Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 103

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 100Archive 101Archive 102Archive 103Archive 104Archive 105→Archive 110

In wrestling

Hi. I will open with a disclaimer that I know very little about this area. However I was reviewing a Good Article and thought I would query one of your style guidelines. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#For biographies you have a heading suggestion of "In wrestling". At the article I am reviewing it contains a list of moves. My issue with the heading is that I find it very vague. "In wrestling" could mean anything and I did not find it a very informative heading for the information it contained. What is the reasoning behind suggesting this as a heading? Why can't it be wrestling moves or something similar? AIRcorn (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Aircorn: I am not sure which article you are reviewing, but many contain much more than just moves. Finishing moves, signature moves, managers (and/or wrestlers managed), nicknames, entrance themes, and wrestlers trained, are all listed in the Style Guide as possibilities. If you looks at Kurt Angle for example there is a lot of other information in it. I have never liked the heading personally, as in an article like Angle it is confusing, as he was first an amateur wrestler, and a reader could believe this information related to his time in the Olympics. I am not sure what a better term would be, but at a minimum it should include the word professional before wrestling to avoid the confusion. - GalatzTalk 12:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I should mention that it's currently used in the style guide. I have no issues with it being changed, but we would need a consensus for the new title, and a widespread change across all wrestler profile (As well as teams and managers) for this change. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Concern over this vague heading has been brought up a few times over the years. I think the consensus has always been that it's not ideal but a better alternative has not been presented. Prefall 16:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Thinking on it, would "Characteristics in professional wrestling" make more sense? Though, it has a few issues—perhaps too close to the existing "Wrestling persona" section (...merge?) and potentially misleading as this section currently lists real-life trainees. Prefall 18:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
If I understand it correctly, this is basically for all the other information about a wrestler that doesn't fit into career. Would "Professional wrestling details" or "Professional wrestling particulars" be better. Particulars seems to fit the purpose more accurately. Either way I feel like I should be able to look at a heading and have some idea what the content should entail and "In wrestling " does not do this. Don't worry, I will not fail an article for sticking to existing style guidelines, especially as I can't find any policies or guidelines that say a header has to be named a certain way (apart from not being a question or not repeating the title). I think it would be worth your project trying to come up with an alternative though as it does stick out in the article I am reviewing and the one listed above. AIRcorn (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
What if we combined the championship heading to being a sub-heading under a "Professional wrestling highlights" section? This section could contain everything the current "In wrestling" does, and the championships would just become a subheading? - GalatzTalk 14:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Oooh, I like that idea. oknazevad (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I second that Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm good with that too. Prefall 20:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Looks like consensus. Does someone here want to make the change to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#For biographies. I would, but it would be better coming from someone from this project. AIRcorn (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done I also made "Luchas de Apuestas record" a subsection of Highlights rather than C&A. It seems more appropriate to me but I'd like to know how others feel about this. Prefall 01:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I made the change to a number of high profile wrestlers to draw attention to this change, so hopefully people notice. - GalatzTalk 01:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This is going to be a major pain to change every bio, but those who want to can look through Category:Professional wrestlers by nationality to get everyone. JTP (talk • contribs) 01:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I changed every page in categories R-Y in Category:Professional wrestlers by nationality, for anyone keeping track. JTP (talk • contribs) 02:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
FYI I have updated everyone currently on the WWE and Impact personnel pages - GalatzTalk 19:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I noticed today that the style guide was changed as to how that section should be titled. The former title always seemed a bit odd to me But reading through this discussion I wonder why the term "Highlights" was then instituted into the style guide. It seems even less fitting as most of the section doesn't address highlights but rather details like managers, finishers, theme songs etc. Str1977 (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
"Highlights" is more all-encompassing, taking the most notable characteristics of the wrestler and their championships, awards and accomplishments all in one section (plus Luchas de Apuestas). Though, alternatives can continue to be suggested. Prefall 08:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I prefer leaving the name at In Wresting <--- Short and Simple (Easy to to know what this section about)
The Championships/Awards should be left as a section up (not a sub section) to make easier to find when scrolling. Colton Meltzer (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Most agree that "in wrestling" is extremely vague though. It's really not clear what aspect of wrestling it pertains to. I'm indifferent towards C&A being its own section or not, but under the current "Highlights" format it makes sense to be a subsection. Prefall 08:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@Colton Meltzer: A big issue is the "In wrestling" tells you nothing in reality. The contents didn't match the header. Is their theme music really in wrestling? Its not in the match, so it details with professional wrestling but a person could easily assume the section deals with in the ring only. Additionally anyone who had an amateur background someone would naturally go to that section to look for information on their amateur career and find nothing. The section is a high level summary of everything dealing with professional wrestling, which are the highlights. - GalatzTalk 10:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@Galatz: @Prefall: I prefer leaving the Championship/awards in different section. I believe is more organized that way.Colton Meltzer (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it should be left as "in wrestling" while "championships and accomplishments should not be a sub-section. There was nothing wrong with how it was before. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Colton Meltzer: @Fishhead2100: Do you have any reasons other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? You havent said anything to address the concerns with the previous method. Like Kurt Angle, you would go to "In wrestling" to see about his amateur wrestling, it does a disservice to the reader. Keep in mind the reason this topic started is an outside person reviewing a page was confused as to what it meant. - GalatzTalk 11:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Galatz: How is "in wrestling" vague? The "in wrestling" section has headers in bold to tell you what each section is. If it's too hard to tell that one section is for "finishing moves" or "entrance themes," than I don't know what to tell you. If they read the lead introduction section, they'll know the person is or was a pro wrestler, than from there, the rest should be easy to get. When do you have finishing moves in amateur wrestling? When do you have entrance themes in amateur wrestling? As far as championships and accomplishments go, you don't put it as a sub-section because it also can include amateur wrestling and other accomplishments outside of wrestling. For instance, Becca Swanson has had accomplishments outside of pro wrestling in body building. That's why the championships and accomplishment section is not a sub-section. The "in wrestling" is for pro wrestling items and the championships and accomplishments section is not strictly pro wrestling. 15:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: If you have to actually look at a section's content to make sense of its heading, then that is an issue. "In wrestling" could pertain to literally anything within professional (or amateur) wrestling and seem redundant to other sections. As I've said before, feel free to recommend a new term for the heading, but falling back to "In wrestling" ignores those issues. I'm also not married to the idea of C&A being a subsection but it's appropriate under the current "Highlights" heading.
This is beside the point, but I would honestly propose to outright remove the "In wrestling/"Highlights" section if I knew that idea wouldn't be despised in these circles. It's pure fancruft and any truly significant material could be covered in "career" or "persona" sections. Prefall 16:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Prefall: The section name "professional wrestling highlights" could also refer to their career because with the career section, you don't put every little thing they do each week and whatnot. If you removed it and people who wanted to know about their move set and whatnot, they would have go off Wikipedia. Wikipedia is more thorough with that stuff than other sites like Internet Wrestling Database, Online World of Wrestling, Cagematch, etc.. I still would rather leave the section titled "in wrestling." How adamant are you in wanting the name change? If you are set on changing the name, I'd have to think on the name. According to WP:CRUFT, using the term "fancruft" can be considered uncivil. It also says that fancruft tends to focus on the fictional aspects of the subject rather than their place in the real world. But that would mean the career section is fancruft considering wrestling is scripted. But I can see how you can could say this section is trivial. But fancruft refers to content that is unencyclopedic that possibly violated policies of verifiability, neutrality, or original research. This section violates none of that. It's not like we just made up the moves, themes, and whatnot. So your use of the term fancruft is not correct. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: I absolutely think it should be changed. Even if you prefer the previous heading, it needs to at least be "In professional wrestling"—shorthand has no benefits and will sometimes cause an overlapping confusion with amateur wrestling.
The truth is that professional wrestling articles are largely ignored by the rest of the Wikipedia community, so rarely are any of our long-standing guidelines put under scrutiny. In my opinion, the "In wrestling" section is typically used as a database to house every ounce of information regardless of its notability. It is not uncommon to find large lists of signature moves that are only supported by a citation saying the wrestler performed the move (which we specifically say not to do in our style guide; "signature moves" is not meant to be a move set), an entire catalog worth of entrance themes cited by a database entry (which does not establish notability), or date ranges, in-depth explanations of moves and other notes that are entirely unsupported. You cannot convince me that any non-fan thinks things like a list of signature move names or entrance themes enhances the article or understanding of the subject.
I also think a good argument can be made about your typical "Professional wrestling career" section being crufty but I'm not interested in diving down that path. Prefall 19:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Prefall: I am okay with the section being called "In professional wrestling" or "In pro wrestling." I changed the style guide to the use the better name for the "in wrestling" section. I do understand that pro wrestling has a niche editor base. That doesn't mean we have to bow down or buckle to the non-wrestling editors. You are saying the "in wrestling" section is cruft, but with how part of the cruft page is worded, that would mean the career section is cruft because it is scripted and has fictional elements to it. That's what I was getting at. I am not saying it needs to be changed. I have no problems with the career section. When it comes to the Luchas de Apuestas, would be it be better in championships and accomplishments rather than the "in professional wrestling" section? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: I think you're jumping ahead a little too quick with the changes. No one besides myself has chimed in and that heading was just an alternate suggestion should an overwhelming consensus be reached to revert. We waited ten days and had unanimous support from five editors at the time. This discussion should continue before we decide to override that or stick with it. Hasty back-and-forth changes benefit no one and could get us in trouble for edit warring. Prefall 04:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Prefall: To make the initial change, there wasn't an overwhelming consensus. There was only three people who agreed. That's not overwhelming. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: To recap: Galatz (the nominator), Oknazevad, Lee Vilenski, and myself agreed. Aircorn also found it acceptable. After the fact, NotTheFakeJTP helped convert a lot of articles and did not oppose the changes when commenting here. Str1977 is not in agreement with the "Highlights" term but was not a fan of the previous heading either. At the moment, it is just you and Colton Meltzer who wholly oppose changes to the previous heading or format.
Idealistically, we want to agree upon a new heading (and possibly format) that clearly and accurately explains what the section is about. "In wrestling" or "In professional wrestling" (which solves one issue but not the major one being its vagueness) are not preferable. Prefall 05:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Prefall: Five is still not that overwhelming. NotTheFakeJTP didn't agree either. By the looks of things, he was indifferent. The format is fine. There is nothing vague about it. Each heading states what the section is. For instance, wrestlers trained is self-explanatory. I would rather have "in professional wrestling" than "professional wrestling highlights." "Professional wrestling highlights" could refer to other sections. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: You keep referring to the content of the section rather than the heading itself. The heading—"In wrestling" or "In professional wrestling"—needs to be a concise representation of what the section is about, and it is not (even less so than "Highlights"). You can not like "Highlights", that is fine, but please suggest something better. Prefall 06:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Prefall: How do you not know what the section is about? Is it to Would you say It houses information not found elsewhere. More specifically, it houses information that isn't necessary in the career section for instance. When it comes to the filmography section, would you question it? Do you not know what it is for? Why is this section difficult to understand? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: Because "in wrestling" or "in professional wrestling" is extremely broad and can pertain to literally anything within wrestling. "Filmography" is a common term, so you immediately know it will be a list of works in film. Prefall 15:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • My attention was recently brought back to this discussion after a message was left on my talk page. I am a little worried by the comment above that says That doesn't mean we have to bow down or buckle to the non-wrestling editors. Wikiprojects exist to develop content within the greater wikipedia environment. If you think wikiprojects should solely set the rules on how this content is presented you would be better off starting your own wiki. If the aim is to produce good encyclopedic articles then good faith outside opinions should be welcomed. To be fair the majority of editors here have been very receptive and it looked like we had unanimous consensus. I still think there is consensus here. If this project can't come to an agreement on a better heading I am willing to start an RFC. If I find it problematic and some editors involved in these articles also do then it is reasonable to expect the wider community will too. AIRcorn (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Aircorn: That wasn't the best choice of words. I've crossed it out. I am actually not against people editing. Like I said, poor choice of words. I've actually did an RFC on another item and got one person or so responding. When it comes to the rest of Wikipedia, pro wrestling has a small editor base. It just doesn't get the attention from the rest of the editors. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I feel that "Professional Wrestling Career Details" or "Professional Wrestling Career Information" could work better instead of Professional Wrestling Highlights. I feel that Championships And Accomplishments should be it's own section due to wrestlers like Angle, Lesnar, Shamrock, etc who have accomplishments in other sports or activities. Keeping Championships and Accomplishments under Professional Wrestling Highlights could be confusing to some readers. HC7 (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I think like HC7. I didn't give my opinion since I didn't think about a better option. However, I think Highlights is wrong. A move it's not a highlight. That secions looks like their biggest moments in their career (like Hulk Hogan Slamming Andre, nWo or Shawn Michaels attacking Jannetty). Pro wrestling information or details fits better. Also, the C&A should be his own section, since some wrestlers won titles in other sports (mma, amateur wrestling, bodybuilding) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I like what HHH Pedrigree said. Professional wrestling information or pro wrestling information works. It is way better than "professional wrestling highlights." People don't get that "professional wrestling highlights" could also refer to the career section. Moves, entrance themes, nicknames, and everything else that goes in that section isn't a highlight. Yes, keep the championships and accomplishments should be separate. I've said it before and I will continue to say it. Luchas de Apuestas section is fine as its own section. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I suppose I don't mind "Professional wrestling details". It still has a vagueness to it but at least it's an improvement over "In wrestling". Luchas de Apuestas is another section I would love to entirely remove but I'm not sure that is a popular opinion. Prefall 23:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
In Mexico that section is more important than the Championship section, just FYI.  MPJ-DK  00:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I was going to elaborate that it is likely very significant in lucha libre culture, but not so much everywhere else. The major focus on individual matches with such a large table has just always stuck out to me. Prefall 00:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@MPJ-DK: Sidenote, I have added Luchas de Apuestas to the style guide. Since you have more acknowledge of this subject than anyone else here, I'd like you to review my edit and make changes or expand on it if necessary. Prefall 21:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I remember a discussion about the Lucha de Apuestas. I think we reduced to mask, hair, titles and maybe (i'm not sure) career/contract. For example, the Punk/Mysterio wouldn't be a lucha de apuestas. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I found these three in the archives:
Consensus seemed to be masks and hair, and sometimes career. I copied the Mysterio example straight from his article (with certain details removed). From my understanding, as long as a mask or hair is wagered, it counts. So, mask vs. stable pledge would count, but title vs. contract would not. Prefall 22:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with that definition, that was the consensus.  MPJ-DK  22:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Also an issue I would have with having a career on the line match included is Ric Flair had 6 months in WWE where his career was on the line for every match. It definitely would need both people to have something on the line. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

How does the Mysterio/Punk not fit into this, btw? Are these matches ONLY for matches that both competitors have something on the line? Careers shouldn't be included, otherwise something like Samoa Joe/Kurt Angle would be included (Joe put his career on the line in that match if I remember correctly). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I think a lucha de apuestas is a match where both wrestlers apuestan a hair, mask or championship. I mean, other thing, like hair vs join the nexus it's not a lucha de apuestas. For example, I remember a strange thing in TNA Sacrifie 2009, it was a championship/leader of Main Event Mafia/control of TNA/carrer between Foley, Angle, Sting and Jarrett. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Trying to gain clarity (closed)

Overwhelming consensus is to eliminate the "in wrestling"/"professional wrestling highlights" section in general from biographies and articles on teams/stables. If content is important to the article subject it should be worked into the prose, potentially in a "wrestling persona" section.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So exactly where are we at with this? I see two generally liked suggestions, we should pick one and stick with it. Options are

  • Professional wrestling highlights
  • Professional wrestling details
  • Eliminate the section completly (late addition)
Before we change half the articles to one and half to the other leaving half in the original state (yes I good at math) what is the general feeling on this?  MPJ-DK  01:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with either option. Though, it should be noted that the "Highlights" option goes hand-in-hand with C&A being a subsection beneath it. "Details" would not have to abide by that.
With this new focus on ridding wrestling articles of in-universe and fancruft content, I would also like to reiterate my dissatisfaction with this section and will continue to advocate for its removal. This section, more than any other, will continue to be a magnet for cruft and provide little value. Prefall 03:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
You make a good point, I loathe the "signature move overload" syndrome. That would be a third option, total elimination of the section. managers or people trained lists should be turned to prose and part of the biography, "signature moves" is pointless, entrance music is trivial. I will add a third option.  MPJ-DK  04:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Eliminate - I've always been of the opinion that we need to significantly trim this part of the articles down or remove them altogether. Most of it is cruft or trivial. I prefer the idea of a "Wrestling persona" section (see CM Punk) that describes notable moves, characteristics, songs, etc. but explains how they relate to the person, character or character development rather than an endless list with no context. Nikki♥311 15:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Eliminate Now that it's an official option. Agree with MPJ-DK and Nikki311 wholeheartedly. I'm not aware of any other articles about fictional characters that group a bunch of character information into a contextless list format such as this. Notable aspects from this section can be covered more adequately in prose. Prefall 19:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Eliminate - I never really understood 100% why we had this section, but its existed for so long I never really questioned the keeping vs not. A lot of the smaller articles have this section as the majority of the article. I do not see it having much encylopediac value as is, it would be much better worked into the article rather than in this section - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Eliminate - it's borderline trivia. if info is important (innovated a more etc.) it should be in the prose instead. I think this elimination would go some way towards articles being less "fan-ish"  MPJ-DK  21:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Comment - I understand the removal of Signature moves, trained wrestlers, managers, as this would help against cruft... However, potentially Finishing Maneuvers and championships seem a bit more neutral. Some finishing moves are more iconic than the wrestler giving the move (Say the Elbow Drop, or the Canadian Destroyer), and I feel a complete removal of the section may drop any links to these sorts of articles. The championships section, whilst clearly being in kayfabe, is comparrable to other awards that are given to people (Say, the OSCARs), so I'd be completely against removing the championships won. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is saying that championship section should be deleted. Finishing moves could and should be worked into article. Seth Rollins losing the curb stomp because it was shown on TV and didn't look good but then getting it back with a new name is easy to have it in prose. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 10:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Clarification this does not include the Championship section. And as mentioned, if important work info into the prose.  MPJ-DK  11:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, that's fine then. Realistically, the awards section is potentially the most notable (And even a potential way of judging notability) aspect of an article. The finishing moves, I agree could be worked into an article, especially for the "Professional Wrestling Persona" section. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry if we weren't clear. I think the "Championships and accomplishments" should stay as well for the reasons you mentioned. Nikki♥311 14:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Eliminate I was going to add Eliminate but keep C&A but that has since been clarified. It has always been a struggle to find sources for this section, even a major star like Roman Reigns has multiple citations to prove that a move is a "signature move". If it's that difficult to source then it's probably not notable and the multiple sources are probably WP:SYN anyway.LM2000 (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
(Reluctant) Eliminate I'm all for incorporating any notable finishing moves into a "Professional Wrestling Persona" section similar to Punk's or Bryan's articles. Duffs101 (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Pretty unanimous so far, but we should probably keep this open for a few more days so more People get a chance to share Their oppinions so we get consensus (and not just a straight out vote)  MPJ-DK  15:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Eliminate/Comment I'm all for removing the section. However, I'm confused on the situation for finishing moves. Not every wrestler has a finisher with a history like Seth Rollins, so it can be somewhat difficult to include it in prose, however some moves are significantly attached/associated with the wrestler, to which it should be included somewhere in the article. I'm interested in what we can do with the "Wrestling persona" section previously mentioned, as I feel like it can hit some key non-trivial points that the "highlights" section lacked. Sekyaw (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep Championship Section should be separated again to make it organized. Rather make it more complex if we run into a..MMA Fighter who is also wrestler..Championship/Awards Section should never been drag into this. Pro Wresting Moves section should be kept as before..no question ask. 20:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Colton Meltzer (talk)

Can you elaborate on why you want to keep the "In wrestling" section? Prefall 20:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
short and simple - It shows most wrestlers moves a wrestler did in ring against someone. Makes the Wikipedia Wrestler page more interesting to edit. Sources can be made low priority to make it easier to have moves info posted on there (EX 15 users saw this wrestler do a Jumping Suplex on WWE) Rather than linking citing most of time. Colton Meltzer (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
So you want to keep it because it's interesting, and you want to source it with original research? That stuff is for a professional wrestling wikia or database. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Nikki♥311 21:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Colton Meltzer - I don't think I have seen you post in the pro-wrestling project before, although I have seen your name related to PW edits, so welcome. The suggestion is to keep the championship section and eliminate the "in wrestling" section, so we are on the same page for C&A. As for the "in wrestling" section, the concern is many-fold 1) That section quickly turns into trivia - WP:TRIVIA - which we really should avoid 2) We don't have a good definition for what a "signature move" is, which your comments feed into - just because someone did a "jumping suplex" doesn't necessarily mean it's a "signature move", the section is awash with Original research on what should be listed as very few sources exist to claim what is a "signature move" (example Ricky Steamboat's arm drag is one that's not OR) but becomes a target of repeated, daily additions, changes, edits and to some edit warring when someone puts in what "they saw on Raw" 3) Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a wrestling profile etc. thus all content should ideally be well sourced and most of the "in wrestling" section is poorly sourced 4) anything that's important to the wrestler that was previously in the "in wrestling" should be written into the prose - managers, actual finishing moves etc. instead of the list at the bottom. So I appreciate your interest, but unfortunately, none of your comments are in line with Wikipedia's core guidelines.  MPJ-DK  00:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Eliminate Thinking about it more, most of the moves are simply WP:OR or unsourced, and it'd be better if it was just removed. For example, Seth Rollins' Avada Kedavra's sourcing does not connect the name to the description, and the description in the source does not match the written description. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-closure discussion

  • I think we have consensus for the removal. I will update the MOS and I suggest we leave a note in the article to discourage the return of that section. Something along the lines of <!---The Pro Wrestling project reached a consensus in late June 2018 to eliminate the "in wrestling" section. Please do not add it back in. Important information should be added into the article as prose, with reliable sources.--> or words to that effect. Thank you to everyone that participated in the discussion, I think this is an important step forward to eliminate the "fancrufty" elements of pro wrestling articles.  MPJ-DK  00:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)k
Unbelievable, It is what it is, Championship Section should have improvements too..like posting picture of them winning some big company championship like WWE,ROH, TNA or NJPW. Colton Meltzer (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
That is a separate discussion, if you want to start that be my guest. As for pictures we have copyright rules to consider, we cannot just copy a picture off the internet, there are rules for this.  MPJ-DK  00:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We can only use images that are freely licensed (see WP:Image use policy), which are not easy to come by. Non-free file use is extremely strict (see WP:Non-free content criteria) and would not be allowed in these types of situations. Prefall 00:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I tried to applied this new change to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tye_Dillinger but i was given a HG, RIP Colton Meltzer (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, you will need to clarify within the edit summary that your changes are based on a new consensus at WT:PW, and possibly link to this discussion. Otherwise it looks like vandalism to editors who are not involved in this project. Prefall 00:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Bit late to this party, but I saw a "wrestling highlights" where the other thing was for years a day or so ago, and thought it looked dumb. If every single move, manager, championship and trainee is a highlight, none are. That's just the nature of light. But whatever, I can grow to ignore it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I have updated everyone on the List of WWE personnel page through the UK brand, but not past that. Any bets on how long until IP editors start reverting like crazy to restore? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 03:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

This a defeat for the entire inclusionist movement...as if it weren't tragic enough, your uncivil jab at the end has only made it worse. I am now considering leaving Wikipedia already now...there's no place for inclusionists anymore. Tom Danson (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Please don't bring blackmail into this argument. We shouldn't simply include information simply because people like it. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
@Tom Danson: It is not uncivil, there is a WELL DOCUMENTED issue with this on wikipedia. I would like to also point out to you that no one on here said this information has no place on wikipedia, just not as a list which is WP:CRUFT. Please read above and the summary at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional wrestling/Style guide#Professional wrestling highlights / In wrestling, which describes this. Its about prose vs list, but about inclusion vs deletion, please read more carefully before being accusatory. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I like to show one old Ribbon Salminen articles: Nakamura. In japan, finishers are very important. So, their articles read "Nkamura began to work a much rougher style, using a lot of knees and continuing to use a straight right hand as a frequent move in addition to the Bomaye (renamed Kinshasa in WWE), his new finisher." I think it's a great way to include moves into the article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Perfect example, that is exactly how important information should be incorporated. With a purpose, not just indiscriminate data for datas sake.  MPJ-DK  13:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
To those removing the in wrestling/highlights section, please watch out for reference errors. I have come across a few already and expect next week's cleanup listing to be very large. JTP (talk • contribs) 04:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry do you have an example of the issue? In my experience a broken link caused by removal is fixed about an hour later by a bot. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
There is a bot that solves exactly this issue (I think it's called reference medic); but clearly, it's better not to have the issue at all.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

To those removing the important parts of wrestling wikis, you're driving a lot of people away. This is a very, very bad decision. In fact, the in wrestling section is the main reason a lot of people use wrestling wiki pages. Reverse this decision or forever be known as the people who ruined wrestling on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.116.246 (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Please read wikipedia guidelines, IP user, specifically WP:ILIKEIT, as a deletion discussion. The fact that people like, or would use a section of an article, is not a reason to keep it. Wikipedia is a worldwide encylopedia, and this information has been shown to have no basis as a general list on pages. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop removing information. No one cares if your small group made a consensus. This site is for information and you are all actively going against that. Reddit alone has hundreds of people who agree that this is a terrible idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.165.62.168 (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Redit is NOT a reliable source, nor is it in any way related to Wikipedia. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a source or related to wikipedia. Reddit has a massive community of wrestling fans who agree this is a bad idea. What you're doing doesn't just effect wikipedia, it effects any wrestling fan coming here. You are removing information from an information website for no valid reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.165.62.168 (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Scroll up and read carefully. Information should be included in the article in prose as necessary. Not a random list of information. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There is clear reasonings why this is being done above. We have recently had general sanctions placed on our project regarding in-universe being prevelent on our articles, where there shouldn't be. Admins now have more strength than ever to remove disruptive editing and impose topic bans. Refering to us as a small group is rather anecdotal, as the project is here to improve our coverage of pro wrestling topics. However, there are LOTS of guidelines regarding what material is deemed suitible, and those that are not suitible for wikipedia. The consensus (above), is that the section "In Wrestling", provides information that is not-notable, mostly Original Research (Such as signature moves), or could easily be placed into prose. The information being "removed", can simply be placed into text, which is better for the project, and other editors as well. You are welcome to make your own proposal, if you wish, however, talking and consensus is how wikipedia works.
You should also note, that Wikipedia isn't a "information website". It's an online encylopedia. Not everything is permitted. See What Wikipedia is not, and WP:NOTSTATS. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOT has a section called "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". What about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of sources"? See Pain and Passion: The History of Stampede Wrestling § Reception for an all-too-obvious example. I'm looking at a dumping ground of citations, many of which don't appear to point to reliable sources, in lieu of any meaningful context to speak of. I came across that mess from reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger Joe Tomasso. I laughed my balls off over one comment in that AFD: "He was a mainstay of Stampede, arguably the biggest and most notable Canadian pro wrestling promotion in history". Evidently, folks are still a little too drunk on WWE's Kool-Aid to have paid careful attention to the AN(I) threads in which this project was repeatedly referred to as a walled garden. Stampede's main venue is a 1,500–2,000-seat agricultural pavilion. In the United States, this is the sort of building one would go to during the annual county fair to view the local farmers' prized horses and livestock. Compare this with Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg. During the years of Stampede's heyday, wrestling events in those places were held in real arenas and local promoters mostly had little trouble filling those arenas. The broad syndication of Stampede Wrestling was due more to Canadian content laws than due to the popularity of the program. There are two Vancouver-area radio stations I occasionally receive here thousands of miles away during the colder/darker months. One, CHMJ, broadcasts nothing but traffic reports 24 hours a day. Another, KVRI, broadcasts programming for Vancouver's large Indian community. Because of that, their broadcasting license and transmitter are just across the border in Blaine, Washington, despite their offices and studio being in a Vancouver suburb. That's how wacky Canadian content laws are. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Saying wikipedia "isn't an information website, it's an online encyclopedia" is flabbergasting. An encyclopedia is literally a book of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.165.62.168 (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not a random list. It's a section dedicated to accomplishments and the building blocks of each wrestler. Yes,, wikipedia articles should generally be written out as paragraphs, but there are plenty of times and scenarios, like this, where a list is needed and justified. You're actively going against the community, wikipedia, and information itself by removing these sections. A consensus between the minority opinion does not overrule the majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.165.62.168 (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

This topic was actually brought up from someone outside of the community, reviewing a Good Article nomination. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
This topic has also been discussed here at length for several weeks and is open for anyone to discuss. This topic was open to anyone to contribute to, including yourself. This was not just open to a small group, and discussions such as this are why wikiprojects exist. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I didn't participate since I was againt it, so I dind't want to angry myself. However, reading your arguments I see your point. Also,the last months I was watching the In Wrestling section and it's hard (nearly impossible) to keep. One time names as official nicknames, theme songs without source, a tag team partner accompained a wrestler and becomes his manager... I prefer to delete and include in the article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject describes a wikiproject as the central place for editor collaboration on a particular topic area. Editors there develop criteria, maintain various collaborative processes, keep track of work that needs to be done, and act as a forum where issues of interest to the editors of a subject may be discussed. This is exactly what we did. I suggest if you would like to contribute to these discussions in the future that you register for an account and follow this page, the enable you to know when discussions occur. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • long, very long story short this isn't a place to indiscriminately list Gran Metalik's 200 "signature moves", that is trivial info, which is against the Wikipedia princples. And I say this as Gran Metalik's biggest fan ever. "Reddit users think", then build something on Reddit if they are so gung ho about it.  MPJ-DK  16:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Btw - this is not a wrestling wiki, go find one of those is that is what you want. Article quality is not increased because of a list of moves. Articles do not become GA or FA quality because of a list of moves. If editors are not here to improve the quality of a subject they like, what is thr point? My sound harsh but I have little patience for those thinking this is Wrestlepedia, not Wikipedia. You in the wrong neighborhood buddy.  MPJ-DK  16:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm just some random user like the other guy. Sorry we're dredging all this up when you have a consensus of editors, hope we're not proving too much of an annoyance. But anyway, aren't wrestlers' signature and finishing moves important parts of their individual biographies and performance histories? Baseball pitchers' style entries contain information on what pitches a player uses within their repertoire (cutter, slider, change-up, fastball, etc.), and this doesn't strike me as being too different. I understand sourcing concerns and original research problems make these lists difficult to maintain relative to Wikipedia standards, and the general sanctions by ANI make it fairly clear that the "powers that be" dislike any in-universe discussion in professional wrestling articles. But the section doesn't strike me as in-universe discussion or trivial fancruft so much as biographical information of a performer which cannot be cleanly implemented into the "Career" section. Moreover, while it might raise concerns for being listcruft, incorporating a more frequent "wrestling persona" section like CM Punk's (the most common replacement scheme I've seen for the section) appears to open up a more dangerous fancruft problem for incorporating more qualitative or subjective prose in paragraph form rather than the simple enumeration a list can create. I can see the necessity of a clean-up to standards, but I guess I don't understand the advocacy for a complete excising. 67.244.146.250 (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Civilized conversation is never a problem and I thank you for that. "Signature" is a meaningless germ in 99% of the cases. Example, "Armdrag" signature move of Ricky Steamboat, most everyone else it is "just a move they use" like a CAW assigned moved. Unless the move is significant it had no encylopedic merit IMO. Someone created a move? In the prose, with sources. Someone happens to have learned to do a suplex in wrestling school, trivial. The section was poorly defined and thus open to someone just pouring in move after move. The spend 100 edits adding made up move names or adjusting links, descriptions etc. based on their own opinion or interprtation. If there are valid reasons to include something I am all for including it - if it has encylopedic value and not just random trivial info.  MPJ-DK  16:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
One hundred percent the above. We aren't saying all moves are unimportant, but if it is important, it can be written about. A list of moves with no elaboration is completely irrelevant Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I can appreciate that, but where would significant moves like finishers or innovated moves be included in the new scheme? Direct sources rarely attribute a precise year to a move's innovation or a finisher's first use, so it would be difficult to place the shiranui's invention anywhere chronologically in Naomichi Marufuji's "career" section. More widespread use of a "wrestling persona" section similar to CM Punk's or Daniel Bryan's entries in the styleguide might appear as an invitation for using original research to describe such a persona, and entries for wrestlers like Trevor Lee or Donovan Dijak right now would be likely thin and solely include their finishing move anyway. Trimming down the list to currently or historically significant moves is certainly understandable (though the definition of encyclopedic significance is also a question I'm curious about), lord knows I have no idea why the Styles Clash was listed on Hiroshi Tanahashi's wiki entry. But if information relating to moves is significant (either as a finisher or an innovated move appears to be the consensus thus far), where would it be included? 67.244.146.250 (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) For anyone curious about what the Reddit is actually saying without looking at this situation from an editor's standpoint, here is the thread. The two people who actually somewhat looked at it our way got downvoted to oblivion. JTP (talk • contribs) 17:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I had a read. Some things people say seem to have a deep routed problem with how Wikipedia operates (but then, everything is up for debate on Wikipedia.) The big thing, weirdly is spoilers. Somehow it's a problem that Wikipedia posts up information as and when they happen, and not on a tape delay. People shouldn't look things up in general on Wikipedia if they want to avoid spoilers. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Ro-Rou I was part of that LU Spoiler discussion, I guess Reddit don't like me.  MPJ-DK  19:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for that, it is important to understand the context of comments. I do want to apologize for making your CAW creation harder, I do wish that was a more important aspect of Wikipedia.  MPJ-DK  17:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The "In Wrestling/Pro Wrestling Highlights" section has been a vital resource to those Creating wrestlers in games like the WWE 2k series or Fire Pro. Where knowing that say Travis Banks does an armdrag might be a bit of a no-brainier to some, having even simple moves gives the CAW community more basis for their lighter moves and not just Finishers and a couple others. Also, from a story telling aspect, having a list of moves that a wrestler does regularly gives a basis for a reader of what to expect out of a match. So when someone like John Cena throws out a rare dropkick, it shows that Cena is either: A) Desperate to win the match, and will try anything that could work or B) Adding something new to their repertoire. Which are both notable to the story of the match, and by extension, valuable info to have on a site like Wiki. PopTartPowerbomb (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Totally agree. So you agree it is trivial information that new fans won't care about and existing fans either already know or don't care about? I am simply trying to find out if you are for or against removal since your logic is for removing and comment is against it. MPJ-DK  18:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The backlash from hardcore fans was expected (it's called fancruft for a reason). While I do understand their frustration and sympathize, I don't think a lot of them understand what WP:Wikipedia is not, particularly WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. For things such as designing CAWs, the use of an actual database or fan wikia will suit those needs far better than Wikipedia ever could. Prefall 19:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

    • You can link to your WP articles and your long-winded, drawn out, oceans of procedure and rules all you want, it doesn't make you right. The problem is that this is the result of a long, long takeover of Wikipedia by deletionists. They have their policies in place so they can do what they want. The "votes" are a facade, there's no true democracy, they just link to the deletionist policy already in place and you're not allowed to argue against it. There's a reason Wikipedia is bleeding editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.44.75.199 (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Knew It - That one of reason why, wanted to keep the "In Wresting" Section as it been on Wikapedia more than 10 years. I knew this "change" going encounter backlash.🤣 Wikapedia is a information database. (The moves are part of the information) Colton Meltzer (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
See WP:NOT for more information. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
That is probably just a Wikapedia Logic for that meaning. By the way i basically first person to oppose the "In Wresting" change. I did not realize the majority opposed too.Colton Meltzer (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Removing vast amounts of information because you don't like the way it is formatted is not a solution to anything. Yes, these sections were messy, and could use some cleaning up. But you're removing vital information from these articles. You're disregarding backlash as just being whiny fanboys, completely disregarding that knowing a wrestler's finishing maneuver is one of the number one things an average person coming to Wikipedia for information on a wrestler is going to be looking for. Did we need 50 lines of "signature" moves on every wrestler's page? Of course not. But their key finishing moves are essential information. You keep saying that if the information is so important it should be addressed in the prose. Well then maybe you should've made these edits to the prose first? Did you think about that? As it is you just removed bytes and bytes of information with zero plan of restoring any of it in a more appropriate form. As it is most wrestler's pages do not, at any point, explain what their finishing move is. At the very least you should've maintained a couple lines dedicated strictly to their finishing moves. You could even fit it into their info box at the top of the page.206.45.59.254 (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

A proposal for something like that could be made. However, consensus above is to remove the section. Any editor that goes against consensus, without being willing to discuss will be warned and then topic banned, due to our general sanctions that we have had imposed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • So I want to clear up something - the consensus was to remove the section itself. No one has said the article cannot include what their finishing move is, mentioning their manager etc. in the prose of the article. To all those that complain, can you tell me it's "Vital" to list that Gran Metalik uses an "Open-handed chop"? Even with 3 sources showing that he's used it how is Gran Metalik has used an Open-handed chop three times considered "essential"? As for "you should have made these edits" my response is - go for it dude *thumbs up*.  MPJ-DK  20:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
No I do not think that is vital. I do however think it is vital to list that Gran Metalik's finishing move is the Metalik Driver. Which is currently not mentioned a single time on his entire page. Be it in the prose or elsewhere.206.45.59.254 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Totally legit, totally allowed with proper sources, no one has said otherwise.  MPJ-DK  20:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
it feel this change going bring lot of admins here to (who are no involved in project) to address this. Colton Meltzer (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
And what will they do? one side sites Wikipedia polices and guidelines as reasons to remove it, other side cites "I like it" and "but my CAWs" as a reason to add it in. I would welcome an Admin review of the consensus to remove the section, no worries.  MPJ-DK  20:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Removing the section without adding certain content back is valid criticism. Personally, their finishing move being included is a nice detail, but in a majority of cases does not significantly enhance the understanding of the subject, so I'm not bothered when it's missing. Feel free to add them yourself. As for the infobox suggestion, that can be proposed but seems inappropriate. We have to draw the line somewhere between these articles being about the performers who happen to portray fictional characters in a simulated sport, or being about the fictional characters themselves. Prefall 20:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • People please do not delete other people's comment on a talk page, against the rules and with the General Sanctions for pro wrestling topics you could end up getting banned.  MPJ-DK  20:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Welp this change..., i guess back to Edit MMA/UFC pages for awhile until the Pro Wresting Wikpedia Project issues get resolved. Have a nice day. Colton Meltzer (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Many of us here have voiced our opinions on why the "In Wrestling/Pro Wrestling Highlights" section should stay. But are we wasting our time if there is nothing that can be done to revert this change? Do we need X amount of people to voice their disapproval in order for something to happen? Or something of that aspect? PopTartPowerbomb (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

  • So here is the thing - this isn't decided by a vote, it doesn't work by majority. Wikipedia is a place of guidelines and structure, I have not seen a single "keep the section" argument that actually explain what Wikipedia guidelines support their point of view that the section is appropriate and should stay. With the discussion being closed before the influx of editors who've never commented on anything here ever before, removing the "in wrestling" section is the current status. Just like before it was the standard to have it included. How did this get changed? We started a community discussion, presented arguments for our point of view based on our interpretations of the various wikipedia guidelines. So if you want this changed you can start a new, separate discussion on this (at the bottom of this page in a seperate section) to try and build a different policy/guideline based consensus. If you would like a broader audience to provide input on if the "In Wrestling" part should be added back in you can always follow the steps outlined in Wikipedia:Requests for comment which usually reached a broader audience who'd give you their policy/guideline based opion, which may or may not favor inclusion.  MPJ-DK  00:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
For those that don't follow wrestling week to week, what if someone new comes up and they want to learn their moves? Now they can't. How does this help anyone? Evil Yugi (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Everyone who is frustrated with this change should check out The Pro Wrestling Wikia. It lists all of the moves for wrestlers, updates with week by week info, and you can edit over there with less restrictions than here. Nikki♥311 02:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Knew It - I knew this "change" would create a massive explosion. Colton Meltzer (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Removing it all is bad IMO, it was an easy way to find out what moves a wrestler does. Now it'll be harder to like, create them in games and such. Plus if WWE sign a new dude and you wanna know what moves they use, you were able to go to Wiki and find out. ...now you're doomed. I'd at least keep the finishers.Muur (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Plus it's an invaluable resource for new fans of wrestling.Muur (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

How do we appeal this decision? This seems to be an absolute joke done with nobody watching. There's quite a few people whocame to find this place to complain about the sudden information loss caused here and I've talked to a few outside of here who are absolutely disappointed. I'd wonder if this was some sort of elaborate troll. It was sloppy and could have been formatted better, but it was a very useful guide to learn about what a wrestler does really quickly. You could gain so much insight into their style in a couple seconds and what that wrestler is looking to do. Klichka (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Whoa, there. WP:AGF and keep it WP:CIVIL. This isn't a "joke" or an "elaborate troll". You can voice your opinion at WP:VPP, though I suggest you back your argument up with some policies, because WP:ITSUSEFUL is not one. JTP (talk • contribs) 01:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I just read this quote above: "The fact that people like, or would use a section of an article, is not a reason to keep it."

Uh, the fact that people use a section of an article is a perfect reason to keep it. Wikipedia is supposed to be a place to find information. Eliminating a source of information because it violates some arcane set of rules that only make sense in your head is stupid. This mindset is baffling and has no place on a website whose goal is to share knowledge.

This whole thing seems to more to do with have to do with MPJ-DK's insatiable desire to lord over his precious little section of the internet than it does with helping make Wikipedia better and more user friendly.

Put the lists back.

Neighbormania (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Neighbormania could you please refrain from making personal attacks? It really does not help your position at all. Also, see further down this page, the discussion on removal has been brought to a much broader audience at the Village Pump. Warning, calling people stupid or other personal attacks there will get you banned, keep it civil. Toodles my good Wikipedian.  MPJ-DK  19:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

(This comment was moved since it was not made by Neighbormania) - I would like to add remember when Wikipedia always asks for donations? Well if the site don't give a damn about us then why should we care what happens to them. And WHEN not IF, but WHEN the site is gone I want everyone that was in favor of removing In Wrestling section to remember this one sentence: Wrestling fans didn't kill Wikipeda, Wikipedia killed Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flame Thrower 9118 (talk • contribs)

Example of how "In wrestling" can be reworked by someone

  • I figure the best way to show what I'm talking about is to literally show it. So previously the Máscara Dorada article listed at least 26 different moves that are supposedly his "signature" moves - including both a Frankensteiner AND hurricanrana (same move) as well as the "trademark" chop that he and every single other wrestler with hands uses. Instead I added in a new section, Máscara Dorada#Wrestling persona and style, since he has not developed a ton of character beyond "Luchador face" I figured "and style" would be appropriate so his general wrestling style can be described in prose and a couple of moves could be included/explained. It does not invite editors to pile on every move he's done in the ring, but focusing on the non-trivial stuff. It's Encylopedic, sourced and written in prose. I do hope people can live without knowing he has on occasion been called "El Rey de las Cuerdas".  MPJ-DK  01:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
    • This seems like a doable thing for most wrestlers. Is there a page (or pages) on wiki that define certain pro wrestling styles that you could direct me towards that I could link in a wrestler's page? Searching "brawler" for example brings me to, among other things, the boxing style. PopTartPowerbomb (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I've implemented something similar on Adam Page's... page, viewable here. I hope this is up to snuff. I don't mind doing this, and is a bit more fun writing than just listing moves TBH. PopTartPowerbomb (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Not to discourage you, because the content of your edit is mostly what we're looking for, but the sourcing needs a lot of work. The YouTube citations are all copyright violations (see WP:YOUTUBE for more information). The Twitter citation is also unreliable. I'd recommend you look at our list of reliable sources and work from there. Prefall 05:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Fixed the sources, never knew what qualified as a credible source. Also added his PW Wikia page to external links as that site has an "In Wrestling" section for those that still want it PopTartPowerbomb (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
In both the case of Adam Page & Máscara Dorada, the newly created sections are poorly written and hard to read, featuring bad sentence structure and grammatical errors. Additionally, this approach relies too heavily on a writer's perception of a move's relevance as it pertains to a wrestler. For example, while every wrestler can do a "chop", some wrestlers (like Máscara Dorada) have made it a signature part of their moveset & style due to their ability to perform the move. Until a definitive guide or style can be decided upon that makes the information clear, concise, & understandable, all changes going forward should be halted in accordance with WP:DEADLINE and all previous changes should be reverted. There seems to be a lot of rushing to change stuff, but no clear plan of action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Film Noirmbar (talk • contribs) 01:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Film Noirmbar So do you have a reliable source that actually states that the "chop is a signature part of Metalik's moveset"? Everything added should rely on what sources support, not perception or what someone thinks. I included moves that had an actual name in that section, beyond that I'd only add stuff if I find sources that states it is a "signature" or words to that effect, or it becomes Original Research. "Deadline" does not support reverting anything at all, only to not rush to create or delete articles - there was no rush to judgement here, the discussions went on for quite a while and not a single deletion was made before a policy based consensus was reached.  MPJ-DK  01:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I totally understand your point in relation to needing sources, but let's get back to the main topic. The current format, as seen in the Mascara Dorada page, is less than ideal as the way information is presented makes the information hard to read and could become more difficult to read when the topic is related to a wrestler whose career and moveset changes over time, such as Kotaro Suzuki for example. Additionally, I'm not 100% sure how that format would support someone who had signature moves while part of a tag team. If the plan was to delete the "in wrestling" section, only to replace it with a new section if needed, the action plan for how that new section should look should have been established and agreed on before the "in wrestling" section was deleted. Since it wasn't, "Deadline" would apply and support reverting the current changes back as there was a rush to delete the section without having everything in place to support the new section.
(Side-note: In relation to the sources in the first line citing Mascara Dorada as a "face", Source {2} seems to have a linking issue (I keep getting thrown to stl.news for some reason) & Source {5} only speaks to his in ring-style, not his position on the face/heel spectrum. Thought I'd let you know since you were working on that.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.157.91.247 (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
There isn't much to decide for its appearance. Whatever the wrestler is known for—their persona and/or wrestling style—should be covered in prose as seen fit, as long as the statements are properly sourced. If there are truly enough significant moves that straight prose looks messy (which should be extremely rare), they can be put into a short bulleted list format (like CM Punk's tattoos). This is all contextual and should be done at an editor's discretion.
Also, since the content was determined to be trivial, I don't think the new section is a high priority. Finishing moves are not critical to the understanding of these subjects. Prefall 04:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Finishing moves are not critical information for understanding a professional wrestler. You heard it here first. Wow. Do you even watch wrestling?206.45.59.254 (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Let me lay it out this way. the average article covers all of the notable companies they worked for, the years they did so, their significant matches, the championships and awards they won, along with personal information about the performer. Would it be an interesting detail to know what their most important move is? Sure. Is it absolutely necessary to the basic understanding of the performer or character? Not at all. Moves are also rarely discussed in the career section, as opposed to wins or losses, or basic storyline information. They're pretty far down the list in terms of priority. Prefall 04:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I forgot to note that the "Professional wrestling persona" section has been around for years and is not a new creation. It will just be used more prominently now with the removal of this section. Prefall 04:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Another admittedly frustrated person here, the "In wrestling" section was an important resource for myself, but if this is truly vastly more adherent to Wikipedia's guidelines (although extremely strict guideline fetishism is also one of my personal distastes) then I understand it will be fought vehemently for with little chance of "victory" from those who wish for the utmost level of inclusionism. As a side trivia note, a frankensteiner and hurricanrana are considered to be different moves. A huracanrana is followed immediately by a double leg cradle, whereas a frankensteiner excludes any direct pinfall transition. jcw91 (talk) 01:54, June 29, 2018 (UTC)
Then there could never, ever be any move called a "top rope huracanrana" as nobody is able to do the double leg cradle.  MPJ-DK  02:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Those that wish for the "utmost level of inclusionism" have already lost to Wikipedia's guidelines for trivia etc., not because an indiscriminant list of moves and unverfied data has been removed. I offer my condolences for your loss way back when.  MPJ-DK  02:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • So I'd suggest considering WP:DEADLINE when you're doing these changes. I mean, you're saying there's no reason not to include the information and that it can be re-worked -- that means there's literally no good reason to *remove* the sections outright, all at once. You've come up with a great way to improve them without removing them. Over the course of several months or years, that change can probably be implemented. Any argument in favor of flat removing them instead of reworking them one-by-one? (Other than trying to beat the deadline?) Deltopia (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • So 99% of information removed is trivial, would never be included in the article in prose form, temporarily sacrificing 1% relevant info to eliminate 99% is a better option than keeping 99% trivia to not temporarily sacrifice 1%.  MPJ-DK  03:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
* Hypothetically, say someone (like a bot or some misguided but well-intentioned editors) went through and added twelve thousand more articles on wrestlers -- extremely non-notable wrestlers, say every member of every high school wrestling team in the US, and marked them all as part of WikiProject Professional Wrestling. About 1% of the articles in that project would then be notable, encyclopedic content. Would you say it's a valid choice to delete the entire project, assuming that people would eventually go through and re-add the worthwhile content if any? Or would it be more useful to go through one-by-one and make the call on each article, wheat or chaff? I understand where you're coming from on this, but there has to be some effort to avoid tossing baby with bathwater. Deltopia (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Throwing my hat into the opinion that this is a horrific idea. I (and many others) read and use this section to get bullet-point and basic info about a wrestler. Removing all of it and maybe re-adding it as prose completely defeats the purpose of it being easy-to-access information. Not everything has to be nice and neat and uniform. Also, I raise an issue with this quote:
“For anyone curious about what the Reddit is actually saying without looking at this situation from an editor's standpoint, here is the thread. The two people who actually somewhat looked at it our way got downvoted to oblivion. JTP”
Could you not be more pretentious? You all act as if being an editor on Wikipedia somehow makes you better, and you generalize the 300,000-strong community on Reddit as a single, unthinking mass that just “doesn’t understand.” You are simply digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole.
In fact, I’d like to challenge the closing of discussion per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, vía deletion review notice #5, as I believe it to be a significant procedural error that just eight WP editors have judged that they speak for the entire community in making a large and important decision such as this. The Kip (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding my linking to the Reddit thread, what? Where did you get any pretentiousness from? I didn't ever imply a sense of superiority, I didn't ever generalize the subreddit, and I sure as hell didn't say Reddit "doesn't understand." One user brought up that Reddit was unhappy, so I linked it here whilst saying that many just called the decision "stupid" (or more vulgar forms of that) without looking at the amount of unsourced and trivial content in these sections, which goes against Wikipedia policies and standards. So next time you try to insult me, think it through, or just bring it to me politely. JTP (talk • contribs) 05:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
This isn't an accessibility issue. The argument is that even on the rare occasion that the section isn't filled with original research or poorly sourced material, the content itself is still mostly trivial. This clearly falls under WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information / WP:FANCRUFT.
Regarding us supposedly "thinking we are better than Reddit", I don't think that is the case at all. Most of what we're hearing is "I like this section and use it", which is an acceptable way to feel, but does not address the policy issues that were raised. Prefall 05:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The Kip - so saying "I'd like to challege" is easily enough, but there is more to it than just a line - the link you gave (for deleton of articles) has specific steps on how you can appeal the deletion of an article. No one has "spoken for the entire community" - they have formed a consensus of all editors who chose to participate in the discussions around the "in wrestling" that has gone on for weeks now. If you think the close was improper, then I implore you to please follow the procedures and have someone "higher up" take a look at it - and this is coming from the person who closed it.  MPJ-DK  10:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I've been "part of this community" for twelve years and would have chosen to participate if I noticed it in time. "Gone on for weeks" makes it seem like something big, but "started just weeks ago" doesn't. It's both, this agreement. And even in those few/long weeks, not a lot of editors seemed pumped to get rid of the championships. Probably still aren't. Belts matter in wrestling, and even outsiders know this. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. I've been part of the "community" for about that long. My work situation is crazy in June, and I can barely get online. Now I sign in and see that a major change has been implemented based on limited feedback. Very disappointing, as it's a very bad change. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not as bad as I'd thought. Could've sworn I saw Afa's C&A thrown out with the rest, but it didn't happen. Still seems like a bullshit blanket overreaction to punish his well-sourced article because other articles are more contentious. Dude had one signature, with two clear citations. Is anybody seriously doubting any islander regularly used headbutts in the WWF? Or any black guy? I get the need to spell out some things in prose, but explaining the inherent numbskullery of "those wrestlers" in each and every affected article is going to seem unduly racist in today's day. Why risk Wikipedia getting canceled (never say never) when we can just note they all have headbutts in common and let that bit of history speak for itself? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to get this section back on-track with the section example, is there a consensus on exactly what gives a wrestling move encyclopedic significance? Finishers and innovated moves appear to be the accepted norm, but what about named signatures? Is Sami Zayn's Blue Thunder Bomb or Kenny Omega's V-Trigger material worth including, or does it fall under WP:FANCRUFT? 67.244.146.250 (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

There is absolutely no consensus on anything regarding signature moves. Never has been, as far as I can tell. There are a few rules (which are or aren't followed) and a few followings (which are or aren't based on the rules). Personally, I feel any move with a wrestler-specific name is naturally the sort of move sources will acknowledge as a signature, and generally the sort of move you can include with a citation. Things like hammerlocks, chops and Irish whips are theoretically never going to reach that level, so should all be deleted (whether they have four citations that don't back the claim or none that do). If I ran this zoo (I don't), Blue Thunder Bomb checks out and so does V-Trigger. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

How about adding something to the infobox where it was height, weight etc? Just add a “Trademark Move(s)” part and put up to two or three (if more than one stands out) of their most defining moves. Maxwell7985 (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

IMO, the infoboxes are too long and cumbersome as is. Plus, it is up to interpretation in a lot of cases which three moves are a wrestler's most significant. Plus it changes over time. Nikki♥311 23:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Procedural note

Just drawing attention to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Procedural note. A well-publicized RfC should be held (possibly at WP:VPP) to try and establish community consensus for this content exclusion. Prefall 07:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal draft

== Should the "In wrestling" section be removed from Professional wrestling articles? == {{rfc|bio|soc|style}}

The "In wrestling" section has been a standard part of professional wrestling biographies for over a decade. It covers mostly character information in a bulleted list format. On May 24, 2018, an editor raised an issue with the section's vague heading to WikiProject Professional wrestling (see WT:PW#In wrestling). The next day, renaming the heading to "Professional wrestling highlights" and adjusting "Championships and accomplishments" into a subsection beneath it was proposed. On June 3, it was considered to have reached consensus after the 5 participants agreed unanimously. In the weeks that followed, a few editors disapproved of the new heading, as well as "Championships and accomplishments" being turned into a subsection. On June 24, clarification of which heading to go forward with was requested, where an additional option to remove the section entirely was proposed. On June 28, the discussion was closed after 10 editors participated, with an "overwhelming consensus" to remove the section but rework any content deemed significant into prose, potentially into a "Professional wrestling persona" section (see WT:PW#Trying to gain clarity (closed)). The changes were immediately enacted into hundreds of articles, causing news of the changes to be spread onto online professional wrestling communities. Many new editors voiced frustration over the removal, with some reverting the changes.

Below is the style recommendations for this section, taken from WikiProject Professional wrestling prior to its removal:

"In wrestling" recommendations per WP:PW/SG

An overview of notable character information is compiled in a bulleted list format. This initial section should be limited to finishing moves, signature moves, managers (and/or wrestlers managed), nicknames, entrance themes, and wrestlers trained. Any taunts, gestures, or other descriptions are better suited for the article prose.

Example of highlights list
  • All items should be sorted alphabetically. An exception is with entrance themes, which can be sorted chronologically if date ranges are sourced.
  • For signature and finishing moves, there must be one reliable source explicitly mentioning that it is a signature move of the wrestler. One reliable source merely mentioning that the wrestler performed the move is not enough.
  • A specially named move should be italicized, with the regular name following in parentheses and wiki-linked.
  • {{Cite episode}} should not be used for citing moves as commentators often call moves wrong or do not give full technical names, leading to speculation.
  • Track names in entrance themes should not be wiki-linked to articles about the compilation albums on which they are sold, unless the article contains further information on the track itself (not just name, number, and wrestler who used it).

This proposal seeks to remove the "In wrestling" section, with the possibility of any of its content that is deemed significant to be contextualized in prose. Much of the information contained within this section would be lost. The content most likely to be reworked is certain Finishing moves, Nicknames and Wrestlers trained. As it stands, Managers are already expected to be covered in prose, primarily in the "Professional wrestling career" section. If necessary, reworked content can be placed within the existing "Professional wrestling persona" section (see WP:PW/SG#Professional wrestling persona).

Below are diffs from various articles, showing before the section's removal, after the removal, and some with content reworked to prose:

Proposal: Should we adopt a default approach of omitting the bulleted list "In wrestling" section, in favor of its notable content being contextualized in prose when appropriate?

As above, just seeing this, a conversation clearly has to be had (And, should indeed be said); regarding making any prospective policies. I think this has now risen above the simple consensus, and now needs to be brought up at the Village Pump. Could someone put a good wording of the proposal forward, indicating exactly which information is to be kept, which information should be moved to prose (if relevant), and which information is to be considered WP:FANCRUFT, or less encyclopedic. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I've never been involved in an RfC or any policy proposal but I took a shot at writing an initial draft that could be used. I tried to recap the situation as closely and neutral as possible, with details of how the section was before. I did not go into the actual reasoning of why this project reached its consensus, but that can be edited in if seen fit. Let me know what you all think, and feel free to make any changes. Prefall 10:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
So I think to truely reflect what has happened the "in wrestling" discussion actually started on May 24.  MPJ-DK  11:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Adjusted it to mention that. I don't want to bog it down with going into detail about the renaming, but will do so if others think it should be fully covered. Prefall 12:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
It probably should be mentioned, for transparency's sake, however, it's a little irrelevant. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Added those details for transparency sake. Hopefully it's not too much of a slog to get through. Prefall 13:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I've updated the proposal draft with more information, as recommended to me on the ANI discussion. Does anyone have more input? Prefall 23:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

When would this be brought up at a Village pump? PopTartPowerbomb (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully in the next few days. Still seeking input to make sure it's as informative, yet neutral, as possible. Prefall 05:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it looks good, and it doesn't seem like anyone has any more input. Is it time to take it to the village pump? Nikki♥311 12:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I've made a couple additional changes per outside recommendations to me. If all goes well, I will post it later today. Prefall 10:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

This proposal is now live at WP:VPP#Should the "In wrestling" section be removed from professional wrestling articles?. Prefall 14:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect Discussion

Hi all,

I came across Ring name earlier, which is completely unsourced. Would anyone be against this being redirected/merged with Stage name? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Stage name would be fine for pro wrestlers but what about boxers and martial artists since stage name would apply on performers and entertainers. Ron234 (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree with this, would be better to just find refs for the ring name article, it would hardly be hard to find examples and sources.★Trekker (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Article Split Proposal

I propose splitting Vengeance and Night of Champions into seperate articles. On WWE.com they are listed as seperate events on the Shows page and that suggests that WWE considers them as seperate events. Plus as for them being considerd 1 event, WWE recognized the first Extreme Rules as a continuation of the One Night Stand chronology before deciding to consider it as it’s own event, something that is mentioned in the Extreme Rules article. Same logic should apply here. Ron234 (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

No one objected here [2] so it is probably fine. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@Galatz: Hi sorry but I’m kinda new to editing so I don’t know how to properly split an article and I wouldn’t wanna mess it up. Ron234 (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Ron234. Have you created an article at all before? It's the same concept. However, I'd say this was a slightly more difficult one than the norm, as the subject is more widely viewed than say, a football team's season.
However, it's the same process. I'd suggest creating a draft for the split, moving the information pertinent to the split and post it here, and I'll take a look. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: nope, never created one but I’ll give it a try Ron234 (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ron234: Here is how I would do it, so I created this for you, edit it until you think you have it right and then we can take a look if you want, I am happy to help in any way that you need.
I created an exact duplicate of the article at User:Galatz/v1, use that for Vengeance, tweak it to remove all the NOC stuff. Then I created another duplicate at User:Galatz/v2, let that be the NOC article and remove anything related to Vengeance. This way you can play with it until you are comfortable. Hope that helps. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 00:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
@Galatz: Thanks a lot dude. Ron234 (talk) 09:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
It’s done you guys can check it out and see if they are fine. Ron234 (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, Ron234 - They obviously need extra information, but they are fine for mainspace. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame inductees

I recently made this category, I'm planing to do with it the same as I did the Category:WWE Hall of Fame inductees by year eventually, I hope this is ok and you agree that it would be helpful to have more narrow categories.★Trekker (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I like the categories...makes it arranged in a much more organized manor. One category was just getting too massive. Even though 1993 only had one inductee, to complete the tree it should probably have one too. Thanks! - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd have to say I really disagree with that, that would be a violation of the rule that there should be at least five articles for a category to justifiable to have.★Trekker (talk) 07:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
That's a guideline, not a hard-and-fast rule, and one that's usually overlooked when the category is part of a logical tree-like organizational structure broken down by things like country, state, or year. oknazevad (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
We had a conversation about this fairly recently, while you were away. If you check out Category:Professional wrestling by country we added categories for every country, even if they only have one thing in it, because it completes the tree. It was agreed to create all the addition countries to complete the tree, consistent with Category:Professional wrestling in the United States by state and Category:American professional wrestlers by state. We keep Category:Professional wrestlers from New Mexico and Category:Professional wrestlers from Alaska and a couple others with only one, because it completes the tree. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 11:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
But with countries there is always the chance that there might be more articles to include in the category in the future, there is no way for there to ever be more than one 1994 HoF induction.★Trekker (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I like it but I just want to note that categories for the NWA and Hardcore Halls of fame were deleted awhile back for not being defining categories. I didn't agree with the consensus, but it happened. I just don't want to see that happen here.LM2000 (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
That's terrible. What use are categories if they're super hard to handle and navigate? Wish this website was more conserned with being helpful than following arbitrary rules sometimes.★Trekker (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Color of item in infobox

I was looking at Total Bellas and the image is white on a white background. Anyone know how to change it so its not white on white? Like can we put a black background on it? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, as the logo doesn't have to be white (It's also written in blue), I'd just upload a different logo. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Possible future articles/lists, would this be a good idea?

Quite a few articles on Wikipedia describe individuals as a "wrestling personality", does this concept have a specific definition, and if so would an article on the subject be helpful? Also, there have been several attempts at making categories for pro wrestlers by generation, they have ended up getting deleted each time, would a list on the subject maybe be better? Something like "List of second, third, and fourth generation wrestlers" maybe?★Trekker (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd say most wrestlers would be closer to having a Wrestling persona, rather than a personality which is subtly different. Bear in mind, we already have a topic on Gimmick (professional wrestling), which is a very similar thing. As for the list, I'd say it's very hard to define. Does someone stepping into the ring make them a wrestler? If so, John Cena is a second generation wrestler. Does the wrestler have to be notable, or do we need reliable sourcing to state this? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
No, what I meant by "wrestling personality" is articles that use the term to describe their subject as a "wrestling personality", the same way that some people are "television personalities". In other words that they appear in in professional wrestling but don't have a very specific role necessarily outside being a character, they're not a "valet", "manager", "authority figure", "commentator", "wrestler, "time keeper", "interviewer" "announcer" or "referee" necessary but they appear on the show none-the-less. Also, no ofcourse someone simply just stepping into a ring doesn't make them wrestler, why would you even use such a silly example? And yes there is tons of coverage of wrestlers who are considered generational. And yes they would have to be notable to be included, how many lists on Wikipedia include non-notable examples?★Trekker (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Names

WWE routinely uses names like Woken and Constable when promoting matches on events featuring Matt Hardy and Baron Corbin. But their Superstars page still shows the name as unchanged. I believe removing Woken and Constable from the events articles isn’t the right approach since WWE seems to promote them as that on that match’s page on wwe.com. I suggest that we keep these names as they are promoted for the event on a event by event basis, if WWE uses Woken or Constable then we add it and if they don’t then we don’t. Ron234 (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Ron234 - Please read WP:COMMONNAME. Articles on Wikipedia are named on how they are best known. For instance, there's an article for Hulk Hogan, who is known for playing that character, but one for Emma (wrestler), who hasn't wrestled under that name for quite some time. We shouldn't be using gimmick monikers. Only place it should be mentoned in the article of the wrestler themselves. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I am not talking about the article names. I meant like the SummerSlam (2018) article or the Extreme Rules (2018) article. Both those feature Matt Hardy and Baron Corbin but if you check wwe.com for their matches, they are called Woken and Constable, respectively. I said that we should include that in the event article because WWE used those names to promote those matches. Ron234 (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
For the same reason Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Conor McGregor isn't listed as "Notorious" vs "Money". It isn't encyclopedic. We aren't here to get over someone's gimmicks. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it comes down to is, is it a nickname or a name change. For example, at Royal Rumble (1998) we list The Artist Formerly Known As Goldust, because that became his ring name, not just a nickname. Some of these are a grey area, Deleters of Worlds and The Bar as two examples. In both of those, WWE.com did not use those names on the championship page and was not used by the ring announcer, which makes it appear as a nickname. They do call him "Woken" Matt Hardy and show that name on the screen during his entrance, so that might be different. I do not know if Corban has ever been called Constable Corban without forcing the person to call him that. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 11:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree so I checked and here’s some links on wwe.com that I found. https://www.wwe.com/shows/greatest-royal-rumble/2018/bray-wyatt-matt-hardy-sheamus-cesaro-results, this one shows The Bar being called Cesaro and Sheamus, and the Deleters of Worlds being called "Woken" Matt Hardy and Bray Wyatt, https://www.wwe.com/shows/eliminationchamber/elimination-chamber-2018/cesaro-sheamus-titus-worldwide-results, another one that proves that WWE considers the Bar to be Cesaro and Sheamus. https://www.wwe.com/shows/extremerules/2018/woken-matt-hardy-bray-wyatt-the-b-team-results, this one shows that WWE considers Bo Dallas and Curtis Axel as the B-Team but the Deleters of Worlds are still Woken Matt and Bray. https://www.wwe.com/shows/extremerules/2018/finn-balor-baron-corbin-results, this one shows Balor vs Constable Corbin. https://www.wwe.com/shows/summerslam/summerslam-2018/finn-balor-vs-constable-baron-corbin, this one shows the same as previous for this years SummerSlam. I believe that the events articles should show the names wwe is using to promote the matches and not just the Superstars page on wwe.com. Ron234 (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
So does anyone have any issues with me updating the names of Matt Hardy and Baron Corbin in the EVENTS articles where WWE promoted them as such? Ron234 (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
we dont use to include nicknames in the articles. No Jerry The King Lawler, no Bret Hitman Hart, no Randy Savage Macho Man. we made very few exceptions, like stone cold, jbl or andrade cien almas. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Here’s WWE not calling Jerry Lawler “The King” either, https://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/27/results. But they are calling Matt Hardy “Woken” and Baron Corbin Constable. This seems more like an Andrade “Cien” Almas type deal. Ron234 (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Ron234: You started changing Matt Hardy to "Woken" Matt Hardy "per consensus", but years of previous discussion have resulted in nicknames being removed from results tables and championship histories for a reason and this discussion hasn't changed that. — Moe Epsilon 20:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but the question comes down to, is this a nickname or a name change. Cien is clearly part of Almas' name, but is Woken part of Hardy's?
It's a nickname, clear by the "quotes". If they're just calling him plain Woken (no "Matt Hardy" attached), that would be a name change we should follow on the event page (pipelinked to the same biography title it's always been, of course). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Moe Epsilon: @InedibleHulk: WWE doesn’t list nicknames on the match results, I provided multiple examples for that point. This on the other hand is mentioned by WWE on the match results and promotions. Ron234 (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
It is case by case whether they list nicknames or not and depends on the writer on the site at the time. See the same example in the same kind of results you provided for WrestleMania 13: https://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/13/results "Hit Man" is clearly a nickname they list in the results. It is not consistent nor should be a point of reference for what is and what isn't a nickname. We establish that with discussion and consensus. — Moe Epsilon 21:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
What he said. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
For what little it's worth, they're billed on Twitter as "#WOKEN Matt Hardy" and "Baron Corbin". But Hardy's still using his pre-WWE account, so that's worth even less in deciding what's official for SummerSlam. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Moe Epsilon: That example is clearly WP:CHERRYPICKING. It’s from a event held in 1997 and even Stone Cold Steve Austin is mentioned as just Stone Cold. I have provided multiple examples from different writers, dates and events, all of whom can’t be forcefully adding a nickname when they don’t do it for anyone else. Why would they not add The Bar, Deleters of Worlds, Beauty and The Man-Beast, The Modern Day Maharaja, The Phenomenal and other such nicknames but add Woken and Constable and only them. Ron234 (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: For what who knows is worth, who mentioned Twitter? Ron234 (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
WWE did. Still does, prominently. If Corbin's ringname were Constable Corbin, his WWE account should reflect that rebranding. But if it's just a nickname, web writers should just try to get it over, like they did with Stone Cold and The Hitman. Our WrestleMania 13 article doesn't phrase it like WWE.com does, neither should a new article. Those writers work in mysterious ways, and those ways aren't our business. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't cherrypicked, it was literally one example when I selected one pay-per-view of their hundreds of pay-per-views because I knew Hart wrestled Austin and they had famous nicknames. I have randomly picked one other WrestleMania and what do you know, a lot of wrestlers have nicknames attached to them: https://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/4/results It can't simultaneously not list nicknames and list nicknames too. This is why the community decides what nicknames are nicknames. I'm also not going to muddy the waters by talking about stable names because that is a different topic. — Moe Epsilon 22:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
“The Demon” Finn Bálor was the odd duck out just last summer. Our prose elevates him to a demon king (for some reason), but the results box is normal. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Are you serious? A number of wrestlers working for WWE use their real names on Twitter and Instagram, examples like Carmella, Nia Jax and many more. This is about an official WWE source like wwe.com listing them as such. Also if Twitter is what you’re saying we should believe, then why don’t you update Jinder Mahal’s name to The Maharaja: Jinder Mahal since that’s what he’s using on Twitter and that obviously can’t be a nickname. Ron234 (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Don't trust Twitter. Don't trust WWE.com. Don't trust the WWE Network. None are any more or less official than the next in this circus. Just trust me when I tell you nicknames are attached to ringnames in quotation marks. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Again using articles from a period without wwe.com. It’s from 1988. Show me a modern day article that fits that criteria.Ron234 (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I repeat, odd duck out. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Are you purposely ignoring everything that I’m writing or what. Everything that I have written so far says wwe.com in todays time does not list nicknames, for which I provided examples, and so Hardy’s and Corbin’s aren’t. Ron234 (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Not odd. They use “The Demon” when he does the Demon getup. Check TLC 2017. Ron234 (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
He's the odd one out of the SummerSlam 2017 lineup, and we don't treat him differently than the rest at our SummerSlam 2017 article. Or TLC 2017. Or anywhere, for anyone with any nickname. And we're not about to start for Matt "Freakin'" Hardy. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Have you even looked at the TLC 2017 article? Also what’s with the our and this business, you sure you’re still on Wikipedia? Ron234 (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I hadn't, but now I have, and fixed it. And yeah, I'm sure. Thanks for asking? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Did you notice that nickname was added on April Fools' Day? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

You know what this is ridiculous. I can’t be wasting my day arguing with someone over the internet who refuses to believe facts all about a freakin hobby. Enjoy the hive mind dude. Peace. Ron234 (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the Almas argument, check everyone's superstar pages at WWE.com; Andrade "Cien" Almas (Cien is listed as a part of his ring name), Baron Corbin (Constable is not listed as a part of his ring name), and Matt Hardy (Woken is not listed as a part of his ring name). JTP (talk • contribs) 03:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

"In Wrestling" section removal

A decision has been rendered on the RFC here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should the "In wrestling" section be removed from professional wrestling articles. The removal of the "In wrestling" section is now backed by a policy based consensus. Do with this information as you like, but it is possible the comments will return to this talk page or individual pages as more sections get removed.  MPJ-DK  16:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't really edit too much on the weekends, but as this consensus is now complete, it may be worth implementing this in a structured way. I'd suggest we use a category or two to keep track of what articles have been removed. Perhaps a hidden category,: Category:PW biographies with in wrestling, or similar, we should add to all pages that we do not immediately change the information to the correct stance, and category:PW biographies or similar to those that have been completed. I'd suggest we start with anything rated as "top" or "high" importance first. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest that, since a small group from this project insisted on this solution, anyone working on removing the section also be willing to follow through with the second half of the proposal. In other words, don't just delete information. Transform the important information into prose as you go, as you said you would do. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Starting with "what a joke" is probably not the best way to persuade others to do something you want.  MPJ-DK  21:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not trying to persuade. I'm trying to remind you guys about how you said you would handle it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
And I'm here to remind you of the mess you left when you went away. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm soooooo glad I missed out on this while mess.★Trekker (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
You guys proposed removing the section and reworking any content deemed critical into prose. It's right there in the proposal you put forward and the arguments you guys used throughout the "debate". People from outside the project who supported your idea agreed that transforming portions of the content into prose was an appropriate path. That was the platform you campaigned on. Now you're saying that you never had any intention of doing so? GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@GaryColemanFan: I believe it said important information could be, not important information must be. It is more important to remove the information that shouldn't than to leave incorrect information because there isn't time to fill in prose. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 21:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Please quote where it was stated that someone would no that someone could. I am saying that I personally made no such promise but supported the inclusion in prose for anyone who felt that some information they deemed critical.  MPJ-DK  02:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Whilst information that is deemed notable should be transcribed into a prose section, this doesn't have to be done immediately. We should really try and remove the cruft and then work on adding in the information that is important into a new section.

The worry I have is that we will be in a state where some articles still state an 'in wrestling' section, whilst others have them removed, whilst we get IPs reverting the edits because 'X article still has the section's.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

as i said several yimes, Im trying to create the new sections in articles like jeff hardy, kurt angle, taz or Brock Lensar. anybody is invited to

User talk:WWERevolution/WWE SmackDown Women's Championship

I would like for some of you to have a look at this and other sandboxes from this user, who I just blocked for an obvious username violation. What I'm not sure of is if I should have blocked them for promotion as well. Please look at their many sandboxes and tag them as appropriate. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

All of these are fake title histories/pay-per-views, I'm pretty sure they qualify for {{db-hoax}}. JTP (talk • contribs) 03:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Jim Neidhart

Aparrently Jim died today, but I'm yet to find a reliable source (And so far, it doesn't seem to be true). IPs are updating the article due to the rumours, and I've blown through my 3RR reverting this. If a reliable source states that he's died, it would be ok. Does anyone know any different? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Update - This seems to all stem from a twitter post by Brian Blair. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm keeping an eye on the article as well now. But sadly I do think this is real. :( I've heard rumors recently that he had an agressive form of dementia.★Trekker (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Potentially, it could be real (And a friend coming out and saying it promotes this), but it wouldn't even be the first hoax for Jim. It seems a bit fishy, and certainly shouldn't have the article updated until a RS promotes this Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest bringing it to WP:RPP to stop the IPs from editing if there is no RS to confirm. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
There is an article from canoe that's listed as an RS, so I suppose we have to accept it. The only issue, is that the article is based off the tweet.
I would suggest that we should work on the article regardless, as if he is dead, he would appear on the recent deaths list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
[3] WWE confirmed - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
As sad as it is, it seems to be true. RIP. We should make sure to touch up on the article.★Trekker (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Before I even logged on here today, I read a brief Associated Press story posted on the local newspaper's website. Judging from the discussion in this thread thus far, none of you took the advice that Wikipedians outside the project attempted to give recently that we're not a news site and it's not terribly important that certain details appear instantaneously. Two things I noticed from the AP story: first, they reported that he died in Wesley Chapel, Florida, while the article says he died in adjoining Land O' Lakes. As both are census-designated places, the distinction may be too murky; most people tend to define populated places in terms of ZIP Code Tabulation Areas without actually realizing such. Second, the AP implied that his career in the WWF equalled the entirety of his wrestling career. As the recent deaths list normally presents a parenthetical alphabet soup of TLAs which in many cases doesn't properly represent the person's career, I wonder if reporting like this will continue to unduly influence the "professional wrestling = WWE and nothing else" attitude. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS: I am not really sure what exactly you are getting at with this post. What exactly did you expect to happen? Lots of IPs came in and started editing the page without any RS confirming it, so I opened a request to lock the page at WP:RPP, which has sat there ignored all day. What else could we have done outside of edit warring to keep the information out? This is the problem with professional wrestling articles, its a ton of IPs that see the need to edit immediately, without a RS, and without care of Wikipedia policies. So how do you propose this situation should have been handled differently? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 21:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

There's a discussion at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#RD: Jim Neidhart. I've attempted to make the article more presentable.LM2000 (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost, Wrestling with Wikipedia and reality

Interesting for those editors who find such things interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Worth a read. It's pretty good. I will say, I'll never tire of seeing Christopher Daniels crossbodying Jonny Storm on every wrestling related article, ever. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Combined days as Champion

For List of United States Champions (and other lists) we count unrecognized reigns too when it comes to combined days as Champ. Ric Flair has 5 recognized reigns, but we count all 6 and give him 773 days instead of the 709 recognized by WWE. But looking at the List of WWE Champions (and other lists), we don't count unrecognized reigns towards combined days as Champ. Bob Backlund has 2,138 days either way, even though he has one unrecognized reign (his first reign is seen as uninterrupted by WWE). So we either stop counting Flair's days of his unrecognized reign towards combined days as Champ, or we correct Backlund's number. Or is there some logic behind this that I don't understand yet?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

There is absolutely an inconsistency when it comes to the handling of unrecognized reigns that we need to decide upon. I think the "combined days" number should be all the days the title was held, including unrecognized days. The "combined days recognized" column is straight forward. Reigns are a little more tricky with only a single column (and two columns for Reigns seems unnecessary). We should probably list two numbers, with the second in parenthesis. The question would be which comes first. On one hand, you should recognize what actually occurred; on the other, it's a scripted championship for a fictional sport and the promotion can decide what they want.
This discussion may also affect the main title history tables and biographies, which prioritize the recognized reign number. Prefall 23:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
So he's still harping on wwe.com not being perfectly accurate? Does this quixotic topic ever die? oknazevad (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Nah, this is about our handling of championship reigns where the history is retroactively altered by the promotion. Prefall 01:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
But outside of inconsistencies on wwe.com, there's no real evidence that WWE has retconned Ric Flair's US title reigns. oknazevad (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Ah, okay. My point was in a general sense, there are a few inconsistencies with unrecognized reigns that are worth ironing out. Some championship articles reflect unrecognized reigns in the "combined" table and some do not. Some biographies list the unrecognized reign number and some list the recognized number. The format in championship tables to differ the reign numbers also needs to be standardized (recognized reign first, then unrecognized in parenthesis, or some other way?). I would love to get these established so they can be added to our style guide. Prefall 01:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Biographies should give the recognized reigns with a note about the unrecognized reigns. Combined reigns tables should count the unrecognized reigns too. However, if it is the only reign someone had with that title, it should be in the table with a grey background.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking the opposite for biographies. Prioritizing the recognized version likely falls under MOS:INUNIVERSE. Prefall 15:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I think Prefall. Real data is the priority, not In-Universe data. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
WWE decides who gets recognized as champ and who doesn't. They can't change dates when what happened, but they can absolutely change if someone is recognized as a champion! What makes someone a champ in WWE? You are not a champ if WWE does not recognize you as such. We probably wouldn't have counted the GRR belt as an actual championship, but WWE did and then so did we. If WWE says you are a current or former champ, you are. If they say you aren't, you aren't. A note about an unrecognized reign is enough for biographies.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
WrestlingLegendAS - to be specific, WWE can say what they want for WWE championships, but the NWA US title? before their time, so the "ret-con" to me is not official for a title they had no control over.  MPJ-DK  20:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Ah, you are talking about the US title, my bad! Then I am not sure how that should be treated. I just don't want Bob Backlund's bio to say 3-time Champ. The US title however? Well, I've been trying to get WWE to fix this.

They already fixed some things because of me, but if more people would help, we could get them to give Flair and the others their US title reign back and we wouldn't even need to discuss this. But until then: WWE owns the US title lineage now. Serious question: does that matter enough to accept their errors so that some reigns that were recognized by NWA are not recognized anymore?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

NXT TakeOver: Brooklyn 4 vs. NXT TakeOver: Brooklyn IV

WWE originally referred to last night's TakeOver as Brooklyn 4 (see these results from July 18). However, they later changed all mentions of "4" to "IV" (see the same results as they stand now and this URL, which contains "takeover-brooklyn-4", but redirects to "takeover-brooklyn-iv"). I moved the page accordingly, citing the already provided sources for the name "Brooklyn 4", however, it was moved back this morning, citing the fact that "IV" was never mentioned on the show. I disagree with this move, but I'd like to get a more public opinion on this. Thoughts? JTP (talk • contribs) 17:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The number 4 is in the logo, but everything on WWE.com uses "IV". JTP (talk • contribs) 18:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
We go by the common name as referred to by independent third parties. So the question is, what are they using more - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Absent a clear leader among the indies, the on-screen logo trumps the in-house press in the primaries. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
PWSheet used 4, Cagematch used 4, CBS Sports used 4, ESPN used 4, Bleacher Report used 4, PWInsider used IV, The Observer used IV, ProWrestling.Net used IV, WWE used IV. JTP (talk • contribs) 23:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
WWE.com used "IV". WWE used "4". Moot point, because neither are independent. Figure Four Online uses both "Four" and "4" for itself, and "IV" and "4" for Takeover, depending which part of the page we look at. I'd consider it self-contradictory and unreliable (for this purpose). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

NXT Championship a "world championship", let's get a real consensus

Since this is popping up again, let's come to a real consensus on this. On the official NXT Championship title history, the match description for Drew McIntyre's win reads as such: "Fulfilling a prophecy first laid out by WWE Chairman Mr. McMahon years earlier, Drew McIntyre captured a world championship in a WWE ring when he defeated Bobby Roode to claim the NXT Title at TakeOver: Brooklyn III." Here, the WWE recognized the NXT Championship as a world championship, and that description is still there. Furthermore, since Tommaso Ciampa won the title, he's been calling it a world championship: example 1, example 2, example 3 (which is quoted from a WWE.com interview, where he calls it that four times), and example 4. So, what's it going to be? --JDC808 ♫ 02:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I support listed it as a world title. If it was just the Ciampa statements then it could be dismissed as him overhyping his belt but the fact that WWE said it first with Drew is enough confirmation for me.LM2000 (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I think this should be an RfC on the NXT Championship talk page though.LM2000 (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
    • same for me. Wwe confirmed the world title
      • But it is not even a main roster title. So it has been called a world title once by WWE itself (Drew), but there have been a lot of instances where NXT is not considered as the main roster. Often it is not even seen as WWE (Kevin Owens' first WWE match was against John Cena...). It is the top title of a brand, therefore it might automatically be a world title. But not a world title in the sense of WWE Championship or Universal Championship. If NXT would be considered main roster like ECW has been from 2006 - 2010, then it would be a REAL world title. Now it's just the top title of a brand that isn't even considered main roster / WWE.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • question has WWE used the world "world" for the title in other context? mentioning it for Drew a good start, but has it been mentioned since??  MPJ-DK  20:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I found third-party sources talking about the title as a World title, in case it works. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Outlets calling it the "NXT World Championship/Title" is absolutely a mislabelling. The title has never been called that by WWE. Amoeni (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Again, WWE.com, NXT title history, Drew McIntyre: "Fulfilling a prophecy first laid out by WWE Chairman Mr. McMahon years earlier, Drew McIntyre captured a world championship in a WWE ring when he defeated Bobby Roode to claim the NXT Title at TakeOver: Brooklyn III". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
          • Yes that has been mentioned already, I questioned if they used that term again afterwards or if this was a one-off thing.  MPJ-DK  21:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
          • Right, but as I said, it's never been billed as the "NXT World Championship". So a WWE.com writer referred to the belt as a world title (this text still isn't loading for me - I'll take your word for it), but we need more WWE references in order to ascertain that this was not simply a mistake by some hack web scribe doing a work experience week. I've watched NXT since the beginning and have NEVER heard the championship described as a "world title". It's a developmental title, a stepping stone to the mid card belts of the main roster. Amoeni (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless it gets called a world title "in universe"/on one of the shows I think it should be excluded.★Trekker (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

"Nothing sense"? Did you not read the WWE.com article with Tommaso Ciampa? --JDC808 ♫ 21:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I stand by that comment, Ciampa also called himself the "greatest sports entertainer" - should that be taken as a fact? WWE has not promoted it as "World" in any way outside one note a long time ago and nothing since.  MPJ-DK  22:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • If it's called a world title, we should refer to it as a world title. This has been debated extensively before - it's not Wikipedia's role to judge what does and does not qualify as a "world title". McPhail (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
    • If I hack wwe.com and edit the 20th out of 166 IC title reigns so that it says "The Mountie won his first world title when he won the Intercontinental Championship by beating Bret Hart", does that make it a world title? That error would probably go unnoticed forever by anyone in WWE.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Exactly. We need more than some feeble comment – more than likely an error – tucked away in a dark recess of WWE.com. Clearly not a world title, and never once described as such on WWE programming. Amoeni (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
        • please, dont get absurd. this is not a hacking of something. we dont know is this was an error or not. but is wwe.com, the official website of the promotion.
  • I thought there was actually a real process for creating a world title (There certainly is in things such as boxing). What exactly does this classification change on our articles? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
    • we talked about this several years ago. in-universe there is some process, like being defended outside USA. But as McPhail says, if a promotions claims his title is a world title, it is. In Spain there is a promotion and the main title is a world title.
    • The process involves a company formally designating a belt as a world title, and promoting it as such on an ongoing basis (defences across multiple nations are also typically required). The NXT Championship doesn't appear to qualify. The distinction between world and secondary titles is important, as world belts are typically awarded to those who generate the strongest crowd responses, ticket sales and (social) media buzz. World title changes routinely get mainstream coverage.[15][16][17] Amoeni (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Out of date Championship tables

I just stumbled upon the NWA Florida Tag Team Championship article and noticed that the table format is very much out of date for this and 99% of the articles in Category:Championship Wrestling from Florida championships, not in compliance with the format defined for championship tables. I am asking this project to help me identify other championship articles where the table is out of date so that I (or someone else who feels like pitching in) can update them all. Please list any articles you know are out of date here below. Thank you for your cooperation.  MPJ-DK  01:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I found some titles of IWA (Puerto Rico), Stampede Wrestling. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I found one World Women's Tag Team Championship --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you HHH Pedrigree I will put it on my list. There are way more lists that are out of date than I figured, not to mention little prose, lack of info boxes and a variety of sources. I have my work cut out for me.  MPJ-DK  01:42, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Got the women's championship match taken care of.  MPJ-DK  01:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I found these. NWA Pacific Northwest Tag Team Championship NWA United States Heavyweight Championship (San Francisco version) NWA "Beat the Champ" Television Championship NWA Americas Heavyweight Championship NWA Americas Tag Team Championship WCWA Texas Tag Team Championship NWA Brass Knuckles Championship NWA Canadian Tag Team Championship (Vancouver version) NWA Georgia Heavyweight Championship NWA Macon Tag Team Championship CWA Heavyweight Championship (New England) NWA North American Tag Team Championship (Puerto Rico/WWC version) WWC Puerto Rico Heavyweight Championship WWC World Tag Team Championship WWC Television Championship, SCW Southwest Brass Knuckles Championship, WWC North American Heavyweight Championship, WWC Caribbean Tag Team Championship, WWC Intercontinental Heavyweight Championship, WWC Dominican Republic Heavyweight Championship, WWC Hardcore Championship, WWC Caribbean Heavyweight Championship, WWC World Junior Heavyweight Championship DSW Tag Team Championship NWA North American Tag Team Championship IWA World Tag Team Championship (WCW Australia) IWA World Heavyweight Championship (Australia) NWA Austra-Asian Heavyweight Championship NWA Austra-Asian Tag Team Championship NWA United States Heavyweight Championship (Detroit version) CZW Death Match Championship NWA North American Tag Team Championship (Los Angeles/Japan version) NWA Pacific International Championship WCWA World Heavyweight Championship NWA United States Heavyweight Championship (Toronto version) NWA Georgia Tag Team Championship WSL World Heavyweight Championship Zero-One United States Heavyweight Championship HWA Tag Team Championship HWA Heavyweight Championship --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hehe, sorry. Pide y se te dará. I was reading some articles, like Tony Atlas and I pulled the thread. Take your time, keep calm, we're doing this because we like it. :) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Would it be safe to say that some of these championships aren't notable? - CZW Death Match Championship for example. Perhaps this is perfect time to do a bit of an amnesty on some of these?
If not, would you like some help with a couple of these? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking the same, including the same example. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I will take all the help I can get. And yeah some could probably be deleted, but then again I have not focused on sourcing.  MPJ-DK  19:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Once they are cleaned up, it might be worth making a bunch of WP:BOLD mergers of smaller articles. Even some older WWF championships should probably be merged into List of former championships in WWE. Does WWF North American Heavyweight Championship need its own article? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 11:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

- With this being a big job, would it make some sense for some of this information to be changed into a template? I'm sure I could come up with something to make this more easy to impliment, for instance, it would auto-import the key. Would this be a good change, rather than creating a new table every time? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

A quick mock up, with loads of work to do, but something like:
Key
No. Overall reign number
Reign Reign number for the specific champion
Days Number of days held
Days recog. Number of days held recognized by the promotion
N/A Unknown information
(NLT) Championship change took place "no later than" the date listed
† Championship change is unrecognized by the promotion
<1 Reign lasted less than a day
+ Current reign is changing daily
No. Champion Championship change Reign statistics Notes Ref.
Date Event Location Reign Days Days recog.
1 Scotty 2 Hotty November 1, 2010 House show N/A 1 279 279 Defeated Tommy Dreamer and Drew Carey in a Triple Threat match to become the inaugural champion.
† CM Punk August 7, 2011 SummerSlam Chicago, IL 1 <1 — Reign is not recognized by WWE.
2 Daniel Bryan August 8, 2011 Raw New York, NY 1 78 74 WWE recognizes Bryan's reign as beginning on August 12, 2011, when the episode aired on broadcast delay.
3 CM Punk October 25, 2011 Hell in a Cell Miami, FL 1 (2) 94 94 This was a Hell in a Cell match also involving Triple H. Punk pinned Triple H to win the championship.
— Vacated January 27, 2012 Royal Rumble Los Angeles, CA — — — Punk was stripped of the championship due to an injury.
Championship history is unrecorded from February 2012 to May 2012.
4 Daniel Bryan May 19, 2012 (NLT) N/A Atlanta, GA 2 4,571+ 4,571+ Newspaper reports indicate that Bryan had been awarded the championship "recently"

With a lot of work, we could also incorporate the vacant field, which would autofil some of the results, and also a blank field, where the chronology is unknown.

Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I added functionality for unrecognized reigns, title status changes (vacated, unified and retired specifically), and successful defenses. I also made certain aspects of it automated, such as the darkened background, "—" symbol, "<1" sorting, and "†" unrecognized symbol. Anything else needed? I'm debating whether to add a flat row for undocumented history into the existing template or a new one. Prefall 19:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Normal updates would be relatively the same. It would save time for some of the technical details, like stylization/symbol usage. However, its real use is in standardizing the layout and allowing for any future layout changes to be immediately enacted across all championship articles via the template itself. This is exactly what we did a few years ago with {{Pro Wrestling results table}}. Prefall 00:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Alright that would be an argument I can get behind, although that would mean that the list of articles to be updated went from "a large part of them" to "all of them", not that I am afraid of hard work ;)  MPJ-DK  00:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Prefall - You took my 10 minute mock up, and made it beautiful. I agree though. Using a template makes so much more logistical sense over a large set of articles. The {{Pro Wrestling results table}} had recently had a wording change, so one update on the template, and everything else was updated. Something similar would work here, if for example, we had a consensus that the colour should be changed for the background, etc. It would also be helpful for newer editors, who can build a table like this easily, rather than have to build a table from scratch/using another table. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
If interested, I could put this into mainspace, and write up a first draft documentation Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
That looks awesome! I like how it not only tells us that they all will look the same but also ensures they always will, once updated. The vacated line is probably the most inconsistent right now. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 11:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
So long as we make the documentation distinctive to use "type=vacated", or "type=unrecognized" it should be good. Do we usually vacate using an event? That seems rather unlikely (I'm guessing the above is for testing though.) 13:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah that would definitely be perfect. Looking at List of WWE Champions we currently have 12 vacated and 10 of them list an event. If they are stripped or hand over the belt on TV during a specific event, it should probably be noted. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I didn't release it was so common, actually... That's fine then. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with moving the template to mainspace and beginning work on documentation. However, I think we should wait a little bit on implementation, at least en mass. There may be some quirks in certain tables that this template will need to account for, which are not yet known. Worth being thorough. Prefall 17:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I have had a chance to look at this again and want to make a couple of comments based on feedback I have previously receives from Featured List reviews, after all if we're going to implement this it needs to have the qualities of a featured list. 1) The "key" table needs to only refer to events in the table - let's say there isn't an unrecognized reign the key should not explain the symbol since it's not in the list. 2) sorting, the vacancies need to sort in place, so that if you click the first column it would completely reverse the order - I've had it work so that a vacant reign sorts as "5.5" to make sure it stays between reigns 5 and 6. 3) Some championship lists has a period where history is unknown, indicated by a dark gray line (see NWA Brass Knuckles Championship (Florida version) for an example) we need to still have that option. 4) We need to have the key list reflect (nlt) and (net) for "No later than" and "No earlier than" dates which are found in some of the older lists. I love the initiative and want to do my part to craft an option that covers all our needs.  MPJ-DK  10:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I've implemented all of your points. Thank you for mentioning them. Everything seems to be in working order, except for the sorting of the unrecorded row. I'm not entirely sure how to approach it. Prefall 20:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I've moved the tables to mainspace (Under the really poorly named {{Professional wrestling title history top}} and {{Professional wrestling title history middle}}. However, I will move these somewhere more suitible. I was thinking {{PWtitletop}} and {{PWtitlereign}}, if people thought these were suitible. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I've also created a mock documentation for the reigns list. It needs a lot of work, but it was important to start it. Feel free to update. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Prefall has done a great job in fixing/copy editing the documentation I drafted up, please give your thoughts on this, and potentially a short name for the template. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Whether or not the name of the template changes, I think the default should remain long-form for consistency. Short redirects can still be created and used for those who prefer them. The two you recommended would work good in that capacity. Prefall 08:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The tables are awesome...I am amazed what you guys are able to do. Just a thought, should we add something that says days and recognized days? Right now the combined reigns shows both, why shouldn't this? The information is included in the notes section, but that seems like a silly place to keep it. Thoughts? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, though the main issue with this table is its lack of space. I'm not entirely sure how to approach it with that in mind. I was already thinking of a re-organization of this table, due to being annoyed by the statistics "Reigns", "Days held" and "Successful defenses" all being separated. Plus, while the "successful defenses" heading is concise, it takes up an excessive amount of space for what is actually contained within the column.
Here are a couple mockups of potential design changes. Some of these shortened headings could be added to the Key for clarity.
Mockup designs
1. Alternate headings and re-organization (Default format, barring Defenses)
No. Champion Championship change Reign statistics Notes Ref.
Date Location Event Reign Days Defenses
1 Shiro Koshinaka February 6, 1986 Tokyo, Japan House show 1 102 1 Koshinaka defeated The Cobra in a tournament final to become the inaugural champion.
2 Scotty 2 Hotty November 1, 2010 Los Angeles, CA House show 1 279 0 Defeated Tommy Dreamer and Drew Carey in a Triple Threat match to become the inaugural champion.
2. Same as above, with Days recognized added (New column activated with parameter, same as Defenses currently does)
No. Champion Championship change Reign statistics Notes Ref.
Date Location Event Reign Days Days recognized Defenses
1 Shiro Koshinaka February 6, 1986 Tokyo, Japan House show 1 102 100 1 Koshinaka defeated The Cobra in a tournament final to become the inaugural champion.
2 Scotty 2 Hotty November 1, 2010 Los Angeles, CA House show 1 279 312 0 Defeated Tommy Dreamer and Drew Carey in a Triple Threat match to become the inaugural champion.
Prefall 18:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Looks damn good. I particularly like the first One's grouping of more closely related material together. But using a tooltip for defenses I'm not keen on, as they're not visible on mobile, even when using the non-mobile website. In general I think tooltips should be avoided for accessibility reasons; it already bothers me hat the MOS calls for them to be used to explain an abbreviation like "No." that is pretty universal across languages. oknazevad (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Defenses (and others) would be covered fully in the Key, in addition to tooltip form. Prefall 18:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I am ok with either one, but would you have a suggestion on how to fit the actual vs recognized days into the first table since header space is more limited? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I've changed the examples a bit. What do you think? I would make the new column hidden by default and toggleable, functioning exactly the same as the Defenses column currently does. "Days", "Days recognized" and "Defenses" would be added to the Key for clarity. Prefall 19:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
A few things here:
  • For the size issue, would it make more sense to have a different title than "Defenses?" Even if this was simply written as "def", the column would have at most a two digit number in, so the column header is what makes this so wide.
  • Should this not be "Recognized days?", once again, a shortened title would solve the space issue. Not sure what this could be though.
  • The big issue is regarding the notes column. If we make this too small, the table may become distorted. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
It could be abbreviated but I didn't want to shorten them too much; "Defenses" is still pretty straight forward. I originally listed it as "Recognized days" but changed it (consistent with the column in the Combined reigns section that says "Combined days recognized"); I don't mind either one. The width percentages can continue to be tweaked; the notes column looks especially tiny in those examples because of the two additional columns, which will not always be present. Prefall 08:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Should I go forward with the proposed redesign and additional "days recognized" column? We can continue to tweak it afterward, if necessary. Prefall 20:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
The nice thing about this new format is we can start implementing it and using it in articles. As we tweak it though, it doesn't involve updating the articles again, it will do it automatically. I really like it. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 01:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. That is the wholesale benefit of using a template, which despite us having to update our MOS, and every single article of its type, we should only have to do this once, and it should work for all pages. We may have to purge the pages though, I'm unsure.
It may be worth also looking at any other places we may use a table or something we use over multiple articles for after this is implemented. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and appended the redesigned layout to the template. Let me know what you all think and any changes you have in mind (even small things like parameter naming, Key explanations, etc). I'd like to nail down all of the major details soon, then we can move forward to implementation. Prefall 08:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
It looks great to me. Be aware, our ridiculously long RfC will be coming to a close within the next week, so we may want to roll out these updated championship tables now, or wait until after that discussion has ended. Potentially, we may have an awful lot of reverting, and edits that come from whatever result that recieves. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I cannot see am admin saying consensus is to include that section. Every admin who chimed in said to remove it. I haven't played too much with the new template, since you guys are mostly working on it, so I implemented it on All Wrestling Organization and it seems to all be flowing and working properly. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Looks good on that article. I also implemented it on List of WWE Women's Champions to see what it looks like on a more detailed table; looks great but "Days recognized" was taking up far too much space after all. I shortened "recognized" to "recog." If someone has a better suggestion, please share. I need to test it on a major tag team table next to see how the spacing looks—depending on how it goes, an added parameter for teams may be necessary. Prefall 21:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Implemented it to List of WWE Raw Tag Team Champions as a test case. The default 15% for the Champion column did seem cramped, so I added a "team" parameter which extends it to 22%. Prefall 02:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

- Not sure why the date parameter takes up so much room! I feel like that is the major problem for spacing in these tables. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The {{dts}} template nowraps the date, in addition to the month being fully written out. We could shorten the month—Dec 21, 2012 instead of December 21, 2012, for example. Furthermore, two of the most effective ways we can save space is 1. lowering the font size in the Notes column to 85% (probably worth it due to the extensive detail a lot of the notes go into), and 2. merging the Event and Location into a single column (like List of UFC champions). Prefall 15:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Event and location being merged gets my vote (As does the size of the notes). If we have super long notes, I'd recommend moving it outside of the table, into a notes' field. The location is generally only super important, if the event isn't listed, in my eyes, so moving it to one part of a table makes perfect sense to me. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I am not such a fan of merging the date and event because it makes it less intuitive I think and not as clean when sorting. Is there any reason not to make the entire table 85% like the WWE PPV page does? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not typically a fan of entire tables being in a small font size—however, if any table could use it, this would be it. I'm fine with whatever approach is decided. Prefall 16:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I am totally onboard with the table as presented here, I just want to be sure we're fixed on the columns at least, not combining two or something? I want to update all the Mexican championship pages but don't want to do it now if there are still uncertainties on parameters? Font size etc. is cool with me, since it wouldn't actually mean an update to the article. But I want to do a "one and done" update to tables, so are we pretty stable on the parameters??  MPJ-DK  21:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Mostly everything is in order at the moment and the template can be used on a majority of articles. The only change we've contemplated that is article-side and unaffected by the template is the shortened months ("September" to "Sep", for example), which hasn't really gone anywhere.
I should mention that I've come across three things from certain articles that are not currently supported by the template:
Are these worth carrying over and implementing into the template or not? Regarding the "interim" reign, it does not appear to be recognized and could just fall under the "unrecognized" type. The other two could simply be clarified via the Notes column. Prefall 23:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
It might not be a bad thing to create a bar that would go across the entire table to signify something. I think the way #3 above shows it is better than #2, and both issues would be solved with that. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 11:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I noticed this template on a few of the WWE/CMLL title pages. Are we fully implementing this now? I would be willing to find some of the smaller championships to fix. JTP (talk • contribs) 18:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, you can start adding it to most articles. There are a few tables with quirks that are currently unsupported while we figure out what to do with them (see the bulleted list above), so if you come across them, just avoid those tables for now. Prefall 23:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
You've been doing great work. I've converted most of WWE and NXT's active championships. Just have the U.S. and Intercontinental titles left, which I'm holding back on until we decide what to do with the interwoven headings to signify promotion switches (I'm leaning towards a single, fully spanned row with customizable text and color, defaulting to green).
I don't have Excel so I'm not sure how quick your method is, but I've been using regex in Notepad++ to transform the tables. Saves so much time, especially on the larger tables. Prefall 15:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Well I am an Excel wiz, I use it professionally too - so for me I can do 15, 20 title tables at once and take advantage of search and replace etc. And yes the green bar would be good to have, I am seeing several more where it will be needed. Excellent suggestion and I do like the muted green line that is seen in some articles.  MPJ-DK  16:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I added functionality to indicate promotion switches (|type=promotion and |name=World Wrestling Entertainment). See List of ECW World Heavyweight Champions and List of NWA World Heavyweight Champions. Let me know what you guys think about it. I decided to keep it consistent with the faded green color only. If the promotion name by itself is too vague, we can append a prefix akin to "Promoted by".
I also figured out a hacky workaround to get |sort number= to work on the spanned columns (both |type=unrecorded and |type=promotion). I added a hidden column with just the sort value, which was the only way I could think of doing so without compromising the layout. Hopefully that is not against some guideline and does not break within certain browsers. Prefall 14:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Move midget professional wrestling to midget wrestling?

In all my years, I've never heard midget wrestling referred to as "midget professional wrestling". Even the article doesn't talk like that. I tried to move it without asking for consensus, and it didn't work, so I'm asking for consensus. Maybe it'll work. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The title makes no sense. The opening line says its "Midget Wrestling". The article itself can explain that it's based in Professional Wrestling. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Of course the article doesn't talk like that, you changed it! [18] - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
That's because sources don't use that phrasing. Hell, this Google ngram can't even find anything but "midget wrestling". The current article title is needlessly over-precise and uses a phrasing that's unused in off-Wikipedia terms. oknazevad (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
I changed one instance to match the six of seven existing ones. Then I changed it again to match the (old) new title. No regrets. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Done. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Request to update Full Sail University article re: partnership with WWE

Resolved

Hello! On behalf of Full Sail University, I've submitted a request to update the Wikipedia article about the university's partnership with WWE. Currently, the article mentions just the taping of WWE NXT at Full Sail, but actually there's much more to this partnership, including WWE Tough Enough tapings.

I've proposed specific wording and provided sourcing and markup here for reviewing editors to implement appropriately. Is a member of WikiProject Professional wrestling willing to review this request? Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to. I will review and comment there. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 00:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Inkian Jason (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Ring Wrestling Magazine and other wrestling papers that aren't Observer, Torch or Illustraded

Does anyone know if there is any way to find old magazines like 'Ring Wrestling online somehow? Or do I need to track them down in print?★Trekker (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know any print magazine :S --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Nothing turning up in my investigation beyond a bunch of sketchy March 1977 issues. I'll give it another go later, with a bottle of whiskey and my detective hat on. Don't hold your breath. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks man, trying to find old print sources is hard as heck.★Trekker (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
If it's any consolation, ancient Greek comedy fans feel it far worse, especially in the middle. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh yeah for sure.★Trekker (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

We appear in ASK 411

Again, that's about the In Wrestling section, in case you want to take a look. [19] --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow, how amazing, someone who isn't whinning about something we do.★Trekker (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
He still whines about our 90% in-universe bios and the way we believe attendance figures. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Well to be honest I agree about that. I've been planing for a while now to overhaul the records list for example and remove all the contested "records". I've given up on trying to get this place to stop writing in-universe.★Trekker (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
The "career" section needs a complete overhaul in general. Not only is it mostly in-universe but it is far too detailed. There is too much focus on individual segments, matches and events. We say not to write in a week-by-week format, but instead it is written plot point-by-plot point, feud-by-feud, or monthly special event-by-monthly special event, which is hardly much better. Saying someone performed in the annual Royal Rumble or Money in the Bank matches but did not win is hardly significant. So is writing entire paragraphs that amount to, "X won at this event", "then Y won at the next event the following month" repeatedly.
I think the same. Rumble and MITB appearenced at the end are... not that notable. I made a few changes in the Harper and Jason Jordan Articles. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this problem is more widespread and more difficult to remedy than the "In wrestling" section. Dare I say it would be even more controversial to significantly trim and keep plot summaries to a minimum. Prefall 18:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
To be honest I don't know how the heck to fix this problem, it's so longstanding now.★Trekker (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I didn't mean to suggest anyone should do anything. Just examplifying how whining one agrees with is still whining, in the grand scheme of things. I'm personally on the record for continued whining about the attendance bit, but think the character bios are simply more interesting (albeit clunky) than the daily grind of the men behind the masks is (though if anyone happens to discover who killed Bravo, by all means, flesh that section out). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I'd just say it's nice that the hard work to remove cruft has been recognised here. There is always something more to update, change/remove but having someone from outside of our wikiproject commenting on the good job we've done with in wrestling works for me. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Help trying to identify a source/title/person that doesn't show up with google

In the memorial video for Smith Hart that was used for his funeral there is a page shown that has some info about his training and him winning a Japanese title from an opponent. See here at 1:46. But googeling both the oponents name and the championship gives zero results online. Anyone have any idea about these things?★Trekker (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Category for renaming discussion

In case anyone is interested Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 29#Category:NXT teams and stables - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Another professional wrestling championship

Hi could someone from the project (other than the page creator of course) have a look at NXT UK Women's Championship and see if it is notable or not. The sources are mostly routine annoncements or affiliated sources. Thanks --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

And this one too please WWE United Kingdom Tag Team Championship --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@Domdeparis: Thanks so much. These are definitely notable and I will try to add more sourcing to them. Unfortunately many of the users who edit in the project seem to think primary sources are best. It seems to be a never ending battle :). - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok no problem I have come across quite a lot of wrestling articles with primary sources myself and because quite a few of the members seem to be very avid fans it can be a little difficult explaining the need for independent reliable sources to show notability and they can take it personally. Cheers --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. These are notable. Titles are weird things, as it's rare that the actual belts are commented on in sources, but despite the name, they are important championships (or at least will be). Obviously notability isn't generated by the article, but the subject instead.
There's an awful lot of poor PW articles that don't meet GNG, (mostly fancruft bios), and if you see any, please let us know! Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Talking about it. What do you think about this title? OVW Anarchy Championship --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

FCW / NXT / WWE

List of Women in WWE has a table about titles won in WWE by women. It includes the FCW and NXT titles. But when you go to each woman's own page, it is like this: WWE: NXT and WWE titles; FCW: FCW titles. Why in one article go with counting FCW NXT and WWE as one, and in the stats section count it as two (WWE and NXT / FCW)? Either the List of Women in WWE table should exclude FCW, or the stats on the bio pages should count NXT, FCW and WWE as 3 different things. What do you think? And how could I have directly linked to "List of Women in WWE"?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

See our discussion from last month Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_102#WWE_vs_WWE_NXT - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Quoting you: "FCW was treated as a completely different entity. There was no cross promotion and FCW championships werent listed on WWE.com. Right now the NXT and Raw championships are listed and treated no different than Raw and SmackDown ones." So why have FCW in the same table as NXT and WWE then?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
You are trying to use an argument for treatment of a title vs. inclusion in a totality table. Both are WWE titles, but they are treated differently. The argument of where a title is put under for the championship section does not apply to this. I believe FCW titles should be included in lists of former WWE championships. The question is however that it is not at List of former championships in WWE. I do believe that either FCW should be removed from the women article or added to former, they should be consistent, and whichever way should be based on consensus, and I would vote for include. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
What's up with OVW? Isn't that the same situation as FCW and WWE?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Any interest in a little Quality Improvement drive?

Inspired by what I have just seen I want to do something with both the NWA World Heavyweight Championship article and the List of NWA World Heavyweight Champions list. I see a Feature Article and a Feature List hiding in those articles. It's not an easy task so I'm inviting anyone and everyone who want to help to pitch in. Even if it's just some copy editing, a source here or there anything will help. I think it'd be a cool thing to have something to do collectively instead of just having discussions that stall repeatedly. Anyone interested?  MPJ-DK  01:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I really like collabs, so I'm in. Nikki♥311 01:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Excellent - both need work and I don't have a preference on either, so anyone who wants to join do voice your opinion on if we should do the Article first or the List.  MPJ-DK  01:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I looked at both, and I'd prefer to work on the article first. I have less experience with lists. Nikki♥311 21:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Finishing moves

Given that finishing moves are a key part of a wrestler's persona, and a major part of wrestling matches, how come all the finishing moves have been edited away from wrestler profiles? They are far more important to wrestlers than a hometown or a billed weight (with some very rare exceptions, e.g. Buddy Rose).

It seems odd to take something that is so much a part of a character away from a reference source for that character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.241.215 (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Finishing moves don't matter as much as hardcore fanboys think and these articles aren't about the "characters", it's about the wrestler as a person.★Trekker (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
[ https://giphy.com/gifs/groundhog-day-hc10gBL10d3Ko]
HHH Pedigree you need to remember to sign your comments.★Trekker (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Well at least he managed to not tell people to "Fuck off" so I think he is still ahead you know?  MPJ-DK  10:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah that was dumb off me to mistake him for a trolling ip and overreact like an idiot.★Trekker (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I used my mobile phone and sometimes it's impossible to sign, the text makes weird thing. However, My response was for the IP, since I'm a little tired. Every day I find a new post, Aks411, reddit user asking the same and we answer the same way: "you can include the moves in prose". At the end, looks like people don't care about the article and the history of the wrestler, just want to see an endless list of moves.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
You don't have to say sorry, I should be sorry for being so angry, I shouldn't have swore at what I thought was the ip editor being silly. But I feel exactly the same you do, just a bunch of whinning and complaining with no one even carring about the reason why the decition was made.★Trekker (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
No one should be swearing, regardless of the reason. But, clearly you weren't being malicious. I had noticed, you hadn't signed a few posts recently, Pedrigree, the chrome browser for phones auto-signs on talk pages, in case you didn't know. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Good news my anonymous friend - finishing moves are not banned from the articles - they just need to be worked into the prose instead of a list. So if you feel strongly that they are important, you are free to add prose to the article outlining what the finishing moves is etc. with good Reliable Sources of course. It is your lucky day!!  MPJ-DK  23:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
The project will likely recieve this question a lot. Perhaps an essay on the subject (Clearly a lot has been written already), that could be linked too to answer such questions. Our MOS explains this quite well, but it's a lot to take in for a novice editor. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I would like to point out that while a wrestler's gimmick may change or they move on from different promotions, most of the time the wrestler still uses the finishing move (just under a different name).--2001:8003:6F2D:C900:4418:82E7:EE29:6231 (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Starrcast

Hi. Somebody can help me with the Starrcast article? I readed yesterday and... I don't know, I see two problems. First, it's necessary to include the full program? With hours, hosts and stages. Feels like promotional even. Second, the History section is full of sources and guests. It's necessary to include every single guest? Some parts have more than 20 sources, like source 22 to 49. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Just removed about 20,000 bytes of Twitter links. Worse case of self-published citation overkill I've ever seen. Needs one good secondary source with a guest list, and that's all. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
That article has huge notability problems.★Trekker (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Aye, but it doesn't say "for the event" 31 times anymore, so the glass is half-full. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
As an aside, the all in article has me all confused. The lede says: "All In (stylized as ALL IN) was an independent professional wrestling pay-per-view (PPV) event promoted by Cody and The Young Bucks (Matt and Nick Jackson) from the Bullet Club stable. It took place" - as they are promotors now, should we not be using their real names, and disregard the stable that they are in? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I would agree with that, no need to mention their stable. It's almost spammy.★Trekker (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
About the BC mention, I don't know, the BC logo was over the place. In some form, it's like the WCW/nWo events. ABout their real names... I found both cases. Events like Hulkamania, or promotion like PWG we use their stage names (Hulk Hogan, Excalibur, Joey Ryan). Other like A Night of Appreciation for Sabu or AJPW use their real names (Terry "Sabu" Brunk, Shohei "Giant" Baba)... I think the best idea is the second way, real and stage name --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
How about "promoted by Cody Runnels, and Matthew and Nicholas Massie, known by their ring names Cody, and The Young Bucks"? Seems super unencylopedic not to use real names for this purpose. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I've contained the neverending paragraphs in a nearly-neverending list, saving 1,906 bytes and losing 900 MP. Now to find an inn and rest. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources

There are several ongoing discussions going on at the sources page. Maybe some more people would want to chime in so some of them could get concluded.★Trekker (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Changes requested in tomorrow's Main Page blurb for Lockdown (2008)

Please register your opinions at WP:Main_Page/Errors#TFA_tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Is 205 Live a brand?

They have their own titles and own show, does it count as a brand? A lot of places seem to refer to it as such, but they havn't been part of any draft that I remember.★Trekker (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

This point has been discussed at WWE Roster and List of current WWE champions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll check those.★Trekker (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't watch enough WWE at this point to know if they're a separate brand but this needs to be sorted out. We've had slow burning edit wars over this since 205 Live debuted and two ANI threads last month.LM2000 (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
To Trekker's credit (and btw, there's only one title), the 205 Live roster has not been featured on Raw since around WrestleMania 34, and actually, I think before WrestleMania. The last time I remember them on Raw was during the Cruiserweight Championship tournament in the lead up to WrestleMania (no tournament matches, but some tag team stuff). They often refer to 205 Live as the "Purple Brand" on TV and on WWE.com. 205 Live also has its own roster list on WWE.com. Also, since all PPVs became dual-branded post-WrestleMania, the only PPVs they have been on was Greatest Royal Rumble and SummerSlam. --JDC808 ♫ 01:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
However.... PWInsider said Triple H wants to keep the CW out of raw so they don't get overexposure. Some WWE profiles includes "Raw's cruiserweight division". WWE uses the term "brand" a lot, including the womens brand. The Cruiserweight champion works in RAW house shows. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a tricky situation, as there isn't an exact definition of a brand. It wouldn't really be part of a draft, as you wouldn't be able to draft in anyone who wasn't under the weight limit, and anyone under the limit is technically applicable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
The cruiseweight championship page still says it was for the Raw Cruiserweight Division and never mentioned a brand change. HHH saying they are off of Raw is just a TV show not a brand meaning. The most recent WWE official annual report refers to NXT, Raw and SmackDown as their 3 brands (this is from April so before UK). The profiles saying 205 Live doesn't really change anything since they all said that even when appearing on Raw every week. There really has not been anything that changed about how they are utilized or displayed other than not wrestling on Raw in a long time. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

After seeing the events of last night (Drake Maverick becoming manager of AOP, Drew Gulak being part of the Shield beatdown), it led me to this conclusion...If Raw is a party, then 205 Live is at the kids table. Yes, the CWs pretty much keep to themselves at their own little table, but they are still in the room where the party is, so 205 Live is an offshoot of Raw, and still part of the overall Raw family. I am man enough to give credit where credit is due, Galatz stuck to his guns, and was proven right, and I can see where he was coming from. I admit, I was wrong. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

To add to this, Michael Cole at Hell in a Cell tonight said if Dean Ambrose and Seth Rollins win the Raw Tag Team Championship, The Shield will hold all of the men's titles of the Raw brand. --JDC808 ♫ 00:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Template: pro wrestling promotions in USA ¿National promotions?

Hi. I have several questions. In the template about the pro wrestling promotions in USA, there is a list of national promotions (TNA, WWE and ROH, the big ones) Now, since MLW and Ring Warriors have TV Deals, some users have upgrade them. But... I think this section is old-school minded. This is before the internet, when every promotion has global range. Several promotions have their spot in highspots. Other promotions are in Twitch, like House of Hardcore or AAA (even Impact) So... do you think we should reconsider the national aspect of the template? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I thought that "national" related to where they hold shows,not TV, MPJ-DK (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
    • really? if you see the view history, the idea was national tv deal.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Sorry but based on that logic we'd list AAA, as a US National promotion? Whu? MPJ-DK (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
        • I actually thought it would be "national scope". Simply having a nationwide media coverage doesn't mean that it is a national promotion. I think you'd have to have scope across the country, as something like OVW only held shows around one area, but did at one stage, have a platform to show their TV across most of the world. Doesn't make it anything more than developmental/territory. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
          • I tend to agree. Just because MLW suddenly got a TV deal with an obscure cable channel he's known for broadcasting Serie A soccer matches doesn't mean they're suddenly a national promotion. They have never held a show outside their studio. And we're completely shut down for years. They're more akin to Lucha Underground, which, one notes, is listed as a TV series only. oknazevad (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
            • Please do some research on them and then come back and comment again with knowledge. The have previously also done other locations in Florida, they were in NYC a couple months ago and will be back in a couple weeks, they have Chicago coming up soon too. They were in the same location in Orlando from October-July, however they havent been back since [20], with no scheduled tapings there either. In addition would you have not considered TNA a national promotion when they only filmed in Orlando? What about WCW when they were always in Disney? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 11:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

"Always at Disney", My lord Guerrero weeps at that statement. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Taya Valkyrie

Taya is listed on the List of Impact Wrestling personnel as inactive. It says that it is because of visa issues. If it is visa issues, than why is she being booked by independent promotions in the United States? She is booked for a match in Las Vegas for the Future Stars of Wrestling Women's Championship. An update would be helpful. I mean, her career section doesn't even mention she is with Impact Wrestling. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 15:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd removed. I'm all for only personell that can be sourced as working currently for the company as being on this type of list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: Her career section doesn't even mention she is with Impact Wrestling. I've done some searching and can't find any update on her visa and permanent residency issues. There is no update on the situation. There can't be any issues as she returned to Impact Wrestling in March. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 15:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I fact, I think we deleted the "Inactive, hasn't appeared in over 30 days" since it's OR. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Nust want to point out that the last few Impact tapings have been held in Canada, so he ability to work indie shows in the US do not reflect on whether or not she has had visa issues in relation to Impact. oknazevad (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
@Oknazevad: You still need a work visa if you are Canadian entering the United States to work. There are no separate visas depending on Impact Wrestling or independents. She has been trying to get permanent residency since she is married to John Hennigan aka Johnny Mundo, Johnny Impact, and John Morrison. But I don't know the latest. Doing searches, I haven't found any update on the latest with this. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_103&oldid=935337494"