Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 109

Archive 105

←

Archive 107

Archive 108

Archive 109

Archive 110

Archive 111

Archive 112

HOF/Free agent

Just wanna hear some opinions on this:

How should we list wrestlers who are not part of any brand on Royal Rumble article pages? Obviously this would only apply to those Rumbles which took place during a brand extension period, where brands and such are specifically listed.

My thoughts - WWE Hall of Famers should be listed as such, as that's how they're listed on WWE.com.

Likewise, "guest entries" are by and large listed on WWE.com as alumni.

So here's the thing - should we separate HOFers and alumni as WWE does on their superstar page, or should everybody without a specific brand just be dumped in 1 bucket?

Since WWE itself separates HOFers from alumni on their roster page, we should kinda follow suit - that's where I sit...what say you?

Vjmlhds (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

First, I have change free agent for unbranded, since several times, these are not free agents and just kayfabe, WWE fiction (Lacey Evans and Nikki Storm in 2019 weren't free agents). My point is... The royal rumble articles include the brand for the wrestlers. RAW, SD and sometimes, ECW, NXT, NXT UK and 205 Live. This is important since some of them are tied with the world title. But sometimes there are several surprises, which we list as Free agent/unbranded. The HOF distinction means nothing. The status of Christian and Edge are the same, two unbranded wrestler, with the difference that Edge was included in the promotion Hall of Fame. We don't have to follow WWE in every step they make. Starting with the bad "free agent" word. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that it should only apply during a brand extension period. Hall of Famers and alumni should be notated regardless, IMO. I have no issue with distinguishing between the two, especially when some truly are free agents (i.e., there's no contract, it's just a one-off appearance and nothing more). --JDC808 ♫ 18:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

That's one of my issues. In 2001, Honky Tonk man made one appearence as he was not with the promotion, but he is not noted since there are no "brand". In the greatest Royal Rumble, we have Mark Henry (a wrestler hired by WWE), Hiroku Sumi (a no wrestler), Mysterio and Khali (wrestlers not hired by WWE) all of them as "free agent" (Henry is not a Free agent). Also, in the GGR we have Kurt Angle, a Hall of Famer who is assigned to RAW. Same for Cross and Evans in 2019, two women under contract with WWE labeled as free agents. I agree to include the different status (ex, wrestler unassigned, one night appearence, working as producer like Hurricane or Road Dogg), but I don't see how the Hall of Famer status is relevant for the article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Well one thing is wrong with that. Kurt Angle wasn't assigned as a Raw wrestler during the GRR, he was just the Raw GM at the time. --JDC808 ♫ 18:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Right, he was the RAW GM. However, he is pointed as RAW member. Just like Beth Phoenix, who is listed as NXT because she worked as NXT Commentator. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Kurt Angle is an odd position. He was an authority figure over Raw, but he wasn't an active in-ring performer representing Raw. But, whoever listed Beth Phoenix as NXT there is wrong. She should be listed as Hall of Famer. She wasn't representing NXT in the match, she was there as a legend/Hall of Famer. --JDC808 ♫ 18:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

As far as I remember, announcers and GM are part of the brand. During the Draft, Jim Ross was drafted to SmackDown. Also, SD GM Paul Heyman was Drafted to RAW. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Bash at the Beach 2000

In the Vince Russo article, it says after the Bash at the Beach 2000 match, Hulk Hogan cut a worked shoot because of the way things were booked. Was it actually a worked shoot? I haven't been able to find a source that says it was worked. Around that time a lot of talent were leaving because of the state of the company. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 21:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah it was a worked shoot. It's been confirmed by all parties, I think. Didn't Hogan also take this to court and they had to explain this on record? I could probably find my copy of The Death of WCW and see what that says if we need additional references. — Czello 21:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Czello: Correct. The case was thrown dismissed in 2003 or so because they ruled it was part of a storyline or something to that effect. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Japan Bio Stub

Why is there a Japanese wrestling bio stub template? It's highly redundant and unnecessary when there is the wrestling bio stub template. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Infobox professional wrestling championship

Is it just me or is this template generating unusual whitespace at the beginning of an article? I don't see any particular reason it should be looking at the code and based on my knowledge of infobox templates, so I'm wondering if someone with more infobox-fu can take a look and see what might be causing it. oknazevad (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Is it a specific article it's doing this for, or all of them? Also, what browser are you using? — Czello 23:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

All of them that have a single blank line between the end of the template and the lead paragraph in the code appear with what seems like at least two lines of white space pushing down that lead paragraph. I've seen it on every pro wrestling championship article, and only on pro wrestling championship articles (not on any other infoboxes). I'm using Safari on an iPhone in desktop mode. oknazevad (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

What Czello goes for me. It doesn't show up my computer and I use Firefox as my main browser. Oknazevad, what you are using might be your issue. It doesn't show up on the Chrome mobile browser. I have a Samsung phone. Try another browser or check for updates on the browser you're using. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

NXT, Third brand

Hello. As you know, WWE says that NXT is no longer the farm territory. Instead, it's the third brand. However, despite WWE efforts, many people still calling it farm territory. Recently, Adam Cole defended NXT status as main roster, but yesterday, PWInsider said Priest made his main roster debut. It's not the first time reliable sources uses the word main roster, call-up or similar. Since WP:NPOV says " representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" and WWE is known for changing story for his benefit, do you think that, at least, we should mention this in the NXT article? Something like "despite being promoted as the third brand, several fans and journalist refereed NXT as a no-main roster brand/farm territory" --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Third-party sources either are not comfortable with calling NXT the third brand/main roster or still just don't view it as such. They've been calling Raw and SmackDown main roster and NXT developmental for years that they think it still is (that doesn't mean they're right, that's just their view, their mindset). But on the NXT article, it can be mentioned that despite WWE labeling it as the third brand, third-party sources still refer to it or view it as developmental. --JDC808 13:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Not only that, but the Damian Priest article has a section header that says "main roster debut." With NXT being the the third brand, that would also make it the "main roster" thus making the wording of that section header incorrect. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

We have to give more WP:WEIGHT to what reliable sources say. WWE puts out flowery press releases (which we've discussed endlessly before) in which they hype up their product but just because they say it does not make it reality. We need to take the same approach we do with disputed lengths of title changes: report what WWE says and then report what really happened. HHH Pedrigree's proposal works.LM2000 (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but outside sources, reliable or not, can't say what is and is not a company's developmental system (they might still view it as such, but they have no actual say on that decision). The company determines what is and is not their developmental system. Like I said in my original post, which goes with HHH's proposal, there can be a mention that outside parties still "view it" as such. --JDC808 09:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

As @Czello: said on another discussion, WWE has the bad habit of change history for promotional purposes. In my POV, NXT still used as a farm territory (no draft picks, no talent going to NXT but exceptions like Balor...). We can't take WWE word as the Holly Grial for everything since they promotes themselves a lot (If they want, they can claim Hornswoggle is the Greatest Cruiserweight Champion of all time), but I agree with JDC's proposal. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but this isn't them changing history (well it is, but not in the way you're trying to say they are). They aren't using NXT as developmental anymore (they're using the WWE Performance Center and promotions like Evolve as developmental now). So no offense, but your POV on that doesn't matter. Also, pretty much the reason NXT wasn't in this past draft was because of COVID (it's what kept them out of Survivor Series just the following month). Anyways, the topic issue is pretty much taken care of as the proposed changes have been implemented. --JDC808 11:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Evolve no longer exists, FYI. oknazevad (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I knew that WWE had acquired them but didn't realize they were no longer running shows in any form (aside from COVID reasons). --JDC808 12:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

NXT is the third brand, period, end of story. If outside sources still call it developmental, it's just a case of "old habits die hard"...they get something stuck in their head, and they just won't budge no matter what. How often do people still refer to the Washington Football Team as the Redskins? Same principle. And this kind of ties in - what is stopping us from recognizing the NXT Championship as a world title other than pure stubbornness? Vjmlhds (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The preponderance of reliable, independent sources. We're not here to parrot WWE's self-promotional line. oknazevad (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The NFL calls the Super Bowl it's championship game. If a "reliable source" said it wasn't, would we be calling the NFL's POV "self-promotional"? Lame argument (with all due respect). Vjmlhds (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

At the end of the day, the league/promotion is the one who says what is and isn't true about their own property.

• MLB calls the World Series their championship series, their word is law.
• The NFL calls the Super Bowl it's title game, their word is law
• WWE calls NXT it's third brand (and NXT Title a world title), their word is law.

Independent sources are useful to see if a wrestler (or to broaden it out any player of a sport) has signed with a promotion/league/team/brand or if a major announcement is made, but NOT to decide how certain things in a promotion or sports league are to be categorized, as it isn't their call to make (and by extension not our call to make).

If Wikipedia consensus says the sky is green and the grass is blue, it doesn't mean it is.

Vjmlhds (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

WWE said Andre the Giant never was slammed before WM 3, which is false. Independent sources are one of the Wikipedia's pilars for "build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject". In that case, WWE considers NXT as a third brand, while independet sources still see NXT as a develomental brand. Not us, but independent, third-party sources. There is also Wikipedia:PRIMARYCARE "The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities. It is not likely to be an acceptable source for most claims about how it or its products compare to similar companies and their products / It is never an acceptable source for claims that evaluate or analyze the company or its actions," --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

How any sports league categorizes their own property is their call and theirs alone to make. It isn't up to outside sources to declare what is and isn't a "third brand" or world title. Saying Andre was never slammed is different than classifying what is and isn't a world title. Categorizing brand status or world title status isn't up to the outside sources, as it just isn't their call to make, as it isn't their property. He who owns it calls the shots. Vjmlhds (talk)

Again, not us, but independent, third party sources. Again, read Wikipedia:NEUTRAL, WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:PRIMARYCARE. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

What they say means nothing, as it isn't their call to make, because it isn't their property...none of that applies. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

These policies ALWAYS apply. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

No, they don't. It isn't one size fits all. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, yes it is. "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view / This policy is non-negotiable,". Clearly, ZERO clue of how Wikipedia works --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Who decides what is neutral? There is no such thing as purely neutral. Everything is in the eye of the beholder. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Seriously man, you're here since 2008. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

So? What does that have to do with anything? Vjmlhds (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Completely incorrect understanding of Wikipedia policy. Period.oknazevad (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Was that directed at me or HHH? Vjmlhds (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

You. HHH is spot on with his understanding. You are not. oknazevad (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, who decides what is neutral? Vjmlhds (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to review WP:NPOV. You know, the policy on these things. oknazevad (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

So? it doesn't answer the question...just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

And there's the problem. Failure to bother to comprehend policies and guidelines. WP:CIR. oknazevad (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

No, all it is is a bunch of Wikispeak, and doesn't answer the direct question of who decides what is neutral. Answer the question straight up, and don't hide behind jibberish. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

No. you refuse to put in the effort, despite having been here for over a dozen years. I don't owe you anything at this point. Do your own homework. oknazevad (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Translation - you don't want to answer the question because you'd rather hide behind gobbledygook than talk to someone man-to-man and answer a simple question. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

No, proper translation: quit whining because you're too lazy to put in the effort that everyone else has. You're not special. oknazevad (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Come on, people -- this is getting a bit out of hand. Let's all remember to be WP:CIVIL; we're all friends here, and just trying to better Wikipedia. For what it's worth I'm in full agreement with HHH Pedrigree here as he's backed up his view points with the appropriate policy. That said I don't agree with the exact wording he's chosen (despite being promoted as the third brand, several fans and journalist refereed NXT as a no-main roster brand/farm territory). However I wonder if we could have our cake and eat it too by referring to it as both developmental and a third brand -- though in such a way that it doesn't imply that it's "main roster". — Czello 15:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

In fact, I included JDC's words, so I think it works. If you have a better wording, be my guest. :) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

It's on USA Network in prime time...how is that not main roster? We make life way harder than it has to be by making things more complicated/convoluted than it needs to be, because we're always trying to be the smartest guy in the room. And regarding policy, there should only be 2 - no personal attacks based on race/sex/religion/disability, and no threats of violence/harm (physical or otherwise). Because when you get right down to it, everything else is just a bunch of noise/mumbo-jumbo, and should be thrown in the fireplace, as it serves a better purpose as firewood to keep people warm than it is for building an encyclopedia. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

It's on USA Network in prime time...how is that not main roster? I'm sorry, but this is just straight up WP:OR, dude -- it's your interpretation of things. Can't say you'll get any agreement with your view that there should only be two policies, either, but I think that's something you'll have to take up at WP:VPP. — Czello 15:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

You're proving my point...does there have to be a WP:(fill in the blank) for every little stupid thing around here? This place would be a lot better off if we shed a lot of the dead weight meaningless WP:Babble and just let things fly. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)~

Apparently there does have to be these policies because otherwise people will use original research to claim all sorts of things. That's why we have these policies. Indeed, I'd say that you might be proving that point. — Czello 15:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

A lot of these policies are there just so people can keep quoting them to make them feel like they're the smartest guy in the room and talk down to others. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. But I don't think anyone here is doing that. We're citing policy because it's the best way to determine how we can be neutral in our presentation of the facts. — Czello 15:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no such thing as pure neutrality...everything has some bias in it, and people just want to find the version that best suits their own tastes. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sigh, HHH Pedrigree often tries to site policies, which of course is not wrong; however, he is trying to apply it to something that it really cannot be applied to. Independent sources cannot say what is and is not WWE's developmental system. They do not make that decision. They cannot make that decision. They can only provide a viewpoint. That's it and that has appropriately been included into the NXT article. This is not a case of "parroting WWE's self-promotional line" as oknazevad puts it. Saying WWE are the "greatest promotion ever" would be doing that. Classifying what is and is not the stage in which they train and prep their wrestlers for in-ring and promotional work, particularly for television, is not. Vjmlhds is taking a very incorrect approach in regard to refuting policies, but this classification of whether or not NXT is the third brand or that the NXT Championship is a world championship, I do agree with him. HHH Pedrigree attempted to cite Wikipedia:PRIMARYCARE, but it actually supports my own argument, as well as Vjmlhds' (although he hasn't exactly done the best to defend his argument). --JDC808 ♫ 16:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I have very strongly defended my argument...not my fault if people want to talk down to me by throwing WP:This, and WP:That around like they are so brilliant for quoting them to the letter. What's wrong with calling BS policies just that...BS? Vjmlhds (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say you didn't defend it strongly, just that you aren't taking the best approach. I do agree though that some policies do get a bit ridiculous and sometimes prevent us from making progress, which can be frustrating. But, having policies is to prevent the chaos that we sometimes see from the random IPs (and even some registered users, though they're usually the random IPs who are intent on vandalizing), and also to ensure verifiability so that we're not just spewing BS. --JDC808 ♫ 17:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when editors like to play "smartest guy in the room" and quote WP:whatever chapter and verse just to make themselves sound like King Crap of Turd Island, I'm not gonna sit here and be talked down to like a little kid. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

you acted like a child if, after 12 years, you don't even know basic wiki policies like NEUTRAL and you don't read them, even if several editors told you. These are not obscure wiki policies, these are the first thing you learn here. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

You see what I mean...right there. Who are you to "scold" me? You think you are sooooo special? Give me a break. You are not now, never have been, and never will be better than me in anything (Wikipedia or otherwise), so I suggest you watch your tone. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

again, acting like a child. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm just supposed to sit here and let you call me names? You better get the bass out of your voice right now. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Come on guys, let's get back on topic. This isn't going to end well for anybody at this rate.LM2000 (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

no, its supposed you will read policies and learn after several users told you, but you dont want to, so.... Again, acting. Like. A. Child. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC).

How is this not a personal attack? Vjmlhds (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay everyone, instead of us all cutting promos on each other does anyone have anything else they want to actually contribute to the discussion at hand? Because if not I'm just gonna hat this conversation to prevent it spiraling out of control. WP:CHILL, everyone — Czello 18:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I want an apology. HHH Pedrigree should not be allowed to insult me and not have to at least apologize. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree completely with JDC808. We don't decide what is a developmental territory. We don't decide what is a world championship. Secondary sources don't get to make that call. If the promotion says that something is a developmental territory, then it is. If a promotion calls something a world championship, then it is. If a promotion says something is a third brand, then it is. I agree that people can come across as obnoxious when linking to a policy or guideline. I agree that many people link to policies or guidelines that don't actually apply. I agree that we need policies and guidelines. I agree that HHH Pedrigree is completely out of line with the way he is addressing Vjmlhds. I do not believe an apology is forthcoming. I think everyone should shut up and move on with life. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

There's an RfC at Talk:NXT (WWE brand)#Requests for Comment: "third brand"/"main roster" regarding the "main roster"/"third brand" dispute. Vjmlhds started another discussion about the NXT Championship at Talk:NXT Championship#World title Part II. The articles should remain as they were until these RfCs are closed by an uninvolved editor. If this ends up at WP:ANI it's going to be a bloodbath, so take it easy.LM2000 (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I'll be an uninvolved editor. I don't watch wrestling, and I have no interest in people's bickering. If WWE says it's a third brand, it's a third brand. Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@GaryColemanFan: You have participated in many a discussion here. That makes you involved. Oh and no we shouldn't just move on. HHH Pedrigree doesn't get a pass. He should be talked to by an admin. He is not above Wikipedia policy on civility. He is going out his way to be uncivil by talking down to, insulting, and being condescending towards Vjmlhds. It's not the first time he has been like this either. Vjmlhds should take it to the WP:ANI or someon should or I'll find an admin to deal with this. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 10:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

To respond to JDC808, you can't use a promotion as development system when it's defunct ala Evolve. July 2, 2020; WWE bought the promotion. Plus, Evolve wasn't a development promotion. Evolve was used to scout talent nothing more. If it was used as a developmental promotion, people would be signed to some sort developmental contract to start. Or so one would think. But it wasn't a developmental promotion unlike Deep South Wrestling, Florida Championship Wrestling, and Ohio Valley Wrestling.

You said Finn Balor is the only one who went back to NXT. That means Breezango are not there now and were not NXT Tag Team Champions. That also means Charlotte Flair didn't go back for that brief period last year and Ember Moon is not there now for the second time. They may not get drafted to Raw or SmackDown, but that doesn't mean the talent on Raw or SmackDown aren't able to go there. With how things are seemingly shaping up, Edge might go there to challenge for the NXT Championship. Than again, he is a "free agent" and is not bound to Raw or SmackDown. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 10:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Evolve has been addressed. oknazevad made a comment about Evolve and I responded. Also, according to Edge's name graphic when he appeared on NXT, he's part of Raw. --JDC808 ♫ 10:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Carlito's WWE Status

I found a few sites that are saying Carlito is on a thee week trial run. Side note, MVP advocated for his return. 411Mania and What Culture both cite Wrestling Inc. as a source. While 411Mania is listed as semi-reliable, What Culture and Wrestling Inc. are listed as unreliable. Cultaholic is reporting on it. It's posted on Reddit. Nothing from the listed reliable sites showed in the search results. Why are unreliable sources reporting on it, but reliable sources seemingly not? If someone can find a reliable to add this information to the article, that would be great. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Just speculation on my part, but unreliable sources tend to report on things first because reliable sources often take a little longer to verify their stories. I expect they'll be reporting it soon enough. — Czello 22:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Czello: I know it's just social media, but Shelton Benjamin made a post on Instagram with Carlito in the picture. In the last part of the post, he said Carlito isn't signed. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 10:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe Benjamin says he isn't signed a full time contract. According to these sources, Carlito is under a 3 week tryout. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: Benjamin wouldn't say "unsigned" if Carlito is part-time. But you're assuming what type of contract Carlito signed if he is indeed signed. That's crystal ball which Wikipedia is not. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 10:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Badshah_Khan_(wrestler)

I'm not super savvy on notability guidelines for pro wrestlers, so I wasn't sure if this person would pass notability guidelines. There's a lot of coverage, but it appears to focus on his decision to partake in the WWE India tryouts.

Anyone want to take a look? The draft is Draft:Badshah Khan (wrestler). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@ReaderofthePack: You didn't bother adding his WWE tryout. WWE being the biggest company in the industry, that's not something you leave out. There is nothing about his early life. Says he is the current CWE World Heavyweight Champion. If that is true, there is no championships and accomplishments section. Plus that's not sourced. The statistics in the intro are not sourced. You don't put that sort of thing in articles. Can't find anything on notable feuds. His ranking in India is not notable. It's not like the PWI Top 500. A grammar issue. You don't "play" wrestling. Make sure you have correct categories. The wrestlers category is not for pro wrestlers. There are are multitude of categories for pro wrestling. If the article is short, you use the pro wrestling bio stub. When sourcing things; don't use the mobile version of the site and always add the language the source is in if not in English. Expanding the article, removing unnecessary stuff, more sources, etc.. If you are unsure if it would pass notability guidelines, it should have been kept as a draft until it was ready to be submitted for approval. The actual draft page is redirected to the article. It can easily be moved back to the draft page if necessary. I know it may seem like a lot of stuff to go on, but that's what I found for issues. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Hi! It's actually not my draft, the person who made it was TheChunky, so they would be the best person to approach. I noticed it while browsing AfC and while I know a little about prowrestling, it's really weak knowledge. I mean, I can verify claims for already sourced material but I can't really build an article or judge notability based on wrestling at this point. Thanks for taking a look at it and working on it! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@ReaderofthePack: If you actually click the link, it's not a draft. The draft page is redirected to the article. Thanks for clarifying who created the article. Oh and you check WP:PW/Notability next time. TheChunky, you need to participate in this discussion since, it was clarified that you created the article. Everything I said above still applies. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 16:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Brian Pillman Jr. images

Brian Pillman has made a comment on his Twitter that "None of my photos on my IG are copyrighted". This is in a conversation about how he wishes for his Wikipedia infobox image to be updated with a better image. Can we take this comment as indication that his selfies and other photos he has taken himself are posted on his Instagram are Public Domain?★Trekker (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

He may need to be more specific about licensing to release his selfies to the public, I'm not really sure though. He can't say that all of his IG images are free because he can only speak for the images he took personally, but the image that got uploaded should be fine. I've already made an argument against deletion on the file's talk page.LM2000 (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Either way it's not the uploader's own work, so the info on that file's description must be corrected or it will be deleted as false copyright claims. That Pullman took a selfie and released it in the public domain is perfectly acceptable for use in the article, but the description must be corrected. oknazevad (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Isn't Instagram a part of Facebook? In the work I do on Commons, it's mentioned frequently that Facebook's copyright terms are incompatible with anything that works for Commons. An explicit Creative Commons license works wonders, but I seem to have difficulty explaning how CC works to the average person or getting them to comply with the terms of the license when I deal with such matters out in the real world. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS: I just happened to see this. Instagram, WhatsApp, Oculus VR, Onavo (mobile web analytics), and Beluga (messaging service) are all owned by Facebook. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Bret Hart and Lloyd's of London

Wrestlers have been known to take out insurance policies with Lloyd's of London. Curt Hennig and Animal were two of many. They got paid out big lump sums. Apparently, they milked their injuries. Bret had a policy with them. He wasn't paid out and thus sued them in 2003. In 2004, Lloyd's of London paid $800,000 to Bret. When WWE was promoting the match between Bret and Vince WrestleMania 26, Lloyd's wasn't happy. The creative had to figure something else out. That's why they started teasing a tag team match with Bret and John Cena vs. Vince and Batista. Eventually, WWE and Lloyd's came to an agreement and the Bret vs. Vince happened. Just wonder if this sort of thing should be added to articles. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 09:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

For Hennig and Animal, I don't see it notable. About Hart, we can include it in the personal life section since he had a legal problem. About the WM match, nice. With sources, it can be included in the Bret Hart and WrestleMania 26 articles. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: One reliable thing I found is this [1]. But what needs to be found is how much he got from the lawsuit. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 06:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

template colors

This is a discussion 10 years ago, but times have changed, editors have changed, so let's see where we are in 2021 as compared to 2011.

Doing wrestling company templates in the colors of the company - yes, no, maybe?

What say the "peanut gallery"?

Vjmlhds (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'll be the first peanut to chine in - Yes. Nothing wrong with adding a little color, and spicing things up a bit (the default template color scheme is kind of drab and "blah"). MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, NCAA teams and all kinds of other companies have their templates in their respective color schemes, so why not here as well? Vjmlhds (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm generally opposed to it as I think 1) the branding is unnecessary 2) it's rare that the branding colours will be better than the default. I initially reverted the colour scheme on the AEW table, but I didn't contest it when I was undone because, while I don't think the colours are at all an improvement, they're at least palatable. (Side question, why is Template:AEW World Championship not consistent with Template:All Elite Wrestling? It seems one editor has arbitrarily made these changes on a whim.)

However, the hill that I'll die on is opposing this ugly mess. Paraphrasing what I've said elsewhere: The problem is that it's too bright. It's garish and has no definition. In the original, the colours compliment one another: different shades of blue layered on top of one another. It works. The other version is two colours: bright red and white. The harsh red borders around the edge of everything are a bit overwhelming. Plus, no effort has been made to change the blue-grey highlighting that alternates with each line, which conflicts with the red. It's like a Frankenstein's Monster of conflicting colours.

My final statement on this is simply: why do we have to brand everything? We're not part of WWE's marketing department. Does anyone think these clumsily-branded versions are actually an improvement on the default? — Czello 20:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Czello It's like anything else - after awhile, the same old-same old gets dull and drab, and you need to change things up (that's why people paint their houses). I actually like your suggestion from your talk page (black background, white letters, red border). To me it isn't garish, it makes it pop. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I supported adding color years ago and I still prefer it now. The problem is that the guidelines don't (or didn't, I'm not sure if they've been updated) give clear instruction so it's basically decided on a case-by-case basis and it has always been polarizing here. I could not tell you why some navboxes get color and others do not. The same group of us have been editing here for years so we don't really have new eyes looking into this and I doubt anybody has changed their mind.LM2000 (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I took a suggestion of Czello's and modified it, by using "softer" versions of the black and white color scheme so it doesn't smack you over the head with a sledgehammer. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I much prefer this version. A significant improvement, and the colours are indeed softer -- good work. I personally would still prefer the default if it came down to a vote, but I could stomach this version at least. Would be keen to hear from other members of the community. — Czello 08:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Not a fan personally. My main concern is that accessibility is being compromised in the name of aesthetics. McPhail (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Same here. Frankly, I don't see the need. Yeah, having all navboxes look similar may be dull, but those colors exist as a default for a reason, and branding is not a sufficient reason to vary from them. oknazevad (talk) 10:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind it with the softer colors, and as Vjmlhds pointed out, major sports teams are doing this with no problem. Also, how exactly is accessibility being compromised? --JDC808 ♫ 11:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

"Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method, such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information." and "Some readers of Wikipedia are partially or fully color-blind or visually impaired. Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible (see WCAG's "Understanding SC 1.4.3: Contrast (Minimum)")." We need to be following these standards wherever non-standard colours are used - but the simplest thing is just to stick with the default colour scheme. McPhail (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with colors. Barça and Real Madrid have navboxes with their colors. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I love the current WWE colors, but I'm biased because it's exactly what I proposed 7 or 8 years ago. I haven't participated in any discussions this time around though.LM2000 (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The Rock-Roman Reigns cousins

In Roman Reigns article User:ItsKesha is at it again, removing WP:RS contents based on personal views saying things like "there is no such thing as a non-biological cousin", despite the source provided in the article [2] clearly saying they are cousins, quoting directly "The 28-year-old is a member of the legendary Anoa’i family, a dynasty with wrestling running through its veins. Anoa’i’s father, Sika, is one-half of the WWE Hall of Fame tag team The Wild Samoans, and a sampling of his cousins includes Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, the Uso brothers, Rikishi, Umaga, and Yokozuna." and this has been widely accepted for years. Saying the are unrelated without providing any soure that claims Rock and Reigns are unrelated or seeing WP:RfC based on individual personal views is clear WP:NOR and WP:BLP violation. Anyway I am very busy these days and won't check back, this may even be my final edit for a long time, but I am just notifying WP:PW members of the matter, you guys can seek a consensus and decide, but I feel we should go with what WP:RS says which is they are cousins. Take care all. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we can have our cake and eat it too here: why not mention that they're adopted cousins, or some other alternative that establishes that it's a self-declared thing. — Czello 14:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Czello Yes it mentioned there they are "non-biological cousins" in the article, the source refers them as just cousins, the article was this way long before I even touched it, and User:ItsKesha totally removes that they are referred to as cousins across numerous WP:RS based on personal views. Anyway I left the matter to be sorted here, really my final say in this matter, nothing more from me, I just wish we keep Wikipedia's best interest and comply with WP:RS and under no circumstances unsourced editing based on personal views is allowed. Wp:RS says they are cousins, if User:ItsKesha claims they are not, a source saying they are not cousins should be provided. Have a good day, bye. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

This, this and this all say they aren't actually cousins, and actually explain why. I'd be curious for you to try and explain how exactly are they cousins? ItsKesha (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It's because Amituana'i Anoa'i and Peter Maivia called one another blood brothers, and so Afa and Sika though of Peter as their uncle. I think if the article states "non-biological" it's fine. — Czello 17:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Just for the Roman Reigns article alone, I'm not convinced a non-biological cousin is of such importance that it warrants a mention in the first paragraph of the lead. And the current wording in the personal section makes it sound like The Usos are non-biological cousins also. But apparently I'm vandalising the page by trying to amend it. The wording should be consistent for all members of any extended "family", and that includes mentioning the Snukas as well as per this. ItsKesha (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

"Non-biological cousin" is an unusual phrasing. How about "consider themselves cousins" or similar? McPhail (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Kayfabe cousins?Muur (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Friendly Reminder: Unreliable and Unproven Sources

I posted this on the sources talk page, but not sure how many will see this, so I'll mention it here as well. If you're on an article and see an unreliable or unproven source, change it or remove it. Don't look at it and think someone else will deal with it. I added Nick Patrick to List of former WWE personnel (N–R) and found such sources for other entries. I either changed or removed them. We should be more of a stickler with sources in terms of not letting them slip through the cracks. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 12:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

"SoCal Uncensored" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect SoCal Uncensored. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 25#SoCal Uncensored until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

This has morphed into a move request below. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress for SoCal Uncensored

There is a move request to rename SoCal Uncensored (professional wrestling) to SoCal Uncensored. Please discuss at Talk:SoCal_Uncensored_(professional_wrestling)#Requested_move_31_March_2021 AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Splitting lengthy C&A sections into articles

I just noticed that during Mitsuharu Misawa's GA review, the reviewer requested that the C&A section be split into a new article and Mitsuharu Misawa's championships and accomplishments was then created. Although this is the first time I've seen them done for wrestling, it's not uncommon to split awards from actor or musician articles. It's worth considering adding something to the styles guide so that we have some guidance on when these splits should happen (WP:FILMCRITICLIST just says such an article should be created when it "overwhelms the rest of the film article"). LM2000 (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue a split proposal isn't really part of a GAR. It would be fine to do, but I'm yet to see a wrestler have an unwealdly long C&A section. Ric Flair is the longest one I know of, and this isn't too long that it isn't suitable in the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Go check the Jerry Lawler article. It's longer. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 06:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Issues with Grand Slam page

I’m currently in an issue with a IP address user who constantly reverts my changes on the Grand Slam (professional wrestling) page. It’s in regards to the ‘2-time Grand Slam Champion’ text key where I’ve put The Miz and AJ Styles’ names in italics to indicate that they’ve won the Grand Slam more than once. This user has be constantly reverting these and adding ‘2 times’ next to their names (whole also removing the citations next to each wrestler’s name). I don’t know how else to deal with this, but if anyone knows what to do, please reply ASAP. Thanks Drummoe (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Blimey, there's a lot wrong with that page. Why are we even using italics to denote anything? Why are we only sourcing Styles in that list? Why are we flaunting WP:BOLDAVOID? Doesn't look like you've cited WP:BRD in any of your edit summaries, so I'd leave a link on their talk to here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with the IP. The legend says "italic means more than once", but not how many times. Right now it's not an issue since there are only 2 times (AJ and Miz), but maybe a trouble in the future. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove "Time Off for an Injury"

On the main article list of former WWE personnel it says:

"When talent is released of their contract, it could be for a budget cut, the individual asking for their release, for personal reasons, time off for an injury, or retirement."

Time off for an injury is not the same as being released. Generally, a company such as WWE doesn't release someone when they injured. That's a terrible business practice if they did. Plus, it could lead to a lot of other legal issues. That's not the point. WWE adds injury time to contracts. Unless there is proof with a source they do that, "time off for an injury" is not why someone would get released. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 07:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

My bigger concern is that people are using the word "talent" to refer to people. Wrestlers, performers, employees...all good. But never "talent" in an enyclopedia. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

"Talent" is a standard term for performers across all sorts of media, and not just pro wrestling. It's neither a neologism or a euphemism. No need to not use it. oknazevad (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

So I went and removed the clause. The objection is reasonable and based on historical evidence. Also, it really bugged me that it said "released of". Wrong preposition for use in that spot. One is released from contract. Fixed that too. oknazevad (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: I was going to remove what I brought up. It sparked discussion about other stuff within it which I wasn't expecting. But thank you for doing that. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

"Talent" is unnecessary jargon when all of the straightforward alternatives I suggested work. "Talent" in professional wrestling is a term popularized by Vince McMahon in an effort to get out of paying taxes and providing benefits for his employees. It looks terrible, makes wrestling articles look like they're written by fanboys, and has no place in an encyclopedia. We should remove every example as soon as possible. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean you're wrong on many levels. It's not just a term in pro wrestling, Vince didn't create it, and it's used as a collective term when there are multiple roles being covered so more specific terms are inappropriate. oknazevad (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

1, agree to remove "Time off for an injury". 2, About the word talent, no reason to remove it since it's a common term, not a pro-wrestling jargon. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, a talent is a word to describe what someone might have, not a word to describe people. It's an informal word, we should be using workforce or staff etc Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Talent is also a special natural ability to do something well, or people who have this ability. In this case, the people have the ability to wrestle. Maybe, an informal word, but not a term created by McMahon --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Your definition demonstrates that this is a POV term. They are employees. They are performers. We don't get to decide if they "do something well". It should not be used in a formal setting, particularly when there are more common terms that eliminate the POV concern and describe the people more clearly. Simply put, if there's a better word, we should use the better word. And nobody has claimed that Vince McMahon invented the term. Stop trying to misrepresent other people's views. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Chiming in. Although no one said that Vince McMahon created the term, you did credit him for popularizing it, which may or may not be true. I personally have no issue with using the word "talent." It's a universal term used in various entertainment industries and even businesses, but I do agree that if there are better terms, we should use those. --JDC808 ♫ 18:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Starting point of Attitude Era

In recent contributions to the History of WWE article , ip [User talk:24.38.208.110] made many edits starting from [3] in which he claims Attitude Era began in 1996, despite wider acceptance being 1997, requesting evaluation of the edits this ip made to the article on its revision history on April 11. Personally, I am following WWF since 1999, and while the attitude era is what git me into wrestling I didnt care for when its started, but as a member of wikipedia I hope the article maintains proper authenticity. Are the edits if this ip agreeable or not, an WP:RfC would be best. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

We really need secondary sources here; what WWE says is kind of irrelevant. Do we have secondary sources that determine the starting point of the AE? — Czello 15:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Secondary sources are needed. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

1998, 1997, 1997, 1997 Eras aren't easy, since several people use one or two big events, but it's rare to find a unique date. Most sources say 1997, WrestleMania 13, Montreal or Hart's debut on Nitro. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I guess the point is no secondary sources are saying 96. We can establish it as being 97 and maybe 98 depending on the source, but no earlier. — Czello 16:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Triple H suggests as far back as 1993, Goldust suggests late 1995 into 1996 when his character began, journalist Alex McCarthy says 1996 for the Austin 3:16 speech, journalist Sam Roberts says 1996 for "Pillman's got a gun". Just take the years off all the section titles, the prose should provide the necessary details of the titles without trying to nail it down to exact dates. ItsKesha (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

93 is god damn hilarious. Does he think New Gen didn't happen or something? — Czello 17:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree 100% with you Czello! It's a huge reach on his part, and I'd certainly not try and argue for the article to say it started in 1993 based off that, but it's not Joe Bloggs or Kay Fabe saying this. I think the opinion is worth mentioning somewhere as he's such a prominent figure both historically and in modern times, and it's an interesting perspective. ItsKesha (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Fun fact: the montage that opens the broadcast that was used throughout the Attitude Era was first used for Survivor Series 97. So there's that data point. I remember Joey Styles once dated it to the debut of the Titantron in early 97 as that allowed the live crowd to see what was happening backstage more easily, leading to a greater use of such segments, which are sometimes noted as the defining convention of the AE, which is also an interesting take. But, overall, secondary sources are needed. oknazevad (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

We can rule out 1993. Looking at the source mentioned Triple H said It’s funny because you can look at those shows and… it almost felt like, in some way, a little bit of the start of an ‘Attitude’ kind of feel within the vibe of it, yet you still had the Doink The Clowns and all the other things. It hadn’t morphed yet, but it was a game-changer for me in the excitement level. I see the haven’t morphed yet line as confirmation that he doesn’t think the actual era stared in 1993 and actually was saying that Raw created the building blocks of what would later become the Attitude era.--67.70.101.238 (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I feel Survivor Series (1997) is best fit as the starting point as it is when McMahon went full heel and it is when wwf's Attitude logo first appeared, but yeah am gonna go with any reliable WP:PW/RS, wwe themselves can be quoted but they have too conflicting opinions, as with Triple H's quotations mentioned in this discussion. The earliest I think can be acceptable KOTR 1996, thats when Austin's character really kick started and while other hints like Goldust's introduction in 1995 can be considered, they are coming from Goldust's own words, not officially recognized. the stand-alone Attitude Era article itself has been a mess for a long time. Before Survivor Series 1997 the term itself was never used at all which solidfies the introduction of the attitude logo as the most likely starting point while previous incidents were mere "hints". I think we should come to agree on a date and then set it in the article as the most possible starting point and if any unregistered ips try to change it without appropriate WP:PW/RS, we should seek WP:RfPP. Thank you to Czello for restoring the previous version, I think change to this should only be made after proper WP:RfC. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It's all up to interpretation. There was no clear beginning or end of the era. There was a slow transition out of New Generation and much of the early Ruthless Aggression era was indiscernible from the AE. Personally, I view AE as having lasted from Survivor Series 97 to WrestleMania X-7, but I'm just some guy. ItsKesha's proposal of removing dates and describing everything in the prose makes sense to me.LM2000 (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Part timers

Is there something in the MoS about how we should label them? Both David Arquette and Dennis Rodman list them as professional wrestlers in the lead, but there is a user that is irked about Bad Bunny being listed as such. Since he is shouting and posting long edit summaries, I would prefer to discuss this. El Alternativo (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, Bad Bunny is not a professional wrestler. Not even a part-timer. Both David Arquette and Dennis Rodman actually had somewhat of a wrestling career. Bad Bunny just made some appearances and competed in one match over the course of about 2.5 months. There was also a video package that aired during WrestleMania 37 Night 2 with Bad Bunny and Triple H where it basically confirmed that Bad Bunny was done with wrestling, at least for the foreseeable future. In terms of the MoS, no, but to label someone as a part-timer would mean that they make periodic appearances with a few matches over an extended period of time, not a few guest appearances and one match over a very short period of time. --JDC808 ♫ 01:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

If (say) someone who has acted in one film is an actor, I think anyone who has wrestled a match is a wrestler. But it doesn't need to appear in the lede. McPhail (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it absolutely shouldn't appear in the lead. I remember a few years ago that "professional wrestler" was listed in the opening sentence of Snooki's article, which is ridiculous. Let's not repeat it for Bad Bunny. — Czello 08:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Arena tenancies

Yesterday, I visited Dorton Arena to take photographs of the building. Today, I looked at the article to see if any of the photos could be used. After reading the article, a long-simmering complaint came bubbling up to the surface. In general, many arena articles are blatant POV exercises skewed by ice hockey fanboys. Specific to the complaint, arena tenancies are portrayed solely as involving named sports teams. Also, these articles skew the coverage of wrestling shows towards PPV and similar events from the past 25-30 years.

Having gone over the background, here's the crux of the complaint. The article states "Dorton Arena has hosted numerous sporting events and teams throughout the decades. The longest-running tenant was the Raleigh IceCaps (ECHL) ice hockey team from 1991–1998." If a wrestling promoter held regularly-scheduled shows in an arena for X number of years, that's a tenancy. Really, that applies to any sort of promoter or event, but that's beside the point. I'm pretty sure the Murnick family (local promoters for JCP) held regularly-scheduled wrestling shows at Dorton for far longer than seven years. This isn't a WP:SOFIXIT deal involving one edit to one article, as this problem is pretty widespread across many articles. I'm not sure many others look at it this way, otherwise this POV wouldn't be so pervasive, so I'd be interested in hearing what others think about this. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, especially when you look at recent times with WWE taking residencies for their ThunderDome shows, as well as AEW at Daily's Place. Sure, pro-wrestling isn't a "real" sport, but that doesn't change the fact that promotions have had tenancies at arenas. --JDC808 ♫ 03:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure the legitimacy of pro wrestling as a sport versus any other sport really matters to this argument. If a promoter books an arena to hold trade shows eight times per year, year in and year out, that's also a tenancy. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that to argue against you, but that's probably the argument those guys (the "ice hockey fanboys" as you called them) would try to use. --JDC808 ♫ 05:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Would we count recurring annual pay per views in a single arena as a tenancy? For instance SummerSlams 2009-14 at Staples Center, 2015-18 at Barclays Center, January 4 Tokyo Dome Show, Wrestlemania 4 and 5 in Boardwalk Hall, Payback 2013-14/16, etc. DrewieStewie (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Kenny Omega's three championships

There's a discussion on Talk:Kenny Omega (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) about whether the term "triple world champion" should be included in the article. Your views and comments would be much appreciated. Thank you all! KyleJoan^talk 08:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

YouTube personality infobox

I'm seeing that some professional wrestling BLPs contain the {{Infobox YouTube personality}} template in the other media section, which I find odd since the template is intended to replace the {{Infobox person}} template for YouTube personalities. That aside, I'm not sure I would regard any wrestler as notable as a YouTube personality. Yes, some wrestlers post vlogs, and it becomes a gray area when reliable sources discuss the vlogs' content (e.g., Sammy Guevara's apology to Sasha Banks), but more often than not, the vlogs and channels themselves aren't notable either. The only exceptions I can think of are UpUpDownDown and Being the Elite, but it's also arguable whether those channels make their creators notable as YouTube personalities. Thoughts? KyleJoan^talk 08:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

One infobox on a page is plenty. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

That’s makes sense for me and I don’t see a reason to have the YouTube infobox unless there’s a suggestion that a particular wrestler is actually better known as a YouTuber.--67.70.101.238 (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd consider UpUpDownDown/Xavier Woods/Austin Creed as being the only one who truly is worthy of the youtube infobox, since his Youtube Presence and notability is akin to his wrestling presence and notability. Woods is known as a high profile wrestler, as well as a high profile youtuber. His youtube success as an individual involved in the pro wrestling world is unrivaled. DrewieStewie (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, Asuka and Xavier Woods' channels are the only notable ones. Both are verified accounts, have media coverage, received YouTube Creator Awards, have dozens of subscribers, and they are actually content creators. Most YT channels of other wrestlers are just similar to their social media accounts or they are just very personal vlogs. Jim Cornette's channel is popular but it's just a platform for publishing his podcasts, more or less. There are gamer wrestlers like Mia Yim and Jessamyn Duke but their channels are still not notable. Wario-Man ^talk 13:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

If they are notable, then the channel should have their own article and infobox. The individual infoboxes are designed for one per page. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Then someone better add it to WP:PW/MOS. It will be helpful. Wario-Man ^talk 14:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

We have MOS:INFOBOX, which covers it pretty well. We shouldn't be copying all MOS down to a local project level. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Moving NJPW World

If I proposed "New Japan Pro-Wrestling World" → "NJPW World" again, would I have support from anyone here? I tried recently but gave the wrong reason. Also, no one contributed to the discussion. Wanchan2020 (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Wanchan2020: yes I'd support that, the website makes it clear that NJPW World is the commonly use phrase. McPhail (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @McPhail: Thanks. My reasoning would be that it's the official English name (i.e., the preferred English name by the English NJPW staff as there aren't trademarks/copyrights to confirm) and that the long name is actually a mistranslation of the Japanese name (confusion among the Japanese NJPW staff). Wanchan2020 (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree. It's tje common name and official name--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Merger discussion for List of IWGP Intercontinental Champions

An article which may be of interest to members of this project—List of IWGP Intercontinental Champions—has been proposed for merging with IWGP Intercontinental Championship. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. SocietyBox (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Professional wrestling articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion

Category:Professional wrestling articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at BLP Noticeboard over billed height

There is a discussion at WP:BLPN#Template:Infobox professional wrestler on whether or not billed heights constitute a BLP violation, since Batista's publicist tried changing his exaggerated billed height to his actual height and discussion ensued. Please comment there if you have input. Thanks. DrewieStewie (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have made a Proposal: change "billed height/weight/from" to "character's height/weight/hometown" in the display of Template:Infobox professional wrestler. starship.paint (exalt) 02:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Withdrew my proposal. There is another proposal change "billed height/weight/from" to "Kayfabe height/weight/hometown". starship.paint (exalt) 03:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Prowrestling titles

I noticed a good number of articles link directly to official or semi official pictures. Is there a project policy preferring these pictures over pictures taken by contributors? I have an image I took of a title that is good quality, but I dont know if it would be preferred in the article. The belts are copyrighted no matter who took the picture so I don't know if there is a benefit in replacing the image or not. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• If we have free use pictures we should absolutely be using these in place of fair use picture. Fair use pictures can only justifiably be used where no free alternative exists. McPhail (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem is there is no such thing as a free use version of these images. An image of a copyrighted design is itself copyrighted as a derivative work. Even if the image itself is taken by a user, the belt is still subject to copyright and any image of it can only be fair use. As such, might as well use a higher quality image from the promotion as the fair use representation in the infobox, which is what we do. oknazevad (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Are we sure that the design of the belts is copyrighted? I am unsure this is the case, particularly for older titles. McPhail (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, very much so. Remember, copyright is automatic, not something that needs to be registered. And as creative works, belts are copyright, just like a sculpture. oknazevad (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. McPhail (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

In theory, belts from the '20s, '30s and early '40s are probably safe to photograph, but good luck finding any that weren't melted down to kill Hitler. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I would think that, in making a fair use claim, there's a difference between images in which the copyrighted belt is the focal point vs. incidentally worn or held by the subject. A picture of the belt itself would be considered replaceable if there is an alternative to a high-resolution/close-up picture of the details. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This is true, but if the image in question is the one used to illustrate the top of an article on the title, then really an image of the belt is the most appropriate thing to use, as it is the subject of the article. oknazevad (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I had a up close decent quality picture of the belt, but it was deleted under some free/fair use rule. Probably should have uploaded it here, but again not sure what is preferred. Sephiroth storm (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, but I already gave my thoughts (the lack of pressing need for the best picture vs. a picture) and am not going to argue the point. I hope you have a nice day. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Manual of Style: NXT TakeOver events and NXT special episodes

Example 1

• A. Karrion Kross defeated Balor at NXT TakeOver: Stand & Deliver.
• B. Karrion Kross defeated Balor at TakeOver: Stand & Deliver.

Example 2

• A. Io Shirai defeated Candice LeRae at NXT: Halloween Havoc.
• B. Io Shirai defeated Candice LeRae at Halloween Havoc.

Which format/style is more suitable? A (with NXT) or B (without NXT)? Wario-Man ^talk 14:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

B – They're articles about NXT events. Including "NXT" is a bit redundant. Only certain times do we need to include NXT (if it's a case where it's not understood that we're talking about an NXT event). It's the same reason we don't need to have "WWE" tagged on the front of every mention of their PPVs or TV shows. --JDC808 ♫ 19:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

B unless referring to main roster performer. DrewieStewie (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

WWF World Heavyweight Championship vs. WWF Championship

Is there a consensus about how the promotion's top belt was referred to at various points? Much of my editing has focused on 1992-1996 (particularly pay per views). I regularly see people change the name of the belt title from WWF World Heavyweight Championship to WWF Championship, then back again and repeat. I don't really care one way or the other, but I get tired of the changes. Any thoughts? GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think there is a consensus/right answer. From a random sample of matches from that period, the ring announcers seem to usually say "World Wrestling Federation Champion[ship]". But I don't think it was totally consistent. McPhail (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

WWE 50 Greatest Women Superstars

The user Special:Contributions/AnnaLyna has started adding WWE 50 Greatest Women Superstars to Championships and accomplishments of female wrestlers; e.g. [4][5][6]. Is that WWE 50 Greatest Women Superstars[7] notable? Wario-Man ^talk 04:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

This just an arbitrary "top 50" list from 411Mania? If so I'd say no, it's not notable at all (nor a "championship or accomplishment"). It's just a buzzfeed countdown. — Czello 06:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Czello: No, it's not 411MANIA stuff. It's a list from WWE. 411MANIA posted it just like many other wrestling websites; e.g. [8]. In my opinion, it's not notable and it's similar to the other top lists on WWE Network and WWE YouTube channel. Wario-Man ^talk 07:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, even if it's from WWE I'd still say it's not notable for the reasons above. You're right, it's no different from every other "top X" list. — Czello 07:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, in a "reception" or "legacy" section, we can include the #1. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

It's already cited on Trish Stratus: "In 2021, WWE named Stratus as the greatest female superstar of all time..."; it was added in this revision. If we accept it, then other related articles can cite it too; e.g. all ranked wrestlers from #50 to #2. Wario-Man ^talk 13:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Being named the number 1 is good. But I don't see notable to include that Lacey Evans was ranked as #39. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there’s a big difference between number 1 and number 39.--65.92.163.98 (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Think about it this way, 50 womens wrestelrs were selected to be the greatest among more then hunderd talent who were in the WWE since the 90's. Same with the tag team rankings. That for itself, in my opinion, is an accomplishment. Also, why this ranking isn't valid but the ranking of Pro Wrestling Illustrated does? when PWI does their top 500 and 100 rankings of males and females. Those lists also trended on Twitter and appeared on various wrestling news cites. User:SeosiWrestling ^talk 17:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_publisher

may be of interest to this project. Hog Farm _Talk 22:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Joey Ryan (wrestler)

If anybody interested could add Joey Ryan (wrestler) to their watchlists, it would be a great help. The article was always going to be a BLP nightmare but lately some SPAs have been adding poorly referenced material regarding the allegations against him.LM2000 (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I will do my best --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@LM2000: Go to WP:PAGEPROTECT and request protection for a short period of time. If this persists after the time frame expires, you can always request permanent page protection. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Admins sometimes turn down protection in instances like this that aren't outright vandalism, which is why I brought it here. I'll raise the issue on one of the noticeboards if this persists though.LM2000 (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Database of WWE Raw episodes

I’ve started compiling a table of Raw episodes over on my personal sandbox, I wanted to get peoples opinions on this, obviously this has never been done on Wikipedia besides the lists of special episodes of RAW, Smackdown, Dynamite etc.

I’ve completed 1993-94 so far, before continuing on, I really just wanted to gather some opinions, would this be a useful article, or am I wasting my time, would it be better off split into different time periods to avoid a huge list?

Sandbox link: User:Copper1993/sandbox

Copper1993 (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Copper1993 - I fully support this! However, here's how I would do it, year-by-year like professional sports teams seasons, rather than all one batch. There could also be a month-by-month summary of major events and goings on, or episodic synopsis, providing it's all well sourced. It's been on my to-do list a while, just haven't got around to it yet! ItsKesha (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi ItsKesha, thanks for the ideas! I feel like that’s what I had in the back of my mind but I just couldn’t work out the best way to approach it, I really like the idea of being able to provide an overview of each year, I’m hoping this can become a group effort, maybe different people can work on specific years once we’ve got a format in place. Copper1993 (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I worry this would go against WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTCRUFT. — Czello 16:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Czello That was my biggest concern, especially since it would be quite a time consuming project.. I’ll leave it for the time being until we can come up with some other suggestions, if we could perhaps expand on each episode by including the card, and any addition information rather than just have a basic list, it might prove to be more useful, although again...very time consuming when all said and done. Copper1993 (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think this is really what Wikipedia is for. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Czello and Lee Vilenski: We have lists of episodes for other TV shows, as well as lists for special episodes of wrestling and lists of pay-per-views, what's so different about this? --JDC808 ♫ 07:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Copper1993, this has sorta been talked about before, but I'm for it. Like I just mentioned to Czello and Lee Vilenski, we have articles for list of episodes for each season of a TV show, this really isn't that much different, though because there's not truly "seasons" with wrestling shows (even if WWE has "season premieres"), a list of episodes by year makes the most sense to me. I think what you got going Copper in your sandbox is a good start. It could even be taken one step further and instead of "Final match," have a summary of the episodes main points, like the big matches for that episodes and any developments in ongoing major storylines (sorta like how the list of special episodes does it). Or perhaps one box with the match card (notating which was the main event) and another box to summarize main storylines. There are a couple of different ways that we could go with it, but again, what you've done in your sandbox is a good starting point. --JDC808 ♫ 07:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a clear case of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Plus, those other lists of TV episodes are normally a) much shorter (this is 25 years of weekly episodes we're talking about) and b) have a plot synopsis that justifies its existence. I think just having a list of matches will again come under WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTCRUFT. — Czello 07:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

If you're going to bring up longevity, The Simpsons has been on longer. Also, in regard to a plot synopsis, that's why I suggested a summary of the main storylines for the episodes, because these are TV shows. --JDC808 ♫ 08:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Though if you think adding the plot synopsis for each episode will justify the article's existence more, you could attempt it and see if it works -- but that's a lot of work. That's 1400+ episodes you're talking about. Realistically, is this ever going to happen? — Czello 06:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I’ve gone ahead and modified my table a bit, for the debut episode I’ve added in the full card underneath the episode information, obviously the ‘Final match’ column would be deleted, but this gives a basic idea of how it would look, any thoughts? User:Copper1993/sandbox Copper1993 (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I’ve also added in details on various segments in paragraphs above the card list, I feel that if we’re able to provide information like this it stops it from becoming simple a list of dates, I’m not sure if there’s a better place I can put this other that my sandbox, ideally I’d like to put it in a place where others can work on it too, is there any way to do so? A project subpage perhaps, starting with the debut episode and then we can work down from there? Copper1993 (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about listing the final match for each episode. It's not a particularly defining characteristic, particularly when the heavily promoted matches came earlier. For example, October 11, 1993, featured Razor Ramon vs. Rick Martel for the vacant intercontinental championship. Telling readers instead that the show ended with the Rock 'n' Roll Express vs. Duane Gill and Barry Hardy doesn't seem to serve a purpose. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly why I’ve opted to remove that column entirely and add in a paragraph underneath listing the entire card, once I started seeing that most of the early shows ended with jobber matches, I figured it was a dumb idea. If you check my sandbox now I’ve added in a much more detailed description to the debut RAW Copper1993 (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I’ve gone ahead and started a subpage within the project page wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/RawDatabase anyone feel free to make changes/contribute Copper1993 (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Copper1993: This table looks a lot better than what you have in your sandbox. As long as the episodes are sourced are and it's the synopsis is pared down the important stuff and major storylines, it should be done. It can be done for SmackDown, NXT, NXT UK, ECW on Spike, Dynamite, Nitro, Thunder, etc.. But one thing at a time. Ignore Czello. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:LISTCRUFT are not good arguments here. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 10:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but they are very valid arguments. Saying "well, the Simpsons has an episode list so why shouldn't we?" is the very definition of WP:OTHERSTUFF. As for listcruft, in order to justify this article's existence in the face of it there would need to be something to make it less arbitrary. A summary of plot details might well do that (maybe, I'd still expect an AfD), but as I said above -- are you prepared to add that for all 1400+ episodes? I very much doubt that will happen. I also notice that WP:INDISCRIMINATE wasn't mentioned. Keeping this in a sandbox/user space is wise for now as currently this is looking to be a monumental task which shouldn't go live until it satisfies these concerns. — Czello 10:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple editors in this project. It's not a one-man task force that would be tackling this (though if one person wants to do all the research, they are more than welcome to). Also, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can also be a valid argument for a reason to do it, which kind of goes with my point of bringing up The Simpsons as it was to show that it is not an impossible task that you are kind of making it out to be (you were making a big deal that Raw has been on for 25+ years, but The Simpsons has been on longer and editors have managed to make episode lists for all of its seasons). --JDC808 ♫ 21:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

But there are more episodes of Raw. I'm not saying it's an impossible task at all, just a monumental one (especially if you want to add a plot summary for each episode). That said, I think building it in the user space for the time being is fine until it's ready to go live. — Czello 21:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

We’ve started compiling the detailed list if anyone would like to help: Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/RawDatabase Copper1993 (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The addition of a plot summary is a significant improvement that makes this work, good job. We've got over 1400 of these to do so it'll be a long haul but I think if anyone in this Wikiproject can just add an episode where they can we might be able to get this live later this year. — Czello 07:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Headlock on Hunger

This was a real WWF charity project for a while. Was promoted on global TV and the Internet still remembers. But Wikipedia barely mentions it, except for one lesser-known bio (on whom I shall not mention here). Something to think about for a creative type. It wouldn't run afoul of any advocacy prohibitions I'm aware of, since that particular generation of starving kids grew up or moved on long ago, but still seemingly "good to know" from a historical wrasslin' perspective. My efficient and resourceful days are behind me, so it's up to you, members of this general audience, to carry my relaxed idealism forward! Or not, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC on navigational template colour schemes

I've created a request for comment to get views on this topic from the wider community. McPhail (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Worth reminding the WikiProject that this covers all templates, in case anyone hasn't seen this. — Czello 12:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

PWMania

Requesting to let https://www.pwmania.com/ to be used as a WP:PW/RS again. It no longer uses the author Marc Middleton, for which it was classified as unreliable. Besides just one mistaken report doesn't make you entirely wrong. In 2014 Dave Meltzer mistakenly reported that CM Punk will return to WWE, [9], [10], but I see people are biased regarding him and always cites anything he says as reliable. But other authors, for just one incorrect report, gets labeled unreliable. Either ways, PWMania is one of the oldest and most reliable wrestling news sources, Marc Middleton no longer workks for them since =2016, and since 2016 you will not find a single article by them which is inaccurate, also just visit, you will be impressed by their professionalism, site layout, accuracy, everything. So I deeply request PWmania to be reclassified as a reliable WP:PW/RS. Dilbaggg (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Your attempt at saying Meltzer is unreliable is a self-published website written by "Vijayabalaji", and an audio clip where Meltzer says a source told him a wrestler was returning but then spends a minute explaining why he thought the wrestler probably wouldn't be returning, and then explains in the aftermath what had happened. Was this report of the wrestler returning ever published in Meltzer's newsletter, by the way?
Can you name any of the reporters at the PWMania website? Can you name who is the editor of PWMania? Can you tell me what their editorial process is, and why they don't have a byline? Can you tell me why the only credited author on their website in the last four years is a columnist named Jim LaMotta, who is unverified on Twitter and has fewer than 500 followers? Can you even tell me what country PWMania are based out of? Yet again you establish that you have absolutely no clue whatsoever about what should and shouldn't constitute a reliable source. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Oof, while I agree with your concerns that seemed a tad hostile. — Czello 09:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

This is somebody who genuinely thinks internet forums, Wikipedia mirrors, TV Tropes, and Tripod are good sources, and has regularly ignored information about what constitutes unreliable sources in this project (Sportster, Online World of Wrestling, SportsKeeda) - this is all from June 2021. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Since User:ItsKesha is being off topic and WP:Personal Attack me, rather than talking about the source which was widely accepted before he even joined Wikipedia, I will point out his behavior. ItsKesha is a 2020 editor making changes that I feel are best left to pre 2015 senior experienced editors (I myself only registered in 2019, so don't make such changes), also disguising edits in the name of removing unreliable sources ItsKesha is also removing extremely reliable WP:PW/RS such as PWTORCH just to make the article more fit according to his preference. These issues regarding him were brought here before even on ANI discussions, not just by me but other editors, and nogt just wrestling articles but football and other articles, also ItsKesha has received countless warnings from various editors of wrestling and football articles for unconstructive edits, but caught in the act Its Kesha removes those warnings from talk page, but they can be easily viewed regarding his talk page history. Also shameless edit warring is not a nice behavior, but User:ItsKesha just keeps on doing that. I always politely request ItsKesha to WP:RfC and generate opinions from senior editors, but he never dares do that fearing that the consensus will not go in his favor. Just look at all the warnings he received on his page history that he tries to hide. Most recently From Stone Cold Steve Austin article he removed "PWTORCH" a widely accepted WP:PW/RS in the name of "removing bad sources" (just one out of countless similar cases), he does that in other articles removing WP:RS just to fit his own personal views.

I know I have had a harsh tone here, but he personally attacked me so I am human and did what I did, I will not add further here and do not want it to be off topic, and urge everyone just to come up with a consensus because unlike him I don't WP:EW and am brave enough to seek consensus and accept what the vast majority editors agree on. I stated the reason that PWMania was classified unreliable was over back in 2016 and since then it has been clean, and extremely accurate, very similar to pwtorch, wrestleview and 411mania, and personally, I think it should be reclassified as reliable, but once again it all depends on the consensus here, and I have nothing more to say here, hope we get back on topic and discuss the matter cleanly. Cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

lol ItsKesha (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Can you prove "PWMania.com Staff = reliable"? Who are PWMania.com Staff? What makes PWMania a reliable source? What is so special about PWMania and its content? Wario-Man ^talk 17:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with PWMania being unreliable. I see the same with WON and Dave Meltzer, as he reports a lot of speculation that is unproven and often false. Same with Bryan Alvarez. Theres some stuff they can be trusted with, but a lot I can't trust them with for Wikipedia standards. DrewieStewie (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Top icon

I created this top icon for WikiProject Professional wrestling:

• Template:WikiProject Professional wrestling topicon

Your thoughts? The template documentation may need some improvements; e.g. more details or clarification. Wario-Man ^talk 12:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Added it to my userpage. Very neat, I love it! :) Now we can all be the champions of professional wrestling on Wikipedia. DrewieStewie (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Would someone please add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Members list? Wario-Man ^talk 15:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Professional wrestler infobox

I posted this on the talk page for the template, I am also posting here for visibility. I am proposing major revisions to the current Infobox professional wrestler format: a "Promotion" parameter, a "Notable Tag Team(s)" parameter, and a "Stable(s)" parameter. Holidayruin (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Posting again. Need people to build a consensus! Come and state your thoughts on adding a new parameter. If the change goes through it might be a lot of work for this WikiProject! Holidayruin (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Posting again cause the conversation died out. We need consensus one way or the other! Please voice your opinion here on whether infobox parameters "Promotions", "Stables", and "Tag Teams" are/aren't a good idea to include for wrestlers. Holidayruin (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Please don't change section heading ordering because you want to want to get more views. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Shawn Michaels Good Article Reassessment

Shawn Michaels, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism on the Sources page

I can't undo or rever this edit because it contains links that are blacklisted. Any idea on how to add back the list?★Trekker (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@*Treker: Use WP:ROLLBACK. Request for permission here. And that IP's edit has been reverted. Wario-Man ^talk 04:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Lots of links to disambiguation pages from wrestling articles

Over the last few days multiple wrestling related articles have been edited with the addition of links to disambiguation pages. Could those with knowledge of wrestling take a look at the articles below and see if these can be resolved to specific articles (or remove the links if articles are unlikely to be created):

• World Wrestling Association (Indianapolis)
• Champions Pro Wrestling
• World Xtreme Wrestling
• List of World Wonder Ring Stardom personnel
• List of former Assault Championship Wrestling personnel
• Xtreme Pro Wrestling
• Africa Wrestling Alliance
• List of former Xcitement Wrestling Federation personnel
• List of former World Xtreme Wrestling personnel
• All Pro Wrestling
• World Class Championship Wrestling
• All Wrestling Organization
• World Series Wrestling
• World Wrestling Council

All of these appear on Articles With Multiple Dablinks. Any help you can provide to fix these would be great.— Rod ^talk 07:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

And there are more still appearing:

• West Coast Wrestling Connection— Rod ^talk 08:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I will take a look. Some of these articles are very unknown promotions with Unkown wrestlers, most of them aren't linked well.

The Stardom article has no DN. Are you sure? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Iris (Returned to native Mexico in April 2011.) is a dab link - I just hadn't marked it.— Rod ^talk 11:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

You can highlight links to dab pages in yellow/orange by going to your preferences -> Gadgets & ticking "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" very helpful in identifying links to dab pages (mostly innapropriate).— Rod ^talk 11:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, did it. WWA and WXW are gonna take me some time. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on these. Todays list sees more wrestling articles with multiple dab links added:

• List of former Universal Wrestling Federation (Bill Watts) personnel - 71 links
• List of former Universal Wrestling Federation (Herb Abrams) personnel - 45 links
• Welsh Wrestling - 9 links
• Universal Wrestling Federation (Bill Watts) - 7 links
• Universal Wrestling Federation (Herb Abrams) - 2 links

I'm not sure why wrestling articles should attract these sorts of edits?— Rod ^talk 11:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

and this evening:

• List of former Universal Wrestling Association personnel
• Universal Wrestling Association
• Wrestling Superstars Live— Rod ^talk 19:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

and more today:

• List of former Stampede Wrestling personnel - 171 links
• Stampede Wrestling - 17 links— Rod ^talk 07:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

omg, the neverending story xD. Maybe its because wrestlers use several thing as ringnames (animals, myths, objects...) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

& also List of premature professional wrestling deaths.— Rod ^talk 10:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

& now: List of former American Wrestling Association personnel, Brazilian Wrestling Federation, American Wrestling Association, List of professional wrestling memorial shows, BSE Pro.— Rod ^talk 07:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move

"Piper Niven" to "Doudrop". McPhail (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Soliciting opinions

Hello friends. A discussion occurred between Vjmlhds and I on my talk page regarding whether or not MITB holders should have their picture shown on List of WWE personnel. I had my perspective and he has his perspective, which while it's different from my line of thinking, I understand his POV. However, since it hasn't been further discussed in the past 13 or so years (damn, I was 7 at the time XD), and it seems like it could be a great discussion on this project talk page that has been quiet lately, I wanted to solicit opinions on the following question: Should MITB contract holders have their picture displayed on the aforementioned article? So far, I've said yes, VJ has said no. Thank you for your input. DrewieStewie (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean something like this: "adding Big E's image to the list until his cash-in". Right? Wario-Man ^talk 15:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Wario-Man, correct. DrewieStewie (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, being a MITB holder is not as important as being a champion. MITB winners are similar to Royal Rumble winners and KOTRs. Adding their images would cause future issues and conflicts. Wario-Man ^talk 18:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I mean, what differentiates MITB from tourneys and rumbles is that the actual case is a tangible object that can be relinquished in exchange for a title. So the period of holding it is very specific and definite, and its a major important storyline device comparable to championships in ways that i believe in my opinion warrants the picture. DrewieStewie (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I think "being a champion" is a better standard. It's simple and straightforward. Have you heard of the upcoming Queen of the Ring tournament? What would you do if the QOTR winner does have a similar opportunity like a MITB winner? Adding QOTR's image to the list? Then some users may want to see KOTR there too. Champions are enough for the representation of WWE brands. Wario-Man ^talk 05:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Wario-Man. The article is already very image-heavy and I'm unconvinced that we should begin adding more for non-titles, as that opens the gateway to other, lesser achievements being added. — Czello 06:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: @Czello: Queen of the ring isn't tangible and is basically scheduling a future match. MITB is a tangible object, transferrable, impromptu, and is very prominent and notable, and is an annual tradition and physical prize. We never mentioned king of the ring or royal rumble winner in notes because it didn't make sense. We mention MITB contract holder in notes though. Because it's a tangile important object that can be cashed in on seconds notice. MITB makes sense to me unlike other non championship accomplishments and would not open floodgates. That argument is like calling marijuana a gateway drug that opens the door to heroin. Czello, images wouldnt have been an issue in 2014. DrewieStewie (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

QOTR is just a scenario. Replace it with any other similar stuff (current or future). I don't view MITB as something significant especially in the recent years. The booking of female MITB winners is another reason why we should avoid it. 3 of 4 winners cached in their contract in less than 24H. If a very same booking happens at a future MITB, what would you do? For example, consider MITB 2018/2019. Adding the image of Alexa Bliss/Bayley during the show, and then removing it after the cash-in in a very same PPV/event?! Don't you think that it sounds like turning a PW article into news? It's a Pandora's box and opening it would cause problematic edits on the list; e.g. POV-pushing and edit warring. Wario-Man ^talk 19:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

While I understand both sides and agree with Drewie, I would support Czello argument of "image-heavy". I'm 51-49 split.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Another requested move

Andrade (wrestler) → Andrade El Idolo. McPhail (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gregory Helms#Requested move 10 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gregory Helms#Requested move 10 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.  — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Featured topic removal candidate of interest to the project

There is a featured topic removal candidate at Wikipedia:Featured topic removal candidates/John Morrison and the Miz/archive1 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject, comments welcome.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Power Trip#Requested move 24 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Power Trip#Requested move 24 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Big E being 4th "african american" wwe champion

is that really notable enough to mention? being 4th to do something isnt notable and when is the cut off? will we say "billy bob is the 100th AA champion?"? and kofi is african only and only even got US citizenship *after* winning the title! plus, justin gabriel. if he won the title would he not count because hes, gasp, white? and what if a british black guy wins it? why is "african american" relevant here? just say black. also... jinder mahal? I guess he isnt black enough.Muur (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think is needed nor should the Bobby Lashley mention he is the third either.--67.70.24.141 (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should be mentioning race-related records at all unless this is something that the company itself or the media give significant coverage to. McPhail (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Kofi Kingston's lede described him as the sixth African-American world champion in WWE after Ezekiel Jackson (!!!) until I trimmed it last week. First is a certified milestone, second and third are arguably notable. WP:LEADs are only supposed to give a succinct summary on why a subject is notable. We shouldn't include this in them unless their notability is somehow tied to being the fourth, fifth or sixth person to accomplish something.LM2000 (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

We are not talking about all championships, we are talking about just the WWE Championship, why would Ezekiel Jackson even come to the discussion? ECW championship is a separate title.... And Kofi's greatest achevement is the first "African born world champion in WWE history" ratehr than being just African descent. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem... There is no obvious connection between Jackson and Kingston but somehow this weird piece of trivia ended up in the lede. People will look for connections everywhere but we need solid sources to back it up before we can consider it.LM2000 (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The WWE Championship is a lot more prestigious than the ECW Championship, beside's WWE's version of the ECW title was never recognized as a world championship by wwe, not even Pro Wrestling Illustrated, thus its worth mentioning Kofi Kingstone is the first-ever African born World Champion in WWE history. Or at least the first African born WWE Champion. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

WWE did initially consider it equal, but by 2007 no longer did. But that's irrelevant. As is the mention of PWI, which is a meaningless thing. The point is that the sentence was about the WWE title as a specific championship, not all titles in WWE. And regardless of that any such mention is trivial if it's not the first person to accomplish the achievement and doesn't need to be mentioned at all. oknazevad (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree, and especially agree with McPhail's comment that significant coverage would be needed for inclusion. I'm going to be bold and remove it. — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 10:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with McPhail. When Kingston and Lashley won their titles, a lot of media mentioned that (beign the second and third african-american champions). WP:WEIGHT. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

per McPhail. Only notable stuff should be mentioned in the lead section. In my opinion, Sasha Banks vs. Bianca Belair match at WrestleMania 37 was notable and it was covered by both WWE and other sources as a historical moment. But stuff like N-th champion of XYZ ethnicity/background/race is vague and nonneutral. Wario-Man ^talk 14:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Jake Roberts personal life

Jake Roberts article is lacking a lot of information on his personal life (doesn't even have a section on it), for example it states in the infobox that he has 8 children but it is nowhere mentioned in the article (and has no source). As for his marriages, the infobox mentions Karen and Cheryl, only Cheryl is actually mentioned in the article and has a source. Besides the two of them the obituary of Grizzly Smith also states that Roberts was married in 2010 to a woman named Shannon, whom I can't find any information on at all besides this mention. IMDb also claims a marriage to a woman named Judy, but knowing IMDb this could easily be a hoax. This 2015 Daily Mail article states that Roberts is "twice-divorced" but its not a reliable source. Earlier this year Roberts claimed to be back together with one of his ex-wives but doesn't mention their name. Does anyone know got anything to try to improve this situation?★Trekker (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

NXT or NXT 2.0

Should we start using NXT 2.0 instead of NXT when we add "post-September 14, 2021" content to the articles?

• A. On the September 28 episode of NXT...
• B. On the September 28 episode of NXT 2.0...

A or B? Wario-Man ^talk 05:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems, looking at the WWE website (not that it's ways correct or anything) that the brand is still "NXT", but the show is being called "NXT 2.0" for now at least, though I remain skeptical it will last much longer that the "New Era" stuff or the use of "SmackDown Live". Considering things like cable program guides and even the section on the WWE app and Peacock still refer to the show as simply "NXT", I don't think we need to make any wholesale changes. It's not a full renaming, just a bit of promotional sloganeering. oknazevad (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• A per oknazevad. Seems more like a branding exercise to me. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 14:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• A I myself prefer A to B. Opened this new section because I saw "NXT 2.0" on some articles; e.g. take a look at Roderick Strong#The Diamond Mine (2021–present). So we need a consensus. Wario-Man ^talk 15:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• A How many names has Raw had over the years? Raw, War Zone, Monday Night Raw, Raw is War, etc. For the purposes of our articles, we've always just gone with Raw.LM2000 (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• A: unless there is some really compelling evidence the 2.0 is warranted. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Is the Million Dollar Championship retired?

I don't watch or keep up to date with NXT. I noticed Vjmlhds listed it as retired, [11][12] so I've undone attempts to restore it.[13] However, as I say, I don't watch NXT, so I thought I'd double-check. Is this belt retired or what? — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 17:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Czello: I watched the show when Lee gave the title to DiBiase. I don't know if he appeared as champion again. WWE.com doesn't list Lee as NXT champion, but [14] list Lee as current and ongoing champion and the title [15] is listed as an active title. I would say is active. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: Yeah, good points. When he handed the title back was that presented as a retirement though? Btw if anyone wants to revert me that's fine -- I can't tell if it's retired or not so I don't feel comfortable edit warring myself, lol. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 17:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Czello:Yes. I don't know why, but WWE.com it's a mess sometimes. However, 30 days later the title stills as an active title. Also, Grimes profile includes the Million Dollar Title [16] --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the WWE.com Superstars page, you'll see that they have removed the Million $ Title from their championship roll call. Grimes had been listed with all the other champions until September 23, when they removed him from the list. Also, when he wrestled Joe Gacy on NXT this past Tuesday, he didn't have the belt with him, nor was it acknowledged. They've moved on, so should we. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Removed the title from the champions roll call, but the title is listed later. Million Dollar Championship 1988-present. Also, Lee is listed as champion and the title list his reign as ongoing. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Sloppy housekeeping on their part - update one part of the website, but not another. But since they DID remove it from the Superstars page, that would show that they are deactivating it, and just haven't gotten around to cleaning up the rest of it yet. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

wp:OR. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

How is it OR - they removed the title from the list..seems as cut and dry as it can get. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I gave 3 sourced where the title is listed as active. However, you decided by yourself that the sources aren't valid just because you want. Which is wp:OR --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

They removed it from the championship roll call list...the rest is sloppy housekeeping on their part. @Czello:, be the tie breaker here...what do you think? Vjmlhds (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

"sloppy housekeeping" is your personal, unsourced theory. So, WP:OR. I gave 3 sources about the title is active, but you choose to ignore them. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Well what do you call it when the same website contradicts itself? They went through the trouble of removing it from the roll call, but haven't cleaned up the rest - that right there is sloppy housekeeping (or to put it another way, the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing) Vjmlhds (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

You have a pretty strong source [17] where the title is listed as active between the North American an the UK titles (1989-present) and Cameron as the champion (AUG 22, 2021 - PRESENT 33 days). However, you decided that this is wrong just because you want. And the rest, just and unsourced theory. I don't know what's going on in WWE.com, but I know is that, Grimes is recognized by WWE as champion at this moment. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: And I have a strong source which says the title is inactive because it was removed from the champions roll call list Seriously, it really does look to me like you are grasping at straws to keep the title active. WWE.com runs a sloppy shop...neither you or I can help that. However, it should be glaringly obvious that since the MDC was removed from the championship roll call list, it is no longer considered an active championship - otherwise why would they remove it? It isn't OR to say the title is inactive, because you can't prove a negative. The onus is on you to show it is. To say it's vandalism to call the title inactive, when it was documented when the title was removed from the roll call is quite frankly absurd. It's like you're throwing stuff against the wall to try to accuse me of something. I really would like a third party to weigh in and settle this, because otherwise it's just me and you going round and round, which will accomplish nothing. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, WP:OR. The title is listed as active and Grimes as the champion. Everything you said, it's your personal, unsourced theory. BTW, you "strong" source is s**t, just a picture removed but, just a few lines below, the title listed as "active". Other retired titles are listed as RETIRED [18] [19] [20] [21] Absurd is you using ONE fact and ignoring the others (3 parts where the title is listed, clearly, as active) just because you want. As many other discussions we have, it's pointless to talk with you. The conversation is over. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The conversation will be over if/when a third party breaks the logjam. Otherwise, this is just a stalemate, and quite frankly, it comes across like you are taking this personally. You get very flustered when someone disagrees with you. Vjmlhds (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, so do you. But I do agree with you here. They removed it (and Grimes) from the main list of current champions. And he handed the belt back on TV (even if it was a pre-taped episode) and has wrestled since on TV without him being announced as champion or the title acknowledged. That's definitive. Same deal as we had last week about Big E moving to Raw after winning the WWE title. WWE.com is a poorly run website a lot of the time and sometimes is delayed in getting updated, especially in the not-frequently updated sections. Such is the case here, because TV always trumps the other first-party sources. oknazevad (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Oknazevad In years past, I'll agree regarding me getting flustered These days, I get more annoyed than anything else. When I'd get flustered, I went bonzo-gonzo, and paid numerous prices for it. Nowadays, I know how/when to put on the brakes. So do things still happen that irk me now and then...yes. But not enough to cause me to go nuclear like I would in the past. Gotta pick my battles. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, hard learned wisdom in that last sentence. We (all of us) do have a bit of a habit of rushing to edit things as soon as they happen, which I think is something we all need to work on, but using common sense is a policy, and sometimes we just have to apply that to dealing with what is otherwise a usually reliable source for WWE's official positions regarding their storylines. oknazevad (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The titles section is one of que most edited and quickest sections to be updated. Every title change takes a few hours, maybe a day, but this happened 30 days ago. Again, WWE.com stills consider the title as active and Grimes as their champion. WP:COMMONSENSE is good, but usually, used by the project to avoid sourcing or WP:OR. Seriously, the project has a huge problem ignoring sources everytime the users want. The article is fine. As it says, Grimes gave the title to DiBiase but WWE consider the reign as on-going, which is what happens. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Except that ignores the fact that he's no longer being announced as champion on the actual show. Also, as seen here, the recap on the website for this week's NXT describes him as "the former Million Dollar Champion" (emphasis added). oknazevad (talk) 12:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

You're given to much weight to one fact and ignoring the others. It's easy to think you're right if the other sources "are wrong/ are sloppy". Yes, WWE.com is sloppy and maybe, the removed the title from the champions list by mistake. At the end of the day, WWE.com stills recognizing Grimes as the on-going champion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

If you want, there is a pretty good solution. Take this to another place (not the ANI, please). People outside pro wrestling give us their opinion, with perspective, looking the sources and fact. Both sides included: Grimes won a title and WWE.com updated. Two days later, he gave the title to another wrestler and, apparently, deactivating the title. But, the title stills in the titles list as active, the wrestler is considered the holder and the title, listed as active. But, Grimes didn't apperared with the title for weeks and WWE.com described him as a former champion. For me, it's definitive that WWE.com considers Grimes as champ. They updated the title list when he won the title but forget to remove it for 30 days? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Please consider the fact that the recap is more recent that the listing, which is updated by an automated counter (much as we use here), and that is the outdated ref. Combine that with the one listing being removed at the same time as the recap calling him a former champion was posted and it's clear that the removal from the roll call was intentional, not accidental. oknazevad (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

As I said, i prefer to other user with a more fresh view gives his opinion. I'm gonna talk with Lee Vilenski, since he is an admin and a pro wrestling user. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I can endorse that course of action. Lee is both broadly familiar with the subject area and knows what he's doing around here. But please don't remove recent sources. oknazevad (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, my views aren't exactly worth more than any other user, but more than happy to help find a consensus Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the arguments made all round, I'm inclined to agree that the title should be declared retired. It appears to have been presented as a retirement, and they've begun removing references to the title. The problem is that it's clearly a WiP on their end -- I am inclined to agree with the sloppy housekeeping idea. I don't think it's OR to call the title retired, and I do think WP:COMMONSENSE applies here. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 13:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

This conversation appears to have stalled. Consensus appears to be that the title is retired, but it'd be good if we could formalise it. HHH appears to have taken a Wikibreak, so giving Lee Vilenski a courtesy ping in case he has a further opinion on this. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 10:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Happy to help out - can't say I particularly care if it's active or retired. Without having to read through the entire conversation here, can someone summarise what the secondary sources say (cagematch, or F4W etc)? If they list it, then we probably should, if they've removed entries about it, we should follow suit. There is totally chance that they have retired the title, or that they've forgotten about it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Cagematch has it as inactive — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 21:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Why do I think that WWE 50 Greatest Women Superstars and Tag Teams are notable

Hello, as you all may be aware, WWE did earlier this year their list of their 50 Greatest Women Superstars and Tag Teams. There was a discussion about the women superstars list if this list should be added to the Championships and accomplishments of those who were ranked. I'd like to explain why I think both lists of the Women Superstars and Tag Teams should be notable:

• First of all, those aren't just reguloar lists like the "Top 10" lists WWE used to publish on their YouTube pages. Those rankings were aried on their Network Special and on Peacock for several of days, which I think add a legitimacy to it, in my opinion at least.
• Second, why those rankings shouldn't be notable while the Pro Wrestling Illustrated rankings are? They have their PWI 500 and PWI Women's 100 rankings. If a wrestler ranked on those lists, even if they ranked the lowest, we still add this to their Championships and accomplishments on their Wikipedia, until there's a higher ranking (if I'm not mistaken).
• Thirdly, those rankings were actually trending on Twitter and published on multiple wrestling websites, which I think it shows those aren't regular lists.

Would like to hear your opinion about this matter. SeosiWrestling ^talk 18:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I wrote my opinion in that archived discussion. The list feels just like another marketing/promotional content on WWE Network. PWI awards/rankings is established while WWE list is just another random Top/Greatest... by that company. However, if other editors think it's notable and it should be mentioned, I'm OK with the consensus. BTW, @SeosiWrestling: please avoid citing Wrestling Inc. It's not a reliable source per WP:PW/Sources. Wario-Man ^talk 16:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Wario-Man. OP says They have their PWI 500 and PWI Women's 100 rankings, but both of those are notable. This is just an arbitrary list, really -- unless it can be shown to be notable. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 16:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Czello How could it be notable? And I won't use Wrestling Inc. anymore Wario-Man. SeosiWrestling ^talk 19:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, really there needs to be some demonstration that this list is notable per WP:N. What makes this achievement notable? — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 08:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's "notable" at all, nor do I think notability has anything to do with whether or not something gets listed in the C&A section. This a promotional thing; WWE does these countdowns a lot (they even had a show called Countdown for awhile), it's not really comparable to the PWI or WON awards... or the Slammy's. Eleven years ago, WWE put out a 50 Greatest Superstars DVD and at Night of Champions (2013) they held a series of polls to determine who fans thought they greatest wrestlers to hold each title were. We do mention both of these in some "Legacy" sections but not C&A. I think these lists should be treated the same way.LM2000 (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree. This seems like the best strategy for this sort of thing. — Czello ^{(Please tag me in replies)} 11:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@SeosiWrestling: I'm ex-Wario-Man (just changed my username). Seems it's time to revert your edits especially since the day you added them, some IP-users have started doing similar edits like yours; e.g. [22][23]. Per LM2000, move/add them to other relevant sections. Mann Mann (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

You can cite this as a reliable source. For example, I added it[24] to Asuka (wrestler)#Reception and achievements, it can be improved by some better wording. Mann Mann (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Spouse(s): Real names vs. Ring names

I have seen some users replace real names (spouse parameter) with gimmicks or ring names; e.g. see [25][26][27]. What should we do? Wario-Man ^talk 08:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Surely WP:COMMONNAME always takes effect here? Meaning we should stick with ring names. — Czello 08:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Should really be their real name. They aren't married to the gimmick.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

no problem with the Ring name. In pro wrestling, ring names are usually used as stage names, even if it's a character. Even media like people uses the ring name. https://people.com/parents/becky-lynch-pregnant-expecting-first-child-seth-rollins-exclusive/ --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Common name takes precedent which is ring name 9 times out of 10. Exceptions are if theyre notable outside of wrestling by their real names such as rock and Batista. Stage names like Bad Bunny and Offset count too. DrewieStewie (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Real name - imagine seeing that Michelle McCool was married to "The Undertaker" or Stephanie McMahon was married to Triple H. Is that a wrestling storyline? Real names for real life, project-wide, for consistency and ease of understanding. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

real life? Callaway is presented in interviews, TV shows and other media as The https://www.christianitydaily.com/articles/11681/20210429/inspiring-wrestling-superstar-the-undertaker-shares-testimony-of-his-journey-with-god.htm https://popculture.com/sports/amp/news/undertaker-take-on-the-hot-ones-wing-challenge/ --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the issue here is that this isn't as simple as actors portraying gimmicks -- we know that plenty of wrestlers are best known by their ring name, which is why WP:COMMONNAME should apply. — Czello 08:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe that’s the best but if they are well known by the stage name it should also be mentioned. The personal life section of McCool’s article for example sates She married fellow wrestler Mark Calaway, known professionally as The Undertaker, on June 26, 2010, in Houston, Texas. Someone like that should satisfy both sides.--70.24.249.16 (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The example provided by 70.24.249.16 is how this should be approached. Also, WP:COMMONNAME is for article titles, not how a person's biological name is addressed in the Personal life section in an article about their spouse or family member. --JDC808 ♫ 09:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Suggestion
  • Format: Real name (aka Ring name; m. date)
  • Example: Michelle McCool => Spouse(s): Mark Calaway ​(aka The Undertaker; m. 2010). What do you think about it? Wario-Man ^talk 11:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable compromise — Czello 11:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the consensus. Wario-Man ^talk 02:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems okay. @Lee Vilenski, HHH Pedrigree, ItsKesha, JDC808, and DrewieStewie:? starship.paint (exalt) 08:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I mean, sure - but could we not include "aka"? Just have "Mark Calloway (The Undertaker)". It's very clear. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that is very clear though. To us, sure, but to a casual non-informed reader? Maybe. I think aka is fine, but spell it out. Then again, that is just for the infobox, so only the real name is necessary there, but it should be clarified in the "Personal life" section. --JDC808 ♫ 16:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

We can vote for the suggested options. Wario-Man ^talk 15:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I would support using real names for relatives in the infoboxes, the ring name can be in brackets too, the infbox summarises key points of the article, details on names and gimicks can be given in the body.★Trekker (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Championships and accomplishments: List of professional wrestling matches rated 5 or more stars by Dave Meltzer

Hi, I've recently started to become more active in this WikiProject and I was wondering what other members of this WikiProject would think about including matches rated five or more stars by Dave Meltzer under various wrestlers' "Championships and accomplishments" section of their pages. I think that having a match of yours ranked that high is an accomplishment in itself and comparable to including various "match of the year" awards. Apologies if this topic has already been brought up before, just thought I'd see if there was any interest in it. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Giving too much credit to Dave Meltzer's very personal star rating system is against WP:WEIGHT. Adding Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards is enough. Wario-Man ^talk 15:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I hold Meltzer in quite high regard but his rankings are not official awards or recognitions, so I would personally be against it.★Trekker (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

PB Smooth's Article

I was looking over PB Smooth's article and I noticed a whole list of problems. The championships and accomplishment page was strangely organized, it started with a list of every promotion he's worked for and their location, a lot of tone issues and barely any sources. I fixed a couple issues but I think it still might need to be looked over. Seabass715 (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Seabass715

• I've made some tweaks. McPhail (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

RM: Daniel Bryan → Bryan Danielson

An editor has requested for Daniel Bryan to be moved to Bryan Danielson. Since you had some involvement with Daniel Bryan, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Havelock Jones (talk) 10:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move: Kennadi Brink → Jessika Carr

Link: Talk:Kennadi Brink#Requested move 13 October 2021
Cheers! Mann Mann (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Newsletter sources

I've been working on an article on the WCW David Arquette angle (David Arquette in World Championship Wrestling) and although I'm largely happy with the sources, especially as a number of mainstream RSes are covered, I'd like to be able to add some contemporary reaction to the storyline from the likes of the WON and the Torch. Does anyone here have a subscription to either of these who would be able to help me with responses from the time? ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 18:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move: "Stacy Carter" > "The Kat"

Discussion here. McPhail (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Change to Template:Infobox professional wrestler

Currently, Template:Infobox professional wrestler has a field for "Spouse" but not for "Partner". This means we can capture marriages in wrestlers' Infoboxes, but not long-term unmarried relationships (e.g. Chris Candido and Tammy Lynn Sytch, Pat Patterson and Louie Dondero). I would propose either (a) adding "Partner" as an additional field or (b) Changing the "Spouse" field to "Spouse/partner". Any thoughts welcome. McPhail (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Suggest simply changing "spouse" to "partner". Seems the simplest solution, avoids over-complicating the infobox. — Czello 12:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Equally happy with this. McPhail (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Unless new/passing editors misinterpret it to mean "tag team partner"... — Czello 12:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Or change to "Significant other", but then again, is it even important to note an unmarried relationship? How is this treated with other celebrities? --JDC808 ♫ 09:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Not always, but in the case of (for example) Candido-Sytch or Triple H-Chyna it seems notable. Plus due to same-sex marriages being illegal in many countries until fairly recently we currently can't capture notable same-sex relationships in the Infobox which doesn't seem right. McPhail (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure, those are notable for the article in the "Personal life" section (and possibly a mention in the lead depending on the circumstances surrounding the relationship), but again, why is it important to note these non-legally binding relationships in the infobox? It just seems we're putting too much weight on this, because then we have the question, do we list every single long-term boyfriend/girlfriend a person has had, or do we only limit that to when they became famous, or do we only limit it to their current significant other? Possibly some other questions/concerns. It feels like we're opening a can of worms here. But, as I asked in my original post, how is this treated with other celebrities (or notable people in general)? We should look there and see if something similar has ever been brought up with them and how it was handled. --JDC808 ♫ 10:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not a relationship is legally binding shouldn't have an impact on whether it's included, just whether it's notable. Currently we capture Ric Flair's first marriage from the 1970s but we don't capture the Candido-Sytch relationship which played a huge role in their respective careers - what's the logic there? Infobox:Person includes both "spouse" and "partner" fields - there's no reason why professional wrestling biographies should arbitrarily only include marriages. McPhail (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The logic there is that Ric Flair was actually married, where Candido-Sytch were not. It's not really an arbitrary thing as spouse literally means husband/wife. Seeing that Infobox:Person includes a partner field, I completely disagree with Czello's notion of changing "Spouse" to "Partner" (or renaming it in general) and go with your first option to just add a parameter for "Partner", but in the template, link it to the appropriate article as to not confuse "partner" with "tag team partner" that Czello also pointed out. --JDC808 ♫ 12:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy with this proposal, thanks. McPhail (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Biography of wrestlers and social media links (external links)

Per WP:LINKSTOAVOID and WP:PW/EL, should we remove links to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and other SNS from the EL section? Those social media links don't offer anything special. What's the point of promoting social media accounts of wrestlers on our project? Plus WWE profile (and profile pages on other promotions) , Cagematch.net, and Wrestlingdata.com have those links; e.g. any reader who is interested in finding the SNS accounts of a specific wrestler, can easily find them via Cagematch.net and the others. Mann Mann (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• One thought is that for many wrestlers these days their Twitter page is effectively their website. The days of many wrestlers having personal websites seem to have passed. McPhail (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

And many of them use their Instagram page like a personal website. Look at WP:PW/EL and "Example of external links". There is no social media link for biographies there. See also WP:NOSOCIAL. Mann Mann (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The text at the top of WP:NOSOCIAL states "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to..." WP:ELOFFICIAL states "Official links (if any) are ... normally exempt from the links normally to be avoided". "Official" social media pages are exempt from this policy. McPhail (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Kenny Omega images

There's an ongoing discussion about adding images on Talk:Kenny Omega (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) for members of this WikiProject to weigh in if they'd like, found here. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 09:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Managers for future PPVs

Whenever there's an upcoming PPV, it tends to bother me that we include managers in the infobox. While we might be able to assume that managers might accompany certain wrestlers, such an assertion is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. For the most part this has been harmless, but I'd urge fellow editors to take a look at the edit history of Full Gear (2021). Given that AEW is very faction- and manager-heavy, there has been a lot of back-and-forth adding and removing various managers and faction members who people are guessing will be there.

I'd like to propose a rule: any future PPVs shouldn't have "(with x)" unless it's confirmed that said teammates/managers/stablemates will also be there. It will keep edit warring down and avoids WP:OR and other speculation. — Czello 20:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

agree. If there is no manager/stalemate in the source, it's out. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree, such stuff should be confirmed by reliable sources. Mann Mann (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move: "Bronson Rechsteiner" > "Bron Breakker"

For opinions. McPhail (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The Sportster

I propose taht it be recognized as a WP:PW/RS. Currently there are too few WP:RS that are not sufficient. The Sportster is as reliable as 411mania, bleacher report,wrestleview, pwtorch, has multiple followers on Facebook and is highly accurate in reporting articles. Thus it should be accepted as a WP:PW/RS. Heres two example of a recent great article: [28] and [29]. I see it as no less accurate and reliable than 411mania, and if we have so few WP:PW/RS we mostly have to rely on WP:Primary sources like wwe.com which posts non WP:Neutral contents. After evaluating The Sportster I find it highly reiable and has many followers on facebook and twitter and meets all criteria as a WP:RS thus it be counted as a WP:PW/RS. Cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Just a few thing. "Too few RS" is not a reason to include bad sources (I'm not saying that Sportster is a bad source, just that sources must be Reliable, not include every source we can). 2, Followers are not a reason. Everything said, maybe @GaryColemanFan: can help us. Here is the about us section. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the about us section, there appears to be a degree of editorial oversight, but I can't see that any of the writers have any established credentials writing elsewhere, and as the chief editor's most recent article is a projection of Myerss-Briggs types onto public figures which would fall afoul of BLP issues, I don't know that I would have any confidence treating it as a reliable source. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Imagine thinking an eight paragraph long article which focuses on Instagram posts, and credits another wrestling newz site for an Instagram quote, is a "great article". This is content, not reliable and important wrestling information. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

What makes it any less reliable than 411Mania or PWinsider.com or PWtorch or Wrestleview which are established reliable sources? The Sportster is a rapidly growing pro wrestling and sports-related publishing website that posts accurate, reliable and insider information (e.g [30] ). Just view their other wrestling artcles and you will see: https://www.thesportster.com/ Dilbaggg (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Of the top 5 stories on their website currently, the top one is copied and pasted from a Twitter account of a wrestler, one is from PWInsider, one is from Wrestling Observer, one is a podcast transcription from another wrestling journalist not associated with the site, and the fifth is a three-week old article reporting from Twitter user "WrestleVotes". Seems accurate and reliable insider information to me. This must be the 10th time you've shown you have no idea what reliable sources are. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Just check these two article here, they do indeed post valid insider accurate reliable information: https://www.thesportster.com/wwe-vince-mcmahon-reaction-aew-rampage-ratings/ and https://www.thesportster.com/report-details-wwe-plans-brock-lesnar/ so to conclude they have reliable journalists too. Anyway this is a proposal, there are two few non primary WP:PW/RS left now, and testing the accuracy and reliability of The Sportster which is very similar to 411manina and wrestleview both accepted reliable sources and is popular over and has many followers over twitter, facebooka and have reputed journalists [31], we can safely say The Sportster is reliable and should be included as a WP:PW/RS. This is the final point I am making, let consensus decide, take care fellow editors. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It took me 10 seconds combined to see they're both from Wrestling Observer. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

So 411Mania and WrestleView posts info from Wrestling Observer which is considered reliable, what point are you trying to make? If 411Mania and Wrestleview are accepted reliable sources, so should be The Sportster which posts accurate reliable information that fits WP:RS guidelines. Ok thats enough from me, I proved my point, let consensus decide. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

You posted those two articles specifically to argue that Sportster posts "valid insider accurate and reliable information". But it's not even their information. Why use second-hand information? None of their reporting is original. "The Wrestling Observer reports". "PWInsider reports". "This random Twitter account reports". Come off it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

This is no different from what 411mania and wrestleview does, they are accepted WP:PW/RS. Wrestlezone and PWMania lost that status because they reported an inaccurate report, but till date The Sportster has posted only accepted, reliable information both insider knowledge and accurate results and all things related to wrestling. It fits all the criteria for an accepted WP:PW/RS. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see anything that disqualifies it from the status of a WP:PW/RS. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

If you would like a second opinion on it, WP:RSN is available, but as ItsKesha has pointed out, its stories are often repeating the reporting of others, so in those cases why would it even to be cited at all, cut out the middleman and use the original report. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

They do report original stuff too, like these: [32]. Also 411mania, wrestleview, pwtorch, etc other WP:PW/RS sometimes use other sources too acting as middle man, there is no policy stating middle men can't be used as sources, especially if they are accurate. Even wrestling observers when they report stuff they quote "sources from inside who informed them", and there is objection to using primary sources. Either ways just like other WP:PW/RS The Sportster reports both original and third party quoted sources, their reports are accurate and reliable which qualifies them as WP:PW/RS. Anyway the final decision is upto the majority editors. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Original stuff is not a ranking. Anyone can create a ranking. They are talking about original information. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's just another wrestling website with mostly copy-pasted content. Websites like TheSportster are not in the same category/level as PWInsider, WON, Fightful, and other established sources. TheSportster looks like a cleaner and less clickbait version of Ringside News. Mann Mann (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Nothing listed in the authors' biographies seems to assert any expertise in professional wrestling, although Norman Quarrinton is tall. It looks like a site that tries to crank out thousands of articles, but I wouldn't use it as a quality source. I would also remind everyone that reliable sources can't be determined by a majority vote. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

To add to that, there was a mention in this thread of WP:RSN, whose participants attempted to assert several years ago that local consensus by this project carries no weight in the matter. Personally, I have zero use for RSN, but you can always try over there. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 13:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

But I say it still can be used as a source. It never reports inaccurate contents, for which pwmania.com and wrestlezone.com lost their status as WP:PW/RS. It is very similar to 411mania which is accepted and used as a WP:PW/RS. Even if we don't name it under WP:PW/RS, we should remove it from the unreliable source listing as it has posted nothing inaccurate ever. Only sources that reports factually inaccurate contents like wrestlezone and pwmania did are unreliable, but The Sportster is accurate and reliable. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Even if you do not accept The Sportster as a WP:PW/RS, it has done nothing to be classified in the list of unreliable sources in WP:PW/RS, and has only posted accurate contents. If I get permission here, i will remove its name from the list of unreliable sources. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Seems you didn't read WP:PW/Sources carefully. Go to "Unreliable sources" section and take a look at citation #4. You will see why TheSportster is listed as unreliable. Mann Mann (talk) 06:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Just to pile on here... the staff don't seem to be established journalists and most of their postings are either stupid listicles or news pasted from other sources. It doesn't seem very different from WhatCulture, which has been determined to be unreliable by the wider community (WP:RSP). I would not use this source for any claim.LM2000 (talk) 09:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The multiple lists and the "site x can't be used because they reported y" aren't supported by policy on reliable sources. An "unproven" source shouldn't be used. Moving The Sportster from one list to another would just mean that we still shouldn't use it. While some of the reasons for declaring sources unreliable touch upon actual reasons of reliability, a single instance of reporting a story would not disqualify a site altogether. The page needs a complete overhaul and investigation on a source-by-source basis. While I made a case for WrestleView as a reliable source, it was not enough to say that it was similar to other sources. My case was based upon the presence of an established, vetted staff; longevity; the presence of a qualified editor; and multiple pieces of evidence of the source/editor's regard within mainstream media and among others in the wrestling industry who we consider reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Mann Mann So thats just one incorrect report? In 2014 Dave Meltzer falsley reported CM Punk (who left in Jan 2014 after the Royal Rumble) will come back at WrestleMania but it turned out false, but you act like Dave Meltzer is the biggest source ever and always use his contents as sources despite that incorrect report. One incorrect report out of all the correct reports does not make a source unreliable.And GaryColemanFan while its pretty new,the editors are mostly accurate, there are too few WP:PW/RS atm and the internet has grown in teh ast 2010s decade and many new sourecs came up. As long as The Sportser reports accurate and reliable information (except that one single mistake, which even sources listed reliable like say 411mainia, Bleacher Report or even the primary sources like WWE.com themselves did), I think we can use The Sportster. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The main issue is that they didn't delete/correct that report which proves their journalism is not reliable. Anyways, you better drop the stick. Mann Mann (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

So by that logic we should stop using Dave Meltzer and WON sources and all their contents, their star systems and all [33]. Yes WON later deleted the stuff but they still made the incorrect dirt sheet report in 2014. The Sportster made just one error [34] back in 2016. Bleacher Report was given a second chance, just its pre 2013 contents are not accepted, this is my final suggestion give The Sportster's post 2016 contents a second chance they have not made a single mistake since that one and there are too few WP:PW/RS. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not. All sources make errors at some point, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Meltzer issued a correction and apologized and Bleacher Report did a complete overhaul in 2013 and is more reliable now that it doesn't use random contributors. This isn't that rare, if you look at the list of perennial sources you'll see instances (Huffington Post, Forbes, Newsweek, etc.) of the same source being reliable in some instances but not others. Who are the contributors for The Sportster? What original reporting have they conducted? Your argument is basically that WP:OTHERSTUFF sucks too, so we should just accept this shitty source. I've seen you get into many content disputes and assert that you're in the right because of "WP:RS", but I think that you really need to familiarize yourself with that guideline.LM2000 (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

You really used Kayfabe News to try and discredit Dave Meltzer. There are no words. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The best thing is that the headline even says "either will or will not return". Such good shit. — Czello 21:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Please note that I said nothing about accuracy. That's not part of the criteria I used to define a reliable source. I don't care if the source publishes an occasional error. I care if it is written by experts. The Sportster makes no assertion to be. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

People do not become established overnight. Are all the writers of pwmtorch, 411maina, bleacher report established journalists? The Sportster is a rising sports journal, and the writers reporting reliable contents are becoming established. When using ppv reception sections they are used as sources, the writer's opinion is taken into account. What exactly is your definition of being an established journalist? Whate makes Wade Keller established to you but not Alex Hoegler (6128 Articles Published) "A lifelong sports fan, Alex graduated from Langara College in June, 2016 with a diploma in Journalism. He previously worked at the BCHL office as an intern and was the lead site expert of The Canuck Way from 2017 to 2020. [35]." (his biodata). He seems to write accurate reports and reliable wrestling show reviews for 6000+ articles written over decades. Lots of insider info too [36] (and offtopic deservingly so, no one wants to see Reigns vs Lesnar for the 1000th time, no wonder ticket sales are low). Maybe we musn't sue sources from inexperienced writers (which almost all the WP:PW/RS listed have too) but the ones who are experienced, and Alex hoegler is experenced and highly reliable. We can at least use his articles as source. This is my last request on this, please consider this. If not, I am done here and will say there are just insufficient Wp:PW/RS. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

You are getting hung up on the irrelevant details. What expertise, training, or credentials, specifically about professional wrestling, does Alex Hoegler bring to the table? Interning at a Junior A hockey office and holding an indiscernible position with a hockey fan page *may* be enough to qualify him to write about hockey as a reliable source; however, I would suggest that, unless he has more credentials aside from that, he likely wouldn't make the cut. And if his hockey experience isn't enough to make him a reliable source about hockey, it's definitely not enough to make him a reliable source about professional wrestling. The number of articles published doesn't mean anything. Scrolling through sites today shows that there are tens of thousands of articles published daily that are the equivalent of "11 Things You Never Knew About Pumpkins" (6 of which are either common knowledge or so readily obvious that the only reason you didn't "know" them is that you never bothered to think about them). What are Alex Hoegler's credentials in the world of professional wrestling? Has he had any work published in peer-reviewed academic journals or books by well-known publishers? Has he had his work published in magazines run by people who are acknowledged by industry experts or insiders as top-quality sources? Has he been employed in any capacity by established promotions? Have any credible and well-known workers in the business given his work positive reviews or appeared alongside him as equals at industry events? I looked through the site--one of those bottomless pages that scrolls endlessly, which is not a promising start to the investigation--looking specifically for Alex Hoegler. The first few articles I found from him were a repetition of something The Rock said in an interview published by Esquire, a repetition of something that The Miz said on The Daily Show, and a repetition of a report from Wrestling Observer Radio. I don't know Alex Hoegler personally. He might be a really nice guy, and I wish him no ill. With that said, is there a pressing need for these articles? Why, if we were to include this information in Wikipedia, would we not use Esquire, The Daily Show, or Wrestling Observer Radio as sources rather than Hoegler? Is this journalism for which he has specific expertise, or could the average person on the street (who may have never watched a wrestling match in their life) summarize these sources as effectively? I have nothing against new sources being recognized as reliable, but there needs to be something compelling to back up the assertion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Result by pinfall

Hello. Tonight I noticed that recent (ie, almost exclusively 2021) PPV results have begun to add "by pinfall" in the results tables. I feel this is highly redundant; the majority of pro wrestling matches end in pinfalls and if you look at literally every old PPV article, the only time a method is listed is if it's a non-pinfall method. We should go back to not including this redundant detail. Courtasy ping to Donnowin1 as they are apparently for adding "by pinfall" to every result. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 06:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

And one for TheDeviantPro as well. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 06:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Not only it causes redundancy but also WP:OVERLINK. For example, look at this revision of Full Gear (2021) and see how many times "pinfall" linked to its main article. Now compare it with something cleaner like this. I think most casual fans are aware of how a pro wrestling match ends. As GhostOfDanGurney said, non-pinfall endings are worth to mention. Mann Mann (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Donnowin1: Can you please explain why you added the relevant information to the WP/PW Style Guide yourself with no discussion, as you did in this edit and after I have found that you have made a total of 0 edits in Wikitalk space (which this discussion is in and any discussion to edit the style guide should take place)? You have edited since I first pinged you here so I'll give you 8 more hours to discuss this before I revert. Clearly there is no consensus to add this information, as evidenced by other users messaging you on your talk page about this issue, as well. In fact, your edits go against the WP:IMPLIEDCONSENSUS established through years of editing on this website. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with stating it. Remember that Wikipedia articles are not to be read just by people who are familiar with the subject matter. The word "pinfall" is generally linked multiple times because the tables are sortable, so the top row as we originally see it may not always be the top row. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, looking at the page history explains this clearly. The "by pinfall" was added by McPhail on October 8, 2020, as stated in the edit summary, because of the consensus formed here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 108#Results tables in professional wrestling events articles: "by pinfall". So "by pinfall" should stay. Donnowin1 did not add "by pinfall" to the style guide at all, as implied by GhostOfDanGurney, but only added the links, which are, as I previously stated, because of the sortable nature of the tables. GhostOfDanGurney should not revert. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

And, to proactively respond to the "but the table in article x isn't sortable," the tables should be sortable, and the style guide specifically states that "tables are an exception to the overlinking guideline of Wikipedia". GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I realize my mistake. Struck the inaccurate info. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The decision to add this information was made here. I strongly disagree with removing this information. While it may be true that "the majority of pro wrestling matches end in pinfalls", the reader may not be aware of this, and they should not require this information to be able to read and understand the article. Additionally, for older events where the victor but not the means of victory was not recorded, this enables us to present this information accurately. Clarity and unambiguity are essential. McPhail (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree with McPhail and Gary. 1, a consensus was established. 2, non-wrestling readers doesn't know that, if there is no info, it's a pinfall. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fair. I'll consider the matter dead save for a mass of editors coming here shortly to agree with me. Apologies for any disruptiuon. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Does that mass of editors include people who have little to no knowledge about professional wrestling? Because if not, then this "mass of editors" means nothing. A point I made in that previous discussion for the inclusion of "by pinfall" is that there is absolutely nothing that tells a reader that "pinfall" is the default means of winning. You and anyone who would agree with you are assuming that everyone knows that. --JDC808 ♫ 08:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

...I think you took my comment a bit too literally. A point I made in that previous discussion for the inclusion of "by pinfall" is that there is absolutely nothing that tells a reader that "pinfall" is the default means of winning. I mean, we could do this; tell them that. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

We could. I have no preference between adding "by pinfall" to each result or stating at the top of the table that "All results are by pinfall unless otherwise noted". They accomplish exactly the same thing. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

...stating at the top of the table that "All results are by pinfall unless otherwise noted". They accomplish exactly the same thing. - Those were honestly my exact thoughts haha. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

In response to GhostOfDanGurney: I mean, we could do this; tell them that. As per the previous consensus, we are, by stating "by pinfall". Of course, not every single article has been updated since that last consensus, but that's beside the point. There are issues, however, with giving a general statement of "All results are by pinfall unless otherwise noted" as some matches are not won by traditional means for a "by [result]" to be noted. For example, a ladder match. It just says "A defeated B, C, D, E, and F". For an uninformed reader, if they read "All results are by pinfall unless otherwise noted" and saw that there is no "by [result]" noted, they may in fact assume that ladder match was won by pinfall. --JDC808 ♫ 08:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

"Adam Page defeated vwxy&z by retrieving the poker chip." or "Big E defeated vwxy&z by retrieving the briefcase." In my opinion, those aren't any different from cage matches won by escaping the cage, so no, I disagree with that being an issue. To use your logic against you here, how else does an uninformed reader (who hasn't read the article on ladder matches) know how the ladder match is won? GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 08:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

By clicking the article about the ladder match, but regardless, we currently don't list "by retrieving the [item]" for ladder matches (at least not on the many articles I've seen), which is the issue there. Those issues for any type of matches that currently don't have a "by result" would need to be resolved if that hatnote about pinfalls were to be added. --JDC808 ♫ 09:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It shouldn't be too difficult to resolve through normal BRD editing processes, such has apparently been done at All Out 2020 with the "mimosa mayhem" match. I've gone ahead and added the hat to that section; the "Broken Rules" aka Last Man Standing match was won by countout. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Takaku Fuke - alleged sex pervert gimmick (!?)

Hi, I'm taking over a draft of Takaku Fuke (see Draft:Takaku Fuke) left by a now indefinitely blocked user who shall go unnamed (granted you don't peek at the draft's history - and I'm sorry if you fall in the rabbit hole) for making wikipedia talkpages into battlezones and messing with admins. Although I have mixed faith in the notability of Fuke, I'll still try to make this entry as good as I can.

I need help from a expert in Japanese Pro Wrestling (esp. ones who know what goes on at Japanese indies) regarding Fuke's recent activities - especially regarding a alleged "pervert/sexual harassment gimmick" he used in VKF circa mid-to-late 2010s.

From his Japanese Wikipedia entry (jp:冨宅飛駈): VKFプロレスに参戦後は、女子レスラーとのミックスドマッチにおいては、セクハラキャラを確立している. My amateur translation is "After participating in VKF Wrestling, [Fuke] established a sexual harassment-based character in mixed gender matches when [in-ring with] female wrestlers." I need a source for this; is this true or is this a libellous action from Japanese-language wikipedia editor?
From what I've seen, there are some Indie Matches where Fuke gets weird with female wrestlers in ring - but I'm not confident in the context (and WP:OR doesn't count). The sauce is needed. TrickShotFinn (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, is "FUCK! Certified World AIR Class Championship?" (FUCK!認定世界AIR級王座 / FUCK! Nintei sekai eā kyūōza) a real thing? It's listed as one of Fuke's pro wrestling titles/championships/accomplishments at jpwiki entry. TrickShotFinn (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Number of Raw episodes

Hi, does anyone have a definitive source for how many episodes of Raw there have been? WrestlingData has it at 1487 (once it updates for yesterday), while The Smackdown Hotel has it at 1507. Does anyone know why this discrepancy exists? — Czello 11:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Cagematch concurs with the 1487 figure. Can't think what the 20 episodes discrepancy would be - maybe Thursday RAW Thursday? McPhail (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The Smackdown Hotel numbers Raw 1000 as #1000, and Raw 1400 (March 23, 2020) as #1400, so the discrepancy would have come since then. Indeed, Cagematch and TSH agree with each other all the way until Night 2 of the 2020 draft, Raw #1429 on October 12th. The next episode, October 19th 2020, Cagematch counts as #1430 while TSH jumps 20 slots to #1450. So it is 1487, and TSH just goofed up and continued counting from there. Pinguinn 🐧 04:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks both. — Czello 19:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Good sleuthing! McPhail (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Level 5 articles

FYI, since we've discussed discussed Level 5 selections in the past... Vince Russo is now on the list. He was apparently added last month.[37] We had discussed many names previously and he wasn't one of them and I think there's a reason for that.LM2000 (talk) 10:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Just thought I'd toss in that this was a good faith edit by an editor who felt that the Professional Wrestling category was a better fit than Prose Writers. He was originally added to the Level 5 list as a writer in this edit: [38]. I don't see any consensus in any page history to add him, so I think it would be fine to delete. There are currently 31 articles in the 30-article category, so it's one over as it is. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Since no one has objected I removed him from the list.--67.70.101.149 (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Ordering of lists in "personnel" templates

In templates such as WWE personnel, "Male wrestlers" appears above "Female wrestlers". There's no good reason for this that I can see and Wikipedia policy is that lists should be alphabetical unless there's a clear reason for ordering otherwise. I'd therefore propose that the order be reversed unless anyone has any thoughts otherwise. McPhail (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@McPhail: If there is no specific policy/guideline about it, then using A-Z order sounds OK. Mann Mann (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

It was probably for the fact that professional wrestling is a male dominant "sport". --JDC808 ♫ 09:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a mix between male dominant sport and two different divisions? NJPW has separated tables for HW and Jr. wrestlers

It does seem to be separated by division, which I think is fine. I don't really have an objection to merging the two together, but I also don't think the current format is problematic. — Czello 12:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The current format is not problematic but actually it is very helpful for both editors and readers. What McPhail says is about changing the order of headings/sub-sections. e.g. take a look at List of WWE personnel => Current format: Roster => 2.2 Raw => 2.2.1 Male wrestlers + 2.2.2 Female wrestlers. McPhail's suggestion: Roster => 2.2 Raw => 2.2.1 Female wrestlers + 2.2.2 Male wrestlers. And applying same order to other sections, lists, and templates. Mann Mann (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Or we can use a format like List of UFC champions: Men and Women. Looks better than male and female in my opinion and matches with alphabetical order. Mann Mann (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with just changing it to Men and Women. --JDC808 ♫ 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Czello and McPhail: Your opinion? Mann Mann (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mann Mann:: on a more general level, I'd question why we divide up rosters by sex in the first place - WWE, AEW, etc don't do this. But if we feel this is necessary, happy with "men" and "women" (though obviously we wouldn't say "men wrestlers"). McPhail (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about any specific policy/guideline for gender-based sections on articles, lists, or navboxes. But it's similar to WP categories. In my opinion, such sections and sub-sections are helpful, and they work better for readability and organizing . For example, a reader who is only interested in WWE women's division does not need to browse wrestlers one by one. He/She opens the related article, list, or navbox. Then goes to the relevant section that he/she looks for it. Plus we do not need to use the format "X wrestlers". Using Men and Women is enough just like that UFC list. Do we really need to mention "wrestlers"? If omitting "wrestlers" from the headings is confusing, then we can use an alternative option like Men's division and Women's division. But I don't think using "men" and "women" would cause confusion. Mann Mann (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

"Men" and "women" is fine with me — Czello 09:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think male wrestlers/female wrestlers divide them from referees and other on air talent (men and women who aren't wrestlers or don't wrestle) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Both List of WWE personnel and Template:WWE personnel have sections/groups like Referees, Other on-air talent, and etc. So it would be fine with "men" and "women". However, if you guys think it's confusing for most readers, then as I said we can use men's division and women's division. Anyways, it's not a big deal for me. I just shared my suggestions. The current revision is OK for me but my preference is a format similar to that UFC list. But if most users think male/female format works better for our project, then let's forget my suggestions and then continue discussing McPhail's concern (A-Z order). Mann Mann (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

So...should we stick with female/male or switch to men/women? McPhail (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested moves for discussion

• "Butch Miller (wrestler)" to "Bushwhacker Butch"

• "Luke Williams (wrestler)" to "Bushwhacker Luke"

• "Taz (wrestler)" to "Tazz"

McPhail (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• • Also, "Kevin Wacholz" to "Nailz". McPhail (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

PCW Ultra

Hello, WikiProject,

This is a brand new article about professional wrestling by a fairly new editor and I'm hoping some here who are experienced content creators can give it a look. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I'm not sure how "experienced" I am, but having a glance it appears to have been supported with a primary source and a bunch of sources to past results (which make the article look very listy). I can't find much else on google, so it sounds like an AfD case to me. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PCW Ultra. I've never heard of this company. starship.paint (exalt) 13:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

January 4

There is a discussion in the talk page of the Talk:January 4 Tokyo Dome Show. The issue, if the article should include the WrestleKingdom events that takes place on Jan 5 (and Jan 8). If you want, you can give your opinion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move for discussion

• "Ferrin Barr Jr." to "Jimmy Jack Funk". McPhail (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• • Also, "Kim Nielsen (wrestler)" to "Desire (wrestler)". McPhail (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Title changes when a taped show has yet to broadcast

I've recently reverted an edit which listed a title change that hadn't yet aired. My reasoning is that if the show hasn't aired, the title change is not yet official (the promotion's website, for example, still shows the previous champion). What is this wikiproject's rule on this sort of thing? When do we alter articles to reflect the current champion, if this is technically something in the "future"? — Czello 13:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Have reliable wrestling sources covered this if so it should be covered. An example would be at Talk:Jake Hager where there was a consensus to cover his 2010 MITB contact cash in against Chris Jericho before SmackDown aired on TV.--67.70.101.198 (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Long-standing consensus is that as long as it's reliably sourced we list title changes and edit title histories to reflect when the match actually took place, not when it aired on TV via tape delay. That's because the announcement of the winning of the title occurs for the people in attendance, who are no less valid than the people watching at home. Now, an argument could be made that since pro wrestling is not an actual sport, but a form of performing art, and it's very much made-for-tv these days that the air date is more important, but that would require a major overhaul of practice as a result of an RFC or some such. But for now, someone editing in good faith to update for events that took place as part of a TV taping, so long as it's reliably sourced, should not be reverted. oknazevad (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Per WP:SPOILER " the results of reality television programs, and live radio and television events broadcast on a delay in certain areas of the world such as the Eurovision Song Contest and the Olympics." As Oknazevad said, it's a consensus and there are reliable sources and the title change already happened. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm clearly in the minority here! Well, that settles that. — Czello 22:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:KOPW (New Japan Pro-Wrestling)#Requested move 26 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:KOPW (New Japan Pro-Wrestling)#Requested move 26 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I found this interesting.... (potential UPE)

The Wrestling Observer/F4WOnline website's Daily Update from yesterday has a job listing for a "Wikipedia guru". [39] Did Dave and Bryan already have a "Wikipedia guru"? I hope there isn't any UPE going on here. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 16:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

It says: "JOB LISTING: Wikipedia guru... Do you have experience writing Wikipedia pages? Please contact..." It could be a sign of paid editing or they just want to improve WON-related content on WP. Maybe it's better to contact them and ask them clarifying their concerns. Mann Mann (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move for discussion

"Jon Hugger" to "Johnny Stamboli". McPhail (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Evolution rename

This one, I asked McPhail. iI want to open a rename request for Evolution (AJPW). The AJPW disambiguation doesn't work, since no wrestling readers don't known the topic of the article. Also, the disambiguation doesn't explain what it is (a title, a wrestler, an event??). So, I want to change the name, but there is also Evolution (professional wrestling), which is the primary topic. So, do you have any sugestion for the Japanese article? My ideas: Evolution (AJPW stable) or (Japanese stable) or (Japanese professional wrestling stable) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

(Japanese professional wrestling stable) is probably the most consistent with Wikipedia guidelines -- passing editors won't know what a "stable" means in that context, so the additional descriptor is probably required (though it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue). — Czello 17:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Unidsputed Era

Happy New Year to everyone. With this new year 2022, I have some question that I want to ask. Feel free to give me your toughts.

First, is about the Undisputed Era article. As you known, Fish, Cole and KO joind AEW and began to work together. However, the article UE say they still active. While it's true to some point (Strong stills with WWE), it's weird to say that UE, a WWE stable, still active as a sub-group of The Elite because they're the same members. What do you think? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree. The Undisputed Era is a WWE faction -- it shouldn't be listed as "active" because, quite simply, it's not active. There is no faction called Undisputed Era anymore. When AJ Styles and the Good Brothers were in WWE, we didn't call them Bullet Club, because they became something new. I've noticed the odd IP trying to add "Undisputed Era" to the sub-groups section of the Elite article, and I (and others) have been removing it; I'd extend this to the UE article too. — Czello 17:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Are Kyle O'Reilly and Bobby Fish official members? Or are they just associates? O'Reilly brought up the past problems with Cole in which there were many in ROH and NXT. Just because O'Reilly teamed with Cole one time in AEW doesn't mean he is a member. So there needs to be some clarification. But as for the Undisputed Era specifically, I'm all for listing it as 2021 when they disbanded. Cole, O'Reilly, and Fish being official members or associates of The Elite have nothing to do with The Undisputed Era which is a WWE faction. Therefore, The Elite should not be listed in the infobox. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

article for deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of CM Punk Matches in AEW Muur (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move for discussion

• "Canek (wrestler)" to "El Canek". McPhail (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Cagematch for titles

I know I forget something. Cagematch is one of the most used sources in the project. However, the project says "Marginally reliable. Strictly used for match results and not other information". There is any reason why isn't reliable for title history? Match results are tied with the title history. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I use Wrestling Titles. Sure you can use Cagematch, but you should always cross reference. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree that if Cagematch is deemed reliable for match results it should also be an accepted source for title histories. Though as noted having two sources is ideal. McPhail (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I've always found cagematch to be a superior source to Wrestling Titles Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Cagematch allows people to submit things. That should be taken into consideration. But, Wrestling Titles has had contributions from people as well. Solie.org on the other hand can be spotty with some title histories. For example, Nikki Bella is a two time Diva's Champion, but Solie.org has one reign listed. You can use Solie.org. But again, cross reference. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 16:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

So, there is no opposition to change the RS list and include Cagematch for matches and title history? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The WP:PW Sources page says they do fact checking on user-submitted results (although I can't find this on the site itself). My question is who is doing this fact checking, and what makes them qualified to do so? What makes BarKing81, Franjise, RutlandInsurance, etc., experts in the subject matter? I don't see any assertion of specialized knowledge or experience in the "About Us" or "Cagematch Team" pages. Is the site listed as reliable because it meets the criteria of WP:RS or because it's convenient? GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@GaryColemanFan: It's like Online World of Wrestling. It's user submitted, but it's listed as unreliable unlike Cagematch which is listed under "industry specific." Even Internet Wrestling Database is listed as "limited reliability. In the note regarding Cagematch it says "Marginally reliable. Strictly used for match results and not other information. Takes user submissions but is reviewed by regional editors that verify all submissions before they are added to the database." As you mentioned, there is nothing stating their fact checking process. The about us is just the site history. I doubt there will be a site with title histories that will be 100 percent reliable or accurate. I would be all for making them limited reliability if nothing else. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 07:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks like they would fit in the "Unproven sources" category, as there doesn't seem to be any assertion or evidence of meeting WP:RS. It's true that there might not be an up-to-date site with comprehensive lineages for all titles--I don't think Solie's Title Histories, Wrestling Titles/Puroresu Dojo, or Cagematch would hold up to WP:RS scrutiny--but that would mean that we would need to gather our information from what does exist (the Duncan/Will book, match results and biographies from reliable sources, promotion websites) rather than going with the site that falls the least short of WP:RS. I would suggest that the WP:PW/RS page needs some WP:TNT and a fresh start altogether. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

There are too few WP:PW/RS, also i see nothing Cagematch has done to be considered unreliable. Its not overly used anywhere. It fits WP:reliability and WP:V guidlines. If things goes on at this rate, evrything will be considered unreliable and there will be no sourceleft to use and all wrestling articles might end up having blank pages. I don't see Cagematch causeing any big issues, it is no less teliable than Dave Meltzer's dirtsheet WON and his numerous faulty reports (like Punk coming back to WWE in 2014 which did not happen). Cagematch has never made any unproven faulty report like that. Lets just leave the articles that already uses it as a source alone and its OK if we don't use it in future but there is no need to remove any existing contents that uses it as a source, and as a matter of fact it has been used in very few places. Thats all I have to say on this matter. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Standards for reliable sources can't be lowered because of a low number of sources. They're either reliable, or they aren't. A site doesn't need to "do something" to be considered unreliable. They need to "do something" to be considered reliable (i.e. establish their qualifications and expertise in a specific field). In other words, every site would be considered unreliable unless it can be proven otherwise. There are many reliable sources, and slippery slope, "what about x?"-style arguments have no place on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Cagematch doesn't have to cause big issues to not be used. It just shouldn't be used unless it can be established that it meets WP:RS. Dave Meltzer is a recognized journalist, and a single error (or even series of errors) doesn't make a source unreliable. He is considered reliable because he has specific qualifications and expertise, which can be demonstrated in numerous ways (not the least of which are his recognition by the Cauliflower Alley Club and the George Tragos/Lou Thesz Hall of Fame, honors which I don't believe DanTalksRasslin, RKO1982, or The Sick Lebowski of Cagematch have yet attained). A source that doesn't meet WP:RS shouldn't be left in articles, even if it's only a small number of articles. The big question is that, if you claim that Cagematch meets WP:RS and WP:V, can you offer policy-based arguments to prove this? GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

While cagematch journalists don't have as much recognition as Dave Meltzer, that doesn't mean that tehy are not accurate and reliable. Byb this logic cbs sports, 411 mania, and all otehr accpted WP:PW/RS can be dismissed just because their writers do not have enough recognition according to WP:PW members. Anyway do whateve you want but I fail to see any reason that can cause Cagematch to be considered unreliable, they have not reported anything inaccurate and also have their own valid reputation among the wrestling world... Dilbaggg (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Just so people know what Dilbaggg deems to be a reliable source on information, have a guess what his source is for Dave Meltzer being wrong about Punk's return in 2014. When you're ready to find the answer, go here. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Says ItsKesha the one who blindly edit wars articles, does not request for consennsus when making contradictory changes because he knows votes goes against his favor and have been warned by numerous users on his talk page for numerous Wikipedia policy violations but has to remove and hide them all the time. Anyway I only brought that up for his WP:NPA violation WP:Harassment attack on me, I should keep in mind that just because someoe does that to you, you dont do it to them, but I just had to mention the truth, anyway what he said has nothing to do with this discussion, I already mentioned my reasons before his off topic comment, so I leave it to whatever majority editors want, best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

(1) It's not about recognition. It's about credentials. Who are they? What qualifies them to write as experts about professional wrestling? Dave Meltzer is qualified because of decades of experience, thousands of subscribers, books published by multiple established publishers, numerous connections at high levels within the business, statements made by wrestlers about his credibility or the significance of his newsletter, appearances on the critically acclaimed series Dark Side of the Ring, being quoted by other industry insiders/experts in their own books, notability to such a degree that a copy of his newsletter was featured in a WCW segment with Hulk Hogan, popularization of a match-ranking system that is well known throughout the business, 263000+ Twitter followers, holding a journalism degree and having worked as a sportswriter for newspapers, membership in a major hall of fame, and an award from an organization composed largely of industry insiders. Do you honestly want to continue to argue that he and chris35 are on the same level? This would indicate either indicates a lack of good faith or a profound misunderstanding of WP:RS. (2) The other thing you're hung up on is not being unreliable. You need to stop looking at it that way. No sources are considered reliable until it can be established that they are written by experts in the subject matter. Instead of saying "There isn't a reason they should be considered unreliable", the necessary approach is to say, "Here are the policy-based reasons that they should be considered reliable". GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

If you are gonna talk about credentials, wrestling is not considered a notable enough sport sadly due to its scipted nature. Recognized sports journalists are found for legit games like footbal, basketnall, baseball, soccer and MMA in NFL, NBA MLB, MLS and UFC, we ca't compare wretling to that. The entire world knows its scripted, to expect wrestling authors to be graduates in sports journalism is far streatching thing, and you fail to give any reason what makes other things like 411mania reliable than cagematch, 411Mania also has very few established authors by that logic, ptretty much all WP:PW/RS then.... We look into the years of experiemnce of the authors and as long as they have 5 year plus experience at minimum in writing wrestling related contents than it should be enough, Cagematch does have some writers with decades experience and since wrestling is a scripted sports that should count enough in my opinnion. Why only target Cagematch and not all the other WP:PW/RS that have authors lacking credentials according to you then? Anyway do whatever you feel, I am finished with this discussion. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no lower standard for scripted entertainment. WP:RS is WP:RS. Your proposed criteria do not comply with WP:RS. As for 411mania, I agree that it is an unreliable source. I don't think that WP:PW/RS should have a "Limited reliability" list at all. It's not a real thing. If they don't have subject-matter experts, they shouldn't be used. In addition, the (albeit brief) discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_249#411Mania.com indicated that they should not be used as a reliable source. As for "all the other" sites, my comments here are about Cagematch because the discussion has been about Cagematch; however, if you read through my comments in this thread, you will see that I proposed scrapping WP:PW/RS altogether and starting over. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Dilbaggg, you chime in every time WP:RS is discussed but your understanding of the policy leaves a lot to be desired.

I'm not sure if WP:PW/RS needs to be completely blown up, but it should be at least partially blown up and reconstructed in the model of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Every source there has been discussed at least once. We have discussed most of the industry-specific reliable sources but many of the unreliable sources were not discussed and got placed there with a footnote that serves as proof of bad reporting. Although I don't doubt their unreliability, we should get some community consensus one way or the other.

To be fair, I do remember Cagematch being discussed previously. Unless there's something I'm missing, this conversation leaves me unconvinced that we should consider them reliable though and I'm not sure if I'd use The Internet Wrestling Database for anything either.LM2000 (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You claim Cagematch was deemed unreliable, where? And why not take the matter to WP:RSN? Best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I did not say that. What I said was that this thread has not convinced me that they're reliable. I don't care enough to take this to WP:RSN, but I find it hard to believe that they would be swayed by the arguments presented here.LM2000 (talk) 07:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Well we can't just suddenly start calling a source unreliable based on the opinions of a few users. I think there needs to be a consensus and more neutral observers involved in deciding the reliability of Cagematch.net. I suggest that taking in to WP:RSN before that might help. Thearticles whih uses this a a source looks good and no one complained for a long time, now that suddenly a few members are complaining, in my opinion its best to take the matter to RSN by those who wants in to be declassified as a WP:RS. Best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you. If you think it should be deemed reliable, go to WP:RSN at make a case for it. If you're not going to do so, drop the issue. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not the one trying to make an established WP:RS suddenly unreliable. So it is those who wants to make the change that should take it to WP:RSN and get a neutral consensus. Best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not an established reliable source. WP:PW/RS holds no weight. I am pointing out that it gives no assertion of reliability, and therefore it would be deemed unreliable and should probably not be used. I am not going to take this to WP:RSN. If you want to seek a consensus to use the source, the burden of proof is on you. I have nothing to gain and no interest in initiating a discussion in which you're going to badger the wider Wikipedia community about a source despite not understanding WP:RS or having an interest in gaining such an understanding. If you want to take it to WP:RSN, go for it. If not, drop the issue and stop using the source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Strong Kobayashi needs expert attention

Yet another example of someone who the real world viewed as notable decades ago, while the timing of the article's creation suggests that we view him as notable for dying. From skimming Google-accessible sources, there's conflicting birth and death dates, the latter of crucial concern as they span different years. The article text too closely parrots the handful of sources which appeared in the wake of his death. He had at least two stints as a pushed wrestler in the WWWF, which is unacknowledged. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 12:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

When he died, I linked him on several articles, but there was no article at the time. Strange since, making a quick search, he won several titles and awards. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I've done some work on it. I will try and flesh out the Acting career and Personal life sections. McPhail (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I included the Asia Tag Team title and the Tokyo Sports Awards. I made a quick look about PWI 500, but nothing appeared --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Another requested move for discussion

Bobby Duncum Sr. → Bobby Duncum. McPhail (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Article for Deletion for discussion

Jeremy Ganger. McPhail (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Tom Hannifan/Phillips

What y'all think - should we move Tom Phillips to his real name of Tom Hannifan, or keep it as is.

I think we should move it - can't be eternally wedded to his WWE name, and WP:Common name I don't think is applicable here.

Vjmlhds (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

As I said in my talk page, several sources call him Tom Phillips even when he signed with impact. So, Doesn't meet name change [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not understanding, why should we move the article? Why is WP:COMMONNAME not applicable? — Czello 22:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• On one hand, it's pretty likely that he hasn't been using his real name in Impact long enough for it to displace his WWE stage name as his common name yet. On the other hand, even most of the stories HHH links above use "formerly known as Tom Phillips" in their headlines, meaning WP:NAMECHANGES might apply. The idea that a WWE name is automatically the common name really needs to be discarded. Also, there's the fact that his real name doesn't need a disambiguator, so WP:NATDIS also applies. I'm neutral on a move at this point (and think moving the article without discussion was presumptive, let alone move warring regarding it) but I can see changing my mind in a few weeks when it becomes more established. oknazevad (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • That's why NAMECHANGES doesn't apply. Sources still using his formen name, even as FKA Tom Phillips. If sources need this kind of clarification, the name is not known enoguh.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I think there should definitely be a grace period between the debut under a new name (even if it's their actual name) and a page move. It's pretty common nowadays for there to be a rush to move the article title as soon as someone debuts under a different name but I had no idea who Hannifan even was until this thread... Articles have to say "formerly known as Tom Phillips" so that most of us know who they're talking about. Eventually that will subside and it can be moved without much controversy.LM2000 (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Of course. If time and his work proves he is known as Hannifan, no problem. But, if reliable sources say that he was known as Tom Phillips, proves that his current name is not known (yet). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal of "Residence" parameter from Template:Infobox professional wrestler

I am proposing that the "Residence" parameter be removed from Template:Infobox professional wrestler. This is as (1) this parameter does not appear in Template:Infobox_person, the master biographical template - I don't see why Infobox professional wrestler should include fields that Infobox_person does not expect where these pertain to wrestling (2) this information is challenging to reliably source given people may often relocate and (3) there are potential privacy/safety implications, particularly for people living in smaller towns (notwithstanding that this information may already be in the public domain somewhere, clearly putting it on Wikipedia may amplify it). Overall, I think there are sound reasons to remove this parameter from Infobox professional wrestler and I don't see any compelling reason to keep it. Views very welcome. McPhail (talk) 11:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. No idea why we have it in the first place. A "Billed from" perameter might be more suitable, but seems like trivia to me. Birth and death locations are the only encyclopedic information. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Did you notice that the removal of the parameter from {{Infobox person}} was the result of a "consensus" cooked up in an obscure corner of the encyclopedia by maybe a half dozen editors at most? Relative to its impact (close to 40,000 articles were affected at the time), it's hardly anything I would consider to be reflective of community consensus. WP:CCC is one thing; making change solely for change's sake and creating long-term inconsistencies anyone can see through is another. We're going further down the slippery slope of putting as much weight as possible on everyone's birthplace, even when said birthplace has little or nothing to do with the subject's notability or other public regard. I previously brought this up years ago on this page. Tully Blanchard, Dory Funk Jr., Terry Funk, Kerry Von Erich and Kevin Von Erich are all deeply associated with Texas in the public eye. Period, full stop. None of those five were born in Texas. So why would you aim for a decrease in appropriate weight in these cases? This particular problem is rampant, so examples are ultimately of little use. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

How does "residence" matter any more than that? It's also an infobox, there's nothing wrong with a sourced statement about where someone lives in the prose. If someone is deeply associated with a place, then that should be sourced to RS talking about that - the residence doesn't say that about somewhere. This is hardly a change for change sense, it's often not sourced, sometimes particularly private issues are disclosed and isn't in the parent template, which we should mirror, unless this is specifically relevant to wrestling biographies... which it isn't. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

How do you reliably source this though? Infoboxes should be used to capture basic, verifiable information, not to make some statement about where the person in question is associated with. McPhail (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

4 moves

Hello. I think there are some articles that need a name change. However, I'm not 100% sure. So, if somebody wants to open a Request, I would be happy (or at least, an opinion is fine). Babatunde Aiyegbusi, Eric Bugenhagen, Rinku Singh and John Layfield. The first two work as Commander Azeez and Rick Boogs, which are likely the COMMONNAME, but Babatunde has a previous career as football player and Boogs had other names in WWE. The third one works as Veer Mahaan, but he has a previous basketball career and he barely appears on RAW (also, there is a movie about him). The last one is called John Bradshaw Layfield by several sources, so maybe a name change is necessary. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Should winning Impact's Ultimate X being recognized under Championships and accomplishments section?

I think we should consider winning the Ultimate X match as an accomplishment and putting it into the Championships and accomplishments section of the wrestler who won the match. The match is quite similar to the Money in the Bank match, so when a WWE superstar wins that match like Rob Van Dam, for example, it is listed under the section of Championships and accomplishments. The one thing I don't think it should be considered as an accomplishment, when it was won by a singles match. SeosiWrestling (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's not a championship. Most of the time the match was already for something (the X title, or World X Cup). When it isn't, they don't go around holding a big X as a championship. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with Lee. The Rumble and the MOITB winners have been promoted as the winners, with their victories noted on the website C&A. But it's a kind of match, like the War Games, the Elimination Chamber or a TLC match. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Some articles do not use Infobox professional wrestler

For example, Charlotte Flair and Beth Phoenix use "Infobox person" and Lana uses "Infobox model". Is this an issue? Should we replaces those infoboxes with "Infobox professional wrestler"? Mann Mann (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Whilst not every wrestler needs the wrestler infobox (for instance, if they are more notable for something else, or they do lots of things that would mean infobox person would be better), I don't think this is suitable in these cases. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Mann Mann (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I also agree that while there are cases where it would make sense not to use the profession wrestler infobox I don’t see any reason why the articles in question shouldn’t.--65.93.195.118 (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not a fan of infoboxes in general but since we are in the topic, shouldn't the "billed" parameter be removed. It is kayfabe in pro wrestling unlike in MMA or boxing and it's irrelevant compared to other kayfabe stuff like ring names. If necessary, it should be included somewhere else in the article as trivia, perhaps under persona and style. IW. (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I’m not exactly sure what billed part you are talking about but if it’s height there was a fairly recent discussion regarding billed height and the consensus was in favour of keeping it. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive328#Template:Infobox professional wrestler.--65.93.195.118 (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's irrelevant. Throughout history, every promotion has billed its wrestlers heights' and weights. It's clearly germane to the industry. McPhail (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

If it were trivia, then it shouldn't be in the article at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It gets very convoluted, especially for wrestlers who have longer careers with different body shapes and gimmicks in different promotions. For example the Chris Jericho article currently states he weighs 227 lb sourced by WWE. However in AEW he was announced 225 lb in the early days (see here and here) whereas more recently he's 235 lb (here and here). IW. (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)