo que la WWE reconoce. Sigo repitiéndome porque no estás entendiendo lo que se está diciendo. Sigues contradiciendo tus propias palabras. No hay nada allí que indique a los lectores que solo estamos enumerando los logros más importantes (y, de todos modos, ¿quiénes somos nosotros para decidir eso?), que es realmente todo el asunto. -- JDC808 ♫ 12:00, 16 de marzo de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Es fácil enfadarse con estas cosas. Lo sé, he pasado por eso. Solo tienes que mantener la calma y no dejar que la ira te domine. -- JDC808 ♫ 08:35, 31 de marzo de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Boletín informativo de videojuegos WikiProject del primer trimestre de 2020
Para darse de baja o inscribirse para recibir futuras ediciones de este boletín, haga clic aquí para actualizar la lista de distribución. (Entregado ~~~~~)
¿Cuánto tu?
Gana dinero con WIKIPEDIA RB2616 (discusión) 05:41 14 abr 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Jajaja, me gustaría poder ganar dinero con Wikipedia por todas las ediciones que hago. -- JDC808 ♫ 10:35, 14 de abril de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Nuevo día
Vi tu comentario sobre lo confusa que es la WWE en cuanto a si contar o no todos los reinados de New Day como "Freebird".
Mis dos centavos... sinceramente, creo que nosotros (como en el Wiki colectivo "nosotros") nos esforzamos demasiado en asumir cosas ("bueno, no contó para Kofi aquí, y no contó para Woods allá) debido a cosas como que la gente no aparecía en las fotografías y ese tipo de cosas.
Al final del día, todos los reinados del equipo New Day cuentan como reinados individuales para los tres miembros... ese siempre ha sido su trato.
@ Vjmlhds : No fue tanto que nosotros asumiéramos cosas, fue que la WWE publicó información contradictoria en la que reconocieron o no a ciertos miembros. Como con su quinto reinado, publicaron un artículo sobre Kofi superando los 1000 días como campeón, pero eso era falso. En realidad, habría tenido unos 1050 días en el momento de esa publicación si hubieran contado el cuarto reinado del equipo cuando era campeón de la WWE (las matemáticas no cuadraban). Luego está el hecho legítimo de que Woods estuvo fuera durante todo el quinto reinado porque estaba lesionado (ni siquiera estuvo en la televisión durante ese tiempo, excepto por una aparición en WWE Backstage ). -- JDC808 ♫ 00:07, 27 de abril de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Supongo que... un poco de la columna A, un poco de la columna B, ¿quién sabe? Pero dicho todo esto, al menos ahora tenemos una declaración clara de WWE.com de que todos los reinados en equipo cuentan como reinados individuales para los 3 miembros de New Day, por lo que es un punto discutible. Vjmlhds (discusión) 00:15 27 abr 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Renacimiento
No cambies el nombre del artículo. Revival sigue siendo WP:COMMONNAME. Además, varias fuentes siguen llamándolos "The Revolt, anteriormente conocido como The Revival", por lo que no cumple con el CAMBIO DE NOMBRE. -- HHH Pedrigree ( discusión ) 15:32 27 abr 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
No voy a discutir esto más, pero también está en Lista de torneos de la WWE . En todo caso, debería incluirse en la transcripción. JTP ( discusión • contribuciones ) 06:25, 18 de mayo de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
No tengo ningún problema con la transclusión (aunque eso es algo que no sé cómo hacer). -- JDC808 ♫ 06:27, 18 de mayo de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Qué cultura?
Hola. ¿Crees que Whatculture también es para opinar? Según la discusión en el tablón de anuncios, WhatCulture está formado por varias personas sin "experiencia relevante ni cualificación real". [9] Como dijo otro usuario de Watchmojo, no son expertos en su opinión. Es solo una opinión. -- HHH Pedrigree ( discusión ) 09:38, 26 de mayo de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ HHH Pedrigree : De todos modos, ese es el problema, se usa como una opinión, nada más. Además, ¿cuándo fue la última vez que WhatCulture se sometió a revisión para determinar su fiabilidad? Las cosas han cambiado en los últimos años. -- JDC808 ♫ 10:35, 26 de mayo de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Pero no es una opinión experta en el campo de la lucha libre profesional. Su opinión tiene el mismo peso que la tuya o la mía. -- HHH Pedrigree ( discusión ) 10:37 26 may 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
La opinión de los expertos es discutible y, de nuevo, ¿cuándo fue la última vez que se sometieron a revisión? Compararlo con nosotros no es lo mismo. Técnicamente, él es más experto que nosotros en este sentido, considerando que trabaja para una parte de una empresa que se dedica explícitamente a la lucha libre profesional, donde nosotros solo somos meros editores de Wikipedia. -- JDC808 ♫ 10:40, 26 de mayo de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Archivo:Killzone3HelghastEdition.jpg incluido para discusión
Un archivo que has subido o modificado, File:Killzone3HelghastEdition.jpg, ha sido incluido en Wikipedia:Files for discussion . Consulta la discusión para ver por qué ha sido incluido (es posible que tengas que buscar el título de la imagen para encontrar su entrada). No dudes en añadir tu opinión sobre el tema debajo de la nominación. Gracias. The Squirrel Conspiracy ( discusión ) 17:08 26 may 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Boletín informativo de videojuegos WikiProject del segundo trimestre de 2020
Para darse de baja o inscribirse para recibir futuras ediciones de este boletín, haga clic aquí para actualizar la lista de distribución. (Entregado ~~~~~)
03:23, 5 de julio de 2020 (UTC)
Jon Moxley
Jon Moxley es el actual campeón mundial de IWGP Estados Unidos y AEW en ambos usamos sin equipo de lucha libre el título.
En primer lugar, asegúrate de firmar tus publicaciones. En segundo lugar, no tenemos ninguna foto gratuita de él con ninguno de esos títulos ni fotos recientes de él con su equipo. -- JDC808 ♫ 05:37, 23 de agosto de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hombre lo elimino porque ya está presente en la Historia por qué ponemos 2 veces en una página Rey Rudra ( discusión ) 06:26 23 ago 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
El encabezado es un resumen del artículo. -- JDC808 ♫ 06:27, 23 de agosto de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Quiero decir algo: edité el título de Brodie Lee hace una semana, pero alguien deshizo mi edición debido al tweet de Dave Meltzer. ¿Por qué?
No estuve involucrado en esas ediciones, pero probablemente porque hubo informes contradictorios, porque algunos habían dicho que Rowan interfirió para ayudar a Brodie Lee a ganar, lo que no sucedió. -- JDC808 ♫ 07:25, 23 de agosto de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Toma de posesión XXX
Veo que cambiaste el nombre del artículo de "TakeOver XXX" a "TakeOver: XXX". Yo lo volví a cambiar. Ve a la página de discusión de TakeOver XXX y verás enlaces a varios artículos escritos en WWE.com en las últimas 48 horas, incluida la página de resultados escrita hace unas horas, donde claramente lo estilizan como TakeOver XXX, sin dos puntos. OldSkool01 ( discusión ) 07:39 23 ago 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Director de pompas fúnebres
Hola, soy HHH Pedrigree . Quería informarte que una o más de tus contribuciones recientes se han deshecho porque no parecían constructivas. Si deseas experimentar, utiliza tu sandbox . Si tienes alguna pregunta, puedes pedir ayuda en la Teahouse . Gracias.Absténgase de realizar modificaciones no constructivas en Wikipedia. Sus modificaciones parecen constituir vandalismo y han sido revertidas . Si desea experimentar, utilice su entorno de pruebas . El vandalismo reiterado puede resultar en la pérdida de privilegios de edición . Gracias.
@ HHH Pedrigree : ¿En serio? ¿Vas a ser tan ignorante sobre esto? ¿Acusarme de ediciones no constructivas y vandalismo? Te estás tomando demasiado en serio esto de "no es lo que dicen las fuentes". Una vez más, The Undertaker lo dijo él mismo. No importa lo que especule cualquier fuente sobre esto. Si alguien está siendo poco constructivo aquí, eres tú por revertir ciegamente ediciones válidas. -- JDC808 ♫ 11:51, 14 de septiembre de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
¿Ahí está la actitud de joder a las fuentes de nuevo? ¿Hay algún problema en irse de esa manera? Taker dijo que no tiene ningún deseo, pero no que está retirado, fue ambiguo. Varias fuentes (PWInsider, WrestleView, BBC) afirmaron que insinuó el retiro, lo cual es cierto. El artículo dice que Taker dijo que no tiene ningún deseo, pero fue ambiguo sobre el retiro. -- HHH Pedrigree ( discusión ) 11:59, 14 de septiembre de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ HHH Pedrigree : Sí, porque están especulando, a pesar de lo que Undertaker declaró explícitamente (las fuentes confiables pueden estar equivocadas, por cierto). Es un problema dejarlo como está porque ignora lo que dice, que es que no tiene ningún deseo de luchar de nuevo y que solo regresaría si Vince estuviera en apuros y dependiera de la situación (es decir, el oponente y su propia salud física). Además, ¿por qué crees que la serie se tituló The Last Ride ? Porque narraba su "último viaje" en la lucha libre (sus últimos años que llevaron a su último combate, si eso no estaba claro). -- JDC808 ♫ 12:09, 14 de septiembre de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Estás especulando. "No tiene ningún deseo, por eso está retirado". Como "El abrigo y el sombrero están en el ring, está retirado". O "Luchó en The End of an Era Match, está retirado". Fuentes (muchas de ellas9) afirmaron que no tiene ningún deseo, pero no confirmaron el retiro. -- HHH Pedrigree ( discusión ) 12:18, 14 de septiembre de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ HHH Pedrigree : No estoy especulando. Me baso en lo que dijo el propio hombre. Además, la lucha de End of an Era fue una elección absolutamente mala, ya que nunca se dijo que Undertaker o Triple H se retirarían después de esa lucha. En segundo lugar, el abrigo y el sombrero fueron especulaciones legítimas de todas las partes. Pero, ¿sabes qué hace que esto sea diferente de cualquier escenario anterior? Tenemos el boca a boca directo del propio Undertaker, así que, de nuevo, no importa en absoluto lo que especulen esas fuentes. Lo que dice Undertaker supera cualquier cosa que digan esas fuentes. -- JDC808 ♫ 12:27, 14 de septiembre de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Las fuentes no especulan. Las fuentes señalan que nunca habló de retirarse, solo lo insinuó. -- HHH Pedrigree ( discusión ) 12:34 14 sep 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ HHH Pedrigree : Si realmente crees que las fuentes no están especulando, entonces no deberías editar con respecto a este tema. -- JDC808 ♫ 12:41, 14 de septiembre de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
No están especulando. Eres tú quien está eliminando las fuentes de WP:SECONDARY porque no te gustan. La BBC lo resumió muy bien: "Sus palabras sugieren planes de retirarse después de una carrera que abarca tres décadas. Pero ni el señor Calaway ni la WWE han anunciado formalmente su retiro de la liga". -- HHH Pedrigree ( discusión ) 14:09, 14 de septiembre de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ HHH Pedrigree : Sí, están especulando. La mayoría de los luchadores nunca dicen directamente: "Estoy retirado". Hay una diferencia entre "no gustarte" y que estén equivocados, que aparentemente no puedes ver. -- JDC808 ♫ 05:38, 15 de septiembre de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
No, no lo son. Estás especulando basándote en las palabras de Taker. Varias fuentes secundarias apuntaron a que insinuó el retiro, eso es lo que dice el artículo. -- HHH Pedrigree ( discusión ) 09:21 15 sep 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Campeonato de la WWE
Hola, soy HHH Pedrigree . Quería informarte que una o más de tus contribuciones recientes al Campeonato de la WWE se han deshecho porque no parecían constructivas. Fue eliminada por 3 usuarios diferentes y sigue sin tener fuentes. Si deseas experimentar, usa tu sandbox . Si tienes alguna pregunta, puedes pedir ayuda en la Casa de Té . Gracias. -- HHH Pedrigree ( discusión ) 23:04 29 sep 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Boletín informativo de videojuegos WikiProject del tercer trimestre de 2020
Para darse de baja o inscribirse para recibir futuras ediciones de este boletín, haga clic aquí para actualizar la lista de distribución. (Entregado ~~~~~)
Le escribo porque figura como miembro del Wikiproject Pro Wrestling y necesito una tercera (en realidad, una cuarta) opinión sobre dos artículos sobre lucha libre profesional. (Lamento añadirle más peso. La disputa actual no llegará a ninguna parte sin comentarios externos).
El problema es que Hartley Jackson pasó recientemente por una etapa en la AfD que dio lugar a un largo debate. Intentaré resumir el problema a continuación.
Jammo85 me había pedido ayuda para encontrar fuentes de un determinado hecho y encontré algunas buenas fuentes, pero todavía nos enfrentamos a la oposición de otro usuario, Hartley Jackson y The Mighty Don't Kneel (TMDK). Por lo tanto, me gustaría pedirle su opinión sobre el asunto.
Nos gustaría dejar constancia de que " Hartley Jackson formó parte de The Mighty Don't Kneel en 2015 y 2016 ".
He encontrado dos fuentes de sitios web de eventos oficiales de lucha libre profesional (están archivados, espere unos minutos para que se carguen):
https://web.archive.org/web/20160502062934/https://wrestlerampage.wordpress.com/ que a pesar de ser wordpress, fue y sigue siendo la web oficial del evento
y Hartley aparece en el lado de TMDK en ambos.
Además, también hay una lista de sus apariciones como TMDK aquí, que corrobora lo anterior:
https://www.cagematch.net/?id=29&nr=1293&page=2
pero este sitio web aparece en una lista no oficial de fuentes confiables como marginalmente confiable. Se utiliza estrictamente para los resultados de los partidos y no para otra información. Acepta los envíos de los usuarios, pero es revisado por editores regionales que verifican todos los envíos antes de que se agreguen a la base de datos. La otra parte usa esto en nuestra contra, pero en realidad creo que nos apoya, ya que en realidad solo usamos los resultados aquí. Es decir, no usamos las publicaciones del blog producidas en Cagematch (ver [10]).
Pensé que las fuentes anteriores eran suficientes, pero hay algunas más si desea verlas: [1] [2] [3] .
^ Anuncio oficial de Wrestle Rampage en las redes sociales [1].
^ Greer, Jamie (5 de mayo de 2020). "The Mighty, Too: Shane Thorne y Brendan Vink continúan con el legado de TMDK". Last Word on Pro Wrestling . Consultado el 26 de septiembre de 2020 .
^ Otras fuentes de información sobre este tema son: [2], que es un artículo de un podcast sobre lucha libre, que menciona a Hartley como parte de TMDK; y también [3] [4], que son anuncios oficiales de combates de Wrestling Rampage, y muestran a Hartley en el equipo de TMDK. Se accedió a todos los enlaces el 7 de octubre de 2020.
¿Podemos hablar sobre el Campeonato en Parejas de SmackDown?
Cuando Kofi es Campeón de la WWE Esa vez solo Big y Xavier son campeones.(cuarto reinado de Big E y Xavier Woods)
Luego en quinto y sexto reinado de The New Day Woods se lesionó por lo que incluimos solo a (Kofi y Big)
Luego, en Seventh Reign, solo amanece nuevo (Woods y Kingston son campeones)
Así que mi petición para ustedes es que por favor cambien los días de reinado de Big E, Kingston y Woods por el título de Rey Rudra ( discusión ) 09:00, 13 de octubre de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
De esta conclusión, Big E y Kofi Kingston son seis veces campeones en parejas y Xavier Woods es cinco veces King Rudra ( discusión ) 09:01, 13 de octubre de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Como grupo son siete veces pero como individuo tienen un reinado diferente Rey Rudra ( discusión ) 09:04 13 octubre 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Octubre de 2020
Por favor, denme una respuesta. La edición revertida de ayer por Snowycats es totalmente incorrecta. Hizo tres reversiones para el combate que no se llevaría a cabo en Hell in a cell que es Ziggler y Sharai vs Candice LeRae y Johnny Gargano. Entonces, resultados. Eliminé ese combate dos veces del artículo. Dice que es vandalismo hecho por mí. King Rudra ( discusión ) 02:38, 26 de octubre de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Sarcasmo
El sarcasmo es el primer idioma de todos ahora. Pero podrías haber eliminado esa información redundante en la nota del Campeonato Mundial de AEW sin la necesidad de dejar un resumen de edición sarcástico. ¡ Sr. CC! ¡Oye! ¡ Yo no lo hice! 17:52, 9 de noviembre de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Mensaje para los votantes de las elecciones ArbCom 2020
Diciembre de 2020
En el historial de defensa del título se incluyen solo las defensas exitosas o todas las defensas del Rey Rudra ( discusión ) 07:52 1 dic 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
@ King Rudra : Las defensas de título solo se incluyen si y solo si la promoción hace un seguimiento de las defensas de título. Si la promoción de hecho hace un seguimiento de las defensas de título, entonces serían defensas exitosas, porque no exitosas significa que perdieron el título. Puede haber algunas variables, como un final de descalificación o no-contest, pero no conozco todos esos detalles ya que principalmente solo trabajo en artículos de WWE y AEW, y ninguna de esas promociones hace un seguimiento de las defensas de título. -- JDC808 ♫ 05:17, 3 de diciembre de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Hola JDC808, no tengo muchas ganas de participar en guerras de ediciones ni estoy en un tono en el que esté tratando de demostrar algo. Se agradecen tus pequeñas ediciones en WWE Tribute to the Troops . Gracias por aclarar en los resúmenes de las ediciones :) Exceller88 ( discusión ) 06:41 10 dic 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Domo ThunderDome de la WWE
Gracias por tus útiles modificaciones a la página de WWE ThunderDome. Aprecio toda tu ayuda, ha sido muy útil. :-)
@ TheVaughano : De nada. Vi que se hizo el artículo y me gusta ayudar a crear artículos desde el principio. -- JDC808 ♫ 19:21, 12 de diciembre de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Resumen de la función Revertir y editar
En primer lugar, gracias por eliminar ese vandalismo en el artículo del Campeonato Mundial de AEW. Ahora, cuando elimines el vandalismo, usa la función de revertir. Si no, usa el resumen de edición. Las ediciones o eliminaciones importantes de vandalismo siempre deben tener un resumen de edición. Sr. CC ¡Oye! ¡ Yo no lo hice! 10:39, 20 de diciembre de 2020 (UTC) [ responder ]
Boletín informativo de videojuegos de WikiProject, cuarto trimestre de 2020
Para darse de baja o inscribirse para recibir futuras ediciones de este boletín, haga clic aquí para actualizar la lista de distribución. (Entregado a las 08:33, 4 de enero de 2021 (UTC))
Are you serious right now? You attacking me because I did even provide a reliable source for the Royal Rumble (2021) edit. Let me get this straight. Vjmlhds joined Wikipedia since 2008. That includes you JDC808, you joined Wikipedia since 2008 as well, that's 13 years. I joined Wikipedia in 2017 so I have only been a member for 3 years now. Yet somehow, you think I know where to provide a reliable source or if I'm knowledgeable in that field to provide reputable sources. Been a member on Wikipedia for many years does not mean they should know which sources to make use of. I have to admit that there are still a couple of things I still need to learn in Wikipedia. If you knew where to quote a reputable source, then quit your complaining and edit it yourself. There is no need to act sarcastic and attack other users as if they have been on Wikipedia for so long that they knew which source to make use of. Anyway, I thought that we both put that crazy 'rivalry' behind us, (edits regarding repetition and other issues). I even apologized, yet somehow you still assume I know this and that and then make crazy comments. (one edit I remember is you assumed I knew what 'under the bus' means.)
In regards to providing sources, I aim to better myself, do my homework and locate the source and make use of it when editing articles. Zerobrains94 (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zerobrains94: You took that way too personally. Stop making these things so personal. That's a major reason previous issues between us have occurred. You pointing out the fact that Vjmlhds has been on Wikipedia as long as I have is proof enough that he should know how to locate and cite sources. It's really not that hard and is one of the first things you should learn to do when you start editing (if you're going to be editing frequently and on a more serious level, which you have). You've been on here 3 years, which is more than enough time to learn how to cite sources (even if the format is bare minimum, for example, just using the barest of formats: <ref>url of the source</ref>, but you can also just copy-paste the previous source and replace the details). The sources we use for the Storyline section are almost always from the same website — Pro Wrestling Dot Net. All you have to do is click on the previous source used and find the article for the next episode. Also, I did find the source, because like 95% of the time, I'm the one who does, but others need to learn how to do it too if they're going to add new information. Vjmlhds added new information, but put it in a spot where it was being cited to the previous source (you edited what he added, which is why I also mentioned you in the edit summary). --JDC808 ♫ 18:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay fine, but regardless you should know that all users on Wikipedia are different individuals. Different things may affect users in a number of users, including personally. I'm not saying I took that personally. All I'm saying is just consider other users perspective and their sentiments.
Regarding editing pages and citing sources, I have to admit I took me a while to learn to do all of that properly when I first started editing.
Next time if I do provide a source, I will make use of Pro Wrestling Dot Net. Thanks for the heads up. Zerobrains94 (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NXT
Per previous consensus, NXT title is not a world title. If youwant, you can open a RfC in the talk page to change that. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know about that. I was there and took part. This essentially trumps that now. --JDC808 ♫ 10:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Over the Edge
If you're moving references and adding a section, please indicate that in your edit summary. You also did not answer my question about what vanity press reference was being removed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GaryColemanFan: In doing mass edits across multiple articles, edit summaries are the last thing on my list to remember to do. Didn't know what you were referring to by a "vanity press reference," but I believe what that's referring to is The History of Professional Wrestling book (which covers 1990–1999), which is citing the information regarding In Your House in that Background section --JDC808 ♫ 05:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have accurate edit summaries, you can expect some of your edits to be reverted. Speaking of which, it seems like you do a lot of arguing in edit summaries during reverts rather than actually trying to discuss contested changes. More talk page discussion would be preferable. Some people might view your reverts as edit warring and presuming ownership of articles. In this instance, it could have avoided confusion if we had both followed my advice and used the article talk page, as the vanity press tag appears to have been automatically added as an edit summary, as you were adding a book from CreateSpace. It looked to me like you were removing something and using "vanity press" as justification, as your edit summary didn't provide enough clarity or context. With that said, Graham Cawthon seems to be viewed as a reliable source, so the source should meet the SPS criteria. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pics
I don't want it to appear that I'm banging on you, because you've actually had my back on other topics, and I appreciate it.
But please stop putting in those oversize pics of Lashley and Reigns...it's not necessary.
Lashley hasn't aged a day in 15 years (and it really isn't that big of a deal he's wearing gold trunks in the one pic), and Reigns' look has been the same since day one.
Aesthetics do matter - can't have pics just thrown up there, especially on a chart where neatness counts a bit more than other places.
AUTOPATROLLED in a total number of edits King Rudra 07:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have to create valid articles. I don't know what the exact number is. --JDC808 ♫ 08:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Million Award
Been combing through some VG articles and seeing which editors are eligible for the Million award and you are. Since its promotion to FA in May 2016, God of War (franchise) has had an average annual view count of 1,092,608 (excluding MP appearance). Good job, keep it up. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 03:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WM celebrities
Real life intervened before I could put in the references for the WM 37 celebrities...had every intention of doing so, but, kept getting pulled away.
You know I usually make sure to include references (you give me a hard time for the way I do it, but I always put them in).
Thank you for adding them yourself. As I said, I had every intention of doing so myself once I had a little time, but you beat me to it, and I appreciate it.
@Vjmlhds: I give you a hard time for the way that you do it because it's very basic and doesn't give all the necessary information for a citation (the one thing I can say about the way you do it is that it at least isn't the bare url that some do). I believe I said it on your page, but we want these to be quality articles, and that includes the source formatting. As you know, Wikipedia gets a bad rap, and the pro-wrestling project gets one too from the other Wikipedia communities. The better we can make these articles, the better for Wikipedia as a whole and all those who read these articles. --JDC808 ♫ 18:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've always done references that way (on all kinds of articles - not just wrestling - over many years), and truthfully you're the only one that has criticized me for it. Bare URLs are just lazy...gotta give a little context at minimum. It really does come down to preference...your way is a gourmet meal, my way is ordering a pizza, but it accomplishes the same thing. Just comes down to how many bells and whistles you prefer. Vjmlhds(talk) 19:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds: I had also done references a certain way before I learned the more correct way and I learned earlier on instead of doing a more informal way for years (and citation formats are universal across Wikipedia). I may be the only one who has criticized you for it, but it's because I want these articles to be better in all aspects. Many of the pro-wrestling articles I've come across here have been horrendous. They're either not sourced, they're under sourced, they have incorrect formatting all over the place, there's overlinking, etc. It's terrible. Also, it's not "my way," it's the standard, and what you're doing actually doesn't accomplish the same thing. All yours does is give the title of the article and the website. It doesn't give the date, it doesn't give the author (if there is one), and it doesn't give the access date. These are all important details for the citation. The date is important to know so we know how old or recent the source is, the author is important for the same reason the author of a book is important (can also help in validity), and the access date is important because there could be a change in information from the time you first accessed the source (so the access date tells us that the information being sourced is based on the time of that date, if there are any changes to the original source). Also, if we ever wanted to take these articles to WP:GA or even WP:FA, the citation format that you do would be one of the things reviewers would call out because it doesn't meet the requirements for that quality scale. I'm not saying we have to take any of these articles to GA or FA, but that's the quality we need to be striving for. --JDC808 ♫ 19:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, but sometimes a man just wants to have a pizza...nobody has Wolfgang Puck cook for them every night. I agree that references are important, and I always try to tidy things up as much as I can, but there's also going overboard the other way as well. Vjmlhds(talk) 23:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds: This isn't going overboard though. Going overboard would be to ask you to also archive these sources to ensure the original source lasts (that is actually a requirement of FA, but that's beside the point). --JDC808 ♫ 00:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds: I have to ask you, why is it so hard for you to just format the sources correctly? I'm tired of having to constantly fix these. The dropdown box does all the work for you, but for some reason, you just want to be stubborn on this and continue with your basic and informal format. --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss your views about this article with the IP user on the article talk page. If you like, you could post a neutral request for additional comments at WT:PW. Aggressive comments in edit summaries are not a substitute for discussion. Both of you are engaged in an edit war and risk being blocked if this behavior continues. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bad Bunny
Thank you for correcting this article. I tried to revert it multiple times last night but no one wanted to listen to me. Megppg99 (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re: One sentence leads
I operate in the spirit of WP:LEAD stating that you should "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." The same should go for the first paragraph.
Broadcasting arrangements in one country, in the first paragraph, feels like it's just being mentioned for the sake of being mentioned. The key points are that it was a pay-per-view and that it took place at Raymond James Stadium. ViperSnake151 Talk 23:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This particular broadcasting arrangement is a major impact on the event. You have to take into consideration which country was affected; the one for which the company is based in. It's an American promotion producing a major American event, and it is the American viewers who this affected. This is in line with what you outlined for LEAD, although I've often times seen you take that way too liberally and only have a one-sentence lead paragraph. --JDC808 ♫ 23:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thenagain I guess a large number of other major sports event articles emphasize broadcast outlets directly in the lead, although how it's being done here feels like a violation of WP:NOTTVGUIDE (I'm okay with "PPV and WWE Network event" because that is effectively a category of WWE live event rather than just the attribution of a broadcaster). ViperSnake151 Talk 02:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft
Hello. I think we should talk about how to handle the 2020 Draft. If you want, we can open a RfC in the talk page.
I have some problems with the article, most of them with the "Free agents" section. 1, it focuses sometimes around events no related with the Draft itself. Many wrestlers are released, but months after the Draft. I don't see why Zelina Vega's release should be noted (one month after the Draft), Big Show's (4 months) or Billie Kay's (5 months and appearing on TV). 2, excesive detail. While it's important to include where the wrestlers were assigned, there is no point to include Martinez attacking Shirai, or Ryker joining Elias. Why Martinez is fine but not, Tamina's or Erik's first work on their brands? The worst is including everything about Big Show. Show being unhappy and leaving it's for the Big Show article, not for the Draft. Why do we include Big Show reasons for leaving and not Andrade's reasons? 3, WP:OR. Some of them doesn't look like being assigned. Big Show, Mickie James or Maryse are noted as "appearances", not as "being assigned". Maryse stills a SD member, according to WWE.com. 4, Many other wrestlers were released, like Peyton Royce, Tucker or Kalisto. Why do we note the releases for free agents, but no for other wrestlers?
My main problem is the inconsistency in the article itself. Some wrestlers have notes about their released, while others don't. Some wrestlers have noted about their work in the new brand, while others don't. I hope we can work together to fix this problems. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Some people just don't understand" Remark
Hi, I am Chocolate Bubu and I just recently joined Wikipedia. There are many aspects and topics of Wikipedia that I'm still learning about, such as referencing, quoting and basic Stuff etc)
However I bring forth an edit done by you on the WrestleMania Backlash article. In your edit summary, you wrote "sigh, some people just don't understand a lead section..."and I feel that is a blatant remark at me because I was unaware of what leads (whatever that is) are. I'm still trying to figure out how Wikipedia works and then there is you remarking at me. You don't expect to figure out how most of the things work on Wikipedia straight away (leads and other things). You could've have said something like "This content doesn't go in the lead" or "lead contains a summary of article's main points, this is useful" instead you have to remark at me and say "some people don't understand..." I didn't even know about leads. By the way, I removed that part about the event from the first paragraph because I found it was repeated in the background sub section and I thought that was redundant. Your behaviour and attitude to new Wikipedia users is pathetic.
@Chocolate Bubu: Unless I were to have manually looked at your contributions, there is nothing to tell me that you are a new editor. The lead section is the first thing that you read in an article. That's why it's called the lead, because it's first. And yes, it's a summary of the article's main points. For a lot of casual readers, the lead section is the only thing they read. These articles are similar to research papers you would do in school. That remark was directed at you, but not only you. It was also directed at other editors, as there are experienced editors here who still don't know some of these things, and it gets a bit tiring having to repeat things. I'm sorry if you were offended, but don't take things like that personally. It can lead to uncivil comments like calling me pathetic. --JDC808 ♫ 08:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hell in a Cell (2021)
Hi. Because it appears to by a copyvio from this site, which was mentioned in the template. Onel5969TT me 03:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: That is one of the many websites that are a copyvio of Wikipedia, not the other way. If you're going to tag an article for speedy deletion for copyvio, please make yourself aware of these kinds of websites before doing so. --JDC808 ♫ 03:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JDC808, I'll add it to my list, it wasn't on there yet. Thanks. Onel5969TT me 13:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Page mover granted
Hello, JDC808. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! - TNT 💞 02:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Million $ Title
Not trying to start an argument with you, but I just think we shouldn't assume that the Million $ Championship is "unsanctioned". That was then, this is now, and it would just be safer not to "ASS-U-ME" anything...that's all I'm saying.
@Vjmlhds: It was an unsanctioned championship then, it is still an unsanctioned championship now. There has been nothing said that it has magically become sanctioned now. There is no official title history for it on WWE.com, and LA Knight is not even credited for it on his WWE.com profile. --JDC808 ♫ 23:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not assuming. It's sticking with what's been established until something further is said that would prove otherwise. --JDC808 ♫ 23:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really that big of a deal, so if you want to revert it, I won't fight it. Just wanted to tell you where I was coming from. Vjmlhds(talk) 23:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds: That's the thing though, you almost always jump on these kind of things without validation/verification (like when a title has a one-off appearance on a show, you've automatically assumed it's become a title of that brand). The Million Dollar Championship was brought back, and youassumed it became sanctioned (and if you didn't, you removed mention of it being unsanctioned, which made it appear as if it is sanctioned), but it has never been sanctioned and nothing has yet been said that it is now sanctioned. --JDC808 ♫ 01:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And at the end of the day, it was no harm, no foul, and we all lived happily ever after. Vjmlhds(talk) 03:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chelsea Green
My edit was reverted, but on wwe.com, it said Chelsea Green was on NXT rather than Smackdown (this is the same with Mickie James, who was on Smackdown rather than Raw on wwe.com, current wrestler Jaxson Ryker, who was the same thing as James, and Kane, who was listed as a Smackdown wrestler than a free agent). Kurisumasen (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kurisumasen: WWE is not always the best at keeping their website up-to-date with those kind of changes. --JDC808 ♫ 17:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
Please Delete Two out of Three Falls match page because there are two pages so one is unnecessary. King Rudra 16:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@King Rudra: Can you link both pages for me please? --JDC808 ♫ 17:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How to link them King Rudra 03:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two-out-of-three_falls_match&redirect=no
Two-out-of-three falls match
Another one is this
Two out of Three Falls match
Link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two_out_of_Three_Falls_match&redirect=no King Rudra 03:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@King Rudra: They're just redirects to the actual page, so no need to delete (even if a deletion were necessary, I don't have the ability to delete articles). I did correct where they should be redirecting though. Also, for future reference, what you did for the linking works, but what I had meant was to use a Wikilink, so putting the brackets around, like this, [[Two out of three falls match]], which would look like this after you save, Two out of three falls match. --JDC808 ♫ 10:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the image was removed is because of vandalism. It was changed to Rey Mysterio from vandalism. PedigreeWWEFigz87V2 (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but why wasn't it added back? JDC808 ♫ 02:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"If you don't know how to move a page"
I can't delete pages, that's why I moved the page to God of War Ragnarok without the :. There was a redirect there. I even put it for deletion. As a sysop on ptwiki with years of experience, I obviously know how to move a page (by the way, check this). Actually, maybe you are the one who doesn't know how to move pages. Thank you. Skyshifter talk 21:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyshifter: That's why you wait until someone who knows what they're doing can move it to the actual title with a colon. What I did was a round robin redirect so the actual name can be used. I hadn't finished cleaning it up so that "rag" page could be deleted (and it's now gone btw). I actually have page mover rights where I can move a page and not leave a redirect behind (thus deleting the old page once clean up is finished). JDC808 ♫ 21:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there's a very big difference between "I don't know" and "I can't". Anyway, I felt that your edit summary was a personal attack to me, if you didn't intend to do it, sorry for my message's tone. Maybe I shouldn't have moved the page, but I didn't do it because I didn't know what I was doing, it was because I just couldn't do it. That's what I wanted you to understand. Have a nice day. Skyshifter talk 21:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyshifter: Wasn't intended as a personal attack. Sorry if it came off that way. Was just a general statement as I've seen this kind of thing happens a few times. Apology accepted. For future reference, if you're unable to make a page move, you can request it at WP:RMT. --JDC808 ♫ 23:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update
Please update the Summary of Raw and SmackDown Women's Championships King Rudra 02:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
October 2021
Hello, I'm KyleJoan. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Mandy Rose, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. KyleJoantalk 01:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mandy Rose
Can you quote the sources which supported this material prior to your inclusion of the additional sources? Where are you getting the quotes about her (unsourced) personas (e.g., "Golden Goddess" and "sexy badass") from? Which source says she began pursuit for the NXT Women's Championship? KyleJoantalk 01:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In Your House
I tried to explain in the notes when I edited the page, but it didn’t come out right. The reason the numbers weren’t included for the In Your House ppv’s on the List of WWE Pay-Pay-Per Views page is because those PPVs never had numbers to begin with. This was discussed years ago. If you go back and watch those old IYH ppvs you’ll see that nowhere on the show are there numbers mentioned. That was something that was retroactively added later on, and in some cases, years later. We list the PPV’s by the names they went by in the advertising leading up to the event and on the day of the event. Any retroactive changes that WWE decides to make is after the fact. OldSkool01 (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@OldSkool01: I tried searching for that discussion on the talk page (and the previous archives before the merger of that page) and couldn't find that discussion. What you say about the numbering doesn't quite seem right, as when looking at each one's respective articles, the images used (which are from their respective VHS copies) include numbers. What is missing on those VHS covers, however, are the subtitles that were retroactively added. Also, saying "they didn't say the numbers during the broadcast" isn't a strong argument, because, for example, with recent WrestleMania events, they don't say the number during the broadcast or in their own advertising. Do we have more definitive sources (like magazines or news articles) from that time that do not include numbers for these earlier events? --JDC808 ♫ 07:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It’s been years since this was talked about. I don’t even remember which page it was on. The numbered VHS tapes were only the UK releases. The US releases didn’t have numbers. But again, those VHS tapes came out a month or so after the fact. When I get home from work I’ll have more time to dive into this, I’ll send you links to the actual ppv posters and stuff. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Been doing google image searches and pretty much all of the original In Your House ppv posters can be found, the ones that were shown in WWF Magazine to promote the events. None of them used numbers. Here’s a link to a site that reviews all the In Your House shows. http://oswreview.com/history/wwf-in-your-house-results/ You can see most of the original ppv posters there, but some of them use the UK Silver Vision VHS covers.
The reason the UK releases had numbers on them and the US releases didn’t is because Coliseum Video in the US used their own titles for their tapes. For example, In Your House July 1995 was released by Coliseum Video as “Terminators ‘95”, In Your House: Badd Blood was released as “Rampage ‘97”, In Your House: Good Friends, Better Enemies was released as “Mega Matches ‘96”, and so on. Silver Vision in the UK didn’t do that, plus the first 6 IYH events didn’t have subtitles. They were all just called simply “In Your House”. So to make it easy to remember which one is which, they just added numbers to the tapes when they were released on video a month or so after the PPV, starting with the 2nd IYH. And that’s where the numbers came from. The numbers were never mentioned on television at all in the weeks leading up to the PPVs, nor were they ever used on the actual PPVs themselves. Just on the UK releases. Years later, retroactively, it became easier to just refer to them by the numbers.
As for WrestleManias not using numbers, every single WrestleMania, except for 1 and 16 used numbers in one form or another. Either on T-shirts, magazines or on WWE’s websites leading up to the events. Even though they haven’t mentioned the numbers on the actual PPVs in recent years, they’ve still sold plenty of merchandise on WWEShop.com every year using either the regular numbers or the roman numerals, and they’ve also used it on WWE.com to promote the upcoming Manias. That’s not the case with the IYH ppvs. Nowhere was there any use of numbers other than the UK VHS tapes that came out after the fact.OldSkool01 (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NXT 2.0
What is NXT now in the "2.0" era - third brand (not even pretending anymore), developmental (which is fairly obvious) or in some nebulous purgatory stuck in between? Not being argumentative, but it just looked clear what the "2.0" mission statement was. When NXT first moved to USA the mission statement there was clear - be the third brand and beat AEW. That didn't work, hence the reboot. Vjmlhds(talk) 04:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But yet it's still on USA and still running PPVs instead of only Network events. JDC808 ♫ 04:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Contracts are a hard thing to get out of, and you gotta fulfill the obligations. WWE doesn't even give lip service to NXT as a 3rd brand anymore (evidenced by no long counting Charlotte's NXT Titles in her total). I know in the past I was a supporter of WWE calling NXT the 3rd brand, because that's how they were promoting it (it's their brand, they can call it whatever they want), but it's obvious now the reverse is true (understand USA and PPV, and they have to hold up their end of the deal, but just saying...) Vjmlhds(talk) 04:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
About Lesner
At WrestleMania 30 the match between Undertaker and Brock Lesnar. Micheal Cole acknowledge Lesner as former IWGP Champion so we can confirm that Lesner is 10 time World champion. King Rudra 16:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Fluff" accusation at Hall of Fame class of 2022
I noticed your edit here [11], referring to my more explanatory lead as 'fluff.' I am just going to say that if I weren't a longtime wrestling fan and I was just viewing that article as someone who had never heard of the Hall of Fame, I wouldn't know what the hell a hall of fame is based on your introduction. If "fluff" refers to better explanation, maybe Wikipedia ought to encourage 'fluff.' Again, I am not here to argue, edit war, or go back and forth. You seem to feel passionately about your edit, so keep it that way, no skin off my back. Was just trying to help understandability. Good day! JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JudgeJudyCourthouse25 to further explain. Everyone knows what a hall of fame is, regardless if it's professional wrestling, baseball, basketball, etc. You basically overexplained it, and that type of explanation is better suited for the main WWE Hall of Fame article. Secondly, you used a lot of peacock words (see MOS:PUFFERY) which is mostly where the "fluff" accusation comes in. JDC808 ♫ 22:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment: "Everyone knows what a hall of fame is, regardless if it's professional wrestling, baseball, basketball, etc."
My response: Old questions posted to the website Quora over years past as follows: [12], [13], [14], etc.
Your comment: You basically overexplained it, and that type of explanation is better suited for the main WWE Hall of Fame article.
My response: This is actually the only thing you said that made any sense to me.
You wrote "Secondly, you used a lot of peacock words (see MOS:PUFFERY) which is mostly where the "fluff" accusation comes in."
My response: Actually the opening paragraph for that Wikipedia "puffery" page you sent me even states in its own opening paragraph that the rules offered on that page should NOT be rigidly enforced on editors. My guess is that's probably because it gets into subjective territory as to what's puffery and what's not; what might be 'huff' 'puff' 'rough' 'tough' might be 'sugar and spice and everything nice' to another person. What is to one editor might not be the same to another editor. The opening paragraph of that "puffery" page also states that if material is sourced that it's perfectly fine to add such description. There are actually multiple sources in that article suggesting the Undertaker as above and beyond a "renowned". The first source used by the editor that put that article there reads and I quote "In an extraordinary career that spanned three decades, The Undertaker loomed over the WWE landscape like a menacing shadow, spelling out doom for those who dared cross him. Imbued with seemingly mystical abilities and preternatural in-ring skill, the legendary Phenom operated on his own level." Again, just some future constructive advice for you that may help you avoid edit warring so much, which I can see has been apart of your past. JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring on AEW Women's World Championship
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on AEW Women's World Championship. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. KyleJoantalk 00:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@KyleJoan except for the fact I was restoring the article to before the other editor came along and said it should be that name per MOS:DOCTOR, which was false. That is her ring name as per AEW's website. I even posted to that editor's talk page after my initial revert to inform them of this, but they still changed it back, still trying to claim MOS:DOCTOR. Then you came to the article to change it as well claiming the source says otherwise despite the official title history saying that's her ring name. JDC808 ♫ 00:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no attempt by anyone involved to discuss this on the article talk page. Placing justifications in edit summaries while reverting other editors is edit warring. Everyone involved seems to be participating in an edit war. Everyone needs to take it to the article talk page. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GaryColemanFan: that is somewhat false. While it was not on the article's talk page, discussion was initiated here. --JDC808 ♫ 04:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. You certainly did the right thing in initiating a discussion with the other user. At this point, I would recommend a centralized discussion on the article talk page, with a neutral notification to WP:PW. For what it's worth, I don't watch wrestling, but I did a quick search. The first reliable source I found was TSN [15], which refers to her as Dr. Britt Baker, DMD. She is listed on the AEW roster page as Britt Baker, DMD, and on the women's world championship listing (on the AEW site) as Dr. Britt Baker, DMD. Her Twitter user name is Dr. Britt Baker, DMD. Based on these results, it seems like your version makes sense, but perhaps a wider discussion could make a conclusive decision. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cody being an opponent of Vince McMahon's choosing
I get it, it's been said already, but it's still important to mention it. For the people who already know, it'll be a good reminder and plus it's small bullet point or whatever. And for the new people, it'll be a cool little fun fact to add. Detail matters here. ChallengeCick (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy birthday
Hi there fellow Wikipedian. I just found out that it is your birthday today. I would like to wish you "Happy Birthday". Chocolate Bubu (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chocolate Bubu thank you JDC808 ♫ 23:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:WWE Clash at the Castle logo.jpeg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:WWE Clash at the Castle logo.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?
Orphaned non-free image File:20220608 231806.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:20220608 231806.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:AEW-TBS-Championship.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion nomination of WWE Clash at the Castle
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on WWE Clash at the Castle, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Sionk (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WWE Clash at the Castle
I'm quite familiar with Wikipedia policy, on notability and verification, thankyou. As you point out yourself, the information about WWE Clash at the Castle is from the WWE website, a primary source. I can only see an independent news source which confirms the announcement of the name of the event. The remaining secondary sources, so far, are about prior events and not Clash at the Castle. Therefore the 'primary sources' tag is entirely justified at the moment. Wikipedia isn't a WWE fan site.
To be frank, the entire article seems WP:TOOSOON and the only thing preventing me from nominating it for AfD is the prospect of (a) WWE fans piling on to oppose the AfD (2) it's only a couple of weeks before the event, the AfD is likely to be extended, by the time I suspect we might get some form of reliable secondary coverage about the event (when it takes place). Sionk (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk "the remaining secondary sources, so far, are about prior events". They're "about prior events" because those are what built the "Storylines" for this event and are what confirmed the matches that are happening at this event, hence why it's the "Storylines" section (which for some reason you tried removing in one of your past edits). Also, I said please familiarize yourself with the topic (as in professional wrestling event articles), as you seem to not understand how these pages are to be written, which are based on project consensus that are based on Wikipedia's policies (that's not saying that all professional wrestling event pages on Wikipedia are perfect, quite a lot need cleaning up, most of which are non-WWE ones). And even if you tried nominating this for AfD due to TOOSOON, it would fail (as in it wouldn't be deleted) because although we might not have more secondary sources that confirm the event on the page at time of this post, they do exist and could be easily added (EDIT: I've since added a few more). JDC808 ♫ 00:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating. Please point me in the direction of guidance which says WWE articles are exempt from WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:OR and I'll certainly try and educate myself. This is all news to me. Sionk (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk never said they were exempt. JDC808 ♫ 12:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's some discussion of the setup for the Riddle vs. Rollins match here: [16]. I don't follow WWE, so I don't know the storyline, but the source might help to expand the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GaryColemanFan yeah, I noticed that the article was lacking their storyline (and surprised that other editors hadn't added it yet). Was gonna look into getting it added soon, but I'll check that first. JDC808 ♫ 22:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:NXT 2022 logo.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:NXT 2022 logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:WWE Day 1 logo 2022.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:WWE Day 1 logo 2022.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the page
We should have move list of WWE Women's tag team champions because page is to much long King Rudra 05:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Survivor Series WarGames 2022 logo.jpeg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Survivor Series WarGames 2022 logo.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:WWE Day 1 logo 2022.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:WWE Day 1 logo 2022.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Joint titles
Not trying to give you a hard time, but on this issue, you are wrong.
With both Roman Reigns and the Usos, they defend both sets of titles at the same time. WWE + Universal = Undisputed WWE Universal Championship, and Raw Tag Team + SD Tag Team = Undisputed WWE Tag Team Championship.
This is the same situation like we had in 2009-10 when Raw's World Tag Team Championship and SD's WWE Tag Team Championship were defended jointly as the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship. The titles retained their individual lineages, but were defended together across both brands (and back then also on ECW)
So to say at this time the titles belong to a particular brand would be incorrect.
Now down the road if/when we get separate champions again, that would be different, but as long as both world titles and both tag titles are defended jointly, they are dual branded.
Don't be so hung up on the names of the titles....what we have here is the same situation we had in 2009-10, so there is a precedent. Vjmlhds 13:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Indulge me as we take a trip in the wayback machine to show you how we handled the situation in 2009 when we had the exact same situation. How is this different than what we have now, other than the names of the titles? Vjmlhds(talk) 13:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except no, you are wrong. Like I have said in the past, anytime you see a title pop up on a show/brand, you automatically assume it's now an official title of that show/brand. This isn't really any different. You're seeing the title on the show and assuming that it's automatically the title of that show. The ONLY reason you see that right now is because they hold both sets of championships. Regardless of how you want to try and spin it, the titles are NOT unified, thus the Raw Tag Team Championship, for example, is NOT a title of the SmackDown brand, etc. The edits I put adequately describe the situation: they are the title of such and such brand but because the titles are held by the same champion(s), they are co-defended.
And in regard to how this is different from the past. Well, it's the past. Just because it was done that way, over 10 years ago, doesn't mean it's the correct solution to what we have now (let's not forget, with some exceptions, the project has been in horrendous shape up until the last few years, so we should tread lightly on how things were done in the past). Another big difference though, they ended up actually unifying the titles. It's already been reported multiple times that Triple H wants to split them up, but Vince left him in a predicament where he just has to see this through until he can find the right time to do it. --JDC808 ♫ 13:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry...I'm not wrong on this one. 2009 and today are exactly the same - 2 sets of titles with individual lineages being jointly defended under an umbrella name. There is ZERO difference between then and now other than the names of the titles, which seems to be the thing you are so hung up on. Aa far as HHH wanting to have separate champions, that's all well and good, but it's gotta happen first, then we can go from there, but as it stand right now, the Bloodline has ALL the belts, which are defended jointly across ALL the shows, therefore they are dual branded until such time they are not. Vjmlhds(talk) 13:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds it's not the same because again, they actually unified the titles back then. If you want to change this so badly, let's bring this up to the project and get more input. JDC808 ♫ 14:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When WWE did the deal in April 2009, both titles remained active until August 2010, when WWE merely deactivated the World Tag Team Championship in favor of the WWE (now Raw) Tag Team Titles. So the titles never were unified. They were defended jointly for about a year and a half before one of them was simply abandoned. Again, we have the same situation - jointly defended titles. It's not a matter of me "wanting to change it", it's more a matter of you wanting to cling on to what was and not acknowledging what is. Vjmlhds(talk) 15:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds I have acknowledged what is, hence the description at the end of the intro paragraph. What I'm not trying to claim is that the Raw title is a SmackDown title and vice versa. And that description has been there since this whole double champion bit began earlier this year for both Reigns and Usos, just with some copy-editing done to it. But again, it should be brought to the project to get more opinions. JDC808 ♫ 04:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never said anything was a Raw title...you are putting words in my mouth. The WWE and Universal Titles are defended jointly as the Undisputed WWE Universal Championship, likewise the Raw and SD Tag straps as the Undisputed WWE Tag Team Championship. When they are defended jointly, they are dual branded meaning defended across all main roster shows, not just specific ones. It just appears to me you are stubbornly looking for purity with this attitude of "X Title belongs on X brand, period." - completely disregarding the fact that for going on 8 months now they've been defended jointly on both brands. Vjmlhds(talk) 05:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds you're saying they're dual branded, i.e., you are saying they are both a Raw and SmackDown title. That's what I meant in my last post. But you are completely ignoring the fact that there is a description at the end of the intro paragraph that explains the situation (which I originally added, mind you). You want to make this change, get a consensus from the project. JDC808 ♫ 06:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Undisputed WWE Universal Championship
I note you reverted my edits on varius wrestling articles and that you have now created Undisputed WWE Universal Championship, however this is marked as a disambiguation page but is not formatted as a dab.— Rod talk 08:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodw that was created before you made the edits, and although there may be a misformat (made mention of that in my edit summary there), what you changed the link to was incorrect. The "Undisputed WWE Universal Championship" refers to two championships held together, not the single one that you linked it to. JDC808 ♫ 08:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Undisputed WWE Universal Champion shows as a dab page because it includes the template: {{disambiguation}}. If linking to the dab page is best then the link should be [[Undisputed WWE Universal Championship (disambiguation)|Undisputed WWE Universal Championship]] per WP:INTDAB. Wikipedia:Disambiguation gives hints and tips for formatting.— Rod talk 08:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:NXT Deadline.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:NXT Deadline.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kratos article update
Hoping that you could use already both of these 3 sources to the article Kratos (God of War) https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2022/11/11/kratos-god-of-war-evolution-story/ https://www.gameinformer.com/2022/12/08/kratos-voice-actor-says-he-originally-quit-when-he-learned-someone-else-was-directing https://kotaku.com/god-of-war-christopher-judge-the-game-awards-2022-1849872823. Thank you! 2001:4455:688:5F00:CCCA:9CEE:18BF:2E9D (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@2001:4455:688:5F00:CCCA:9CEE:18BF:2E9D thanks, I'll read over them and see what could be added JDC808 ♫ 02:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@2001:4455:688:5F00:25FC:91E2:7A6F:EC23 sorry, got a little busy elsewhere and did in fact forget. I actually just had to make some revisions to the article. That Washington Post reference will take just a bit to dissect because it's kind of a long read with a lot of info. JDC808 ♫ 02:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JDC808, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Mann Mann (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, JDC808. I recently edited the article WrestleMania 38, and mentioned that this was Sasha Banks' final PPV match, as well as her recent debut appearance for New Japan Pro-Wrestling (NJPW). Please take a look at what I did and let me know if it needs improvement. Thank you. GodofDemonwars (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GodofDemonwars I did some copy/editing to it. JDC808 ♫ 13:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AEW Champions
I'm not understanding why you're removing the breaks between the pics.
They're there so the pics line up in a nice neat column. The way you had it makes the chart look sloppy to be frank.
They're not "odd breaks"...it's the way we've always had pics of teams in charts like this (WWE, AEW, Impact, NWA, NJPW, whatever else) when we don't have a collective team pic.
There is a method to the madness - they're not there just for the heck of it. Vjmlhds 13:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: On my end, the breaks were adding an actual full space between the pics, and they were still lined up neatly in a column without the added breaks. --JDC808 ♫ 13:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends on the size of the screen..on wider screens, without the breaks, the pics don't line up, and wind up all scattershot. For smaller/narrower screens, you may not need the breaks, but on bigger/wider screens you do. Vjmlhds(talk) 19:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds while I have you, there are a couple of concerns.
One, the use of dashes. You often use the wrong kind of dash. There are three kinds. A regular hyphen, an en-dash, and an em-dash ( - – —). The hyphen goes between words to connect them (e.g., longest-reigning). The en-dash is used for number ranges (e.g., 1–10). The em-dash is used similarly to parenthesis—kinda like this. It's this last one that's usually the issue. You always use a regular hyphen when it should be the em-dash and with a few exceptions, there shouldn't be a space between the words and the em-dash. If you're on mobile, if you long press on the hyphen, it brings up the three different dashes. If you're editing on PC, at the bottom of the text box has the three different dashes to select.
The other issue is something I've tried talking to you about in the past, and that is the formatting of sources. Can you please stop being stubborn and just format them correctly? If we're editing the same article, I'm always having to fix the source formatting on the ones you added, and it gets tiring when you could just do it correctly but you won't. It's really not hard. I'll even give you the template you can copy/paste.
Note, for a source without a proper author, like WWE which is often "WWE.com Staff", use "author" instead of the "last and first" parameters.
Conversely, if editing on PC, there's a drop down box where you just fill in the info and it will auto-format it for you.
One other thing, please watch out for overlinking. I've seen you do this a few times. For example, for the AEW champions page, you never have to link Dynamite or Rampage in the prose. They're already linked in the little overview section. The only events that need to be linked are special episodes, individual Battle of the Belts episodes, and PPVs. --JDC808 ♫ 21:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Improvements to specific wrestling event articles
Hi, JDC808. It's me again. Back in mid-December 2022, I added the "Event" section for the article NXT Deadline. I did so because the wikipedia pages for NXT's major events that occurred after NXT TakeOver 36 were missing that section, and even if they did, the summaries were poorly written. For example, the articles NXT WarGames (2021), NXT: New Year's Evil (2022), and NXT Vengeance Day (2022) used to have an "Event" section, but the summaries for the matches that were contested at those events were all copied and pasted from Bleacher Report and had to be deleted. Also, even if those articles had an "Aftermath" section, it excluded the storylines that continued from that event. So, earlier this month, I improved the wikipedia page for NXT WarGames (2021) by adding the storylines for the men's and women's WarGames matches, the "Event" section, and an addition to the "Aftermath" section that included the storylines that continued on from that event. Those additions were the best that I could do. Please take a look at that article if you have the time and let me know what you think. Thank you. GodofDemonwars (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GodofDemonwars I'll have a look here in the next day or so. JDC808 ♫ 04:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for trimming down the article. I'll try to keep the summaries for the matches just the right amount. Good night. GodofDemonwars (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GodofDemonwars yeah, some match summaries might require a longer description, but we want to try to keep it around where we're just mentioning the highlights of the match and of course how it ended. Otherwise it just gets too long and too many details. JDC808 ♫ 02:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, it's me again. Yesterday, random IP accounts just removed Vince McMahon booking in the lead paragraph for the article WrestleMania 39 after their block expired. Me and User:StrangerMan123 undid those edits, and they have been blocked for 1 week now. Also, back when I created this account in early December 2022, I was somewhat of an inexperienced user. So, when I decided to add or make additions to an "Aftermath" section for some wrestling event articles, I honestly didn't know that it was for those involved in that event, and that it shouldn't mention new feuds. Now, I have improved over the coming weeks, and whenever I see one of those articles in which its "Aftermath" section is missing citations in regards to the storylines that continued on from that event (like NXT TakeOver: WarGames (2020), NXT TakeOver: Vengeance Day, WrestleMania XXVI, and Payback (2013)), I add those citations. Plus, I archive whatever citations I can, like in the article Elimination Chamber (2023), I archived the ER (Extreme Rules) and CJ (Crown Jewel) citations. Ready for Elimination Chamber in one week? I want Sami Zayn to defeat Roman Reigns for the Undisputed WWE Universal Championship, but I feel like Reigns vs. Cody Rhodes is the highly-anticipated match for WrestleMania. What do you think? GodofDemonwars (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GodofDemonwars Hey, I left a comment at the WrestleMania 39 talk page as well. That editor is just another reason I wish Wikipedia required that everyone creates an account to edit. Great job on the improvements, and really great job on archiving sources. That technically should always be done to ensure we always have access to the original source (I actually need to do that on another article I work on lol). JDC808 ♫ 21:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, about the run-on sentences, back in November 2022, a random user named User:Sjincterphizz did a similar thing to the article Hell in a Cell (2019) that even I did at the article WrestleMania 34. (I did some c/e at that article as well). GodofDemonwars (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GodofDemonwars yeah, for some reason, some editors like to do a big run-on sentence for the lead like that and I'm not sure if they just don't know that they're doing that or if they're purposely doing that as like a minor form of silly vandalism. That's something to keep an eye on and try to fix if you see it. There are also some articles that only have a one-sentence lead paragraph, like the sentence will be formatted correctly, but we really shouldn't have a one-sentence lead paragraph (I've seen that most often on articles about a wrestler). JDC808 ♫ 22:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I undid 2 edits from Random IP addresses at the article Royal Rumble (2023). They told premature information, like Cody Rhodes winning the men's Royal Rumble match, Nikki Bella winning the women's, Bray Wyatt defeating LA Knight, Alexa Bliss defeating Bianca Belair, and Roman Reigns defeating Kevin Owens. I told them that their edits made no sense and told them to wait until after the event is finished, and then they can add the results. I think that article needs to be semi-protected once again. GodofDemonwars (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GodofDemonwars that's basically just vandalism that just needs reverted without any explanation beyond saying you're reverting vandalism by the IP (and you could also say reverting per WP:CRYSTALBALL). As for page protection, that's something that has to be requested to an admin if the vandalism persists (that's also one of those things where I just wish Wikipedia required everyone to create a free account, it would make some things easier to deal with). I don't have a link right off for requesting page protection, but can find it if you want it. JDC808 ♫ 01:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. Can't wait to see who will win the men's and women's Royal Rumble matches this Saturday. GodofDemonwars (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GodofDemonwars yeah I'm excited for it, especially as it's hard to predict, especially the men's. JDC808 ♫ 01:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess I learned my lessons now. By the way, I also added to a reception section for the articles Royal Rumble (2022), Survivor Series WarGames, Elimination Chamber (2023), and in the article Royal Rumble (2022), I also expanded its Aftermath section. I hope I did well. Also, I made significant improvements to the article WrestleMania 37 by adding the storylines for the remaining matches contested at the event, and why this was Billie Kay and Samoa Joe's final WWE appearance. Please check that article out if you have time and let me know what you think. GodofDemonwars (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WrestleMania 39 hype
Hi, JDC808. I really enjoyed watching the previous night's Royal Rumble. My predictions of Cody Rhodes and Rhea Ripley winning their respective Royal Rumble matches were correct. I can't believe I actually contributed to that article, along with more Wiki users. I am very hyped for WrestleMania 39 in Inglewood, California. How about you? GodofDemonwars (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GodofDemonwars: It was an interesting Rumble and the right people won. Some say it was too predictable, but if it's good, that's not really an issue lol. I am interested to see what happens with Sami Zayn and The Bloodline heading towards Elimination Chamber and WrestleMania 39. Also curious if they'll decide to split the world championships before WrestleMania so that Cody would only challenge for one instead of both together as the undisputed title. --JDC808 ♫ 04:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of WM 39, a rumored and expected match looks to be Usos vs KO/Zayn for the Undisputed Tag Team Titles, which is why they shouldn't be separated in the charts quite yet. I know the Usos have defended each title individually recently, but that doesn't mean that it's always gonna be that way - especially if the WM 39 pieces fall into place as expected, so please hold off on separating the titles until at least WM 39, then we'll see what happens from there. Vjmlhds(talk) 04:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds well they've been defending them separately now and you're going off of speculation, so they should still be separated until something changes JDC808 ♫ 05:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should the expected Usos-KO/Zayn match go down, then they go back, as these recent separate defenses will have proven to be one-offs. Honestly, the only reason for the separate defenses was due to Raw XXX for the Raw titles, and doing an SD title defense as a make-good to even it out. Vjmlhds(talk) 15:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds Triple H already confirmed that going forward, they'll be defended separately. "the only reason"? You got proof on that? They could have easily just done both as the undisputed titles there. JDC808 ♫ 18:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Show me the source about HHH and I'll call it a day. Vjmlhds(talk) 18:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds "The idea right now on the tag team front is that there are two sets of belts. The Usos are champions, but the Raw and Smackdown belts are different. This is a new Paul Levesque move and it does allow the Usos to lose one set of belts and keep the other. It was explained to me that the hope is it makes fans think it’s more likely somebody beats them for one set of belts" JDC808 ♫ 18:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a day (though it doesn't mean it can't go back should circumstances dictate). Vjmlhds(talk) 18:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, it's me again. I undid two revisions from random IP addresses at the article WrestleMania 39. They complained about this being the first WrestleMania under Paul "Triple H" Levesque's control, but not having a source in the lead paragraph. I undid that revision. The second one I did is one that very frequently happens now - they put the Undisputed WWE Universal Championship match as "Roman Reigns (with Paul Heyman) or Sami Zayn (c) vs. Cody Rhodes". I deleted the bolded part above because the champion AS OF NOW is Reigns, so the match table says "Card subject to change." A few minutes later, User:StrangerMan123 put a note saying this: "Please do not add Sami Zayn here, the current champion is Roman Reigns. If Zayn ends up winning the championships at Elimination Chamber, we change it here." Check the revision history for the article WrestleMania 39 if you have the time, and let me know what you think.
Also, I recently improved the article SummerSlam (2022) by adding the storyline for the No Disqualificationtag team match. Can you please check that article out again if you have the time? That would be nice. GodofDemonwars (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I only put this note because if not the random ips will continue to put Sami Zayn there, below it is already written: card subject to change, if Zayn wins, we change the name. Unfortunately i don't think he will win, but i'm not lying that I'm rooting for Sami haha. Also, User:GodofDemonwars, i'd like to really say thank you for the recent edits you've made, putting in the storylines that weren't in some articles, I really appreciate that. Same to JDC808, who is also a big editor around here, thanks for the edits. I know we had disagreements once, wich I admit you were right, and I ended up being childish to you, but i already apologized and i apologize again for that, and once again thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia. StrangerMan123 (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GodofDemonwars that's what's been speculated and seems likely now. I'm just wondering if it will be for both tag belts, or just one set. JDC808 ♫ 04:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This seems pretty cut and dry to me. Vjmlhds(talk) 04:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds that doesn't confirm anything. It's literally just speculation. JDC808 ♫ 04:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once WWE officially announces the match - and specifically say it's for the Undisputed Tag Team Titles - can we please put this to bed, because truthfully, I think you're clinging on to these one-off defenses as gospel (yeah, I know, HHH said.... but things change) Vjmlhds(talk) 05:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds nothing is official until it's official, and I think you're clinging on too much to the idea that these separate defenses are one-off, and honestly, even if it is for both at WrestleMania, I think that in itself will be a one-off. JDC808 ♫ 05:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be that guy, but if they go back to defending both titles, that isn't the one-off, as that's what they have been doing all year. The separate defenses will have been proven to be the one-offs, as it will be literally breaking from what was the norm one time. Vjmlhds(talk) 05:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds You didn't understand what I was saying there. What I meant was while the WrestleMania match might be for both, after WrestleMania, they'll probably go back to separate defenses. JDC808 ♫ 05:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just take a deep breath here. For most of the last year, the belts have been defended jointly, then recently they were defended separately one time, and now it's 99% sure they'll be defended jointly at WM 39. What happens after words? We'll get there when we get there. Assuming WM 39 falls into place, they should be listed together as has been the case for nearly a year, Once WM 39 passes, we'll take it as it comes, sound like a plan? Vjmlhds(talk) 05:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I archive whatever citations I can at the WrestleMania 39 wiki article. Also, User:Vjmlhds, you will be impressed at what I did at the articles WWE Clash at the Castle and Royal Rumble (2023). Check those improvements out for yourself. GodofDemonwars (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GodofDemonwars first off, I've said it before but I'll say it again, thank you for archiving the sources. I find it to be a tedious task but it is one that needs done. Just a note, I've noticed you putting "c/e" in your edit summaries when you archive the sources. If all you're doing is archiving the sources, then your edit summary should be "archived sources" or "archived citations". "c/e" (which means copy-edit) means that you made general fixes or improvements to the prose (like changed some words, or maybe reworded a sentence for better clarity, or something along those lines). JDC808 ♫ 02:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip. I'll keep that in mind. GodofDemonwars (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, WrestleMania 39 is officially in the books, and I wonder who Roman Reigns will lose the Undisputed WWE Universal Championship to. I hope his feud with Cody Rhodes continues. By the way, the storyline involving The Bloodline's feud with Kevin Owens and Sami Zayn is one of the best in recent memory. Zayn betraying Reigns at the Royal Rumble was universally praised, and at the article Royal Rumble (2023), I had to add more news articles regarding how awesome it was. I also think Owens and Zayn will continue their feud with The Bloodline. Ready for Backlash? GodofDemonwars (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was holding off on creating the article of the newly announced Backlash event, taking place in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Can you create it when you have the time? GodofDemonwars (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JDC808/Special:MobileDiff/1143690017 looks like its him again, using different ips to edit. 2001:4455:6CD:CC00:70B5:4141:2618:40D3 (talk) 11:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@2001:4455:6CD:CC00:70B5:4141:2618:40D3 thanks for the heads up JDC808 ♫ 12:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Titles
Hello. About this, I think the current format is wrong. The parameter is "past_names" and the label, "other names", we should include past names of the titles, not the current ones. The International is already at the top of the infobox. Also, the template explains [17] past name is for "Past names of the title"--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HHH Pedrigree I guess technically you're right. Most articles have included the current name there as well, I believe mainly to show the timeline up to the current (which admittedly is nice to see). I have always found it odd that the template says "past names" but it displays as "other names". JDC808 ♫ 00:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:WWE Backlash logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:SummerSlam logo as of 2022.jpeg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:SummerSlam logo as of 2022.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ignorant punctuation
You show that you know nothing about language. Tony (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony1 interesting take. Maybe try some civility next time. JDC808 ♫ 05:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Next time [breathe in for comma] I will take that advice. Tony (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your GA nomination of God of War Ragnarök
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article God of War Ragnarök you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 213.121.179.210 -- 213.121.179.210 (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:SummerSlam 2023 logo.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Always precious
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt wow, it does not feel like it's been that long lol JDC808 ♫ 06:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New World Heavyweight Championship
So, we honestly don't know if the new World Heavyweight Championship is the same as the old one. I also modified the article TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs (2013), the last PPV to feature the title, with more improvements. Time will tell. I also modified all WrestleMania articles from 2012 to present, making sure the wwe.com URLs don't have numbers at the end, as well as making sure the dates those events were announced are there. Finally, I modified the article Night of Champions (2015), mentioning that this was the final Night of Champions held before the reintroduction of the brand extension in July 2016 (something you missed). If you see this, you will be impressed at my improvements.... GodofDemonwars (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GodofDemonwars they should have just made it more simple by just stripping Reigns of the WWE Championship (and the new belt could have just been a new design of it). It does make me wonder if they'll now truly unify Reigns' titles and which one will actually be retired (hopefully not the WWE Championship but I fear that may be the case). JDC808 ♫ 01:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whc return its big gold belt
Whc big gold belt return سپهر 301 (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the page is that it was wholly uncited. Quite frankly, if these are two separate titles, then there should be two articles, one for each, providing there is enough in-depth coverage of each to show they pass GNG. Else, they might be included in other pages as a section. Onel5969TT me 12:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just added the citations for that article. GodofDemonwars (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m a little confused as to what exactly the argument is here. Is Onel5969 saying that the Undisputed title is actually just one championship and not 2 seperate championships? Because if that’s what the argument is then that’s wrong. The Undisputed title is not 1 single championship. It’s 2 titles being held at the same time. Correct me if I’m wrong about what the argument is. OldSkool01 (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@OldSkool01 based on their response, I feel as if they are confused themselves and just don't understand the situation. JDC808 ♫ 12:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought. Then the disambiguation page is correct. So I'm not sure what the issue is. Onel5969TT me 12:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969 The disambiguation is correct but the issue was you were changing the link to redirect to WWE Universal Championship, which was incorrect. JDC808 ♫ 12:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GodofDemonwars It was always supposed to be a disambiguation that briefly said that the undisputed championship means both of the championships. More info just got added over time where it kind of became a mini-article which wasn't really the intent. I actually have a solution I thought about recently that will eliminate this disambiguation/mini-article I just haven't gotten around to doing it. Well, I've sorta started it, but basically creating a subsection at World championships in WWE that would explain what the undisputed championship is. The info is actually already all there, but I want to rework the whole History section there to make it work better. JDC808 ♫ 12:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FAR for CMLL World Heavyweight Championship
I have nominated CMLL World Heavyweight Championship for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog FarmTalk 20:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm sorry for late reply, I'll try to take a look at it here in the next day or two JDC808 ♫ 09:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's been another editor at work too, so I think the main thing that's left is determining if any of the post-2017 title changes need a tournament summary. Hog FarmTalk 12:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm I'm seeing a couple of other issues on an initial read. One glaring issue is who is the current champion? It's mentioned four places in the article but only two of them match. I assume the two that match are correct but I can't say for certain without doing further research. If I have some extra time tomorrow, I'll try to do some editing to fix up some issues that I see. JDC808 ♫ 06:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All In
Please note there's no need to break with naming conventions to specify that the upcoming All In is an AEW show - that's already mentioned in the lead. They're ultimately the same series of shows and can retain the same naming convention of every other pro wrestling PPV article. Furthermore your change to the 2018 show has over-complicated the name in a way that contravenes WP:NC (it also required admin intervention to fix). Simpler titles are better when there's unlikely to be confusion between two different articles (and, in this case, clarity is given by the year in parenthesis). Cheers. — Czello(music) 09:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Czello The way I see it was that it was a similar case to WCW Halloween Havoc and NXT Halloween Havoc. Two different promotions but same series yet we identify the NXT ones with NXT (and we actually put NXT in all of their events' titles). The original All In was originally titled All In (professional wrestling event). The year needed to be added because of the 2023 event but "professional wrestling event" was left on just to identify the fact that it was not an AEW event. As to it mentioned in the lead, you don't see the lead until after you click on the article (unless you're on mobile where you get to see the short description before opening an article). Also, what admin intervention was needed? It showed that you made the moves without any admin intervention. If anything, all you would have needed was someone with page mover rights (which you and I both have). JDC808 ♫ 23:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The original naming of All In made sense at the time, but as you say the addition of the new show changed that; consequently the simplest solution is adding the year. However, you do raise a good point re: WCW vs NXT; it does appear that there's an inconsistency in naming where NXT is concerned. Perhaps we should raise this with the wider WikiProject to decide a more consistent MOS. I'll start a thread there later today. As for the admin intervention, it was required to speedy delete the "All In (2018)" redirect, leaving way for a page move. Unfortunately a regular move wouldn't work (I even have page mover rights and it wouldn't let me). No worries, though, let's speak with the wider WikiProject and see if we can get consistency around PPVs under different banners. — Czello(music) 08:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Czello in regards to the redirect, that sounds like a case where you would have needed to do a round robin redirect to open up the target page. Not sure if you've ever done one of those before but it can be a little confusing. I've only done it like once or twice. JDC808 ♫ 08:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, JDC. I have seen you wrote a draft about the new world title. Can I made a suggestion? I have seen several people pointing the new title feels like a secondary title below Roman Reigns. Can you creat a reception section? Other titles like the 24 7, Intercontinental and Universal have a reception section. Here are the sources: PWINsider corey graves tommy dreamer pwinsider HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HHH Pedrigree I'll read over them later today JDC808 ♫ 13:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have been working very hard on keeping everything up to date. And in past WWE event pages, I try to make sure all citations are at proper formatting (for example, some citations are missing dates they were published, etc). If you have the time, I want you to look at the recent improvements I made at the article Roadblock (March 2016). GodofDemonwars (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Peer review/Money in the Bank (2018)/archive1
I plan to take this to GA status. Would appreciate your feedback and comments. Thanks. — Ssven2Looking at you, kid 10:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssven2 hmm, this is an odd one for me, as portions of that article were my own contributions. I'll look but I'm not sure what kind of feedback or comments I'd have, but I'm sure there's some copy-editing that I could do. JDC808 ♫ 10:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True. I have contributed to this article too and yes your edits are important as well, which is why I would appreciate your comments in the peer review. I'll resolve them as best as I can. — Ssven2Looking at you, kid 11:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I tagged you and JDC808 in Backlash was because this is what the article looked like at that time: That version had a very poor Aftermath section. Plus, I saw some dates at dmy format when they should be at mdy format, which is why I decided to make improvements. I'm doing the same thing to past WWE event pages, like this and this. GodofDemonwars (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on the PLEs, GodofDemonwars. Yes, mdy dates are the norm as these are USA-based companies. — Ssven2Looking at you, kid 09:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion for NXT Womens tag team title
Hello. I have seen on Fightful via Solowrestling [18] the reasons for the unification of the NXT and WWE women's tag team title. I'm trying to include it in the NXT title, but after 30 minutes, I can't to write a proper sentence. Would you be so kindly to include it? Something like "WWE decided to unify both titles since they didn't understand the point of the NXT title since the WWE title was used in NXT too"... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HHH Pedrigree do you have the link for the source? JDC808 ♫ 21:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Solowrestling translated the news from Figthful select [19] I doesn't have subscription, but the translation is [20] : WWE didn't get the point of the NXT Women's Tag Team Championship being created and decided to use the WWE Women's Tag Team Championship as it was originaly intended: RAW, SD and NXT. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HHH Pedrigree I meant do you have that link for Solowrestling? So that I could add it too. JDC808 ♫ 20:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wrote it twice XD Link N18 and N 20. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HHH Pedrigree oh, sorry, it didn't show on the mobile app. I see it now. JDC808 ♫ 08:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HHH Pedrigree I ended up using a different source because solowrestling was having issues loading for me earlier today, but the info has been added. JDC808 ♫ 08:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, man. I couldn't do it better. (literaly, I can't) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WWE Bloodline
Hi it seems to me that 190.219.215.124 needs to be reported for vandalism (idk how to do it) but if you back on the bloodline Page you will see they keep adding Ava Raine to members 86.154.216.6 (talk) 05:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Roman's belts
Paul Heyman has always lugged around Roman Reigns' belts for him going down to the ring, be it 1, 2, or now 3.
Heyman is a toady, that's what toadies do, because lugging around your own title belts is too menial a task for a "tribal chief".
All 3 belts are in play (as WWE.com still individually lists the lineages of the WWE and Universal titles under the standard belts), so who actually physically carries them to the ring really doesn't matter. They all collectively represent the Undisputed WWE Universal Championship, so once Roman loses them, then we can see what comes of it/them. But until then, it's 3 belts representing 2 titles under 1 banner. Vjmlhds(talk) 18:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds per my edit summary, Reigns himself only carries the one belt (proof enough by his recent defense at a live event where he only carried and raised up the one belt instead of all three). Previously, Heyman only carried the other belts when Roman was not holding them for his entrances or while in the ring. JDC808 ♫ 22:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading WAAAAAAAY too much into this. All 3 belts are Roman's property until someone beats him for them. WWE still recognizes the regular WWE and Universal title belts as the official belts for those titles. Reigns' custom title is essentially a 1,000 day gold watch. Who physically carries the belts to the ring does not matter. Heyman is Reigns' toady, thus he hauls around his toys for him. It's that simple. Vjmlhds(talk) 22:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds here's a thing, they modeled the women's championship off of Roman's new belt (it even says "undisputed" despite not being undisputed), which makes me think this isn't necessarily a custom belt like originally thought. JDC808 ♫ 22:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and good...however while WWE.com did update the women's titles, they still recognize the WWE and Universal titles separately and under their standard belts. As it stands right now Reigns has 3 belts in his possession (who physically carries them to the ring doesn't matter - it's nice to have a lackey to do such things for you). We're not really gonna know how things will shake out until Reigns loses the title(s). So as long as Roman (and entourage) still lug around the 3 belts, things are what they are. Anything else is would be/could be/maybe speculation and rumor. Vjmlhds(talk) 22:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds I know that WWE.com does that, which is addressed in the articles. And it kind of does matter who carries them. Like any match graphic you see now, it's going to have Roman and his one new belt, not all three. JDC808 ♫ 23:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because that is his personal 1,000 day belt - his "precious" if you will. It really isn't that hard. Roman carries his custom belt, as that marked his 1,000 day reign...that's HIS BABY. The other belts are still the official belts and he makes Heyman schlep them around, because that's what toadies/lackeys are for. It really is a 3-2-1 setup...3 belts representing 2 titles under 1 banner, and until the other belts disappear, it is what it is. I'm not trying to beat you up or anything, but you really are over thinking this. Heyman is hardly the first manager to lug around a belt for a client. Heck, you ever see a boxing match, where a champion boxer and his entourage come to the ring single file, and the manager/hype man is physically carrying the belt over his head, showing it off. That's pretty much what Heyman does for Reigns, and other managers have done for their guys. Vjmlhds(talk) 23:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds create a post on the project's talk page to get further input because we're not getting anywhere. JDC808 ♫ 23:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same idea. I have been editors talking about what is best for the articles. We should reach a conclusion about what revision is the best. GodofDemonwars (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The important thing is just to make it clear that all 3 belts are in play. The standard WWE and Universal title belts haven't been discarded/abandoned. We're getting WAAAAAY too deep in the weeds dissecting who physically carries the belts to the ring. As long as it's made clear that all 3 belts are part of the package, that's all I really care about. Vjmlhds(talk) 18:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:AEW-Collision-logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your GA nomination of God of War Ragnarök
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article God of War Ragnarök you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PresN -- PresN (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?
Hi JDC808, we need experienced volunteers.
New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board.
Cheers, and hope to see you around — ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 22:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
European title
Hello. I have seen you updated some of the belts used to represent the WWE Title. Yesterday I watch this video. [21] To be honest, I didn't noticed the European title had a green strap. Maybe you can do something with it. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HHH Pedrigree That's interesting. I didn't know that either. I'll look into it more. JDC808 ♫ 20:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see clearly, but looks like McMahon - X Pac match at WM included the green strap. [22]. Looks like when McMahon retired the title it was green [23] (hard to see, I expected a greener title). But looks like Mideon had a black title. [24] --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your GA nomination of God of War Ragnarök
The article God of War Ragnarök you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:God of War Ragnarök for comments about the article, and Talk:God of War Ragnarök/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PresN -- PresN (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Kratos PS4.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Kratos PS4.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
Stable timelines
Hey there! Would love your input on this discussion on timelines in tag team articles. Thanks :) Sekyaw(talk) 16:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta know
I gotta know why you have such an issue with the way I format references.
I've been doing it this way on God knows how many articles, for God knows how many years, and you are the only one who seems to have an issue with it.
I just gotta know...why? Vjmlhds(talk) 22:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds because they're not formatted correctly and look very informal (I've said this I don't know how many times now). We want quality articles, not mediocrity. It does not matter how long you've done something if you've done it wrong or poorly that entire time. I've asked you about this countless times because I'm tired of fixing these things, but for whatever reasons, you are not willing to learn and I don't understand. It's so easy to format them correctly but you just won't. I gotta know, why?
And while I have you, I just had to fix something else and that's the formatting of the dashes. I've previously explained the correct way to format them on your talk page but you've ignored that as well...
You've been on Wikipedia for just about as long as I have. However, you've learned one way to do something (in this case, the source formatting) and you've decided to stick to that instead of trying to improve. JDC808 ♫ 23:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know, no one really sees the formatting unless they really dig deep and give it the fine tooth comb treatment. What I do isn't wrong, it just isn't your way. Doing it my way has served me well for a great many years, and just because one editor has an issue with it, it doesn't mean it's mediocre and not of quality. Vjmlhds(talk) 23:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing, when you say things like "We want quality articles, not mediocrity." it makes you come off as a Wiki-snob. Who are you to judge what does and doesn't make a quality article, and what is and isn't a quality editor. Are you implying you are better than me? Vjmlhds(talk) 23:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds so you're just going to stick to your guns. Like, why would you not want better quality articles? "It's worked for me for many years". Okay, that doesn't mean things can't be improved. Let's look back at professional wrestling event articles from around 2015 or older. Sure, the formatting (for the entire article, not just sources) that was used back then "worked", but if we continued with that because it "worked", we'd be stuck with subpar articles, especially if you compare them to what we have today. Also, it's not my way, it's literally the format established by Wikipedia for what Wikipedia considers for quality articles (more specifically, a consensus among editors was reached to decide that). Go and take any of your articles that you've worked on through the GA or the FA process, and they're going to tell you to fix the formatting on the sources (unless you get a really lenient GA reviewer, but it wouldn't fly in FA).
I never once said that I'm better than you. I'm not perfect and I'm still making improvements. However, what I have is a history of quality improvements, especially here with wrestling articles, but more specifically, I have experience from GA and FA review processes with a number of articles promoted to GA and FA, and I have also reviewed a number articles for GA and FA that were promoted, so I have a pretty good idea on what to look for in determining quality.
Now don't get me wrong, you make good contributions, there are just some things that can be improved. That's all I'm asking for here. JDC808 ♫ 00:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the difference between you and me...I'm just trying to add info to the articles and play by the rules (adding sources and not leaving them bare)...you are trying to get barnstars. If you want to re-do things your own way after I make an edit, then fine...I don't own any of the articles. But don't make little brow beating comments in the edit summaries, or act all high and mighty with your "We want quality articles, not mediocrity" spiel (sorry, but that does make you come off as pretentious and it doesn't sit well with me). I do what I do to get the job done and I make sure everything's legal. If you want to pretty everything up to try to get a barnstar, then Godspeed, I hope you get 100 of them - just save me the lecture, OK. I'm not trying to make this into some kind of feud between us (I need a Wiki feud like I need another hole in my head), but as I said, you are the only one in all the time I've been doing this (and that spans years) that has ever had an issue, which says to me that this is a you thing, and not a me thing. I'm not doing anything wrong, it's just not pretty enough for your tastes. Vjmlhds(talk) 02:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds as said before, I want to improve the quality of these articles, and I'm not sorry for that (if a barnstar gets rewarded from that, cool, but I never said that's what I want). Someone would have eventually called you out on this, it just happened to be me. You keep trying to say it's my taste or my thing, but again, it's Wikipedia's standards, which I just happen to agree with (for the most part).
At the end of the day, I just don't understand why you can't make this one little change which is so easy to do. Like you're literally already doing most of what's needed. All you have to do is take what you're doing now, copy-paste the bits into the template, and add the author and access date. What is so hard about that? JDC808 ♫ 03:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an inanimate object - it can't have standards. Only things capable of having standards are people, as all standards are when you get down to it are particular tastes of particular people. As far as this particular person goes, the standards this particular person uses are plenty good enough. Vjmlhds(talk) 03:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds you know well enough what I mean when I say "Wikipedia"; I'm referring to the rules/standards/guidelines/policies, etc. that were agreed upon by editors which are to be used across Wikipedia for writing articles, formatting them, etc. Don't get me wrong, there are some things I also disagree with in regards to some of Wikipedia's standards, but this is a super simple formatting issue—it's just making sure that all the correct information is being displayed for a reference.
Also, you failed to answer my question of why it's so hard for you to make this change? Saying what you do is "plenty good enough" doesn't answer that.
And you're basically telling me that you are unwilling to improve... JDC808 ♫ 04:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to change, and it doesn't need improving. You are not better than me, you are not smarter than me. if it's my way, then it is the right way. Vjmlhds(talk) 05:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds wow, and you say that I sounded pretentious.... JDC808 ♫ 05:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not pretentious, just stating that there is nothing wrong with the way I do things. Vjmlhds(talk) 05:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds you literally just said that you do not need to improve and that your way is the right way. I am just baffled. JDC808 ♫ 05:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By saying I need to improve implies what I'm doing now is wrong and that your way is better. Why is it that you think you are better than I am, that you are superior to me in any way? Who are you to talk down to me like I am nothing? Vjmlhds(talk) 06:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds stop. I'm sorry if what I have said or how I have said it has come off sounding whatever way that you have perceived it, but you are making it personal. We are not talking about who we are as people or whether or not one of us is better than the other. We are talking about improvements and issues with articles here. You keep saying it's my way. Stop. I've explained it to you however many times now that it's a Wikipedia standard for formatting. Saying that something needs improved does not mean that what you are doing is wrong. It simply means that it can be better. If two guys go out and have a wrestling match and it's just a 3 star match, that doesn't mean they did anything wrong, but if they made improvements, it could be a 4 or 5 star match. JDC808 ♫ 06:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When we're both pushing up daisies, is it really gonna matter how a reference on Wikipedia was formatted? You do you, I'll do me, and we'll all live happily ever after, OK. Vjmlhds(talk) 13:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds to the future editors, yes, it does in fact matter. I still don't understand why you can't make this one little change. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative process to improve articles (in all facets), but you're refusing to do that on this matter. All you have to do is copy-paste this template and plug in the details (again, you're already doing most of this).
If there isn't a proper name for the author (e.g., it's instead WWE.com Staff), replace "last" and "first" with "author". JDC808 ♫ 20:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I do that for you, what will you do for me? Can't just pester people to do things without giving something in return. Vjmlhds(talk) 22:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds you keep having this me vs. you mentality instead of seeing the bigger picture here (the betterment of these articles and Wikipedia as a whole), and it wouldn't have been "pestering" if you wouldn't have been so resistant for so long. But what am I to do for you? JDC808 ♫ 23:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not me vs. you...as I said before I'm not looking for a Wiki feud, but I will defend myself if I'm not treated with respect. Anybody that does something without getting anything in return is a sucker. There's another more vulgar word for someone who lets people take advantage of them (hint - rhymes with "switch") I'm neither that nor a sucker, so if you want me to make your precious little reference formats "just so", then put something on the table that benefits me, and save the sappy "bigger picture"/"betterment of these articles" BS for someone who will fall for all that goody-goody muckety-muck. Vjmlhds(talk) 03:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds wanting to produce quality content is not BS. You have to remember, this is not a fan wiki (we just happen to be fans who edit it). I have always pushed for quality and the overall betterment of these articles (could I have maybe been better with how I have said things, sure, it's easy to get heated when you have to keep repeating yourself). Like I've pushed to have changes made to the professional wrestling Style Guide to have better quality articles or just a better presentation (a recent example: how we recognize the individual reigns for tag teams in tables on tag team championship articles, which I pinged you so that you could provide input because I respected your opinion and liked the change you made at the current champions page and felt that should be the way to do it, and I had always felt the previous way was odd).
As for me vs. you, you keep saying things like "my way" or "my taste" or "my precious little reference format", but yet I have to keep explaining to you that the formatting is a standard across Wikipedia. What do you not understand about that? I don't know how much clearer I can be. And how is this in any way taking advantage of you? And what could I even offer that would benefit you?
Before you answer, think clearly and logically, and try not to let your personal feelings dictate your response. JDC808 ♫ 04:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I hear someone say "think of the bigger picture" or "something bigger than one's self", I just want to take a flat head screwdriver and drive it through my temple because it is such utter goody-goody touchy feely BS. Don't sit there and give me the "Wikipedia standard" line like you're fighting for truth, justice, and the Wikipedia way. You want it changed because it's the way you want it done. Wikipedia on it's own would just sit there and collect dust, it isn't capable of establishing anything on it's own, so when someone says "Wikipedia standards" it just comes off as sugary sweet dreck. There are no Wikipedia standards, it is the standards of the editors who think they know better than everybody else. Don't give me Wiki-speak, just be honest and say you want things done a certain way because it's what you want. Just be honest and admit you want it for yourself, and spare me the phony baloney "betterment of Wikipedia" nonsense. Vjmlhds(talk) 05:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And to button up a couple of things - "How is this in any way taking advantage of you?" Simple, you want me to do what you want to do without me getting anything in return...want some, gotta give some, that's how it works in the real world, otherwise you're a sucker. And this - "And what could I even offer that would benefit you?" Simple again, an admission that Wiki-speak is a bunch of BS and that you just want to have your way. Vjmlhds(talk) 05:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds well you did not think clearly or logically and let your personal feelings dictate your response. I'm trying to be civil but you just want to keep trying to make it personal, and you are admittedly making it hard to stay civil. So much time has been wasted when this could have been solved 24 hours ago, actually months ago. You've made your intent clear that you do not want to follow Wikipedia standards (and you know what I mean when I say that) because you believe that you do no wrong and you are right (I'm only repeating what you have previously said). We are obviously getting nowhere because of your refusal to collaborate. If you want to make edits without any worry about standards, there are plenty of fan wikis for you to edit. JDC808 ♫ 05:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You want me to to do things your way, just simply admit that I am right. Swallow your pride and admit you are in it for yourself and that Wiki speak is BS, and I'll gladly do the references to your tastes. That's all it takes...just give me that. Vjmlhds(talk) 05:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh...wasn't as painful as I thought it would be...dropdown function is actually fairly easy. Just gotta get used to it I guess. I apologize for getting a little rough with you, it's just that you did come off as a little holier than thou, and that ruffled my feathers, but I could have chilled a bit myself as well. Now can we please put this to bed, shake hands, and live happily ever after? Vjmlhds(talk) 17:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds been off for the last day, but yeah, it's a nice handy tool (unfortunately not available on mobile). I realize that I can come off a bit strong and sorry about that, but yes, we can put this behind us. JDC808 ♫ 16:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fist bump... Vjmlhds(talk) 17:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hat tip. Vjmlhds(talk) 17:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle Howdy
I inadvertently deleted Uncle Howdy when updating the 2023 Draft article regarding Bray's passing. I moved Howdy to his own section, as they were now no longer connected as a group, but my fat fingers wound up wiping Howdy out. Unintended on my part, just wanted to clarify things. Vjmlhds(talk) 04:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds gotcha, it does make me wonder what will become of him, as it was reported it was Bo Dallas playing him (and the resemblance was uncanny). Still in disbelief over Bray though. JDC808 ♫ 04:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Truthfully, Howdy will just probably quietly disappear, as they're not gonna wanna do any Bray/Fiend related storylines. If Bo Dallas sticks around WWE, they'll find something else for him to do. Vjmlhds(talk) 13:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re: List discussion
Per that discussion there, I was thinking Characters of God of War should at least be moved to either Characters of the God of War series or Characters of the God of War franchise (due to the lead wording), to help make it clearer that it's encompassing the whole thing. What do you think?-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prominent
Please, avoid to include personal opinion on the articles. If we mention that a match is "prominent" we need independent sources supporting that fact. Is not up to us decide which matches are prominent based on pur personal taste or criteria. Who does de ide that Miz - Knight is prominent but Rey-Theory isnt? HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:WCW Championship (1991-1994).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WWE Survivor Series 2023
Bro atleast you should've reverted to the version before me on the article, like before I edited it, it was WWE Fastlane 2023 that was the event before it. WrestleLuxury Wiki (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leftover page from moves
Hi - I just found the currently blank page World Heavyweight Championship (WWE 2023) that appears to need cleaning up - there's a lot of moving around in your contribs so I wasn't able to figure out what should happen to it myself. Tollens (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tollens Apologies, forgot to take care of that. I'll do that now. JDC808 ♫ 08:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:WWE Crown Jewel Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FTW
You're overthinking it, my man. It's pro wrestling, all titles are kayfabe when you get right down to it, so all the stuff about being a "non-official title" just gums up the works. Besides, AEW does recognize the title on their roster page, so it shouldn't be an issue. Vjmlhds(talk) 03:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds after you scroll all the way down to Hook, yeah, it does say he's FTW Champion, but under the champions banner, it is not listed as an AEW title. There was also a video that Tony Schiavone did on AEW's YouTube going over the title's history and said it was not an official AEW title (trying to find the video). Yes, there's the kayfabe of it, but this would be like saying Punk's "Real World Championship" was an official AEW title (although in fairness, the FTW title is more "official" than it was). JDC808 ♫ 04:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Term "wrestlers/superstars"
Hey, just wanted to know why wrestlers is used instead of superstars, although I agree it sounds better and should be used, why is it when superstars is the term used by WWE? Thanks. YoloMc8562 (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Damn haven't seen that before, thanks for linking it, I'll know for future reference. YoloMc8562 (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
God of War Ragnarok
Stop reverting my changes on the God of War Ragnarok Wikipedia page, when they make sense and follow other Wikipedia video game examples. 2A00:23C6:D584:5B01:84FB:6163:867F:115E (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@2A00:23C6:D584:5B01:84FB:6163:867F:115E if you would pay attention to the edit summary, you're stating that you're making improvements, but your edits are throwing off the flow of sentences. The article passed a GA review with this format, which is an established format. JDC808 ♫ 22:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CM Punk
Please, be careful with the CM Punk article. It's one of the last FA we have. As you may know, the main complain about pro wrestling it's we write with excesive detail about weekly tv shows, almost a detailed summarize of fictional storylines. As you may know, the project guidelines say "Summarize the major events and key points of the wrestler's career. Avoid writing in proseline ("week-by-week" format) and adding excessive details." Writing every weekly appearence it's just no major event, no key point and week-per-week format. We can summarize these past weeks with he made appearences and was assigned to RAW, avoiding proseline and focusing on the important. Also, WP:IN-UNIVERSE, don't present fictional events as real. Punk cut a promo in character, so it's not notable to include that the character said he is home. If you have any problem, you can start a discussion on the talk page. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HHH Pedrigree there's a reason his quotes are in quotations. And there wasn't a "week-by-week" format, it mentions he made a couple of appearances in order to make a decision. JDC808 ♫ 22:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's in-universe perspective. He didnt visited different brand to make a decision. the booker decided which brand. CM Punk the character made a choice, Phil Brooks the person didnt. The article is already twice the size of WP:Pagesize states, we don't need extra details on fictional stories.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JDC808, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Mann Mann (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. LizRead!Talk! 02:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, JDC808,
Please be more careful with page moves. You shouldn't have to move an article multiple times. Thanks. LizRead!Talk! 02:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz not sure what you're referring to when saying moving a page to a title that is "harder to follow". I had to open up page titles by doing round robin redirects so the pages could be moved to their correct titles. There were a few articles that needed this. JDC808 ♫ 02:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
March 2024 GAN backlog drive
(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kratos (God of War)
HI. I just made several edits on that article (feel free to revert if you hate it) and it feels like this old GA article needs some love; especially its lead section where it kinda needs to be rewritten. Thank you. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:SummerSlam logo 2012-2021.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:SummerSlam logo 2012-2021.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:2024 WWE Draft logo.jpeg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:2024 WWE Draft logo.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fixer88 done JDC808 ♫ 01:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WWE Speed
Hello. I'm not following the WWE Speed format. Just a question. There are any sources about Pete Dunne as the producer of the show? I can't find it in the article. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Undisputed WWE Universal Championship.jpeg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Undisputed WWE Universal Championship.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
cody
cody was still listed on wwe.com as being on raw as recently as yesterday. only today was his profie switched to smackdown after this announcement.Muur (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Muur they had switched it to SmackDown the other day, but his last promo on Raw, he said he was technically a SmackDown guy JDC808 ♫ 20:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:AEW World title.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:AEW World title.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Backlash France
Thank you for not deleting the para about Professional wrestling in France. I think the event was a particular landmark in the pro wrestling history (and WWE product history) of a country whose wrestling history is a notable sunject. I added a similar paragraph to Summerslam 92 contextualising it as a landmark in the history of Professional wrestling in the United Kingdom with a WrestleMania III-scale live event and US PPV broadcast less than 4 years after the cancellation of ITV's Saturday afternoon wrestling coverage. SS92 and BF are both landmark events - in each case the first such event- in their respective Wikinotable histories of pro wrestling in the respective countries and deserve acknowledgement as such in both cases. They were FAR more than PPVs held in funny locations. Romomusicfan (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JD combined
Hello, JDC. Instead of being bold, I wanna ask first. I want to know the reason to combine the Judgment Day reigns into one. I mean, it's the first (honestly, third time) I have seen this. The first time I have seen this is with Undisputed Era as NXT champions, but just because the weird Adam Cole's reign. The second, the OVW's Legacy of Brutality. However, in every other article, we never combined titles with the same faction. Not WWE's La Resistance, NJPW's Bullet Club, or WCW's The Four Horsemen have combined reigns. If there are diferent combinations of members, we have included in separatecells, not combining the number as a faction overall. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HHH Pedrigree we do in fact with New Day as well as Undisputed Era as you mentioned. And it's simply because it is the third reign for the stable as a whole. JDC808 ♫ 07:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.Right, I forget about New Day. But as I said we made it as exceptions, usually due to the Freebird Rule. There are many other factions with different members as champions, like Los Ingobernables de Japón, D-Generation X, New World Order, The Nexus, but we sEparate the reigns by the combination of members. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
International/American
If you look at AEW's championship roll call, they list MJF as the American Champion. I know about the title history, but that is simply sloppy housekeeping on AEW's part...they update one section of their website but not the other. We go through this with WWE on occasion when they update one part of their website but not the other. Vjmlhds(talk) 22:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds why didn't you just reply at your talk page? That would have kept this conversation in one place instead of split across two talk pages.
Anyways, you're calling it sloppy housekeeping. Same thing could be said about what you're arguing for. Perhaps "American" was not supposed to be put on the "roll call". But regardless, that's not the OFFICIAL title history. The official title history is the definitive source.
I've also said this in the past and you're still doing it. You jump the gun way too soon on things. JDC808 ♫ 22:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, they have MJF's reign at 5 days, even though he won the title on July 17 and today's the 25th. That looks like they haven't updated that page since Monday the 22nd. Again...sloppy housekeeping Vjmlhds(talk) 22:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vjmlhds that's an issue with the tracker they've got programmed as I doubt that they're manually going in and updating it everyday. I've noticed it be off on others on occasion.
But, until AEW provides something that's more definitive, like updating the official title history, then it should remain International until then. JDC808 ♫ 22:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:AEW All-Atlantic Championship belt 2022.jpeg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:AEW All-Atlantic Championship belt 2022.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Venus-redemption-screenshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Imagen huérfana no libre Archivo:NXT Women's Championship 2024.jpeg
⚠
Gracias por subir el archivo:NXT Women's Championship 2024.jpeg . La página de descripción de la imagen actualmente especifica que la imagen no es libre y solo se puede usar en Wikipedia bajo un reclamo de uso justo . Sin embargo, la imagen actualmente no se usa en ningún artículo de Wikipedia. Si la imagen estaba anteriormente en un artículo, ve al artículo y mira por qué se eliminó. Puedes agregarla nuevamente si crees que será útil. Sin embargo, ten en cuenta que las imágenes para las que se podría crear un reemplazo no son aceptables para su uso en Wikipedia (consulta nuestra política para medios no libres ).
Número anterior | Índice | Número siguiente 
Absténgase de realizar modificaciones no constructivas en Wikipedia. Sus modificaciones parecen constituir vandalismo y han sido revertidas . Si desea experimentar, utilice su entorno de pruebas . El vandalismo reiterado puede resultar en la pérdida de privilegios de edición . Gracias.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on AEW Women's World Championship. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 213.121.179.210 -- 213.121.179.210 (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
; see Talk:God of War Ragnarök for comments about the article, and Talk:God of War Ragnarök/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PresN -- PresN (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
.jpg/1280px-Happy_New_Year!_(2138227696).jpg)
