Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 97

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 90←Archive 95Archive 96Archive 97Archive 98Archive 99Archive 100

I have been adding Verified Facebook and Twitter links to wrestlers profiles, mainly in WWE for now. The only links I have been adding are verified from Facebook and Twitter themselves. Is this ok ? I think they are a useful external link for fans / followers of the specific wrestler.

What do you think ?

GL3N (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

We're an encylopedia, not a fansite, so we should at least ostensibly do it to educate every reader. Motives aside, the results seem fine to me. Maybe steer away from Facebook, if people still need to sign up to see anything useful, but Twitter is a public historical record (of sorts). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Well Hulk, if it's a verified Facebook fan page, they'e public and you don't need to sign in to see them. And when I say "fanpage" I don't mean a page by a fan, that's what those pages that people can like are called. CrashUnderride 02:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Just checked out Rollins'. Only WWE.com and Walmart ads there. Maybe that's what fans want, but I don't think it gives much to regular people who just want to understand Rollins better. Maybe there's more after "See More Stories", but letting Facebook run Javascript seems like inviting a vampire into my house. From that small look, I'll stick with a thumbs up for Twitter only. It has evil sponsored content, too, but the chunks are smaller and more fit on a page. Easier to skim through for useful info. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I reverted GL3N on Seth Rollins and The Undertaker and encouraged him to take it here since he has added facebook and twitter to several bios across the wikiproject. I'm against it because of WP:Twitter-EL and WP:FACEBOOK. In every case we already link to their WWE profiles, some of them link to their official webpages, I don't think they lack the web presence needed to qualify for social media external links.LM2000 (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we should count WWE.com as the wrestlers' site. It's purely WWE's, and says whatever WWE wants to say about them. WWE seems to babysit their Twitter accounts, too, but at least those have a semblance of their web presence. Undertaker and Rollins don't seem to have official sites (maybe I missed them), so I think they qualify for an exception. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Another consensus vote

Alright this is getting annoying. I'm putting this at the top of the list so everyone can see it. (The phrase "so that everyone can see it" is a reason why I would make the vacated rows gray (because not everyone can see it and some people are lazy to read absolutely everything so this would be helpful)). So here is the example and I want thoughts and a consensus so this gets settled y'all:

No. Champion Reign Date Days held Location Event Successful defenses Notes Ref.
1 Championname 1 Date Days Location Live event n Appropriate note [ref]
— Vacated — Date — — — — Appropriate note [ref]

Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Look down where the discussion is already taking place and is further along than this is. This section was unneeded.--WillC 06:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Sure it was. Even you yourself said the discussion below was closed so I'm reopening it at the top of the page where everyone can see it. Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I never said it was closed. I said it died. New life has been brought back into it. We've made progress and are about to establish a consensus it appears.--WillC 13:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Royal Rumble Final Four

Is this template useful? Does WWE talk about the Final Four enough to make this a valuable addition to wrestlers' articles? It's been around for a while, but it strikes me as unnecessary. I don't watch wrestling, though, so I may be out of touch with how WWE discusses this. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's usless. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Strikes me as useless as well. Is it a fan concept? Being a part of the 'Final Four' doesn't net you a prize. In recent years it has been irrelevant. Rusev was hiding outside the ring in 2015, and so was Santino in 2011. In 2012 there was an extended 'Final Two' sequence with Jericho and Sheamus. In 2014, CM Punk didn't last very long as the fourth of the 'Final Four', so it was more like a 'Final Three'. All in all, it's just some arbitrary number. starship.paint ~ KO 11:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • It's useless...I'mma be WP:Bold. CrashUnderride 12:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
BTW, what do you think about Template:Elimination Chamber winners? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Also useless. It's not remotely close to the Royal Rumble in its regularity, it's prize or its prestige. It didn't even have its own PPV at first, and those that did have been inconsistent in what's at stake and such. In short, it's not a singular event, just a stipulation. Hell, the 2015 PPV wasn't even announced till two weeks before it aired! oknazevad (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

List example

Alright so we have a lot of comments here and there and up and down about the championship tables, let's have some examples. Below is the format from my latest Featured List. If number of defenses is something the promotion promotes I would suggest it's added right before the notes section for consistency. So instead of a theoretical discussion I present an example.  MPJ-US  22:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

No. Champion Reign Date Days held Location Event Successful defenses Notes Ref.
1 Championname 1 Date Days Location Live event 10 Appropriate note [ref]
— Vacated — Date — N/A N/A N/A Appropriate note [ref]
I like it well enough, though the "successful defenses" column must be optional, as its not actually counted by many promotions, and therefore we shouldn't put it in for those promotions. Would like to see it for a longer list, though, to see how it actually looks. You say the WWE title list is "horrid" above. Why? What specific criticisms have you of it? And remember, FL criteria are not the be-all-end-all of everything. oknazevad (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the defenses should be optional, very few companies track it. And you want a longer example? NWA World Middleweight Championship 80-something champions, vacancies etc.  MPJ-US  04:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with some of it. Only issue is that the FLs I have done have a different format. I dislike the whole grey area for vacancies. Why in the world is that even neeeded? What does it even add to the article to make it better?--WillC 06:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Personally, as someone who frequents title pages, I like the greyed area for vacancies, it helps me see that it's not a title reign and that something happened to the holder, etc. I think it's good to draw attention to it in that respect. CrashUnderride 10:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I prefer grey too --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I favor the grey line too, it helps point out that "this is unusual". MPJ-US  18:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I still don't see how that helps. Does the word vacant not do the same job to say it is unusual. I dislike the grey area because it makes it seems like that section of the table is unofficial and doesn't count. That vacancy is part of the history, not sure why it has to be singled out.--WillC 03:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Largely because it is not an actual title reign. If your concern is a conflict with the use of grey for unofficial reigns, well, they're not actual title reigns, either, that's why they're unofficial. oknazevad (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
It is still part of the title history. That part is an official part of the history. It goes A then vacant then B. Not A to B which is what the grey area tries to suggest that the vacancy isn't an official part of the history.--WillC 06:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
WWE.com has a list of the title reigns for their championships and they do not list times when the title was vacated unless the title is vacated at that point in time, then they remove it. I do understand it is part of the history, but no one is holding the championship and it helps to distinguish whether someone is holding the title or not. Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that is pretty clear by the word vacant.--WillC 22:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

List format

Alright, lets discuss what format should actually be used for lists. Looking at the style guide, people have been adding and changing stuff with absolutely no discussion or reason as to why things are changed. If we are going to have a format, then lets actually have a consensus. On the above example, I can concede to that format. Who else agrees? Besides that we need to discuss the minor issues as well. Like what types of notes should be included in the table and the coding for the tables as well. Also, lets make it clear what a sortable table even is. You can't rowspan ANY column in these articles. It does not allow proper sorting. Any other issues, please bring them. Considering @MPJ-DK: and I are the only ones to expand any lists recently, I hope the MPJ can bring up some more issues with tables so that we can finally have an agreed upon format that goes by the MoS so that we can update the style guide accordingly.--WillC 06:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I have three questions. First, when the title is deactivated, becasue I saw a lot of articles where the Deactivated line is missing. Second, when a title changes his name. For example, is this article right? Third, use other colours in the table. Like this --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Bzzzz sorry that is not the form of a question. LOL. So the third one, the color and symbol is used to indicate a fundamental change, in this case that a different promotion is actually controlling the title, it is the same title, not a "new federation uses the same NWA name" but continuously lineage, i thought that was a good way to illustrate both that there was not lineage break AND a significant change. I am open to other ideas, that one just fit.the situation. The second point you raise is one i am cruious about too, title name change, i have not strong oppinion either way just looking for consistency before I tackle title history with name changes (ex most of the WCWA/WCCW ones) MPJ-US )

I feel that colors are a good way to handle these issues. I've always liked the idea of using specific colors in an article to highlight important things. Which promotion used the title when, who is the champion, etc. We need to update the articles yes, that isn't going to be accomplished now but in time possibly. With the TNA King of the Mountain Championship I just kept the list one column and noted the name change. Anyone got any better ideas? We keep it sortable this way.--WillC 16:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Color works well, just as long as there's also some symbol, as that takes into account WP:ACCESS (color alone should be used because it may not be distinguishable for color blind readers). That said, the banner across columns to indicate eras isn't a bad solution either, because it's pretty obvious, though as you note, it doesn't stay in the same place in sortable lists. Just two things to think about. oknazevad (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I think we can mark out having any banners based on the sorting issue. We want them to be accessible and useful to readers. Good job on noting ACCESS. We can quote that in the style guide as to why we need to have symbols. That was a concern of mine you solved before I mentioned it.--WillC 17:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Come on people, lets do something productive here for once.--WillC 18:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree to use colors; I feel like almost everyone here agrees to use colors when the title is vacated. If people are just scrolling, they could miss the vacated part and think it's all title reigns, but t's not. Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Good point. Some highlighting for vacancies remains a good idea. oknazevad (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The colors being discussed is not about vacancies, it is in general for several types of issues. It is to be clear as to why and when these colors should be used. Lets have an indepth reason for these things. We may have to argue why lists are the way they are in future. Lets have a way to show consensus.--WillC 00:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Alrighty, color use - not vacancies but the blue, orange, green etc. colors like in the example cited. So first of all, Lucha Libre is weird, there it's out of the way. The title in question has been promoted by a number of different companies - it was created by a wrestling comission, not a promotion - so it moved from EMLL to AAA back to CMLL and so on, the color indicator is to show where there is a major change - specially here a change in who promotes it. An equivalent case could be when TNA controlled the NWA World and tag titles, previous champs were stripped of the title, TNA controlled the title 100%, then at some point they basically gave it back and let the NWA promote it as they created their own titles. If that was treated like the Lucha Libre example we'd highlight the TNA period in a different color - as there was a fundamental shift in who controlled the championship.  MPJ-US  00:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I can agree on all of that. If the majority want to have it included for vacancies I'll concede on that point but I'd like to have a consensus on anything and everything we include. Lets list some changes.
  • Bolding the numbers
  • Using the color for vacant rows
  • Using colors to mark major changes
  • Using correct symbols to mark the champion and major changes with colors
Any other changes? I personally think we need to include that the "As of ???" is to be removed from these articles. I recall some sort of policy against it.--WillC 03:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes the "As of" thing should be out (thought it already was), that is a dated statement and technically two seconds after someone wins the title the "as of" is actually wrong.03:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Ips and new users keep adding it back in and I forget the reason they aren't to be used. This way we can have an agreement on that and get them removed.--WillC 06:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
The "as of" is because the count of days is only accurate when the two line up. An "as of" date is actually needed when there is an active counter to demonstrate that it is not rated info. It should remain. oknazevad (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
That is what the orange color and "+" sign next to days is for, integrated into the list. No need for an additional indicator, it is redundant. MPJ-US  15:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
How about the daggers, do we keep using them to represent the current champion in the "combined reigns" list? I know Aleuuhhmsc has already been actively removing them. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 20:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we would include the daggers. Per Access mentioned above, we should be using symbols with colors. So the "+" will be there to symbolize the change in days for a current reign so we can't use it twice. The dagger will be there to symbolize the current champion with the color code. I motion that we include the color and the dagger in BOTH tables.--WillC 13:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Format

Reigns
# Order in reign history
Reign The reign number for the specific set of wrestlers listed
Event The event promoted by the respective promotion in which the titles were won
+ Indicates the current reign is changing daily
# Wrestlers Reign Date Days
held 		Location Event Notes Ref(s).
1 Booker T 1 October 23, 2008 143 Las Vegas, Nevada TNA Impact Booker T declared himself the first champion after he unveiled the title belt. The title was then known as the TNA Legends Championship and was unsanctioned by TNA in the storyline.
— Vacated — September 26, 2012 — — — The title was vacated due to contract negotiations between TNA and Devon breaking off.
21 Eric Young† 3 January 6, 2016 3,243+ Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Impact Wrestling This episode will air on tape delay on January 12, 2016.
Title Statistics
† Indicates the current champion(s)
Rank[A] Wrestler No. of reigns Combined days
1 Abyss 2 460
2 Eric Young† 3 3,524+
  • I would say that the "—" should have the same background color as the vacated line. This is the first time I have seen the main title list have a color for the current champion, I don't think throwing a new change into this is a smart way to go to get consensus on the list, especially when it just seems to be "be there"  MPJ-US  14:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I wasn't sure myself but I thought I'd see what people were saying. I don't know why it is not highlighting the entire vacant row. It may because we bolded the first column. The coding may not be compatible.--WillC 15:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
      • First, in the title HISTORY, I don't understand why the cell is orange and has the cross, and it doesn't need to be. Speaking of which, I don't understand what the cross is there for anyway because if the current champion's cell in the combined reigns table is orange and the cell in the combined days column has the "+" in it, those are already two things that tell you what the current champion is, so there isn't really a need for a third thing (the cross). Next, if you remove the dark gray background color from the top row of the title history, you'll be able to see the arrows, indicating that the table is sortable. These next two are just nitpicking: but the "Wrestlers" column in the title history should be "Wrestler", and the "Indicates the current champion(s)" label should just be "Indicates the current champion" because there was only one time that I know of that two champions held a singles title (Cena and Punk in 2011); however it should be "Indicates the current champion(s)" if it is a tag title. I would also say that the combined reigns table should be centered just because it looks nicer, but that part isn't my hill to die on, so I don't mind if it isn't. This next one also isn't my hill to die on either, in the combined reigns table, the "No. of reigns" column and the "Combined defenses" column (if applicable) should have breaks after "of" and "Combined", respectively, just to make the "combined days" column look more prominent and save some extra room on the page for pictures and what not, but I won't mind if you guys shut down that idea as well. And lastly, I just don't know EXACTLY what the deal is with the "rowspan" function doing anything wrong to the table sorting, so if someone can explain IN DETAIL what it does to mess it up, then I won't mind if that isn't included. So those are my thoughts and to put it into perspective, this is what I would like the tables to look like: ~Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Reigns
# Order in reign history
Reign The reign number for the specific set of wrestlers listed
Event The event promoted by the respective promotion in which the titles were won
+ Indicates the current reign is changing daily
# Wrestlers Reign Date Days
held 		Location Event Notes Ref(s).
1 Booker T 1 October 23, 2008 143 Las Vegas, Nevada TNA Impact Booker T declared himself the first champion after he unveiled the title belt. The title was then known as the TNA Legends Championship and was unsanctioned by TNA in the storyline.
— Vacated — September 26, 2012 — — — The title was vacated due to contract negotiations between TNA and Devon breaking off.
21 Eric Young 3 January 6, 2016 3,243+ Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Impact Wrestling This episode will air on tape delay on January 12, 2016.
Title Statistics
+ Indicates the current champion
Rank[A] Wrestler No. of
reigns 		Combined days
1 Abyss 2 460
2 Eric Young 3 3,524+
  • First off, the orange in the reigns table was a proposal. Read the discussion to figure that out, it was just explained. The dagger was also explained above in the discussion as following WP:ACCESS. It has also been proposed the combined reigns table be changed to title statistics. The breaks in the names would be pointless since making the combined days column prominent would also be pointless and unneeded. Also, we don't need room for more pictures. An article should be illustrated but not over illustrated. One picture is enough in that section, not multiple. Rowspan does not let a table sort properly. I explained this to you already. With an entire row being rowspaned it harms the overall function of the table. It won't allow correct order of the table. It won't return correct numerical function and/or won't return correct alphabetical function. Several editors can elaborate on this problem. The rest of it I'm indifferent on.--WillC 05:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    • So, I get the idea, but the orange in the title history is unneeded because the "+" in the days held cell and the fact that the title would not be vacated would be good enough to know that someone is holding the title. In addition, I understand why people would want the dagger (WP:ACCESS), but like @MPJ-DK: said before, we already have two indicators in the combined reigns/title statistics table: the orange background and the "+", so we don't need the dagger to be a third indicator. I don't really mind about the breaks in the title statistics so that's fine. Speaking of which, I am actually for changing "Combined reigns" to "Title statistics" (sounds better). Then the last thing is, I'll need some coding guy to explain the rowspan problem to me and I'm good. Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Ok so I have been fixing sorting problems for just the current champion the combined reigns table, but I have yet to see a problem with the rowspan. And also, if wrestlers have a first and last name, shouldn't their names be sorted by their last name instead of their first? If so, I'll get to work on that. Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Well, to put it bluntly, row span fucks up the sorting because it does not maintain the grouping when it's resorted. It's a poor choice. As for sorting first vs last names, I'm ambivalent, because most of the names are fictional anyway, whether they are one word or two. oknazevad (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
          • Can you show me an example of the rowspan screwing up the table? And then I see like TNA, ROH, NJPW, and almost all the other indies pages have their names sorted by last name when applicable so I think I might just get to work on that. Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
        • The title reigns color and dagger addition has already been shot down. I have no idea why you are still discussing it. Secondly, the dagger and color are to remain in the title statistics table. The entire project agrees to not use rowspan, if you've yet to understand the issue after it has been extensively explained to you well that is your problem. Maybe one day you'll grasp it. Rowspan is to not be used under any circumstances. Lastly, sorting is to be done by last name. We have templates that sort the names automatically. As long as people leave the coding in the issue is solved. Once people start removing stuff they don't know about, the entire thing falls apart.--WillC 21:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
          • @Wrestlinglover: Haha ok dude, stop talking to me like I'm ten years old.The rowspan issue has not been extensively explained to me at all; I've been told it screws up the sorting (not very extensive of an explanation). And the dagger issue in the combined reigns table is still being discussed. Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
              • The dagger issue is not an issue at all. We CANNOT just use color. Period. See WP:ACCESS. The use of the dagger fulfills the requirement for some additional symbol, in addition to any color, required by accessibility while also having the benefit of indicating the current reign is increasing the total daily. As for the rowspan, I said what the issue is. Rowspans don't sort property; they will either group together at the bottom of the top the second the default sort is switched. Meaning that they don't accurately act to group the reigns under a promotion properly. Meaning that, without some other form of indicator (like a color and symbol combination), then no one can tell what promotion controlled the title at the time of an individual reign the second the list is taken off default sort. That defeats the purpose and is unacceptable. Do you get it now? oknazevad (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
            • No, I'm blunt. You continually ask the same question so I'm blunt because I'm tired of repeating myself. Sorting is important for functionality for readers to accurately understand what an article suggests and is accessible to all readers. If rowspan prevents sorting, then no rowspan. That simple. Dagger issue is covered too because of WP:ACCESS. That is the MoS and we go by the MoS. No discussion on it. The MoS is wikipedia-wide. Only thing left up to discuss now is any future changes and if there are none then to find out if everyone is in agreement and we have a clear choice of what we are going to have as our official format.--WillC 02:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
              • I think we're good here. I just had one idea that might make sense: what if the symbol we used (in conjunction with color) to indicate which promotion controlled a title during a given reign was a superscript of the promotion's name next to the wrestler's name? Would that work? Or should it be in a different column? Or maybe a column of its own? Just some ideas. oknazevad (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure we would want a superscript of the name. It may look odd, but I won't have to deal with that issue much. However, it will make a huge difference in numerous articles connected to Mexican wrestling, WCW, ECW, NWA, and the WWE. I wonder what @MPJ-DK: thinks about that since he basically started the color schemes. Besides that, I want to put it up to the project now to give final approval of the format listed below. This includes adding color schemes for important instances of the title being in another promotion, etc.--WillC 15:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Just to be sure, the proposal is "La Sombra[CMLL]" basically? That is not a bad idea, conveys the same info as the symbol but is much more readily understandable. I don't have a problem with that, but also.on strong feelinging either way, i am happy to go with the consensus on that and adjust articles if need be. MPJ-US  15:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Reigns
# Order in reign history
Reign The reign number for the specific set of wrestlers listed
Event The event promoted by the respective promotion in which the titles were won
+ Indicates the current reign is changing daily
# Wrestler Reign Date Days
held 		Location Event Notes Ref(s).
1 Booker T 1 October 23, 2008 143 Las Vegas, Nevada TNA Impact Booker T declared himself the first champion after he unveiled the title belt. The title was then known as the TNA Legends Championship and was unsanctioned by TNA in the storyline.
— Vacated — September 26, 2012 — — — The title was vacated due to contract negotiations between TNA and Devon breaking off.
21 Eric Young 3 January 6, 2016 3,243+ Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Impact Wrestling This episode will air on tape delay on January 12, 2016.
Title Statistics
† Indicates the current champion
Rank[A] Wrestler No. of reigns Combined days
1 Abyss 2 460
2 Eric Young† 3 3,524+
As I said, looks good to me. I'm not sure about "title statistics" as a header; that says things like start date, oldest Champ, etc (the stuff that's in the infobox on the main page) to me. Maybe "title summary"? But other than that, I have no issues.
The more I think on it, the more I think the promotion should just be a separate column, which itself could be colored. It's the easiest to read and allows for the msot flexible sortability. oknazevad (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
How about we keep it as title statistics and just add more information to that table? We could add the age of the champions if we can source it. Mark who has the longest reign. Include defenses, etc.--WillC 17:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok so I gave up and just added the daggers to all the combined reigns tables, and then @Oknazevad:, who I believe agreed to use the daggers, and some other people have removed them, so now I'm REALLY fucking confused here. Do we use them or not? Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes. I managed to confuse myself and reverted. But truthfully we don't need to jump into doing something right away, especially when only three people have commented. I'd wait before making any other changes to see if there's further comments. There no deadline. oknazevad (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
True, but I do these lists every day and when I have nothing else to do, haha I'm just like, better to do this now than later, so it's whatever Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it appears everyone is in agreement on this. I'll update the style guide momentarily.--WillC 20:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Elimination Chamber winners

I've nominated it for deletion for the same reason as the Royal Rumble Final Four template. CrashUnderride 04:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:TNA Gauntlet for the Gold

Noticed this one tonight. Similar to the one above about the Elimination Chamber, I think this should go. Like the EC, and unlike the Rumble of MITB, this isn't a singular annual event, but irregular match type, albeit a somewhat rarer one and therefore more notable than others, but not the sort of thing that should have a navbox. oknazevad (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The real question... do we have some rule about when we should create a template? For example, Template:The Brood, Template:New Breed (ECW), Template:The Corre, Template:Bound for Glory Series seem pretty unnecesary to me... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, faction navboxes are pretty common, even if some of those are kinda small (none have only three entries, which I would consider too small for a navbox, even if the group's only had three members at a given time). The BFG series one would be appropriate if they had continued it past 2013, as that's the sort of regular, recurring consistent event that makes for a good navbox (like the Rumble and MITB), but alas, they didn't, so at three years it's not enough for a navbox (especially when Millville links go back to the same page; clearly we don't treat the individual tournaments as notable enough for a separate article, so why have a no box based around that?) oknazevad (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
If I am remembering correctly, the faction navbox templates came about because Good Topics need to be linked together like that in order to be promoted. IMO, it's overkill. Nikki♥311 00:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete it, completely pointless. TNA has used that like a No DQ match. Way more matches than that template even lists. As for navboxes in general. They do connect to good and featured topics. That is where it all started and then random new users and ips started creating new ones after new ones to the point we couldn't keep track of them anymore.--WillC 07:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I feel the same. Delete the template. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Heel, Face, etc.

Okay so some articles describe a wrestler/manager as a heel or face. Others say good guy or bad guy. Others say villain or villainess, etc. Is there a consensus as to what term should be used? I'm just sick and tired of seeing different variations. I personally would prefer to use heel and face and then have them link to the Glossary of professional wrestling terms like they do...or used too. I dunno. But that's just my opinion. CrashUnderride 12:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:JARGON says to not use face or heel. But if they are used they have to be explained. No way around that. The MoS. If we ignore the MoS, we'll basically be screwing ourselves at getting better quality articles. I'm having an issue at DYK over quoting the Pro Wrestling Torch. Jargon will only make the issues worse.--WillC 20:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Yep I agree, I use heel/face (or tecnico/rudo) but the first time it is mentioned I would include something along the way of "Those that portray the good guys" or words to that effect. Like Will pointed out, Jargon is okay as long as it's explained the first time. MPJ-US  20:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Heel and face are the long-established proper terms in the field. Those who don't know this yet should, and we're the Wikiproject to teach them. No different from talking about an ectothermic amniotic squamate's cloaca. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Hence the point of the policy. Explain jargon terms. They even explain snake.--WillC 21:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Linking to an on-Wikipedia glossary is an acceptable way to cover jargon. It's what they do for cue sports and tennis articles, and many of those are featured articles.
Again, though, Will, I really don't think trying to make every article exactly match the MOS is needed for FAs; as someone who watches WT:MOS, I will simply tell you that there are a lot of featured articles that do not follow it exactly, as it's a guideline, not rules. Indeed, treating the MOS that way is tail-wagging-dog territory; the MOS is supposed to document best practices, not dictate them. And let me be honest here, I'd rather have articles that read well and don't insult out readers' intelligence than follow a checklist made by pedants. oknazevad (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I prefer villain or fan-favorite. I don't mind heel/face being used if they are linked and explained the first time. I, however, don't think jargon should be used in headers. Easy alternative headers can be found so that the articles aren't violating WP:JARGON in large bold text. Nikki♥311 07:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Came here to post pretty much the same as Nikki. Lately I've been reverting IPs who think Lawler's recent heel turn needs its own section. Personally I wouldn't mind limiting heel/face to very rare occasions and using fan favorite/villain as a frequent alternative, but headers need to stay clear of jargon altogether.LM2000 (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I dislike "villain" or "fan favorite" - certain people who are faces, so booked as such, working against heels etc. are not "fan favorites", it implies that everyone who works as a face is popular with the fans. Heels is usually clearer, but "villain" sounds like they all twirl their moustaches while making evil plots. MPJ-US  14:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
^ I agree with that. I personally have no problem using face/heel and linking to the definition and/or (good guy/bad guy) the first time they are used. I've seen that and think it's reasonable. Because as MPJ said, not all faces are fan favorites, such as Roman Reigns early last year, some may say even up 'til now. CrashUnderride 14:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree that "face" and "heel" have more subtleties that hero, villian, and especially "fan-favorite" (which I think is the worst of the "insulting our readers" terms we use). One cannot write an article about baseball without using terms like "strike", "fastball" or "third baseman", nor can one write about tennis without using terms like "serve", "return", or "set". Nor can one write about theatre without terms like "swing" or "understudy". Likewise, one cannot write about pro wrestling without the terms "face" and "heel" without looking incompetent. Yes, they are jargon, but they're fundamental jargon, like the positions on a team sport, the fundamentals of scoring in a sport, or key positions in a theatrical production. Which, considering pro wrestling's nature as essentially a form of theatre made to look like a sport, is an appropriate guide to how we should approach this. Sports and theatre articles just link to the term in its own article or the appropriate glossary and use the actual term. No Easter egg link nonsense like [[Face (professional wrestling)|fan-favorite]], which is itself against guidelines. We should do the same, and stop assuming out readers are idiots. oknazevad (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
    • ^ Holy crap! That's the PERFECT way to compare it! I never once thought of it like that, even though I edit American football articles all the time. It's like saying someone recorded a sack. You link to it so someone who doesn't know what a sack is can go to the article and see what it is. CrashUnderride 16:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful not to include original research, though. We can't call someone a face or heel unless a reliable source does because the distinctions are not so cut and dry. I also notice things like "beginning his heel turn" or "cementing/solidifying his face turn" which is all OR without a source. Nikki♥311 01:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

That's true, but if we can come to a consensus here and add it to the style guide, at least we'd have something to point to. Nikki♥311 03:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll say this much, I think progress is being made. lol. Not to mention I agree with Starship above about OR. It's always IP's who are smarks and think they know everything. lol CrashUnderride 07:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I prefer using none of the terms. Why? Because we can't honestly say what either character is. Is Roman Reigns a face? How can he be when the fans boo him? Is Cena a face? How can he be when the fans boo him? Is Cena or Reigns heel because the fans boo them? No, because they are designed to be faces. They are subjective and really shouldn't be in articles about events, matches, or people in general. Yes there are storylines but we live in an age where evil vs good doesn't happen in wrestling much more. I think people get too caught up in this. The ips and new users want wrestling to still be legit so they hold onto wanting to use the terms which to me symbolizes trying to be smarks. In the disclaimer, use the terms if you desire but explain them. If you don't like fan favorite or villain use something else. Use protagonist and antagonist. I personally always liked using tweener since most characters are that. Articles should be the best quality they can be. Sacrificing quality because we want to use jargon is going backwards. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Why is it people want this to be a fansite that covers every little detail of characters and storylines? I'm not sure this is even an issue anymore. Why do we desire to ignore a policy that has been discussed for 8 years in favor of a bunch of terms that really add very little to articles other than making ourselves feel good inside? Not sure they improve quality at all, all they do is confuse people unfamiliar.--WillC 07:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Faces are meant to be fan favorites, cheered by fans. Heels are meant to be hated by fans. They don't depend on fan reaction, but on the writing. There's a difference in saying "Cena is a fan favorite" and "Cena is written to be cheered by fans". starship.paint ~ KO 08:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • And that is the point, they are meant too but they are not. Cena acts like a babyface but he isn't really a babyface because they fans are against him. He has thus become a tweener. He is not a face nor a heel, just like most characters anymore. I dislike the term fan favorite myself. I see no issue with the term villain because that is what a heel is, a villain. Fan favorite always seemed weird to me.--WillC 15:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "Meant to but are not" is the exact reason why we should not use other terms than face and heel. Cena is booked as a face, he fights the heels, he overcomes the odds ya-da-ya. Just because he's not popular with SOME people that does not mean he's not a face, saying otherwise is OR. Same with a heel, just because he's popular with the fans does not mean he's not booked as a heel.  MPJ-US  15:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Heels don't sell bibs and stickers. Those bibs and stickers are why your fan favourite still has a job (unless your favourite was the best in the world). Apparently, Cena is impressionable kids' only option. Don't be fooled by the deep-voiced crowd. They're a dying breed. Viva la Diva Revolution! InedibleHulk (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
In case anyone's wondering, real heels sell children phony cancer cures and the dream of looking sexy like the TV. And that's all. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem here is the misunderstanding of the term. Face original meant the crowd favorite. Literally you have to be cheered by the crowd to be a face. You also have to be booed by the crowd to be a heel. That was the entire idea behind it. You have your hero and you have your villain. My issue with it is where are the sources to establish who is a heel and who is a face? What do we call Samoa Joe's 2005 TNA run? What about CM Punk's entire WWE Title run where one moment he was a good guy then randomly a bad guy? My issue is it is entirely subjective at who is what. Besides that, you can still use heel and face. That was always agreed upon. But you have to explain what they are. Did everyone forget we already have a consensus on this? That you can use heel and face but explain it. Again I repeat why is this an issue? It has already been solved.--WillC 22:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

To the former, Darth Vader is most certainly a villain by any measure; he's certainly written as one. But he's the most popular character, the one that people actually cheer. Doesn't make him any less of a villain. Or heel, if you will. (Dusty impression). Now not all faces are perfectly morally upstanding individuals, and not all heels are utterly devious and irredeemable. But the concepts of anti-hero and anti-blvillain are not unique to pro wrestling.
As for the supposed solution, that's exactly what we have problems with. It's the explanations are usually awkwardly shoehorned in, which makes for poor writing, and so over-simplified as to loose all sense of subtlety in the use of the proper terms to the point where it treats our readers as children. Other fields ha e no issues with linking to a glossary (or full article in these cases), why shouldn't we do the same? That's the question. That's why there's an issue. There's a lot of dissatisfaction with the current solution. oknazevad (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Here is a reliable definition. See babyface or heel -> wrestler that promoter books in position to be cheered / booed. Booking is key, not actual fan reaction, Wrestlinglover. starship.paint ~ KO 07:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay so the excuse to not explain them is that people don't know how to write well. So we are going to sacrifice quality of an article because some editors can't even use English properly? That is like letting the house burn down because you spilled wine on the carpet. Again, I repeat where is the issue? We have a consensus on this and a policy. If the argument is to use the terms, we already have covered this. WP:JARGON exists people. Explain the terms out. If you can't write, then why are you even on this website?--WillC 08:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Same PWTorch definition: "The "good guy" or "hero." & "The "bad guy" or "villain."" - Same stuff we just discussed. We aren't getting anywhere. To me it appears people just don't want the jargon terms explained. Nothing constructive here. Always saying that we are making the fans feel stupid. This is not a fansite. This is an encyclopedia. If a select number of people feel stupid then maybe they are. Not our issue. Quality of an article that is for all readers is the objective. The consensus on the books is use the term, link to the term, but explain the term. It takes one to 2 words to do such. Put hero or villain in parenthesis. If an editor can't figure out such a simple solution, then they shouldn't be writing articles.--WillC 08:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:JARGON exists so science, mathematics, engineering, medical, etc. articles don't devolve into graduate-level subject area textbooks one of research papers published in a journal that needs a Ph.D. in the subject to understand. Not to prevent articles on a sport or art form (of which pro wrestling is both) from using basic fundamental vocabulary.
Again, here's where I believe our disconnect lies. You seem particularly worried about FA status. Others don't. I personally think that reviewers' demands have actively made articles worse as they've required things that I'd call insulting to readers, like that dumb paragraph explaining the scripted nature of professional wrestling on every article about a PPV or title. That's the Wikipedia equivalent of that annoying guy who says "you know it's fake" anytime someone mentions they like pro wrestling, as if the person is a dumb rube. It does not improve article quality. At all. It actively makes it worse, because it's patronizing.
That's my problem, you will go out of your way to appease them instead of arguing that it's common knowledge, doesn't need to be stated in every article, and even if someone doesn't know that it's scripted, there's a link right there to the main article that explains that it is. In short, if passing FA status requires making articles redundantly state common knowledge in a terribly patronizing way like that annoying guy, then I've got two words for them. oknazevad (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Will what's wrong with what I said before of having the terms face and heel link [[here? I mean really, they click the link, "Oh hey! A face is someone who's supposed to be a cheered and heel's someone who's supposed to be booed." Also Will, would you please try to stop coming across as so patronizing? CrashUnderride 16:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I only seem patronizing because I look at this as an outside viewer. You say this is common knowledge. I use the terms heel and face with my own father who watched wrestling in the 60s and 70s. He has no idea what they mean. You have looked at these terms as a wrestling fan and not as the common audience. This is an encyclopedia meant for ALL people, not just wrestling fans. These terms are not common knowledge. Jargon specifically states the purpose of explaining jargon terms and why they should not be solely used and linked. I am entirely fine with linking them. It has always been agreed on to use them as long as they are explained. You both back up my argument that you only observe the issue as wrestling fans and not as the common audience when you complain about a disclaimer regarding the scripted nature of a product that week in and week out markets itself as being a legitimate sport and that we for some reason should entirely look over this fact because it means nothing. Now this is where I will take your argument and show you that it is unfounded. "from using basic fundamental vocabulary" - We use the names of the finishing moves for wrestlers. We use their ring names. We use the match types. We even discuss the ridiculous storylines like the Boogeyman biting off a mole. We use absolutely every single term in the industry but we explain them. We have not been restricted once. I use the word spot in the reception section. I don't even explain the moves exactly as they happen like the old days, instead I simple explain that they were slammed back-first to the mat with the Black Hole Slam. The only issue you have is that heel and face are explained as heros and villains. You have a problem with 2 extra words. So your basic argument of we can't have a vocabulary is complete and utterly asinine and unfounded. You haven't written an article to my knowledge nor do you even know the process behind the work and the involvement. You are complaining about something while standing on the outside looking in saying we don't even have a basic vocabulary. Then you say that jargon is only for CERTAIN ARTICLES. No it is the Manual of Style. It is for every single article. I am particularly worried about the peer review process. Quality is determined by a group of individuals assessing the level of work contributed to an article and whether it meets a certain standard. I actually believe in having an encyclopedia edited by users voluntarily to give accurate knowledge on subjects to mankind instead of creating a fansite so people can mark out like they understand the business. My point is to provide quality articles that ANYONE can read and understand that provide all bits of information at a professional and efficient style. You may actually want to check the MoS because it discusses linking several times. One statement is that linking alone is sometimes not enough and that certain terms and information should be explained in the body so that an article actually covers all information. You don't want a read jumping from article to article and never finishing the previous because it didn't provide all relevant information. You'd know that if you read the MoS. And while you say it is common knowledge, please show me where the meaning of face and heel is common knowledge to the majority of people who read wikipedia articles in general. It is common knowledge to wrestling fans but this is not a wrestling wiki. Again, back to my first statement you think of this as a wrestling fan, not from a neutral perspective.--WillC 02:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Wow, way too long and completely missing my point. Again. My point is that pro wrestling is scripted is common knowledge. Not that all the terms specific to the field are common knowledge. It's the idea that we have to spell that out in every friggin article that I find patronizing and insulting. I think our readers are smart enough to know that without having to put it in every article. I also don't think we need to dumb every wrestling article down by completely avoiding terms of art in pro wrestling in every article. How does that help educate the reader? How is that not patronizing? That's my point. That's always been my point. oknazevad (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, here's what I'm saying, in plain simple text: "[Insert name here] attacked [insert other name here] thus turning heel (or face depending on the situation)." All the outside user would have to do is click the damn word to see what it means! It's not that friggin' hard to do!!!! After all, that's why we have articles, so people who don't know what something is can click a link, go to the article and "Oh, that's what it is, okay." and go back, but no, you wanna make it here. Well there's the damn example I've been trying to get through to you for a damn week now!!!! UGH! I'm gonna take a break. CrashUnderride 16:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

How is explaining the truth patronizing? Explain to me why it insults fans intelligence to tell them something they know. Again that repeats my argument. If this is common knowledge then why is stating the truth a problem? It is common knowledge that Brock Lesnar returned to WWE. Why do we have him listed in articles when it was a media sensation? Because it happened and it is notable. Why is stating that an event had 9 matches which involved people playing characters and not theirself in a storyline that focuses on an industry that tries to make itself seem legitimate not notable? Oh yes because wrestling fans are insulted by the...TRUTH? It is even more important in moments where the scripted nature of the program became legitimate. Take the Montreal Screwjob and when CM Punk went a little too green in his shoot promo and went too far. Or how Punk left the WWE with the title. Was that storyline or was that real? Not even wrestling fans know exactly everything behind that situation. To this day some claim the Screwjob was an agreement by Hart and Vince. How can we say anything is common knowledge when the entire point of the industry was always to script things to see real when they weren't. This is notable information on PPVs. Because really that is the only place the disclaimer is besides on championships. Bios discuss the person's life, not the storylines. When I hear people complain about the disclaimer I get annoyed because it seems like people miss the entire point. A PPV is an article covering the event in question, not the story behind the matches. It covers the production to the event, what happened at the event, how the event was received and how well it performed, what happened after the event, and the promotion of the event besides other things. The storylines don't play a large role in the creation of a PPV article. A championship covers who won the title, not the storylines. The bios cover the career and life of a person. The scripted nature really is a minor issue, so why is the disclaimer explaining that this one section here may not be entirely legitimate such a huge issue? So while you say we explain it in every article, we don't. The articles cover specific subjects that don't focus on the scripted nature. You also talk about how we dumb it down. Go read Bound for Glory IV and tell me where I dumbed it down to where a wrestling fan does not understand it. Look at Hard Justice (2008) and find the same issues. I talked about the promotion to a match that actually mattered, not the minor week by week stuff like brawling and random promos. Why? Because that isn't notable since it happens literally every week. Meanwhile as for the face and heel stuff, I repeat above that the MoS says that some things need to be explained out and that linking alone is not enough. Also what about those situations where Big Show and Kane turn heel and face every 2 weeks. Explain to me how it betters an article to have a person's bio read "Turned heel by attacking A. Turned face by saving B. Turned heel by turning on B and aiding A." It doesn't, because that is the in universe perspective behind the situations at hand regarding week by week events. My stance is that people have a limited understanding of the problem and that they are hating something without even looking into it.--WillC 01:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Ranze and Triple H's 14 WWE World Heavyweight Championship reigns

What's good folks? Just dropping by to say my hellos and all that sexy stuff. Listen, I've noticed a particular issue that's been going on as it relates to WWE replacing the use of their amalgamating "#-time World Champion" terminology with "#-time WWE World Heavyweight Champion". Of course, User:Ranze has taken this thing quite literally, and as such, is causing a few disruptive edits here and there. I've chimed in at both Talk:Triple H#14-time WWE World Heavyweight Champion and Talk:WWE World Heavyweight Championship#3 8 8 9 12 v 4 10 12 14 15, and of course by chimed in I mean wrote a long ass detailed essay with big words and such. I'll check my snarky tone now. Anyway, I invite the project to drop by either talk page (Mainly Talk:Triple H#14-time WWE World Heavyweight Champion) and chime in as well. --UnquestionableTruth-- 06:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

That chime was larger and scarier than The Undertaker's dong. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Ranze's just not getting it. If they keep making these sweeping edits across various articles throughout the wikiproject every time they find a new source that uses world championship/WWE World Heavyweight Championship interchangeably (I reverted their IP on Big Show and Chris Jericho today) then I'll take it to AN/I and seek them to be topic banned from pro wrestling articles.LM2000 (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Please do. Seriously, he accuses everyone else of original research for counting from the official title history from wwe.com, while himself saying "they said a and they said b, so c must be true" without ever finding something that actually says "c" at all, which is the very definition of WP:SYNTH, explicitly called out as a form of original research. In other words, he lacks competence. (And no, counting, like any routine calculation, is not in any way original research.) oknazevad (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
On WWE.com, 2 + 2 = 5 is a routine calculation. The Classics section, on the other hand, is something like the Brotherhood. We can trust them. But we shouldn't, or we'd start to believe Jimmy Garvin was the third Freebird. Who could forget Buddy "The Snake" Roberts? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

One more combined reigns formatting question

This isn't a big deal to me, and I'm just curious to see what people say so I can get started on editing if necessary. Should the wrestlers column in the combined reigns table be LEFT-ALIGNED or CENTERED? Thanks for the input Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Left aligned, I think, S they're a list of names, which are conventionally left aligned. oknazevad (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Changed my mind. Forgot they have the rank number column to the left. Leave it centered, it reads better. oknazevad (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Some policy cited at FL started that. Apparently the MoS says names should be left-aligned.--WillC 07:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
So again the one doesn't know what the other is doing. Not surprised. The regulars who act like they own the MOS have a habit of pontificating pronouncements that we are supposed to ooh and ah at while scurrying to comply, but they don't actually look at what the FA/FL guys are doing, which is what's being promoted as the best content on Wikipedia. And at the same time, neither properly coordinate with the projects who actually might know some of the quirks of the subject matter that would require, or just look better, with something different than what the MOS regulars would dictate. And when they do invoke WP:IAR, a core policy, to ignore their longwinded pontifications, they trot out some idiotic, arrogant essay claiming specialist style fallacies or that any such discussion is WP:CONLIMITED (even though that is exactly the sort of "rule" that IAR is supposed to ignore) to justify their edit warring. All while completely ignoring that if dozens of contributors across hundreds of articles have settled on a style, a half dozen navel-gazers themselves constitute a limited consensus. Because they can't get over their self-appointed importance as the keepers of the precious MOS. fools are the exact sort of arrogant idiots that have lead to plunging participation rates and the winnowing of tthe editor base to a fraction of peak. Because they want to be the elite keepers of Wikipedia. Which is exactly against the point. oknazevad (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Fun Fact: Crash Holly is the only person to leave Rebellion with a new title. Death or glory you will find. If it's glory, count me in! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Bret Hart

I hate to be morbid, but I think considering Bret Hart's recent statement that he has prostate cancer, it isn't a bad plan to revive the Weekly Project Collaboration for a week to get the article in better condition. I'll be working on it anyway, so feel free to join me. Nikki♥311 09:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

WWF Championship/WWF World Heavyweight Championship

I'm probably not the only one getting tired of watching this slow-moving edit war. I have a bunch of mid-1990s WWF pay-per-views (1992-1995) on my watchlist, and people have been changing the name of this title back and forth for a couple of months now. Do we have a consensus on what they should be called? Some people have also been renaming the Intercontinental Championship to the Intercontinental Heavyweight Championship, but I have been reverting that, as that name was never used. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The WWF Championship infobox tell it like it is. The IC one is a bit off on the timeframe, but never say never. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
As of 1989 in the Boston Garden, the WWF champ is "heavyweight", the IC champ is not and Alfred Hayes thinks the Warrior is electric in 1998. And he was right. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling

Please see the discussion about the appropriate title for the article at the above link. oknazevad (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Fastlane (2015) article being vandalized

Can someone please revert and lock. Vandals originating here [1]--Endlessdan (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is the place. Make sure to mention that it wound up on Reddit; admins are more likely to lol I down an article if they think the vandalism is being caused by an outside factor. oknazevad (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

NJPW Dojo

An IP created an "article" for the Dojo removing a redirect. I tagged it for notability. Someone with more experience with NJPW needs to take over. CrashUnderride 12:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I reworked the sole actual paragraph to conform more with Wikipedia style. As it stands, it's pretty much a straightforward stub. I think the Dojo might just be notable enough for its own article, but the thing certainly needs a lot of work. oknazevad (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Removed the empty "Female" categories. Perhaps if this turns out well, we can make an AJW Dojo. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Signatures and finishers

Hello! My question is where certain moves in the In wrestling section where they are labeled "sometimes used as a finisher" or "rarely used as a finisher" go. Would they be in the signatures section labeled "sometimes used as a finisher" or in the finishers section labled "sometimes used as a signature". In the Alberto Del Rio article, his Superkick move is labled "sometimes used as a finisher" and is in the signatures section, and currently, Cody Rhodes' springboard kick is under Finishers and is labled "used mostly as a signature". "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 07:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The eternal problem with these sections is they're largely sourced through synthesis of match results. If they followed the simpler verifiability standards most of Wikipedia does, things sources call finishers would be finishers, and those called signatures wouldn't. No easy answers when everybody's an analyst. In my eyes, a finisher is inherently a signature, while only some signatures are finishers, so I'd lean toward filling up the latter. I'm pretty sure everybody on the WWE roster has won at least four matches with a schoolboy rollup after a distraction. Maybe it should be in every section.
Short answer: Whatever feels right to you. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Global Force Wrestling

Can we get a company logo on the page? CrashUnderride 02:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If you mean are we allowed, yes, fair use covers those. If you're asking someone else to do it, that sounds like a great idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I know I've seen the company logo in that infobox before, at least two different versions actually, whoever uploaded it must not have filled out the fail use form correctly.LM2000 (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Or uploaded it to commons inappropriately. Frankly I sometimes feel that commons should change their procedures to take into account the obvious mistakes and convert items that should be fair use but were accidentally yet inappropriately uploaded as free use into local fair use. I do understand that that would be time consuming though, so I can understand why they wouldn't.
The other major issue is the transfer of things to commons that shouldn't be because of a misapplied free tag, and then just deleting them on commons when someone else sees that it shouldn't be free use.
Of course, sometimes the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing there. I once tagged two files each showing the same logo (one in .png, the other .svg) for speedy removal as a copyvio. The one file was deleted by one admin there, while the other was retained by another admin as being public domain for being just plain text and shape (it really isn't), so clearly there's no firm standards that apply. Frankly, I'm fully of the opinion that files should be locally uploaded, and marked as do not transfer, unless they are fully user created. Logos should never be there, because the threshold of originality is too ill-defined. oknazevad (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Hulk I meant that someone should upload it. CrashUnderride 01:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I uploaded a logo.LM2000 (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It's beautiful. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
It is better than their first one, which resembles logos seen on boxes of Dollar General toys.LM2000 (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, it's the same crappy dollar store toy logo, just with an explosion in the background instead of a globe (which at least made sense considering their name). Such an overhyped non-entity. Only known for being the losing side in an even-worse rerun of the Invasion angle that no one cared about at all, with no TV deal and like 5 episodes the the can that no one will ever see. Jarret should just give it up.oknazevad (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
But he's got a new hat! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Aye. The first one's not as bad as "Exciting Hour", at least. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Undertaker problem editor returns

Please weigh in. B. Mastino (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of the Undertaker article, some of the nicknames are sourced to an old version of his WWE biography page, which is not even available through Internet Archive. We currently have no sources for The Best Pure Striker, The Cornerstone, and The Master of Mind Games. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Works? [2] [3] [4] --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion about Brodus Clay

An editor has requested that {{subst:linked|Talk:Brodus Clay}} be moved to {{subst:#if:|{{subst:linked|{{{2}}}}}|another page}}{{subst:#switch: project |user | USER = . Since you had some involvement with 'Talk:Brodus Clay', you |#default = , which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You}} are invited to participate in [[{{subst:#if:|{{subst:#if:|#{{{section}}}|}}|{{subst:#if:|Talk:Brodus Clay#{{{section}}}|{{subst:TALKPAGENAME:Talk:Brodus Clay}}}}}}|the move discussion]]. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 13:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Martimc123

I have added a few new suspected sockpuppets of User:Martimc123 to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martimc123 (User:Lovelucha, User:195.23.157.50, and User:193.236.57.121). Feel free to add any more or comment if you are familiar with these editors, or suspect any other accounts to be connected. Nikki♥311 02:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Common knowledge

For titles, do we really need this:

"Because the championship is a professional wrestling championship, it is not won or lost competitively but instead by the decision of the bookers of a wrestling promotion. The championship is awarded after the chosen team "wins" a match to maintain the illusion that professional wrestling is a competitive sport." Copied from SMW Beat the Champ Television Championship.

I mean, really? Who, old enough to use the internet and use Wikipedia still thinks pro wrestling is real? CrashUnderride 01:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Kids. Kids these days in elementary school have smart phones and tablets. They could very easily find a Wikipedia article of a pro-wrestling championship. --JDC808 ♫ 03:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Then they should be old enough to know it's scripted. But let's be serious, for the most part, people that come to these articles know it's scripted and don't need to be reminded, in every, single championship and pay-per-view event article. CrashUnderride 13:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I've been saying the same thing for months. Frankly, I find it actively makes the articles worse, and insults out readers' intelligence. I don't give a damn if the featured article reviewers demanded it once some years ago. I don't really care about those labels, especially if they make the articles actively worse, which this does. It's common knowledge that pro wrestling is scripted. We don't need to state it in every f-ing article. In fact, if anything, it's insulting to us as fans, because it demands that we act like this popular, well known form of entertainment, whose scripted nature is well known, is obscure and still secretive. It's like those obnoxious twits who say "you know it's fake" every time someone mentions pro wrestling. I say we toss those passages out. oknazevad (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

So my two cents. 1) never assume common knowledge is actually that common 2) these are not articles for wrestling fans, but encylopedic articles. MPJ-US  17:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No, but we don't go around mentioning in every article about a film or a play that they are fictional. It's considered fundamental knowledge that's covered by the link to the main article. No reason to treat pro wrestling any differently. That's the point. oknazevad (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Films have a clearly distinct "plot" section separate from the rest. Using the word "championship" implies competitiveness, that it is won. For arricles on wrestlers, nah it is not needed, but when the article is about something callled a "championship" it needs to be pointed out, common definition of a championship does include it being a competitive situation, but that is not the case in pro wrestling. The terms means something different than the common definition, so it should be stated. Let us take a hypthetical situation. I the glorious sport of three handed mosstossing "hot dog" means you threw the moss the longest. Articles about "Most Hot Dogs in International games" shluld explain what that is.  MPJ-US  18:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

SERIOUS problems at The Undertaker

Over the last few months, the clearly WP:OWN-violating User:Akash3141 (who reverts and directs shocking, WP:CIVIL-violating abuse at anyone who challenges his "work": [5][6][7]), has been allowed to turn The Undertaker into a literal fan site. No one seems committed to doing anything about this user and his edits largely stand, compromising the integrity of a hugely important article within pro wrestling. See the fourth paragraph of lede (the unnecessary addition of which makes for five paragraphs and goes against four paragraphs per WP:LEDE), and the "Legacy" section, which are most hyperbolic of all. 82.132.225.9 (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

There's an AN/I thread about this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Akash3141.LM2000 (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
New AN/I thread here after problematic edits continue but no action taken after first thread.LM2000 (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Update: User:Akash3141 has been blocked indefinitely. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

'New' editor creating heaps of pages

Someone from this project may wish to take a look at the creatuons of Machopitcho (talk · contribs) and also Thenumberoneinworld (talk · contribs).

  • I totally agree that it's 99.999999% the same guy/gal. I checked into it and there is a sock puppet investigation going on and rightly so. I really don't understand this person, repeating the behavior that got them blocked multiple times already? Is anyone really THAT bored? MPJ-US  12:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Blocked and deleted, ho hum. Bored, or obsessed! 220 of Borg 06:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

PPV Posters

SummerSlam 2014 article has a low quality PPV poster, 2015 a high quality PPV poster. Are there some new PPVs that have PPV posters that aren't available in high quality? Is that something that needs fixing?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

They're supposed to be in low resolution per WP:NONFREE. I've been downgrading some of them. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 20:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
While that's true, "low" is a vague word. When you can't read even the tagline without zooming, I think that's a little too low. Holding ads to the same standards as other works is a bit against the spirit of the law, I find. WWE sold them in the first place so the public could see them. If anything, we're not only respecting its commercial opportunities, but helping them, through making these at least legible. A happy medium quality, perhaps. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

WWE.com redesign

Just a heads up, WWE.com launched a new design today. Lots of links have been changed or outright deleted from the website (such as individual pages of championship reigns). Prefall 01:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Surf's Up 2: WaveMania

The official Twitter accounts for John Cena, Paige, and Triple H confirmed that WWE Studios is releasing a sequel to Surf's Up titled Surf's Up 2: WaveMania. Can someone who's more rounded with citations add one to the sequel section of the first Surf's Up movie's page? I've found the following articles and webpages to go alongside the official tweets.

--  THE $R$. Habla!  Hancock!  20:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Stephanie, the wrestler

Vjmlhds (talk · contribs) included Stephanie McMahon under the Divas section in the WWE Roster. However, steph isn't a wrestler, her role in WWE is Authority figure. He explained his editions in the talk page.but... steph isn't a wrestler. She had two matches in 2014. Before that, her last match was in 2003. So... can somebody help us? Who's right, who's wrong? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

A wrestler is simply one who wrestles. As I explained to HHH Pedrigree (talk · contribs), Shane McMahon, Stephanie McMahon, and HHH are all essentially player-coaches within WWE...they don't get in there every week, but they do when they have to, and are treated as big deals when they do. I explained the idea of player-coaches in regards to "real" sports, and that the McMahons are filling those roles in WWE. As I also explained to HHH Pedrigree, you can't have tunnel vision regarding this stuff...gotta see the whole picture. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Again, your argument to include steph in the wrestler section is "she is a major attraction". Again, wrestlers is not a section to major attractions, is a section to wrestlers. i don't see the "player" in Stephanie, she was a wrestler 10 years ago, now, she isn't. The article shows the people under WWE contract and their current status. No tunnel vision, we can't include stephanie under the wrestlers section because she wrestled one decade ago. RIGHT NOW, she is an on air authority figure. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
People don't pay to see Steph stand in the corner or cut promos...they pay to see Nikki Bella kick her @$$, which is what Summerslam 2014 was centered on. And your focus on RIGHT NOW is the epitome of tunnel vision - completely disregarding everything else for right now this second. Stephanie is no different than her brother or her husband - doesn't wrestle full time, but gets in there when she has to because people will pay to see her get beat up...THAT is what a WRESTLER is. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
She wrestled two matches in summerslam. So? Michael Cole has a wrestlemania match. Your entire point is "Stephanie MCMahon has an important on screen role in WWE, so she is a wreslter". WRONG. She has an important role in WWE as authority figure, a non-wrestling role. So, she doesn't belong under Wrestlers section. Yes, RIGHT NOW. The entire article is about the current status in WWE. If Daniel Bryan retires, he'll be moved to other section. If Jerry Lawler appears as a regular wrestler, he'll move to wrestlers section. NOW, Steph isn't a wrestler. She had two matches two years ago (before that, she had her last match in 2003). Steph isn't HHH or McMahon. Her previous career isn't a reason to include her in a wrong section. A wrestler is not a man/woman "people will pay to see her get beat up...". A wrestler is a man/woman who wrestle. (I want to see Cole or Heyman beated up, but it doesn't transform them in wrestlers_) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Gotta do better than that. Stephanie McMahon is a former Women's Champion, and has lots of matches under her belt...she's a wrestler, dude. Does she wrestle full-time...no, but she still straps 'em on when she has to. Bryan retired...he's done. Lawler had a heart attack, and WWE won't let him wrestle anymore. Cole was a 1-trick pony. Stephanie has a decade and a half of history showing she'll mix 'em up, and will do so again if called upon. Steph IS a women who can, has, and is capable of wrestling, thus she is a wrestler. Shane, Steph, HHH - all essentially player-coaches. She just happens to be the diva version thereof, and that leads to another point...women simply don't get to wrestle as often as the guys do, thus they can't be held to the same standards. Fact of life in wrestling...the divas get 1 (maybe 2) matches a night...no way you can fairly gauge that compared to the guys. You just keep proving my point about tunnel vision - disregarding all history and mitigating factors...just focuesd on Stephanie not wrestling RIGHT NOW THIS SECOND Vjmlhds (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)~
Ingotta agree with HHH here. She's been a wrestler, but isn't one now, and that's what the list is supposed to be, a list of the current roster of wrestlers. Which Steph is not. oknazevad (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Very short-sighted on your part. Also remember...women don't wrestle as often as guys do anyway, so they should get some extra slack...can't compare male and female wrestlers apples-to-apples...unfair comparison. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
As oknazevad said, it's a list of the current toster. No apples oranges or extra slack... McMahon was a wrestler and she has the ability to wrestle, but she isn't working right now as wrestler (yes, RIGHT NOW. That's the whole point of CURRENT ROSTER). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
No extra slack (even though circumstances dictate it)...very sexist of you. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not our problem how WWE uses the female talent. You're using excuses to include Stehpanie in a wrestler section. She was a wrestler 10 years ago, not today. CURRENT ROSTER menas TODAY, RIGHT NOW... that kind of thing... not 10 years ago. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Catch that magic moment! Seriously though, not a wrestler. A special attraction. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm waiting for your argument about how "still in the middle of thing", "people pay to see her beat up" and "she has an important role" = she is a wrestler. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
All that means is that Stephanie is a major player in storylines, and gets put in matches where people will pay to see her get beat up. Not that hard...and it is important regarding the use of talent, because not everything is cut and dry/black and white. That's what I mean by tunnel vision...gotta look at the big picture, not just the little snapshot of right this second. I suggest you read WP:Content authoritarianism..it does a better job than I in explaining where you are going wrong here. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
However, you say "she has an important role and people want to pay... so she is a wrestler". No, she is an authority figure, no sense to include under the wrestlers section because 10 years ago was a wrestler. I understand your coach-player point. Jarrett is a Coach player in GFW and TNA, Muto is a Coach player in W1... but stephanie isn't a wrestler today. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
You know why she didn't wrestle for 10 years...because it was during that time she had her kids. She was pregnant 3 times in that span...she couldn't wrestle or do too much during all that time. In the last couple of years she has gotten back in the groove...she had the feud/matches with the Bellas, the stuff with Ronda Rousey, getting bumped around by Roman Reigns. She is no different than her husband or her brother. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
As per this article from ABC News - "McMahon's husband is fellow wrestler Triple H..." this means that Stephanie is considered as a wrestler by the mainstream press. So, she has wrestled, does still wrestle when need be, and is considered by the mainstream press to be a wrestler. It's not just me. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
This should put this to bed -- WWE themselves considers Stephanie as a wrestler (drops mic) Vjmlhds (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Here it is in all it's legal mumbo-jumbo glory - Stephanie's booking contract that explicitly refers to her as a wrestler. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
This video was posted 3 years ago. What part of current do you don't udnerstand? Anyone has some thought? I'm boring to talk against a wall.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Umm...I have Stephanie's contract that outright calls her a wrestler (look above). I'm no wall pal...I'm a semi truck that just ran you over with indisputable proof. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
That was a pretty nice shot. And yeah, current till this October. Still legal mumbo-jumbo, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
While I'm totally fine to consider Vince, Shane and Stephanie McMahon as professional wrestler in their own page, I'm totally agree with HHH Pedrigree. So, what about this? I put both Shane and Stephanie McMahon in the other on-air personnel list, but I specificated that they're both occasionally wrestler. Isn't it the best solution? Sure, Shane is apparently going to wrestle The Undertaker at WrestleMania 32, but I still consider him someone who occasionally wrestles since he will wrestle Undertaker for the control of Raw, which basically makes him an authority figure who, in fact, occasionally wrestles.--Davide King (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Shane, Steph and HHH are all basically player-coaches at this point...they run the show, but can still strap them on if need be. The "legitimate" sports have them, so the concept should apply here as well. Aren't coaches/managers the authority figures for their teams? So if you're a player-coach, that means you still can get in there and play even though you have an authority role. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I understand your points and while I agree with the player-coach part, I still think my edit was the best solution. The fact that she is under a wrestler's contract doesn't change anything to me, since we are all agree to consider Vince, Shane and Stephanie professional wrestlers after all, which is why I'm fine to have them being a "professional wrestler" in their own pages. But the fact is, she isn't wrestling right now and her last match in 2014 against Brie Bella at SummerSlam. So to me it isn't right to put her in the list of the Becky Lynchs, Sasha Banks', etc, unless she was pursuing the Divas Championship. She has nothing to do with them, as of now she is still just an authority figure, which is why the best solution to me is to put her in the other on-air personnel list and point out that she occasionally wrestles. I say "occasionally wrestles" because, as of now, she's neither a full-time or a part-time wrestler. To me, to be considered at least a part-time wrestler, she should at least have a match once a year, but her last match was in 2014 after more than 10 years without wrestling a match. Even if we were in 1999, I would still put Mr. McMahon in the other on-air personnel list and just point out that he is wrestling part-time. Even if, as of now, Shane isn't an authority figure yet, he is still an on-air personality. The fact that he is supposed to wrestle The Undertaker at WrestleMania 32 doesn't make him a full-time or even a part-time wrestler. As of now, it is just one match. And it's a match for the control of Raw, which means that, if he wins, he will be an authority figure anyway.
In short, I consider Vince [when he wrestled], Shane and Stephanie to be professional wrestlers, but as things turned out I would never put them in the list of the main roster wrestlers who either wrestles full-time or part-time, simply because I will always consider them much more as authority figures [or on-air personalities] rather than wrestlers, which I think it is objective. I would just point out that they occasionally wrestle, either full-time for a short period of time or just part-time, or just occasionally aka from time to time.--Davide King (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
That's really a long winding road to say that someone wrestles, but not all the time. They're either wrestlers or they're not, and this "yesterday he wasn't, today he is, and won't be tomorrow" stuff just leads to more hassles than what it's worth. It's just so much easier to "err on the side of caution" as it were and list them as wrestlers than to play "woulda/coulda/shoulda/maybe". Vjmlhds (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

I've noticed on the WWE PPV articles the infoboxes only list event chronology and network series. I proposal we keep these but also include the PPV event timeline. It is really odd seeing network events after PPVs when the timeline of PPVs is actually different and should be reflected. The network events have little to do with the actual storylines.--WillC 05:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. It's a good idea--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding television roles under Filmography section

I was just reading the Bill Goldberg article and was looking at his televised roles under the Filmography section and got to wondering, why are professional wrestlers televised pro-wrestling roles not listed under televised roles? Just to use WWE as an example, they have their RAW and SmackDown televised shows, so in regards to wrestlers who are or have been employed by WWE and appeared on one of WWE's shows, why are those shows not listed under their televised roles? --JDC808 ♫ 04:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone? --JDC808 ♫ 01:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Can no one answer this? I've looked over the project page and saw nothing about this. --JDC808 ♫ 19:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I never hear about policies in this section. I always think it was for tv appearences outside wrestling (nitro, raw, impact...). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
But the thing is, Raw, SmackDown, Impact, etc. are TV shows, and the wrestlers portray characters on these shows. They're not just wrestlers, they're also actors. It seems odd to not list them under their televised roles. --JDC808 ♫ 20:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Been curious about this for a while and I agree that it should be included. A quick search through the archives returns no past discussions of this. Prefall 06:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it just goes without saying that any promotion with TV is going to use it to promote their talent. When we say where they worked and when, it doesn't take an investigative journalist with hurripowers to figure out which shows they did. I suppose there's no harm in adding the same bunches of shows to a huge number of articles. Just might not be worth the effort. If someone feels ambitious anyway, try and remember the difference between WWF SmackDown! and WWE SmackDown. No British Bulldog in the latter. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Hulk; while not wrong per se, it's kinda obvious and redundant to list the shows. And how do we date them? That's a proper part of a filmography. For example, someone like Samy Zayn, who showed up once on Raw and wasn't on again for months; are we going to list individual dates or such? Seems more trouble than it's worth to state something that is pretty obvious. oknazevad (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletions

I created this AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y2AJ, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batista and The Undertaker, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Four Horsewomen (professional wrestling). I'll appreciate the commentaries. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, the articles RybAxel (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RybAxel) and The Social Outcasts (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Social Outcasts) were created again. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
At this point I'd let the Social Outcasts one stick around, as they've got their own t-shirts. Possible the Four Hirsewomen one too. The others should go. oknazevad (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, why is this a thing? - WWE Raw 2015 Survivor Series match To quote the "article", which was made only 5 days after the match took place: "The match would go on to become one of the most famous professional wrestling matches of all-time." Yeah, no. 14.200.39.137 (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The JBL and Cole Show (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ShoMiz (2nd nomination) will likely be closed soon and haven't gotten much input.LM2000 (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
This is what WP:A7 and WP:A10 are for. Let's not be afraid to use speedy deletion tags people. Feedback 17:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
A7 would be inappropriate, as the articles all indicate some importance. A10 could apply if the articles were identical re-creations of content deleted via AfD, but not if someone has tried to rebuild an article that was formerly deleted. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

WCW closed in APRIL of 2001, not March

It is universally held that WCW ended with the final Nitro on March 6, 2001, but it patently did not. Worldwide, hosted by Scott Hudson and Mike Tenay, aired for the final time on April 1. The filming of this episode, and the recaps shown within, indicate that there were also a variety of production staff working for the company beyond March 26. I didn't know of the April 1 Worldwide myself until last year, but clearly, two WCW shows aired on the WWF's watch, not just one. Misinformation on the closure of WCW has plagued Wikipedia for a very long time. B. Mastino (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it goes without saying but "{{citationneeded}}". CrashUnderride 23:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I was going to say the same thing. Burning off a pre-taped episode of a syndicated show on a local station nearly a month week later doesn't count without some citation. oknazevad (talk) 03:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Template:Cite episode works fine. B. Mastino (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Bjt we need some evidence that the episode actually exits. That's the citation we're asking for, not how to cite it, but the actual evidence. For all we know, it was recorded immediately after Nitro went off the air that nights in about 15 minutes of actual taping time, was edited together by morning and sent out to the stations that carried Worldwide in syndication. It certainly wasn't a live show, so to claim that WCW made it to April 1 (which I might add was a whopping 5 days later) is wrong. They threw together a tape to fulfill the contracts, and then shut down as an active company during the next few days. It's a footnote at best, and frankly to call it "misinformation" that has "plagued Wikipedia for a long time" is hysterical hyperbole. oknazevad (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
If true, it doesn't indicate anybody was working for WCW, just that a TV station had a tape and probably an agreement to pop it in and press play. Same as how Enter the Dragon didn't mean Bruce Lee was still kicking. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Mike Tenay and Scott Hudson were in a studio, recapping the so-called "final" WCW broadcast: the March 26 Nitro. B. Mastino (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The History of WWE doesn't mention a Nitro recap. Just other stuff. Have any evidence? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
No, because in my research I've found distinct evidence that it was actually taped before the last Nitro, as was common for WorldWide back then to be a week behind. In short, Mastini is wrong. Yes, the already-in-the-can final episode aired after the last Nitro on either March 31 or April 1 (it depended on the market whether it aired on Saturday or Sunday) , but it was not taped after the last Nitro, did not discuss that last Nitro, and was not in anyway produced after the actual shut down of WCW as an active promotion the night of the final Nitro. So the headline of this section itself is wrong, as WCW did close in March 2001, not April. (That's not to say that the business office didn't continue to deal with the paperwork for a bit after that, but the active promotion, and the sale of the rights to the WCW name, were done by the last Nitro. oknazevad (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
You can still stick it to The Man in authentic nWo apparel. Now 80% less cancerous! Bischoff probably still gets a slice. Not sure if there are any Tony Schiavone shirts left. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Oddly enough, today's Schiavone looks like the nWo Ted DiBiase. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Christian status

Hi. I see a discussion over and over. It's about Christian Cage. According to the sources, in 2014, Jerry Lawler said Cage is retired from in ring competition. This information was repeated many times, event Christian said "while he has had no formal discussion with management regarding his retirement, he is unlikely to wrestle again". However, some users say he is retired from WWE, so it doesn't mean he retired from pro wrestling. So... is Christian a retired wrestler or not? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

He hasn't wrestled for years so he is de facto retired. McPhail (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Bottom line is, Christian has never declared himself to be a retired wrestler. Ric Flair was also retired in WWE's eyes, and went on to wrestle on the 2009 Hulkamania Tour, as well as in TNA from 2010–2011. B. Mastino (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Bottom line is he's not wrestling, has not wrestled for years. So that's what the article should state, the fact - if he returns to wrestling after his contract expires then the article will be updated to state that fact at that time. Anything beyond that is speculative. MPJ-US  18:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
If we don't care to call him a retired wrestler then why not an inactive wrestler? Tabercil (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe user Martimc123 is back

I just added two suspected socks of Martimc123 - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martimc123, those of you that know this user knows to be on the look out for recreation of deleted articles on small time championships and tournaments, especially Japanese ones (but also Mexican), sometimes under weird names. If you have those under observation be aware.  MPJ-US  21:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I think he's challenging me to something. I didn't even have anything to do with the blocking process this week. What a pest. When will he realize he's just wasting his time? リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
He also uses the pt.wiki to create these articles (by the way, with a horrible portuguese)... Pedrohoneto (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Lord James Blears

I'm trying to keep the "Deaths" section of the 2016 in professional wrestling article up to date. I haven't been able to find a specific date for the death of Lord James Blears. The f4wonline story just says "this week" ([8]) but says that there will be more discussion of him. Does anyone have access to the content on f4wonline that might give a more specific date (or know of any other reliable source that might give the date)? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The Wrestling Observer Newsletter says 3/3. You can use this: <ref>{{cite journal|last=Meltzer|first=Dave|authorlink=Dave Meltzer|date=March 14, 2016|title=March 14, 2016 Wrestling Observer Newsletter: Diaz defeats McGregor, Hayabusa passes away|journal=[[Wrestling Observer Newsletter]]|location=[[Campbell, California]]|issn=1083-9593|page=20}}</ref> リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 17:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

That explains my confusion. I was sure that there was no article on Blears, then I saw the article last night and couldn't figure out how I'd missed it. There are a few other wrestlers that could be added if sources can be found (based on the Wrestling Memories Tribute Page on Facebook): Mike Flowers (Moondog Puppy Love) died on March 10, Eddie Einhorn (co-founder of the International Wrestling Association) died on February 24, Maurice Owen Grimbly (Cyclone Smith) died on February 17, John Wensor (Ed Wensor/Mr. X) died on February 18, Kevin Randleman died on February 11, Jack Eaton (announcer in Memphis) died on February 3, Manny/Manuel Villalobos died on February 1, Abel C. Reynosa (Taras Bulba/Juan Reynosa) died on January 27, Phil Davis (referee in Manchester) died on January 26, Charlie Plambeck (ring announcer in Germany) died on January 20, Michael Dean (Mike Dean/Darren Dean/Darren Richardson) died on January 15, Michael Shepherd (NWA-UK Hammerlock Wrestling) died in January, Bob Leonard (listed on the CAC page) died on January 9, Robert L. Miller (Bob Miller/Farmer Miller) died on January 5, Billy Scream (a Tucson-based wrestler) died within the last couple of weeks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism edits on Diva pages

User:The Tornado SuperHouseyinc is massively vandalizing articles including Paige (wrestler), Sasha Banks, and Becky Lynch, changing championship reigns and other info, as well as List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions, changing reign counts, adding current WWE Divas onto the article. I'm trying to revert his edits. Someone please check this out. "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 21:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Posted at WP:AIV. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Will be indeffed shortly, I'm sure. oknazevad (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, @Oknazevad: I really needed the help. "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 21:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

House of Glory (wrestling)

User:Dual Partition created an article for Amazing Red's training school. I'm not sure it meets notability. CrashUnderride 20:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I did a quick search and added three sources. It's a stub, but I think being featured in an MTV article is enough to establish notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Alberto Del Rio

Looks like I'm back here. So from what I have seen, User:Qudghks2020, also they creator and reposter of The League of Nations (professional wrestling) and 3MB WWE articles, for the past few months has been changing, renaming, and adding signature and finishing moves to many wrestling articles that, in my eyes, are completely nonconstructive. Looking at his contributions, it's almost the only thing the user does. One of these being on the Alberto Del Rio article. Since last month, he has been moving his superkick move into the finishers section, also adding "Sh! Kick" as the name of the move. Is there any source that shows this as the actual name of the move? As I have never heard anyone call the move that. I keep reverting his edits on the many articles as they seem very nonconstructive and have previously tried to contact him through is talk page last month, to which he hasn't responded. Also, The League of Nations (professional wrestling) article has recently been recreated. Would love to hear a response on both topics. Thanks. "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 02:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Vincent J. McMahon Legacy of Excellence Award

There's something of a slow edit war over whether this "award" should be in the championships and accomplishments section of Stephanie McMahon's page. I don't think it should. Here are the arguments.

  • "But but but it's an award!"
    • No, it's a storyline plot device. Nothing more. There have been many similar things done. Vince's various MSG honours? Not on his page. Rusev's various Russian honours? Not on his page. Iron Sheik's Olympic silver medal? Not on his page. Hogan's MSG banner? Not on his page. We also do not note other storyline things like being a GM, which is in itself a WWE accomplishment.
  • "But but but anything WWE does is notable!"
    • But is this really notable? It was one segment on Raw and it was only used to further a storyline. No criteria was given, no indication was made that it would be regular. It was a one and done thing.
  • "But but but Championships are also storyline honours!"
    • Maybe in the modern WWE, but for decades championships signified that one was the best and was able to draw money. They were used to advertise and title matches were huge sellers. Unfortunately, users like HHH Pedrigree are only familiar with modern WWE and are unaware of this. So he thinks the WWE Championships is on even ground with this award.
  • "But but but we note the Slammys!"
    • To be honest, I don't really care if we do or not. At least with the current Slammys they are (allegedly) done through legitimate fan voting, and have an entire special devoted to them.

Hey, if this DOES end up being a yearly thing, or they make it notable, maybe it should be included. Until then it should not. -- Scorpion0422 18:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Since this discussion, we include a lot of awards and tournaments in the articles. The Slammy, NXT end of the Year, NOAH awards. Now, 1) Plot device. Wrestling is fiction, so everything is a plot device. The Slammy Match of the Year was a plot device (Michaels-Taker II), The Dusty Rhodes Tournament was a plot device (Joe-Balor) In a fiction, every title and awards is a plot device. 2) We include the Terri Runnels tournament, the Slammy Awards for Best T-Shit, Double Vision, Best Hastag... Slammys I never hear about a legit fan voting. Also, we note the NOAH Awards, NJPW awards, TNA awards, NXT Awards, Bragging Rights trophy, ... 3) I don't get your point. Past is better, good for you. The Award is notable, WWE promoted it one week prior. No matter if was just one segment in RAW, Ins't matter of time (Trish Stratus was named Diva of the Decade in one night segment). The criteria is simple, the Award exist, it's notable and is sourced. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

With most of your cited examples (Slammys, NOAH Awards) they are established and have been around for years. I'd also argue that the Terri Tournament was notable because it spanned several weeks and helped launch the careers of four future stars. Thus they have notability. This "award" does not. It was only created for the storyline. Job finished, award never gets mentioned again. The WWE Championship and all the others, however, have long established notability and real world implications. The WWE Title draws interest. The Slammys draw interest. The Bragging Rights Trophy was the center point of an entire ppv. This award was in the opening of Raw. Just because other crap exists it doesn't mean it should exist here. Just because other pages have a low standard doesn't mean this one should too. Also for the record, I'm not saying it shouldn't be noted in the article, it simply doesn't belong in the championships and accomplishments section. Including it smacks of recentism. -- Scorpion0422 21:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
WWE and other reliable sources talk about the Award one week before the ceremony. It's sourced. What's the matter? It was mentioned ONCE? It was a one night only award? Plot device, one night ceremony, just an annual award aren't excuses to delete the Award. It's an storyline award created by WWE, just like Roman Reigns Slammy Award, Miss WrestleMania Crown or Bragging Rights Trophy --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the VJM Legacy Award should be listed in the championship and accomplishment section. Mention it in the text, but putting it in C&A makes it seem much more important than it actually was. But I also feel that way about the Miss WrestleMania Crown, Terri Invitational Tournament, etc. Nikki♥311 00:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The answer to this, just like the answer to everything on Wikipedia, is going by what the sources say. The award was promoted and awarded by a major promotion, and it was covered by multiple reliable sources that are independent of WWE. It's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide what makes an award "real", so it goes in. If it was up to us to decide, I'd remove any mentions of the WWE European Championship. I thought it was stupid. The sources trump my feelings, however, just as they trump a Wikipedia debate about what makes this fake award less important than another fake award. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

So you want to play the "fake award" and "it's all fiction" card, eh? Alright, let's treat this as such and refer to Stephanie as a fictional character. Per WP:FICTION, this is a minor one-episode occurrence and it's inclusion is overdetailing of a minor event. Yes, it got real world coverage, but mostly just wrestling sites and recaps. Here's a fun fact: In an episode of The Simpsons (Homer's Barbershop Quartet), Homer wins a Grammy. This has also been covered by real world sources to the point where a google search gets 400,000+ hits [9] (compared to 91,000 for Stephanie [10]) and guess what? It's not even mentioned on his page (which is a FA, by the way). And you know why? It's because he's been in hundreds of television episodes and a single-episode occurrence is not notable on the grand scheme of things. For Stephanie McMahon the real person, it's a plot device. For Stephanie McMahon the fictional character it's a one-episode thing and no more notable than anything else she's done in the hundreds of other episodes she was in. It's less notable than any of the other fictional achievements mentioned (and in this context you can't even begin to compare it to the European Championship, which appeared in many episodes over the years and has more real coverage). It smacks of recentism and after WrestleMania any notability you might think this "award" has will have vanished. -- Scorpion0422 15:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Scorpion. oknazevad (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

No, the "fake award" was a passing comment at the end of a statement about sources. And, before I go any further, you need to lose the attitude. The "but but but" crap, the "HHH Pedigree is so ignorant he thinks..." comments, and your tone as a whole have no place here, or anywhere else on Wikipedia for that matter. WWE has announced this Stephanie as the "first recipient," indicating that they plan to continue the award. Reliable sources have reported on it, including Bill Apter, Bryan Alvarez, and Dave Meltzer. Your comparison to Google hits undermines your argument, if anything. You're saying that an award presented last month already has 1/4 of the coverage of something that happened 23 years ago. The fact of the matter is that it's being promoted as a real award, the WWE has indicated that they will be continuing the award, and that the biggest names in wrestling journalism are discussing and debating it just as they would any other award. On your side, you have speculation that they might drop the idea despite their stated intention of keeping it (a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, which is policy) and an argument about recentism (and we need to keep in mind that WP:RECENT is just an essay), and a comparison to The Simpsons (which could be trumped with the more relevant argument that the TNA World Beer Drinking Championship is listed in "Championships and accomplishments" sections).

Whaaaa... You mean Apter and Alverez and Meltzer did their jobs as wrestling reporters and reported on wrestling (covering the episode mainly and the award in passing)? I should also point out that in several of their radio shows Alvarez and Meltzer were quick to dismiss the award after learning that it was all storyline. You don't have much on your side either. You are also violating WP:CRYSTAL by assuming it will be back and have provided no sources to prove otherwise (and of course she's the "first recipient", that proves nothing). Keep in mind that SOME editorial restraint is necessary, especially for notable people. Barrack Obama's article would be ten times longer if editors didn't sift through and make some judgment call on notability. Every Raw episode ever has also been reported on by Apter and Alvarez and Meltzer and I could easily pull out the same sources for notability on anything. And all of this simply skirts the real issue: The championships and accomplishments section is reserved for things with a foot in reality. This does not belong there. As for the TNA Beer Drinking Championship, it's not the point here. If you want it removed, bring it up elsewhere. -- Scorpion0422 16:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Foot in reality? Do you have a criteria? The Award is a physical award (just like the wwe title). Is a plot device, just like the rumble, The money in the bank... Is sourced... Wrestling is "an athletic form of entertainment based on a portrayal of a combat sport". Wrestlers win fictional championships in scripted matches. What kinf of reality are you talking about? The WWE Championship is a fictional title, just like the Royal Rumble, The King of the Ring. As Garysaid, there is no point to say "this fake award less important than another fake award".--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm tilting towards agreeing with HHH and Gary here. It was covered by WP:RS. We also need to be consistent. Without established criteria, it's just another scripted award in a scripted industry, and deserves to be listed just like any other accomplishment. Homer Simpson does not have a "championships and accomplishments" section, unlike our wrestlers. starship.paint ~ KO 05:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Scorpion. It is notable in one particular storyline and can be mentioned in that context (even in Stephanie's article, though in a achievements section). It is a plot device and even within the storyline an award given for nothing. Comparisons with championships, tournaments and the Royal Rumble are wrongheaded. These latter involve real pro wrestling matches and though the outcomes are scripted the titles wins are not fiction. And they play a major role one each and every wrestling show. Not just on once night. Str1977 (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Title wins are fiction, just like the Awards. A booker (Vince) decides who wins/recieves the title/Vince Award/Random Slammy awards. From a fictional POV, are the same. Also, they are plot devices. Michaels won the match of the year slammy, a plot device to WM rematch. Storm TNA Worl title was a plot device too, Beer Money dissolution and feud. Also, I don't know why time is part of the criteria. Again, Sin Cara won the Slammy Best ilusion... never mentioned again. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, what about the Slammy Awards then? starship.paint ~ KO 00:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

So honors given for dubious reasons without any real criteria don't go in the Championships and Accomplishments section? To that, I would respond: James Dudley, Antonino Rocca, Ernie Ladd, Mikel Scicluna, Johnny Rodz, Junkyard Dog, Peter Maivia, Rocky Johnson, Koko B. Ware...need I go on? GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep in mind that it's not a vote. Also, his example is really bad (and a red herring) because the WWE Hall of Fame has long-established notability, well past this single night segment. Every single award and every single Hall of Fame has its share of bad apples. (Besides, your examples are terrible since Ernie Ladd, Rocky Johnson, Antonino Rocca and Junkyard Dog absolutely belong and NEVER EVER be mentioned in the same breath as Johnny Rodz. Did you just google some names?). Was there any kind of special ceremony beyond a single segment? No. Does it get mentioned all the time as a major accomplishment? No. Its only purpose was to set up the return of Shane. -- Scorpion0422 16:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Zack Ryder won the Slammy Most Annoying Catchphrase and it was never mentioned again. Christian WWF Light Weight Title is rarely mentioned. Or Austin Million Dollar reign. The point, McMahon was awarded with the title, it enough. The criteria isn't how many times the award is mentioned. Also, HOW the award is given doesn't establish the notability. Most of Slammy Awards are announced in WWE.com, without a segment --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Again, this is all stuff with previously established notability. The Slammys have been around for years. The Lightweight Title and Million Dollar Title were around for years. This award was around for 2 weeks. In the context of someone with a near 20 year career, a one-off award created solely to launch an angle is barely worth a sentence. You keep comparing this to stuff that is/was around for years. This is more like that award McMahon gave himself in 1985 for creating WrestleMania or the "Best Actor in Sports Entertainment" Award Chris Jericho gave Shawn Michaels in 2008. -- Scorpion0422 17:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Scorpion you acknowledge it is "barely worth a sentence" and that's all that's needed really, put in the Championships and Accomplishments page. Many Slammy Awards are one-off too. Given one year and that's it. Some, like the The Pee-wee Herman Bowtie Award David Otunga got, were not even mentioned on TV. They were restricted to WWE.com. How notable is it if nobody is watching? I did a reliable source search with WP:PW/RS and only 2 mentions. Most of the reliable sources were not watching either. Meanwhile this Legacy of Excellence Award got over 50 mentions in RS and had an impact by furthering an angle. There is zero analysis by RS on the impact of the Slammy on Otunga's career.starship.paint ~ KO 04:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC notice: In-universe name details of fictional characters, in article leads

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: In-universe name details of fictional characters, in article leads (concerning fictional characters as article subjects generally).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

IP user

User:112.134.97.79 keeps adding Rosemary as a tag team champion with Crazzy Steve and Abyss. Wanna help me out? I reverted their additions, then they reverted me. I'm not gonna violate WP:3RR. CrashUnderride 16:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The IP user appears to have changed their IP but continue to revert and add Rosemary as a tag team champion. CrashUnderride 15:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

User talk:JustinWWElover

We'll have to watch this dude. He's already inserted himself into The Usos' article at lease once. I just reverted it and warned him for vandalism. CrashUnderride 01:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Team B.A.D.

In the past weeks, Team B.A.D. (Naomi and Tamina) allied themselves with Lana, Emma and Summer Rae. But are the other Divas actually a part of Team B.A.D. as they are currently being represented in the article? It states Lana, Emma, and Rae as members of Team B.A.D. They mentioned that they dubbed themselves as "Team B.A.D. and Blonde", but isn't Team B.A.D. simply the tag team of Naomi and Tamina? "Team B.A.D. and Blonde" seems just like an alliance for Wrestlemania including Team B.A.D., but I'm not sure if that means that this is creating an entirely new incarnation of Team B.A.D. "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 04:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Wrestlemania page moves

A user today has gone and moved a lot of recent wrestlemania pages to omit the numbers or to at least put them in parentheses. I do not recall any discussion on this. I would think you'd want to notify the project about a mass move like that. Anybody else have any objections? because I certainly do. oknazevad (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

There was no discussion. Either way, it wouldn't happen. CrashUnderride 01:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Decay (professional wrestling)

Someone has gone and recreated the recently deleted article. Just thought people should know. CrashUnderride 11:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably because they won the TNA tag titles at the last set of tapings last week. Indeed, they won them on the 19ty, and the article was created on the 20th. Are the TNA tag titles enough to make them article-worthy? I don't know, but I'd be reluctant to delete, if only because it is linked from the current champions article and the section at the main TNA article. oknazevad (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd say notable. Won basically the number 2 tag title world wide.--WillC 09:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
They did? I did not know they won the IWGP tag team championship ;-) Casas and Shocker still hold the CMLL one and AAA's version is safe in the hands of Averno and Chessman so it must be the IWGP one you refer to right? Just kidding you know I love ya Will.  MPJ-US  01:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh you ;)--WillC 01:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Tagged for speedy deletion. Contest it if you want. Feedback 03:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Jeff Gaylord

Did some work on it to clean it up. Have a look, see what you think and help me make it better. CrashUnderride 17:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

WWE Hall of Fame

Another dispute has arisen over the Warrior Award at the WWE Hall of Fame with a user named DaveA2424. I've tried to explain to him that what's there is sourced and goes along with policy, but he is not interested. He has provided nothing to back up his claims that Warrior Awards are full inductees except this: "If you would actually take a moment to look at the WWE Hall of Fame wiki page, you can clearly see that the WWE Hall of Fame currently consists of 95 Individuals, 25 Group Members, 8 Celebrities and 1 Warrior Award recipient, making up 129 Total Inductees! This confirms that Warrior Award recipients are most definitely WWE Hall of Fame Inductees! 95+25+8+1=129! Are you able to get that through your thick skull or are you too idiotic to do basic maths?! Also, how many times are you going to keep bringing up Wikipedia policy as if you have some kind of authority over any other Wikipedia user?" [11]

So yes, he is citing disputed Wikipedia page content to end a dispute over that same content. Yup. He's pushing 3RR right now and seems to have taken an intense dislike to me, telling me "it is clear that you are in the overwhelming minority when it comes to your opinion that they are not inductees, but you are too bigoted to realise it. Please refrain from continuing this vendetta that you seem to have against those who have been effected by cancer." (he's referring to a discussion where I was debating two users, hardly an "overwhelming minority") [12]

Wallow in at your own risk, but any assistance would be appreciated. -- Scorpion0422 20:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

New WWE Women's title

Do we know if this is a resurrection of the original title, or a rebranding of the Diva's title? I don't know which lineage is going to be used. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 22:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That will have to be seen on WWE.com in the next few days, I think. We'll have to see which lineage they give it. (Personally, I'm glad to see the butterfly belt and dated "divas" name be retired. oknazevad (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Let WWE makes the first move. Wait until update the title history section. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
They've made the move. It's a new title. See here. Neither a rename of the Diva's title nor a revival of the old Women's title. Need to split the articles. oknazevad (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
It is a completely new championship. here Charlotte is currently the first and only champion. Make a completely new article. Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the (2016) disambiguation is necessary in the article title for the new championship. As long as there is a disambiguation with the original 1956–2010 championship at the top of the page (as there currently is) then there's no need to state the date of the inauguration of the new belt in the article's title. See Wembley Stadium for an example. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
However, the way the article's written, it takes about Moolah holding the title. It says it's undergone an evolution. They say she's the first, yet talking like that means it's the same title. They need to get better at this. CrashUnderride 06:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The lineage clearly states that Charlotte is the first champion, that the Divas Championship is retired and that the new title is separate to the old Women's Championship. Which is unfortunate TBH as I would like them to adopt the old lineage but it doesn't look like they will. Also, once again, the disambiguation of "2016-present" in the article title is unnecessary here. People searching for the WWE Women's Championship going forward will be looking for the current championship. 94.174.101.121 (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, Now we need titles for both articles, the old and the new women's championships. I think WWE Women's Championship (1956-2010) and WWE Women's Championship (2016-present) are good solutions (also, WWE Women's Championship as disambiguation or redirection to the current title). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think the anon above is right and the current title should ultimately not have a disambiguator, while the original one should have (1956–2010) as a disambiguator, much like Wembley or Yankee stadiums, or other such things where the current version took the name of the former. It's not a perfect solution, but I think it's the best.
Of course, there's more to this than just the titles. There's the fact that this represents an end to using the "WWE Divas" branding, which was also part of the announcement by Lita. The women are just "Superstars" now, just like the men. That could be a lot of corrections and edits because of that. Mostly because I think we overused the obvious promotional branding instead of just stating female in a more neutral fashion. oknazevad (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I see the original title has been moved back to just "WWE Women's Championship", shouldn't the current title use that name rather then the original as it would be easier to search and maybe have the original titled "WWE Women's Championship (Original)" or "WWE Women's Championship (1956-2010)". Speedy Question Mark (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I think the move back was just to a) stop the constant moves, b) force discussion, and c) revert the creation of a disambiguation page, which broke a lot of links. Status quo ante bellum as it were. But I agree that that's the way we should move them when things settle down. The original title to "WWE Women's Championship (1956–2010)" (remember, we use dashes for date ranges), the current one to the undisambiguated title, and hatnotes pointing to each other (and the Divas title, as well, which itself should have a hatnote linking to both of the others). Easiest, cleanest way to do it. oknazevad (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Can we go ahead and make this change? I don't think any further moves will be necessary after we've done that and it seems illogical to keep things as they are right now with the active title being disambiguated and the defunct title not being so. Dannys-777 (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The original should really be the one with the disambiguator. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 20:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I'm the one who moved the original to WWE Women's Championship (1956–2010) and created WWE Women's Championship (2016). I happen to disagree with others that this was a lazy move because this is merely for disambiguation like the many other articles that use dates to disambiguate. JC · Talk · Contributions 20:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I think everyone agrees with this. Can we move the original championship back to WWE Women's Championship (1956-2010) and the new championship to WWE Women's Championship? I would do it myself but someone has disabled the move option. Dannys-777 (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's go ahead and put this to bed. Discussion here. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 00:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Hardcore Hall of Fame

So, I nominated [[Category:Hardcore Hall of Fame]] for deletion. Clearly not a notable hall of fame. Here ya go. CrashUnderride 10:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I always hated [[Category:Current WWE Divas]], someone decided to nominate it and hopefully put it out of its misery, see here.LM2000 (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
You need to sandwich the "Category" bit in colons if you want it to link. See Category:Pakistani electrical engineers for details. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge

Merge the new Women's Title list with the main article. One champion is not sufficient enough to have a list on its own. Previous consensus says at the least 10 reigns must occur before a separate list can be made plus the main article must be able to stand alone.--WillC 09:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

agree--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Support. McPhail (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes.LM2000 (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Qualifiers for retired titles

The new women's title has opened up the topic of naming retired titles that share a similar name with a current title:

I'll go straight to the point. The "(WWE)" qualifier is misleading. A qualifier should be a short descriptor that makes the article unique from the one people might confuse it with. One look at George Washington (inventor) and you know we're not talking about the first U.S. president. The "inventor" qualifier sets him apart from the most popular article of George Washington. Our "WWE" qualifiers are ridiculous, because they clearly apply to both topics, and don't set anything apart. They're not qualifying anything, they're simply there so the two articles can share the same title. Imagine if we named one of the women's titles "Women's Championship (WWE)". That's not going to help anyone distinguish the articles. I think we need to come up with a better naming scheme, although I admit it's easier said than done. What do you guys think? Any ideas? Feedback 13:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, we name the articles without WWE because WWE named them just World Heavyweight and World Tag Team. We use the (WWE) to diferentiate them from other titles, like the World Heavyweight Championship (Zero1) or World Tag Team Championship (AJPW). Also, we hae the NWA World Junior Heavyweight Championship (Zero1) and NWA World Junior Heavyweight Championship--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Might as well just put the dates of activity as the qualifier instead. World Tag Team Championship (1970? - 2010), World Heavyweight Championship (2002 - 2013), WWE Women's Championship (1980 - 2011?), WWE Women's Championship (2016 - Present), etc.--WillC 09:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
In that case, how do we diferenciate between World Heavyweight Championship (2002-2013) and World Heavyweight Championship (2007-present)? Or World Tag Team Championship (1970?-2010) and World Tag Team Championship (1988-present)? Or NWA World Junior Heavyweight Championship (1945-present) and NWA World Junior Heavyweight Championship (2011-present)? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I've always thought we've used "(WWE)" because of what HHH Pedrigree said. It makes perfect sense when put in that context. It's not broke, why fix it? TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 17:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd say it's broke. Qualifiers are not supposed to be ambiguous. Saying that the WHC is the WWE version implies that this is the only article for which that qualifier applies. If a new reader goes to World heavyweight championship to look for one of WWE's titles, he would have to open both WWE ones because the titles aren't specific enough to say which is which (not only because of the plain meaning of each title referring to a WHC belonging to WWE, but because WWE has always sold replica belts of the big gold belt as the "WWE World Heavyweight Championship" (See, e.g., here and here.) We need to find a more specific way to do this. I still haven't come up with a perfect solution myself, but in terms of the WHC, I think WWE World Heavyweight Championship (2002-2012) isn't the worst idea as it specifies it's the WWE title and the date the title exclusively held that name. There might be a better solution, but I disagree on "(WWE)" being the best one. Feedback 05:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
But it was never named "WWE World Heavyweight Championship" - replacing a "ambguous" quaifier with a name it was never called? 00:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. I find the WWE shop to not be a reliable source for these things; it's an online retailer, not an almanac of historical facts. And it does not "always" use WWE World Heavyweight Championship for Big Gold Belt replicas; see here. Fact is, at no point did the pre match graphics for any WHC title match, nor the name banner for any reigning WHC holder ever use "WWE World Heavyweight Championship" during the approximately 11 years and 3 months that it existed as a separate title. So it'd be false to use that title. Period. oknazevad (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
As MPJ DK said, dates will be a huge mess with NWA titles. The Womens title is too unique. One promotions (WWE) creates two titles with the same name (WWE Women's Championship) but different history. So, in this particular case, I feel the dates useful. In other titles, the promotion is the best solution. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Simon Diamond

We may need some protection. An IP user and User:MaryKember2011 keep adding information that is factual inaccurate. Once I undid MaryKember's edits they went and undid them. The IP user followed up with edits. I've warned MaryKember2011 and IP user has been blocked for 31 hours. CrashUnderride 13:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Bullet Club in WWE

Basically, some people have been adding stuff from Monday's WWE Raw to the Bullet Club article because of Anderson and Gallows' debut. I think it doesn't belong there for a couple of reasons:

1. Anderson and Gallows are not called Bullet Club in WWE. The trademark for that is owned by NJPW (sourced in the article) and just like NJPW won't be renaming Chaos → The New Day, WWE won't call them Bullet Club going forward. Yes, they have used that name on their website, but only when referencing their past accomplishments in Japan due to the massive popularity of Bullet Club, which even WWE can't ignore. Just like NJPW can say that Matt Sydal was once Evan Bourne, WWE can say that Anderson and Gallows were once Bullet Club, which is incorrect by the way, because of the fact that...
2. Anderson and Gallows were never Bullet Club. They were two sixths or two eights (or whatever) of Bullet Club. Let's not forget that Bullet Club still (sadly) exists in NJPW and Anderson and Gallows are no longer affiliated with that group in any way whatsoever. This is not some off-shoot of that group. Nor is "Bálor Club" when that inevitably debuts (and it won't belong in the Bullet Club article either). Anderson and Gallows were the New Age Outlaws/Outsiders of Bullet Club, not the entire stable. If someone were to create Karl Anderson and Doc Gallows, then that should include both their NJPW and WWE stuff. Just like with the New Age Outlaws and Outsiders. You don't see any mentions of the Voodoo Kin Mafia in the DX article.

Ever since leaving NJPW, Anderson and Gallows have nothing to do with Bullet Club. Thoughts? リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 00:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Correct on all accounts. It might be worth a line at the Bullet Club article that Anderson and Gallows continue to team in WWE but that's it. oknazevad (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Currently, Bullet Club is the best place to keep this information, and until we have a separate article for the tag team, I don't see the point in removing it. In fact, even if someone were to create a Gallows and Anderson article, a reference to their WWE run in the Bullet Club article would still be appropriate, just like with The Brain Busters and The Four Horsemen. You'll see many examples You'll also see that ECW Originals encompasses both the WWE and TNA stables despite them having little continuity between them. Furthermore, if the short-lived tag team of Kevin Nash, Scott Hall and Eric Young can be included in the nWo article, then I don't see why we can't include Gallows and Anderson here. Feedback 04:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead and created Karl Anderson and Luke Gallows just to avoid this headache. Bullet Club also now has a mention of them continuing to team up in WWE. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 14:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
And cue WP:TOOSOON deletion discussion in 3,2,... Anyway, I think this is best solution. They're not part of the Bullet Club anymore, but they're teaming in WWE because they were. oknazevad (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
They'll be feuding with each other within a month. WWE's all about TOOSOON. We can delete it then. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Move discussions

The above are recent move discussions that are relevant to the project. Chime in with your thoughts and opinions. Feedback 20:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Trying to create Helen Hild article

Hi, I'm still kind of new so I'm not sure if this is the right place to bring this up but I'm trying to create an article for Helen Hild. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:*Treker/sandbox

She was pretty wellknown back in the day so finding sources trought site:news.google.com is pretty easy but it's kind of hard to try to make something comprehensive of it.*Treker (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Some match results would definitely beef up that career section. Maybe look at another lady wrestler article as a template. June Byers, perhaps? Hild and Nell Stewart whooped each other across the country for years over something or another. But who's Nell Stewart? The real question is who is Helen Lind? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I've posted it now. If anyone wants to add something. Helen Hild *Treker (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Natalya move

Please participate in the following move discussion on Natalya (wrestler)

Requested move 19 April 2016

What if we just merge them?

I'm talking of course about WWE Women's Championship and WWE Women's Championship (2016–present). They're two different versions of the same premise. It's not unheard of for homonymous subjects to be listed in the same article. For example, there are hundreds of comic book articles like Clayface where dozens of characters share the same article, despite have nothing to do with each other except for having similar gimmicks and the same name. In a wrestling context, we have dozens of articles like The Hart Foundation where every single incarnation is listed, including The Hart Dynasty and Hart & Evans which have little to do with the original faction except sharing the "Hart" name. The new title's lineage still does not warrant its own separate article so it can be included in the merged article as well. What do you guys think? Feedback 17:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - SethAdam99 (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I don't know how a merge would work. I mean, are two different titles. One is retired, the other was created a few weeks ago. For example, infobox or text. Who will the most reigns champion be? Reigns section. we'll separate in two sections? "The inaugural champion was The Fabulous Moolah, who defeated Judy Grable on September 18, 1956/The Inaugural champion was Charlotte, who defeated...." "Trish Stratus has the most reigns with 7. Sasha Baks has the most reigns with 4 (fior example)." --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not proposing we make believe the titles are the same ones. I'm saying they'll share the same article space like the examples above. The Hart Dynasy has its own infbox in the Hart Foundation article. It also has its own prose and its own subsections. That's what we'll do. Mention in the lead how WWE has had two Women's Championships, mention that one is retired, the other is active and Charlotte is the current champion. Then the article is divided in two sections, one for each championship, and the subsections for each accordingly. Each will have its own "Reigns" section. The active title will list Charlotte as the only champion, and the retired one will have a link to List of WWE Women's Champions just like it has now. I don't see any logistical problems with the merger; but there might be other objections. Feedback 21:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I guess my real question is "why?" I see no real reason to merge them. Each title is independently notable and has sufficient sources, and already has an extant article. Truly, why merge them at all? I just don't get the motive in the least. Nothing wrong with having a short article for the new title, as its new. Really, that's what I don't get. I see no reason not to have separate articles for separate titles, even if one is brand new. oknazevad (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
(1) Each title is an reincarnation of the same premise. Listing them together is no different than listing all the different versions of the Infinity Stones in the same article. (2) The current titling scheme is contrived, and it guarantees that anybody who shows up at the article will do so through a redirect, a hatnote or the search bar. Putting them both under their most common names at WWE Women's Championship will be far more straight-forward. (3) The current title's article's history section is all about its relationship to the old title. I wouldn't go as far to say that it's cruft, but it's not like any of this information really warrants separate article space. The articles are concise enough that they fit in one, and despite having different lineages, they've both filled the same role in the same division of the same company with the same name. You wouldn't make a different article for the original Batman and The New 52 Batman. Feedback 02:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
1) Completely unlike things. Incredibly meaningless comparison. 2) The current titling scheme is standard Wikipedia disambiguation. Nothing contrived about it. 3) See #1. Doubling down on a meaningless comparison didn't make it anymore true.
You'd have been better off stick long with the factions analogy. But there there is an apt comparison that acts a rebuttal, namely that wrestling factions are like rock bands, in that members come and go, and they break up and reunite; we don't create a new article when the drummer quits a band, nor should we when a faction's lineup changes (though frankly, I think the Hart Dynasty should be separate from the Hart Foundation, but that's neither here nor there.).
Still, that's another apples to oranges comparison. There's a major difference between a faction and a championship. And why wouldn't one include the Divas title as well? It too fit the same role in the same company. Because the name is different? Well, having the same name is not a reason to merge. Period. It's a reason to disambiguate, which is what we have now. oknazevad (talk) 05:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Just because you state that the comparison is meaningless as if it were a matter of fact doesn't make it so. The championship is a fictional item set in a fictional universe, and a different version of it was resurrected. Your rock bands rebuttal is a non-sequitor. I wasn't arguing that, say, The Authority (professional wrestling) didn't have a different article for every time someone came and went. I specifically mentioned The Hart Foundation because it lists completely different factions that don't even share a name let alone any members in the same article, because they are only loosely related to the original. If you don't mind such loosely related subjects as The Hart Foundation and The Hart Dynasty sharing an article, I can't imagine why you object to both versions of the Women's title being listed in the same place. Feedback 12:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't support the Hart Dynasty being in the same article as the Hart Foundation. Did you not read the part of my prior response where I outright said just that? But, again, that's a tangent. oknazevad (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
What I took from your "nor here nor there" comment was that you were fine with it, which is why I don't get why you'd oppose this merger and not that one. I don't think that's a tangent at all since it's the same principle. The same premise has been resurrected at a later date and despite being a different version with a different history, because it's a spiritual successor, it's located in the same article. On top of that comparison, I think the championships have an even stronger claim to be in the same article space simply because they share the same name. Feedback 03:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
No, I meant it's a tangent to the main discussion, and that we should focus on the issue at hand. To which; I maintain that having the same name doesn't mean they should be merged. There's enough distinction between the two titles to have two separate articles with disambiguators, and I do not see what merging them into one article would accomplish in the least. oknazevad (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For the reasons HHH mentioned. It'd be impossible to keep the separate lineages factually straight if they were one article. They're separate titles, which is as good a reason to keep the articles separate as any. oknazevad (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, for now - Half of the 2016-present article details its relationship with the old title so it wouldn't be entirely out of place there. If the title stays around awhile and develops a totally unique history with a number of different champions, then we can split it.LM2000 (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Oknazevad. CrashUnderride 23:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Not the same title in any way. New history, new design, new holders, new everything. I even think the name is spelled differently on the belt.--WillC 07:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

***PLEASE CONTRIBUTE ON THIS MOVE REQUEST, IT HAS TO BE DONE!!!***

I'm not sure what to think about this. The nominator's rationale causes me to wonder if he thinks that Wikipedia is a current events site, or a news site, or a social media site or a popularity contest, but I'm not sure that this helps with our encyclopedic coverage. The Poffo ICW was kind of a shithole promotion, but the promotion and its world title are a pretty crucial part of the early history of a major figure in the history of the business, Randy Savage. The latter history of that title was an element in some of the rumblings and shakings going on in the business immediately prior to the McMahon takeover era. The Poffomania angle preceded the NWO and The Invasion by decades (but followed Rusher Kimura), with Savage touting his being "undefeated world champion for years" a key part of that.
While on this subject, I should bring up a few things about articles related to this RM. A user whose most recent contributions focus heavily on the Scottish promotion moved ICW World Heavyweight Championship to ICW Heavyweight Championship in February 2015, along with other related moves that same day. I'm not sure all the links were updated, as it appears that links which should point to the Poffo promotion instead point to the Scottish promotion. ICW Heavyweight Championship is assessed at B-Class, but I just can't see how this is possible. I see that the rating was given in 2008 and may have been according to since-deprecated B-Class criteria. There's also the red herring of claiming that the article's lack of completeness is due to an inability to verify the information. Insane Championship Wrestling looks fine until you get to the "Events" section. From that point on, it's questionable whether it complies with WP:FANCRUFT and/or WP:NOTDIR. Mark Dallas is straight up a nightmare. It gave me zero indication to believe that I was reading an article about a notable person. However, it did give me plenty of indication to believe that the article's creator and primary contributor, Wrestling1985 (talk · contribs), is actually Mark Dallas himself.

Is pro wrestling a sport?

Has there ever been a consensus on this? I ask because of this edit. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 16:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

  • From the lead of Sport "sports are all forms of usually competitive physical activity or games which,[1] through casual or organised participation, aim to use, maintain or improve physical ability and skills while providing enjoyment to participants, and in some cases, entertainment for spectators" by that definition yes.  MPJ-US  16:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    • "Sports" are usually understood to be a fair competition based on athletic ability, while pro wrestling has predetermined outcomes, and thereby doesn't fall under the usual understanding of sports. Though widely mocked, there's a reason Vince McMahon's coinage of "sports entertainment" is a good descriptor; pro wrestling is a form of scripted drama that mimics the form of a sport, but itself isn't one. oknazevad (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
      • I'd say a wrestling bout is a sporting exhibition in the same way as a gymnastics routine or figure skating display. McPhail (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
        • That's a fair comparison, but gymnastics and figure skating are still competitions in that (supposedly) impartial judges are determining a winner based on the performance of their routines, not ahead of time according to a script. It's that scripted nature that separates pro wrestling from true sports. It's also quite different from other forms of scripted entertainment, of course, but it's not a sport as it's usually understood. oknazevad (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Here's my Personal Point of View. When I was a child, I practiced fencing. It's a spot, even I won a regional tournament (My one and only gold medal... o something like that). A few months ago, I knew about artistic fencing. Exacly the same, two guys, a sword fight... they played a role (a thief, a police oficer, the bad guy, the good guy...). But I can't think about it as sport. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Survivor Series (1992)

This article has gone back and forth for quite a while, with some people insisting that the Savage/Perfect vs. Ramon/Flair match is the main event and others insisting that the Hart vs. Michaels match was the main event. For the tag team match, people point to the promotional poster, which identifies it as the main event. For the singles match, people say that the tag team match was no longer the main even after the Ultimate Warrior was released and the WWF Championship match was placed at the end of the card. Do we have a consensus anywhere, or can we word on building a consensus? It would be nice to have something to point to when the revisions start popping up again. For the record, I don't particularly care, but I'd say that it seems like a double main event. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Gary which one was promoted as the main event?--WillC 09:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
If it goes on last, it's the main event. If it's televised, post-show dark matches don't count. If an event is explicitly promoted as having a double main, that's an exception. Wikipedia has long struggled to grasp this concept. Whatever feels like a "big match" gets the label. So in the real world, it was the title match. Here, it's whoever's feeling is more current. Lines up with the real world, as of now. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Let me again revisit "the good ol' days" to debunk that. The first Lawler vs. Kaufman match was the last match on the card, but it wasn't even part of the "official" card (see "lights out match"). I'd bet that no one could name who Lawler faced in the actual main event without looking it up. Also see MSG cards: curfews meant that the main event usually occurred as the sixth to eighth match in an eleven or twelve match card, or thereabouts. If thousands came to see Bruno or Bobby vanquish the monster du jour, they would be very disappointed and possibly even prone to rioting if the match went on last and ended without a finish on a fairly consistent basis due to the curfew. Similar to that was Mid-South TV. Watts often put television main events on first or in the middle of the program, depending on the importance of the match, with "standby" squash matches following. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 10:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
For a parallel example, see next week's UFC show. Promoted for months as Nurmagomedov vs Ferguson, mean poster faces and everything. But now, Ferguson's lungs have filled with mysterious Papa Shango goop, so suddenly it's Nurmagomedov vs Horcher, and who the hell is Horcher? So the beat goes on, but it goes on second now instead of last. The card is always subject to change, but in 2016, they can change the virtual posters in a snap. Back in the days of mysterious Papa Shango goop, things were a lot harder to rewrite. If the poster we have is the sole survivor, that's just too bad. Doesn't make the new fight a main event. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
"Whatever feels like a "big match" gets the label." > That's the type of original opinion that spits in the face of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. We should have a clear objective criteria to decide what's a main event of a show. I'd say we use the last match only, with very few exceptions. In the case of spontaneous matches like Punk vs. Jeff at Extreme Rules 2009 or Hulk vs. Yoko at WrestleMania 9, we ignore them. They weren't the advertised main events of the show, the matches were exceptionally short and were more akin to angles, and [for the purpose of PPV tables] there's no point in spoiling the surprise in list articles that aren't even about the topic. Besides that, I can see little reason to stray from the "last match" rule. Some matches will feel really important, but not be the main events like Batista/Cena at SummerSlam 2008, Luger/Yoko at WrestleMania 10, or The Rock vs. Hogan at WrestleMania X8, but those decisions were deliberate. WWE didn't want them closing the show and booked other matches as the main events. As for Survivor Series 1992, it has the peculiar situation of having a planned main event that didn't happen. But they scrambled to find another main event, and they did, by putting Bret/HBK last. We abide by that rubric and we won't have a problem. The same will apply to Triple H vs. Randy at No Mercy 2008 which main evented instead of the planned Cena vs. Randy main event. Who knows how many matches were planned to go on last and they changed their minds at the last minute. It's total guess-work to start disqualifying main events because they weren't the "original main events". I say we stick with "last match" and be done with it. Feedback 09:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I say it should come down to what was promoted as the main event and what was the last televised match. WWE likes to say there are two main events afterall.--WillC 07:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

More move discussions

Here are a few more move discussions that affect the project. Feedback 19:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Boy, I can't wait until this little fad dies down again. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:RM has been running for 12 years and counting. I don't see the "fad" of moving pages to their correct titles dying any time soon. Feedback 03:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
But has it accomplished anything useful? Redirects get people to the articles, so page moves are unnecessary in almost all cases. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm with Gary. This never seems to end. Every few months suddenly everyone wants to move articles constantly. This continence of routine stuff gets annoying.--WillC 07:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
If every time people edited an article, they made sure that it was in the right place, we'd never have quarterly "move dumps" because the misplaced pages would've been fixed long ago. I also disagree with Gary's notion that redirects will get people everywhere. If you look up "Hanson", you'll never arrive at Todd Smith (wrestler), because redirects aren't priorities in the search algorithm. And even if you did find Todd Smith, you probably won't know it's the same guy because of the misplaced name. He's also not listed on the Hanson dab page, but that's just another issue we have to fix. Indeed, it's far more important for the articles to be accurate and presentable themselves, but our efforts are useless if the articles are hidden from view and the casual reader can't find them. Feedback 13:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
If the casual reader couldn't find the Hanson article because of the page name, that would be indicated in the page view statistics. On average, the Hanson article is viewed over twice as often as his tag team partner, Raymond Rowe (190/day vs. 86/day). The Raymond Rowe article is easy to find, as it is one of only two links from a disambiguation page. The Hanson article could possibly take a bit of navigating to find, but people are clearly doing it. If you believe that it's still too difficult to reach the article, then, as you mention, the logical thing to do is to add Smith to the Hanson disambiguation page--problem solved. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
That's not conclusive at all. I don't want to get hung up on one example, but the totals mean nothing if 90% of page views are from people who arrived through an internal link from a ROH PPV or ROH Roster article. That would mean that people either only looked him up after seeing his name in another article, or, if they intended to look him up, they had to go through another article to find him because our cataloguing was defective. There's no definitive way of knowing. Even specific navigational statistics can only give us an idea of what's going on, and not the real picture. The best thing for everyone involved is to just catalogue the articles correctly and leave the rest up to the reader. Waiting for things to be obviously broken before trying to improve them is an excellent way of ensuring institutional inertia. Feedback 15:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
If the vast majority of page views come from internal links, the article could be placed at Clown Car Calvin or Some Guy Who Rarely Plays Zelda and not significantly affect accessibility. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Most of these are unfounded, wasteful and ridiculous, but I have neither the stomach nor the time to go through and oppose them one by one. That may be part of the strategy. I think I mentioned my previous career in politics. I dealt with people whose sole purpose was to lurk in the shadows and work towards pushing through unpopular initiatives. Just like some of these RMs, they would just keep trying and trying until they finally exhausted the patience of everyone else around them and got their way. As for one of Feedback's specific points, this is the problem with taking this from the perspective of an obsessive fan. I would imagine that most folks who search for "Hanson" are actually looking for Hanson (band) or Hanson Brothers. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 12:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Luchas de Apuestas?

So I've seen this show up sometimes on non-lucha wrestlers and I have to wonder what it exactly is and when should it be included in an article?*Treker (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I think this has gotten way out of hand. For example, a couple of days ago I saw Dolph Ziggler#Luchas de Apuestas record and just had to laugh. I think these should be restricted to articles about luchadors and luchadoras and matches promoted by lucha promotions (mainly Mexicans, but also promotions like Chikara). Also, per Lucha libre#Variants, remove all matches with wagers other than hair, mask, championship or career. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 21:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Apuestas should have one of the competitors risk their hair, mask or career. If that's not on the line for a match I'd say it's not an Apuesta. In Mexico these are higher profile than most championships which is why for Lucha articles it makes sense. it's not just "any old bet". Totally agree. hair/mask/career on the line should be the guideline.  MPJ-US  22:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • If we can establish a list of lucha promotions we can nuke this from everywhere else. Outside of Mexico, there's Lucha Underground in USA and Dragon Gate in Japan. starship.paint ~ KO 00:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
If the match used the term "Luchas de apuestas" on TV, then we add it. If it didn't, we don't. As simple as that. Since WWE has never used the Spanish-language term in the entire tenure of the company, then we shouldn't include them. Feedback 00:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Feedback no need to add it unless the it is identified as "luchas de apuestas" match Mattspac 01:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Luchas de Apuestas are not a Mexican thing, they are very common in Puerto Rico and were once common in Colombia as well. Its a Latin American staple in general, do not limit them to whatever promotions are aired in the US (mainly AAA, LU or CMLL) and ignore the other countries, they should be kept in the Latino biographies in general. 107.77.216.211 (talk) 01:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
To prove the point, take a look at Carlito's page and tell me how else we would classify all of those matches where his hair has been in play (hair vs. hair, hair vs mask) at WWC? 107.77.216.130 (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry but Sin Cara Azul vs Sin Cara Negro was a Luchas de Apuestas match in the WWE even of the name was never uttered, so was Eddie vs. Rey at WCW Halloween Havoc and Jericho winning Juventud's mask. If they follow the traditions of the Apuesta it qualifies, not if a person says the name on TV, after all we don't list Christina as Christian (Sports Entertainer) or Christina (Superstar) despite that being the WWE terms they use while the world in general say "wrestler".  MPJ-US  02:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
    • "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". Maybe WWE never named Lucha de Apuestas (Kane vs Vader, Kane vs Triple H, Jericho vs Mysterio, Sin CXara vs Sin Cara). However, these are Lucha de apuestas. However, I think is a good idea to recude the wagers to Hair, Mask, Title and Career. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
That sounds like OR to me. Lucha de Apuesta literally means a "Wager Match". We should either count all matches involving wagers, or only the ones specifically labeled as a "Lucha de Apuesta". Those are the only criteria we'll be able to confirm through reliable third-party sources. Any other arbitrary distinctions will be original research, as there's no reason why we should distinguish Rey vs. Jericho and Ziggler vs. Sheamus, when both matches involved wagers and neither was specifically called a "Lucha de Apuesta". Feedback 03:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Apuestas being mask, hair or on rare occasion career is not or I got a printed source on that. Adding stipulations that do not include those is the OR.  MPJ-US  03:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
"Lucha de apuesta" literally translates to a wager match. It's not OR in the least to say that a match involving a wager was a "wager match". You can't have your cake and eat it too. If we're treating "Luchas de Apuestas" as a marketing term for a specific set of matches, then we can't include matches that weren't marketed as such. Feedback 05:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
TNA usually names their TLC matches as Full Metal Mayhem. However, the matches still TLC matches and are included into the article. As MPJ said, we have a clar source about what a Lucha de apuestas is. For exampl,e Kane vs Vader, mask vs mask is a Lucha de Apuestas. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
It is a specific term, clearly defined and with reliable sources that define it. you cannot lump any game where your foot touches a ball under this term "football" just because that is the literal term either. By your definition any championship match is an Apuesta, after all the champion basically bets the championship on the outcome of the match.  MPJ-US  09:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
That's not my definition, you're missing the point. I'm saying that we shouldn't use the literal definition, and we should only list the matches that were marketed specifically as "luchas de apuestas", because that's the only way we can confirm what match was a "lucha de apuesta" through secondary and tertiary reliable sources. Most reliable sources don't attempt to define Luchas de Apuestas as only including mask, hair and career wagers. Reliable sources will say that these are the most prominent, but they won't say they're the only ones, because the term can and is used differently from promotion to promotion. For example, here's a promotion marketing a Beard vs. Beard match as a "Lucha de Apuesta". The current source in the lucha libre article says: "In a lucha de apuesta (betting match), wrestlers make a public bet on the outcome of the match. The most common forms are the mask-against-mask, hair-against-hair, or mask-against-hair matches." The source wisely doesn't give a closed definition because it would be OR to do so. If you say you have a written source that explicitly limits it to mask and hair matches, I'd challenge that as a WP:REDFLAG as it contradicts most other substantial coverage that mask and hair matches are only "the most common". We have to go with what reliable coverage says, and the only two valid interpretations are (1) thatany match where both competitors make a public bet on the outcome is a lucha de apuesta, or (2) that any match that is referred to a "lucha de apuesta" is a "lucha de apuesta". Feedback 16:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Correction - those are the only two valid interpretations you agree with. A Reliable Source stating "mask, hair, career" does not contradict an article that says "most common forms are mask and hair", they're both true, I believe I even stated myself that the "career" match is much rarer and thus all line up, nothing contradicts. By all means pick and choose which sources you choose to acknowledge to fit your point, your choice. This discussion is about to complete the fifth circle and I have no desire for another go around. So whether the choice is to "Zigglerrize" these into the ridiculous level or neuter them to the point where they're incomplete for wrestlers such as Rey Mysterio or Juventud Guerra who lost their mask in a match that by your standard woud not be listed go for, go for it.  MPJ-US  20:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Those are the only two interpretations in multiple reliable sources which are currently being used in these articles. Your alleged text source is a WP:REDFLAG in the sense that it uniquely limits the scope of the term when no other source does, and it's also contradicted by the evidence that I linked above that there are matches that are promoted as "Luchas de Apuestas" and they don't involve hair, masks or careers. If you want to play favorites with your source, then fine, but you'll have to find more substantial coverage to back up its claim, as well as figure out why other promotions are supposedly misusing the "Luchas de Apuestas" term. Feedback 23:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes so you claim - big bad "mysterious source" that dares be more specific so it's of course discredited? Despite being a well researched book that's already used in a large number of Lucha articles,. It's not a red flag when it's not saying something different than the other sources, it's just a little more specific. Also the first source listed under Luchas de Apuestas, the Canoe link lists mask/mask, hair/hair and mask/hair - so that's not saying "and more". Your one cited source says "common forms" are mask and hair - all sources agree to that, flag waving time? What other sources have you provided? Oh yeah the "beard" being promoted as an Apuesta - is that a reliable source? So I have a book that states Mask, Hair and on rare occasion career, in addition other published books on Lucha libre or with profiles of Mexican wrestlers that repeatedly mention Mask and Hair in regards to Luchas de Apuestas and nothing else, I have several books on the subject. You even provided a source that specifies mask and hair - you put the interpretation of "any" bet onto that source, which it does not support - engaging in your own OR there? You are clinging to your one source saying "most common are mask and hair" to argue for a "kiss my ass" match being included in the Apuesta list or that Rey Mysterio and Juventud Guerrera's mask losses being excluded from the list. Do please provide the "multiple sources" that support that claim, I have counted one reliable source used on Wikipedia as part of your "proof".
Sources that either outright stated mask, hair, career or only mentions mask/hair when talking about Apuestas
  • Madigan, Dan (2007). Mondo Lucha Libre: the bizarre and honorable world of wild Mexican wrestling. HarperColins Publisher. ISBN 978-0-06-085583-3.
  • The one book source you provided - Only confirms the Apuesta in the context of mask and hair, implies there are other options but does not hint at what they are. Cannot really be used to prove anything other than Apuestas matches include Mask and Hair, not what else it may be.
  • Various (2005). Lucha Libre: Masked Superstars of Mexican Wrestling. Distributed Art Publishers, Inc. ISBN 968-6842-48-9. - mentions Apuesta matches only in the context of masks or hair, no indication of it going beyond that.
  • Oliver, Greg; Johnson, Steven (October 1, 2012). the Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame - Heroes & Icons. ECW Press. ASIN B00B0SA9FW. - Chapter on Mil Máscaras references Mask/Hair
  • Link to the official rules and regulations of the Mexico City Boxing and Wrestling Commission - THE authority. I direct your attention to "Articulo 258" which mentions mask/mask, mask/hair and hair/hair

I could go on but really do I need to? But yes you do have that one book that you could twist into fitting your point of view - perhaps that's actually the WP:REDFLAG thing-a-ma-bob you keep waving? MPJ-US  00:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Request feom Polish Wiki

Hi guys! On Polish Wikipedia we have talk about standards of notability. It's not a popular talk, because prowrestling is not very popular in Poland. So we will be very grateful, if you check our proposal: LINK. !KrzysiekBu! (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the criteria.*Treker (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 in professional wrestling

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, and started the 2016 in professional wrestling article earlier this year. It was recently highlighted that the article was an orphan, so I've been trying to find ways to link other articles to it, however I've had a couple of my edits undone. I figured that the best way to do it would be to look at articles for 2016 wrestling events/PPVs, and where it states the date of the event early in the article, add a link to the 2016 part of the date. Does anyone have any better ideas to promote/link the article?

There is obviously still a lot of information missing or incomplete in the article, as I've pretty much been updating it myself since I started it (with the exception of some people who have kindly been keeping the deaths section up to date), so ideally I'm hoping that some more people will find the article and will help to keep it up to date, and that this will lead to annual "year in professional wrestling" articles from now on. Edin75 (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I like the concept on there, the challenge with a page like that is first of all that there is no set guideline for what should be listed. I see individual indy shows listed, some that were deleted for not being notable enough for their own page. I think there needs to be some sort of criteria for inclusion or we'll get Bubba's Bouncy Federation's BounceaMania II: Bounce Harder on there, it will get all Crufty. Also - the first table and then promotion is double dipping. I would instead recommend breaking it down by month - that way you don't have Fantasticamania on there three different times in three different tables.  MPJ-US  02:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Yes, one of the issues I've been having is what to include and what not to include, but as a general rule I've only been adding details for promotions that already have a wiki page, and whose main roster members also have wiki pages. For example, when it comes to the UK, this is why I've only included the current three biggest promotions: RPW, Progress and ICW. As for layout, I used the 2016 in sports article as a rough template, where it gives a chronological list of all events first, followed by a breakdown of events for each sport. Although I must admit, I'm not very happy with the way I've currently got the Calendar section set up, so I might consider just reducing that to major events only, and separating it into months. The plan will then be to include more information in the sections for each individual promotion, with more detailed information for the larger promotions such as WWE and NJPW. You also touched upon another question I meant to ask, regarding the listings for co-promoted events, and also for events that run over several days. Any advice regarding the best way to list these would be more than welcome. Edin75 (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I might have a lot to say about the usefulness of this article. Right now, I wanted to respond to "we'll get Bubba's Bouncy Federation's BounceaMania II: Bounce Harder...will get all Crufty". I see they changed the pornstar criteria fairly recently to delete or keep articles on bottom feeders based upon whether the articles serve as WP:COATRACKs to various awards that no one but obsessive porn fans have ever heard of (didn't I just click on a link from this page to an article about some jabroni who it seems only has an article because he worked a handful of matches for the WWF?). It doesn't take an hours-long examination of reliable sources to arrive at the conclusion that Own My Ass ≠ Citizen Kane. Hopefully, we're not going to go that route, as this veers a little too much towards being an unfocused WP:INDISCRIMINATE violation as it is. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The intention with this article was to create a page that summarises the events of 2016 in the professional wrestling world and that provides links to the events and the wrestlers that headlined them, rather than focusing on a specific area. There are many, many subjects on Wikipedia that have "2016 in..." articles (and other years previously), and it actually surprised me that professional wrestling didn't have one, and indeed never has had one. As a fan of professional wrestling, it's useful for me to see an at-a-glance list of, for example, NJPW or CMLL events, and in years to come, it would be interesting for me to be able to look back and see who was winning what, who was headlining where etc., back in 2016. In terms of what promotions are included, I've already stated that the intention was only ever to include significant promotions that already have a significant number of related articles on Wikipedia. The reason why certain sections appear incomplete, or inconsistent with other promotions' sections, is entirely down to time. Apart from the people that keep the deaths section updated, and the one guy that added an NWA event, I'm the only person regularly editing the page, and unfortunately I just don't have the time to keep it constantly up-to-date. Edin75 (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Eric Young (wrestler)

People keep adding that he's signed to WWE, when he's not. I added a notation in the article in hidden text that he's not signed, ala James Storm last year. But people keep changing. I got it protected last week for 3 days. Maybe it should be again. This is really starting to piss me off. CrashUnderride 03:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

  • How about writing he "performs" for WWE NXT? I added that in the lede. If you keep removing mention from WWE from the lede, of course IPs will just add it back, and with mistaken information. starship.paint ~ KO 03:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

WWE Global Cruiserweight Series

I can't find a page about this tournament, which is gathering enough attention to be considered notable already. And which, BTW, is already underway. 107.77.216.211 (talk) 01:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not underway. Those are qualifying matches, not the tournament itself. Right now, any mention of the show will be redirected to WWE Network#Upcoming shows. Creating an article at this point when there's hardly any information except a few participants would be crystal-balling its notability. It could be canceled, postponed, or done away with on a throwaway episode of NXT. Until we have more information, it won't get an article. Feedback 03:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The tournament has enough independent third party coverage to fulfil the General Notability Criteria so someone could create it now and source it. As long as the article covers what has been announced or the qualifiers so far it's not Crystal-balling anything, just covering facts. So someone just have to actually want to do the work.  MPJ-US  00:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Agreed. This has recieved so much coverage that it clearly passes the GNG. And if it is cancelled for what ever reason (which seems exceedingly unlikely), that itself would be notable based on the amount of coverage it's already received. An event that doesn't happen can be just as notable as one that does, if it's a high-profile announcement that falls apart; the circumstances of it falling apart are suitable material for inclusion. As such, there's no reason not to create the article now, and no basis to demand a redirect. oknazevad (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
It would be a list of results and nothing more. That's trivial, especially since these are qualifying matches and not part of the tournament. There will literally be no substance to this article and we will be relying on it gaining notability in the future. A canceled event can be notable, but not this one right now. If the tournament was canceled today, there would be nothing that meets the GNG. Feedback 00:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • nothing aka multiple coverages in independent third party reliable sources.... So basically meeting the GNG. Does not sound like nothing to me.  MPJ-US  01:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I won't do it because I don't want to be spoiled. LOL. Anyway, all information about qualifying matches can go into the actual article. PPV articles have Background and Storylines, as a similar thing.starship.paint ~ KO 02:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Background needs to have substance. Right now, it's only a list of matches. It's true we have third party sources that confirm these qualifiers happened, but we also have multiple third party sources confirming that last Monday's episode of Raw happened. Does that mean it warrants its own article? Something needs to be accomplished other than a list of match results that aren't even an official part of the tournament. Coverage that confirms the tournament is being planned for the future doesn't mean anything when we have no other information, no brackets, no release date or anything else. It's WP:FANCRUFT to make an article about a list of qualifier matches and nothing else, and it's WP:CBALL to expect anything else to be added. Feedback 18:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Champion Carnival

Wow, they went and deleted Champion Carnival, a tournament AJPW has held for decades that has been won by some of the biggest names in pro wrestling history. I didn't have this page on my watchlist so I had no idea someone had nominated it for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Champion Carnival). I'm 100% sure I could have found sources that would have established the tournament's notability and would have saved it. Does anyone know what I could do to bring it back? Do I just have to recreate it from scratch with the new sources? リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The article absolutely was a mess. It lacked sources and was basically all just results and I do accept it's basically my fault for not checking the "article alerts" page for recent AfDs, but I think it's horseshit that they sneak this by with just two votes (from non-pro wrestling editors) and eliminate an article for one of the biggest tournaments in pro wrestling history. Yeah, I'm pissed. Had one of participants in the AfD done their job and taken a second to scan the net for articles such as this, maybe this disaster could have been avoided. This is the kind of stuff that makes me want to leave this place for good. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 16:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

You can contact the closing admin and ask for it to be placed in your user space so that you can keep working on it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Definitely notable, definitely should exist on Wikipedia, probably shouldn't just be a list. But yeah, that was a cheap AfD. Rebuild it stronger, I'd say, but also be prepared to be pissed again. Sometimes merely having a previous deletion can go an absurdly long way against creation. Sometimes. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 in professional wrestling (update)

I've decided to stop updating this page and concentrate on sports page edits from now on. I've tried to create a page that can be used as a reference to all significant events in the world of pro wrestling over the course of the year (with a view to it being continued in years to come), but any links to the page that I try to add to WWE-related pages (within the rules, as far as I can see, and not detracting in any way from the WWE articles) immediately get undone. I can only assume they're being undone by WWE fans that don't like the fact that the 2016 page includes information about other promotions as well as WWE... as the 16-year-old WWE fan who undid my most recent edits put it: "it's useless".

If links are going to be immediately taken down on the pages that are most likely to provide 2016 in professional wrestling with a bit more traffic, then it really feels a bit like I'm flogging a dead horse. It's a shame, as professional wrestling is one of the areas that I feel has really deserved an annual "year in" article, and hasn't previously had one. Hopefully someone will keep this going, as it would be a shame to see the work I've done so far going to waste.
Edin75 (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's the article he's objecting to, but the link formatting. Dates aren't supposed to be linked, even if it is just piling to a year-in-review article. See WP:MOSDATE and WP:EGG. Nothing wrong with adding a link to the article in the see also section, but a link date in the infobox is not the way to do it. oknazevad (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Spot on. Links could be added to a "see also" section on all 2016 show articles and I would expect the links will then stay.  MPJ-US  13:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying the reason why the links might have been removed. It would have been nice if either of the two users that removed links had explained this, rather than leaving comments such as "it's useless", which ironically is completely useless feedback. I've actually decided to concentrate more on sports page updates anyway from now on, so my future contributions to the 2016 article will likely be few and far between, but I hope someone else keeps it up, as I personally think it's worthwhile. Edin75 (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Despite the discussion and suggestions earlier in this thread, the links still get removed from the "See also" sections of any 2016 WWE event page where they've been added. No reason is given by the user in question for the links being removed. I'm planning to work exclusively on sports page edits from now on, but as I created the 2016 in professional wrestling page I've still been checking it out every so often. I'd suggest that it gets deleted if nobody wants to update it, as it will very quickly fall out of date. Personally, I find "2016 in..." pages to be very useful for reference in sports and other subject areas on Wikipedia, but it appears professional wrestling isn't ready for one yet! :) Edin75 (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

WWE: Live In Hawaii ‎AKA Bash at the Beach 2016 aka WWE Live Honolulu June 29

User: Seblake513 has been adding duplicate articles about this event on June 29, claiming it will be a WWE network special (Bash_at_the_Beach_(2016) is the latest). The sources for this don't seem to be reliable. They have also been adding links to this article (or its duplicates) from other articles (such as Bash at the Beach and List of WWE Network events). I am not convinced that this is anything other than a WWE Live house show, as it is still listed on their website as such[13]), so I've proposed it for deletion. I mention it here so the proposal gets a good response, and so people can keep an eye out if this user tries to create versions of this article again, or tries to add references in other articles. Silverfish (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_97&oldid=1227127162"