Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 104

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 100←Archive 102Archive 103Archive 104Archive 105Archive 106→Archive 110

Meltzer star ratings really shouldn't be listed under "accomplishments"

Getting two thumbs up from Roger Ebert isn't listed under "accolades" for films, I think we should think of it the same here. It's not like the Observer awards or HoF, it's just Dave's feelings.★Trekker (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this issue was discussed long time ago. I will take a look into the archives when I come --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, but either way I think they should be removed.★Trekker (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
What exactly are we referring too? Is it the Wrestling Observer Newsletter? I don't see how those awards are any different from say, an IGN review of a game. Those are also just the feelings of the author. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
But for games there are tons of reviews from different people in a shart most of the time, with this it's listed like an award like the Observer ones, which they are not. Even Dave has said he doesn't take them seriously. Honestly it almost seems like a hard Meltzer bias that shows up all the time in wrestling fan circles.★Trekker (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, why list only the ones above 5 stars? It's because we thought before that that was his limit, but clearly that isn't the case, so now the distinction of 5 stars is arbitrary.★Trekker (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd !vote to move them to the prose, as long as there's a good source to support it. These weren't WON awards but sometimes get enough coverage to be worth mentioning. Meltzer's current infatuation with Kenny Omega is in his lede and actually may belong there.LM2000 (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I feel they really only belong in the reception section of an event, we dont need to much detail about matches on individual pages. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this, I don't see any reason why it would be in the lead section of a wrestlers article really.★Trekker (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Not a fan of including Meltzer's ratings in C&A either. I'm fine with them in reception to an event or briefly covered in the "Style and persona" section of bios if appropriate (such as in Kenny Omega's case).
Without getting too much off-topic; when this was brought up last time I also mentioned my dislike of PWI rankings being listed in literally every wrestler's C&A section, even if they're ranked in the hundreds. Ideally it would be limited to #1 rankings, but I don't think there's much support for that. Prefall 14:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I suport the use of rankings such as PWIs, I think it's a good indication of notability.★Trekker (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Totally agree. PWI 500 and similar are the closest thing to independent awards we have. It would be a problem if we listed every occurance of being in the list,but not as it is now. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

PWI is a kayfabe ranking and is often considered a step below the Wrestling Observer by the wrestling community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.52.198 (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

[1] [2] well, it's like a deja vu, since source 18 is the exact same conversation. I think the project agreed to remove the star ratings, but some well-intentioned users and IPs put them again and we forget the decission. Maybe, we should include in a different article? Even if it's Meltzer pure subjetive opinion, wrestling world (wrestlers, fans, journalist) take him too serious. Or maybe a list of best macthes ever, like the list of best/worst films ever made? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The problem with such a list would once again be that we need the input from many more reliable sources which agree that the matches are considered such. Either way it's nice to see that it was agreed to removed the ratings, I'll go ahead an do so if I see any.★Trekker (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm looking at the Bonnie and Clyde page and it certainly lists Ebert giving the film 4/4 stars as part of its critical reception. Just saying, the Observer is pretty much the paper of record on the wrestling industry. It seems silly to me to remove the ratings. General Ridley —Preceding undated comment added 18:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
If wrestling articles had "reception" sections like I want them to have we could list them. But again "accomplishments" aren't the same as "reception". This has been discussed below. I don't have a problem with Meltzers rating I have a problem with them being in the wrong section.★Trekker (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Made an account to try to offer some insight. While no one is arguing that these are the end all be all, they are widely considered the single most reliable source of ratings for the sport. Wikipedia has acted as the defacto source for this information in a central area essentially since other reputable sites quite honestly aren't as well fleshed out. It would be a shame and a tremendous loss of information to enact a change to remove the stars for no other reason than to simply just remove something. While they may not be defacto awards, they absolutely are accomplishments in their own right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChelsInMotion (talk • contribs) 20:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I really can't agree with that, while Meltzers ratings are valuable in their own right I don't agree that they're like an accolade like a HoF induction. I've compared his ratings to Roger Ebert's scores, they just don't belong in an awards cateory.★Trekker (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I think articles should have more "Reception" sections

Right now it's mostly event articles that have them, I think stuff like Meltzers ratings and similar could be included in such a section instead for wrestlers and teams.★Trekker (talk) 12:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I tried to do it in the wrestling style and persona, for example I included criticism in Brock Lesnar. Some wrestlers like Ric Flair or Taker have a Legacy section. I think is a good idea. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I think guys like Bret Hart and Ric Flair who have major legacies should keep their legacy section as well, but some of the stuff in the sections make more sense in another section. I think the "style and persona" section is great for those purposes but I'm not sure how big they'll end up if we'll try to put too much stuff in them.★Trekker (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This would be a great idea, but having one persons opinion is a bit of a stretch for a reception. If we had more places that did reviews, that we could percieve as reliable for this purpose. (Somewhere like WhatCulture, TJR or 411mania). If there were more that we could use, this would be great way to add to bios. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
PWInsider and PWTorch have done reviews I'm pretty sure.★Trekker (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes they do editorials and reviews. Also, we have big media like NY Times and that kind of media and interviews with wrestlers (yesterday I readed Ric Flair saying Ricky Steamboat is the best babyface ever.) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
There are a ton of places to pick from really, esspecially my favorite: SLAM! Wrestling.★Trekker (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, is Cultaholic and WhatCulture the same thing or separate?★Trekker (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I think are separate thing. the wc staff left the website and opened Cultaholic --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the info.★Trekker (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. There was quite the fall out, regarding management and similar from sources. I certainly don't think they are particularly notable, but they clearly have some editorial process. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I would put up a discussion about them on the sources page, but there are already several unfinished ones there who need attention first.★Trekker (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • So are you guys suggesting a section ala "Persona and reception"? Include notes on the character they play, select moves, PWI/Observer ratings and perhaps select review comments? MPJ-DK (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal of content discussion

Can the WWE marks please stop ruining wrestlers wikipedia pages? You already ruined it by getting rid of movesets. Don't make it worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:FE05:301:A882:A795:B5C7:2977 (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't watch much WWE, I mostly watch Canadian indies.★Trekker (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh phew, that's me out then. Close call, glad thing it was not blamed on lucha-nerds or CMLL marks ;) MPJ-DK (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It'd be much easier if the people editing Wikipedia just was willing to say "you know, we just don't like that fake 'rasslin shit and any wrestling fans are braindead hillbilly retards who think it's real. Which it's not, because it's fake. Fake and gay. Losers." All these changes to wrestling wikis are taking from the site as a whole.

I and everyone else here is a huge wreslting fan. We wouldn't be editing here if we were not wrestling fans. This is the worst argument I've ever seen from someone being angry at this place.★Trekker (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I disagree with the fact that this small section of Wikipedia is detracting from the overall site. In fact, the removal of the in wrestling section was discussed in a rather mainstream manner. The major discussion was discussed at the site's main place for policy debates and was written about in the Signpost, and neither (to me, at least) seem to emphasize that this issue make Wikipedia, a site with nearly 6,000,000 articles, worse. So please, before you make assumptions and insult the entire project in the same statement, do some research. JTP (talk • contribs) 22:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, just realize that you are eliminating a whole bunch of info that wrestling fans come here to see as it's the only place it's been aggregated somewhat well. They see your inability to re-arrange information into a more pleasing and suitable format as malice, when it's just incompetence. 2620:15C:20:11:3C7A:435C:4711:2028 (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Please explain how any of the changes made over the last four months are "incompetent." JTP (talk • contribs) 22:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
So... hate to say this but another example of just complaining that others have or have not done something, while not doing anything themselves about it. There was a suggestion given that those who wanted to could write a section about their moves, personalities etc. - It was not a trade, it was an option given to those who wanted to do the work, which seems to not include most of the people complaining. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Why bother, when you will just find another reason to remove it? You could have shown good faith by reworking the info you were removing yourself (yknow, the same thing you’re casting stones about) and adhereing to the compromise proposed, but instead you chose to outright delete information (From an encyclopedia. Brilliant.) which is essentially vandalism, but since your small group has agreed on the subject, it isn’t treated that way.
Maybe you do love wrestlinFMPJg, but you certainly love it less than you love ruling over this Wikipedia portal. 2601:18D:8900:97AA:15FF:375D:9605:39C4 (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
So in other words "All complaints, no action". There was no "compromise" - the RFT was "should the In Wrestling section be removed" - that was the outcome. That some people offered an option to retain some, non-trival information is not in fact a "compromise", perhaps you are not quite clear on what the word "compromise" means? Oh, oh, oh also - if I have actually written a couple of those sections can I throw stones? MPJ-DK (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The Wiki editors for pro wrestling really need to cut this out. Blatantly removing sections from pages just because it doesn't fit their view of the industry is stupid and pathetic. Do better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.52.198 (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

How about you guys reinstate the moves list and stop arguing over nonsensical academic theories on why certain sectiosn should be removed? It's obvious from your own talk page that you have "lashing out" issues. I don't trust you with editorialship over this Wikia. 98.127.52.198 (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
You don't. Its against Wikipedia policy to include. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Or you could learn how Wikipedia works and stop talking about conspiracy theories. My issues are exactly why I avoid social media and forums. I have never used 4Chan, Tumblr or anyhing like that because my OCD and medication isn't compatibale with it. It's more likely that someone like the Abominable Wiki Troll would stir shit up on a forum and pretend to be someone here that anyone here would care enough about some place with a few 100 posters enough to argue with you over somewhere else when you still feel the need to come to us. Wikipedia won't ever give in to some mob, so just spend your energy on something else. Why do you even care, there are tons of other places to find their finishing moves, all everyone here is trying to do it make wrestling fit into an encyclopedia.★Trekker (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
@*Treker: Do you not how bad that sounds when you say your medication is compatible with a social media site? Medication and the Internet are not related to each other. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 15:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
The problem is clearly you not grasping what I'm saying. Is it hard to decipher "the state my medication puts me it makes me not want to use social media because it's harmful to my mental health"? Do you have an intense desire to rag on every single thing I write/do/think/feel? Why do you feel the need to start up this pretty much dead discussion again? Don't ping me here, if I wanted to keep track of this page I would.★Trekker (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
@*Treker: You do keep track of this page as you comment on nearly everything. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Not anymore, because this cancerous discussion, so top pinging me. Just be decent enought to do me that favor will you.★Trekker (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh dear "Internet entity consisting of numbers"you seem to have a made a couple of factual mistakes in your belligerent comments before losing us all by making demands in the end. There seems to be a major typo where "doesn't fit their view of the industry" should have been "it was the general consensus of a broad audience that this section was not within the guidelines of Wikipedia" - hell of a typo, did you sneeze perhaps? Following that up with personal insults against several people is a brilliant move, only eclipsed by giving people a goal but no guidance of how to achieve this "better" state. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Why is it that Wikia editors always argue from authority or academic elitism? I assure you I made no "typos"....in fact, if you guys stepped outside your digital ivory tower, you would find a lot of wrestling internet personalities, including MrLariato and the Voices of Wrestling Twitter account, were very displeased with your decision to remove move/theme lists and found it baffling, not to mention insulting. You guys really ruffled some feathers. But then again, I doubt you guys would care since Wikia editors often hold their community in disdain. 98.127.52.198 (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
What I don't care for are people coming here bitching and being hostile right off the bat. Insulting people is really not a good way to get them to get them to do what you want. But good luck to you. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Not sure you know what a “broad audience” is, I recall more people against it than for it. Unless by “general consensus” you mean “agreement among editors (some of which actively and openly despise wrestling to the point of insulting it in the RFT) despite the actual readers loudly voicing their protest”, in which case yes it was a general consensus for sure. 2601:18D:8900:97AA:D821:CD07:4AEE:DC7E (talk) 05:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
"actual readers" seems to be the kryptonite you want to use to ignore wikipedia guidelines, and you do like to make yourself Sound awefully important. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Can We Remove this author from the pages at least https://www.reddit.com/r/SquaredCircle/comments/9gpbed/meta_one_of_the_wikipedia_editors_responsible_for/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownAuthor2019 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Not sure what you are asking for? If you Think an editor should be banned from Wikipedia this is not the place for that. We are not Admins. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • No, but you can remove a certain person....it's obvious its Trek, and if you want to leave his opinion there you can but you can be also to blame for every fan not using wikipedia anymore — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownAuthor2019 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
    • No, on two accounts. One, "it's obvious" you have no evidence. Two, that's still not how it works. WP:ANI is the place, but without evidence, you have no case. JTP (talk • contribs) 03:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Wha wha wha. All wrestlig pages are destryed because I can't read what some guys third finsiher whas. Wha Wha.
Fuck off. Neither you nor anyone else here have enough will power to fucking boycott the website anyway. You'll just read it and never donate. Just like you did before this while thing happned.
Nice Wikipedia Editors you got there, Can't even spell words correctly. Guess Wikipedia don't need my money after all — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownAuthor2019 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Excuse me where exactly I have I or anyone here said anything about removing all WON awards? It's obvious none of you are even reading the discussion that's going on here.★Trekker (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
This matters why? You all attacked him back and are essentially trying to dox him. The hypocrisy is palpable. JTP (talk • contribs) 03:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Really and the fact that he comes out and trashes everyone on that sides opinions as the simple fact is that you guys have been having such a egotistical outlook that no one wants to post any opinions, but I never attacked him back; clearly though if you don't feel like you shouldn't be critiqued for your actions then maybe you should leave wikipedia. Like Trek did when he deleted his Reddit account after insulting everyone on there about how great it is to be a BIG SHOT WIKIPEDIA EDITOR GANGSTA... UnknownAuthor2019 (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't go to Reddit because I can't use social media due to my ODC. Someone on some random forum being an asshole in none of my concern and I would aprecitate if you weren't so quick to jump to conclusions about things. I wasn't even involved with the decition to remove the "In wrestling" section nor would I feel strongly enough about it to argue with someone about it outside of Wikipedia, as a matter of fact I think I might feel it's been a bad decition in the end.★Trekker (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Hypocrisy at its finest. First, prove the egotism side of things. Every attack from Reddit called us "self-centered" or "controlling" or "wrestling nerds with no life" (pot calling the kettle black, perhaps?), but I saw no proof. Our goal is not to make the smarks at r/sc happy. If they don't like it, so be it. Either engage in WP:CIVIL conversation, or let it be. But if they want to hurl insults our way, they have to be prepared to take them as well. It's a rule that everyone learned in grade school, so I don't see why grown men can't adhere to it. The editor displayed his side of the argument and was beaten to hell and back for it. The only name-calling I'm seeing here is yours. I enjoy reading the sub from time to time, but civil discussions clearly don't exist over there. JTP (talk • contribs) 04:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Maybe you should look in to that to; your comment about keeping your comments to your self; isn't exactly following your own advice UnknownAuthor2019 (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to link this r/squaredcircle thread from a few hours ago of "angry" Redditors about the accomplishments section. I'll keep my comments to myself, unlike them. JTP (talk • contribs) 03:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that as a wiki editor myself, I get where you guys are coming from. You saw something that looked unnecessary and so you removed it. But don't you think that if enough of your readers are getting all up in arms about all the content you're removing - which they say is helpful to them - you should maybe reconsider? It's easy for you to get caught up in what you think is best for the site as editors, since you're contributing to and maintaining it, but you should also think about the people that actually use the information you put out there. As for me, I found the signatures/finishers helpful when it was time to create a wrestler in a game, but now where will I go for that information? I guess not here. That's just my two cents anyway. -71.125.63.220 (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I think wrestling fans have been spoiled by how lenient Wikipedia's standards and policies were enforced on these articles in the past—and to a degree, still are. A lot of them view Wikipedia through the scope of a hardcore fan who wants to know every minuscule detail or the latest news, rather than an uninformed reader looking to understand a subject. An extensive list of every finisher, signature move, entrance theme, etc. may be useful to some, not but to the degree that Wikipedia seeks to be (see WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and WP:ITSUSEFUL). You go to articles about other fictional characters and you won't see a giant, seemingly never-ending plot summary (like our "Career" sections, which are also written WP:INUNIVERSE) or a neat list of traits (like the "In wrestling" section); you go to other athletes articles and you won't find a huge list of every video game that uses their likeness (like ours do). This running theme of the fanbase getting outraged about certain content getting removed, trimmed or reworked will likely continue into the next few years, as these standards finally catch up to wrestling articles. And to be clear, I'm not trying to be a douche—if I was in your position, I would likely feel the same way. This is just how Wikipedia operates, and I'm sure some other fan sites will emerge and cover the in-depth information that fans are seeking far better than we ever could. Prefall 10:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
This issue has been discussed the last 2 months. The fans don't understand Wikipedia has several rules and styleguides to follow. After 10 years, the In wrestling section is like a war zone. Every few days a IP with good intentions put every single move or nickname he saw during a match. I used the section a lot, but as editor I saw a lot of problems. I tried to interview Sonny Kiss so I readed his Wikia profile but... no sources, I don't know if the moveset is right. Same, when I watch One Piece or Bleach, I read Wikipedia to undertsand the process and the reception. For the list of attacks, I read Wikia. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there any actual point to this latest round of complaints or are you content to just beating s dead horse while showing that some Reddit user have no clye about what actually happened? The Pro Wrestling project did not sanction the approval, getting it back cannot happen through complaints here on this board. So what exactly is the purpose of this? Beyond venting and personal attacks. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Why did the entrance themes get deleted?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
WrestlingLegendAS - Did you miss the literal months of conversation regarding this? See "In_wrestling"_section_be_removed_from_professional_wrestling_articles Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I am glad all the Jewish holidays are keeping me so busy I missed this for days. I don't get why everyone complaining is still hanging around here and not just moving to the professional wrestling Wikia. Looking at [3] I see the in wrestling stuff is all still there. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I used to edit on the Wikia a while back (Same username), the wikia is good, and doesn't have the same definitions as wikipedia. Why not just update these things there? And stop complaining? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Just going to put this out there - I've been out of activity for two weeks - Glad I missed this conversation. Every time an IP or new user comes to complain, anyone actually trying to promote wikipedia, is a sadist or fanboy.
I may write an essay on this at some point, but new editors need to realise that Wikipedia has guidelines that are meant for ALL articles, not just ones in your domain. Anything these articles can do to remove fancruft, and create quality articles is great news. Wikipedia is NOT a non-descipt resource for all information, articles on people should give an overview of who they are, and what they do.
It should be noted as above, that the Pro Wrestling WikiProject did not on it's own remove this content, and it had a wide array of support from across wikipedia. If anyone has a complaint, at least read the closing comments regarding the discussion, by someone who is in no way connected to the project. All arguements for retaining this information was not baised on wikipedia's goals. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

FfD alert

Just FYI for everyone here, I've setup a FfD for the promotional image used in WWF One Night Only here. Really, that image originated from an auction website, looks like a late 90s to 2000s WWE DVD cover despite being originally released in 1997 and there's websites dedicated for custom wrestling DVD covers, so next time be careful of fake covers. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 18:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

WWE.com has changed their calculation method for reign days

Unfortunately, their method is still broken. Previously it would inflate numbers by 1 on certain occasions (CM Punk's 434-day reign listed as 435; AJ Lee's 295-day reign listed as 296), but now it lessens them by 1 (Lex Luger's 523-day reign listed as 522; Honky Tonk Man's 454-day reign listed as 453; Nikki Bella's 301-day reign listed as 300). Sidenote, they have also started listing "<1 day" for reigns less than one day, instead of the specific amount of time (e.g. 2 minutes).

We have to go back through all of the WWE reigns and update them based on new figures. Personally, their calculations are clearly errors that we should ignore. The dates listed do not align with their calculation method at all, nor with the figures they have actually promoted on television and in articles. Prefall 17:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Once again a reason to not care about what WWE thinks when it goes against reality.★Trekker (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
The whole "goes against reality" argument I find silly when we're dealing with something that's fiction (and something they own), but regardless, that's annoying that they did that. Perhaps when they made the change, it inadvertently changed those numbers and they will perhaps be fixed soon. Maybe wait a couple of days to see if they fix it before we make any changes? If they don't fix it in a couple of days, then we can go through our article and put the correct numbers (with the exception of the tape delays that are purposefully a different number) and have a note tagged by those one-off days that have no reason to be one-off. --JDC808 ♫ 19:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
A director can't go back and claim that he didn't film a scene he filmed. At most it can be declared "not canon" or the like. But WWE tries to rewrite history and claim it's what really happened half the time.★Trekker (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I agree with what you're saying I'm just really tired of WWE's revisionist history nonsense.★Trekker (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Their calculations have been broken since the website redesign in July 2016 (See Punk's reign listed as 435). This is just broken in the opposite direction of what it was before (numbers inflated vs. lessened). I don't see it being fixed any time soon. Prefall 19:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Do we even know if this stuff from the website is what the company actually thinks?★Trekker (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Did this affect any reigns not being on the site anymore? Maybe this new update broke much more than? I also think that we should not mention their flawed numbers at all (only when it is about tape date / air date). How about a note at the top or bottom of each article saying that WWE.com's counting system is flawed and therefore their number vary by +/- 1?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah that could work.★Trekker (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Using your own calculations to "disprove" the number given by the official source is original research. Calling the official record "flawed" is original research. How do you intend to get around this core policy? Note: I'm not asking you if you're confident that you're correct. I'm asking which Wikipedia policy you are citing to justify using original research in place of verifiable information. Note about the note: Verifiability means that it can be cited to a reliable source, not that it can be proven true. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
WP:CALC applies here, no? Verifying the start and end dates (that they also provide) with {{Age in days}} tells us that the days number is incorrect. Prefall 18:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
How about not calling their calculations flawed then, but instead just put a note above or below the lists that WWE has the same start and end dates, just calculates the lengths differently? Calling it different instead of flawed isn't original research anymore, is it?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
If wrestling articles had "reception" sections like I want them to have we could list them. But again "accomplishments" aren't the same as "reception". This has been discussed above. I don't have a problem with Meltzers rating I have a problem with them being in the wrong section.★Trekker (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Treker, i think you re the one in the wrong section hehe--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Ops.★Trekker (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Restoring this discussion from the archives as it has not been properly addressed yet. No matter the outcome, none of the WWE championship articles have been updated to reflect the new numbers. Prefall 17:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Uninformative storylines

There seem to be some editors who have been inserting substantially the same "storyline" into articles about different professional wrestling events. I first noticed this in Glory By Honor XVI:

Glory By Honor XVI will feature professional wrestling matches, involving different wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feuds, plots, and storylines that played out on ROH's television programs. Wrestlers portrayed villains or heroes as they followed a series of events that built tension and culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches.

And look at WCW/New Japan Supershow III:

The event featured ten professional wrestling matches and two pre-show matches that involved different wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feuds and storylines. Wrestlers portrayed villains, heroes, or less distinguishable characters in the scripted events that built tension and culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches.

And Uncensored (2000):

The event featured professional wrestling matches that involve different wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feuds and storylines. Professional wrestlers portray villains, heroes, or less distinguishable characters in the scripted events that build tension and culminate in a wrestling match or series of matches.

And Final Resolution (2007):

The event featured wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feuds and storylines. Wrestlers portrayed villains, heroes, or less distinguishable characters in the scripted events that built tension and culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches.

I would think that readers who want to read about a particular pro wrestling event would want to know what the storyline pertaining to the particular event was -- not a generic description of what pro wrestling is like. This generic storyline is uninformative. I'm reminded of an interview I saw with "Weird Al" Yankovic when he was promoting his film UHF. He was asked to describe the movie, and said (paraphrased), "Well, it's a series of filmed image, projected on a screen at 24 frames per second to create the illusion of movement." The difference is that Weird Al was joking. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Half-joking, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The solution it's easy. Write the storylines. Somo PPVs like TNA or WCW has no storylines because the editors. You can improve the previous articles by yourself. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Metropolitan90: This should be included on EVERY professional wrestling event. If it is not there, it should be added. This is mentioned in the style guide at WP:PW/PPVG. It is also something that was affirmed at the recent discussions both at WP:VPP and when professional wrestling was put under general sanctions. Professional wrestling draws a fine line between reality and fiction, the things actually happened but they are usually pre-determined. When you read a movie plot, its obviously a plot, with PW it is not as clear and therefore this disclaimer is added. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, this is standard, and has been consensus multiple time to differenciate a PW plot against sporting events, and fiction. PW is somewhere in the middle. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I see that the guideline says such information should be included, but the style guide begins, "The storylines section should contain details on at least three rivalries ...." None of the articles I mentioned above contains details on even one rivalry or mentions even one of the wrestlers involved in the event. For these articles, all Wikipedia has for the storyline is the disclaimer, with no description of the narrative involved that led up to or was portrayed at the event. (Not to mention that it says, "...culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches." For a past event, hopefully it should be known whether the culmination was a single match or more than one match.) If all an article has is the disclaimer paragraph, it ought to be followed by a template like {{missing information}} to indicate that there is supposed to be more there which has not yet been written. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
In these cases, you should simply remove this section in it's entirety. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I dont believe it should be just removed because it is a valid section. Perhaps we need to have a template we can tag it with that says its an event where the XXXXXX sections are missing, and create a category that shows everything with that template. That way we can go to this category and find every page that needs storylines or event details written. I have added storyline sections or event details to dozens of articles in the past. This would be a good way of finding them and when I have time I could find one and expand it. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

problem is, removing it means that the statement on storylines etc. Is removed too, which is a problem as this helps ensure we are not presenting any in ring/feuds "in universe" or in other words as "real". MPJ-DK (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be moved to the lead on these very small articles, with no subheaders. It adds context to the results table too, of which all of these articles have. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Having a section for storylines, where there is no information on the subject is completely pointless. The wording we currently have is enough to cover the storylines section, where kayfabe can be quite confusing. It's irrelevent on articles where there is no such section; as it doesn't apply to the rest of the article, which generally catalogues the event, and what transpired. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
But the issues as to why we have that disclaimer still apply on articles without a storylines section. For example, the first page listed above WCW/New Japan Supershow III shows that in that Jushin Thunder Liger defeated Último Dragón for the IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship. The disclaimer above applies to help people understand that this is determined. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

How to handle...?

Bullet Club

Or at least, big stables. I tried to read Bullet Club articlebut man, it's huge. I mean, HUGE. The article has endless sections which include every single title win/loss. I tried to delete some no notable events to improve the article, since we don't need to include every match of every member of every events. How do you whink we should handle big stables like LIJ, NWO, DX?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

An article that big needs to be split. I propose Bullet Club, and List of members of Bullet Club (or List of members of the Bullet Club), as the list of people over time is clearly big enough for it's own list. I'd also suggest that we have a look at our "accomplishments" section for big groups. For instance, is "ROH Wrestler of the Year (2017) - Cody" really a bullet club accomplishment? Stables accomplishments should only really be for them as a group. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
It should probably be consistent with List of New World Order members and be List of Bullet Club members. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I like the split. however, my question is more focus on the history section. I mean, I read some parts and it's like "won title, won title, new memebr, lost title, won title, lost title, new member"... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
About the accomplishment. I have no problem with individual awards. However, I think the PWI 500 is huge. We can include just the highest numer, like Omega Number 1, or Naito Numer 9 --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I thought we already had consensus to only input the highest ranking for PWI 500... As for the career section, these articles do need a cleanup - As per below, but it's obviously a lot of work. I'd suggest removing non-notable title wins, and condensing. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

independent circuit section

It has the same problem. The indys are bigger now than the 2000s. However, some articles includes every match the wrestlers have. Some of them are billed as dream matches, but in the end, the section is full of results without storylines or enciclopedic content. For example, [4] [5] I changed the PCO section to be more encilcopedic, deleting no notable matches. But stills a problem in several articles, like Tommy Dreamer (HOH section), Sabu (wrestler), Sami Callihan... So, how can we handle the independent circuit section? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

A lot of this is people who are fans of X indy promotion updating just their own results as a means of promotion. It's hard, because it is a new match, but we need to write it as a specific narrative, and not just results Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
This would almost fall under the "No day by day" stuff, should be boiled down to highlights not just an indiscriminate collection of matches - title wins, significant tournaments, first match in a new country, that kind of thing. Does it help anyone to understand a wrestler better if they read that "on February 28, 1987 Big Bruiser Brutarsky defeated Chris the Chicken Man at a Southpaw Regional Wrestling show". Yes it' a fact, yes it can (probably) be sourced, but that doesn't mean it's got encyclopedic value and should be included. So hopefully this doesn't start another #MoveListGate type of situation, but I suggest we slash and delete anything that's just an indy match with no context or significance. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course, I don't want another In wrestling thing. But at least, know how to handle the section. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 06:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Opinion: WWE is NOT the authoritative source on anything but WWE title reigns

I see a lot of NON WWE title histories referring to "WWE doesn't recognize so-and-so reign" and it's listed as "unrecognized". To me this is not encyclopedic at all - the authoritative source on the WCW World Heavyweight Championship was WCW, not what WWE does not because they own it. I see it all over that because of WWE mistakes or whatever, NWA/WCW/ETC. championships have this reference. I'm sorry but the WWE cannot rewrite the "kayfabe" storyline of other companies, they are not the end-all sanctioning body of pro wrestling. Thoughts?  MPJ-DK  18:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Well. Tecnically, WWE owns the rights of WCW and ECW, so maybe they have power over the histories. However, I also feel this is too much WWE-centric, a lot of articles with "WWE this, WWE that"...--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if we have anything right now that says what WCW's stance was, but who is considered the recognize is a different story. Either way its not official so its really for informational purposes, it does not affect much. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, actually they have re-written the kayfabe of others content loads of times. Actually, they've re-written thier own as well... If say the Football association was bought out, and they gave the 2014 premier league to Tottenham Hotspur, we'd write that up in a similar way, I fail to see how this is different. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree...it should be treated the same way as the Penn State stuff was. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The governing body who oversaw Penn State at the time made the claim and that's fine - this is not the same situation. MPJ-DK  20:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • They have definitely tried to rewrite history, but unless it's for a WWE championship reign I don't see how they are the source for anything. This is an encyclopedia, do we really need to list the mistakes that the WWE makes? They were not WCW, they cannot say what WCW did or did not recognize - they are the WWE and they CAN say what the WWE does or does not recognize for anything they had ownership of from the moment they gained ownership and forward. I cannot buy a used car and then claim there was no previous owners.  MPJ-DK  20:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Like Galatz said, it's for informational purposes that doesn't affect much. If anything, those titles that became WWE property in the buyout can be done like how the List of WWE United States Champions does it. The notes of what WWE recognizes can still be there, and as in the case of the U.S. title, it is their championship, regardless if they technically didn't own it from 1975-2001. --JDC808 ♫ 21:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
So in other words "there is not good argument" on your part.  MPJ-DK  22:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The argument is simply that WCW does not exist anymore, and cannot have an official version. WWE owns those titles. They are WWE titles now, even if retired. It's theirs to do with as they please. oknazevad (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
And this is Wikipedia, where we should deal in facts. This insistence on treating WWE like they are the end-all and be-all of professional wrestling is misguided. They can totally have an official version, how this was covered on WCW television etc. plenty of ways to demonstrate how it originally was - instead of using a primary source like the WWE to source championship articles and thus having the need to "explain" every single mistake made in those articles by showing clunky tables with various columns of "facts vs. WWE's version of facts". Unencylopedic.  MPJ-DK  00:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Small quibble, but WWE controls the championships, owns the belts and administers the prizes, but the current titleholders are the only ones with legitimate claim to the titles. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
We should add the 4 US title reigns (remove the grey background colour and give them a title reign number instead of a hyphen) that WWE forgot to add to their title history, but put a note that says WWE does not recognize / list these reigns. Imagine Dana White buying WWE and making Hornswoggle the only WWE Champion, reigning from 1963-2018. Would we really accept that or keep it as it is now with a note that Dana White only recognizes Hornswoggle?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Making up absurd scenarios does nothing to support your point. Remember that posting here indicates that you are indicating interest in building an encyclopedia. If you continue to use Wikipedia to constantly criticize wwe.com's title histories, you are risking an indefinite block. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia should keep to what actually happened, his point about using a note to say that WWE doesn't recognize it is the right way to go, any other thing would be ridiculous. We shouldn't use "in-universe" stuff that WWE says happened.★Trekker (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Except that all pro wrestling is fiction and no one actually wins anything. It's all in-universe stuff. Let's try to remember that. oknazevad (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I know that better than most people on this project. That's why it's important to not treat WWE's retcons as the historical thing that actually happened, when someone is booked to win a title and holds it they did that. It would be like if we let movie directors go back and claim that they didn't have the actors play out a scene in a film because they decided they didn't like the scene anymore. No dude, that still happened. That took place.★Trekker (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright maybe it's time to turn words into action. Below I have outlined the five different ways I can think of for handling "WWE's recognition of now WWE Championships". Please read, comment below and hopefully we won't have to have this discussion again in a month? Wouldn't that be lovely?  MPJ-DK  00:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

1) Status Quo

We give weight and attention to what the WWE says about title history that pre-dates their ownership including different recognition of reign lengths.

Title history
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
† Championship change is unrecognized by the promotion
No. Champion Championship change Reign statistics Notes Ref.
Date Event Location Reign Days Days recog.
1 John Johnson August 16, 1986 Showdown at the Swamp Shreveport, Louisiana 1 197 197 Johnson won the "Doing it for Dewey" tournament to become the first SRW Champion by eliminating "Impressive" Pelvis Wesley.
† Big Bartholomew February 29, 1987 Lethal Leap Year Alabama 1 1 0 Regional Wrestling Empire does not recognize Big Bartholomew's championship reign after Mr. Mackelroy bought SRW
2 The Sea Creature March 1, 1987 N/A N/A 1 20 21 Mr Macklelroy bought SRW and gave the championship to the Sea Creature.
Combined reign
Rank Wrestler No. of
reigns 		Combined days Combined days
recognized by RWE
1 John Johnson 1 197
2 The Sea Creature 1 20 21
3 Big Bartholomew 1 1 0

2) Mentioned

We mention it in the table, but is not listed as "unrecognized" nor does it show in the "length" entry.

Title history
Key
No. Overall reign number
Reign Reign number for the specific champion
Days Number of days held
No. Champion Championship change Reign statistics Notes Ref.
Date Event Location Reign Days
1 John Johnson August 16, 1986 Showdown at the Swamp Shreveport, Louisiana 1 197 Johnson won the "Doing it for Dewey" tournament to become the first SRW Champion by eliminating "Impressive" Pelvis Wesley.
2 Big Bartholomew February 29, 1987 Lethal Leap Year Alabama 1 1 Regional Wrestling Empire does not recognize Big Bartholomew's championship reign after Mr. Mackelroy bought SRW
3 The Sea Creature March 1, 1987 N/A N/A 1 20 Mr Macklelroy bought SRW and gave the championship to the Sea Creature.
Combined reign
Rank Wrestler No. of
reigns 		Combined days
1 John Johnson 1 197
2 The Sea Creature 1 20
3 Big Bartholomew 1 1

3) Noted

It is mentioned, but de-emphazies as a "footnote" nor does it show in the "length" entry.

Key
No. Overall reign number
Reign Reign number for the specific champion
Days Number of days held
No. Champion Championship change Reign statistics Notes Ref.
Date Event Location Reign Days
1 John Johnson August 16, 1986 Showdown at the Swamp Shreveport, Louisiana 1 197 Johnson won the "Doing it for Dewey" tournament to become the first SRW Champion by eliminating "Impressive" Pelvis Wesley.
2 Big Bartholomew February 29, 1987 Lethal Leap Year Alabama 1 1 [Notearino 1]
3 The Sea Creature March 1, 1987 N/A N/A 1 20 Mr Macklelroy bought SRW and gave the championship to the Sea Creature.
Footnotes
  1. ^ Regional Wrestling Empire does not recognize Big Bartholomew's championship reign after Mr. Mackelroy bought SRW.

4) Not in table

It is not in the table, but a prose section could outline it

5) Ignored

As the title states, totally removed from the article as 'trivia" and not mentioned anywhere

Discussion

Thoughts? other suggestions??  MPJ-DK  00:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

First off, LOL for using Southpaw Regional Wrestling names, events, etc. (but Lethal Leap Year never happened!) Secondly, I am for what you labeled as the status quo, as it is something that I had pushed for and gained a consensus to change the SG. The "status quo" accounts for everything (reality and what WWE recognizes for their titles, regardless if it predates their ownership). --JDC808 ♫ 03:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
If SRW Said it happened, then it happened ;-)  MPJ-DK  06:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Either option 2 or 3 for title reigns that happened outside of WWE, but aren't recognized by WWE. Option 1 for reigns that happened in WWE (Inoki), were at some point recognized by WWE, but aren't anymore.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
So... how many people have to vote on such a thing to make a decision official?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Well probably more than two, especially since they don't agree with each other.  MPJ-DK  00:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't like it because leap years cannot happen on odd years, so 1987 could not have been a leap year. Clearly that means its a terrible idea :-).
In all actuality we just added the days recognized because it does have some value. For example, looking at List of WWE Women's Champions it shows the complete picture and helps the user better understand. The actual days and days recognized makes a big difference when understanding the subject matter. In addition all the title changes having different days recognized on something like NXT just fills up the notes section and makes it harder to follow. I think having them side by side helps the user understand that there are dates that have it aired and the date they actually won it. Both are important factors.
The rare instance such as the WCW championship recognition changing post WWE purchase should be matters discussed on the article talk page and decided as a one off. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
But why does it say in the IC title history table: Austin 36 days and 36 days recognized, but the note says 64 days? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrestlingLegendAS (talk • contribs) 20:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@WrestlingLegendAS: This format is new, it was probably an error in transposing the table. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Swing and a miss, or TL;DR? This is not about what WWE recognizes for WWE championships. Why discuss the others in "one off" discussions so we have the risk of them being inconsistent?  MPJ-DK 
Ah very clever, by using an example of a WWE branded title that was not originally a WWE title, but an NWA title you are stating that this is an example of where a "one off" discussion is needed, i appreciate the use of reverse psychology to make your point, kudos and I look forward to you leading that one off discussion. MPJ-DK  19:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I am not really sure the point you are making here. I chose that example because it was the first one I could think of with a not recognized change. Same would apply for the WWE Championship, and them not recognizing the change in Japan. It adds to the history and understanding, and I think helps the user understand and provide them with a complete image. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Point is - the example you provided would fall in thr "needs a one off discussion/decision" since it is about WWE not recognising reigns from before they controlled the championship. You do see that right? It is either a poor example of your point, or a great suggestion for the first discussion.  MPJ-DK  19:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
It was a bad example, but not at the same time, since the two different series of reigns have different pages. The WWE created a false history of a belt they created in this instance, based around some actual facts. The List of WWE Champions example is better. Bob Backlund based on actual facts did not hold the championship for 2,135 days even though he is well known for having done so. WWE also says that when AJ Styles won the championship that it was the first time not in North America. By showing the information the way it is currently displayed helps the reader better understand what happened. The WWE owned the titled throughout and chose to rewrite history as it happened. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Sadly I am now forced to resint my praise of your brilliance (sadly) and reinstate my "swing and a miss" comment. I guess I assumed more Good Faith in your thought process than you actually had. So to be clear since it's apparently not that it was listed in the title of this thread - this section is NOT, I repeat *NOT* about championships that have always been WWE, that's theirs to do with as they want - but recognition of reigns that did not happen while under WWE ownership. In essence we are giving credence to some mistakes taht WWE.com has made, them rewriting history intentionally or unintentionally etc. In other words all those instances where you advocate a "case-by-case" debate. Clear?  MPJ-DK  22:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

So this discussion ends in a no contest and everything stays the same?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Don't jump to conclusions. The discussion hasn't ended. At the current moment though, 2 are for Option 1, and 2 are for something other than Option 1. --JDC808 ♫ 18:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Who are the 2 for option 1? I am ONLY for option 1 when it comes to title changes that happened in WWE, NOT for WCW / ECW / NWA titles changes!WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Myself, and I'm fully for Option 1, not with exceptions like how you are. Galatz's posts seem to also be in favor of Option 1. --JDC808 ♫ 00:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Why let WWE decide what happened in NWA? And Galatz was talking about something else the entire time.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
We're not. It shows both what the NWA (or whichever promotion) recognized when they owned the titles AND what WWE recognizes for those titles that were previously owned by NWA, etc., but are now owned by WWE. And no he wasn't. Go back and reread his very first post for this discussion. --JDC808 ♫ 00:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
It shows both, but it gives the preference to what WWE says. Why not give preference to what the company, in which it actually happened, says?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
The company for which it actually happened is first, then WWE, who now OWNS the belts. --JDC808 ♫ 17:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
No, WWE is first as we currently have it. Otherwise the 4 US title reigns that WWE forgot to add wouldn't be in grey.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
No it's not. And whether they "forgot" or purposefully decided not to recognize them, we can't say for sure. --JDC808 ♫ 01:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Look at List of US Champs and there you can see that these 4 title reigns are in grey and have † instead of a number.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
You're ignoring what's been said. --JDC808 ♫ 02:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay. Then tell me how WWE's opinion is not first in List of US Champs?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
If WWE's opinion was first or whatever, then the unrecognized champions wouldn't be listed here at all. --JDC808 ♫ 21:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
And I say if NWA was first, the reigns wouldn't be grey; they are only grey because of WWE. So we will never agree on who is first. NWA first would mean a note saying WWE does not recognize them anymore; the reigns would not be in grey in that case.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

JDC808 what you are describing is if WWE was the only source that is used - that is not the case, WWE is first, WCW/NWA is secondadary as WrestlingLegendAS said.  MPJ-DK  22:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Now that that is settled: do we have a majority decision so we can change it to have the company in which it actually happened first?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Dude, stop jumping to conclusions. Nothing has been settled yet. And no, MPJ, that was not what I was describing. --JDC808 ♫ 22:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
So... obviously you were not very clear, saying "that is not what I was describing" hardly helps. You said if WWE's opion was first we would not even list the unrecognized reigns - Which would mean that the table ONLY reflected the WWE opinion since WCW's opinion is eliminated. Care to explain how it would look then if WWE was first because I am not clear on what you mean then. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I literally described it in a previous comment, but I'll elaborate some more. WWE is not first here for the simple fact that we include what happened in reality, such as including reigns that WWE does not recognize, putting the actual reign length first in the table, and then the reign length that WWE recognizes, that way the actual reign length takes precedence over what WWE recognizes (which is also true in the combined reigns table; reality first, then WWE), etc. --JDC808 ♫ 01:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
If the WWE was not first then there would be no "unrecognized" reins and the WWE recognition is either a note in the table or a foot note. The fact that they are labelled as such means we give weight to the WWE claims over WCW. Only Way we could be more-WWE centric would be to delete the unrecognized Lines completely. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC) .
And I wasn't talking about the different reign lengths, I was talking about reigns only unrecognized by WWE being grey, which clearly makes WWE first and the company in which it happened second.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
There's only three of us still actively participating in this discussion, so I'm not sure how much of a consensus we can really get to, but in thinking about it, here's a somewhat alternative idea to the above options; a combination of Option 1 and Option 2. Currently, on List of WWE United States Champions, there's a big green line in the table indicating who owned the championship at the time (so it starts out in NWA, then before Luger's reign in 89, it switches to WCW, then after Booker T in 2001, it switches to WWF/WWE). In combining Option 1 and Option 2, we keep the reign statistics as they are, but we remove the grey from reigns that WWE does not recognize prior to their acquisition (if they were actually recognized by the promotion at the time) and as suggested, put a note if WWE does not recognize that reign. Does that make sense? --JDC808 ♫ 02:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Let's do that.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey?2003:CE:D728:FC27:58FF:F9E:9B3A:7F0 (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
"WWE is NOT the authoritative source on anything but WWE title reigns"
Actually, WWE is not even the authoritive source on WWE title reigns. They are the ones that decide that championships are won or lost and, if not aired live, when these title changes are aired. They might even (like WCW before) decide not to recongize a title change at the time (e.g. if was some unplanned back-and-forth). However, they are not in the position to rewrite history outside of their own programmes. However, a note that WWE "no longer recognizes" a certain reign is appropriate. Str1977 (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggesting an Alternate Reading of the Spoiler Policy

I'm sure the topic of spoilers on wrestling articles on Wikipedia has been discussed time and time again, but it doesn't seem like it had been discussed recently. I wanted to bring it up from the perspective of a user who has had results of a pre-taped but not yet aired event spoiled, just because I wanted to learn more about the participants of the event.

In one talk page, the Wikipedia policy on spoilers was referenced to defend the results being posted, specifically this line: "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." This policy seems vague and open to multiple interpretations. The original intent seems to be to allow all current information to be documented, to which I agree. We should not be arguing at what point after something exists that it is no longer a spoiler, because then you might get people arguing that Wikipedia pages spoiled the end of Shakespeare's works, which is absurd. Rather, I would like to argue what the definition of "current" is, with regards to pre-taped entertainment and works such as wrestling.

I would like to make the case that a wrestling event is not current until its final produced presentation. In the case of pre-taped shows which are scheduled to be aired at a later date, the final presentation would be on their air date (e.g. Mae Young Classic, NXT, Lucha Underground shows). If the event is not intended to be pre-taped and aired at a later date, then the final presentation would be the live event as it occurs (e.g. typical live shows). This would follow from other forms of pre-taped entertainment, for example reality game shows with an audience.

To use a recent example, look at the page for the newest season of Hell's Kitchen, in which the contestants (the chefs) clearly have a live audience (the customers). It would not be out of the realm of possibility that one of the audience members had leaked the results of any of the episodes, yet the Wikipedia page is kept current only with the information aired in the final produced presentation of each episode. I propose the suggestion that this model might be applied to wrestling pages as well, not only for consistency among Wikipedia projects, but also to be more welcoming to readers and new users. Breadfiesta (talk) 06:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, we can read your arguments and think about the policy. My problem is wrestling has a very blur line between fiction and reality, so some aspects are harder. For example, the ring names. I udnerstand Kane is a character and Glenn Jacobs is a person, but Jacobs has made a lot of public appearences as Kane (an strange combination of character and stage name). Same for Piper or Hogan (Terry admited during the trial Hulk Hogan is a character). About this, I understand with LU, since it's a TV Show and not a wrestling promotion (also, I hate being spoiled). On the other side, we have to write fact and that's where the reality side appears. If wreestler X loses a title but the match is aired two months later... well, he already lost the title. Or the BOLA winner, an event aired on DVD months later. However, I follow WOS Wrestling and the articles are written wihout spoilers (two days ago Grado and Smith won the tag team titles) and I can live with that. Opinions? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
The Hell's Kitchen example actually is a poor one, due to the fact that anyone in attendance would have signed an affidavit that they wouldn't leak the show, so any spoilers that did come from this are actually held under certain laws; so wikipedia would be against using this. Wrestling crowds are under no such obligation, and are actively encouraged to speak out about their experiences from a show. A results section is unique to sporting events, and they are generally updated after the event, regardless of when the footage of the event is shown. (A good example is something like Snooker, where matches are updated when they finish, even if footage of the Paul Hunter Classic earlier this season was delayed.) Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
i think LU also gives the crowd an affidavit. I will google it, but i remember send a cease and desist to websites about publishing the results.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Lucha Underground Sends Legal Threat Over Spoilers --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policies are generally felt under consensus that Wikipedia completely ignores spoiler warnings, and documents things regardless. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

So I have heard this before when discussing LU spoilers. The events have happened, the matches have been contested for, someone's hand has been raised in the air and they have been declared the winner, in fact they may have been announced as the new champion or even defended said championship. Those are all facts, they have happened - can we agree on that? Now it may be that someone changed their mind, threw out the matches, never show them and ignore the results - that would be the "final presentation" and as such should be presented too, as those are facts too. Both are facts, if they can be sourced reliably both should be in the article. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Bobby Boots'n'Tights, portraying the character of "Duke Damage", won the Southpaw Regional Wrestling championship from John Johnson at a taping on February 25, but SRW late decided to not air the match and instead John Johnson was presented as the champion at the 1987 Lethal Leapyear event without explaining why the title change was ignored.
Sorry I am a bit late to the conversation, I am still playing catch up in my life from all the Jewish holidays. I agree that this is one of the many gray lines that professional wrestling walks. I dont see this being different than any other live event that is then broadcast later. For example, they Olympics are aired at night in the US but could occur many hours before, depending where in the world it is that year. These results are always updated in real time, regardless of the airing. I see these events as no different. Just because the WWE possibly COULD edit the footage to change the results, I dont see this as a reason to not include them, this sort of thing should be a footnote, not a replacement. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm gonna point out here that just because they tape something doesn't mean they use it or present it in that matter. Back when TNA was doing massive 3 month block tapings they threw in a few fake results to keep people guessing (Including booking Tommy Dreamer in a scaffold match that never actually happened), taped things out of order, and then completely threw out the finals of a title tournament and taped them again later. Lucha Underground does the same kind of thing. Apparently Aztec Warfare 4 had 10 more people in they entirely edited out for broadcast, and there was Sexy Star not being around for most of Season 3 due to "retiring" but then having more matches taped later on and put earlier into the run (Look for Jack Evans having the broken jaw he got late on in the season) order to build a feud with Worldwide Underground. Then there's probably multiple instances of WWE doing things like when Kaitlyn joined Divas of Doom and then they decided to scrap it for whatever reason so it never made air Crisis.EXE 13:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The thing is - Wrestling isn't a TV show. There is no real consensus that the TV show is any more encylopedic than that of the live event. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
For example. Samoa Joe and Havok lost their titles before BFG. However, it wasn't televised yet, so they appeared with the titles. In Universe, they still the champions. In the real world, they lost the title long before BFG. Again, a tricky blur line in pro wrestling. If we don't inlucde spoilers, we enter into the In Universe too much. If we don't, well, real world but no in universe stuff (which is the purpose of Wikipedia) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:SALT

Anyone know how to formally ask for a page to be Salted? Michael Docimo seems to be recreated a few times now, despite a delete AFD. I've marked it as G4, but I couldn't find any information other than asking for page protection, Which isn't quite right. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I normally just ask the admin who closed the AfD on their talk page if they feel its warranted, and let them handle it. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Just found out about the decision to cut "in wrestling" a couple months back...

Man, what a bad decision y'all made on that one, lol. I know this site's a bit iffy sometimes on what should be included and what shouldn't be, but yikes - it's sad to think that information on what moves, entrance music, etc. a wrestler had in his/her history was considered not worth keeping. Bad move, in my opinion. 68.145.132.165 (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

At least you were polite about it. Unfortunately, WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Thanks for not attacking us like most other people. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
The significant details are still included, which is how it should have been from the start. If anything, we need to cut more—wrestling biographies are a bloated mess of information. Prefall 22:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for being polite. There was an extremely extensive conversation about this, involving many people outside of the PW community. You can read that conversation here. The consensus was this information should be written in prose, not a bullet list. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 01:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, "cut" is probably the wrong word here. Indiscriminate information is removed. If someone's moves or music is notable, it would be silly not to include this, but as with all of wikipedia, this should be in prose, and not just a random list of elements Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to see nice people. As many users said, it was a long discussion, including people outside the project, so it wasn't a random decision. The in wrestling section usually goes against some WP policies. And from a personal point of view, a pain in the a** to keep vandalism-free. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

AfD Notice

Hi all,

Just to say that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Dennis could do with some more input. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The Road Warriors

An IP user continues to insert content with no citation, and when presented with that inserts unreliable references. I don't honestly have time for their nonsense, so I would appreciate someone dealing with this. — Moe Epsilon 10:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, I will handle with this. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

RVD and Big Show, Triple Crown champions

Hi. I had some problems in the Triple Crown article with User Drummoe. He claims since the ECW and WWE US titles have their roots in WCW US and ECW WH titles, Big Show is a WCW Triple Crown champion and RVD, a ECW Triple Crown. So, there is the thing, in case you can help us. Drummoe says both titles are the same as the ECW HW and WCW US titles, so both wrestlers won the titles that conform the ECW and WCW triple crowns. However, for me it's OR and SYNTH. Big Show: WCW was dead years before his victory, so it's hard to achieve an accomplshment of a dead promotion. Also, nor WCW or WWE informed the WWE US title reigns are part of WCW triple crown. I tried to find in the internet something about Show as TTC, but I found nothing. The WCW and the WWE are the same title, but there is no source about WWE reings count for the WCW Triple Crown. RVD: harder, since the title is the same and the ECW was bring from the dead. It was a brand, not a promotion. But again, I didn't find anything about RVD as ECW Triple Crown champion. So, opinions are welcome. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • WCW title reigns don't count in WWE or Luger would be a WWE triple crown champ as WCW world, tag and US were transferred/merged into WWE titles. Cannot become triple crown winner after the promotion died. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I’ve been involved with this debacle for about a month now, regarding Big Show being a WCW Triple Crown Champion. As we know, Big Show, when he was The Giant, is a former WCW World Heavyweight Champion and and former WCW World Tag Team Champion. Of course their secondary title was the WCW United States Championship, which is now the WWE United States Championship. Now, The Giant never won the US title in WCW, but he did win it in WWE, shorty after it was reintroduced. The key word here is ‘reintroduced’, meaning the WWE brought back a deactivated championship. It didn’t ‘introduce’ it as a whole new championship which just so happens to have a similar name to an older championship (e.g. the current WWE Cruiserweight Championship). This means that the WCW US Championship and the WWE US Championship are one and the same, and even though Big Show won the WWE United States Championship, it would still make him a WCW Triple Crown Champion. I’ve stated this many times when I added him to the WCW Triple Crown table in the Triple Crown page, only for it to be removed mere moments later. Despite WCW being defunct for nearly three years when he won it, that doesn’t mean any titles that have somehow remain active under different promotions, i.e. the US title, no longer count toward their Triple Crown for anyone requiring that title. Each time I’ve put back up his name in the table, it’s gone and I’m told that it’s OR and/or SYNTH, and I’m told I need a source to prove it, when really this is a situation where a source isn’t needed. If anything, the source is the championship itself. It’s not OR or SYNTH at all, it’s simply pure logic. Under the WWE United States Championship page, in the main table, it shows its previous names were the ‘NWA United States Heavyweight Championship (Mid-Atlantic and Undisputed) and the WCW United States Heavyweight Championship. Again, this proves that they are one and the same, except with a slightly different name and defended in a different company. Look at the WWE Grand Slam. Kurt Angle and Edge won the US title during the Invasion, when the title was still the WCW United States Championship, and it counted toward their Grand Slam. Two years after the title was deactivated, it was brought back, albeit a new design and with ‘WWE’ instead of ‘WCW’. Yes, Big Show won the title under a different company, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t count toward its defunct previous company’s Triple Crown. Because the championship still continues the lineage from it’s time in previous or now-defunct companies, and not start a whole new lineage (like the Cruiserweight Championship), then it should still count toward the Triple Crown. Same goes for the ECW World Title. It was brought back from the dead to operate under the new ECW. RVD was awarded the title, making him an ECW Triple Crown Champion. I know the Original ECW has been dead for years by then, but again, this title continues the lineage from when it was in the original ECW. So from that point up until it closed in 2010, anyone who needed the ECW World Heavyweight title would become Triple Crown Champions. User:Drummoe (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
That's the definition of OR and SYNTH. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Dead company, no triple crown. It's not just which titles they won, it's where they won them. One cannot be a triple crown champion in WCW if you're not in WCW.
    More importantly, you're not going to find a reliable source calling him a triple crown champ, so it doesn't belong as Wikipedia does not publish original conclusions.
    Finally, if it keeps getting taken out, that's usually a pretty good indication that there's no consensus for it, and you should take the hint. oknazevad (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Fine, call it what you want. But to me and a lot of other smart wrestling fans, Big Show is a WCW Triple Crown Champion and RVD is an ECW Triple Crown Champion, regardless if the promotion the titles were originally from are defunct. Drummoe (talk) 11:51, 29 October, 2018 (UTC)

You do realise this is wikipedia, Drummoe, where we catalogue what official sources say about things. This isn't a fan club. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I suppose none of the people arguing that you cannot win a championship in a dead promotion are not "smart"? MPJ-DK (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I am one of the smart fans that recognizes RVD as an ECW Triple Crown winner. I also recognize my cat as a former Hardcore Champion. We can recognize whatever the hell we want to but there's not much we can do with it here without sources. Unfortunately, there is a lot of WP:OR on Grand Slam and Triple Crown articles because WWE changed the criteria over time and they rarely announced winners until recently. One thing is for sure though, we shouldn't be adding people based on criteria that they never went by in the first place.LM2000 (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The only reason your cat was champion for a year is because the Arabian sand cat didn't want to work Tuesdays! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
As funny as this is; it does just prove that anyone can have an opinion, but it needs sourcing to be relevant. 10:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Meets criteria, only source needed is proof and event of title win First of all, while I’m here I will announce my intention to discuss wrestling article related debates with all of us here, as well as contribute to the project. I’m sorry for my previous outburst at the village pump. I’ll make myself useful here, and even if I won’t always agree with you all, I will love working with you people. And also, on a smaller note, Its always nice to see InedibleHulk’s witty, ass off the chair onto the floor deadpan, well informed and educated debate lighten up mood humor on here. While your humor is always funny (with you describing the racist murder camp and the left wing hippies and right wing prudes on the village pump after my outburst and so much more), that Paul Heyman One Night Stand 2005 reference knocked it out of the park 😂😂 But anyway, casting my Supreme Court justice-like vote of this matter, the promotion it’s sactioned in doesn’t matter. As long as the titles have the same lineage, it counts for those triple crown/grand slam criterium for WCW and ECW. WWE simply just purchased the rights to sanction those titles. It shouldn’t matter if the original companies has been merged and consolidated into the WWF/E. As long as they meet the criteria (won all the (minimum) required championships for the distinction, titles have the same lineage regardless of promotion and name revisions) and there’s proof of the title win, it counts for the distinction. That’s my opinion, and I respect all of yours too, and I’m happy y’all respect mine. LM2000’s personal agreement with this philosophy, even if he points out how the other side’s arguments are more policy based, give weight and support towards Drummoe’s strong arguement regarding that, and I’m adding even more support and rationale for that arguement. Cheers. DrewieStewie (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
He might have met all the criteria per se, but the thing is, all that criteria went out the window after WCW went under. You can't complete the criteria for an achievement that doesn't exist anymore (well you can, but it's a non-existent accomplishment). In one instance, you're right in that the promotion it's sanctioned in doesn't matter. What does matter, however, is if said promotion recognizes the accomplishment. WCW doesn't exist anymore, and has not since 2001, so they can't recognize the accomplishment. WWE, who bought all of the championships and their history therein, are the only ones who can officially recognize Big Show as a WCW Triple Crown Champion, but they do not because he did not win the United States Championship while it was still a WCW title. --JDC808 ♫ 06:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I’d consider it a Triple Crown unless WWE states otherwise. My interpretation of it is that when they purchased WCW and ECW’s assets and titles, they obtained the rights to their triple crown achievements too. However, they never addressed or modified their status, nor formally discontinued the achievement, so it still is active. While they don’t report on subsequent winners, preferring to publicize their triple crown/grand slam winners, they never formally discontinued the previous achievements after they acquired them, thus making, in my interpretation of it, Big Show and Rob Van Dam’s stake to the WCW and ECW triple crowns valid. DrewieStewie (talk) 08:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
DrewieStewie - That argument fails WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, and is the opposite of how wikipedia works. Whether or not a person has completed the triple crown is actually not-important. We need to source facts that CAN be backed up by sourcing. Saying that something is true simply because a RS hasn't said it isn't; goes against how Wikipedia works. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
DrewieStewie Yes, WWE did purchase and obtain the rights to the championships and accomplishments, but no, the Triple Crown is not active (it can't be). The Triple Crown ceased to be active after the dissolution of WCW (this also applies to ECW) and the unification of WCW's championships into WWE's. Although the US title was reactivated two years later and carried with it the history from the NWA and WCW, it was no longer a WCW title. Furthermore, the criteria calls for three championships, and two of those no longer exist (and have not since 2001). The Triple Crown cannot still be active if one or more of the needed components to satisfy its criteria no longer exists. --JDC808 ♫ 20:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
JDC808- I have already conceded defeat for my WP:IAR argument and will not argue it further. However, I must make one minor correction in your logic. You stated that "The Triple Crown [or any other related reward regardless of promotion such as Grand Slam]] cannot still be active if one or more of the needed components to satisfy its criteria no longer exists". If that's so, how did Grand Slam winners under the original WWE format still win them up until 2012 even though the Hardcore and European championships were discontinued 10 years earlier? Because they won it before the titles were discontinued. Despite that, grand slam winners were still noted and honored. The promotion no longer exists so they cant recognize the distinction? That's fair. But I had to correct that logic contradictory to the original WWE Grand Slam post-2002. Cheers DrewieStewie (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Admittedly forgot about that, but there is a difference, which has basically been explained. --JDC808 ♫ 22:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Everybody, I have an idea for a compromise measure. How about everybody who won it in WCW/ECW remain listed, but Big Show And RVD get a side note regarding the fact that they’ve won the eligible championships but because it was after the promotions closed down and the WWE hasn’t recognized them, they don’t count as triple crowns. What would you all think? DrewieStewie (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
If this is agreed upon, I would mention it in the prose instead of including it in the table. --JDC808 ♫ 22:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Copy that. Agreed. DrewieStewie (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
A note is fine, and would be similar to unofficial reigns for championships. Technically they have won the triple crown, but there is no concrete sourcing either way. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
In fact, the previous version of the article includes a note about Show and RVD. [7] However, User C. Fred removed it. He told me we don't add text like "it is unknown if…" to articles; instead, it's better to stay silent on the issue until there is a reliable source to cite. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Pinging

There's a comment at Talk:Main Page implying that professional wrestling isn't suited for the Main Page. (I think they're responding to Today's Featured Article.) Ignoring the comment is an option, of course, but this might be an opportunity to educate people, too. - Dank (push to talk) 13:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Question is, which people need educating?
(ALERT: time for guess who to jump in with both feet....) Sca (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
ALERT: some would consider these kinds of "complaints" to be equivalent to "trolling". We all know what articles are eligible for the Main Page, and since this project has at least one featured article, then there's absolutely no reason in policy or guideline for it to be prevented from running on the main page. Education is certainly required, and it seems self-explanatory by whom. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The ridiculousness of these types of things go completely against WP:ILIKEIT (Or, I suppose, I don't like it.) It saddens me that people feel the need to be like this. The conversation is silly, and the close is even more silly "There is no useful outcome of this discussion" - Of course there's a useful outcome, and that would be a clear message that any article of significant quality, regardless of genre is suitible for the main page.[a] Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ Provided it meets the other guidelines!

.

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Move request: Neville

Colton Meltzer started a move request for Neville. If you want' you're free to contribute to the discussion Talk:Neville (wrestler) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Show names

I know it has been discussed here multiple times and the consensus has been to use Monday Night Raw on the first instance on the page and Raw on all others. People keep changing this and it would be nice to have the style guide to point them to. I was just looking and not sure the correct place to include this. Anyone have a suggestion for where and wording? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Should really just be added to the general section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The new "show names" subsection presented a bit of a structural issue. We had three subsections covering the formatting of show names, including "Capitalization" and half of "Italicization". This seemed like it could be streamlined into a single subsection, so I tried doing so in this edit. Hopefully it's an improvement. Prefall 19:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, this was my struggle as well, so I tried my best. I like you fix - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Should have looked here first, but I just made a post on the style guide about this. A little bit of a disagreement. --JDC808 ♫ 21:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Is Rob Van Dam a former WWE European Champion?

HE IS, ADD A NOTE!
This talk could go on forever. It's pointless. All parties have conceded that a note is the best way forward. WP:COMMON makes it pretty clear that, to have a match with both championships on the line, with a winner, they would be champion of both. However, the primary WP:RS of wwe.com does seem to not include this reign, however, secondary sources do (Such as cagematch). Any more conversation at this point is superfluous.

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.

Having an issue with another user about this. The title was indeed retired after Van Dam (Intercontinental Champion) defeated Jeff Hardy (European Champion) to unify the belts, but Van Dam is absolutely not recorded in formal WWE listings of European titleholders, either on WWE.com[8] or in the WWE Encyclopedia (2009, p. 94). This archived WWE piece could possibly be interpreted as describing Van Dam as a former European Champion, but official listings trounce a now-deleted article in which a web scribe may or may not be saying something. Where do you stand? Sharonaj (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

RVD's profile. Highlights, "WWE Champion; Intercontinental Champion; World Tag Team Champion; WWE Tag Team Champion; European Champion; Hardcore Champion; 2006 Money in the Bank Ladder Match winner; ECW Champion; ECW Television Champion; ECW Tag Team Champion". Well, maybe it's a mistake, but he the title is listed in his highlights. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
WWE's current listings trump nothing, that has been the consensus over and over. WWE rewrites history all the time. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Source that he is not? MPJ-DK (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
As an aside, when answer this question that he is not, I suggest you first read WP:PRIMARY to see why WWE is not the ideal source. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 00:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I thought cagematch was a WP:RS. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
As an aside, from a logical point of view, it doesn't excatly make sense that he wasn't champion. I mean, if you unify a championship, you do hold both championships. Could someone point me in the direction of the sources that say he wasn't champion? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Makes no sense to not recognize him as a champion for the reasons you pointed out. It needs to be reinstated into his C&A section. I wouldn't even include a footnote to reference the disparity between WWE's own sources, enough of them confirm it. I don't know why he got cut off on some of their other sources but their title histories are frequently baffling and a reoccurring topic of discussion here. I may still include a footnote disclaimer on the List of WWE European Champions page though.LM2000 (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd suggest we always treat unification matches like this, regardless of if a title is then deemed void. The championship is on the line, so it's no different from a regular title vs title match. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Firstly, yes Cagematch is a RS. Secondly I just went back and watched the match [9] it was awesome. Third, I was curious how they worded it during the broadcast, JR said the match was the unify the European and IC championships. At the end RVD was announced at the unified IC champion. The point being however, as stated above, he could not have unified it without holding both. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

So it's Van Dam's WWE.com profile (so far the only credible WWE item naming him as a former European Champion) vs WWE's official listings of Euro champs, both on their website and in their encyclopedia. Even if we go with the profile being correct, there's no official documentation to support where and when he won the title. People are pointing to third party sources, but I'm afraid it's WWE that dictates who held the titles they own and book (would Keller naming Hornswoggle a 20-time WWE Champion make it so?). There's clearly some internal confusion, but whenever WWE has unequivocally listed everyone who held the European title, Van Dam ain't there. Sharonaj (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Sharonaj Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. It may be counter-intuitive to you, but Wikipedia is written on the back of what WP:SECONDARY sources say, and WP:PRIMARY sources (such as the WWE), is considered to be much less relevant. We have a list of Reliable sources which we pay attention to, which have a history of editorial staff, who are reliable for fact checking. Your argument is completely against how Wikipedia works.
on another note, welcome to Wikipedia. Not everything here is how you might think it works, but everything is written acording to guidelines that work, and we also work with consensus. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
WWE determines the holders of titles that they create, book and own. Per WP:COMMON, even reliable journalists cannot make up the title history themselves, in the same way that top film critics don't get to re-write movie storylines. Where Cagematch and other outlets do come in handy is their recording of titleholders that WWE did recognise in the past, but who have since been withdrawn from the books. Van Dam, however, doesn't appear to ever have been included in the official WWE list of European Champions (no mention of him in the WWE.com recounting as of June 2005[10]), and he damn sure wasn't announced as a European Champion on the night the belt was retired (Raw, 22 July, 2002).
By the way, it turns out that Van Dam's WWE.com bio is actually a dubious source, despite my initially giving some credence to it. As of November 2004, he wasn't described as a former European Champion.[11] The Euro win appears to have been added years later, with Van Dam's inaccurate Wikipedia article likely poisoning the mind of some WWE web scribe. It's not like Wiki hasn't infected WWE before: Lawler's speech on Bret Hart Appreciation Night was largely lifted from Hart's lede section, and JBL used Sting's lede in his weekly run-downs of the Icon's accomplishments (amusingly including an NWA title reign that occurred in TNA). Sharonaj (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Footnote, the Euro Title was also in his 2005 profile. [12] "Career Highlights: 5-time Intercontinental Champion; 2-time World Tag Team Champions; WWE Tag Team Champion; European Champion; 4-time Hardcore Champion; unified the Intercontinental Championship with the Hardcore & European Championships; ECW Television Champion; 2-time ECW Tag Team Champion" "As Intercontinental Champion, RVD has the honor of being the final European and Hardcore champion as well. " HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
That's a 2006 version, just to be clear. So yeah, "European Champion" was added to his bio long after the fact, as I suspected. You seem to have presented this as a rebuttal, but it serves only to bolster my point. Sharonaj (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
That's right, 2005 version didn't load. However, he is recognized by WWE as Euro champion and says "the final European Champion". Sometimes WWE messes their titles histories. Like the US title, "WWE.com has published contradictory information on Flair's reigns – recognizing five reigns in one article, but describing him as a six-time champion in another article." --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The final snapshot of 2005, taken on 17 December, does not describe Van Dam as a European titleholder.[13] This accolade was introduced to his bio in early 2006, almost four years after the European title was merged into the IC title. Wikipedia has erroneously described Van Dam as a former Euro champ since February 2005, so yeah... I see what you did there, WWE.com. Sharonaj (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Sharonaj - I'm confused by your use of WP:COMMONSENSE. Common sense would suggest that a title being defended, and won in a match, would mean it was won. There are reliable sources that point to this as well, and a WP:CONSENSUS. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

No you're not. I made my point perfectly clear: wrestling journalists don't get to decide who won titles, in the same way film critics don't get to decide what happened in films. So, there is a WWE.com bio published after the fact – likely influenced by bogus Wikipedia content – that describes Van Dam as a former European Champion, with no information on where and when the title was won. I guess we're going with that, even though he was absolutely not a European Champion from 2002 until WWE history became muddied in 2006. Sharonaj (talk) 10:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you can suggest that any article posted by a reliable source is somehow less reliable than another posted by the same source... Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Per Wayback Machine, Van Dam's bio was modified: the title history never was. Sharonaj (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think you understand. We take sources at face value. How is the original edit of the bio more reliable than a later edit? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I think RVd should be pointed as Euro champion. The title is in his WWE profile and also, his 2005 bio says cleary "last European Champion". Sometimes WWE mess with the titles, ask @WrestlingLegendAS: --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
And, more importantly, if one actually clicks on Jeff Harry's reign, the last one listed on the WWE website's history, it clearly says that RVD defeated Jeff Hardy to unify the titles. Can't unify a title you don't hold. No one invented a reign.
That said, WWE is inconsistent. Which should surprise no one. They don't list RVD as the last European Champion, but do list him as the last Hardcore Champion, despite the similarity of winning the title in a unification match while RVD was IC champ. Indeed, both unifications happened during the same IC title reign for RVD only a month apart from each other. Frustrating, but what can you do? oknazevad (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion's over. We'll move forward with RVD as a former European Champion per consensus, and I will try to seek out further WWE.com pieces that support this. Sharonaj (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

But the problem is you are focusing on WWE.com sources. Did you read WP:PRIMARY, you need to focus on non-WWE.com sources. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I dont know which version of WWE Encyclopedia I have, but in it, under Jeff Hardy's reign it says pg 95 "Rob Van Dam defeated Jeff Hardy on July 22, 2002 to unify the European and Intercontinental Championships." He couldnt have defeated him and then unified it unless he held it. The line right above it says "Jeff Hardy defeats William Regal". Neither one specifically says they won the title, it just who they defeated. So I am not seeing why you say these are any different. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
"He couldn't have defeated him and then unified it unless he held it" - WP:OR. Actually, RVD never even physically held the European title. I've conceded that RVD was a European Champion per consensus, but you're now trying to block me from placing a note in the relevant articles explaining the situation (RVD not appearing in any official list of European Champions is a rather major deal). Please stop the WP:OWN tactics and allow for collaboration, as Wikipolicy demands. Sharonaj (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
You need to learn more about Wikipedia policy's before you start making some pretty retarded allegations like that. Per WP:BRD once you are reverted you are supposed to discuss it, not just make statements and put it back. There is a template with a standard way this stuff is treated, it is not up to you to make that unilateral decision. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
So now you're violating WP:CIVIL as well as WP:OWN. Nothing to discuss. Rob Van Dam unequivocally does not appear in any official WWE listing of former European Champions, therefore notes are absolutely needed to explain why he's being described by Wikipedia as a former European Champion. Sharonaj (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I support the note. As Sharonaj said, he doesn't appear in some places, so a note is needed. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but it should be done in the proper way. Sharonaj is creating his own method, we have a template that treats this is a standard way for a reason. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
You agree that the notes should be there - good. Why then are you removing them, instead of changing them to the "proper way"? Sharonaj (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Nothing is mine - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay. You stick to the cryptic stuff: I'll stick to resolving this RVD-as-European-Champion mess. Sharonaj (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Nothing is cryptic. You state its MY way. Yet I have told you multiple times the template has a specific way this stuff is handled yet have you even bothered to read the template guide? Have you asked how it should be handled? Did you look at any other championship to see how they are handled? No of course you didnt. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Have you even bothered to direct me toward it? Or are you simply focusing all your energy on hostility? Sharonaj (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Ever try asking? Template:Professional wrestling title history middle. Or like I already said you could look at any other championship that has one, since quiet a number do. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Can't ask for something I don't know exists. Anyway, looks like we're getting somewhere at last. Sharonaj (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Which is why I kept telling you to take it to the talk page but you were too stubborn to. Read my edit summaries, I told you multiple times. Additionally just scroll up, I told you it above as well. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I have fixed the list page to be consistent with every other unrecognized reigns. But I suggest you self revert [14] as you will see its inconsistent with every other page that has one. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The list page has a "notes" box within the chart. Euro title page doesn't have that. We need to give a clear picture of what's going on. Sharonaj (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Why should this page be different than every other title page? For example, between 8 and 9 on List of WWE Champions there is unrecognized, yet WWE Championship does not make mention of that. The difference is, whether or not the WWE recognizes it, it happened. Your compilation of information is WP:SYNTH. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
That's the problem: RVD's European Championship reign never happened. Never physically held the title, was never announced as European Champion, was never recognized by WWE as European Champion until the company partially retconned him as one years later (still no appearance in official listings). SYNTH is not summary. Sharonaj (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia goes based on WP:SECONDARY sources, all of which state he was a European champion. Therefore, per WWE.com he wasn't, but Wikipedia should state he was. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
If Roger Ebert decides that Kyle Reese survived, does it override what Jim Cameron put on the big screen? Secondary sources do not decide storylines: WWE determines the lineage of titles they create, book, and own. WWE absolutely did not crown, announce or recognize RVD as a European titleholder, but now they're publishing retrospective pieces that say he is a former champion. That's what I'm rolling with. Where's the problem? Sharonaj (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The problem is you have ignored everything that multiple people have explained to you multiple times. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 21:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Things people have explained, like secondary sources deciding WWE storylines and RVD actually winning the title in 2002? Absolute garbage. Jeff Hardy was the final champion until WWE.com pieces started retconning RVD as a former champ from 2006 onward, most likely due to the influence of RVD's erroneous Wikipedia article. Sharonaj (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Except that is not how things work on Wikipedia. You are welcome to go to dispute resolution but everyone else here seems to disagree with you. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 21:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
So film critics can re-write movie storylines? Sharonaj (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Professional Wrestling is not the same thing as a movie, in addition you are comparing two separate things. By the way a title unification works the person by its nature must have both. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 22:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
RVD didn't "have both". He never laid his hands on the European title. Jericho and Orton held both physical belts at the end of their respective unification matches. Sharonaj (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
He had it in the sense that he won it, not the physical holding it. Holding the actual belt is meaningless. Otherwise you should be arguing that Shawn Michaels vs Razor Ramon at WM10 was a unification match too - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 22:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
What a silly argument. Shawn wasn't champion, and a title can hardly be unified with itself. Are you allergic to collaboration or something? WP:DROPTHESTICK. Sharonaj (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
You are focused only on holding the belt, so its not a silly argument. Your argument is based on the one fact dealing with the physical item. I am showing you why your argument makes no sense, but you only want things your way. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I'm pretty sure Sharonaj is not using "holding the belt" in a literal sense. That said, has anyone here bothered to use the network to actually watch the episode of Raw? I mean, it's not like there's no way to verify the actual match. oknazevad (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
He definitely means it in the literal sense, only way Jericho and Orton held both physical belts could be read.
As I said above, I did go back and watch it. This is what I said after watching it JR said the match was the unify the European and IC championships. At the end RVD was announced at the unified IC champion. The point being however, as stated above, he could not have unified it without holding both.
I also pointed out how the WWE Encyclopedia, which they are using as the basis of their argument treats this match no different than Jeff Hardy's win pg 95 "Rob Van Dam defeated Jeff Hardy on July 22, 2002 to unify the European and Intercontinental Championships." He couldnt have defeated him and then unified it unless he held it. The line right above it says "Jeff Hardy defeats William Regal". Neither one specifically says they won the title, it just who they defeated. So I am not seeing why you say these are any different. a point they failed to address. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
The European title was not at ringside for the unification match, because it was not on the line. The WWE Encyclopedia does not have Van Dam in the list of champions, regardless of the surrounding prose you're trying to bend to cover RVD as a former champ. Yet again: he was never European champ until WWE.com pieces started retconning him as one in 2006. An encyclopedia should reflect actual history, not pretend he was a champion all along. Sharonaj (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
What are you basing your statement that the encyclopedia does not? I just gave you word for word what the encyclopedia has in the chart, and its no different than Jeff Hardy. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Galatz and Sharonaj - This conversation will have no end. I'm going to close it. It should be noted that when dealing with someone clearly new to wikipedia policy, it might be better to link to how WP:PW works, especially as the title history template is relatively new. Sharonaj, this argument does seem like one for arguments sake. WP:PW is quite specific about how it deals with championship histories, considering the WWE doesn't list it's championship lineage at all right. This was a good question, as it is ambiguous enough to warrant conversation, however, when we receive a consensus that he in fact did win the championship, until damning counter sources arrive; that should be enough. At this point anything other than an official rebuttle by WWE defining that he was 100% not champion is not going to be enough. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:10, 22 November 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.

Template:Infobox professional wrestling event merge discussion

There is a discussion proposing that Template:Infobox professional wrestling event be merged with another template. See the discussion here. Prefall 18:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion notice - Talk:NWA_National_Heavyweight_Championship#Request_to_rename_the_article_to_NWA_National_Championship.

Hey there! I'm Flooded with them hundreds. There is a move discussion at Talk:NWA_National_Heavyweight_Championship#Request_to_rename_the_article_to_NWA_National_Championship. requiring more participation, please consider commenting/voting in it along with the other discussions in the backlog (Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings). Flooded with them hundreds 05:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

An editor is trying to remove cause of Death from Wrestler pages

I have already had a discussion with this user on thier talk page because they removed the cause of death from Hawks page, yes I put it back after they continued to keep changing their reason why they removed it. They have singled out 1 page of the 1000's that the death doesn't matter. They have now started an RFC and did not link anything to the wrestling project to get comments. They have also stated that "Most articles using infobox professional wrestler do not appear to use this parameter." Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 06:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

As is the case with most RFCs these days, this is one big red herring, intended to waste a lot of peoples' time and distract them from the root problem. The other editor in this case has shown a repeated, sustained pattern of purging biographical information from biographical articles, justifying it with whatever piece of policy shopping they happen to pull out of their ass this time. Here's my take on the real issue: 1) Does the infobox need to be edited to remove the parameter, and if so, what is the benefit? 2) Does the existence of List of premature professional wrestling deaths effectively ghettoize our coverage of a well-reported phenomenon in the business, allowing others to justify whitewashing elsewhere on the encyclopedia? As an aside, are the WP:CANVASS allegations raised in response to this thread an attempt to game the results of the RFC? Everyone should be aware that certain people habitually show up at discussions of that sort and don't necessarily have anything to bring to the table. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't feel as I canvassed anything, I even removed my crassness from the post, The Project was not linked to the RFC as it should have been. I did not and am not asking anyone to comment one way or another. I stated the facts of the RFC, By not linking the project I felt it was one sided. No matter what the outcome or opinion of everyone, everyone in the Project should have a chance to voice their comments on this RFC. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 23:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm assuming good faith on your part, Chris, and notifying a relevant wiki project is not really canvassing per se, but just as advice for the future, when posting a notice on a project page (which indeed should have been done by the RFC starter), it's best not to describe the issue at hand, just state that there's a discussion in progress. Something like "There's a discussion here that might interest members of the project." That say there's no chance that bias could creep into the notification. oknazevad (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I have always respected you sir and thank you for that advise I will keep it in mind.Today was the first time anyone had accused me of canvassing.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 02:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

If anyone paid close enough attention, you'll know that I skipped the big RFC this summer. It's becoming more and more obvious that a small group of 24/7 Wikipedians are content to bury the rest of us in ceaseless policy and process in order to bully the larger group into editing Wikipedia the way they see fit and only the way they see fit. That RFC and related discussion were dominated by two admins constantly presuming to speak on behalf of the community at large. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY should explain why this is folly. In terms of common sense, these folks are only painting the encyclopedia into a corner, as people will respond by finding some other website to spend their time on. The objective appears to be to push Wikipedia further in the direction of content building via one-way judgement pipelines and a one size fits all approach, also folly when we still have discerning human beings out there reading the end result and doubtless saying "what is this shit?".

WikiProjects are increasingly being treated as irrelevant by those desiring to impose their personal will under cover of policy and guidelines. It's because 24/7 Wikipedian types want to turn this place into a landfill of sources with no regard for context, and editors with special expertise in a topic area and access to specialized (read: often higher quality) sources have no place in that scheme. I was one of the editors involved in starting WikiProject Frank Zappa five years ago or so. You can go take a look and see fewer signs of a pulse than you would find in the studio audience of any given episode of AWA All-Star Wrestling. Anyway, due to the role I took in helping that WP get started, I wound up with a bunch of Zappa-related content on my watchlist. What my watchlist reveals in recent years is one editor with an obsessive WP:OWN complex over certain key articles in lieu of any activity benefiting the topic in general or the WikiProject, because hats were collected in the process. At Talk:Frank Zappa, you can see a recent RFC over some particular finer point or another which ran its course with no notice whatsoever to the WikiProject, despite the article being that project's main article. Imagine if someone had the notion to do the same with Professional wrestling and felt that only regular RFC commenters and no one here on this page needed to know of its existence. I expect to see more of that in the future. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the above point. That RFC has nothing at all to do with this conversation. Creating an RFC without including a primary WikiProject is wrong. I should also mention to the OP, that it's also wrong to canvas with the OP for something like this; although it's clearly WP:GOOD FAITH. The idea this would pass is ridiculous, as it's connotations are that CoD's are inheritibly non-notable.
As for the other RFC, it clearly wasn't only two admins commenting on the RFC; as their WP:WEIGHT is the same as everyone elses. It seems like it's forgotten that the General Sanctions that were placed on WP:PW was the catalyst for this all. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

List of Progress Wrestling events

Is this notable? Feels like a bit of a stretch for PROGRESS wrestling Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

There have been longstanding sockpuppet issues with British indy articles for some time, mainly involving Martimc123. I'm not sure if that's what happened here some Progress title and tournament articles were previously deleted. This one isn't more notable than any of those.LM2000 (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

List of independent wrestling promotions in the United States

Was wondering if someone from WP:PW would take a look at List of independent wrestling promotions in the United States. There doesn't seem to be any clear criteria for inclusion established per WP:CSC for the list entries, and most of them are unsourced or apparently non-Wikipedia notable operations. Generally, the most basic criterion for inclusion in a list such as this is having an existing stand-alone Wikipedia article (or at least being Wikipedia notable enough for one to be written) and then you can expand a bit from there if necessary; however, trying to include every such operation which simply exists is not really considered a good idea. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the same. We have Cagematch for every promotion in USA. Al least, the promotions should have an article, be notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
It appears that the only criteria here is "add it and it stays." I'll remove all of the non-notable ones; they should not be there at all. JTP (talk • contribs) 19:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggestion, remove any that does not present sources that show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, and only allow them to be added back if someone an provide those to prove at least some level of notability. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Note List of professional wrestling promotions in Great Britain and Ireland also exists Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Done as well. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
This is probably a good chance to re-evaluate the notability of any of these independent promotions as well. I wouldn't be shocked if there are a few in need of a PROD or AfD. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to all who took a look at this article and cleaned up. It's much better now (from a Wikipedia standpoint) IMHO than it was before. It did seem that people were just adding any and every local organization that exists or at one time existed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

List of WWE personnel

The page has List of WWE personnel has many issues. One of the biggest issues to me is everyone wants to constantly use their WWE.com profile as a reference, however it is a terrible reference to use. Chris Jericho according to his WWE.com profile [15] is on the SmackDown roster, however he made it very clear he has no WWE contract. WWE has made it clear Hulk Hogan is not under contract but he has a profile [16]. I think its safe to assume Randy Savage is not under WWE contact, but he has a profile [17]. My suggestion is to add a column that is for their WWE profile, and link it there, but not use it as a reference. I suggested this on the talk page but the only response I got was "Don't bother...that's just making a section for the sake of making a section" which does not make any sense, because I am trying to fix an issue in incorrect references. Does anyone have any other thoughts on this? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

We shouldn't be sourcing back to WWE.com regardless. Fails WP:PRIMARY. I don't really see why we should increase the table. We aren't WWE's official website adapter, there's no need to post to their site when the information can be found elsewhere. (Might be a good use for cagematch.) Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree, but unless the profiles are there in some way it will be a never ending battle to remove them again. If they are included in the table it will hopefully stop people from including it. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
We shouldn't be putting things in simply because "editors will put it back". That should never be the policy. 16:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone else chime in here? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the roster articles are a huge problem. I mean, it's painfull to edit these articles, so I prefer to stay away as much as I can. About your comment, well, we have primary and secondary sources. If WWE lists Jericho but other source says he is not under contract, remove him. Same for Hogan. Also, Savage has a profile as part of Hall of Fame, not current stars. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • This is always one of those pages that doesn't strike me as encylopedic in nature, the sheer dynamics of any roster page is problematic and leads to a number of headaches. But I'm sure deleting them won't happen. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't pay close enough attention anymore to know about roster changes so I avoid the article. It was actually mentioned by mainstream sources as one of the most contentious on the English wiki. I don't think there are any solutions to fix that but to answer Galatz's question, secondary sources should take priority over primary sources. WWE.com is often inaccurate and full of contradictions. If his contract expired and they never moved him from the SmackDown list, that's just an error on their part. We do enough fighting about how they interpret their title histories but rosters are far more cut and dry. You can't interpret a guy as being employed by a promotion when he just isn't.LM2000 (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete roster pages - they attract a battle ground mentality. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Dean Ambrose for GA

As a fan of WWE and a follower of professional wrestler, I would like to point out that the article of Dean Ambrose needs attention in this community. It is clear that he plays a prominent role in the WWE today. Why him? Well, maybe I am biased. Anyways, I feel like Ambrose does not get enough credit both as an entertainer and wrestler. I am aware that this is not the place to show off one's favoritism, but I want people to help me elevate the article. This community prioritizes a lot on legendary performers and promoters, but I would like ourselves to focus on one of the current stars. Dean Ambrose is the right one for me at least. I am not a regular editor and would appreciate support for making it a GA. One step at a time. Next we could even go for one of the hottest wrestlers now, Becky Lynch for FA! Sorry for getting too ahead of myself. However, I am genuinely looking forward to work on Ambrose. Ikhtiar H (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Is Jericho a 2-time Raw Tag Team Champion?

In WWE's video "5 Superstars with the most championships: WWE List This!", Jericho gets credited with one Raw tag team title reign (with Edge). wwe.com lists it as two separate reigns when he replaced Edge with Big Show. What is correct?2003:CE:D747:4981:C881:76CF:7E41:62CD (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's another "WWE doing wrong thing". WWE.com says clearly, he has two reigns, one with Edge and one with Show. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
So he won it once, but held it as part of two reigns as the change in partner began a new reign. That article probably was just counting that his reign was continuous while Edge and Show had separate reigns. It was definitely a weird situation. oknazevad (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Mission: Becky Lynch FA

As I have stated earlier, I am working on promoting Dean Ambrose as GA and Becky Lynch ad FA. So far it is going well and I have nominated Dean Ambrose for GA. However, I think it is not possible for one editor to go for FA. Therefore,I would need some help on copyediting and peer reviewing. The article is not that large in length. The biggest issue I have is the reliability of the sources as it is a huge part of the criteria in Wiki. That is why I need some of you experience users to help me achieve my goal. Thanks in advance. Ikhtiar H (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

PS: I have managed to get the page semi-protected for two months as a result of vandalism. Hence, sooner the easier. Ikhtiar H (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
This is a very achievable goal, it has been a GA since 2010. That means the hardest part, which would be covering her pre-WWE career, is largely taken care of. The only error I can see is the use of Online World of Wrestling, which was common at the time but is not considered reliable anymore because they let their standards slide. Someone more familiar with the site could chime in though, it still may be okay to use because their oversight was higher at the time.
This was the state of the article when it passed GA, some links could be archived from that as it looks like they were improperly removed due to WP:LINKROT over the years. Her WWE career is sourced pretty well considering the mess WWE articles are usually in. The one thing that stands out is the use of MOS:CAPS in the PWInsider citations. I'll take a closer look later but I like the chances here.LM2000 (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
My main concern with this article is stability. She is active and in a prominent role at the moment. This article is going to be frequently updated and may change drastically in the upcoming months. This is certain to be a strain during the potential FA process. Prefall 08:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
@Prefall: you've got a valid point. That might slow down the progress. It would be beneficial to firdt work on the sources and copyediting as LM2000 pointed out. However, I think the article's still missing information on her wrestling persona and character development. Also, (nitpicking) there's a lot of repetition of "On (the) DD MM(, YYYY) episode of RAW/Smackdown Live", which might a concern for reviewers. Ikhtiar H (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes. It's my main concern. Usually, IPs and good intentions mess with the article. However, it would be nice to have another FA --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
@HHH Pedrigree: I can assure you that the page will be protected from IPs for the next two months. She is quite young has a long career ahead. Patrolling the article on a weekly basis will minimize any sort of vandalism. I want to reiterate that the current focus should be on copyediting and checking the sources, essentially, strengthening the bases. To me, this is one of the challenges to move from GA to FA. Ikhtiar H (talk) 11:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Not that there isn't something for the arguement that FAs should be stable, saying that you can't have an FA where things might change like this does suggest that no BLP could be an FA. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
The stability criterion is really more about content disputes or evolving situations. If there is an ongoing edit war, RfC, etc., the article can't be considered stable. If something major has just happened that will lead to the article changing substantially in the near future (a revelation in the news, an unexplained death, etc.) or a situation that is unresolved (the Undertaker's article just before trying to extend his undefeated streak at WrestleMania, an election article while the campaign is still going, etc.), these could also be stability concerns. Day-to-day life and careers don't prevent an article from being stable. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Having page protection should only be for protection from vandalism, not for more stability of the article as a whole. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Other then manually fixing the sources (which may take a week or two), is their any shortcut? Ikhtiar H (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


Becky Lynch is getting close to WP:FAC. I have copyedited and fixed some of the sources. The biggest issue now are the titles of the sources in CAPS. I have not found any way to fix them other then just doing it manually. Is anyone willing to help me work on that? Ikhtiar H (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure it can be done with AWB, but that would likely cause other issues like NXT becoming nxt/Nxt. Likely easier with a manual edit. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

So I believe I have fixed all the issues brought up here. Do you guys think it is ready to be FAC? Ikhtiar H (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Championships and accomplishments

I have noticed ‎SeosiWrestling adding the annual awards from CBS Sports (source). I wonder if it's relevant? Ikhtiar H (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fine. CBS Sport is a reliable source and a very notable network. Also, the have covered wrestling, so I think the awards are relevant. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm ok with this. Potentially not the Southside wrestling article he's working on though Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

SmackDown or SmackDown Live?

For some pages, it is changed after the brand split in 2016 and some still uses SmackDown. Which one should be normalized? Ikhtiar H (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ikhtiar H: The first use on the page should be the full name, afterward it is the shortened name. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the suggested approach, short, sweet and appropriate. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling WikiContest

With 2019 on the way, I think it is a good time to create a contest in this wikiproject. More users will be encouraged to edit wrestling articles. There will surely be rules that have to be planned. However, I was think more a "scripted" contest (since pro wrestling works this way!); what I mean here is that certain articles will be assigned on users to work on. To spice things up, competitors may also be divided into classes based on their experiences and activities (like different championships). Or it could just be like a simple tournament like the WikiCup if the majority disapproves (considering my weird taste of competition). Of course, the winner will be awarded. Let me know your thoughts on this. Ikhtiar H (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we particularly worry about the amount of editors in PW wikiproject articles. The issue is with quality, and why we are currently under general sanctions. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Vilenski: So how can we ensure quality articles as of now? More importantly, what are the reasons for aiming quality? I hope there is way to maintain efficiency and I most probably missing out on that. Ikhtiar H (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
As a Quality Assurance specialist I'd say Quality is ALWAYS important, but that is just me personally. A quality focus could mean that there would be various points for GA, FA, FL, GT, FT etc. throw in options to earn points by creating articles (that pass WP:GNG of course), expanding anything that is currently a stub, updating list articles to have a better lead or use the most current championship format etc. I think there are plenty of point scoring options for such a contest if the interest is there in general. Can I get credit if it's called the "Wiki Rumble"? . ;-) MPJ-DK (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Please chime in - Style Guide modifications

Currently the Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide includes two arbitrary limitations that I personally feel have no place on Wikipedia and are tantamount to censorship and one users personal opinion. I propose that the following two restrictions be removed

  1. In the "Production" section there is text stating he storylines section should contain details on at least three rivalries and contain no more than 1,000 words. I propose that we remove the "and contain no more than 1,000 words"
  2. In the "Year in professional wrestling" section there is a sub section called "Notability for Inclusion", which contains a list of promotions that the articles should be restricted to. I propose that the list of promotions be removed, they actually run counter to the first part of the section that states All events which contain their own page and meet wikipedia’s notability WP:GNG may be included in the events section. why would the "event section" had a different rule that the other sections? If it has a stand alone article it is notable enough for Wikipedia and thus notable enough for this list. Why censor articles that pass the most fundamental guideline that we have in the WP:GNG??

Thoughts?? MPJ-DK (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Some thoughts:
  1. It's worth noting that other media have word limits to their plot sections, so having one may not necessarily be a bad thing. WP:FILMPLOT says 400 to 700 words for a feature film. WP:VG/CONTENT says 700 words for a video game. WP:TVPLOT has various limits, including 400 words for an episode article. With that said, professional wrestling is presented in a different format than traditional media, so maybe a word limit should be tailored based on that. I would be okay with altering it to ~200 words per rivalry (in "Storylines" / "Aftermath") and per match/segment (in "Event").
  2. I'm fine with this one going away. I believe the idea behind it was to prevent these articles from being overly bloated. Title histories in particular take up a massive amount of space. We'll see how it goes.
Prefall 21:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
My concern with opening it up to everyone is how huge it will get quickly. Perhaps we should consider not listing secondary belts, which will keep the quantity shown down and make the lists more tolerable. Like is every WWF Hardcore change really needed?
As for the word count, I really do not think we need to get into every match, but that is besides the point. The section can really blow up if there are 7 matches with 200 words each. There really is no need to go into that level of detail. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 23:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
So what would you suggest as an alternative to my suggestion? Status quo has some very obvious issues on what is and is not on that list. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I do not have an alternative suggestion other than what is there already. If you review the original discussion I got to that number of 1,000 words based on reviewing current GA articles. With the exception of WM and SummerSlam it is usually not an issue. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 23:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
200 words would just be a limit, not a recommendation. But yeah, it can be a huge amount when combined together. I was looking at WrestleMania XXX for reference and a lot of them go beyond 300—the main event is nearly 600! Whew. Prefall 23:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I think that is the event section not storylines which has the limit. Storylines is actually 998 words, so what that section has, which is a lot, I think is a good max. It may be worth having a limit there too - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 23:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I was basing my post on the theoretical 200 words per rivalry/segment/match suggestion rather than the current limit. Prefall 23:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Galatz - I was actually asking for an alternative to my suggestion of "no limitation on promotions", you raised a concern about volume ,and then mentioned a company on the list, which means the current style guide does not actually address the issue you raised - so I will ask again, what is your alternative then? MPJ-DK (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @MPJ-DK: That was my alternative. One of the purposes of the restrictions is to keep the page manageable and readable. My alternative is if we are adding more promotions, which could/will fill up quick, than we should limit it to just the top title(s) in each promotion/brand. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Alright let's look at what the list you added will do: CMLL, ECW, FMW, Impact, AAA, NJPW, NOAH, ROH, WCCW, WCW and WWE. Looking at the articles this would result in
  • The exclusion of the NWA World Heavyweight Championship - except for the brief times it was promoted by WCW or Impact (TNA), including the period of time where it was THE championship since it is not "notable" enough
  • The exclusion of the AWA - one of the "Big Three" in the US from the 1960s to the 1980s
  • The exclusion of AJPW - one of the "Big Two" in Japan from the 1970s through the 2000s
  • The exclusion of the UWA - one of the "Big Two" in Mexico in the 1970s and 1980s.
  • No notable promotion content for years prior to 1933 in case someone ever creates those. I guess there was nothing notable happening prior to that?
  • From 1933 until 1963 when the WWWF was created only CMLL was notable, so 1933 through 1963 articles would only have CMLL tournaments and championship changes, pretty sparse articles and pretty misleading ones as well
  • No Crockett Cups allowed on the list either FYI
  • only one NWA territory (WCCW) is included, so it excludes almost all of the federations in existence prior to the late 1980s. Including JCP, Championship Wrestling from Florida, the Memphis territory, and so on.
  • So articles could include
  • 18xx - 1932: Nothing (unless someone notable related to pro wrestling was born, died, made their debut or retired that year I guess)
  • 1933 - 1962: CMLL Only
  • 1963 - 1971: CMLL, WWE,
  • 1972 - 1981: CMLL, WWE, NJPW
  • 1982 - 1988: CMLL, WWE, NJPW, WCCW,
  • 1989 - 1990: CMLL, WWE, NJPW, WCCW, FMW
  • 1991: CMLL, WWE, NJPW, FMW
  • 1992 - 1993 : CMLL, WWE, NJPW, FMW, AAA, Eastern Championship Wrestling (mid-level indy at best)
  • 1994 - 1999: CMLL, WWE, NJPW, FMW, AAA, ECW the Extreme version
  • 2000 - 2001: CMLL, WWE, NJPW, FMW, AAA, ECW, NOAH
  • 2002: CMLL, WWE, NJPW, FMW, AAA, NOAH, Impact, ROH (mid-level indy at the time)
  • 2003 - 2018: CMLL, WWE, NJPW, AAA, NOAH, Impact, ROH (did not grow into one of main US feds for years)
  • I don't know about anyone else, but I think that the current list is a bad list, heavily slated towards recentism, not recognizing the history of professional wrestling and with no actual consensus. It should be removed immediately, Either no list or a very different list that actually has consensus needs to be put in it's place. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I am not disagreeing with you, the list was definitely not perfect. That is why I proposed an alternative. I am not sure why you are still harping on all this detail if I am suggesting something that would be more in line with what your concern was. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry but where is your alternate list? I apologize if I missed it? MPJ-DK (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I said more than once, no list of promotions. My thought was opening up to any promotion but only their top titles. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh that was your suggestion, sorry I did not realise that was it, alright I think that is a workable option. It just needs to be more specific - definition of "top title" needs to be pretty clear sobwe don't have revert wars over what is or is not a "top title". MPJ-DK (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree the list is recentism-laden, and ignores time-period context. We're just better off omitting it, and using article-level editorial judgement. I also think leaving title changes to just top titles in a promotion is a bad idea, as secondary titles in big promotions are significantly more notable to a broad audience than primary titles in small promotions. oknazevad (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Ignoring a lot of what's above - The original proposal, I'm a little suprised we have he storylines section should contain details on at least three rivalries and contain no more than 1,000 words. What about Dismember to Dismember that only had one match noted before the show? How could you have three rivalries if they didn't exist? The second point seems like a no-brainer really. We can't say something wasn't notable if wikipedia believes it is. This should be in addition too, and not in place of. So, any notable event that has an article, or events we don't have for those promotions Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Consensus determined - based on all feedback received here, no one likes the current list of promotions - so I will remove it from the style guide. If someone wants to build consensus for a different list of promotions or other changes they are free to start a discussion to build that consensus. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

205 Live - brand or not

So a consensus was arrived at as legitimately as the changes to Style Guide mentioned on this page. Ergo a new consensus discussion needs to be had to remove the "brand designation". The ongoing discussion, which I am regrettably a part of, has distracted from the topic. I recommend dropping this and starting a fresh discussion on a consensus going without rehashing the past. It will be more productive. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

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.

A couple of people at Talk:List of WWE personnel‎ decided themselves, over Christmas, when no one else was online, to reclassify 205 as a brand and changed 30+ pages. Please chime in a join the discussion. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

  • This fight again? urgh MPJ-DK (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
    • If you look at that talk page you will see 6 editors (myself, IanPCP, oknazevad, Mt.FijiBoiz, JDC808, and IP 32) are all in agreement about classifying 205 live as it's own brand, and have provided various references backing us up. Only 1 editor (Galatz) has opposed, throwing anything and everything against the wall. Galatz is clearly going into WP:Own mode (which editor Kjscotte34 point blank called him out on in the ANI issued against Galatz by Fiji). And furthermore, Galatz then issued an obvious "revenge porn" ANI against me, where he was again called out (this time by administrator Bbb23). All totaled, Galatz is merely throwing a tantrum because the consensus is going against him, so he is going to use any form of scorched Earth he can to gain a pound of flesh. It's that simple. It was more than just "a couple of editors over Christmas" 6 agreed on brand classification, 1 called him out for WP:own, and another (an admin on top of it) called him out for his "revenge porn" ANI. That's 8 editors who have had recent issue with him (9 if you also include EEng, who threw in a drive-by zinger during Galatz's ANI). Just saying. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Six editors agreeing seems like a consensus to me, if Galatz had a problem with it he should have spoken up then. By his own logic, the "205 is a brand" consensus stands until a consensus is reached that it's not and it's his own fault for not commenting. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Agreed. His whole spiel really is coming off like sour grapes when you get right down to it...he's not getting his way, so he's throwing a fit. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
          • This argument has been going on for years and has been a total embarrassment all the way through. There should've been an RfC years ago. A second one could've been held if new information became available which changed consensus. Professional wrestling content disputes should never be taken to AN/I, you only open yourself up to scorn by the wider community when you bring that there.
It seems that the overwhelming consensus now is that this is a separate brand. This is a momentous day for the few people who care. Now that that's finished, we can spend the next few years arguing about how to categorize other minute details from a TV show that the McMahon family recently admitted hasn't been good in a long time.LM2000 (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
It certainly seems to be settled for everyone beyond Galatz, especially via the talk page there. The evidence is one sided and it seems as though it's settled overall. Thanks for the input, too. Happy holidays everyone. 32.213.93.209 (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree, this whole thing with multiplebANI reports etc, was a huge contributing factor to the General Sanctions that were put on wrestling. Apparently that was not enough of a hint for someone tovexamine their actions and behavior. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: You are so quick to be aggressive and condescending you did not even both to actually follow the facts. Therefore I will summarize them for you

  1. The consensus was the it is NOT a brand as has been the case for the past year since this was first discussed. They wanted to change the consensus not me.
  2. If you read the thread you will see I did comment. They decided to make the sweeping change within a day of opening the discussion, during Christmas, when people were not around to comment. The circumstances you are comparing it to happened over multiple weeks.
  3. I followed WP:CONSENSUS and tried to get a broad range of opinions from a large group. They went on one pages talk page, and made a determination that affected over 100 pages, many of the editors of those pages would not have seen this discussion
  4. The user that I reported is attempting to deflect their actions. They have been banned 10, yes 10 times, for these exact same actions on the exact same page. They have twice prior promised to not make those same edits again at ANI but did anyway. I would have brought them back there as anyone should have under any circumstances. If a user promises an admin they wont do something again and then does, the standard procedure is they get blocked, its that simple.

I will await your apology. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I apologize if you think I am triggered by using your words and logic against you. Please file an ANI against me for the use of your own words. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh and my reply above is a condensed version of your reply after I pointed out that you did not actually have a consensus. The best part of irony is that it is so ironic, LOL. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Except for the fact that there was a consensus, which followed proper procedure. This did not follow procedure. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I am extremely apologetic if you provided evidence that the 1000 word limit and the restriction by promotion has a consensus. Please help this old dunce out and highlith this again and I shall forever be a Galatzamaniac. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I do not know what you are having trouble understanding. Lets read for example what it says at WP:TALKFIRST shall we, Talk page discussion typically precedes substantive changes to policy. Changes may be made if there are no objections, or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change. There was over two weeks without any objections, so yup that was followed.
Now lets head over to WP:CONACHIEVE and see how we achieve it. A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal. Were all concerns taken into account, well since there were none, that part is met. Therefore it falls into what they consider ideal.
So again I asked you to please show me what part of the policy was not followed. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh just the part where there were objections that were not addressed in any way. Yyou know, like my very first comment on the matter that you have not been able to actually provide so far. please show where the concerns raised by 4 Wikipedias were appropriately addressed before you added something to the style guide. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I do not care if I get my way or not, that is ridiculous and my edit history will prove that. My issue was the process laid out in WP:CONSENSUS was not followed. Since the consensus is now that it is a brand, I am not going to be throwing fits. If you actually read what I wrote, I said multiple times that you are not following procedures, and that changes shouldn't be made while the discussions are happening. Because you guys were in such a rush to make the changes, there were many completely wrong and illogical edits made. Conversations need to occur in order to make sure things are done correctly, not to rush to make the changes just to say you did. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's a late Christmas present for you Galatz - the world's smallest violin. Consensus has spoken, 205 Live is a brand, so please just stop the bellyaching, and let us get on with our lives, OK?. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:58, 28 December 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.

Style guide updates without actual consensus

New year, fresh start - and as part of my own resolution to not be such a "Drama Lama" I think this section can be closed. There is a discussion below which has been more productive in getting a consensus and this one has run it's course. Happy new year. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

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.

I would like to call attention to the fact that Galatz seems to have made several updates to the style guide without any consensus to actually do so. ANd then turn around and use it as a hammer to hit people over the head with when they don't agree to a rule that was never actually agreed on.

I am going to remove those changes as there is no consensus to add it - if someone wants that added back please have a proper discussion here and build a consensus before anything gets added to the guidelines. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Consensus before making such claims - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Please point to the section where "one commenter agreeing is consensus" or even "last minute suggestion before the thread is archived equals consensus". MPJ-DK (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Even if 2 people chime in, when no one objects that is still a consensus. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You have followed this page for longer than I have, yet you chose not to object at that time or any other time. You only objected once you wanted something included that I removed. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Right if no one objected - so the two linked archive consists of "Galatz: We should do this. Other Wikipedia: Sounds great"?? There were no disagreements at all? No complaints about the inclusion list that you came up with? No one disagreeing with a word limit? So I follow it just fine, I understand it just fine, which is why I disagree that a consensus was reached. And "you chose not to object" - I provided no input to a discussion that was going nowhere at the time, discussions that were archived from inactivity, not because the subject was fully debated. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
    • The 1,000 word limit is ridiculous and should be removed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Actually you are only pointing to some of the conversation, there was a lot of talk that went into these in other threads as well that you are ignoring. Again proper consensus process was followed, if you don't like it try and gain a new consensus. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Galatz is fine here. However, now it has been brought up, we should seek a consensus, and changes regarding these rules should be put on hold.
        • In terms of having a hard limit for any section seems absolutely ridiculous. It should be much more dynamic than this. I don't see why you couldn't have a really long background section that made its own section. For a really contentious PPV - See WWE Crown Jewel we could easily have an article on the background of the event. Saying it shouldn't be excessive is fine, and a lose guideline of under 1000 is fine, but a hard value is against what we should be trying to build - quality articles Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Galatz - I am curious, please do share where these discussions were held - "Pics or it did not happen." MPJ-DK (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
For example, [18] which occurred prior to making the guide and the reason for it, you will see as the basis for what it became. Between the 2 threads we had about 10 people over 3 weeks contribute. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 01:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point - there was never a consensus on the "1000 word limit" nor a consensus to censor the "xxx in wrestling". Galatz, I appreciate that. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
It was based on the conversation which led to a proposal, and filed the WP:CONSENSUS guidelines, so yes there was. What was not followed? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Not followed? the part where there was "consensus" to add the limitations. I have no problems with the formatting etc. I have a problem with the arbitrarity limitations that seem to be your personal take, not consensus. You seem to repeatedly miss the point that I'm referring to those limitations, even though I specifically asked for you to prove consensus for those. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Except for the fact that it was followed. Just because only 2-3 people agreed with something, the lack of objections here constitutes a consensus. A page you have followed and were following at that time, and did not object to. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Are you intentionally not reading my comments? the two discussions I linked, which actually had the limits, did have objections to them. Then you said "well there were other discussions without objections" - but those did not cover the objections, so you're going around in circles. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Guys - right now it makes no difference as to what previous concensus was. It's what the concensus is now.
Whether this needs to be a full on WP:RFC is up for debate. I'd say both parties should have a wording for the changes to the guidelines. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Here is my changes, simple removals so no wording changes needed. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
1) Remove the "1000 word limit" from the show section
2) Remove the limitation on the "year" articles, if it has an article it can be added, no limit on promotion.
WP:NOTEVERYTHING needs to be included just because its true. These guidelines are set to limit it to what is needed. The Crash Lucha Libre might be notable for inclusion on Wikipedia but it certainly is not a top promotion in the world. If we included everything and anything by anything promotion the page would be insane. The purpose of the page is to add useful information for someone who wanted the highlights of the year, not a WP:INDISCRIMINATE compilation of information. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
So right now WP:INDISCRIMINATE would actually indicate that the "year in professional wrestling" themselves should be deleted - To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources - which none of the articles do anyway, just a list of stats. Is the "death in October 2018" restricted by "level of notability"? No the most visited, most active pages of that nature on Wikipedia disagree with your retroactivly created definition. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I have never looked at those pages, but I imagine they follow WP:LISTBIO and require the person to have a page to be included. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh great we agree, if it has an article in can be included (and actually no, there are red links on that page). Glad we could come to an agreement that easily. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, for a list of Bios. So any wrestler in the debuts, deaths, births section should be included if they have a page. This does not mean it applies to other sections, this policy is about people. (I just looked through Deaths in October 2018 you mentioned and see no red lines]]. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
So don't click on November or December which has red links, instead just call me a liar, it is the easier path. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Silly me not knowing you were now referring to something other than you referenced. I am guessing it involves clean up, because I just checked august and september and they also had no red. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
One does not invalidate the other, the comment "they do includ red links" is indeed true, I did not say "ALL", but sure argue those semantics instead of the actual point. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:40, 26 December 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.

Slammy Award / WWE Year-End Awards

There is a discussion regarding the merging of the Slammy Award and WWE Year-End Awards. See the discussion here. Prefall 21:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

WikiWrestling

A wikicontest which I need people to make. Rules are given below and any suggestions will be appreciated. RULES:

  • Everything will be kayfabe just like real pro wrestling
  • Monthly events/gathering to determine winners and losers (like pay-per-views)
  • Even if wrestling is scripted, there is real competition between talents regarding their charisma, mic skills and so on. Just like that, here editors who are most active will win championships
  • Championship ideas I have: A major single's title, minor titles, tag team titles (the way championships will be won is yet to be determined)
  • The audience will mainly be other wikipedians and wikiprojects
  • Our scripts should be kept private (privacy depends on wiki policies)
  • Promos and storylines will be there. No trash-talking or offensive language. Civility and healthy competition should be maintained.
  • The primary goal of this competition is to encourage members of this project to show their writing and editing skills. And there is of course entertainment and lots of fun.
  • People who are not into wrestling are also free to participate to help the quality of the articles.

I know this idea is farfetched but I hope that enough will like and support it. Thanks! ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting to be honest. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Same here. We’re an encyclopedia, not a Discord channel. JTP (talk • contribs) 16:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, an article improvement drive is always welcome, but not as some silly game. oknazevad (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I like the idea, though I would say keep it to this project. Reminds me of the WikiCup and other kinds of "awards" given to editors for their editing. Though I'd say cut a few things: point one (because what's there to be kayfabe about?), point three, scripts being kept private (though not sure exactly what you're meaning here), and promos and storylines (although perhaps bonus points if you can make your edit summary/discussion post sound like a promo). I have ideas on how to improve the other suggestions though. Edit: Looking back over the talk page, I see a contest has been suggested before. Perhaps a merger of the ideas? --JDC808 ♫ 19:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for the confusion, got carried away too much. Basically what I want is more quality articles with more editors. It does not matter if they don't know wrestling. Wikipedia:The 50,000 Challenge is an example. It would won't as silly as oknazevad pointed out. [[Alternatively, we could merge the ideas as JDC808. ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Those things rarely get updated (There is one for WP:VG that has been ignored for ages). I think a good way forward if you are looking for more active members of the WikiProject is to see out people editing in the subject area - {{WikiProject description page}} does a good job at this, if someone knows how you set it up. I could easily create us a advertising template (such as one I created for Cue Sports {{Cue sports welcome}}.)
Better yet, give out barnstars to editors making good edits. Costs nothing, and people enjoy praise. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
We do have {{WikiProject Professional wrestling welcome}}. JTP (talk • contribs) 23:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd make the argument it looks way too similar to the generic welcome. Some colours/images might be more practical. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
On the topic of article improvement, Attitude Era is arguably the most poorly-kept article in the project's scope and needs a near full rewrite if anyone wants to try to tackle it. JTP (talk • contribs) 23:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Lee Vilenski. Besides, we should add WP:PW/MOS and WP:PW/Sources since new users often make good faith edits unbeknownst to these. On top of that, I think we should welcome new users who edit relatively smaller promotions other than WWE, as they are more likely to be hardcore wrestling viewers rather than casuals. They could be found on special pages like this one or simply this. ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Mean Gene

I was on the Mean Gene article and I wondered why, because of his death, it has been protected. I seen it was vandalized which was taken care of as I was about to. It usually is protocol to put articles in protection. This article should be no different. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles are only protected if there is a lot of vandalism. If there are a few vandal edits that get reverted, there is no real need for protection. Page protection is never automatic upon the subject's death--it can be requested, and the reviewing administrator will determine if there is a pressing need. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

IPW:UK

This article was recently deleted after a small AfD; can anyone take a look and see, as this seems like quite a notable promotion to me. If this isn't notable, then we also need to look at: All-England Championship for the same reasons. Here's some sources I found for the promotion:

[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]

The sheer fact the promotion has a national (United Kingdom) television program should really be enough. They've also been apart of the Fight Network for a few years now. Any thoughts? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Totally should no lt have been deleted. Nominated completely failed to fulfill WP:BEFORE, or else the notability would easily established. Feel free to recreate using the independent sources you already listed here. oknazevad (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not completely familiar with this, so Oknazevad - is this something that WP:REFUND could help us with; or would this have to be a complete re-write without any of the content from the original? I'd be quite happy in a couple days to add the sources present above, and prove notability, but re-writing an entire article for this purpose is a bit beyond me (I'm not very familiar with the product). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I would contact the deleting admin to see if they can transfer the contents of the deleted page to your sandbox to work on before moving it back into mainspace. They may be amenable to that, but make sure to mention that you've found third-party sources to establish notability so they see your request as not just someone who disagrees with the deletion without reason. oknazevad (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  • If anyone is interested in rescuing this I would be more than happy to help with editing, sources etc. just not a task I would take on by myself as it's not a topic I am that familiar with. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
this is now at Draft:International Pro Wrestling: United Kingdom. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Can stage-names be used as article titles?

Manabu Murakami (wrestler) should, IMO, be moved to Manjimaru, since ja.wiki calls him that and treats his real name "Manabu Murakami" as an obscure real-world biographical detail, and it also provides natural disambiguation, which we prefer to parenthetical disambiguation. That said, I know nothing about pro-wrestling and even less about how Wikipedia handles such articles, so I suspect there might be some specific reason the article title isn't already Manjimaru. The article's creator hasn't edited in almost ten years, but I might as well ping The Great Pancracio (talk · contribs) for their opinion as the apparent primary author of the current text of the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Hijiri88. I am also not a wrestling expert though I worked on one article Dick the Bruiser which is obviously a stage name. And if you look at Category:American male professional wrestlers, you will see many article titles that are obvious stage names. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
99% of the time the stage name is the common name and is what should be used. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
A few things of note here Hijiri88
  • WP:COMMONNAME is the only standard we need to commit too, and by that end, most wrestlers are known by their ring names on Wikipedia. See No Way Jose (wrestler), Dolph Ziggler, and The Miz.
  • In this case, you've cited ja:w; but we don't take information from this location into account on naming conventions.
  • You wouldn't need the blessing of the article creator to make a move, but it is a nice move to ping them anyway.

In this case, it's likely a move would be suitible, however, as he has wrestled under his real name, or he could have notability outside of wrestling, I suggest creating a WP:MOVE discussion. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Peer review request

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Becky Lynch/archive1. Thanks! ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Two questions

Hi. Happy new year to everyone. I have two questions about to articles. They are in my watchlist and I always see the same editions.

One, it's the template of pro wrestling promotions in US. I asked the same a few months. Is Ring Warriors a National promotion? As some people said, RW is small and don't do shows outside Las Vegas. However, they have a TV deal and, for some users, it's enough.
Second, UE (Undisputed Era) reign. Every week the number change, some users say KO and Strong are in their second reign, others say they are in the first. So, who's right? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi HHH Pedrigree, hope you had a nice christmas/new year:
  1. IMO, if any company has a national TV deal, they are a national promotion. Regardless of if they travel or not. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. What is UE reign? The NXT Tag Championships? I can't see why they wouldn't be on a second reign. They won the titles, then lost them, and won them back. That's two reigns. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, it's Undisputed Era. I don't know the reason, but every week the number change from 1 to 2. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
We list it as two here: List of NXT Tag Team Champions, I can't see why it would only be one - the WWE fully recognises the intermediate reign (even if it was only 2 days.) I don't follow the product, so I don't know anything more. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
There was a ton of discussion on how to handle this at the time, I don't remember on what talk page. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 22:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the Undisputed Era, they are in their 2nd reign as a team. Remember, their 1st reign was a "Freebird" reign, as Adam Cole, then Roderick Strong were added to the championship team with Kyle O'Reilly after Bobby Fish got hurt (it was Strong & O'Reilly who defended the titles in a losing effort to Mustache Mountain at the NXT UK event, and then won them back a couple of nights later). Regarding Ring Warriors, they are a national promotion due to their TV deal with WGN America. The show gives it national exposure...pretty much cut and dry there. Traveling is nice, and looks good on the resume, but as long as the country can see the product on TV, that's all you really need (remember, for the longest time TNA rarely if ever left the Impact Zone, but because they were on Spike TV, it gave them national coverage...same deal here with Ring Warriors). Vjmlhds (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, the number changed again. [28] --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay to answer the NXT tag team debate I will ask if 2 different members of the same stable hold tag team titles is it their first reign or second? 21:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Browndog91
Per WWE's championship history: Undisputed ERA became only the second two-time NXT Tag Team Champions in history when Kyle O’Reilly & Roderick Strong defeated Moustache Mountain to regain the titles. JTP (talk • contribs) 22:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay first look at days combined in the by team section, the 2 reigns are not together they are separate because Fish is not considered a 2 time tag team champion. Yes the Undisputed Era have held the tag titles twice as a stable But one was Fish, Kyle and Strong while the current one is just Kyle and Strong. If the New Day lost Big E for example but Kofi and Woods kept tagging and won a tag team title it would be their first reign together because their previous reigns had Big E in them. What I am getting at is it is the first reign as a team for Kyle and Strong because Fish is not included in this reign. Browndog91 04:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying but draw a different conclusion. When Cole subbed in a was announced as the winner and still Tag Team Champion, it did not start a new reign, it continued the existing reign, even though he was not recognized by WWE previously, and then magically 2 days later stopped being recognized again. Then Strong became recognized even though not being part of the stable previously. So based on your logic, this should be 4 separate reigns. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

- This issue a bigger issue with the freebirds rule in general. We should probably address it at a project level basis. However, personally I feel like anyone who defends the championships, must be champion within that reign. That seems like a good place to start. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, that makes sense. We need a way to clarify the second reign. For example The New Age Outlaws held the championship while under DX, but X-Pac also held it with Kane while X-Pac was under DX. This does not count as another DX reign, so it needs to be worded carefully. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's comparable. There was no Freebird rule invoked with the X-Pac & Kane reign to complicate things. Personally, I'd be generous with recognition, as a) the nature of the Freebird rule is that it's a breaking of the rules in the first place, and b) it's all fictional anyway, so we really do not need to get hung up on "this is what really happened" anyway, because ilthat doesn't exist. If the Undisputed Era invoked the Freebird Rule during the first reign to allow Roderick Strong to defend, then Strong is a two time champ, as is Kyle. That makes it their second reign as tag champs, even if Bobby Fish is still out injured. Heck, if they still have the titles when Fish returns, he may be Freebirded into the current reign, which would make him a two-time champ as well. It does not matter when the invocation of the Freebird Rule is during the reign, nor does it matter if someone is included then not, they're part of that team during that reign. So it should be listed as two.
Also, about the Ring Warriors thing, definitely belongs under national. Heck, they have a better TV deal than Impact, MLW, or ROH at this point; WGN America is in a lot more homes than Pursuit, BeIn, or Stadium (although ROH airs on a bunch of Sinclair-owned channels). oknazevad (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay then if it is indeed the 2nd reign for Undisputed Era why is it listed as 2 separate reigns in the By Team section?? Shouldn't it be combined?Browndog91 08:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I believe it should. oknazevad (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
No because the two teams are not identical. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
But the team that won the title for the first reign was not the same as the team that lost it. But the team that lost it and the team that won it back are identical. Not treating them he same is more complicated than treating them as two combined reigns. oknazevad (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah but that is something you need to take up with WWE and their booking. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Road Warriors

Hi. I have a problem. Recently, an IP (81.137.62.113) included a quote in the Road Warriors article. However, the quote was unsourced and he was reverted by other users (@Moe Epsilon: @ImmortalWizard:), myself included. The IP angered and insulted the users, so he was blocked. Now, he has removed a lot of the article under the "unsourced policy", which I think is Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. He is removing unsourced material only in reveange to prove his point, he is not helping wikipedia and he is acting in bad faith. I asked User:Cullen328 , since he blocked the IP, but I want to hear you advice too, how to act since the project is not very popular in ANI. Should I ask for a block again, include again the unsourced material, let it go...? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

This a clearly disruptive vandalism to make a point. This is a prime case for WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. oknazevad (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
You did the right thing by taking it to an involved admin, that's what you should do when you have that option. Another admin took action, I assume they were watching Cullen's page. All other options to report, including AIV and RFPP, are better than ANI but sometimes ANI might be the only option. You just can't take content disputes, or anything resembling a content dispute, there. Just clear-cut behavioral issues. I had reported behavior issues related to 205 Live there and it quickly dissolved into stupid arguments about wrestling that the peanut gallery were quick to jump in on and no admin wanted to act.LM2000 (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Right on, the ANI board has it's place and when appropriate is effective. We should not be afraid to take genuine behavior problems to ANI, the trick is to know when.MPJ-DK (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, classic behaviour issues should go up the normal way, talk to them, get an admin involved/page protection etc. Content issues could be an issue at WP:ANI, but things like being able to source "quotes", are universal across wikipedia, so should have no issues. You did a great job in my eyes. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, guys. Thanks for your advice. Since the previous verios was retored, I'll try to source it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup

I just wanted to bring attention to the fact that the 2019 Wikipedia:WikiCup is about to begin, with sign-ups open until the end of February. I know some people dislike contests like this, but after having competed in both the 2016 and 2017 (and 2019) I have had nothing but benefits from being in the Cup. It's not about "bling" or anything like that, but having participated I've gotten a lot of article input/help from non-wrestling editors and it has been tremendously helpful in improving articles. Often pro wrestling articles sit forever at GAN etc. - but with the attention from other cup participants the GA noms or FA/FL Candidates have gotten more attention and not just died from lack of participation. I would not have been able to create 4 Good Topics and 1 Feature Topic in the time that I have if it was not for cup participation. So if any of you are interested you should sign up, a bit of fun and a way to increase article quality. Note - I don't believe this counts as canvassing since it actually reduces my own odds ;-) MPJ-DK (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: Agreed, having participated in 2016. In addition, I think we should create separate taskforces for at least the big ones like WWE and NJPW. This wikiproject is getting too broad and hard to handle. I also think for active users will be drawn there. It's just my opinion. ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Do we have enough active, organized editors? I know there is a LOT of IP editors etc. but how many come here and participate in a taskforce?MPJ-DK (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't know how much is enough. We lack people for Japanese promotions that I can say. ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Probably true, I only create Japanese content if it's somehow related to Mexico, don't know enough about the Japanese wrestling scene. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Any task force should be nominated (as above), but would also need sufficient backing, or it would be pointless. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I'll most likely join (I did last year too). I do GA reviews, btw and have done for a few PW articles, and promoted Wrestlemania 2 in the past, and have an on-going GAN at Wrestlemania 4. I'd say the "outside the big companies" argument is right, as most users/IPs only edit WWE articles, or TNA/ROH, but I'd actually argue a task-force for wrestling outside of these companies would be better suited. What about, say German wresting? WXW is a huge company, as is All Star Wrestling in the UK (They are only second to the WWE for the amount of events run annually. These promotions are huge, but get not much editing at all. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Is this the ASW you refer to? I was curious on the claim of number of shows (CMLL 358, just saying). That ASW does not look too active? and I agree there is a need for editors for non-WWE and for more quality editors for WWE articles, two different deficiencies and probably two different solutions. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
They go by Superslam wrestling now, and it should be noted that most are not publisiced like this, so would never make cagematch. I know in 2016 they did wel over 350 shows; 100 of which were in July. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
My focus is on Mexico or 80s/90s wrestling and I know next to nothing about UK or Germ wrestling, but I got wikipedia expertise, can read German etc. and be happy to help out on an iniative, just wouldn't be able to take the initiative on this. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

- For anyone interested in keeping up to date with the WikiCup; me and User:MPJ-DK are currently 1 and 2. This will be the only time that I lead this competition. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: I am no judge but was just looking at the GA submissions for inspiration. I was wondering is 2018 World Snooker Championship eligible, since most of your contributions were from last year? ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Judges agreed with you, and to prove my point on the WikiCup helping, I had Villano III] nominated and approved for GA in less than 7 days, I have a couple of old one from somewhere in 2018 still floating out there too, so this does gain a little extra help with article quality. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Editor recruitment/retention etc. - Idea generation

So over the last couple weeks/months there has been posts about needing more editors and more quality on wrestling articles, but so far no improvement ideas have really gained traction. So how about we brainstorm some ideas on what could help? Throw out ideas, thoughts and perhaps we can find some suggestions that could benefit the project and the PW articles as a whole. I have a couple

  • Better "Welcome" template, be actually helpful and guide users more than just being a link farm.
  • Adopt a new editor - experienced editors work with new editors to make sure they learn the ropes and get up to speed on the somewhat murky world of Wikipedia guidelines
  • Helpdesk - a page where someone can ask for pro wrestling related help and interested editors can help out - source finding, article creation, etc.
  • Topic of the month - As a team, we pick a topic for improvement each month, focus on it, track it etc. I've seen other projects do this to drum up some interest. Topic can be broad (ex. anything related to Ring of Honor) or very specific (reduce the number of Stub class articles we have) or anywhere in between. Having a common topic would hopefully foster some collaboration.
  • "Your ideas below here" - thoughts? MPJ-DK (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
The Welcome template is for sure always a good way forward. Although, getting people to comment on people who edit PW articles with the tag has to happen too. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
In regard to quality, we gotta get rid of this idea that a one-sentence paragraph in the lead (especially the first paragraph) is okay. It's not. It's poor writing and not something a quality article should have. This is really a Wikipedia-wide issue, but it's something I have noticed the most here on professional wrestling related articles. Even list articles (which aren't technically "articles") should have more than one sentence. --JDC808 ♫ 22:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
That could be a monthly topic, round up as many articles with insufficient leads and expand them. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I think we need some PW specific tags that we could use to tag articles (or maybe create a list somewhere if not a tag). Like events where Storyline needs to be expanded and we tag it with that, same where it needs an event section. Same could be done with insufficient lead or other similar. I guess kind of what was done about the championship table a few months ago - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 22:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
What was that about the championship table? I may have not paid attention at the time, can you elaborate or link or somehing?? MPJ-DK (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I am referring to a list like you had created here [29] that appears to have since been deleted. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 22:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh damn i really am getting old. I thought it was tagged somehow, my bad. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
One of the monthly tasks should be cleanup the wrestling career sections of bio articles. It's already one of the guidelines to avoid weekly based contents, but I see many articles have somethings like "On this Raw X challenged Y for the Z Championship. X and Y began assaulting and attacking each other. X said something about Y. GM setup their match at Event. At Event, X failed to win the title." This type of content should be shortened. Also, new editors should be exposed to the guidelines, this means adding them in the welcome template. ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely. The fact that countless bios use "assault" and "attack" is awful and why so many people hate this project. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm shorting some articles, like Rollins, Strowman and Ziggler. I like old wrestlers, like Bret Hart. Their articles are really good.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I seriously won't mind having a year of career/background content condensed in one paragraph instead of five. Storylines in details are too much to handle. One might argue that a wrestler's notability is constructed by it's wrestling career, but that doesn't mean to write great history about him or her wrestling. For people like Undertaker, I would expand more on legacy, reception and persona rather than Bearer claimed at this event that Kane is his half-brother and Kane and 'Taker wrestling each other for that. Personally, I believe that if Mark Callaway start major business or pursue another career, his notability will be higher than his 'Taker character. IMO promoters are more notable than most wrestlers. Don't get me wrong, I am not against wrestling bios. I am a wrestling fan and respect all the wrestlers, but I feel like describing all those matches and feuds add nothing to their legacy and are exhausting for both editors and readers. ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

WrestleMania XXX and WrestleMania XXVIII

Nickag989 voiced some concerns for these articles on their talkpage. He says that there has been vandalism going on. Anyone have any feelings on what to do?★Trekker (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I reverted the changes. Just seems to be one-off edits by a single user. Prefall 01:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Well then that's cleared up then. Thanks!★Trekker (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

NXT UK

Is there really a reason to have two articles of the same scope on this? NXT UK based on the TV show, and NXT UK (WWE brand), based on the company. Surely these should be merged? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know, isn't it kind of our style guide now to distinguish the tv series/shows from the brands they're connected to? I'm not sure what good merging them would do. Sure they're connected subjects but still different things. I'd also say they're independently notable each.★Trekker (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Having them separate also has other differences that could help. For example, the NXT UK events like United Kingdom Championship Tournament (2017), WWE United Kingdom Championship Special and United Kingdom Championship Tournament (2018) are not associated with the TV show. Putting them on that page would technically be incorrect, so having them merged creates some confusion. I think keeping them separate avoids confusion. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_104&oldid=1142157673"