Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 95

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 90 ← Archive 93 Archive 94 Archive 95 Archive 96 Archive 97 → Archive 100

Reverse wrestling

Not that this (directly) helps Wikipedia, but I think it's important that everyone is at least aware of reverse wrestling. It's like normal wrestling, but with very unusual ring psychology, crazy languages and literally gravity-defying highspots. I'm not affiliated with this channel in any way, so this isn't spam. Just a new way of looking at familiar stuff. To go forward, we must go backward (or something). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Related: TNA's reverse battle royal. In non-reverse. That channel should reverse that. But if you value your time, don't bother. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Ha! Nice. I vaguely remember wasting my time watching that on PPV. Maybe it's aged well?
Still not as bad as Frank Trigg vs AJ Styles. I wasted time, money and travel on that one. It was so bad, some PPV carriers actually switched to porn during it, but the live crowd wasn't so lucky. In a way, though, it was historic. And the "Ladder of Love" match was a lot cooler than it sounds. Wouldn't rewind. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
That's what Jim Ross, Steve Austin and Chris Jericho have been saying, too. Probably something to it.
And yeah, used to love TNA, from the D'Lo days up until around Bischoff and the WCW-shaped ring showed up. Hopefully we don't see him in Lucha Underground later. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Bischoff? Heard he just joined Global Force Wrestling. Hit the dirt-sheets. TNA did have its positives - Motor City Machine Guns vs Beer Money series? Man I came back to elaborate about Lucha Underground but you already replied. It just doesn't piss me off when I'm watching it, you know? There's no Damien Sandow being wasted losing to Miz or catering to kids with a childish game of copycat. There's commentary that is actually invested in the action (Vampiro is a huge mark) and calling the moves (Matt Striker). There's no PPVs either, so all the good stuff and title matches are on the 1-hour TV show. There's almost zero commercials during matches too. I don't know why WWE (and TNA?) do that. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I certainly like not being pissed off. Unless I'm supposed to be, of course. Who's their best heel? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I see. Anyway, Cracked has six ways WWE pissed their fans off today. You might be interested. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Get the STUB out

While I do not frequent the pro wrestling project a lot I do work almost exclusively on wrestling articles, primarily the Mexican lucha libre related articles. I have been working on expanding existing articles, reducing the number of stub articles listed for the project. Last night I expanded the last true Lucha Libre stub out there but I think it would be awesome if we do a focused effort on expanding all stub articles listed here Category:Stub-Class Professional wrestling articles. Current there are 316 articles (kinda fitting for pro wrestling) but I am sure that this could be reduced great and would be a true improvement of Wikipedia.  MPJ -US  12:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I see many names I don't recognize. We should first go through the 316 to delete all those articles which don't meet notability (WP:GNG) - then focus on expanding the rest. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    • No, we should expand them with the available sources that will help establish the notability. The goal of the stub article reduction drive was never to delete content just because it would take some work to improve it instead. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I would like to help, but I don't have the level to expand these articles. However, I think the easy ones are the 9 In Your House, Final Battle 2013, Death Before Dishonor IX. Also, we have some DGUSA events, like DGUSA Open The Northern Gate, DGUSA United: NYC, DGUSA Uprising and Bushido. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Any little thing helps and I think that some of the stubs really should be deleted for not being notable. Not every wrestler needs to be on Wikipedia.  MPJ -US  00:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    • @MPJ-DK: - about the current PROD-ing, I think we should focus less on historical wrestlers, instead focus on current, American wrestlers, who should get enough coverage online in the Internet age. Historical wrestlers may be notable but with their information offline. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah I would agree with that. I have also been reluctant to prod non-American content too. Harder to find English language sources so those may take more time to expand.  MPJ -US  20:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Stuff to merge: probably everything in Category:Fire Pro Wrestling should go in one article. Plus everything in List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling albums. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Good ideas. I could easily fold the TNA articles into the list article, heck it is already 90% the same.  MPJ -US  20:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @MPJ-DK: - actually I think it should be easier for us to PROD in alphabetical order. So that we can double-check each others' PRODs, and anyone else can also help by checking alphabetically. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Could we hold off on adding more to the deletion queue for a while? It would be nice to have a chance to take a look for sources for some of these articles, but with 16 PRODs and 7 AfDs, it's a bit much at this point. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks like an IP did a good job expanding Allan Pinfold. It meets the criteria for a DYK nomination if anyone can come up with a hook by the 29th. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It was MPJ-DK actually - so he can do a DYK himself. Perhaps the hook can mention the Light Heavyweight Championship and the refereeing after retiring. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Just more proof that editing when exhausted isn't always a great idea. You're correct that it was mostly MPJ-DK. Sorry about that. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I did not even realize I had expanded it that much. MPJ -US  21:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • We're down to 275 Stubs, from 316, I think that's a good piece of work - with some prods being deleted soon etc. we'll be looking at 250 or less soon. I got more I want to work on as well, so not just deletion.  MPJ -US  00:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm a little confused. How did we get from 316 to 275. Surely not so many have been deleted. So they've been expanded? If so, that's awesome. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Some were expanded and some were actually not stubs any more so they were simply re-rated without anything else needed.  MPJ -US  20:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • All of the PRODs are gone now, and most of the AfDs. I think we're ready for the next wave. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Well we are down to 251 stub articles now. I have been focusing on expansion more than deletion and I still see some I can definitely expand with very little research and others that I am sure can be expanded - a few deletion subjects here and here but not a ton. Great work and thank you for everyone who's pitched in with this so far.  MPJ -US  22:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Allan Pinfold is currently a featured DYK thanks to the expansion, and we're down to like 225 stub articles and counting.  MPJ -US  04:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Great work MPJ-DK, but just saying I can't work on this for until about three weeks from now. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I've been helping, and I helped a couple of years ago during the original stub reduction drive, too. I just expanded Ribera Steakhouse, and I'll probably nominate it for DYK tomorrow. Nikki♥311 05:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  • 198 - Boom. *drops Mic and walks away.*  MPJ -US  22:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Great job!!! Should the new goal be 150? Nikki♥311 19:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmmmm 34 more? That is not unrealistic but there are some of those stubs where I don't know where to begin working on them, especially those from non-English speaking countries where most of the sources are probably in their native language. And then there is Herb Abrams, I don't even want to touch that one.  MPJ -US  22:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
You can choose some ROH/DGUSA events. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I have a soft spot for Old School wrestling and wrestlers such as Shigeri Akabane, so I will probably plow through those first. MPJ -US  00:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • We are down 156 stub articles. Once we hit 150 I am tapping out and moving on to other things on here that could benefit from my attention - old school and lucha libre articles in general. But considering the number started out at 316 in late March I would say it's been a very successful stub drive.  MPJ -US  23:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • And there we go, 148 articles. It's been fun, it's been educational.  MPJ -US  22:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Not totally stopping, there are definitely articles I would like to work on - Joe Blanchard for one could be interesting to research.  MPJ -US  21:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Guys, is there any proof that John Olin isn't a scam article? From what I'm reading online, the World Heavyweight Champion was actually Johan Olin. [1] [2] starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Son of Get the Stub out - Clean up wrestling?

My next project is going to be to get the Cleanup Listing below 20%. Expanding all those stubs helped a lot. Feel free to help out. Nikki♥311 03:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

  • That is what I am looking at right now too, date fixes is my current one. Also had a go at print sources that also had accessdate, between us and whoever else is up for it we could probably bring that down to 20% in a few weeks.  MPJ -US  01:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • So 28% is good, down from like 36-38% first time I checked that page (never knew it existed until a few weeks ago). Definitely a step in the right direction. And there are plenty of categories that someone can work on without actually knowing the subject, like web citations missing a title, click the link - fill in the title and boom another improvement.  MPJ -US  04:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Blake and Murphy

There's a bit of an issue that needs to be fixed but I'm not sure how (the rust is showing in my absence from WP!) so I thought I'd throw it to everyone here.

There is a lot of duplication of material between Blake and Murphy and Buddy Murphy. I haven't looked but I'll bet it's the same with Wesley Blake. For the sake of the encyclopedia as such we need to fix this up but how? What really bothers me is that the team article was created by a known sock puppet master who uses IPs as socks, but I'll leave that aside for now because this is about the content and not the creator. What to do? It's quite a mess from the looks of it and it's going to take some work to clean it up - and let the creator know about the mess that has been created. Curse of Fenric (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @Curse of Fenric: I wrote 82% of Wesley Blake, so you're not going to find many holes in the content, if it's copied wholesale from there. I'm not too concerned about the BaM article, actually. The last two NXT tag champions (Ascension and Lucha Dragons) were promoted to the main roster as a team, so their articles continued. If BaM disbands and they're individually called up, perhaps we could look into deleting the article then, but not now, in my opinion. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Well then it appears the copying has been done from the Buddy Murphy article then. I'm not suggesting any deletions. We have to sort out what goes in the Buddy article and what goes in the tag team article. That's where I'm at a loss. Curse of Fenric (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Converting {{PW-FrequentTarget}} from a talk page template to a Edit notice template

There are a number of WWE talent's articles which still suffer from week-to-week updates, and we have a template that addresses that. The problem is that most editors don't check the talk pages. Now that we have edit notices, I propose to move these templates into editnotices, so that people can easily read the warning when editing. --wL<speak·check> 19:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible to specify it only ends up of pro wrestling pages? If so, I'm all for it. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 04:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
At the moment, the template would have to be manually added to each article via the Page notice link (look near the top right corner), so yes it is possible. They are working on a feature where it would appear on all pages within a category. But I'm not sure when that will happen. I'll likely do a test run on some of the articles that I see are having trouble with week-to-week updates. --wL<speak·check> 14:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a separate template for editnotices called {{Professional wrestling editnotice}} that people can add to to frequent target's WP:EDITNOTICE. --wL<speak·check> 04:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Dusty Rhodes

We weren't lucky with Verne Gange but I'm more optimistic that we can get a shout out to the Dweem, see his RD candidate section.LM2000 (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we can get it, but the article needs more work. If someone has time, could they please add some more sources? -- Scorpion0422 12:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I will add some later today when I have a bit more time. Nikki♥311 18:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Luchas de Apuestas table format

Greetings, if you know me then you know I am mainly working on the Lucha Libre articles on Wikipedia and as such just go about my business, but based on a suggestion by User:HHH Pedrigree I have come up with what I believe is an improvement to the Luchas de Apuestas table. What is that you say? A "Luchas de Apuestas" match is a match where the competitors "bet" something on the match, usually mask or hair, but also some times their career or a title (against a mask). now 75-80% of those is mask/mask or hair/hair, but not always so. And for the ones that are not straight mask/mask or hair/hair the current format is a little misleading, see example below, a real example from one of our articles.

Wager Winner Loser Location Date Notes
Hair Último Dragón Hajime Ohara Mexico City, Mexico August 22, 2009 Dragón's Marks vs Ohara's Hair

The Note had to point out that Dragon was masked, Ohara was unmasked, then we throw in other variations and the table is not quite cutting it without a ton of extra "notes". I came up with a tweaked format that makes it clear what each wrestler is wagering, and as an added bonus a spot for the show this took place on. I think this is helpful and makes the section more helpful, but I am not going to just run out and update the many.... many articles with a Luchas de Apuestas section without running it by here. So any objects to making this update as shown below? (the notes section is for references etc.)  MPJ -US  01:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed version
Winner (wager) Loser (wager) Location Event Date Notes
Último Dragón (Mask) Hajime Ohara (Hair) Mexico City, Mexico DragonMania IV August 22, 2009  
I like it. Clear, compact, easy to understand. A simple but effective improvement. oknazevad (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I like it too, but I would include "(Wager)" in the "Winner" and "Loser" parameters. Also for future reference, the singular term is "lucha de apuestas" not this "luchas de apuestas"/"luchas de apuesta" I keep seeing around. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 02:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I am good with adding that to the table, and yep I am aware of the singular version - but just like our sections are not called "Championship and Accomplishment" if there is only one, this section should still be "luchas de apuestas", but when referring to one match in the text yes I agree.  MPJ -US  03:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I like this version --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
The proposed version is a significant improvement. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me. McPhail (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to go through all articles that link to the Lucha Libre article and update the format on the tables that were not already updated by someone else (thank you especially to those that did a bunch of Japanese articles.) I will continue to monitor for format updates, but if you see an article that has not been updated let me know and I can fix it.  MPJ -US  15:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Unrecognized reigns

Some wrestlers like Antonio Inoki have a "1 ^ Inoki's WWF Heavyweight Championship reign is not officially recognized by WWE." under their championships and accomplishment, some others have similar not recognized reigns but they aren't mentioned. Should we remove every "not recognized" note or add a "not recognized" note to all the guys that had similar unrecognized reigns?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

According to various disscusions in the project, an unrecognized/unofficial reigns is when the title change happened, but the promotion doesn't recognized it. For example, Inoki won the title match, but WWF never publicited the title change. However, in Japan, Inoki was considered the champion. WWF doesn't recognized, Japan does (I don't know the promotion right now). Second, mmm, no reigns? It when the promotion changed the result of a match, so a champion never was crowned and the title never changed hands. For example, Batista-Taker in the Chairs match. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

What about Lou Thesz? He won the NWA title 5 times, but only 3 reigns are recognized. But his 2 unrecognized reigns aren't mentioned in his biography.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think we should discuss the NWA title in an entire section. It's a huge mess. Long time ago, the NWA territories were a problem. Some promotion recognized X as champion, other promotions recognized Y... However, the title should be reflected in the biography, because some promotions recognzed him as 5 times champion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

So is someone gonna change it? I am new to all this and can only edit minor things, I don't want to mess anything up. Same with other unrecognized NWA champs, some of them don't have these reigns mentioned in their bio.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Montreal Screwjob lost its FA status 3 years ago and I had no idea

WTF happened? This was our very first Featured Article and nobody seemed to care about it getting delisted. Look how little participation was on the FAR. I think we need to fix this pronto. Feedback 05:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not like its topic dropped off the mainstream radar, and I recently used the Wikilink as a point in a Language Desk question about blowjobs. So in my eyes, it's still a "featured" and "good" article. I've never seen the appeal of getting the GA or FA label. It's like a trophy, but one given to a thing that anyone can change, and that can't feel honoured (or anything). Even the bronze video game achievements someone gets for starting a game mean more, just for acknowledging someone.
Not saying nobody should care, just explaining why I don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

a move called "STFU" ?

Which wrestling move is "STFU"? At Judgment Day (2007) it links to STS, and the former page at STFU says it is a variant of the STF. Is the move listed at Professional wrestling holds ? and is "STFU" a common name for the move if it is a listed move? -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It is but is listed as STF. It was called a STFU for Cena because at the time his main move, now known as the Attitude Adjustment was called the FU.--67.68.31.244 (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Yep. The Attitude Adjustment is the former "FU", originally named as a parody of Lesnar's F5, with the attendant tie to the "doctor of thuganomics" gimmick. It is a fireman's carry into a shoulder toss slam. The STFU was what they originally called Cena's version of the STF (Step Through Facelock) as an extension of the same "thuganomics" gimmick (see Shut up#Variants), after he added it to his arsenal for a submission match. Of course there are those who say Cena doesn't do a correct STF (compare William Regal's, usually considered the quintessential textbook application of the hold), and that it's more a crossface hold.oknazevad (talk) 05:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
He tries. That's the important thing. Also, Masahiro Chono is still the master, but the Regal Stretch is nice. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The STFU listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The STFU. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 70.51.203.69 (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

How to keep the history alive for the future

I am really paranoid about having wrong title histories in the future. Imagine Wikipedia dies and some other sites take over. Or a company dies and so do the official title histories on their sites. I don't want the titles the wrestlers win today mean nothing in a few decades because nobody knows about who was champion because the title lineage is just a blur because of the lack of sources and so on.

How can we keep the correct title histories alive forever? Will Wikipedia ever die? Will new admins take over and do stuff like recognize Inoki's title reign just because they can? In the end, what is a title worth if you can become champ because of some editor on Wikipedia / successor site of Wikipedia?

I hope you get what I'm trying to say, like I said, paranoid, but I'm serious about it. It's less fun for me at the moment to watch the shows because of this problem.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

So rampant (self-confessed) paranoia to the side, any and all web based sources can technically die at a moments notice, that is why we have so many articles with dead links. The solution? Archive websites is one way to combat that www.webcitation.org is one that's used a lot.  MPJ -US  13:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So how does webcitation.org work? What if webcitation dies before all the other sites?

One other thing, I was looking through the archives of this project and read that Inoki was recognized by Wiki as WWE Champ in 2014. I thought he was considered to be an official champ by Wikipedia until WWE put him out of their title history over a decade ago!?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't in the business of recognizing certain championships/reigns. We can only reflect what the reliable sources say, so it is important that we archive vital sources. We've spoken about Inoki's unrecognized reign in great length at Talk:List of WWE World Heavyweight Champions, it was a title victory (not the be confused with a dusty finish) that WWE never recognized once they left Japan. It's our job to point this out.LM2000 (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So you have archived the sources like the title history at wwe.com forever? Or just on webcitation (remember, I don't know how that site works)? Just convince me that the history is safe and people in centuries from now will know that Inoki was not recognized as champ and stuff similar to that.

But you didn't answer my question about 2014: was Inoki recognized (pointed out that he was recognized at that time) as an official champion by Wikipedia before it was changed to an unrecognized reign like today?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

This diff from January 2014 shows that he was listed as having an unrecognized reign back then. This diff from January 2005 shows that it was listed as unrecognized all the way back then as well. The WWE Championship history is archived so if they do decide to officially recognize it one day we will have to note that that wasn't always the case. There is an example of that on List of TNA World Tag Team Champions where TNA couldn't decide if they wanted to recognize Kaz and Eric Young as champs so we had to describe every conflicting source. We use archived links as sources as evidence in that case as well. I don't think link rot will be an issue because to my knowledge most title histories have been preserved.LM2000 (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that is awesome! But what is this webarchive.org? What if the webarchive dies before the source that got archived dies? Or is webarchive no real site run by anybody, is it actually part of the internet? I hope you get what I'm trying to sayWrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

http://webcitation.org/faq リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 23:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia pages have their own backup at webcitation.org? And what about other titles like NWA? What is saved in the webarchive and where can I see what is saved there and what is not?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Both Internet Archive and WebCite have search engines to see what pages have been archived and when. Here for example you can see when the WWE home page has been archived. Click the dates to see the archived versions. You can also use the WebCite archive form to archive any page you want to yourself. Internet Archive archives random pages automatically, WebCite archives only by request. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 01:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

webcitation only lets me search for URL. Is there no easier way to search for wikipedia pages? How are people in decades supposed to know that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WWE_World_Heavyweight_Champions is the link to see all the WWE Champions? Will take a lot of guessing. Or do the editors of Wikipedia have the article saved on harddrives and stuff? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

WrestlingData (with its relatively stable title histories) went down recently for a few days. It's back, thankfully, but even still, its frontpage has a Dark Ages gap between "What happened on June 2nd?" and the 10th. Can still find those days with some light digging (it was Dave McKigney's 83rd year without an article last week), but it's a grim reminder of how things get lost to history, every single minute. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Preservation (library and archival science) may answer some of your question, in a general way. We've forgotten much over the years, but technology is helping stop the drain. Nevermind WWE not acknowledging Inoki, have you ever heard anyone acknowledge the Terrace Garden Theater or the Lexington Avenue Opera House? They're the same place, and Professor William Miller (not to be confused with Dr. Bill Miller) beat Andre Christol (who?) there today in 1877.
And don't think for a second that 1877 was a particularly long time ago. Both wrestling and theater go back to stone and chisel days. On the bright side, once you forget you don't know something, you stop worrying about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Wrestlingdata recognizes Inoki so their title histories are trash. 1877 was a long time ago but the information you just presented is still out there, so that's a good thing. But here are so many people and nobody could give me an answer to my question? Let's try one more time: "webcitation only lets me search for URL. Is there no easier way to search for wikipedia pages? How are people in decades supposed to know that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WWE_World_Heavyweight_Champions is the link to see all the WWE Champions? Will take a lot of guessing. Or do the editors of Wikipedia have the article saved on harddrives and stuff?"WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I am sure I am not the only one that prints all wrestling articles.every fortnight. I got them boxed by age in my fallout shelter, right next to everything on the WWE.network taped on BetaMax, it is the superior format after all. MPJ -US  22:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I still like carving them in stone with a chisel. More durable. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The point is... why do you want an archived version of Wikipedia? Wikipedia isn't a source. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

But Wikipedia has all the information other sites don't have. Everything on just one site, with links of various sources. Wikipedia has the most legit title histories. UFC for example doesn't even have their own title histories, so Wikipedia is the place to go. So there is no backup of Wiki's wrestling pages on webcitation or on the wayback machine?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I just searched wikipedia.org at webcitation.org and got to a 2006 version of Wiki. But as soon as I searched for something, it jumped to the current version of June 19, 2015. Is there no way to access wikipedia in its entirety?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes there is, go to www.wikipedia.org - how about spending time and energy improving it instead of worrying about what would happen if it goes away? One is constructive and positive and the other is pointless, you decide which is which.  MPJ -US  23:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I already improved some things on WikiPedia, look at my profile, it's the only reason I'm here. But please don't make fun of my paranoia, it is a sad mental disease, but some answers here have helped me. So does no site archive entire sites for the future? And this isn't just about Wikipedia.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Is suggesting that you do something constructive instead of keep harping on about archiving when it's obvious nothing is permanently archived on the net is not "making fun of you", it is an honest attempt to move this conversation forward in some way. And to add to your paranoia - what if webcitation.org or other websites go down or close? What if paper records are abandoned and books outlawed in the future? What if we all grew a USB port in the back of the head and could link up? okay those last ones are borderline poking fun at you, but seriously this talk goes on and on with you ignoring the fact that Wikipedia is not the source of anything, it's NOT an official title history for anything, we cannot use it as a reliable source and you'd get an F if you cite Wikipedia in school research. It's the sources that the articles cite that matter, so if you want to go on a "save the sources" campaign go for it.  MPJ -US  13:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

But if the sources die, that does not mean that Wikipedia has to delete all of its articles. I don't expect Wiki to delete "List of WWE Champions" if wwe.com and sites like wrestling-titles.com go down. After all, Wikipedia is the #1 page for many things, so an archived version of some Wikipedia pages gives people more information than the official WWE title histories.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Well you have fun with that.  MPJ -US  19:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you care? You are very active on Wikipedia but actually don't care about whether the information will still be there in the future? Then why are you doing all this?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not just that the information might not be here for people to read, it's that humans may be extinct sooner than later (in geological terms). To preserve sanity, they typically limit their worries to clear and present dangers. It used to just be about our actual lives, like "Need food, need to avoid that bear, need to get laid tonight", but with the advent of mass media, more and more worry about other people's business, and go crazy from not being able to affect the outcomes.
They Internet may or may not crash. But worrying about that, despite a lack of evidence, will cook your brain. Preserve yourself, fella. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
It is not that I don't care about Wikipedia, I care about improving it in every way that I can. On the other hand I do not worry about what I cannot affect - Wikipedia has been around long enough to not be a fad.  MPJ -US  04:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, then let's all move on to improving it. Sorry for my paranoia outbreak here, but this discussion helped ;) WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

King of the Ring

Okay we've got a problem that was apparently previously mentioned here. It is alleged that a consensus exists that King of the Ring 2015 is a WWE Network Event. I contend that it is not, because it took place over two nights (Raw is on network television and not the WWE Network) and that the semi finals and the final were not a stand alone live event at the venue - but rather an extended full show that included that week's Smackdown taping and the live Main Event at the venue in Moline, Illinois. This is distinct from any of the NXT Takeover Events, Elimination Chamber or Beast in the East. It should not be included in the PPV/WWE Network list for this reason. Curse of Fenric (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Previous King of the King tournaments have had qualifiers on network television yet the actual King of the Ring show was still a PPV. I am not aware of the criteria that it has to be a "stand alone live event" to qualify? That seems to be a bit arbitrary to say that it does not count since other matches were taped prior? that seems Illogical.  MPJ -US  01:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it's fine going into the infobox since it was billed as a King of the Ring event, similar to the PPVs. I also want to note that while there is a merge discussion going on at Talk:King of the Ring (2015) this shouldn't affect the infobox. If it is merged then the 2015 section on the main King of the Ring article can use the same infobox.LM2000 (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Since Curse decided not to be more forthcoming in the details of what prompted this discussion, allow me. Earlier this evening, I added the 2015 King of the Ring to {{WWEPPV}} as it was a WWE Network event, or at least the semi-finals and finals were. Not to mention it has a standalone article (of which I oppose the merging of, but I will discuss that on the merge discussion, though I think it has already, clearly failed). A little later, Curse reverted it, I noticed it a few minutes later and reverted back and left a message on his talk page. He responded that he did not agree with my reasoning and stated basically what he stated above and reverted back. I replied one more timed and said that if he does not agree with consensus, he needs to bring it before us here at WT:PW and try get a new consensus, but until then he needs to honor current consensus, and reverted one more time. He replied that he will get consensus changed "easily" because the "facts are on [his] side", and here we are.

Now that the background is out of the way, I want to say that I do not agree with you, Curse. It took place as it's own event on the WWE Network and that's what the templates are meant to do, categorize and make for ease of navigation. It was a WWE Network event and thus logically must be listed with the WWE Network events. Basically, I oppose any change in consensus per MPJ-DK. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 02:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Every single recognised pay per view in the traditional sense never had any other matches at the venue on the night except dark matches, or pre show matches - the latter of which is recognised as part of the actual event. This also applies to all of the WWE Network events - except for this one. The entire show consisted of Smackdown tapings and Main Event live also on the Network straight after the King of the Ring portion. Including this in the Network/PPV event set up sets a dangerous precedent and greys up the definition of a WWE Network exclusive event. An encyclopedia would never do that. There needs to be consistency, and adding what I think was a one hour show to it that was never a one hour show live at the venue is inconsistent with this. Did the fans in Illinois go to King of the Ring? No - they went to see a WWE event that including a taping and two separate live presentations. The fact that qualifying matches have in past taken place on Raw (and indeed Smackdown) when KOTR was an actual pay per view doesn't alter the fact that from 1993 to 2002 it was a separate 100 percent single show. In 2015 it was not, as distinct (again) from NXT Takeover, Elimination Chamber and Beast in the East. Curse of Fenric (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I am still not sure what it matters that they taped other matches before - what difference does it make? Was it a live Special on the WWE network? Yes - end, of, story.  MPJ -US  03:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
No, not end of story, because you are totally ignoring the fact that the name of the event at the venue was NOT King of the Ring. Find me a flyer/poster that says "King of the Ring - April 29, 2015 in Moline, Illinois" and I'll back down. You're creating a monster here doing this. Curse of Fenric (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
There were plenty of qualifies from 1993 to 2002, let's not distort history here, yes they had a bigger field but there were plenty of KOTR first round matches on network television in the past. Nor sure what the "dangerous precedent" would be set here? That is the part I do not get, listing this as a network special - which it was - is encyclopedic and factual in nature. Excluding it due to some criteria that does not have concensus - THAT is the dangerous president, especially since your argument really boils down to "I don't like it". You want me to find where it was advertised as King of the Ring? Go to the network under Network exclusives. Listed to the Raw before the show where they called it that. How was the name of the network special NOT King of the Ring? You keep alluding to creating a monster, what the heck do you think will happen?  MPJ -US  03:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Besides the "Box of Horror and DOOM!!" was opened with the King of the Ring (2008) article.  MPJ -US  04:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
You know if we can find sufficient reliable, third party sources we could create an article for every single Raw or Smackdown and be totally within the rules and framework of Wikipedia, even if the specific show happens to be uneventful. Still not sure what "monster" it is you are so worried about?  MPJ -US  04:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm not talking about a Network advertisement. I'm talking about a venue advertisement. The monster would be that EVERY time the WWE Network puts on something that at the venue incorporates other tapings or live presentations, it would go up alongside the likes of Wrestlemania, Summerslam etc etc. It doesn't belong there. This is not about WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is about being consistent. Lining this up purely based on "on demand/pay per view" is fraught with danger. WWE might end up doing something like it every week - there's your monster right there. Adding all sorts of stuff weekly. They could do it given that they have to come up with fresh material to keep people subscribed, and doing something extra when the equipment is already there (as was the case with King of the Ring) would be the easiest to do. See the problem?
I have no idea what you're talking about with the 2008 KOTR reference.
Raw and Smackdown aren't pay per views and are on network TV so that's irrelevant. Curse of Fenric (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Curse, let me put this to you in the simplest terms possible. The discussion in May yielded three criterion to be considered a special live event on the WWE Network.
  1. Was it live? (i.e.: an event that happened in an arena in front of a crowd)
  2. Was it promoted and televised on the WWE Network?
  3. Did it feature live wrestling matches?
King of the Ring (2015) meets all three of these criterion. Criterion that was hotly debated and finally agreed upon. I know this because I was the originator of that discussion and heavily involved in it. @OldSkool01 was another. I suggest you read that discussion to see why we arrived at these criterion. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 05:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
You missed the fourth criteria that is essential if you want to put it alongside the pay per view events. "Were the matches featured the only matches at the venue on the night?" The answer is 'No'. The error here appears to be putting it with the pay per view events. Anything that is Network exclusive should in fact be separate to the pay per views as we know them. But you've chosen to put them together through this consensus you're talking about. So you have a choice to make - separate the Network exclusives from the pay per views, or don't add King of the Ring per the fourth criteria for a pay per view. Curse of Fenric (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no fourth criterion as of now. So no, it does not fail it, because it cannot fail a criteria that does not exist. You can propose it, but I will staunchly oppose it because whether it was the only event at a taping is irrelevant to its importance in the chronology. Why? Because as stated, the only thing that matters is the agreed upon criteria, and whether is has the sources to meet WP:N and WP:V. Period. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 06:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The previously "agreed to" criteria is wrong, and I stand by it and will staunchly oppose a position to the contrary because it includes a Smackdown taping and a Main Event presentation. You can't avoid that. Again - fans did not attend "King of the Ring" in Moline, Illinois on April 29, 2015. They attended a WWE event which included Smackdown, King of the Ring and Main Event (plus maybe a dark match or two before the tapings for all we know). That is the correct chronology, and the fourth criteria MUST be added in order to be consistent with the existing pay per views. You're opening a can of worms if you aren't consistent. Curse of Fenric (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Here's the deal. Curse of Fenric, you're talking about separating the Network events from the PPV events. That's already been done. There's already a "List of WWE Pay-Per-View events" page that are strictly for shows that air on traditional PPV channels. The "List of WWE Network events" is a separate list that was created to include ALL events that air on the Network, not just PPV. And let me add in that "King Of The Ring 2015" is not the first event to include matches taped for other shows on the same night. The "No Holds Barred" ppv from December 1989 also included several weeks worth of "WWF Wrestling Challenge" episodes taped the same night. The "Tuesday In Texas" ppv from December 1991 included matches and angles taped for "Prime Time Wrestling" and "Wrestling Challenge"(including the infamous Barber Shop/Rockers breakup episode). The very first "In Your House" ppv from May 1995 included a match or two taped for future Monday Night Raw episodes on the same night. Also "In Your Your House: Beware Of Dog 2" from May 1996 included not only the ppv matches, but matches taped for several weeks worth of "WWF Superstars" episodes. Also, what about almost every PPV event from 1998-2006 that included full episodes of "Sunday Night Heat" before the show, complete with live matches? Does that not count as a "different show" on the same night? So if your criteria is that for a show to be included on a Network/PPV events page "only matches for that specific event have to take place" then I just killed that theory. OldSkool01 (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Sunday Night Heat was always seen as part of the pre show back then so no it's doesn't count as separate. It didn't gain it's own show identity as such until later. No Holds Barred was a single match which as a package on a pay per view went with the movie of the same name - so that doesn't count either. Please provide proof of those other claims. Curse of Fenric (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Go to TheHistoryOfWWE.com to confirm everything I mentioned. Also Sunday Night Heat debuted on August 2, 1998 as a weekly television show. It didn't just air on PPV nights. Also I forgot to mention "In Your House" from December 1995 included tapings for episodes of "Monday Night Raw" and "Superstars" after the PPV went off the air. OldSkool01 (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You do not agree with consensus, you want tobdo it differently than the standards and you want to add a criteria that no one else wants.... explain how that is not "I don't like it" cause it is waddling through the duck test to me.  MPJ -US  12:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  • *walks away shaking head in disgust at the unencyclopaedic lack of consistency* Curse of Fenric (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • See, that's where you're wrong, we do have consistency. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 20:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • And with that, this debate is over. OldSkool01 (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • No you don't have consistency, and it's a shame that you are unable to see it and neither is anyone else it appears here. I shall not be joining this project as was my intent as a result. Curse of Fenric (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • YOU are the one advocating inconsistency, omitting a major event just because "they taped other matches too". So actually we do have consistency between the WWE Network specials.  MPJ -US  22:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I thought this debate was over? I don't understand what it is Curse was complaining about. He brought up an issue for debate. That issue was that King Of The Ring 2015 does not belong on a WWE Network Event list because matches for other TV shows were held on the same night. I then brought up about 5 or 6 examples of WWE PPV events in the past that also had matches taped for other TV shows on the same night. And those PPV events are still included on the list of WWE PPV Events. So that right there shows consistency since a precendence has already been set. Was his complaint that we should also eliminate all those PPVs I mentioned from the List of WWE PPV Events page? I really don't understand what his complaining was about. He also tried to delete this post I made, saying I was "baiting" him. Check the edit history page and you'll see what I mean. I just wanted him to explain what his complaint was. I guess NOW the debate is over. OldSkool01 (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Curse, you can't remove other people's talk page comments. You've been involved in a number of different conflicts with a lot of people from this wikiproject lately. I understand that things can get heated sometimes but if it continues at this pace you should probably consider stepping back from editing for awhile.LM2000 (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • He (She?) just returned from a 7 year absence, if I'm reading his (her?) userpage history correctly. And from the history, this doesn't seem to be his first disputes with WP:PW. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 20:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • And now Curse has cleared his talk page, including deleting what LM2000 wrote to him and blocked people from posting messages. I saw the comment he left on LM2000's talk page about me having a chip on my shoulder. Why? Because I asked him to explain what his "inconsistency" complaint was? Instead it appears he's throwing a virtual tantrum because nobody seemed to agree with his point of view. I don't understand some people, and Curse isn't the only one I've seen on WP do this, they bring up a topic for debate, the general consensus in the debate does not go the way they wanted it to and then, instead of conceding to the consensus or politely saying that they disagree with the consensus, they make sure to tell everyone who disagreed with their viewpoint that they're totally wrong, and usually not in a nice way, and then they hold their breath until they turn blue. Welcome to Wikipedia I suppose. OldSkool01 (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The 'chip on your shoulder' is this attitude you have that you know everything and don't like being proved wrong. That is not just about this lack of consistency. It's also about your manipulation of a source to get your way over Global Warning. You don't know everything - when it comes down to brass tacks no one does. Lose the attitude if you want my respect. If you don't, no skin off my nose and you can stay away from me from now on. Either way, it would be best for all concerned if this was the last comment on the section. The matter is closed and adults move on. Agreed? (my talk page clearance has been reversed after an overdue admin warning to another user that and looked like never happening) Curse of Fenric (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow. I have an attitude, I know everything, I don't like being proved wrong, I manipulate. These are personal attacks on me. For what reason? I don't even know you. Where is this coming from? All I asked was that you clarify what it is you find inconsistent about King Of The Ring 2015(a debate you started) and you never clarified it. Instead you bring up other articles like Global Warning for whatever reason when one has nothing to do with the other. OldSkool01 (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • There should be a Wikipedia WP:LookInTheMirror essay, and Curse of Fenric could be their main piece of evidence. If he spent half as much time editing articles as he did crying off on multiple Admin pages when something doesn't go his way he might become a useful editor. As it is, shame his self-inposed block was nothing but a 10 minute sham. 81.141.246.36 (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Gonna ask this again

Brought this up a few weeks ago: Some wrestlers like Antonio Inoki have a "1 ^ Inoki's WWF Heavyweight Championship reign is not officially recognized by WWE." under their championships and accomplishment, some others have similar not recognized reigns but they aren't mentioned. Should we remove every "not recognized" note or add a "not recognized" note to all the guys that had similar unrecognized reigns?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Add a note. For example, Carlos Colón. According to NWA, he never won the NWA Title. However, WWE says he won the title. The title change happened, but NWA decided to forget it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Can you give us some examples of not being included? Colon is one thing, the NWA is the ultimate authority on it - if they say he did not win it officially then it's listed as unofficial. If you're talking Bob Holly and the IC title then he was never acknowledge as the champion, he won the match in controversial fashion and the title was held up on the spot, Holly never went to the back with the championship and was not a champion. Or how about Warrior, he "won" the IC championship at a TV taping before Summer Slam 1988 and then "lost" it back to the Honky Tonk Man to allow the WWE to tape matches & promos with Warrior without spoiling Summer Slam, does that make Warrior & Honky 2 time IC champions?  MPJ -US  13:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
As we said before, we show the title changes. A dusty finish, a decision reversed or similar isn't a title change (for example, Kingston won a tournament for the IC title, but the entire decision was reversed). Not recognized reigns are like the Inoki or Colón reigns, they was title changes but the promotion doesn't recognize them. Dusty finishes, we should include a note in the Notes section and don't mention them in the C&A section. Not regognized, include them in the title history and C&A (with a note). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
But when Jim Duggan finds a belt in the trash, that makes him the official WCW TV Champion. Somehow. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The magic of wrestling. Angelina Love won the KO title when she opened a box, like a Cheerios prize. Jokes aside, WCW considered Duggan a Champion, so he was the champion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Duggan became "official" when he defended it in a WCW ring. That is why we say winning matches or result of a storyline... no matter how dumb the storyline.  MPJ -US  17:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep. That's why Foley handing the old Hardcore belt to Edge in 2006 didn't work. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

But Bob Holly is mentioned in List of IC Champs, just like Inoki is mentioned in List of WWE Champs. So either both of them get a note in C&A or neither does. Same with Lou Thesz: 3 recognized NWA reigns, 2 unrecognized. But in C&A it just says 3, without mentioning the 2 controversial unrecognized ones.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I removed Bob Holly from the IC Champs list, he shouldn't have been there because he was never recognized as an IC champ, although the title was vacated and there is a note of his involvement there (similar to the notes hold-ups like Backlund/Valentine and Jericho/Triple H phantom reign have on List of WWE World Heavyweight Champions). If we continue to list him separately then we'll have to list Jericho as a WWF Champion from 1999, Hogan's AWA and NWA almost-reigns, and every other dusty finish or title hold up. Cagematch's WHC history is a pretty good example of why they aren't considered reliable though. Thesz's controversial reigns should get a footnote like we do with Ric Flair, where his number of reigns was/is disputed throughout various territories.LM2000 (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Good decision removing Holly, he was only recognized for having an unrecognized reign because the commentators called him a former champ because they didn't knew that the decision was reversed in that controversial match. But eventually someone's gonna add that reign again I guess :( Edit: Already happenedWrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

WWE no longer recognizing ECW title as a World Championship

http://www.wwe.com/inside/wwe-most-title-wins-decorated-champions/page-4

"His 16-year career includes tenures as Intercontinental, European and ECW Champion and culminates with the right to call himself a World Champion in 2011" 2011 was when he won the WCW, 2009 the ECW title.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I believe if you zoom in on the belt Christian has over his shoulder in the article it simply states "ECW Championship", I don't think the WWE thought their version of the ECW championship was on par with the WWE and World Heavyweight titles. Prior to the WWE buying ECW is not the WWE's call to make and I believe that's where the "World" part came from. Of course I could be wrong (often am) but I am not sure how this changes much?  MPJ -US  22:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This 2011 article acknowledged that some consider it a world championship throughout its entire history. It undeniably counted as a world championship when it was in the ECW promotion until 2001 and also for some time after WWE brought it back in 2006. They shortened the name of the championship by removing "World" at some point, and then Chavo entered the Rumble and it hurt the belt's image. They certainly stopped pretending that it was equal to the WWE and World Heavyweight Championships, but I've never seen a source that stated they totally rescinded its world title status. Your link above could be interpreted to mean that Christian just won the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) in 2011, I don't think it's enough to change anything on the ECW World Heavyweight Championship article. The 2011 article I linked is, at least to my knowledge, the closest statement they've made on the issue, and while it's clear they're not enthusiastic about labeling it a world championship they never claim that it is not... to the contrary, they note that people continue to recognize it as one.LM2000 (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

So WWE doesn't really know if its a World Title or not. Maybe we should include that in the article? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

US Championship

The list has 4 "Reign is not recognized by WWE" notes. But these reigns are actually recognized. I wrote WWE an email, which I'm gonna copy right here. Just read it and follow the links and you'll agree that WWE just botched their title history:

"I found 2 errors in your United States title history (http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/unitedstates).

Firstly, Paul Jones' 2nd reign ended November 28, 1976, which is recognized by the WWE (http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/unitedstates/304454113). But looking at the complete title history, it is shown that Blackjack Mulligan won the title on December 15! According to every wrestling site, Paul Jones is a 3-time US champ and there was no vacancy or anything to explain the gap between November 28 and December 15, so I think you forgot the 2 title changes between Paul and Blackjack.

Same thing happened in 1980 with Greg Valentine, where you didn't recognize a 4-month title reign, beginning on July 26, which is the date where Flair lost his title according to you (http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/unitedstates/3044541222).

For Flair, this would make him the only guy to win it 6 times, so this would make a huge difference.

Kind regards, Alexander"WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I am confused, you say that they ARE recognized by the WWE yet you wrote to point out they had accidentally left them out? Is that not what the article says right now? Unless they respond to your letter the article is currently correct then right?  MPJ -US  15:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, the WWE US Title history doesn't show 4 title reigns, so I include them. However, I readed in an article "titles won by father and sons", Flair is six times US champion. So.... here we are. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

But it is a difference if they don't recognize it or forgot to include them. And they FORGOT it, because otherwise they would not have the 4 month 6 month gap between the end of Flair's reign and the start of Piper's reign. There was no 6 month vacancy that's for sure.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

#2 and #18 on most edited articles on Wiki

The next Raw commericial: Did you know? List of WWE personnel has had more edits than United States, Wikipedia, Jesus and the Catholic Church. source Also, The Undertaker has had more edits than Roger Federer. Lucky I never really touch either page. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 10:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The question is how much of that is actually vandalism? After all, there's a reason WWE World Heavyweight Championship is under long term semi-protection, as are many other pages within the scope of the project. They seem to attract immaturity quite a bit. oknazevad (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Oknazevad: many edits doesn't mean vandalism. My theory is that there are many good-faith edits trying to update or improve the page, whether by adding content or rearranging stuff. Whether this good-faith edits are actually productive or an improvement is another question, they might be creating messes for other people to clean up. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • True. I'm just observing that many heavily edited articles attract a higher-than-average percentage of vandalism edits. Kind of one of those pitfalls that come with being high profile articles. oknazevad (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Every time someone is rumored to have signed or rumored to move from FCW/NXT to the main roster or moved between brands i am sure 2-3 people edit to move, move back and move again. It is not a static ttopic at all. But still #2?? Dude  MPJ -US  11:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I like how The Undertaker alone beat out Deaths in 2009, 2010 and 2014. Baffling. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Payback (2014) shows up on that list and I believe it's highlighting legitimate copyright violations, could probably do with a rewrite on parts of it.  MPJ -US  00:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

NWA World Middleweight Championship - pre-FL Nomination work

I am working on getting the NWA World Middleweight Championship article ready for Featured List review - I had a number of Featured List nominations go through but when I originally put this one up I got discouraged and laid off the FL work at that point. Well I want to get back on that horse and I want to bring this one (and other Mexican championship) article to FL adding to the 12 FL articles I have gotten through so far. I am hoping that one or two of you could take a look at the prose section of the article for me? I have gone through it and done what I could but I ain't the greatest at grammar ;-) Any feedback is appreciated and will help the odds of us adding another FL to the list.  MPJ -US  00:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @MPJ-DK: - I did a copyedit. But the last sentence - who had the shortest reign again? Also, the sourcing, every sentence should be sourced. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
    • @Starship.paint: - Emilio Charles Jr at 11 days, not sure who originally put Oro as the shortest champ. And i hope i did not mess anything up by trying to change 12 to 11 on my phone, I Usually only comment or revert on the phone. I struggle with the "Every sentence should be sourced" if it is something that is sourced in the table already. I agree the rest should and will be sourced. And thank you for the copy edit it all helps make it a better article.  MPJ -US  13:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No it is actuay Satanico with less than a day. Reading is fundamental.... maybe i will master it onr day. MPJ -US  13:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah that's what I meant. Satan guy. Anyway, things that need sourcing: 1) created by Salvador Lutteroth, awarded to Kallio ... you can use [G] if it applies. 2) The National Wrestling Association title was retired in 1940. 3) CMLL retained ownership of three NWA-branded championships. 4) Último Dragón bought the NWA World Middleweight Championship and its booking rights from CMLL. 5) In March 2010, Blue Demon Jr., (dead link) starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • gotcha, all but the last one i already have somehing for and i should be able to find sports site coverage of the last on. Lucha shows up in legit sports and news sites in Spanish a lot so that should be doable. And all the work here will also benefit the NWA welterwight title, m next target.  MPJ -US  14:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • To quote Batman from the Lego Movie - "First Try!!", citations provided for all four with ease. MPJ -US  20:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I modified how the "General" ref was shown, I think that looks better - I just wonder if that's an acceptable format? MPJ -US  20:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I am contemplating nominating it tonight, there has been a lot of really good work done, thank you to everyone who chipped in. Next up I am going to work on improving the NWA World Welterweight Championship while the "Feature List" process takes place. MPJ -US  00:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Dolph Ziggler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolph_Ziggler

So Jericho won the Mask vs MITB match in 2012 and the city was the loser of the match? Someone fix this I'm not got at editing. Oh and it actually took place on Raw, not a live event.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • The header did not get updated when I updated the content, fixed now.  MPJ -US  12:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Rey Mysterio vandalism

Appanrently someone has nostalgia for Rey Mysterio to be back in the WWE, he/she keeps reverting back to a version from early in the year before he left the WWE. multiple IPs but I am sure it's the same guy. After all these years on Wikipedia and I still don't know how to get this protected to only allow registered users to edit it?? Anyone care to request it for me?  MPJ -US  23:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I requested protection and it looks like it just went through :) Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is where you want to go.LM2000 (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, it was getting annoying.  MPJ -US  02:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Buddy Rogers

His Wikipedia bio talks about 4 Texas Heavyweight reigns, but C&A section lists him as a 6-time Champ. One of the two is definitely wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Rogers_(wrestler) WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • So fix it? 10 seconds of research shows which is right. MPJ -US  21:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not good at editing and I spoke to an old 50s fan about it and he said that the Texas Heavyweight list is definitely wrong. One reign never took place but one is missing... WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • if you're not good at editing then you're in the wrong place dude. And guess what? The Texas heavyweight title list (whoah! old version) is the best we've got based on the sources we have. So you'd need some good sources to go fix it. MPJ -US  21:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I already improved many things here so I'm definitely at the wrong place. I can edit but putting the sources next to it at the bottom, that's too much. But you realize that either the part about the 6 reigns or the part about the 4 reigns has to be wrong? He can't be both. wrestling-titles.com was listed as the source for the title, but when I compare the Wikipedia one and the one from wrestling-titles, Wikipedia is missing many reigns and dates: http://www.wrestling-titles.com/us/tx/tx-h.html So I found the same source that Wikipedia did, but am I supposed to copy it just like it is listed on wrestling.titles.com? Rogers is said to have 4 reigns in 1945 on Wiki, 3 on wrestling-titles. On the other hand Wikipedia is missing reigns like Paul Jones'. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Fair enough on the sources, I get that. If you want a few quick pointers on sources let me know and I will be happy to share what I have picked up over the years. I am sure that Wikipedia matched wrestling-titles at one point, but that article is also updated when they do additional research so that may be what happened here.  MPJ -US  00:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see what you have to share! btw, what happens if someone does some hidden changes in old article, like changing the match results of WrestleMania IV? Will someone on Wikipedia get a message that something has been edited and will he be able to see exactly what changes have been made? I'm new here, still learning ;) WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  • At the top of each article is a star icon. If you click that it puts it on your watch list. When changes are made to an article you can see it on your list. I am sure someone is watching those, but you can add them to your own list so that you can watch them too. I have more or less all lucha libre articles on my list plus i add articles i create or expand. It wi show you what articles have changed in the last 7 days unless your own edit was the most recent one. It help vandalism down a lot. MPJ -US  13:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't have a star icon. I have the word "Watch" in the tabs at the top of the page. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a custom skin or something? I think I remember a "Watch" once, but I've had a hollow star for a while. Watching a page colours the star a shade of blue stars just aren't supposed to glow. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
That shade? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The big stars all go black and don't go back, eventually. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Dead ARCHIVED links

How can archived pages be dead? As long as the archive itself is still around (and the Wayback Machine is certainly alive), why is the archived page not accessible? Go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WWE_European_Champions and the 6th reference leads me nowhere. How is that possible? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Aliens?
  • An Illumnati conspiracy?
  • Those dang mice ate it?
  • Typo in the citation?
    • Oh and you remind me of my kid asking me questions I cannot possibly answer. MPJ -US  00:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
      • The Illuminati! I knew it was them! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them! Anyhow, I removed the numbers from the end of the url, put the address back into the Wayback Machine, and came up with this: [3]. Crisis averted? GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I have seen so many of these dead links, maybe we should switch to webcitation.org if the wayback machine's links just die!?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Peter Steele once said "Everything Dies". Then he died. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
"And what about the parking lot? We've all been there." InedibleHulk (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
"Men look in the mirra, and say 'No, that can't be me!'" InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you care about this or do you just care about making fun of others? Is Wayback Machine a reliable archive if the links seem to die? Or did someone force them to remove it? Why would these links die?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

RAW results 1996 http://web.archive.org/web/20110609235352/http://www.wwe.com/404-not-found RVD profile http://web.archive.org/web/20080321015059/http://www.wwe.com/shows/ecw/extremists/rvd/profile/ (How can it say "they page cannot be found"? It is archived, what does that have to do with WWE?) But these two are different kind of errors. If necessary, I'm gonna search for more of these errors, but someone has to know how this could happen? The archive should be a place where things are archived, not deleted.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@WrestlingLegendAS: The first one is literally a link to a "404 not found" page. The second link works when you go to an earlier capture, as seen here. Prefall 22:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

But why did someone link an archived version of a 404 page? That kind of link helps nobody.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

When you're trying to preserve the entire internet, you can't just pick the good stuff. Anything that's not trying to hide is treated equally by the omniscient spiderbots in the middle.
Besides, some 404 pages are sort of cool. My grandkids' grandkids might get a kick out of one. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Wrestle Kingdom 9 peer review

If you are free and willing, please offer your comments on the article that Ribbon Salminen and I have written up. We're gunning for a Featured Article after this. Thank you. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Graham Cawthon

I have started a discussion at WP:RSN ([4]) about Graham Cawthon as a reliable reference for professional wrestling match results. Because his website and books are self-published, they may be challenged as reliable sources. If you have anything more you want to contribute to the discussion, please feel free. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Match aired on...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCW_Florida_Heavyweight_Championship

Only twice it is mentioned when the match actually aired. Is there a reason for that or are the other air dates just missing?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Did you try to find the air dates? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Deleted those two air dates, unsourced anyway. Saves our time looking for the rest of the air dates and their respective sources. starship.paint ~ KO 03:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The rules of this WikiProject state to ALWAYS use the date it actually took place, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrestlingLegendAS (talk • contribs) 18:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

To commemorate the next BIG wrestling show in August

No not Summer Slam, but a show that will actually give us the dream match that the WWE has talked about for years Rey Mysterio vs. the original Sin Caras/Mistico/Myzteziz Triplemanía XXIII. I have been going through all the Triplemanía articles and man they need help, most of them are start articles with just the results listed - up until today they were not even using the pro wrestling result table template but I fixed that. I am asking for help since there are 30 Triplemanía (yes XXII is 23). If anyone has time working on any of those articles I will take all the help I can get, after all Triplemania is the wrestling event with the third most number of shows (and no WrestleMania is no where near 81 shows). Sources, copy editing, turning red links blue, finding posters or pulling images of competitors off their pages and into the articles, I will take any and all help and thank anyone who pitches in with my Triplemanía project. Btw. I am working on #1 right now.  MPJ -US  01:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll help a little. I don't know a lot about Triplemania, but I'll use it as a learning opportunity. Nikki♥311 01:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, anything you can add is helpful. MPJ -US  02:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @MPJ-DK: - are there any other prominent "Mexican" sources other than SuperLuchas? I'm probably looking to improve XXI or XXII. I think it will be difficult to find sources for the "pre-Internet" events. starship.paint ~ KO 10:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
http://www.mediotiempo.com - A sports website published by MSN and covers all sports - they had a day by day breakdown of wrestling articles you can jump to by using urls such as http://www.mediotiempo.com/mas-deportes/lucha-libre/noticias/2015/07/05/
http://www.thegladiatores.com - like SuperLuchas it's a wrestling magazine with editors and everything that constitutes a reliable source
http://www.terra.com - Website of the Mexican terra network with a sports section that covers wrestling as well as other sports.
When I google newer shows I often get hits on Mexican newspapers for individual articles, once I find one lucha story on a newspaper site I use google to search only on that site to see if there is anything else I can use.
  • And you are right, pre-internet sources are tough to come by, I have been fortunate enough to buy a number of old lucha mags off eBay and I have a number of lucha books, but even then it's hard to get too much detail on some of these, I would say from around 2003, Triplemania X or XI and forward it gets easier to do, which is why I will probably focus a lot of my research or 1 through 9 initially. MPJ -US  11:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

ANI notification

A discussion of interest to this WikiProject is happening now on ANI. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 00:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I withdrew it because they were right, I had jumped the gun and because they had turned it around and made about me and my past. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 19:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This CFD may need input from this side

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 July 10#Category:Professional wrestling venues in the United States

Please note that none of the other categories in this tree appear to be up for deletion. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Didn't see that one in time. Any arena worth its salt is multi-purpose, anyway. I'd like to see them all go, but not just wrestling. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

US Championship

JBL called Ric Flair a 6-time US Champ at WrestleMania, two days ago during the No 1 Contender Triple Threat, in one of Cena's matches vs Cesaro and many times in between. I have proven that they just forgot to add his 6th reign in the official title history on wwe.com, so could we please remove the "reign no recognized by WWE"? Maybe change it to "not listed in the title history" just like Nash's WCW World title reign. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

By clicking at each reign, you get to know the date he won and lost it according to WWE. Flair lost the title in July, but the next reign starts in January. A 6 month vacancy? No, they just forgot / accidentally deleted a Flair and a Valentine reign.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Could we please stop citing Cagematch.net?

So I am cleaning up the bot list and currently it has over 400 wrestling articles where one or more references is tagged as unreliable. My estimate is that at least 50% of those are from Cagematch.net. I also see it used more where it is not tagged as unreliable (yet) and I see experienced editors repeatedly add cagematch as a source. It is a user contributed site, much like Wikipedia except without the sourcing requirement - just like we cannot use Wikipedia as a source we should not use Cagematch as a source either - if we look a little harder a lot of this stuff can be sourced through other means. Can we at least try to stop the bleeding?  MPJ -US  00:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I feel the same way about Online World of Wrestling and WrestlingData. Nikki♥311 02:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
100% agree  MPJ -US  02:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Anyone up for a blitz on Money Inc. to replace the unreliable references? I started it tonight. I wonder if it could become a Featured Article if the references were improved. Many of them are just to stuff that can be easily sourced, like title changes and pay per view results. (I'll admit that I was the one who originally did the sourcing 7 1/2 years ago.) GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I am in, i recently bought a lot of old PWIs dirt cheap and i got some good books too.  MPJ -US  10:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Fortunately 1980-1990s WWF is right in my wheelhouse, I got loads of sources for those articles so I went through and put in replacements for everything I thought looked like a questionable source.  MPJ -US  10:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Great job on the sources. I'll add the pictures I took of DiBiase and Schyster from 1994-95. I've also taken the liberty of removing "add Online World of Wrestling sources" from the project's outdated "to-do list" ([5]). GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
WrestlingData/Genickbruch isn't user-generated. Joe Schmo can register an account, but all that does is let him comment on and rate things, or write a biography section (which almost no profiles have). The "Edit/Draft version" stuff beneath profile info is for that part only.
But yes, OWW is crap. I've been saying that for years. Don't know Cagematch well enough to judge. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, to edit Cagematch, you have to make a request. I asked for some events and I gave to them sources for the results. Also, i gave the results directly to them (for example, I watched Ring Warriors episode 1 and send him the results). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm is it possible to somehow document their editing process? I mean if we can determine that either of those passes WP:RS even better. I use it for research to organize time lines etc. but then track down independent sources afterwards - it would be great if we can actually skip that part and have the two cites actually be reliable sources.  MPJ -US  22:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Looking at that article this pops up at me "reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both" if we can show the publication process with the need for sources for submissions to be accepted.  MPJ -US  22:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
About Cagematch, I send them an email http://www.cagematch.net/?id=900 I saw an event in YouTube and asked for its own entry, so I gave them a result match from a forum and the create this http://www.cagematch.net/?id=1&nr=100263 I don't know if they looked for more information, but we can ask them. Also, I ask to upload the American Pro Wrestling Alliance titles, but they refused because they didn't find the results. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
That's a good sign.
WrestlingData's info matches that (as far as I've seen) in their other websites list, so that's another good sign. We already officially trust most of them. Not sure about their "friends", though. They look a bit sketchy. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of WrestlingData sources, thanks for changing all those "Cawthorn"s, MPJ! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I think I got them all and hey I made most of that mess, only fair I clean it up too. MPJ -US  00:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The Los Angeles Times still refuses to admit they misread whatever the hell WebProNews is about Matt Osborne leaving WWF in 1996, despite me giving them plenty of links. They just added an extra ", WebProNews said," instead. That's a bad sign. Still a pretty reliable source, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm of the view that Cage Match is only reliable on match results and related data to an event. I'm certainly against it on BLP claims (and edited the reliable source list accordingly awhile back after some twits tried to use Cage Match to prove that Buddy Murphy trained only at a Melbourne wrestling academy - and I know for a fact he wasn't trained there but I can't say that in the article because it's OR). I've emailed them myself at times over results and they do check them so it's not a user orientated system in that regard at least. Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we can include his emails as source. For example, Vladimir Kozlov sent a message to Wikipedia informing he was born in 1979 --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

How did he send a message to Wikipedia and how did you know it was the real one?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

here --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree that it could be considered a reliable source for match results, championships wins. Personal bio info is a little more suspect, for instance Rush was trained by Pittbull I and II, not the ECW tag team like that site states but his uncles who do not have entries on WrestleData. But how to enforce that it'd be reliable for results and events?  MPJ -US  13:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

They recognize the NZ Switch between Flair and Race and count Booker T as the first WHC, not HHH like the WWE does.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not see that before, they're counting the WCW world title as the same as the WHC because they use the same belt design, not the same belt since it was not WWF/WWE branded. At least they're consistent by not listing it for the WCW title either, listing that Booker T's reign ended on the last Nitro. That's... well one way of doing it I guess.  MPJ -US  04:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I asked them their process for adding results and they have an editorial process, basically they have one or more editors for each region and results usually has to be submitted with a source and the source is checked and they do independent checking to verify at least some of the results before posting them. I think that is very encouraging and actually goes far towards them being reliable for match results.  MPJ -US  02:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Definitely more reliable than the absolutely nonexistent sources we use in many "In wrestling" sections, that much is clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • What is the next step? We have a ton of articles tagged as "unreliable" by a bot because of Cagematch.net, how do we go about possibly getting off the bot list and getting this as an acceptable source for results and other non-contentious material? MPJ -US  02:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it a bot that's putting the "Unreliable" tag on the website or actual editors? If it' editors I think if we have consensus we can update the Project PW section on what is reliable sources and point them to that? Once we get that done we can start detagging cagematch.net references? I think we have consensus that Cagematch.net is fine for uncontentious information in regards to match results etc. right? Any objects to it? MPJ -US  23:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, it doesn't really work to say that a website is fine for some information but not fine for other information. If their fact checking isn't good enough for contentious material, then their fact checking isn't good enough period. As stated above, a user can submit match results with a source so they can verify it, so wouldn't it be better for us to just use the original source (assuming it is reliable). Nikki♥311 00:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I think I did not state that correctly - what I meant to say is that the stuff we can source from Cagematch is really not contentious material since it's mainly match results, stats etc. I was not trying to limit what we'd use. And if we had the original sources that would be awesome, but they don't publish them as far as I know. MPJ -US  00:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

So since there were no objections I have added the following to the "sources" section of the project pages.

  • Cagematch - Database of wresting match results, stats etc. Contains a large quantity of uncontentious material such as match results. Takes user submissions but is reviewed by regional editors that verify all submissions before they are added to the database.

Carry on  MPJ -US  21:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm just going to say that CageMatch has been useful to me when looking at a wrestler's matches in bulk. (Winning streaks, one win in 20 matches etc) I'm totally fine with restricting it to only match results. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Sure why not, that is all i have used it for really. Out of curiosity, what type of stuff do they get wrong?? MPJ -US  11:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think people have problems about the basic biographical stats of wrestlers. For example, date of birth, place of birth, real name, who trained the guy, debut date? Such info is not readily available (due to kayfabe)? Match results are information meant for the public, but these basic biographical stats of wrestlers are not. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh okay I get that. So that sort of information should not be sourced ONLY by cagematch right? If a seperate reliable source agrees with it that is different.  MPJ -US  12:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If another RS exist, we could just use the other source and ignore cagematch, don't you think? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't say the other stuff isn't meant for the public, but no problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Rules for the roster

@Starship.paint:@LM2000:@Wrestlinglover:@MPJ-DK:@Vjmlhds:@Ribbon Salminen: Hi. I saw the discussion about the policies about the rosters. I don't like to edit the articles because is a f*n mess. Every one has his own interpretation of the rules. So, I propose the following rules. I take the rules from the style guide and some edits the users made over the years.

To be included in the roster

  • The wrestler has to appear in the promotion roster.
  • A source talks about the wrestler signed a contract with the promotion (in that case, we put the wrestler in Unassigned)
    • Exception 1, a wrestler outside the promoton is the champion of the promotion.
    • Exception 2, when the promotion includes something strange. Like WWE including the TMNT in their roster to promote the film.

We don't include

  • Wrestlers who appear not under contract (Ex, WWE tryouts like The Wolves, DGUSA wrestlers not in the roster, TNA appearences per night).
  • Wrestlers who left the promotion (with a source) and the roster website doesn't reflect that (Example, TNA Taped Impact until October, so they still include Storm even he left the promotion).
    • Exception 1, when a wrestlers leaves the promotion as part of a storyline, he'll included as Unassigned.

About WWE sections

  • We include a wrestler under the brand the promotion does. NXT profile=NXT wrestler.

What do you think? Suggestions?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @HHH Pedrigree: I'm fine with this. But you might want to ping everyone again. Retype your ~~~~ starship.paint ~ KO 02:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • A bit WWE centric with "brands" etc. I hardly edit roster lists outside of CMLL, AAA, IWRG and LU. For some of those there are challenges since they deal with it differently in Mexico. If we go simply by "being on the roster" (I assume on an official web page?) Or announced as signed CMLL and IWRG would have a bunch of regulars trimmed since their roster pages are limited and few official announcements are made - yet wrestlers clearly work for either company on a regular basis.  MPJ-US  22:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
    • If we are going to discuss the roster lists we have to start from the beginning. There is alot of work to be done to the rosters to get them to not be giant messes.--WillC 00:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
      • You know to some extend the roster pages are the definition of week-to-week, more fan pages than encyclopedic pages. I agree that a fundamental definition of what these pages should or should not include might actually help.  MPJ-US  01:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Haha I'm typing from a mobile phone, its like the Spanish Inquisition. If somebody can ping more users, I ll appreciate. I made the rules more WWE centric because is the roster most of us is familiar with. Anyway, we include in the rosters wrestlers hired by the promotion in a long time contract. --HHH Pedrigree

New TfM of note

This new TfM is of note to this WikiProject. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 11:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: the TfM was withdrawn. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 13:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy Snuka

I think things are winding down on the Jimmy Snuka article collaboration. Aside from sourcing a bit more text, a few things are left:

  • Citing the remaining championships; some are sourced to the Wrestling Title Histories book but don't have a page number -- MPJ-DK, could you please help with these if you have a chance?
    • We are like 2 weeks from moving so my books are packed up right now. I did make notes on.some content, i will check to see what I can find, or add in page numbers once i get unpacked.  MPJ-US  16:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Finding sources in match reviews for signature moves. Unfortunately, there aren't many reviews that I have found but haven't yet read through.
  • Finding sources for entrance themes. I have no idea how this is done.
  • Replace the remaining unreliable references, including Online World of Wrestling (possibly trim the information, such as individual appearances for independent promotions, if it's not covered elsewhere).

Does anyone have ideas for the next article? I suggested Snuka, so I'd like to leave the next one up to other editors. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Nick Bockwinkel or Superstar Billy Graham. Both have extensive health issues. Nikki♥311 06:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
(WARNING: blatant WP:NOTFORUM violation follows) My sympathies go out to Darlene and the rest of his family. I met Bockwinkel in 1985 and he was every bit the class act he portrayed on television. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The collaboration is based on the "is this a morbid suggestion?" thread up above. We've had trouble getting wrestlers into the Recent Deaths section on the main page because the articles tend to sit around unreferenced until after the wrestlers' deaths, and the news is stale by the time we can bring it up to standards. People agreed to collaborate on articles for some of the most famous aging wrestlers. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
In response to the IP first, ja.wiki has a gang of articles on topics not covered by, yet of interest, to this wiki. I'll try and compile a list, but summer where I live means work. I only have this much time right now because something's been going around where I work and I've thus involuntarily "enjoyed" the past week or so off. As to Snuka's article, it's still woefully short of context/details of his career prior to joining the WWF, but that's hardly anything new around here. Undue weight such as that leads thinking readers to assume that we're only considering "notable" the promotions these wrestlers worked for, not anything having to do with the person themselves (more on that later).
From watching the editing activity on Snuka's article, I noticed yet another edit by Nikki which removed non-wrestling details on the basis that they were "unsourced", yet left unsourced wrestling-related details intact. Evidently, Nikki wasn't paying attention to the numerous times that people outside of the project have been asked to comment on project comment, and remarked about "the excessive amount of wrestling trivia" or words to that effect. The last Meltzer obituary I read was of Randy Savage. I couldn't help but notice the weight that Meltzer gave to his baseball career and to his pre-WWF career, which has been regarded on Wikipedia as being mostly irrelevant. Surviving footage of ICW television showed evidence that they were able to book André at one point in their existence, so the promotion couldn't have been that much of a shithole. Anyway, comparing Meltzer to Wikipedia in this instance shows that perhaps we need to rethink who is really writing for a general audience and who is writing for fanboys and marktards.
As for the next one to work on? I see that Jerry Lawler was on the list in the previous thread. There's another poster child for my complaints. Last I checked, coverage of the latter half of his career exceeds coverage of the earlier half something like sixfold, and most coverage of his early career is consumed by celebrity-worshiping bulldada about Andy Kaufman which doesn't even come close to explaining Kaufman's time in Memphis. When I pointed this out on the talk page, one of the article's regulars basically said WP:SOFIXIT. The article as currently constructed reads like it has far more to do with WWE than it has to do with Lawler. That's a whole lot for one person to fix, especially considering that others more active on the article than myself have evidently done dick-all themselves (in other words, that statement was just another blowoff). I didn't have the right information until recently, so let's start at the top with that article. At the beginning of the article body, there is a mention of promoter Aubrey Griffith, presumably because his name was mentioned in a Slam Wrestling article, as the source matches the article text closely enough. Now, the story of how Lawler broke into the business has been around for decades, but anachronistic content based on cherry-picked sources which ignores the existence of and conflict with information found in other sources is hardly anything new for Wikipedia. Without the proper context, readers may develop the impression that Griffith was the promoter in Memphis rather than Nick Gulas. Hell, for all anybody seemed to really know, they could have really been talking about Andy Griffith. Well, lo and behold, it turns out that Aubrey Griffith promoted weekly Saturday night outlaw shows in West Memphis, and put Lawler in the main event in his first match for the sole reason that we was a disc jockey on a major Memphis radio station. The article also talk's about Lawler's training, but Lawler's own account leaves doubt as to how much actual training he received before he started wrestling. Not only did Lawler hint that Griffith put new wrestlers in the ring with little or no training, but he also hinted that his own actual training consisted mostly of being beaten half to death by Tojo Yamamoto on a nightly basis.
Back to whether we're writing for a general audience or for fanboys for a sec. There was a recent conflict at Professional wrestling in Australia. When I looked at it, it appears there's been a years-long effort by clique of editors, who have used "notability" as a gambit to exclude information which is clearly notable within the article's context and to turn it into yet another article which is really about WWE rather than about the titular subject. Let's apply this to Lawler's earliest days in the business. The radio station Lawler worked at, KWAM, has a Wikipedia article. His boss at the station, Eddie Bond, has a Wikipedia article. Aubrey Griffith does not have a Wikipedia article, and for good reason, as I seriously doubt that it would survive a deletion discussion. So, as it stands, for how many years have we mentioned this bottom-feeding clown, and for all intents and purposes given him undue weight by virtue of lack of mention of other surrounding details, simply because he earned an incidental mention in Slam Wrestling once upon a time? If I wanted Slam Wrestling, I'm perfectly capable of getting it at their website without having to see it lazily distilled/repeated here. In summary, it's clear that some are not thinking of the bigger picture. GaryColemanFan and Nikki are known trophy hunters. That mentality leads to content such Jos Leduc, a GA which manages to avoid acknowledging the one thing which Leduc is even remembered for nowadays (speaking of Jerry Lawler...), and fills in content with seemingly random match results the way that the articles of modern-day wrestlers are burdened with week-to-week storyline details. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thing is, this is an online encyclopedia. Online content (covered in the last few years) is just so much more readily available / accessible than offline (historical content). starship.paint ~ KO 01:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow, RadioKAOS! Did you really watch World Class? How interesting! GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@GaryColemanFan:, I have no idea how long you have been saying that but I still like it.--WillC 00:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Heavenly Bodies disambiguation

I don't get all of the naming conventions on Wikipedia, but The Heavenly Bodies (1960s) (professional wrestling) and The Heavenly Bodies (1990s) (professional wrestling) seem oddly named to me. Is it okay to have two parenthetical notes in an article title? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if a written rule exists, but that looks ugly and I haven't seen it elsewhere. Put me down for "(19x0s tag team)". InedibleHulk (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I see that as being the better choice.--174.91.187.234 (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Grand Slam Championship

We have a recurring problem at this article with User:HHH Pedrigree and User:Vjmlhds continually removing information from the page. They are also misusing vandalism templates by spamming my talk page with them whenever I revert their information-blanking. I would like some fresh eyes on this situation to assess what they are removing and whether it is correct of them to assume bad faith and accuse others of vandalism simply for restoring removed true information to the page. Ranze (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Your editions were reverted by three users. Still ading that information is vandalism. You tried to change the criteria, adding people like Rey Mysterio, Bob Backlund or Santino Marella, but the project didn't agree. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
As if on cue. This info-blanking has been brought up at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_120#Talk:Grand_Slam_Championship.23Section_removal however it was prematurely closed because @TransporterMan: judged that V was not participating in the discussion, even though they were notified about it.
This is evidence of what I believe to be abuse of the vandalism templates in an attempt to intimidate me into accepting their viewpoints even though my edits are not vandalism and it is theirs which are lacking consensus:
Lately, HHH in particular seems vehement about spamming this template on my talk page rather than actually talking to me. HHH has said that the project has decided to remove the information, but I do not think the opinions of HHH and Vj necessarily represent the consensus of all of WP:PW.
I explained to you the criteria, but you did listen. Also, your editions were removed by two more users, but you include your edition over and over. That's vandalism.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@HHH Pedrigree: it is not vandalism to restore true information blanked from a page simply because 3 users reverted it. You say "the project" as if you are a new wrestling stable or something. I did not add Backlund to Grand Slam Championship, you are confusing this with the dispute in Triple Crown Championship. Please discuss that in a separate section if you like.
Regarding Mysterio and Marella, if you want to exclude them, you need to specify criteria which excludes them. We cannot have unwritten criteria exclude people. Users must be informed, if they are not being notified of every living wrestler who is 1 step away, of why they are not being informed of some of them. If you want the criteria to be "wrestlers has been future endeavoured" I would be fine with that... but only if you commented them out and supplied a reference showing they got future-endeavoured, from WWE corporate. You're relying too much on assumed personal knowledge and not enough on source-based editing here. Ranze (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "As of 2015, these WWE wrestlers are one title away from becoming a Grand Slam Champion" That's the criteria. "WWE Wrestler"=people under contract with WWE working as wrestlers, not ambassador or trainers and no retired people. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
If that is the criteria then to include someone on this list, there must be evidence that they are under contract with WWE. Everyone I have put on the list has definitely been under contract with WWE, so I think it is your burden to supply a reference that this contract was terminated. This would be easy enough to do with someone like Hulk Hogan, but you must supply a reference supporting the idea that Marella is no longer under contract.
Marella is retired. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
If you can supply a reference supporting the idea that the person on the list had their contract terminated then I would not object to you commenting them out via <!-- -->. I would object to their information being removed entirely though, since contracts are often renewed. However, to remove the commented-out tags, it would then be my burden (or that of anyone else wishing to restore them) to supply evidence of a new contract having been made after the date of the previous one's termination.
The contract aspect is in regard to the first "WWE" part. You are also suggesting a second "wrestler" criteria. The problem I have with that is this puts an additional burden on you. You must supply a reference supporting the idea that the person's contract excludes them from wrestling. Every single person I have included on the list has wrestled matches with WWE, they have been wrestlers in the WWE, so it is your burden so support via reference that this is no longer the case.
The articles are sourced. Backlund is a ambassador, patterson a producer, NAO trainers. They can wrestle, but their function isn't to wrestle.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
You may be able to do so with data from their pages, but it is not my burden to prove every single new day that someone is still under their wrestling contract. They are assumed under contract until you can prove they are not. Ranze (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Whoever has legitimate reliable sources to back up their version wins the situation. It is that simple. No source, then no change. No theory, no thoughts, no what ifs. What WWE says is their Grand Slam is their Grand Slam.--WillC 00:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

we are talking about the list of potential grand slam champions, @Wrestlinglover:.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't read. Saw the last diff, looked like a criteria issue. Just assumed. My bad.--WillC 05:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I would just remove the potential champions altogether. You're either a Grand Slam champion or you're not. Triple H, Cena and Kane etc, are not and therefore, in my mind, don't belong on the page. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 11:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I also agree.LM2000 (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Genius idea, support. starship.paint ~ KO 01:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I was going to say the same thing. It's pretty trivial to say someone isn't a GS champion, and pretty close to WP:SYNTH to try and figure out who is close to one. oknazevad (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Potential champions is basically original research anyway.--WillC 05:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I removed the potential Grand Slam Champions of WWE and TNA. starship.paint ~ KO 06:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    • i'll remove then from triple crown championship tooHHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
It is not original research to mention who is 1 title away and who is not. If we are not going to feature that openly, that's fine, but we should at the very least list who is 1 title away in commented-out data for our internal tracking purposes. I'm putting that in. Ranze (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a source for people who are one away? Do you have a template or a bot that does it? No, then it is original research and trivia.--WillC 05:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:THE

A few months ago there was consensus on the Nation of Domination requested move that the article violated WP:THE. This seems to have been glossed over in regards to this project. From what I've noticed, "The" was added en mass to stable/team articles back in 2013 after this discussion.

This is a huge undertaking as there are hundreds of articles to sort through and evaluate on a case-by-case basis. Anyone else willing to pursue this? We need to figure out which ones should be kept (The Authority and The Corporation perhaps?), and which should be moved. Prefall 00:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

This definitely has headache potential. That's all I'll say for now. Not out or in yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I just hate seeing a capitalized 'The' in the middle of a sentence. Stuff like "while The Rock was indefinitely suspended". I'll probably take whichever side that removes these stuff. starship.paint ~ KO 23:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget The Brahma Bull, The People's Champion, The Great One and The Most Electrifying Man in Sports Entertainment. His case is probably the simplest of anyone, just through his third-person promo and catchphrase style. It's as official and common as they come. If you hate and cite hard enough, you can possibly change The Rock 'n' Roll Express or The Rock 'n' Sock Connection, but not The Rock. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Meh then why doesn't anyone chant "The Rocky" but "Rocky" starship.paint ~ KO 03:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Because he The Sucks??  MPJ-US  12:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
"Die Rocky, Die" is just German for "The Rocky, The". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Alright that's it, you win the Interwebs, we can all go home now that logic just cannot be argued, The Rocky it is ;-) MPJ-US  08:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Braun Stowman

I think we should semi-protect Braun Stowman's article. After his debut on RAW tonight, his article is seeing rampant vandalism.  THE $R$. Habla!  Hancock!  01:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • It's been protected minutes after you posted this. Who is this guy, anyway? starship.paint ~ KO 02:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Is that Donald Gibb Jr.?? Team him up with Rob Van Dam and you've got a winner!! MPJ-US  02:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"in a losing effort"

I usually do not work a lot on WWE or TNA related articles, but due to NXT have been reading more of them lately. I keep seeing this phase "in a losing effort" over and over again. I do not know if it is an attempt to be "encyclopedic" or "out of universe" in some way? Wikipedia:Euphemism actively discourages using these euphemistic "softener" instead of saying "lost", I actually read the phrase "in a match she did not win"... so she lost? It is also not out of universe, it is actually the opposite stating "despite his in ring efforts he lost", except we all know the results are planned, the effort is in the performance not the outcome. Why are people using that phrase? Am I just a crotchety old guy who want the kids off my lawn? I read it like they are kids "hey good effort Mr. Generic, have a prize for coming in second", and yes I realize I probably read more into it. I see aton of problems in especially WWE articles beyond euphemisms, WP:RED for one where red links are consistently removed when they should not be and WP:NOTBROKEN that emphasizes redirects over piped links. Yeah not sure what my point is now.  MPJ-US  16:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Oh and even experience editors just throwing a bare url between ref tags?? /rantmode.  MPJ-US  16:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That's either 1) newbs or 2) me when I'm on my mobile, like now, if I forget to expand the cite later or 3) InedibleHulk? starship.paint ~ KO 03:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
It's easier. Easier things trump harder things. It's the way of the world, and all we are is dust in the wind. If I could change, I would, but I'm just one man, man. That's the closest I'll come to an apology on the bracket issue until this sort of wordiness is gone forever. But that's proven to be hard. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Or, if you mean just the URL, I don't do that. That bugs me, too. I give it a title, an author and a publisher. Just not in robot language. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I've noticed that myself. The subtle attempt to make wrestling seem legit. I try to avoid it myself in the PPVs I do but it is hard at times when explaining the events that occurred.--WillC 02:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, the standard phrase should be "she lost" - but honestly, I wouldn't mind a few variations in writing once in a while. Makes the text less boring. starship.paint ~ KO 03:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It is kind of a euphemism but I don't mind it on occasion for the sake of variety. It is overused though and that certainly is a problem.LM2000 (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

What I find most annoying is when an article says something along the lines of "she would then defeat so-and-so and would win the title". Just say "she defeated so-and-so and won the title". I don't understand adding "would" in every sentence. Nikki♥311 12:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • It's about using them in moderation. Around 10% to 20% of the time I think would be fine, to strike a balance between conciseness and variety. starship.paint ~ KO 13:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't think "would" should ever be used. It's unnecessarily wordy, and it actually makes the sentence more confusing. "Would" adds an element of uncertainty, since it doesn't directly state whether it actually happened. In scripted competition, "he would" is sometimes used to mean "he did", but it could just as easily (and, grammatically, more likely) mean "he would win the title, but instead..." GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Never, never, never. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Erhmegawd!! Tigre Uno's TNA section is a clear, text book, scholarly example of why we discourage week-to-week reporting. Good thing he left Mexico and joined TNA so it is not on my desk ;-)  MPJ-US  23:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Next collaboration

With very little input about the next collaboration, it looks like it might be either Superstar Billy Graham or Nick Bockwinkel. According to the time frame, the next collaboration starts on Friday the 21st. Any thoughts? GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

If this is mostly with their (possibly) imminent deaths in mind, I'll say neither seems mainstream enough to get ITN consensus, even with impeccable articles. The bias is real. If I had to pick the most likely of the two, it'd be Graham. But impeccable articles are good things, regardless. Let's get Dennis Stamp on the Main Page! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
But, but he is not even booked for the main page????  MPJ-US  21:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
He was recently choo-choo-chosen by "the most intense wrestling in the United States". If that doesn't impress the RD intelligentsia, nothing will! Seriously though, may he live long and prosper.
I notice nobody mentioned Lex Luger yet. Not to put too many eggs in one basket, but he seems a fairly good mix of wrestling fame, "real sport" accomplishments and so-so health. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and say let's go with Graham. Somebody else can be bold and pick the next one. Also, I plan to put some finishing touches on Jimmy Snuka and nominate it for GA in the next couple of weeks (depending on my work schedule). Nikki♥311 07:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Before you do that, here's some holes/issues I see:
    • With the infobox photo showing him wearing a strap, it may help if the caption acknowledged that and identified it. I assume it was the U.S. tag title belt?
    • Atco, New Jersey? Are all the houses modular structures painted white with a yellow stripe below the roofline? Sorry, couldn't resist.
    • If he was trained by Danny Hodge, I think some additional background on that would be helpful. There weren't wrestling schools back then and Hodge's reputation occasionally includes mention of him hurting people just for kicks. It also doesn't make sense on the surface if Snuka broke into the business in Hawaii at a time when Hodge was Leroy McGuirk's top star in Oklahoma.
    • His birth name is sourced to a primary source with no secondary source to back it up. As so many different "real names" have popped up for Snuka over the years, I would think special care should be exercised here.
    • The last sentence of the lead, recently added in response to developments in the Nancy Argentino case, reads like it was copied verbatim from a news report. Whether or not it's appropriate for the lead is a whole other matter
And that's only the top of the page! I'll have to finish later: "Time to make the donuts", as they say in the trade. As I mentioned in the case of another potential GA candidate, aren't the trophy hunters glad I don't do GA reviews?
While I'm at it, more notable entities which played a role in Jerry Lawler's entry into the business: Lance Russell, Dave Brown, WHBQ, the Ellis Auditorium and Jackie Fargo. Still no article on Aubrey Griffith. Hell, he doesn't even warrant a mention in List of professional wrestling promoters. That's not surprising, considering that the "reliable source" fails to do what a reliable source is supposed to do, namely provide sufficient context so that readers aren't left scratching their heads. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I also support Graham being our next collab. Luger belongs somewhere on the list though.LM2000 (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixing WWE's official title history

wwe.com has some major errors in its title histories: • they forgot to add all of the Hardcore Battle Royal changes at WrestleMania 2000 except the final one • they somehow lost 4 US title reigns (explained it in a discussion a few days ago) • recognize Kevin Nash as a 5-time WCW Champ but don't list his short reign in 2000 (Sid - Nash - Sid) minor error: • sometimes they recognize the date the title changed, sometimes the date the change was aired

We should collect some Twitter names of wwe.com staff and we should all tweet them about this. It would make some things a lot easier, and we would have definitive sources for some of these reigns. And how unprofessional does it look to have such a big company that doesn't care about their own titles?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's worry about Wikipedia, not wwe.com. That's not our job. (And the first one is not incorrect at all. In championship scrambles, only the last winner's reign actually counts; the guys who get pins during the scramble are not counted as former champions. This is borne out by other similar scrambles over the years.) oknazevad (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Each of the people getting a pinfall were announced as new champions during the scramble. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Clearly they've changed the standards of recognition, to keep that event in line with later scrambles like the one for the ECW title at the Bash in 2009. It's their title, so they are allowed to do that. Pro wrestling is a form of serialized fiction after all, it is subject to retcons. There's no use acting like some bit of history has been lost, here. oknazevad (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The scramble champs were only "champs" for the specific purpose of determining the champ at the time limit. Same word, different concept. They don't count as real champs, because the match isn't over. No bell, no winner. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

They recognize these reigns in their official encyclopedia. They also recognize Viscera as a former Hardcore Champ, even though he only won the title once (during the battle royal). It was not a Scramble match and I'm sure they didn't think about future Scramble matches when not adding these reigns to their official title history. They also consider Hardcore Holly a 22-time Champ in their articles, but he only gets 22 reigns if you count his title reign during the battle royal. They just botched their title history, nothing new. I tweeted some guys, two responded, but didn't seem to care what I had to say and ignored or blocked me. This is so frustrating, you want to help them with obvious mistakes and they get annoyed. There has to be a way to get their attention. I mean in the end, what are titles worth if your title win gets lost because of stupid staff!?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Rob Van Dam's European Championship reign isn't listed in that title history but is listed elsewhere. Seems to be the case with some of these Hardcore reigns, Viscera doesn't get listed in the official title history but is listed as one in his bio. We'll just have to make a note of that as we do with RVD.LM2000 (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Damn didn't know about RVD's lost reign. This is getting disgusting! btw is it only me or is this link dead: http://web.archive.org/web/20110609235351/http://www.wwe.com/superstars/wwealumni/rvd/bio/358594 it was used as a source next to RVD's reign.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

RVD's only Euro title reign was when he unified it with the IC title. It's mentioned on RVD's alumnus page, and in the description of Jeff Hardy's final reign as champion (the last full reign for the title's existence), but as often happens, they don't always emotion the winner of the unification match. On the other hand, the Hardcore title page does have RVD listed as the last champ.
Of course, again, it's not our job to correct their errors, presuming they actually are errors and not intentional changes. Maybe you got blocked on Twitter because you wouldn't let things go when it's not your business or job to take care of them. Stop obsessing over it. It's not healthy for you and not productive for us. oknazevad (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Not counting RVD's reign but counting it in his bio is an actual error for sure. And I think it is productive, because there won't be any disputes in the future over some title reigns which you count but wwe.com doesn't.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Good luck trying to reason with WWE.com. I tried to get them to change Dominic Denucci's name from "Dominc" once. Ended after three e-mails apiece with some guy who didn't seem to understand the problem in simple English. After that, I only got automated invites to fill out a customer satisfaction survey, and it's still "Dominc."
If you can actually get them to change something as subtstantial as a title history, you're a better man than I. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Seriously are they retarded or what? What did that guy not understand? Dominic was his name and not Dominc, so just change it!? But you go an email conversation? How? I once filled out a form but never got a reply. Or did you have a specific mail address of an employee?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Using the word "retarded" like that makes you look really bad. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
That's how I'd describe him, too. He was either slightly smarter than a bot, or a slightly smart bot. I just used the Contact Us form, to start. Forget his name, but it was a man's name. Shouldn't have been a conversation, should've just been a simple fix. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
As for RVD, he won the belt, but didn't hold it. It ceased to exist apart from the IC immediately. So no reign, not even one second. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Happens, not a native speaker, I live in Germany. But that's not the point, even I can understand that if his name is Dominic, then it's not Dominc ... WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't think he objected to spelling, but that the word is offensive.  MPJ -US  23:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but I've been trying to get in touch with WWE for months and they do nothing. And now I read about them not understanding the difference between Dominc and Dominic and I got even more pissed. @Hulk: He won it and then it was unified. Like Orton vs Cena TLC 2013, Orton's WHC reign is recognized, or like RVD's Hardcore title reign later in 2002. It was the same guy, same situation, only this time it was IC and Hardcore and not IC and European. + they recognize it in his wwe.com bio and in the WWE encylopedia and in their articles. They want to recognize the reign, but forgot to add it in their title history. That's why I think we should remove the note that the reign is not listed in WWE's title history, it is not missing on purpose. Same with the 4 missing US title reigns. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Nay, good sir. Regardless of how the indisputably confused or intentionally misleading WWE.com is, the stipulation in any unification match (even in "real" sports) is simple and in place before the match starts. One title will merge into another, and the winner of the match gets the bigger title. When the ref calls for the final bell, the absorbed title doesn't exist.
Trying to presume what WWE.com truly wants to rewrite and what's their honest, retarded mistake will drive you crazier than worrying about history's constant decay. Don't bother, I say. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

So you think they made a mistake counting Orton's 12th world title reign or counting Triple H's 5th IC title reign or counting Jericho's 2nd WCW title reign when he became the Undisputed Champ? They all won the title and at that exact moment it was deactivated / unified. Or are you saying we should edit Orton's bio into "11-time World Champ"? Here you have WWE recognizing RVD as the final champ: http://www.wwe.com/inside/top-25-superstars-of-the-new-millennium/page-10 WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if it was a mistake or deliberate, but it's wrong. Unification matches end in unification, not two reigns. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

They count every unification as an additional title win. EVERY. I don't think we should take one title reign away from ever wrestler. Maybe it is not a title reign in your eyes because it lasts less than a second, but those guys won the match and therefore always get the honor of being the last Champion.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Won the title, didn't hold it.
In any case, we already hold WWE.com way higher than any Wikiproject should hold a primary source. It's in every article related to WWE, almost. It's even weirder when we consider WWE's bread and butter is deception. Secondaries at least try to find the truth. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
What truth? It's scripted fiction. The dirt sheets seem to forget that sometimes, playing up the TMZ "gotcha" style, trying to "reveal the truth they don't want you to see!" as though kayfabe really mattered anymore and that every promoter is committing fraud. Now, technically, that was once true. (The days of true kayfabe were actually fraud, when you think about it, as it was actually a form of match fixing, though it developed into a distinct form of theatre) But those days are long gone, and frankly the dirt sheets are more than a little bit ridiculous in acting like they still do. WWE.com is a reliable source for plot summaries, which is what all this history is in reality. As serialized fiction, it is subject to retcons, just like comic books and TV series. We should keep that in mind and know that things are changed intentionally sometimes, and that ultimately WWE really only cares about how the history can inform current story lines.oknazevad (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The line between the lies and truth is still there. Just blurrier and permeable. I'd sort of rather not know I don't know than know I only half-know. It's like holding a light switch in the middle. Bzzzz! Also a blurry line between the actors and their roles that we never see in Batman. (Don't read that, it's half-pointless.) InedibleHulk (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It's the IPs and redlinks adding WWE.com, I'm telling you. But it's better than them adding wrestlezone or ewrestlingnews or bleacherreport. As they are wont to do. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
People still say "wont to do"? Good stuff! But yeah, better than WebProNews, etc. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

So the point of this was to get some people to help me contact them on Twitter. Anybody?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

  • @WrestlingLegendAS: - I haven't used Twitter in years. Can't even remember the user name now. Plus, WWE sucks. Sorry. starship.paint ~ KO 13:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
    • All of WWE's title histories are screwed up. I've been saying it for years that all of the lists need to be re-evaluated for accuracy under new FLC nominations.--WillC 05:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Not only in this thread but in other recent threads, there is expressed a recurring concern over the integrity of title histories. I made the acquaintance of Royal Duncan something like 30 years ago, and Gary Will many years after that. I've already told my story about those two and Wrestling Title Histories; let's just say that Gary's version in Slam Wrestling gets it mostly right. Every time I check out his website, I get the impression that he's getting further and further away from wrestling. The longtime main link to his wrestling page now redirects to his non-wrestling blog, and "I see dead wrestlers" is apparently now available only by archive link. Is this the proper place to speculate on the likelihood of any future endeavors? Hint: I'm just a few years younger than Gary Will. The quote to the effect of "time-killing, money-draining hobby" means something when you're a grown-ass adult. If you're that young, you'll find out, trust me. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Spoilers dispute

Did somebody see this? It's a discussion about Lucha underground. The user is talking about the spoilers policies, taped events and more... it's about LU, but I think it's important, because a lot of articles are included under these policies.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I think...maybe I used some spoilers in the dispute XD Sorry :S --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • There are no spoilers at all in the dispute text, I made sure I used totally made up generic events to illustrate the fact that us stating that "this match was taped on April X" is not crystalball because it has already happen and that none of the articles made mention of how it would be shown on TV since it had not.  MPJ -Fiesta Triplemania  09:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Starship.paint: the dispute resolution is spoiler free, I only discussed in Lucha Underground Talk Page. However, I'll edit the LU talk page --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe the discussion is about to end since they cannot really mediate if it's okay to break WP:SPOILER, wrong forum to try to change the general policy on spoilers.  MPJ -Viva Esfinge  00:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

NXT TakeOver: Brooklyn

I really feel this WWE Network event of NXT should be it's own article separate from the List of WWE NXT special episodes article due to its nature of being the first WWE Network event for NXT outside Full Sail University's NXT Arena. I would do it, but creating extensive article are just not my area of expertise. I'm good at editing/creating template, creating stubs, and minor edits. So is anyone willing to take on the project? I'm betting with NXT growing in popularity, there won't be a shortage of reliable sources to handle it being its own article. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 05:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  • @TrueCRaysball: - I could do it. But I don't really want to. It's tough work. What's the rationale for a standalone article? Held outside Full Sail? Just 10,000 people more watching the event live. Presumably around the same number watching on the WWE Network - maximum 1.5 million subs? If this was a pay-per-view, there's more rationale, but if it isn't, it's probably just 10,000 more people watching this than R Evolution. starship.paint ~ KO 00:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • We just went through something similar to this with Elimination Chamber. It's about coverage, not method of air or viewership numbers. While it's too early to prove it, I believe there will be the sources to sustain the stand alone article. Let's face it, NXT is growing in popularity. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 00:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @TrueCRaysball: okay, let me admit it. There is enough coverage; there are reliable sources out there. If there was enough coverage for NXT Arrival, there is probably enough coverage for every single subsequent NXT Takeover to have their own articles. Instead the question you should be asking yourself is, will there be enough editors to sustain the standalone article? Compare the NXT Arrival Good Article to WWE's Elimination Chamber (2015) and The Beast in the East. The articles of the main roster events are incomplete. The latter has sources to Twitter and Wrestlezone. This is what will happen - prove me wrong, please, I would love to see any NXT Takeover article match Arrival's in completeness and quality. But who's going to volunteer? It won't be me. starship.paint ~ KO 12:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Please don't take this as hostile, because it's meant with respect, but why should I waste my time answering your questions if you've already outright stated you won't work on the article? TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 22:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @TrueCRaysball: You don't have to answer. I also say this with respect: you are proposing adding work that puts even more strain on the Wikiproject, but you can't shoulder much of this work, and you need others to do it. If the results are poor, it's in a sense ... irresponsible to have even started doing this extra work. starship.paint ~ KO 02:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Really it only takes one editor to make a good article (they don't all have to be "Good Articles" either).  MPJ -Viva Esfinge  22:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Still not sure why that's an argument for this show being a separate article if someone wants to work on it - I personally would never personally discourage anyone who wants to work on a notable article. MPJ -Viva Esfinge  22:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @MPJ-DK: - if they can produce a complete article, then please, go ahead! Do it! But if they can't ... then I'd rather them work on the various incomplete articles the project already has, rather than creating yet another incomplete article. starship.paint ~ KO 02:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Starship.paint: - Whoa how about we dial this back a bit? So if they cannot produce an article to your standards they should work on the articles you think need it? How are we even having such a discussion? The criteria for an article is not "completeness" or anything like that but notability and heck all NXT Takeovers have to have that weather they're in one joint article or separate ones. Remember that today's Stub article is tomorrow's B class article, even if the improvements do not happen on a schedule to your liking. Maybe it is just me but I don't think anyone here has the right to try to dictate which articles someone works on, this is all voluntary work after all, desire, interest, passion drives this. If someone wants to take a shot at the that as a standalone article I fully support the creation of any article that fullfils the Notability criteria. Put it this way, I am here to mainly work on the Lucha Libre articles because that is what I want to work on, I would never put up with others telling me I should work on something else.  MPJ -Viva Esfinge  02:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @MPJ-DK: - I'm sorry for pissing you off, man (it sure seems like it). I'm just saying this situation might produce more articles like Triplemanía XII, where you, Nikki311 and I have to work on, because I didn't hear anyone else volunteering for Triplemania expansion. Stubs don't magically become B-Class articles, I'm sure you know it requires time and hard work - all of which is voluntary, as you said. I'm just trying to conserve that precious resource - our voluntary time and hard work, from being overwhelmed by stubs. In an era where the WikiProject was more active - sure you can create stubs and there will be many people to expand it. This is not the era. We are short of people, so we should be prudent in what we create. If there are more editors in the future, then expansion is fine. That's my editing philosophy and you don't have to agree with it. starship.paint ~ KO 03:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Starship.paint: - I am sorry if I came off as pissed off, not at all just a little concerned that the discussion seemed to focus more on restricting what people feel like working on than if the NXT Event could qualify for a standalone article. And yes I know that stub work can be a pain, or a lot of fun doing research. To me the last thing I want to do is discourage anyone from contributing, in whatever manner they choose. MPJ -Viva Esfinge  03:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @MPJ-DK: I don't like restricting others, it isn't nice, yes. Unfortunately, I think it's for the greater good. But there are alternatives which haven't been considered. If TrueCRaysball wants to learn how to create a complete PPV-like article from scratch, sure, I can help him, even using Takeover: Brooklyn, why not? starship.paint ~ KO 03:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

So I am apparently a Bad puddy-tad for not doing what I am told ===> NXT TakeOver: Brooklyn ;-) or a mark, or a fan or just excited or whatever. But I saw no factual arguments against this so I figured why the heck not??  MPJ-US  22:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


With the interest I have seen in the Brooklyn I am working on splitting out the other events as well, I put the Unstoppable out there with room for expansion, to allow others to work on it if want. All of them will have the background, storyline,event, aftermath and reception several tions. May not be GA articles, but solid B articles. And contrary to what Triple H Says that is not an insult ;-)  MPJ-US  16:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:WWE personnel

I've noticed over the past few months that this template is constantly being edit warred over who belongs on what category (one example is whether or not the four horsewomen should be in the "main roster" section or on the "NXT section", even when the WWE website lists them as NXT divas). I've already sent out a WP:RFPP on the template in order to start a discussion about what standard we should apply the template to. Your thoughts? --wL<speak·check> 06:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

As one wise man said Run Fools". Seriously, that's by I hate these articles. My advice: created iron rules. It's a joke to discuss if the horsewomen belong to NXT or the main roster. Iron rules, not personnal interpretation.HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • List of WWE personnel and that template are a magnet for IPs and red links. I agree with HHH Pedrigree - set an iron rule. We go by WWE.com - so they're NXT wrestlers. starship.paint ~ KO 00:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @WikiLeon: - that's for active wrestlers. The standard "superstars" page of WWE.com will not be as helpful for Trainers/staff / Off-screen / Producers / Unassigned / Ambassadors starship.paint ~ KO 12:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a start, should we just base it on what is written at the main list and its references, Starship.paint? --wL<speak·check> 17:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  • @WikiLeon: - yes, that's how it should have been, honestly. For active wrestlers on the main list, they are sorted in the main list and in the template by however WWE.com wants to sort them. starship.paint ~ KO 01:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
But the instability of both list and the template are notorious (the list article is covered in the media as one of the most contentious articles in Wikipedia). Is it even worth pursuing? --wL<speak·check> 03:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @WikiLeon: - if constantly fighting a horde of "red users" is your thing, most of them acting in good faith, a significant number of them unaware of WP:PW/RS reliable sourcing, then pursue it. People will always try to add "correct" info, even without a source, or try to re-categorize wrestlers "properly". Actually, I have an idea - maybe the page needs pending changes protection. starship.paint ~ KO 01:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
More like semi-protection. The template is seen on the articles of every person hired/conatracted by WWE, and it's constantly being edited. --wL<speak·check> 05:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @WikiLeon: - the list article is semi-protected already. The template isn't so much of a problem I think, is it? It's edited far less frequently starship.paint ~ KO 06:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the point is simple. 1, The wrestler has to appear in the roster website or 2, a reliable source about the wrestler signed a contract with the promotion. Simple. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Input from project members on a GA nomination

I'm the GA reviewer for Bullet Club and I had a question regarding how to treat descriptions of matches to comply with WP:Writing about fiction if it applies at all. I'm not familiar with Professional Wrestling so I'm unsure of how scripted it is or not, and whether it needs to be covered from an "out of the universe" perspective if that's even possible. Input on the review can be put on the review page. Thanks. Wugapodes (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I listed it after finding the project's style guide and reading through it. Though feel free to use the review as a way to improve the article. Wugapodes (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed feedback. I found it useful, particularly the suggestion that "In wrestling" is perhaps not the best name for the section header. There's probably a better option that we could come up with. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @GaryColemanFan: - wouldn't it be better for a non-wrestling fan to suggest the name, after reading through the actual section? starship.paint ~ KO 03:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't edit if you don't know all the facts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WWE_United_States_Champions

"WWE recognizes Flair's fourth and fifth reigns as being uninterrupted, and considers this a continuation of the fourth." They do? So why do they state it ended on July 26? http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/unitedstates/3044541222 They just forgot to add the two reigns that happened between July 26 and the January 27 title win by Roddy Piper. And we should not put these reigns in grey even if WWE decided to see the reign as a continuation, because the title changes happened in NWA and were recognized at that time.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

omg. i swear I'll hang myself in my room if I read one more discussion. Please, edit. We apreciate you ask us about the editions. If you're sure something is wrong, change it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't do it, man! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I mean, Don't do it, man! Don't want to one day wonder what if I'd only talked bigger. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

But then the guy responsible for it will just undo my edit and it will go on forever, so I wanted to explain to everyone that I am right. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Assuming he even reads this I guess? You could have simply gone to his talk page instead of rehashing this reheated discussion of a repeated issue. It's like Deja Vu all over again.  MPJ -Viva Esfinge  01:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Deja Vu all over again - so Deja Vu twice? Means something happens thrice. LOL. starship.paint ~ KO 03:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I know, I may have undercounted the number of times there has been a discussion on the US title reigns recently, sorry so it's more like a repeated Deja Vu all over again and again.  MPJ -Viva Esfinge  22:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I posted it on his page too, I just wanted to let everyone know about the stuff nobody looked at (the dates when clicking at the reigns). So next time someone edits it, you know for sure I am right ;) WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Why does it matter what WWE recognizes? It is a WCW Championship. WWE can't re-write history. What happened, happened. We list facts not "facts according to WWE".--WillC 05:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, so do we even need to say "not listed in the WWE (!!!) title lineage"?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

WillC what do you think?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I've been saying for years that all and yes I mean ALL WWE Title pages need to be re-evaluated. Too many of them go by what the WWE recognizes. Instead these pages need to go by what actually happened. Was someone a legitimate champion? That means did they win the title and officially be recognized as champion? This is not like the Jericho WWE reign where he beat HHH and then it was reversed. That was planned, that is not an official reign. An official reign is they won it, WWE recognized it, and they went on. If WWE doesn't recognize it later on after everything is done, similar to the Benoit reigns (since WWE's view now is he never existed), then we note it. It is still an official reign, it does not get removed from the official history, it just gets a note. We go by the facts, not what WWE says are the facts.--WillC 02:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Two things: First, the Benoit hyperbole is not needed at all; it only makes your position weaker. WWE has never removed Benoit from their official title histories. They have not in any way ever claimed he "never existed". Do they celebrate a double-murderer. No. Why the hell would they? But they haven't removed him from history.
Secondly, I feel I must remind everyone that pro wrestling is fiction. There's no such thing as a "legitimate champion". It is subject to retcons. Do we report on the changes, sure. But we must remember that we are doing such from an out-of-universe (WWE Universe?) perspective. We can't act as though there's a "real history" that was later covered up. WWE is not trying to hide what "actually happened", because even the first draft was not "real". They have just as much right to retcon their stories as any other form of serialized fiction. We can note the changes, but we must not act like changes are some sort of conspiracy. Yeesh!
Of course, this doesn't mean we can't point out and account for obvious errors on the part of wwe.com. They make mistakes, just like everyone. But we can't worry about them too much, either, as it's not our jobs to fix their website. We just make sure that our lists don't have the obvious errors, while also allowing for the existence of changes in the backstory of serialized fiction, just like any other form. oknazevad (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Obviously you misunderstand what I meant by the Benoit reigns. I wasn't saying that they removed him but that they never discuss him in any detail, which is basically retroactively declaring them non-existent. At one point, they had removed his reigns before placing them back in a couple of years ago. Now your argument that because it is fiction then WWE has the right to change history. Lets look at works of fiction, take comic books. Because the New 52 exists, they didn't go in and say everything that happened before is completely wrong, they instead had them live as continuations. That is not what is going on in these title pages. Because a reboot occurred later on we are instead going back to say they never happened. That is incorrect. It is the official history and that is the fact of the matter. No way around it. This is an encyclopedia, not what WWE fanpage. We are disconnected entirely from what WWE says is the flavor of the month now. If it happened, then it happened and the pages are to reflect that because we do not live in universe. If WWE says something about it later all we do is note it. No change to the history because you can't rebuild a house after it burns down and then go back and say it never burnt down because it is here today. The facts are the facts.--WillC 11:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • So we should both state the fact as it happened (respecting history) and if WWE views it differently now in the present? starship.paint ~ KO 12:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • And that's what we're trying to do right? deal with the facts - document the facts?  MPJ-US  12:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, document the facts (ie, so-and-so won this title on that date, but later recognition was dropped because such-and-such reason/storyline). What we can't do is act like its some evil conspiracy, or some sort of coverup. Firstly, because it's their (fictional) championship and they can do what ever they want with it. We do have to report what they say, and are not disconnected from it. Secondly, because we must be detached and dispassionate, not assume bad faith on the WWE's part. Maybe I'm reading into your words more than you mean, Will, but it does come off like that. oknazevad (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

What is an example of a title reign that WWE does not recognize anymore? You talking about Inoki, Backlund and Bob Holly? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, those are good examples. Those there's some dispute as to the validity of Bob Holly's (it may actually be like the Jericho-HHH situation). oknazevad (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not talking conspiracies. I'm just saying what the facts are. For a long time the history of these titles were dictated to look exactly as WWE viewed them with the Inoki and Backlund reigns not being listed in the official number of reigns. Acting as if they weren't part of what the official history is, trying to be in universe with the view held by WWE now. That isn't correct. That is revisionism and we shouldn't be supporting revisionism. The Inoki and Backlund reigns are official reigns and should be counted in the official number.--WillC 07:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Official according to whom? Not WWE, and it's their title to do what ever they want with. There's no POV violation to acknowledge that it's fiction, that they are the authors of that fiction, and that we defer to the author's story. In fact, quite the opposite. It's like I said a few sections up. There's no "true story they don't want you to know" tabloid nonsense involved here (despite the attitudes of the dirt sheets), no fraud. Kayfabe has been dead for decades. It's not Almere jail ist cover up. It's a fictional story. oknazevad (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I like how you two are debating a point while saying the exact same thing. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 18:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Backlund was most likely just a story for the New York area, everywhere else his reign was considered to be uninterrupted. Inoki's reign went unrecognized days after it started, so no revisionism decades later. The way I see it, we should take WWE.com's title histories and just add the missing reigns (RVD is the last EU champ, they even mention it in his bio but forgot to add it to the title history).WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Oknazevad, you are arguing a farce. "Official according to whom?" To what the facts are and what actually happened, not what WWE says happened. "Not WWE, and it's their title to do what ever they want with." Yes, it is theirs and they can do as they wish, but we aren't WWE. If tomorrow the U.S. Government says we didn't fight the British for Independence but the French, we don't go changing the Revolutionary War page to says U.S. vs France. It may be fiction, but if J.K. Rowling says Harry Potter was a figment of Ron's imagination, we don't go to each book and write "It is all a dream" after every line. I'm not talking about tabloids. I'm not saying they are trying to hide anything. I'm saying they are just trying to market their history the way they desire and they can do that. We are not an advertising firm for WWE. We report what actually happened. Not what WWE is marketing as happening. They started to remove Hogan from stuff recently. We don't go removing Hogan's name from all of the PPV reports because of that. What happened, happened. As for the Backlund and Inoki reigns, it all depends on what the sources say. We can't determine that at this point because those reigns are only covered by primary sources from the WWE. Not exactly neutral point of view there. It all comes down to who WWE promoted as champion. If WWE recognized Inoki's reign even for a second, then it is an official reign and not part of a storyline. If they stopped viewing it days later, that is irrelevant. As for Backlund, it doesn't matter if it is was only for the New York market. If they had him drop the title, then he dropped the title. How they marketed it to other territories means really nothing in the face of facts.--WillC 03:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If you have a reliable source stating that Inoki (or whoever's) reign was recognized, for even a second, as WillC says, then yes, we should document it. starship.paint ~ KO 03:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Ted DiBiase's reign was recognized for a week, he even defended it, but it was just a storyline, and we don't know if Inoki was just a storyline too. Or maybe there is a rule that states "if you give the title to your opponent after defending it successfully, the recognition of the reign is dropped". WWE definitely does not consider Inoki as a Champ. But we will never know what the reason behind the Inoki drama was, they mention it in his bio in the official WWE encylopedia, so it's not like they want to hide anything. We should just continue to count it as an unrecognized reign, just like we have been doing for over a decade now. If Cena wins the title at SummerSlam, Sheamus cashes in and they just add Sheamus to the title history because they often forgot things, then we should count Cena too.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes Inoki's reign would continue as an unrecognized reign but it is still a reign. Thus it should be included in the number.--WillC 04:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section on WWE Hall of Fame

I know about WP:NPOV and all that, but still I can't help but feel that this is unnecessary and tasteless to have this section in the WWE Hall of Fame article. Anyone else feel this way? TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 07:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • No. I actually inserted the information. It's criticizing the Warrior Award only, not the entire Hall. The stuff is backed up by reliable sources in WP:PW/RS. "Tasteless" certainly isn't a policy, but on that account you can read up on the various debacles of Hall of Famers. This was reported by mainstream news sites, which is a rare event that tells you of it's significance. [6] [7] - starship.paint ~ KO 09:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    The problem is that it seems Roberts only criticizes the fact they chose Connor as the first recipient, because he feels it's using the Warrior's memory as a publicity stunt essentially, not criticizing the award itself, wouldn't that information then be better presented in Connor's article? Moreover, (even if I am wrong in the first sentence) despite it being backed up by RS, I have to wonder whether the criticism is notable, he's the only one to criticize it, or at least the only one mentioned by a reliable source. It wasn't widespread criticism. I don't know, just feels out of place. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 09:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @TrueCRaysball: - other than notability being established by industry and mainstream RS ... WWE officially responding to it makes it even more notable. I agree with you on one point - there's actually two points of criticism here - 1. WWE revised Warrior's intentions, 2. WWE was insincere in giving to Connor. The second point belongs in Connor's article, yes, so I have trimmed that out and rewritten that section, is it better now? starship.paint ~ KO 03:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, sir. :) TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 04:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @TrueCRaysball: - please don't use that honorific, man. But just saying I reworded it again. Glad we worked out a compromise. starship.paint ~ KO 05:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
So I notice there is no longer a criticism section. Should this be discussed on the HoF page's talk or here? Ranze (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Two potential DYKs

I'm not loving the people in charge of DYK these days, so I don't think I'm going to be submitting there any time soon. There are a couple of wrestling articles that would qualify, though. Mark Curtis Memorial Reunion and Mark Curtis Memorial Weekend of Champions were both created on July 26, so feel free to nominate them if you want. They are eligible for five days from the articles' creation. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I also nominated The Batten Twins to DYK here. I only submitted it so the time limit didn't run out. The process seems pretty complicated so I'd appreciate if someone could take a look in case I made any mistakes. And if anyone has an idea for a better hook feel free to replace mine. 72.74.204.164 (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Roddy Piper

While I was in the middle of doing something else on here, news of Piper's death appeared all over the tabloid sources, though I've not seen anything resembling a major mainstream outlet covering it yet. Is this worth an RD nomination for the front page? As with Mad Dog Vachon, I would figure that not being American would greatly increase the chances of such. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Worth a shot. He had more mainstream exposure than Gange or Rhodes.LM2000 (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
It won't make it in its current state. It needs to be sourced and cleaned up before they will even consider it. Nikki♥311 00:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I plan to work on it today and tomorrow since I have time off of work. All help would be appreciated. Piper has a really good chance. Nikki♥311 01:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
@Nikki311 and GaryColemanFan: - since you started, which sections are most in need of work? starship.paint ~ KO 03:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
His professional wrestling career needs the most work...most of it is completely unsourced. Nikki♥311 05:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

He didn't really do much but a couple of random segments. His weekly ppv stuff is hard to source. I've wanted to make an article around the weekly ppvs but the sources for these shows are hard to find. Piper's other work was an appearance at Victory Road (2004) and Final Resolution (2005). Sources for those appearances are in the articles. I expanded both of those years ago.--WillC 09:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Funny how TNA doesn't even know Piper worked for them in 2005. starship.paint ~ KO 09:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    • They probably are ignoring him refereeing. The match was supposed to have involved Randy Savage and then contract discussions broke down so they stuck Jeff Hardy in the bout. TNA have been trying to ignore Hardy's first run where he was just a fuck up (alot like his current run) and didn't do much other than break shit and be odd. It literally was a bout that got thrown on for absolutely no reason. They are probably connecting it to the 2004 stuff since it literally is his only 2005 appearance.--WillC 09:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I managed to source the three sentences remaining for Piper's TNA run in the article. There's probably nothing much worth including either, right? starship.paint ~ KO 10:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Just saying, I will be very busy offline in the next few days. So I'm effectively done with Piper's article. Sorry. starship.paint ~ KO 10:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm still working on it. I think I can get most of it referenced, and there are a few paragraphs that can definitely be cut down. Nikki♥311 01:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
That's a bit sketchy, Starship. I'll have to sleep on it. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm okay with doing whatever it takes to get the RD posted at this point.LM2000 (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Now that I'm sober, I'm down for getting it posted and having a well-sourced article afterward. Is that possible? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
It took a while, but it's posted on the main page now. Great job getting the referencing done, everyone. (It's actually at the point now that some copyediting and a few more references could make it ready for a GA nomination, but I'll admit that I'm tired of looking at the article at this point. Maybe down the road...) GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Merging articles

Since this will affect several articles, I figured I'd bring up the debate here. I propose merging the IWGP titles that have been separated from their lists. The specific titles I suggest are the IWGP Heavyweight Championship, IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship, IWGP Tag Team Championship, and the IWGP Junior Heavyweight Tag Team Championship. The title histories have broken off into separate lists. This is bad because the main articles are listed as FLs. The new lists are lower class articles so thus the creation of the new articles have harmed the quality of the NJPW championship articles. We either merge the articles or go about having to de-class the above FL articles. I feel we just need to merge them since the articles passed FL as one and they were fine in that capacity. I nominated all of the above titles for FL except the Heavyweight title so I can't comment on that. There is not alot of available information for expansion of these solo titles pages because I originally attempted to split them off and found this out.--WillC 07:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Rationale accepted. Merge them DAMMIT! starship.paint ~ KO 08:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    • They should simply be merged back into the main articles so they can remain Featured Lists. Not sure why they were split AFTER they were made Featured Lists, but then again not everything that is done on Wikipedia is logical.  MPJ-US  12:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't know who did it. I was away when it happened. If I had been around I would have stopped it.--WillC 18:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Is there anyone against this or do we have a consensus? Is so, I'll go ahead and start merging them.--WillC 02:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
As a fan, it's a bit insulting to their prestige. But as a Wikipedia editor and WWE fan, I know there comes a point when the boss has to cast aside the fundamentals and hardore fans, and play by/master the mainstream rules. It's not "selling out", it's "growing up". Maybe one day, too, we can say "Did You Know: WPPW had more Featured Articles, Did You Knows and In The News last Monday than History, Geography, Economics and Justin Bieber combined!"
You're the Commissioner, Will, and if you think it's in our best championship interests to join the Japanese, you're probably right. Resistance is futile. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
What in the shit are you talking about? All this is in regards too is to make the best articles possible and make the NJPW articles look like they have some expansion in some shape or form. The lists are a bit of a mess here and there. They are lower quality articles and the main articles are featured lists when they aren't even lists. This is entirely about quality. If people spoke against a merge and it was the consensus I would demote the main articles and expand the lists to FL. I'm just trying to get this fixed because I'm working on a topic of TNA Titles and IWGP stuff was featured in TNA.--WillC 08:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm saying go for it. Why shouldn't we have nice articles? Onward and upward, and so on and so forth! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

is this a morbid suggestion?

Following the deaths of Verne Gange, Dusty and Piper i have seen an almost frantic attempt to clean up their articles so can be suggested for recent deaths (or whatever it is called). Would it be morbid if we put together a list of wrestlers who are potentiallh notable enough to get listed if they die? Then the articles can be improved before said wrestler dies? Not death pool kind of thing but a list of livinh wrestlers who have mainstream notability? Prevent fires instead of putting them out? Just a thought.  MPJ-US  17:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I'd like to go back to that article of the week thing again, where the whole project tries to improve one specific article. I'd limit it to bios at first. We could make a list of old famous wrestlers like Jim Duggan, Hogan, Sting, Arn Anderson, Steamboat, etc. Wrestlers from the 80s would have the highest odds of dieing.--WillC 18:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I would say that Jerry Lawler, Jesse Ventura, Sgt. Slaughter, Bob Backlund, Ted DiBiase, Jimmy Snuka, Jake Roberts, Harley Race, The Iron Sheik, Scott Hall, and Bret Hart might also have some notability. Some of them are in their 70s. Bruno Sammartino turns 80 this year. (**Insert obligatory disclaimer that I wish them all many more years of good health here**) GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
This reminds me of the old collaboration of the week (although the original got weighed down in bureaucracy). GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I would put some time in even on articles I wouldn't normally care about for sure. MPJ-US  22:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
This list might be useful. 72.74.204.164 (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Sourcing is only part of the problem. A handful of users genuinely did not think Gagne and Rhodes were notable enough to be RD worthy. Snuka was diagnosed with stomach cancer today and he will likely be an RD suggestion but he probably is about the same level of fame as Dusty was.LM2000 (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Sourcing and copy edits etc. is something we can actually do something about before someone dies. The RD discussion is a separate issue.  MPJ-US  22:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Nick Bockwinkel and Blackjack Mulligan have one foot in the grave, I hear. Sammartino and Backlund will probably outlive most of us. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget Superstar Billy Graham. If we're lucky some might confuse him with the the televangelist and he'll get his RD passed.LM2000 (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think they'd have any love for Brother Love. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
@GaryColemanFan: Thanks man, that is what I was thinking about, the old collaboration. Anyway, I'm surprised people wouldn't consider Dusty notable. He got alot of coverage. Gagne makes sense, he was only a legitimate name in wrestling.--WillC 04:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a good idea. I would be more than willing to help out. Nikki♥311 12:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Another good place to look is in the lists of top and high importance articles. Nikki♥311 12:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I would agree with that. If they ar top/high and still alive that is definitly the top priority to.ensure sources, quality etc.  MPJ-US  13:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Antonio Inoki and Terry Funk are also in their 70s. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

So, I guess the question is: How and were do we start? I'd like to have a fair amount of time on each, as life gets pretty busy these days. I have some books in my basement that I would have to dig out, and a bin of old Pro Wrestling Illustrated and associated magazines to sort through. Would a monthly collaboration work? Should we have more than one article going at a time? Last time we had a collaboration, we got bogged down in nomination and voting rules. I'd like this to be more relaxed. For now, I've created a subpage called "Top priority articles]] and have added it to the project's navigation box. I'm sure other people are better at setting up a page like that, so please feel free to change it up, but I thought it would be useful to combine the suggestions from here for a start. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
A month seems like a long time. Maybe two weeks? Start with the oldest and/or sickest and work backwards? What about just picking someone's name out of a hat? I definitely don't want to deal with all that voting nonsense. Nikki♥311 23:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I like two weeks better--less time for the idea to get stale. If I don't get to an article within the time frame, I can always work on it when I get the chance. While we're figuring out the process, is anyone up for starting with Jimmy Snuka, or is he too long a shot to make the front page? GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Snuka's a pretty safe bet. The whole cast of Hulk Hogan's Rock 'n' Wrestling is. One of those "larger than life" deals. Plus, you never know when or if he might suddenly be arrested for murder, Cosby-style. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, that infamy thing didn't take long. I mean, after the part where it took a long time. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I won't hold his multiple lengthy absences from the English-speaking world against him, but I don't like Mil Mascaras' chances at getting much love from the news. Especially Google News, which treats "Aaron Rodriguez" as a synonym for "Aaron Hernandez". Sure, you don't have to be a smark to recognize his ring name, but I'm pretty sure you still have to be a mark.
Inoki might get some resistance from Wikipedia, but I think the news coverage will convince them. The other four are shoe-ins. Lawler and Slaughter are pretty mainstream, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

(outdent) Also, I'm fine with starting with Snuka... Nikki♥311 07:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

GaryColemanFan and I have started on Snuka. Feel free to help! Nikki♥311 09:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

TfD of note

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) has started a TfD proposing the merging of {{Infobox wrestling PPV series}} with {{Infobox WWE reality competition}}. The discussion is here. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 18:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Cosmic Wasteland

So a few different people have been adding Stardust as a member of The Ascension (professional wrestling) and changing infoboxes etc. to indicate that they had their name changed to "Cosmic Wasteland". Nothing supports that so far, the tag team is Konner and Viktor, who joined the stable Cosmic Wasteland - just like Hulk Hogan should not be listed as a member of The Outsiders, but a member of the nWo. I guess since there is no article on the Cosmic Wasteland (because they've not done anything?) I see this happening over and over and over. Does anyone disagree with Stardust not being a member of the Ascension? Right now I see Cosmic Wasteland being a subsection on the Ascension and Rhodes pages, but that's it unless they actually do enough as a unit for a separate article.  MPJ-US  07:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Like Hogan and the Outsiders. Stardust isn't member of the Ascension. However, Ascension and Stardust are Cosmic Wasteland --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
yep or Young Bucks and Bullet Club. But right now the Ascension article like Stardust just joinedtheir team. I even posted nots on editors.pages, but got "i saw them together on smackdown" and i am not.about to break the 3R rule. Makes me remember why i tend to stay away from WWE articles. MPJ-US  15:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Help

Now bare with me here, I have decided to expand List of NWA World Heavyweight Champions to FL. I will also do the List of NWA World Tag Team Champions and if possible the main articles NWA World Heavyweight Championship and NWA World Tag Team Championship. This is for a TNA Championship topic I'm doing. I have an issue though, before beginning I already know there is going to be a level of confusion in the history and sourcing things will be difficult. As such, does anyone have any book sources or information regarding the titles to pass along to me? I want to get the world heavyweight title as sourced as possible.--WillC 03:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistent sorting in lists

I am seeing the WWE and NXT roster lists default sorting by FIRST name, not last name (Adam Rose listed first etc.) Why? Every other "list of people" article list by last nAme because of course they do on an encyclopedia, they should sort by last name.  MPJ-US  11:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Try {{Sortname}}. Otherwise, it sorts based on the values entered. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
His point isn't how to fix it but that it needs fixing.--WillC 01:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I could bring up another point while we're at it: these articles receive too much attention, while most other alumni/roster articles I've seen are a mess. I tried fixing the WWE alumni articles, but gave up because the only "collaboration" occurring there are people who believe that the list's only or primary purpose should be to tell us who was most recently released by WWE. Wikipedia is not a news outlet, nor is it a popularity contest, but you wouldn't know that from the attitude of many editors. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I think both of those articles need a long discussion regarding format. Also an indefinite semi-protection of rosters. They are edited way too much and poorly done.--WillC 17:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_95&oldid=1136723409"