Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 101

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95←Archive 99Archive 100Archive 101Archive 102Archive 103→Archive 105

Year in professional wrestling guide

It was recently mentioned above including the list professional wrestling year articles in the style guide. One concern is that non-notable information would be added and it could get out of control. I took a first shot of writing something up, let me know your thoughts.

==Year in professional wrestling==
===Lead===
The lead section should be brief. It only needs to include a one sentence introduction of what the article contains, such as "YYYY in professional wrestling described the year's events in the word of professional wrestling."

===Sections===
The sections the article may contain, should appear in the following order:

  • Calendar of notable live events (broken out into months if the year contains more than 30 events)
  • Tournaments and accomplishments
  • Title changes
  • Awards and honors
  • Notable incidents
  • Retirements
  • Births
  • Deaths

Any section which would be empty, such as births in the 2015 in professional wrestling article is better to not include rather than to include an empty section.

===Notability for inclusion===
All events which contain their own page and meet wikipedia’s notability WP:GNG may be included in the events section. For example, the Brian Pillman Memorial Show was not produced by one of the below companies, however it contains its own page and therefore can be included on in all four years it was presented. Supercards and pay-per-view events may also be included for the promotions listed in the next section, regardless of their own page existing or not.

The following promotions and their legacy names (acquisition by one of these promotions does not create notability) are deemed notable for inclusion of their tournaments, accomplishments and title changes (or events as described above):

Currently the only two awards that qualify for the awards are Pro Wrestling Illustrated awards and the Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards.

Incidents for inclusion in the notable incidents section should contain their own page, or at least their own section within the article for inclusion. For example, events such as Death of Owen Hart and WWE Performance Center shooting do not contain their own page but contain their own subjection, therefore they can be included. Other events such as Black Saturday and the Montreal Screwjob which contain their own page are also notable for inclusion.

The criteria for inclusion of births, deaths and retirements fall within the criteria laid out in WP:LISTBIO. No red links or unlinked names should be included in this section. Any birth, death or retirement from someone involved in professional wrestling, with their own Wikipedia page, may be included in this section, as long as the proper WP:RS is included.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Galatz (talk • contribs) 15:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. Two small suggestions: add a note to "lead" stating the inclusion of {{Year nav topic5}} (e.g. {{Year nav topic5|2012|professional wrestling}} (much like we note the inclusion of Infoboxes). Also, to maintain consistency with how sectional organization is presented in the style guide, we should either add that to the existing section or split them all off individually—either way is fine by me. Prefall 20:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! One other thought. While looking at Impact One Night Only they organize by air date. I guess it makes sense for that article, but for the year pages does it? Most stuff there already is organized by date it was taped not aired (especially since some stuff like supercards never actually aired). I think we should specify that events not airing live are listed by their taped date, and air date can be listed in notes section. - GalatzTalk 15:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. That's the same way we handle championship articles and it makes the most sense here. Prefall 20:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I went through a small handful of these and most of them appear to be the usual WP:INDISCRIMINATE-violating data dumps cobbled together from various other pieces of content on the encyclopedia. You're worried about a "consistent" format while not showing the least concern about consistent information which is contextually relevant to the title of the article in question. There has been a troubling pattern exhibited by more recently active members of the project, one of attempting to unilaterally define what is and isn't notable when merely reflecting it would suffice just fine. As seen here and here, this particular POV is being pushed in high-profile corners of the encyclopedia, with no real checks and balances by this community or the community at large. I coulda swore that mere mention by Slam Wrestling was considered the gold standard by any number of project members, seeing the way that website gets pushed down readers' throats incessantly even when their perspectives amount to blatant WP:UNDUE.

  • "(The lead section) only needs to include a one sentence introduction of what the article contains, such as "YYYY in professional wrestling described the year's events in the word of professional wrestling." Based on what I'm seeing, this one sentence is the only prose to be found. This and the stance taken in "Notability for inclusion" assumes that readers are not interested in reading prose but rather gawking at formatting and clicking on clickbait in various forms. These entries are inconsistently assessed as either articles or lists. If they're intended to be articles and not lists, there certainly needs to be more than the usual random bit of inconsequential text masquerading as a lead section by virtue of its separation from the rest of the article.
  • Re: empty sections – Most of the empty sections I saw were death sections from the earliest years alongside mostly fully fleshed out birth sections, obviously because the real purpose here is to use years past as a venue to keep pushing a 21st-century-centered knowledge base on the subject.
  • The big thing is the section on notability for inclusion. Galatz previously mentioned 2017 in professional wrestling and the revision history there shows a lot of edit warring. This and this show an effort made around December 25 or 26 to define what is and isn't notable. First off, of far more concern to me was the following caption I found in the article on December 23: "Kazuchika Okada, held the IWGP Heavyweight Championship throughout 2017, breaking the record for the longest reign in the title's history on October 22". No matter how you want to excuse it away, that's blatant WP:CRYSTAL. You and I both know that if Bill Watts had read that on December 23, he would have booked a title change within the next week just to show you who's boss around here. I referred to Tugboat Taylor earlier. Contrasting the claims of non-notability with our coverage of other "underneath" guys, I would have to conclude that having a perfectly respectable career as an underneath guy is "non-notable", but an underneath guy who appeared on WWF or WCW television with some sort of jobber gimmick is "notable". This tells me that we've lost all semblance of common sense, and I'm far from finished. Ron Starr main evented in at least a half dozen different promotions, including a few big ones. Bill Kersten announced in Kansas City for over a quarter century and called multiple NWA World Championship title changes. So, precisely how are YOU deciding that these folks aren't notable? Claiming that Toyko Joe Daigo isn't notable only reveals your lack of any clue whatsoever (never mind that all the drooling Hart family fanboys around here show their true colors by giving short shrift to someone who's effectively an adopted member of that family). This disease has spread elsewhere. Kersten's replacement, Rick Stuart, announced for numerous promotions, including for Crockett on a Starrcade telecast, and was also possibly the first AIDS-related death in the business. So what pathetic excuse does anyone have for why Stuart isn't mentioned in List of premature professional wrestling deaths? Oh yeah, that's right, accomplishments be damned — someone who's been dead for over a quarter century obviously isn't hiring social media consultants to get their name mentioned in the right corners of the web and therefore be deemed "notable".
  • Let's take the time right now to see how this approach to defining notability meshes with the real world, shall we?
    • 1948 in professional wrestling is a complete WP:UNDUE exercise towards lucha and births of late-20th-century wrestlers and has precious little to do with 1948. For instance, the formation of the National Wrestling Alliance was a completely non-notable event? Bitch please.
    • Most early years follow the same predictable pattern of non-information. 1971 in professional wrestling begins with the following:

      ==Calendar of notable live events==

Promotion(s) Event Date Venue Location Attendance
EMLL 15. Aniversario de Arena México Unknown Arena México Mexico City, Mexico
EMLL 38th Anniversary Show September 24
You're claiming that these are notable events even though the attendance doesn't appear to be known? Freddie Blassie and John Tolos drew 26,000+ people to the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum for the blow-off of their feud. That attendance and event has been known about and written about for decades, with some claims that it was the largest wrestling attendance since the O'Connor/Rogers title change a decade earlier. Once again, holding an encyclopedic understanding of the 1970s hostage just to cater to the whims of 21st-century website writers and their Wikipedian doppelgängers is an illogical approach which can only merit the response "Bitch please". There's also the piece Tom Burke wrote some decades ago in which he describes 1971 as the pinnacle of the territorial system, not really so much in terms of money but definitely in terms of geographical spread and in terms of the number of full-time jobs across the industry. Oh yeah, I shouldn't mention Tom Burke, because it's so obvious that we're here to push IWC-era website writers as the only authorities on this subject.
  • I'd like to get off of that, but these examples go on and on. The 1971 article has an empty deaths section despite a small handful of well-publicized in-ring deaths and road deaths. Once again, must be completely non-notable, huh? Are we assuming that our only audience are so thorougly dumbed down that they'll accept any shit we shovel? This is insulting to anyone who knows better. The 1972 article links to Parade of Champions, which claims that Texas Stadium existed in 1961 (it didn't, sheesh...). The 1976 article calls Muhammad Ali vs. Antonio Inoki an "incident", despite it actually being a scheduled event and scheduled match, and through closed-circuit, tied into most of the notable wrestling events held in the United States that year (including Shea Stadium). It really got worse as I went along to the point of giving me a bad headache, so I'll stop pointing things out. While I'm still "in the spirit of '76", however, that was the year of the first Superdome show promoted by Leroy McGuirk. Once again, we push this same POV and pretend that none of the Superdome shows were notable, despite attendances for a few which rivalled the Shea shows. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I really did want to end it there, but I forgot the numerous other things which deliberately defy reality. Such as explicit mention of "PWI Awards" for numerous years prior to the actual existence of PWI. Unless, that is, I missed reading the source which states that the term "Pro Wrestling Illustrated" was used for the awards themselves, which would have actually been published in either Inside Wrestling or The Wrestler (the benefits of having someone around who actually remembers collecting wrestling magazines; all the rest of these guys would have been happy to expect you to believe that PWI was around in 1972 when it was not, just like they expect you to believe that Texas Stadium was around in 1961 when it was not, or that wrestling shows in stadiums with attendances of 25,000+ or 30,000+ aren't notable if no one has bothered to write an encyclopedia entry about them). Such as continuing to give short shrift to wrestling promotions of the territorial era despite fairly regularly putting on the sort of "non-notable" shows described above (a show at Soldier Field or Comiskey Park is only notable if someone has bothered to write an article about it? Bitch please.), as evidenced in the list of promotions seen above. Such as claiming that the WWE Performance Center shooting is a "notable incident". This is how the end of that section reads today, January 18, 2018:

He faced trial in February 2016 on charges of aggravated assault, resisting an officer with violence, and trespassing. A public defender representing Montalvo has entered a written plea of not guilty on his behalf.

So this incident is so "notable" that the conclusion or word of the expected conclusion of events has fallen into a black hole for nearly two full years? Oh yeah, BTW, mentioning someone by name before they were convicted of anything may run afoul of WP:BLP. By this point, some of you may object to my repeated use of two particular words, so I'll cease, but why is it so blatant that this is all so fucked up? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Firstly in terms of your comment that they are WP:INDISCRIMINATE-violating data dumps cobbled together from various other pieces of content on the encyclopedia I have to disagree with you. When I wrote the above and worked on improving the articles themselves I looked at many other YYYY in XXXX on wikipedia and went based off of that. For example, take a look at 2017 in film or 2017 in baseball or 2017 in basketball or 2017 in American television or 2017 in the United States. Are these really so dissimilar? None of them are prose and all but the baseball one are classified as lists, yet that article is included in the wikiproject for lists, so in essence all are classified as lists, as these should be as well.
Yes, those are most of the empty sections you saw, because we haven't added just random empty sections. To have a birth section in 2017 is pointless. Besides for the 1970s and 1980s articles, which need a lot of work overall, I dont think there are any empty sections. Unless there is something to put most of the more recent articles don't have it.
I am not sure I follow your rant that involves this comment First off, of far more concern to me was the following caption I found in the article on December 23: "Kazuchika Okada, held the IWGP Heavyweight Championship throughout 2017, breaking the record for the longest reign in the title's history on October 22". No matter how you want to excuse it away, that's blatant WP:CRYSTAL. You are saying that on December 23 someone wrote a comment about something that happened 2 months prior. Please explain how an event that happened in the past is WP:CRYSTAL. No one can just read that and book and match to show someone else who is boss, after something happens.
Your complaint about 1948 being 1948 in professional wrestling is a complete WP:UNDUE exercise towards lucha and births of late-20th-century wrestlers and has precious little to do with 1948. is just ridiculous. No one is saying that is what the article has to be about, its just what people are chosen to put in so far. No one is stopping you from adding other information.
I am not sure I follow your issue with the inclusion of Muhammad Ali vs. Antonio Inoki. Webster defines incident as 1) something dependent on or subordinate to something else of greater or principal importance. 2a)an occurrence of an action or situation that is a separate unit of experience . 2b) an accompanying minor occurrence or condition. 3) an action likely to lead to grave consequences especially in diplomatic matters. It sounds to me like perhaps you are only considering the 3rd definition of the word, however it is third for a reason. As far as I can tell it meets the other definitions quiet well.
Your issue with events appears to be the word "and" being there. If it said {{All events which contain their own page or meet wikipedia’s notability WP:GNG may be included in the events section}}, would that be different?
Again not sure I follow your issue with the PWI awards being included. Again just sounds like a rant for the sake of ranting about something.
Once again your WP:BLP claims are ranting for the sake of it. If there is press covering the incident we dont exclude the name. Otherwise you better go nominate George Zimmerman and Chayben Abou-Nehra for deletion. - GalatzTalk 00:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Drooling Hart fanboys? Really? How does this random insult have anything to do with your post, how do you know someone is a Hart fan when they're claiming someone isn't notable? WTF? Gross honestly. If you don't like the Harts or their fans you can keep that to yourself unless it's actually relevant.★Trekker (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that I'm the only person around here that seems to edit Hart family related articles on the regular, and I don't even have very positive feelings towards the vast majority of them, at all. So who are you refering to?★Trekker (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, at least the list of promotions is arbitrary as hell. WP:RECENTISM comes to mind almost immediately when reading that list, since it begins by excluding pretty much everything that preceded the 90s. There were promotions/NWA territories that outsold some of those and not all ended in VKM's pocket, I call BS on them not being "notable" enough. El Alternativo (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

PPV background section

I have seen HHH Pedrigree try and clean up the background section and getting reverted. A lot of IP users have theories like this one Talk:Royal Rumble (2018)#Question about “Unnessecary” reversions. Perhaps can we come up with a word limit for this section because they have gotten out of control and impossible to read. Putting this in the SG would be helpful. MOS:TVPLOT limits these, perhaps shorter than we need, but same idea applies. Thoughts? - GalatzTalk 02:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

HHH Pedrigree and I haven't been in agreeance in regards to this. I agree with him on the key points, but I disagree with him on what he classifies as key points (or rather, what he doesn't consider to be key points). In regards to MOS:TVPLOT, it's too limited for what we need because of the way pro-wrestling is. Some of these stories are months in the making. Some are even a year or more (usually the case with WrestleMania matches). That makes it a little harder to put a finite limit. Maybe it can be broken down by the length of the stories. --JDC808 ♫ 06:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
My biggest issue is if you look at something like Survivor Series (2017), it takes three full monitor scrolls to get through the entire thing. It is impossible to read through it and get anything meaningful. Perhaps a guide that we not more than one paragraph per match? Or maybe it needs to be divided up into sections? That section is 1,766 words, perhaps even 1,000 words as the limit? Clash of Champions (2017) is 1,906. - GalatzTalk 12:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Survivor Series has a huge background section. "On the October 17 episode of SmackDown, after returning from a trip to India, Mahal said that a young boy had questioned what was next for him. Mahal said that he had defeated every worthy opponent on the SmackDown roster and that at Survivor Series, he wanted to face Raw's top champion, Brock Lesnar. Mahal, however, was interrupted by AJ Styles, who took exception to Mahal's claim and challenged Mahal for the WWE Championship. Mahal said that Styles was a joke, and Styles retaliated by attacking Mahal and The Singh Brothers (Samir and Sunil Singh). Backstage, Mahal confronted SmackDown General Manager Daniel Bryan about the incident, and said that one of The Singh Brothers should make Styles pay and Bryan agreed;[8] Styles defeated both Sunil and Samir, respectively, on the following two episodes.[9][10] Lesnar and his advocate Paul Heyman appeared on the October 23 episode of Raw to address Mahal's challenge where both laughed at it. Heyman stated that Mahal was not Lesnar's counterpart, nor worthy of being WWE Champion, however, they accepted the challenge.[11] The next couple of weeks on SmackDown, Mahal responded to Lesnar, stating that he had overcome much adversity and he would defeat Lesnar at Survivor Series.[9][10] However, it was then announced that Styles would face Mahal for the WWE Championship on the November 7 episode of SmackDown,[12] where Styles defeated Mahal, making him the WWE Champion facing Lesnar at Survivor Series.[13] Lesnar and Heyman appeared on Raw the following week to address Lesnar's new opponent, stating that Styles was the ultimate underdog, but that Lesnar was the number one champion in WWE history.[14] The following night on SmackDown, Styles and Bryan mocked Lesnar and Heyman, with Bryan acting as Styles' advocate, and Bryan said that Lesnar always mentally quits when he enters deep waters and Styles would "drown" Lesnar at Survivor Series.[15" Why we have a line for every promo Mahal, Styles and Lesnar had? I can do it better "Mahal asked for a match against Lesnar, which was grantes. However, AJ Styles tried to win the title. Afte two matches against the singh brothers, Styles won the title and would face Lesnar." Money in the Bank (2011) hasn't that level of detail in the background section. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
It's true. I'm not having my best days as Wiki user. I think the lines I deleted are weekly, no notable events. If I would included in the wrestler article, it will be deleted. When I write background section, I use the key points. For me, are the events which have connotations in the match (ex, the stipulation, the motivation). We all know how feuds work. Wrestler appears, say "I'm the best", have random matches, brawl with the rival. For example: "A brawl then ensued between the three, which ended with Lesnar executing the F-5 on Kane, who sat up to Lesnar's surprise. A couple of weeks later, Kane tried to bargain with Strowman, stating they should team up on Lesnar during the triple threat match, but Strowman refused. Later, Lesnar's advocate Paul Heyman said that although Lesnar could lose the title without being pinned, he was afraid of no one nor any challenge. Kane then came out and performed a chokeslam on Lesnar, who sat up and mocked Kane before attacking him with the title belt" Why a brawl and a promo are notable? I understand the Braun fired and re-hired thing, but a random brawl? Styles having a Handicap match against Owens and Sayn at SmackDown... Sorry, for me it's just a random TV match. For example, Omega-Jericho. They attack each other and NJPW said "these two are crazy, the match is gonna be a No DQ match". I understand the attacks. A brawl between Lesnar Kane and Braun... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
You mention that the stipulation and motivation should be mentioned. Some of these promos contain that motivation which is why they're mentioned. Can they be trimmed? Sure. But out right cut? Not necessarily. A brawl adds tensions. A promo adds context. --JDC808 ♫ 20:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Which context? Mahal saying is the best? Styles saying he is the best? Endless brawls between wrestlers? For me, a line saying "they had a brawl" adds nothing. No new information, no context. Useless information. But whatever, I'm tired of having to explain everything. Go fuck yourself, I'm tired of Wikipedia. Still messing with the articles. Isn't a surprise the best users left this place. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
It may be completely shot down as an idea, but these backgrounds go into depth as to how every single match was created on the PPV sometimes. I'd only really want the main level fueds explained here, or at least placed into match specific sections. I don't think a paragraph could really be enough to discuss how the 10-man survivor series match became, because there is simply a lot of information. However, if I wasn't interested in that match, but was very interested by how Brock Lesnar and AJ Styles were built up, I could skip the section on the match that was very long. The issue, is obviously, that there would be lots of sections... but it could easily be split up to the two main events, and then misc., which would make it all easier to read. I realise this would be a lot of pages to change, but it would make a lot of things a lot easier to read, when the background is large. Something like WrestleMania 33 has Background and Storyline split as two, but the Storylines section is maybe 5 screens long. There is no reason to remove it, exactly, but maybe make it easier to read the info you would use. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not against this idea of having sub-sections under "Background". I'm actually curious as to why this wasn't already a thing. The WrestleMania articles do it a little bit, but why only them? Going off what you said, we can have the usual main section titled "Background" with the usual opening paragraph. The first sub-section after that paragraph could "Main feud" or "Main feuds" (if there's more than one). Could even do fourth-tier sub-sections under "Main feuds" and name those after the matches. The next third-tier sub-section under "Main feud" could be "Other feuds" or if someone can think of something better. --JDC808 ♫ 20:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying I haven't interest in the matches. However, I see no notable to include a promo about Mahal saying "I'm gonna beat Brock Lesnar" or "Styles said a handicap match is unfair". WrestleMania 33, it's usefull "On Raw, Bayley and Banks teamed up and defeated Charlotte and Jax. After the match, Jax laid out her three WrestleMania opponents.[59]"? for me, it's just a weekly event. SummerSlam (2003) is a featured article and hasn't that level of detail. A lot of promos are the same "I'm better than you, I'm going to defeat you". Why is Jinder Mahal promo different from any other? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I tend to agree with most of HHH Pedrigree's thoughts on this. In today's world where there is a PPV every month, the background should only be worthy of 'subsections' for, at the most, 'The Big Four'; though I think you could limit that to only WrestleMania and SummerSlam. On average, I think most feuds/matches should be able to be explained in a 4-6 sentence paragraph max. A lot of 'throw-together' matches don't even need a background. Just glancing through this year's Royal Rumble background seems to contain a good dose of unnecessary 'week-to-week' events in my opinion: "A couple of weeks later, Kane tried to bargain with Strowman, stating they should team up on Lesnar during the triple threat match, but Strowman refused. Later, Lesnar's advocate Paul Heyman said that although Lesnar could lose the title without being pinned, he was afraid of no one nor any challenge. The following week, Kane attacked Lesnar from behind. Strowman then appeared and attacked Lesnar and Kane. After laying them both out backstage, Strowman used a grappling hook to tear down a lighting truss and crushed both Lesnar and Kane. Lesnar was taken to a medical facility while Kane refused medical attention." To me, none of that does much to help explain the storyline, even for the casual reader, and feels very 'week-to-week'. InFlamester20 (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Money in the Bank (2011) and Over the Edge (1999) are featured articles and we should follow their example. Detailed paragraphs for the main feuds are fine, the rest should be trimmed to one to three sentences. The amount of times "the following week/episode" is stated throughout nearly every paragraph is startling! We need to summarize, no week-by-week! And why are we detailing when each wrestler announced they would be in the Rumble? Who could possibly find that useful?LM2000 (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The MITB article has 1,072 words and the OTE one had 785. I think the 1,000 word limit I mentioned earlier makes the most sense. Those are easy to read and follow. - GalatzTalk 14:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Currently the style guide states The storylines section should contain details on at least three rivalries leading into a pay-per-view. I propose just tweaking it slightly to add ", and contain no more than 1,000 words." to the end of it. As a side note the background guide right now just says The background section should contain ... we should probably say what it contains. - GalatzTalk 14:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Since this is going to be archived soon due to lack of response, I just want to say that I agree with Galatz's proposal. Any other comments?LM2000 (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

NWA Heritage Championship

I need someone to go fix the last several reigns that are in grey for some reason. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 23:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I edit conflicted with Galatz, but we unintentionally tag-teamed it. Exclamation points were used instead of pipes. JTP (talk • contribs) 23:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
We edit conflicted the response to. Thanks :) - GalatzTalk 23:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Mad Dog Military

I have researched and suggested to create an article on a Frontier Martial-Arts Wrestling women's stable initially called Combat Army and later Mad Dog Military but I will not create it. I just want a suggestion should I create this article? Because I don't want to work hard until and unless I don't have surety that it will remain and no one will delete it.--Mark Linton (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

What sources have you got? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

NWA titles

The NWA title articles really do need updating and cleaning up, I've cleaned up the NWA Women's title article but I need some help with the others as their is a lot to do. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

WWE Hall of Fame

I posted a question on the Talk:WWE Hall of Fame page, about trying to make the page more readable, and potentially breaking it off by year, so this page becomes more high level and the details live on the sub pages. For reference, take a look at how the page looked when it became a featured list here compared to now. Its a lot larger now, with some great information, it just can be over whelming. - GalatzTalk 16:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes I would support this.★Trekker (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't like it. I don't think it would be helpful to break it up so much. I like the quick statement about the credentials and having all of the information in one location. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
But right now there's barely any information at all about the events themselves or backgrounds, or anything like that.★Trekker (talk) 06:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Professional wrestling category discussion

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 13#Wrestling and professional wrestling - GalatzTalk 04:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup at Attitude Era

Attitude Era has recently been tagged with 8 cleanup tags, the most I've ever seen on one article. If some people could try and resolve these, even in small quantities, that'd be great. JTP (talk • contribs) 16:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Promotion vs TV series title disambiguation question

So I got to thinking while watching the most recent ROH episode. We currently have the promotion at Ring of Honor and the TV series at Ring of Honor Wrestling. But the full name of the promotion includes "Wrestling" as well, so we're using a non-existent distinction to inaccurately disambiguate the two articles.

Similar with Impact Wrestling and Impact!, which had relied on a tweet by Jeff Jarrett that GFW was the promotion and Impact the TV series, but that was before the merger/rename completely fell through, and now both the show and promotion use the same name and logo again. Additionally, the exclamation point is just stylization and shouldn't be part of the title unless everyone uses it in running text; the sources do not. (So many messes caused by the upheaval of the past year!)

So ultimately, I think we need to rethink these titles and their disambiguation. oknazevad (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the disambiguation is necessary. The Impact! (TV series) seems fine, and maybe a move to Ring of Honor Wrestling (TV series) would be desirable. I agree about removing the exclamation mark.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the news section on their website [1] they always capitalize the name of the show and they are inconsistent with including the word wrestling or not, and the exclamation point or not. When SmackDown added the exclamation point we included it as well. As for ROH, although their website and logo has the word wrestling (the original WCW website and ECW website contained wrestling in the name too), they never refer to themselves in the news articles as Ring of Honor Wrestling. I do believe however that we need to add hatnotes to clarify. - GalatzTalk 15:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not advocating moving the ROH promotion article, as leaving off the "Wrestling" falls under WP:COMMONNAME. I just don't think keeping it only on the TV series article acts as sufficient disambiguation. Impact is just inconsistent in so many ways (to be fair, the new EVPs are still figuring things out), but they seem to treat the full "Impact Wrestling" as both the name of the promotion and the TV show, but abbreviate to just "Impact" (in all caps) more often than not. Either way the exclamation point should go, as it's not used constantly outside the logo by the promotion themselves, let alone third-party sources. (SmackDown, it should be noted, started with the exclamation point but dropped it in 2008, at which time we moved the article, though it was a contentious process because they also formally dropped "Friday Night" at that time, though continued to use it verbally, like "Monday Night Raw". And it's inclusion in the first place was always contentious.) oknazevad (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Emma

If you don't know, there is a discussion about Emma common name. Talk:Emma (wrestler) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Style guide - Championship reigns

Our guide, here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Reigns shows a successful defenses column. Yet none of the WWE, WCW, Impact, and ECW titles have this. Its trivia and not value added, in my opinion. Should this column be removed from our guide? It could just be a note to add it if the promotion tracks. Otherwise its confusing, and makes it seem like its needed, when its really just optional. - GalatzTalk 15:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Similarly, I removed the column from List of current champions in Ring of Honor which our SG is silent on, which was reverted. I don't really think it adds much here. If we include it on one table should we include it everywhere or just here on the reigns? - GalatzTalk 15:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
It states to only use that column when the promotion itself keeps track of the defenses. I don't have an extensive knowledge of all promotions that do this, but I do know that New Japan Pro Wrestling does. See IWGP Heavyweight Championship and its title history on their website. I think it's good information to include, it's just a shame that more promotions don't officially track this.
While optional, the reason its included on the example is merely to show how it should look when its actually used. Prefall 16:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I see that, I guess my thought was it looks confusing when our guide shows it in the example, when the majority don't actually have it. - GalatzTalk 17:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Despite my love for WrestlingData (I should send it a card), this is one spot you can't trust it on. They count matches champions have as title matches by default, even if the ring announcer was having none of it. Who could forget Mr. Perfect's epic second run, turning back such classic opponents as Terrence Baylock, Pat Armstrong and Danny Brazil? Totally happened, totally never mattered. Monsoon would sometimes say these types were looking for a win to perhaps move up the ladder and possibly get a shot. That much was somewhat plausible.
And despite my love for Wikipedia (Happy Valentine's Day!), I'm sure more of its editors don't count house shows as things that actually happen. But five champions put their belts and lives on the line for the WWE Universe the other week against eleven challengers. As Ventura sometimes said, that's a fact, Jack! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
"Successful defenses is only included if the promotion keeps track of them." From the style guide. Some promotions like Chikara or NJPW keeps track of the defenses. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The Great American Bash

I created a conversation about merging the two pages (WCW and WWE). Conversation can be found here Talk:The Great American Bash#Page merge, but in short they were split when the page housed information on 18 different events. The PPVs have all been broken out and so the split logic no longer applies. Due to the amount of duplicated information, I think it now makes sense to re-merge. Any thoughts on the talk page would be appreciated. - GalatzTalk 17:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Genre-Specific GNG

I had a question regarding the notability of professional wrestling articles, we generally use WP:GNG to support or delete articles. However, I have also seen people point to WP:ENT or other genre-specific notability guidelines when discussing WP:PW articles. However, none of these are particularly good at discussing the way that Professional Wrestling works. In contrast, WP:NBOX displays that any boxer who's fought for a world title is defacto notable, or WP:NFOOTY points that any player who's played a game in a professional league is notible. Would it make sense to put forward a set of guidelines for PW articles, due to the unique nature of what pro wrestling is? It could easily be as a subsection of Entertainer (Although I realise it would put us directly next to WP:PORNBIO), or on the sports section, whichever is more likely.

Let me know if you think this is something worth persuing, or if it's dead in the water.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, personally I don't understand the point of anything outside GNG.★Trekker (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The point of anything outside of GNG is a blunt reminder that notability is based on the likelihood of sources, not the actual presence in an article. Notability is a property of the subject of the article, not the state of the article. That is to say, no deleting an article on a notable subject just because the article is in poor shape source-wise. Sometimes finding sources for older subjects can be harder as they're not online. And, per WP:NOTPAPER we don't have to remove articles because of size limitations that set too high of bars about a subject. But at the same time, we don't need to include every person in history. So we follow the lead of single-subject print encyclopedias and include, say, every player that has played at the highest level of a sport, such as all Major League Baseball players (because there is such an encyclopedia). It's assumed that reliable sources can be found (eventually) for those players, thereby fulfilling the GNG, but also reminding people that just because they're not in the article yet doesn't make the article a candidate for deletion.
Now, how would this translate to pro wrestling? Not sure. People who have wrestled for major promotions? But what makes a major promotion? A national TV deal? Ok, does that include the entire history of that promotion, even before the national TV deal. And for that matter, which nations? It's a fraught landline of peril, which is why for pro wrestling, sticking to the GNG makes the most sense. Just got to remember that dirtsheets' fan submitted recounts of an indie show are not considered significant coverage. oknazevad (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
My issue with the GNG currently is we have certain articles that often get called on for inherited notability. Things like championships, events and tag teams; which would be a lot easier to deal with if there were certain criteria for inclusion; say if only certain championships were deemed to be worthwile to keep, or if tag team articles were only condiserable if they have tagged for a certain length of time in certain promotions (We do get a lot of articles on two guys have tagged for a week, lets create a tag page). Then you've got events, where there may be a lot of independent coverage of some, and maybe very little about another.
There's also a thing about backstage interviewers, or referees/commentators, that realistically may get a lot less coverage, or more coverage. It may be beneficial to have some critiera in place, to stop things like Ryan Tran being deleted due to not being notable, despite being on WWE TV for 7 years. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I have also thought in the past we need some level of a WP:NPW which would help with this. All of the AfD create a back and forth on notability, especially for some older wrestlers/events. None of these other trump WP:GNG, if you need the top of WP:NSPORTS it says standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. In essence we would could come up with guidelines to help a user understand if the person is notable. If they don't meet them, they still might meet GNG. The other issue is do we have notability guidelines for:
        • People?
        • Tag teams?
        • Promotions?
        • Events?
        • Championships?
The list could get tremendous. It would be really tough to come up with a good 4 or 5 peoples that get us there. - GalatzTalk 14:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
This is one hell of a grey area. For several countries, say Colombia or Ecuador, the only coverage that you will ever find it's from dirt sheets. Pro wrestling is not a sport, you won't be finding results in the mainstream media very often unless the promoters issue press releases (which rarely include results, most only promote the event). Furthermore, there are several dirt sheets that employ notable authors, either collaborators to let's say the Observer or some other big outlet, or even a few reporters that have at some point worked for a newspaper/magazine. I think that regardless of how small a market is, the main promotion in a country is notable by default. Likewise, wrestlers that hold a primary or secondary title in such a promotion should be considered as well. There should be a threshold, not all independent wrestlers/companies are at the top of their game, but we can't make this something ethnocentric and believe that only our immediate/favorite promotions are worthy. El Alternativo (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
We should not give slack to promotions because their countries have poor coverage, it's not ethnocentric to have standards. Whether a publication would be considered a "dirt sheet" by some wrestler or anyone here is irelevant if they're a reliable source.★Trekker (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Notability is not inherent, therefore the biggest promotion in the country needs to have coverages to meet GNG, no matter what - GalatzTalk 03:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Since just a few paragraphs above there is a discussion about the reliability of Wrestling Inc., I'm pretty sure that there is at least some consideration to using "dirt sheets"... That would otherwise count as coverage. And, dirt sheets are not the only problem, in the case of Colombia I have at least some old magazines that talk about Tigre Colombiano, but they are from the kayfabe era, worst than dirt sheets for basically everything that isn't the result of some match. El Alternativo (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I feel as though it may be a lot of work to get something in place, but certain rules should be in place regarding articles. Right now, there are referees working for the WWE, who've had articles deleted, and the massive grey area regarding inherit-ability of tag team articles. I feel like we could at least get a few draft guidelines in place as to what is suitable in these cases, before moving onto it being added as actual Notability criteria. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts

Individuals (used WP:NBASE as example)

  1. Are a member of a major promotion's Hall of Fame, such as the WWE Hall of Fame or the WCW Hall of Fame or the Impact Hall of Fame or the AAA Hall of Fame.
  2. Have appeared consistently over the course of one year or signed to a full time contract at: Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre, Extreme Championship Wrestling, Frontier Martial-Arts Wrestling, Impact Wrestling, Lucha Libre AAA Worldwide, New Japan Pro-Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Noah, Ring of Honor, World Class Championship Wrestling, World Championship Wrestling, or WWE.
  3. Have served as a commissioner, president, general manager, owner, or manager in one of the above-mentioned promotions.
  4. Have served as a referee on a regular basis for over one year in one of the above-mentioned promotions.

Players and other figures who do not meet the criteria above are not presumed to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and promotion's sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability.

Tag teams or group

  1. Have appeared consistently as a tag team or group over the course of a year at: Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre, Extreme Championship Wrestling, Frontier Martial-Arts Wrestling, Impact Wrestling, Lucha Libre AAA Worldwide, New Japan Pro-Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Noah, Ring of Honor, World Class Championship Wrestling, World Championship Wrestling, or WWE.
  2. Have held the tag team championship for over 100 consecutive days at one of the above-mentioned promotions.

Tag teams or groups who do not meet the criteria above are not presumed to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and promotion's sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability.

Promotions

Events

  1. Supercards or pay-per-view events held by: Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre, Extreme Championship Wrestling, Frontier Martial-Arts Wrestling, Impact Wrestling, Lucha Libre AAA Worldwide, New Japan Pro-Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Noah, Ring of Honor, World Class Championship Wrestling, World Championship Wrestling, or WWE.
  2. Memorial shows held in honor of one of the individuals who meet the individual criteria.
  3. An event that is the precedent or conclusion of something which meets WP:LASTING

Events which do not meet the criteria above are not presumed to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability, as described in WP:NEVENTS. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and promotion's sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability.

GalatzTalk 14:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying, I didn't see the notification that anyone had done anything! This looks pretty good. Only a few bits I'd really argue with.
  • Regarding someone who was a backstage interviewer/manager etc rather than a commisioner. There's arguably very litle difference, except perhaps screentime.
  • We currently have an issue with tag teams for singles competitors. People like to create a tag article the moment someone starts a team, and whilst this would stop that, most tag teams don't need a dedicated article to themselves, whilst some shouldn't have seperate articles, and simply a tag one.

That being said, I think this starts out well as a template, and is very similar to what GNG already states. We can now work with this and come up with a more well rounded notability criteria. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

In essence, all of these genre specific criteria are supposed to make applying GNG easier. I think there are a lot of grey areas, but something like this could help a new article like Kiera Hogan that was PRODed have an easy case for keeping vs deleting. In this case, she she signed to Impact, so it could be stated she is notable per .... criteria. Others that are independent will still be tricky, but its impossible to capture every possible scenario. - GalatzTalk 16:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? It would be good to get some semblance of a consensus or objection. I have seen several articles either PRODed or AfDed in recent months that something like this could definitely help. - GalatzTalk 20:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Bullet Club

Could someone with knowledge of this subject area look into the edit request there? Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

ROH Supercard of Honor

Anyone who is more familiar with the topic, can you please check to make sure this edit [2] is accurate? Due to that edit they also made [3] this edit. If it is accurate there are several other events in the Supercard of Honor heading in the template which would need to be removed. Thanks - GalatzTalk 02:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fair to include only those events that actually use the "Supercard of Honor" name. Especially since ROH numbers the events, so it's pretty clear exactly which events count as true Supercards of Honor. Including other events that lack the name is actually original research. Removing the other events under the header in the template is appropriate as well. oknazevad (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

TNA template for discussion

Hi all,

I noticed the following TNA template is up for discussion, but I can't seem to find what the discussion is. It keeps forwarding to on Template:!Primary. Am I missing something?

Template:2006 TNA pay-per-view events

Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the template was created today by Kev519 (talk · contribs), only for him to immediately tag it with a tfd tag, which he then left without starting a proper discussion. Strange. oknazevad (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
He posted it in his original post so some unknown reason. He created the article on 2/25 yet linked to 2/20. It made no sense, so I actually already removed it before I saw this conversation here. - GalatzTalk 00:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I was confused by the article alert, but wasn't sure if I had missed a step. Thanks for sorting it out Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Bullet Club again

There's another edit request on the talk page of the Bullet Club. One editor there I believe is being rather stubborn. Gambino has not been proven to be a member of the Club. It's all unreliable sourcing (and one primary source that isn't even NJPW - the source just promoted the publicity stunt as that's what it was). 101.189.95.32 (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Curious treatment of African-American wrestlers

Burrhead Jones and Norvell Austin are being used by someone as venues to push the fact that racial segregation was once widespread in the wrestling business. This sort of information is relevant to the topic of professional wrestling and notable within the context of that topic. Considering that both debuted years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, however, the inclusion of such information in these two articles and probably others is highly suspect. The wrestling industry had had a major legal battle with the United States Department of Justice only a decade or so before which ended in a consent decree, so common sense should tell you that promoters weren't very likely to engage in behavior which would lead Justice to focus further attention on the business. The information in Jones's article lacks suitable sources, while the information in Austin's article is sourced to a book co-written by everyone's favorite website writer. While assuming good faith towards the offline source, something tells me that if I found a copy and read it, that what was written would substantially relate to Sputnik Monroe and not Austin. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I believe I wrote that part of Norvell Austin's article so I can speak to that. The book does indeed outline how Austin and most African American wrestlers were booked at the time, and yes some of it was written in relation to Sputnik Monroe but so what? Can an article primarily about Monroe not reference his part in changing the way African American wrestlers were used? I make no judgements on the Burrhead article, but I'm not seeing the problem with the Austin article, it's factual, cited.  MPJ-DK  04:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Mistakenly recognized by WWE

We say that WWE mistakenly recognizes dates as the end date of a reign. Austin lost the IC title on September 8, but "WWE mistakenly lists Austin's reign as lasting 64 days, ending on October 5, 1997." But on the other hand we accept that WWE counts a Sunday - Monday reign as either 0, 1 or 2 days. So WWE is allowed to make new mathematic rules? If we call the date Austin's reign ended a mistake, then their counting sure is a mistake too. Why does it matter that much? On Raw last night The Miz claimed he will be the longest reigning IC Champ of all time in 62 days. Wrong. He went by WWE's mathematically wrong numbers. The actual number would be 64. If he loses the title on Raw in 9 weeks (63 days), he would break the record according to WWE, but not according to Wikipedia. It also is confusing for a lot of people, why WWE's and Wikipedia's numbers are off 50% of the time. If it is a matter of tape delay, no problem, then we should make a note that WWE recognizes the airing date. But making a note for each time do do the wrong math!?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If we are saying it is air date vs actual date then thats not a mistake, and should not indicate that it is. WWE is a scripted story that does as they please to tell said story. Wikipedia goes based on facts, but also tells what the story is.
Lets look at another example outside of wrestling. The 2013 Big East Men's Basketball Tournament. The NCAA no longer recognizes Louisville's wins. Does that mean they didn't happen? Should we not go through and remove those wins from articles on Wikipedia because the NCAA says they didn't happen? If your answer to that is no, then why apply it to wrestling? - GalatzTalk 16:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I agreed with that. Air date vs actual date is no issue. But if WWE does not know how to count, we should not change the way people count just because they don't know how to.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Huh? You agree with me, but it doesn't sound like it. And why does the NCAA say it didn't happen?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Because the NCAA later vacated the wins as punishment for rules violations. In wrestling terms, those games were retroactively ruled no contests. oknazevad (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, then we should add it to the article that the wins got vacated.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
They did. Its mentioned at the end of the first paragraph. So just like how that article states the facts and what the NCAA recognizes, we show the facts and what WWE recognizes. - GalatzTalk 15:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia states the facts. So, it will mention what the actual record is, and also what the company states. If these are the same, there's no issue. WWE can completely say what they want (Within a legal precedent), but we do not have to keep up with that. The WWE (And wrestling in general), the rules and regulations are moved around to fit a story, anyway. The WWE records are actually more likely to be relevant, so Wikipedia keeps track of both. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
But WWE agrees when the reign started and when it ended. They just count... differently. So we can go by their version of start and end dates (then Wikipedia and WWE would agree), or we can go by the way they count (creating a discrepancy in the number of days). So why not go with start and end dates?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Look, what can we say other than it appears no answer will ever satisfy you as to why and how WWE counts title reigns records. You've had many questions and been given many possible explanations, but still you keep asking. The current solution of presenting a stiff calculation and also the WWE's total is the best one. oknazevad (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

WrestlingLegendAS, why do you continuously bring this issue up when we've told you countless times the reasons for why the information is presented? Do you just forget? Also, how do you know that it's confusing for a lot of people? Have you surveyed them? It would be more confusing if people saw WWE's website, and then saw Wikipedia (or vice versa) and noticed that our numbers and dates are different with no explanation (previously, it only said the episode aired on tape delay, and only some mentioned the tape delay date, but that didn't tell readers that that was the date that WWE recognized). In regards to what The Miz said, that was a slip up. He won't be the longest reigning Intercontinental champion come WrestleMania 34. However, he will have the longest combined reign as Intercontinental champion come WrestleMania. That's what he meant. Just to note, come WrestleMania, Miz's current reign will only be about 100 days; the longest single reign is Honkey Tonk Man at 454 days. --JDC808 ♫ 20:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, good point about the confusing people part. But I think you misunderstood what I said about The Miz. On Raw, Miz said he will break Pedro Morales' record (619 days) in 55 days. By the WWE counts, that would be true. But the real number would be 57. So if The Miz loses the title in 8 weeks (56 days), he will have the record according to WWE, but not according to Wikipedia. That's what I meant.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

person reverting mentions of Pro Wrestling Illustrated withrdrawing recognition of WWF title 1983-1985

User MaverickAC keeps on deleting from the Pro Wrestling Illustrated page any mention - including a reference (although much of the surrounding content is unreferenced) - relating to PWI withdrawing the WWF's world title status 1983-1985. Can anyone assist? 15:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, the whole PWI article needs a bit of an overhaul, but from looking at his history, he has made quite a few edits to this page in this vein. I'll drop him a message, regarding this, as it should be mentioned in the talk page of the article, via WP:BRD. Be careful to not fall foul of the WP:3RR. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

"WWE recognizes X's reign as lasting # days."

I don't know who's bright idea it was to clutter up all the championship lists with this same sentence in every single row, but I'm shocked that the community here just let it happen. It not only looks terrible, but it adds nothing to the articles. We get it–– WWE.com's calculator counts calendar days rather than the total length. I don't see how that's notable at all since it's most likely a design quirk and not actually WWE's official position on the length of each reign. Case in point, WWE has talked about CM Punk's record-breaking 434 day reign millions of times. The fact that the title history page says 435 doesn't reflect WWE's official position on the matter, it just means the calculator on the website is off. It's beyond silly for us to include this information at all let alone in EVERY SINGLE ROW. At best, the fact that the website adds one day to each reign should be a footnote under each table, and not something that's repeated over and over again cluttering the tables. Feedback 17:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

This has to be done because it doesn't happen in every reign. See the recent discussion above at #Mistakenly recognized by WWE. JTP (talk • contribs) 20:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Like NotTheFakeJTP said, it's not on every reign, it's only on some. These add up for some and affect the combined reigns table. --JDC808 ♫ 04:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Way to miss the point entirely. I'm saying that WWE.com's calculation mistakes are not notable and don't need to be included in the table at all. A footnote saying that WWE.com has (or may have) different values is really all that's needed. Feedback 11:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Doing this way prevents a lot of unnecessary "corrections" by well-meaning editors who want to change the values to match wwe.com. oknazevad (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
@Feedback: Actually, I did not miss the point. They are notable because these titles belong to WWE and they go by the number that they calculate, not necessarily what happens in reality because, well, you know, professional wrestling is fictitious and based on fictional storylines. We're presenting both sides here, the reality of the reign lengths, and what WWE claims to be the reign lengths. A little history here, I was the one who started the whole discussion to reach the consensus to have it done this way. It keeps us honest and lets uninformed readers know why our numbers don't match what WWE says. Doing a footnote like you suggest isn't enough and because of what oknazevad said. --JDC808 ♫ 01:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
"They are notable because...they go by the number they calculate"--- You're saying that the website calculations are worthy of inclusion just because they are. That's bogus circular reasoning. I already gave you a prime example of how WWE officially recognizes Punk's reign as 434 but the website calculator says 435. This calculation clearly opposes the official canon and it's misleading to say that WWE recognizes the reign as 435. The calculation by calendar days rather than actual length is a website quirk and nothing more. It doesn't merit inclusion until there's any indication that it represents canon. Feedback 08:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
How is it misleading? It's stating what WWE recognizes for their titles (and if there's not a note, that means it's the same as our calculator). It's more misleading for us to just give our calculations (which is the "real" length) and not say what WWE claims to be their reign lengths. And like mentioned before, the days aren't always off. There are times when our calculator matches up exactly with what WWE's website calculated, then there are times it doesn't, like Punk's reign. To not note this is a disservice to our readers, and that would be misleading. --JDC808 ♫ 20:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
It is fairly obvious that WWE.com's calculations are wrong in some cases and simply a mistake. Normally I would agree to list them as what WWE recognizes until their website fixes them, but it's a curious case where WWE is contradicting itself, with Punk's reign being the best example. I'm not sure how to proceed. Prefall 21:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
If there's an obvious mistake, that can be noted. Brock Lesnar losing the WWE Championship at No Way Out 2004 is one. WWE has the actual date on their website wrong, and that is notated in the reigns table. In the case of Punk, I don't really remember which one they claimed on TV (would need verification), but if they do/have in fact promoted 434 on TV and elsewhere, then we can notate that (something like, "Although WWE's website shows the reign as 435 days, they have otherwise recognized his reign as 434 days."[ref(s)] or "WWE incorrectly lists Punk's reign as 435 days, as they officially recognize the reign as 434 days."[ref(s)]) --JDC808 ♫ 22:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Your notes upon notes are nonsense. The easiest solution is to remove all that clutter, and just have one single footnote saying that WWE.com's title history calculates calendar days. If you really think that WWE's own website deserves that much deference, then just delete the articles and redirect them to WWE.com. Feedback 20:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
You miss the point entirely. Again, one single footnote is not enough, and again, it's not on every single reign, and again, there are times when our calculations and WWE's are exactly the same, so stating they go by calendar days is false (or at least not entirely true) and and would be WP:OR. And WrestlingLegendAS in an above discussion brings up a good point here. They're claiming that come WrestleMania, The Miz will have the longest combined reign as Intercontinental Champion, but that's going off of their calculations, which is two days more than ours. Like mentioned before, these numbers add up in the combined reigns and that scenario right there just proved the reason for notating these discrepancies. --JDC808 ♫ 02:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Bullet Club again (again)

In case you have free time, we're discussing Gino Gambino's membership in Bullet Club. In case you want to give your opinion Talk:Bullet Club.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Participate on the move progress

Talk:IWGP United States Heavyweight Championship 92.27.41.69 (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Dalton Castle move discussion

Talk:Dalton Castle (wrestler)#Requested move 16 March 2018 - GalatzTalk 15:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Dana Brooke also a manager?

I notice Titus O'Neil or Apollo isn't listed under people managed by Dana Brooke or vice versa. Wouldn't it be correct to call her their manager? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I haven't ever heard them refer to her as a manager. Only as the statistician (I think thats the term they use). - GalatzTalk 02:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Dana Brooke is their manager, that's just a matter of semantics. Was Tyson Tomko Christian's manager? He was called his "problem solver" or whatever (not that it matters). A manager accompanies a wrestler to the ring. What they do at ringside really isn't what defines a manager. In fact, I don't remember the last time the WWE even used the term. — Moe Epsilon 04:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Very true, it seems WWE just doesn't use the term "manager". Even Paul Heyman, who's current role is the very model of a pro wrestling manager, is called an "advocate", not a manager. We shouldn't get hung up on the exact storyline term. That said, do we use "manager" or "valet"? oknazevad (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
In describing what Brookes does, traditionally I think the term valet is more correct. Sunny was the quintessential valet, but under the section where you list who they associated with, it still says "wrestlers managed". — Moe Epsilon 05:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I think the difference is that Sunny was a true Valet. Dana Brooke was asked to join Titus Worldwide, not manage them. She is a female wrestler. Big E isn't considered a manager when the other two of The New Day are wrestling. Owen's isn't Sami's manager but he is out there for every match. Coming out isn't the only criteria. Heyman has said before he is not a manager, he doesn't manage Lesnar, he is only his mouth piece which is why he calls himself the advocate. Its more of a PR role - GalatzTalk 14:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I think this is more of a difference between kayfabe and not. We're not interested in the reason they are out there for the purpose of storyline. If you don't consider Heyman Lesnar's manager, then you might have to re-evaluate because he is one of the last true managers in WWE. The only criteria for a manager is accompanying them to the ring, providing distractions/assistance, etc. in storyline. They don't have to come on a microphone and announce their "managership". — Moe Epsilon 20:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Heyman is definitely closer to a manager but I do not believe he acts the way typical managers of old do. If it were black or white, then yes he would be a manager, but Dana Brooke would not be. She just happens to be the female member of the the faction. - GalatzTalk 20:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
That's kind of a gray area that I don't think Wikipedia hits. Chyna was definitely a female member of a faction, DX, but was also a manager. — Moe Epsilon 21:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • There is a source, calling her a valet. [4] I think, call them advocates, coaches, life manager, personal trainer... a lot of names for managers. I think Dana is the female member of TWW and also, the valet. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Since there is a credible source calling her a manager or whatever, it should be added to all articles necessary. I will do that now. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 16:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The Dusty Rhodes Tag Team Classic

The Dusty Rhodes Tag Team Classic is an annual event as we know. It should have its own article. But it redirects to NXT TakeOver: Respect. I am curious as to why no article has not been created considering it's an annual tournament in a major promotion. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 15:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It does already exist, see Dusty Rhodes Tag Team Classic. For future reference, if you want a page created, either create it yourself, or add it to Portal:Professional wrestling/Opentask. A lot of people don't know about the latter so I'm just putting it out there. JTP (talk • contribs) 16:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@NotTheFakeJTP:, I've created many pages such as Dean Ambrose, TJ Perkins, and Adam Cole to name a few of the major names. I was confused as to why it redirected to that particular TakeOver leading me to think it had no article hence why I came here. Thank you to @MPJ-DK: for fixing it. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I think it was created for the first tournament, not knowing that it would be a recurring thing, and everyone just forgot about it.  MPJ-DK  01:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Where to list titles

A few years ago it was standard practice to list a title under the name of the promotion where it was won, but I have started to see a few occasions of titles listed underneath the promotion that owns the championship rather than where it was won (for example, the Dudley Boyz won their second IWGP Tag Team Championship in TNA, not New Japan). I wondered what the style guide is and if I would be right in moving them around? Tony2Times (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK:: Technically, it doesn't. It should be where they won the titles not the promotion that owns them. If that was the case, Grand Hamada would have the WWF Light Heavyweight Championship listed under World Wrestling Federation not Universal Wrestling Association. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Always exceptions, especially in Mexico. But to list an NJPW title under TNA is quite frankly misguided - list it under the promotion that controls it, TNA did not unilaterally make the Call.  MPJ-DK  23:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
And the UWA made all decisions on the LH title at the time, they were the owners.  MPJ-DK  23:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
During Joey Ryan's reign as DDT Heavymetalweight Champion, the title changed hands in a lot of promotions. However, the title is listed under DDT Pro. Nick Aldis won the NWA title at CZW Cage of Death, but is listed under NWA. However... Jeff Jarrett NWA North American title is listed under WWF. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
This is happening a lot now with Impact's affiliation deals. They have guys wrestling at events for different promotions but they are airing it on their show. Other promotions have their guys wrestling on Impact too. Taiji Ishimori for example is currently signed by Pro Wrestling Noah but won and lost the Impact X Division Championship on an Impact show. Its listed as Impact but not so sure about which way is best, since nothing had to do with Noah at the time, except for where his contract was. If one of the AAA titles were lost to an Impact guy on Impact, I think that would make more sense to show it with Impact. Perhaps the best way to do it is to say whichever show/event it was won at is where its listed. - GalatzTalk 00:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not really sure why it would get listed in the promotion it was won at. Unless the titles suddenly became a part of that promotion (say the NWA belts in TNA), then it should be listed under the company the belts are owned and managed by. For instance, Kid Lycos won the CSW tag belts on a pro wrestling chaos show in the UK, does that suddenly mean that he won the pro wrestling chaos CZW belts?
After all, even if it's won on a different show, it should still be defended on that original show. I understand there is an issue regarding winning a belt in a company that you've never worked for, but the belts are still the ones from that company, and they get to chose who holds it... Unless the belt is owned by a wrestler, but that's more confusing. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
It can get very confusing. Booker T won the WCW Championship on the last Nitro, a WCW event. He held the title for an additional 119 days, all under WWF but this reign is listed under WCW even though WWF owened WCW at the time. We also list NXT titles separate but Raw, SmackDown and ECW under one. Why dont we just solve everything by showing Championships and list everything alphabetical under it. - GalatzTalk 12:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
On one hand that may be the simplest, but there's value in grouping titles by promotion. To me who owns the title, and therefore controls who carries it, is more important than who ran the show where the title change happened. Yeah, a promotion might agree to put a title on someone who's not under contract to them (considering that most indie wrestlers are actually freelancers and not under contract to anyone), and that switch might happen at another company's show with which they have a good working relationship, but it is still a title owned by one promotion, and that promotion is agreeing for the wrestler to represent them, even if that wrestler has yet to appear in their ring. So I firmly say it should be listed by the promotion that owns the title. oknazevad (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I am pretty indifferent in how we display it, but using that logic shouldn't we have Booker T's 4th and 5th WCW Championship win listed as WWF, since the 4th was on a WCW show but while WWF owned them? Another possibility, which I am sure people wont want, is a table rather than a bullet list. In that table we show each reign, rather than total number of times, and for each one we show who owns the title and what promotions event it was won at, we could show date won and lost, etc. Like I said, no one will want that, but thats the only way to really get everyone's stance into one spot. - GalatzTalk 15:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I do feel like it should be done for where the belts belonged to. The belts themselves are assets of the company, not the other way round. You could also put in footnotes if it was won/lost in a different company, or if the belt transitioned between companies mid-reign. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

TNA Epics

I am looking at the TNA Epics article and it lists that there are 14 episodes that have aired and 1 that never aired. Now looking at the GWN website (don't ned to subscribe but you can see listings without) [5] it shows 17 episodes. The first 10 episodes appear to match up but the others do not. Does anyone know more about this topic, as the article would need to be updated as it doesnt seem to be accurate. - GalatzTalk 16:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

WWE Performance Center in 'trained by' section

Not sure if this has already been discussed but can we establish a consensus not to include WWE Performance Center in the 'trained by' section for wrestlers who were trained and competed elsewhere before joining NXT? I'm looking at the article for Killian Dain and he's currently listed as being trained by the Performance Center, which makes no sense as he was wrestling for over 10 years before joining WWE. And I've noticed the same thing for a number of other wrestlers with years of indy experience. IMO this is pointless and misleading as well as being completely redundant, since every single NXT signing spends at least some time training at the Performance Center and even main roster guys use the facility from time to time. To me, the only time the Performance Center should be listed as a trainer is for guys like Lars Sullivan and Riddick Moss who joined WWE with no prior wrestling experience and were trained there from the ground up. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

This just like anything else should be included if it is supported by a WP:RS. Just because someone had experience elsewhere it doesn't mean they weren't trained by the performance center. People like Finn Balor and Samoa Joe had sizable careers before joining NXT, but if we have a RS that says they were trained by the performance center than it should be included. This profession, just like all others, people continue to learn throughout their career. If the performance center honed their skills or taught them a new style, than it shouldn't be excluded just because they had experience before. Similarly you don't exclude a masters degree from someone's resume just because they got a different masters degree somewhere else first, even if the two are similar. - GalatzTalk 00:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
The section says 'trained by', not 'trained at'. Listing every single wrestler signed by WWE in the last 4 years and going forward as being trained by the Performance Center seems like completely redundant and misleading information. Someone like Nakamura for example was in the Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame before he even joined WWE, to list him as being "trained by" the Performance Center would be completely stupid even though he did spend some time training there while he was in NXT. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that? The style in Japan is different than in the US so I would not be surprised if he spent a lot of time being trained on the different style. Again, just because you have been accomplished, doesnt mean you cant learn more. If an actor wins an academy award do we not include some sort of training they would include afterward because theyve already won an award? If we have a source, it should be included, not excluded just because it wasn't there original training. - GalatzTalk 02:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Ditto to Galatz's point here. Just because some of these wrestlers have years of experience, that doesn't mean they can't receive additional or new training in another style (or to perfect their current style). Take an Olympic athlete for example. Maybe that athlete had been training for years and finally won a gold medal, then the next year, or a few years later, that athlete decides to start training with a new person because maybe they felt that their previous instructor taught them all that they could, but they still want to learn more. Are we to say that new trainer should not be listed since that athlete already had years of training and won a gold medal? That would be ridiculous not to. Although the Performance Center is a place, it's also used in this case to mean a group of trainers. It's much easier to list "WWE Performance Center" instead of every trainer that the wrestler trained with there. --JDC808 ♫ 05:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
While the IP does have a few valid points, I'm inclined to agree with Galatz. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 05:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I also agree with Galatz.LM2000 (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Galatz. An old dog can learn new tricks. Balor said he know how to use the cameras thanks to the PC. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I feel Galatz is right here, it's the same thing as with Stu Hart, he didn't train every single one of his students from scratch, but he's still credited a lot by people.★Trekker (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I understand the counter-argument so I'll bow to consensus on this one although I still think it's dumb and misleading to list wrestlers as being trained by the Performance Center when they debuted and in some cases were established stars many years before it was built. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I see your point, but there can easily be more than one person credited for training someone.★Trekker (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Of course. But I think the difference with the Stu Hart example you used earlier or others like Lance Storm who provide finishing classes is that the Performance Center isn't somewhere that wrestlers choose to go to improve, it's just where they are automatically assigned when they join NXT. Literally everyone who signs with NXT will spend time training at the Performance Center, not because they particularly want to but because it's the home of NXT and that's what NXT signings are obliged to do in order to make it first to NXT television and then the main roster. Otherwise I'm pretty sure the vast majority of these guys would not be going in for additional training at that stage of their career, and it also means we end up with weird situations like Cesaro being trained by Chris Hero, Chris Hero being trained by the Performance Center but Cesaro being on WWE's main roster before the Performance Center was even built. I don't know, it just seems counter-intuitive to me. But again, happy to bow to consensus. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Josh the Grand Champion

According to Impact website, Mathews is the current Grand Champion. [6] However, Don Callis said this reigns isn't oficial months ago. So, any idea? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I would say that to me this sounds like official recognition. Unfortunately its wrestling and they could have decided on future storyline changes and therefore this fits their current future thoughts better. Not really sure - GalatzTalk 16:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Grand Champion and X-Division Champion Matt Sydal is in the ring to reveal who his spirit guide is. To the shock of many, it turns out to be Josh Mathews! Josh gives Sydal a gift to celebrate his accomplishments, a mask of his spirit animal! In return, Sydal gives Josh a gift of his own – the IMPACT Grand Championship! Josh Mathews is your new Grand Champion. [7] - GalatzTalk 16:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd wait till next week for (spoiler) the announcement that Impact does not recognize the handoff as valid. It's already known. oknazevad (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure Impact has their story straight on this entire thing. When Sydal came out, he was announced as Grand Champion, but the Impact website makes it clear that Mathews was the champion going in [8]. Based on what aired and what is currently on their website, that the page is currently correct. Anyone disagree? - GalatzTalk 16:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Main page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources

Hi, just wanted to pass by and say that I think I'd be good if more people would chime in on what the think could be good sources for the project, especially non english language ones. It's WrestleMania soon so I figured there's be more people passing by who might be new here.★Trekker (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion history

I moved User:MadMax/precedents to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Deletion discussion history since MadMax hasn't been around since 2007 and I thought it might be helpful to you. Feel free to delete it. Daask (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I've tried to clean the page up a little, thanks for creating it.★Trekker (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Future events

There are constantly people changing future PPV events away from the advertised match because the champion might change. This is obvious, but perhaps we need some sort of banner or table change to show this? Right now when we set Template:Pro Wrestling results table to future the only change is Results and Matches headers switch. Perhaps can we also change it so when that is set to yes, the (c) legend also changes to something like "current champion, subject to change" or something like that. Thoughts? - GalatzTalk 11:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, the card is always scheduled to change. Listing a proposed card doesn't mean that any of those matches will happen (Or, indeed, the event may be cancelled, changed location, etc), so nothing is actually set in stone until it has already happened. I think a little tagline of *"Card is scheduled to change", or *"Event may differ from listed above" should cover it, as I don't feel we need to spell it out. We list things about unreleased video games; that may or may not be used in the eventual release, this should be no different. We use sources to determine the match cards, so if they report something different, so do we.
Building a little tagline into the template would be pretty good for this purpose. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree completely, but we constantly have edit wars over this, so I was thinking this might fix these issues. Maybe we could get that "Card is subject to change" to auto-populate when future is set to yes. - GalatzTalk 13:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Seems like a reasonable solution. It's standard phrasing for a reason. oknazevad (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Anyone have any idea how to make the changes to the template? Its pretty complicated coding. - GalatzTalk 14:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I created a sandbox to test it. I'm no template expert, which is probably why my initial test didn't work. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I had a quick play with that sandbox, I got it to come up with the words, it just needs better aesthetics Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
No. Matches* Stipulations
  • (c) – refers to the champion(s) heading into the match
  • *Card subject to change
I agree, I'm just not sure of a better way. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I've added an asterix and bolded the text, it looks slightly better. Any ideas? It's not too hard to transfer across to the main template; but obviously would need some consensus on style, and if it's right Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the asterisk can be removed, as that implies (to me at least) that certain matches are subject to change when tagged with an asterisk, like an Efn. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree, dont think it needs the asterix because we arent putting that next to something, unless the word matches is changed to Matches*, which I am ok with. Either way is fine. - GalatzTalk 15:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I made the change to include the asterisk after matches, thinking it might be better showing above and below. Thoughts? - GalatzTalk 16:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I put it live. Looking at WWE Greatest Royal Rumble its working properly. I also checked Royal Rumble (2018) and its properly not showing, so I think we are good. Thanks! - GalatzTalk 00:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. I like it. And Lee Vilenski, although it is true that the card is always subject to change, not every reader of Wikipedia who might happen to read one of these articles knows that. And I know well about video game articles. That's why they have a development section and will state if a feature gets cut. --JDC808 ♫ 01:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Fans vs sourcing

I'm ceding ground at Shayna Baszler to the crazies. I understand fans (like you) enjoy crafting the narrative about your favorite actors/actresses who purport to be athletes. However, we still require sources for claims likely to be challenged. It would help if this WikiProject would correct the many editors involved in this area and teach them that Wikipedia is not a blog. It's not worth it to me to edit war over it. I'm one of these guys that followed Shayna and Ronda back when they were legit fighters and I can tell you these articles have gotten worse since the two of them went into pro-wrestling and your cohort got involved. Please put your house in order. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Chris troutman Please don't paint all editors with the same brush. The editors that you were reverting aren't members of this WikiProject, and also look like brand new editors, who are likely working in WP:GOODFAITH. I'd actually wonder why this section on wrestling was removed, when a lot of the information could be sourced. I have readded the section, and sourced partially, and tagged the rest.
I'd actually argue that the MMA sections specifically championships and records are completely unsourced, by the same values. - Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
MMA fanboys (like yourself) are crazy about consistently writing the match announcement in one sentence with one source, then the result in another with another. Just delete the old one, for fuck's sake! And stop capitalizing weight divisions. In the meantime, I've helped you out this much. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: and @InedibleHulk: I have less than zero interest in hearing anything resembling "rivalry" from either MMA or pro wrestling fans.★Trekker (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
No worries, we're just throwing "working" punches (at least I was). We're the same breed of editor, essentially. Just want to relay fights and prove ourselves to others within the confines of the rules, with reliable refs. Nice and friendly-like. Sometimes vandals attack our buses, be they DX gangsters or SBG thugs, but that's because they're heels, not because they prefer one type of sports entertainment to the other. We all do what we can with what information we have, and good edits always win in the end.
Fun Fact: McGregor's invasion angle was recently called the hottest of WrestleMania weekend. I think we can all agree to not include this in any relevant articles. Nor say Brock Lesnar could get an immediate title rematch or that CM Punk is better than Michael Jackson. At least until we compare the coverage Rousey gets for whatever it is she has up her sleeve. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

WWE Hall of Fame

There have been multiple conversation about the set up of the current WWE Hall of Fame article. Its very large and choppy right now and hard to follow. My suggestion was to create events for the individual events, and have the article become much more summarized to make it easier to follow. I have begun creating those article and before I continue creating more and integrating in the changes to the article I wanted everyone to take a look and either offer suggestions and/or make changes. Once these pages are all created the main page would no longer list so much detail and just become a summarized list that is easier to follow. As of now I have created the following articles:

2016 and 2017 are probably the most well developed of the articles right now. The event section of the earlier years is where I need the most help developing. Any thoughts? - GalatzTalk 13:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree. The events themselves each year are notable enough, although I'd be looking for some more secondary sources regarding each year. I'd say the main article should really have the images removed, as they are stretching out the articles, and don't seem very encylopedic to me. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
2018 has many more secondary sources...definitely agree the older ones need more. - GalatzTalk 14:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
They will exist, might need to change the date and do a news search on google. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Yup, I'd say at least most of the HoF years have been notable.★Trekker (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I have gone through and added many independant sources to the pages already created. I will keep working through them before revamping the main page. - GalatzTalk 18:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
No objection to splitting the articles but your titles don't really work. "WWE Hall of Fame (2018)" etc doesn't really mean anything. "WWE Hall of Fame class of 2018", "WWE Hall of Fame ceremony (2018)" or "WWE Hall of Fame inductees (2018)" would be more meaningful. McPhail (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
This what what the events are called though, see [9] as an example. - GalatzTalk 21:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the WWE hof is also kind of a "show" like everything else they do.★Trekker (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

{

I oppose the idea of having individual lists. At best, I would support a split between a WWE Hall of Fame article talking about the institution itself, and the individual events, and a separate List of WWE Hall of Fame inductees which lists them all in one table. Although there's no physical building, there's an annual Hall of Fame exhibit at Axxess which is notable enough for the main article. With regards to the list of inductees, we should follow football's lead and have one large table with different columns for Class, Classification and Achievements. Rather than football positions, the classification in the wrestling context would be the category of individual, group, celebrity, or legacy inductee. Feedback 17:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

We should not format wrestling articles like sports articles, and the WWE hof inductions are also a show event, the articles should not be "lists" as you call them anyway, but an overview of the event.★Trekker (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I support the creation of List of WWE Hall of Fame inductees as well. Articles for individual events are fine, but not having a central list of inductees seems like a mistake. Prefall 18:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I would endorse a larger simpler list as well.★Trekker (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Actually, now having seen the main article, a condensed list is present for Classes with event articles, while the old format is present for those without. From reading this discussion I was under the impression that the central list had been removed completely. Regardless, I still support the creation of the List article, providing the extra detail that was covered prior. Prefall 18:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I think we need a source for the headliner of each class. I mean, we use to say the last inductee is the headliner. But I remember Randy Savage being the headliner, but Kevin Nash was the last inductee of the night because WWE wanted a speech by a living wrestler. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Great point.★Trekker (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
A single list is a little bit more complicated than how Football does it. For instance how do you list Ric Flair who is inducted twice? Do you only list The Four Horsemen or do you list them individually? - GalatzTalk 19:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
This isn't rocket science, we already do it correctly with the WON Hall of Fame. Feedback 00:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure we can figure out how to make an overarching list, but I still think the individual articles are good to have.★Trekker (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Portals

Just in case anyone is interested in the discussion, there is talk of eliminating all portals Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Ending the system of portals - GalatzTalk 14:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I have very little knowledge of our portal; the only thing I would salvage for the WikiProject would be our list of Good Topics. Currently we have 13 such articles (well, 12, as the list of WWE champions is no longer featured.) Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Much to my surprise there is actually someone who is manually updating the news feed. I had no idea, but that seems to be the only thing they do Special:Contributions/Lmuston. - GalatzTalk 15:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I follow his editions to update titles for wrestlers. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Galatz and HHH Pedrigree. Yes I am a real person! I'm from South Africa and I run the Watching the Indies Facebook page and until it recently ceased running weekly rankings was one of the international panelists and the main results compiler on the Indy Power Rankings. (talk)
List of WWE champions is still featured last I looked.★Trekker (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
My apologies, List of current champions in WWE. Although, theoretically, we could change the one in the group, as that list IS featured. I always assumed the current events was pushed from WikiNews... Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
So did I. Figured it was some bot generated thing based on wikinews. Looking through the portal there really isn't much that would be missed. Even the list of articles to create is not typically up to date, but any of those sort of things could be migrated here. - GalatzTalk 16:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I probably would've voted to delete the portals had it not been for Lmuston's tireless work in keeping our news portal updated. Honestly, I learn most of my wrestling news this way.LM2000 (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Troll edits lasting months

I fixed some troll edits that have been there for months (RVD being called SSP, WWE 2K18's Deluxe edition being called Cena nuff edition). Why does stuff like that exist for that long? I thought a lot of people are watching all these pages and check every edit that someone makes? Or do I have a wrong understanding of how Wikipedia works?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@WrestlingLegendAS: I hope you realize that we all have better things to do than patrol all day and can't get to every minute detail as it goes up. JTP (talk • contribs) 20:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah yeah sure, but if 10 active users are subscribed to one article, shouldn't someone notice? I am not BLAMING anyone, I am just wondering how all of this works. Nothing else, don't get me wrong.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I believe the deluxe edition really was known as the "Cena Nuff" edition... Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Checking several store websites as well as a promotional video on WWEs on YouTube channel (therefore not a clever fake) the Cena (Nuff) edition is real. I also reverted the change on RVDs page that removed the Cena Nuff name since it was in fact not vandalism.--67.68.161.151 (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Damn! But Deluxe Edition was also correct, plus it's the name you search for on Amazon. But whatever, back to my question: how does something go unnoticed for months? Shouldn't we be scared about old and nowadays irrelevant PPVs from the 80s getting vandalised? The articles are old, so probably not many active users are subscribed to them. Vandalism could go unnoticed for years there, right?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
This is an issue that is true for all of Wikipedia, and hardly unique to wrestling articles. Best thing is just to add the articles to your watchlist and keep an eye on edits to them, just like other editors. We're all volunteers, and if you want to keep things in order sometimes you have to do it yourself, just like the rest of us. oknazevad (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Another IP

Would someone please browse Special:Contributions/115.88.201.167 which shows a several edits today. I suspect that reverting them may be desirable but it needs topic knowledge. Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Tournament brackets

I was wondering about everyone's opinions on how we display tournament brackets, and where to list them. For example, we are currently independently updating the Women of Honor tournament at Women of Honor Championship#Inaugural championship tournament (2018), Supercard of Honor XII#Women of Honor Championship tournament and Ring of Honor tournaments#Women of Honor Championship (2018). The latter of which is actually not as up to date as the other two. Do we really need the same bracket listed 3 times? The new WWE Cruiserweight tournament is also listed in the WM article, the WWE Tournaments article, and it was in the belt's article until I removed it from there replaced with prose, a few weeks ago.

What does everyone think about how this stuff should be displayed? I am all for the pages like WWE tournaments, but perhaps only the tables that don't live elsewhere should live there. For example, WWE tournaments#The Wrestling Classic is already saying that the main page is at The Wrestling Classic#Tournament bracket, yet the "main article" section it links too has less content than the tournament page. We could have the bracket live only in the main page and remove it from the tournament page. The tournament page would be more like the a listing, with links to the relevant articles. It already does this for WWE tournaments#King of the Ring and WWE tournaments#Dusty Rhodes Tag Team Classic. Then tournaments that do not live elsewhere can live on the tournament page with the full details.

For the Women of Honor, if we want to keep it in the Supercard of Honor and title's page, then they should be transcluded rather than updating everything twice.

Any thoughts? - GalatzTalk 19:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I think transclusion is probably the way to go, the only question where the brackets should be housed. The promotions' tournament pages seems like the best bet, but it seems kind of odd to not house the Dusty Classic brackets at Dusty Rhodes Tag Team Classic, for example. JTP (talk • contribs) 01:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I started transcluding tables rather than duplicating and this edit made the navboxes stop showing up, and this edit made the references stop. Anyone know why? - GalatzTalk 15:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone take a look at this for me?? - GalatzTalk 13:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Moving La Sombra to Andrade "Cien" Almas

There is currently a discussion on renaming La Sombra to Andrade "Cien" Almas. You can view it here. Anybody who wishes to chime in is more than welcome too. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Bruno Sammartino and Paul Jones deaths - 4/18

These articles (Bruno Sammartino and Paul Jones (wrestler)) are nominated for inclusion in the Recent Deaths section on the main page. Both need a little more work on referencing. If you have a few minutes, it would be great if you could help out. The nominations page is Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Names of shows

As this issue is currently flaming up again - is there any reason why WWE's monday show should only ever be referred to as "Raw" and not its full name "Monday Night Raw", while the other show, currently on Tuesdays, should (always?) have its full name spelled out as "SmackDown Live"? At least, that is how some editors interpret the current wording of the style guide.

To make my point clearer: I'm all for using the shorter forms as much as possible. But this should be handled consistently for both shows. What I don't get is why SD(L) has to have the Live so many instances. There even was an agreement between users to use the full names (Monday Night Raw, SmackDown Live) at the first mentioning of the show and then to proceed with the shorter forms (Raw, SmackDown) but apparently this is disregarded in some articles. Str1977 (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Live" in SmackDown seems completely unnecessary to me. Introduce the full name of these shows on the first mention if you wish, but it can and should be condensed afterward, as the reader is familiar with it. Prefall 23:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I could do without any long forms as they are extremely cumbersome. But some editors are very insistent on the "live" particle. What I want is a practical and consistent solution. Str1977 (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Completely agree. I don't use long form names myself. The small alterations WWE makes to the show names every few years are for marketing purposes and nothing more. To me, there is no need to differentiate between "SmackDown" and "SmackDown Live" or "Raw" and "Raw SuperShow". If a notable change to the actual program occurs, it can be covered in prose instead. Much easier to read. Prefall 23:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
If people haven't gotten that SmackDown has been live for the last two years, is that really our problem? When SmackDown aired on other days like Thursday and Friday, it was always taped on Tuesdays. It was either Thursday Night SmackDown or Friday Night SmackDown. Even Tuesday Night SmackDown is better than redundantly calling it SmackDown Live. Does the style guide say you have to use the full show name? If not, than don't bother. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 23:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Some editors have referred me to it [10]] in this way, whil others are also very much in love with the "live" particle. Str1977 (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
It's not being "very much in love with the 'live' particle"; that's the show's name. It's like 205 Live. The show isn't called 205, it's 205 Live. SmackDown has been around longer, and it's name has slightly altered over the years, but that doesn't change the fact that the current name of it is SmackDown Live (brand, however, is just SmackDown). On event articles, the full name of both Raw and SmackDown are used in the intro of the storyline section while the shorthand is used thereafter. The Superstar Shake-up articles are a bit of a different case (though if it were to be used more than once, say in the "Background" section, then of course use the shorthand afterwards in that section). --JDC808 ♫ 04:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
And neither is the show called "Raw".
JDC, your know my views and we agreed on this "first use the full name once, then the short name" compromise. (Note: the full names being "Monday Night Raw" and "SmackDown Live" currently). This was what I tried to implement on 2018 WWE Superstar Shake-up but I was reverted by another editor while you were standing by. I really don't see how that article is supposed to be different. Since it is a lot about the brand (wrestlers are assigned to a brand, not a show) there should be less occurences of "SmackDown", not more.
Str1977 (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
We should use the full name, in the first instance in the article, and then we can shorten it at subsequent mentions. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
My only concern is for older articles that could get a little tricky. The first and second hour had different name (Raw Is War and War Zone), which was does simply because different names made it reset for the rating systems. These were from a viewer and historical perspective the same show regardless of the name. If we need to use the first name in the first instance, how do we know which one is correct to use, and if a segment straddled the two how is that handled? - GalatzTalk 13:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
We would also have to re-state the full name every time WWE alters it, regardless if the change affects the wrestler's status or is significant to them. Just seems like unnecessary detail that potentially causes confusion for readers. Prefall 13:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
In regards to Galatz's point about the Raw is War/War Zone issue, that could be covered in the Storyline's intro paragraph and just come up with a way to address it. Maybe something like: "Storylines were produced on WWE's weekly television show Monday Night Raw (referred to as Raw is War the first hour, and War Zone the second)." And just refer to it as Raw thereafter. --JDC808 ♫ 22:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Just to make a note, that's backwards. The first hour was Monday Night Raw, as it had been since it premiered as a one-hour show. The second hour, added in response to Monday Nitro was War Zone, a name that referenced the Monday Night War, which was already being called that. It was the whole two hour package that was called Raw is War. As mentioned above, it was done that way originally so the two hours would appear in the ratings separately allowing the WWF to charge higher ad rates for the higher rated hour without having to acknowledge that the cumulative ratings of the two hours was lower. oknazevad (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
>>Maybe something like: "Storylines were produced on WWE's weekly television show Monday Night Raw (referred to as Raw is War the first hour, and War Zone the second)."<< No, defintely not. The last thing we need to do is go in the detail of different names for different hours when the whole show also had a name. We use that show name, not the hour name. Str1977 (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
"My only concern is for older articles..." - IMO we have to distinguish two kinds of articles here:
  1. "Short-term articles" (e.g. PPVs, events like the SuperStar Shakeups) that do not span long periods of times and hence do not have the renaming shows issue. They can use the name current at the time.
  2. "Long-term articles" (e.g. wrestler bios, title histories) that cover long periods of time and hence would have to deal with such renamings.
Of course, this largely (only?) concerns the period after "Monday Night Raw" as these long-running, name-changing shows started back then.
My suggestion is that we might employ the "first give the full name, later only the short name" in the former group, but only use short forms in the latter. Str1977 (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

How do display "brother" tag teams

I keep seeing people changing this back and forth, and it would be nice if we could get a consensus and add it to our SG so we have a frame of reference of how to display. Here are the three ways I keep seeing it changed between:

  1. The Hardy Boyz (Jeff Hardy and Matt Hardy)
  2. The Hardy Boyz (Jeff and Matt Hardy)
  3. The Hardy Boyz (Jeff and Matt)

The arguments for #1 appear to be that it shows the full name each wrestles as. #2 there is no need to show the last name twice, that how you would normally say it if you were discussing two real life brothers you know. #3 the last name isn't needed at all since its already implied.

This would obviously apply to more than just the Hardys, it would apply to any, such as The Dudley Boyz, The Basham Brothers, The Smoking Gunns, The Usos, The Bella Twins, The Singh Brothers, etc. Any thoughts? - GalatzTalk 13:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I asked this question a few months ago. I think the answer was Number 2. However, my personal vote was Number 1 --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I remember Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 100#Last names in Tag Team titles, but I didn't think we have came to a consensus, since it was very few people who mentioned anything, so I thought it was worth a revisit. - GalatzTalk 14:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I think this can get confusing because of the whole ring name thing. I'm personally for version 1, as we could have kayfabe brothers (Such as 3D), real brothers, with different last names, or even more confusingly, real life brothers, who tag with kayfabe last names that are also the same (Think Goldust and Stardust. In professional sports, this is easier to have version 2, as there is no real ambiguity, but in pro wrestling, it's entirely pheasable to have a wrestler simply known as "Jeff". I feel like having the two names separates any unnecessary confusion. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
That's why I prefer V1. Some wrestlers use just one name, like Christian, Edge or Nicholas. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I am ok with 1 or 2 I think. I like one for that reason, but its not a natural way to discuss two brother which is why I like #2. Like I said, I am fine with either, but I just think we should have an established method so we can point those who change it somewhere, so we can be consistent. - GalatzTalk 15:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
#1 allows for brothers with different ring names (e.g. Harlem Heat (Booker T and Stevie Ray)), #2 is good if they are introduced regularly as "Jeff and Matt Hardy" #3 would only be more for cases where there are 3 or more people in the family, like if all the members of The Dudley Boyz were going to be listed. Look for what their combined ring name would be, like Huey, Dewey and Louie AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Another vote for #1, for the reason mentioned above about avoiding confusion with wrestlers who use only one name. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I've always went Matt and Jeff Hardy. Is it in the style guide, as I haven't fully looked it over, to put the names alphabetically? With the examples, I think the second one is good. I find myself using it most times. If one wrestler uses one name, one would think you'd know that. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point, there is a wrestler in NXT right now using the ring name "Jason", if for example WWE introduced a storyline brother for Jason Jordan then the style you've described could in theory end up displaying two different wrestlers as "Jason", which would be misleading and confusing.86.3.174.49 (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I vote number 2 (possibly number 3, but not number 1). Makes the most logical sense and is more concise and removes redundancy. As to Fishhead2100's point about alphabetical, in my opinion, if we're listing them in the parenthesis like shown here, it should always be alphabetical. --JDC808 ♫ 23:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Option 1 is fine with me. The second option seems to work best when dealing with real names but can lead to confusion with ring names. Prefall 23:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
In the formal setting along the lines of "Team (Member 1 and Member 2)" I'm for option 1. This way, we avoid ambiguities (some people might think Booker T's family name is Ray, or a wrestler called "Jeff" (no famil name) teams with one "Matt Hardy") and atrocities like "Gold and Star Dust". I don't think the names have to be alphabetical if the common usage has it the other way around. In less formal circumstances, e.g. when the two members are mentioned in the text, I don't mind saying "Jeff and Matt Hary". Str1977 (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
There wouldn't be ambiguity because they would be linked to their respective articles. Also, using your example of Booker T and Stevie Ray, there wouldn't be confusion because their tag team name was Harlem Heat, not a name like The Hardy Boyz that would indicate that both of them are "Ray". --JDC808 ♫ 04:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I was giving potential ambiguities. And yes, even if their team was called Harlem Heat, one might still think that they are Booker T Ray and Stevie Ray if the family name is left out in some teams, especially if one knows them to be brothers. Option 1 in formal settings avoids all problems without being cumbersome. Str1977 (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Heres A good example of the potential ambiguity. When Edge and Chris Jericho held the championships. Are if we used Jeff and Matt Hardy as a base, are we suggesting that it's Edge Jericho, and Chris Jericho? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
No one is suggesting you put Edge Jericho, the concern is people will read it as that though. - GalatzTalk 13:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I must say, that was a terrible example, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the real concern is if we have a tag team that uses a family name (kayfabe or not) and how to present the members in the parenthesis (Edge and Chris Jericho never had such a tag team name nor were ever presented as brothers). --JDC808 ♫ 22:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point, Jeff and Matt Hardy could be referring to a wrestler with the ring name "Jeff" who is teaming with Matt Hardy. If for example Elias won the championships with Matt Hardy then people might think he was Elias Hardy. Or if you present The Young Bucks as Nick and Matt Jackson then people might think it was Matt Jackson teaming with a wrestler whose ring name is just "Nick", it could be Nicholas. It's needlessly confusing. Whether or not they are presented as brothers or have a 'brother name' is not relevant, the Dudley Boyz for example could be two guys from Dudley, England. Remember that not everyone reading Wikipedia is knowledgeable about the subject.86.3.174.49 (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Not everyone will know about the subject, however someone could just go to The Hardy Boyz page and see what their names are if they were confused. That only works though for instances where the tag team has its own page. Although we don't need to spoon feed things to everyone, its important that we don't mislead them either. Based on this MOS that AngusWOOF posted, it appears that #1 best complies with MOS:SAMESURNAME. The question I ask for those who think #2 is the better option, are you against #1 or do you just prefer #2? Because it seems like those who are for #1 are against #2, not just a preference of one over the other. - GalatzTalk 01:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The wording of MOS:SAMESURNAME applies to sentences, narratives etc. This is quite different from the "Team (Members)" format that's the issue here. Str1977 (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I do not believe it is that different. The first sentence states To distinguish between people with the same surname in the same article or page, use given names or complete names to refer to each of the people upon first mention. Why would the same not apply here? All of the older pages might not have the same detail, but for the newer articles there is always a Storylines and Events and Results section. I would say in the first mention of the team in the article it should be spelled out. That means the Storylines section will be the first mention, and it is a narrative as you state it applies to. So we could basically say any time it is wikilinked its the full name, all other mentions it is not. - GalatzTalk 15:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the MOS is for narrative text. I think Str1977 is specifically thinking of things like match listings and title histories, which would be by far the most common occurrence of tag teams being named in this way and should always be #1 to avoid confusion. I'm happy with the above for narrative text, of course it would be redundant to constantly repeat full names throughout a text. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
You exactly got my point. Str1977 (talk)

Please take a look at MOS:SAMESURNAME on some more suggestions on how to handle this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I never knew that existed!! - GalatzTalk 01:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Wrestlemania Good Articles

As it's been Wrestlemania season, I was taking a look through some of the earliest shows, and I was surprised there wasn't more GA articles. I was also suprised they were all "mid" class importance. Surely the biggest annual shows should be high importance? Anyway, I was wondering if it was worth putting some time aside to increasing the coverage for the Wrestlemanias, currently they are ranked:

That's 35 articles, and only 7 Good Articles, and 8 Start class Wrestlemanias. Would anyone be interested in working on improving a few of these articles? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to work on helping improve, but one of the biggest issues right now with something like 34 is the tiny level of detail everything is going in to. Its way too much in the details to ever be a GA. - GalatzTalk 23:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Galatz - Thanks. I was thinking of going in order, or at least improve them from the beginning. I think the main issue with 34 is that, it just happened, so it'll be subject to serious edit wars. The other Mania's are of at least a year old, and are likely to be stable. I was going to ignore 34 for now. I will nominate WrestleMania 2, but I've asked for it to be copyedited before that. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Who decides when a C class articles moves up and gets a B class rating?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Anyone can as long as the article meets the criteria for B Class. --JDC808 ♫ 07:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
WrestlingLegendAS - Anyone can review pages. If you see a page, and realise it should be rated B, rather than Start, change it. If you see a stub mascurading as a C, change that too. Thing is, GA articles are viewed differently to other articles, as they have to pass a formal review. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
There are also "A class" articles, which I am a bit confused by since I've never seen them outside of the military project, and they seem to be higher up than the "Good" articles somehow.★Trekker (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
"A class" articles are a bit of an oddball. They are above GA, but A is not required for an article to go to FA. WP:VG use to do "A class" assessments, but eventually dropped it because there was just no point. I brought two articles to "A class" before they decided to drop it. --JDC808 ♫ 19:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Some ideas

I've been thinking about these for a while, and finally decided to put them here:

  1. Apparently the plan is to change Wikidata descriptions to local WP:Short descriptions for multiple reasons. If anyone is bored, it'd be nice to start using some short descriptions in this WikiProject. If you want to view these on desktop, go to Special:Preferences -> Gadgets -> Testing and development -> Show page description beneath the page title (not compatible with Page assessments gadget).
  2. 1 in 5 articles in this WikiProject have at least one cleanup tag (over 1800 articles). Perhaps a collaboration project is in order (I'm all for this), but some are in dire need of cleanup, particularly Attitude Era, which has 7 tags.

JTP (talk • contribs) 03:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Subheadings

NiciVampireHeart has removed the "professional wrestling career" subheadings from a number of articles which currently only have one section such as Riddick Moss, Montez Ford and Lars Sullivan, under the rationale that it's 'messy' (see diff). To me, there's no guarantee these wrestlers will spend their entire career with WWE and so this heading is essential to keep the article formatted properly, even if a little redundant at present in the early part of their career. Anyone have an opinion on this? Dannys-777 (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

He is correct, we do not need all 3 headers. For an article that short it should only say professional wrestling career, as in Lars Sullivan, we do not need any subheadings. Its just silly to have the content 3 layers deep. I believe only professional wrestling career should survive however. - GalatzTalk 20:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Which would you remove then, the one that says they're in WWE or NXT? All three are essential, these wrestlers will not spend their entire career in NXT and so additional headings will be added over time, having the correct subheadings in place ensures that it's formatted properly going forward. Look at an article like Josh Woods for example. Every single article should have professional wrestling career and then subheadings of the companies they worked in to standardize and distinguish the content throughout the encyclopedia. This isn't just a wrestling wiki. Dannys-777 (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
WWE and NXT should both be removed. Per WP:CRYSTAL we don't work on future history. He could break his neck tomorrow and never wrestle again. He could get fired tomorrow and never wrestle again. That happens often. There is no reason if they work for the WWE their entire career that their article could not be formatted like Tom Brady. For example, if Enzo Amore never wrestles again, since he is tainted, the WWE subheader serves no purpose at all. - GalatzTalk 20:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Disagree, it serves the purpose of letting people know he was contracted to WWE for that period. If someone clicks on the Enzo article who has no prior knowledge of the subject it may not be apparent that he didn't wrestle outside of WWE. I don't think wanting standardized formatting across articles is an example of WP:CRYSTAL. Also, using the Enzo example, at what point do we decide that the subheading should be removed since he isn't going to wrestle again? That in itself is WP:CRYSTAL. IMO for the sake of clarity we should always have subheadings of the companies that the wrestler performed for, if they only end up performing for one company then so be it but at least that way it's clear and consistent. I also don't really agree with the way Brady's article is formatted, but I guess you can give some leeway there since he's one of the most famous sportsmen in the world. Either way, can we definitely agree that the professional wrestling career subheading needs to stay? Dannys-777 (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
If we have one section, I would remove WWE and NXT. There is some articles like this, like Nicole Bass. I'm sure if I search in Mexican and Japanese wrestlers, I would fine more. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
@Dannys-777: you would never need to decide when to remove it. You don't include a heading just for the sake of including it. That's just standard across all of Wikipedia. Therefore on the Enzo article you never need to remove the WWE header if it's never there. You only add it once it's needed. GalatzTalk 22:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't make a lot of sense because it already is there and we're talking about removing headings from articles where they also are already there, not adding new subheadings to articles that don't exist. Once again, I think we agree that including 'professional wrestling career' is pretty essential and subheadings indicating which company the performer has worked in are also relevant and important IMO if the subject of the article has a notable wrestling career (i.e. more than just a few lines of content). Dannys-777 (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
It already being there has nothing to do with removing it. There was no reason to add that many layers to begin with. Yes, "professional wrestling career" should be there, but NiciVampireHeart is correct. there doesnt need to be that many layers, they are just wrong as to which layers to remove. - GalatzTalk 02:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Need help fixing date errors

I just replaced {{age in days nts}} with a version that checks that dates are valid. Articles with an error are shown in Category:Age error. Shortly after the change, 61 articles were listed as having errors, and all of them appear to be part of this wikiproject. This diff shows a correction to an error that I made after checking the reference. Any help would be appreciated. In an article in the category, search for "Error:" to see the problem. The message boils down to saying that either the first date is invalid, or the second. Johnuniq (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Thanks so much, I am trying to look at these but I am having trouble. For example, Impact Knockouts Championship I am not following what appears to be wrong. - GalatzTalk 02:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Nevermind, it was using date5, instead of date2. - GalatzTalk 02:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: There are now only 16 pages in the category, however I do not see where the error is on any of them. Thanks for creating this. - GalatzTalk 03:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your fixes! It can be tricky spotting typos like date5. I will look at the remaining problems and will post back here if I need help. As an example of a hidden problem, Princess of Pro-Wrestling Championship includes {{age in days nts|month1=08|day1=19|year1=2016|month=09|day2=18|year2=2016}} which is an error because "month" should be "month2". However, that template is embedded in {{sort}} which hides the error. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Galatz: I just replaced {{age in days}} and now there are more errors in Category:Age error. It would be great if you would check the wrestling articles. Some TLC would help because, for example, AWA United States Heavyweight Championship is showing "the title reign lasted between −82 days and Error..." for note 5. I doubt that a negative age is wanted; presumably the relevant dates are in the wrong order? Johnuniq (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Tag Teams and promotions

Hi. I have a question. Do you think the "promotion" section in the tag team/stables infobox is usefull? I mean, for tag teams like DX or The Shield is fine. However, tag teams like The Young Bucks, oVe or War Machine is annoying, since there is a huge list of promotions, some of then hasn't an article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It should be listed simply as the main promotion. Somone like War Machine have worked all over the place (As do many indy wrestlers), bit it should be the primary place. The Young Bucks could be listed at TNA, ROH and NJPW, but anything independent shouldn't be added in my eyes. They aren't notable for turning up at some indy show. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I always hate the list. For example, if you look at The Dudley Boyz there are 31 promotions listed. 11 of the 31 do not have pages so the promotion is not notable, I say at a minimum we take those out. I would propose we change the doc for the template state that the promotion must have their own page for inclusion, and must either hold a title or wrestle there as a team/stable, full time, for at least 3 months. For example, The Hardy Boyz only were at ROH for a month, but they won the titles during that month so its enough for inclusion. WWA on the other hand is listed in their promotion section but not mentioned anywhere in the article and therefore should not be included as it clearly was not a notable enough stint. - GalatzTalk 12:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's true. Its a good idea to include the promotions of the career section. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
In that case, I will delete some promotions. I would delete the no notable ones (promotions without an article).--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I think thats a good idea. We should either include in the template doc or the style guide to only include promotions with their own page on wikipedia, or have a sustainability mention on their page. - GalatzTalk 13:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia fallacy subject is automatically not notable if it does not have a page. Just saying. And i would be for removing it from the info box all togethers.  MPJ-DK  15:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
That is why WP:LISTCRITERIA exists. That is not a fallacy. Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever. More specifically, if you read WP:LISTBIO, it shows that those included in the bio lists should be notable, I feel the same applies to here. Just because it doesn't have a page doesn't mean it doesn't have verifiable notability, but if its had a page deleted, then for sure it shouldnt be. - GalatzTalk 16:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
But that was not YOUR claim, you Said "do not have pages so the promotion is not notable". Difference between being notable and being on a list. Featured Lists Can have red links in it, and the guideline you cited also allows for it, so again swing and a miss.  MPJ-DK  16:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Recently, I discovered The Young Bucks article hasn't a promotion list. I don't know when it was deleted, but I think this change is fine. Since it's hard to drawn the line, I think we can delete the promotion section from the tag team and stables infoboxes. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
That is definitely a fine approach. Any promotion that has a major impact on their career, will be quickly visible in the TOC. Its also the easiest way to do it, because removing it from the template removes it from every page automatically. - GalatzTalk 17:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I would have no issue with ditching the parameter. It's way too easy for it to become overlong, both among current and historical teams and stables. Firstly, because in modern times, indie wrestlers are freelancers and can easily appear in dozens of promotions, often within a few weeks. Even more established stars signed to national promotions can do that. NJPW and ROH not only have their mutual working agreement, but both also allow wrestlers to take outside bookings, and so there's things like the list at Bullet Club where pretty much any indie where multiple members appeared together is listed. Just because AJ Styles and the Young Bucks were part of the 2015 King of Trios doesn't mean that Chikara is significant enough to Bullet Club history to warrant a mention in the infobox (and that was a much more meaty appearance, for lack of a better term, than some of the one-offs listed in that infobox!)
The other concern is for historic teams from the old territory days, like The Fabulous Freebirds. Most especially like the Freebirds. In an era where moving territories meant getting repackaged, they always kept the gimmick, and were in almost every promotion around as the Freebirds, making their list also ridiculously long. posts like those, especially when it's just a bunch of three and four letter acronyms, aren't helpful. oknazevad (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Change to champion pictures

I wanna update all the pics here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_champions_in_WWE Instead of having pictures of different size, I want to put in pictures of the same size only showing their faces. Am I good to just go and do it or does anybody think this is a stupid idea?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

If we can get pictures of them with he titles that would be way better than just the face.★Trekker (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Are we allowed to use their wwe.com pics?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
No, those are not free.★Trekker (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Then we don't have much of a choice. So should I make the face pics?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
No, what gave you that idea?★Trekker (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
But the pics all have different sizes.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Is there a practical reason to care about that?★Trekker (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Consistency.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Picture size can be changed, also consistency isn't as important as being accurate and showing what needs to be showed.★Trekker (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
No, I prefer seeing them with titles.LM2000 (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
That would be great... But only if there are free versions of those images. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and that's whats being done right now.★Trekker (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Royal Rumble and Greatest Royal Rumble

Shouldn’t the greatest Royal Rumble be listed as another event since it wasn’t billed as the 32nd annual Royal Rumble as they do with the regular rumbles. Also shouldn’t the stats for the match be on their own “Royal Rumble match” page as opposed to the event, similar to Money in the Bank and Elimination Chamber matches. Separate pages for the match and PPVs. Ron234 (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I personally don't see how the stats for the show should be included on the Royal Rumble page. There is a section for 'other rumbles' which should include this glorified house show Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
For me, yes. Even as a glorified house show, it was aired as a WWE Network event. It's not strange we had two official rumbles. Last year we had two women money in the bank matches. Another example, CZW Tournament of Death, sometimes CZW held two tournaments the same year. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
My arguement would be that other WWE televised events have had a rumble; like episode of RAW, which wouldn't be included. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think GRR shouldn’t be included, just that it shouldn’t be on the regular RR page. Plus the match should have its own page like the MITB and EC matches have so that all the match stats can be posted there and not on the PPV page. Ron234 (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Before seeing this I actually proposed splitting the Royal Rumble Match itself to its own page. We now have two events that have held a major tournament, in addition to the random other times they have been done. I think this split will solve the confusion as well. - GalatzTalk 13:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the WWE are treating the Royal Rumble and Greatest Royal Rumble as two separate events. Also I agree the PPV and the match should have separate pages like the articles of Elimination Chamber, Money in the Bank and Tables, Ladders and Chairs matches and their PPV named after then. TheDeviantPro (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone have a WP:RS that says they are part of the same chronology, because nothing on WWE.com indicates that they are. If not, its a simple, no they are not - GalatzTalk 13:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It is two separate events, just like "No Way Out" and "Elimination Chamber" are separate events who happen to have the same type of specialty match. But let's also not go crazy and create a page for the show, then a separate page for the 50 man rumble after one event, everything about the event should be on one page, no sign of it being a recurring thing at the moment.  MPJ-DK  13:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Graves did mention once during the show something about next year's Greatest Royal Rumble, but that is far from making it official. I believe the way things have been done before where it lives in the main page and then moved to individual years once we have a confirmed second is fine for this. If/when a second is announced we deal with it at that time. - GalatzTalk 14:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Another vote for GRR being removed from the Royal Rumble match statistics and included in 'Other Royal Rumble matches' section.86.3.174.49 (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree that this belongs under "other Royal Rumble matches".

I'm also wondering if we should be listing the championship at the List of current champions in WWE. Because WWE doesn't; it and Braun do not appear with the current champions at wwe.com. Nor is it listed with the titles below that. Because, despite being presented with a belt, it is not a championship title like the others, but akin to the Andre Battle Royal. The entire WWE Greatest Royal Rumble Championship article is bluntly incorrect in treating it as a title, and the listing at list of current champions article is wrong. oknazevad (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't be included as a championship. At best a footnote regarding it. Just because it's a championship belt, it doesn't mean its a championship in WWE. Heck, WWE gives out belts to NFL footballers, and winners of gaming tournaments, that doesn't make them a champion in WWE. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
First, I think the Greatest Royal Rumble is part of the official Royal Rumble chronology. It's just a different name, not a new event, like TLC and TLC... and stairs. Like the upcoming King of the Ring UK tournament. I think the GRR and the KOTR UK are just a spin-off. Second, the stadistics should be included since it's a Royal Rumble match and WWE updated their stadistics. Third, [11] Looks like the WWE Greatest RR title is a normal title, with the championship holder, history and everithing else. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
But what are you basing your criteria on to link the two together? WWE does not link them on their page, and its not listed under the RR events on the Network. Do you have a RS that says its the same chronology? Yes the stats definitely count, but you dont list the MITB matches from WM on the MITB PPV page since they included a MITB. - GalatzTalk 11:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@Galatz: The Money in the Bank wasn't a one off pay-per-view. The Greatest Royal Rumble, at this point, is. There have been 13 Money in the Bank pay-per-view/WWE network events. Can't really compare. Plus, all the Money in the Bank matches are in one article. We can leave the Greatest Royal Rumble in the Royal Rumble match article. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 23:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: Based on your logic, the fact that both are covered in Royal Rumble match, we should be good. In which case, and in turn it should stay out of the RR PPV article. Just because it is a match, doesn't mean it belong in the PPV article, saying its part of the same chronology without a source saying it is, is OR. - GalatzTalk 01:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
@Galatz: Royal Rumble and Greatest Royal Rumble are similar. The Royal Rumble, with the exception of 2011, are 30 entrants. The Greatest Royal Rumble is not. The only thing shared is the match and stats. I can't find it in the style guide, but follow what the promotion does. If the WWE doesn't put the Greatest Royal Rumble in the chronology of the Royal Rumble events, why should we? Should we not follow the promotion in regard to certain things? If the WWE put the Greatest Royal Rumble in the chronology of Royal Rumble events, than we follow suit. But again, the WWE doesn't thus we should follow suit. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: Yes, we are saying the same thing. I was agreeing with you, and just emphasizing a couple points, sounds like you are defending your point to me. - GalatzTalk 01:50, 3 May 2018
@Galatz: No, that's not what I am doing. I've checked the Royal Rumble article and the Greatest Royal Rumble is not listed. It is only listed in the Royal Rumble match. Unless anybody else has anything else to say, I think this debate is over. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:The Undisputed Era (2)

Hi, I was on WP:AfC, and Nick Sideris has created a draft for The Undisputed Era. What are your thoughts on the current redirect for The Undisputed Era to ReDRagon; and the notability this draft puts forward? If you guys agree, I'll get the admins to do a technical move for the draft, if it's a good idea. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The sources currently in the article don't establish notability. They are primary or WP:ROUTINE match results. But I do agree that the team has a better case for notability now than they did when the article was previously deleted. Nikki♥311 15:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
information Note: Another draft exists at Draft:The Undisputed Era. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Which of the two drafts do you want to get ready? That one needs to meet GNG and have significant coverage? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I had to remove a recent attempt to paste a third version. Please decide which draft is going to be the official one and make sure it gets approved by the admins, AFC reviewers, new page reviewers first and cleared of their concerns. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I attempted to do a lot of cosmetic type clean up since I am not as familiar with the NXT product as the other brands. I do believe the history section should show more about the tag team at ROH prior to moving to NXT, like the first version has. - GalatzTalk 20:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
The main issue, is that there is two different creators. Usually we would merge the articles, to whichever is the better in AfC. However, it's relatively pointless if it doesn't meet WP:GNG. I'm not really sure, as personally any stable can really suffer from WP:INHERIT, so I'd really appreciate other people's opinion. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the page should now be created. If I understand well, this page was created, then deleted on September 23, 2017, which makes sense since at the time The Undisputed Era had pretty much accomplished nothing, and had existed for barely a month. In November, Bobby Fish and Kyle O'Reilly became NXT Tag Team Champions, but they admittedly already have their own page as a duo, reDRagon. But since NXT TakeOver: New Orleans, not only is Adam Cole also became recognized as NXT Tag Team Champion, making it an actual reign of the stable instead of a reign of the Fish/O'Reilly tag team while belonging to The Undisputed Era, but he became North American Champion, and won the Dusty Rhodes Tag Team Classic with O'Reilly. Additionally, Roderick Strong also became a member of the stable. So I think at this point, between those accomplishments, the fact that the stable expanded, and the fact it has existed for almost a year, it seems to have become notable enough to justify its own article, at least in my opinion. --Hyliad (d), 16:16, April 12, 2018 (CEST)
So, does anybody have anything to add ? If not, what's the next move ? --Hyliad (d), 19:26, April 20, 2018 (CEST)
Support creation of the article, currently it is being redirected and content for the stable is being added to reDRagon which is clearly nonsense as UE is now a totally distinct four-man group. Dannys-777 (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I replaced the reDRagon redirect and started the article yesterday. I believe that they have obviously accomplished a lot compared to when it was previously deleted. I tried my best to exclude the week-by-week results, as well as include info on their ROH background. Noticing that there was a draft for this, feel free to add anything to the article from the draft. Sekyaw (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Sekyaw, this is more compact than what was presented on the two drafts. If folks are happy with this version, the others can be removed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The article currently in development needs a lot of work as far as build-ups to the TakeOver matches are concerned. Some important NXT TV segments/matches should be included. Other than that, I am in agreement with the removal of the drafts. Nick Sideris —Preceding undated comment added 06:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at the second draft and they use a lot of sources that are deemed unreliable like Bleacher Report, The People's Wrestling Website, Wrestling Inc., and PWMania. Anything from either of the drafts that can be moved over, that isn't moved over, to the namespace, than it should be. We need to avoid unreliable sources. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

WWE Infobbox

On Galatz's talk page, Powderkegg brought up a good point to something I never noticed. The infbox stats that Vince K and Linda McMahon founded the WWE. It says all throughout the article that Roderick McMahon (Vince K's grandfather) and Toots Mondt founded it as Capitol Wrestling Corporation. Vince McMahon Sr. took it over from his dad, Roderick. Vince Sr. kept CWC going as the sanctioning body of the WWWF than WWF till Vince Sr. sold the WWF to Vince Jr. who started Titan Sports thus ceased CWC operations in the early 80s.

Powderkegg made a change only to have it reverted. The fact is Vince and Linda didn't start the WWE. They only changed the name because of the World Wildlife Foundation. You can clearly see in the History of WWE that the founding of WWE is credited to Toots and Roderick. I didn't make any changes as I know for a fact it would be reverted. But as you can see, there is a discrepancy. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 03:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Titan Sports bought WWF as you say. Titan Sports became WWFE and later WWE. That is the entire Vince and Linda started. The question is where we are talking about the parent corporation or the promotion. The article is a mix right now. Just like how wcw and jcp are really different entities but the articles blur the lines because it's confusing - GalatzTalk 03:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
@Galatz: The infobox says WWE was founded in 1952. That's the year Capitol Wrestling Corporation was founded. If that's not correct, than it should be changed. The wrestling promotion of WWE was founded as the promotion of Capitol Wrestling Corporation. Once the World Wide Wrestling Federation came into existence, CWC being a holding company and sanctioning body. The promotion of WWWF became WWF then WWE. The holding company of CWC was absorbed by Titan Sports who thus became the holding company of WWF. I can see how you are confused. There is nothing confusing about Jim Crockett Promotions and World Championship Wrestling. The Crockett family sold majority shares to Turner Broadcasting in 1988 with WCW being created as a result. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
In both the case of WWE or WCW the question becomes the promotion vs the parent. WCW infobox says it was founded in 1988 as a Turner sub, but History_of_World_Championship_Wrestling#NWA_years_(1982–1987) makes it sound different. The promotion continued but the parent changed. CWC until WWE is the same, the promotion itself has continued although the ownership has changed. Judging by the bolded "World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc." at the start of the article, we are talking about what Titan Sports has become today rather than what CWC has become today. Again though the History of WWE page sounds like the history of the promotion not the parent corp. Both equally blur the lines. - GalatzTalk 10:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Adam Cole, NXT Tag team Champion

Well, WWE did it again. After Fish was injured, WWE.com listed Cole as an official NXT Tag Team Champion. However, when Strong was named NXT Tag Team Champion, Cole disapeared. His WWE.com profile doesn't list him as Tag Team Champion. So... how should we include him? Unofficial champion? Briefly recognized, but not anymore? Delete the title from the C&A section? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

It should definitely not be listed as an accomplishment. It took WWE a few days to make up their minds, but they ultimately went with not recognizing him. It's not even an unofficial reign; it's just no reign at all. If they decided to stop recognizing him months later, it would be a different story. I think it can stay in his biography in the part about his 2 NXT Takeover matches. But punish WWE and saying they fucked up just because they didn't immediately decide on who to count as champ doesn't make sense. In kayfabe, Undisputed Era could've taken a week to decide who to go with. They decided to not have Adam Cole as champ, because he already has a title to defend.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Why it's diferent one week and a few months? It would be the same story --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Then let's switch "few months" with "when the reign is over". Because if he is recognized throughout the entire reign and then retroactively loses the recognition, it's a different thing than WWE taking a few days to make up their minds as to who they should recognize as champs. He was never referred to as champ on air. All of this is because some dude put him as champ on wwe.com only to have it changed a few days later. If I were to hack wwe.com and put Pete Dunne as Tag Team Champ too, you wouldn't recognize it as a reign either, because there never was an official statement or anything on air that suggested he was / is Tag Team champ.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
What sources are referring to him as champ? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
After Takeover, his WWE profile listed him as Tag Team Champion [12], but now has disapeared. I understand both sides, so If anyone wants to write their thoughts, It would be welcome. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I think it is obvious that it needs to get removed from his C&A section. It's WWE's title and it was only a few days until WWE stopped recognizing him anyway. That is the thing we should all agree on if we go by Wikipedia's standards.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Getting a wee bit anal here...The Freebird Rule was invoked so Cole could also defend the title after Fish got hurt (and was recognized as such). Strong then joined the stable, and was ALSO given a share of the titles. Long story short, the whole Undisputed Era collectively hold the titles, and any 2 can defend them (and all 4 have defended them)...that's how the Freebird Rule works. We're getting into nitpick territory here, as well as trying to read the WWE webmaster's minds. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Did everyone that ever helped defend a title get recognized as champ?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
O'Reilly/Fish were originally recognized as champs, then O'Reilly/Cole, now O'Reilly/Fish/Strong. Bottom line the group collectively holds the titles, and can (under the Freebird Rule) mix and match any 2 to defend the titles. The basic rule of thumb is that if it's a Freebird situation, then all members of the group are recognized as champions. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I would agree, but Cole's profile doesn't even list him as a former Champ and the title reign description doesn't even mention him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrestlingLegendAS (talk • contribs) 17:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Please do not take this as a personal shot towards you directly, but I think (in general) an argument like this where we're splitting hairs is what turns a lot of people off of Wikipedia. This whole "it says it here, but not here" deal is really a lot to do about nothing. Did Cole defend the titles - yes. Was he recognized as a champion - yes. All this about "well it doesn't say so in this particular spot" stuff is the epitome of picking at the tiniest of nits. (again not aimed at you individually, as it's prevalent all over Wikipedia in various other articles). Vjmlhds (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I get it, but do we know if they intended to recognize him at all? Maybe someone just thought "oh, he defended the titles, he must be champ" and put him as a champ, until someone above him told him that Cole is not supposed to be tag champ. Who knows? In kayfabe, maybe Cole just didn't want to be a double champ to put a bit of the spotlight and the other 3 guys as well? Point is, all we know that WWE definitely does not want Cole as tag champ, otherwise they wouldn't have removed him off the title history and wouldn't have deleted the reign off of his C&A page. WWE just made an error that lasted a few days and then they got rid of it.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Now we're supposed to read minds? If you really wanted to get all micro-minutiae about it, we could suppose the only reason Cole isn't in the picture now is because they couldn't squeeze 4 guys into it. And where is this "WWE definitely doesn't want Cole as champ?" stuff coming from (maybe it REALLY was because they couldn't squeeze 4 guys in the picture - who knows?) Bottom line, they did recognize Cole as champion, and The Freebird Rule is a long established device used for every member in the group being recognized as a champion. Anything else is guess work, speculation, and assumption. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
WWE doesn't want him as champ, otherwise they wouldn't have removed that accomplishment from his C&A section, right!? Freebird rule isn't more important than WWE's official ruling though. WWE says he isn't champ, so he isn't champ.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Bo Dallas once replaced Oliver Grey to defend the Tag titles with Neville; doesn't make him a former Tag champ either.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The difference is we have a source about WWE recognizing Cole as champion, at leat, at some point of the history. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
For a few days until they decided how to handle this situation. Why do we have to be so harsh with WWE and award Cole a title he never held just because WWE fucked up or wasn't sure how to handle it? Now they definitely know what they want and that is not Cole as Tag Team Champ (current or former). This is what I would do: Remove it from C&A, but add it to the NXT part in his bio: "and later in the night he won the Dusty Rhodes Tag Team Classic as well as defended the NXT Tag Team Championship in a Triple Threat Winner Take All match." What I would add: "At first, WWE recognized Cole as NXT Tag Team Champion, but a few days later / shortly after they started recognizing Roderick Strong as Championd and stopped recognizing Cole as Champion." Or something like that. But just handing him a title reign that WWE (the company that owns the titles!) doesn't want him to have goes too far.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
After the first finals of the Dusty Rhodes classic on the last episode of NXT before TakeOver, Regal said that they had a chance to win the title, meaning he was given a shot to win. At the end of the match Cole was announced as a tag team champion. There is not reason not to include it and have WWE's recognition as zero. This is no different than Flair, Backlund and Moolah all losing the title and the WWE not recognizing it. - GalatzTalk 13:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
"At the end of the match Cole was announced as a tag team champion." Agreed. I take everything back, THAT is a damn good point. It really is like the Flair and Backlund stuff. However as soon as I can edit the article, I want to point out that Strong and Cole were never Tag Champs at the same time like it says in the note. As soon as Strong was recognized, they stopped recognizing Cole. That okay with everybody?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Don't overly convolute things. Freebird Rule allowed Cole to be recognized as a champion, and then also Strong as a champion, the whole kitten-kaboodle that is the Undisputed Era hold the titles...it's as simple as that. Also, it looks like by the comments that it's 3-1 in favor of leaving Cole in, so I suggest you leave it be...trust me from experience, know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Did you not read what I wrote? I want to leave it in his C&A section! But it is a fact that at no point were Cole and Strong recognized as champs at the same time. It doesn't hurt if I edit it to make it clearer; the note doesn't get longer because of it. EDIT: Now Cole is recognized as an OFFICIAL champ in List of NXT Tag Team Champions!? That's not what we agreed on at all; I actually think nobody here wanted that. If WWE doesn't recognize him as a current champ, why would we?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Please ease up...continuing an argument when you're a one man army is never a good thing here (BELIEVE ME...I know). Let it go, and move on...not worth the continued back-and-forth - won't lead to anything good (again - trust me on this, because I have been in your shoes more times than I care to count). Vjmlhds (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Cole was announced as champion at TakeOver. There is no doubt that Strong was not recognized until the next week's NXT. We know what WWE.com shows, thats easy to determine what WWE recognizes. We know the facts of what actually happened. So what exactly is the issue you are having? - GalatzTalk 18:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
This whole thing has gotten so nitpicky and we're splitting the teeniest-tiniest of hairs here. I always thought once you were "Freebirded", you were in until you lost the titles. These are wrestling championships...we ain't curing cancer here. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)ku
But doesn't it seem silly that you can retroactively add time to a reign? This is the whole reason why we have two columns, facts on the ground and WWE's version - GalatzTalk 23:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I’ll add my view onto this. Cole isn’t recognized by WWE as a current tag team champion, so I don’t think we should say he is one, but we shouldn’t completely exclude the fact that he was once recognized as one. Looking at the List of NXT Tag Team Champions, I agree with how it’s formatted and how it shows Cole was a champion, but isn’t recognized. But as for the Undisputed Era article, Cole's article, and the main championship article, we shouldn’t include Cole as a current title holder. Sekyaw (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Here’s the thing though Adam Cole’s page on wwe.com lists him as a double champion but the tag team Chamionship omits him. I believe somebody should contact WWE to solve this confusion. Ron234 (talk) 06:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not really our place to write/contact a promotion to point out a contradiction. We just note what the facts are. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I recently contacted /u/realWWE on reddit about the error in which Lesnar's reign ended 2 days prior to Eddie beating him for the title. They tanked me and fixed it. So you might wanna post it on reddit and tag them so they can review this issue as well.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

No I meant as in ask them whether or not they recognize Cole as champion. Ron234 (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ron234: They at one point did. Before Roderick Strong joined the Undisputed ERA, they had Adam Cole's picture on the NXT Tag Team Championship page on WWE.com. It now shows Strong, Kyle O'Reilly, and Bobby Fish. The article should remain past tense. If his picture isn't on the NXT Tag Team Championship page on WWE.com than he is a former champion. The article states as such. What's so hard to understand about this? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

That’s true for the NXT Tag Titles article but there’s conflicting information on the Adam Cole and Dusty Classic articles which calls him a double champion. Ron234 (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure they just forgot to remove that part. They removed every "evidence" that Cole ever was recognized as Tag Team Champ; so the only reason I can see why the would leave that sentence in his bio, is that they forgot to remove it.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Eyes on CMLL World Middleweight Championship

... which is today's feature article on the main page. Would benefit from a few extra watchers today and the next few days until no linger linked from main page. NiciVampireHeart 18:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hardcore Chair Swingin' Freaks

I plan on creating an article on a former ECW tag team of Balls Mahoney and Axl Rotten called Hardcore Chair Swingin' Freaks but before creating an article, I want suggestions from other users either to start it or not because I do not want my entire hardwork to be wasted and the article be ultimately deleted just like it was done with the Funk Masters of Wrestling in the past.--Mark Linton (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

What references are you working with? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@Mark Linton: That's why you put it in a draft or sandbox. You should ask the deleting admin for a copy of the Funk Masters of Wrestling and put it in your sandbox and work on it there. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: There are several websites which can be used as references such as Cagematch, Wrestlingdata, Wrestling Recaps, 411mania etc. to be used as references for Hardcore Chair Swingin' Freaks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Linton (talk • contribs) 11:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
It's all about proving that the particular tag team is notable. Cage match and wrestling data really don't show this especially. Notability isn't inherited, so you'd need to prove the tag is notable as an entity, and not just as they tagged together. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Nia Jax

Nia Jax's article is protected which is fine. But it is protected so new and unregistered editors edits have to be reviewed. I was fine, than one day my edits are now put under needing be reviewed. I am not a new editor. Been here for 13 years. Anybody know why this happened? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 23:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

If you're referring to your edit today (May 2), it was reviewed by User:ZI Jony and was not automatically accepted. JTP (talk • contribs) 02:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
@NotTheFakeJTP: The problem has been happening for a little while. Before, my edits were automatically accepted. That's the problem. That makes this type of protection redundant for someone like me since it's for new and unregistered user. As I said, I've been here for 13 years. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 02:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I just made an edit to test, I am not having my edits under pending review, but I'm not sure if that's because I have special permissions as a pending reviewer... It's odd, your previous edits were automatically accepted, but the latest one wasn't. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: if the edit prior to yours was still pending, then yours is automatically pending as well (even if you are not a new editor). Without investigating, I'd say that's the most likely explanation. NiciVampireHeart 18:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@NiciVampireHeart: That was never an issue for me. I was at one point able to edit even if there were pending edits. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: WP:PC#Effect of various protection levels explains it better than I can. NiciVampireHeart 12:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@NiciVampireHeart: That makes sense. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 16:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Style Guide: Reception section for Event articles

Why was it decided that the Reception section for event articles should go after the Aftermath section (more specifically, as a subsection after what's written about the event's aftermath)? That literally makes no sense. Take WrestleMania 34 for example, as this has become an issue there. It makes no sense to put the Reception of WrestleMania 34 after the events that happened on Raw, SmackDown, and 205 Live, which are shows that happened after WrestleMania 34. The Reception is about what happened at WrestleMania 34, not what happened at WrestleMania 34, Raw, SmackDown, and 205 Live (putting Reception after the aftermath looks as if it is about all of those). Even if for whatever reason it has to go after Aftermath, Reception should be its own section, not a subsection of Aftermath. Aftermath is what happened on the shows following the event, reception is how good or bad the event was received. --JDC808 ♫ 23:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with all of this, and I don't have much to add.★Trekker (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Reception although is about the event, does take place after the event, so I understand the placement. In the WM article in your example, perhaps reception then Raw then SmackDown make sense since it follows the order. Based on the nature of what reception is, it must take place after the event, which is why I am guessing that is where it was placed. - GalatzTalk 23:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Well yes, the reception does happen after the event, but it's not aftermath between the performers who were involved in the show. The reception is from outside sources giving their review of the show. --JDC808 ♫ 00:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Who said aftermath is exclusive for aftermath between the performers who were involved in the show? Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Aftermath talks about rivalries (also check out what level of detail you should go in to because you go way beyond it), critical reception and DVD/VHS. Its about the entirety of aftermath. You even tried to add details about random NXT stars that didn't compete at WM debuting on Raw the next day, so clearly you don't even believe your own statement that its between those who performed. - GalatzTalk 01:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
General statement, and that strays away from the point that Reception should be separate from Aftermath (but to note, the SG also says elaborate in the briefest way possible; that's such a contradiction). Reception is not the same thing as Aftermath. Look at video game and movie articles for example. The Reception is its own section. --JDC808 ♫ 02:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I suggest you check out the first definition of the word elaborate [13] and then revisit your comment. I love how you contradict yourself time and time again yet ignore it when its pointed out. I attempted to look at movie articles as you suggested, but none of the ones I went to have an aftermath section, so do you have an example? I tried to stick with major box office movies since those pages will have the most number of experienced editors watching them and ensuring they are set up correctly. Each of the Pirates of the Caribbean (film series) and The Lord of the Rings (film series) individual pages (so thats 8 movies in total), do not have an aftermath section. Looking at Titanic (1997 film) it had a release section of which accolades is under, which is pretty close to reception being under aftermath. There are 10 movies under X-Men (film series) and they seem to vary, some had reception under release, some did not, X-Men: First Class even had the section with the combined names. A big difference is though that the X-Men movies that do have them separate have 4 subsections under release which is very different than the 1 paragraph our style guide calls for in regard to aftermath. As for video games, I do not know much about them, so the biggest franchise that popped into my head was Grand Theft Auto. There are 15 games under that page and 14 do not have a section similar to aftermath, and reception is a main category. The only the exception is Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars which has it under release, but also has no aftermath type section. This all seems to line up more in line with a page like Road Wild (1997), which reception is the main category since there is no Aftermath section. - GalatzTalk 03:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
No revisiting needed. And where in my comment did I state that video game and movie articles had an Aftermath section? I said that they have separate Reception sections (the point being that Reception is treated as a main section instead of a sub of something else). I didn't look through every single one of the ones you pointed out, but with each movie for Pirates and Lord of the Rings, the Reception is a main section. I can list a number of Featured video game articles that also have the Reception as a main section. --JDC808 ♫ 04:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
And events that don't have an aftermath section its the main one also, see example above. So whats your point? If there isn't an aftermath section to park it in, it becomes a main one. - GalatzTalk 04:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I've already said my point, do I really have to restate it? I guess I will. Reception should not be a subsection of Aftermath. --JDC808 ♫ 06:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree reception should not be part of the aftermath section. Because the "reception" section is mostly about reviews and other critical commentary of the show itself, while "aftermath" is mostly about how the storylines continued after the show. The later is actually really questionable to even include in the first place, as it's a bit off-topic; the topic of PPV articles is the event, not the general state of the promotion at the time. That said, the background section is a logical addition to show why those particular matches occurred on that card, and the aftermath section is a logical counterpart to that, while also providing the courtesy to readers of not spreading info out over many articles. (Plus reinforces the nature of pro wrestling storylines, wherein the match might be the climax, but not necessarily the conclusion, or the story.)

That doesn't change the fact that the reception section is not part of that storyline flow, and should be s separate mainnsection, not a subsection. Which comes first isn't really important, as a case could be made for either way ("reception" first because it's about the event as opposed to the follow ups vs "aftermath" first because it keeps the storyline material together.). oknazevad (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree with everything you've said. Personally, I'd put the Reception section before Aftermath as the event itself takes priority—WrestleMania XXX is a great example. Prefall 08:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I think (As above), it should probably be it's own section. However, we have GA articles that have set a precedent of this (See WrestleMania I.) So, we'd have to create a concensus that this isn't how PPVs should be recorded for their reception sections Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
As it stands, everyone who has commented here is for the change, except one, but I don't know if he's really against it. --JDC808 ♫ 21:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
So? --JDC808 ♫ 07:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I think it should be his own section to. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there anyone against this change? If not, let's make this change to the style guide. --JDC808 ♫ 23:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

IMO making "Reception" a subsection of "Aftermath" looks awkward, especially if the "Reception" comes first. This way, readers wanting to read about the aftermath are presented with reviews first. Better to keep them separate. Then the, chronological sequence of Reception first, then Aftermath, does no damage. Str1977 (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Consensus

Is it safe to assume that we all agree that Reception should be a main section, separate from Aftermath? Also, placement. It seems that more would prefer it to go before Aftermath since Reception deals with the event itself, and Aftermath is what happened on the shows following the event. --JDC808 ♫ 19:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I endorse that reading and that course of action. oknazevad (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
All I request is that should this be changed that JDC808 please check all GA events, since they will need to change to comply with this. - GalatzTalk 01:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I see no issue in the GAs needing to be changed to comply with this. --JDC808 ♫ 01:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

As there are no opposes, let's make the change to the Style Guide. --JDC808 ♫ 18:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. Prefall 19:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Dan Sileo

He supposedly wrestling in Europe and Japan. I'm not able to find anything from reliable sources for this, just [wrestlingdata.com/index.php?befehl=bios&wrestler=25929 WrestlingData.com], WWFOldSchool.com, and WrestlingForum.com. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Also, please ping me if you reply to ensure I see it. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 02:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

If it is just a reference that he did wrestle, cagematch should be enough Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:Professional wrestling by country

Currently Category:Professional wrestling by country only has select few countries which have more than just wrestlers from that country. When I look at Category:Professional wrestling in the United States by state however, there are currently 8 out of 50 states which currently only house the wrestlers category. I get that this completes the tree and makes it easier for the navigation. Why would the same not apply to countries? Shouldn't we have a category, even if its just a container category, for every country there is a category for wrestlers from? In order to complete the tree I would expect we should have a category for every country even if it holds just one article or the wrestler category. For example, Category:Professional wrestling in Ukraine would be created, and the only thing in it would be Category:Ukrainian professional wrestlers. Any thoughts? - GalatzTalk 18:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, most likely just hasn't been done. I expect no one would create these organically, as there isn't many promotions in these places (Well, not notable ones). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Should no one object, I am happy to create them. - GalatzTalk 14:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

WWE personnel page

Why is Samir Singh listed as a SmackDown superstar even though he posted on his Instagram that he’s on Raw. And if it is because he is listed as a SmackDown superstar on wwe.com then why are Sunil Singh and Maria Kanellis listed as Raw superstars on the wwe personnel page even though they are too listed as SmackDown superstars on wwe.com? Ron234 (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding a promotion

Not sure what the criteria for creating an article for a wrestling promotion is, thinking RISE Wrestling could be added? Its been around since 2016 it appears, looks like it's linked to SHIMMER and some other indy promotions. [14] Thoughts? Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The criteria is that it passes the general notability guideline. So basically you need multiple, independent, non-user-generated sources. That pro wrestling wiki article is not a usable source, but some of its references may be usable for here. oknazevad (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Vengeance and Night of Champions

Something I noticed recently WWE lists them as seperate events. In the NoC archives its listed from 2007-2015, link - http://www.wwe.com/shows/nightofchampions/archive. It seems they consider them seperate and the 2007 event is considered a dual event. Ron234 (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone has any opinion on this or should I split the page? Ron234 (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that we should have two separate articles. Vengeance: Night of Champions should be included in both.LM2000 (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Video game inclusion in bios

This problem has become more apparent to me over the last few months, with editors adding these enormous tables listing each video game appearance (see The Undertaker or Edge). Their inclusion is not new, but at least before they were secluded to a sentence-long wall of links (see Kane or Randy Orton).

These games are routine in the sports world, where the athlete's likeness is used and nothing more. They rarely contribute a performance, so it's not like an appearance on a television series or film. Looking at how other sports projects handle it, they only note these games specifically if the athlete is featured on the cover (see Cristiano Ronaldo, Tom Brady, Patrick Kane, etc.).

I think we should adopt a similar approach here; only include if their involvement is notable, such as a voice performance or featured as the cover athlete. What do you think? Prefall 14:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

As a Pat's fan I say whatever happens for Brady is what we should do :-). In all seriousness though that Undertaker table is ridiculous. Basically anyone with notoriety on the roster appears in games. The sea of blue on Orton is really not much better. If it is a notable appearance in the game or on the cover, then definitely include it, but in line, in the correct year. - GalatzTalk 14:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
At the VERY least, we should make the table collapsed by default. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Anyone else want to weigh in? Prefall 20:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Rather than the sentence walls, I would just list the first and last/most recent video game appearance. Should read like: Wrestler appeared in several WWE video games, beginning with WWE Day of Reckoning 2 and ending with WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008.LM2000 (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
That seems fair too. Perhaps like this for those featured on the cover:
Some wrestlers appear as a playable character in video games for multiple promotions though, so it would have to be altered in some instances:
I also included release years in the above example. That information may be immediately beneficial to readers, like when listing a film or television series. Prefall 06:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I like it, the years are actually essential. Looks good.LM2000 (talk) 05:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The Usos

There should be pages about the individual Usos. There is enough material about them to warrant different pages like the Bella Twins. Ron234 (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

No. They spent their career together and they still together. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I mean so did the Bellas for the most part. Plus their personal lives are quiet different. Ron234 (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Obviously they would have different personal lives but looking at term Personal lives section of the Usos article I don’t see that much in the section that would make separate articles necessary.--69.157.253.30 (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
We'd need them to be independently notable. If they had done somthing notable outside of wrestling, or as singles wrestlers, that would be fine (Such as the bellas, there are notable things they have done outside of wrestling, and actually were singles wrestlers for quite a period, unlike the Usos.) Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The Bellas are a good example actually. They only had one article until Nikki was a two-time Divas Champion. Usos don't have that kind of individual notability yet.LM2000 (talk) 10:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Ron234 (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I am always torn by this. The team is obviously notable, but I am not so sure that they are not individually notable just because they have not done anything outside of the tag team. The Property Brothers (franchise) for example has a page for Drew Scott and Jonathan Scott (TV personality), but they havent done anything substantial separately. There are plenty of other examples out there. If these were not brothers, but a tag team that always worked together would you say they were notable? Is this case really much different than The Wild Samoans, which has their own pages. - GalatzTalk 14:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
If the pair has the same information, it should be merged into the one single article, for the examples above... Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Order of matches before the event

At Talk:Money in the Bank (2018) there is a discussion about the order to present matches prior to an event. KingOfTheRing has created his own method to arrange them and is reverting other editors that don't agree with him. There is no consensus that I can see on how to present this. I think the best answer is they should just be shown in the order the are announced until the night itself. Creating his own "order of relevance" as he phrases it makes no sense. Any thoughts? - GalatzTalk 13:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

We always use the announced order. We can't decide the order of relevance, it would be OR. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:PW/SG#Results states that future events should list the matches in order of announcement, and has since 2009. Prefall 13:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It’s settled then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingOfTheRing (talk • contribs) 14:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

NWA Title

The NWA refer to their World title as the NWA Worlds Heavyweight Championship as opposed to the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. The page should be updated. Opinions? Ron234 (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Interested to hear what others think, but their official facebook page does call it the "Worlds" title.[15] This should be reflected in some way.LM2000 (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Every mention at the All In presser called it "Worlds" as well. JTP (talk • contribs) 01:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Do we know when/if the name was changed or if its always been incorrect? - GalatzTalk 14:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, the Domed Globe title has always read "World's" since it's introduction in the 1970s, but the Big Gold Belt didn't use the possessive. The use of the possessive in the phrase "world's champion(ship)" used to be more common in and out of wrestling, and is largely seen as archaic now. That the new NWA management seem to be using it intentionally as a way for them to emphasize the history of the title. Whether or not that means we should move the article is a question that I'd say to wait on, just to see if it sticks. oknazevad (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Right, that is my concern, just because the WCW Championship changed its name when the WWE bought them, the article is still based on the name it was known as during the longest period of time. In addition its information for the previous names box. - GalatzTalk 14:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn’t the name reflect what the company is currently calling it. Whether or not it sticks should be a topic for a different day coz at the moment that’s what the NWA seems to be calling it’s world title. Ron234 (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
No we shouldnt just move it because they changed the name. We use the WP:COMMONNAME. We have took look at what name is used by independent WP:RS after the name was changed and see what is being used, as spelled out in WP:NAMECHANGES. This is why when the name change happened is important. - GalatzTalk 18:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
That’s fine for the article name but the contents of the article should be updated to the current name being used by the NWA. Ron234 (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

But is it "Worlds Heavyweight Champioship" or "World's Heavyweight Championship" - the former actually doesn't make any sense and might just be sloppy writing. Str1977 (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The NWA seems to call it Worlds. Ron234 (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The NWA World title has been using the same name since its creation in 1948, using "World" or "Worlds" when referring to the title is mostly up to personnel preference and a large majority in media use "World" so I think WP:COMMONNAME applies here and it should remain as "NWA World Heavyweight Championship". Speedy Question Mark (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The company and all social media by and for the company uses Worlds. The page name can remain unchanged but the contents of the page should reflect the current name being used by, and I repeat, the NWA. It’s their title and they call it Worlds. Ron234 (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The titles name has always been "NWA World Heavyweight Championship", the NWA used "Worlds" before Billy Corgan bought the company, It's literally down to preference and a majority of people say "World". Speedy Question Mark (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
We go by what independent sources call it, which appear to be World. The official name should be reflected as well, but the article name goes by the common name. - GalatzTalk 13:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The name being unchanged is fine but the article should reflect something about that the NWA refers to it as Worlds. Ron234 (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

WrestleMania posters

The posters for WrestleMania V, 2000 and X8 are different from the ones WWE published on this WrestleMania posters article, link - https://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/wrestlemania-posters-photos#fid-26023284. The articles should be updated. Ron234 (talk) 08:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Theres usually a few different posters around for these events. The X8 one especially had a normal poster, and a NWO one. I think the WM2000 poster should be changed, as the one in the article isn't really the right one. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Year formats for article sections

I think that the articles are given a better perspective if we allow the following format to be used in the years of each section as the following example:

  • 2015-2018: SmackDown and WWE Champion

Just in the same way it is used for articles of even more famous people like in:

I wait for the comments. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The chronological format works for "normal" biographies as they do not need to split due to outside factors. Wrestling bios are split by promotions rather than sorted entirely by chronology, due to the nature of performing for multiple promotions simultaneously and storylines often being confined to individual promotions. Take a look at the articles of many prominent independent wrestlers, such as Daniel Bryan, CM Punk, The Young Bucks and Cody Rhodes to see what I'm referring to.
Aside from that, wrestling careers tend to have in-universe writing to various degrees, so including that in a continuous section with "early life" and other non-wrestling careers seems like it would confuse readers. Unless the way wrestling careers are written is changed drastically, I don't think this format will work for wrestling biographies. Prefall 18:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree, if you look at Austin Aries, he has 3 different sections as current. It could be very confusing as to what he is done now if we looked just at 2018. I think sports is a better comparison to actors. For example, Mike Piazza played for 3 different teams in 1998, and so they are broken down by teams. If it was done by year it would be much harder to follow as to what happened in 1998. - GalatzTalk 18:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
So, is it fine we start making this new year formats on the articles? TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. It just won't work for most wrestling articles, and there's no benefit to deviating from the consensus on articles where it would. Prefall 19:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   11:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_101&oldid=1137368163"