Talk:E-wrestling

Untitled

A lot of revertion is going on here with adding and removing of efederation and interfederation links. Basically, i'd like to request you don't add federations just for the point of advertising. There are very few encyclopaedic federations out there only a few examples need be provided. Hedley 16:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Site Linking

All you need to know is ewrestling.org and the NeWA are one of the longest standing fantasty wrestling sites on the planet bar none! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.23.5.73 (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The Pride of New York 20:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• For those who want a history of internet-based e-wrestling, it might be interesting to note the first person to coin the term "e-wrestling", which occured in 1990, by Francois Dominic Laramee. The Summit feds, while no longer existing, were the first internet-based federations. They died sometime in the mid 90 to late 1990's. There's a history link with dates and such: http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~ja3k/e-wrestling/Summit/index.html -- The first "e-wrestling" index page was Jeff Berry's "Wild World of E-wrestling, began in 1991. It, too, is still around, but hasn't been updated in some time.

I'd like the same...

Because you keep adding the FWO, for what? The point of advertising. It's not a big fed (Wow, it's been going ages... big deal, so has my fed, that doesn't make it "massive", it means we have a small group of people who read it regularly, like every e-fed out there).

You, Hedley, on the other hand, continually show bias towards both the FWO and PTC, X-Net is just as viable for a link as PTC is, more so in fact, because while PTC only serves a small handful of e-feds, X-Net serves a huge directory of them, for this place, X-Net is therefore a better place for people to go and get a good idea of what e-feds are.

Length of how long something has been up doesn't dictate how good it is, so by that subject, stop showing amazing levels of bias, and either let ALL e-fed links go up, or none. As for the interfeds, just stop being shallow and leave the links to interfeds other than PTC up there. Everyone's trying to remove the fact of your bias towards FWO and PTC, you continue to keep shoving them back on. I'm about to add them back, I would advise you leave them there to prove you're not biased, just as I'm removing the FWO link, as an e-fed itself has no business being linked here, as if you insist it does, just because it's been running ages, then I'll start finding a huge list of feds that have been around for ages too, and throw them all up. As I say, you can't have it both ways.

• Me? Biased towards PTC? Go over there, say my name, and you'll see why I don't like them.

I didn't add PTC last time but I did add fWo. In big communities (yes, those ones that people care about) it is a big federation and an example of an e-federation needs to be listed here. Needless to say i'll look at your links, and should I not see them as notable, i'll remove them again. If you readd them, then we have a problem.

If your linking to one interfed but denying to link to another, then you are biased. I don't know why you made this useless attack here without using the four tildes (~) to sign it, but either way, i'll edit as I see fit. Be bold in updating pages. Hedley 19:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(I have no affliation with PTC, infact i'm not too keen on the place, and i'm far from good enough to get into fWo.)

• • Ok, i've left your interfederation links there, simply for the point of that they provide a decent enough hub for anyone interested in seeing more about e-wrestling. Its debatable whether a resource site like Roughkut is important here but i've left it anyway. Hedley 19:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The topic of e-wrestling

I think that this topic is one that is encyclopaedic, but at the moment the article speaks to very opinionated views of an e-federation. There are definetly different sizes and shapes of them and to expand the article to include everything that can be said would be very exhaustive. Theres a lot that can be said, even for individual federations, but i'm not sure what can be done on the subject.

I'm thinking that an idea could be to branch out into new articles. Theres enough that can be said for the term 'interfederation/interfed' to warrant an article, and this is a broad enough topic for such articles to be notable. An idea could also be a list of efederations, of interfederations and so on, although that would be hard to maintain with so many disappearing and appearing overnight.

Any thoughts on this? Right now the article is good, but in some ways vague and it is written from one person's point of view, when there needs to be more depth in areas. Hedley 20:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Uh, well, you can start from branching out to the sect of the fWo and those type of federations to the ones that cater to the newsgroup rec.sport.pro-wrestling.fantasy. I had posted two links [one, Just the Facts, which covers these text-based, mostly angled e-feds; and two, the newsgroup itself] since your description of the e-w world kind of ignores this area... yet, for some reason, it was editted out. Maybe out of ignorance of the links or something else, I do not know. But whatever, no big deal. Just bringing it to your attention.

• • I don't think linking to a newsgroup is appropriate, to be honest, as not everyone has a newsgroup reader (When I clicked on it, it brought up the 'Add Newsgroup Wizard'). As for the resource site, i'm not sure whether it belongs here - You've got a case where Fwrestling and Roughkut are listed, and so you either omit resource and news sites altogether, or let them all on. Its a difficult situation because its so easy to advertise. I don't know how popular the site that was linked is, but I noticed that updates aren't too common on the main page, so I deleted. I don't know where the links section of this article is going, because if so many of something is included and the rest not, then thats bias. On the other hand, excluding something altogether, like you said, results in ignoring a certain area. Hedley 18:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • • The problem I have with this article is that the nearly universal removal of external links makes it of very little use to someone interested in learning something more about e-Wrestling than is covered on the 'about' page of most any e-fed they happen to stumble across. I'm not that versed in the history of the hobby, and I certainly haven't been involved in any of these interfed communities. My experience has only been to run across feds out in the wild wild web over the years, and I'm very interested in learning about the origins and variety of permutations. So I come (repeatedly) to wikipedia -- the one source that might be able to effectively document such an internet phenomena, and find wiki-hard*sses locking things down so bad that there's little more than a basic description of the concept. Links to resource sites would be a nice start -- they have been somewhat helpful to me in learning something about e-wrestling, bias or no. When I (a know-nothing newbie) can't learn anything new from a wikipedia article that's been so active for so long, that's pretty darn sad. 64.111.226.201 08:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

e-wrestling topic

first, glad ya finally understood why me (and two others) kept putting those links back.

On the subject of how to branch into different areas, I dun think a listing of e-feds themselves would be good, for two reasons:

1 - It'd be too hard to keep adding and removing links as they become dead or as new feds open.

2 - It'd be too open for petty deletion of links, and anyone who's been in the e-fed game for even a couple of months knows how petty some people can get, on RoughKut you'll have people marking you low on the rating just to spite you, you'll have people slandering you in various places, the list is endless, and in here people would just remove links to e-feds they didn't like, or keep the link and have it direct to their fed instead.

But an idea that might be better, is more in-depth details on the various types of e-fed, such as angle e-feds, RP based e-feds, and the general idea behind Interfeds ('tho that much can be tough, seeing as each interfed has a different reasoning behind it, I mean RoughKut's essentially an Interfed, it's just not really used as one that much, 'cause the forums are practically dead. While X-Net's always booming with life).

The article itself at the moment has nothing wrong about it (Fair enough, my g/f & co-owner wrote it, but even so...), however you can never add too much to it.

Unfortunately in a place like this, people will always disagree with certain things, meaning constant re-edits etc. such as what happened with the linking thing. No matter how many people think one way of something, there's at least one other person who thinks differently, and in turn it just creates chaos as people start changing stuff back and forth, and with it being about e-feds, it's guarenteed to turn into just one huge flame war eventually (For some sad reason... almost everything goes that way at some point or other in this hobby).

• I agree with the list of efederations comment, and although the article has nothing wrong with it, it is one persons view on the typical efederation. The bit on the 'a site normally includes' is very vague and basic also. Branching out would be good, although you have to look in to what to branch out into first. By the way, rather than comment anonymously you should possibly register for Wikipedia, or at least finish the message by typing four tildes (~), as that instantly turns into this: Hedley 02:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I agree about the database listing, but it also seems to limit the mentioning of any e-federations by that regard. Would there be a way to create a loophole for this (say, instead of a carte blanche datebase, have it by interfed or by explicit mention in this article). I suppose at that point the real question is "Where do you draw the line between a valid article and a vanity page", but at the same time without a definitive answer it's hard to expand this page further. Veled 21:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • The problem is you can't measure the important of an eFederation. The reason I used fWo as an example was as its very much regarded in eWrestling, in many areas, as the best of them all. Its also been referred to on WWE, allegedly, and has some media interest (from Chinese news sites, even, again allegedly). But, you could say the same for NWC, which is the biggest of them all in the view of some Yahoo! fedders. So really, you have to include them all, or a large bulk, or omit them. The interfederation listings is the best option right now - It's easy to include them all, and your linking to eFederations indirectly without bias. Hedley 02:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • That said, its still a problem. I don't get what you were suggesting about the databases, though, or at least you've lost me. Hedley 02:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Hedley

Hi Hedley. I have left a message for you on your talk page concerning this article. Proto t c 09:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Efed merged into this article

The information that was on the Efed article has been merged into this one. Quite a big job, so it may need some checking. I also tried to make the tone a little bit more encyclopedic. And, I've put a note about what efeds should be linked to (ie, proper ones with more than 5 members, not ones run by three guys and hosted on angelfire, tripod or geocities) Proto t c 08:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Scroll up to the top heading on this talk page - Sadly, some people dislike federations being linked, so it's best that we don't like to any. If we were linking, fWo is the obvious choice, but some people on the 'other side' of the eW world don't like that. Hedley 14:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Then they can have their sites linked also (provided they're notable). It's better to have too many links than too few. Proto t c 15:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• And we judge notability how? Don't bother, although I don't care. Hedley 15:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• I tried to redo it, hopefully it'll make more sense. I'd say they need their own webspace (ie, not a freehosted 'fed'), and a good amount of members (50+? 100+?) The only one I'm qualified to talk on is wrassle.net, I know that has around 500 active members, around 200 of which are paying members. And it's a good example of a fed (actually a group of feds all runnning on the same engine) with a realtime online simulator for matches. But that can be removed if you find one one with an online engine that's more notable (more members etc), I don't even like the place any more, I quit like 2 years ago Proto t c 15:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I think I'd need to complain if you started trying to set a 'member' size to determine what feds could be shown here. Unless you have a very loose definition of 'member', most high-quality federations rarely have more than a couple dozen players to keep up with. 128.61.72.17 23:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Then they're not important enough, and don't need to be linked. Proto t c 09:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    • And you accused me of being biased about things? (Actually, I'm not sure that you did, but you see my point). You are far from able to tell me or anyone else who is or isn't important. I'm not even an active editor, but I'm going to delete all the links. If you re-insert them, this article should be deemed a NPOV problem. Hedley 00:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
      • As a fellow wrassle.net member (who, for the record, found this discussion totally independent of Proto and have only just discovered he's on wiki), I would suggest that Proto is only slightly out of touch with his numbers, but suffers more from not being clear in his wording. At the time of writing, the wrassle.net site is reporting 518 characters registered- members can have an unlimited number of characters, but these are deleted after a week if you do not log in. Of these, probably 150-200 are actively roleplayed on a regular, day-to-day basis. Maybe 100-130 are paying members (known in the game as being "Extreme!"). Note, I am not blindly campaigning to have a link to wrassle inserted into the article, which is why I've not added them myself- I'm commenting here to clarify exactly where that game stands so we can reach an overall consensus which helps the article as a whole. Should there be a link to an example or two to support what the article's about? Yes, I believe there should. Do I think wrassle.net should be one of those links? Personally, I am not aware of a larger fed- that doesn't mean they don't exist. I'll second the idea that anything on tripod/geocities/whatever has no place here, and in that light, yes, wrassle.net has a reasonable claim. But I'm open to convincing otherwise. --Lawlore 23:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding FWO

I think FWO should be mentioned on this page because of its history in pro wrestling. I wish I could find the articles relating to this, but back when WWF had Chyna and Jericho as the co-champions, it was proven that the whole angle was lifted straight from FWO. There's a clip or sound byte out there of Lawler saying something related to FWO or one of the wrestlers in that FWO storyline, and Jim Ross says "now lets not go there." WWF would print out FWO cards and bring them to writer's meetings. Again, I wish I could find the articles relating to this so I could post it, but either way, I think FWO deserves some sort of mention.

• You can try telling the people who edit this article all you want, like I did, but they insist on being fair to the Triple X's and M's over on Geocities. I gave up on it. :p Hedley 18:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this is one of those where unless you can find a reference, noone is going to believe you. Have you tried going back through Byte This? They're archived somewhere on wwe.com. Proto t c 08:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

- It was actually during a match on Raw, so unless you can find that specific show, you won't be able to hear the reference. Thing is, Lawler apparently says the name "Ultra Violet," which is a character who was doing the exact same gimmick/angle in fWo at the time, during the broadcast. Or at least, that's how it's been told to me. I may be apart of the fWo but even I don't trust whether it's true or not :-) I do trust that they read us, and they rip us, so I'm not doubting it. I'm just doubting it until I see it myself too. - Ford

• I think the entire detail of the WWE ripping off various federations needs addressing, as XFW (the fed I represent) has noticed similar 'coincidences' with its angles (regarding Gabriel the White / Mordecai in its most obvious form, among with Teddy Long and a few other SmackDown! wrestlers)). However, without the kind of proof you claim to have, your speculation is as good as mine, certainly isn't unique to FWO, and if you want to brag about FWO so much, you should just set up an independant article in the same category and leave the definitive E-wrestling article with as minor a mention as possible. Ideally the page should describe how to organize such a federation, NOT be used as a virtual pissing contest. Veled 14:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

Before we get into an edit war, let me explain my summary for removing this:

2002 and onwardsHowever e-wrestling had developed since the days of wrestling’s mainstream popularity. E Wrestling now tends to focus on the creative side of the game with detailed novel style role play’s and show transcripts the size of books. These changes to the game have made E Wrestling a niche game. Fed’s such as FWO, PCW and OSW brought about the rise of this style of efeds.

• There is already an explanation of roleplay feds earlier in the article, so saying things "now to tend to focus on the creative side" is redundant- it is simply not a new development.
• Thus, to suggest people have only been writing detailed novel-type posts since 2002 is factually wrong. It was going on before then.
• E-wrestling has always been a niche game, that is also not a new development.
• I would hope we do not need to go back into arguments about which feds are worthy of being mentioned. There either needs to be consensus of which is/are notable enough to be mentioned (which there isn't), or none should be mentioned at all. To say those three federations were responsible for a supposedly huge shift in style is ridiculous. The article is no weaker without the feds names.

There's no value in getting into an edit war over this, and I'm only striving for creating the best possible NPOV article. I'm more than happy to hear reasoned counterarguments from anyone who wishes to put them forward. --Lawlore 23:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Completely agree, unless it's verifable from reputable sources about their importance they should not be mentioned as anyone can make it up. I could say that the Chocholate Ice Creame e-fed was invented in 1992 and was the first e-fed to exist, anyone can say something that is completely untrue. Englishrose 20:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

External Links Proposal

Look, this is ridiculous. It is clear there are perhaps four or five of us regularly editing this article, so we need some sense here, otherwise we'll spend the rest of forever just adding in and cutting out each others links. That's not what wikipedia's about. That is why I have so far been bold and removed ALL external links.

I am asking for people to justify their links here (I realise this may be for a second time in some cases) before re-adding them, so that everyone is crystal clear on what grounds they are being added. I admit I personally am not familiar with any of the sites that were regularly being linked to. Please do not misunderstand me, I am not suggesting these feds are not notable enough, but summaries of WHY they deserve to be in the article will help me understand as much as anyone else. The cornerstone of wikipedia is that things are verifiable- all I'm asking is for people to verify their link's importance and be open to discussion about it.

The only consensus I think we have successfully reached so far is that sites hosted on free servers (Geocities, Tripod etc.) or forums will never be notable enough.

Thankyou. --Lawlore 00:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that's probably a good call. Having any links at all is just temptation for anon IPs to add linkspam, and it eliminates any "my fed should be there" "well then so should mine" discussion. If there's a good, inclusive, non-commercial directory of efeds out there, I wouldn't be adverse to that being linked. Proto||type 11:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Depends what you call good. There's RoughKut, but that's just a dump yard of "omg0rz luuk at us" feds. Hedley 17:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Efed resource sites should be linked and obviously i'm gonna be partial to Efedwiki being linked. --172.143.213.152 18:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that there should be no feds directly linked from this article. However, I do believe that efed resources sites/communities need representation here. RoughKut (once it's back up) will still be home to the largest efed database going. XNet are the most well known community for what they do. Prime Time Central and 1WR I am not too sure about. I think the most important thing to link to sites/articles that describe things about e wrestling that this article cannot cover here. In depth stuff like "The Art of an e-wrestling match" would be a good candidate for external linking.CloakRed 15:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

For what reason were the recent list of sites removed? They weren't a list of E-Feds, but communities and resources people could go to to learn more about the hobby and possibly get a start. The Pride of New York

The pruning of all external links in this article is overzealous to say the least! True, a list of existing current 'e-fed' links would not only be pointless but a cleanup problem. However, even direct links to articles of historical signifigance are trimmed. If you intend to remove links to information, duplicate the information here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.111.225.118 (talk • contribs)

The only "information" link was a list of feds that no longer exist, and was in no way verifiable information. The idea is that specialized information such as that belongs on the E-wrestling wikia referenced as the sole external link, as does information about feds, wrestlers, handlers, etc. This article is about as in depth as it should go, and the only edits (besides the reverts done by Englishrose and me) are at best unencyclopedic and at worst wikispam. --EazieCheeze 20:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think there should be absolutely NO FEDS linked on this page and all feds that are linked should be removed once spotted. Some sites that should linked are PTC, Roughkut (no matter what you think about the site, if over 3,000,000 hits mean anything... it's a good site), and maybe even XNET Wrestling since it's a fed resource. --retched 12:28, 1 March 2006

Perhaps a bland "List of active e-wrestling organizations" entry? Obviously, there is a chance for link-spam, and a need for regular garbage pickup (cleaning out dead feds), but I think the positives outweight the negatives. --EazieCheeze 00:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Bold text SJADIIISJSKAKSDBCI DHWEIUDHEWIODHSOHOSAHDIOSADSADOIHHKLlKJAHHASOIHSA FUCKING SASQUATCH LESBIAN PORN FUCKERS EFEDDING SUCKS AZZZZZZZ !!!!!!1111ONEONEONE

What about Shootclub?

Shouldn't Shootclub.com at least be given some mention in this page? From what I've seen, it's the biggest E-fed out there, as well as one of the oldest. To be honest, I'm shocked it hasn't gotten it's own wiki page yet. 24.19.62.17 03:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Not notable enough on its own to have its own wikipage. Englishrose 18:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

     ShootClub is one of several commercially driven derivatives of the e-fed phenomena.
     Perhaps a subsection on commercialization here is warranted?

Links

Could we get some external links for E-wresling sites? Most aarticles about games have links and this should be no different.

Added a couple of information links -- first an article on early internet history of e-feds from 1995 (archived on an e-wrestling information site at avigne.org) and also one of the most comprehensive resource and information sites on the subject (RoughKut.com)

Unfortunately, being that e-wrestling is primarily an [internet phenomenon] born in the foggy Compuserv days, a great deal of historical information has already disappeared (accounting for much of the inability of wikians to cite existing sources).

Ewrestling Wiki

In an attempt to be bold, I have added a link to the Ewrestling wiki at wikia.com to the article as a sole external link. Since the goal and editing guidelines are more condusive to listing individual feds, I thought this to be an amenible solution to this constant bickering of "should there be an e-fed list?" Now there is, elsewhere. Englishrose (among others) can now feel free (not that you haven't in the past) to revert fed links within this article with impunity. Perhaps instructing those who add links to head to the external link. --EazieCheeze 04:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. I was going to add it myself but I forgot. I've already being transfering indivual e-fed pages to thise wikia. Englishrose 09:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The "oldest" fed

I have no real idea how old this "HWA" orgaization is that's listed on the external links, but I doubt they can surpass an 18 year old federation located at http://www.cswawrestling.com.

I'd also suggest adding links to various communities(along with a description of what those communities are and what sort of federations they follow), which would let interested parties continue their research by actually viewing what e-wrestling truly is, without it being something that needs to be managed on a daily basis. Things like Shootclub, Prime Time Central, E-Wrestling Network, and Rec.Sport.Pro-Wrestling.Fantasy I'd imagine should all be listed, but... hey, I'm not gonna go ahead and just do it because it seems there's been a lot of confusion, and hell even anger about such a thing. So I'm just gonna go over there. - Ford

G-Fed vs. E-Fed

Hey all, I'm new to this site, and I admit I have a slight bias as to why G-Fed should be included somehow in this E-wrestling article. However, I'd like to suggest that it should be. I also don't want to step on any toes, which is why I'm asking here.

Although I work for Geeksoft, and our site would be helped by this type of "free advertising", I put forth the argument that G-Fed, a term coined by Geeksoft, should be mentioned in this article. For those that aren't familiar with it, G-Fed is a suite of software made up for E-Fed users to help them run E-Feds hosted on Geeksoft's website. The reason I think this shouldn't be dismissed as advertising is that many have been confused by the G-Fed/E-Fed name. How are they the same? How are they different? I was going to join an E-Fed but then I heard about G-Fed. Is a G-Fed the same as an E-Fed? And so on.

Well, if anyone else would agree that it should be included in the article for informational purposes, then I'd be happy to provide info. Would love to hear some feedback about this. Sleuth14 00:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here first. I would be very reluctant to add a mention to a fed that runs only on one specific site to this article, as you run into the slippery slope of letting other people add the specific ways they run their feds (with specific examples provided, and all the ugliness that will come with that). I think it may be best for your information to be included in the E-wrestling Wikia rather than in this article, but your candor in posting here before editing willy-nilly is much appreciated. Certainly others are welcome to come here to disagree. --EazieCheeze 17:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to say no to this proposal of adding "GFeds" to this wiki page. The main reason is that eWrestling is a free game online and in order to have a GFed you have to pay for it and I think thats just rediculous...not because it shouldnt be allowed or anything but I think its rediculous because ALL gfeds look the same...they all work the same they all are setup the same and aside from colors and a couple images they are the same...whats the point of paying for the same thing someone else already has? It's a good idea in general, a gfed that is, but it does not merit it's own section on this wiki. --RottNKorpse 17:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I too am going to have to say no to the adding of recently recreated G-feds. Mainly because, 1) it's commercial now, 2) It will lead to link spamming, and 3) As RK said above me, it's all a copy of a single page minus a few additions to the pages detail. At most maybe you can talk about in the proposed commercialization section alongside Shootclub. --retched 16:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Another E-Fed wiki

I think this link should be added to the External link(s) section: E-Fed Wiki

Lacking Sources

I think tagging this page as lacking sources is a tad unfair given the nature of efedding. There are no definitive authoritative websites (so I'd think) about this subject, and again, so I'd think, no books, articles etc. in general circulation that could be used as sources. The page is written by the whole efedding community by itself and is therefore a creation of the community out of its shared experiences. LancasterII 05:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment, didn't the WWE sue thousands of e-feds for copyright voilation. Right that's a source, now we need someone clever enough to find a valid news article on it. Englishrose 22:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My last edit

Seems though it's a fairly big edit I'm going to explain it. Firstly I've got rid of a lot of stuff that quite simply cannot be verified by independent sources such as an e-fed claiming to be the first ever e-fed from 1985. I couldn’t find independent sources so I deleted it. Secondly, I’ve added a few sources. Don’t get me wrong they’re not ideal sources apart from one from the Internet Magazine (which is brilliant) but for now it’s a good start. I've also used a history page of a game simulator site to reference that text sims are used in e-feds and an article from a small and now defunct online entertainment magazine, which will do for now. If you have sources (especially on the WWE sueing e-feds) which are independent then add them or let me know. Thanks. Englishrose 15:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've read this page, and I believe with technology moving the way it is today. E-fedding has become more involved. No more emailing a move to someone, or anything that mondane. But an e-fed I'm involved in, that I won't even name drop, plays and records it matches using a video game. (also not name dropping, they get plenty themselves) It's still based on the traditional e-fed template, but the advances in roleplaying where it's gone from just typing, to playing it out using taunts, recording voices, even using a different game to continue a storyline. (ie car chase etc) E-fedding has progressed beyond what people thought it could be, and I'd like to offer up a link to a great site that displays the best in efedding today. (based on xbox360.com game forum hits, roster size, consistancy, originality, and hits)

Vs