The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [1].

Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame[edit]

Nominator(s): GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list candidates/Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I am nominating this for featured list because, after five months of work, I think it's as good as it can get. It is complete and fully referenced, and I believe that it meets all the criteria for a Featured List. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Truco
~~Weak Oppose~~ from Truco (talk · contribs) -- prose/ref issues General Dabs check out fine There are 10 dead external links which need to be fixed, as seen with the toolbox at the right (last link). WWE would have to choose the day after I nominated this to move all of their pages around. They're all updated now. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Lead The Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame (WON HOF) is a professional wrestling hall of fame intended to recognize people who make significant contributions to the sport. -- 1)Bold the title of this article 2)I researched online and I see no official use of the acronym WON HOF, did you just use this for short or am I missing something? I never remember to bold. Thanks for that. I also removed the acronym; it was there when I started the expansion, but I agree with you. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] You got to eliminated all uses of that acronym, there is one left.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 03:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Thought I got them all. Fixed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] This first occurred in 1996, when The Dusek Family, The Fabulous Kangaroos, and the Road Warriors entered the hall. -- the hall is being used as a pronoun, so it should be the Hall I'm not sure about this. I think it's more of a generic mention rather than a proper noun, so it would remain lowercase. I would prefer to wait to see what the other reviewers think, if that's okay. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Its actually more of a proper noun due to its usage. It would be different if it were entered this hall but you are referring to it as entered the [Wrestling Observer Newsletter] Hall [of Fame].--Tru co ₅₀₃ 03:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] What's your opinion on this?--Tru co ₅₀₃ 02:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] I think it's closer to the difference between President and president. A generic reference, such as "I want to talk to the president" would be lowercase. Referring to the president by the full name, such as "I want to talk to President Nixon" would be capitalized. I think this would be the same way: the hall/the hall of fame, but the Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'm still not budging on this because when you don't capitalize it, its like you are referring to hall of fame's in general like you are referring to the president in general, and not specifically the President himself. In the uses of the hall, you are using it in terms of the WON HOF not hall of fame's in general. The Hall is naturally derived from the Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame, a rule of capitalization.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 03:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Lowercase is still used if it is referring to a specific president without giving the full name. If one was to go to Obama's receptionist and request an interview, he or she would say, "I would like to speak to the president," not "the President." GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] I guess its either or IMO, since I used it like I stated in my lists.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 03:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Nine years later, The Fabulous Freebirds were also inducted as a group. -- Weren't the Freebirds a stable? If so, that should be mentioned accordingly. They were a three-man tag team, although the rules of tag team wrestling were changed to accommodate them. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, but the more appropriate term is stable (professional wrestling): more than 2 wrestlers.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 03:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] They were known as a tag team and wrestled in the tag team division. They are referred to as a tag team in their Wikipedia article, and they are included in WWE's list of the top 10 tag teams. They functioned very differently than a typical stable. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] The hall of fame was created because Meltzer felt the need for an unbiased method of recognizing people associated with wrestling. 1)Capitalize hall of fame per its use here as a noun 2)Source for this statement? I couldn't find a source, so I toned down the language. I think the capitalization issue is the same here, so I'll wait on that. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] The WON HOF now serves as one of three independent wrestling halls of fame, along with the George Tragos/Lou Thesz Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame and the Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame and Museum. -- Source that these are the only 3 independent ones? Fixed and sourced. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Meltzer began the hall of fame by choosing a list of inaugural inductees in 1996. -- Capitalize hall of fame, noun Same as above. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] The lead needs to have a summary of the list, such as the first/most recent inductees, the overall amount of inductees/tag teams, etc. See WCW Hall of Fame and NWA Hall of Fame for an example. I added as much as I thought I could without going overboard. Let me know what you think. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Looks good to me.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 00:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] References The Slam Sports ref needs to have SLAM! Sports - Wrestling as the work and Canadian Online Explorer as the publisher This seems unnecessary, as all of the important information is given. I have used the same formatting as the St. Louis Wrestling Hall of Fame Featured List. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] There is an inconsistency with the linking of publishers, either link all the publishers that have links to respective pages, or don't link them at all. I agree. The links didn't add anything, so I removed them. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] I recommend making the section into two columns. I never think of that because the columns don't work with Internet Explorer. Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] See also This section comes before the ref section, see WP:LAYOUT Good point. Moved. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] --Tru co ₅₀₃ 16:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Lead (continued) There are currently 172 inductees, including the 4 tag teams. -- no need for the the I think this helps it flow better, as the teams are discussed earlier in the prose. It makes it clear that the 4 teams are the ones referred to above. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] It could go either way, its ok.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 00:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] The hall of fame has spawned an offshoot in a column written by Nathan Hubbard for the Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Hubbard has unofficially created "The Not the Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame Hall of Fame", which is composed of wrestlers who he feels will not gain entry into Meltzer's hall of fame but are deserving of recognition nonetheless. He created this unofficial list in 2006 and added more names several weeks later. -- I don't know but I don't feel like this is necessary since it has no real tied to this HOF, its just like stated "an offshoot" If it was in any other magazine/newsletter, I would agree. Because it is in the Wrestling Observer Newsletter itself, though, I think it is a small but interesting addition that adds to the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Hmm, I still don't see any significance but fine by me.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 00:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] I would add that the inaugural class had the most inductees, since you can't really stated who was inducted that yr or it would take up an entire paragraph. I would prefer to avoid stating it, as it already says that the inaugural class was 120 members and that there are 172 overall. I think saying it explicitly would be redundant. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] I missed that.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 00:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Images I would remove one image because on my [wide] screen, the images run off into the see also section.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 03:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] On my monitor, it already looks empty now that I finished filling in the table. There is a 4-inch white space that I was actually considering filling with another image. I'll hold off on adding another, but there is already white space from 2004 down to the bottom of the table on my monitor. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] What's your monitor size? I'm using a wide screen, so the last image [The Rock's image] rolls over into the See also section, which shouldn't happen.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 00:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] 1280x768. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] I guess its' just my monitor.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 02:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Remove the links in the See also section which have been linked in the main body already, see WP:SEEALSO.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 00:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] That would leave only the NWA Hall of Fame, which seems odd. Could I rewrite the prose to say "...such as the WWE, WCW, and NWA Halls of Fame..." and just remove the "See also" section? GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] You could most definitely do that.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 02:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] I rephrased the sentence, but there are also articles for the NWA Wrestling Legends Hall of Heroes and the St. Louis Wrestling Hall of Fame, so I put them in the See also section. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Truco

~~Weak Oppose~~ from Truco (talk · contribs) -- prose/ref issues

General

Dabs check out fine
There are 10 dead external links which need to be fixed, as seen with the toolbox at the right (last link).

WWE would have to choose the day after I nominated this to move all of their pages around. They're all updated now. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame (WON HOF) is a professional wrestling hall of fame intended to recognize people who make significant contributions to the sport. -- 1)Bold the title of this article 2)I researched online and I see no official use of the acronym WON HOF, did you just use this for short or am I missing something?

I never remember to bold. Thanks for that. I also removed the acronym; it was there when I started the expansion, but I agree with you. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You got to eliminated all uses of that acronym, there is one left.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 03:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I got them all. Fixed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This first occurred in 1996, when The Dusek Family, The Fabulous Kangaroos, and the Road Warriors entered the hall. -- the hall is being used as a pronoun, so it should be the Hall

I'm not sure about this. I think it's more of a generic mention rather than a proper noun, so it would remain lowercase. I would prefer to wait to see what the other reviewers think, if that's okay. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its actually more of a proper noun due to its usage. It would be different if it were entered this hall but you are referring to it as entered the [Wrestling Observer Newsletter] Hall [of Fame].--Tru co ₅₀₃ 03:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's your opinion on this?--Tru co ₅₀₃ 02:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's closer to the difference between President and president. A generic reference, such as "I want to talk to the president" would be lowercase. Referring to the president by the full name, such as "I want to talk to President Nixon" would be capitalized. I think this would be the same way: the hall/the hall of fame, but the Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not budging on this because when you don't capitalize it, its like you are referring to hall of fame's in general like you are referring to the president in general, and not specifically the President himself. In the uses of the hall, you are using it in terms of the WON HOF not hall of fame's in general. The Hall is naturally derived from the Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame, a rule of capitalization.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 03:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lowercase is still used if it is referring to a specific president without giving the full name. If one was to go to Obama's receptionist and request an interview, he or she would say, "I would like to speak to the president," not "the President." GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess its either or IMO, since I used it like I stated in my lists.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 03:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nine years later, The Fabulous Freebirds were also inducted as a group. -- Weren't the Freebirds a stable? If so, that should be mentioned accordingly.

They were a three-man tag team, although the rules of tag team wrestling were changed to accommodate them. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the more appropriate term is stable (professional wrestling): more than 2 wrestlers.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 03:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were known as a tag team and wrestled in the tag team division. They are referred to as a tag team in their Wikipedia article, and they are included in WWE's list of the top 10 tag teams. They functioned very differently than a typical stable. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The hall of fame was created because Meltzer felt the need for an unbiased method of recognizing people associated with wrestling. 1)Capitalize hall of fame per its use here as a noun 2)Source for this statement?

I couldn't find a source, so I toned down the language. I think the capitalization issue is the same here, so I'll wait on that. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WON HOF now serves as one of three independent wrestling halls of fame, along with the George Tragos/Lou Thesz Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame and the Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame and Museum. -- Source that these are the only 3 independent ones?

Fixed and sourced. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meltzer began the hall of fame by choosing a list of inaugural inductees in 1996. -- Capitalize hall of fame, noun

Same as above. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead needs to have a summary of the list, such as the first/most recent inductees, the overall amount of inductees/tag teams, etc. See WCW Hall of Fame and NWA Hall of Fame for an example.

I added as much as I thought I could without going overboard. Let me know what you think. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 00:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Slam Sports ref needs to have SLAM! Sports - Wrestling as the work and Canadian Online Explorer as the publisher

This seems unnecessary, as all of the important information is given. I have used the same formatting as the St. Louis Wrestling Hall of Fame Featured List. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an inconsistency with the linking of publishers, either link all the publishers that have links to respective pages, or don't link them at all.

I agree. The links didn't add anything, so I removed them. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend making the section into two columns.

I never think of that because the columns don't work with Internet Explorer. Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also

This section comes before the ref section, see WP:LAYOUT

Good point. Moved. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Tru co ₅₀₃ 16:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead (continued)

There are currently 172 inductees, including the 4 tag teams. -- no need for the the

I think this helps it flow better, as the teams are discussed earlier in the prose. It makes it clear that the 4 teams are the ones referred to above. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could go either way, its ok.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 00:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The hall of fame has spawned an offshoot in a column written by Nathan Hubbard for the Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Hubbard has unofficially created "The Not the Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame Hall of Fame", which is composed of wrestlers who he feels will not gain entry into Meltzer's hall of fame but are deserving of recognition nonetheless. He created this unofficial list in 2006 and added more names several weeks later. -- I don't know but I don't feel like this is necessary since it has no real tied to this HOF, its just like stated "an offshoot"

If it was in any other magazine/newsletter, I would agree. Because it is in the Wrestling Observer Newsletter itself, though, I think it is a small but interesting addition that adds to the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I still don't see any significance but fine by me.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 00:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that the inaugural class had the most inductees, since you can't really stated who was inducted that yr or it would take up an entire paragraph.

I would prefer to avoid stating it, as it already says that the inaugural class was 120 members and that there are 172 overall. I think saying it explicitly would be redundant. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 00:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I would remove one image because on my [wide] screen, the images run off into the see also section.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 03:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On my monitor, it already looks empty now that I finished filling in the table. There is a 4-inch white space that I was actually considering filling with another image. I'll hold off on adding another, but there is already white space from 2004 down to the bottom of the table on my monitor. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's your monitor size? I'm using a wide screen, so the last image [The Rock's image] rolls over into the See also section, which shouldn't happen.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 00:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1280x768. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess its' just my monitor.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 02:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the links in the See also section which have been linked in the main body already, see WP:SEEALSO.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 00:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would leave only the NWA Hall of Fame, which seems odd. Could I rewrite the prose to say "...such as the WWE, WCW, and NWA Halls of Fame..." and just remove the "See also" section? GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could most definitely do that.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 02:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased the sentence, but there are also articles for the NWA Wrestling Legends Hall of Heroes and the St. Louis Wrestling Hall of Fame, so I put them in the See also section. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 03:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "is a professional wrestling hall of fame intended to recognize people" "intended to" implies that there is a chance that the people aren't recognized. Why not "is a professional wrestling hall of fame that recognizes people"? Much better. Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] "George Tragos/Lou Thesz Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame" Link? I put in a link, but it's still being developed in my sandbox. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] "Nine years later, The Fabulous Freebirds were ~~also~~ inducted as a group." I think it flows better with the "also", but I can live without it. Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] "employed within the professional wrestling"-->employed in the professional wrestling Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] "15 years experience in the wrestling business "-->15 years of experience in the wrestling business I'm not sure what (or if) I was thinking there. Thanks for catching it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] "10 years experience"-->10 years of experience Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] "There are ~~currently~~ 172 inductees, including the 4 tag teams." Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] "Wrestling Observer Newsletter" Link? Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] What makes the unofficial list worth mentioning? Many sports journalists compile their own lists of snubs and undeserving inductees; what makes Nathan Hubbard's especially notable? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] It's included in the same newsletter that runs the hall of fame, so it's a little more "official" (despite being unofficial) than just some guy saying that he wants other people inducted. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Update: Since the first three people to comment all agreed that it didn't add to the article, I have removed the paragraph and just added the links to the External links section. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

"is a professional wrestling hall of fame intended to recognize people" "intended to" implies that there is a chance that the people aren't recognized. Why not "is a professional wrestling hall of fame that recognizes people"?

Much better. Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"George Tragos/Lou Thesz Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame" Link?

I put in a link, but it's still being developed in my sandbox. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Nine years later, The Fabulous Freebirds were ~~also~~ inducted as a group."

I think it flows better with the "also", but I can live without it. Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"employed within the professional wrestling"-->employed in the professional wrestling

Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"15 years experience in the wrestling business "-->15 years of experience in the wrestling business

I'm not sure what (or if) I was thinking there. Thanks for catching it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"10 years experience"-->10 years of experience

Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"There are ~~currently~~ 172 inductees, including the 4 tag teams."

Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Wrestling Observer Newsletter" Link?

Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the unofficial list worth mentioning? Many sports journalists compile their own lists of snubs and undeserving inductees; what makes Nathan Hubbard's especially notable? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's included in the same newsletter that runs the hall of fame, so it's a little more "official" (despite being unofficial) than just some guy saying that he wants other people inducted. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Since the first three people to comment all agreed that it didn't add to the article, I have removed the paragraph and just added the links to the External links section. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the following sites reliable (keep in mind I know little about wrestling and sources of info for the sport)?
- ~~http://www.oem.com.mx/eloccidental/notas/n185732.htm~~
  - The site is really slow right now, so I can't pull it up. Perhaps its Wikipedia article can help clarify? Basically, it's a large and well-established Mexican media company. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~http://web.archive.org/web/20070331060124/http://www.legendsofmilwaukee.org/index.asp?poll=6656~~
  - It's not being used to source much (a wrestler's real name that is available in countless places on the internet). It's run by the city of Milwaukee and gives the real name of a wrestler from Milwaukee. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wasn't sure if the above explanation was satisfactory, so I replaced the reference with a story from The Washington Post. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~http://www.garywill.com/toronto/title-ctt.htm~~
  - Gary Will, who runs the site, is a respected wrestling historian (he's the guy who published the Wrestling Title Histories book that is used for many of the references. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~http://web.archive.org/web/20080113131845/http://www.caulifloweralleyclub.org/memory_lane/ForgottenFamous.htm~~ Dabomb87 (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Cauliflower Alley Club is an organization of veterans of the professional wrestling industry (wrestlers, managers, writers, etc.), so they are quite knowledgeable about the business and the people in it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- Where are the numbers in the # column coming from? I see their purpose, but I don't think it should give the impression that they are official (like the order of induction).
  - It's certainly not an official order, but it's the formatting used in other wrestling hall of fame featured lists. It's just in order of year, and alphabetical from there. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you think that column should be removed? GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - One idea could be to merge the list into the year colum as the sort order using the ((sort|001|1987)) template, that way you get the guaranteed "year, alphabetic" sorting you're looking for. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the bit about the "The Not the Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame Hall of Fame" necessary? It's just a column and there is no proof of notability of it.
  - No love for the unofficial non-hall, I see. If all three people commenting want it gone, I guess it could go. It's only two sentences, and I believe it adds to the article and is notable because it is published in the Wrestling Observer Newsletter. I'm willing to compromise and put it in the external links. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be possible to add a column for home nation? I doubt it would be easy, but that would be a very useful one to have.
-- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - I'm not sure that that would look like. Taking the first person from the list, Abdullah the Butcher was born in Canada, billed from the Sudan, competes regularly in Japan, and I think he has settled in Alabama. Which one would be used in a case like that? Would references be required for each wrestler, or can it be considered common knowledge? These are just some questions that come to mind, and I hope they don't sound critical, as I can see some use for your suggestion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - You're probably right that it would be too difficult to put it together, if only the WON had an official online list that included that info, then it would work. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 03:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17-14) 03:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments – "and have 10 of years experience." Pair of words should be flipped. Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] For the Georg Hackenschmidt, William Muldoon, and Jack Curley photos, proof is needed that they were published before 1923, not merely created. Their public domain status is questionable without any evidence. I removed them all. I replaced them with the images of Ricky Steamboat and Billy Graham. I left it at that, as Truco mentioned that the images went down too far. As a compromise to reduce a bit of the white space on my monitor, I switched the image of Bret Hart for a slightly taller image. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] In the references, page ranges need en dashes; I count at least three that don't use them. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Fixed the dashes with Brighterorange's script. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Thank you. It's greatly appreciated. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17-14) 03:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments –

"and have 10 of years experience." Pair of words should be flipped.
- Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the Georg Hackenschmidt, William Muldoon, and Jack Curley photos, proof is needed that they were published before 1923, not merely created. Their public domain status is questionable without any evidence.
- I removed them all. I replaced them with the images of Ricky Steamboat and Billy Graham. I left it at that, as Truco mentioned that the images went down too far. As a compromise to reduce a bit of the white space on my monitor, I switched the image of Bret Hart for a slightly taller image. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the references, page ranges need en dashes; I count at least three that don't use them. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the dashes with Brighterorange's script. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. It's greatly appreciated. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Waiting for Dabomb to give a thumbs-up on his source queries before supporting.~~ Giants2008 (17-14) 03:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support now that the sources have been verified as acceptable, since my comments were responded to earlier. Good list overall. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nitpick, but "performed commentary" doesn't sound quite right. Is there a better verb that can be used? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed it to "worked as commentator". GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.