Jump to content

Talk:Steve Corino

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

Titles

[edit]

Corino=Awesome —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kris Classic (talk • contribs) 01:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12/28/06 I only see three World titles for Corino. What is the fourth?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.54.178 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6/6/07 The fourth is the MLW World Heavyweight Championship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.152.51.2 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HRPW

[edit]

The title is just as important as any other title. Leave it be.--DanteAgusta (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a notable title. The promotion had no notable coverage and the label of "World" was not genuine. There are no true World titles in Australia. There aren't even any titles in Australia of note (one was AfDed recently for this reason). We need a third party independent source to verify any claim to notability. !! Justa Punk !! 22:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Title does not say World title. And I have checked up on the promotion, they are fully active. Their Heavyweight title is as valid as any other title on the list. Check out their site at http://www.HighRiskProWrestling.com/ --DanteAgusta (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not good enough. And they are NOT active. They have merged with another promotion. I'll get a link for you. And saying it's a valid title is the same as saying some backyard title is valid. Sorry - you have to draw the line somewhere, and this title is below that line. !! Justa Punk !! 22:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go !! Justa Punk !! 22:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid our opinions differ, a third party should weigh in on this before the title is removed.--DanteAgusta (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but leave the page with my edit - because WP:3RR is against you right now. !! Justa Punk !! 22:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that because the promotion will no longer be active and the title will be gone is not justifiable as many titles are gone and no longer in use, yet they are still put up. High Risk Pro Wrestling being compared to a backyard promotion is an insult. They were an active promotion with a TV presence. I do not accept their claim to "World" title status. But Steve Corino held the belt with pride and lists it on his page. There are several titles on this page and many other wrestlers pages that are not well know, this does not make them not notable.--DanteAgusta (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one who introduced the point of it being an active title and I proved otherwise even though it's irrelevant. The TV presence was nothing (it was community TV that they paid for and was therefore not notable either - anyone can do that). HRPW has a local history (right or wrong) of being backyard. Just because Steve lists it on his page doesn't make it notable, and likely that applies to a few others as well. If the title is not notable, it should not be there. If this applies to other wrestlers perhaps that should also be looked into. !! Justa Punk !! 22:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to concede the point. Does not seem worth arguing about. Are you in Australia?--DanteAgusta (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I am. Thank you. !! Justa Punk !! 23:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I will consider you an expert then and defiantly concede the point. Steve only held the belt for 1 day anyways.--DanteAgusta (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Retired?

[edit]

Is he no longer retired? It says he won a title as Mr. Wrestling III like a month after ending his retirement tour... 68.36.173.33 (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve "retired" from wrestling as Steve Corino, as he was asked to become the new Mr Wrestling. But has recently decided to be Mr Wrestling 3 Steve Corino, so he is not retired.--DanteAgusta (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWC

[edit]

This might be better discussed elsewhere possibly, but I take issue with the sole usage of the WWC official website as a source for Steve's WWC participation. Mainly because (with the exception of WWE and probably TNA) the official website of a promotion usually requires back up from a third party source. That's why I removed the references and asked same. I query the reliability of the WWC website on the grounds that - to my knowledge - there is no back up to the extent of WWE and TNA. If we allow this we are opening a rather large can of worms when it comes to using official promotion websites as sole sources, as is the case here. Notwithstanding the recent addition of Steve's blog entry. !! Justa Punk !! 05:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the official website for the promotion. I do not see a problem at all. You don't have to be the WWE or TNA to have a website that is reliable. Many promotions pay good money to have their websites done. The WWC website is perfectly legit. --DanteAgusta (talk) 07:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's like saying every promotion that has a website is legit. Like I said, that viewpoint opens a whole big can of worms. One has to stick to a certain line. WWE and TNA are used only because they have verifiable back up. Television. As an example. Massive press coverage. The accuracy of those websites has been established. Now has WWC's? Not to my knowledge, so it needs third party sources just like all the other indys. !! Justa Punk !! 10:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your reasoning behind this. I personally don't see to many website promoting fake wresting promotions. WWC is over 40 years old, and almost every big name in the industry has been there at least once. I have no problem believing their website is "established". --DanteAgusta (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I do, because of the lack of third party coverage. That sort of rationale applied to another promotion would see it's article (if it had one) under fire per WP:N. Now I am not for one second questioning WWC's notability as a promotion. But just because it's been around for so long does not give it's website an automatic pass as a reliable source. Even WWE and TNA throw up swerves on their websites as a part of promoting, greying up what's a storyline and what's fact. That's why third party sources are a part of Wiki rules - otherwise we might as well advertise, which I think you would know would be a basic contradiction of the definition of an encyclopaedia. Does that explain my reasoning better? !! Justa Punk !! 23:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is results of a show a "swerve"? They may do that with storylines but when it comes to news and results, most sites are on the level. The news is for Steve Corino working with WWC, which is true, the WWC website confirms this. This is professional wrestling, promotions websites are the only place to get reliable information like this. The "news" sites are useless and can not be relied upon as they are mostly rumors are only right a portion of the time. A promotions website is run by the company or promoter, which makes it the best source. --DanteAgusta (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not when there's no back up. If you can't get a third party source, the information should be removed. Saying "this is professional wrestling" is not enough. If it's notable, there will be news coverage of it - even in Puerto Rico. They love wrestling down there. When a primary source has back up, it is the best source. When it doesn't, it fails WP:RS. Show results are nothing no matter where it's placed anyway. Show reports are better. !! Justa Punk !! 02:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Third party sources just don't exist in the wrestling industry. Newspapers, tv news or sports, or online news carry it. The only true source for wrestling news is promotions or wrestlers websites. --DanteAgusta (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there aren't any third party sources, the information gets removed. Simple. !! Justa Punk !! 03:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both WWE and TNA websites are allowed. I see no difference here. --DanteAgusta (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of difference. WWE and TNA have third party sources. WWC does not. I think this requires another opinion and a wider discussion for a consensus. If your view holds we have a serious problem with WP:RS that needs to be clarified properly. !! Justa Punk !! 05:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they have sources, then name some. --DanteAgusta (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) TNA: Spike TV, WWE: USA Network, SciFi Network, CW (up til last week). WWE also usually feature in the local major newspaper if they are in town, especially if its for a pay per view. I would assume TNA is the same. Of course, the newspaper stories can't be press releases and because of their mainstream identity (especially WWE) it never is. They're news. !! Justa Punk !! 09:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is tv a source? WWC is on tv as well. So that would mute the point. --DanteAgusta (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is WWC on TV? Is it a mainstream network? Or is it community TV? If it's the latter then it's useless. TV is a source. Why do you think Australian editors want to change the Smackdown pages before it's shown in the US - only to be blocked from doing so because of spoilers. !! Justa Punk !! 21:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WAPA America, which is a Spanish network. WWC appears every Sunday. I don't know how things go in Australia's tv, but there is tons of wrestling shown on tv here in the US. It does not help notability, nor would I consider it a source. So I don't see RAW, Smackdown or Impact being a source you can use for Wikipedia. Also, according to your logic, those shows would not be any more usable than the websites. Both are produced by the promotion, so if you can't use the website, then same goes for the tv show.
Just a minute. The promotions don't control what goes on TV. The network does. They can pull the pin of it any time if they so desire with or without the consent of the promotion. Also, the TV network does it's own promoting of the show SEPERATE to what the promotion wants. You take Fox8 here in Australia for example. They advertise the shows (Raw, ECW, Smackdown AND Impact - and the pay per views as well of both WWE and TNA). Of THEIR bat, not the promotions. And it certainly does assist notability! Heck, USA is a major network in the US and Raw is one of their more popular shows!
And you're ignoring my point about the major newspapers just by the way. I wasn't just talking about TV. Put it together, and you'll have your third party sources - which WWE and TNA pass easily.
Now, with WWC, that does improve matters. All we need is coverage in Puerto Rico's major newspapers, and the website has it's back up sources - and I'll shut up. !! Justa Punk !! 09:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They put WWE and TNA is the papers in Australia? Man, don't ya have any real news to talk about??? And the networks do not have a voice on what goes on WWE programing, that is ALL WWE. Same with any other promotion that has a show. The networks do not have a voice. If your tv network is editing RAW, then I would be complaining big time. --DanteAgusta (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we do! And that second sentence is disrespectful and should be withdrawn. And you really think the network would listen if they edit programs? They do have a voice. THEY choose what to show. They could pull the pin any time they want to and the promotion can't do a thing about it.
We are getting nowhere here. You aren't getting it. The WWC website needs a test of verifiability, and it can't be either of us now. We need a third opinion. !! Justa Punk !! 01:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your argument, but I don't agree with it. I did not mean to be disrespectful, it was a mild joke. Wrestling is not taken seriously here as it is just entertainment, and the newspapers could care less unless there is a drug scandal involved. So you don't see results from shows in the papers here. But to clear up something, WWE creates RAW, their production staff, producer, and writers. WWE runs the whole show. USA is simply the network that runs the show, they do not have anything to do with how the show is made or written. So the tv show and the websites are the same, both produced by the promotion. So if you need third party, then the tv backing up the website does not work. Same guys making the show. --DanteAgusta (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I saw this listed on WP:3O and thought I'd just give my 2 cents. If the promotion is actually advertising something specific, on their website, that should be considered a reliable source. There's no reason to believe WWC would blatantly lie to it's audience for any reason, as the backlash would be terrible. If there is nothing reliable that conflicts with that claim, I don't see any reason to disbelieve it.  Hazardous Matt  21:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Puerto Rico and WWC does have a TV show that is aired not only on WAPA, but on WAPA America, which shows on the US. We don't get wrestling news on newspapers, because, well, as the colleague mentioned, that's not real news, nor is it a "real" sport. It does get on newspapers when it's a big event, though. I can say that the WWC site is certainly reliable and that Steve Corino IS wrestling full time for the promotion. He agreed to a six month stay, at least. I think he even mentioned in his blog or whatever. And no, I won't go through the trouble of looking it up for you, I have a life. Will all due respect, you're splitting hairs, Justa Punk. Have a nice day, and a pleasant tomorrow. -zhalazhazka

Reads like WP:OR to me. Look, it's obvious that my point is being missed. The third opinion missed it as well which I didn't expect. I'm trying to uphold WP rules to the best of my ability. The general rule is that primary sources by themselves need back up if their reliability isn't verified. To my knowledge the WWC website has not been verified by consensus. That's why I have made the points I have. WWE pay per views always get print in the towns they take place in. Wrestlemania gets a wider range of it. Not because of the "sport" but because of the event. What about the coverage The Sun in the UK gives to both WWE and TNA? Anyway - the dispute is closed as far as I'm concerned. !! Justa Punk !! 02:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR does not make sense at all here. This is a legit company's website. If you can use WWE or TNA, you can use WWC. My final word on this. --DanteAgusta (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the anonymous remark and nothing else re WP:OR. Debate closed. !! Justa Punk !! 04:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then we agree. WWC is an acceptable source. Let's all move on now.  Hazardous Matt  14:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No we don't agree on that. I'm agreeing to disagree and leaving it be. !! Justa Punk !! 21:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this article reads like corino wrote it himself

[edit]

someone should remove all the information that isnt notable (which is everything outside of ecw and japan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.239.98 (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Steve Corino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Steve Corino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Steve Corino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Steve Corino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Corino&oldid=1206792897"