Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 110

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 105←Archive 108Archive 109Archive 110Archive 111Archive 112

General Sanctions

I think it's time for the general sanctions thing to be revisited. It was proposed by someone who wants all professional wrestling articles deleted from Wikipedia and supported by a collection of likeminded (wrestling is stupid, people who watch wrestling are stupid, people who write about wrestling are stupid, don't you know it's fake?) editors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/846970509#General_sanctions_for_articles_on_professional_wrestling). Looking at the log of notifications, one editor received a topic ban 3+ years ago, a handful of page-level sanctions were implemented 42+ months ago, and several notifications have been given--aside from one dispute 21 months ago, the last notifications were issued 30 or more months ago. There doesn't seem to be a pressing need for anything, so it seems like it is just declaring that one group of editors is of a lower class because of a bunch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes. Any thoughts? In particular, I know a bunch of you supported implementing sanctions in the first place, so I would be interested in hearing from you about whether you think the need still exists. Thank you. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Support copy/pasting these facts to AN, but I doubt it gets anywhere. I question the good faith of editors who refer to subjects they are trying to impose sanctions on as "garbage" or "cretinous rubbish", or who openly call for the entire wikiproject to be nuked. The discussion clearly shows that the sanctions were imposed out of elitism and should be speedily rescinded. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 06:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment So, I supported the sanctions being implemented. I do think that many of the arguments made during the 2018 debates have merit. Many of our articles do end up with silly content disputes and fanboys do add unnecessary kayfabe. My hope was that these sanctions would give administrators a tool to resolve these issues more swiftly than before. So, four years later have the sanctions had any tangible effect? LOL NO! We've had the same stupid issues as before, which have to be taken to the same noticeboards, where action is rarely taken because threads get derailed by the peanut gallery. I link to the sanctions page as a reminder that it still exists and it has no effect! Gary's correct, sanctions got put on us because the aforementioned peanut gallery doesn't care for wrestling and they think we're stupid for being involved with this, but there was never a serious attempt to implement changes that would help solve real issues. It was just snobbery. For years, publications have written about Wikipedia's failure to recruit new editors... Perhaps that has something to do with the old editors not being very welcoming.LM2000 (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - I opposed before, but I was a significantly newer editor than I am now. I'd suggest that you would have to show that there is both 1) DS/GS doesn't work (which I think you've shown), but also 2) that it isn't necessary. I no longer write much on PW articles, nor patrol the pages, but can we really say the silly ANI arguments and kayfabe additions aren't something that has continued? (Genuine question, I don't know). If we are a better community then we can push back against having sanctions over the head of the Project. From my experience there are still some ridiculous cruft on a lot of articles, and not as much work on cleaning up the articles to an encylopedic standard Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @Lee Vilenski: Yesterday I removed a part where Danhausen was "putting a curse on Cole". I mean, several artiles includes kayfabe at some point to explain the storylines. (he attacked his partner because he was angry for losing, he attacked the other and injuried him) and several articles has more kayfabe than others. But, at some point, it's needed to explain "this is storyline". On the Brodie Lee GA nomination, you said that he looks like he was "bullying smaller wrestlers". That kind of stuff --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Sure. I think I'm getting a bit wider. We do need to have some sense of explaining what happens, but we should preface that it's part of a story. The issue with removing DS will be if we have a lot of arguments over removing cruft where it appears. I'm genuinely asking if we have lots of arguments or not as I haven't edited a PW article in over a year. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - While I would have supported this, the way WP:PW is curbing WP:PW/RS, deeming sources that were previously considered reliable and no one complained about suddenly unreliable, I don't know.... There are just too few WP:PW/RS and we should stop listing sources that report accurate wrestling news as unreliable. I do support the lft in the WP:GS but first there needs to be more accepted WP:PW/RS and the curb on them needs to stop. I know what I say or not doesn't matter tho, just giving my opinion. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Then why should WP:GS be lifted for a project with so few WP:RS and where personal views gets more preferance than WP:RS? The aim of Wikipedia is to showcase accuate information using reliable sources, but the way reliable sources that posts accurate information at WP:PW/RS are getting butchered and the personal views of ediors are prioritized over WP:RS information are not helping. Anyway i just gave my comment, I did not join this project directlya nd edit wrestiing articles as a fan watching since 1999 while complying with Wikipedia guidlines, you guys do as you please as you have better understanding of the project, best wishes, cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Avalibility of WP:PW/RS only adds morecredibility to the project, the lack of them makes it lose that credibillity, and the credibillity of the project has been questioned during the imposition of WP:GS. Anyway alll I am saying is that more accepted WP:PW/RS only would have bosetd the image of the project when trying to lift the WP:GS. Again thats just my opinion, members of the project can decide for themselves, i only said this out of best interest and good luck for them. Anyway best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia community: We despise your work. Why should we change our opinion?
Us: We accept lots of sites as reliable sources.
Wikipedia community: Do they meet the WP:RS criteria?
Us: No.
Wikipedia community: ...
Us: But it's more convenient for us if we pretend that ARIZA, BenZen, and Fountain of Misinformation are credible journalists.
Wikipedia community: Close enough for us. Now you can have all the respect we have withheld for years! GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
GaryColemanFan lol this made my day! Anyway I see and understand your point. Well as long as they come from reliable authors (and not the unreliable ones) it should be fine. But anyway I do support the lifting of the [{WP:GS]], am a big fan of rofessional wrestling and over the years I have seen you guys work hard to build professional wrestling articles, so i hope the WP:GS is lifted. Best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC) Dilbaggg (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Support: It's been that long? Thought it was stupid then and that hasn't changed. It's redundant to have sanctions when the intended purposes doesn't happen. I'm all for getting them lifted. Get the balling rolling and I'm sure you will have people, such as myself, supporting it. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 08:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Are all title matches notable?

Should we mention all title matches of a wrestler's career? For example, those title matches on the episodes of Raw/SmackDown/NXT that the champions retain their championships; e.g. Mandy Rose vs. Kay Lee Ray (NXT Women's Title Match) or Charlotte Flair vs. Naomi (SmackDown Women's Title Match). Are this kind of title matches notable? Or they are WP:PROSELINE material? Mann Mann (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

My view is title matches that don't end in a title change generally fail WP:NOTNEWS, especially when they are only documented in wrestling-specific sources because of course they would document every wrestling event. Remember when WWE would hold the same title matches in one week during all of that week's live events? Imagine including those. Pay-per-view title matches are somewhat grayer because they're more unique and often covered in mainstream sources. KyleJoantalk 05:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Most things that happen on the weekly shows do fall under WP:NOTNEWS, so I think it takes more than a run-of-the-mill title defense to get included. There's not a one size fits all approach to this though, there are notable exceptions from time to time.LM2000 (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, they rarely are notable in of themselves. If a match was particularly important, such as establishing something relevant, particularly good/bad worth noting then, sure. If it's like a sole match for the title, it might be worth a mention. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
So it depends on the importance, relevancy, or impact of a match? e.g. a random title match is not notable BUT if a title match is a part of a storyline OR it results in some events/incidents, then we need to mention it, right? Also, do all title matches at PPVs and special episodes pass as notable? Being a PPV match = notable? Mann Mann (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
"Need", no. We don't have to mention anything that doesn't help actually explain someone's career. If something happens in a random House show, and that becomes important to their career, it might be pertinent to write about it. A match on a PPV is only as relevant as what happens with it. If the is a match on a PPV but it doesn't actually further anything, it's a bit irrelevant. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
In agreement with everything LM2000 and Lee Vilenski said. To clarify, my point about mainstream coverage was not to use it as a standard for inclusion. I'm saying it is often a helpful indicator as to what career milestones are more notable than others. Examples of this include Paige's neck stinger and Jeff Hardy's walkout, both of which happened during house shows and received mainstream coverage.[1][2][3][4] KyleJoantalk 17:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Agree. Several times I have seen that articles are a sucesion of matches (usually At EVENT on DAY, X wrestled defeated Y wrestler), with no real focus. I would say "case-per-case", but random title matches are not notable, but it doesn't mean to remove all title defences. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
title matches are, after all, just gimmick regular matches. Proseline itself is the issue, especially as most of the time the individual matches make very little difference to a career. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I would think it depends on the situation. For most main-event wrestlers, not every title match would necessarily be notable, and the information might just clutter an article (I seem to recall Bret Hart having multiple televised matches against Yokozuna for the WWF Championship, but it would be much more important to include the match in which he actually won the title. For mid-card wrestlers, it might make sense to include, as it would be a career highlight (e.g. if Jimmy Del Ray had a match for the WWF or Intercontinental Championship). For wrestlers who worked programs against champions on a series of house shows, it might make sense as part of an overview of a portion of their career (e.g. In late 1994, Jim Neidhart wrestled a series of house show matches against Bret Hart for the WWF Championship). GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Shane McMahon's status with WWE

Discussion here, participation encouraged. — Czello 20:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Cal Bloom “Von Wagner” the professional wrestler on WWE NXT needs a wiki page.

If I make his wiki page is it going to be deleted? LIWProWrestling (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a good question. There is definitely a deletionist vibe to this wikiproject. To give a potential article the best chance possible, I would make sure to include the following articles: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] (this one may be a tough sell because much of the site is a tabloid, but they seem to have decent sports reporting--this is something the project may have to address at WP:RSN or WP:RSP at some point), [10] (some people will say this last one doesn't establish notability because it's not sufficiently independent). I think that, between the three Figure Four sources and the in-depth coverage in the Orlando Sentinel source, it should meet WP:GNG. (I am an unapologetic inclusionist, though, so that's just my opinion.) GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

There are a number of "List of [wrestling promotion] personnel" articles in existence that seem to break WP:NOTDIRECTORY and should possibly be deleted

I am a professional wrestling fan who has always loved "the indies" and actively followed and supported them, so this concern is not born out of any disrespect to Indie promotions. However, I've noticed these personnel lists that are extremely niche even to a hardcore fan of the indies. Respectfully, most if not all of these promotions were never that significant even within the scope of the "minor leagues" of professional wrestling. So the usefulness of these articles seems incredibly small, and they seem to more than likely break WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It would seem to me that, unless there are some serious objections, these articles should be nominated for deletion. Also, I note that most of the articles were created by seemingly the same unregistered user acting alone and seemingly only in their own interest. Thoughts? CeltBrowne (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
@CeltBrowne: If you want, you can start a discussion. To be honest, I think there are so many articles of rosters and alumni for independent promotion which are barely notable. Several of them have the same problem. Lack of sources (no sources for several wrestlers, sources are usually a report of an event), lack of notable wrestlers (that mean's several of them doesn't have articles). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
ESA, Central States and NWF were all mainstream promotions. NWF was big enough to run a stadium show. Notability shouldn't be a concern in those cases. Here's a few problems I saw:
  • Most of the lists haven't been seriously updated or even looked over in general.
  • Can the two distinct NWF promotions really be considered the same, or are they being lumped together in this list because they were lumped together in the main article? From reading that article, it appears the 1986 version derived its lineage from a different promotion.
  • Some concerns specific to the Central States list:
    • Given the territory's prominence within the NWA, many people listed came in for one-offs and weren't a regular part of the roster. Let's use Hiroshi Wajima as an example. He trained there under Pat O'Connor and had his first matches there, but the plan was to bring him back to Japan as soon as possible.
    • The list of announcers omits Mark Matthew, who worked for Geigel for at least two years in between Bill Kersten and Rick Stuart. He called Ric Flair's first NWA title win and was also the final host of Wrestling at the Chase as a NWA product. I mention this because there are several documentaries about the promotion and he's been written out of the promotion's history in those. The average person today may not have noticed him because of the limited amount of surviving footage prior to the final months of 1983.
    • There's another significant omission from the list of promoters. Gust Karras was the local promoter in St. Joseph and not in a central booking role, but he also promoted non-wrestling events at Kemper Arena. That means he had a pretty big operation. He also played a major role in the early career of Harley Race. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Owen Hart's birth year

It is regarding this change by IP, which is unsourced. The slamwrestling.net mentions a birth year of 1966, which I used to update his stats recently. But then again many sources (likely unreliable, mention 1965). Can someone provide a few other reliable sources, especially concerning the subject's birth year? Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it's not a reliable source, but his grave says 1965 [11] --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
May 7, 1965, according to Martha Hart's book (page 28) as well as Tributes II by Dave Meltzer (page 2). GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
@GaryColemanFan and HHH Pedrigree: Thanks, I've updated it using Martha Hart's book as the source. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

New editor who could use some coaching

Hey folks, not a project member but I just came across a new editor who has gone hardcore on creating some new articles on wrestling topics, but is definitely in need of some backup to get it right. Special:Contributions/Jdhfox gives you an indication of what's happening there - some questionable pages, some definitely falling into notability, a bit of mayhem overall. Current wrestling stuff is beyond my ken, any chance some editors from here could help out with tidying up some of these? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Only a few minutes later and this user has been blocked (for block evasion). Could be worth reviewing some of their edits to see if there was any disruption there. — Czello 16:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, there you go. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Expanding articles of managers, referees, and ring announcers

Some of articles about managers, referees, and ring announcers feels stub/incomplete. For example:

  • Malcolm Bivens (manager). In my opinion, Bivens is the core of Diamond Mine. Actually he makes that stable interesting and relevant. But his article just mentions this: "On the June 22, 2021, episode of NXT, Bivens and Rust were revealed to be a part of the Diamond Mine stable along with Hachiman and Roderick Strong, thus cementing Bivens' status as a heel." Nothing about his notable appearances and storylines.
  • Alicia Taylor (ring announcer). Her professional wrestling career is only mentioned in the lead of article; nothing in the body of article.
  • Jessika Carr and Aubrey Edwards (referees). Expansion/Update needed in my opinion.

If you are interested in such topics (managers, referees, and ring announcers), then the mentioned articles deserve your attention/work. Mann Mann (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's quite normal. It's their job and most of the sources never mentions announcers or referees? Justin Roberts has a 20+ year career, but what kind of things can we include? His work is to announce and, unless he has a storyline, his career has no highlights. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Citing WWE documentaries as source

I saw this edit and the content seems legit because I saw WWE 365: Alexa Bliss and there was a segment about such stuff (eating disorders and cosmetic surgery). Is using WWE Documentaries as source acceptable? e.g. WWE 24, WWE 365, and the others. Mann Mann (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I would imagine it would be akin to the rules around citing Twitter (WP:TWITTER) and Wikipedia:Verifiability generally, ie one can cite a WWE Documentaries so long as you're only citing someone talking about themselves and they're not making an extraordinary claim. So, for example, if Alexa Bliss claims she was a cheerleader in high school and the source is a WWE Documentary, that's okay. However, if Alexa Bliss claims she was an astronaut at one point, obviously a WWE documentary is not enough of a source. CeltBrowne (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
It's a WP:PRIMARY source, little different than any other WWE source. Use it with the same caution that you would with any other primary source. The Bliss edits are probably okay but would obviously be stronger if they were backed up by a reliable secondary source.LM2000 (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Is there an editorial process involved in the production of these documentaries? Evidence of an editorial process and of fact checking have long been the factors which determine something to be a reliable source. Too many editors have bought into gaslighting and seem to have other notions, regardless of whether they're valid. Speaking of fact checking, my experience with Slam Wrestling is that they publish a lot of material dependent on the personal recollections of wrestlers and other industry figures, and fail to give the sort of regard to acknowledging and addressing errata that is customarily expected of a professional journalistic organization. Yet, Slam Wrestling is treated as the gold standard by this project, at times giving it more weight than mainstream top-tier sources. This is a key reason why the project dodged a bullet when the community at large declined to scrutinize the project's sourcing guidelines in a venue outside the project. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Team International

Notice

The article Team International has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unverified and lacking evidence of notability for 13.78 years

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I feel this should be discussed at AfD rather than PRODed to give more people a chance to look for sources. I have dePRODed and started the discussion. :] -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 14:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
PROD + notification of the relevant project is sufficient opportunity to look for sources. If the goal is article improvement, through PROD, all it takes is one person to say, "Hold on. I can find something" and the article is kept for now. Through AfD, even if people find some sources, the article would likely be deleted based on votes that may be cast while it's in its current state. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I will take this information into consideration next time. Thank you. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 19:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
That's pretty poor advice. AfDs are not based on the quality of an article. AfD seems like a very suitable place for something that isn't clear cut. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
13.78 years ago, the project embraced the idea of an encyclopedia which is closer to what the real world views "the sum of all human knowledge" to be, as opposed to today, where people are very aggressive about trying to limit that to mirroring the results of today's Google search or today's headlines. AFD will only frame a narrative concerning the mere presence or absence of citations. Personally, it looks like a dumping ground of fanboy trivia. Obviously, TNA at the time was far more popular than it is today, which motivated its creation. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

IP 99.247.6.183

Regarding edits by the now blocked IP 99.247.6.183. Can anyone verify the changes made in Tamina Snuka and Jimmy Snuka articles? Thanks - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Grand Slam page constantly vandalised

There is an IP user (82.42.64.169) who has been constantly changing the content under the Grand Slam page on-and-off for a while now (possibly at least a year). The user would undo any edits I or others have made (especially in regards to two-time Grand Slam Champions) or make small unnecessary changes that they would revert back to almost instantaneously if someone was to interfere with it. After doing this for a while, they would disappear for a few months, only to come back and continue reverting the same few things on this page (they have done this a few times now). They have been warned several times on their talk page, but it doesn’t seem like it has gotten through to them. Drummoe (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It would have been a bit easier if there was edit summaries on the reverts to see where they are. I've put on short term Page protection on the page. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Misuse of "As of" across wresting articles

I've noticed that a huge number of wrestling articles contain As of {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}} (almost 400). This use of the "CURRENT" magic words should be avoided when dating statements, as it implies that the article has been verified more recently and is more up to date than it really is. Although these articles don't use the {{as of}} template, the advice at Template:As_of/doc#Usage_guidelines still stands that Using this template with values such as {{As of|now}} or variables such as {{As of|{{CURRENTYEAR}}}} is a relative time reference and the equivalent to using "currently", which is generally against the precise language guideline.

I propose a two-fold solution:

  • For pages such as Ring of Honor#Current championships, where the statement is on its own above a table, have a bot go through and just remove it. The table clearly says the date each row was added, so saying "As of today" adds nothing.
  • For pages such as List of WWE Champions, which have sentences such as As of [today's date], there have been 145 recognized reigns between 54 recognized champions and 11 recognized vacancies, have a bot go through and replace them all with {{As of|{{subst:REVISIONYEAR}}|{{subst:REVISIONMONTH}}|{{subst:REVISIONDAY}}}}, which will lock in the last-edited date and properly place the articles in the appropriate subcategory of Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements. It does mean that editors updating the numbers in the second half of the sentence will also have to update the date in the first half, but that isn't a significant amount of extra work.

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I edited a handful of pages that used these constructions to get the changes onto people's watchlists and invite any comments here. I also removed instances of text like As of {{date||iso}}, 2020., which are just plain incorrect (as they will show today's month and day, but in a past year). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

WWE Legend in the lead section

This IP user1/IP user2 has added something like this "WWE officially began regarding Wrestler XYZ as a legend..." to the articles of some female wrestlers; e.g. [12], [13]. I reverted their edits because they were unsourced. IP user re-added them by citing a YouTube video from WWE channel; e.g. [14], [15]. So are such content acceptable or unacceptable? Or using that YouTube video? Mann Mann (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Even if this is true, it stinks of WP:PEA.LM2000 (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, these people are on legends contracts, the term "legend" is peacock, and it's not an award or anything, so it shouldn't be mentioned. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Agree with LM and Lee. Peacock word. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Agree with the above. Not encyclopedic language. We could say they've been signed to a legends contract (if it was sourced), but that's all. — Czello 10:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
"Signed to a legends contract" works, especially if there's a wikilink to explain the term. Although, to be honest, I don't think that "legend" as used in the original post is any more of a peacock term than "talent" or "superstar" (both of which I believe should be purged from all wrestling articles). GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The term "legend" and "icon" has been thrown around so much that it sometimes loses its meaning. Earlier this year, Summer Rae was in the crowd of an episode of Raw, they called her a "legend" in which she is not. As it's been stated, it adds nothing to the article. If someone wants to create an article on "legends contract," I'm all for it as long as it can be sourced. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

MOS:HYPOCORISM concerning professional wrestling BLPs

Should Britt Baker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Randy Orton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) respectively spell out that they are respectively known as Britt Baker and Randy Orton in each article's first paragraph? KyleJoantalk 19:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

It's our manual of style. It's how we format our articles. — Czello 21:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is most definitely a policy. Dr. Britt Baker, DMD, is the name used by reliable sources (TSN, AEW, her Twitter account), indicating that this is how she is commonly known. The use of the professional title and post-nominal letters is clearly different from how it is discussed in the Manual of Style. This situation is closer to Baron von Raschke or King Kong Bundy (there may be better examples, but the point remains the same). The full name, including the title and letters, is her ring name and how she is discussed in reliable sources and, thus, her common name. As for the Orton thing, I have no idea what KyleJoan is getting at. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Just to be clear, there seems to be a debate about whether to include her credentials ("Dr" and "DMD"), but I'm actually undecided on that. I'm simply arguing that we must include "Britt Baker" somewhere in the lead, as KyleJoan's reversions were to a version where that name wasn't used at all, only "Brittany Baker". — Czello 09:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC

Since MOS:HYPOCORISM and WP:PW/BIO possibly conflict, should BLPs include professional wrestling figures' ring names that only comprise a common hypocorism of the subject's real first name and their real last name in the lead section (e.g., Randy Orton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), whose ring name is Randy Orton and real name is Randal Keith Orton)?

Some articles that would be affected by this discussion

KyleJoantalk 03:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment - What a strange thing to fixate on. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support addition of ring names unless the real name = ring name (1:1); e.g. Shinsuke Nakamura. OR if a wrestler just does not use her/his middle name; e.g. Mickie James and Shelton Benjamin. In my opinion, Randal Keith Orton =/= Randy Orton, Brittany Baker =/= Britt Baker, Matthew Thomas Riddle =/= Matt Riddle, and etc. So their ring names should be mentioned in the lead. Mann Mann (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Project-wide guidance overrides anything done by a Wikiproject. So in this case, since these are common hypocorisms, WP:HYPOCORISM would be the guidance for it. I do not think it will be confusing to readers that "Brittany Baker" is the same person as "Britt Baker", nor that "Randal Orton" is "Randy Orton". In this case, those are both very common hypocorisms, and we do not need to insult anyone by explicitly spelling them out, any more than we need to spell out that "William Henry Gates III" is in fact the full name of Bill Gates and that the two are the same person. As such, they do not need to be explicitly spelled out, and should not be. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support addition of ring names following the method that Mann Mann laid out above. This should apply to all pro wrestling BLPs, and is already implied by WP:PW/MOS as I detailed above. — Czello 09:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Seraphimblade. These are simple hypocorisms, we don't need to baby readers so much. Of course Britt Baker is Brittney Baker's ring name, it's her actual name!LM2000 (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - hmm... I don't think it's so much of a stretch to comment what someone's ring name is, regardless of if it is the same as their name, if they are in any way diferent from their own name. But, the BOLD argument is weird. We have:
Beatrice St. Clere Priestley (born 22 March 1996) is an English-New Zealander professional wrestler, best known by the ring name Bea Priestley, which to me, seems obvious... But, if we said: Beatrice St. Clere Priestley (born 22 March 1996) is an English-New Zealander professional wrestler. Wrestling under the ring name of Bea Priestley, where we cull the bold, it does at least comment that this is her ring name, but doesn't throw it in your face. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment We don't insult or babysit the readers by mentioning such ring names. The lead section is a summary of a wrestler's career, and ring names are a part of the career. Of course it is unnecessary if we use it for obvious cases like Mickie James. Mann Mann (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Meh. "Randy Orton" is not a ring name, it's his real name, even if not the full version of it. It's much more like John Cena or Brock Lesnar than say, Hulk Hogan or the Rock. WP:HYPOCORISM applies. oknazevad (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support addition of ring names as per the reasoning by Mann Mann. --JDC808 ♫ 00:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - yeh ring names should be added I agree. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Project-wide guidelines have priority, as Seraphimblade wrote. Even if not, oknazevad's point about a common hypocorism of [one's] real first name and their real last name not being a ring name supports the conclusion that excluding this material is compatible with both MOS:HYPOCORISM and WP:PW/MOS. KyleJoantalk 02:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
    • No, it's not compatible with WP:PW/BIO: "The lead should typically open with the wrestler's real name that is supported by a reliable source, and if they are known by a ring name, it should be noted in one of the proceeding sentences. In the case of a reliable source not being present for their real name, the lead should open with the wrestler's common name instead." If MOS:HYPOCORISM overrides WP:PW/MOS and there is no solution/alternative, then what's the point of this RfC or WP:PW/MOS itself? Mann Mann (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of ring names - No different from stating the role that an actor is famous for. Ring names are characters/personas that are portrayed, not just a syllable-saving way to write a real-life identity. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of ring names. I will note that Randy Orton isn't the best case study for this exercise though, as his ring name is simply Randy Orton, but in kayfabe it is acknowledged that his middle name is Keith as it is included in the initials RKO. Pinguinn 🐧 22:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Another anti-Meltzer editing spree

If anyone can help revert/check the articles edited by WM17, I would appreciate it. The editor deleted any mention of Meltzer or his reviews from a bunch of articles. I've gone through a few, but there are more--some of which they edited multiple times, so it's important to catch it all rather than just undoing the most recent edit. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a strange WP:AGENDA some editors have that involve removing the views of dirtsheet writers, Meltzer especially. I'll take a look. — Czello 08:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I've done a mass revert of all of his edits. Clear WP:SPA and a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He's also on his final warning, so if he resumes he'll be blocked. — Czello 08:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Just a note - WP:ANI would have been a better location - it's very clear vandalism and would likely have gotten blocked. Now the final warnings are in place, I'd only block if they continue to edit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, this edit summary shows that WM17 is clueless about WP and WP:PW. He thinks we only cite Meltzer's works and ignore all other pro wrestling journalists. Mann Mann (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

While I personally dislike and see Meltzer as an unreliable narrator who speculates on a lot of stuff that is later proven false and question his sources but recognize his opinions and reviews, this is clearly vandalism. DrewieStewie (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I saw the update.[16] What is your plan for the rest of unreliable sources listed on WP:PW/RS? e.g. Wrestling Inc and other similar websites. Mann Mann (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't have any specific plans. As mentioned at WT:UPSD, the documented evidence for the others seems weak. I'd be happy to add more, but I'd want to see stronger cases for unreliability first, or RSN discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Do these NXT wrestlers pass notability criteria to have their own articles?

I'm aware of WP:PW/Notability but it's a bit confusing for me. So I need your opinion.

Do they pass WP:PW/NBIO criteria? --Mann Mann (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't watch NXT, so I can help. Sorry. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
@HHH Pedrigree: You can see their matches on wrestling databases like Cagematch and search their names in PW sources. In my opinion, they are notable wrestlers. They have WWE profiles and they have enough TV appearances & matches. --Mann Mann (talk) 08:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Those things aren't really important for notability. You'd need to prove they met WP:GNG. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Do they pass WP:GNG criteria? --Mann Mann (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I doubt it - I couldn't find much on a casual look through Google. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sareee#Requested move 17 May 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sareee#Requested move 17 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Mann Mann (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Bobby Eaton

I have nominated Bobby Eaton for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. BloatedBun (talk) 07:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Rok-C#Requested move 11 June 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rok-C#Requested move 11 June 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Mann Mann (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Tag team and stable articles beginning with "The"

The titling of articles on tag teams and stables is pretty inconsistent. For example, we have "New World Order (professional wrestling)" but "The Four Horsemen (professional wrestling)", "Corporate Ministry" but "The Corporation (professional wrestling)".

The policy guidance WP:THE is pretty clear that "The" should generally not be used in titles other than in a few circumstances. Given this, and to ensure consistency, I think we should be shifting articles to titles that don't begin with "The" other than where circumstances require an exception be made.

I have moved a few articles, and will raise a move request for some others, but would welcome any thoughts. McPhail (talk)

@McPhail: Is using "the" acceptable for the stables like The Judgment Day? --Mann Mann (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
It's usually a case of WP:NATURALDAB. Sometimes having a "the" makes sense so it's less ambiguous. Usually it's not suitable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

User:ItsKesha trying to remove large chunk of near decade long established information from Randy Orton without any consensus.

This is the discussion so far:

Feud with Rollins inclusion

@Dilbaggg - why exactly is the feud with Rollins "crucial" and "vital"? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC) @ItsKesha it was a significant feud, just because you do not think it was, doesn't eman it was not, you erased the entire 2015 section as if orton was inctive back then, and your claim this was week by week coverage is false, it only covers significant feuds and matches during this time frme that have been established here for 7 years, you are no one to just erace them based on your personal views. Dilbaggg (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The Authority story which kikced of with Orton being the chosen one after cashing in on Bryan in 2013, getting replaced by Rollins in 2014 and the feud and matches with Rollins in 2015 covered a significant portion of his career and thus definitely meets all WP:RS and WP:Notable criteria. Lets have a vote. Dilbaggg (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Which source says or demonstrates that the storyline is crucial and vital? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Just because you think its not vital doesn't mean its not vital, non of the feuds or anything is specifcally said vital in the source, source is for adding information and sources on these contenbts exist in the first place cause theya re vital. By your logic every Wikipedia articles should have a blank page? Dilbaggg (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
It's not whether I think something or not, it's what reliable sources say, or don't in this instance. You are the one who said the feud was crucial and vital, yet have offer proffered no sources to back this up. What don't you get about this? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
The sources that mentioned the feud were all Wp:RS. What point are you trying to make exactly? The way you want this article to be is as if Orton was absent from WWE in 2015 which he was not. Dilbaggg (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that the feud happened. I'm asking for sources that demonstrate that it was "crucial" and "vital" according to you. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Also the part was there for 7 years, no one has objected but you, I already said if you are concerned lets vote, here my vote:
And Hitler was in charges of the Nazi party for 12 years. What's your point? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
So yeah thats mentioned in his article, but that article has nothing to do with Randy orton article. Either ways the feud with Seth is just as notable and well sourced as any other sections in this article, and by going through your misguided POV, we might as well remove evrything and have a totally blank page lol. Be constructive not destructive, add not remove. Best wishes, and why are you deleting my vote? Dilbaggg (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Anyway I have work today, so can't say much more, if anyone checks in I had voted support for the continued inclusion, but ItsKesha deleted my vote. Anyway whatever, I will fix it again if I get the time but I have a busy life so i don't know, take care. Dilbaggg (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
It literally doesn't matter if sources exist if they don't demonstrate notability or importance, or how "crucial" and "vital" it is. You have yet to give an explanation or a source to back up the inclusion of the information. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 08:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
ItsKesha who are you to define notability, you have zero right to change accepted notable infrmation kept for seven year. Keep seeking special treatment, I dared you to seek consensus, afraid it won't get into your favor? Keep up your WP:Disruptive Editing, but I will keep fixing the mess and at one point an admin might or might not interven, but just you have given zero proof that the information is not notable and things will not become not notable because you say so, seek a consensus throught WP:RfC, anyway good day.Dilbaggg (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Read the following, and then come back and discuss this; WP:ROUTINE, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SCOPE, WP:TMI, WP:DRNC, WP:SYPS, and WP:ONUS. Also, please, read WP:CS:EMBED. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I already looked into this long before you, maybe you should recheck them ItsKesha. Once again this thing is notable, if you do not agree seek WP:RfC and let more knowledged contributors than you decide by voting, and I am sure you are afraid the vote won't go in your favor. Something can not be deemed not WP:Notable based on your personal views. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
You clearly haven't looked into it long before me, judging by the fact you can't even explain how it is "crucial" and "vital" and have provided zero sources for it. How is it not routine coverage? Also, per one of those things I linked, it's actually you who needs to gain consensus. As you have already looked into it long ago, you won't need me to tell you which one 👍. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
No ItsKesha you are the one who is trying to erase decade long established Wp:RS information which covers a whole year (201) of Orton's career so its your job to get consensus, I don't care if you drag me to WP:EW which is something your records say you shamelessly do, I will prevent your WP:BLP violation and WP:Vandal of this article (unless I get too busy with irl business). Peace. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


All i am saying is taht this well sourced WP:RS information that he is trying to remove cover's Orton's entire 2015 year, like as if Orton was out of action for whole of 2015, nobody except @ItsKesha says its not notable, and as he is removing such lenngthy information I kept urging him to get a proper consensus. He repeatedly refuses. I already started a support/oppose voting on the talk page but he deleted my edit. So I leave it to you guys to decide, if you guys agree with ItsKesha then ok, but without reachinga proper consensus ItsKesha can not purge such crucial contents that he claims are not WP:Notable based on his personal views. here is what he is removing: [21]. Anyway decision is left to more experienced WP:pW members, lets gather a consensus and decide. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:ROUTINE, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SCOPE, WP:TMI, WP:DRNC, WP:SYPS, and WP:ONUS before blabbering on again please. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
v I already read those, anyway let a consensus be reached here and let voting decide, you are literally trying to erase an entire year from Orton's article, claiming things are not Notable absed on your personal views. Those info are all well sourced and have been there fr 7 years. You alone cannot decide the notability of the articles. I said all thats needed to be said above ItsKesha, now let otehr editors reach a consensus, whatever the majority vote decides, will go, I am personally done with this for the time being. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
So, would you care to explain how the information is notable, and not actually routine coverage, I must have completely misunderstood this. Thanks in advance. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Wow, 200k+ is insane for a wrestling biography. The biographies of the older wrestlers are able to summarize careers that exceeded 30 years in 100k or so, why are the recent ones so absurdly detailed? Ric Flair has been around forever, done it all in 50 years, and his is not even that huge. I would say that only The Rock, Cena, Lesnar, Hogan and the like would warrant something that enormous, given their crossover into other industries. My “vote”? Keep what has been removed off the Orton article and chop it down to a reasonable size. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 05:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a problem with many pro wrestling articles. Excessive detailed bios with a lot of in-universe stuff. It's a good idea to summarize. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
They were not excessive details, excessive details would have been week by week coverage, which it ws not, the feud with Rollins represented a significant portion of Orton's career they covered the entire point of 2015 career and I repeatedly requested ItsKesha to seek WP:RfC, ether ways the matter was resolved here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Dilbaggg (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
That ItsKesha’s approach was belligerent does not solve the underlying issue in this article. For Orton, the Rollings feud can be summarized in a single win and two losses in titular matches. Why is it that important? The article is bloated beyond proportion as it is, none of this seems pivotal for his career at large and could probably be collected in a single sentence. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Old School. Per WP:TOOBIG, an article over 100 kb should be divided. The project has a problem with including PPV matches like PPV match = notable. We can summarize a lot in the article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion, there were notable moments in the feud that deserve inclusion (face turns, Orton leaving The Authority, the WrestleMania 31 match finish, etc), but perhaps it may so be done in a few sentences or a paragraph. DrewieStewie (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Editing dispute over Bad Bunny’s status as a wrestler

Hello all. It’s been a minute, I hope all is well with you all. I’ve recently gotten into a bit of a dispute with @ChicagoWikiEditor: concerning the inclusion of “professional wrestler” and “actor” in the introductory sentence. Ever since his surprise appearance at the Royal Rumble this year, I felt he met the criteria to be considered a professional wrestler, as he was making weekly appearances in the buildup to WrestleMania 37, held the 24/7 Championship for an extended period, wrestled highly proficiently at Mania (as opposed to other celebrity guests over the years), and still makes sporadic in-ring appearances from time to time (such as being in the final 5 in the Royal Rumble match). This, in my opinion, greatly qualifies considering him to be a professional wrestler, and he’s bound to make future appearances whenever he finds a break from touring. As to being an actor, he’s cast in the starring title role for an upcoming Sony’s Spider-Man Universe film, El Muerto, in 2024, based on both his moonlighting as a wrestler and his performance in Bullet Train. Throughout the year, I have reinstated “actor” and “professional wrestler” into the intro sentence as it kept being removed by various IP’s and editors without consensus and usually without an edit summary. However, ChicagoWikiEditor has more aggressively removed the occupation listings, citing WP:ROLEBIO, which I vehemently disagree with, believing that he has achieved independent notability in the wrestling and acting world, aside from being a rapper and singer. The dispute has become a little bit tense between us. I wanted to seek other opinions here on WikiProject Professional wrestling and see what you all think. Thank you for your attention and opinions. DrewieStewie (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/entertainment/celebrities/2022/04/26/bad-bunny-as-marvel-superhero-wrestler-el-muerto/9538761002/
  2. ^ https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/bad-bunny-wrestlemania-wwe/amp/
  3. ^ https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/bad-bunny-brock-lesnar-wwe-royal-rumble-1292577/amp/
  4. ^ https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/culture/article/bad-bunny-interview-2022
  5. ^ https://www.wwe.com/superstars/bad-bunny
  • That he has done some wrestling shows (or acted in films) is not in dispute. What is in dispute is what belongs in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE, which explicitly says, "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject." As the USA Today source you provided about a wrestling appearance suggests, he's a "Latin pop star". That's his claim to fame at the moment.LM2000 (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Understandable, but since when was 4 occupations considered overkill for a first sentence on Wikipedia? I don't see that sentence becoming excessive at that point, compared to others with longer occupation listings that are likely a bit excessive. Not straying too far into OTHERSTUFFEXISTS territory, but it's a slippery slope defining what's excessive and what's not. DrewieStewie (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Try opening a discussion here with a simple A or B option. Your debate doesn't seem to be getting any traction in your favor regardless. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
@ChicagoWikiEditor: The reason I initiated it here is because this project page has more visibility in itself without an RFC than the article talk page itself, and as such I see more fit going to here as a first option before starting a formal RFC in the article talk page, as to create less of a hassle. I'll give it some time here first before going there, thank you very much. In our project, of which Bad Bunny is within the scope of, we always settle wrestling related disputes here first before involving mainstream Wikipedians via the RFC process, as for our project it has proven more constructive. More editors usually become involved here soon; it's a bit soon to presumptiously state an outcome. DrewieStewie (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a curious case. He is bound to continue doing this for years, since he was WWE’s top selling act for some time and will likely remain a magnet for casual fans for the foreseeable future. After all he is the top ranked pop star, of any genre, ATM. So, where is the threshold to list his part time gig in the lead? Winning a title? That seems good enough for David Arquette. Formal training? He has that, to a degree. A WrestleMania moment? Check. Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with listing him as a professional wrestler, as long as it’s not embellished by calling him “undefeated” or anything that is too fancrufty.

Besides leading “El Muerto”, he now he has enough credits in notable films to be considered notable under WP:ACTORBIO if he was not a musician, by that standard alone it should be mentioned somewhere in the lead. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Old School WWC Fan: David Arquette has performed for several wrestling promotions, apparently even independent ones. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@ChicagoWikiEditor: Yes, but only his WCW stint was notable. Is the threshold a number of matches? Winning a title? Performing for a number of promotions? That’s what should be established here. As far as I’m concerned, the bios for Arquette and other people like Mark Walhberg show that including several jobs in the first sentence is not necessarily extraordinary. On the other hand, the biography of Dennis Rodman excludes professional wrestling, but includes an “unofficial” role as peace ambassador, which makes me think that people from other projects may just oppose including PW. Ultimately, I think that BB is an exception to the rule, there are not many individuals that have performed in all of these roles in the highest levels of media exposure possible. There may also be some redundancy in the labels already present… Why is he catalogued as both rapper and singer, isn’t one a subcategory of the other? Old School WWC Fan (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@Old School WWC Fan Tbh, I don't think Arquette should have that title either per MOS:ROLEBIO, but Wikipedia is obviously too big to moderate lol. Still a better claim than Bad Bunny in my opinion. Arquette being crowned a world champion for a major promotion is what sets him apart the most. That Rodman lede is bogus, glad you pointed it out because I'll be challenging that as well. As far as Bad Bunny being a rapper/singer, I'm not familiar with his music so I don't know what he actually does. There are artist that do both and artist that do only one and are labeled as such. Neither is a subcategory of one or the other. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@ChicagoWikiEditor: A world title for a major promotion seems like a reasonable threshold. I’m not sure if he can be called a singer per se, but fair enough. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
  • DrewieStewie and ChicagoWikiEditor - I see that neither of you made an effort to discuss this on the article talk page. I see that both of you have participated in an edit war on the article page with your arguments in edit summaries. Please not that edit summaries are not a substitute for discussion and that both of you have engaged in behavior that warrants a block. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
    @GaryColemanFan Feel free to alert an admin. Several editors over the past months have already disagreed with this addition so the burden of an RFC is on DrewieStewie (as I've already informed them). Do you have a contributing opinion relevant to this discussion or no? ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
    No need for blocks on anybody, fellow Wikipedians. This is a dispute that may have gotten a bit tense, assertive, and (on ChicagoWikiEditor’s part) a bit abrasive, yes, but the edit warring stopped awhile ago before it got to a blockable level, so at this point a block would only be aggravating things. Constructive discussion has been started, and In due time this RFC will come about, once this has concluded and I find some time to get it started. DrewieStewie (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
    @DrewieStewie I may introduce one for Logan Paul as well. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
    ChicagoWikiEditor, Logan Paul is actually under contract to the WWE now though. That automatically qualifies him as a professional wrestler, and per the MOS of this WikiProject, all wrestlers under contract have their contract status in their lead paragraph (“currently signed to WWE”), roughly in either the first or second sentences Cheers! DrewieStewie (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
    This discussion made me realize how arbitrary the first sentence often is. Andy Kaufman had a high-profile role on Taxi and is one of the most infamous celebrity wrestlers but he's not listed as a actor or a wrestler in his opening sentence. Hulk Hogan acted in many (mostly shitty) films and is not listed as an actor in his opening sentence.LM2000 (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
    @LM2000 It seems to have became that way at some point in the lesser half of the past decade. Editors (usually unregistered) often cramming the lede with every occupation/title a notable person has ever participated in, no matter to what degree. Shaquille O'Neal has had a fairly successful rap career, but his article is practically safeguarded from anyone adding "rapper/actor" to the opening sentence because that many editors agree it's not significant to his fame. Moreover, that's why we have RFC voting. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
@GaryColemanFan: I declared intent to bring it to that talk page in the near future, pending this discussion. I wanted to see what the project thought first as it would be better to have project insights and information ready before an RFC considering the article is in this project's scope. DrewieStewie (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree with ChicagoWikiEditor and LM2000 on this. Bad Bunny's most notable descriptors are rapper and singer, as already listed. However, given that consensus can change, there's always scope to add "professional wrestler" into the lead sentence in the future if he continues to become more notable as a pro wrestler. However, I also agree that this is a discussion that should be taking place on the article's talk page rather than here. — Czello 07:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Cz. A guest spot at Wrestlemania (which has devolved into something that's less about being the spotlight of the company's best and more about the outside celebrities than ever before), and a surprise celebrity entry into the Royal Rumble do not make him a pro wrestler by defining career, regardless of his actual competency in the ring (which I must say is not insignificant and rather praiseworthy). oknazevad (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Cz makes a good point about how consensus can change. Lady Gaga's first sentence used to only describe her as a singer and songwriter but "actress" eventually got added to it as she began acting more. I think it's WP:TOOSOON for this scenario but we'll see what the future holds.LM2000 (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not pushing for blocks. I'm simply stating that both of you have been out of line with the edit warring. This isn't just directed at the two of you, though--many editors in this project feel that it's okay to use argumentative edit summaries in place of actual talk page discussion. As for ChicagoWikiEditor's question about whether I have an opinion, yes, I do: you have been the more argumentative, fingers-in-your-ears, my-way-or-the-highway editor in this discussion. If you mean regarding the content dispute, I'm not particularly interested. I just think both of you (and everyone in this project) would do well to remember that edit summary argument wars deserve a block, and everyone with that editing style contributes to lowering Wikipedia's opinion of people who edit professional wrestling articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

AEW World Trios Championship

With the announcement of the AEW World Trios Championship, just wondering if the draft of the article has been started. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The redirect contains some stuff. Click Edit and view the source. --Mann Mann (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Timelines

Hello. A few weeks ago, I saw User Drimes removed the timeline from Bullet Club. I asked him, he answered that timelines are against MOS:COLOR or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility. [22] Should we remove timelines from articles? Are pretty common on stables. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Sub-groups

Another question about stables. Since Bullet Club is huge, we include a sub-group section (at least, It's the first article where I saw it). However, during the last years, people include a lot of people as sub-groups. Inner Circle had Santana and Ortiz (good), Le Sex Gods (okey) and Sammy Hager (? just two matches as tag team). Then, I realized that several articles includes sub-groups which are just different combinations of the stable, like Decay [23] or Team Taz [24]. People paired without any criteria. Bullet Club has 22 sub-groups, but only 7 of them have articles. I propose: A sub-section only for factions/teams with article. Article means it's notable, so it's a clear criteria. If we go by a name, several small teams have names, like Sammy Hager. Winning a title... several members won a title as tag team, like Naito and Sanada or Owens and Fale, but it's not a good standard since some of them had briefs title reigns. So, what do you think? Only teams with article? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Question about MOS:ALLCAPS

Does MOS:ALLCAPS apply to the whole article? Or is the lead section an exception? e.g. writing an all caps ring name in the lead. Consider Kairi Sane as an example:

  • A: She is currently signed to World Wonder Ring Stardom under the ring name Kairi (stylized in all caps)...
  • B: She is currently signed to World Wonder Ring Stardom under the ring name KAIRI (stylized in all caps)...

A, B, or other suggestions? --Mann Mann (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

So B is fine? I think B could cause future conflicts. Some users see that all caps ring name in the lead and decide to change all "Kairi"s to "KAIRI"s. However, B plus some note does not sound bad. For example, take a look at Janelle Monáe; a singer who uses she/her and they/them pronouns. Look at Note a: "Monáe uses she/her and they/them pronouns. This article uses she/her pronouns for consistency." Adding a similar note to B: "She is currently signed to World Wonder Ring Stardom under the ring name KAIRI (stylized in all caps)[note: KAIRI is all caps. This article uses...]" --Mann Mann (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I prefer A. As you said, some people can see the ALL CAPS name and include into the article. But maybe I'm wrong after all these months XD --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
No, you're not wrong. It happens on articles with stylized names or pronouns. I myself prefer A to B. Adding a note to A could be helpful. --Mann Mann (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment: NXT Women's Tag Team Championship

Please participate in this discussion: Talk:NXT Women's Tag Team Championship#Roxanne Perez. The discussion is about if she is a two-time or on-time NXT Women's Tag Team Champion. Regards. --Mann Mann (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

WWE has it as 2 separate reigns - Perez/Jade from July 19-26, and Perez/Vacant from July 26-August 2. So while a bit convoluted, it is technically 2 distinct reigns. Vjmlhds (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Partnerships and working relationships between companies: How explicit should sourcing be?

There appears to be a moderate consensus for the following two points:
  • The appearance of a wrestler or championship on a different promotion does not inherently necessitate a partnership between the two companies.
  • Any partnerships must be explicitly stated in sourcing.
— Czello 13:16, 17 August 2022 (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've noticed an uptick in disputes around whether certain partnerships between companies exist, especially when the sourcing isn't explicit. In particular, List of Impact Wrestling personnel has been subject to edit warring. So, as a WikiProject as a whole, let's establish a consensus for how explicit sourcing has to be to make the statement that a working relationship exists. In addition, we should also determine what constitutes a promotion recognising another promotion's championships, and whether a relationship is required for that.

Arguments in favour of clear, explicit sourcing have been that anything outside of this is considered to be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH - things on Wikipedia need to be adequately sourced. Arguments against this are that the appearance of wrestlers/championships on different promotions constitute a WP:COMMONSENSE justification for inclusion.

So, the question is: how explicit does a source have to be to establish a relationship between promotions? Does a source need to state it outright, or is it evident that a relationship exists if there is any degree of crossover, such as a title appearing on/being defended on a different promotion? Or is there a middle-ground to be found?

Courtesy pings to @HHH Pedrigree, Vjmlhds, SkylerLovefist, and Addicted4517. — Czello 10:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Czello. Talking as a fan, Impact has a open mind about businness. Sometimes Impact holds events with other promotions. The titles have been defended in other promotions (Alexander defended the World title in 4 promotions, Moose defended the World title on 5 promotions). The Impact wrestlers appear on other promotions (Josh Alexander has worked for 21 promotions in 2022, Moose worked for 16 promotions in 2021). It doesn't mean Impact has parnerships with every promotions. Now, as a Wikiuser, the information "Impact has a partnership with AAW" is unsourced. The two sources doesn't mention anything about a partnership, just that the AAW title will be defended during a Impact event or some Impact wrestler will be working on other promotion (which is pretty usual, did I mention that Eric Young has worked for 13 promotions this year?). Saying both promotions has a partnership falls into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We don't know if this is a one-time deal or a punctual event. What's needed? A reliable source stating that both promotions have a partnership. Say no to WP:OR. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
If companies are holding matches on each other's shows, it should automatically mean they are working together, otherwise the matches wouldn't be taking place. I think it is getting a little silly that we need big flashing lights saying X AND WHY HAVE AN OFFICIAL PARTNERSHIP when it should be apparent to any grown up with a working brain that when companies hold matches together, there's some sort of talent share/working agreement/partnership/however else you want to phrase it at work here. Would somebody need it verified to call the fire department if their house is on fire when they see the flames all around them? Vjmlhds (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's how Wikipedia works. With sources. Not with personal assumptions. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we're getting into a situation where we're being so strident about about the strictest "letter of the law", we can't see the forest for the trees. That is the whole gist of WP:Common Sense - it gives editors some wiggle room without worrying that every "i" must be dotted and "t" must be crossed. It's like a baseball player gripping the bat so tight at the plate, that the handle turns to sawdust, instead of swinging free and easy. I've provided sources, the issue is one's standards of said sources. They're fine. Vjmlhds (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
the sources you gave doesn't mention a partnership, so your claim is not supported. They are not fine. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The claim is in fact supported, you just choose not to, so the OR claim is bogus in and of itself. If I didn't have any kind of reference at all, you'd have a point, but the fact I supplied 2 sources blows any OR claim out of the water. Regarding SYNTH, that is one of those "eye of the beholder" policies that leaves a lot up to individual interpretation and fine tooth comb parsing. I think this is a case where you're just throwing WP:This and WP:That out there hoping something sticks to justify all the drama. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Also, if a partnership is long term or short term is irrelevant. People get married, some don't last a week (just ask Briteny Spears), doesn't mean they weren't married. Some partnerships are long term, others not so much - doesn't meant there isn't/wasn't a partnership. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Dude, wtf are you talking about? Brittney? Simple, you said two promotions have a partnership, but the source doesn't support your claim. Everything else, wp:or. This is your usual contempt for Wikipedia policies HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you even read what people write, or do you just robotically repeat your preprogrammed talking points, hoping if they are repeated enough, they'll stick. The sources show clearly that Impact and AAW are working together. If you actually read the part where I made the Britney Spears joke, I was making a point about how partnerships - short lived as some may be - are still partnerships. Again, actually read what people say instead of the cut and paste talking points, and we may get somewhere. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I repeat myself because you don't answer my question. First, let the Moses and Brittney jokes aside. It's your modus operandi, start a discussion and then, make an hyperbole of the rules. You said your sources clearly show that Impact and AAW are working together. I said that sources don't mention any parnership and above pointed other cases, like wrestlers working on other promotions or titles being defended on other companies. Again, to include the edition Impact and AAW are working, a source is needed. A statement about both companies working, not assumptions based on sources or the TV Show. If you are dumb enough to not understand this, it's not my problem. If you and your sidekick don't like the way Wikipedia works, leave. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
A company hosting other wrestlers from other companies and having them wrestle in a title match showcasing that company's title after having one of the host company's wrestlers show up is by definition a partnership, HHHPedrigree. The only one struggling to grasp this concept is you. By your definition, no company has a partnership with another. If you need something that simple explained to you, then you just either be a new fan, or are clearly playing coy to avoid admitting you're wrong. You're displaying a lack of WP:CIVIL and WP: COMMONSENSE while once again displaying WP:OWN. Consensus favours the majority whether you like it or you don't. There is no "WP: Edits Must Satisfy HHHPedrigree. SkylerLovefist (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Pretty tired of this. The claim "Impact and AAW have a partnership" needs a source, not assumptions based on your ideas. As I mention, I can say that Impact has partnerships with 20 promotions based on my research. Also, as I said weeks ago, consensus has to respect "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." and these edits are unsourced. The sources support that an AAW title will be defended on Impact, the partnership is WP:SYNTH.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Isn't calling me dumb kind of WP:Personal? And saying me and "my sidekick" (assuming Skyler) can basically "like it or leave it"? Didn't know HHH Pegrigree dictated how Wiki works or who can play in the sandbox (WP:Own) perhaps?. Not gonna apologize for talking like a normal human being and not a preprogrammed Wiki Borg. Believe it or not, people in the real world make analogies and crack jokes to convey points. And I addressed with you point by point all of your issues (while slipping in an analogy and joke along the way), and all you can do is regurgitate the same tired old talking points, call me dumb, and tell me and Skyler to leave as if you are in a position to tell anybody to go anywhere. Not the best way to win friends and influence people. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
You, VJ and Skyler, are the ones who always complain about how wikipedia works and after the discussion, you send support messages. Everytime other user asked you to read policies, you refuse (this wonderful joke shows how many respect you have to the rules). So, if you don't like it, leave. But there is no point to make editions against policies and complain when other user remove them. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh no...I made a joke about Wikipedia...send me to the electric chair! Anyone who flat out calls another editor dumb in violation of WP:Personal has zero room to get on a soapbox and act like he's smarter than anyone else. BTW, right now it's 2-1 This may change as we go along, but if not, then you have to go along with consensus, because THAT is how Wikipedia works. Vjmlhds 17:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Vjmlhds 17:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
How many times have I to repeat myself? Talking to you is a perennial repetiton of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:CONSENSUS. "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". The info is unsourced, so no place in wikipedia. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason you keep repeating the same point ad nauseam even you've been told you wrong, and why your keep ignoring WP:Commonsense? This stopped feeling like "this is wrong and needs fixing" and more like "Here's another chance to gatekeep" awhile ago, and the hostility and lack of civility because myself and VJ aren't willing to be bullied over an edit we know is correct indicates this is an extremely blatant case of WP:OWN.
We don't need to get your approval every time we edit. There is no "WP: HHHPedrigree Must Be Happy With Your Edit." There is no "WP: Your Sources Must Be Worded A Particular Way Or HHHPedrigree Gets To Revert Your Edit." It's clear to anyone not trying to edit for ego purposes the two companies are working together. The sources indicate this. End of. SkylerLovefist (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I expected not less from VJ's sidekick. Clearly, you have no idea what you are talking about. Your accusations against myself and other users are near perecturion mania. I recommend to see an specialist. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
And here we have exactly what I was talking about. You aren't getting your way, so you're resorting to ad homs and WP:PERSONAL.This confirms you're editing for ego rather than the betterment of the article. SkylerLovefist (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Admire the persistence, if nothing else. BTW, next time you call me dumb (or any equivalent thereof), I'll make sure an admin pays you a visit. (and BTW me making general jokes about Wikipedia like the house catching on fire isn't WP:Personal, as Wiki has numerous essays where it pokes fun at itself). Vjmlhds (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The above arguing doesn't seem to be moving towards a consensus, so let me try to redirect things. Firstly, in principle I agree with HHH in that things should be sourced. However, I think the problem here is a matter of definitions. A working relationship implies a continuous, ongoing (though indefinite) link between two promotions. Can we reasonably say that when a title shows up on a different promotion, this is inherently a working relationship? Surely we can agree that when Mickie James showed up with the Knockouts title at the Rumble, that didn't indicate a working relationship between WWE and Impact - it was an isolated, ad hoc agreement. At what point do we define something as a partnership? — Czello 20:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Your key difference there is, Mickie was a one way thing and Impact got AJ back via video tribute at Slammiversary. It was only intended to be a oncer. Meanwhile, your scenario here works the way all of Impact's partnerships do:
  • Eric Young shows up at an AAW Pro show as a representative of Impact.
  • He announces that Impact are hosting a title match for AAW Pro at Emergence. Therefore Impact are giving PPV/Special show time to a match between another company's talent. Odd thing to do if there's no partnership there.
  • They're also building to something between Mat Fitcher and Eric Young which indicates more than a one-off.
Essentially, WWE's scenario was "Oi, give us your Women's Champion in exchange for a favour." Meanwhile with NJPW, AAW, MLW, NWA and so forth, there are instances of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" talent exchanges, showcase time and so on. SkylerLovefist (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
What I'm trying to say in my own weird way is a partnership should be defined as an ongoing working relationship. WWE doesn't do it with other companies, whereas Impact is essentially a talent hub which works with multiple other companies. This isn't "Mat Fitcher shows up and defends against an Impact guy," it's Mat Fitcher and another dude wrestling each other on Impact's PPV time. Clearly you don't do this without being friendly with the company you're shhowcasing, and that's where myself and VJ citing WP:COMMONSENSE comes in. SkylerLovefist (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

My point stills the same. Eric Young has worked for several promotions in USA. Impact titles are defended on other promotions. Only AAW is named as partner. Several years ago, one promotion here booked the ROH champion Davey Richard's. It doesn't mean ROH and the promotion had a partnership, just that the promotion booked Richard's and ROH allowed it. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Take the L, HHHPedrigree. I've given several examples of Impact's partnerships.
You're ignoring the obvious for WP:OWN reasons SkylerLovefist (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the sourcing should be explicit and specific about it being an ongoing partnership, not just drawing a conclusion based on a couple of appearances. That's WP:SYNTH, and ignores the fact that, unlike WWE, Impact and AEW/ROH allow contracted talent to appear in indy promotions with their titles, and that some of those champions have indy promotions they work at fairly regularly because of their personal relationships with those promotions, not because of a partnership between the promotions. Without an explicit source stating that the promotions as a whole have a working relationship, it cannot be assumed that there is such a thing and not just the one promotion giving permission to their champion to appear on a show. oknazevad (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

We also have WP: COMMONSENSE. And yet again, it isn't just their champion appearaning on the show, it's a talent exchange with Eric Young being announced as being from Impact Wrestling, and two people from AAW wrestling in a match for the AAW title and a storyline being built between Mat Fitcher and Eric Young based on EY's last appearance in AAW. If people can't see the obvious based on that, I have concerns for their ability to understand simple concepts. SkylerLovefist (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Reasonable reasoning and arguments - like from Czello and Oknazevad - I'll listen to all day long and discuss like gentlemen. Being called dumb and told to essentially "like it or leave it" - I will not tolerate or take that type of behavior. As it stands now it's 3-2 against including AAW, so if that's how it winds up, then it is what it is...we had our discussion, explained ourselves and let the process work. HHH though needs to pay for running his mouth the way he did...that kind of junk can't be allowed to stand. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
BTW, he also personally attacked Skyler by telling him to "go see a specialist", so that is personal insults against both me and Skyler. That can not be tolerated. Vjmlhds 22:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I have issued an ANI for HHH for his personal attacks against both me and Skyler...you want to talk about the topic at hand, I'll do it all day long and take what comes of it. Personally insult me and other people, then that's a whole new ballgame and should be dealt with accordingly. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
It's also notable that every time these discussions happen that it's myself VJ or Czello starting them, rather than immediately going "No, I'm starting an edit war because it doesn't meet my standards." His behaviour is WP:OWN by definition and this discussion doesn't help change that at all. SkylerLovefist (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@Oknazevad: I think this is the crux of it, and really what I was trying to get at above (though you worded it better). Some promotions are more flexible in terms of who shows up on their shows - it doesn't mean there's necessarily a working relationship between them. — Czello 07:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Czello and OK. That's my point, if the argument starts with taking conclusions, falls into WP:SYNTH. AEW allows PAC to defend his title on other promotions, like OTT and RevPro, but there is no source for a partnership. Another example, in Social Media Mission Pro Wrestling always say their talents usually appear on Dark. It doesn't mean MPW and AEW are partners or MPW is a farm territory, that menas that Thunder Rosa, the promoter, has conections. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm in late on this, but to cut a long story short I'm with Czello and company on their points. I'll just add that WP:COMMONSENSE is not a sub for WP:IAR. Where there is original research, it has to be nipped in the bud immediately. That rule is hard and fast and no other rule can replace it. The best source for a partnership existing is the company's official website itself. We had this previously with New Japan. Impact had an announcement of the partnership - that was an instant thumbs up for it to be included. In this case a primary source is actually the best under the circumstances. Just because a wrestler appears doesn't mean there's a partnership - and Mickie James in the Royal Rumble in her Impact persona is the perfect example. WWE hasn't partnered with anyone since the 90's. It was a once off. There appears to have been a lot of assumptions here now, and assuming is original research by default. Addicted4517 (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, we already sorted this issue. It's odd you're using the New Japan thing as an example considering you claimed New Japan weren't working with Impact since they were working with AEW which is an odd claim to make since New Japan wrestlers have been showing up on Impact every week since they renewed their partnership. And it's odd to me that someone who doesn't watch Impact is editing Impact Wrestling-based articles and having opinions on edits relating to the product. There seems to be a guideline for that. I can't remember what it's called... Hmm.
Regardless. Impact isn't WWE and operates differently. Regardless, the AAW thing is sorted for the time being. SkylerLovefist (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

So, from what I can see, there appears to be a moderate consensus for the following two points:

  • The appearance of a wrestler or championship on a different promotion does not inherently necessitate a partnership between the two companies.
  • Any partnerships must be explicitly stated in sourcing.

Any final points before we can close this? — Czello 11:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I also said that WWE runs differently to Impact and that people should have enough commonsense to put two and two together, but hey. It is what it is. I considered it closed before Addicted got here. SkylerLovefist (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2022 (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.

Requested move - various tag team and stable articles

Link. McPhail (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Rinku Singh (wrestler)#Requested move 8 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rinku Singh (wrestler)#Requested move 8 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts on brand status in List of WWE personnel

In the Triple H era, many people who have previously been with WWE have been making their returns at a fast rate. In the case of Dexter Lumis, due to the nature of his storyline, he has appeared on both Raw and NXT, and no formal brand designation has been listed.@Vjmlhds: and I have entered a disagreement over this, with him saying 4 appearances on Raw is sufficient criteria for that designation, and that his NXT appearance was a one off. Personally, I believe the following criteria is sufficient for a returning wrestler on the main roster/debuting wrestler bypassing NXT: 1. If they are under contract, they are listed on WWE’s active roster page. 2. If They debut/return on one show and remain on that one show without appearing on another brand or being declared a free agent, they are on that brand by default (Karrion Kross, Bayley, Hit Row, Johnny Gargano). 3. If they debut on one brand and appear quickly on another brand without mention of brand status (as has happened with Dexter Lumis due to the nature his storyline), they are unassigned until further notice. 4. Any verified internal roster leaks may supersede 2 or 3 if contrary to those criteria.

We cannot say Lumis’s NXT appearance was a one-off already, as that is WP:CRYSTALBALL and the outcome of his storyline is uncertain. As for John Cena, he has been listed as an ambassador, despite his part time wrestling status, his latest recorded match not having quite yet been a full year ago, and his latest appearance being nearly three months ago with a Theory feud having been teased, so I think he should be in unassigned. Titus O'Neil has an official title as Global Ambassador, is in the HOF, and hasn't wrestled since 2020, though insists he hasn't retired and is simply out due to injury, so he can be placed on a brand once he returns. Maryse is a bit more confusing of a situation due to having rarely wrestled since 2016 (though having wrestled in 2022), her only now appearing as Miz’s manager sporadically, and her starring in Miz and Mrs. That one is more up for discussion. But these are my thoughts, what do you think? DrewieStewie (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Upon Lumis returning, he was immediately placed on the Raw brand on the Wiki article, with nary a fuss. He's been sitting there for 3 weeks with no issues. A cameo on NXT is no reason to blow everything up. His gimmick is as a rouge stalker who "doesn't work there". There have been tons of "invader" storylines in wrestling, where they announcer says "Oh my God! So-and-so doesn't even work here, why is he here?" This is just one of them. Lumis is now embroiled in a storyline on Raw with Miz, having "kidnapped" him. Besides, in the 2.0 era, numerous main roster wrestlers (Ziggler, Styles, Natalya) have popped in at the Performance Center, Lumis is no different. All this drop-in was either closure to the "InDex" storyline or a way to bring Indi to Raw "standing by her man". Either way, it should be clear Lumis has set up shop on Raw. I know it's not in his official bio, but that's kayfabe as the "rouge stalker". Wiki has to have at least one foot in the real world, and treat WWE like any other TV show (which at the end of the day, it is). Vjmlhds (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Lumis is different, as he was entirely in NXT in his prior run and has barely been on the main roster. The rest had been established on the main roster and had even been drafted in storyline. DrewieStewie (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
When Lumis returned, he went straight to Raw, where he had appeared for 4 straight weeks causing trouble, ultimately "kidnapping" Miz. The NXT appearance was to tie up the loose ends with Indi, since that story was left dangling when he was cut. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
And what indication is there that it’s concluded? It’s very much so possible he could pop up on next weeks NXT episode DrewieStewie (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Or Indi could show up on Raw with Dexter, standing by her man (and thus indicating her main roster call up) Let's agree to this, we let sleeping dogs lie and leave things as they are for now. We see Dexter on NXT again next week, we can revisit things, if not, then we put this to bed. Fair enough compromise? Vjmlhds (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
I’ll leave the offer on the table for the moment and let others chime in first. :) DrewieStewie (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Urgent Discussion

This is at the Talk:New Era (WWE) page, regarding the WWE Championship. Section is called "Break for wider discussion regarding fiction vs real life" I request all WP:PW members tp participate ASAP. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Wrestlers with initials in their name

Just came across this, but earlier this month a user took it upon themself to move the page for the wrestler known as ACH from "ACH (wrestler)" to A. C. H. This change was not limited to just the title, but with the help of another user, done throughout the article as well, with every mention of "ACH" changed to "A. C. H." Nor was this style change limited to ACH's article, but in just a couple of minutes of looking, A. R. Fox, B. J. Whitmer, P. J. Black and Q. T. Marshall have all been moved and re-written by the same two users, and I would have to assume there are more. Supposedly this was done in accordance with MOS:SPACEINITS, but MOS:SPACEINITS states periods and spaces should be used unless "1) the person demonstrably has a different, consistently preferred style for their own name; and 2) an overwhelming majority of reliable sources use that variant style for that person," in which case it should be treated as a self-published name change and left as is (example: CCH Pounder). ACH, AR Fox, BJ Whitmer, PJ Black, QT Marshall, and in general most wrestlers this generation with initials in the names (CM Punk, AJ Styles, AJ Lee, MVP, etc.) don't use periods and spaces in their names, and as a result they're names are most often written without periods. Thoughts and opinions, and should these names/articles be reverted to their commonly used forms? 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:21A8:D7C4:F884:19F6 (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

2600:1700:B280:B1C0:21A8:D7C4:F884:19F6, CM Punk and AJ Lee have never been stylized with periods. AJ Styles has stylized his name with periods in the past. But it's more common without the periods for AJ Styles. These changes you speak of could have been done with that manual style, but there needs to be a consensus established on stylization based on MOS:SPACEINITS. We can't just do whatever because that's the way it's always been done. There are manual of styles for a reason. But again, a consensus needs to be established. I for one, right now, am indifferent unless someone(s) brings up valid points for one side or the other. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 21:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Readd PWMania as WP:PW/RS

We need more WP:PW/RS. The issue with PWMania is that Marc Middleton was an editor but he left now and since 2016 PWMania has always published factual and accurate articles. Bleacher Report was rightfully given a second chance, so should PWMania. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dilbaggg: Best to start a discussion on the talkpage of the sources page in that case.★Trekker (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Well I thought this place is better for voting this matter. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Any revolutionary changes since the previous discussion? PWMania in a nutshell: By PWMania.com Staff... You click on PWMania.com Staff and its says: "PWMania.com.com is recognized throughout the entire professional wrestling industry as one of the top sources for accurate and up-to-date professional wrestling news, rumors, and information." Sorry but it sounds like 11/10 journalism. PWMania may have good content but how its authors pass as reliable/acceptable per WP rules? --Mann Mann (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah I see no names of editors or staff.★Trekker (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
It has some staff; e.g. [25][26][27][28]. But where is their profile, resume, or CV? Are they notable journalists? --Mann Mann (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah there is zero information here to judge if their editor(s) (if they have any) are competent/professional.★Trekker (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Funnily enough I just went on their website, clicked on "WWE", and the first thing I see is something from last night's Dynamite on there. Either that's a dreadfully bad coincidence or they're still not reliable. — Czello 12:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@Czello, all of the above. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
When we are using current Wp:PW/RS like Box y Lucha, do we go looking at CVs of the writers? No, if they are watching wrestling since at least 1995 and are wrtiting factual contents that should be enough. Currently PW has too few sources, PW needs more sources, and PWMania meets WP:RS criteria. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we should lower our standards just to get more acceptable citations. — Czello 12:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Go back and re-read the thread in Archive 109 about The Sportster. Then explain how your arguments meet the criteria for WP:RS. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@GaryColemanFan, considering The Sportster posted in 2015 that Michael Cole's article was changed to him being dead says all you need to know about the reliability of that site. Nobody reports about stuff like that. Sites report stuff about Wikipedia, just not if an article has been altered in that manner and or vandalized. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Excessive details (fancruft)

I suggest adding WP:FANCRUFT to PW Style Guide => Professional wrestling career because many PW articles about wrestlers have such issues.

  • Current revision: Summarize the major events and key points of the wrestler's career. Avoid writing in proseline ("week-by-week" format).
  • My suggestion: Summarize the major events and key points of the wrestler's career. Avoid writing in proseline ("week-by-week" format) and adding excessive details.

Sounds OK? --Mann Mann (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree. — Czello 14:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Io Shirai#Requested move 4 September 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Io Shirai#Requested move 4 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Mann Mann (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

AEW World Championship an Openweight Championship?

Looking at the category Openweight wrestling championships and I got to thinking that since AEW doesn't have weight classes. Wouldn't that make the AEW World Championship an Openweight Championship as well? Has there ever been a discussion on what constitutes an openweight championship? If not, it would be good to establish a consensus for the criteria for Openweight Championships. You could also expand that to the ROH World Championship. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 21:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this opens a gateway to this category to being added to almost every pro wrestling title. Weight classes are largely irrelevant in wrestling, and it's inconsistent even when there are weight classes. You've got the WWE and Intercontinental titles, both of which used to have "heavyweight" in their name at one point, but no more. Indeed, there have been wrestlers outside of the heavyweight category who have held both. In fact, even World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) wasn't a real heavyweight title - they arbitrarily dropped the "heavyweight" part of it whenever Rey Mysterio held it.
Ultimately I think we can only really add that category to a championship if we have a source explicitly calling it openweight. Otherwise it's WP:OR - and the category will largely become meaningless as it's applied to the majority of wrestling championships. — Czello 21:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
@Czello, NJPW was pretty stringent(?), hardline(?) or whatever when it came to their heavyweight titles ala IWGP Heavyweight Championship and Heavyweight Tag Team Championships. When the Young Bucks won the Heavyweight Tag Team Championships, Kota Ibushi as both IWGP Heavyweight Champion, Zack Sabre Jr. in the heavyweight division from the start, etc., they started to, in some ways, not be as stringent or hardline in regards to that. You could say weight classes are meaningless in boxing and MMA since a number of boxers and fighters have held titles in multiple weight classes.
The DDT Universal Championship doesn't have "openweight" in the name. If we're going to go on grounds of only having "openweight" in the title, that should be removed. In fact, I'll do that. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
NJPW is indeed stricter on this, but they're rare in that fact. I think ultimately we can only use this term though if it's used in sources. — Czello 18:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Generally, I wouldn't categorise a title as an openweight title unless the company it's from explicitly promotes it as such. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Only if a company promotes as openweight. If not, the door is open for anyone including any title, like the IC championship (we had people ike Rey and Big Show). AEW doesn't separate the company in weight divisions, so every title is openweight. NJPW has Heavyweight and Jr. Heavyweight titles. CMLL also has clear divisions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
@HHH Pedrigree Even though the technical name was Intercontinental Heavyweight Championship and was so till 2002, growing up I never heard it called the Intercontinental HEAVYWEIGHT Championship just Intercontinental Championship. Since 2002, it's just been Intercontinental Championship. This title isn't a good example. NJPW has had junior heavyweights win heavyweight championships ala IWGP Heavyweight Championship (Kenny Omega) and IWGP Heavyweight Tag Team Championships (The Young Bucks, Zack Sabre Jr. and Taichi), that's not a good example either. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 09:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
All NJPW wrestlers you said made their transition to Heavyweight division. It's pretty common in NJPW to Jr wrestler to announce their transition to Heavyweight division [29] "Sabre was left out of the 2017 Best of the Super Juniors as NJPW had decided to categorise him as a heavyweight wrestler going forward".[1]. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
@HHH Pedrigree: You don't have to properly format a source on a talk page. Plus I'm aware of what NJPW did with Zack Sabre Jr.. Way to catch on to my point. *Wink*

References

  1. ^ Meltzer, Dave (8 May 2017). "May 8, 2017 Wrestling Observer Newsletter: WWE Payback review, WWE financials, plus tons of news". Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Campbell, California. p. 62. ISSN 1083-9593.

Requested Move September 5, 2022

There is a discussion about requesting moving List of IWGP Heavyweight Tag Team Championship to List of IWGP Heavyweight Tag Team Champion which at Talk:List of IWGP Heavyweight Tag Team Championship#Requested Move September 5, 2022.

The list should be titled List of IWGP Heavyweight Champions not List of IWGP Heavyweight Tag Team Championship. But since the former is a redirect, you can't move it. Plus the former is how these lists are titled. You wouldn't have a list of IWGP Heavyweight Champions as List of IWGP Heavyweight Championship. It makes no sense logically. I am submitting it to a technical requests under uncontroversial technical requests. No reason why it would be controversial. Just standard stuff that should have been done awhile ago. I've only started a discussion to cover my bases. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 09:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

About NXT UK final champs

Just to mention, according to WWE.com, the unification matches took place yesterday, but the final champions aren't Bron & cia. According to their profles, Bron, Rose and Pretty Deadly aren't recognized as UK champs. [30] [31] Also, the titles doesn't mention them as champs. [32] [33] [34]. So, looks like WWE doesn't recognize them as the final UK Champions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding "inaugural" to Championships and accomplishments

Special:Contributions/Kirby1310 adds "inaugural" to Championships and accomplishments. Take a look at their edits; e.g. [35][36][37][38][39][40]. Acceptable or unacceptable? Was there a discussion/consensus about this before? --Mann Mann (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

from our style guide: Other notes (such as oldest, youngest, first, last, only, etc.) are only covered in the relevant prose section and are not listed in this section. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Reading the history part of the project, the last/final part was included in 2010 [41] the discussion took place on 2008 [42] HHH Pedrigree (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Kay Lee Ray#Requested move 6 September 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kay Lee Ray#Requested move 6 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Has the "New Era" ended?

Recently the article "McMahon-Levesque Era" was deleted at AfD. This article posited that we had entered a new "era" of wrestling. Fram nominated it, pointing out it had no Google News sources. I made the point it was WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, to which LM2000 agreed. HighKing also called it WP:OR. StarTrekker commented that this "era" is not yet well established. Kazanstyle agreed with Fram's original nomination. In the end the article was deleted.

However, now material stating that the New Era has ended and a, uh, newer era had begun, still exists at New Era. My question to this Wikiproject: is the New Era ongoing? Are there substantial sources that state the New Era has ended? Do off-handed comments by Becky Lynch (in the sources for that section) indicate that the New Era has ended and something else has begun? — Czello 13:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Considering Vince McMahon's retirement I think its fair to say its a new chapter in WWE history for sure, but I'm not sure how we should deal with it.★Trekker (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
My issue is that stating an officially labelled period (like "New Era") has ended is WP:OR. No one is denying this is a new chapter in WWE's history (and is mentioned on the History of WWE article), but that's not the same as this "era" WWE have titled ending. — Czello 13:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
The so-called "New Era" was launched with much fanfare, only for the company to go right back to doing the exact same thing as just before. The "New Era" isn't really a thing, and we shouldn't even have an article for it. Not every supposed "era" of WWE is notable and deserving of an article. The whole description of WWE history as "eras" of equal importance is just parroting their marketing, and should not be slavishly adhered to.
That Vince left and is no longer in charge is undoubtedly a factual and significant change, but it's WP:TOOSOON to be declaring any grand "era" pronouncements from it. That's just obvious. oknazevad (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I completely agree, sadly my AfD at the time failed. — Czello 13:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, now would be the time to renominate, as we have some more perspective of time. Or just be bold and redirect it to the History of WWE article. One thing I do have to caution against is getting hung up on named when AFD something. A made up but descriptive name is as legitimate of a title as any, and whether a title is appropriate is a completely separate discussion as to whether the independent article should exist. It's the content that matters. oknazevad (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Both the so called "Reality Era" and "New Era" are not notable Imho (nor are they really separate in any meaningful way), together they make up some kind of period for sure but we should let future scholars decide that that will actually be called.★Trekker (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Yup and there are multiple Wp:PW/RS sources to back it up: [43], [44], [45], [46]. You called July 2008 the start of the PG era just because WWE tv ratings switched to TV PG which it was beore 1997, by that logic the entore 1997-2007 period would be TV 14 era but they are split into Attitude and RE eras, and the term PG era was a fan mockery before WWE accepted it in 2014 but now there is a literal change in ownership and multiple sources citing July 2022 as the start of the new era under the leadership of HHH and Steph as well as beckly Lynch's comments and more. July 22, 2022 is the start of a new era under HHH and Steph's leadership. But the 2016-2022 New Era is over and you have no source to back up claims that it is not over, all sources and even if you searh tourself are citing July 22, 2022 as the start of the next era. I agree with its name and the fact that its WP:TOOSOON to have its own article. But yes as per all major WP:RS there is another era going on now. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
As I mention above, part of the issue is that some of these are throwaway terms rather than an official declarations of some new period on par with prior ones. Is this a new period in wrestling history? Undeniably. But does that mean the "New Era" (whatever that means) has ended? No sources say so. — Czello 14:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Part of my issue with these arbitrary "eras" is that they don't become apparent for years, perhaps even over a decade later. When you're in the midst of one it's difficult to know what is significant enough to call an era. — Czello 13:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
That's the point of eras. It takes years to appear. No one said in 1938 "we are in the Golden Age of Comic Books" or said in 1956 "aw man, we're in the Silver Era of Comic Books". Years later, sources see caracteristics, facts and events and conclude it's a period of time called Era. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@Czello sources states the begining of another era which means the new era ended. Just like WWE moving to pg was observed the end of Ruthless Agression, the change in leadership brought the new era. No sources states that the May 2016-July 2022 new era is ongoing, rather another era has begun on July 22, 2022 is stated by all WP:RS Dilbaggg (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@★Trekker There are multiple sources to back up these eras as with the PG Era and Attitude Era, heck the PG era is not notable since its simply a matter of tv ratings switch, WWF programing was also pg rated before 1997 and WWE themselves announced the Reality Era, the New Era on 2014 and 2016 respectively and now many WP:PW/RS acknowledges the next era, even WWE superstar Becky Lynch confirmed it. Its pure WP:OR to state that the May 2016 to July 2022 "new Era" is not over as all WP:RS agrees its over and another begun. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Has anyone here argued its not over?★Trekker (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@★Trekker well ten there is no problem, peace. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm arguing there doesn't appear to be enough sources saying it's over. — Czello 14:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd argue it was never really a thing in the first place and we should honestly mostly ignore it, just merge Reality Era and New Era into History of WWE.★Trekker (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
There are enough surces @Czello that a new era has begun and its not even a month oled, but already many Wp:PW/RS and wrestlers themselves support that July 22, 2022 was the start of another era. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd argue that the PG Era is notable as it's a lot more than just a ratings change, but that's a separate conversation. — Czello 14:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah I'd agree, New Gen, Attitude, Ruthless Aggression and PG eras could have their own articles. This recent "middle" era between the end of the PG era and Vince's retirement isn't really notable on its own, maybe in 10 years people will look back at it and it will be seen as something, but as of now its just kinda there.★Trekker (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm almost tempted to propose that we merge them into a new article titled History of WWE (2014-2022) or something to that effect. — Czello 14:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I would support that.★Trekker (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I too would support that. Parroting WWE marketing is not NPOV and shouldn't be used to define Wikipedia articles. oknazevad (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
★Trekker John Cena was the face of the company during the latter part of RE era and the whole PG era, that changed with Daniel Bryan's yes movement in Reality Era and Roman reigns becoming face of the WWE in the new er, which he still is but Cena's run as FOTC spanned accross two eras too. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not basing the eras on who was face of the company, there is much more to it than that. Like I said, future sources should be consulted if the period(s) ever become notable.★Trekker (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@★Trekker Again the entre PG era concept was fan made in 2008 as a mockery based on th ratings switch, before 1997 WWE also was PG rated, WWE didn't accept the term until much later but WWE acknowledged the start of the Reality era and New era early on and has acknowledged the "awning of another era" now with Vince out and is reported accross multiple WP:RS despite it being less than a month old. If yu think Reality Era and New Era should not exist, so should not PG era determined soley by tv ratings switch. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Who came up with the name isn't relevant.★Trekker (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
This might be a bit off topic, but the PG Era was defined by more than just the ratings change. Firstly, the ratings change is inherently notable as it forced them to alter their content. Next it was created as a result of the Benoit murder-suicide. It also heralded a decline in ratings and quality. Regardless of periods that came later, the "PG Era" was notable for many out-of-universe reasons. — Czello 14:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
You miss my point - I mentioned that these sources tend to use the word "era" as a throwaway term, rather than relating to a defined, significant period in the way that pervious "Eras" (capital E) were. — : 14:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I ahve previoulsy deleted many fake eras by other editors simply because they were not significan enough and lacked sufficient sources, but this time it meets WP:Notable and WP:RS guidlines so its highly significant, Vince has eben in charge for 40 years 1982-2022, this major change is supported Universally as the start of another era @Czello Dilbaggg (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
:No one is questioning that a new period of WWE as a company has started, people are questioning that the Reality+New eras are notable.★Trekker (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
We can even say that The Ruthless Agression Era never ended, no source states an event as its ending, we knoww Attitude Era ended but Ruthless Agression era started with the 2002 brand split and Vince's speech and has been going on since. 2016 WWE brought back the brand split, and msny things happened like the Wednesday Night Wars and more which are now over. The PG era was a fan made term based on WWE's reverting to TV PG ratings which again it was before 1997. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Again, who named it doesn't matter, its a widely covered period that is widely called by that name.★Trekker (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
In conclusinion I would say WWE acknowledged the Reality and New Era, and now with Vince not in charge for the frst tie since 1982, the July 22, 2022 kick started another era supported by multiple WP:PW/RS alrdy (i have given four out of many) and its just a month old, but no one can deny Vince's retirement is a major impact and all sources point out HHH and Steph taking charge as starting a different era. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Please read WP:TOOSOON. And whether or not WWE tried to frame more recent years as part of some new "era" in an effort to claim that things are different and viewers turned off by the creative direction should come back is irrelevant marketing. oknazevad (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

As we appear to agree that a post "New Era" era is disputed, can I suggest this period on History of WWE is simply titled "Retirement of Vince McMahon", as it's a more notable even and more neutral than pushing disputed claims? — Czello 18:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The upcoming period should 100% be called that on Wikipedia for the time being.★Trekker (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Thats what it is wrtiien, post vince Era, ts not just Vince leaving but also HHH and Steph now being in charge. There have been major changes in 40 years of histry with Vince retiring and there are sources calling it the dawning of a new era. Since you ahve a problem with English, post means after so its the era after Vince and multiple WP:PW/RS supports this (I included four here there are a lot more but no need to overcite) , so yes the false era name has been removed but as per sources this is a new era after Vince left and HHH and Steph took charge, aka post Vince era @Czello and @★Trekker, and both of you agreed taht there is a new era on going, jsut the name is on dispurte, this is not the name of the era, its what the source is saying After Vince (post Vice) left a new era begun, thust the statement post Vince era, which is 100% fit at the time from all major Wp:PW/RS. Hou should look up the meaning of post, it means things happening after the change and WP:PW/RS have acknowledged a new era. Dilbaggg (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Please do not resort to personal attacks - I have no problem with English. The notable thing here is Vince's retirement, not some throwaway statement about a new "era". Consensus appears to be against you here. — Czello 09:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@Czello I just asked you wheather you understand English or not, how is that a personal attack. A personal attack is insulting someone. please avoid WP:Harassment on me, an no consensus has stated that Vince's retirement did not spark a new era, look above ★Trekker agreed that it did start a new era, and all major WP:RS says so to, the consensus is on wheateher these new eras should have their own articles or be in a new History of WWE 2014_Present article, not any consensus denied the existence of this eras, and I politely just asked wheather you understand English or not, its understandable if its not your first language but as I understand Englsih I know what the Wp:RS are saying and what the consensus is discussing here @Czello please read the whole discussion clearly.People agree that The Relity era, new era and Post Vince McMahone Era era exists and so does WP:PW/RS, the only thing people have problem with is wheather they should ahve their own seperate articles or not and that is what the consensus on, please do not try to change the context of the actual consensus. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@Czello Also you are slightly violating WP:OR by dismissing all the [[WP:PW/RS[]] that acknowledges the Reality Era, New Era and Post Vince McMahone Er. And no one here has a doubt about their existence, just wheather they should have their own article or not that is what the consensus is on. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
You said Since you ahve a problem with English, which I consider a personal attack. Please don't do it again. Presently not a single person has agreed with you so I find it difficult for you to say there's not a consensus. As has been explained to you, we're not denying these terms have been used, but they are too vague and ambiguous to stand up as a defined period of wrestling. The sources, incidentally, don't do it this - they just mention that WWE declared a New Era had begun and then it was never mentioned again. I've addressed your points before, please re-read. — Czello 12:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@Czello sorry bro but I do not think you understand the discussion, read Trecker's words in bold, no one denied that The Reality Era (2014-2016), New Era (2016-2022) and Post vince McMahone era (2022-Present) exists, their only problem is that they should not have their own seperate articles ... yet. But they all agreed these do exists, there are countless Wp:PW/RS also supporting them and for the latest era I added just four but your claims of lack of sufficient RS i not true there are many but four is sufficient to avoid over cittion since it is being used in History of WWE rather than itts own article, but if you want I acn add 10 more Wp:PW/RS that aknowledges that a new era begun with Vince leaving WWE after 40 years with the company and even Trekers words have been bolded to show he agreed that there is a ew era now, so your claims that others have denied that post Vince retirement a new era begun has no proof and is rather Wp:OR. Anyway if majority agrees that the three newer 2014 onwards eras should not have their own article which the consensus is discussing, then I can do nothing but no one denied that these era exists, the consesus is only on wheather they should be merged to a new article of History of WWE from 2014 onwarsds (i sugges 2013 when Daniel Bryan's yes movement begun) or not, but no one here has denied the existence of these eras just they say they should be included in a different new article. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
On the contrary, I think it's you who doesn't understand the discussion. You've confused several different things. Firstly, where Reality Era and New Era are concerned, the consensus on this page now is that these shouldn't be standalone articles and should be merged into a history article. Secondly, StarTrekker appears to have agreed with me that the History of WWE article should have the section labelled "Retirement of Vince McMahon", not "Post McMahon Era" - that's it. Conflating these issues just muddies the conversation. — Czello 12:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Look at his bolded sentence, he agreed that it sparked a ndew era, and I do not see a single person denying that it did that and there are countless WP:PW/RS to back it up, and post Vince means after Vince retired, here is why I questioned your english (I am not doing that now, don't accuse me of PA, just staing you are misunderstanding things) and era means time frame, so Vince's retirement means after vince time frame, aka Post Vice Era and the sources agree Vince's retrement started the new era. Anyway I will be busy until Friday UTC, so I will review any changes after that, have a good day Czello and fellow editors. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Given that he thanked my comment, I'm going to assume he was agreeing with me. Let's get clarification - StarTrekker, did you mean that the section in History of WWE should read "Retirement of Vince McMahon" or "Post McMahon Era"? — Czello 12:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@Czello and Dilbaggg: I prefer "Retirement of Vince McMahon". "Post McMahon Era" is both OR and not accurate, there is still at least one McMahon still working at the top of the company.★Trekker (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@Czello and Dilbaggg: and @★Trekker I will reply just once more today, I wrote Post vince McMajon Era, not McMahon Era as Stephanie assumed power. if the title is changed to "Retirement of Vince McMahon and Accession of Stephanie McMahon" then I will accept it too, and all Wp:PW/RS have cited that Vince has retired and Steph has become permanent Chairwoman and CEO as well as this event of July 22, 2022 kick started a new eara. if you want to skip the era word just write "Retirement of Vince McMahon and Accession of Stephanie McMahon" or "Post Vince McMahon Time Period" because the events after July 22, 2022 doesn't simply end with Vince's retirement, it has Steph taking over, wrestlers returning, ppvs like SummerSlam and many significan changes so a title like vince's Retirement is not sufficient to cover it, choose something like those two suggestions. Good bye or today, see you next time whenever I am free if at all. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Let's just keep it simple and leave it as "Retirement of Vince McMahon", as this avoids putting disproportionate weight on other people per WP:UNDUE. Ultimately the big story is Vince stepping down; the details can go in the sections themselves. — Czello 13:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
It's just a much more objective header. And helps us get away from the overuse of labeling everything an "era", which is still marketing speak no matter how commonly it's used for some periods. oknazevad (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Agree, thank you. I think this concludes this particular debate. — Czello 14:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@Dilbaggg: As you have asked for a link to the consensus, I am directing you to this conversation (which you have participated in). Myself, oknazevad, and StarTrekker above have all agreed that the section in WWE History should be labelled "Retirement of Vince McMahon". You have not had a single person support your wording. — Czello 10:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Agree with the wording. Just noting that everyone has mentioned Steph, but nobody mentioned Nick Khan, which has the same position. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, and that makes 4 - clear consensus now. — Czello 11:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
@oknazevad, GaryColemanFan Czello and @★Trekker I have found source that calls it Post vince McMahon Era too now. See [47], [48], [49], [50] and most importantly this f4wonline WP:PW/RS: [51]. This is very URGENT message. Hope you guys satisfied. If this title is accepted I have no further objectio, peace. There are also many other sources using post Vince McMahon Era, that is everything that will now happen with Vince gone and Steph and HHH in charge. Dilbaggg (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Why are you so hung up on this instead of just using a simple neutral
descriptor like "Retirement of Vince McMahon"? Again, the whole "era" thing is marketing speak. oknazevad (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
@oknazevad this would be marketing if WWE themselves said it but these are extrernal sources. I am a BBA marketing major graduate lol, no need to tell me about marketing and as these are external WP:RS we can agree these are not marketing, we can call entire Attitude Era marketing by your logic as WF themselves promoted it, but like Attitude Era Post vince MCMahon era has many external sources. Dilbaggg (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Again, these are vague descriptors to describe what's going on. A declaration of a formal "era" the way we have an Attitude Era isn't clear enough at the moment. The only neutral section description is "Retirement of Vince McMahon", because, let's face it, that's the big story. We can always change it down the road if we feel we need to. — Czello 07:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Dilbaggg, you are now edit warring against the consensus of 3 editors who believe this should be titled "Retirement of Vince McMahon". Stop being disruptive. — Czello 08:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
@Czello No please do not Wp:EW, also there has been no consensus/voting about this, below is the voting/RfC on wheather reality era and new era should be merged or not, but no one has supported/opposed Post VKM Era name, also you are basing your discussion based on yesterday when I did not give sources yet, today I provided Wp:RS calling it Post VKM Era, and you want to replace WP:RS information with yourpersonal views. Thats not how Wikipedia works mate, and I am sure ow that there are multiple sources calling it post VKM era other ditors will agree. And you are the only one who disagreed with these sources, i don't see anyone else. And there has been no consensus/voting and like GaryColemanFan said, even if a biased consensus was held that can't override WP:RS, and everyomne else agreed I even bolded Treker's statement and Oknazevad too confessed below a ne era begun. Once again you must comply WP:RS which all calls it Post VKM Era and you must not put your own words on the mouth of others, there has been no consensus/voting regardng this matter, lets call it a day, I have a busy life, but do not remove Post VKM Era without an actual consensus and now that there have been sources added which is sufficient, i can add more but that would be overcitation, Its well established from July 22, 2022 onwards WWE is under the Post VKM Era, all Wp:RS calls it that. I know you miss ItsKesha and have a vendetta against me for what happened to him, but please abide by Wikipedia olicies. Peace. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Good grief, this is entering the realms of WP:CIR. 4 editors now believe the section on the History article should be called "Retirement of Vince McMahon". They have said it outright - this is a consensus. There doesn't need to be a formal vote on everything. Literally no one supports your wording. I am going to revert back to the consensus version of the article, and if you revert again we might need to enter WP:DR, because you're outright ignoring what other editors are saying. I've also warned you about WP:ASPERSIONS before, so stop bringing ItsKesha into things when this has nothing to do with him. — Czello 11:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't know what on earth you're trying to insinuate it by that I'd like you to remove this comment about me and refrain from making any further harassing comments, thanks. When the comment has been removed, I grant permission for this comment to subsequently be removed also. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
@Czello Nope this is supported by WP:PW/RS, SEE THIS [52] do not do things based on personal views and wrong consensus please I wanted to be nice but have no choice so I addressed the matter on your talk page..Dilbaggg (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
"Wrong consensus". Hilarious stuff. Wikipedia works off consensus, and you don't get to just ignore it. — Czello 08:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

None of the five sources provided above clearly show that they intend "Post-Vince McMahon Era" as a title for a (probable) forthcoming movement/timespan in WWE. One (F4W) doesn't use the term at all. Two don't capitalize "era", which seems to indicate that they are using it as a common noun rather than a title. The remaining two capitalize "Era" but only in the context of an article title in which all nouns are capitalized. This is far from conclusive. In addition, even if one of the writers is proposing a potential title for a "new era" (assuming people end up calling it that at all), it would obviously make sense to wait to see what the common name comes to be rather than jumping the first sequence of words that someone tosses out. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

There has not been a proper consnsus on this, by consensus I always understood it to be a voting like the section below regarding merging of the 2013 to 2016 period, but if a consensus can be reached without such oting than thats new to me, either ways @@oknazevad, GaryColemanFan Czello and @★Trekker I conceed that I will not call it an era, but the title "After the retirement of Vince McMahon" is more fittig as it doesn't end with that, WWE still exists and this section is about the events after his retirement. Also Czello I request you to stop selectively targeting and deleting my constructive edits at New Era article, you are violating WP:AGF and selectively targeting me there, w]even when I fixed the format, you reverted to the jammed picture format when I gave the correct layout one left one right. And also I don't see why this sourced information "On August 18, 2022; WWE legend Shawn Michaels was promoted to WWE Vice President of Talent Development Creative." [53] got removed. Is it just becaause it is my edit? Please stop this selective targeting of my edit Czello, and remember Wp:AGF. Best wishes and do not jam the forma of New Era article. Also Kofi's title win is just as important as Bianca's a signicficat achievement to be the first African born world title. Also Bianca is already said to be the first African American Royal rumble winner saying black is repeating the same thing in different wordin g, hope you understand that. Best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Consensus doesn't require a formal vote; it can just be a discussion which results in an agreement, as above. Presently the consensus is simply to leave it as "Retirement of Vince McMahon" - we can always change it later if we need to as it becomes more apparent an "era" is forming. For now though, we need to wait and see. — Czello 10:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
@Czello All right sorry bro, I honestly did not know a consensus can happen without voting, HONESTLY, please I am sorry, i thought this was just a simple discussinon and I could change things and consensus happens only with voting, I sincerely apologise for that misunderstanding, Peace bro. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
It is entirely illogical to accuse someone of violating WP:AGF in the same post in which you speculate that they delete edits simply to target you. That's a violation of WP:AGF. Czello also regularly uses edit summaries. I don't know which of your edits you are specifically referring to--I couldn't find that specific removal--but it seems like edit summaries are a good place to start looking. If I may be blunt, proofreading your edits before submitting changes would also likely decrease the number of your edits that are changed or reverted--people don't need to be grammatical masters to contribute on Wikipedia, but glancing over the text to ensure that basic words are spelled correctly, that you haven't forgotten a space between words, etc., would be helpful. As to your proposed title, it is understood that an event will have an impact. Therefore, stating "After the..." is unnecessary. An article about the retirement of Vince McMahon would be assumed to include the aftermath. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Create new article History of WWE (2014-2022), merge Reality Era and New Era (WWE) into it

I suggested this above, and it has gained the support of StarTrekker and Oknazevad, so I'd like to formalise this discussion.

The problem: Both Reality Era and New Era (WWE) are articles that myself and others have accused of being heavy with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The "New Era" is also a marketing term that was used briefly by WWE in 2016 and never mentioned since, which should be avoided per WP:PROMO. The notability of these articles are also in question. The insistence of wrestling fans to categorise everything into eras is often unencyclopedic WP:FANCRUFT, and these two articles appear to be a clear example of this. Another problem (which caused the above debate) is that these intangible, nebulous, and arbitrary "eras" have subjective start and end points. There will never be a true consensus around these supposed periods of wrestling, because they're ill-defined.

The solution: However, it's pretty undeniable that the retirement of McMahon has caused a major shift within WWE. Furthermore, because the definition of what the period over the past 8 or so years has been is muddy, merging these into a new history article is the most neutral solution, and avoids both original research and marketing terms. It should also please those who argue the "New Era" has ended, as we end this period in 2022. Indeed, I propose this is the best of both worlds as it should please those who want to acknowledge this period but also those who feel the standalone articles are problematic. Finally, it helps reduce the bloat of History of WWE (an article which will frankly have infinite growth) as we can merge excessive content into the new article. As time goes on, we're going to need to do this anyway. — Czello 17:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Support. Much more NPOV of a title and a concept. oknazevad (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
You have a misunderstanding of WP:OR since it has multiple WP:PW/RS backing it, also you cannot call sourced information fancruft, its removig sourced information with personal views that you may be doing is whats fancruft, also not many have oopsed these articles unlike your claim, please show evidence. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure how you can say that removing something is fancruft, when francruft is inherently the inclusion of in-universe information. On the contrary I think it's you who is misunderstanding WP:OR. These eras were declared as in-universe marketing terms and then never mentioned again. It's OR to then take various events afterwards that do not mention this era at all and then say it falls under this banner. — Czello 10:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Support There are many problems with the "New Era" and its article. WWE only promoted the "New Era" for a short time, so the article is basically a WP:COATRACK of every major event that happened during these years (as opposed to the Attitude Era and PG Era articles that actually give details about what makes the era unique), so the merge would be easy. The New Generation and Ruthless Aggression Era were more notable and could get away with separate articles though.LM2000 (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
The Ruthless Agression Era was mentioned only a short time in 2002, it was just a speech, after that WWE never mentioned it except the fans kept talking about it. There is a cancelled documentary thats all. But mutiple WP:RS supports New Era and Relity Era. Dilbaggg (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Ruthless Aggression is far more notable as an established period than New Era or Reality Era, both of which were terms only lasting a few months. Ruthless Aggression was defined by other things, such as the brand split. And the existence of that documentary even demonstrates it. — Czello 09:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll add to this that WP:OTHERSTUFF is a bad argument to make. If you want to nominate Ruthless Aggression for AfD you can, but it doesn't affect the non-notability of these two articles. — Czello 09:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
These are not fancruft, even recent 2019 sources like these acknowledge Reality Era nf 2014-2016 [55] please understand what fan cruft actually is before accusing peope of it. Also the New Era had another brand split just like the Ruthless Agression Era, the Ruthless gression era had no official end, we can say everything since WWF became WWE in May 2002 is Ruthless Agression Era stuff, in 2008 there was a mere shift in tv ratings just like before 1997 WWE was TV PG, if WWE becomes TV 14 like rumors next year will you call it TV 14 era just because of tv ratings shift? lol Dilbaggg (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Whether or not Ruthless Aggression is notable is a separate issue, so let's save that argument for another day. I think that your arguments as to why we should keep the New Era and Reality Era as separate articles actually prove our point.LM2000 (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Of Course Not - These two eras are individually notable, as shown by reliable sources, both within the company and independently, using the terms to refer to them. Yes, WWE using the names matters. Just like when wrestlers (e.g. Shawn Michaels) are referred to by their ring names. You can't just write it off as "promotional" and discount the name. That's the common name of the era, and the era's notability is shown by the independent sources. Looking at the articles, and doing some quick searches through reliable sources, shows that the names are used frequently. As for the current era, I don't see a name at this point. I agree with "Retirement of Vince McMahon" as an article title. As for the other two, though, a group consensus doesn't override WP:N. Separate articles for each era. And if that really bothers you, take a step back and ask yourself why you would get so emotionally invested in denying the notability of a title for a timespan in a scripted sport. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Are they used frequently now, or were they used solely contemporaneously? There is a difference with that. Both in showing the long-term notability of the terms, and the long-term independent notability of the supposed periods. Because the whole "New Era" went right back to the same damn show like three weeks later, with none of the supposed changes actually sticking. If anything, the whole company has been in a post-era continuum for the past five to seven years, with no major dramatic overhaul of presentation or sudden generational shift in roster, just continuous churn. The entire "era" framework is, by its nature, promotional, as it seeks to equate the current product with the most successful period in company history. Because no one used the term "era" to describe any period until the Attitude Era. "New Generation" was a tagline emphasizing that the roster had turned over (mostly because the previous main event era had all bolted to WCW, but I digress). "Ruthless Aggression" was a tagline for the post-Attitude Era marketing, as the company reeled in the excesses of the AE while still trying to show that they had their edge (and, well, Edge, among others).
The main thrust of this all is that defining time periods by years is objective and neutral. Marketing attempts (especially ones that don't stick) are not. They can definitely be mentioned within those articles as part of the narrative of the history, but we should not just parrot the framework without question. oknazevad (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Did you remember to take a step back and ask yourself why you would get so emotionally invested in denying the notability of a title for a timespan in a scripted sport? GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Well that's a non-answer if I ever saw one. Oknazevad raises valid which haven't been addressed. — Czello 07:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
100 % agreed GaryColemanFan bro, also many Wp:R states taht the retirement of Vince and Steph and HHH assumingv power kick started a new era, but few people do not want to use the term era, despte so many WP:PW/RS: [56] [57], [58] and [59]. Dilbaggg (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
No one denies that its a major change. No one disagrees that the company is inherently different now, and that things continue to develop.
What we disagree with is the rush to label something with a overwrought term when a simple descriptor can do. That's how WP:NPOV works. It's intentionally not parroting a company line, or adopting their terminology exclusively. We don't call all wrestlers "superstars". We don't avoid the term "pro wrestling" and call it "sports entertainment" (a term that applies to more than just pro wrestling, by the way, even if pro wrestling is the most prominent example of it), and we don't need to refer to every change as a new "era". Especially when it's been less than a month! oknazevad (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
None of the four sources provided by Dilbaggg use any terminology to describe this "new era". I think that it will probably come to be known as "The _____ Era", whether a title is coined by the promotion, the fans, or sportswriters, but it is premature to assign our own name. A neutral name is in order until a consistent title comes into common use. Reality Era (separate article) -> New Era (separate article) -> Retirement of Vince McMahon (separate article, to be renamed in the future or to be split into two separate articles, one describing the event and the second describing the "new era" that is likely to come about as a result of the leadership changes). GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
This seems wise to me, agree entirely. — Czello 20:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm Not Sure! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I will agere that Reality Era seems to have more sourcesb than New Era, it is both acknowledged by WWE and till date many sources talk about it such as: [60]. [61], [62] which are post 2017 sources, thsi WWE's own poll [63] there are way many more pre 2017 sources most in the article and theis WP:RS ESPN source: [64]. I agree with you the new era may have been a markenting term in 2016, but the Reality Era wasn't, it has been covered by many external sources. So I am with you if you merge the Reality and New Era ino The Reality Era (2014 to 2022). The name Reality bEra is far better sources and well established all over the world. We live in one blue world, lets get along and work together. If you merge the New Era into the Reality Era (2014-2022) you have my full support. Anyway best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
@User:HHH Pedrigree I 100% agree with your 2020 statement, the Reality Era has been going on since 2014 and has pleanty of external sources till date supporting its not ever, New Era was just a promotional act in 2016 that was never bought back again, everything since 2014 till Vince's retirement is the Reality era, I agree with your statement and think the new era should be merged into the Reality era: [65] Dilbaggg (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal for deletion of New Era (WWE)

Per the discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&diff=1107141841&oldid=1107141668] and the reasons given on the proposal for deletion in the article itself. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for coming around on this. Sadly, a WP:PROD can only be done if it has never been nominated for AfD (PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for pages PRODed before or previously discussed at AfD or FfD. - from the PROD page). However, as there is now near-unanimous agreement that New Era needs to go, here's what I propose. Originally I suggested that Reality Era and New Era be merged into a new article. It appears you agree with this for New Era, but not Reality Era, correct? As such, I propose that instead of creating a new article, we simply redirect New Era to History_of_WWE#New_Era_(2016–2022), and integrate any additional material there. How does that sound? — Czello 15:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Czello bro a slight problem has arisen @User:AndyTheGrump is reverting the proposal citing the previous AfD, but that time result was no consensus, I am sure we are allowed to relist it for AfD as no consensus was reached, anyway this time deletion has my full support. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Czello Your new proposal i did not read clearly before pls pardon me bro, but yeah it sounds good. The existing section on History of WWE regarding that era is sufficient enough, so yeah if its just used as a redirect there its all fine, goodluck :) Dilbaggg (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Problem with how we handle unrecognized reigns

Ric Flair has one unrecognized US title reign. We made that reign grey and don't count it towards his total number of reigns, even though everybody but WWE recognizes that reign (it got left out for reason at all other than WWE forgetting to add it).

Then we have Kevin Nash awarding himself the WCW title. WCW did not recognize this, WWE does not recognize this. Yet the reign is not grey. It looks like a normal, recognized reign. Only the note says that nobody recognizes it.

I propose making Nash's reign grey, just like Flair's reign, which is way more recognized than Nash's. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@WrestlingLegendAS, you're talking about consistency. We need to be consistent based on given facts. If a promotion doesn't recognize something, it should be greyed out as per usual. I have no problem changing it. The notes already say it's not recognized. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I've altered the article to reflect this reign is unrecognised. — Czello 08:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Someone changed it and now the reign is recognized again. What now? Starting an editing war does not seem like a good choice. Is there no rule to prevent someone from making that reign recognized again, even after we reached consensus to make it unrecognized? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Changes to the professional wrestling article

Over the past few weeks there's been some significant changes to the professional wrestling article, particularly the lead, without discussion, including some back-and-forth and reverting. Can members of this project take a look and see if they agree with these newer edits, or if we should revert back to a more stable version? The latest bulk of changes which have occurred over the past 24 hours can be seen here. — Czello 08:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as I see, the changes are the focus on "this is scripted", right? I have no problem, but repetition is, maybe, a little bit... as Czello said, not even sources like TV networks use these wording. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
What was the last stable revision? --Mann Mann (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I believe it was this. Diff is here. — Czello 18:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Addition of "Citizenship" field to Infobox professional wrestler

I would propose we add a field for "Citizenship" to Infobox professional wrestler. This field appears in Infobox person but not in Infobox professional wrestler. I think this would be helpful for wrestlers born in one country but with citizenship in other countries, e.g. Miro (wrestler) or Madusa. What do people think? McPhail (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, that parameter is irrelevant to Infobox professional wrestler and WikiProject Professional wrestling. See Wikipedia:Scope and WP:OFFTOPIC. Citizenship provides additional info but it could also cause BLP violations, unsourced additions, and original research. Plus other editors may decide to add similar parameters such as ethnicity, nationality, race, skin/hair/eye color, bra size, body type, and etc. The lead section or sections like Early life and Personal life are the best for mentioning citizenship and other similar stuff. --Mann Mann (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
And yet, we automatically assume certain things about citizenship and make "no sources" excuses when reality suggests otherwise. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 16:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
@Mann Mann, there are categories for that citizenship. Thunder Rosa has her American citizenship and is in the appropriate category for that. As I already said, if they hold citizenship in another country, that's what "personal lives" section is for. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
@McPhail, the only option is putting where they currently reside. You don't to state their citizenship in the infobox. That's what the "personal lives" section is for. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 20:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Seems like WP:CRUFT. If it's pertinent, and sourced, it goes in the prose. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Mann Mann here. In addition I see it as an opportunity for some fans to add kayfabe material to a BLP infobox. — Czello 09:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Czello concern about kayfabe material. Question, why not using the Infobox person? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@HHH Pedrigree, depending on the article, they can use both. The Chris Jericho article uses both. That's acceptable since he's done more then just wrestling. Same with John Cena and Dwayne Johnson. It's more of it being unnecessary for most. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Damage Control or Damage CTRL

The official name of the stable is Damage CTRL. WWE and some sources uses it; e.g. [66][67]. However, some other sources uses Damage Control as the name; e.g. [68][69]. So should we use Damage Control or Damage CTRL? Considering Wikipedia guidelines, the official name, and sources. --Mann Mann (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

CTRL. That's the official spelling. Go with primary source for proper nouns. DrewieStewie (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
@DrewieStewie: But what about MOS:ALLCAPS? Plus, is CTRL meaningful for most readers? e.g. they see it and they interpret it as Control. --Mann Mann (talk) 04:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
@Mann Mann: I looked through MOS:ALLCAPS and MOS:TITLECAPS, and I feel neither adequately addresses situations like this, as it doesn't cover abbreviated non-acronym words stylized as such in proper nouns. For one, Damage CTRL is the official name of the team, and using Control in the article title in place of CTRL wrongly implies that it is the official name of the team in primary source media, even if the article itself clarifies otherwise. I feel for most readers, CTRL is well understood as the word control, given the context of the name and the term "damage control". It would probably be strange and poor/perceivably lazy looking netiquette to enter the title as Ctrl rather than CTRL, considering the fact that when not a proper noun tag team name, it would then be the "ctrl" button on a keyboard, when the article title isn't referring to that context. It would be like naming the article for Dutch Bros. Coffee "Dutch Brothers Coffee" because that's not the official name. Or Super Mario Bros./Super Smash Bros. with "brothers" in place of "bros." in the article title for the same reason. Or saying "Andrew Barrymore" instead of Drew Barrymore, or using a deadname in an article title. bottom line: CTRL is official name, policy doesn't adequately cover this case because it covers regular words/names instead of abbreviated spellings, and ctrl wouldn't be easily confused for anything other than the word control. DrewieStewie (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
My concern: Do WP guidelines allow us to rename official names like this? Is renaming Damage CTRL to Damage Control allowed? --Mann Mann (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Looking through WP:AT and WP:COMMONNAME, the common name in this case would probably be Damage CTRL over Damage Control, and thus allowed by Wikipedia policy. As “damage control” is an ambiguous term referring to multiple subjects, the current title of Damage Control has to be disambiguated by the suffix “(professional wrestling)”. With the official/common name being used instead, the suffix would be unnecessary as it will have been satisfactorily disambiguated with the CTRL spelling. For this specific case, Control probably wouldn’t be preferred by policy for the policy/practical reasons above. DrewieStewie (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, then we better move the main article to Damage CTRL. I will wait for other opinions. --Mann Mann (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good. If there’s no other opinions/dissent within the next 7 days, let’s roll with it. DrewieStewie (talk) 06:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@DrewieStewie: OK, but the move should be done via Wikipedia:Requested moves process. If you are not familiar with it, see WP:RSPM for more details. --Mann Mann (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 Done DrewieStewie (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Category nominated for deletion

Category:Professional wrestling jobbers. McPhail (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Mass revert removal of information?

Does anyone know an easy way of reverting CRISP CASHMERE's latest series of edits? He removed the managers from match listings in quite a few articles for no apparent reason. [70]. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be less than 100 pages he did this to. I have warned him on his talk page. For some like Tribute to the Troops, it could be rolled back. Others, just manually revert each one. I can’t do so myself since I have to write a paper for school by midnight PST, but I bet it’ll be taken care of soon in no time by the project. DrewieStewie (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: Any solution? --Mann Mann (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:WrestleMania 40#Requested move 9 October 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:WrestleMania 40#Requested move 9 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Splitting rosters by gender

Our "list of personnel" pages generally split the wrestlers by gender. The rationale for this is unclear - e.g. WWE group everyone together. Should we just group all wrestlers together? McPhail (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I see the division as more organized and less clunky, so we probably should stick with separate tables for male and female. DrewieStewie (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
WWE itself uses the term "women's division". AEW has "men's roster" and "women's roster".[71] The split is helpful for the readers. For example, a fan of women's professional wrestling can easily find and browse related articles. Readability matters. What's the point of changing our organized/sorted lists? However, as I said in this 2021 discussion, I prefer "men/women" to "male/female". --Mann Mann (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Men's division and Women's division is fine too. --Mann Mann (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Agree, I don't see the advantage of clumping them all together. — Czello 09:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the men's division. Also, suggesting a note for wrestlers like Sonny Kiss or Abadon (for example, Abadon is a non-binary wrestler, but is assigned to the women's division). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Vjmlhds has already updated List of WWE personnel, {{WWE personnel}}, List of All Elite Wrestling personnel, {{All Elite Wrestling}}, List of Impact Wrestling personnel, and {{Impact Wrestling personnel}}. For Gender identity, add the relevant content to the Notes field. For example, Abadon => List of All Elite Wrestling personnel => Women's division => Notes => non-binary and etc. --Mann Mann (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

it is better to keep it split by gender. I remember back in 2009 tag team members were treated as separate entities, the more classified, the less crammed and better quality it is, so it is better to keep male and female rosters separate, just like Raw, SD and NXT wrestlers are listed separately. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Also the men's division and women's division are treated separately and since 2018 when women's title got recognized as world titles have been equally prioritized, and there are rumors of women's ic title, US title, etc coming and there's already women's tag titles, so yeah its better to keep them separate sections. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:WWE Day 1 (2022)#Requested move 26 October 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:WWE Day 1 (2022)#Requested move 26 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Sanctions

General sanctions have been levied against projects over the years. I don't remember (or possibly know) what led to the sanctions. (A reminder would be helpful). This project has had sanctions since 2018. I don't know procedure, but I'm thinking enough time has passed that we should review everything and put forth a proposal or what have you to have them lifted. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 20:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

It was a combination of contempt from the wider community and self-loathing within WP:PW. Both groups got together and decided that the project should be treated like children. I proposed addressing this in February and the lukewarm response from the project didn't really inspire me to take on any big quest. For the record, I have opposed the sanctions since before day one and continue to think they're offensive and unnecessary. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
@GaryColemanFan, the sanctions should be levied against those being disruptive not the project as a whole. But it was probably easier to just levy them against the project as a whole. There is going to come a time when enough is enough and they should be removed. As you can see, I'm all for having them lifted. You got at least one person for support. Until there is enough, it's not worth putting forth a proposal. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 08:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

What sanctions are you talking about? Could they lead to something terrible like this WP being taken down? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@WrestlingLegendAS, read WP:GS/PW for more. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 08:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

My draft needs more infomation, a reviewer says

Hey guys, a reviewer came to my draft and says it needs more infomation to be a WP:SPLIT. i believe this article has enough infomation to be splitted off of WWE 2K#Create Mode. Just need your help, Wikipedia is all about teamwork and making the wiki better and better so it would be awesome if you would give your thoughts about the draft, and help edit it to make it have a better chance of being accepted. The draft is Draft:WWE 2K Creation Community. Thanks. SMBMovieFan (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Nythar (💬-🎃) 00:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Generally splits are only done when either the main article becomes too large, or that the topic is independently notable. I don't think either is true in this case. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for your thoughts. SMBMovieFan (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Nythar (💬-🎃) 00:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

List of WWE Raw episodes

I was looking at what is on my watchlist and I realized that I totally forgot I have the following on it.

Last year, it was brought it up that wrestling TV shows such as Raw and SmackDown, for example, should be have a list of episodes. There were varying opinions on the matter. A draft of sorts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/RawDatabase, was created. The person who started all of this, has doesn't anything in over a year. I added to it, but since then, it's fell flat. Since it's a draft of sorts and no further headway will be made, it shouldn't have been around this long. If it was in actual draftspace, it would have been deleted by now. Drafts not edited in six months are deleted. Unless someone wants to take it over and continue working on it (highly unlikely), it should be removed. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 08:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should have such a list. We don't typically have lists of episodes for series that produce new episodes every single week for decades. It's too large, even if broken down by year. Heck, someone just asked if we should have a list of episode for Sesame Street, and prior discussion there rejected the idea as being excessively detailed and more appropriate for a Fandom wiki (where such a list exists for Sesame Street). I think the same logic applies here. oknazevad (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Personally I do not understand this take. At what point does a series become so long that lists of episodes of it becomes not ok? The Simpsons has 35 seasons, in some years should their lists be deleted? I don't see the logic.★Trekker (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
@StarTrekker, daily soaps don't have lists of episodes. General Hospital has at least 15,000 episodes. I'm not against having list of episodes for wrestling shows, but nobody wants to work on it. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Days recognized by WWE columns

I looked at some title histories. Take Cruiserweight title (96-07) for example. There are columns for days and days recognized by WWE. But then there is also a note saying how many days are recognized by WWE. Am I right in assuming that the note should be deleted and the days recognized by WWE should be changed to the days mentioned by in the note? Screenshot if my text was confusing: https://ibb.co/JdqMdNc Yellow "circle" is what I assume is how it is supposed to be. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

It was probably looked over when whoever made the edits, but yes, the note shouldn't say what the column says. In regard to reign lengths, the notes should just say the tape dates if they're different from when the event actually happened. --JDC808 ♫ 12:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nikki A.S.H.#Requested move 6 November 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nikki A.S.H.#Requested move 6 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Mann Mann (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Raw titles still Raw titles (or, are the co-held titles no longer separate titles)

Please see the discussion at Template talk:WWE Championships. It also affects the individual titles' articles. More input is needed for consensus. oknazevad (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

WWE 2K has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. « Ryūkotsusei » 19:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Should "Template:Women in WWE" include FCW titles?

An editor removed FCW Divas Championship and Queen of FCW in this revision. Should we restore them? --Mann Mann (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I say no, as FCW was a separate company affiliated with WWE, not directly owned by and therefore a part of WWE proper, unlike NXT. Other former developmental territories are not included, either. Nor are any affiliated developmental territories included in the former championship sections of Template: WWE Championships oknazevad (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
no. As OK said, FCW was not WWE. No other farm territory like OVW or DSW is included. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move for discussion

"Luke Harper and Erick Rowan" to "Bludgeon Brothers". McPhail (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Joint titles

*** Some fresh eyes on the following discussion would be appreciated ***

Not trying to give you a hard time, but on this issue, you are wrong.

With both Roman Reigns and the Usos, they defend both sets of titles at the same time. WWE + Universal = Undisputed WWE Universal Championship, and Raw Tag Team + SD Tag Team = Undisputed WWE Tag Team Championship.

This is the same situation like we had in 2009-10 when Raw's World Tag Team Championship and SD's WWE Tag Team Championship were defended jointly as the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship. The titles retained their individual lineages, but were defended together across both brands (and back then also on ECW)

So to say at this time the titles belong to a particular brand would be incorrect.

Now down the road if/when we get separate champions again, that would be different, but as long as both world titles and both tag titles are defended jointly, they are dual branded.

Don't be so hung up on the names of the titles....what we have here is the same situation we had in 2009-10, so there is a precedent. Vjmlhds 13:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Indulge me as we take a trip in the wayback machine to show you how we handled the situation in 2009 when we had the exact same situation. How is this different than what we have now, other than the names of the titles? Vjmlhds (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Except no, you are wrong. Like I have said in the past, anytime you see a title pop up on a show/brand, you automatically assume it's now an official title of that show/brand. This isn't really any different. You're seeing the title on the show and assuming that it's automatically the title of that show. The ONLY reason you see that right now is because they hold both sets of championships. Regardless of how you want to try and spin it, the titles are NOT unified, thus the Raw Tag Team Championship, for example, is NOT a title of the SmackDown brand, etc. The edits I put adequately describe the situation: they are the title of such and such brand but because the titles are held by the same champion(s), they are co-defended.
And in regard to how this is different from the past. Well, it's the past. Just because it was done that way, over 10 years ago, doesn't mean it's the correct solution to what we have now (let's not forget, with some exceptions, the project has been in horrendous shape up until the last few years, so we should tread lightly on how things were done in the past). Another big difference though, they ended up actually unifying the titles. It's already been reported multiple times that Triple H wants to split them up, but Vince left him in a predicament where he just has to see this through until he can find the right time to do it. --JDC808 ♫ 13:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Sorry...I'm not wrong on this one. 2009 and today are exactly the same - 2 sets of titles with individual lineages being jointly defended under an umbrella name. There is ZERO difference between then and now other than the names of the titles, which seems to be the thing you are so hung up on. Aa far as HHH wanting to have separate champions, that's all well and good, but it's gotta happen first, then we can go from there, but as it stand right now, the Bloodline has ALL the belts, which are defended jointly across ALL the shows, therefore they are dual branded until such time they are not. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds it's not the same because again, they actually unified the titles back then. If you want to change this so badly, let's bring this up to the project and get more input. JDC808 ♫ 14:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
When WWE did the deal in April 2009, both titles remained active until August 2010, when WWE merely deactivated the World Tag Team Championship in favor of the WWE (now Raw) Tag Team Titles. So the titles never were unified. They were defended jointly for about a year and a half before one of them was simply abandoned. Again, we have the same situation - jointly defended titles. It's not a matter of me "wanting to change it", it's more a matter of you wanting to cling on to what was and not acknowledging what is. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds I have acknowledged what is, hence the description at the end of the intro paragraph. What I'm not trying to claim is that the Raw title is a SmackDown title and vice versa. And that description has been there since this whole double champion bit began earlier this year for both Reigns and Usos, just with some copy-editing done to it. But again, it should be brought to the project to get more opinions. JDC808 ♫ 04:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I never said anything was a Raw title...you are putting words in my mouth. The WWE and Universal Titles are defended jointly as the Undisputed WWE Universal Championship, likewise the Raw and SD Tag straps as the Undisputed WWE Tag Team Championship. When they are defended jointly, they are dual branded meaning defended across all main roster shows, not just specific ones. It just appears to me you are stubbornly looking for purity with this attitude of "X Title belongs on X brand, period." - completely disregarding the fact that for going on 8 months now they've been defended jointly on both brands. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds you're saying they're dual branded, i.e., you are saying they are both a Raw and SmackDown title. That's what I meant in my last post. But you are completely ignoring the fact that there is a description at the end of the intro paragraph that explains the situation (which I originally added, mind you). You want to make this change, get a consensus from the project. JDC808 ♫ 06:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Vjmlhds 19:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Similar to the discussion in the WWE Championships template with oknazevad, I agree with Oknazevad and JDC. There are no sourced supporting the titles are dual-brand. The article, as JDC said, explains the situation. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I've seen enough wrestling in my day to know how it turns out when it's 3 on 1. I'll take the "L" and live to edit another day. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Just so we're all on the same page, I've made some tweaks to the articles. I've done nothing that removes anything from saying "X title belongs to X brand", but I did tighten things up a bit to make things less clunky. Saying "The Raw Tag Team Championship on Raw" is redundant, awkward to read, and a mouthful to say out loud, so I trimmed a little fat. But as I said, nothing was changed regarding what title belongs to what brand. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Removing "currently" from the lead of articles about pro wrestlers

MOS:CURRENT: "Except on pages that are inherently time-sensitive and updated regularly (e.g. the "Current events" portal), terms such as now, currently, present, to date, so far, soon, upcoming, ongoing, and recently should usually be avoided in favor of phrases such as during the 2010s, since 2010, and in August 2020. Wording can usually be modified to remove the "now" perspective: not she is the current director but she became director on 1 January 2022; not 2010–present but beginning in 2010 or since 2010."

Your opinion? --Mann Mann (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you talking about sentences like "... is a professional wrestler, currently signed to All Elite Wrestling..."? In which case I'd agree we should remove it. — Czello 09:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, exactly. That's my concern. --Mann Mann (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, in that case, it's a Manual of Style rule. Small and easy changes. Jon Moxley currently works for AEW. Jon Moxley works for AEW since 2019. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
I believe removing currently won’t be an issue since I confident that someone seeing he is a professional wrestler, signed to All Elite Wrestling should be enough for them to realize that he is working for them at the present time. I noticed that quite a few boxers and mixed martial artists articles use currently regarding what division they are currently fighting in (ie middleweight, heavyweight etc) so you may want to leave a message with Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts as well.--65.92.162.81 (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Exactly. With the present tense "currently" is just redundant. If someone changes companies, then the sentence just needs to be updated. If anything more than that is needed (and really doesn't need to be grammatically speaking), then use an actual date like "since 2016" or such, like HHH said. oknazevad (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Non-controvercial, follows MOS. I don't think this meets the level of getting AWB out to fix, but it's certainly worth doing when you see it. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Iron Survivor Challenge

Does winning NXT Iron Survivor Challenge pass as an accomplishment? Roxanne Perez won it at NXT Deadline, and then it was added to "Championships and accomplishments" on her article. --Mann Mann (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

What about the male winner? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
A very same user added it to Grayson Waller too. Is it something special about this match? Is it notable enough to be considered an accomplishment? --Mann Mann (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Czello, JDC808, Lee Vilenski, LM2000, McPhail, and Oknazevad: Your opinion? Keep or Delete? --Mann Mann (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say delete. Seems like it's just a match, like winning HIAC. — Czello 08:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
My opinion is that "achievements" are only really for things that sources deem to be revelant. So, title wins are suitable, major awards, etc. Sources do list a rumble win or a king of the ring as an acheivement. I very much doubt that this would make that grade. Who knows - if they did this every year for five years and it takes off, it might make that grade. Right now - no. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I would delete. There are so many "special" matches these days that capturing them all risks being WP:LISTCRUFT. McPhail (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Separate Articles For Major Supercards

I believe that the major professional wrestling supercards such as Saturday Night's Main Event, WWF The Main Event, Clash of the Champions and AEW Battle of the Belts are major events unlike the regular weekly professional wrestling television show. I believe that all these major events have a significance of their own so each edition of these events deserves its own article. For example, Battle of the Belts I should have a separate article, Battle of the Belts II have a separate article. Storylines are built on AEW TV for weeks leading to Battle of the Belts, making it a significant event rather than being just a TV show. I can create separate articles for these if you allow me to do so.--Mark Linton (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Why Battle of the Belts IV deserves its own article? For example, what is notable about Jade Cargill vs. Willow Nightingale? In my opinion, creating an article for a TV special with 3 matches, is a sign of WP:FANCRUFT. --Mann Mann (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The Rock, GA Reassessment

For your information, the Dwayne Johnson's article is under GA Reassessment. As always, the pro wrestling section has the WP:IN-UNIVERSE problem, with a lot of information about kayfabe storylines. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Liv Morgan relationship with Bo Dallas

Alerting members of the Wikiproject to this discussion: Talk:Liv_Morgan#Relationship_with_Bo_Dallas. Thanks. — Czello 17:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Kairi Sane#Requested move 1 January 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kairi Sane#Requested move 1 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Mann Mann (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Unrecognized reigns becoming recognized for no reason

We reached consensus to not recognize Kevin Nash's WCW world title reign where he awarded himself the title: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_110#Problem_with_how_we_handle_unrecognized_reigns

I checked his Wiki page and the WCW title history on Wikipedia to find out that the reign is now more official than ever, according to Wikipedia. Before, the reign was recognized, but with a note that WWE does not recognize it. Then we made it unrecognized. And now it is recognized again, but not even with a note anymore. How can this happen? Isn't there a rule to prevent people from making changes after consensus has been reached that the opposite of what they are editing is actually right? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Jaden (wrestler)

Could someone please have a look at Jaden (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? I've gone searching for some sources but I can't seem to find anything that substantiates anything in the article. I don't have much experience in this topic area though so I may just be looking in the wrong place. Thank you! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Completely unsourced, I've nominated it for speedy deletion. Failing that it'll go to AFD. — Czello 09:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Using foreign wrestling programs as a source

Long story short, I have a bunch of official Japanese wrestling programs that were sold at various events. These are your typical large magazine/books that you can buy at events with pictures, biographies and articles. I have some for All Japan Women, JWP, NJPW, AJPW, FMW and other federations. These are absolutely crucial for sourcing since these wrestlers were from the 70's, 80's and 90's, since there was no internet and since various Japanese magazines/newspapers have never circulated around the English speaking world. Many of these companies also do not exist anymore, which further limits the amount of information we have. I also have some Japanese wrestling yearbooks by Weekly Pro Wrestling that list basically every wrestler in Japan that year(See this for an example - https://imgur.com/a/hrEubuK) and would also be very useful.

What I want to know is:

1) What do I need to do for the people here to accept these as a source? I'll be happy to take photos or videos if needed of the programs.

2) What can be done for the inevitable problems that will arise when people outside of the wrestling section immediately try to get the articles deleted because they won't like the Japanese source? I know this is going to happen and if I could have the support of this section, it would be helpful.

KatoKungLee (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Editors should assume good faith WP:AGF for non-English sources. There is no requirement for sources to exist in English. Assuming they are produced by the promotions or other reliable authors, they seem like good quality sources. If they are produced by the promotions, there is the potential for bias if discussing the company or their wrestlers. Aside from extraordinary claims, however, they should be fine. In addition, people may state that sources produced by a promotion assert notability for a topic, but if they are produced by a third party or used alongside other sources, there shouldn't be any concerns. This sounds like a wealth of resources that could really benefit Wikipedia. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Non-English sources are fine if they pass WP:RELIABILITY and WP:VERIFY. We already use Japanese websites for the related content. --Mann Mann (talk) 09:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

RfC on Wikipedia visual layout

Hello, just want to advertise this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022, I’m sure all of you have noticed the new visual layout for Wikipedia, please comment if you want to reverse it or keep it. starship.paint (exalt) 14:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Reviewed 		Ratio
Kept to
Delisted
(overall 0.62) 		Remaining to review
for
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  1. Shelton Benjamin
So we have only one article to review at the moment, Shelton's, and one part that needs to be improved is the recent WWE stuff from 2017 to present needs to be improved. Frankly he hasn't done too much, so this part shouldn't be too hard. starship.paint (exalt) 03:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Mystery Titans Theatre recently (and accidentally) uploaded his debut match. Beat Sylvester Terkay convincingly. Not sure that'll help here, but mentioning it here might help that review channel get views (and trust me, it could use them). Anyway, hell of a story, that Shelton Benjamin. Thanks to all who helped the Internet never forget it this past year! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Kurt Angle

Kurt Angle has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Our policy on future unconfirmed matches

Do we have a policy on matches that are likely but unconfirmed, especially where it's listed as "X or Y vs Z". This is an example of what I mean. It's probably likely, but also it seems to violate WP:CRYSTAL. — Czello 23:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Go by the source. If the source says something like "Z vs the winner of X vs Y", nice. If not, It would violate WP:CRYSTAL. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Such content should be sourced; explicit and clear. There is no room for personal analysis. So you can remove them. However, I myself do not usually remove such edits because sometimes they are legit (announced/happened during a show or PPV but not published by sources). They are just unsourced and rushed additions. Some users (both registered ones and IPs) update articles as fast as they can; e.g. during live shows/PPVs. --Mann Mann (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

MITB 2018

I've come back to active editing after a while and I plan to put up the article about Money in the Bank (2018) on which I expanded back in 2019 for GAN now (a note of thanks once again to GodofDemonwars). I would really like some assistance on copyediting and any additional info I need to put up before nominating it officially. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistent redirects/page names

I just moved Talk:WWE Crown Jewel/GA1 to Talk:Crown Jewel (2018)/GA1, since the review is of the article now at Crown Jewel (2018). There's an inconsistency in the parent pages that I hope editors at this project can figure out: WWE Crown Jewel is not a redirect, but Talk:WWE Crown Jewel redirects to Talk:WWE in Saudi Arabia. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Now resolved. McPhail (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Either recognize all or none

Kevin Nash's WCW title reign (the one where he awarded it to himself) is not recognized by WWE, but by Wikipedia.

Ric Flair's and other people's US title reigns are not recognized by WWE and Wikipedia.

So should we recognize all of these reigns (with a note saying WWE does not) or have them all as unrecognized reigns? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

TV Shows

Hello fellow wikipedians,

Is the a possibility we could list all of the wwe tv shows episodes by season and year like the other tv shows have done or can we only do the special episodes only?. Only asking. Mansterman89 (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a draft of Raw episodes that is in progress here; however, it's not received any updates in some time. — Czello 21:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Appericate the info. Mansterman89 (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Visiting WikiProject Television would be helpful too. --Mann Mann (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think anyone would be against it if you wanted to take it one show/season at a time and showed continued work on the project. It's just a lot of work.KatoKungLee (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I may try it at some point. Instead of doing a breakdown of everything that happens. I may just put the the episode & season number, date, venue and results. That may be the best. Mansterman89 (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Leilani Kai real name

FYI

There a related discussion at Talk:Leilani Kai § Real name to which you are invited to particapate. —Bagumba (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Freestyle wrestling cites

Hi! I'm working on taking Kurt Angle back up to GA status - there's a section on all of his Folkstyle/freestyle wrestling accomplishments - any idea where we can cite this too? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Status of the AEW International Championship: new title, renaming, or something else?

Hello, I'd like to invite everyone at this WikiProject to contribute to the discussion here: Talk:AEW_International_Championship#Is_it_a_new_title?. Owing to how AEW have presented the International Championship, there is a lack of clarity on how synonymous it is to the All-Atlantic Championship.

Please keep debate to that thread (rather than here) to avoid splitting the discussion. — Czello 09:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Elimination Chamber as an accomplishment

Is winning Elimination Chamber match as notable as winning Money in the Bank and Royal Rumble matches? Can we add it to Championships and accomplishments section? e.g. Austin Theory#Championships and accomplishments --Mann Mann (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say no - as far as I'm aware WWE don't promote wrestlers as the "2023 Men's Elimination Chamber winner" (except for maybe for a few weeks after the event), unlike the MitB winner which tends to be on their card as long they hold the briefcase. — Czello 14:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Also - I seem to recall for a while we used to promote Hell in a Cell victories as an accomplishment too, but that was eventually removed for the same reason. I see the Elimination Chamber as the same principle, personally. — Czello 14:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Reliable sources don't, so we shouldn't either. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm also of the view that it should not be listed as an accomplishment. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Some IP users add it to the articles. For example, look at Special:Contributions/5.127.44.136. --Mann Mann (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
It's a weird situation since EC matches never happen naturally outside of their PPV ala the Royal Rumble. One difference I would say is that WWE does not promote winning it as an achievement even though what really is the difference between winning that and the Royal Rumble?. I would promote it as an achievement if I were WWE.KatoKungLee (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I think one of the reasons is marketability and mainstream exposure. Many fans care about the winners of RR and MITB while EC is just another match for them. --Mann Mann (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
No. Money in the Bank and the Royal Rumble are pushed by WWE as accomplishments superstars should strive to win along with guaranteed prizes (MITB with future title shot and RR with Title shot at Mania), while the Elimination Chamber is more pushed as a dangerous stipulation similar to a Hardcore match or a TLC match. --  THE $R$. Habla!  Hancock!  23:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Concur. Sure because the EL PPV takes place between the Rumble and Mania it often has Mania-related stipulations attached, but it's not inherent to the match like the Rumble or MITB. oknazevad (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Paige (wrestler)#Requested move 26 March 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Paige (wrestler)#Requested move 26 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_110&oldid=1153074043"