Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 85
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 80 | ← | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | Archive 87 | → | Archive 90 |
This page seems very WP:POV as regards what is "prominent" and "notable". It seems WP:COMMON SENSE that something like the WWE Championship is included, but ROH? And the "inactive" section is missing titles such as the NWA(Association) title. Has this been discussed before? What are the criteria?
However my main issue is with the section List of World Heavyweight Champions, which is not only WP:POV and WP:OR, but full of factual errors. Roodestorm (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- If the title is promoted as being a world heavyweight championship by the promotion, it makes it so. That is the criteria.--WillC 09:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
You misunderstand. The issue is not what makes something a World Title. It is why certain titles are portrayed as being prominent. You also ignored the other part. Roodestorm (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- ROH is the third biggest wrestling promotion in the United States so it should actually be included.--Deely talk 19:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- No it should not considering ROH has never called it a "Heavyweight" championship. Feedback ☎ 04:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well never in its title, but it has been referred to as a world heavyweight title in the beginning. Also, with that logic, alot of current titles don't have heavyweight in its name. PWG, ROH, and namely the ECW and WWE. They were both simply WWE and ECW, removing heavyweight and world from their name (moreso now as WWE is simply WWE, no longer is it the World Wrestling Entertainment Championship its now the WWE Championship with the name change). That is us getting technical now. Even further is the fact they have never had a weight limit to them.--WillC 07:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- oth the "WWE Championship" and "ECW Championship" dropped Heavyweight from their name to avoid confusion with the World title on Smackdown. They have always been Heavyweight titles and are still treated as heavyweight titles. The ONLY time ROH ever referred to the ROH title as a Heavyweight championship was when Samoa Joe held it. After that, it has never been referred to as a "Heavyweight" championship. More notably, it hasn't been treated as a heavyweight title being held by very few actual heavyweights. Joe and Morishima come to mind. Everyone else is less than 220 lbs. And sure, WWE's current champions are less than 220 lbs. as well and both of them have been ROH World Champions, but the fact is that WWE has considered their two world titles Heavyweight championships since their inception. That's not the case with the ROH title. Feedback ☎ 14:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Pfft the WWE title has been just that since the 90s. The ECW is another story. This is all one big clusterfuck. Us determining this is entirely OR. It comes down to promotion consideration. ROH considers their title a "world championship", falling into WHC. Us debating any other way will only lead to a dead end.--WillC 20:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- You're omitting the HEAVYWEIGHT in WHC. I agree Ring of Honor is a WORLD TITLE, because ROH considers it a WORLD TITLE, but they don't claim it's a world HEAVYWEIGHT title. Give me a source where they claim it is and I'll shut up about it. Feedback ☎ 22:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- 1 http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/DVDs_-_VGames_-_Books_25/article_23080.shtml 2 http://www.wrestleview.com/viewnews.php?id=1302018554 3 http://www.f4wonline.com/component/content/article/13743/ ctrl-f "roh world heavyweight" Starship.paint (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Respectfully, none of your sources has Ring of Honor themselves referring to it as a "Heavyweight" championship. In addition, Wikipedia has no place for ambiguity or inferences. If a claim is made, it must be proven - and by the person making the claim, not the person against it. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 05:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- 1 http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/DVDs_-_VGames_-_Books_25/article_23080.shtml 2 http://www.wrestleview.com/viewnews.php?id=1302018554 3 http://www.f4wonline.com/component/content/article/13743/ ctrl-f "roh world heavyweight" Starship.paint (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- You're omitting the HEAVYWEIGHT in WHC. I agree Ring of Honor is a WORLD TITLE, because ROH considers it a WORLD TITLE, but they don't claim it's a world HEAVYWEIGHT title. Give me a source where they claim it is and I'll shut up about it. Feedback ☎ 22:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Pfft the WWE title has been just that since the 90s. The ECW is another story. This is all one big clusterfuck. Us determining this is entirely OR. It comes down to promotion consideration. ROH considers their title a "world championship", falling into WHC. Us debating any other way will only lead to a dead end.--WillC 20:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- oth the "WWE Championship" and "ECW Championship" dropped Heavyweight from their name to avoid confusion with the World title on Smackdown. They have always been Heavyweight titles and are still treated as heavyweight titles. The ONLY time ROH ever referred to the ROH title as a Heavyweight championship was when Samoa Joe held it. After that, it has never been referred to as a "Heavyweight" championship. More notably, it hasn't been treated as a heavyweight title being held by very few actual heavyweights. Joe and Morishima come to mind. Everyone else is less than 220 lbs. And sure, WWE's current champions are less than 220 lbs. as well and both of them have been ROH World Champions, but the fact is that WWE has considered their two world titles Heavyweight championships since their inception. That's not the case with the ROH title. Feedback ☎ 14:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well never in its title, but it has been referred to as a world heavyweight title in the beginning. Also, with that logic, alot of current titles don't have heavyweight in its name. PWG, ROH, and namely the ECW and WWE. They were both simply WWE and ECW, removing heavyweight and world from their name (moreso now as WWE is simply WWE, no longer is it the World Wrestling Entertainment Championship its now the WWE Championship with the name change). That is us getting technical now. Even further is the fact they have never had a weight limit to them.--WillC 07:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- No it should not considering ROH has never called it a "Heavyweight" championship. Feedback ☎ 04:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The claim is theirs to prove, not mine. Ring of Honor has always made sure to call their title the "ROH World Championship" without including the term heavyweight. A quick visit to their website can confirm it. I'm not making a "claim", I'm stating a fact. It is a prestigious title and it is a world championship, but it is not a world heavyweight championship. It's not even traditionally contended among heavyweights. If someone believes it is a heavyweight championship then they should find a source from ROH, because the current consensus is that only a promotion can decide if a title is a world heavyweight championship. Feedback ☎ 06:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- From an archive of the ROH page: Samoa Joe defeated BJ Whitmer to retain the ROH World Heavyweight Title... Samoa Joe defeated Matt Stryker, Tom Carter & Colt Cabana to retain the ROH World Heavyweight Title This is pretty confusing, in other parts of Joe's reign they promote it as World Title... Starship.paint (talk) 08:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Have you even read the discussion before answering it? Go re-read my statements, including the one about Joe and his ROH World title reign. It really ticks me off when someone responds to a thread without reading it. Feedback ☎ 17:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- I can't believe I didn't notice it before, but if you check Talk:ROH World Championship, there is a standing consensus that the ROH World title is not a "Heavyweight" title. It's a pretty old consensus though, but that doesn't make it any less correct. Feedback ☎ 17:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I did read the thread, but not at one go, so I forgot that you even mentioned Joe's title reign. Anyway, from reading the last two posts (Evilgohan: Respectfully... and you: This claim...), Evilgohan pretty much challenged me to find a ROH source, and you maintained that ROH had always made sure to not call it a WHC, calling it a fact. I guess I disproved that. You might want to be a bit more consistent on that, Feedback. Starship.paint (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Samoa Joe's title reign is an exception, and because I had already established this exception a few hours before, I didn't see the need to repeat myself. Samoa Joe was the first actual heavyweight to hold the ROH World title so ROH would occasionally call him the "World Heavyweight Champion". This was confusing to those who thought it was not a heavyweight title, but confusion has settled down since Takeshi Morishima (330 lbs) held the title and never referred to it as a heavyweight champion. The nomenclature during Morishima's reign is proof the title was never intended to be a heavyweight title and still isn't. Feedback ☎ 04:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Now, this is a better and clearer rationale than what was brought up previously. I'm more prepared to accept the non-heavyweight status given Feedback's most recent explanation. Starship.paint (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- We kinda have an issue with that logic. Okay, ROH once called it that during Joe's reign, which logically would have made it a World Heavyweight Championship at that time. If its called a cruiserweght championship for more than 3 seconds than as such it is no matter how else we feel. Now later they supposedly stopped referring to it as such. With this logic, this would effect other titles. Namely the WWE and ECW Titles which haven't been referred to as such for a long time. Whether to confuse wit the WHC on SD or not, not only was it removed from the title but neither have been treated as WHCs. Not weight limits or anything along those lines to make it seem like a whc have been done. For God sakes, Rey Mysterio has held both titles. The WWE Title is only simply called a world title now which I am aware of, while the same was for the ECW. Through numerous reigns. Also, the thought being with Rey Mysterio. During all of his reigns as world champion, neither title was ever called a world heavyweight championship. Mainly SD's title was just called the World Championship. For in that case of using Joe's one reign as a scapegoat, then Rey's reigns would declare that during those times, the titles were not WHCs. The only thing we know, is currently the ROH, ECW, and WWE Champions do not have heavyweight in their name, while the later 2 also have world removed from them. However, there is an issue with the term WHC. It is ambiguous. The term has not been meant to refer to actual World Heavyweight Championships in forever. I really believe it should be moved to World Championship as WHCs are never actually that. None have weight limits. The term is so broadly used these days. That is just my opinion though.--WillC 06:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Reading that large post I am not sure about what to say except that I agree that WHC -> WC. How many promotions currently use heavyweight rules? Starship.paint (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- We kinda have an issue with that logic. Okay, ROH once called it that during Joe's reign, which logically would have made it a World Heavyweight Championship at that time. If its called a cruiserweght championship for more than 3 seconds than as such it is no matter how else we feel. Now later they supposedly stopped referring to it as such. With this logic, this would effect other titles. Namely the WWE and ECW Titles which haven't been referred to as such for a long time. Whether to confuse wit the WHC on SD or not, not only was it removed from the title but neither have been treated as WHCs. Not weight limits or anything along those lines to make it seem like a whc have been done. For God sakes, Rey Mysterio has held both titles. The WWE Title is only simply called a world title now which I am aware of, while the same was for the ECW. Through numerous reigns. Also, the thought being with Rey Mysterio. During all of his reigns as world champion, neither title was ever called a world heavyweight championship. Mainly SD's title was just called the World Championship. For in that case of using Joe's one reign as a scapegoat, then Rey's reigns would declare that during those times, the titles were not WHCs. The only thing we know, is currently the ROH, ECW, and WWE Champions do not have heavyweight in their name, while the later 2 also have world removed from them. However, there is an issue with the term WHC. It is ambiguous. The term has not been meant to refer to actual World Heavyweight Championships in forever. I really believe it should be moved to World Championship as WHCs are never actually that. None have weight limits. The term is so broadly used these days. That is just my opinion though.--WillC 06:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Now, this is a better and clearer rationale than what was brought up previously. I'm more prepared to accept the non-heavyweight status given Feedback's most recent explanation. Starship.paint (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Samoa Joe's title reign is an exception, and because I had already established this exception a few hours before, I didn't see the need to repeat myself. Samoa Joe was the first actual heavyweight to hold the ROH World title so ROH would occasionally call him the "World Heavyweight Champion". This was confusing to those who thought it was not a heavyweight title, but confusion has settled down since Takeshi Morishima (330 lbs) held the title and never referred to it as a heavyweight champion. The nomenclature during Morishima's reign is proof the title was never intended to be a heavyweight title and still isn't. Feedback ☎ 04:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I did read the thread, but not at one go, so I forgot that you even mentioned Joe's title reign. Anyway, from reading the last two posts (Evilgohan: Respectfully... and you: This claim...), Evilgohan pretty much challenged me to find a ROH source, and you maintained that ROH had always made sure to not call it a WHC, calling it a fact. I guess I disproved that. You might want to be a bit more consistent on that, Feedback. Starship.paint (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The way I read the article (particularly the nomenclature bit) is "World Heavyweight Champion is pretty much the standard term for a promotion's top belt although the heavyweight bit is generally fairly meaningless because this is pro-wrestling". Seems fine that the ROH title would be in there as they're a touring company whose product can be viewed internationally.
I do not believe the NWA title should be on the main table as it is defended in regional indies and title defences are not legitimately available to an international viewing audience either via TV or PPV. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 22:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Marketing terminology/Peacock terms
I've noticed more and more instances of WWE's marketing terminology slipping into articles and WWE does such a good job of defining itself that people might not even notice it but they should be on the lookout for it. The biggest one seems to be "Superstars" and "Divas" which is doubly wrong - both the terms and the capitalisation is wrong. The term superstar is clearly biased towards self promoting them as big and famous, which they may be but objectively they are wrestlers, performers, sportsmen/women and competitors. Divas is even more meaningless.
Another term people use a lot, or variations of is "the first time in WWE history ever". The last two words there are needless. If something happens for the first time in WWE then by definition it is the first time in history and it is the first time ever. Companies use these extra terms to put extra emphasis on these words but there only needs to be a qualifier after if it is NOT the first time in history every, ie CM Punk was the first Undisputed WWE Champion since Brock Lesnar/in 9 years. If it is the first time in history ever then no extra words are needed ie Kane was the first person to hold all three of WWE's top brand titles; Randy Orton was the youngest person to win the World Heavyweight Championship. Of course there's a further problem here of people noting ridiculously obscure points of someone being the second person in the history of wrestling ever to have held the Hardcore and WWE Tag Team Championships or something similarly otiose.
One term that I'm fairly confident shouldn't be used but may be debated is edition in lieu of episode of Raw, SmackDown, Impact. An edition strikes me as something that does not refer to entertainment; ie an edition of the news. I can't really put my finger on it so I may be wrong but I'm fairly certain NiciVampireHeart used to similarly make edits to reflect this last point.
Any other weasal words that should be wangled out or disagreements with my take on this? Tony2Times (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed on all points. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Same here.--Deely talk 23:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm busying replacing edition with episode... >_> Starship.paint (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Same here.--Deely talk 23:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
After further thought, I would also like to add the term "talent" to the list of peacock terms. I don't think it should be used to refer to a person (eg. "WWE fired three members of its male talent."). A person can have talent, but a person cannot be talent. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree with this talent thingy. Looking at a dictionary... "talent: 3. a talented person: The cast includes many of the theater's major talents. 4. a group of persons with special ability: an exhibition of watercolors by the local talent. 5. Movies and Television . professional actors collectively, especially star performers." Starship.paint (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I personally think that's a terrible definition, but even if we accept it, the term itself carries huge POV. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- In Merriam-Webster, talent is defined as "a person of talent or a group of persons of talent in a field or activity". It's used a lot in the entertainment industry wether it be in film, music or TV. I think it applies with the wrestlers as well, although I prefer "on-air performer". Feedback ☎ 21:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- "Talent" is commonly used within and with reference to the entertainment industry when referring to a person or a group of persons. That terminology's usage is valid in this situation. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 01:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Referring to someone as "talent" is a value judgment. Even if "talent" means someone who is talented, we are not in the business of deciding that someone is sufficiently talented to attain that title. It's a POV peacock term that should be avoided. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm on the fence about this issue to be honest, but while I can see that talent is a noun in the dictionary as well as an adjective, there are a number of more specific terms that can be used in its place surely? Wrestlers, performers, personnel, athlete - depending on the context. Tony2Times (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Referring to someone as "talent" is a value judgment. Even if "talent" means someone who is talented, we are not in the business of deciding that someone is sufficiently talented to attain that title. It's a POV peacock term that should be avoided. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- "Talent" is commonly used within and with reference to the entertainment industry when referring to a person or a group of persons. That terminology's usage is valid in this situation. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 01:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- In Merriam-Webster, talent is defined as "a person of talent or a group of persons of talent in a field or activity". It's used a lot in the entertainment industry wether it be in film, music or TV. I think it applies with the wrestlers as well, although I prefer "on-air performer". Feedback ☎ 21:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I personally think that's a terrible definition, but even if we accept it, the term itself carries huge POV. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I want to nominate "Sports Entertainment" as one as well. Besides the fact it sounds horrible, its just used by WWE as a means of marketing.--WillC 03:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Full support for removal of "sports entertainment" in favour of "(pro) wrestling". Starship.paint (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, have people really tried to use that on here? That's the epitomy of a marketing term. Tony2Times (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed with EvilGohan re: "talent" in the context of widely-used phrases such as "on-air talent" (e.g. Eric Bischoff was hired by WWE solely as an on-air talent). Agreed with Tony2Times on all his points. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 23:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, have people really tried to use that on here? That's the epitomy of a marketing term. Tony2Times (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
An IP editor is making major changes to the matchups at Sacrifice (2011). I don't know what's right. Could somebody with knowledge check this out? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Its simple, check the edits before his. The history will help show. The current version is correct. I checked an edit I did in October against today's version, only two changes which are both acceptable.--WillC 06:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't know if his edits were correct, or if the ones before his were. :) The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Problem with DYK nomination
Could someone from this project take a look at this DYK nomination. As I understand it two of the hooks are already verified but the DYK reviewer wants more sources. I've added a few but it's already has 65+ citations and my computer isn't loading the page at this point. As long as at least one of the hooks passes is it really necessary to have so many citations? Granted there's a few primary sources but it not a problem if its verifying basic information, right? Afterall Southern Championship Wrestling passed with 39 citations and Turnbuckle Championship Wrestling had 49. In a worst case scenario, can't any information the reviewer isn't comfortable with just be removed and go with either the Johnny Weaver or 9/11 hook? 72.74.222.188 (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have utterly no experience with DYK stuff, but maybe you could ask NiciVampireHeart, apparently she's written or expanded 19 DYK articles. I did a google search for sources on Stephen Arrowood and Johnny Weaver, but I couldn't find anything extra. Sorry. Starship.paint (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Please help
There has been an issue that has been a personal bother that I feel needs to be addressed regarding Bob Holly and the Intercontinental Championship. Bob Holly's page lists him as having a reign as champion, with a link to the Wikipedia page for the List of Intercontinental Champions. However, Holly is not included in the list. I have tried to edit Holly's page to remove the reign, as it is not regarded by WWE as an official reign, and the source given on Holly's page states that Jeff Jarrett was stripped of the title and a second match took place to determine the champion. NiciVampireHeart has been very adamant that the source is enough to say Holly had a reign and reverts any attempt to change it. Similarly, when I have tried to edit the List of Intercontinental Champions page to include Holly as having an unofficial reign, as is done on nearly all list pages, he has been removed on the base of the title was held up and WWE does not consider it a reign. That reason was given by TJ Spyke on the list's talk page.
I try not to let things like this bother me, but I feel that it is such a blatant contradiction to have one page say he was a champion, and the other to say he was not. I am presenting this situation to the general population here at the project page in an attempt to have a resolution, one way or the other. I don't care. I just feel that one of the pages needs to be changed. To have pages saying two different things and both being presented as fact ruins the credibility of both. I am unfamiliar with setting up a formal debate, as I've seen done when requesting to change the name of a page for example, and ask for someone to assist me in doing so. 67.181.76.194 (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Pretty simple solution, per List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions if a reliable source is presented which shows the company recognized the reign then it becomes an official reign. If they later do not recognize it, that is the company's problem. As an encyclopedia we should provide what the sources say. So if Holly was recognized and we have proof the reign should be included. Special cases are if directly after the title victory was overturned. That is different than being stripped. Stripped means he was the champion, and later they changed their view on his reign. Vacated means the issue was undecided, so he wasn't the champ. All depends on the information really. Add and place a note by it saying WWE no longer recognizes the reign is my call. All the WWE lists are so old, the information is most inaccurate. They are FLs and if they were reviewed today they would fail at how many problems there are with them.--WillC 14:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
It appears Bob Holly was announced champion and the title was subsequently held up - similar to the events of Tuesday in Texas (which WWE still count as a title reign for Hogan). I'd say it should go in the list with a note (in the notes column) stating the title was held up and a reign is not officially recognised.ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 15:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)- For what it is worth to the conversation, the two sources given state the following:
- First source: "Holly also had an unofficial run as Intercontinental Champion, defeating Jeff Jarrett in April 1995. However, because Jarrett's foot was on the ropes, the title was held up, with Jarrett regaining it after a rematch."
- Second source: "This initial run did include a brief (one-day) stint as WWF Tag Team champion alongside the 1-2-3 Kid, as well as a seeming Intercontinental Title run after pinning then champ Jeff Jarrett (the title win was over-ruled when it was discovered, upon review, that Jarrett had his foot on the ropes while pinned and the title was declared vacant)."
- Holly's article states in one of the paragraphs that he pinned Jarrett, but the language of the second source (and for clarification, they are two different articles from the same place, SLAM! Sports) states the win was over-ruled, meaning doesn't count. 67.181.76.194 (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- And I know WWE's website is not the best, but they say there that it was Jarrett who was stripped of the title due to the controversy. 67.181.76.194 (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ignore my comment earlier, I forgot the salient point that WWE recognises Hogan's title run (compared to Holly where they don't).
How about Antonio Inoki's WWE title reign? He appears on List of WWE Champions and has been at some time recognised by NJPW as a former WWF champion but it doesn't appear on his bio. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 22:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't using Wikipedia as a source against policy anyway? MrZoolook (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- It all depends on the situation Suriel.--WillC 04:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- In Inoki's case, he was declared champion and held it for a several day period. In Holly's case, right after the match the decision was voided. They had a second match that same night. Similarly. The Miz, Jericho, Owen Hart all had beaten the WWE Champion and were announced as new champion, only to have the decision changed immediately after/the same night. Those examples are not included as reigns.
- If the information is going to be removed from Holly's page, how woould I/we go about setting up a formal debate/consensus (I foresee that if I change it based on this discussion here, it would be reverted). Also I would like to give NiciVampireHeart, whose reasoning every time the information is removed is "Don't there's a source," and anyone else who supports having that included to have a chance to voice their reasoning to be reviewed by others. 67.181.76.194 (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- My advice is to start a new section on Bob Holly's talk page detailing your edit and your reasons for doing so. Also, in that some section you should provide a link to this discussion. So I think - go ahead and edit it. If anyone disagrees, tell them to come discuss it right here. Starship.paint (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have previously done what you advise Starship.paint, the only response I received was "Stop bitching about it, he did have the title reign. Proof? My fist."
- But I will go ahead and edit the page, with a link to this discussion. Thank you for your advice. In case it comes up, what should be done if it gets reverted without the reverter adding to the discussion here or providing a reason other than "Don't vandalize" or "there's a source," as has been done in the past? 67.181.76.194 (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, you could just revert it back given that it definitely seems right here you have the numbers on your side... but then that might be taken as an edit war. I think the best approach to take if the reverter is really stubborn is to simply, report it to us here and we'll try to take it from there. If it wasn't clear enough I support the removal of the non-reign from Holly's page. Starship.paint (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- My advice is to start a new section on Bob Holly's talk page detailing your edit and your reasons for doing so. Also, in that some section you should provide a link to this discussion. So I think - go ahead and edit it. If anyone disagrees, tell them to come discuss it right here. Starship.paint (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- All the reasonable points appear to have been covered and examples given. I see TheFBH has added Inoki's reign into the article with a footnote so I'm going to take this as a general consensus on the way to procede when it comes to – 1) Title reigns overturned on the same night/not defended; – 2) Title reigns ignored by one promotion but recognised by another. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 12:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- It all depends on the situation Suriel.--WillC 04:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Big Show's reign (or lack thereof)
Curious for proper way to proceed. WWE purports Big Show's reign as 45 seconds instead of the length of time passed between the initial win and loss. Fudging a bit to make the story more embarassing or impressive maybe, reminds me of the King Kong Bundy bit with S.D. Jones at Wrestlemania. If that's the official number it should take precedence, but should the time closer to the actual amount be noted and sourced as well? Papacha (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you.--Deely talk 18:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you can find a source with the actual amount of time, by all means, add it. Starship.paint (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Exit pursued by a bear
Whoops, February is rolling around soon... only 19 hours to go and I'm leaving for the army. Conscripted, actually, just like every single male in Singapore is. I'll be out of there by 2014. Keep up the editing people! It's been a fun ride. Starship.paint (talk) 05:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Good Luck--WillC 08:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Best of luck.--Dcheagle 08:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- All the best! You're a really good editor and your contributions will be missed. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 17:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ah man that's a pity! You're a great editor, best of luck and see you in 2014! You were a great addition to the WikiProject too. Stay safe Starship.--Deely talk 20:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks all! Off I go now. Starship.paint (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
should this exist.
Streak vs Career Match I just came across this page and I'm not too sure it should exist What do you guys think.--Dcheagle 09:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- I literally just found the same article whilst browsing! My take is that the necessary info on the match already exists in the articles on Shawn, 'Taker and WM26 and is thus superfluous. I am also concerned about allowing individual matches to have articles - if we allow it then we open ourselves up to the fanboy army creating hundreds of articles on any match they particularly liked. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 17:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- That was my thoughts too, all the information can be found elsewhere. I say we merge any new information that's found on the page into the three relvent pages (Taker, Shawn and WM26) and redirect it to Professional wrestling match types#Retirement match or just have it deleted.--Dcheagle 17:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Redirect it to Wrestlemania 26.--Deely talk 20:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done. If it gets reverted (as I suspect will happen) then an AFD can be called (which will inevitably result in deletion). The article is basically original research using citations already given on the existing articles. In particular, the sentence "Streak vs Career was one of the few matches to be given a special title" made me facepalm. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 20:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- That is not necessarly true it could also end up as a merge or redirect close. Another alternative would be the build a consensus here and if the change is reverted after that request protection of the redirect at WP:RFP--70.24.208.34 (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done. If it gets reverted (as I suspect will happen) then an AFD can be called (which will inevitably result in deletion). The article is basically original research using citations already given on the existing articles. In particular, the sentence "Streak vs Career was one of the few matches to be given a special title" made me facepalm. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 20:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Redirect it to Wrestlemania 26.--Deely talk 20:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- That was my thoughts too, all the information can be found elsewhere. I say we merge any new information that's found on the page into the three relvent pages (Taker, Shawn and WM26) and redirect it to Professional wrestling match types#Retirement match or just have it deleted.--Dcheagle 17:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Wrestler infobox proposal
I'd like to propose an optional parameter for Template:Infobox wrestler that tells the wrestlers current alignment (i.e. if they're face, heel, tweener or neutral) if the wrestler is active. I think this parameter would come in handy for quick look up instead of having to read a couple of paragraphs and hope you find the answer. Thoughts? CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 22:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- I actually like the idea, it could be pretty usefull.--Deely talk 23:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- I absolutely oppose. It would reek of original research (how often do reliable sources mention face/heel/tweener status?), introduce needless jargon into the infobox and be a target of ridiculous amounts of unhelpful editing from the anonymous fanboy brigade. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 23:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, they are all concerns that would arise and need to be addressed, however I disagree that it would prevent the parameter from being reliable. As for your jargon concern, that's why you link. Boxer articles use boxing jargon, like "Orthodox", for fighting stance, why can't we have a parameter the details a very useful piece of information? As long as it's linked to explain what it means, it should be fine. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 23:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- The bottom line is that there is absolutely no way of reliably proving the face/tweener/heel status of every single professional wrestler (living, dead or retired) with an infobox. And only applying it to some individuals would be entirely contrary to the purpose of the infobox. In any case, infoboxes are supposed to contain a summary of hard key facts which are important to the overall article - whatever a wrestler's current good/EVUL status may be, it's absolutely irrelevent to the overall biography of the individual. This proposal will not work, I'm afraid. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 00:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think you missed the part where I said this is for active wrestlers only. As for sourcing, I'm sure there are a couple websites that could be used. prowrestling.net for Daniel Bryan for one. I disagree it's not relevant either. It's as relevant as "billed from". I don't get your argument in your second sentence, there are thousands of infoboxes around the Wiki, some use more parameters than others, that's jsut the way it is and don't see it as a detriment if only some have it and others don't. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 05:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- The bottom line is that there is absolutely no way of reliably proving the face/tweener/heel status of every single professional wrestler (living, dead or retired) with an infobox. And only applying it to some individuals would be entirely contrary to the purpose of the infobox. In any case, infoboxes are supposed to contain a summary of hard key facts which are important to the overall article - whatever a wrestler's current good/EVUL status may be, it's absolutely irrelevent to the overall biography of the individual. This proposal will not work, I'm afraid. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 00:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, they are all concerns that would arise and need to be addressed, however I disagree that it would prevent the parameter from being reliable. As for your jargon concern, that's why you link. Boxer articles use boxing jargon, like "Orthodox", for fighting stance, why can't we have a parameter the details a very useful piece of information? As long as it's linked to explain what it means, it should be fine. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 23:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- I absolutely oppose. It would reek of original research (how often do reliable sources mention face/heel/tweener status?), introduce needless jargon into the infobox and be a target of ridiculous amounts of unhelpful editing from the anonymous fanboy brigade. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 23:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Prowrestling.net is not a known reliable source. If we place jargon in the infobox it will appear in the article. Its still an issue trying to get them to stop putting it in the headers of articles like Christian (wrestler). Its more of a trivia thing. The articles are not about their characters, its about the person, thats why they are called bios. Too many today think they are about the characters, as such they mention every little thing they do week in and week out.--WillC 05:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think the infobox entry for face/heel etc is a bad idea. This is something that the fan decides on an individual basis. There is mention that Billed from is allowed in the info box so why not Heel/Face? I would say simply because Billed from is stated during the wrestlers entrance when introduced on screen, so it's being given in kayfabe as factual info, Heel/Face status is never alluded to except in rare cases (hashtag heelziggler being an example). I also think the above statement that "The articles are not about their characters, its about the person, thats why they are called bios" is incorrect. EVERY article on a pro-wrestler I have seen on WP has been about the career of the wrestler and the characters they portray in the ring. Granted, there is a small section after each for life outside wrestling, but the VAST MAJORITY of all the articles is about the characters. MrZoolook (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Don't do face/heel alignments. Those are things purely decided by the fans themselves which change on a weekly basis. It is not notable if their character is or not. Besides, we don't need endless debate whether a heel who gets cheered like a face is really a face or a heel. Those are almost archaic terms when the promoter decided whether they would be good or bad guys on screen, which is not the case anymore. — Moe ε 15:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Bad idea. While I don't think this is decided by the fans themselves (you can be a heel even if you're cheered by the majority of the audience thanks to bad writing or uninvested fans), people jump the gun so quickly with what a face or heel turn just because of one week they're booked against someone. Mix that with TNA where few can stay one way or another for longer than a few months and a complete lack of reliable sources, I can't see it being a good idea. Maybe if it was allowed to be in the intro, where it can be sourced but I don't really see it. Tony2Times (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
WikiWomen's History Month
Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Professional wrestling will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles in wrestling. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I can't stand Woman Wrestling, but I'm sure someone will help out.--Deely talk 18:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Deely you need to watch some good women's wrestling I recommend anything with Cheerleader Melissa, MsChif, or Awesome Kong. Watch Kong vs Gail Kim from Final Resolution (January 2008), great bout. Anyway, someone alert User:Nikki311 or User:NiciVampireHeart, as this seems to be their area. Always seen them be the ones who work on the female articles.--WillC 20:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Better yet, Stratus and Lita from the early 2000s. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 08:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Meh, compared to the shit Melissa, MsChif, and Kong have done, thats nothing.--WillC 09:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- TNA fan boy :P CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 10:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- You lack knowledge of wrestling, MsChif hasn't wrestled in a large compassity in TNA, Melissa barely did wrestling, and Kong and them never had any matches.--WillC 16:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Manami Toyota. That is all. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 17:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Gotta say, I'm not a big fan of Women's wrestling either, but I saw a 'loser gets her head shaved ladder match' in TNA a few years ago. I liked the way Roxxi (Nicole Raczynsk) got busted open via a ladder to the head, and after the match itself allowed the shaver to be gouged into the open wound QUITE FIRMLY (from what I saw anyway). Respect to the girl! MrZoolook (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Manami Toyota. That is all. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 17:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- You lack knowledge of wrestling, MsChif hasn't wrestled in a large compassity in TNA, Melissa barely did wrestling, and Kong and them never had any matches.--WillC 16:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- TNA fan boy :P CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 10:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Meh, compared to the shit Melissa, MsChif, and Kong have done, thats nothing.--WillC 09:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Better yet, Stratus and Lita from the early 2000s. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 08:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Deely you need to watch some good women's wrestling I recommend anything with Cheerleader Melissa, MsChif, or Awesome Kong. Watch Kong vs Gail Kim from Final Resolution (January 2008), great bout. Anyway, someone alert User:Nikki311 or User:NiciVampireHeart, as this seems to be their area. Always seen them be the ones who work on the female articles.--WillC 20:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- The only capacity MsChif worked in TNA was back in '03 a year after it'd been founded and when it was kind of an indy. And Cheerleader Melissa was never used to her amazing potential there either otherwise you'd know how good she can be. Also Sara Del Rey, Madison Eagles and what Suriel said - the only woman to win a WON match of the year, twice, and nine 5 star matches. Don't be fooled by what WWE tells you women's wrestling is (and I'm not anti-WWE, just their booking of 'divas'). Tony2Times (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Women's History Month??? GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Infobox
I've attempted to look but I'm too lazy to look much more. I'm trying to write TNA 2005 Super X Cup Tournament in a subpage along with a bunch of other stuff that connects. I wish to add a infobox to the article but can't find any which would fit the general idea of the article. Anyone got any suggestions, lists, category, etc?--WillC 09:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Jack Reynolds
First, an aside: if time allows, I'll do an assessment of the females found in Requested articles and see if there's any interest in a collaboration project on the ones which appear to be notable.
I moved Jack Reynolds (professional wrestling) to Jack Reynolds (broadcaster). First of all, his stints as a wrestling announcer were brief enough to where he may possibly be as well known from working at WUAB than from working for the WWF. Second, check this out. That article title may have not been a good idea in the first place if a few random web searches turn up a Jack Reynolds who was a wrestler (possibly even in main events) in the 1930s.RadioKAOS (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Madison Eagles
On the subject of women in wrestling, I often see Madison Eagles made mention of 1/2/3 but she's lacking in an article here. I'm not an authority on her but she seems to be of some repute. 1/2. Papacha (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Looking through the page history it seems article has been created in the past with deletion issues stemming from WP:N, the last of which occurring in June 2010 and subsequent attempts being speedied. Provided sources have seemingly expanded and are on the up-and-up and there's been adequate coverage since then it might be doable. Papacha (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's also important to remember that two of the delete voters in that discussion have since been blocked for sockpuppetry in deletion discussions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- A case for userspace creation, perhaps, with sources added before being put live. It might be worth getting the last deleted version userfied to have something to work from. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 17:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure which deletion it was, but a while ago someone had what looked to be a properly sourced and decently sized article that I forgot to vote to keep, if we could revive that one I'm sure it'd be worth it. She's about as big a name as you can get for being an indie wrestler and a woman. Tony2Times (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- A case for userspace creation, perhaps, with sources added before being put live. It might be worth getting the last deleted version userfied to have something to work from. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 17:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's also important to remember that two of the delete voters in that discussion have since been blocked for sockpuppetry in deletion discussions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
FA
According to this edit, Turning Point (2008) was just promoted to Featured Article status. This is the first FA since Lockdown (2008) passed on January 3, 2009 and the second TNA PPV to become FA and second overall TNA article to be an FA. Thought it was worth a mention.--WillC 09:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Congrats on a quality article given its due. The drought on FAs being that long's a bit concerning, but this goes a-ways towards amending that. Way to go! Papacha (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
WWE/World Wrestling name dispute
I don't wanna dredge up old arguments, but I was wondering if the WWE name classification is necessary on Wikipedia. For the longest time, the World Wrestling Federation was operated by Titan Sports (I believe they were Ltd at the time) but there's no talk of wrestlers working for Titan. Similarly, sometime during the Attitude Era the parent company was World Wrestling Federation Entertainment and again that's not on any wrestlers' page that I've seen. Is WWE the name of the promotion, or the business as a whole? It seems the latter to me, because of all the emphasis the name change placed on "new forms of entertainment" and more failed attempts at films, TV series and the like. Tony2Times (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think in this case that Titan Sports/WWFE was officially the parent company or holding company of the World Wrestling Federation. So it is correct to say that the wrestlers worked for WWF rather than Titan. Real world example: I was formerly an employee of Orange rather than their parent company France Telecom.
Since the rebranding, WWE Inc. is the company as a whole and WWE is the promotion. So board members are serving as directors of WWE Inc. and wrestlers are in the employ of WWE. At least as far as I know! :-) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 11:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Flickr
Anyone with a Flickr account feel like convincing people to release this image of D-Bry as World Champ or this one of Swagger? Tony2Times (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is there a better one of Swagger? That one looks like he's "whited out" by the stage lighting, I can barely see his face. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 17:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Move definition articles
Is there an existing consensus as to whether individual wrestlers should be mentioned on these kind of articles? Example: Powerbomb refers to the elevated powerbomb being popularised by the Undertaker and the Spin-out powerbomb being popularised by John Cena.
Also, should the articles refer to names that the moves are popularly known by? Example: "The Undertaker popularized this move, naming it the Last Ride." (from Powerbomb). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 06:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Montreal Screwjob FA status
Good day all. I don't think Montreal Screwjob meets the Featured Article critera any more, I have laid out some of my concerns at Talk:Montreal Screwjob. It should go through another Featured Article review, the last one was 5 years ago and a lot has changed in the article since then (and in the FAC...I think), I wanted to give you guys a chance to fix it up prior to any FAR nomination. Cheers. --kelapstick(bainuu) 06:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I doubt anyone will really work on it who knows the criteria enough to keep it FA.--WillC 09:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'll take a look at it today or tomorrow and do what I can. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 05:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Alright I'm working on TNA Unbreakable in a subpage, finally I must say, and I wish to add the 5 star match rating it was given by Meltzer in the reception. However, my issue is I can't find a reliable source that covers it. Does anyone know where I can find it as I've checked Figure Four?--WillC 13:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Found this one: http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/2009/06/15/pf-9808061.html TheFBH (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Template:US-prowrestling-bio-stub
Discuss: Change current wording from
This biographical article relating to an American professional wrestler is a stub
to
This biographical article relating to professional wrestling in the United States is a stub
Rationale: For clarification, since the stub template and category covers both wrestlers and non-wrestlers. Creating separate categories for the few non-wrestlers would certainly be overcategorization.RadioKAOS (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- The original reads like the wrestler has to be American (citizen), the second is more broad, so can cover (for example) a Slovakian wrestler participating in the US, which makes more sense (to me). It covers more items.--kelapstick(bainuu) 22:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sure. Tony2Times (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- While cleaning up the categories, something directly related to Kelapstick's comments came up. Lia Maivia is not American, but is almost entirely known for her activities following emigrating to the United States. In actuality, she emigrated to New Zealand first, but little appears to be known about her time there. I moved her to the more general category for now on account of not being American, leaving the caveat in the edit summary that it may be up to debate.RadioKAOS (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Creating new articles from Professional wrestling aerial techniques
Is there any point in an editor just copying some material from this article to create Diving out of the ring maneuvers? Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
The Attitude Era
I pruned the list here - it was getting ridiculously huge. "Era highlights" was too vague a header as well and the section shouldn't be divided into years either. It's just bad style to dump everything in a list like that - ideally, anything notable should be in prose. The list keeps getting reverted back though, so any input is welcome on Talk:The Attitude Era#List. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- The article is cruft and should be done away with. General Hospital has been on the air since 1970 and all of its history has been summarized in one article: History of General Hospital. Mind you, that's about 13,000 episodes worth of information summarized into one neatly article. For WWE we have so many articles like History of WWE, Monday Night Wars, 1980s professional wrestling boom... It's way too much. Just like the Fancruft essay states, this level of detailed information "is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question". WP:PW has way too many crufty articles. Only a minority of internet wrestling fans actually care enough to want to read Triple Crown Championship or List of celebrities involved with WrestleMania. A lot of wrestling article creators have good intentions, but they're just filling the mainspace up with articles that belong more on the Pro Wresting Wiki than they do here. Feedback ☎
I have been keeping this list of world champions for a while now updating it every time there is a new champ. It includes all 14 world titles between AAA, AWA, CMLL, ECW, NWA, ROH, TNA, UWA, WCW, WWA, WWA and WWE. There have been 507 reigns between 190 champions. The list is based off the references included in each individual list of champions articles.
I was wondering if this has any place in the mainspace. It seems like a notable topic, but the main problem is choosing what titles to list. I wanted to add NJPW, IWGP and other Japanese titles, but I'm not very familiar with Japanese wrestling. I was hoping someone could help me out with that. Also, I'm not sure about including CZW, PWG, CHIKARA and other independent wrestling companies. But I can leave that up to consensus.
What do you think? Shameless trivia or a potential article? Feedback ☎ 16:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- I like that list myself and find it interesting, but I think objectively it's too trivial for Wikipedia given the arguments for which championships to include, what constitutes a world title &c. Tony2Times (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
WWE title histories down~
After the retool of the WWE website there's been a swath of 404s cut into title histories across the board. Any inactive championship outside of ECW/WCW World and the WWF Hardcore title are no longer represented at all. I don't know of any other changes that might affect links, but I'm inclined to think so. Was there an archival bot that can reset dead links or is an article fix going to be a slight more ponderous? Papacha (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Shit if I know, just ignore it. The titles are mostly stubs or there isn't much a change.--WillC 10:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not much of an editor anymore as I haven't really edited in almost a year. I just really don't have the time to be expanding articles or fixing links or whatever. But if any of you want, the Wayback Machine has an archive for every one of WWE's title histories. You can go take a look here. So yeah, you can fix all those links with the links you find on this page. Good luck. Feedback ☎ 14:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Montreal Screwjob FAR
I have nominated Montreal Screwjob for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. kelapstick(bainuu) 09:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Last night,I went to the protecting admin Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to try to get him to reduce the protection on the article for this year's Extreme Rules PPV to Next Monday rather than April 30th. For those that don't know the PPV is scheduled to happen on April 29th. I explained to him that it need to be unprotected around that time so we could start building the article as the build for the PPV progressed. He replied to me and said he would not reduce the protection because the point was to prevent the article being built "until a day after the actual event, by which the notability of the event or lack thereof will be clearly established." Until then he wants us to build the PPV on the main article (WWE Extreme Rules). I returned to his page and tried to explain that that's not how things usually work with our project. We usually build the article as the PPV is built on TV and online and that notability was established the moment PPV build starts, usually. After I left that message, I came straight here. I haven't received a reply yet. What I'm wondering is what to do? This is obvious to me one of the editors who question the notability of wrestling PPV's, if it's not I apologize for jumping to conclusions. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 20:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- As probably the most decorated currently active editor around here, the article is notable enough as is. Enough references support the article and a production section for the event could be built now in similar formatting as the ones I've done, such as the recent Sacrifice (2005). I say unprotect page. Should just be semi is it isn't already, idk.--WillC 23:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Tooting your own horn I see. 24.139.122.164 (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well it's pretty obvious this admin doesn't know how wrestling PPV articles are written. CRRaysHead90 why don't you show him the current version (as of my post) of this year's WrestleMania article so that he can see that before a PPV even begins us wrestling editors have already written about the production, background, scheduled matches etc. Starship.paint (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Matching templates
Do you all think Template:infobox wrestler should be matched with the color scheme Portal:Professional wrestling Ariesk47 (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Two completely different things.--WillC 00:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Does someone know where we can find viewership stats for Wikipedia pages? I reckon the wrestling portal has less than 2 viewers a week. Who goes to that page? I've been a member of WP:PW for over 5 years and the only time I visited that page was to try and understand why some people wanted it. I still don't see the appeal. No one reads it, it serves no purpose, it should be deleted. My two cents. Feedback ☎ 14:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Quite a few people apparently. 72.74.226.35 (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- WP:PW http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Wikipedia:WikiProject%20Professional%20wrestling Or it can match WP:PW colors to im just suggesting anything because our templates is boring and default. Ariesk47 (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Feedback the portal could become a Featured portal just with a little work, I've considered giving it a try. We have articles on here which are rarely ever viewed, no need to delete them.--WillC 12:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, I'd like to say that I've never seen the wrestling portal before. Secondly, I support Ariesk47's proposal of the color change. Ariesk47 does have a point that our templates are well, still set to default mode and thus pretty basic. A little customization, would be more harmless than pointless therefore I see no reason to oppose it. I assume Ariesk47 has the technical expertise to do this job? Starship.paint (talk) 06:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- There are many many many templates without color and the portal and the wrestler template are entirely two different subjects.--WillC 09:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Pardon me but I don't see the difference here.... the portal is about wrestling (wrestlers included) and the infobox is about wrestlers. Doesn't seem very different to me. Starship.paint (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- The portal is not exactly a template, it is a form of content. It covers the subject of wrestling, see Portal:Featured portals or Wikipedia:Portal. The infobox is only here in order for us to organize and present bios better.--WillC 22:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- The colors I would use would this User:Ariesk47/sandbox Ariesk47 (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- The portal is not exactly a template, it is a form of content. It covers the subject of wrestling, see Portal:Featured portals or Wikipedia:Portal. The infobox is only here in order for us to organize and present bios better.--WillC 22:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Pardon me but I don't see the difference here.... the portal is about wrestling (wrestlers included) and the infobox is about wrestlers. Doesn't seem very different to me. Starship.paint (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- There are many many many templates without color and the portal and the wrestler template are entirely two different subjects.--WillC 09:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I have been keeping this list of world champions for a while now updating it every time there is a new champ. It includes all 14 world titles between AAA, AWA, CMLL, ECW, NWA, ROH, TNA, UWA, WCW, WWA, WWA and WWE. There have been 507 reigns between 190 champions. The list is based off the references included in each individual list of champions articles.
I was wondering if this has any place in the mainspace. It seems like a notable topic, but the main problem is choosing what titles to list. I wanted to add NJPW, IWGP and other Japanese titles, but I'm not very familiar with Japanese wrestling. I was hoping someone could help me out with that. Also, I'm not sure about including CZW, PWG, CHIKARA and other independent wrestling companies. But I can leave that up to consensus.
What do you think? Shameless trivia or a potential article? Feedback ☎ 16:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- I like that list myself and find it interesting, but I think objectively it's too trivial for Wikipedia given the arguments for which championships to include, what constitutes a world title &c. Tony2Times (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Okay so I added a few Japanese titles: AJPW Triple Crown Championship, NWA International Championship, PWF World Championship and both versions of the IWGP Championship. That means there are currently 18 titles on my list. I don't know which others I should add to the list, but here are a few:
- WWA World Heavyweight Championship (Los Angeles) (Freddie Blassie, Dick the Bruiser, Pedro Morales)
- WWA World Heavyweight Championship (Indianapolis version) (Gene Kinisky, Dick the Bruiser, Harley Race)
- NWF Heavyweight Championship (Antonio Inoki, Stan Hansen, Tiger Jeet Singh)
- WCWA World Heavyweight Championship (Rick Rude, Jerry Lawler, Fritz and Kevin Von Erich)
- XPW World Heavyweight Championship (Chris Candido, Shane Douglas, Sabu)
- World Heavyweight Championship (Omaha) (Verne Gagne, Dick the Bruiser, Fritz Von Erich)
- FIP World Heavyweight Championship (Bryan Danielson, Davey Richards, Roderick Strong)
- ICW World Heavyweight Championship (Randy Savage, Lanny Poffo)
- CWA World Heavyweight Championship (Memphis) (Dory Funk, Billy Graham, Jerry Lawler)
- CWA World Heavyweight Championship (Otto Wanz, Ludvig Borga, Hawk)
- WEW Heavyweight Championship (Masato Tanaka)
- IPWA Heavyweight Championship
- WXW Heavyweight Championship
- BJW Heavyweight Championship
- 1PW Heavyweight Championship (Abyss, Steve Corino)
- WSL World Heavyweight Championship (Larry Zbyszko, King Kong Bundy, Steve Corino)
- Zero1 World Heavyweight Championship (Masato Tanaka, The Sheik)
- JAPW Heavyweight Championship
- IWA World Heavyweight Championship (IWA Japan) (Dick Slater, Doug Gilbert, Jim Duggan)
- FOW Heavyweight Championship (Curt Hennig died as champion)
- CZW World Heavyweight Championship (Chris Hero, Jon Moxley)
- WWP World Heavyweight Championship
- IWA World Heavyweight Championship (International Pro Wrestling) (Billy Graham, Verne Gagne, Mad Dog Vachon)
- JCW Heavyweight Championship (Vampiro, Colt Cabana)
- MWA World Heavyweight Championship (Orville Brown, Ed Lewis)
- PWG World Championship (Bryan Danielson, Davey Richards, Adam Pearce)
- IWA World Heavyweight Championship (Australia) (Killer Kowalski, Stan Stasiak, The Destroyer)
Some of them are indie feds, some of them are ancient feds and others are foreign and unknown to most of us, but the fact is they are all considered World titles by their promotions. Should I add some of them? If so, which? Feedback ☎ 01:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Extreme Rules (2012), again
With the build for the PPV started and the articles location still protected, I've started the article in my sandbox. Feel free to build and edit the article there as you would in the mainspace. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 20:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Admin "preferably" wants "sources from outside professional wrestling circles"... I've got some. Have edited them in. Starship.paint (talk) 06:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The article Apple (professional wrestling) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.BulbaThor (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- See, this highlights a major problem with Wikipedia. How is it that this is being PRODed, yet another article of about equal importance/usefulness, TNA World Beer Drinking Championship, is a GA? No, I really don't get it.RadioKAOS (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that is a good compareasion. While it may have not been a major title I see a big difference between a lower tier title that was actively defended and a group of wrestlers that broke up the same day that they were formed. The second article is also better referenced.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah I'm the one who wrote the Beer Drinking Title. It lasted for 4 months, was featured on 4 PPVs, was included in 2 feuds, etc. It had been deleted before my expansion and has several reliable sources in the new edition. That article is very different than a stable that lasted for one match.--WillC 07:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that is a good compareasion. While it may have not been a major title I see a big difference between a lower tier title that was actively defended and a group of wrestlers that broke up the same day that they were formed. The second article is also better referenced.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Raw Supershow
Should we be referring to it as this now? I don't think I've seen any third party refer to it as such, and I imagine TV guides still read Raw in the US. Tony2Times (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think we should add in the Supershow... I guess Raw's an acceptable short form? Did the project use Raw when it was called Monday Night Raw? Starship.paint (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Don't think Wikipedia was around between 1993 and 1997 ;) Tony2Times (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah but we definitely did mention stuff that was going on in 1993 and 1997 on Wikipedia... looking at Taker's, HBK's, Diesel's pages... Monday Night Raw was used... although Raw was used on one occasion. However, stuff that went on in 1993 and 1997 were heavily summarised compared to stuff in 2012... (recentism?) such that rarely were events that happened on Monday Night Raw even mentioned... Starship.paint (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Don't think Wikipedia was around between 1993 and 1997 ;) Tony2Times (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Question rearding WWE tag team redirects
I've noticed that two similar search terms redirect to two different articles. WWE Tag Teams/Stables redirects to List of professional wrestling rosters whereas the similar Wwe tag teams and stables redirects to List of WWE personnel. Since these are very similar it appears logical that they should both redirect to the same place but I am not sure what article that should be so I am asking for assistance.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 04:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- They should definitely not redirect to List of professional wrestling rosters. The WWE roster page is the better choice. But, the problem is that the WWE roster page makes no mention of tag teams (Usos?) or stables at all. It's just the individual wrestlers. I've redirected WWE Tag Teams/Stables to List of WWE personnel in the meantime. Starship.paint (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Capitalisation of "the" for names in the middle of a sentence
These kinds of sentences bother me: "To cover for the injury, Kane revealed The Undertaker had been found in a vegetative state." and "The tag champions defeated The Usos." Do the "the"s in the names have to be capitalised when they are in the middle of the sentence? Our style guide doesn't say anything. From the Wikipedia Manual of Style regarding capital letters, it says.. "Generally do not capitalize the definite article in the middle of a sentence. However, some idiomatic exceptions, including most titles of artistic works, should be quoted exactly according to common usage." Then the MoS links to the Music MoS, which says "the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose". What do you all think? Starship.paint (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Look up WP:THE--WillC 01:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Pardon me, but I read it and I am still not sure of what to do. Could you advise more? Starship.paint (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Under "THE", if an article falls under the usage of "The" prior to its name then it should be added to the title. Such as "The" Undertaker, "The" Steiner Brothers, "The" Hardy Boyz, etc etc etc. That should be transitioned to how the name is written as well.--WillC 19:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Pardon me, but I read it and I am still not sure of what to do. Could you advise more? Starship.paint (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
They call him "'Taker", too. Internet kids call him UT. Regardless of how abbreviated colloquial English becomes, Wikipedia uses the real kind. "The" should always be capitalized in all cases like this, middle of a sentence or not. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- His situation is similar to The Eagles. Although we use the "the" in everyday speech, their official name that appears in their publications does not include the "The". That's why their article is Eagles (band) instead of The Eagles. That same is example is used in WP:THE. Similarly, Undertaker's DVDs don't use the article as part of his official name [1][2][3][4] which makes it pretty obvious that "The" is just a formality and the character's actual name is "Undertaker". Feedback ☎ 18:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the Template:WWE personnel
Posted this on the template's talk page on 22 April but got no replies. Anyone have any opinion? I propose merging the Raw/SD/NXT/Multibranded sections. Given the virtual end of the brand split where upper-card wrestlers from any brand appear on both Raw/SD as they wish, whereas lower-card wrestlers don't even appear on Raw/SD but on NXT/Superstars and also given that even WWE (through its newest version of its website) doesn't even bother to track which wrestler belongs to which brand, I propose we simply merge the sections. Also, can we separate the commentators/announcers/hosts from the wrestlers... just like we separate the Spanish commentators and the referees? I also propose that we remove the "appearing on the SmackDown brand" from the wrestlers' pages. i.e. Bryan Danielson (born May 22, 1981) is an American professional wrestler signed to WWE and appearing on its SmackDown brand. --> Bryan Danielson (born May 22, 1981) is an American professional wrestler signed to WWE. Starship.paint (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Totally agree. It's been bad for years, but every RAW is a "Supershow" lately, Johnny Ace is Supreme Commander, and Smackdown guys were "Beating the Clock" Monday to determine the contender for the WWE Title (allegedly RAW's championship). I'm sure someone will say the truth needs to be verifiable, and they're right. But so are you. Good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Made the changes. Starship.paint (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Do we agree a tag team title is a singular object?
A team wins the title, not the titles, yeah? I say yeah. And I change articles accordingly. But I'm just one man, with a PS3 controller (not very efficient for Wikipedia!). If you omnipotent folks at the top with your high-tech marvels are in agreeance that this very common mistake should be widely eradicated, could you please assemble a crack team of editors, or build some sort of bot? The truth must be known! Mustn't it? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- When has this ever been a problem? It's always been "title" and I'm pretty sure all members of WP:PW are aware of it. If inexperienced editors are making mistakes, you can try orienting them yourself, but you don't need a consensus on WP:PW for something so obvious. Remember one thing though: The tag team championship is a single title, composed of multiple title belts. One title, two belts. Feedback ☎ 18:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is something I've meant to raise for a while but is kind of minute so I figured no-one other than me noticed. This trickles down to a much more often used, and I feel incorrect, piece of diction: "one half of the Tag Team Champions". To me you're just a Tag Team Champion. Tony2Times (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Feedback, I have fixed multiple instances of pluralization in the last four wrestler articles I've edited. I'm not so much requesting a consensus as I am a massive "find and replace" mission for a capable bot. Something that can quickly correct every single instance of "WWE Tag Team Titles" (or AWA, ECW, whatever) on Wikipedia. I know the technology exists, but not how to use it. Replacing "them" with "it" or just "titles" with "title" will need a human brain, but since there is no reason to leave any "tag team titles" text string intact, the robot should suffice. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- The title is a singular "Tag Team Championship", but it's held by two performers who collectively are "Tag Team Champions". So it's completely correct when they say one person is a half of the tag team champions. If you and I both owned a house, you would be "one half of the homeowners". It is only one house, but we both own it. Same thing goes with the championship. If we both held the Tag Team Championship, you would be "one half of the tag team champions". Their is only one Tag Team title, but we both own it and are therefore both champions of said title. Feedback ☎ 05:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Feedback, I have fixed multiple instances of pluralization in the last four wrestler articles I've edited. I'm not so much requesting a consensus as I am a massive "find and replace" mission for a capable bot. Something that can quickly correct every single instance of "WWE Tag Team Titles" (or AWA, ECW, whatever) on Wikipedia. I know the technology exists, but not how to use it. Replacing "them" with "it" or just "titles" with "title" will need a human brain, but since there is no reason to leave any "tag team titles" text string intact, the robot should suffice. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is something I've meant to raise for a while but is kind of minute so I figured no-one other than me noticed. This trickles down to a much more often used, and I feel incorrect, piece of diction: "one half of the Tag Team Champions". To me you're just a Tag Team Champion. Tony2Times (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
"One half of the tag team champions" makes grammatical sense, but it's unnecessarily wordy. "Tag team champion" would be preferable for Wikipedia, which encourages conciseness. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Fun fact: "Tag team champion" has exactly half the characters of "One half of the tag team champions" (including spaces). InedibleHulk (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- That is a fun fact Hulk. Aye, Feedback my wording was probably wrong. It is conceptually correct I suppose but it is unnecessary when "a Tag Team Champion" fits the bill just as well. Tony2Times (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Triple H-Undertaker rivalry
So... do y'all really need an article about the Triple H-Undertaker rivalry? --Jtalledo (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I say we don't. Good candidate for Articles for Deletion, but I won't nominate it myself. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, I believe that we do need an article about the Triple H-Undertaker rivalry. Their ultimate fight at WrestleMania XXVIII resulted in the end of an era for Triple H as he relegated himself to backstage roles while the Undertaker continues to wrestle. GVnayR (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- The second statement here to support the existence of such an article can hardly be backed up. Triple H just appeared on Raw, did he not? And Taker has not appeared or wrestled after WM28. Starship.paint (talk) 05:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Far too much detail about mundane events, plenty of original research, non-neutral and poorly worded. Much like this user's other articles/essays John Cena-Edge rivalry and Stone Cold Steve Austin-Vince McMahon rivalry (all linked through See Also sections, which smells a bit fishy). These feuds are covered sufficiently in each wrestler's article. I would suggest GVnayR publish these on a personal website after reading WP:NOTESSAY. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete them all, they are all covered elsewhere. WrestleMania 27 and 28 cover HHH vs Taker completely; as well as their bios do. Edge vs Cena is also covered in the same fashion while Austin vs Vince is covered in The Attitude Era article, Monday Night Wars, bios, Events, etc.--WillC 08:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Vandal
Keep an eye out for this guy's edits. He seems to be making a lot of pointless edits that weaken articles, or inventing a large amount of bunk. Tony2Times (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- It also made me discover that Apple_(professional_wrestling) is an article. Tony2Times (talk) 10:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to bring to attention Ouloul94 as well. This guy's not exactly a vandal, he's probably editing with good intentions but he keeps removing old finishers from wrestlers' pages even when these old finishers are properly referenced. Examples of what he's removed are Jack Swagger's Red, White and Blue Thunder Bomb and Miz's Mizard of Oz. I'm speculating this is because these particular finishers were used early in the wrestlers' careers and few people knew of these finishers so maybe he removed them because he assumed they didn't exist. If you look at Ouloul94's talk page you'll see that repeated attempts to warn him about his disruptive editing are apaprently ignored because he has never replied to his talk page. Is there something we could do about it? Starship.paint (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've joined the conga line and asked that he discuss his edits here. I'll reiterate what Starship's said; he seems genuine, but does not respond to talk pages or warnings and that what he does falls under the vandalism umbrella (deleting old but valid references to past finishers and breaking the styles guide in general). Papacha (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it looks like Ouloul94 has ignored Papacha's comments on his talk page and continued on his disruptive editing. Just look at this edit for example. The names of the moves are properly sourced and he just removes them like that. He's been given enough last warnings already. I think a block might be in order but I do not know how to report Ouloul94 to a relevant authority. Could somebody help me out here? Starship.paint (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- reported at Ouloul94 at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism Starship.paint (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it looks like Ouloul94 has ignored Papacha's comments on his talk page and continued on his disruptive editing. Just look at this edit for example. The names of the moves are properly sourced and he just removes them like that. He's been given enough last warnings already. I think a block might be in order but I do not know how to report Ouloul94 to a relevant authority. Could somebody help me out here? Starship.paint (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Just something I noticed...
I was recently looking at the talk page for Dolph Ziggler and saw a section pertaining to his status as a Triple Crown Champion. Upon reading it, curiosity got me to the WWE site to see if they listed his World Tag Team Championship on his page (they don't). However, this led me to scroll though his "milestones" section, and the very last one, detailing his victory over Kofi Kingston to win the United States Championship, lists the header as "Triple Crown #Heel" (http://www.wwe.com/superstars/dolphziggler). Although I know that the WWE site isn't always the best to use as a primary source, given the numerous debates on numerous talk pages about having to wait for WWE to issue a statement on the status of the US title (and ECW Championship) in relation to whether it qualifies as part of a Triple Crown or Grand Slam accolade, I wanted to pose it here on the community page. While the current definition of the Triple Crown is primary, secondary, tag team; this seems to indicate an alternative where the US title is below the Intercontinental title, at a tertiary status and an alternate for a tag title?
I realize this could just be classified as OR, however I wanted to post and gather information/opinions from others before deciding to move forward. I haven't come across any discussions or seen any attempts by others to bring this up, though I am not the most frequent of users on here. 67.181.76.194 (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I only know a website, the triple crown club, where WWE remembers the TC Winner, but aren't Christian, Ziggler, Show and Benoit. http://www.wwe.com/magazine/magazinefeatures/featureoftheweek20090423a/ Also, Ziggler won the WTTC, but as Nicky, with the Spirit Squad, so Nic Nemeth is a Triple Crown Winner, because he won the World, Tag Team and IC titles. Also, Triple Crown #heel is only a name. In the same article, you can read "Ziggler holds on to his third singles title much".--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am familiar with that Triple Crown article, though it has not been kept up to date as you pointed out, and I know that the man Nic Nemeth has held the required championships, that is not something I intended to challenge in my original post. I am postulating, though, that by leading the section with the words "Triple Crown," based upon the Dolph Ziggler character winning the US title, WWE has indicated another version of a Triple Crown, which allows for the inclusion of the US title and the exclusion of the tag titles, which they omit from the Ziggler page. 67.181.76.194 (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I can't speak to whether this "officially" changes the definition of Triple Crown (in my mind, a tag title will always be necessary), but I can say that "Nicky"'s World Tag Team Title reign absolutely counts as a reign for "Dolph Ziggler". Same wrestler, different gimmick. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's like The Miz calling himself Grand Slam because he won the US and MITB... storyline, no official soucres. Also, WWE.com said that Ziggler won his third championship (IC, US and WHC), not the Triple Crown (US is not a title for the TC and Ziggler (gimmick) never won the Tag Titles.)--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Also, you can read perfectly the definition of a TC Winner. http://www.wwe.com/magazine/magazinefeatures/featureoftheweek20090423a/ "To qualify as a TC Champion, a WWE Superstar must win either the WWE CHampionship or World Heavyweight Championship, the Intercontinental Championship and either Tag Team or Wordl Tag Team Championship."--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Deletion debate of a lot PPV
Someboidy did at least 6 or 7 articles nominate for a deletion i did answer in some but i guess there has to be more opinions then one to keep this articles like Night of champions and royal rumble or extreme rules--Nakurio (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've speedy closed all the discussions as speedy keep, as the nomination was clearly in bad faith. Further to that, I don't think that there is anything that clearly states that all WWE pay per views are notable by default, so I would suggest not using that as a keep stance in deletion discussions, as if these articles are nominated again, by a good faith editor, that rationale will not likely hold water. Feel free to take my advice, or not. --kelapstick(bainuu) 06:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok so how you would proof that this articles are notable, for sure not every ppv is as important for the Storylines and the impact on fans as the big 4 but as a fact there are not very often title changes at raw or smack down this most happens at ppvs and at the ppvs are the long matches which never happen on raw due to the little time they have compared ti their talent.--Nakurio (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm don't want to get into a discussion about the merits of each PPV having an individual article. Regardless of my position on the matter, I just wanted to suggest to the Pro Wrestling contingent that giving rationales like "This article, along with every other WWE pay-per-view, is highly notable." (like I saw at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elimination Chamber (2012)) is not likely to hold much weight in a deletion discussion because it is not backed up by Wikipedia policy. also, there was a lot of talk of the same thing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Capitol Punishment (2nd nomination), which was kept as no consensus. I don't know if anyone here has been following the train-wreck at WT:MMANOT, but that is basically what the keep votes at those AFDs are (i.e. all UFC events are notable by default). Those votes have not held up, and they likely wouldn't here either. I was just offering friendly advice should a good faith editor come along and nominate WWE pay per views for deletion, as I said, heed it nor not, it's your decision.--kelapstick(bainuu) 06:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
so i then thank for the friendly advice ;) --Nakurio (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Anything advertised on national television should have guaranteed notability. It's dumb for anyone to dispute that. If the only mention of a PPV is during a commercials for a few weeks of Monday Night Raw, guess what, that's millions of people world-wide who could all testify to the fact they know what this PPV is, what it's about and when it will take place. Even if you can't find an online source, it doesn't matter. That isn't the only way to find notability. We're talking about MILLIONS OF PEOPLE here. It's so stupid that someone actually thinks their time is well-spent deleting these articles on Wikipedia. Feedback ☎ 12:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- "Anything advertised on national television should have guaranteed notability. It's dumb for anyone to dispute that." Hmmm. According to this logic, all K-tel International compilation albums, not to mention any cheap, disposable products normally sold through As-Seen-On-TV commercials or informercials, are automatically notable. I'm not so sure I buy it. Ron Popeil is certainly notable. OTOH, I dare you to create articles on every single one of his products and see how far you get. How many people really talk about Anthony Robbins (or for that matter, Robert Tilton) nowadays other than in the context of historical curiosity? How many people do you suppose will really care about the Brazil Butt Lift once they quit selling it?
- I see a problem here. Obviously, this cuts right to the heart of the matter, so people don't wish to hear it. It should be clear that Wikipedia was designed to be something for the ages. There is a lot of information out there for which free and easy access tends to dry up before the information can make its way online in an equally free and easy format. The fact that this disconnect exists has allowed certain editors to push their favorite websites as "the only valid sources." Using television exposure as a standard has allowed for incessant pushing of WWE and TNA, to the point where flagrant examples of undue weight exist in more articles than I care to count. Going back to the "for the ages" comment, this project has apparently eschewed topics for which easy sourcing is not a consideration. Let's not even go that terribly far back. How about The Last Battle of Atlanta? In this age of John Cena and Randy Orton, Tommy Rich and Buzz Sawyer don't make for very impressive-looking combatants. However, that feud attracted more attention and sold more tickets than anything Cena or Orton could have accomplished by themselves (in other words, without the marketing machine and creative department they have backing their every move).
- I'm really tired of harping on those points, however. Creating articles from a template on every bottom-feeding PPV out there may make for impressive-looking articles on the surface. Can the articles stand up on their own merits based upon the significance of the events they cover? I believe that Kelapstick is telling you "not necessarily." I would concur. I've dealt with Kelapstick enough to realize that those weren't comments made by a fanboy with perhaps a little too much emotional investment in the subject, and should be taken seriously.RadioKAOS (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Significance and merit are hard things to evaluate, and probably impossible for a large group (i.e. Wikipedia editors) to unanimously agree on. From my personal perspective, No Mercy 2007 is far more significant than Elizabeth Taylor or bottled water (or countless other topics). But I realize other editors feel quite the opposite. I don't attempt to eradicate these articles, I just don't read them. Their continued existence has had absolutely NO detrimental effect on Wikipedia as a whole.
WWE PPV articles have long been considered significant by the many editors who create and maintain them, and the many more who read them. Those who cannot even recognize this significance are hardly qualified to decide whether it exists more strongly in one PPV than another.
I am familiar with the similar situation with the MMA PPV articles. I hope we can all agree to settle this in a much more reasonable and non-bureaucratic manner. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed RadioKAOS, you summarised my point exactly. Feedback, I would suggest not calling people or actions that are not in agreement with your position on inherent notability "stupid", lots of people disagree on lots of things, that doesn't make any of them stupid (unless they disagree with me of course joking, joking). Good day all.--kelapstick(bainuu) 22:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're telling me to respect your right to an opinion? Well I do, but you also have to respect mine. And my opinion is that yours is stupid. I don't need to baby you. Get prepared for the real world. Some people might try to dance around the fact they think what you're saying is dumb, but most people will outright tell you. No matter how you put it, you're wasting your time and effort to try to get articles deleted on Wikipedia. How pointless is that? Some people in the real world will make fun of us for even being on Wikipedia, and we'll be able to defend ourselves by saying we are gathering information for all the potential readers out there. But what you're doing, trying to get current articles deleted for the sole reason of "Pfft, these aren't important to my person"; this is laughable. It's one thing to delete a trivial article about Jessica Simpson's virginity that appeared out of nowhere and it's another to start deleting well-written coherent articles because you have absolutely nothing else to do. Go get a hobby to spend some of that free time. Here's a suggestion, I hear professional wrestling PPVs are quite good. You should try that. Feedback ☎ 01:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Feedback, I don't know where the hell you got the idea that I am trying to delete professional wrestling articles, but had you taken the time to actually read the statements above, you would have known that I was actually the person who closed the deletion discussions. Quite frankly when it comes to determining if pro wrestling and MMA articles are kept or deleted on Wikipedia, my give-a-shit-factor hovers somewhere between 0 and negative 6 (that is to say I don't really care one way or the other). I participate in discussions that I think I can add a reasonable opinion to, and I close frivolous AfD nominations when the arise, that is the extent of it. All I did was suggest that some of the arguments that I saw at the AfDs would not hold water should the train-wreck at WT:MMANOT spill over here, and make no mistake about it, there is a very real possibility it will. But listen to me when I say this, I am not the one who will bring it, I am just giving you guys advanced notice as a courtesy and recommending that some people reconsider the way the lobby to keep articles. The least you could do is thank me for taking the time out of my day to do WikiProject Professional Wrestling a favour, rather than flying off the handle with personal attacks and incivility like "you better get ready for the real world", "my opinion is yours is stupid", and telling me to get a hobby. In particular, I haven't even told you what my opinion on the matter is, again, as I explained in my first post here, so I have no idea how you can think it is stupid. My point directly to you was watch when you call someone or their ideas stupid, it is uncivil. I don't expect you to blow sunshine up my or anyone else's ass, but on Wikipedia, we are required to be civil with one another, a point which seems to be lost on you.--kelapstick(bainuu) 04:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Rivalry pages
Do we really need pages specifically dedicated to John Cena v. Edge, Triple H v. Undertaker, or Austin v. McMahon? They appear to be designed solely for people who like one of the two involved, and seem to be already well covered in various pages (Cena v. Edge on their respective pages, HHH v. Taker on both Wrestlemania XXVII and Wrestlemania XXVIII). There would be dozens of pages detailing every feud a wrestler has over the course of a career. HidyHoTim (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete 'em where you see 'em. Tony2Times (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I've proposed these for deletion. Not sure if I've done it properly, but I think so. If someone with deletion experience can confirm or deny this, that'd be cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC) My browse freezes when I try to edit Stone_Cold_Steve_Austin-Vince_McMahon_rivalry. Someone else want to tag that one? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- If someone wanted to do us all a favor, how about a rivalry page for "Johnny Laryngitis vs. the patience of Raw viewers?" Just thought I'd offer the suggestion.RadioKAOS (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, I had PROPOSED instead of NOMINATED these for deletion. I think everything is by the book now, except I still cannot edit Stone Cold Steve Austin-Vince McMahon rivalry to add the AfD tag without crashing. Someone? (I'll pass on the Johnny article, Kaos...) InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Notification of rivalry pages' AfD discussion.
Per policy, I am informing this Wikiproject. The discussion for all three is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Cena-Edge_rivalry InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Help with DYK article
I left a message at Wikipedia:Did you know about a pro-wrestling related DYK submission. I was hoping someone from the project could take a look at the sourcing and possibly suggest some improvements? 72.74.208.41 (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
A Grammar Suggestion (or polite demand)
In virtually every wrestler article I've edited, I've seen editors saying "Buddy would win..." or worse, "Buddy would go on to win..." instead of "Buddy won...". It's not just winning, every verb falls victim to this (and not just in wrestling articles). PLEASE do not make this mistake yourself! It is unnecessarily wordy and clunky. "Would be" is never better than "was", if "was" is what you mean.
While I've got my grammar Nazi boots on, please use "...lost to..." instead of "...was defeated by...". Also, try not to use "also" unless necessary. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Depending on the context, "would win" and "would go on to win" are perfectly reasonable phrases. We shouldn't use "lost to", because that implies they lost a competition, when in fact, this isn't a competitive sport. Lesnar lost to Alistair, but he did not lose to Cena. If you're a Grammar Nazi, then you're probably war fodder. Feedback ☎ 14:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Yep, in some contexts "would" works. When describing a recurring tendency (e.g. "Big Boss Man would handcuff and assault jobbers after the match") or jumping ahead to the future ("Martel teamed with Tom Zenk (who would go on to become The Z-Man in WCW). But not "Hulk Hogan would defeat Sgt. Slaughter at Wrestlemania VII" or "Shane Douglas ran to the ring and would go on to assault Razor Ramon."
I'm not seeing your logic when you claim "lost to" isn't correct, yet "would win" is perfectly reasonable. If nobody actually loses a match, how can anyone actually win? Shall we say "Mark Calloway (in his 'Undertaker' costume) laid on an entirely cooperative Randy Orton after the two created the illusion of an actual piledriver, while the (kayfabe) referee slapped the mat three times (as the script called for), giving gullible fans the impression he won the fixed bout."? Of course not. Almost everyone knows wrestling is fiction, and the professional wrestling article (linked to in every wrestler's lead) spells it out clearly for those who don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have to agree a lot here with Hulk. There is a heck of a lot of "would go on to" that is redundant and takes up unnecessary room. Feedback you're right in that it isn't an incorrect phrase, but this is seldom the case and it is way too often overused. Also I don't understand how Lesnar lost to Overeem but was defeated by Cena is in any way different. I don't think there's anything wrong with being a grammer Nazi, especially on an encyclopedia. Also, I use also way too much so a lot of those bad cases might be me but I do keep trying to curtail it. Tony2Times (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Years in event names on title lists
This is a pretty minor thing quibble so pardon my indulgence but it's across the board of the project. On championship lists, in the event column I see no reason why years are mentioned in so many of the event titles when they aren't in that event. As this poster suggests, the title name for this event is SummerSlam, yet in the List of WWE World Heavyweight Champions events column it would read SummerSlam (2009). No-one calls it that on air, in any promotional material or even in any of the articles on Wikipedia. Compare this with Best in the World 2011 where the year IS part of the title and thus in the List of ROH World Champions events column it does read Best in the World 2011. Similarly WrestleMania IV and WrestleMania XI or Slammiversary IX would have that Roman numeral attached to them to differentiate them as they currently do, because that's what they're advertised as, but Final Resolution or Genesis or No Way Out need no year because it's not in their title, it's merely a disambiguation link.
If you disagree with this method, then I propose we be consistent. So as not to confuse anyone as to which Raw, SmackDown, Nitro or Impact that a title changed hands on, we should put the full date in brackets after the title. Tony2Times (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The articles are named with the year in parentheses, so I can see how it would be slightly easier for editors to type. But yes, it is technically inaccurate to refer to 2006's SummerSlam as SummerSlam (2006), and unnecessary when the date is just to the left. Article names obviously need disambiguation, but text does not. I support changing the link text, while leaving the link targets. TV shows should remain as they are (with the date only in the Date column). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, I meant to change the link text but not the link targets. It should still link to the specific year of the PPV, but that year is obvious because of the date of the title change. By the way Hulk, it's easier to read comments on talk pages when replies are indented by starting the line with a colon. Tony2Times (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Duly noted. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Professional wrestling match types#Basic elimination matches|Four Corners Elimination match or Three Way Dance|Four Corners Elimination match
Which should I be putting in square brackets and why? I've seen a lot of changes lately and I'm not sure if it's someone being lazy or how it should really be done. Tony2Times (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- The first one. A Three Way Dance is, by definition, not a four player game. And the Three Way Dance article redirects to the first page anyway. I think that could be potentially confusing. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well that wasn't quite what I was getting at. Should links be to Professional wrestling match types#the match type| or should they be linked to The Match Type| which will be a redirect. Tony2Times (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- OK, got it. I still say the first one. That way clickers are brought to the proper section, instead of having to find it themselves in the table of contents after the redirect. Unless it's supposed to redirect to the #section. It didn't for me. Redirects shouldn't be used purely as link shorteners. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Grand Slam Championship or Champion?
When someone wins this (or Triple Crown) accolade, it is listed in their C&A section as "Second Grand Slam Champion", however for other titles it does not say WCW Champion (2 times), it reads WCW Championship. Should Grand Slam and Triple Crown be changed in line with this, or is it something else? Tony2Times (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- The way I see it, there is no Grand Slam (or Triple Crown) Championship. "Grand Slam" in "Grand Slam Champion" is used like an adjective, describing that sort of champion. He is not the Champion of Grand Slam, he is a champion who had also held the other three (or four) championships. Becoming a Grand Slam Champion does not make you a champion again, so it can not be considered a championship, or exist independently of the wrestlers. It is an accomplishment, and the current way on Wiki is proper. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
2012 in WWE events
For those who haven't seen it yet, 2012 in WWE events was created. I have no idea what the intention behind it is, and Feedback, before you start ranting at me for trying to delete WWE PPV articles, take a look at the article history, I had nothing to do with it's creation, as of this post I have only added a category. --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- I can see the point to the article, but the format is flawed and so is the name. It is similar to the idea I have over PPV years for a GA/FA topic. I think it can be useful but it is too soon and if created now it would just cause too much trouble and be a poor addition to the project. I say delete for now.--WillC 09:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I hope Talk:2012 in UFC events isn't an indicator of how this is going to go. Maybe we can actually learn something from it instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hence my warning a few weeks ago about that very real possibility, and my recommendation to come up with some solid policy-based arguments before it made its way here. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
And even THAT got heated. Touchy subject, notability. Not quite as bad as discussing the "fakeness" of it, but close. You're right, though. Anyone looking to keep the articles once the inevitable happens should study up on (and cite) policy guidelines. Keep arguments short and to the point. Read the opposing arguments carefully and refute points clearly. Don't rant, don't whine, don't compare anyone to Hitler. That crap NEVER helps. Aside from that advice, I'm probably sitting this one out. Good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've asked the person who created the page Paul "the Wall" to come here to discuss it, as he's started linking to the new page from the ppv chronology section in the info box of ppv articles, stating the articles will be "removed shortly". I only really deal with vandalism on wrestling articles, so it doesn't make a huge difference to me, but a consensus clearly needs to be made sooner rather than later BulbaThor (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I am discussing it there Paul "The Wall" (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- I wanted to use that articles deletion to prevent it from happening in the future as well as for an example of failure to use against what is currently going on against UFC events. MtKing has nominated each and every UFC PPV for deletion and has already successfully deleted the non-PPV events. It is only a matter of time until that format makes its way over to Wrestling. If you care at all about this you should be worried and speak out against it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul "The Wall" (talk • contribs) 19:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've commented on this at the lasted ANI board MMA AFD discussion. That Paul "The Wall" created the article doesn't bother me much (though I agree it should be deleted). What concerns me is that he felt he needed to in order to preempt a potential deletion spree by a certain editor. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 11:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't commented yet at the AFD page. Not sure I'll have the time. If this whole affair came about on here as a knee-jerk reaction to the MMA clusterfuck, then you're taking the wrong approach. If you wind up with an article which consists exclusively of material copied and pasted from other articles, then you're taking the wrong approach. Either way, I say delete. However, if you take a different approach, wherein "WWE events" is more broadly constructed than just pertaining to PPV events, offers adequate summarization of independently notable events and adequate details on events which aren't, then you might have a winner. There's no doubt in my mind that we're riding on the presumed notability of every single one of these events to create articles which appear impressive on the surface, even if much of the content and structure is rehashed from the content and structure of the last PPV's article. It also enables the attitude that there were no independently notable events in professional wrestling in the pre-PPV universe, which is total nonsense.RadioKAOS (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Tag Teams
I think that it's time to create some articles. I read the articles of the members, but I think that we can create the Tag team article, also delete some individual artcicles, because we can write them entire carrer in the Tag Team article.
- The All Night Xpress
- The Barvado Brothers (delete Harlem Barvado and Lance Barvado, like the Briscoes)
- The Dark City Fight Club
- No Remorse Corps
What do you think? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're free to try. Can't answer the question of deleting the individual pages until we see the alternatives (or at least rough drafts of them). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't recommend it - the Bravado brothers and DCFK have dubious notability and the No Remorse Corps (assuming you mean Richards, Romero and Strong) wouldn't really (IMHO) warrant more than the brief mentions it already has on the member's articles. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 11:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think I mentioned Black Gordman and Goliath at one point. They only managed to stay on top for approximately a dozen years. I suppose that isn't very important because it occurred mostly during the 1970s. Never mind that it could be argued that those guys drew more fans in a single house than some modern-day indy heroes have drawn in their entire careers. It appears we're still intent on pushing coverage of tag team articles further in the direction of flavor-of-the-month attractions.RadioKAOS (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Gordman and Goliath seem a notable enough team to me. I assumed it had an article already, but it turns out they don't even have individual articles! I don't want to get off-topic, but I would totally support the existence of a team page for them. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Plane ride from hell needs your attention
Earlier today MasterOfTimeForever (talk · contribs) created plane ride from hell as a copyvio which was speedily deleted; however I thought the incident was probably notable and recreated it as a reasonably well-referenced one-sentence stub. I've alerted the original creator, but I think some input from more clued-up editors would be useful. Thanks in advance! – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- I say it's notable and sourced enough to be included as a few sentences in the articles of wrestlers involved, but doesn't seem notable enough to have its own article. And yes, I'm a smark who knows the ramifications of this event and the "significance" of it in the IWC. But this is Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at it through the lens of the inclusion criteria for events, I think the sources indicate it meets the general notability guideline and was re-analysed afterwards. It might also have enduring historical significance (I'm somewhat convinced on this count by it getting a mention in an Curt Hennig obituary) but probably didn't have national or international impact. So, not really clear-cut either way. Also, I think the phrase "plane ride from hell" is a plausible search term, as indicated by the article having been created four times and deleted thrice, but there's no obvious target for a redirect. So, basically, I don't really know. Also, what's the IWC? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- IWC = "Internet Wrestling Community". Not exactly a community, per se, but a blanket term for all wrestling related forums and whatnot. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- This "article" is a liability, apart from which it can (and should) be contained in the Insurrexion article if anywhere. If it isn't notable enough for that article then this is a WP:COATRACK, and to be entirely forthwith given what this article is meant to contain will be hell on WP:BLP given that it's claims are going to be close to personal information libel. This wasn't the Montreal Screwjob. –– Lid(Talk) 20:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Those were going to be my comments exactly. From reading the sources, this breaks down too quickly into a matter of one wrestler talking trash about a fellow wrestler, over an incident in which most or all of the people involved were likely high on GHB? Yeah, massive BLP violation was the first thing to come to mind. Not so sure that the title could stand the test of time as pertaining only to this incident, either.RadioKAOS (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say it had the lasting impact to meet WP:EVENT (a couple of guys were released afterwards and even then, it's not clear that the plane ride was the sole reason) and wasn't covered by a great enough variety of sources (it's basically dirtsheets and shoot interviews - no coverage from mainstream media). Per RadioKAOS, it could be a big BLP violation as undue weight is given to unchallenged assertions. Additionally, the reliable sources noticeboard does not suggest that Bleacher Report is in any way suitable to be cited. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 10:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- I nominated it for deletion. --kelapstick(bainuu) 08:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- This "article" is a liability, apart from which it can (and should) be contained in the Insurrexion article if anywhere. If it isn't notable enough for that article then this is a WP:COATRACK, and to be entirely forthwith given what this article is meant to contain will be hell on WP:BLP given that it's claims are going to be close to personal information libel. This wasn't the Montreal Screwjob. –– Lid(Talk) 20:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Conflicting reliable sources: What's this move again?
I came across a rather contentious issue when editing Ryback (wrestler)... regarding what the hell his finisher is. I thought it was a Samoan drop, so I searched and found two reliable sources to back me up: Adam Martin of WrestleView says 'modified Samoan Drop finisher'. James Caldwell of PWTorch says 'double marching Samoan Drop'. Meanwhile KingMorpheus thinks it's a delayed cradle suplex, and he's found a reliable source to back it up: Mike Tedesco of WrestleView says 'modified fisherman's suplex'. The situation gets more awkward when reliable sources have also called the move a running Muscle Buster-like finisher.
For the record, I can find many more reliable sources to back my Samoan drop claim. Todd Martin of Wrestling Observer, Dave Hillhouse of SLAM! Wrestling and Richard Trionfo of PWInsider. I've covered all five reliable sources in the style guide that give weekly reports to support 'Samoan drop'. Does that mean that I can override the other description of cradle suplex?
So, essentially, who exactly is right here when reliable sources conflict with each other in the case of wrestling moves? Starship.paint (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Since when have WrestleView been reliable? You've got the Holy Trinity of the Observer, the Torch and Canadian Online Explorer, so go with that. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 14:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I've seen that move a few times. In my opinion (which is not "reliable"), it's a Samoan drop/Death Valley driver hybrid. Not at all a fisherman or cradle suplex. Like Suriel says, go with the "Holy Trinity". It's definitely SOME sort of Samoan drop, just like a Cane toad is some sort of toad, even if it resembles a bulldog. As a side note, Ryback absolutely sucks. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Those people must not know what a cradle suplex is, they need to play WrestleMania 2000 and create a wrestler. It's not a straightforward Samoan drop but it's definitely a variation on that. Tony2Times (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's CLEARLY a suplex. The opponent is landing supine on his back. After being hosted from a leg hook position. A Samoan drop is executed from a fireman's carry position.KingMorpheus (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- All that fisherman-style stuff at the beginning is just a fancy way to get the opponent in position (and give the move a unique twist). Once he's positioned, Ryback hits a (modified) Samoan drop. A full nelson, a legsweep faceslam and a dragon suplex all start from the same position too, but you wouldn't say they're the same at all. They end differently. Same reason we don't call a gutwrench powerbomb a suplex, or a fisherman buster a suplex. Get it? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- No, you don't get it. The only difference between a standard cradle suplex and Shell Shocked is the position of the legs. It's a suplex. Not a Muscle Buster or a Samoan Drop. I don't think you've seen a Samoan drop. Here is a Samoan drop. Here is Ryback's move. Not the same. Not even close. But look at a cradle suplex. Easily similar. Thus. Modified cradle suplex. KingMorpheus (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- And we can quote you on that, can we? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 16:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Uh no. And I figured you'd get all smart alecky with your "reliable source" business, but you seem to have forgotten that I actually have come up with one. Couple that with photographic proof, and my argument is just as sound as yours. "Holy Trinity" be damned. KingMorpheus (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- And we can quote you on that, can we? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 16:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- No, you don't get it. The only difference between a standard cradle suplex and Shell Shocked is the position of the legs. It's a suplex. Not a Muscle Buster or a Samoan Drop. I don't think you've seen a Samoan drop. Here is a Samoan drop. Here is Ryback's move. Not the same. Not even close. But look at a cradle suplex. Easily similar. Thus. Modified cradle suplex. KingMorpheus (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- All that fisherman-style stuff at the beginning is just a fancy way to get the opponent in position (and give the move a unique twist). Once he's positioned, Ryback hits a (modified) Samoan drop. A full nelson, a legsweep faceslam and a dragon suplex all start from the same position too, but you wouldn't say they're the same at all. They end differently. Same reason we don't call a gutwrench powerbomb a suplex, or a fisherman buster a suplex. Get it? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's CLEARLY a suplex. The opponent is landing supine on his back. After being hosted from a leg hook position. A Samoan drop is executed from a fireman's carry position.KingMorpheus (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Here's another. KingMorpheus (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's not enough to just find any reliable source. It has to say what you're claiming. This one calls it a running slam. Nothing about a cradle suplex. Yes, Umaga's Samoan drop is notably different, since it involves THREE people. Weird comparison. Anyway, original research and YouTube videos don't count here, even if they made sense. You can call it "smart alecky", but on Wikipedia, those are fundamental rules. By those rules, your argument is nowhere near as sound as ours. I don't mean that as an insult, just as a fact. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think you missed the "fisherman's suplex" part. Which is the same as a cradle suplex. And frankly, I think this "original research" and reliable source" business is just an easy way for you to suit your own needs. I've given up multiple sources, and appealed to your common sense as a human. Now you're saying it's incomparble because it's three people? Fine. Here's one with one person, I still know what I'm talking about. Here's photographic evidence from one of your "Holy Trinity," and they seem to be contrdicting themselves. And stop being condescending to me. There's no need for it. Communicate with me like a fellow editor. That's what I am. KingMorpheus (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- No, I saw "fisherman's suplex into a running slam". Like I said before, what matters most in wrestling moves is how they end, not the setup. And what matters most in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth or common sense. When I say your argument for inclusion here is poor, I'm not being condescending. You say you're a fellow editor, so I'm giving you some pointers on the fundamentals of editing. If anything, you claiming they exist so we can "suit our own needs" is condescending to the whole project. All your "photographic evidence" is prohibited as synthesis and copyright infringement. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, because the matter at hand is whether or not to call it a modified fisherman's suplex or not. Your samoan drop sources can't seem to decide if it's a running Samoan drop, a standard one or a flat out muscle buster. So where's the verifiability in that? They all conflict each other. KingMorpheus (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Wrestleview isn't a reliable source, it's a glorified fansite.
- Your PWInsider page says "fisherman's suplex into a running slam" - if you claim that means "modified fisherman's suplex" then you're engaging in WP:SYNTH.
- "Photographic evidence" is irrelevent unless a reliable source agrees with your assessment of it (see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 16:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- There IS a reliable source that seems to back up my claim. There's a SLAM link right there. And if Wrestleview isn't a reliable source, than why is it even listed in the first place? How am I engaging in WP:SYNTH when you can say "running double marching Samoan Drop" and call it a modified Samoan drop? There's a lot of inconsistencies here. KingMorpheus (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, because the matter at hand is whether or not to call it a modified fisherman's suplex or not. Your samoan drop sources can't seem to decide if it's a running Samoan drop, a standard one or a flat out muscle buster. So where's the verifiability in that? They all conflict each other. KingMorpheus (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
The Slam Wrestling caption says he suplexes his opponent. It does not say the pictured move is his finisher (explicitly or implicitly). The picture is one frame of a movement. First, we have to assume this is a picture is of the same move we're talking about (probably a safe bet, but still an assumption). Then we must assume he used it as a finisher. That's synthesis. The text sources make it clear he is finishing matches with a Samoan drop. No assumptions necessary. The phrase "running double marching" is a modifier of the noun "Samoan drop". The preposition "into" means the suplex transformed to a different move. Like in "front facelock into a DDT/vertical suplex/swinging neckbreaker". Would you call a DDT a facelock? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to have missed all the discussion here but I just lost all internet access on weekdays. Bummer. Right now looking at the current version of Ryback's page there is some form of compromise with Shell Shocked labelled as leg hook (link to fisherman's suplex) samoan drop (link to samoan drop). I agree with this compromise. However, I believe some issue still remains regardless of what Shell Shocked really is. The reliable sources do conflict with each other (and even themselves) which is why this whole mess has arisen. Suriel has brought up the Trinity - but what if the Trinity contradicts itself? (it already has in this incident) Even as I ask this question I can think of no viable answer ... except "majority wins"...? Starship.paint (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- What's wrong with a logical debate? A little trickier than voting, but at the end, we know why the right answer is right. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)