Talk:The Snake Pit (Wigan)

Promotional puffery

This has a borderline promotional editorial style with lots of WP:PUFF. ("The hard-nosed environment produced some of the most popular and skilled wrestlers of their time"), describing it as a 'home' and 'mecca', and including redundant quotes from owners. Not to mention, merely trivial details are the subject of a WP:REFBOMB, such as the detail of the building being a shed with a tin roof and the shower only having cold water has almost twelve different references, when two good ones from WP:PW/RS would suffice just as well. I do think this should be edited fairly and balanced before being created, which I would be happy to help with, as it sounds like it is written by somebody close to The Snake Pit. Mechanical Elephant (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for giving feedback. I think most of your concerns about content are addressed by the info already in the article — and what are the "redundant quotes"? That refbomb (8, not 12) was because several sources described the gym but included different details. These details are not trivial, they contribute to developments later in the gym's history. Unfortunately, almost none of those reliable sources you linked were helpful in writing the article. They either mentioned the gym in cursory detail or actually gave false information, and didn't even know the gym's actual name until it officially became the Snake Pit in 2012. So instead, I found reliable info in newspapers, documentaries, MMA sources, and others.

That unreliable coverage I mentioned (mainly English, Japanese coverage was more comprehensive) was the reason I wrote the article. I'm just a combat sports fan that saw a glaring hole in WP's content on the subject. As it stands, this article is currently the most comprehensive source of free information on the topic. And it would've been a lot easier to research and write if I had a relation to the Snake Pit (although I did correct their account on a couple of things). I'm open to help and if you know things I don't, please pass them on.

Also, I would've appreciated a message on my talk page about your interest in the article. I've just been waiting for the review process so I haven't been checking it much. Spagooder (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Spagooder, I've only been on Wikipedia making short edits this week as I've been busy, so sorry for the delay.

That's right, my concerns lie in the fact that when passing a review from an experienced editor, they too would flag it as a ref bomb, because while we both understand that they are helpful references, there is an absolute abundance of them in more instances than one. Yes, noted - eight references not twelve. And fine, a mistake on my part, but maybe we can actually get it down to even less than that and keep only the really notable or in-depth ones. You'll notice on most pro-wrestling Wikipedia entries, there are generally two to four citations at the very most.

I'm not saying it is trivial to be rude, I mean it honestly, and if you have taken that the wrong way then I am genuinely sorry for the confusion. Quotes from the owner are not relevant to how wrestlers trained - not at all.

For example, the WWE Performance Center article does not (for good reason) feature random inspirational quotes from William Regal and Matt Bloom because it doesn't need to. It would add nothing of substance or detail.

One detail I do like, which comes after it, is about the books and reference material. That is of general interest to that article and fits the tone and is actually cited well.

I'm surprised that the general notability sources for the project have reported inaccurately on the topic. Instead, keep your very best sources. Just cut out the primary sources (see: WP:PRIMARY) as these are generally frowned upon. I have noticed instances of you using them while also citing numerous other secondary sources alongside it, thus making the actual primary material redundant in doing so. Citations, quotations, and weasel words are my main gripe here, as it would struggle to pass for creation if these issues aren't addressed.

Another case of you including superfluous details is at Roy Wood being a head coach. There is no need for his life story. You didn't do it for Billy Riley, so why do it any differently for Roy Wood? Keep it the same, short and snappy with only relevant details.

This

• Roy Wood BEM (1970s–present) - born in 1943 to a family of boxers, Wood joined Riley's when he was fifteen; he was a molder by trade and began "show" wrestling after Riley told him "you can't eat medals, turn professional and earn some money", and boxing for Matt Moran's fairgrounds boxing booth. In December 2023, after coaching for almost 50 years, Wood was recognised on the 2024 New Year Honours and awarded a British Empire Medal (BEM) "for services to wrestling and young people"

... Becomes this:

• Roy Wood BEM (1970s–present) - head coach

The details on his BEM being awarded would be included in the personal life section of his own Wikipedia entry (if and when that gets created, I am fairly confident being a head coach with a BEM passes general notability guidelines), or as a note above the honorary title itself.

What's more, his personal life as a molder is irrelevant to the article in question, and yet again, there is just another random redundant quote. His family weren't trainers here, so there's no point needing to keep that in either, and the same point goes for the fairground boxing. This is about The Snake Pit, not Roy Wood's life story.

While I understand you saw a 'glaring hole' in the coverage of the industry on here, do remember that while you are free to create and edit articles, no original research is allowed and refbombing doesn't change that, no matter if in good faith or not. Just look for and cite the strongest citation(s) of them all (including mainstream newspapers, or if it is a documentary so be it) per detail. Try to keep it three to four at the very most.

I will personally task myself with chopping out all the unnecessary details to help it pass, because I want it to and it can be a good enough article if done right.

There was no reason to unnecessarily delete the promotional puffery template from the main draft. If that was being reviewed by an editor, they would need to be aware of the fact you have not went back and removed it. If I didn't add it, they would have done instead. Bare in mind, it could take eight weeks to be reviewed, or even tomorrow, so keeping it there is vital for when it is... unless you do make the amendments.

Mechanical Elephant (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

No rush on the timing, we get to it when we can.

Let's start with the refbomb, I can trim some off. I know there's also ways to combine multiple references into one footnote, that could be suitable too. The quotes aren't inspirational, they're meant to illustrate the coaching and training environment. If you can think of a better way to word it, that'd be fine - these guys were shooters first and show wrestlers second. According to Wood in one of the sources I couldn't track down, Riley wouldn't let guys work professionally til he was confident they could wrestle for a shoot. Robinson also repeated Riley's maxims throughout his own coaching career.

As for sources, I did an exhaustive search to find the best ones, this includes the primary ones (WP:ABOUTSELF). While I'm sure I can cut some out, the incompleteness or failure of secondary sources makes primary sources necessary to bridge gaps. These sources and details were an effort to be the most comprehensive, everything is there for a reason.

Riley lived most of his life before he started his gym, Wood began training there at 15 and has been the head coach for 50 years. His life and the gym's history are heavily connected and a background should be given somewhere. The quote isn't random, it came up several times in my research. None of this was original research. That refbomb was for comprehensiveness, the sources described the facility similarly but included different details.

This is an AfC, maintenance templates are unnecessary for now — an experienced reviewer agreed. I appreciate your input but I think it'd be appropriate for a reviewer to get their own impressions. Spagooder (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)