Jump to content

Talk:Lucha Underground

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

Taping Spoilers

[edit]

Although events have already happened at tapings and someone has leaked the results, Lucha Underground audience members sign a legally binding NDA. The advance release of this information breaks that NDA. This would be the equivalent of working on the set of a TV show and posting the finale on Wikipedia before airing. There is also no way to tell what is going to make it to air in the actual episodes, or whether future tapings will change plans before airing. Therefore any pre-aired taping results, title changes, and so forth should not be listed on a Wikipedia page, and current spoilers should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.113.197 (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • You would have to prove that various editors signed NDAs before this article breaks that. And it has happened, if it's presented differently once it makes it to TV then that should be pointed out.  MPJ -US  20:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the purposes of this article, I think that events which have been filmed, but have not yet aired, are to be considered to be in the future and outside the scope of current events. Whether the events have already happened or not in filming, they have not been presented as such. A casual viewer of this article should be able to read it without worry of any spoilers ruining his or her experience. Clendy (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spoiling the show for me, page curators! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.249.174 (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Including events which have not aired on television on the Lucha Underground pages should not be allowed. Not only are such events and title changes incorrect because they have not aired yet and are therefore not recognized by the promotion, but the edits are factually incorrect because they have included events taking place on the filming date rather than the date the episode in question airs, which would be more accurate. Including events which have not aired on television, I believe, amounts to original research and should be outside the bounds of this article. The overall quality of the article would be greatly improved by only referencing events which have aired on television, and by referencing such events according to their television air date. Clendy (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, Wikipedia contains spoilers, so we don't exclude material just because it relates to an unaired episode. On the other hand, WP:Verifiability is a core policy, so we shouldn't be including leaked results unless they've been published in a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are reliable sources for the title changes. Read WP:SPOILER, Clendy. Wikipedia includes spoilers and if you don't like it, you can go somewhere else. Keep removing sourced material and you will get blocked. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 09:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on facts. The title changed happened -fact. It happened on the date it was taped -fact! If it is presented differently on tv then that is note in addition to the other facts. Can we please quit reverting it like Wikipedia is a fan site keeping kayfabe, it is not. MPJ -US  12:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the paragraph below that I wrote on the subject. Title changes and tapings may happen on certain dates, but they are not recognized by the promotion until the events which reveal them are aired. Rather than having reigns and events be based on the taping date as you would have it, with the airing date in notes, I argue that it should be the other way around, with events being noted as having occurred on the air date, with the recording date as a sidenote. Clendy (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, no: Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. When a program airs, then it is deemed to be a reliable source for itself (and broadcasting is equivalent to publication). Until a program airs, any "spoiler" information needs to be backed up by a reliable source. So, according to what published source did the title change on the taping date? —C.Fred (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So I do read that you agree that the spoiler warnings should not be there.  MPJ -US  14:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the warning should be "don't post spoilers". I think the warning should be "don't post unverified results". —C.Fred (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or to address the question to Clendy, on what grounds would you disqualify wrestleview.com from the definition of a reliable source? —C.Fred (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Countless people have had their enjoyment of the show undermined by inadvertently visiting this page without realising the ludicrous policy of posting title changes that haven't yet been broadcast. Roc1984 (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's their problem. Wikipedia contains spoilers, per content guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are spoilers, and events have have and have not been recognized by the promotion in question. Posting spoilers for a wrestling event is different than another form of television show. If there were spoilers shown on Game of Thrones, for example, then that would be valid to post. But wrestling events are presented with a series of events based on what plays out in the weekly episodes. If, for example, a champion won his title in taping and then lost it a month later in another taping, but the episodes and events presented therein took place over six, would his title reign be considered to be only one month, or six? I argue that it would be six. Or to take the example further, if a champion's title reign began and ended in one taping session, but played out over, say, two months, would you argue that his title reign lasted less than a day? Again, I argue for the longer date based on the episode airing. If one were to call, today, at this moment, the Lucha Underground office and ask, "Who is the Lucha Underground champion?", they would answer "Prince Puma", because any events to the contrary have not been aired and therefore, in their view, have not happened. To say otherwise would be the same as arguing that a movie's release date is based on when it completes pre-production, rather than airing in theaters. I know it is a difficult analogy to make, but that's the best I can do. So it is not only an issue of spoilers, but one of what is factually correct. Prince Puma is the Lucha Underground champion, and has been such since the episode when he won the championship was aired, not since said episode was recorded, and will continue to be recognized as the champion until the episode airs that deems it otherwise. All future episodes, until they air, are simply footage in a can, without effect on title changes, major events, and storylines. Such events, the dates they occur and so forth, should be based on the dates the episodes air, rather than the taping session date, and events that occur on episodes which have not yet aired are null and void. To do otherwise would simply lead to confusion to the casual reader of these pages. Clendy (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. The issue becomes that events have been taped, but it's taping for a television show rather than taping a live sporting event. Put another way, if a soccer game is played today but not televised until tomorrow, the game happened today. However, the taping sessions for LU are to record a television show: we may know that a match took place during a given taping date, but we don't know which episode it will be part of.
That said, is the date of the taping/when the match took place ever mentioned when the episode airs? If it's not, that supports your view that the date the episode airs is the critical date, not the date of taping. —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall for certain, but I don't believe so. On the episodes I've seen, I don't recall ever hearing the announcers or performers mentioning the date, or seeing any kind of on-screen graphic with the airing date on it. I think you're correct in that this would lend credit to the idea of the air date as the date of importance, as otherwise the cited sources I don't think would be entirely credible as a source determining what episodes would air when. I like your sports analogy; to stretch it further, in a true sports event, the result becomes official as soon as the event is complete. But imagine that FIFA had a policy where the result of a game does not become binding until it aired on television. That would be what we're looking at for a wrestling promotion and how it views televised events. I'm glad we can have some good dialogue on this subject; perhaps a good compromise would be to have the champion listings as I would suggest, with title changes based on airing date and not accounting for unaired episodes, while future events and episodes, like the "Ultimo Lucha" event, can be discussed in the general information section? Clendy (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The project discussed about the title changes/spoilers in the past. We include the date when the title changes hands, a fact. No matter when the episode airs, the wrestler is the champion since he win the match. Also, the title changes are sourced.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is disputing the fact that the championships change hands. It's a matter of determining when those championships change hands, as in what dates are recognized by the promotion, that are under discussion. To use a WWE example, if a champion loses his title on a Smackdown taping on a Tuesday which then airs on a Thursday, but there is a media spot or a talk show segment on that Wednesday where that championship will be featured, who would be introduced as the champion? The champion going into the taping or the challenger who beat him? I say the first one, because while the event where he loses has been filmed, the official recognition of that event does not take place until later. Clendy (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who reads this entry has the show immediately ruined for them. Because of how prominently the Title Holders are featured, it's not like I'm reading the Plot Overview and then being mad when I read a spoiler. The spoiler policy was obviously written with non-wrestling shows and movies in mind. Because the show is taped, there is no way to verify that the title change will be used on television, not every match makes the air, they could choose not to air an entire series of matches because it's a television show not a sporting event. Roc1984 (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easy. Don't read Wikipedia.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The title holders are pretty far down the page. Unless you're reading on a very large monitor, it takes some scrolling to get to them. —C.Fred (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Without having a notice at the top of the page to warn TV viewers, like myself, that scrolling the page will be reveal said crucial spoilers, this doesn't make any difference. I mean, I get that people curating this page must hate the show, hate its fans, and are hellbent on ruining as much as possible for them, but can't you at least do ONE good deed and put up a notice at the very top of the page explaining your agenda to reveal everything about the show, BEFORE you make LU's television fans regret ever reading your work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.249.174 (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Established practice across Wikipedia is to not have spoiler warnings like that. —C.Fred (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, this page should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.249.174 (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that? I see nothing to actually explain why this is an exception to the rule?  MPJ -US  00:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's because you stubbornly refuse to see any of this from the perspective of the people trying to follow this every week on television. The reporting of a television show on this page is the equivalent of one observing the tapings of a daytime soap opera then blurting out what happens to everyone who watches the show before they get to see it. The primary audience on this page that you intend to be to relaying information to aren't cold, analytical, information bots that don't care about TV entertainment; those who are most frequently seeking out this show are human beings with a passion for following a narrative program, without having entire storylines outright revealed to them before they even occur on the show. It really shouldn't be all that surprising after this long why so many voices heard, both on this talk page and on off-site wrestling discussion groups, speak of discontent with how Wikipedia curators have been treating this show. All the detached, uncaring, robotic talk of "established practice" and "rule" cannot change the level of utter dissatisfaction the fans of this program have for your work. As things currently are, I do not recommend anyone who is interested in following Lucha Underground seek out Wikipedia for any information on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.249.174 (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If anybody is that concerned about spoilers, they shouldn't be reading the articles on Wikipedia. There's a reason I stay clear of here late in a sporting event if I've DVR'ed the event and am not watching in real time: one way or another, I'll see the results in an edit. —C.Fred (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking what makes this show special? Why is this the only show on Wikipedia that does not follow the standards? And I seem to get the answer "because I watch it" from you - not a compelling argument. It's a fact, it's how it is - so deal with it accordingly.  MPJ -US  02:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it seems to be the only show on Wikipedia that does not follow the standards of not being a crystal ball. JasonOT (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How do you figure? The Crystal ball section calls out the following
  • scheduled or expected future events - The match has already happened
  • predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names - Not applicable
  • extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" - Not speculation that the match took place in the past and that someone was announced as the champion at that time. Air date is speculation until it actually airs I guess? What else is trying to predict the future?
  • Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors - Not a rumor, not a product announcement.
You cannot apply a rule that basically states "don't predict the future" on an article that deals with past events, even if they have not been televised they HAVE actually happened. MPJ -Fiesta Triplemania  02:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is all speculative until it airs. It's a heavily produced television show. Rumors from the production set are not reliable or verifiable facts until they air. Filming a title change, or any other match, does not guarantee it will air as such. This isn't a "real" sport where the show's producers cannot go back and refilm events before airing them. Unless these sources are Robert Rodriguez, Mark Burnett, etc. all of it is nothing but rumor until it airs. JasonOT (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not speculative that it was taped as a title change, if it's edited to look differently when it airs then that's actually an important fact to include in the article, it happened in "such and such way" but was later edited to be presented in "such and such way". Let's be honest though - the only things that have changed to air other than editing for time, content etc. is the order some matches are shows, we cannot actually state when a match will air until it has, but there are NO examples of Lucha Underground showing the match having a different ending than the one they taped, so this hypothetical discussion is kinda pointless. MPJ -Fiesta Triplemania  03:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely speculative that the title change will actually air. Is it probable? Sure. Is it known fact? NO. It's the very definition of future history. Nobody on any of the dirtsheets is a producer for Lucha Underground. Everything they've posted is rumor, that no one in Lunch Underground will confirm until it airs, if it airs. The fact LU hasn't yet changed anything major is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is they can, at any time they choose. The mere fact they can do this necessarily means every one of the title changes posted here months in advance are nothing but rumor. Nothing is official until it airs, and per Wikipedia's rules should not be in any of the LU pages. If there's a change from filming, of course that would be an important fact to include after it's all aired and events are confirmed. JasonOT (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Man I was not going to comment but well who cares it was self imposed.) Who is speculating that it WILL air? Stating that it was taped is different, that is the fact, once it airs the original air date etc. becomes facts too. MPJ -Fiesta Triplemania  04:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posting unverified, unverifiable, information as fact is speculating it will air. The current champions are those who have been shown on TV. Until such time that title changes are aired, any information indicating a title has changed hands is made by speculating on future history. This is no different than someone on the set of a regular TV drama witnessing a character's death during production and reporting it as "fact". The table on this page, and on the various championship pages are wholly improper. Again, LU isn't simply a tape delay of a live events, it's a highly produced show that can have absolutely anything changed before it airs, just like any other fictional television show. JasonOT (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please, read again. All title changes are sourced by reliable sources, that's not speculation, it's a fact that Puma lost the title, so he isn't the current champion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, none of the dirtsheets are reliable. Every single one of them is speculation; rumor from a production set. None of the sources can say with certainty what the LU producers will do with the footage they've filmed. Until something has actually aired, it hasn't happened as far as this fictional TV show is concerned, just like literally every other fictional television series. I get that you three want to be all smarky here by posting "spoilers" months ahead of time, but the fact of the matter is it violates Wikipedia's policies for reliable sources and posting speculation. JasonOT (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are. They are reliable sources accepted by the project. The sources talk about FACT, matches results. The FACT is that Muertes defeated Puma and he was declared the new champion. FACT, not rumor or speculation.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent conversation) Again -WHAT SPECULATION? That they were taped on a certain date? That he was announced as champion during that taping? Please show me where it speculates on how it will be presented? The only future statement is a out when Ultima Lucha is scheduled to air and that is El Rey's schedule. So what specifically is speculations? Please provide actual examples so we can get some insight into what you are objecting to other than the "spoiler" aspects. Trying to figure.out what the actual problem is here.  MPJ -Fiesta Triplemania  14:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The issue I see is that Lucha Underground is presented like a television show about a fictional wrestling promotion, rather than a wrestling promotion itself. Hence the dramatic vignettes shot like film scenes and the fact that the show has seasons like a TV show instead of a year-round ongoing plot. They also don't air all matches at tapings in order and some don't make it to air at all. So instead of treating it like a wrestling promotion, treat it like a TV show. If you found out from an extra that a character on a serial drama died, you would consider the air date - not the taping date - to be when that character was killed off. An example within Lucha Underground's story universe is that Bael was "killed" by Dario Cueto's brother. This segment aired last week, but wasn't shown to the taping's audience. So did the character of Bael die last week, or the week they filmed that segment? You can't just cherry-pick. 24.85.113.197 (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • who is cherry picking? Did someone write that Bael died? Are there actual exames of this? Anything we have a verified taping date should refrence BOTH dates. It happened on a certain date - fact. It was shown on a different date - fact.  MPJ -US  21:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are cherry picking. Until something has aired on a TV show, it hasn't happened as far as Wikipedia's guidelines are concerned. Tapings are not final products, tapings are subject to change. Given the nature of non-disclosure agreements, and LU's production, nothing released prior to air is verifiable. Until something has actually aired, everything that has happened is rumor, which has no place on Wikipedia. JasonOT (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it cherry picking or original research or is it "predicting the future on a past event"? Seems like you jump from one to the other with no real luck? MPJ -Fiesta Triplemania  04:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's cherry picking which rumors you want to consider fact, when all of them are nothing but rumor until they air. JasonOT (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Tell me where these pages have "rumors" on them then please if you do not think it is a fact that LU taped a match where Mil Muertes defeated Prince Puma and was announced as the champion afterwards then we have differnt definitions of what a fact is. Is it rumored that they are filming the next star wars movie or a fact?  MPJ -Fiesta Triplemania  18:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • I agree, thr match happend but is simply not been televised yet. Barring a widespread conspiracy I don't see the multiple reliable sources covering the already occurred match with no one else present at the event suggesting that they were wrong, could in any way be considered a rumor.--64.229.167.72 (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely ridiculous. I have read nearly hundreds of accounts about how people have been spoiled due to this page showing who wins the title due to taping results being posted. This is not a sporting event that NEEDS results the second they're posted. The show is treated like a television show and there's no reason to post results from tapings since the tapings are only a part of the episode. When the whole thing is pieced together, it tells a different story. This is due to the use of cutscenes. Anyway, the point is that why are people so obsessed with keeping this show up to date in a way that encourages people to just spoil the show? As someone else said, if I went onto the Seinfeld set and saw what happened in the finale, could I just come on here and spoil the ending of the show? It hasn't aired yet. When you google the show, this is one of the first pages you get. On sites I go to, people are actively discouraged from going on Wikipedia because Wikipedia has spoiled the results of shows months in advance on many different pages, from this one, to titleholders etc. CrystalFissure (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding airdates: If something changes in tapings, or matches are shown out of order (which they have in the past), or they choose not to use a match they've taped and do reshoots later, the information is inaccurate. If Wrestler 1 beats Wrestler 2 for a title, Wrestler 2 beats Wrestler 3, and then they decide not to use the 2nd match, you don't find that out on TV. If someone steals a belt in their storylines and brings it out to the ring, but they don't mention that during the match (because the audience is not privy to backstage events) and someone reports it as a championship win, that's inaccurate too. Wikipedia, as an apparently fact-loving community, cannot determine whether these reports are fully accurate until the show officially airs, as the results are not set in stone until we see the full episodes as they are presented on television. Things change from tape to air. Things are shown out of order from tape to air. Things are shown out of context from tape to air. How can anyone vouching for the posting of taping spoilers back these up as accurate? It is not Wikipedia's purpose to get information out as quickly as possible, it's policy to make sure it's accurate. The only way to be accurate is to watch the final product, which is the opposite of what you're doing. 24.85.113.197 (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, f*** you for the spoilers, assholes Harshmustard (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please use common sense. This is not like reading the plot summary of a movie you haven't seen yet. I've tweaked the championship table so we can still have one but it needs dates etc restoring.Harshmustard (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The whole rule about being able to post blatant taping spoilers as entries is dumb. I'm sorry. TNA tapes a whole month worth of shows in advance, sometimes title changes take place, but their reigns are not recognized until TNA actually airs their show. Same with WWE if a title change happens on taping Smackdown (unless they break the news themselves). Also, you have no idea of verifying the # of days a title reign is for future shows because like people have stated before; some matches are aired out of order or not shown at all. So maybe some of these title reigns were for tapings but may never see the light of day on television. I agree with the below paragraph that Lucha Underground isn't really like WWE/TNA because until they confirm it'll be weekly year round, it is a show with seasons and breaks. SO does that mean the title reign of the Disciples of Death for the Trios title, which obviously takes places between S01 and S02, should the majority of their title reign be counted or just when the show is airing? That would shorten their title reign significantly. Just some thoughts I had on this topic. I came to find out the spelling of Mil Muertes and got it spoiled. I'm not a fan of that. If I want to be spoiled, I'll go to a page that posts spoilers in advance, not Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.176.225 (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucha Underground shouldn't fall under the scope of WikiProject Professional Wrestling

[edit]

Lucha Underground is not a live sports event, its a TV show that happens to show wrestling on it. The Lucha Underground Page on Wikipedia currently follows the format of Wrestling promotions, and its not appropiate for people trying to find information about the TV show. The main point of contention is what that they show the "current" champions of the fictional in-universe promotion of Lucha Underground, and by "current" they reference events that haven't aired yet, citing wrestling websites who aren't in any way affiliated to the TV show and have no authority to confirm whether something is going to air or not. Lets not even discuss the fact that the admins are basically citing leaks as legitimate information, that's besides the point.

Lets focus on how relevant the information displayed on the wikipage is. When you enter the House of Cards wikipedia page, there isn't an entire section devoted showcase which characters plays which role in government. The Wiki of Game of Thrones doesn't have a section that shows you who's the head of each House, and we could be here all day describing what properly maintained pages about TV shows don't do.

Once again, Lucha Underground isn't a wrestling promotion running house shows and presenting itself as a live sporting event. It's a TV show about wrestling, and its Wiki page should follow the standard TV format.

Instead of the current format, the subsections should be looking something like:

Plot, Cast and Characters, Production, Availability, Reception, etc.

The current page is not only poorly structured and below the standard of the wikis about most TV shows, but stumbling over this page is actually detrimental to the enjoyment of this fine TV show. Hopefully, we can get this page restructured to a more appropriate format.

DannieRay23 (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on. And it's just disgraceful especially when season 3 is filmed, and we're going to be basically spoiled for 2017. There is NO point providing up-to-date information on title changes when the tapings are not the final version of the show. It's like going to a taping of TBBT. The people sign an NDA and they don't spoil what happens in the episode. 211.26.60.236 (talk) 08:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that's bothersome is that the live crowd has no context for what's going on, because the backstage segments aren't shown to them - they're filmed cinematically. So there's no point where anything they see being taped should be considered "official" for title reign statistics. Wikipedia's supposed to be an encyclopedia. What other encyclopedia publishes unreliable, incomplete information from tenuous sources on things that are often arranged out of sequence? For example, Fenix's title reign is referred to on TV as a one week reign. But since the taping schedule was out of order, the title history page claims he held it for 20 days. This is simply not true once it's edited together and officially recognized by the company. Everything in a TV taping format like this should be recognized solely by airdate, because anything else is unreliable information. 24.85.113.197 (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well no it's not - if someone saw Jose Generic defeat El Capitano Charisma then that's not unreliable, that's what happened - it is a fact. If someone says something about how it was presented on TV before it's aired then that's speculative. Fact vs. speculation. Fenix held the title for 20 days, that is a fact anyone with a calendar can confirm, you're saying that this article should be written "in universe" and only state what the TV shows reflect - is that how episodes of Star Trek are handled? Is the Sopranos page about a crime family? How is it "tenous" or "incomplete" that he won it on day "X" and lost it on "day x+20"? How is that incomplete and how is that not true? I see a lot of complaining and explanations and all it boils down to is "I don't want spoilers". WP:SPOILERS boys and girls, ladies and gentlemen.  MPJ-US  21:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Btw - how many TV shows have performed a "Live episode" at "South By Southwest"? or have producers that state "touring is part of the plan"? So this whole "it is just a TV show" discussion is misguided - it's a televised wrestling show - where the important parts are "televised" - "wrestling" - "show", all three parts are important. Now I don't disagree that the article is a mess, it is poorly written and is wrecked by edit warring over what sort of article this is or opinions on spoilers etc. and attitudes like the "disgraceful" comments above that those lowlife wrestling guys are spoiling it for you because you don't realize that Wikipedia has spoilers. Btw. did you know Dumbledore died? Yeah it's in the article about the book. Thanks Wikipedians *mad face* MPJ-US  21:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Balancing television and wrestling

[edit]

So I am really hoping that we can collectively come up with something that will help bring some stability to the articles and less friction between those that see it as a "tv show article" and those that say it's a "pro wrestling show", when it reality it's both. So I have a few suggestions for how to approach this

Not sure what other LU articles are out there? but I think that this breakdown makes sense for the types of articles each are, kinda help us all get a handle on the approach to each article and perhaps we can actually come up with something worthwhile we can maintain and improve.

  • Reliability on spoilers is moot in this case since Lucha Underground often tapes matches out of order. You can't get accurate title statistics unless the show is in proper order. If say, Fenix gets the title in a taping, then loses it, then they decide not to use that match and go in another creative direction when it airs, what's your title statistic for his reign? Or if Fenix's first title defense is taped before he actually wins the title, and the finalized show places them in reverse order, when does he win it and how long is his reign? You simply can't predict from the limited information we have. If a character dies on a TV show, you don't post the date when the death scene was filmed as the date the character died; you post the aired episode they died in. That's common sense, because you don't know how they're going to arrange it in post-production/editing/airdate.

    This page was fine when it was "Champion (as of current airing)" and should return to that format. Anything else is incomplete information based on live reports from unreliable sources. And if you want a source from the same credibility as the spoiler results, here you go: "Anyway, Angelico says he’ll be part of Season 3, joining the tapings in April and May, and htey’re shooting out of order so he may be part of earlier episodes. (It was clear to those at the tapings this weekend that matches were being taped for parts of many different shows and maybe not in any conventional order.)"[1]
    24.85.113.197 (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • See this is where you lose me. how is an event unreliable just because they're not taped in order? I mean do they then not happen? Is there a cosmic force that will go back in time and change something that has already happened? Not sure what makes it "unreliable"? Please do elaborate. And let's go over your theoretical situations
  • Fenix wins the title on a taping on June 1 - We list the fact
  • LU decides not to air the match, sweeps it under the rug and gives it back to Matanza - we list that fact, that they taped the match, it happened but they decided to ignore it - there are tons of history of something like this happening, nothing new, nothing unique to LU.
  • Fenix defends it on May 15, wins it on June 1 and loses it on June 15 - the championship article should reflect all facts, he won it on the 1st, lost it on the 15th and then a note that a championship match was actually taped on May 15.
  • Fenix is taped losing the championship on May 28, taped as winning it on June 1 - the fact is that he had a negative length title reign, again not unique to LU, handle it like everything else.
  • "reliable statistics" are two things "taped on date" and "aired on date" - show me how those are not reliable if they reflect facts??

What is Wikipedia based on? Verifiable facts - which is what I am advocating. All of them, the date it was taped, the day it was shown on TV etc. I don't want to cherrypick facts to avoid spoilers, I would like to list fact - no qualifiers, no ands, ifs or buts. Also what source has so far proven to be unreliable? Add to the fact that they're reported by sites that the pro wrestling project has deemed Reliable Sources - in other words your argument is invalid - they are reliable sources, they're reporting facts. As for your source - reddit is not a reliable source so there is that Honestly that croomet just means one thing, that we cannot list "scheduled to air on xxxx date" but instead state "match has not aired yet" - a slight adjustment from season 1 and 2. Btw who is "predicting"? Outside of the "scheduled to air" comments on season 1 and 2 who is predicting?

And you are treating this as if LU us unique in wrestling, news flash all wrestling championships are storyline devices and often used as part of television shows - treat them all the same, don't discriminate, rise above the hate.  MPJ-US  21:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You mention cherrypicking. What you're doing is exactly that - You say treat all TV shows the same, but if you wouldn't edit a TV show based on production in progress, you shouldn't do this either. Recognize the changes as of airdates, because you don't know what they're going to do or how they're going to use the footage. I say it's unreliable information because the show is incomplete. The matches happened, yes, but until the company officially recognizes it via airing of a program, it's a TV show currently in production, filming a season. For example if you were on set for Lost, and you had reliable information that they filmed the scene where Charlie died, does Wikipedia list the character as dying when they filmed it? Or when the episode airs? Furthermore, LU absolutely does do things differently than other wrestling promotions. Admission is free because they're a live studio audience. They redo spots and scenes with multiple takes. They heavily dramatic with cinematic scenes that the commentators and fans aren't privy to, and they have an off-season. The producers even tell you it's not a wrestling promotion, it's a TV show about one. This isn't just sour grapes about spoilers, and it's incredibly reductive for you to handwave people's thoughts on the matter by saying that. If you want to post taping results due to the facts you want to display, make another page for them. But they're irrelevant here in the context of the TV show. Otherwise revert to what happened as of the current episode. Things that happen in TV production happened, of course, but not in the context of the product itself, which the article is about. As someone who works in the TV and film industry, that's a very important distinction in media that should be recognized. 24.85.113.197 (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading all this, I can see that your mindset is exclusive (it's only a TV show), mine is totally inclusive (it's both) - this page is not just a TV show, nor it it just professional wrestling. Sorry it does not fit neatly into one box or the other, life is a palette of greys, not black and white. As for how this is "not wrestling" but a TV show only, let's see what you mentioned.
  • Free admission? Plenty of free shows have been held, including tv tapings for both WCW and TNA, two of the "big ones"
  • Redoing spots - Any wrestling show that's not live has done this as well, sometimes they have the same match again or repeat finishes
  • Backstage skits taped at a different time than the matches? Again not unique to LU.

Can't we all coexist? Is there no room for the fact that this is professional wrestling too?

And I see your point, it's not just to "not post spoilers", but that seems to be the only thing on the page that people are really trying to change. I don't see any effort to turn this into a "tv show" article - I only see the arguments over what constitutes "current champions" and no other activity. Yes there is talk here on the talk page, but it's talk without action so it's really hard to interpret that as anything other than talk. Finally - how am I cherrypicking? I want both facts mentioned, when it was taped, when it was shown - how is that cherrypicking facts? What facts am I trying to exclude? Please enlighten me how I am cherrypicking by incuding all facts, because I am confused how that works.  MPJ-US  19:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.reddit.com/r/SquaredCircle/comments/4bb6iy/according_to_angelico_lucha_underground_rejected/>

This is an article about a TV show, not a sports federation.

[edit]

This is an article about a TV show, not a live event organization. There has never been a crowd above 500. There are separate live events, which should be listed on a separate section or article. Aricle should start "Lucha Underground is a television show produced by RIP..." et. all. This talkback page is one of the most asinine things on the internet, and that's saying a ton. 110.233.73.142 (talk) 06:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Squid[reply]

This is ridiculous. Lucha Underground is a television show. Do you know how many people have been spoiled due to this page? It is not a live sporting event in a traditional sense. No-one apart from 300 people get to see the event live, as it's a television taping. I have no idea why you're so obsessed with keeping the page "up to date" when these are events that have not aired yet and take place in a show that is more "about" wrestling than it is a wrestling show. It's more like Game of Thrones than WWE RAW. If someone got the leaked script to an upcoming GoT episode, would it be fine to just spoil it on Wikipedia?
Plus, one thing you don't realise is that people are signing non disclosure agreements to enter the set. So these spoilers are illegal anyway. There are pictures online where it specifically mentions this.
Oh and here's another thing about non disclosure and this show: MVP was terminated from his contracts for apparently accidentally leaking a spoiler for the show. So it is indeed more a "television show" than a "wrestling show. --CrystalFissure (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again WP:CIVIL - I have no "obsession" nor am I actually one of the editors that keeps putting in the spoiler info, but thank you. The number of people at a show does not make it any less wrestling, I did not know there was a magic number that made it "not a pro wrestling event", do enlighten me on what that seemingly arbitrary difference is. Thank you for assuming I am ignorant of the NDAs, but I know about them - but the Reliable Sources that reports on them did not sign those, no different than reporting on a leaked document - well except that this is just wrestling, so please lighten up. Getting fired for breaking a rule does not make it a TV show, it makes it a company that enforces its guidelines. Or is this another rule I was not aware of? Firing employees for breaking the rules = "Not wrestling"? Again none of those arguments actually changes the fact that it's a professional wrestling television show - the important words here of course being "professional wrestling" and"television show", not just television show. Why should we seek to exclude facts? MPJ-US  04:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an executive producer of the show will be likely popping by and will be showing the Wikipedia admins the NDA. It is beyond a joke that this page blatantly spoils confidential tapings. You can lie to yourself that "reliable source" doesn't sign the NDA, but that is total garbage. The reports are posted by Dave Meltzer, who gets them from fans in attendance. That is how it has been since day one. No one enters the set without signing one. If it really is "just wrestling", then why are people so focussed with keeping up to date on tapings that are out of order and intentionally so to prevent reporting on them? 2001:14BA:1EFF:A800:89FF:13F9:F9BE:B582 (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:NOLEGALTHREATS, please! oknazevad (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lucha Underground. 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) 02:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Constant vandalism

[edit]

It appears at least one person plans on constantly erasing valid changes to the entry because they don't agree with accepted Wikipedia policy. Particularly removing Dragon Azteca Jr from the Gift of the Gods title despite it being reported in multiple reliable sources the title change took place. It may be time to take further measures to protect the page.TrinitySkyBoat (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Might help your case if you actually provide Reliable sources to back it up. Reddit is not an RS. Just saying. These claims need reliable sources, provide those and the IP guy/gal would be the one clearly in the wrong. Right now the two of you are edit warring, could be a double whammy for ya.  MPJ-DK  17:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure thing. As far as Dragon Azteca winning the title, it was first reported on SoCal Uncensored[1] then was reported in March 12 Wrestling Observer Newsletter by Dave Meltzer. It is behind a paywall but his exact report was "After they were all laid out, they had the three-way for the title where Azteca Jr. beat Cuerno and X. This was said to be a **** match that will probably be even better than that by the time it airs on television with all th editing in place. There were a few minor hiccups between the outstanding stuff that will be edited out most likely andmake it better. X did a standing 619 off the ringpost to a standing Azteca outside the ring. He also did a swanton off a structure over the entrance way that was every bit of ten feet off the ground, mabye more. Tons of dives and crazy spots. Azteca pinned X to win it. The crowd was going crazy throughout the match. The second show opened with Azteca Jr. out for a promo. He talked about winning the Gift of the Gods title and would cash it in for a title match at Ultima Lucha 4 in the main event." That seems pretty conclusive to me.TrinitySkyBoat (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not disputing the accuracy, just saying that the WO source is a Reliable Source, should be possible to cite it even if it's behind a paywall while SoCal is not an RS.  MPJ-DK  17:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • SoCal is not listed as an unreliable source and probably should be moved to reliable sources due to its proven track record of accurate reporting (but I realize that is a discussion for another time and place). Honestly I'm not 100% familiar with the formatting how a non-link would be or I'd be happy to edit it in.TrinitySkyBoat (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am afraid that's not how it works, the criteria is not if it's as "unreliable". the WP:RS link has a definition of what is considered a reliable source - if it does not meet that criteria it's not a reliable source, sorry I don't think that currently SoCalUncensored would pass the check.  MPJ-DK  23:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only vandalism here is regularly using Wikipedia to disseminate trade secrets (see: WP:CV) and use it as a crystal ball (see: WP:BALL), which has gone on for years. Accepted Wikipedia policy is not violating IP rights and not speculating. Dirtsheet rumors are not reliable sources, especially not when their reliability is predicated upon violating NDAs, nor does it even matter given the information is protected intellectual property until it airs. 209.6.55.154 (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well yes, except this is not obvious vandalism, and I do think the IP claim has been questioned, thus by the very definition not "unquestionable". If you are so sure of your case why not thane it to a copyright violation board or page protect or something official instead of edit warring in the article? It is growing quite tedious.  MPJ-DK  02:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And also ZERO crystal ball, no one is trying to "predict" what will happen instead they covered matches that has already happened, past tense. Just like you cannot bet on Super Bowl LII now you cannot "predict the past" - the pages never speculated on how the shows would be presented, which matches would air on what episodes or even WHEN they would air - because THAT would be Crystalballin'. Results were listed after the match was over, comments on how they were presented happened after the episode aired.  MPJ-DK  23:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Until FMV has chosen to air the events taped on closed sets under NDAs, reporting those events as final has always been making predictions. It is nothing at all like trying to bet on an unscripted live event. Reporting title changes prior to air is, in fact, speculating on how and even IF the show will be presented. 209.6.55.154 (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swing and a miss, the matches have happened, not a future event. Stating when it will air, how it will be edited or what storyline led to it would indeed be Crystalballing, but that is not what is presented. Not a single speculation made, don't have to when it is events that took place in the past. But as I said on your talk page, I am done with the conversation and I ain't being caught up in this edit war you have going on. Good day, good luck and good grief.  MPJ-DK  02:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said on my talk page, because you can't keep your fallacious arguments in one place: When the matches were filmed is irrelevant. Simply assuming the match will air is Crystalballing. Assuming that title changes will happen in story is Crystalballing. Assuming anything that unlawfully leaks out of a closed set is Reliable Information is Crystalballing. Treating WON as a Reliable Source is Crystalballing. Most of WON's reporting is closer to corporate espionage than it is being a Reliable Source. 209.6.55.154 (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://socaluncensored.com/2018/03/03/lucha-underground-news-notes-03-03-2018/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lucha_Underground&oldid=1202102699"