Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 89

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 85 ← Archive 87 Archive 88 Archive 89 Archive 90 Archive 91 → Archive 95

Job Titles or Accomplishments?

I've seen quite a few borderline edit wars over the years over the listing of authority figure positions (i.e. General Manager, Owner, etc) and where they are listed. Most list them under the Championships and Accomplishments section; like the Vince McMahon, Stephanie McMahon, and Theodore Long articles do. However on John Laurinaitis' article lists his various titles under Job Titles in the In Wrestling section. The styles guide does not make a mention of where to place the authority figure positions. So, once and for all, where should they go? Personally I do not think they belong in the Championships and Accomplishments section because they are neither championships nor accomplishments.-LM2000 (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

In my view, they belong in the C&A. General Manager (or similar) isn't an "actual" job, but it's a huge role. That a promotion decides someone deserves that level of prominence in TV storylines indicates they've done a promotion-worthy job. No belt along with it, but Teddy Long (for example) being bumped up to GM from manager/referee is roughly the same as The Ultimate Warrior being bumped from IC champ to WWF champ. Different fields, but both are a sign of appreciation and trust from McMahon, not "real" accomplishments (in that Long isn't actually great at managing a roster, and Hogan let Warrior win). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I think like LM2000. It's not a championship nor a wrestling accomplishment, it's a storyline role, without power. Championship is a championship, accomplishment are awards, tournaments... but storyline, fictional jobs... sorry Hulk, but I don't see as C or A. Any case, I think that it's more accomplishment to be a real producer, real creative or real trainer. For Laurinaitis, I think that's a good option, a section with real job titles and fictional. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
What about TNA's Feast or Fired briefcases? One was recently added to Scott Steiner's article. I see that as just a number one contender's thing. Also, what about "Created WrestleMania" for Vince McMahon? Started a discussion on that talk page. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I removed some of the Briefcase in TNA. Why? I don't see them notable. It's a #1 contender spot, but it isn't the MITB. WWE.com says a hundred times who wrestlers won the MITB, I think that TNA never said when a wrestler won a FoF briefcase (Also, the IP/User added the fired briefcase, i don't think that it is an accomplishment). Also, included that Daivari was the captain of Team International. I think that we have to put championships and awards from notable magazines and tournaments/matches (KOTR, KOTM, Rey de Reyes, MITB, RR...) In wrestling, anything can be an accomplishment: created WM (mcmahon), undefeated (taker, joe, golberg, ryback, andre the giant), never submit (taker), created MITB (Jericho)... too much thing. For the job titles, I think that is better create a section and write his backstage roles. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Everything beyond the essential accomplishments that HHH mentioned gets iffy. While Hulk's theory about Long's rise to GM being an accomplishment is a good thought, I do think that if authority positions are to be listed it needs to be universal. It's confusing to see the same thing listed in two different places on two different pages. Sometimes it isn't mentioned at all. WWE.com has GM and Commissioner positions listed as career highlights for Kurt Angle, Mick Foley, and William Regal but as I stated originally, when these things are added to articles they are usually removed, then readded later on, etc. I think these authority figure positions are obviously notable otherwise multiple users wouldn't try to add them so many times in the first place, and they wouldn't be mentioned so prevalently in their WWE bios. But because the styles guide makes no mention of where to put them good faith editors on both sides butt heads over where it goes or if it gets mentioned at all. If they are to be listed, job titles does seem to be the most logical place in my opinion.LM2000 (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
One thing. Andre's bio says that a career highlight is nearly 15 years undefeated in WWE. I still think that, better the Laurinaitis guide. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
That's a half-truth, anyway. He lost plenty of tag matches (and a lot more battle royales than WWE wants to admit). Even if the other guy usually took the fall, it was still partly Andre's fault. Now Yukon Eric, there's a streak! 48 years undefeated anywhere, not even a DQ. Seriously though, I don't really care if or where we list job titles. As long as they're mentioned in the body, that's the important thing for me. I'm going to delete Steiner's briefcase, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd list the Feast or Fired case...it is essentially TNA's version of Money in the Bank. No go on job titles. (talk) Vjmlhds 01:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
What about the "fired" briefcase? I reverted someone for that recently, too. Mainly because they called it the TNA Fired Championship, though. Anyway, that's a pretty shitty "accomplishment", isn't it? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
That made me laugh pretty hard. When it comes to the "iffy" accomplishments I generally don't add them personally and I don't have the passion to revert them myself, in most cases, but I think it's pretty clear that the "Fired" Championship doesn't belong.LM2000 (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
John Cena's kayfabe job titles include SmackDown Superstar (2002-2005), Raw Superstar (2005-present). Should we included this for every wrestler? No. Job titles are neither a championship, nor an accomplishment. They have a place in the narrative of wrestling and the biographies of performers, but they are list cruft provided by editors who think that if they fill everyone's pages with lists of things it will make wrestlers, commentators and authority figures somehow more important. Tony2Times (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
We need to consider the extent to which the job title sets the character apart. SmackDown Superstar isn't notable, since at any time, there were about 50 others. There is almost always only just one GM/President/Chairman/whatever at a time, and whoever that is gets major airtime, like a champ. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I understand that Theddy Long is famour because he is GM in three brands in WWE. But I think that this fake job titles (because he hasn't powers, he is only GM on-screen) are Highlights, no championships or accomplishment. To TNA Briefcase, I don't think that are notable. WWE remembers us 100 times that Cena won the Rumble, Edge won the MITB and Austin won the KOTR, so it's notable. But TNA never mentionated when Joe won a Briefcase, it's like Shawn Michaels won the Elimination Chamber I. TNA used the briefcase as a normal one contenders match, no as a notable accomplishment, I Think.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, we don't know where is the limit. We put General Manager, but we must put also Assistant of GM (Maddox)? Referee (Tiffany in TNA)? Leader of Evolution (Triple H)? Legal Advisor (Otunga)? Representative of The Network (Cyrus)? President of WWF (Monsoon)? Sorry, but I don't understand why we have to put President of WWF in Monsoon's Article as an acomplishment if he never was the President of WWF. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
He was every bit as "real" a president as Sgt. Slaughter "actually" beat Warrior to become a "real" champion. Both are entirely fictional, but served major story purposes. I don't think it would confuse a reader who presumably understands that wrestling is less-than-legit. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
It's an interesting argument to make, and you're right that this can be a slippery slope. I agree with HHH that kayfabe job titles are a highlight, but much like actual wrestling accomplishments we have to decide which are notable enough to mention. Your standard referee and Smackdown Superstar positions probably deserve to be highlighted as much a Beer Money Tag Team Tournament does.LM2000 (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Since we're on the subject of authority figures: last I checked, Professional wrestling authority figures is very much a case of WP:UNDUE in that only three promotions are listed. Kayfabe onscreen authority figures have a much greater history than that. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 01:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't even have to click to know which three they'd be. I may work on that later. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
So, do we have a conclussion or not? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Joe Hennig

If somebody want's to know, we are discussing the name of Joe Hennig's article. Michael McGillucutty or Curtis Axel?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Limit in C&A

I have been watching some of C&A section of wrestlers. We are discussing about if GM is a Championship or an accomplishment to put in the section. But I saw a lot of thing that I don't know if we have to put in the section. What do you thing? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Awards from magazines and web pages: I understand that PWI and WON are notable magazines and deserves to be in the C&A, but we're talking about minor magazines and webpages. Where is the limit? Mickie James won an award Wrestling Clothesline (what the hell is this?) and GLORY (?). The Colons won the Puerto Rico Wrestling Tag team of the year, but who is PR wrestling? Eve Torres won an award from Diva Dirt? It's notable? Dawn Marie won awards from Diva Dirt and Bleacher Report, same case. Every single webpage and magazine made his weekly/monthly/annual rankings and give awards, but I don't think that every one of them are notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Minor Tournaments: King of the Ring, King of the Mountain, Bound for Glory Series, Royal Rumble... these are notable matches and tournaments in wrestling, but I see a lot of minor, no notable tournaments (specially, in TNA wrestlers) Hard 10 Tournament (The Sandman), Paparazzi Series (Shelley), a lot of Numer 1 contenders tournament (Beer Money, Shelley). Some of them have nice names, but aren't notable. Triple H won a lot of Numer 1 contenders tournament, but I don't see them, because wrestling have a lot of things like that. Crimson won the Nighmare Rumble. Nice name, but it was only a match, no A MATCH. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Aside from the Road to WrestleMania in 2006 and King of the Ring in 1997, which tournaments has Triple H won? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Awards outside wrestling I don't see it. Keibler won a lot of awards from magazines, but no one is a wrestling awards. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
As a general rule on wikipedia, fan sites don't count towards anything. Likewise, Bleacher Report is considered unreliable. So anything fitting this description should be removed. I've seen Cauliflower Alley Club, Pro Wrestling Report, and International Wrestling Institute and Museum (AKA George Tragos/Lou Thez Hall of Fame) listed (as well as other more notable actual HOFs like the Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame) and I think these are credible because they actually have ceremonies where recipients actually show up, when possible. I agree with you on all of minor tournaments though. Brock Lesnar, Mark Henry, and Tara/Victoria are examples of how to separate non-wrestling awards in the C&A section.LM2000 (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
CAC isn't quite as notable? Wow. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 01:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it is notable. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, the ones I mentioned specifically in that sentence are ones that I think should be included in C&A because they're credible unlike fansites and Bleacher Report. When I said the PWHOF was "more notable" I was referring to it being more notable than the International Wrestling Institute and Museum.LM2000 (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we should limit the awards to the more established dirtsheets and websites. For tournament wins, like titles, everything sourced is acceptable, whether it's King of the Ring or some obscure one-night thing in Austria. Awards from outside of wrestling belong in the relevant subsection, not the C&A. (Actually, it's good how Victoria does it, like LM2000 says). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I dont think that every sourced torunament is acceptable. I don't know, but a lot of them aren't notable. For example, Rey won a tournament for the WWE Title. Something like WWE Championship Tournament (2012) it's stupid, because in 50 years, WWE has hosted near 1000 tournaments. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
52 tournaments, according to WrestlingData. 78 if you count the Royal Rumble as a melee tournament. I'd figure a tournament for the WWE Championship would be one of the most notable possible (It was 2011, by the way). WWF Tag Team Championship Number One Contenders Tournament (1997), not so much. I don't really care enough to argue for it on Wikipedia, but I personally count tournament wins as achievements, like belts. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Does that figure include the apocryphal Rio de Janeiro tournaments? RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 18:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
No, but I'd still count Patterson's win as the most important that never happened. Here are the 2721 tournaments they list for all promotions, if anyone's interested. Wins are also noted in the wrestler profiles. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't think so. Like weekly matches, we can put a ource in every match that Cena or Michaels had in their career, but we don't put every weekly match because aren't notable. The same, a number One contender tournament for the IC Title... I don0't think that it's notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

How about none? The most exposure PWI and WON have today is the references to them on Wikipedia. Eliminate all magazine rankings from the C&A. Feedback ☎ 22:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about that. Newsletters and magazines have been largely killed by the Internet, but when a lot of these were awarded, they were still very alive. Even now, most news sites still recycle Observer stories, and info sites still copy the PWI lists. I'm not for having "Ranked #126 of 500 in 1999", or runners-up for the category awards, but #1 is still notable. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Also don't think you can compare a tournament to a single match. There are about 52 matches a month in WWE. Those certainly aren't all notable. But yeah, like I said, don't really care what we do about those here. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Dave Meltzer and WON just had a piece done about them in the New York Times just last week. He is the most respected wrestling journalist ever and anything with that weight behind it is notable. Likewise, PWI is still sold around the country and I think the awards (specifically PWI 500) are a good barometer to measure popularity over time especially because of its kayfabe nature. I think that these awards should stay because they're not all that different from the award sections on film actor articles... their work was recognized and awarded by major publications in their respective industry and I think we should acknowledge that.LM2000 (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
So that means his silly awards deserve to be in C&A sections? If Hogan says AJ Styles is his favorite wrestler, should that also go in there? This is absurd. Feedback ☎ 01:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I hate typing out a thoughtful response to a discussion and having it deleted because of an edit conflict because someone insisted on dragging down the discussion with an irrelevant strawman argument. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
While Meltzer does do the ranking system himself, the WON awards are polls. WON conducts them. If Hogan were to write a nonkayfabe editorial about how AJ is the greatest wrestler alive then that would be encyclopedic but would not be an award so it wouldn't be relevant to the C&A section. Meltzer did say Ric Flair was the greatest wrestler ever and this is not included in Flair's C&A but is mentioned elsewhere because it is very encyclopedic but, again, is not an award.LM2000 (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The difference between Hulk Hogan's opinion and Meltzer's is one "has conceivably written more than 33 million words, nearly all of which have been in the service of analyzing an often-maligned athletic event" and has been described as "the most accomplished reporter in sports journalism". Hulk Hogan legdropped fine, but wasn't regarded as an expert in wrestling analysis. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Even those known to support Meltzer are occasionally given to maligning him, this early-era subscriber to the Observer included. Getting a write-up in the NYT is certainly nothing to scoff at. However, what about the journalists from Tokyo Sports who have provided color commentary over the years on Japanese wrestling programs? That's network television exposure, the sort of exposure I'm sure Meltzer would give his left nut for. Oh yeah, let's not forget the sort of exposure which comes from writing about wrestling in a publication such as Tokyo Sports, compared to the sort of circulation the Observer enjoys. Just hoping we can keep things in proper perspective. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 03:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Nothing against Japanese expert commentators. I just can't understand a word they say and even less of what they write. Even Google Translated, it's still pretty confusing. If the top guys there give similar awards, we should note those. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
No one is disputing Meltzer's credentials as a journalist. I'm disputing whether the fact he gives out awards is noteworthy as an "accomplishment". You think CM Punk or John Cena feel "accomplished" when Meltzer gives them an "award"? Please, the WON awards are just a silly pastime that Meltzer does once a year. It is not more noteworthy than WWE's Power 25. Feedback ☎ 13:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
All forms of entertainment have their silly annual awards. Power 25 shifted every week (or month, I forget). A WON or PWI award is more like an Oscar or BAFTA. Power 25 like the MuchMusic Countdown. I'd guess Cena and Punk feel at least a bit honoured. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty much 100% positive that more people know about the Power 25 than the PWI rankings. These are low-level magazines that are viewed by a minority of wrestling fans. Including them is silly. Feedback ☎ 05:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
People know about Power 25, but the problem is that Power 25 isn't neutral, It's a ranking that WWE create and it's promotional (If they want to put over somebody like ryback, they put #1 becuse they want it). But PWI and WOn are the most respected magazines in pro wrestling, Like Rolling Stones. TNA uploaded a video about Rosita winning the PWI Most Inspirational Wrestler award, WCW said on Nitro that Goldberg won the PWI Rookie of the Year Award, Kigs of Wrestling said in ROH that the were the Tag Team of the Year. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
That's my question. The limit? I think that PWI and WON must to be in the articles, because are the most notable publications in wrestling world. It's like Rolling Stone rankings and awards. People in the magazines know about the business and are neutral. Neutral isn't subjective, because everything is subjective, the rolling stone and the academy awards, but these people aren't in a company, too much different when we are talking about WWE Weekly Top 25. my question: Eve Torres, diva dirt award for blahblah. Notable? Because if diva dirt appears in a wiki article, why not Cagematch awards? Or my blog, where I put annual awards? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Since we're sort of back on the original topic for the time being, I think we should probably axe the Diva Dirt awards. Personally I think the criteria for including non-WON or PWI awards should be that the organizations listed are run by either notable critics or people who have actually worked in the professional wrestling industry, or if an actually awards ceremony takes place. The editors for Diva Dirt appear to be fans. I'm sure they run a good site but I don't think they have the credentials to make the cut. If you start including one fansite, even if it is well run, there's no stopping austinmark316 from posting his annual awards that he hosts on his Angelfire page.LM2000 (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's good criteria. If by "awards ceremony" you mean an actual ceremony with awardees present. We're in the future now, and I can see someone claiming a podcast or chat is a ceremony, and the wrestler acknowledging it on Twitter is an acceptance speech. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Sounds about right. Just because austinmark316 buys a webcam and upgrades his awards show from Angelfire to YouTube doesn't make him suddenly a reliable source.LM2000 (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The Shield - lead dispute

Hello WP:PW members, yes, I have returned from WikiBreak, good to be back! :) I've jumped right into a dispute regarding the lead of The Shield (professional wrestling) because I essentially rewrote it, added/removed infomation and most importantly I added explicit sources with quotes and archives to back up what I said because I felt that the other sources in the article were not as explicit. Instead, AmericanDad86 feels that the previous lead is better from the article, that I used excessive sources from my lead, so he would rather keep the previous lead which I feel has a number of unsourced (and even ridiculous: terrorist gang) statements. I would like you all to click on the link on the title, read the two leads and our arguments and hopefully, take a stand. Thank you. Starship.paint (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Nice to see you. I think that your verion is better. It explains better what is The Shield and, If you have sources, good. Also, what's wrong with the jargon? It's an encyclopedia, we talk for clever people, not for children. Adult people know what is a " first-person hand-held recorded promo" and if the people don't know, they can find it, but erase it because is "jargon" I see stupid. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your support HHH Pedrigree, could you mind posting it on that particular talk page? Thank you! Starship.paint (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Start The Wyatt Family page?

I was wondering if we should create a page for the current NXT Tag Team Champions and soon to be debuting stable known as The Wyatt Family? WWE aired their vignette on Raw this past monday and the group began in NXT Wrestling. Should there be a page for them or wait until they make a impact on the main roster? Keith Okamoto (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I prefer to wait. They can be like the dudebusters or Puerto Rican Nightmares. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. We just deleted a bunch of stables and teams for notability reasons last month. They may reach Horsemen success, or they may be the next Team Co-Bro. Impact first. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
If there are sufficient reliable sources, go ahead and create it. Some people who don't understand WP:N might nominate it for deletion because of a non-reason like the length of time the team had been around, but we can always hope that the closing administrators in deletion discussions will someday remember that the [i]actual[/i] notabililty guidelines are more important than the number of votes from people who have simply created their own criteria. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
They are notable. Bray Wyatt's stable has been active for over a year. It's the insignificant developmental tag teams and stables that should be deleted. Feedback ☎ 22:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
If someone wants to create it, I'm not so opposed that I'll try to delete it or argue notability. Just enough to say "I'd wait" once here. I wish those three well, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I still thinking that we have to wait. With sources like PWTorch, PWInsider or WON and 7 weekly shows, we can create any tag team, like Cena & Ryback or Cro Bro. I only see that the TV Programs are notable, no the tag teams. When the Tag team will make an impact on WWE, we should create it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, some fan out there is definitely going to create it soon (if not once they debut on Raw). The question is, are we going to try to delete that article? Starship.paint (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't try to delete any tag team ofthe project. I only create an AfD in some cases. For example, a Tag Team that was formed three years ago and somebody create the article, but hree months later, the tag team was disbanded and in 3 years nobody remember it. If a fan create the article I don't try to delete, but I don't want that, in 2017, find an article that says "Wyatt family spent one year in NXT, where they won the tag team championship. They wrestled in the main roster and, one month later, the disbanded because Brodie Lee was fired"--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Personally I'd rather see an individual standalone article for Erick Rowan first, if anybody can find any decent sources. Duffs101 (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Not a bad idea, but if it is easier to establish notability for the Wyatt Family than it is to establish notability for Rowan individually then the family should come first.LM2000 (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Style guide

Unsure of how many people watch WP:PW/SG, so noting this edit of mine here. Personally, I feel it's a long overdue one – Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turning Point (2008)/archive4 was in February 2012. For those interested, Turning Point (2008 wrestling) is the project's most recently promoted FA. Kindly let me know if disagreement ensues, I haven't had any WP:PW pages watchlisted in a very long time. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 09:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Courtney Rush's real name

Could some of you give your thoughts on Courtney Rush wanting her real name removed from Wikipedia? I put the real name on the article and was approached by Tabercil about removing it. Please post your thoughts here.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

HELL NO. We have rules. We have reliable sources. In Spanish wikipedia, I have a lot of problems because mexican luchadores don't want their real names in Wikipedia (special, El Hijo del Santo and Mistico. One time, El hijo del santo's lawler said to us that put the real name is against the Constitution.). But hell no, we can't write articles with sources if people appear and tell us what they want. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm...one of my primary areas of interest is biographical articles. Unfortunately, one of the impediments to writing proper biographical articles is when people, often people directly associated with or partial to the subject, throw up the BLP shield as an excuse to instead turn them into hagiographies. I had this discussion once with one of the admins whom I occasionally converse with here. It was his opinion that if properly sourced information exists, there's not necessarily any recourse on their part. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 19:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
RadioKAOS why don't you post your opinion on that particular talk page... Ribbon Salminen has provided a link... It would also help if you got straight to your point / stated your position at the start of your post. Starship.paint (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I realize that most folks today are conditioned to think in soundbites, but I don't handle that quite as well. Also, remember that I'm ancient. When someone mentions "the point", I usually think of Harry Nilsson and "Me and My Arrow". RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 19:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I like the cut of your jib. The point's always there, but comes wrapped in an interesting bonus siderant. And you've enlightened this whippersnapper more than a few times by Wikilinking your archaic pop references. Too many ancients just wing those out there, and miss by a mile. With you, it seems more educational than spiteful or out-of-touch. You're no Abe Simpson yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion alert

There has been a discussion flashing across my watchlist this morning at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Link to ProWresBlog which may be of interest to folks here (there, is that concise enough?). RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 19:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move: Claudio Castagnoli > Antonio Cesaro

You can vote here. McPhail (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thrasher (wrestler) and Mosh (wrestler)

I'd like to merge these two articles into a single article at The Headbangers. My view is that neither wrestler had a particularly significant singles career and so it would make sense to cover their careers in a single article. Please let me know if you have any thoughts on this. McPhail (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. They spent enough of their careers in singles wrestling to warrant separate articles (which could stand some expansion on their own). Things are fine as they are right now. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Mosh did have that run as Chaz and Beaver Cleavage that could be argued as notable enough for his own article. The conclusion of that angle did see the reformation of The Headbangers so that argument could go either way.LM2000 (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Thrasher has had some success as a singles wrestler, too. Debatable what a WWF Hardcore and WWA (Jersey, I think) Heavyweight title are worth, but definitely separate from Mosh/Chaz. They're much more closely linked than say, Ax and Smash or the Hardys, but still enough of their own histories (as people and characters), which would seem out of place in the Headbanger article. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

NXT Wrestlers on Wikipedia

What exactly are the criteria for giving certain wrestlers on NXT their own Wikipedia article? I have one saved in my pages that I had recently brought up in a discussion that has been archived and I have been working on it when I have had the time and as resources have become available to validate the information necessary to at least create a start-class article to allow other editors to contribute and build upon what I have started. The link to the page is right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scca8704/Sam_Udell . Any recommendations and help would be greatly appreciated. Scca8704 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thing about having an article, you need notability, which would be demonstrated by multiple reliable secondary sources (list is here). Right now I'm not seeing any from your article. How to get the sources? Two things: 1) While in NXT, has he debuted on the television show, and if so has he won a match (not presented like a jobber)? Unfortunately a jobber is all that Travis Tyler is right now. It's not really notable if he's getting squashed. 2) What did he do before NXT? If he was in the independent/international circuit? If he was involved in the "bigger" independent/international shows you can find secondary sources. (See Pac (wrestler) / Sterling James Keenan / Brodie Lee) If he was in football or bodybuilding you might be able to elaborate on that too. (See Percy Watson (released I know) / Roman Reigns / Big E Langston). Looking at CageMatch and Profightdb, Tyler hasn't been on the independent scene, so you're finding no sources on that unfortunately. If you ask me, he definitely does not deserve an article now, until he is promoted from jobber status. Starship.paint (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm just making sure. The Colorado Independent Wrestling scene doesn't always have reliable websites and it doesn't give me much to go on. I do know he does have a notable amateur wrestling background but I'm still doing the research on that. Again I appreciate the feedback.Scca8704 (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

Scott Garland (wrestler) > Scotty 2 Hotty.

You can vote here. McPhail (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

WWE and NXT

Manager (professional wrestling)

When we look at the manager article, we have what I consider "traditional" managers in Paul Bearer, Jimmy Hart and Armando Estrada, and then we have a weirdly named section "Nomenclature" which talks about valets and enforcers. Question I would like to ask is, are these valets and enforcers considered as managers as well?

Why does this matter? Because according to the style guide, in each professional wrestler's "In wrestling" section there is both a "managed by" and "managed for" list. Let me point you to the Dolph Ziggler article right now. Ziggler's managers are listed as Taryn Terrell, Big Rob, Maria, Vickie Guerrero, Kaitlyn, Jack Swagger, AJ Lee and Big E Langston. Ziggler is said to have managed Kerwin White, Vickie Guerrero, Jack Swagger and Big E Langston. Now the most obvious example of a traditional manager for Ziggler would be Guerrero, but AJ is clearly a valet and Big E (probably Big Rob as well) is clearly an enforcer. So do valets and enforcers deserve to be under this "managed by" list?
Meanwhile Ziggler is considered to have managed White, (because he was his caddy?) Vickie, (because he accompanied her to a ring for her match?) Swagger, (because they were both being managed by Vickie?) and Big E (because Big E is his enforcer and Big E was presumably having a match?) Lots of ??? here. Starship.paint (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Personally I think of "manager" as a catch-all term for "person who accompanies wrestlers to the ring and isn't a wrestler themselves". McPhail (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
A bigger isdue I see is that the manager article has no sources whatsoever. That needs so work.--174.93.167.9 (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
In my eyes, a wrestling "manager" should seem more businesslike, and concerned with getting their clients up the ladder. I'd apply it to people like Mr. Fuji, Bobby Heenan or Alexandra York. Someone who mostly cheerleads at ringside (virtually any "Diva"), or stands there with crossed arms (virtually any "Superstar") isn't a manager to me.
But yeah, that's my view. Wikipedia should count Kelly Kelly and Langston as managers. The distinctions are clear to some, but not to others, and it would lead to subjective arguments about who to include in "Managed (by)" sections. As for the article itself, of course, needs sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Kelly Kelly? Did you mean AJ? Anyway, okay, if we consider Vickie, AJ and Big E as Ziggler's managers in the broad sense of the term, then Ziggler cannot be their manager am I right? He should not be listed as the manager of Vickie or Big E or Swagger. Starship.paint (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
No, I just used her as one example, and Langston as another. Didn't mean them as a set. I don't watch as much as I used to, but I just saw AJ last night and understand the setup. AJ's the valet, Vickie's the manager, Langston's the enforcer, Ziggler and Swagger are stablemates and Kaitlyn shouldn't be anywhere near a ring, let alone a belt. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Vickie and Swagger have nothing to do with Ziggler anymore. Just FYI. oknazevad (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I sort of figured that, but wasn't sure. Anyway, his manager section is fixed now. We should stick to sources that explicitly call someone a manager (or similar), rather than synthesizing from single event results of someone accompanying someone to ringside. An accompanier isn't necessarilly a manager (like a move isn't always a signature move). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
In case I wasn't clear, a stablemate is nothing like a manager/enforcer/valet. Dolph Ziggler or Jack Swagger count as nothing like that for any of their crew. Only "Kerwin" for "Nemeth". A caddy is like a valet, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Moved articles

User Kennywood fan has been moving several articles from their common name to their real names without discussion. I'm not on my desktop and am having trouble moving them back.LM2000 (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Cardona redirects to Matthew Cardona (wwe). I don't know if I could make that more wrong if I tried. I think I remember the process for speedy deleting and moving back. I'll give it a shot. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Too complicated. I just asked at the Move Request page instead. Seems to be the last of them. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Citing sources like this.

I refer you to this edit, where the following source from WrestlingInc is added. While we don't consider WrestlingInc reliable (yet at least), we do consider the Wrestling Observer reliable, and the WrestlingInc article seems to have stemmed from the Observer. Yet, since the Observer requires paid subscription we don't actually know if the report really came from the Observer. So should we accept this as a source? Starship.paint (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd use it. That site (like many) regularly cites The Observer. If they were making shit up (in general), some Observer reader with a Twitter account (or Meltzer himself) would have called them on it by now. I think they know it wouldn't be wise to lie. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Karl Pojello wrestler.jpeg

File:Karl Pojello wrestler.jpeg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing virtual time coverage of blah, blah, blah...

Would anyone have a problem with trimming these PWTorch results (like CALDWELL'S WWE RAW RESULTS 12/17: Complete "virtual-time" coverage of live Raw - The strangest show of the year concludes with the debut of a new monster heel; Ric Flair returns") to simply "CALDWELL'S WWE RAW RESULTS 12/17"?

Or to take it a bit further, would it make sense to replace <ref>{{cite web|last=Caldwell|first=James|title=CALDWELL'S WWE RAW RESULTS 10/15: Complete "virtual-time" coverage of live Raw - what was McMahon's "decision?," ten matches|url=http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/wwerawreport/article_65969.shtml#.Ub2V6Oe1F7M| work=Pro Wrestling Torch|accessdate=15 October 2012}}" with <ref>[http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/wwerawreport/article_65969.shtml "CALDWELL'S WWE RAW RESULTS 10/15", from PWTorch.com]</ref>?

These things make take up way too much space and make editing tedious, I find. You? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd strongly disagree with this. Per WP:REF, all this information should be included. McPhail (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
It does only say "typically", but your point is noted.
We could still trim everything after the colon, like the first example (more tagline than title), and be within that guideline. Are you also against that? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't have any objections to that. McPhail (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
John Cena's article is 2,550 bytes lighter, but it's kind of tedious. Do you (or someone else) know of a way a bot could help? Say, scan Wikipedia and remove everything between the colon and whatever "|" is called, wherever it sees "Caldwell's"? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't really have any objections to the "untrimmed" versions, really (but I'm probably the one who added them) Starship.paint (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Diva-Dirt

I'm here to propose WP:PW to consider Diva-Dirt as a reliable sources for wrestling articles. Diva-Dirt gives articles about injurys, personal life, appearances in non wrestling shows such as Nikki Bella as a judge for Miss USA, Full length matches that Wrestleview and other wrestling news sites most of the time don't give. Wrestling sites only care about high profile matches. Baby V (talk) a.k.a Miss X-Factor

All the info you list is already generally covered by reliable sources (here is Nikki Bella from a wrestling site, and here is the press release Diva-Dirt likely read). Not sure if you mean match reviews or videos by "full length matches", but if you mean videos, there's not much we can use from them that wouldn't be synthesis. If there's something specific and useful this site has that I'm missing, let me know. But from what I see, its niche is filled. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I took a look at the diva-dirt "team", and compare it to the PWTorch's team and the PWInsider team. We don't really know who the writers are, nor their background in wrestling. In terms of longevity, compared to the other reliable sources we have currently, they're the newest at 2008. Also, from some of their articles, I get this informal vibe which is not very reassuring. See this?
However, exclusive interviews are fine. Also, seems to have focus on the indies which I'm not sure if other sources provide, another plus point is the featured reviews of DVDs.
Ultimately, Wikipedia:SOURCES states "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." - does it fulfil that? Starship.paint (talk) 07:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree on the Writers thing and this this? However, exclusive interviews and indies that other sources don't provide. I see old FCW matches that was never written about covered on Diva-Dirt until it became NXT covered on there. They cover things that hasn't been covered by other wrestling sites. Baby V (talk) a.k.a Miss X-Factor
Yeah, interviews are fine. Preferably audio or video over text (for verifiability), but text could be useable, depending on the case. That Stephanie article's facts are straight, but even if it wasn't amateurish, it's clearly cited to Lords of Pain (also unreliable), which credits the Observer (reliable). If we needed to use the info and have an online source, LoP is closer on the chain.
Match reviews are iffy. We could probably use them to say what happened in the match (if no higher site does), but not to give any value judgments. Opinions must be made by prestigious analysts. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems this website is already fairly widely used for things that are clearly available from reliable sources (Raw/SmackDown results, rehashed news, etc.). I'll fix them where I can, but (luckily for the site's fans) I'm only one man, and a fairly lazy one. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm a great editor that uses reliable sources for wrestling articles, I feel that Diva-Dirt has the ability to become one of the best wrestling news sites. They have good articles that most wrestling sites don't have. I agree about there match reviews in which not to give any value judgments. Opinions must be made by prestigious analysts.Baby V (talk) a.k.a Miss X-Factor
Ultimately I do not think that diva-dirt can fit under "Websites proven reliable", I just think it's not professional enough. However, it does have a niche in independent wrestling, DVD or interviews, so I propose that we include it in the next section instead, "Other websites (not yet proven)", while explicitly stating that it is to be only used for independent wrestling, DVD or interviews. Any other sections of the website should be covered by more reliable sources. How does this sound? Starship.paint (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, I have to agree with you mostly. I think Diva-Dirt should only be reliable which should just cover like you said independent wrestling, DVD, interviews and personal life information for now. Hopefully it would become more professional as time comes. Baby V (talk) a.k.a Miss X-Factor
Anyone have any objections to this? Starship.paint (talk) 04:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I support Starship.paint's proposal of adding Diva-dirt to "Other websites (not yet proven)" with the note about it being only used for independents, interviews (etc.). I mean most credible sources refer back to the Observer, PWInsider, SLAM! or PWI so no need to include that many more sites in "Websites proven reliable" accept for a few exceptions. STATic message me! 04:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I support it as well. Also include TNA Xplosion. Baby V (talk) a.k.a Miss X-Factor
ProWrestling.net has Xplosion results. As does PWTorch. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I believe Baby V's point is that Torch/Dot Net and others like PWInsider no longer do detailed reports on TNA Xplosion (at least right now or for some time already), which is true. However I have been able to find Xplosion results because as Hulk has shown, Torch/Dot Net/Insider post spoilers of Impact tapings which Xplosion precedes, which contain match results. Does it need to be more detailed than that given how irrelevant Xplosion is? Baby V, the way forward for you is to argue why we need these detailed results for Xplosion. Starship.paint (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I had no idea Xplosion was still a show. I guess if reliable sources don't have recent results, someone else would have to do. Diva-Dirt is as good a someone else as any. But if nothing notable ever happens on Xplosion, I guess it's a moot point. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move: Matt Hyson to Spike Dudley

You can vote here. McPhail (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You know, these come up frequently enough to where I would think you could devote a project subpage to it. While we're at it, Larry Johnson (wrestler) or Sonny King? RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 02:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Sonny King makes sense. Never wrestled as Johnson or anything else for sixteen years, as far as I can see. The singer Sonny King had the name longer, but was limited geographically, so he gets the qualifier, and the wrestler gets "For the singer, see...". Or maybe it should be "see Sonny King (singer), see?" (that's basically all I know about the non-wrestling Rat Pack) InedibleHulk (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed we don't even have a Rat Pack (wrestling). Maybe for the best, I don't know. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
If anyone else cares about Sonny King, here you go. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Most of these seem like they could be moved without discussion, as they could hardly be considered controversial. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
All of the proposals other than Matt Hyson have been opposed by at least one person, and it looks as though most people don't want Dave Batista to be moved, so I think it's only fair that they're listed here. McPhail (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I listed the Sonny King one because of the possible controversy over moving it to a current disambig page. Plus, I don't know how to delete it to make room for the move, regardless of whether anyone cares about either Sonny King. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
You know, I previously noticed and then totally forgot about the dab page when I made the suggestion about Sonny King. Yes, you are delving into WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:TWODABS, so RM is appropriate. Maybe also solicit discussion from outside the project. Go back to the primary topic discussion for Ray Stevens, while you're at it.
I had another one which was bothering me, but I've temporarily forgotten. See below for two redirects which should be discussed. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 01:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd figured a move request tag automatically solicited discussion on some wider noticeboard. Probably not as well as a human could, in any case. Maybe I'll ask someone. Not sure what you mean by the Ray Stevens thing, but I fiddled with that disambig, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
May as well move the entire Holly family while we're at it. To move Mike Lockwood to Crash Holly vote here.

File:Bruno Sammartino Wrestling Pose.jpg

Is the license in this photograph accurate? If so, can we use it to upload pre-1977 promo photos (like this one) to illustrate the pages of the old school wrestlers? Several of the old time Hall of Famers have images labeled as "fair use", when pre-1977 promo shots of them are all over the web. 24.50.209.121 (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Promo photos (any advertising, really) are pretty easy to rationalize for fair use. They were given out, for free or per autograph, in large numbers. Even if we're not sure of copyright status, using a copy here hurts someone's financial opportunities even less than Bruno's "backbreaker" seemed to hurt backs. Especially if the advertised wrestler is retired or dead. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but fair use images are frequently under the siege of people that only work with licenses, even in cases where the person is dead. By modifying them to this one it can be avoided. For example, the image that I linked is 100% guaranteed to be dated 1971-73, since that is the time that he held the title. Yet, since he is still alive (reclusive, but alive) the article is completely lacking a photo. That is an article that discusses a Hall of Famer and world champion, I can't image how many of the "lesser" older wrestlers are also lacking images. 24.50.209.121 (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
It only needs to be freely licenced if you're uploading it to Commons. For use on en.wikipedia, you just have to explain how it's necessary to illustrate the subject of the article and how you've considered the impact it won't have on any possible copyright owners.
But yeah, I guess the pre-'77 thing would apply to Morales just the same as Sammartino. No indication of any copyright notice, and no reason to believe it would be protected. Publicity shots are meant to be distributed. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I haven't been very active on Commons lately. From what I can gather, however, it needs to be like a publicity handout with no visible copyright marks, or if it was published in a wrestling magazine, the publication has fallen out of copyright. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 01:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

NXT Championship and List of NXT Champions

Assuming it was an obvious and uncontroversial edit, I moved the list of reigns onto NXT Championship, blanked List of NXT Champions and redirected it to the main article. The table is too short to split it off into its own article, similar to NXT Tag Team Championship. Anyway, User:Richard BB reverted my merger and cited that I needed a discussion. Does anyone oppose the edit? Feedback ☎ 20:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

  • By the way, I remember the old rule was that we would only split a list off once it hits 10 reigns. Is that rule still in place? Feedback ☎ 20:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that three is too few for a standalone. The rest repeats the NXT Championship article, anyway. I don't think I was here for any ten-reign rule, but that seems a fair standard. Not opposed. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
When I say old, I mean old. I started editing at WP:PW around 2006-2007. I vaguely recall the rule, but obviously, there's a new guard at the project, so I'm officially seeking consensus for the rule to be implemented again. Feedback ☎ 21:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I started editing wrestling articles about that time, but in a very minor way. Wasn't even aware of the Wikiproject (though I vaguely recall you from talk pages). I mysteriously vanished for a few years, gained a beard and education and returned as a fairly major heel in 2011. Then Damien Sandow stole my gimmick. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
A) I agree with merging; there has been 3 champions, far too few for a standalone list. B) LOL, Hulk. oknazevad (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
PS. Sandow stole Lenny Poffo's gimmick, right down to the beard. He just does it a lot better. oknazevad (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Bah! Nobody can top The Genius. He's like Nelson Muntz and Martin Prince rolled into one, with a bit of Tiger Mask thrown in. But yeah, somebody's always ripping something off in wrestling. The academic and queer gimmicks are almost as old as the farmer and Arab ones. Sandow does it well enough, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, What is a World Heavyweight Championship?

I saw an article the other day. List of professional wrestling world champions I remembered the discussion about what is a WHC in the article World heavyweight championship (professional wrestling). The second article is about what is a WHC and the first, about the wrestlers who won whc, so I think that the list must to be the same. But no, I miss some titles, like the CZW, PWG or WWC. User Oknazevad said that we can't include the titles, because are small indy promotions. I don't think so, because the definition "world heavyweight championship" never talks about the size of a company. So, what do you think? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll quote myself from the discussion at that talk page:
Truth is, limiting the list here and there to the top titles of companies that have (or had) national television exposure in their respective home countries is a clear, objective way to ensure notability while maintaining neutrality. That's the problem with just putting up every minor promotion that puts "world" in their title's name; a dirtsheet's website reprinting routine coverage of the results supplied by an Indy does nothing to establish notability. It is routine coverage regurgitating non-independent sourcing.
And amongst Indys, it's very common for wrestlers to appear at different shows toting their belts, so a CZW guy showing up at card promoted by another Indy does not mean anything. And you couldn't have picked a worse example than PWG, as they don't even have a distinct belt design, simply using a generic, off-the-shelf Indy belt. These are exactly the sort of promotions that don't belong here.oknazevad (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I think you are confusing notability with prestige - the former is objective, the latter is subjective. If a championship isn't notable, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all - it's as simple as that. if you think the PWG World Championship (or any other title) isn't notable, please start a deletion page.
The only objective way of populating the page "World heavyweight championship (professional wrestling)" is to have a list of titles that are known as world (heavyweight) championships. Anything else is making a judgement about what constitutes a world heavyweight championship, which is blatant original research.
The article List of professional wrestling world champions is basically fan fiction.
-What is "a predominant worldwide presence"? Does the NWA World Heavyweight Championship really have one? Do the belts that are never defended outside of Mexico or Japan have one?
-"To be given a championship, is an indication of possessing above average athletic skills, charisma, popularity, drawing power, marketability, or any combination of these factors". Is it? Source?
-"the particular wrestler holding it is recognized by his respective promotion(s) as the best drawcard in their particular promotion today". Source?
If you think a belt is non-notable, please list it at WP:AFD. Don't edit the page to reflect your own opinion of what constitutes a world heavyweight championship. No editor has the authority to decree what constitutes a world heavyweight championship. McPhail (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll second McPhail's statements. Wikipedia should not be in the business of deciding which championships are prominent enough to be recognized as world championships and which should be completely discarded. As it stands now, List of professional wrestling world champions absolutely reeks of original research and clear NPOV violations.LM2000 (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia regularly discusses concepts of major or minor in sports, reflecting what reliable sources cover. That is hardly original research. It's clearly exercising legitimate editorial judgement. Unless you really are arguing that PWG is equivalent to WWE. That, more than anything, would be non-neutral, as it serves only to promote. oknazevad (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
In my editorial judgment (and as a smark), the titles listed as current World Championships are exactly as they should be. No more, no less. I was taught to be a smark from the same magazines and Internet that made us all, so if I figure those are the top titles of the most prominent promotions (regardless of the word "world"), I think it's safe to assume it's also the consensus (maybe not as much here on Wikipedia, but among "experts" in general).InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
For clarification, do you mean the list at World heavyweight championship (professional wrestling) now, or the shorter one from before McPhail reverted (while discussion is ongoing) that matches the one at List of professional wrestling world champions? oknazevad (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
The second one, without the indies. I'm only using that word loosely, but hopefully it's clear which ones I mean. Don't want to argue semantics. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I Still thinking like McPhail. Every championship that have the word World, Global, Universal... is a World Championship. We are talking about notable titles or prestigeos titles? Pro Wrestling isn't a sport, it's entertainment. We haven't an organization who decides what is a world title and the number of world titles today. The only that decides what is a world title it's the company himself (PWI doens't count, because it's a magazine without power over the promotions). I think that we should inclue indy promotions, because websites like PWInsider or PWTorch talk about them, so I think that they have a global coverage. Also, I don't know the criteria to include a champion as world champion. For example, NWA. I don't know why I can't find CZW champions (a big indy promotion, shows with near 500 assistances in arenas, defended in Europe...) but I can find NWA Champions (a small promotion that in the past was prestigeous, but today, is a tiny promotion. Even PWI says that the NWA isn't a world championship). I think that a promotion like CZW should be in the list and no NWA, but again, what's the criteria to include a promotion or a titles as WHC? Again, in the article I can read that the IGF version of the IWGP Title is a world champion. Why? IGF is a very small promotion and IGF created his own version of a world title, but It doesn't mean that it was a world title. In that case, the current tiel, the IGF championship, must be included. That means that, to say that a world title is a world title, is about the title, not the company. Other case, ECW. ECW was a very small promotion with a lot of fame and PWI only recognized as World Title since 1999. In that case, if we are talking about national tv program, The Sandman is only 1 time world champion. But Sandman is 5 time world champion, so I don't see what's difference between the early ECW and PWG or CZW. Any case, I prefer that you talk bout this, because (you know) I'm from Spain and usually, I suck when I have to talk with people and explain my point of view. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Just one thought about what you said here, after mulling it over. You said, "The only that decides what is a world title it's the company himself (PWI doesn't count, because it's a magazine without power over the promotions)." But that's quite backwards, as the independence of PWI from any one promotion is what makes them a more reliable judge of importance and significance than any self-interested promotion. That's the real problem with saying "everyone that says their title is a world title counts"; in an attempt to be neutral, we actually wind up being less neutral and become promotional. oknazevad (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I hope that you understand me. I said that I see to many contradictions. What is a WHC? If we are talking about promotion size, I don't understand why the ECW Champions before 1999 are WHC and the NWA Title is a WHC and the PWG or CZW titles aren't. What defines a world title? National TV Program? Size of the promotion? Travels around the world? The only thing that describes, without a doubt, if a title is a World Heavyweight Championship, are the words "World Heavyweight Championship" in the title. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
When we sort out whether championships count, we deal in sources. The second article is more of an arbitrary list dealing in original research and personal opinion. It does closely resemble the PWI criteria, but as HHH pointed out PWI no longer recognizes the NWA WHC so it doesn't even stay loyal to that one source. If we continue to recognize the post-TNA NWA reigns we may as well recognize PWG, CZW, etc. If we choose not to recognize those reigns then we may as well move the article to List of professional wrestling world championship reigns recognized by PWI or something to that effect.LM2000 (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Oknazevad, I don't think anyone would argue that "PWG is equivalent to WWE". The argument would be that they both meet a minimum threshold of notability. If any of the titles listed at world heavyweight championship (professional wrestling) aren't notable (and I'd agree that some of them may not be notable), then they should be deleted from Wikipedia. However, having an article on Wikipedia for (for example) the WXw Unified World Wrestling Championship but not listing it at world heavyweight championship (professional wrestling) is not logical.
InedibleHulk, I think the issue with talking about the "most prominent" promotions is that there are anomalies such as the NWA World Heavyweight Championship, which obviously has much less exposure now than when it appeared on WCW/TNA television.
Sure, now. But there's no doubting the historical legacy. Encyclopedias shouldn't be as concerned with the contemporary as newspapers and TV shows. The NWA belt is prestigious in the same way the Commonwealth throne is. Elizabeth II and Rob Conway aren't on Barack Obama or John Cena's level today, but Henry VIII and Ric Flair were no Buddy Rogers or William H. Harrison, either. You know? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
As HHH Pedrigree and LM2000 have said, I don't see it as our role to make decisions about which world heavyweight championships are more prestigious than others. Coming up with an arbitrary standard - e.g. only titles that appeared on national television - is original research and also biases the article towards more recent titles (given that none of the pre-1980s titles had national television exposure). McPhail (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that the problem is this phrase: "The following is a list of all recognized world champions in professional wrestling history ". Again, WHO recognizes a world title as official or real world title? It doesn't exist an organization that rules the pro wrestling. A title will be World Title when the company calls it World Title (PWG and ROH declared that the PWG and ROH Titles were World Titles when they was defended in Europe). I think that the list is a potential AfD, because we can't talk about all the world titles in the world and, of course, we can determinate what is a World Title, beacuse we haven't sources or a definition. The other article says "Examples of active world heavyweight championships" and "This is a non-exhaustive list of active professional wrestling championships currently or formerly...", no " (All) Active world heavyweight championships". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
If it includes the word "World", it's a world championship. Wikipedia editors have no place trying to establish a definition beyond that. 50.92.81.53 (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
By that logic, hot dogs and Dog the Bounty Hunter should be in List of dog breeds. Part of what makes an editor different than a keyword bot is judgment. If Jack Shit Championship Wrestling pays a few hundred bucks to have the word "World" engraved on a belt for barn shows, that's all that means. Listing it alongside something like the AJPW Triple Crown or WWE Championship just waters down the the whole concept of a world title. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. oknazevad (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
But the Jack Shit Championship Wrestling World Championship wouldn't meet notability criteria, so it wouldn't appear on Wikipedia. The other titles do. McPhail (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
For the purposes of this argument, JSCW can be replaced by FIP or CZW. That's not a knock on their quality, just their prestige level. Bigger than a barn, but not mainstream big (CZW is sort of mainstream, but in a "Won't somebody think of the children?" way, not a wrestling way). InedibleHulk (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Again, we meet the main problem: we haven't sources. We all have in our mind the concept of a world title, but nobody can sourced it. We all know that is a title with some world like World, Universal, Global... and is the top title in a promotion. OK, thats fine and every promotion in the world say it, since WWE to Triple W, here in Spain. Since here, we haven't sources and it's our personal concept, so we can't choose the world titles. If you, Hulk, don't think that Viral, WHC in Triple W in Spain is a world champion, ok, it's your opinion. But Triple W says that he is a world champion because he won the world title of the promotion. It's not opinion, it's a fact and we can add a source. Again, without an organization that rules the world of Pro Wrestling, defines World Heavyweight Championship and writes a list with the recognized WHC now, we can't say "this is the list of all recognized WHC now".--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I hear what you're saying. Verifiability's important on Wikipedia. We just disagree on whether a general consensus among editors is more important. Some articles here could theoretically be written completely by computer, like a form letter. But humans know things computers don't, even if we can't be so sure of how and why.
Definitely easier your way, since there will always be humans who think outside the consensus. I like the right way, but I've always been a fan of the easy way, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
In that case, I think that the discussion is over. Without a organization that recognizes what is a world title and the official world titles active and inactive, we can't make a distinction. I think that the aricle WHC shloud have indy titles, because are less prestigious, but still world titles. The list of WHC, I think that it should be delete. We can put examples of WHC, because we don't know the number of WHC in the world, but we can't put a list about some of the world champions or list of the world champions that we choose. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the second article should face an AfD. I do like the idea of having a table listing the total number of world championships per wrestler, however I think such a list will become unmanageable once every indy world title gets mentioned. But if anybody has any ideas on how to handle such a list I'd like to hear them out. If we do come to an agreement it should be included in the first article, a second article is unnecessary either way.LM2000 (talk)
Yeah, we definitely don't need two. Even if they match. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I that case, I think that we should open a AfD for the list of champions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll answer Hulk and Oknazevad. I understand both of you. But again, the problem is that pro wrestling hasn't a council or organization that says what is a WHC and the official list. For example, List of current world boxing champions "The first of today's organizations to award a world title was the World Boxing Association". That's what I'm talking, without an organization like this, we can't talk about "official" list. Yeah, PWI helps talking about the most important titles, but PWI doesn't recognized Mexican nor Japanese titles, also NWA and ECW were recognized some years. Again, when Jimmy Snuka won the ECW title, it was the ECW Heaviweight title, no a World title, but we consider him as 2 times world champion, but we don't put Adam Cole in that list when he is the PWG World Champion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Let's say you're out one night and happen to go home with some obscure duchess or countess. A few years later, England is nuked, the Top 40 in the line of succession are vaporized and your friend becomes queen. From that day forward, you can brag about fucking the queen, just like Snuka can brag about holding a world championship (and getting away with murder, of course).
But let's say you go to a different bar, and head home with someone named Queen Lashonda. A few minutes later, you find a king-sized sceptre under his dress. You likely wouldn't (assuming you're straight) rank that night with the countess one, if you mention it at all. Same deal with Adam Cole.
No source for that, just the way I see it. Sometimes we have to call things how we see them, based on years of experience, whether or not we have an absolute source written in stone. PWI's a good place to start from, though. Their list establishes the general kind of title a world title is, and from there, a reasonable person might apply it to similar "foreign" titles. It's a bit against Wiki policy, but for the better good. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Your idea of a "good place to start from" is a known biased magazine that in addition to being outdated (two months behind what is happening in wrestling) the publication itself is on life support? 99.43.175.19 (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Let's take boxing as an example. How many alphabet soup sanctioning bodies are there with all those "world" titles? Yet there is certainly a difference understood between the WBA or WBC or IBF and any of the myriad of less notable groups like the WBF. The WBF calls their titles world titles, but no one else in the boxing press considers it to be one. So why is wrestling different? What body declares the WBA official and not the WBF? That's not addressed by your claim. oknazevad (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Difference between wrestling and boxing is that boxing is a sport and pro wrestling is fake. Sports has organizations that put rules, recognized this kind of thing. Pro Wrestling hasn't organizations, because it's fiction and every promotion rules over his fictional universe. We can talk about real or official o recognized world champions because nobody says what is a world champion. Description "In professional wrestling, the world (heavyweight) championship - alternatively, the global, international or universal (heavyweight) championship - is the name given to certain championships by promoters. A wrestler holding a championship with this name is referred to as the world (heavyweight) champion." I don't see think like "it must be a major promotion", "a WHC must be defended around the world", no, I only read "is a championship with the word World". Again, the only that recognized a wrestler as world champion is the promotion. WWE considers Ric Flair as 16 champion and PWG considers Adam Cole as 1 time world champion. We haven't sources to this, only our interpretations about what is a WHC. You think that PWG shouldn't be included, I think that PWG shloud be included. User X thinks that ECW Championship (WWE version) isn't a world championship, User Y think that mexican titles aren't world championships. I think that the best idea is delete all the list, because is stupid. We haven't a source about what is a WHC and if we are talking to include PWG or not, is my word against your word. In the other article, we say "Examples of active world heavyweight championships", no "The following is a list of all recognized world champions in professional wrestling history as organized by most championship reigns. A championship (also called a title) in professional wrestling is a recognition promoted by professional wrestling organizations." Again, I don't read anything about minor or major promotions. I read is a recognition promoted by professional wrestling organizations. CZW is a professional wrestling promotion, has a championship with the word WORLD, recognizes Masada as his World Champion, so I don't understand why we don't include him in the list. When I read the first line, I think that promotions like WWC, PWG, CZW must appear in the article. If you'll change the description and add something like "major promotions", I'll asked a source. Again, the title " What is a World Heavyweight Championship?" and "Source?" --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Any case, does everybody agree that "list of world champions" should be delete due to we can't say what is a WHC? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't agree. The list has strong value as a one stop place for readers to see and compare which titles wrestlers have held in their careers. And I still reject the premise that just because an Indy stamps the word "world" on their belt we have to go along with their self-promotion. oknazevad (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete both articles A concept with definition that could possibly be agreed upon in a NPOV manner just leads to drawn out arguments that don't matter. Wikipedia authors cannot create their own authoritative definition. If the article needs to stay (but the list should definitely go), it should discuss the various criteria employed by experts in attaining their own definitions, and it should not include any Wikipedia author's personal opinions or definitions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the list should be deleted. As I've said before, I do think it is a good idea, but would be unmanageable once every world championship is included. Either way, if a list is to exist it should exist on the first page, a second one is entirely unnecessary. Perhaps Gary is right that even the first article is more trouble than it is worth, we've been having the debate of what to or what not to include for a very long time now. But I personally don't mind the way that article is laid out currently. tl;dr: delete list, keep first WHC page.LM2000 (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
oknazevad, as Gary said "Wikipedia authors cannot create their own authoritative definition." You think one thing, I think the opposite, but we can choose the titles. I have to say that I also thought that the article World Heavyweight Championship should be deleted, but I think that we can find other way. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd favour deleting both and turning world heavyweight championship (professional wrestling) into a straightforward disambiguation page pointing to all of the WHC articles. Anything worth keeping from either article could be merged into History of professional wrestling articles or championship (professional wrestling). McPhail (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I can actually get behind that, so long as the disambig page is a straight list of the titles, and not a chart that needs frequent updating of who has each title currently. That would make it too much like the current article stripped of the contextual introductory text that makes it complete. oknazevad (talk) 03:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I would also support that suggestion. Either a dab page just listing the championships or a category should suffice. STATic message me! 04:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
McPhail when you say "disambiguation page pointing to all of the WHC articles"... so which are "all of the WHC articles"? Would the debate be restarted yet again regarding this? Starship.paint (talk) 04:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
As a disambiguation page, it'd include every article that a user could reasonably be expected to be searching for when visiting that page. McPhail (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that the best idea is delete the list of champions and redirect the WHC article to Championship (pro wrestling). We can write something like "In pro wrestling, the top title of the promotion is known sometimes as World (Global, universal...) (Heavyweight) Championship and blah blah blah" --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I change my mind and actually agree with HHH. Redirect to Championship (professional wrestling), the Main Championships section would just need to be worked on. As Static pointed out, a category for all world championships might not be a bad idea either.LM2000 (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
And I no longer have an opinion on the matter. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
OK right now we kinda have two proposed ways forward. McPhail's turning world heavyweight championship (professional wrestling) disambiguation page, and HHH's redirect to Championship (professional wrestling). I'd lean towards HHH's idea. The disambiguation I'd see several nitty-gritty problems (WWE Championship, PWG World Championship, WWE Intercontinental Championship, ROH World Championship) Starship.paint (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I also lean towards HHH's idea, for mainly the same reasons you specified.LM2000 (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I have no objection to both being redirected (albeit merging any content worth preserving into championship (professional wrestling)). McPhail (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


There have been some who have opposed the redirect of the list of professional wrestling world champions, to voice your opinion on the matter on the page level, respond here so we can finally get some consensus and move on.LM2000 (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Redirects

Two redirects to discuss:

  • Brad Bradley was moved to Jay Bradley, leaving a redirect. Brad is actually a halfway common nickname for people with surnames such as Bradley, Bradshaw, etc., so there's a likelihood of other usage for the redirect. Not to tout my sandbox (there's not much to see there right now, anyway), but this guy is eventually on my list of articles needing created. Lessee, 29 years in the U.S. Army retiring as lieutenant colonel, served spanning WWII to Vietnam, Purple Heart, and eight years as a state senator on top of that? He would certainly have the wrestler beat for a primary topic. Whether THE primary topic would need to be hashed out.
  • Championship Wrestling redirects to WWF Championship Wrestling. "Championship Wrestling" is pretty common in promotion names, television show names, common brand names for a promotion's product, etc. There is at least one non-wrestling use I'm aware of, the Al Kooper album. BTW, I don't remember much about that album (I found it in the vinyl library when I was at the radio station), but the artwork (invoking the advertisements seen back in the days of old-school wrasslin') reminded me too much of Ball-Hog or Tugboat?. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 01:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Seems like a pretty simple solution is to turn Brad Bradley and Championship Wrestling into disambiguation pages. Disambiguations can contain things without articles or less notable subjects that are mentioned within articles but don't have their own. Go ahead and be bold. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I scavenged through the internet looking for another notable use for Brad Bradley. I couldn't find a thing. It should stay as a redirect, but "Championship Wrestling" should be a disambiguation page. Feedback ☎ 04:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

AFD: WWE/DSW Six Flags Park Slam

Just a heads up I have proposed WWE/DSW Six Flags Park Slam for deletion. 99.43.175.19 (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems fair. Nothing there to show this was any more important than a house show. That it has a name doesn't mean much. When WWE decided to stop in my hometown for the first and last time, the main event was a "(city redacted) Street Fight" for the WWE Championship. Only one they ever had! But that doesn't matter to the rest of the world, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Delete it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

PROD has been contested, article is now nominated for deletion. Gogen (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested moves for voting/discussion

McPhail (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Aces&8

Hi. Aces & 8 article. In former members, some people added Mike as member. He was a wrestler that Austin Aries captured and later, the stable attacked him. I don't know I we should include him as former member, because, kayfabe : he was some kind of prospect and never was patched member and blahblahblah. But 2 sources, [1] [2] call him member, because he attacked TNA Wrestlers with a mask. Somebody has procected the article, but people removes his name from the article. What do you think? Sources call him member, so... he is a member, right?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd consider him a member. It's similar to the way the Nation of Domination were accompanied to the ring by lots of extras in their early appearances - if one of them had been given a name and a storyline, they'd be a member worth naming, even if they never wrestled. McPhail (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Repeated error needs fixing

Hey, just was looking through various title history pages, and I noticed an error repeated across a great many of them that really is ticking me off. Many pages refer to former NWA members (including WCW and ECW) as "subsidiaries" of the NWA, which is called a promotion. That is just so blatantly wrong as a use of the term I want to kick whoever wrote all those articles (and they all show similar writing style, so they were at least started by the same person).

Simply put, the NWA does not, nor ever has it, owned any of its member promotions (subsidiaries are properly companies owned by a parent company), nor is it a promotion itself. This is just factually incorrect and misinforming our readers badly. (The correct structure, for those that don't know, is that the NWA is an organization with mutiple member promotions, each independently owned and operated.)

I have fixed some articles, but would appreciate some help in getting to more of them. oknazevad (talk) 07:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not right. The NWA is like the United Nations. I fixed a few more. Think that's all of them, judging by a search for "NWA" and "subsidiary". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Found a couple more (including WWE!) by searching for the plural, but I think we got it. Thanks, blatant errors like that annoy me. oknazevad (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, me too. This "Let's list every move we can find in a match review as a Signature Move" bullshit, especially. Yes, Scott Steiner sure was known for his knife-edge chops, kneelifts and multiple forearm clubs. Almost as memorable as Cody Rhodes' kneelift or Russian legsweep. There must be a hundred wrestlers here with "signature" kneelifts, legdrops, bodyslams and abdominal stretches.
I fix a few, they just pop right back, with more linkspam. Probably the biggest ongoing problem we have, in my eyes. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
From my obviously extremely expert viewpoint, Rhodes doesn't do a knee lift. William Regal's Knee Trembler is a knee lift. Rhodes does a knee strike to a seated opponent à la John Morrison. But it's really a signature move haha Starship.paint (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
And in my equally (if not more equally) expert opinion, the kneelift stopped being special with Jake Roberts. Of course, opinions don't matter. Jake's is verifiably called a Trademark Move, while Rhodes' is not. His Russian legsweep is apparently cool, though. I can't remember how Cody's kneelift looks, if it even is one. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Rhodes' knee strike (not the knee drop, he does that often too) is very similar to JoMo's. Starship.paint (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, then that's no kneelift. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

One thing which caught my attention on Dory and Terry Funk's articles is the statement that they moved from the Amarillo territory to the National Wrestling Alliance. Last I recall, Amarillo was a key part of the NWA. This appears to be reflected on List of National Wrestling Alliance territories. Then I rewatched their WWE HoF video, and noticed that the narrator says that they moved from Amarillo to the NWA. Really, we're reinventing what was and wasn't the NWA with help from the WWE's version of events, but that's nothing new. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 01:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. WWE can live in its Universe all it wants. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary of many of their stories. For now, anyway... InedibleHulk (talk) 06:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
If this Dory Funk Jr. story is true, his father was already fairly tight with Muchnick in 1968. Kind of funny, regardless. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Also I'd like to point out that, OWOW seems to be using Wikipedia as a source, which is scary since we list them as marginally reliable and sometimes use them for finishers / signature moves. See their article on Mercedes KV, which lists a single move of hers (roundhouse kick) as a signature (although from what I've seen on YouTube it's a finisher). Since then she's signed for WWE under Sasha Banks in NXT, and compare OWOW's page to Wikipedia's. They've even listed the finishers unalphabetically, and the five signature moves in order. Also I can't find sources online saying Banks has a wheelbarrow bulldog, while I've never seen "to a kneeling opponent" on OWOW, only on Wikipedia. We can't cite something which is citing us. Starship.paint (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
In general I think we should avoid using lists of signature moves as references, particularly when they come from fansites like OWOW. Ideally, we should be quoting recaps from journalistic recaps (e.g. from Canoe.ca) and citing specific quotes, e.g. "Wrestler X hits his signature DDT" or "Wrestler Y attempts her customary dropkick". McPhail (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed the same thing when I was checking up on the Kazuchika Okada article a while back. The OWOW article is 100% copied from Wikipedia, the signature move "Dropkick" even has a "[2]" after it as a dead giveaway.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
In that case, we can't use OWOW as source, because they use Wikipedia. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
If that is the case then, there is alot of cleanup to do in that area in many articles. The signature moves section in general is a gray area that is up to opinion. We need a way (backed up by sources) to disguise what moves should and should not be in the sections. Also just because Cole says "Vintage" after it, does not indicate its inclusion haha. STATic message me! 00:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Their Okada (and other) article's style is different than most on the site (much more text instead of pure results), so we can't assume every profile should be treated as a Wiki mirror. That said, I've always been a bit cautious with OWW. An incredible number of typos, which aren't so bad with words (we know what "wreslted" means), but can really suck for dates (April 24 or 14? 1978 or 1987?)
They also seem to use info from anyone who e-mails them. In the last couple years, it seems to have taken a page from Wikipedia (figuratively and literally) by opening up the editing to anyone who signs up. Back in the day, there was a Darren and a Kristy. Now there are all kinds. And the pages are regularly tinkered with, so the version somebody cited here years ago possibly doesn't contain the claim anymore.
As Static says, it'd be a huge job to replace them all. Better to simply doublecheck facts, and if something isn't reliably corroborated elsewhere, then we deal with it. If it seems legit, it can stay. But we should definitely move keep OWW to in the "not yet proven" pile in the MoS. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
See "OWW is, and always has been, a website for the fans, and by the fans." Also, the required reading for any contributor. The first rule was clearly broken in the profiles listed here, so it's not anything like a foolproof system. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

As per McPhail above, we should really establish a guideline for what is considered a signature move. While McPhail's suggestion is definitely positive, I still think it is too narrow. Not every pro wrestling reporter will list a move as "signature" or "customary". What I suggest is that if there are sources listing a wrestler doing a specific move on "X" number of occasions, then it can be considered a signature move. Originally I was thinking about X=3, but if we want to be strict we can put X=5? Starship.paint (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

actually I'd go with 4. Four sources for a move that a wrestler did should be common enough to list it as a signature. Starship.paint (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I could find five chinlocks, bodyslams, shoulderblocks, clotheslines and chops for anyone. How do we draw the line between a signature and a basic move, just going by numbers? All of those moves actually are some wrestlers' signature/finishing moves, but definitely not everybody's. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Just the fact that they used the move in 4-5 different matches does not really make it a signature move, and it would take alot of reference digging to find all that. We could just go off the Signature moves in WWE video games, but that might not be the most verifiable way to go. STATic message me! 16:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Hulk, that's true, I was about to get to the "basic move" stuff after we decided for the X=4 stuff for all the moves. There is no official line to draw for basic vs signature moves. I would guess we would have to decide, right here. Better have four references backing up a signature move, rather than now (supposedly) we could just list someone having done a move once and some would consider it a signature move. Other than the basic moves, if you see a guy doing a corner dropkick or diving headbutt four or more times (like Daniel Bryan) it's going to be a signature move, wouldn't it? Who else is doing the Northern Lights suplex four or more times than Alicia Fox? Or the rolling fireman's carry slam for Sheamus? I just view the basic moves as a secondary problem (and maybe a necessary evil if it can't be solved) For the non-basic moves, if a wrestler does it four or more times, it's going to be a signature move. Unless you have a separate proposal Hulk?Because it's not easy to find sources explicitly saying a move is a signature move. Starship.paint (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Static, about the WWE video games, finding a reliable source is one thing. How about newer wrestlers in TNA, or in NXT? Starship.paint (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
It really isn't that hard to source trademark moves. WrestlingData, Cagematch and OWW all do (WrestlingData lists all the ones you did). Probably others. If the veracity of any move is questionable, then we should see if the "four sources" method backs it up. If it doesn't stand fact-checking, we remove it. Or, if there's a move not covered by those that seems like it should be, we might consider four sources.
The problems with starting the four sources way are WP:SYNTHESIS and too many refs. If you hsve blazing Internet speed, that's not a problem, but for slower connections, all that extra size slows down loading/saving. Wikipedia should be for everyone, not just those on or near the cutting edge. Part of that problem also comes from citing match announcements and match results, but that's a whole other peeve.
More synthesis problems arise when you consider a move like the legdrop or elbowsmash. These are basic enough that many wrestlers use them frequently, but then we have guys like Hulk Hogan and Mitsuharu Misawa who use them in a much more significant way. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You do have a point with the WD/CM/OWW listing signature moves. I get that their lists should be of a higher priority than a wrestler using a move four times. My "problem" with them is that two of them are considered marginally reliable sources and none of them fall under the proven reliable first category of sources in the style guide. In fact cagematch.net seems to be off the style guide altogether, not sure why, I do remember some conflict about using them as a reliable source because they might have gotten some obscure indy results wrong. Yet as above, we should not trust OWW when they're citing us, and a limitation is that while WD/CM do list some signature moves, they usually list fewer and do miss some out. Starship.paint (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The reliability isn't too big an issue. Let's say OWW is cited for something that strikes you as odd, like Ivan Koloff's "vintage" jumping spinning piledriver. You check the four sources way and see that's actually Zangief they're talking about. Blammo! Deleted. Or you actually confirm that Koloff was sprier in his younger days.
Meanwhile, the proper five or ten are wrapped up with one or two tidy soures, instead of 20 or 40 with long-ass Caldwell titles and all the extra "cite URL" parameters. I just trimmed almost 9,000 bytes from Scott Steiner, and maybe 500 was actual (poorly sourced) info. That's a lot of bytes for a small section.
Treat them as reliable until proven otherwise, I say. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Fine, so anyone here at WP:PW is against adding CAGEMATCH.NET to the marginally reliable sources alongside WrestlingData and OWOW? Starship.paint (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Cool by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
All fine with me. On a similar topic, has anyone any idea whats going on with some of the links to older articles from wrestleview? I've tried looking over some old refs but the articles seem to have disappeared, do they expire after a certain amount of time? Duffs101 (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not exclusive to WrestleView. Any site can (and often does) move/remove/replace content now and then. See WP:LINKROT for solutions. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Cheers. Duffs101 (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah sometime this year WrestleView restructured their website. If you want to update the links, search for the titles in google "site:wrestleview.com FCW Results – 10/24/11" TV/PPV reports probably still exist but daily news like "ROH Star joins WWE" are probably gone. Starship.paint (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Mantaur's name.

We have a bit of a problem with Mantaur and sources regarding his name (Halac/Hallick/Hallich).

Maybe chip in here? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:58, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

Actually, why isn't the article named Mantaur as the common name? See discussion there. Starship.paint (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I've requested a move at Talk:Mike Halac. McPhail (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Money in the Bank cases.

User:Black60dragon has requested discussion about whether we should call the briefcase for the World Heavyweight Championship shot the SmackDown briefcase (and likewise for RAW/WWE Championship).

I say no, since there's no brand split anymore, and Orton can cash in on any show he wants. The only distinction is which title he can challenge for. All the sources seem clear on this and I'm personally doubtless, but deciding here beats edit warring. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

MITB Briefcase for a WWE Championship/WHC Contract. I don't see Smackdown or Raw. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Its the RAW and SmackDown cases. Those can be cashed in for a WWE or World title respectively. Not making them called that. They were called the Raw and SmackDown cases. If you want to be "technical" then its the RAW All-Star MITB and then the SmackDown MITB. They are even colored red and blue to represent their respective brands. BlackDragon 23:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong and I do not know why you are pretending there is a brand split. The WHC is not the Smackdown world title and the WWE title is not the Raw world title, it is interchangeable. Only this year it was called the "All-Star" MITB and the other was the WHC MITB. A brand was not tied to either case so I do not know why you are making that up. STATic message me! 23:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The brand split is over. There is only one roster, both titles are defended on both shows. The colors of the cases are historical artifacts. They should be identified by the titles, period. oknazevad (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not sure where BlackDeagon has got this illusion that the bland split still exists from. Either way, he's been blocked for edit warring, so hopefully that's the end of the debate. — Richard BB 07:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

For 2013's MITB, WWE.com explictly says Damien Sandow won the World Heavyweight Championship Contract Money in the Bank Ladder Match. For 2012's MITB, WWE.com says John Cena won the Money in the Bank Ladder Match for a WWE Championship Contract For 2011's MITB, WWE.com says Alberto Del Rio won the Raw Money in the Bank Ladder Match. End of discussion? Starship.paint (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Add two more lines: Wrestlemania, RAW, SD, WWE Championship and WHC --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 06:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Is that necessary? Unless I'm much mistaken the Raw briefcase has only ever been for the WWE Championship, and the SD briefcase has only ever been for the WHC. Their heritage is linked: we don't need more lines, we just accept that the Raw case has been renamed the WWE Championship case. — Richard BB 07:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Technically, Raw briefcase is for the RAW world title and SD Brieface for the SD World championship. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
More lines is just splitting hairs for no real reason. Like Richard says, the whole idea behind each case didn't change when the name did. Same deal as treating the WWE Intercontinental Championship like the WWF one. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

X Division

Again, a war (WTF. Every single week we have one). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_TNA_X_Division_Champions&curid=841498&diff=565649383&oldid=565639383 Simple. Suicide, character portrayed by Daniels and Kazarian, won the X Division title in 2009. Mike Tenay says that Kaz and Daniels are 5 and 4 times champion, so he includes the title as Suicide. But now, Manik, the same character under other name, won the title. The wrestler under the mask is TJ Perkins, so this is his first reign. Vjmldhs says that "Wikipedia doesn't go by how many times a "character" has won a title, we go by how many times the man behind the gimmick won it". However, I think that my idea is better, because (I think) it's the first time that one character won a title twice under different wrestlers. For example, Gregory Helms won the cruiserweight title as Shane Helms, Hurricane and Gregory Helms, but all of them are the same wrestler. This case is different, we can't say that Suicide is 1 time champions and Manik is 1 time champion if they are the same character and we have an article for the character. I think that the best idea is to explain that the character is 2 times champions and the wrestlers (Kaz, Daniels and Perkins) are 3, 4 and 1 times champions.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's the bottom line. While Tenay may have slipped at some point, TNA as a company have never recognized Suicide/Manik's first title reign as belonging to anyone else, and indeed (as seen in the Manik's profile on their website here) have essentially credited the reign to Suicide/Manik/Perkins, whose name is explicitly linked to that reign. Yea, he wasn't actually in the suit at the time, but this is pretty definitive that TNA, who's title it is, considers Suicide/Manik a two time champion. oknazevad (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hu3uPHXIB8 1:40 yes, I think that Tenay uses Wikipedia as source for his job, but TNA delete the championship list --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm with Vj 100%. All that matters is who's behind the mask. Whether TNA admits it or not, we know for a fact that Suicide II/Manik/Perkins is in his first reign and that Suicide I was portrayed by two completely different guys. And since the character changed names between the reigns, there's really no big issue about what number to use for the reigns; four and three for Daniels and Kazarian and one for Perkins. There are also articles for other wrestling characters like Black Tiger and Tiger Mask, but we keep Tiger Mask IV's accomplishments separate from Tiger Mask I's, because he is in fact a different wrestler despite using the same character.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I put under the Suicide and Manik names who protrayed the character and the regin. But is strange to say that Manik is 1 time champion if TNA says that he is 2 times champion. Also, Suicide and Manik are the same character. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Also agree with VJ. The "fake" Psicosis had his share of belts, but they don't count toward the "real" Psicosis' tally (they each have two Mexican National Trios titles under the gimmick, though the fake one had "Extreme" on his name for one). No harm listing Suicide/Manik as a two-time champ in the character's article, but not in the title history article. It's an in-universe vs real life distinction. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreeing with VJ. What would be his first of the two reigns then? Austin Aries won the title underneath the Suicide costume, then Sabin won it, vacated and now Manik won it. That would make it his first reign, why would we count Aries winning it under the Suicide mask towards Manik's reigns? If we were to count him for that reign we would have to count him for all of them, which we definitely would not. We have to keep this real life rather than in-universe. STATic message me! 22:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Not the issue; "Suicide" won the X Division title back in 2009. At the time Kazarian, who had had a previous run in TNA without the gimmick, was the regular man in the suit, but because of a banged up knee, Christopher Daniels subbed in the suit for a few weeks, including the title match. At no point has TNA ever acknowledged that either man has ever worn the suit. That's the problem, as far as they're concerned, it's the second title reign for the Suicide/Manik character. People keep mentioning "out-of-universe" and "real life". I hate to say it, the title doesn't even exist out of universe. No one actually defeats anyone else in legitimate combat sport. It's all storyline. And we really ought to represent the storyline accurately. The parentheticals, almost like footnotes, are a good way to handle it. oknazevad (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not about whether someone was actually defeated. "Real life" just means the wrestler who played the gimmick did so while that character was a champion. The WWF didn't acknowledge Rikishi was Fatu (or that The Headshrinkers were The Samoan Swat Team). In-universe, he won his first tag title with Scotty 2 Hotty, not Samu. But we list Fatu's story and tag title in Rikishi's article. We can't hold masked characters to a different standard than unmasked ones. Look at List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE). Irwin R. Schyster's first reign counts as his third because, despite the story, his real last name is Rotunda. US Express Rotunda wasn't from Washington, and didn't care whether we paid our taxes. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC) InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
This is the opposite case. Isn't a wrestler under various gimmicks, its a gimmick portrayed by various wrestlers. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
It's the same reasoning that it's the character that matters, not the wrestler who played him. If Suicide is a two-time champ, then IRS would be a three-time champ, and Mike Rotunda (the amateur wrestling character) would be a two-time. We can't say the performer matters in some cases, and the character matters in others. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more with with Okazevad. Plain and simple, the Suicide/Manic character is in the middle of one reign and he has had one reign previously. It doesn't matter how many wrestlers portrayed him in the past or how many repackaging the character went, it is still the same character. In order to describe the storyline "in-universe" as accurately as possible the title histories must reflect this. Footnotes are a good idea to show who was portraying the character during that respective reign. Since they weren't actually champion during that reign, they were just portraying the character that was champion during that time, it is disingenuous to completely credit them as being the champion since TNA never even explicable credited them with those Suicide reigns.LM2000 (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I am familiar with the history of the character, I am saying "Suicide/Manik" did not have a "first" title reign. Austin Aries won it under the Suicide costume, defended it and lost it to Chris Sabin, than Manik/Suicide II won it officially for the first time. We cannot credit Aries second reign as a Suicide reign too. I would also not support adding the first Suicide reigns to Kaz/Daniels, it should be separate from the character. STATic message me! 23:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that Aries reign is comparable to Kaz/Daniels because TNA admitted that Aries was not Suicide. No such thing happened during Kaz/Daniels' reign. So, I would agree with you that we shouldn't credit Suicide with Aries reign but I disagree on Kaz/Daniels.LM2000 (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
There is only one suicide/manik character, and its the same in 2009 and 2013. According to his article, he has won the x division title twice. The X division article says that manik won the title once, but the character is 2 times. My edition explains that the character is 2 times champion and Perkins, 1 time champion. Even in the real world, Suicide/Manik character won the title twice. About Aries, it's like Los Conquistadores or The Spider Lady, them won a title under a mask and later, revealed themselves. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
So do you think we should note Irwin R. Schyster's first title reign as Mike Rotunda's third (in parentheses) and IRS' first? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
We note it with "previously known as Mike Rotunda". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I mean in the title history article. Maybe you do, too, and are saying we should note it like that? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the Suicide reigns should just say Suicide (not mention Kaz/Daniels) and the Manik reign(s) just mention Perkins. Lets ignore the fact that they ever said he was the Suicide character, because we all know he never won the title under the mask and who know if he even played the character or that is just how the decided to debut him. STATic message me! 00:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that Mike Tenay says that Kaz is Five times champion and Daniels, four times champion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
That'd clearly be OR; that Manik is a continuation of the Suicide character can't just be ignored. That's silly. oknazevad (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a pretty complex one. In general, I'd support listing the title based upon the wrestler who held the title, not based on a character which transcends wrestlers (assuming we have a reliable source). Wikipedia should be fact based, and TNA's own title histories aren't definitive. As I see it, T.J. Perkins is a one-time champion, and Suicide/Manik is a character (distinct from a gimmick) used for two title reigns (one by Daniels and another by Perkins). To say (for example) that T.J. Perkins was a two-time champion would be blatantly incorrect. In terms of the title history, I think it's the wrestler who matters, not the character. However, we obviously need to acknowledge the fact that the character Suicide/Manik has had two title reigns. I'd suggest the following format:
# Wrestler Reign Date Days held Location Event Notes Ref.
38 Christopher Daniels / Frankie Kazarian (as "Suicide") 4 / 3 (1)[3] March 15, 2009 102 Orlando, Florida Destination X (2009) This was an Ultimate X match also involving Chris Sabin, Consequences Creed and Jay Lethal. During the championship reign the character of Suicide was played by both Christopher Daniels and Frankie Kazarian. This was the first reign for the character Suicide/Manik. [1][2]
60 T.J. Perkins (as "Manik") 1 (2) July 18, 2013 3,940+ Louisville, Kentucky Impact Wrestling This was an Ultimate X match also involving Sonjay Dutt and Greg Marasciulo. This episode will air on tape delay on July 25, 2013. This was the second reign for the character Suicide/Manik. [3]
What do people think? McPhail (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I like it, though I'd probably put the Suicide/Manik name first, but that's a minor detail. oknazevad (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree with oknazevad, I'd put the Suicide/Manik name first, but in all other aspects McPhail's proposal gets my support. Starship.paint (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
And I agree with oknazevad and Starship.LM2000 (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Quite alright. I don't care which goes first, except that Daniels should stay before Kazarian. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that is a good idea, but put first the name of Suicide Manik. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll tweak the article accordingly. McPhail (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Nice. Also, we put both reigns under the same character in List of combined reigns? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I did think about doing that but I wasn't sure about the template... McPhail (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Although it isn't my preferred solution, it is fair in acknowledging this is TJ Perkins' first reign, while also giving a hat tip to TNA's backstroy regarding Suicide. Vjmlhds talk) 16:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Another requested move

Lane Huffman to Stevie Ray. McPhail (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe Matt Barela -> Anarquia? What do you think? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
That's a tough one. OVW doesn't have the exposure TNA does, but he worked there much longer (under a couple of names). If he'd been some sort of star in TNA, it'd be easier, but he didn't really "make a splash". I'll go with No opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Fergal Devitt -> Prince Devitt? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
That move makes sense to me. I've also proposed a new move: "Ray Fernandez" to "Hercules Hernandez". McPhail (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Ha! Fergal. Yeah, Prince Devitt makes sense. Hercules Hernandez, probably. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations! We've influenced Stone Cold's career.

Sort of.

Listen to him put over Kevin Nash on his podcast here. Sound familiar?

Maybe we can use the narration in Nash's article, for blind people. Beats listening to a robot tell it.

In any case, cheers to whoever wrote it! InedibleHulk (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

God, Steve. Take a breath XD. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe that's a clue that we have a run-on sentence.
But don't worry about Steve. I've listened to few of these interviews, and he almost never runs out of air or gets tongue-tied. I already sort of knew this from his wrestling promos, but when you hear him "go Broadway", it's hard to not be impressed. He's like Jim Cornette, if Cornette also had a 99.8% wet beer catching ability and a sudden finisher. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of redirects and moves...

Yukon Eric was recently deleted as "routine housekeeping", or G6. Wouldn't that actually make for a good common name RM discussion for Eric Holmback? I'm busy repairing my finances in the real world right now, so no action from me yet. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 21:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me. Is this even something we should discuss first? The page is free and aside from his early, obscure days (1946-49), he was always Yukon Eric. I'll be bold and assume the move is uncontroversial. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Somewhat poor article we have here, factually. I may help it. Thanks for bringing it up. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
There is still a bit of mild controversy at Talk:Larry Johnson (wrestler). If anyone has an opinion on that, it would help. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I've requested another page move: "George Gray (wrestler)" to "One Man Gang". McPhail (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Also Ferrin Barr, Jr. to Jimmy Jack Funk. McPhail (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


Although a bit different from the other moves and redirects discussed here, we have an incident over at Manik (wrestling) similar to the one we had at Curtis Axel awhile back. Suicide is obviously the character's common name but the second he debuted a new moniker the page got moved without discussion, this time by User:JMichael22. LM2000 (talk) 08:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Its been moved back so that is no longer an issue.--70.49.82.207 (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah that was my doing, it would have been understandable if it was the TJ Perkins article that was moved, but the Suicide (wrestling) article? That is just ridiculous. I am not even sure it is considered the same character. Clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME and I am sure other points at WP:AT. STATic message me! 19:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
It very much is considered the same character. Did you even read the link I put in the section on the X-Division title? I do t necessarily agree with the move back. This is like when a sports franchise announces a name change; there's no good reason to ignore a widely announced and reported name change just because old sources use the old name. It's important to keep the encyclopedia updated; it's one of the main advantages of the online wiki format compared to a print encyclopedia. oknazevad (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Better Suicide. A character, his common name is Suicide, I think.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
No I did not, it was probably only the second time I had ever been on the page. But if a wrestler/sports team/musician/rapper/band changes their name, does not mean the article must be immediately moved to the new name. In 99% of cases we must have a waiting period to decide which name is the WP:COMMONNAME. Do not forget Suicide was a X-Division champion, on TV for months and the focus of a decent selling video game, while Manik has been around for what less than a month? The only thing he has done so far is be generic, and get handed the X-Division title. Down the line Manik might become the common name, but as of right now it is definitely not the common name of the character. (WP:RECENTISM) Even if WWE changed their name right now, the article would still be WWE. STATic message me! 22:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
It's important to note somewhere in the article, specifically the lede, that the article's subject goes by many names but the title of the article should be its most recognizable name. Static has gone into detail and given numerous examples on why Suicide is a more recognizable name than Manic.LM2000 (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete FCW / NXT championship templates?

Are templates for WWE's developmental territories, FCW and NXT, really needed? I don't really think they are 'prestigious' enough. I'm referring to.... Template:FCW Divas Championship, Template:Queen of FCW, Template:NXT Championship. We don't have any templates for OVW (previously WWE and now TNA's farm team) Starship.paint (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Minor titles, few entries, seems a pretty straight forward case of WP:NENAN; the list of respective champs is each title's article. oknazevad (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, nominated all three of them at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 6, please voice your opinion there! Starship.paint (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

WWE NXT, NXT Wrestling and History of WWE NXT

I'm at a loss here. In my opinion, "NXT Wrestling" is not the same territory as FCW. The article states that it's the same, but the venue changed, the titles were dumped, all storylines were halted, and the show debuted introducing the characters as if they appeared for the first time. To me, it's a completely different show. Furthermore, it seems like it's a completely different show than what "NXT, the reality competition" used to be as well.

I'm thinking we should restructure these articles into:

  1. Florida Championship Wrestling, focusing on WWE's old developmental territory that was ran by Steve Keirn from 2007-2012.
  2. WWE NXT, the television show that ran from 2010-2012.
  3. NXT Wrestling, WWE's new developmental territory at Full Sail University which broadcasts under the name "WWE NXT" in select markets and on Hulu Plus. Although it shares the other TV show's name, we would keep most of its information under this article to avoid confusion.

Now this process would be a little tricky, so what we'll have to do is:

  • The article that is currently named "WWE NXT" should be moved to "NXT Wrestling" and be filled with the information that was removed from article 1.
  • The article that is currently named "History of WWE NXT" should be moved to "WWE NXT" and be stripped of the information regarding the newer version of the television show. We can instead have a small section that links to the above article.

After doing these changes, I think these articles would begin to make more sense while also removing the small bits of content forking that are affecting this topic. What do you guys think? Feedback ☎ 19:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It sounds good. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I like it too. Looking back at the article histories, it seems the "History" article was so named as an attempt to present the developmental territory's current webcasts as a continuation of the reality-type series. It really isn't. oknazevad (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Update

  1. I reestablished the Florida Championship Wrestling article officially recognizing that the promotion was disbanded in 2012. The article encompasses the promotion's history throughout it's 5 years and it also includes a list of alumni that are currently featured in WWE programming.
  2. The WWE NXT article has been reworked. It focuses now on the NXT Wrestling "promotion" that WWE is running down in Florida. I've requested the article be renamed "NXT Wrestling" at WP:RM citing the consensus reached here. Hopefully, they'll get around to it soon.
  3. I have yet to rework the History of WWE NXT article. I've requested it be moved to WWE NXT once the above move is finalized. After that, I'll start working on moving most of the broadcast and episode information into the article.
  4. It seems obvious that this new version of "WWE NXT" has no link to the previous version. Therefore, I'm treating them as two distinct homonymous television shows (similar to Knight Rider (1982 TV series) and Knight Rider (2008 TV series)). The first incarnation will be located at "WWE NXT" while the second incarnation will be located at "NXT Wrestling".
  5. I know it's a small distinction, but it seems rather misleading for us to continue classifying WWE's developmental program as a "promotion". They are obviously no longer using promotions to farm their talent. They instead are creating their own training facility and using Full Sail University as a venue to air their WWE-branded television show. If we can reach a consensus on this, we can start editing the article to reflect exactly what NXT Wrestling is.

That's all for now. Please voice any concerns, oppositions or ideas below. Thanks, Feedback ☎ 21:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd call it a promotion. They put on shows, advertise, people buy tickets and watch. Sort of like how colleges have radio stations, kitchens and IT departments. They're still legit, even if they're for training. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
But if you use that criteria, Smackdown and Raw would each be promotions as well. I think all three brands are on the same boat. Of course, the difference is that NXT has a specific roster, but during the brand extension days, we didn't call each brand a "promotion". WWE is the promotion, the three of them are just different shows. At least, that's how I view it. Feedback ☎ 02:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I viewed Raw and SmackDown as two promotions while they were split. Different rosters, different tours, different management, different image, different TV deals. Same company behind them, of course. WWE is the promoter, not the promotion. Sort of like how Kraft Dinner and Kraft peanut butter are different food products. Not a huge deal to me, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The problem with treating NXT as just another WWE show is it ignores that there is far more to the promotion (which is what Triple H, who oversees it as Exec VP of talent, has called it in interviews) than just the once-monthly TV tapings at Full Sail. They run house shows throughout Central Florida almost every weekend, in much the same fashion as FCW did. Unlike Raw and Smackdown during the brand split, which were only autonomous on TV screens, NXT has a much greater autonomy in its day-to-day operations. It is true that it is less autonomous than FCW (and DSW or OVW before that); indeed part of the change from FCW to NXT was in part to get better oversight over the developmental program. But there's more to NXT as a promotion than just the TV tapings.oknazevad (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Whoa, much has happened on this topic since the last time I came to this page. It's kinda hard for me to digest, but here are my thoughts: I strongly support the merging of "WWE NXT" and "History of WWE NXT" into a single article which talks about the five seasons of NXT.
Also, I'd like to point out that the "NXT Wrestling" website has ceased to exist and now points to the "http://www.wwe.com/shows/wwenxt" page. While previously "NXT Wrestling" was obviously separate, now the distinction is much more blurred. Even "NXT Live" events are shown on the WWE page at "http://www.wwe.com/events/all/wwenxt". It appears that the "WWE NXT" television show is more important than "NXT Wrestling" right now. Starship.paint (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Well this whole NXT-business is confusing. After further researching, it seems that you're right the name "NXT Wrestling" has been phased out. Right now it seems that WWE NXT is the name of (1) the developmental system, (2) the show that features the developmental system and (3) the old reality-competition show. Right now, (1) and (2) are the topics of NXT Wrestling while, (3) is the main topic of WWE NXT. However, now I'm thinking we should just rename them WWE NXT and WWE NXT (2010 TV series). What other solution is there? Feedback ☎ 23:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Problem is that we don't know if NXT is in "transition" or has completed the change. Should we wait for a week or a month? We'd be losing valuable momentum, though. Starship.paint (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I am fine with waiting for consensus, but deciding to wait for WWE to clear up the situation would be a disservice to all the readers who want to know about NXT. I don't want them to be reading false information. Another possible solution would be dividing the topic into four articles: (1) FCW, (2) NXT TV Show V.1, (3) NXT TV Show V.2, and (4) the NXT developmental system. The last one can stay in construction for about a month, but we should keep the others up to date. What do you think? Feedback ☎ 05:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I think there only needs to be three articles. 1) FCW 2) WWE NXT (Season 1-5) 3) <one article for the developmental territory> Starship.paint (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
HHH? Hulk? oknazevad? Any updated comments given that as it seems, NXT Wrestling is no more and it appears to be only WWE NXT now? Would you support the three article proposal in my above post, with only one article for the developmental territory combining NXT TV Show V2 and the NXT developmental system? Starship.paint (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm going to get more administrators involved because everyone did a controversial move without any sort of vote. We voted several times to keep the articles the way they are and suddenly you guys again changed them all, this time without some sort of a vote. We need this to be done properly because this is way too controversial to just move without vote.

Also why the heck do we have 2 "WWE NXT"s? It's the same show with its program direction changed half-way through. That's completely inaccurate for an encyclopedia and I have no idea where you guys get that from. I require sources on the fact they're 2 completely separate shows.

My point is this: The accuracy of these articles are now being challenged due to controversial moves done against Wikipedia's system by selected individuals here. Either change it back or vote. The guidelines are there for a reason. Honestly, this frustrates me that we FINALLY have a good system that we voted on and someone just comes in and ruins it all. srsrox BlahBlahBlah... 20:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

"Selected individuals"... from the Pro Wrestling WikiProject? The move was proposed by FeedBack, and supported by HHH Pedrigree, InedibleHulk and oknazevad. That's four yes "votes" with zero opposition, and if I saw FeedBack's proposal in time, I would have supported it too, making it potentially five votes from June 25 to July 11, two weeks for six people to voice their opposition to overturn the "vote". Keep in note Srsrox, that the last time there was a vote, WWEJobber and Nomelck, who supported you, were actually later proven to be the same person using two accounts and both accounts have been banned. Starship.paint (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a mess seriously. We have two "WWE NXT" shows on Wikipedia. This is inaccurate! WWE NXT is the same show with a different direction. Where are your sources for suggesting it's two different shows entirely? No doubt, I will challenge this. srsrox BlahBlahBlah... 20:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I just caught wind of this conversation. On Wikipedia, we do not decide consensus by votes. "Votes" don't matter, only arguments do. I made an argument above about how the system wasn't working. I suggested a solution on how to organize the articles and it was accepted without opposition by various members. Ever since I edited the archive code, old discussions are kept on WT:PW for 14 days after the last comment which was plenty of time for someone to oppose it. You are always welcome to suggest improvements and to challenge current consensus, but to belittle our consensus because we didn't "vote" is quite frankly inappropriate. Feedback ☎ 20:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Srsrox what do you mean "we have two "WWE NXT" shows on Wikipedia"? Right now we have two articles, 1) WWE NXT - this article focuses on the five seasons / 2) NXT Wrestling - this on the developmental territory Starship.paint (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
We have WWE NXT and NXT Wrestling#WWE NXT. That is very confusing because of the how the WWE NXT's page is arranged. It's almost like the page is organized like the show lasted until 2012, but then there are random mentions of it going on as part of NXT Wrestling today. Another words, its organization is horrible. I actually like the look of the section on NXT Wrestling's page, but it has the feel that that section has all the info on it (especially when it has the logo/Infobox there and not on the main page). Common organization practices don't have a section that includes an Infobox unless it contains all info of the section. That's just confusing. Having both a large section on NXT Wrestling and a HUGE page on WWE NXT is just confusing. "History of WWE NXT" just made a lot more sense.

My suggestion is to keep the WWE NXT section on NXT Wrestling's page and rename WWE NXT page to History of WWE NXT.

One more thing Feedback ☎, while it isn't technically wrong to move pages without discussing, it certainly is courteous, ESPECIALLY when there has been discussions about them already and are controversial. That's respecting other people's times and efforts. It would be much more courteous to request/discuss about the move first. I for one felt my opinion did not matter nor does it matter now. srsrox BlahBlahBlah... 18:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

We discussed it. You're literally posting in the section where this discussion took place. Our consensus was unopposed for 2-3 weeks. It's been a month since the consensus was achieved and the moves were made. Your lack of participation in this consensus doesn't make it less valuable. Feedback ☎ 21:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The proper way (as opposed to legal) would have been to discuss this topic in the article's talk pages OR at least note SOMETHING on the talk pages that the pages were in discussion of being moved. I've been on Wikipedia for the whole last month and had no way of knowing this was happening. A note on the talk pages would have made sense to let other editors know that the page was being discussed. This could have been handled better, I guess is my point. But I digress.
No way to know this was happening? I do agree the changes were implemented pretty hastily after gaining a consensus, but if you were watching the talk pages, you would have figured that out on your own. If you didn't bother to read the articles to find out about the changes, why would posting on the talk page make any difference? You're just making things up to stir up trouble. Feedback ☎ 00:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Going back to the topic, please note what I said about the two WWE NXT sections. Tell me what you think. srsrox BlahBlahBlah... 16:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"History of WWE NXT" is misrepresentative. The article does not reflect the history of the brand like History of WWE. It's pretty much a season-by-season account of what occurred on the show. The standard would be for that information to be included in the TV series' main article or split up in "season" articles. I am not against renaming these articles "WWE NXT (2012 TV series)" and "WWE NXT (2010 TV series)". Or perhaps, WWE NXT and WWE NXT (2010-2012). But then again, I brought up the idea above, and others didn't seem to agree. I'm fine with the current consensus, but you can go ahead and try and change others' minds. Feedback ☎ 00:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I want as few articles as possible -> one article for season 1-5, one article for developmental. If you want to rename the current WWE NXT article, I would prefer WWE NXT (2010-2012) over History of WWE NXT. Anyway as time passes on, it seems like NXT Wrestling has definitely been "consumed" by WWE. Anyone's thoughts? Starship.paint (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Feedback ☎, I don't know where you're getting your sources from, but there isn't two "WWE NXT"s. It is only one show that had a change in direction. If we make it into two different shows, we are not being accurate at all. It a very simple solution to just merge the section with the article if we must have one article and have a small blurb on NXT Wrestling's page.

Second point, honestly, I hate the sheer length of WWE NXT's page (I don't think its notability equals to the long length of the article), but for some reason, people want it to be a rather large article. I think that the article needs to be summarized a lot better than it currently is. It's like it's WWE's/Wrestling's Wikia page length or something. Way too much detail... srsrox BlahBlahBlah... 19:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. The article is too long. I find the elimination tables rather silly, but it seems to be the standard for all reality competition series on Wikipedia. As for every version of WWE NXT all being one show, that's just wrong. WWE's newest developmental territory is called "WWE NXT" and is homonymous to their old reality-competition series, but they share no link. I think the main issue right now should be that NXT Wrestling is not named correctly. We need to form a consensus on how to rename both articles. Feedback ☎ 19:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
There's nothing "just wrong" about WWE NXT being the same show, because it was, even if you don't agree to it. It was a show the changed its direction, but never was considered by WWE a different show. Even WWE uploaded past "WWE NXT" episodes as part of the list of current WWE NXT shows, so it's clear it's considered the same show. Almost all websites will list WWE NXT starting in 2010 by way of simple Google search.

You DO Have a great point in the name "NXT Wrestling". After looking it up, it seems clear that "WWE NXT" is the promotion's name, Not "NXT Wrestling". I agree on that 100%.

So on that note, I also push to rename "NXT Wrestling" -> "WWE NXT (promotion)" and "WWE NXT" -> "WWE NXT (show)" or something along the lines of that. And yes, we NEED to shorten the length of the show's article. Just too much. We CAN make the table automatically collapse. I'll look into that if you guys are fine with that. srsrox BlahBlahBlah... 13:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

All of this is rather confusing, but there is no way I could say that the "WWE NXT developmental territory" has anything to do with the "WWE NXT reality-competition series". They are nothing alike. The only reason they share the "NXT" name is because WWE needed to take into consideration their international contracts for "WWE NXT". They would have made it much easier for us if the developmental territory and the television show had different names. But they decided to confuse us further by strapping the NXT name on everything.
How about we rename NXT Wrestling to WWE NXT, and the current WWE NXT article to WWE NXT (TV series). We can have a hatnote at WWE NXT that directs the reader to the TV series. Feedback ☎ 18:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
NXT Wrestling to WWE NXT seems fine. But, the current WWE NXT article to WWE NXT (TV series), I strongly disagree. (2010-2012) is fine, or (Season 1-5), but I think that (TV series) is not clear enough. Starship.paint (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Srsrox feels that the "WWE NXT" that WWE currently broadcasts is the same show as the old one. I disagree, but if that reflects popular opinion, then we should move all broadcast information of the show into WWE NXT (TV series). There would then be no confusion. In his support, TV.com treats it as the same TV show. Then again, I think the people at TV.com must be just as confused as we are. Feedback ☎ 03:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
My problem is with the wording "TV series". I don't see how the current NXT is not a TV series, given that it is, after all, broadcasted internationally, just not in the US? [4] As I said, let's go with (2010-2012) or (Season 1-5). Starship.paint (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me be clear: When you say "same show as the old one", that is close to what I mean. I mean that it is the same uninterrupted TV series, yet a completely different direction half-way thru. To suggest it ended in 2012 would not be accurate. It's like I said, WWE has treated it as continual, so we should too. "(Season 1-5)", however, indicates a continual tv series, so I'd agree to that. But again, I think we need to prove that the promotion's name is "NXT Wrestling".

When it comes down to it guys, it is not important what are opinion is more than what the facts are. I love the name "NXT Wrestling", but is that was it's called? I don't mind treating it as two separate shows, but were they EVER listed as different shows? We can have opinions all day, but we need to back things up with proof and facts. srsrox BlahBlahBlah... 13:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Just commenting, the show didn't end in 2012, but the seasonal aspect did. NXT Wrestling did exist until June 2013 when the website was shut down. It was the re-branded FCW from August 2012. But now, it looks like NXT Wrestling has merged into WWE, therefore there is no more official name, just the supposedly "WWE NXT" branch. Starship.paint (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't have to treat them like two different shows. We can have one article for the developmental promotion at WWE NXT and another one for the show at WWE NXT (TV series). We can make the distinction of the two versions of the show on the latter article. I think this is the best "happy medium" we will be able to achieve. Feedback ☎ 04:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I like your idea! Heck, I'll vote on it now. Support. srsrox BlahBlahBlah... 20:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Nope. As I pointed out above, I strongly disagree with the wording "TV series", there might be confusion as the current aspect of NXT is also broadcasted internationally on television. Let's go with WWE NXT (Season 1-5). Starship.paint (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
You didn't seem to understand what I said at all. The latter article will include the latest and current TV season. It would be about every incarnation of the series, not just the original one. Feedback ☎ 00:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I get what you mean now, but I'm just not 100% comfortable because the current incarnation really does not appear to be in a seasonal format. It's like Raw / SD, long-running with no end in sight. Starship.paint (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you. That's why I propose the article should refer to the new version as a reboot. We'll then have a "Main article" tag linking the reader to the NXT territory more information on the wrestling promotion behind the show. Feedback ☎ 22:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Reboot, fine I guess. Just note that, while NXT Wrestling was definitely a developmental territory... in June 2013, the NXT Wrestling website has been shut down and all NXT info was moved to WWE's main website while FCW/NXT President Steve Keirn left WWE, there's no evidence that NXT is a developmental territory any more. It certainly seems to be an WWE's internal developmental system, as opposed to FCW/NXT Wrestling which had a larger degree of separation from WWE. Starship.paint (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Eh hold on, I based the "Keirn left" statement on PWInsider's June 29 report on "Steve Keirn is not making the move to Winter Park, FL." A later report by PWInsider's main writer on July 12 said that he saw Keirn in the flesh training developmental talents during a visit to WWE's new performance center. Starship.paint (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Leave it to WWE to confuse all. *sigh* srsrox BlahBlahBlah... 19:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Feedback and srsrox, I will no longer oppose WWE NXT -> WWE NXT (television series) and NXT Wrestling -> WWE NXT Starship.paint (talk) 07:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a consensus to me! I will move the page, but I just started Med School, so I will have about 1/278916 free time on my hands, so I will need others to focus on the rest of the implementation. Feedback ☎ 23:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations, and good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I may be busy, but lemme know what I can do to help. :) srsrox BlahBlahBlah... 05:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

TNA Specials

Since January, TNA has only 4 PPVs, Genesis, Lockdown, Slammiversary and BFG. However, Destination X and Hardcore Justice have returned as Special editions of Impact Wrestling. User:Black60Dragon add them to the article List of TNA pay-per-view events due to the previous status of PPV. I don't think so, because now aren't PPVs and the article talks about PPVs, no TV specials. Second, he modified the Template:TNAPPV, including the 2013 editions of HJ and DX. Dragon, LM2000 and me talk about them in the talk page, but is hard. The other example, Template:WWEPPV, have some problems. It's a navbox about PPVs, so we include PPVs. For example, it doesn't include the King of the Ring event pre and post PPV, only 1993-2002. However, it includes the 2012 edition of Great American Bash, a Smackdown special. What do you think?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If its not shown of pay-per-view, it's by definition not a PPV, and therefore doesn't belong on either list or template.
That said, the significance of PPV is really in that they are special supercards, which predate PPV as a distribution paradigm. Strictly speaking, the first Wrestlemania was more intended as a closed circuit television broadcast; PPV was a new and still very experimental thing at the time, and WM1's limited availability on it was more a throw in. As such, there may be something to be said for mentioning them in a footnote like fashion. oknazevad (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
That may be true, from a fan perspective. But, from a business standpoint, a single PPV is far more significant than a single TV supercard (even if Andre the Giant returned and beat Cena). That said, all the TV combined made $57 million for WWE last year, compared to $46 million through PPV. Irrelevant to the truth that a free show can't be called a pay-per-view, of course. Just a "fun fact". InedibleHulk (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that we definitely should indicate that the events stopped being shown on PPV by listing 2012 as the last year. The WWEPPV lists The Great American Bash/The Bash lasting until 2009, despite linking the 2012 Smackdown show, so in the least I think we should continue to differentiate between the free TV and PPV shows this way. I'm more open as to whether or not we should actually link the events in the navbox though.
There's a question on the Destination X (2013) article, asking if these Impact specials (Hardcore Justice (2013) too probably) are worthy of their own articles, separate from the main Destination X (and Hardcore Justice) article(s). Much like the Great American Bash Smackdown, I think they deserve a section on the main articles but the current separate articles are unnecessary.LM2000 (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
2012 SmackDown Great American Bash, 2013 Destination X and Hardcore Justice are all the same, just a "special episode" of a weekly television show, not pay-per-view. They certainly do not deserve their own articles, and they can be mentioned in the main Destination X article for example. Where in Template:WWEPPV does the 2012 Bash get mentioned actually? I don't see it being listed. Starship.paint (talk) 07:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
If you're on a WWE Great American Bash article, you should see 2012 listed with 2004-2009 in the navbox, however the WWEPPV template itself says the PPV only lasted from 2004-2009.
I also just want to note that Black60Dragon, who was the only one fighting for this position over at TNAPPV and created both of the aforementioned articles, has been banned for a month.LM2000 (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
That's a relief. Though I'm not against the articles he created. Not really for them, but they are somewhat special events. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah okay, I'm looking at that article. I propose instead of 2012' we put 2012 SmackDown television episode to distinguish. By the way, what's the point of all the "2004 [edit source | editbeta] Main article: The Great American Bash (2004)" on that article? Starship.paint (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Starship, we should differentiate between actual PPVs and free TV, so the 2012 SmackDown television episode is essential. As far as the separate articles go, "special" free TV episodes almost never get their own articles, including the Smackdown GAB show which this is most comparable to. Is anybody totally opposed to redirecting? As to HHH's original question, I'm still not sure whether they should be linked in the navbox either way.LM2000 (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Made the changes to WWE The Great American Bash. Go ahead and redirect Destination X (2013) and Hardcore Justice (2013) Starship.paint (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, both are now redirects. Keep an eye out though, although Black60Dragon is gone someone else may oppose. If that happens we'll have to have this same discussion on the individual articles.LM2000 (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I did the 2013 Impact Wrestling episode shtick. Starship.paint (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Nice. Now, should we include GAB 2012 in the navbox? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
As oknazevad pointed out, there are possible exceptions to include special supercards, such as the first Wrestlemania and the first Royal Rumble. I don't think these cases are like that, because these shows were just special episodes of Smackdown/Impact, rather than being their own show. I don't think it belongs on the template. It seems that the only person that did is now banned.LM2000 (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I've fixed The Big Event, as far as PPV goes (and half its weight in overcitation). Is this one of those exceptions? If so, feel free to unfix it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
When they called it The Big Event they weren't kidding. But Slam explicitly says it was not a PPV, and unlike Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania it never became part of their PPV lineup. I'm not entirely if there is a template where it would fit but either way I don't think it works in the PPV template.LM2000 (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

TNA One Night Only. Canon?

Not long ago, I had a discussion/edit war about the 2013 TNA World Cup. I've no doubts about the points I argued it on, but it got me a thinking about an entirely different point, which may be more controversial.

From my understanding, these One Night Only shows are called that because they exist outside the "real" universe, like a Treehouse of Horror Simpsons episode (or whatever comic book example you'd prefer). So, if true, should any 2013 World Cup winners have this listed in their C&A, even after the show airs? Or will it be all just a dream? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a viewer of TNA, so I could be misinterpreting the point, but I'd say yes, they should still be. Even if the One Night Only shows aren't part of the story arcs or things like that, they still won the matches, and those victories would be recorded. For example, I expect you'd be able to find those accomplishments in Wrestlingdata.com. — Richard BB 12:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
They don't have it on Daniels' page. That may be only because it hasn't aired yet, though. They list his 2004 X Cup win, and 2004 and 2008 teammates. They also list the taping results. They do list James Storm's Jokers Wild tournament win (another One Night Only show). So I guess these count for them. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I think they should be included - canon isn't really the issue here. TNA's bios and title histories aren't a definitive source for things like this, since they will naturally overlook/amend history as they see fit (just like every other promotion). I'd compare the "One Night Only" accolades to something like the Kuwaiti Cup Tournament - something that happened, but wasn't greatly emphasised by the company since it was aimed at a very specific market rather than the mainstream audience. McPhail (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
There's a difference between "not emphasized" and "not canon", isn't there? These PPVs are marketed globally, but the promotion seems to treat them as, well, one night only. I don't think TNA should be the definitive source for real things (names, injuries, outside history, etc.), but why shouldn't they be the ultimate authority on titles and other story things? They're the creators. Not really arguing, just curious. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Storylines, etc, are open to interpretation, but the "One Night Only" events undeniably happened, whether or not TNA choose to acknowledge them. There have been cases in the past of promotions trying to "rewrite history", e.g. WWE omitting the pre-Shane Douglas ECW World Champions or the pre-Taka WWF Light Heavyweight Champions from its official histories, so the promotions can't necessarily be trusted to provide accurate title histories, etc. McPhail (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
True, but that's because pro wrestling, like any form of serialized fictional storytelling, is subject to retcons. oknazevad (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I was trying to remember that word. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

I think we've all been duped. WWE supposedly changed their name, but not according to this. Feedback ☎ 23:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

After an extensive search on their corporate website, WWE seems to avoid using "World Wrestling Entertainment" in most of the prose, but they include it at the top of the header in their press releases. http://corporate.wwe.com/documents/Q32012EarningsPressRelease11.01.12FINAL_000.pdf http://corporate.wwe.com/documents/WWESecondQuarterResults_002.pdf http://corporate.wwe.com/documents/4Q12PressReleaseFinal_000.pdf This is confusing. Did they actually drop the name or did they just start downplaying it? Feedback ☎ 00:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
That first link 404s for me, but there's no dupe. Just confusing the trade name with the legal name. Legal name is World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. Trade name is WWE. Here on Wikipedia, we use trade names (what they are doing business as) for companies. Microsoft, not Microsoft Corporation, for instance. Here in Ontario, all corporations are legally called "(six-digit number) Ontario Inc.".InedibleHulk (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

A standardised approach to naming tag team articles

I think it would be useful to give a bit of thought to how we name articles in Category:Professional wrestling teams and stables. There is a lot of variance in how disambiguation is applied to articles. For example, we have articles titled New Breed (ECW), New World Order (professional wrestling), MNM (wrestling) and NWA (wrestling stable). I'd suggest standardising these. I'd favour using (professional wrestling), but it'd be good to hear what people think.

There's also a bit of inconsistency in how we use definite articles in article titles - i.e. The Fabulous Freebirds versus Faces of Fear. I'm planning on standardising these so they all use "The" where appropriate. Again, any thoughts are welcome. McPhail (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much all of the articles already use (professional wrestling). "NWA (wrestling stable)" can't use it, since "NWA (professional wrestling)" should link to National Wrestling Alliance and "New Breed (ECW)" can't use it since there's also "New Breed (tag team)". MNM should absolutely be moved.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for this input. On a related note, for consistency, should we be using "(professional wrestler)" rather than "(wrestler)", e.g. "Kane (professional wrestler)"? McPhail (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Definitely prefer (wrestler) and (wrestling). "Professional" is a long word, and likely won't ever be needed to distinguish from an amateur wrestler or topic with the same name. Also definitely support putting "The" on the proper nouns. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there is a bit of a conflict between Pinfall, redirecting to Pin (professional wrestling), and Pin (wrestling), redirecting to Pin (amateur wrestling). But can't be much else, can there? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Also prefer just (wrestler) and (wrestling), pinfall can be made an expection. Starship.paint (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Any objection to The Three Faces of Fear? Numbers under 13 are generally spelled in English, and Google results for "3 faces of fear" (minus "wiki") don't match the quality of "three faces of fear" sources. And then there's this, clear as day. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't wait for objections, since that last source is so clear and official. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems like something needs to be changed here

Today I stumbled upon the WWE 2K page, and I do not think I am the only one just a little confused by the title. Considering 85% of the article is about WWF Smackdown/Smackdown vs. Raw, why is the article title the name of the most recent series, that has yet to even release a game. In my opinion either the title needs to reflect the overall WP:COMMONNAME of the history of games, or better split it into different articles one for the WWF Smackdown/Smackdown vs Raw games and another for the new 2K series. WWE '12 and WWE '13 could be thrown into either, but their really needs to be a distinction between the series'. WWE 2K might not be significant enough for its own article yet, but in that case there would be a section on it on the page still. I mean it is not like we have WWE Day of Reckoning and the old WrestleMania games thrown into the same article. If this is just the case of a new title and it should not be considered a new series, then the article title should still not be "WWE 2K" as that is generally not what the article is about. We should use a common name for the series not the name for an upcoming game that has yet to be released. STATic message me! 05:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. For twelve years the series had SmackDown in the title, during the last five of those years Raw was added. In the next two years it was simply WWE and only this year will 2K be used. Based on the fact that WWE 2K at this point is only being used for one of the fifteen games in the series I see no reason that WWE 2K should be the title of the Series page.--70.49.82.207 (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Not sure here. Obviously, there were plenty more games not named "2K". But that's also the obvious current rename. When World Wrestling Entertainment became WWE, didn't we immediately change that article (and many others), despite the eight years of the former name? Seems fair to hold a WWE game series to the same standard as WWE itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
There is a big difference though, lets say World Wrestling Entertainment was changed to "United Wrestling League" or something completely different, then I am sure the article would not be immediately moved. But WWE was already a well known name of the company, many times being referred to as just WWE rather than World Wrestling Entertainment on and off for a few years before that. So an immediate change would be appropriate. It would be quickly mentioned in the lead that the series is now covered by 2K under the "WWE 2K" banner, but the article title should indicate what is discussed throughout the article rather than just follow the current name of the series. I am not even sure we should consider the WWE 2K series the same as the original Smackdown/Smackdown vs. Raw series. It was one thing when they changed it to WWE because the brand split was over, but this is a complete rebranding in the same way it is different from WWE Day of Reckoning and WWE Raw. STATic message me! 18:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The names may be quite different, but there's an unbroken lineage between the the THQ perennials and the 2K. Bought out in (basically) the same way the WCW Cruiserweight Championship was. No strong opinion on which name we should use, but it's still essentially the same series. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

deletion discussion

AWF Australasian Championship is up for deletion. I am curious if there are any established policies for notabilities of championships. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Not long ago there was another title, the PWWA Championship, up for deletion. It was similar to the AWF Australasian Championship because both of the championships belonged to organizations that did not even have their own articles, and the result of the PWWA title was delete.LM2000 (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Another move request

"Warrior (wrestler)" to "Ultimate Warrior". McPhail (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "Warrior (wrestler)" to "Ultimate Warrior". McPhail (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys, I proposed "Kaitlyn (wrestler)" to 'Kaitlyn" Starship.paint (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Style guide inquiry

The PW Style Guide indicates a preference towards this colour for use as the background colour for table headers. This choice appears to be an arbitrary choice introduced in 2006. Similar practices are allowed by MOS:TABLE guidelines which state this is appropriate to "create a semantic distinction" but this colour choice does appear to be nothing other than a personal preference for a shade of grey that is a few shade darker than the default one. There is at least no immediate association to professional wrestling. I am proposing the removal of this stylisation for a "consistent appearance between articles" (across all of Wikipedia) suggested by the MOS guidelines. --SocietyBox (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Support default color choice. Starship.paint (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Wrestlers' intro

Hi. User:Vjmlhds and me have a little discussion. He says that the wrestlers's introduction only includes national Titles. For example, he delete the FIP and PWG World titles from Daniel Bryan's introduction, because "aren't national promotions and people never hear about that". He says that most Wrestling fans only know about WWE or national promotions, like ROH or TNA and NJPW an NOAH. I don't think so. We are an encyclopedia, so we are talking about wrestlers carrer, not about what people know. He says that we can say it in the body, but are notable titles of notable indy promotions and we have entire sections for the companies. I think that Cesaro had success in the indy circuit, why Can't we include in the intro that he won the PWG World title and CHIKARA, CZW and JCW tag team titles? Are notable titles in their career and the promotions are covered by notable media, like PWTorch and PWInsider. Of course, I'm talking about notable titles, not every single indy titles that somebody won. For example, "He was previously known for his work on the independent circuit under his former ring name Jon Moxley before signing with WWE." I think that's better "before signing with WWE, he was previously known for his work on the independent circuit under his former ring name Jon Moxley in promotions like FIP and CZW, where he won the CZW and FIP World titles. So... opinions? I saw the style guide, but I saw nothing about this.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The question here seems again to be "what constitutes a 'notable Indy'?" Same issue we had with the former list of world titles. Personally, I'd be wary of relying on PWTorch and the like, to determine which Indies are important, as they have a habit of just posting results sent in to them by someone connected to the promotion. So having the results on those sites does nothing to make them inherently more prominent, just smarter at marketing. I'm also concerned with giving undue weight to minor promotions for a guy whose been in a major national promotion for years when it's work in the major promotion that makes the person most famous. Cesaro may have been Chikara tag champ, but outside of the specialist community, that's not what he's known for. oknazevad (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I understand as "notable" promotions that usually apears in wrestling media, like PWTorch and PWInsider. I don't read anywhere that only the national titles appear in the intro. The intro is a section where we put the key parts of their carrer, national and independent. Cesaro had a huge success as KOW and SMH, but say "he won the ROH World Tag team Championship"... I think that silly, delete them only because are indy titles, when it was key point in their indy career. It an introduction for their career, no national career. We are an encyclopedia and we are talking for everybody, smart wrestling fans, WWE fans and no wrestling fans. One (strange) example, Peter Jackson, he did huge movies and indy movies. Look the introduction, he did 1, best known (hobbit, TLOTR), 2, other notable films 3, indy movies. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Indy titles are fine with me, as long as the reign was something significant. Either a top title in the promotion, or a long reign or multiple reigns with a lesser title. I'm not fond of the way it often is now, where we list every WCW/WWE/TNA title, regardless. Castagnoli's PWG title is far more important than any of John Cena's tag titles, or Bradshaw's European. There's a general bias toward the big leagues, but those are just part of the story. If sources indicate a title reign was significant, that's all that matters. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm also okay with Indy titles, granted we don't give them the undue weight Oknazevad has mentioned. In the case of Daniel Bryan Danielson I think the lede was fine the way it was mentioning some of the important indy titles he has won because of his prolific run on the indy circuit, which even WWE has brought up enough times to even make it WWE canon. Writing out every title every wrestler has ever won is a bit too much for ledes though, as HHH pointed out we don't write out the entire filmography of an actor or director, though we don't just list their most notable films either. We just have to find the right balance and the right perspective. I don't think Bryan Danielson's 160 day PWG reign and John Cena's unforgettable >1 day tag reigns with David Otunga/Miz are comparable but given Bryan's indy legacy I would say that that reign belongs in the lede. Does the tag reigns deserve a mention in Cena's lede? More debatable.20:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
We have to consider the titles in the context of the career, not the world in general. To The Ultimate Warrior, the NWE Heavyweight Championship is a blip, overshadowed by the WWF Championship. But in Romeo Roselli's case, it's a big deal. Likewise, Cena's tag reigns weren't nearly as significant as Billy Gunn's or either Dudley's.
Leads are meant to summarize, not exhaustively list things we repeat in the C&A. If someone new asked why Hulk Hogan is notable, in a nutshell, would anyone honestly bring up the tag reign on SmackDown with Edge? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Hulk I get your point about Cena and Hogan not needing to list their tag reigns, but how do we come up with an official guideline? This surely has to be on a case-by-case basis? Starship.paint (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it needs to be a case by case basis. Not all indy reigns are equal. For example there would be a big difference between hypothetical wrestler A who held an indy title for 5 days and wrestler B who had the longest reign in the promotion's history.--70.49.82.207 (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, case-by-case. Sometimes human editors are needed to make decisions. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Hulk and IP are both right. I'm not sure if we can create an official guideline based on how long a reign may be, how much exposure the reign must have had, the organizations, etc. We need to look at everything on a case by case basis. WP:LEAD says "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects" but "important aspects" varies wrestler to wrestler. I think we can all agree that Bradshaw's 8 day European Championship run was not an "important aspect" of his life, where as that same title was the only single's title DDP held in WWF and was the last championship he ever won.
Hulk shared that video of Steve Austin reading Kevin Nash's lead and he was out of breath and needed a drink by the time he finished... I don't think there's anything wrong with Nash's lead, the guy had a long and prosperous career, but some of these leads go on forever and I feel like Austin did after I get through with them! I applaud User:Vjmlhds for removing some of the fat on a number of these articles. Daniel Bryan's lead in particular went on forever and it does look amazing compared to before. But I think the title's HHH mentioned belong in the lead too. We just don't need to go on and on about it.LM2000 (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The reason I did what I did was over the fear that editors would want to include every little 2-bit indy title that a guy has ever won in the lead. Listing Bryan and Cesaro's WWE/ROH titles in the lead is like giving the reader a taste before digging in to the meat of the article. It's like the appetizer before the entree. You don't give someone a large pizza as an app before the main meal of steak and potatoes. Now whatever the consensus winds up being, I'll abide by it, but I just wanted to let it be known where I was coming from. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
One other bit of business...while Cena's tag title runs have been fairly insignificant in and of themselves, they do deserve a quick mention in the lead as they contributed to Cena's overall WWE career of winning 20 total championships in the company (13 of them being World titles). Vjmlhds (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Anything wrong with just saying he won 20 titles (and 13 world)? If someone is interested in which titles those are, we have a clearly marked Championships and Accomplishments section. Going back your pizza, the ad for a twenty-topping pie would likely not list them all, but they'd still be there when a consumer starts eating/reading. I've fixed Cena and Nash's articles, but don't want to do too many until we're (more) certain. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I understand it. I don't include every single title that Christopher Daniels has won. But if an indy title is relevant for the wrestler career, indy or national, I think that we should include it. Bryan had succes as indy circuit and national wrestler, but I don't see the logic to include only one part of his career in the intro. We can make very good intros, like Peter Jackson. He is best know for LOTR and The Hobbit, he also did King Kong and his first cult film is Bad Taste. We can talk about his carrer in WWE, ROH and other indy promotions (not every single promotion, use common sense), but delete the titles because "people don't know about PWG and FIP"...--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Fine then, I do agree that each lead deserves a case-by-case analysis. Daniel Bryan's lead looks great now by the way. But several, if not all of the Diva's leads are too long IMO, they shouldn't be listing FCW, Tamina Snuka's lead lists her aligning with JTG on NXT which went nowhere, Alicia Fox's lead lists her aligning with Zack Ryder which went nowhere as well, Kaitlyn's lead lists her "team" with AJ called "the Chickbusters" (never labelled as that on TV), AJ Lee's lead lists her winning Kiss of the Year. Natalya's one lists her managing the Great Khali. Just ridiculous and I don't think I will be able to fix all of them. Starship.paint (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't we include a bit about Total Divas in some of the divas intros? For example, Total Divas is a more notable point in Natalya's career than mentoring The Chickbusters (which I believe was the third into this borderline group was mentioned in), yet you can probably guess which one was mentioned and which one was not.LM2000 (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
LM2000 why don't you explain to us how Total Divas is notable? Starship.paint (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
It's given some of the divas more exposure than they've had before, especially The Funkadactyls. Natalya's career is in a renaissance after over a year in fluctuating limbo and following The Great Khali and Hornswoggle around because the show has put focus on her and was incorporated into a storyline with The Bellas.LM2000 (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
While I do agree that Total Divas seems especially important to the Funkadactyls (and the Bellas seem like main characters as well), the translation to other WWE programming (for Nattie as an example) is pretty much as you said "give them a storyline" and not really much more. Of course, it's nowhere near the heights that AJ reached as "everybody feuding over a world title"'s crazy girlfriend in 2012 (which I mentioned in her lead). I'm wondering about how much mainstream exposure Total Divas is receiving. Hilariously enough, Total Divas has a larger viewership than TNA Impact.TD vs TNA Starship.paint (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Also I'd like to propose a general guideline (break it if you see fit) as to what valet stuff should be mentioned in a Diva's lead. If she's a long-term valet (more than a year maybe?) or a champion's valet, then it can be considered. Actually, same can go for managers. For example Ricardo was a long-term manager of Del Rio who won both the WHC and WWE Championship under his management. Similarly Rosa Mendes managed Primo & Epico to a tag reign. Starship.paint (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC
I like that guideline quite a bit, and I support it. I trimmed up Kaityln's intro quite a bit, but an IP has thwarted me at every turn. I've reverted their edits a few times, but I'm not going to edit war over it. If someone else wants to either trim up the current intro to edit out unnecessary details (it currently mentioned Chickbusters, a feud with Vickie Guerrero, and being the only female to win NXT... even though it was the only female season...) or just revert back to the edits I made I'd appreciate it. It's just unnecessarily bloated, as Starship mentioned earlier, the way it stands right now.LM2000 (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Right, I'll help you on that. Frankly, I also consider the "developmental / FCW" stuff excess (just trim to signed with WWE?), and also the nickname? Kaitlyn's "Hybrid Diva" and AJ's "Geek Goddess"? I'm not sure if those nicknames deserve to be in the lead... can someone enlighten me if those nicknames have actually been mentioned on WWE programming? CM Punk's called the Voice of the Voiceless / Best in the World, Daniel Bryan's called goat-face, Ryback is Big Hungry... but AJ? Kaitlyn? It's the same as their Chickbusters name - apparently not important enough to be mentioned on TV? Starship.paint (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I removed the "hybrid diva" bit, I agree it wasn't useful. I also agree that we shouldn't go on and on about developmental stuff. I'm not entirely sure where we draw the line though... I guess that also varies on a case-by-case basis. Is it really worth noting John Cena's OVW tag reign with Rico, for example?LM2000 (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, LM2000. Why do we keep mentioning "was sent to developmental...Ohio Valley Wrestling / Florida Championship Wrestling / NXT Wrestling" in leads? Instead of In 2001, Cena signed a contract with the World Wrestling Federation (WWF) and was sent to Ohio Valley Wrestling (OVW) where he held the OVW Heavyweight Championship and the OVW Southern Tag Team Championship (with Rico Constantino)., I would change it to "In 2001, Cena signed a developmental contract with the World Wrestling Federation (WWF). In 2002, he debuted on the main roster." I'd also put that section before "In WWE, Cena has won 20 championships in total". Also, winning a developmental championship isn't notable enough for the lead for 90% of the time IMO, because it just means that they are ready for a call up to the main roster. The exception is only if... inaugural champion like Seth Rollins first NXT Champion / first FCW 15 Champion, or having the most reigns or longest reign. What do you think? Starship.paint (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The question here seems again to be "what constitutes a 'notable Indy'?" -- If it has it's own Wikipedia article, it's notable by default.

Feedback ☎ 06:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't confuse being notable enough to have a Wikipedia article (which is covered by the rather generous WP:GNG) with being significant to a given wrestler's career. That is the matter under discussion, and is far more a matter of editorial judgement. oknazevad (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that is easy. Use common sense. If we read an article, we can imagine what is the key points. The WHC and WWE Championships are key points in Bryan's career, but ROH, PWG and Fip Titles are too, so both titles, national and indys, can appear in the introduction to create a good introduction. Look Peter Jacson, it's obvious that LOTR and The Hobbit are his most known works and when he appeares in a TV show, he is presented as LOTR director, no King Kong or Bad Taste director, but we don't delete them because we are an encliclopedia.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Update

Okay, as per my "Exactly, LM2000. Why do we"... post above, I am trimming some leads to remove excess stuff like "went to FCW, won FCW Heavyweight Championship". See Ted DiBiase Jr before and after. Also John Cena. Starship.paint (talk) 06:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

A rant

Forigive me for being blunt, but I have some things I'd like to say to the project (such as remains), and I'm in no mood to mince my words.

1) If you will insist on moving so many bloody articles, the least you could do is clean up after them.
a) There is a listas parameter on the talk pages of any BLP, as part of Template:WikiProject Biography. Please update. Some of us use talk page categories for maintenance and tracking and it's a pain in the ass when they're listed properly. It's really not hard - it's the exact same as the DEFAULTSORT in the actual article, and I've lost track of how many I've had to update recently.
b) Please move the talk page with the article. If for some reason the talk page won't move, use Template:Db-move so the article and the talk page match. Again, I've had to fix several of these recently.
2) Several edits like this have been on my watchlist in the past few days, and I was wondering why, only to find out that a small amount of people dislike it. Seriously people, wordiness is not the problem, it's merely a symptom of the problem: excessive detail and week-to-week.
Example: this edit to a GA. Does that "fix" anything with the article? Does read a whole lot better now? I certainly don't think so. Three "episode of" and four "pay-per-view"s are removed. Oh my god, the article's so much better now.</sarcasm>
The problem isn't that the phrases "episode of" or "pay-per-view" are used. The problem is that they're used in every damn sentence, because pretty much every article now lists weekly results. "On the date Raw, he beat x. On the date SmackDown, he attacked y. Then at SummerSlam he defeated x." does not in any way read better then "On the date episode of Raw, he beat x. On the date episode of SmackDown, he attacked y. Then at SummerSlam he defeated x." Quite frankly, I think it's bullshit to say so. Removing two words from a sentence doesn't eliminate any problems from the article in any way.
The other reason those phrases are used so much is poor writing. There's no variety, no flow to so damn many articles now. I use "pay-per-view" for a few sentences in my writing to mix it up and reduce the repetitiveness. I don't mind some being removed if there are too many, but all of them? This new, non-publicised agreement among a few editors means that, in my opinion, a lot more variety will be removed from articles. Consider Shelly Martinez now. Before LM2000's "improvements", the wording was roughly half and half between "at X" and using "pay-per-view". Now, every instance of a pay-per-view reads "at X". Repetitive. Boring. Bad writing.
3) Is there a reason the long-standing convention to remove future events is no longer followed? When I first joined the project in 2007, future events (e.g. X will Y at ___) were reverted on sight as WP:CRYSTAL violations. Was there a discussion changing this I missed?
  • I apologise for being long winded, and if some of you are offended or upset, then I apologise, but I felt some things needed to be said and sugarcoating never helped anybody. NiciVampireHeart 05:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, previously everything was "1.", I changed it to 1) and 2) and 3). Regarding 2), let's separate the "good writing and variety" stuff from the "excessive week-by-week". I did read Shelly Martinez, and I don't think removing the "episode of"s hurt the article's "good writing and variety", or anything else. On having half "At Lockdown" and half "At the December to Dismember pay-per-view"... yeah, there's a little variety, yes, but then if we apply that to the "episode of" then why don't we have 1/3 "On the May 1 Raw", 1/3 "On the May 3 episode of NXT" and 1/3 "On the May 5 edition of SmackDown"... no repetitiveness then? Meanwhile week by week results are a whole different issue. Of course removing the "episodes of" would not have an effect on week by week results. Regarding 3), is that the work of IPs or more experienced editors? As a side-note, if you consider those of us here as "a few editors" in the bigger picture, perhaps we should work on publicising more this WikiProject (and talk page) to the rest of the editors working on wrestling articles. Starship.paint (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

There are of course other ways of wording it, several in fact; that was more or less my one of points. Suggesting that all instances of "episode of" or "pay-per-view" need to be removed from articles, which is what has been happening, is ridiculous. Variety is the spice of life. It shouldn't be all one way or the other, but a mix.
I should note that TV shows are not divided into "editions", but episodes, so your third suggestion doesn't work. That was brought up at an FAC and other places years ago IIRC.
I should clarify. What I meant by a few editors was you, InedibleHulk, and LM2000 had a discussion on the use of "episode of" and began making sweeping wholesale changes that were not an overall improvement in my opinion. One form of repetitiveness was swapped for another.
My other point (one of several) was that although week-by-week and good writing are obviously not synonymous, they are inter-related. Good writing avoids week-by-week, which will cut down on the reptitiveness of certain phrases and render this entire discussion moot.
Imagine all articles were like Shelly Martinez, and you were removing a grand total of seven instances of the phrases on each article. Would you really find said phrases so irritating, so "unnecessary" as per the edit summaries? I think not. NiciVampireHeart 07:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I've moved a few articles without any of the maintenance. I hadn't realized it was a problem, but now that I do, I'll get on that.
On the wordiness, not guilty. Wikipedia uses plain, concise English. It's cool to mix things up and get flowery in a storybook, but this is an encyclopedia. When a fact is buried in backwards structures and extra words, we're less efficient at delivering knowledge. Some people read "aloud" in their heads, and for them, it's not just another word, but extra time. One poor sentence alone isn't terrible, but together, WP:TLDR starts up.
And yes, the week-by-week shit is the underlying cause of the "episode of" syndrome and the walls of text. I have no objection to curing the disease, but also no ambition. In the meantime, best to treat the symptoms till a surgeon shows up. Sorry if I gave the impression of thinking my edits were fixing anything huge. I'll try to explicitly mark more as "minor".
Future plans should be noted, I think. Doesn't take a crystal ball to say "Kane is expected/scheduled/booked to face The Rat King at No Mercy", rather than "Kane will face The Rat King". I just changed one of those today. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
And I can't forgive you for being blunt, because I already accepted your "long winded" apology. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Let me start by apologizing for perhaps jumping the gun. That said, I'm not sure how "blank occurred on 5/12 Raw" is just as bad as "blank occurred on the 5/12 episode of Raw". The date must be mentioned regardless "episode of" is negotiable but doesn't bring anything to the table, except perhaps a slice of variety. This conversation really seriously started when discussing the Rosa Mendes article, where "episode of" was tediously mentioned dozens of times... just to give an example. As far as mentioning "the pay-per-view", that is entirely unnecessary in most cases. Of course Supercards are PPVs in almost all cases (except perhaps the new TNA lineup). What good does it do to mention such a thing? While "episode of" can occur several times a paragraph, "pay-per-view" occurs far more rarely so I don't think that even brings enough variety to the table to suit it for inclusion. Perhaps we can draw this down the middle and include "episode of" once every few lines, include just the date on others, and perhaps some other phrases thrown in for the sake of variety? The problems both sides seem to have with the "5/12 episode of Raw" and "the 5/12 Raw" seem to be repetitiveness, after all. Well, so long as we balance out WP:TL;DR as Hulk pointed out.LM2000 (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm cool with "episode of" in the first mention, just in case someone needs the extra initial hint that Raw is a TV show (italics, Wikilinks and cable ratings aside). Maybe again, halfway through a long article. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
And I don't mind repetition as much as lengthy repetition, but we could also "get crazy" and sometimes put the setting after the action, like "Kane chokeslammed The Rat King to Hell on the February 14 Raw." InedibleHulk (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
It would be good if NiciVampireHeart could provide some form of a proposal on what to do with the "episode of" instead of just criticizing the change, because I don't think installing all of the "episode of" back is a good idea. How do we achieve variety?
Regarding future events, if there was a previous consensus not to list future events I don't think I will push for overturning it. Starship.paint (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The only thing I can think of, is that the setup and the payoff would have to be written different from the way they are now. For example: " At 5/19 Kane challenged Undetaker to a match at Unforgiven. Kane chokeslamed him off of the stage on the next episode of Raw. At the pay-per-view Kane defeated Undertaker." Unfortunately many articles read like this "Kane challenged Undertaker on the 5/19 episode of Raw. On the 5/26 episode of Raw Kane Chokeslammed Undertaker off the stage. At the Unforgiven pay-per-view Kane defeated Undertaker." See where tl;dr comes in? It would take a considerable amount of time to actually rewrite these articles with "variety". Removing "episode of" and "at the ___ pay-per-view" is the next best thing.LM2000 (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: A desire for brevity would be better served by removing most of the week-by-week, and distilling the articles down to summary style, not by removing two particular phrases because you dislike them. As for "flowery", I'm not asking for "flowery". I'm asking for good, engaging prose that is interesting and easy to read. That is not outside the scope of an encyclopedia: WP:WIAFA point 1a.

@Starship.paint: What do you want, a list of examples? Fine, read Shelly Martinez again. As I already stated, there were only three instances of "episode of" in that article, because I wrote the article in a summary style not a "This week, she defeated x. On Raw, she lost to y." style. The problem with this of course, that it requires rewriting the article to avoid such usage, and the consensus in this discussion seems to be that that is too hard, too much work, and nobody wants to do it.
@LM2000: The "next best thing"? Please, let's be realistic here. It's sheer fucking laziness on your part. This is further enforced by your edits to Shelly Martinez and Kevin Thorn. Point out the week-by-week in them please. Point out the usage of "episode of" in every second sentence a la Rose Mendes. You can't because it didn't exist. Applying a poorly-conceived blanket standard like this on the grounds that it's just easier than writing a decent article fails drastically when you are confronted with a decent article. Every little helps. Spend the time you were planning on spending on removing these phrases by rewriting just one of these articles instead. That's useful. These edits are not.
@All three of you: By all means treat the symptoms of the problem, but be aware that treating the symptoms completely ignores the underlying problem; and that in it's self is a problem. Yes, I do realise that re-writing the articles to a decent standard is time-consuming and laborious. I've written enough GAs to know that. Once an article is at a decent standard however, it is easier to maintain it as such. Check new edits involving recent events against the summary-style paragraphs above. If it doesn't fit: remove it, rewrite it. Quality maintained. Every now and again, go through the article with a fine-tooth comb. If a match on Raw or whatever is mentioned but didn't lead to anything noteworthy, kill it. Quality maintained. The issue here is that you can't maintain quality if you don't have it in the first place. NiciVampireHeart 18:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I was a bit hyperbolic when describing the "episode of" on Rosa Mendes' article but unfortunately it was only a slight exaggeration, as you can see here [5]. My edits here were clearly productive. They correspond with the aforementioned WP:TL;DR as well as WP:WIAFA point 4. The quality of this article undeniably improved after this clean-up. On the other side of the coin.. I'm glad you enjoyed my edits to Shelley Martinez, those edits seem to be quite dear to your heart. I think that what we ultimately have to come to agreement on is just how often these phrases should be used, if ever. I tend to agree with Hulk that they only need to be mentioned perhaps once. I'll gladly revert those edits depending on how this discussion goes. Frankly even if we are to rewrite some parts, whether it be to be flowery or just plain more engaging, I don't think it is necessary to beat this horse dead. "5/19 Raw" is the same thing as "the 5/19 episode of Raw" and clearly is more succinct, whether it only occurs 4 times or too many to count. "Episode of" in a different order, like the example in my previous post, is fine by me though. If articles are to be rewritten, which I think we are all in agreement that they should be, this is something that we need to figure out right now. This is an important distinction to make, and must be settled, because at the moment Nici is saying I went too far with articles such as Thorne and Martinez while I didn't go far enough with Rosa Mendes.LM2000 (talk) 02:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify what I mean... I would prefer "On 5/19 Raw x happened. On the next episode of Raw y happened" as opposed to using "episode of" frequently in the context in which I removed it from the articles that I did.LM2000 (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
You do realise what you prefer ("On 5/19 Raw x happened. On the next episode of Raw y happened") is the definition of week-by-week right LM2000? I do understand what you mean though, there needs to be less "episode of". I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing your methods for attainging less of it. As for the improvement of Rosa Mendes, your diff I don't consider to be an improvement. This edit of yours is an improvement, as you actually remove week-by-week and summarise. This is what you need to do to improve articles, not just remove a certain phrase. If you feel like continuing to improve Mendes, I'd start my replacing some of those unreliable sources (there's lordsofpain, wrestlezone, wrestlinginc, pwmania, diva-dirt, prowrestlingwiki, and more...) and continue to summarise. To be honest though, Mendes needs to be taken apart with a flamethrower and re-done. As do most other articles. As to your other point, having a hard and fast rule on how often a phrase gets used is quite frankly ridiculous. Common sense is needed here, not a bright-line rule. NiciVampireHeart 06:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The thought that I'm getting from reading NiciVampireHeart's comments is that there is not much need to remove the "episodes of" from the older wrestling bios (not involving current WWE/TNA wrestlers) because of there is not much week-by-week stating "episode of" in there in the first place, so articles like Martinez and Kevin Thorn wouldn't need such removals... but poorly maintained articles like Rosa Mendes do. I did point out earlier in the "hahaha" discussion that for the divas articles, I would remove the week-by-week info before the excessive words... Unfortunately, as we all know, removing week-by-week and replacing unreliable sources with reliable sources is tedious, and I have no ambition to do so with wrestlers such as Jinder Mahal, Layla El and Heath Slater. I'm sure we all don't have the time nor the mental power needed for such a task. This year I already wiped all the unreliable -wrestlingattitude- sources from Wikipedia, they must have spread to more than a hundred articles. I can't bring myself to do more. Starship.paint (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that removing "episode of" makes it sound too "fanboy" for an encyclopedia. You might not say "episode of" if you're talking to friends, but taking it out makes it sound too informal, in my opinion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not getting that informal vibe, sorry. Starship.paint (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

But I think we do have a way forward to prevent future additions week-by-week and unreliable sources. We need to scout the current articles, to see who's been adding the week-by-week and the unreliable sources, and we need to educate them. A possible solution would be to bring them here so that they can receive info on the standard procedures, ask questions and have their queries answered. This will increase our manpower and hopefully, with enough people we can tackle the week-by-week problem. Starship.paint (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I also don't see the "fanboy" connection. Maybe if we said "Raw #284" or "Hardcore TV S03E12", I would. Don't general audiences use the same calendar as us, and read the same EPG?
As for teaching a bunch of kids on the Internet the finer points of writing, strongly oppose. If you're into that kind of thing, all the power to you, but I'd need money. Rather we just lead by example, and a Wikilink to our MoS in the edit summary of reverts. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


Alright, I reverted myself on Martinez and Ferig as those were the most contentious and although this discussion has gone in a lot of directions I don't get a sense that a total ban on "episode of" in that context is likely to happen and because it was used infrequently there isn't any reason to take a flamethrower to it.

Just to clear up my example... while the example is indeed an example of week-to-week, what I meant was that having two "episode of"s in the same paragraph is poor writing. Take my edits to Rosa Mendes for example, before my series of edits it read like this:"On the November 19 episode of Raw, Mendes entered a feud with Hornswoggle after being pranked by Hornswoggle with a bouquet of flowers ... On the December 6 episode of WWE Superstars, Mendes attacked Hornswoggle with a bouquet of flowers as a measure of revenge for the previous month on 'Raw but was in turn assaulted by Natalya." It currently reads as "On the November 19 Raw, Mendes was pranked by Hornswoggle with a bouquet of flowers which she attempted to use to attack him with on the December 6 WWE Superstars but was assaulted by Natalya." While we agree that the latter is definitely an improvement, do any of you believe that it would read better if "episode of" appeared before Raw and Superstars or is that part fine as is?LM2000 (talk)

I think we could generally do without the "WWE", too. Just Superstars, like just Raw. And specifically to this article, what does "pranked with a bouquet" even mean? Was there a snake in there? Itching powder? Why does any of it matter, anyway?
And yeah, the week-by-week stuff in this article is worse than I'd assumed. I may give it a major edit soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
It's now 13,735 bytes less full of it. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

hahaha

  • On April 29 episode of Raw, after a confrontation with AJ Lee, Dolph Ziggler, and Big E Langston backstage, Kaitlyn was given a hat as a gift from a secret admirer,[125] and a bouquet of roses along with a pair of black and red gloves on the May 3 episode of SmackDown.[126] On the May 6 episode of Raw, Kaitlyn received Simpsons toys from her favorite episode as a gift from her secret admirer.[127] At the Extreme Rules pay-per-view, Kaitlyn would get into a brawl with AJ Lee once again after Lee called her a pig.[128]
  • On the April 29 episode of Raw, Cameron accompied Naomi to the ring where she was defeated by Brie Bella following "Twin Magic" but then Cameron complained with the referee disqualified The Bella Twins despite not seeing the switch. In retaliation, The Bella Twins focused on attacking Cameron for costing them the win.[18]
  • Tamina would then begin an on-screen relationship with JTG, becoming his valet. She accompanied him on the November 9 episode of NXT Redemption in a losing effort against old partner Jimmy Uso, who was also accompanied by Jey Uso.[26]
  • On the December 6 episode of WWE Superstars, Mendes attacked Hornswoggle with a bouquet of flowers as a measure of revenge for the previous month on 'Raw but was in turn assaulted by Natalya.[1][86] The following night of SmackDown, Mendes accompanied Primo and Epico in a losing effort to The Great Khali and Hornswoggle. During the match, she fell over Hornswoggle then was assaulted again by Natalya.[87]
The state of our articles on female WWE wrestlers clearly reflect the state of the division... Starship.paint (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Might I also point out that the deleted "The Chickbusters" article has been revived as The Chickbusters (professional wrestling). Starship.paint (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it is because, just like when we watch wrestling, on Wikipedia we do not really care about the divas at all haha. And The Chickbusters (professional wrestling) is now up for speedy deletion. STATic message me! 15:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Fucking "would" again. "Tamina began an on-screen relationship". It happened. In the past. Not conditional upon anything.
Fucking "episode of". "On the December 6 Superstars..." Italics mean it's an episode.
Fucking "the Extreme Rules pay-per-view". Just Wikipipe the damn title.
Most importantly, fucking general wordiness is killing all of our "divisions", not just the women's. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
And yes, such trivial details in an encyclopedia are bad, too. But not profanely bad. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
We agreed on removing the "episode of" stuff? Now that you mention it, it seems like a good idea. Starship.paint (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
A peeve I have is when people write "retired American professional wrestler" rather than "American retired professional wrestler". They're retired from being a wrestler, not from being an American... McPhail (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't bug me. "American" is an adjective here, not a noun. "Professional wrestler" is the noun. But it's also good the other way, so I see no reason you shouldn't change it, if you want. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, both are correct. However, convention (at least according to British Council) states nationality should be put at the end, immediately before the noun. --SocietyBox (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
"retired professional American wrestler?" Feedback ☎ 19:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
No, "professional wrestler" is a noun, altogether. Started out with "professional" as an adjective, probably, but the distinction has evolved into a standalone term of its own. Sort of like black box. It's entirely possible to have a white black box (the ones in planes are usually bright orange). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I just went through The Rosa Mendez article and removed every "episode of". I feel like I blanked the page. That phrase was used every other sentence. Your expletives were warranted, Hulk.LM2000 (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks better, thanks. I got a few "woulds" and other things. Thought of doing more, but a little overwhelming. Every bit helps, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, for the divas articles, I would remove the week-by-week info before the excessive words... Starship.paint (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, there's a lot of crap. Wherever anyone would like to start is the right place. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
We've got quite a bit of work to do. Seems that someone found it insightful to mention every interaction Rosa had with Hornswoggle on episodes of Saturday Morning Slam. Some of these articles read like that hilarious list of Wrestling Observer Newsletter quotes that found its way around the internet awhile back.LM2000 (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what list that is, but hilarious sounds good. I'll take a look. Speaking of the Internet, Hornswoggle and Rosa, this exists. Our Alberto del Rio could be worse. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for article reassessment

Hi, I'd like to request an informed reassessment of the professional wrestling article, see Talk:Professional wrestling#Article class. (I tried the link at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Assessment but it didn't work.)

I'm not suggesting the downgrade to be insulting, but rather to highlight the serious work that this top-significance article deserves. I've made a very small start but as it's not my main area of interest or expertise, I need help.

Or if the WikiProject prefers to keep the current C class grading, that's fine too. Andrewa (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't watch wrestling

But I came across something that may be of interest to you guys. Arizona Wildcats volleyball player Penina Snuka - http://www.arizonawildcats.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=208656679&DB_OEM_ID=30700 They mentioned during the volleyball match that she has relatives (including her father and grandfather, and her uncle is The Rock) who wrestled for the WWF, so I got curious and googled. Came to the Jimmy Snuka Wikipedia article, and it says Snuka is just a stage name? Then why would his granddaughter be using it? I didn't say any link on the Jimmy Snuka article about his family but it says on Penina's page that her father is also named Jimmy, so I tried Jimmy Snuka, Jr. and that brought me to the article Jimmy Reiher, Jr. But Penina's page says her father's name is Jimmy Snuka, not Jimmy Reiher, so it's got to be more than just a stage name. I really don't think the NCAA and Arizona would list her as Snuka just because that's her father and grandfather's stage names.

But maybe I'm wrong. I just thought I'd bring it to your attention. 173.160.130.14 (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

  • That's interesting - thanks for bringing it to light. From looking into it briefly, it seems as though Jimmy Reiher, Jr. and his family have adopted the surname "Snuka" in place of "Reiher". Whether or not this involved a legal name change, I don't know. McPhail (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Could also be that the Wildcats page is wrong. It says The Rock is her uncle, but I can't see anything about a sister of his named Heka. Deuce (Snuka/Reiher Jr.) almost certainly isn't Rock's brother, or that would be common knowledge. There's a fair bit of confusion on the Internet about how The Rock and Superfly tie in to the Anoa'i family, so it might stem from that. Or maybe it's totally accurate. Not sure.
There is precedent for stage names becoming more, though. The Ultimate Warrior's kids' legal surname is Warrior. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Cross armbar and crucifix armbar the same thing?

Quoting the professional wrestling holds page:
"Cross armbar: Also known as cross armbreaker. The wrestler sits on either side of an opponent who is lying either prone or supine on the mat, with the wrestler's legs scissoring one of the opponent's arms. The wrestler then grabs hold of the wrist of that arm and pulls it upwards, causing hyperextension of the shoulder and elbow.

Crucifix armbar: The wrestler holds an opponent's arm with his arms, pulling the arm across his chest. He is situated perpendicular to and behind the opponent. The wrestler then holds the other arm with his legs, stretching the shoulders back in a crucifying position and hyperextending the arm."

Now, to me these two seem to describe two totally different moves. The first one is the standard armbar often seen in MMA and used by for example Alberto Del Rio. The second describes a move, where the attacking wrestler has the opponent in a crucifix position, i.e. he is behind the opponent, locking both arms (hence the name "crucifix"). Two different moves, right? Well, there's this User:173.171.118.119, who for some reason disagrees and claims they're the same move and has gone as far as changing all cross armbars/cross armbreakers to crucifix armbars, which I believe is wrong. He even changed Del Rio's (and A.J. Styles) finisher from [[Professional wrestling holds#Flying cross armbar]] (which perfectly describes the move) to [[Armlock#Flying armbar|Flying]] [[Professional wrestling holds#Crucifix armbar|crucifix armbar]]. I've undone them all and tried to explain the difference on his talk page (I'll admit I'm not the most polite person when coming face-to-face with idiocy), but he's adamant that he's right. The same guy also has a strange fetish about removing hyphens from move names (for example, "belly-to-belly" and "belly-to-back"), but that's a minor issue for now (though it bugs the fuck out of me). Am I completely out to lunch on this thing and if not, how can we stop him? リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No, not out to lunch. Different moves, as the holds page makes clear. Just involving a word which can be a synonym in another context. Stopping dynamic IPs can be a pain in the ass, but a static one is as simple as a registered user. Revert, discuss, potentially revert again, warn, revert again, ask for block. I haven't looked at his contributions yet, I'll help with the reverting if I can. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Looks clean, good job. But I sort of rushed because I forgot I'm missing Bellator. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
It's definitely a static IP, this guy's been bugging me for months, but since some of his edits are just fine (adding sources and stuff), I've tolerated it up until now with a revert every now and then, but there's always been this issue of him seemingly thinking that he knows better than the source. If a WWE source calls a move "Dudebuster DDT", he'll change it to "Dude Buster DDT" just because (WWE is wrong?). I've had to revert just this example several times. And there are dozens more like it out there.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Nope, I was wrong. He's also edited at least under IP's 173.171.47.125 and 173.171.121.247 (easily identified with the "minor edit" and "added supplemental links" tags). Fuck.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
"Minor edit" definitely rings a bell. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Since it looks like the armbar issue is gonna stay as it is, you might as well throw in the juji-gatame into the professional wrestling holds section just to make the redundancy come full circle. Ribbon, as I told you before you decided to litter my talk page with rude, unnecessary and pretentious insults, both terms are interchangeable (as is the Judo term juji-gatame) when it comes to that particular armbar. The only proof you've shown to me was one picture of an armbar from the crucifix position and one of a choke from the crucifix position while playing both off as armbars despite clearly being to the contrary. What's even more sad is that both pictures are from different articles altogether on this very same site. When it comes to the Dude Buster / Dudebuster mention, I did that for the sake of consistency of spelling due to the stable having a space in the name while the move itself doesn't. Either the stable's format of the name is right or the move's format is, so which is it? And as for the hyphens, reliable sources online either do or don't use hyphens. If you're really that adamant about using hyphens as you feel it's needed, feel free to so long as you do it for every single article. 173.171.118.119 (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not playing off the crucifix position as an armbar, I'm just showing the position crucifix armbar is applied from. If that attacking guy let go of the guy's neck and grabbed the opponent's left arm, that would be a crucifix armbar and it looks nothing like cross armbar. In cross armbar, the other arm is free to flap around, in crucifix armbar it's locked between the legs (=crucifix position). And of course you should have hyphens in "belly-to-belly", it's a completely different term without them. "Belly to belly suplex" would be a suplex from one belly to another like John Cena suplexing Ryback from Daniel Bryan's belly to Big Show's belly (ridiculous), while "belly-to-belly" implies that the bellies are connected when the move is performed.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 05:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
And yet contrary to what you just said, there's even a "Did You Mean?"-styled redirect in the crucifix position's article that reads For a technique known as crucifix' armlock, see Juji-gatame. Note the part I bolded, which leads me back to my original point of the crucifix, cross and juji-gatame terms all being perfectly interchangable when describing that particular armbar. And the hyphens aren't an absolute necessity like you proclaim they are, considering several articles from reputable sources like PWTorch and Online World or Wrestling either do or don't use them in particular moves that involve belly to belly, belly to back, etc. positions. Lastly, good job on actually explaining your point to me like a civilized human being for once around instead of being constantly pretentious and rude. 173.171.118.119 (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Just because the For a technique known as crucifix armlock, see Juji-gatame. thingy exists doesn't mean it's 100% accurate. This video shows the crucifix armbar demonstrated by a certain expert called Marcelo Garcia. Starship.paint (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Then why is it even there to begin with if it's not 100% accurate? And the video you posted is titled Crucifix Armbar from Back. If the crucifix armbar was only applied from the back, then why did the uploader even bother throwing in "from Back" into the title, especially since it's being demonstrated by an expert of the hold? 173.171.118.119 (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
A crucifix armbar can be locked on from side control or mount, as well. This video is about how to get it from the back, which is why it's titled like that. Assuming it means a crucifix must come from the back is as faulty as assuming a flying cross armbar means all those must be flying. As for the accuracy thing, this is Wikipedia, a work in constant progress. You'll come across errors now and then. Hyphens look right in "belly-to-belly" to me, but that's more a matter of style. The factual difference between cross and crucifix armbars is black-and-white. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Well in regards to the variations of setting up what's basically the same armbar, I still don't see what the problem is terminology-wise. But if the interchangeable terms still doesn't fly with you, why not remove the crucifix armbar and cross armbar sections in the pro wrestling holds page and put them collectively under a juji-gatame section in the same page? It's status as a Japanese term shouldn't be a problem, since there's likes of the kesagiri chop, the enzuigiri and to a lesser extent the gamengiri (aka jumping high kick) and the abisegiri (aka rolling wheel kick). And I can see where you're coming from in regards to hyphen usage. 173.171.118.119 (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Then why is it even there to begin with if it's not 100% accurate? - that's because anyone can edit Wikipedia (erroneously), and that redirect did not provide any source to back it up. Wikipedia is all about verifiability - and that comes with sources. On here, anything without sources is original research, which will be automatically trumped by the source I provided. Here we have black belts showing the cross armbar, and it looks nothing like the crucifix armbar shown by Marcelo Garcia. You keep claiming that it's basically the same armbar - so where are your sources? Your claim regarding "from the back" -> it's the setup for the armbar, from the back. The final product is the same - still a crucifix armbar. Starship.paint (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
InedibleHulk already told me about the Did You Know?-styled bit regarding the juji-gatame. And the armbar is the same: A straight armbar / juji-gatame, albeit applied from a different position (and that can be applied from other positions as well like InedibleHulk mentioned) as shown here: A black belt applying a crucifix armbar. This again brings me back to my suggestion of getting rid of the crucifix armbar and cross armbar sections on the pro wrestling holds page and placing their collective description under a juji-gatame section on that page. 173.171.118.119 (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
But there is no collective description. In a crucifix, the attacker's legs wrap and extend the victim's far arm. In a cross/jujigatame, the legs go across the chest and neck, and the near arm is bent with the hands and hips. This is regardless of the initial position from which either move is applied. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
And yet the lock is effectively the same in either position or application: A straight armbar. I don't have any problems in creating the the aforementioned juji-gatame section for the wrestling holds page (and I'll even work on developing the section myself or with Ribbon if he's up to it). If that doesn't fit your bill, then the only other suggestion that comes to mind is removing the cross armbar and flying cross armbar sections from the wrestling holds page (due to them being redundant due to both being covered already in their respective pages) and instead use the juji-gatame page in its place (while also tending to pages that use the cross armbar / flying cross armbar and redirecting them to the juji-gatame). 173.171.118.119 (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you also suggest that we remove all versions of piledriver (flip, Gotch, double underhook, etc.), since the end result in all of them is the same; someone getting dropped on their head from a belly-to-back position? The current version works just fine. It's clear in definining what's a cross armbar and what's a crucifix armbar, there's no big confusion here; you're the only one who can't seem to comprehend that these are two completely different moves.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
There's that vintage Ribbon pretentiousness. If you actually read my entire comment, I provided two options to resolve the matter. Since you're obviously not keen on the first, there's always the second: Remove the cross armbar and flying cross armbar sections from the wrestling holds page and remedy the wrestling pages that use those holds (ex. Del Rio, Styles, etc.) by instead using the juji-gatame and flying armbar pages instead. 173.171.118.119 (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
A closer analogy is the triangle choke. When it's done with the arms instead of the legs, it's still functionally the same move. But there's a very subtle distinction between the limbs which most people notice, so it is commonly called an "arm triangle choke". It would be correct (but not recommended on Wikipedia) to use a vague term like "armbar" or "joint lock" for whatever-gatames, but both can't be classed as the same specific thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Definitely oppose first option, but much more neutral to the second (which doesn't touch the crucifix armbar at all right?), if so neither support nor oppose. Starship.paint (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The second option will indeed leave the crucifix armbar section intact on the wrestling holds page while removing the flying cross armbar and cross armbar sections from that page due to both holds already being covered in the armlock#flying armbar and juji-gatame pages, respectively. And if given the green light, I'll see to it that wrestler pages involving them are remedied accordingly. 173.171.118.119 (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ Sokol, Chris (2009-03-16). "The TNA Destination X disaster". SLAM! Sports: Wrestling. Canadian Online Explorer. Retrieved 2009-06-15. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Caldwell, James (2009-03-21). "TNA News: "Suicide" character expected to have lengthy X Division Title run, details on how TNA brought the character to TV". Pro Wrestling Torch. Retrieved 2010-05-17.
  3. ^ Vandrisse, Trent (2013-07-18). "Impact spoilers from Louisville". Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Retrieved 2013-07-19. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_89&oldid=1190145398"