Talk:WCW Disney tapings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Usenet post[edit]

I am taking the google groups source out. I wish to remind a certain someone of something he said:

It has already been shown that according to Wikipedia policy, a Usenet post is NOT a suitable source for a Wikipedia article. You might want to attempt illustrating a different point, because your pen has run dry. - Chadbryant 13:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC) TruthCrusader 07:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a personal attack by the way. Tyrenius 05:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's an external link, not a source. HAND. - Chadbryant 07:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even as an external link I don't think it is really neccessary to have it there. The external itself is quite scrappy and is more a spoiler page than anything after reading it. By the way, just acting as a third party per WP:PW. Normy132 06:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. TruthCrusader 07:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of coming to a resolution on this? Tyrenius 23:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "controversy" was only started because two specific users exist here only to fight any contribution I make to Wikipedia. There is nothing more to the situation than that. - Chadbryant 23:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take that as a "no" then. Tyrenius 00:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a legit source can be found for the results than fine. In the past on Wikipedia, Google posts have NOT be allowed as sources of information even as an external link. Only Google post counts have been permitted. I will ignore the personal attack made by Mr. Bryant. TruthCrusader 15:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow VERIFY and also NPA. Failure to do so is a violation of policy and can result in the user being blocked. Tyrenius 23:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External link[edit]

There is a dispute over this external link. Kindly quote the exact part of policy/guidelines that supports your view (with ref to appropriate policy page). Tip: WP:EL might help. Remember this link is not being used as a source. No comments required: put them in another part of this page. Please don't sign the quotes, as they're not personal opinions - they're just quotes from policy. Thank you.

Include[edit]

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.

Exclude[edit]

  1. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard.TruthCrusader 06:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet

Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment. For exceptions, see the section on self-published sources. TruthCrusader 06:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of reading the initial request I made above? Tyrenius 19:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End of external links policy quotes Tyrenius 05:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posting guide on rec.sport[edit]

Chad, I wonder if you have an explanation for the fact that Chad Bryant is amending the posting guide on rec.sport.pro-wrestling.[1] Tyrenius 16:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not "amending", that's "quoting". What exactly does this have to do with the Disney tapings article, anyway? - Chadbryant 02:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because that site is the disputed external link and you seem to be involved with it directly. Tyrenius 10:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, he is involved with the posting guide, or at least he was previously. Note this [[2]] and the line where it mentions previous editing done by in this: [[3]] However, wouldn't it be better if this was discussed on the RSPW talk page, not here? --Thetruthdoctor 19:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "RSPW Posting Guide" has nothing to do with this article, or me quoting it outside of Wikipedia. The link you provide above is no longer working. - Chadbryant 11:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was 21 minutes before your post. Tyrenius 11:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing what my quoting of the "RSPW Posting Guide" outside of Wikipedia has to do with the article concerning WCW's "Disney Tapings", or the external link cited by the article. - Chadbryant 12:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're posting on rec.sport.pro-wrestling, which is the external link you are arguing for, so that is relevant. Tyrenius 21:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The external link I'm arguing for is from 13 years ago, and I had nothing to do with it. I have absolutely no idea what kind of point you are trying to make here. - Chadbryant 22:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making a point. I'm just trying to clarify if there is a point or not. Tyrenius 00:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The links prove that mr.Bryant is indeed, the owner of the 'semi official' rspw website and as such, under Wikipedia policy, it should not be listed as an external link on the rapw entry. TruthCrusader 06:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you quote and reference that particular policy please? Tyrenius 07:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.) 3. A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link. This is from Wikipedia:EL Official Policy TruthCrusader 19:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I post on RSPW (along with "TruthCrusader") does not in any way disqualify a post from 13 years ago from being used as an external link for the article at WCW Disney tapings. That is the issue that is supposed to be addressed here, and there appears to be a lot of confusion regarding that very simple fact. - Chadbryant 07:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't been established that Chadbryant is the owner of any website. Tyrenius 13:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hence, the policy quoted by "TruthCrusader" does not apply to whatever point he has failed to make, and he has failed to make his case for the site being removed from a Wikipedia article. Of course, that issue should be addressed on the relevant talk page, not this one.
I am more than willing to admit that I have a posting history on RSPW (and so does "TruthCrusader", both under that name and several other pseudonyms). I see no reason why that precludes me from using an RSPW post as an external link (and not a source) for an article, since pretty much all of the early history of the "internet wrestling community" is from RSPW. - Chadbryant 13:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page Protection[edit]

The article should have been reverted to the last non-"DickWitham" version before being protected. - Chadbryant 22:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't be very smart, considering that would place the link in question that is the cause for protection back on the page. --Krusty Surfer Dude 12:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External link[edit]

As it is not normal to link to blog, perhaps, Chad, you could make your case, as concisely as possible, stating:

  • the content of the blog
  • the extra information it would give which is not in the article
  • why it is not in the article
  • what verification is there for the accuracy of the information in the blog
  • is there any other informed editor who also supports its inclusion
  • anything else

Tyrenius 11:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking about blogs? The external link in question is to an archived Usenet post - and it is not being used as a source for the article. - Chadbryant 23:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could explain what it IS being used for then. It seems that you are only linking to it due to it being a Google Groups posting. And, as you have already seen, Google Groups postings are suspect and questionable on Wikipedia. How do we know any of that information is correct? You or the original poster could be lying. --Krusty Surfer Dude 02:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ditto. Tyrenius 02:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External link part 2[edit]

As it is not normal to link to archived Usenet posts, perhaps, Chad, you could make your case, as concisely as possible, stating:

  • the content of the archived Usenet post
  • the extra information it would give which is not in the article
  • why it is not in the article
  • what verification is there for the accuracy of the information in the archived Usenet post
  • is there any other informed editor who also supports its inclusion
  • anything else

Tyrenius 02:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The case was already asked for and made here previously. Try scrolling up. - Chadbryant 02:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above points were not answered. You've already been awkward when I called it a blog by mistake. I'm taking away protection. Please do not reinstate this link till a consensus has been reached to do so, as there is no reason to link to Usenet posts usually. Tyrenius 02:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I quoted previously when asked for a cite of Wikipedia policy to support leaving the archived post as an external link (and *not* a source):
Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.
The link in question goes into great detail regarding the first taping session held by WCW at Disney-owned studios, and from a professional wrestling standpoint, it is of historical value, given how much the creative process within WCW was altered to accomodate matches being taped 8-12 weeks in advance for television. Granted, it is an archived Usenet post, but it is also from an era where Usenet was the only viable forum for discussion. To date, there has been no coherent or suitable argument raised here for disqualifying the link for use as an external link (and once again, *not* as a source, since the standards for a source are more stringent than those on an external link). There are numerous other articles that include external links that lead to archived Usenet posts. - Chadbryant 03:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good argument to me. Now let's hang on and see if there is any response to this. Tyrenius 03:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta[edit]

I thought the TV tapings moved from Orlando to Atlanta long before 2000 at Center Stage Theater? --Raderick 07:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WCW_Disney_tapings&oldid=1201290752"