Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 87

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 85

"Corrected" match times

TheWWExpert (talk · contribs) is "correcting" WWE/F PPV match times based on "unedited film". This is problematic because in many cases the Wiki article now contradicts the cited source. Should we get this user's contributions rolled back? Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

They all need to be reverted, as he has replaced cited information with original research. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Rey Mysterio and Sin Cara

Rey Mysterio and Sin Cara was just created. Too soon? MPJ -US 23:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Funny, there's already Sin Cara & Rey Mysterio. Problem with these new tag team pages (Team Cobro, International Airstrike, R-Truth and Kofi Kingston) is that they're usually poorly maintained, with week-by-week, unreliable sources... I guess it's because it's really the inexperienced editors creating and maintaining these pages... Starship.paint (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on sourcing, which is the only real way of demontrating notability, the only team mentioned here with a possible claim to notability is International Airstrike (which needs some serious work...I notice it even uses Wikipedia as one of its sources). The others are all unsourced and therefore fail the notability test. In their present state, Rey Mysterio and Sin Cara, Sin Cara & Rey Mysterio, Team Cobro, and R-Truth and Kofi Kingston would all fail an AfD. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I propose merging both into Rey Mysterio and Sin Cara & Rey Mysterio (2012 WWE tag team). Then deleting that new article. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC) I like how the first one begins, "The following day on Raw...". Mysterious, like masked wrestlers. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

~~Seriously though, I blanked the newer one and made it a redirect to the older one.~~ I restored the newer one and redirected the old one instead, since the new one sucks significantly less. Is that proper? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3MB "Notability has to be established before a page is created not during or after the page has been created.--Dcheagle". I think that this kind of Tag Teams aren't notable. Sin Cara/Rey it's like Edge/Rey, Rhodes Scolars it's like The Dashing Ones and Airstrike it's like Billy Gunn/Big Show. We can put the information in them singles articles. Also, I think that TODAY aren't notable. We can put soucres about International Airstrike wrestled since WM, but they haven't a notable feud, notable storyline or notable Tag team regin... they only have a name and weekly matches (and two PPV matches) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

But are they discussed, as a team, to a decent extent in reliable secondary sources? That, rather than the feelings of editors, is the only true criterion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Wrestling angle

This article is just plain wrong on too many fronts. Same with this user's contributions in general thus far. Methinks it's more cluelessness than vandalism. Does the article qualify for speedy deletion? Going through the criteria leads me to believe yes, but it wasn't clear. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 07:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd redirect it to the Glossary of professional wrestling terms page. McPhail (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I left a note for this user, who responded. Based upon that, I remained convinced that he/she is new to Wikipedia, and that this may be the extent of the problem. The response was "Moving it to my sanbox until I can create a better wiki user experience." I did check back on the article prior to that and developed the impression that it was taking shape into something more coherent. Still, I have the impression that this is some sort of POV fork, and not sure it's within the proper context of the subject. Especially the reference to Brooke Hogan and her father, which to me has nothing to do with wrestling angles, and could be an in-joke which runs afoul of BLP. Because the article was developing beyond something more than a train wreck, I recommended that he/she consult one of the project regulars for help. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 21:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

WWE on YouTube

Should we do a page for WWE's YouTube shows? I know Zack Ryder has his Z! True Long Island Story show on YouTube, but I was wondering if we should add a page for WWE's other YouTube shows? Keith Okamoto (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It depends if any of the shows have received significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Obviously, in cases like this mentions of WWE shows (RAW SmackDown) would not be enough.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Marvin Lambert → Brain Damage (wrestler)

We have edge,Test,Kane,Undertaker... By not Brain Damage? it was his ring name his entire career. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd support a move. I imagine whoever created the article figured it was easier to not disambiguate, but ringnames like this are used per WP:COMMONNAME. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should be moved. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that we should move Chri$ Ca$h also.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

~~Yes, but not with the dollar signs. I get that's his thing, but they work exactly like "S"s, not like dollar signs. See Kesha. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)~~ Oh, what the hell. Knock yourself out. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Lambert is now Brain Damage, I'll leave the Cash/Ca$h decision to someone else. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

In CZW article, is Chri$ Ca$h Memoril show, why not Chri$ Ca$h? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Sports entertainment

I was wondering what you all might think of this article... Starship.paint (talk) 10:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know.... maybe are more sports entertainment than Wrestling. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

To elaborate... I believe "sports entertainment" is merely a term WWE has created to act as a substitute to "professional wrestling". It doesn't deserve its own article and could easily go into the list of professional wrestling jargon. Out of the three sources listed in the article, one is a dead link and the other two... one is about professional wrestling and the other is a "pierogi race", but, they do not mention "sports entertainment" at all. I'd suggest deleting this article. Starship.paint (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion.

Dead promotions?

One simple question. Does somebody know the current status of Ring Ka King and Lucha Libre USA? Are both promotions active or inactive? Are the championships active or inactive? I heared that the season ended and I think that both promotions are dead. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Lucha Libre USA had their last show May 5, 2012 and Ring Ka King on January 23, 2012. I know some promotions only run like once, twice a month but they are at least "Inactive", I think some wrestlers in LLUSA are still prevented from working for certain US promotions by their contracts, but that's not the same as the promotion being active. But I have no confirmation nor read it in a reliable source that they're "Dead" but the dates certainly point to it. MPJ -US 16:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I readed that TNA hasn't plans about Ring Ka King (http://www.wrestleview.com/viewnews.php?id=1338157162). This soucre (http://www.wrestleview.com/viewnews.php?id=1320517956) says that MTV cancels LLUSA. Also, LLUSA and RKK are like TV Programs, no Wrestling promotion (If the season ended, the "promotion" is inactive). Also, is Full Impact Pro inactive? The last FIP show was a year ago. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I do believe LLUSA is posting episodes on Hulu, but have not read that they were planning on taping more. I agree that they're dead but that's just my take on it, not "verifiable". Could list them as "Inactive" which is true and also the date of their last event, that's pure facts and could be verified. MPJ -US 16:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

That's the point. If LLUSA nor RKK will tape more episodes, I think that both are inactive. Other question is about the championships. Take a look. Williams and Rekon's regin is over 500 days, but if the promotion is inactive, I think that the championships are inactive too. Also, I want to talk about Full Impact Pro ()1 year since his last show) and Nu Wrestling Evolution (3 years since his last show) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

How Many "Signature Moves" Can One Wrestler Have?

This list[1] seems a bit absurd and pointless. Ridernyc (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, this issue of "signature moves" is one that I've been thinking of raising lately, so thanks for raising this up Ridernyc. The thing is, users such as Hemmeband17 have been adding lots, and lots of signature moves to (probably their favourite) wrestlers' pages. Moves that maybe have been done only once! I'm a fan of Tyson Kidd, and this year on NXT after I see him doing a Saito suplex for the first time ever, within the week, it was added to Wikipedia as a signature move. And frankly, I'm guilty of this problem myself early on in my editing history. I watched YouTube videos the top 20 of my favourite wrestlers and I would just add cool moves from that list, regardless of whether the move itself was done regularly by the wrestler or just one off. I think Zack Ryder's double underhook powerbomb (which he performed only once against Christian) is still on his page. As to what we could do to solve this problem, I'd suppose a possible solution is that to add a signature move, we should have multiple sources backing it up, how about at least three secondary sources for TV/PPV/DVD reports for different shows? Of course, one primary source would suffice. This guide would apply to mostly WWE/TNA wrestlers due to their wide coverage amongst pro wrestling secondary sources. Your thoughts? Starship.paint (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Another issue would be really common moves. Things like arm drags, hip tosses, clotheslines, elbow smashes, back elbows, scoop slams...do they really belong in the majority of wrestlers' movesets? Well I acknowledge Sin Cara's arm drags and Ezekiel Jackson's multiple scoop slams, but I don't see why they're notable for Kaitlyn... Starship.paint (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd brought this up with a repeat offender a couple of months back. He/she seems to have stopped, but a lot of the additions are still present. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, if we can mention this to editors as soon as we notice them doing this. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd just remove all "signature moves" with only one source, unless its one that specifically mentions the move in question as a signature move. A move that a wrestler has only used once in his/her career is not a signature move. Looking at that Kaitlyn page there also are a lot of unreliable sources for moves like Ringside Xcess, Wrestling Attitude and Lords of Pain, that need to go.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't remove all "signature moves" with one source straight-away though. I'd write on the article's talk page with a one week warning or so for additions of reliable sources for the signature moves, and only start removing after that one week. All the unreliable sources definitely can be removed at once, but leave the moves there without the sources. Starship.paint (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems like this is a widespread issue the second article I check somewhat randomly I find this [2]. Has anyone ever attempted a MoS for articles about wrestlers?. These "in wrestling" sections are a magnet for cruft and trivia. Listing every entrance song is going pretty far over the line into too much unencyclopedic intricate detail IMHO. Ridernyc (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a manual of style for pro wrestlers, and if you're looking for specifically for the "In wrestling" section Here. Regarding the entrance themes, I think the only problem is if the wrestler is in a tag team and the other guy's entrance song is played for the team entrance -> Gabriel's over Kidd's. Then some users will add Gabriel's song to Kidd's page. It's a bit stupid. Starship.paint (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I notified Valentfred. Starship.paint (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Re-notified Valentfred, after seeing him add back heel kick to Heath Slater's page, I've only seen him do it once this week on NXT and Valentfred added it... with only one source. Starship.paint (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Article for deletion

Does anyone else think that the page for the Internet Champion should go? I do, but am unfamiliar with the deletion process. 67.181.76.194 (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Ive marked it for deletion here.--Dch eagle | ^{Join the Fight!} 20:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Reviving: 3 NXT Articles...

This is a topic revive... below is the old info. Starship.paint (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Recently it has come to my attention that we have three NXT articles... NXT Wrestling, WWE NXT and History of WWE NXT. Firstly, "NXT Wrestling" is the renamed Florida Championship Wrestling article, renamed after FCW was rebranded to NXT. As for the latter two articles, it was proposed (click!) by Srsrox in August to split the article. Recently Kerbymanuel split the two articles, but I look at it now and there's still a lot of overlap IMO. I'd like for the project to weigh in on this matter... should we have only two articles, one for NXT 1-5 (proposed by Keith Okamoto) and the second for FCW + NXT6? Or any other alternative anyone wants to propose? Starship.paint (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's a litte info on what Starship eluded to. I wanted to create a NXT page that focused on the "Reality Competition" version (Seasons 1-5) and a page for the new NXT. But Kerbymanuel messed up and now there's three pages for NXT instead of the two I've proposed. The NXT Wrestling article is ok, but it needs more help. Keith Okamoto (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, now, here is the current situation. Basically, me and K.O. decided that we should merge the articles back, and after posting on the talk page discussion about merging the articles, I proceeded to do so. Some background info, the original "WWE NXT" article was moved to "History of WWE NXT" by Kerbymanuel. After merging the two articles I tried to move History back to "WWE NXT", but only an admin could do so, so I temporarily moved it to "Wikipedia:WWE NXT". Yet, Kerbymanuel, who had been silent since I proposed the merging of the articles and K.O. agreed, soon split the articles again and undid my actions. I don't want an edit war, so I'd like the Project to come to a consensus on whether we should merge or split the articles WWE NXT and History of WWE NXT. My proposal, which K.O. agrees with, is that we merge the articles into "WWE NXT", whichj would focus on Season 1 to Season 5 of NXT, while the article NXT Wrestling would focus on the developmental territory period. Two articles for Seasons 1-5 is redundant. Starship.paint (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

What's up with the weird name WE NXT ? -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I had my Sin Cara mask on at that time and created WE NXT. That needs to be deleted. Starship.paint (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we need all three articles (not including "WE NXT"). "NXT Wrestling" is the promotion, "WWE NXT" is the show. I think "History of WWE NXT" is completely necessary because it'll basically talk about when NXT was a reality show before it became a showcase of FCW talent. The split of "WWE NXT" and "History of WWE NXT" will clear up any confusion of the very, very long article of "WWE NXT" to two articles of 2 different subjects. I say keep all three and clean them up. Srsrox (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you're getting it Srsrox. WWE NXT and History of WWE NXT needs to be merged because it's about the competition version of NXT while NXT Wrestling is the current NXT. Keith Okamoto (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with K.O. here. To clarify, we plan to merge History of WWE NXT with WWE NXT. Then, for that merged article, WWE NXT, we plan to remove the details of the developmental territory. Pretty much all mentions of the developmental territory will go to NXT Wrestling. We'll just leave a short note in the WWE NXT article that the competition period had ended and FCW turned into NXT. WWE NXT need not be about two different subjects, but only about Season 1 to 5. Starship.paint (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes but that still does not solve what was the original problem. The sheer length and confusion of the competition on the page. We need a way of either collapsing it by season or move the section to another article due to sheer length (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Splitting). As much as I agree it's still the same name of the show ("WWE NXT"), the article has to either be split or significantly reduced (or collapsed). The length alone justifies the split. Srsrox (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, if you take a look, History of WWE NXT has a lot of the info of WWE NXT. Production, on-air personalities and international broadcasters (which WWE NXT has) are all in History, so how much longer would WWE NXT if we were to merge the page? Not much! Also, regarding length, a significant amount of the article of History is comprised of tables, which take up space does not contribute as much as to information. Regarding the confusion of the competition, it's simple. Already in History we talk about the two different "modes" of NXT in the header paragraph and in the main body. That should clarify any confusion. P.S. regarding article size, I did some sort of a word count and it clocks in at 5,883, below the 6,000-10,000 "large article guideline" from your link. Without the tables, the article doesn't even exceed 5,000 words. Starship.paint (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hardcore title

"One year later when Mick Foley made his return to WWE, he was presented with the title in a framed case and officially became a Hardcore Legend. (WATCH) After Foley and Edge battled in a no holds barred classic at WrestleMania 22, Mrs. Foley’s Baby Boy named both himself and The Rated-R Superstar, as co-holders of the Hardcore Championship. (WATCH) It was absurd, but eight years after the title’s introduction, it almost seemed appropriate for a title that was intended to recognize the finest in utmost brutality.", From WWE It does mean that the Edge-Foley regin is official and Edge is a Grand Slam Champion? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say no, since it says Foley declared himself and Edge champs. He had no storyline authority to make those kinds of decisions, and the title was officially retired at this point. "It was absurd". Neither guy defended the belt and the angle quickly disappeared. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I said it because WWE.com said that they were co-holders.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Does it say it anywhere else (title history, perhaps)? Because what you shared above only says Foley named them that, not WWE. The belt belonged to Foley, so he can share it with anyone he wants, but since it was a defunct title in WWE, it "officially" doesn't count. Definitely worth mentioning in Edge and Foley's articles, if it isn't already, but not in the Edge's C&A section or the Grand Slam article. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

C&A

What can I put in the section "Championships and accomplishments"? I mean, I can put Titles, but my question is... Can I put RAW General Manager, TNA General Manager, SD GM Consultant...? I think that aren't Championship or accomplishments, they are storyline jobs. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

We've left things like that out in the past as its really not an accomplishment per say but more of a job title. I wouldn't be against it being added but I would gain consensus from the project first first.--Dch eagle | ^{Join the Fight!} 20:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd say those count as accomplishments. Just like championships (also only a storyline job), these signify that the promotion has deemed the person worthy of a higher-profile position in the show. Teddy Long, for instance, became far more famous, "important" and better-paid as a GM than as a ref and manager. So he accomplished something there, even if he didn't win a tournament to do it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that, in that case, we can put something like "John Cena, never quit" or Andre "15 years undefeated". I think that we must put in C&A only wrestling C&A, nor jobs (commentator) or storyline jobs (GM, Commisioner)--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Listing kayfabe jobs as accomplishments is just silly.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

But isn't "WWE Champion" also a kayfabe job? CM Punk didn't actually win and defend his title the way Anderson Silva did. The boss just said "Hey, you're over with the fans. Let's give you the belt." In the same way, he said to Johnny Ace "Hey, you've got heat with fans. Let's make you the GM". Not a championship title, but still a job title that puts the holder in a prominent position. The Cena and Andre stuff isn't the same, since those are just aspects of the character, not any "official" title. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. Being a champion isn't a job. CM Punk doesn't work as a champion, he works as a professional wrestler. But Williams Regal isn't the RAW GM, because the GM position is fake. I think we must put only championships, tournaments and awards, no storyline jobs. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The guy with the belt has the responsibility of being the guy to draw money, so a WWE Champion does have different actual job responsibilities (and perks) than, say, Barry Horowitz. And storywise, he's the center of the universe, unlike Mantaur. In the same way, a GM is plucked from relative obscurity and made into the guy who gets more airtime than almost anyone. It's an actual promotion, as well as a fictional one. Quite the accomplishment, moreso than a European Title reign. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I still thinking that a storyline job isn't notable. The GM position doesn't exist, it's storyline. I understand that a real job, like RAW Producer, Trainer or Creative are accomplishments, but I think that a Storyline and fake job isn't accomplishments. Anycase, does somebody else want to talk? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't count holding a championship as a job. CM Punk isn't paid to be the champion, he's contracted as a WWE Superstar. He excelled at his job and became champion, but he didn't gain a new job. Think of it as "Employee of the Month", an achievement, but not a job. Deely talk 20:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Odd edits

Just something I happened to stumble on... The edit history of Tombstoneride (talk · contribs) shows numerous created articles and related edits on supposed past pay-per-view events that I could not verify to be legitimate. Hopefully someone can verify the follow edits or invalidate them to then take an appropriate course of action. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

2000 iPPV? I thinkt that's weird. I don't know, but I find something in Cagematch. ECW Midwest Massacre (RVD defeated Rhino), on June 23, 2000 (http://www.cagematch.de/?id=1&nr=450) and Beer, Blood, Babes and Barbed Wire (RVD defeated EZ Money) on June 10, 2000 (http://www.cagematch.de/?id=1&nr=48469). I see different shows. The articles have a lot of matches, but Cagematch says that are TV Shows and less matches. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Definitely sketchy. These (Orgy of Violence, Better than Ever, Last Show at the Madhouse) are definitely real shows, but not PPVs, as far as I can tell. If they are indeed iPPVs, the onus is on the creator to verify it with a source. Otherwise, we should treat it like any other unverified claim on Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Questionable buyrate value.

I've noticed many PPVs list the buyrate in the lead. I'm cool with that. But I fail to see the value of comparing it to the buyrate of the previous year's event (such as at SummerSlam 2010). I think, if a comparison is made at all, it should be made to the previous month's PPV. That way, trends are apparent. Nothing is learned from comparing two events, separated by a year's worth of intermittent PPVs. Thoughts? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be compared to both. I can see what you mean about the previous month being important because of trends in time, but I think what you're overlooking about comparing it to the previous year is that certain PPV brands draw better than others. Trying to evaluate the success of Extreme Rules based on how its PPV buys compared to the previous month's WrestleMania wouldn't be very fair. Tony2Times (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. Both would be good. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say year-on-year makes more sense. Monthly comparisons aren't all that valid since expenditure patterns are seasonal, plus as noted some PPVs will always do better than others (e.g. WrestleMania). McPhail (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus apparently needed to move to Chri$ Ca$h

Not long ago, HHHPedigree asked here about moving Marvin Lambert and Christopher Baumann to Brain Damage (wrestler) and Chri$ Ca$h. Nobody objected to either and GaryColemanFan gave his blessing for Brain Damage. The first was easy enough, but the second already exists as a redirect. I put a speedy deletion tag on it to clear it up, but it was removed, saying consensus is needed. So...how about it? Do we have consensus for this? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, including the dollar signs. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, with dollar signs. It's lame, but it's definitely common usage. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Support Chri$ Ca$h Starship.paint (talk) 09:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Chri$ Ca$h. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Changes to Template:Infobox professional wrestler

There are a couple of changes to Template:Infobox professional wrestler that I think might be a good idea.

Removing "real height" and "real weight". Having two sets of heights and weights is potentially confusing, getting a reliable source for the "real" figures is challenging and the differences between the two weights don't tend to be all that great.
Adding a "birth name" field. An increasing number of articles have ring names rather than birth names as their titles; the name at the top of the infobox should reflect this. Adding in a birth name field would mean this information is clearly visible.

Any thoughts?

McPhail (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's a good idea. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I would have no problem with these changes.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 13:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; I'll action these changes. McPhail (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

New wrestler Wikipedia page

I have a page currently saved in my user pages that would be a great start for someone trying to create a page for Travis Tyler of NXT Wrestling. Any type of assistance with this article would be greatly appreciated!! The article is at the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scca8704/Sam_Udell Scca8704 (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

To be blunt, the article looks quite basic, doesn't it? I really have to question how notable this guy is. Signed by WWE in November 2012, that's it right? What other information is notable? What other information has been reported by reliable sources: PWTorch/F4WOnline/SLAM!Wrestling etc. He hasn't even appeared on the WWE NXT television show. Asylum Championship Wrestling where apparently he's from doesn't even have an article here. Starship.paint (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm working on the sources but he does have an amateur wrestling background and has worked the indy promotions in Colorado. Asylum Championship Wrestling was the promotion that trained him in Colorado Springs. I know they don't have an article on here either but unless they're mainstream indy I guess they don't get an article. Not to mention that the websites for the promotions there are not as detailed and not frequently updated. This is the main reason why I haven't pushed this out as an article yet and have kept it in my personal user pages.Scca8704 (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Barry Stevens

Why is there an article for this guy when his only notable moment was being jobbed out to Ryback? On top of that, the entirety of his In Wrestling section was copied and pasted from Brent Albright's article. 68.200.222.137 (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It should probably go to WP:AFD.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed wholeheartedly. 68.200.222.137 (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Three WWE PPVs nominated for deletion

I just thought I'd let everyone know that an editor has nominated three PPVs for deletion here:

I'll pre-emptively state that this isn't a violation of WP:CANVASS, as I am alerting people to a relevant AfD, not swaying the votes. – Richard BB 09:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that the issue with the articles is the section of WP:NOT that says "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia" as these events are only sourced to such routine news reporting, they do not meet the inclusion policy. Mt king^(edits) 23:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

What is "routine news reporting"? should we not have stuff on the American presidential election since it could be considered routine reporting? MPJ -US 03:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

In what little time I've had for this during the past week or two, I've had to deal with cleaning up election-related messes. Editors add "information" as little more than a lemming-like response to news coverage they absorb. Meanwhile, the Electoral College hasn't voted, none of the people elected take office until January, nor do any of the people who lost reelection leave office until January. Numerous past elections, including some of major historical significance, remain uncovered or undercovered on Wikipedia, mostly because "sources" aren't as easy to find. The same principle applies here. The only real difference is that important past wrestling events which aren't covered on here may pre-date the pay-per-view era. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 04:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm gonna need multiple independent sources for the claim that lemmings read newspapers. Other than that, I hear you. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

So... based on the strict interpretation the election should only have very little in there. To me the "routine reporting" line is to prevent people from claiming notability because several papers reported that "Jamal James was part of the starting offensive line", it's stating that it exists - to related to the events listed above it'd be if they were just referred to as a recap of a show or an event, but there are plenty of articles on the Survivor Series show that focuses on the show. I am not trying to argue or anything and the AFD will definitely fail, but I find it worrying that such actions is taken based on the term "Routine reporting" yet no clear cut definition of what is routine. MPJ -US 09:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much. This seems to be a spillover from similar long-running silliness at the MMA Wikiproject. The nominator is making a point for that argument, I think, not seriously interested in deleting WWE articles. But yeah, that "routine reporting" bit is very open to interpretation. Makes any debate using it theoretically last forever. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well there is egg on my face - I stated there are plenty of sources on the show, both reliable and independent and then I read the survivor series references and there are none in there, that's a major fail on the part of the article and a sad reflection of the article quality, not the subject's notability and coverage. MPJ -US 09:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I added four references from three different reliable sources to SS, and reliable sources to the 2 other articles as well. Starship.paint (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Split developmental roster on List of WWE personnel?

I was thinking, since everybody in the Developmental roster is in NXT, maybe we should split the roster to who appears on WWE NXT that airs overseas and on Hulu Plus and who is just appearing at NXT Wrestling live events. The reason behind this is because on the WWE NXT site on WWE.com, there is a section showing the NXT wrestlers who appear on the program. What do you guys think? Keith Okamoto (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that's needlessly splitting hairs. Regardless of where they appear, they are all WWE developmental wrestlers, and so fit nicely under this header. As this is a list of WWE personnel (not NXT), I think dividing them this way is inappropriately specific. I can also foresee edit wars each time someone makes their first (perhaps one-time) appearance on NXT TV. I think it would be easier and more appropriate to have a note in the Notes column saying so-and-so has yet to appear on NXT TV. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

agree with Hulk. Starship.paint (talk) 13:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It was just an idea, but I now see it was a bad idea. Still, most of the NXT roster has yet to make an official appearance on TV and still working at house shows. How about we mark those who hasn't appear on TV as either A. "Yet to appear on NXT TV" or B. "Yet to appear on NXT, working in house shows". Keith Okamoto (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sharing ideas is good, even bad ones. Either of the notes you propose sounds OK to me, though "working house shows" (without "in") is grammatically proper, in a wrestling context. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the notes sound fine. Starship.paint (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on this site as a source?

I ran across WrestlingData the other day, and was blown away. Not just by the ridiculous size of it and the many useful ways to view the data, but by how I haven't noticed it in the twelve years it's apparently been around. But then I noticed an Edit button, and my bullshit alarm buzzed a bit. I've done some minor digging, but can't establish just how much of this is user-submitted and/or fact-checked, or what those processes involve. I've spent a few hours browsing, and haven't seen any obvious factual errors, based on what I know (quite a bit). But there's a LOT more here I'm totally unfamiliar with (most of the 1860s results, for example. RadioKAOS?) and it could be nothing but lies, for all I know. I say it leans toward legit, all things considered, and its scope makes the Internet Wrestling Database look like WWE.com.

What do you folks think or know about its Reliable Sourciness? Should we list it in the MoS? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Not knocking the Internet Wrestling Database, by the way. It's a fine site, and still growing. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on it, the fact that it has no sources that verify the information is an automatic red flag. Although it may have been around for 10+ years, the fact that its user contributed isn't always reliable. Think of Wikipedia itself, the information on here in general isn't reliable unless we source it. What sources do they cite? I can't find any that they cite. --Truco ⁵⁰³ 23:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

After further digging, it appears the user-submitted stuff is limited to the text biography, opinions and workrate ratings sections. Very few profiles have a text biography, if any. Opinions and workrate aren't for Wikipedia, anyway. All results and other data seem to be aggregated from across the web. As far as I can see, the results from HistoryofWWE.com, Puroresu.com and the IWD jive with what's here. I haven't checked other sites, but I'll bet they're consistent.

On a related note, OnlineWorldofWrestling seems to have gone the "anyone can edit" route. I may be mistaken. Perhaps that means there will be less typos, but I doubt it. I think this should be addressed by the Wikiproject, since every Wiki article (I think) has OWW as a reference.InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Nevermind.

I just noticed something. This is the English version of Genickbruch, currently used extensively in List of WWE personnel and elsewhere. I think, if Genickbruch is cool, the English version would be more appropriate for the English Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

My first GA!

Humility can wait... Extreme Rules (2012) is now GA, thanks to my significant contributions! Huzzah! BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEST IN THE WOOOOOOOOOOORLD!!!! Special mention to reviewer Batard0! Starship.paint (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Good job! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Valentfred and signature moves

In an earlier discussion, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_85#How Many "Signature Moves" Can One Wrestler Have?, we established that we should not list signature moves for wrestlers when the moves have only been done once or are very basic moves. May I point out that Valentfred is an offender of this. Not sure if any of you all saw Miz vs Ziggler on Main Event, but well, he performed moves I've never seen him do before (Side Effect, flapjack, dropkick). And poof, within the week, Valentfred adds them to Miz's signature moves. 1 2 3. I've warned this user already, but he/she did not respond. What should we do? Starship.paint (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, I find it ridiculous that Heath Slater's snapmare driver, belly to back wheelbarrow facebuster and overdrive are listed as finishers when to my knowledge he has only pinned one person each (two for the facebuster) with them. Starship.paint (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Follow the WP:BRD cycle. I recommend only reverting the additions once though. If the user adds them back after you remove them, take it to the talk page. You may need to either cite the established consensus or form a new one, but some discussion should occur on the article's talk page. After a consensus is reached on the talk page, if the other user continues to add the content and remains uncommunicative then the issue will need to be taken to WP:ANI so that the user can be blocked for disruptive editing. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Trouble adding to articles

Hi! I was wondering if a member of this WikiProject could take a look at the article I was working on, TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs (2012). There is some discussion on the talk page as to what sources are reliable and for what reasons, and additionally some confusion about what information is relevant for an article on a WWE event. This was my first time expanding an article on Professional wrestling, and I've found an unusual amount of the content I have added being removed and would like someone knowledgeable in this area to express their opinion. Thank you. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This may help answer your sourcing questions. I'll have to look into the argument at TLC before I can offer more. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. Generally, as was explained, we only list matches once they're officially announced (in this case, by WWE). This is done here now. The pictures are somewhat relevant to event, in that these wrestlers will be on the show, but don't really add much that a Wikilink to those wrestlers doesn't. More appropriate would be a picture of Big Show at TLC 2012. "This isn't real" seems to refer to your mention of Big Show's feelings. There's a fine line between writing in-universe and "real world" in wrestling articles. I'm not entirely sure you crossed it, but you were on it. Just curious, you say you've never watched wrestling and don't plan on it. Why are you reading the Torch and editing a wrestling article? No rules against that, it just seems a little strange. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for looking over everything. I wrote most of the article in question and was a bit irked to see people come and start erasing stuff. Regarding the announcement of matches, would it be alright to have added to the prose, "Pro Wrestling Torch writes that there will be at least four matches at the event: a chairs match; a tables match; a ladders match; and a tables, ladders, and chairs match."? I can understand the desire to want WWE to confirm matches, but often times reliable sources will be able to get a hold of information before the company intends to disseminate it. I would assume all comments about Big Show are in-universe and comments about Paul Wight are real world. I think the This isn't real was perhaps referring to a mistake I'd made in the text: I wrote that the "Tables, Ladders, and Chairs matches" were emotional for him, but the match he participated in was actually a singles match.

I found the article from a request made at WP:RFPP and added it to my watchlist so I could watch it for vandalism. This is what it looked like when I came to the page. It was actually a bit worse than that, since someone had uploaded the poster image with the wrong aspect ratio to File:Wwetlc2012.jpg so Ryback looked like a twig man. I was wondering why the article was getting so much activity and realized it was getting thousands and thousands of hits every day. But it was such a short stub of an article, and the sources were right there, so I figured I'd expand it so that all the readers coming to the page would actually have something to read. But contributing to this wrestling article has been much more difficult than I anticipated. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I don't see any problem with saying which types of matches are planned. But don't say "Pro Wrestling Torch writes...". Just source it with a link, and that's enough attribution. I also agree that whether something is real or worked is usually apparent by which name is used. That's just my opinion, I'm not aware of any actual rule. But I think, in this case, "emotional" is a uselessly vague word. (Happy? Angry? Scared?) Even if specified, it doesn't seem like an significant detail. But good work on the other stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I apologise if I have been in any way overzealous when it comes to editing this article, Odie -- however, every single PPV we get a vast amount of unconfirmed matches being added, which is why I usually request page protection immediately and proceed to remove anything that has not been confirmed by the WWE; I'm sure you can understand my frustration. As for the Torch, while I'm sure the Torch itself can be reliable for many things, I feel that them saying there is likely to be match X and match Y is still speculative. At the end of the day, a match is only ever official when it has been announced by the WWE; other sites can only speculate. Even when outside sources say there will be, say, a chairs match, a ladders match, and a tables match, they can't possibly know until the WWE themselves decide. After all, it is the WWE who book the matches! It seems a bit pointless to put speculative matches in there, and seems contrary to WP:NOT; after all, if there are fans that are interested in knowing what might happen, they'd normally go to sites like Torch or All Wresting. – Richard BB 09:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, it's technically speculative, but it's very likely true, given everything we know about past TLC events. It'd be different if someone was adding a "likely" Dog Collar match. But I don't care too much, one way or the other. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

But even if it's very likely to be true, I don't think it's within our scope to include such matches into articles, as we simply cannot know. Remember that "very likely" isn't fact. Plus, if it is "very likely", then I think the readers should be able to make their own minds up about it. If they see the articles for TLC 2009, 2010, and 2011, they can probably guess what might occur at 2012. Also, as a side note, I'd agree that "Big Show" should refer to kayfabe and "Paul Wight" should refer to real life, but what about when it comes to names like "John Cena"? – Richard BB 09:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

In Cena's case (and others like it), readers should just assume everything in the Professional Wrestling section is a work, unless explicitly stated otherwise. I hate seeing "(kayfabe)" pop up as some sort of disclaimer for one fact, in a section full of "fake" facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Just sayin', for the Event section on scheduled matches (when the PPV is yet to take place) I agree with Richard BB that the primary source is definitely the most reliable and it should be used over secondary sources for only this instance. On whether to include "TBA" matches, I think that they should only be added if WWE makes some announcement. For example, during Raw 1000, The Rock announced that he will challenge for the WWE Championship at the Royal Rumble.^[1]^[2] Then I think it is fine to add "The Rock vs TBA" at the Royal Rumble (2013) article. But if WWE hasn't made an explicit announcement... "there will be a ladders match"... I think we should not add in the ladder match. If WWE says "there will be a ladder match", you can TBA vs TBA, IMO. Starship.paint (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I fully agree with Starship on this. – Richard BB 11:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for responding here. InedibleHulk, you wrote, "we only list matches once they're officially announced" but you also said, "I don't see any problem with saying which types of matches are planned." and noted using PWTorch as a reference. I am still confused on whether or not you believe that matches can be sourced in articles to secondary sources instead of only primary ones. Please let me know what your opinion is on this. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe the matchup (as in Who vs Who) should be officially announced. Details about the match itself (as in the setting where Who faces Who) can be sourced from secondaries. It's a somewhat subtle semantic distinction, and I hope I explained it right. If not, let me know and I'll try again. Sorry for any confusion. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand your position now, thank you. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Two different editors now believe other content I wrote for the article is not worthy of mention and have removed it. If anyone can, please take a look at the recent removal discussed on the talk page. Thank you. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Usage of primary sources (WWE.com) for PPVs

Okay, so this is kinda related to the current TLC12 article, but applies to pretty much any recent WWE PPV article (I don't follow TNA PPV articles).Technically, "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources". Using the TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs (2012) article in its current state, it is obvious to me how WWE.com (and not secondary sources) is definitely the most reliable source for the Event section (scheduled matches) and the infobox (basic event info). Yet, if we look at the Background section, you'll see that WWE.com is again used as a source to provide background info on the match. See Chairs match is used as a source multiple times throughout the background section. I feel that in this case, we should not use WWE.com and instead use secondary sources to cite the info. Firstly, WWE.com's "match previews" detailing the background will vanish once the match has actually taken place, to be replaced by a match report. If so, WWE.com will be unable to substantiate some of the claims being sourced. See Survivor Series Sheamus match. Secondly, secondary sources are readily available as coverage of WWE's TV/PPV programming where the background of the feuds take place. There are two solutions, either we stick to secondary sources like PWTorch for the background, or we use stuff like WebCite to take a screenshot of the page like one day before the PPV, so that we may preserve the source. What do you all think? Starship.paint (talk) 10:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, I happened to take a look at some of the 2012 WWE PPV articles while writing this. I looked at the previous PPVs up to Extreme Rules and they are in terrible shape in terms of sourcing and content. Starship.paint (talk) 10:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I am the main contributor to the TLC12 article. I used the WWE source initially because it was handy and gave a good overview of the background storylines of the main characters. My opinion for most articles is that using secondary sources is better than using primary sources (with plenty of exceptions, of course). There was a bit of confusion regarding the reliability of other sources (see above section) and so I was reluctant to use anything but WWE in writing the article. I have since added a few other sources I found, though there are plenty more. Although others may disagree, my opinion is that secondary sources should be the predominant type used to write the article and should only be supplemented or supported by primary sources. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I know that you're new (to WP:PW) and I do not blame you for using WWE.com. I know that it's handy, but you should take one of the two precautions I've stated above to "protect" the WWE.com sources. Starship.paint (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and archived all the WWE urls using WebCite. That is very sneaky of WWE to erase the old preview article. A warning about this should probably be placed on the list of reliable professional wrestling sources. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Well done. Another thing about WWE is that they've in recent years undergone quite a few website changes... resulting in deadlinking, another reason why we should steer clear of them as a source. However, the pages you WebCited are probably still prone to change as the background of the PPV continues to change by WWE's ongoing weekly television shows. That is why I proposed earlier to wait until one or two (after the last SmackDown before TLC comes out on 24 Dec) days before the PPV to WebCite the articles. Starship.paint (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the background I think it's fine to have sources other than WWE (I think we can use a wayback machine to retrieve articles that have been deleted from their site, can't we?). For matches, however, I think we should only have WWE.com sources. – Richard BB 11:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Re: Starship.paint) Right now, the content of the article is based only on what is currently available at the WWE link at the time of the WebCite snapshot. So even if they update the preview before the match results are posted, the information that was cited will still be available in the WebCite snapshot. If someone adds content to the article from the preview post, they should check to be sure that it is in the WebCite snapshot. If it isn't, meaning WWE updated the preview, then they can just request a new WebCite snapshot of the same link. Doing this will add another snapshot to the drop-down box in the upper right corner of the archive link, so you can easily jump between different snapshots. And like you said, if we want to have the last update to the preview we should also take a snapshot soon before the PPV airs. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

@Richard, Wayback does not archive every website, and we cannot force them to archive any website. Once you tell it to, WebCite will screenshot and archive a website (provided the website is still up and is not a dead link). @Odie, very well then. Starship.paint (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I must confess that I wasn't actually fully aware on how Wayback works. – Richard BB 12:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Starship.paint: Regarding using more secondary sources and archiving WWE ones, a user recently removed secondary sources I found for the article, replacing them with primary ones, and deleted one of the WebCite archives from the citations as well. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

In theory, WWE.com should only be used when we need an official word on something, such as a planned event. It should never be used for past event results, title information or much of the other general info it's currently used for. There are plenty of reliable sites that specialize in that sort of thing, without all the Javascript bells and whistles or archiving problems. But as long as WWE.com is popular, it'll keep being used. I guess I could replace a few somewhere instead of just complaining. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right on calling out on that. In my opinion, this is clearly unacceptable. WWE.com should only be used for scheduled matches, not for past results. I've directed Jeffhardyred to this discussion. Starship.paint (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

WWE.com is just fine for results, title histories, background information, match description, and anything else. I don't, however, think that reliable secondary sources should be removed, as I agree about their importance. There's certainly no harm in keep both, though (in fact, I think it would be the best of both worlds). GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Robert Roode > Bobby Roode

Would anyone object to Robert Roode being moved to Bobby Roode? My rationale for this would be that Roode has reverted to performing as Bobby Roode for quite some time now and he has achieved his greatest success in this period. This move would allow more direct linking. In addition, "Bobby Roode" returns 892,000 Google results, compared to 554,000 for "Robert Roode".

This move does not require administrator intervention, so it could be moved by an editor if there are no objections.

(Also posted at Talk:Robert Roode) McPhail (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds about right. Google results aren't the best indicator, but this shows he has wrestled for longer and in more places as Bobby than as Robert. Also currently. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. also Google News -> Bobby Roode -> 596 results, Robert Roode -> 5 results. Starship.paint (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback - I'll execute this move. McPhail (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Bearly Legal

Is there any policy, guideline or past discussion that would exclude a notable and well-documented wrestler from Wikipedia simply because he's a bear? If not, I think I may create my first article. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope. No policy against that. Wrestling bears covered in independent, reliable sources are certainly fair game. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've got a draft at User:InedibleHulk/sandbox. It doesn't suck, but it's not perfect. Any feedback would be appreciated. Disregard the External Links stuff about Mantaur, I used him as a template and will fix that later. If someone can find a solid birth and death date, that'd be great. I've found a 1959 article saying he's about eight and am speculating on his death, in light of his visit to the Humane Society after his friend ate that girl. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I've created the article. I figure there's not much point getting it perfect first, since this is Wikipedia and mistakes are constantly fixed. It's at Terrible Ted. I'm kind of proud. But not so proud to not listen to valid criticism or suggestions. I don't want schoolchildren writing reports on this guy to misinform their teachers. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Useful resources

These pages seem pretty helpful. Ongoing list of 2012 title holders and Final list of 2011 title holders. Starship.paint (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Is grantland.com a reliable source?

Came across a reference to [3]. Is this website reliable? Starship.paint (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't know, myself. On one hand, they claim to be apart of ESPN in their copyright notice, on the other hand, anyone can claim such a thing. I had never heard of them before tonight. I don't see any reason to call them reliable, personally. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 09:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The editor-in-chief is Bill Simmons and it is an ESPN-owned website. The website is used around 150 times around Wikipedia on various topics since the site covers sports and popular culture. It's a fairly new website since it was launched in 2011, but there's no indication that the site has any issues where we couldn't cite the author of a particular news story. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 10:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

And that is why I'm not an expert on reliable sources. Thanks, Moe. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 20:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No biggie. Sorry I haven't been around to contribute more to WP:PW. For neglecting the project, I'm self-imposing a penalty of 40 open hand slaps from the Big Show. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Moe! Starship.paint (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hahahahahahaha. XD CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 23:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

What type of source is acceptable?

What type of source is acceptable for professional wrestling? Please reply back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walls Jericho (talk • contribs) 07:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Walls and welcome to the Pro Wrestling Wikiproject! See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Style_guide#Sources, Official promotion websites and Websites proven reliable. Starship.paint (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Daggers used to represent current champions in lists.

I've changed one of these, but noticed it's widespread, so figured I'd bring this up here instead of on many talk pages. We're currently using a † to indicate who the current champ is in List of _______ Champions articles. When I see that, part of me automatically assumes they're dead, even though I know they aren't. This symbol has been commonly used for many years, in many books and websites, to say just that. Is there any reason we shouldn't just use a colour (which we also already do) or replace the dagger with another, more multi-purpose symbol? A "C" would work nicely, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

According to the dagger's article, "When placed immediately before or after a person's name, it indicates that the person is deceased." This is followed by four citations. I think that pretty much answers this question. But if I'm overlooking something, let me know. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

So currently the † is the standard, please do not start editing articles left and right (and inconsistently) until there is a consensus on a new standard. There needs to be a symbol, not just color - we don't all see color the same way and there needs to be another identifier as well. I don't care what it is, but don't make changes until there is an agreement on what it will be please. Thank you. MPJ -US 22:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, already changed them. Consistently, though. Not hard to revert. Sure, we don't all see colour the same way, but can't we all match a colour to the one we see at the top of a list, whatever it looks like? If we need a replacement symbol, "(c)" (consistent with match listings) would be better than my original "C".

As an aside, I noticed titles from the big Japanese and Mexican promotions don't have "List of..." articles like the big US promotions. Is this simply because of lack of interest, or was this a decision by the Wikiproject at some time? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Some Mexican titles do, some don't, the ones that don't usually do not have enough content separate from the list to warrant a split. MPJ -US 01:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I see how it is now. The list is part of the article for those. That seems like the tidier way to do it for all titles, I think, but that's topic for another day. I'll note that All Japan's title articles currently don't use any symbol, just the colour. I didn't touch those ones. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Officially unofficial vacancies and the resolution there of~

Recently there's been a bit of dispute down at List of WWE Champions on whether the Greg Valentine/Bob Backlund matches held at MSG should be recognized even dubiously as they are now. The original match (October 19, 1981) featured a story-line limited to the New York area where Backlund executed an airplane spin and covered Valentine for the win, but in doing so inadvertently knocked the referee down. Summarily our addlepated official awarded Valentine the belt and there was much gnashing of teeth with the title being held up. But between the original match and the rematch where Backlund reclaimed the title he was recognized as champ everywhere else, making multiple title defenses. One user brought the issue up for revision relegating the incident to a sidenote but was challenged by a second asking it first be brought to talk. Since then there's been a series of reverts as the original user views his edit as non-contentious, asserting he's unable to edit this talk page and doesn't see the need perhaps as he believes himself ardently in the right. So why don't *I* step in and bring the quarrel to you? Other than, you know, it taking an exorbitant amount of time on an Android touchpad to do? That said, should the chart continue unofficially recognizing this phantom vacancy? Papacha (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Better to keep an explanatory footnote, rather than declare it officially vacant. New York may have been the center of the WWF, but, like all centers, it is surrounded by a much larger whole, where the title was indisputably defended. If this is accurate (TheHistoryofWWE.com specifies this was in Staten Island), Backlund defended it in New York City on November 13, against Killer Khan. So the footnote may even be misleading. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This was before the internet and so on, it may have been an angle run exclusively in Madison Square Garden, similar to Race/Flair's title change in Australia or New Zealand that was not officially recognized until the internet era. So I agree it's probably not something that warrants a seperate line in the title history, at most a note on Backlund's reign. MPJ -US 04:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

WWE.com has an article up now pertaining to this, a round-up of some of the questionable histories of championships awarded and how they were won/lost. Really interesting that they'd visit some of the more unknown ones actually while touching on those ever-illusive Rio de Janeiro bouts. Would be a very nice bit of reference to cite some of this stuff if someone felt inclined, I just have a difficult time sourcing anything at the moment. With some of the examples given, does this warrant re-evaluation on whether to "recognize" more phantom reigns in chart lineage or denote many of the ones that are into footnotes per the example with Valentine? Papacha (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd be OK with using this article for notes and whatnot, but I think independent secondary sources are preferable for the histories themselves. The second paragraph of this article reminds me of the dude on COPS who says "OK, you caught me lying. But now I'll tell you the honest truth, officer...". Remember, primary sources should usually only be used for uncontroversial, straightforward claims. But if there's a specific change you'd like to make, I'm listening. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed move: Monty Sopp > Billy Gunn

Please input any thoughts at Talk:Monty Sopp McPhail (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

John Laurinaitis > Johnny Ace

Why the name is John Laurinaitis? I think that the common name is Ace, no Laurinaitis. We are in the internet era, so is normal that google find more John Laurinaitis over Johnny Ace, but he wrestled in Japan near 15 years as Johnny Ace and he was one year as Laurinaitis in WWE. What do you think?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's one of those situations where both names have about the same recognition as the other, despite how long they used it. While he definitely used the name Johnny Ace more, his tenure as general manager of Raw will always give him more recognition since WWE is WWE. I think a tie in recognition should probably defer to their real name, if the choice involves their real name. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This kind of bugs me, too, but I'm inclined to agree with Moe's reasoning. If this was a site dedicated to wrestling, we'd probably use Johnny Ace. But a general English-speaking readership is more likely to know him as Laurinaitis, given WWE's prominence in English-speaking places, compared to All Japan. "Laurinaitis" is also more up-to-date, is a real name and avoids the problem of disambiguating from Johnny Ace. It would be nice to see more in the article about his "Ace" time, however. Recentism has severely slanted this one. I may give it a shot. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I know it. But today you can finde near 1.000 websites with the name John Laurinaitis. When he was Johnny Ace, internet was a baby, but he spend 15 years of his carrer as Johnny Ace. However, I only want to hear your opinion before open a discussion in the article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Slammy Awards

It's the Slammy Awards tonight and Daniel Bryan has already been awarded three before the show has begun. Some wrestlers are gonna have a ridiculous amount by the end of tomorrow, let alone next year and the year after. Surely there has to be a more economic way of representing them (if we even have to represent them at all, which I'm not in favour of but will bow to consensus) than the current one. I don't know what the solution is and am happy to hear any suggestions because it's going to look stupid soon. Can we just number them? Or make a separate table? Or take them off altogether? I can't be the only one to think it looks stupid? Tony2Times (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If they are to be listed at all, I don't think each one should be listed individually. Maybe "Slammy Award winner (2010 - 2 times, 2012 - 3 times)" (if at all, of course). GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

On a personal level, the Slammy Awards sicken me (at least how they've been done since The Great WWE Recession of '08). That Bryan has an award for "Tweet of the Year" in proximity to the ROH World ~~Heavyweight~~ Championship is plain wrong. But, like it or not, these are "real" awards in the WWE universe (not to be confused with the nauseating WWE Universe), just like the Intercontinental Title or Royal Rumble. And so they should be listed as WWE calls them, for accuracy's sake. For someone who wants to know precisely why so-and-so was "honoured", we should be specific. People who couldn't care less can easily ignore the section. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

But they should NOT be mentioned in the text of the career section, unless they're directly related to a noteworthy angle. The awards exist, but they're not that significant. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Can't they go to the Slammy article if they want to know for what someone was "honoured"? We don't list who a wrestler beat to win each championship in that section, or between which dates they held it or any other information, just what they won and how many times. Tony2Times (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with the above point of Tony2Times. Starship.paint (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

We also don't list who a Slammy nominee beat in voting to win, or the date. But we should list the individual award name ("Superstar of the Year" is quite different from "Facial Hair of the Year", yes?), just as we list the individual title name (as opposed to simply saying Bryan is a three-time WWE champion, and letting readers work out which three themselves). I think the details in small print are totally unnecessary, however, as they would be if they were attached to a championship. These should only be explained on the Slammy Awards page. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

On a separate note, does Daniel_Bryan#External_links, The_Miz#External_links and other pages really need the Achievement boxes? They were added by Special:Contributions/112.204.53.199. Starship.paint (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a fan. If we added them to every article for consistency, Jerry Lawler's article would look absolutely ridiculous. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm also not fond of these. Nothing here that isn't already in Championships and Accomplishments and the article text. Who the preceding/succeding Mr. Money in the Bank is is particularly useless info, given the way this title is decided. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe these were discussed a number of years ago and people opted for the infoboxes for championships instead for the Jerry Lawler reason. They're too much. Tony2Times (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Strong disagree. Kofi kingston has a big infobox. Can you imagine Triple H, John Cena o Steve Austin infoboxes? Only with WWE, what happend with WCW, ECW, TNA, NWA... people like Raven, Christian (Cage) and Sting will have extra large infoboxes. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I maybe used the wrong terminology. When I said infoboxes, I meant the big single box at the bottom of the page that has all the champions in one, not the boxes which have that article as current and then the next and previous. I'm in favour of the former, against the latter. Tony2Times (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a navbox. Infoboxes are the boxes at the top right of most pages, with the wrestler's birthdate, weight, ring names and whatnot. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I will remove the achievement boxes then Starship.paint (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

WWE NXT

Hi all, I hope you can help resolve an RM that has lingered near the bottom of the backlog for quite some time now regarding WWE NXT (discussion). It looks like WWE NXT and History of WWE NXT are largely duplicate pages; at least this is what one user has argued. I wonder if a merge might not be more appropriate, but a quick look suggests History of WWE NXT is the superior article and mostly could just use the infobox from WWE NXT. Either way, the status quo doesn't seem to be desirable. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I did argue for the "merging" of the articles at Talk:NXT_Wrestling#Merge_NXT_articles_together. To summarise, I think History of WWE NXT should be merged with WWE NXT to contain all the info regarding the pre-developmental territory NXT, which is Season 1-5/Redemption. Anything regarding developmental NXT should go to NXT Wrestling. There's no need to have both History and WWE NXT given the overlap you can see for yourself for the WWE NXT artilce. The last time I posted about this in this portal nobody answered, could I get a better response? Starship.paint (talk) 08:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

This has been debated countless times and we've already came to a conclusion. I understand that right now they still seem duplicated, but this debate ended recently. I really don't want to debate this again when we already reached a conlcusion. If you think they're too similar, then feel free to change things up. But to go through this debate again and again is quite tiring and will lead to nowhere (and probably edit wars). EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:NXT_Wrestling#Merge_NXT_articles_together Srsrox (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

PWI awards 2012

Some IP's have updated the PWI 2012 award, but I don't see any soucre. Also, I found nothing in Internet. Are the awards real or fake? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Which wikipage did that happen? Starship.paint (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I deleted them because I found nothing in Internet, but if it's true, I'll put them again. here the awards --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrestling companies template boxes colors?

Can we have some consistency here? I'm confused as to what we're doing here.

WWE has colors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WWE

TNA DID have colors for a while, but was JUST token off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:TNA_Wrestling

Because WWE and TNA (BEFORE) had color, I changed ROH's color too, but they were reverted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ring_of_Honor

So what are we doing? Are we changing them all to colors or all of them back to default? This is confusing me. Srsrox (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed the TNA colors as outdated; they principally use blue and white now. All of them should be removed; per WP:Deviations, navboxes are not decorative. So there's no reason to have colors on the WWE one, either. These aren't sports teams in which every member wears the same colors so theres a truly strong association between color and organization. And the teams rarely change colors; some do, but there are dozens of teams, so one changing periodically is bound to happen by odds. With only two or three national organizations (and ROH is significantly smaller), the color of a logo is not a deciding factor in identity the way it is for, say, the Green Bay Packers. oknazevad (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

this has already been discussed here, and the consensus was to use the default per wp:deviations. Frietjes (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I needed to find this out! Srsrox (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

No singles finishing moves in tag team articles?

Recently HHH Pedrigree has removed a number of singles finishing moves from tag team articles. Example is WMD from Jeri-Show. I asked him about it on whether there was a previous consensus and he said he thought there was one because of this edit by InedibleHulk. Simply put, I disagree with the removing of the singles finishing moves. Tag teams don't always have or use a double-team finishing move. Easy examples are the Prime Time Players who most commonly use Clash of the Titus or Young's Gut Check. Team Hell No have used only the chokeslam or the No! Lock to win matches. I mentioned Jeri-Show's WMD above also. Therefore I think that it's valid to include singles finishing moves (not signature moves) in tag team articles, if the finishing moves are used when the team wrestles together. For example there's no need to mention Bryan's 2011 guillotine choke in the Team Hell No article. What do you all think? Starship.paint (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I did it because I saw similar editions. Anyway, I think that, if an article talks about the Tag Team, we must write only tag team moves. The single finishers are in the singles articles. If a Tag Team hasn't a Tag Team finisher, it's because is a bad Tag Team, but isn't my fault. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that not having a team finisher makes a tag team bad (I find Team hell to be one of the most entertaining teams in years) but I do agree with the idea that it should be a team move and not moves that the wrestlers brought over from singles competition. This of course does not apply to team moves which are later converted to a single person use when one the members leave the team (ie the Con-chair-to which was converted to a single person move when Christian turned on edge and went into singles competition).--64.229.167.20 (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a relevance thing. The article is about the team as a unit, not either of its members. Yes, a tag match is often won by a single finisher, but that's reasonable, since it's that team member's finisher, which he also uses in singles, three-way and battle royale matches. If someone is interested in a member's finisher, that info's a click away, in the proper place. Same goes for singles titles (except when won while actively teaming), hometowns, birthdates, heights and individual weights. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion it's whether there's misleading information. Let me just cite an example: Team Hell No. Now, if you'd been watching you'd notice that they do have a double team finisher of sorts, which is a chokeslam followed by a diving headbutt, which they use semi-regularly. Now, the other half of the time, they've won by chokeslams only and the No! Lock as well. I'm afraid that by only listing the chokeslam into a diving headbutt it's sort of misleading that you wouldn't expect Team Hell No to win a match with the No! Lock. Likewise for the Prime Time Players, they had a double team finisher (double team backbreaker hold and diving elbow drop) which they have only used rarely, while most of the time they win using a Clash of the Titus spinebuster or a Gut Check gutbuster alone. If you list only the double team finisher, won't it be misleading that people reading the article would not expect them to win with a singles move since a double team finisher is already listed? Starship.paint (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we're misleading anyone. We're clear about which wrestlers a team contains, and it's reasonable to assume these wrestlers will often use their finishers to win all kinds of matches. When Kane chokeslams a guy to win a tag match, it's because that's his finisher. Bryan has nothing to do with the move, so the move has nothing to do with the team. Kane also used this finisher while teaming with Undertaker, X-Pac, Big Show and Rob Van Dam. In the same sense, he also uses his thrust to the throat, side suplex and flying clothesline, whether he's alone or in a tag. This is all Kane stuff, not Team Hell No stuff. Same idea goes for The Prime Time Players and every other team. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't day every other team because for example the Doomsday Device originally used by the Road Warriors is clearly a team move, one that would be extremely difficult, not to mention highly impractical for a single person to use.--64.229.167.20 (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The Doomsday Device is fine. It involves both wrestlers, so it's a tag team move. But Animal's powerslam and Hawk's neckbreaker are not, even if they win Road Warrior tag matches. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

List the finishers used for the team. Obviously. Whether it's single finishers or double finishers, if it's used FOR the team, they need to be included in here. If it's relevant to the team, then add it. If they win matches over single finishers, add the single finishers. This seems obvious to me. Srsrox (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Used for the team, but not by the team. All singles signature moves are also usually used in tag matches, for the team. Should we add those? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that they need to be included per reasons mentioned above.--64.229.167.20 (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hulk, your argument does have some point to it. Yet I still have some reservations. Nothing against your argument that only team stuff belongs in the article, but I still maintain that there is some element of "misleading" information by dis-inclusion. It's a consequence of not listing everything related to the singles wrestlers (heights, hometown, signature moves etc). I'm reluctantly willing to concede baring a massive outburst of support for my POV. Starship.paint (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that the best way is a votation. I think that the discussion is in a dead way right now. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible article name change: Tyler Black -> Seth Rollins

Regarding the article of Tyler Black, WP:PW may wish to voice their opinion on the possible article name change to Seth Rollins here. Starship.paint (talk) 08:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to bring up the possibilities of Joe Anoa'i -> Roman Reigns and Ettore Ewen -> Big E Langston Starship.paint (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I request support on Michael Brendli -> Mike Mondo. thanks --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Canvassing. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Gary, I wasn't aware that this was illegal. Edited my above posts. Starship.paint (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

One more, Daniel Briley. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Face and heel turns in headers

Now, I know that it's WP:PW policy to not list face or heel turns in headers. I can see the rationale why, with the commonly cited example Kane, that the multitude of turns would make the article seem quite hilarious. Yet, I do believe that certain articles do warrant for the use of face and heel turns in headers, because they do not turn as often as Kane and their turns do mean an actual change in their characters, storylines and careers such that a new subsection is warranted in their articles. Going down the list, people who do deserve such "privileges"... Alex Riley, Alberto Del Rio, Eve Torres, The Miz, Tyson Kidd and maybe Sheamus. What do you all think? Starship.paint (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with listing face or heel is citing a reliable source. The terminology is loosely defined by the fans themselves whether they like them on a week-to-week basis, and can change from person-to-person. It's better to just leave it out, honestly. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 13:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Babyfaces are good guys / heroes, heels are bad guys / villains, whether the fans cheer for them at events is secondary. Since that is the definition, it's actually possible to find reliable sources to cite turns. From a single reliable source PWTorch...

The Miz addressed his recent face turn in an interview... There are a few issues in-play with Miz's face turn. One is that there was not that Moment when he officially turned and aligned his values with the audience's. Right now, he's just in a face role because he pivoted toward calling out established heels, rather than established face.
Alberto Del Rio suddenly hit the ringside area to attack 3MB. Del Rio got the upperhand, but the numbers game caught up to Del Rio, who is apparently turning face.
Eve heel turn CALDWELL & PARKS WEEKLY CHAT 2/24: Mania Big Four set, Eve heel turn... (discusses 2/20 Raw) ... Then, throw in Eve's heel turn to make Cena seem even more sympathetic... What did you make of how Eve's turn played out and what's next for Ryder and/or Kane?
Kidd offers a handshake to Barreta, who accepts. This seems to continue Kidd's face turn that started on Superstars recently.
Sheamus looks to be a fully-fledged face now. Starship.paint (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else could comment on this? Starship.paint (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it, if the turn is truly significant to the push or gimmick, or related to some larger angle which already has (or deserves) a new section. If a guy is just floating in the midcard, wrestling heels, then turns heel and floats in the midcard wrestling faces, that's not worth a section. I don't watch WWE that closely these last few years, but from what I've seen, Alex Riley and The Miz are basically the same guy, heel or face. Eve had something going with the whole GM thing, though. I wasn't aware Tyson Kidd even had a personality. I also wouldn't count on sources with the words "seems" or "apparently", if there's any doubt.InedibleHulk (talk) 10:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Vladimir Kozlov age

Does somebody know the real age of Vladimir Kozlov? I see a lot of soucres, but everyone says a different thing. igf say that he was born in 1969. OWOW, in 1979. Cagematch and VSPLANTET, in 1972. Who's wrong? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No clue, but I know OWW is generally pretty bad for typos. If VSPLANET is a reliable source, I'd go with 1972, just because two sources is more than one. WrestlingData also says 1972, so if they count, three is more than two. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd imagine IGF would know his real age.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, since he works for IGF, it does make sense that they would know the real date (primary source?) compared to the other sources (secondary source?) Starship.paint (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources aren't always the most reliable, especially when that source is a wrestling promotion. Andre the Giant was often claimed by his promoters to be 7'5" and undefeated. According to primary source, he wrestled Hogan in front of 93,000 people. All of these claims have been refuted (or at least disputed, in WrestleMania III's case). Consider this: WWE.com lists Kozlov at 6'8. IGF says he's 198 cm (6'6"). He's worked for both promotions, so both are primary sources, but they can't both be right. WP:PSTS says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." I don't really know which source(s) to use here, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

True, promotions have been known to inflate heights and weights... but dates of birth? Starship.paint (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. I have no evidence for it, off the top of my head. They sure do "bend the truth" about places of birth, names and general history, though. We know his name is Oleg Prudius and that he isn't Russian, but the IGF page seems to say "Alexander Kozlov" is (I can't read Japanese). Hard to know where or why they draw the work/shoot line. Maybe their date is true, but I think we'd be staying truer to Wikipedia's verifiability policy by going with what most independent secondary sources say, without some sort of clear authority (like a birth certificate). InedibleHulk (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I'll concede. Here's a profightdb source for 1972 as well. Starship.paint (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

On the bright side (I suppose), that IGF profile is a better source for his billed height and weight than his WWE profile (which didn't match the height in the Wiki article anyway). Thanks for bringing it up. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I think that's better to delete the Kozlov birth date until we'll have a better soucre.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

But how will we know if one source is better, without knowing his actual birthday? WP:Conflicting sources suggests we should include all reliably sourced birthdates, not remove all. Not sure how I feel about that, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

In that case, Kozlov will have 3 or 4 birth dates. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I don't agree with that essay. Just saying what it says. ~~I think we're in the wrong section, though.~~ InedibleHulk (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Name change

First, Daniel Bridley to Nightmare Danny Davis. Now, Dan Marsh -> Dangerous Danny Davis. Does somebody want to talk in the talk page? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

And another one: Edward Leslie->Brutus Beefcake. Talk:Edward Leslie. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

And still another one - Karl Istaz –> Karl Gotch. As with the others, the current name doesn't appear to make the most sense, especially since there's no indication of him wrestling under his real name. Also, this article doesn't appear to have his nationality/birthplace straight (I always understood him to be Belgian and not German). RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 22:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

For Gotch, I posted a move request at WP:RM for an administrator to just move it, since I can't see it as being potentially controversial at all. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Can somebody give his opinion in Dan Marsh? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions

There seems to be a bit of an issue regarding this page, with someone adding that the current World Heavyweight Championship is the same title. I removed the information once already, citing WP:EXCEPTIONAL and lack of effort to amend a single other related page. I also noted in my removal that something of this nature should be formally discussed, on either that talk page or here on the project page, yet neither was done. As I consider myself only a "casual" editor in terms of getting too in depth on here, I wanted to appeal to anyone in the community that can help settle this issue. 67.181.76.194 (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

We are disscusing it in the talk page. Can somebody help us? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

WrestleMania XXIX → WrestleMania 29

I have started the move request for WrestleMania XXIX to move it to WrestleMania 29 input from other PW members would be greatly appreciated.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 02:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrestleview archives down

As can be seen from [4] and many other old WrestleView results, WrestleView's archives appear to be down. Better grab the Google Caches / Wayback Machines / WebCite a Cache for the links. Starship.paint (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, profightdb (internet wrestling database) has been hacked and may contain malware, beware. Starship.paint (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Women's History Month is in March

Hi everyone at WikiProject Professional wrestling!

Women's history month is around the corner, in March, and we're planning the second WikiWomen's History Month.

This event, which is organized by volunteers from the WikiWomen's Collaborative, supports improving coverage about women's history during the month of March. Events take place both offline and online. We are encouraging WikiProjects to focus on women's history related to their subject for the month of March. Ideas include:

Improving biographies about women wrestlers and women who have made an impact on professional wrestling
Article development in regarding the history of women in professional wrestling
Improving content about women's professional wrestling groups and organizations

We hope you'll participate! You can list your your project focus here, and also help improve our to-do list. Thank you for all you do for Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been thinking of creating an article for Ginger the Wrestling Bear, but kept putting it off. This has inspired me to go for it (but I'll probably still put it off till late February). In the meantime, I'm sure Penny Banner and friends could use some dusting. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Kinda early notice.... I'd suppose the (recent) histories of those who've recently left WWE could do some tidying up of week-by-week. In fact probably all the current WWE females need that. Also, PAIGE. Starship.paint (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion - look at Category:Female professional wrestlers by nationality and if nothing else do copy edits of the Mexican/Japanese etc. female wrestlers who do not get a lot of attention, you don't need to know anything about say La Amapola to do a copy edit of it. Just a suggestion to do in March. I think the current WWE women probably get attention in general, let's look at the more neglected female wrestlers instead. MPJ -US 04:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Cagematch

Why is this site no considered reliable? I think it is. Perhaps I don't understand the Wikipedia meaning of reliable. If OWOW is reliable then why is Cagematch not.Statoke (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Noting here for posterity's sake: see my comments at User_talk:GamingWithStatoke#Cagematch, particularly my second one where I point out that cagematch self-identify on their main page as a "fan site". NiciVampireHeart 11:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The quote on that page says "Cageboard" and "Ratings", which is their forums and user comments - not their actual data. It's no different than a reliable news site like yahoo allowing comments or wrestling news sites that also have a forum. That in itself does not make the site unreliable, the challenge is if there is some kind of editorial process in place for reviewing the match results etc. MPJ -US 14:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of the Royal Rumble...

I propose we ignore NOTAFORUM, and make our picks. I say Lesnar's got it. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

sorry, missed this. Maybe you should post this a bit earlier... Starship.paint (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. Maybe next year. Let's go, Kofi! InedibleHulk (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

How many people are going to be offended by this, I wonder? I booked an ending in my mind wherein Paul Bearer shows up towards the end. Not with The Undertaker, but rather, he exhumed Chris Benoit, who proceeds to apply the Crippler Crossface to everyone beyond the point of tapping out, if you know what I mean. I could go further and talk about Benoit screaming "Daniel!!!" while doing the dirty deed, but I should probably leave it at this. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 09:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

??????? Starship.paint (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Not offended, just dismayed. Tony2Times (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

^ Caldwell, James. "CALDWELL'S WWE RAW RESULTS 7/23: Complete "virtual-time" coverage of live Raw #999 - WWE recognizes 1,000 episodes, WWE Title match, Lesnar, Rock, DX, wedding". Pro Wrestling Torch. Retrieved 29 July 2012.
^ Stephens, David. "Raw 1,000 Results - 7/23/12". Wrestleview. Retrieved 15 November 2012.

[1] Caldwell, James. "CALDWELL'S WWE RAW RESULTS 7/23: Complete "virtual-time" coverage of live Raw #999 - WWE recognizes 1,000 episodes, WWE Title match, Lesnar, Rock, DX, wedding". Pro Wrestling Torch. Retrieved 29 July 2012.

[2] Stephens, David. "Raw 1,000 Results - 7/23/12". Wrestleview. Retrieved 15 November 2012.

[1]

[2]