This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 95 | ← | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | Archive 102 | Archive 103 | → | Archive 105 |
It was recently mentioned above including the list professional wrestling year articles in the style guide. One concern is that non-notable information would be added and it could get out of control. I took a first shot of writing something up, let me know your thoughts.
==Year in professional wrestling==
===Lead===
The lead section should be brief. It only needs to include a one sentence introduction of what the article contains, such as "YYYY in professional wrestling described the year's events in the word of professional wrestling."===Sections===
The sections the article may contain, should appear in the following order:
- Calendar of notable live events (broken out into months if the year contains more than 30 events)
- Tournaments and accomplishments
- Title changes
- Awards and honors
- Notable incidents
- Retirements
- Births
- Deaths
Any section which would be empty, such as births in the 2015 in professional wrestling article is better to not include rather than to include an empty section.
===Notability for inclusion===
All events which contain their own page and meet wikipedia’s notability WP:GNG may be included in the events section. For example, the Brian Pillman Memorial Show was not produced by one of the below companies, however it contains its own page and therefore can be included on in all four years it was presented. Supercards and pay-per-view events may also be included for the promotions listed in the next section, regardless of their own page existing or not.The following promotions and their legacy names (acquisition by one of these promotions does not create notability) are deemed notable for inclusion of their tournaments, accomplishments and title changes (or events as described above):
- Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre
- Extreme Championship Wrestling
- Frontier Martial-Arts Wrestling
- Impact Wrestling
- Lucha Libre AAA Worldwide
- New Japan Pro-Wrestling
- Pro Wrestling Noah
- Ring of Honor
- World Class Championship Wrestling
- World Championship Wrestling
- WWE
Currently the only two awards that qualify for the awards are Pro Wrestling Illustrated awards and the Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards.
Incidents for inclusion in the notable incidents section should contain their own page, or at least their own section within the article for inclusion. For example, events such as Death of Owen Hart and WWE Performance Center shooting do not contain their own page but contain their own subjection, therefore they can be included. Other events such as Black Saturday and the Montreal Screwjob which contain their own page are also notable for inclusion.
The criteria for inclusion of births, deaths and retirements fall within the criteria laid out in WP:LISTBIO. No red links or unlinked names should be included in this section. Any birth, death or retirement from someone involved in professional wrestling, with their own Wikipedia page, may be included in this section, as long as the proper WP:RS is included.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Galatz ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
{{Year nav topic5|2012|professional wrestling}}
(much like we note the inclusion of Infoboxes). Also, to maintain consistency with how sectional organization is presented in the style guide, we should either add that to the existing section or split them all off individually—either way is fine by me.
Prefall
20:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I went through a small handful of these and most of them appear to be the usual WP:INDISCRIMINATE-violating data dumps cobbled together from various other pieces of content on the encyclopedia. You're worried about a "consistent" format while not showing the least concern about consistent information which is contextually relevant to the title of the article in question. There has been a troubling pattern exhibited by more recently active members of the project, one of attempting to unilaterally define what is and isn't notable when merely reflecting it would suffice just fine. As seen here and here, this particular POV is being pushed in high-profile corners of the encyclopedia, with no real checks and balances by this community or the community at large. I coulda swore that mere mention by Slam Wrestling was considered the gold standard by any number of project members, seeing the way that website gets pushed down readers' throats incessantly even when their perspectives amount to blatant WP:UNDUE.
==Calendar of notable live events==
Promotion(s) | Event | Date | Venue | Location | Attendance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMLL | 15. Aniversario de Arena México | Unknown | Arena México | Mexico City, Mexico | |
EMLL 38th Anniversary Show | September 24 |
I really did want to end it there, but I forgot the numerous other things which deliberately defy reality. Such as explicit mention of "PWI Awards" for numerous years prior to the actual existence of PWI. Unless, that is, I missed reading the source which states that the term "Pro Wrestling Illustrated" was used for the awards themselves, which would have actually been published in either Inside Wrestling or The Wrestler (the benefits of having someone around who actually remembers collecting wrestling magazines; all the rest of these guys would have been happy to expect you to believe that PWI was around in 1972 when it was not, just like they expect you to believe that Texas Stadium was around in 1961 when it was not, or that wrestling shows in stadiums with attendances of 25,000+ or 30,000+ aren't notable if no one has bothered to write an encyclopedia entry about them). Such as continuing to give short shrift to wrestling promotions of the territorial era despite fairly regularly putting on the sort of "non-notable" shows described above (a show at Soldier Field or Comiskey Park is only notable if someone has bothered to write an article about it? Bitch please.), as evidenced in the list of promotions seen above. Such as claiming that the WWE Performance Center shooting is a "notable incident". This is how the end of that section reads today, January 18, 2018:
He faced trial in February 2016 on charges of aggravated assault, resisting an officer with violence, and trespassing. A public defender representing Montalvo has entered a written plea of not guilty on his behalf.
So this incident is so "notable" that the conclusion or word of the expected conclusion of events has fallen into a black hole for nearly two full years? Oh yeah, BTW, mentioning someone by name before they were convicted of anything may run afoul of WP:BLP. By this point, some of you may object to my repeated use of two particular words, so I'll cease, but why is it so blatant that this is all so fucked up? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:INDISCRIMINATE-violating data dumps cobbled together from various other pieces of content on the encyclopediaI have to disagree with you. When I wrote the above and worked on improving the articles themselves I looked at many other YYYY in XXXX on wikipedia and went based off of that. For example, take a look at 2017 in film or 2017 in baseball or 2017 in basketball or 2017 in American television or 2017 in the United States. Are these really so dissimilar? None of them are prose and all but the baseball one are classified as lists, yet that article is included in the wikiproject for lists, so in essence all are classified as lists, as these should be as well.
First off, of far more concern to me was the following caption I found in the article on December 23: "Kazuchika Okada, held the IWGP Heavyweight Championship throughout 2017, breaking the record for the longest reign in the title's history on October 22". No matter how you want to excuse it away, that's blatant WP:CRYSTAL.You are saying that on December 23 someone wrote a comment about something that happened 2 months prior. Please explain how an event that happened in the past is WP:CRYSTAL. No one can just read that and book and match to show someone else who is boss, after something happens.
1948 in professional wrestling is a complete WP:UNDUE exercise towards lucha and births of late-20th-century wrestlers and has precious little to do with 1948.is just ridiculous. No one is saying that is what the article has to be about, its just what people are chosen to put in so far. No one is stopping you from adding other information.
1) something dependent on or subordinate to something else of greater or principal importance. 2a)an occurrence of an action or situation that is a separate unit of experience . 2b) an accompanying minor occurrence or condition. 3) an action likely to lead to grave consequences especially in diplomatic matters.It sounds to me like perhaps you are only considering the 3rd definition of the word, however it is third for a reason. As far as I can tell it meets the other definitions quiet well.
Well, at least the list of promotions is arbitrary as hell. WP:RECENTISM comes to mind almost immediately when reading that list, since it begins by excluding pretty much everything that preceded the 90s. There were promotions/NWA territories that outsold some of those and not all ended in VKM's pocket, I call BS on them not being "notable" enough. El Alternativo ( talk) 04:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I have seen HHH Pedrigree try and clean up the background section and getting reverted. A lot of IP users have theories like this one Talk:Royal Rumble (2018)#Question about “Unnessecary” reversions. Perhaps can we come up with a word limit for this section because they have gotten out of control and impossible to read. Putting this in the SG would be helpful. MOS:TVPLOT limits these, perhaps shorter than we need, but same idea applies. Thoughts? - Galatz Talk 02:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Currently the style guide states The storylines section should contain details on at least three
rivalries leading into a pay-per-view.
I propose just tweaking it slightly to add ", and contain no more than 1,000 words." to the end of it. As a side note the background guide right now just says The background section should contain ...
we should probably say what it contains. -
Galatz
Talk
14:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I need someone to go fix the last several reigns that are in grey for some reason. (talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 23:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I have researched and suggested to create an article on a Frontier Martial-Arts Wrestling women's stable initially called Combat Army and later Mad Dog Military but I will not create it. I just want a suggestion should I create this article? Because I don't want to work hard until and unless I don't have surety that it will remain and no one will delete it.-- Mark Linton ( talk) 03:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
The NWA title articles really do need updating and cleaning up, I've cleaned up the NWA Women's title article but I need some help with the others as their is a lot to do. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 20:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I posted a question on the Talk:WWE Hall of Fame page, about trying to make the page more readable, and potentially breaking it off by year, so this page becomes more high level and the details live on the sub pages. For reference, take a look at how the page looked when it became a featured list here compared to now. Its a lot larger now, with some great information, it just can be over whelming. - Galatz Talk 16:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 13#Wrestling and professional wrestling - Galatz Talk 04:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Attitude Era has recently been tagged with 8 cleanup tags, the most I've ever seen on one article. If some people could try and resolve these, even in small quantities, that'd be great. JTP ( talk • contribs) 16:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
So I got to thinking while watching the most recent ROH episode. We currently have the promotion at Ring of Honor and the TV series at Ring of Honor Wrestling. But the full name of the promotion includes "Wrestling" as well, so we're using a non-existent distinction to inaccurately disambiguate the two articles.
Similar with Impact Wrestling and Impact!, which had relied on a tweet by Jeff Jarrett that GFW was the promotion and Impact the TV series, but that was before the merger/rename completely fell through, and now both the show and promotion use the same name and logo again. Additionally, the exclamation point is just stylization and shouldn't be part of the title unless everyone uses it in running text; the sources do not. (So many messes caused by the upheaval of the past year!)
So ultimately, I think we need to rethink these titles and their disambiguation. oknazevad ( talk) 15:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
If you don't know, there is a discussion about Emma common name. Talk:Emma (wrestler) -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 21:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Our guide, here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Reigns shows a successful defenses column. Yet none of the WWE, WCW, Impact, and ECW titles have this. Its trivia and not value added, in my opinion. Should this column be removed from our guide? It could just be a note to add it if the promotion tracks. Otherwise its confusing, and makes it seem like its needed, when its really just optional. - Galatz Talk 15:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I created a conversation about merging the two pages (WCW and WWE). Conversation can be found here Talk:The Great American Bash#Page merge, but in short they were split when the page housed information on 18 different events. The PPVs have all been broken out and so the split logic no longer applies. Due to the amount of duplicated information, I think it now makes sense to re-merge. Any thoughts on the talk page would be appreciated. - Galatz Talk 17:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I had a question regarding the notability of professional wrestling articles, we generally use WP:GNG to support or delete articles. However, I have also seen people point to WP:ENT or other genre-specific notability guidelines when discussing WP:PW articles. However, none of these are particularly good at discussing the way that Professional Wrestling works. In contrast, WP:NBOX displays that any boxer who's fought for a world title is defacto notable, or WP:NFOOTY points that any player who's played a game in a professional league is notible. Would it make sense to put forward a set of guidelines for PW articles, due to the unique nature of what pro wrestling is? It could easily be as a subsection of Entertainer (Although I realise it would put us directly next to WP:PORNBIO), or on the sports section, whichever is more likely.
Let me know if you think this is something worth persuing, or if it's dead in the water. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline.In essence we would could come up with guidelines to help a user understand if the person is notable. If they don't meet them, they still might meet GNG. The other issue is do we have notability guidelines for:
Here are my thoughts
Individuals (used WP:NBASE as example)
- Are a member of a major promotion's Hall of Fame, such as the WWE Hall of Fame or the WCW Hall of Fame or the Impact Hall of Fame or the AAA Hall of Fame.
- Have appeared consistently over the course of one year or signed to a full time contract at: Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre, Extreme Championship Wrestling, Frontier Martial-Arts Wrestling, Impact Wrestling, Lucha Libre AAA Worldwide, New Japan Pro-Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Noah, Ring of Honor, World Class Championship Wrestling, World Championship Wrestling, or WWE.
- Have served as a commissioner, president, general manager, owner, or manager in one of the above-mentioned promotions.
- Have served as a referee on a regular basis for over one year in one of the above-mentioned promotions.
Players and other figures who do not meet the criteria above are not presumed to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and promotion's sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability.
Tag teams or group
- Have appeared consistently as a tag team or group over the course of a year at: Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre, Extreme Championship Wrestling, Frontier Martial-Arts Wrestling, Impact Wrestling, Lucha Libre AAA Worldwide, New Japan Pro-Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Noah, Ring of Honor, World Class Championship Wrestling, World Championship Wrestling, or WWE.
- Have held the tag team championship for over 100 consecutive days at one of the above-mentioned promotions.
Tag teams or groups who do not meet the criteria above are not presumed to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and promotion's sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability.
Promotions
- Promotions must meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).
Events
- Supercards or pay-per-view events held by: Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre, Extreme Championship Wrestling, Frontier Martial-Arts Wrestling, Impact Wrestling, Lucha Libre AAA Worldwide, New Japan Pro-Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Noah, Ring of Honor, World Class Championship Wrestling, World Championship Wrestling, or WWE.
- Memorial shows held in honor of one of the individuals who meet the individual criteria.
- An event that is the precedent or conclusion of something which meets WP:LASTING
Events which do not meet the criteria above are not presumed to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability, as described in WP:NEVENTS. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and promotion's sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability.
Galatz Talk 14:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
That being said, I think this starts out well as a template, and is very similar to what GNG already states. We can now work with this and come up with a more well rounded notability criteria. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 12:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Could someone with knowledge of this subject area look into the edit request there? Thanks. Beeblebrox ( talk) 02:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Anyone who is more familiar with the topic, can you please check to make sure this edit [2] is accurate? Due to that edit they also made [3] this edit. If it is accurate there are several other events in the Supercard of Honor heading in the template which would need to be removed. Thanks - Galatz Talk 02:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi all,
I noticed the following TNA template is up for discussion, but I can't seem to find what the discussion is. It keeps forwarding to on Template:!Primary. Am I missing something?
Template:2006 TNA pay-per-view events
Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
There's another edit request on the talk page of the Bullet Club. One editor there I believe is being rather stubborn. Gambino has not been proven to be a member of the Club. It's all unreliable sourcing (and one primary source that isn't even NJPW - the source just promoted the publicity stunt as that's what it was). 101.189.95.32 ( talk) 20:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Burrhead Jones and Norvell Austin are being used by someone as venues to push the fact that racial segregation was once widespread in the wrestling business. This sort of information is relevant to the topic of professional wrestling and notable within the context of that topic. Considering that both debuted years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, however, the inclusion of such information in these two articles and probably others is highly suspect. The wrestling industry had had a major legal battle with the United States Department of Justice only a decade or so before which ended in a consent decree, so common sense should tell you that promoters weren't very likely to engage in behavior which would lead Justice to focus further attention on the business. The information in Jones's article lacks suitable sources, while the information in Austin's article is sourced to a book co-written by everyone's favorite website writer. While assuming good faith towards the offline source, something tells me that if I found a copy and read it, that what was written would substantially relate to Sputnik Monroe and not Austin. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
We say that WWE mistakenly recognizes dates as the end date of a reign. Austin lost the IC title on September 8, but "WWE mistakenly lists Austin's reign as lasting 64 days, ending on October 5, 1997." But on the other hand we accept that WWE counts a Sunday - Monday reign as either 0, 1 or 2 days. So WWE is allowed to make new mathematic rules? If we call the date Austin's reign ended a mistake, then their counting sure is a mistake too. Why does it matter that much? On Raw last night The Miz claimed he will be the longest reigning IC Champ of all time in 62 days. Wrong. He went by WWE's mathematically wrong numbers. The actual number would be 64. If he loses the title on Raw in 9 weeks (63 days), he would break the record according to WWE, but not according to Wikipedia. It also is confusing for a lot of people, why WWE's and Wikipedia's numbers are off 50% of the time. If it is a matter of tape delay, no problem, then we should make a note that WWE recognizes the airing date. But making a note for each time do do the wrong math!? WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 15:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
WrestlingLegendAS, why do you continuously bring this issue up when we've told you countless times the reasons for why the information is presented? Do you just forget? Also, how do you know that it's confusing for a lot of people? Have you surveyed them? It would be more confusing if people saw WWE's website, and then saw Wikipedia (or vice versa) and noticed that our numbers and dates are different with no explanation (previously, it only said the episode aired on tape delay, and only some mentioned the tape delay date, but that didn't tell readers that that was the date that WWE recognized). In regards to what The Miz said, that was a slip up. He won't be the longest reigning Intercontinental champion come WrestleMania 34. However, he will have the longest combined reign as Intercontinental champion come WrestleMania. That's what he meant. Just to note, come WrestleMania, Miz's current reign will only be about 100 days; the longest single reign is Honkey Tonk Man at 454 days. -- JDC808 ♫ 20:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
User MaverickAC keeps on deleting from the Pro Wrestling Illustrated page any mention - including a reference (although much of the surrounding content is unreferenced) - relating to PWI withdrawing the WWF's world title status 1983-1985. Can anyone assist? 15:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't know who's bright idea it was to clutter up all the championship lists with this same sentence in every single row, but I'm shocked that the community here just let it happen. It not only looks terrible, but it adds nothing to the articles. We get it–– WWE.com's calculator counts calendar days rather than the total length. I don't see how that's notable at all since it's most likely a design quirk and not actually WWE's official position on the length of each reign. Case in point, WWE has talked about CM Punk's record-breaking 434 day reign millions of times. The fact that the title history page says 435 doesn't reflect WWE's official position on the matter, it just means the calculator on the website is off. It's beyond silly for us to include this information at all let alone in EVERY SINGLE ROW. At best, the fact that the website adds one day to each reign should be a footnote under each table, and not something that's repeated over and over again cluttering the tables. Feed back 17:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
In case you have free time, we're discussing Gino Gambino's membership in Bullet Club. In case you want to give your opinion Talk:Bullet Club.-- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 12:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Talk:IWGP United States Heavyweight Championship 92.27.41.69 ( talk) 23:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Dalton Castle (wrestler)#Requested move 16 March 2018 - Galatz Talk 15:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I notice Titus O'Neil or Apollo isn't listed under people managed by Dana Brooke or vice versa. Wouldn't it be correct to call her their manager? Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 00:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The Dusty Rhodes Tag Team Classic is an annual event as we know. It should have its own article. But it redirects to NXT TakeOver: Respect. I am curious as to why no article has not been created considering it's an annual tournament in a major promotion. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 15:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
A few years ago it was standard practice to list a title under the name of the promotion where it was won, but I have started to see a few occasions of titles listed underneath the promotion that owns the championship rather than where it was won (for example, the Dudley Boyz won their second IWGP Tag Team Championship in TNA, not New Japan). I wondered what the style guide is and if I would be right in moving them around? Tony2Times ( talk) 15:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I am looking at the TNA Epics article and it lists that there are 14 episodes that have aired and 1 that never aired. Now looking at the GWN website (don't ned to subscribe but you can see listings without) [5] it shows 17 episodes. The first 10 episodes appear to match up but the others do not. Does anyone know more about this topic, as the article would need to be updated as it doesnt seem to be accurate. - Galatz Talk 16:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if this has already been discussed but can we establish a consensus not to include WWE Performance Center in the 'trained by' section for wrestlers who were trained and competed elsewhere before joining NXT? I'm looking at the article for Killian Dain and he's currently listed as being trained by the Performance Center, which makes no sense as he was wrestling for over 10 years before joining WWE. And I've noticed the same thing for a number of other wrestlers with years of indy experience. IMO this is pointless and misleading as well as being completely redundant, since every single NXT signing spends at least some time training at the Performance Center and even main roster guys use the facility from time to time. To me, the only time the Performance Center should be listed as a trainer is for guys like Lars Sullivan and Riddick Moss who joined WWE with no prior wrestling experience and were trained there from the ground up. 86.3.174.49 ( talk) 23:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, I understand the counter-argument so I'll bow to consensus on this one although I still think it's dumb and misleading to list wrestlers as being trained by the Performance Center when they debuted and in some cases were established stars many years before it was built. 86.3.174.49 ( talk) 01:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
According to Impact website, Mathews is the current Grand Champion. [6] However, Don Callis said this reigns isn't oficial months ago. So, any idea? -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 16:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Grand Champion and X-Division Champion Matt Sydal is in the ring to reveal who his spirit guide is. To the shock of many, it turns out to be Josh Mathews! Josh gives Sydal a gift to celebrate his accomplishments, a mask of his spirit animal! In return, Sydal gives Josh a gift of his own – the IMPACT Grand Championship! Josh Mathews is your new Grand Champion.[7] - Galatz Talk 16:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure Impact has their story straight on this entire thing. When Sydal came out, he was announced as Grand Champion, but the Impact website makes it clear that Mathews was the champion going in [8]. Based on what aired and what is currently on their website, that the page is currently correct. Anyone disagree? - Galatz Talk 16:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to pass by and say that I think I'd be good if more people would chime in on what the think could be good sources for the project, especially non english language ones. It's WrestleMania soon so I figured there's be more people passing by who might be new here. ★Trekker ( talk) 14:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I moved User:MadMax/precedents to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Deletion discussion history since MadMax hasn't been around since 2007 and I thought it might be helpful to you. Feel free to delete it. Daask ( talk) 06:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
There are constantly people changing future PPV events away from the advertised match because the champion might change. This is obvious, but perhaps we need some sort of banner or table change to show this? Right now when we set Template:Pro Wrestling results table to future the only change is Results and Matches headers switch. Perhaps can we also change it so when that is set to yes, the (c) legend also changes to something like "current champion, subject to change" or something like that. Thoughts? - Galatz Talk 11:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
No. | Matches* | Stipulations | |
---|---|---|---|
|
I put it live. Looking at WWE Greatest Royal Rumble its working properly. I also checked Royal Rumble (2018) and its properly not showing, so I think we are good. Thanks! - Galatz Talk 00:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm ceding ground at Shayna Baszler to the crazies. I understand fans (like you) enjoy crafting the narrative about your favorite actors/actresses who purport to be athletes. However, we still require sources for claims likely to be challenged. It would help if this WikiProject would correct the many editors involved in this area and teach them that Wikipedia is not a blog. It's not worth it to me to edit war over it. I'm one of these guys that followed Shayna and Ronda back when they were legit fighters and I can tell you these articles have gotten worse since the two of them went into pro-wrestling and your cohort got involved. Please put your house in order. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman ( talk) 01:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
There have been multiple conversation about the set up of the current WWE Hall of Fame article. Its very large and choppy right now and hard to follow. My suggestion was to create events for the individual events, and have the article become much more summarized to make it easier to follow. I have begun creating those article and before I continue creating more and integrating in the changes to the article I wanted everyone to take a look and either offer suggestions and/or make changes. Once these pages are all created the main page would no longer list so much detail and just become a summarized list that is easier to follow. As of now I have created the following articles:
2016 and 2017 are probably the most well developed of the articles right now. The event section of the earlier years is where I need the most help developing. Any thoughts? - Galatz Talk 13:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
{
I oppose the idea of having individual lists. At best, I would support a split between a WWE Hall of Fame article talking about the institution itself, and the individual events, and a separate List of WWE Hall of Fame inductees which lists them all in one table. Although there's no physical building, there's an annual Hall of Fame exhibit at Axxess which is notable enough for the main article. With regards to the list of inductees, we should follow football's lead and have one large table with different columns for Class, Classification and Achievements. Rather than football positions, the classification in the wrestling context would be the category of individual, group, celebrity, or legacy inductee. Feed back 17:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Just in case anyone is interested in the discussion, there is talk of eliminating all portals Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Ending the system of portals - Galatz Talk 14:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I fixed some troll edits that have been there for months (RVD being called SSP, WWE 2K18's Deluxe edition being called Cena nuff edition). Why does stuff like that exist for that long? I thought a lot of people are watching all these pages and check every edit that someone makes? Or do I have a wrong understanding of how Wikipedia works? WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Would someone please browse Special:Contributions/115.88.201.167 which shows a several edits today. I suspect that reverting them may be desirable but it needs topic knowledge. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I was wondering about everyone's opinions on how we display tournament brackets, and where to list them. For example, we are currently independently updating the Women of Honor tournament at Women of Honor Championship#Inaugural championship tournament (2018), Supercard of Honor XII#Women of Honor Championship tournament and Ring of Honor tournaments#Women of Honor Championship (2018). The latter of which is actually not as up to date as the other two. Do we really need the same bracket listed 3 times? The new WWE Cruiserweight tournament is also listed in the WM article, the WWE Tournaments article, and it was in the belt's article until I removed it from there replaced with prose, a few weeks ago.
What does everyone think about how this stuff should be displayed? I am all for the pages like WWE tournaments, but perhaps only the tables that don't live elsewhere should live there. For example, WWE tournaments#The Wrestling Classic is already saying that the main page is at The Wrestling Classic#Tournament bracket, yet the "main article" section it links too has less content than the tournament page. We could have the bracket live only in the main page and remove it from the tournament page. The tournament page would be more like the a listing, with links to the relevant articles. It already does this for WWE tournaments#King of the Ring and WWE tournaments#Dusty Rhodes Tag Team Classic. Then tournaments that do not live elsewhere can live on the tournament page with the full details.
For the Women of Honor, if we want to keep it in the Supercard of Honor and title's page, then they should be transcluded rather than updating everything twice.
Any thoughts? - Galatz Talk 19:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I started transcluding tables rather than duplicating and this edit made the navboxes stop showing up, and this edit made the references stop. Anyone know why? - Galatz Talk 15:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion on renaming La Sombra to Andrade "Cien" Almas. You can view it here. Anybody who wishes to chime in is more than welcome too. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 22:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
These articles ( Bruno Sammartino and Paul Jones (wrestler)) are nominated for inclusion in the Recent Deaths section on the main page. Both need a little more work on referencing. If you have a few minutes, it would be great if you could help out. The nominations page is Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
As this issue is currently flaming up again - is there any reason why WWE's monday show should only ever be referred to as "Raw" and not its full name "Monday Night Raw", while the other show, currently on Tuesdays, should (always?) have its full name spelled out as "SmackDown Live"? At least, that is how some editors interpret the current wording of the style guide.
To make my point clearer: I'm all for using the shorter forms as much as possible. But this should be handled consistently for both shows. What I don't get is why SD(L) has to have the Live so many instances. There even was an agreement between users to use the full names (Monday Night Raw, SmackDown Live) at the first mentioning of the show and then to proceed with the shorter forms (Raw, SmackDown) but apparently this is disregarded in some articles. Str1977 (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I keep seeing people changing this back and forth, and it would be nice if we could get a consensus and add it to our SG so we have a frame of reference of how to display. Here are the three ways I keep seeing it changed between:
The arguments for #1 appear to be that it shows the full name each wrestles as. #2 there is no need to show the last name twice, that how you would normally say it if you were discussing two real life brothers you know. #3 the last name isn't needed at all since its already implied.
This would obviously apply to more than just the Hardys, it would apply to any, such as The Dudley Boyz, The Basham Brothers, The Smoking Gunns, The Usos, The Bella Twins, The Singh Brothers, etc. Any thoughts? - Galatz Talk 13:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Not everyone will know about the subject, however someone could just go to The Hardy Boyz page and see what their names are if they were confused. That only works though for instances where the tag team has its own page. Although we don't need to spoon feed things to everyone, its important that we don't mislead them either. Based on this MOS that AngusWOOF posted, it appears that #1 best complies with MOS:SAMESURNAME. The question I ask for those who think #2 is the better option, are you against #1 or do you just prefer #2? Because it seems like those who are for #1 are against #2, not just a preference of one over the other. - Galatz Talk 01:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
To distinguish between people with the same surname in the same article or page, use given names or complete names to refer to each of the people upon first mention.Why would the same not apply here? All of the older pages might not have the same detail, but for the newer articles there is always a Storylines and Events and Results section. I would say in the first mention of the team in the article it should be spelled out. That means the Storylines section will be the first mention, and it is a narrative as you state it applies to. So we could basically say any time it is wikilinked its the full name, all other mentions it is not. - Galatz Talk 15:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Please take a look at MOS:SAMESURNAME on some more suggestions on how to handle this. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
As it's been Wrestlemania season, I was taking a look through some of the earliest shows, and I was surprised there wasn't more GA articles. I was also suprised they were all "mid" class importance. Surely the biggest annual shows should be high importance? Anyway, I was wondering if it was worth putting some time aside to increasing the coverage for the Wrestlemanias, currently they are ranked:
That's 35 articles, and only 7 Good Articles, and 8 Start class Wrestlemanias. Would anyone be interested in working on improving a few of these articles? Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 11:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I've been thinking about these for a while, and finally decided to put them here:
JTP ( talk • contribs) 03:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
NiciVampireHeart has removed the "professional wrestling career" subheadings from a number of articles which currently only have one section such as Riddick Moss, Montez Ford and Lars Sullivan, under the rationale that it's 'messy' (see diff). To me, there's no guarantee these wrestlers will spend their entire career with WWE and so this heading is essential to keep the article formatted properly, even if a little redundant at present in the early part of their career. Anyone have an opinion on this? Dannys-777 ( talk) 20:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I just replaced {{ age in days nts}} with a version that checks that dates are valid. Articles with an error are shown in Category:Age error. Shortly after the change, 61 articles were listed as having errors, and all of them appear to be part of this wikiproject. This diff shows a correction to an error that I made after checking the reference. Any help would be appreciated. In an article in the category, search for "Error:" to see the problem. The message boils down to saying that either the first date is invalid, or the second. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
{{age in days nts|month1=08|day1=19|year1=2016|month=09|day2=18|year2=2016}}
which is an error because "month" should be "month2". However, that template is embedded in {{
sort}} which hides the error.
Johnuniq (
talk)
03:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)@ Galatz: I just replaced {{ age in days}} and now there are more errors in Category:Age error. It would be great if you would check the wrestling articles. Some TLC would help because, for example, AWA United States Heavyweight Championship is showing "the title reign lasted between −82 days and Error..." for note 5. I doubt that a negative age is wanted; presumably the relevant dates are in the wrong order? Johnuniq ( talk) 05:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I have a question. Do you think the "promotion" section in the tag team/stables infobox is usefull? I mean, for tag teams like DX or The Shield is fine. However, tag teams like The Young Bucks, oVe or War Machine is annoying, since there is a huge list of promotions, some of then hasn't an article. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 10:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever.More specifically, if you read WP:LISTBIO, it shows that those included in the bio lists should be notable, I feel the same applies to here. Just because it doesn't have a page doesn't mean it doesn't have verifiable notability, but if its had a page deleted, then for sure it shouldnt be. - Galatz Talk 16:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I wanna update all the pics here: /info/en/?search=List_of_current_champions_in_WWE Instead of having pictures of different size, I want to put in pictures of the same size only showing their faces. Am I good to just go and do it or does anybody think this is a stupid idea? WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 22:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn’t the greatest Royal Rumble be listed as another event since it wasn’t billed as the 32nd annual Royal Rumble as they do with the regular rumbles. Also shouldn’t the stats for the match be on their own “Royal Rumble match” page as opposed to the event, similar to Money in the Bank and Elimination Chamber matches. Separate pages for the match and PPVs. Ron234 ( talk) 18:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I don’t think GRR shouldn’t be included, just that it shouldn’t be on the regular RR page. Plus the match should have its own page like the MITB and EC matches have so that all the match stats can be posted there and not on the PPV page. Ron234 ( talk) 20:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
It looks like the WWE are treating the Royal Rumble and Greatest Royal Rumble as two separate events. Also I agree the PPV and the match should have separate pages like the articles of Elimination Chamber, Money in the Bank and Tables, Ladders and Chairs matches and their PPV named after then. TheDeviantPro ( talk) 12:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
It is two separate events, just like "No Way Out" and "Elimination Chamber" are separate events who happen to have the same type of specialty match. But let's also not go crazy and create a page for the show, then a separate page for the 50 man rumble after one event, everything about the event should be on one page, no sign of it being a recurring thing at the moment. MPJ -DK 13:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Another vote for GRR being removed from the Royal Rumble match statistics and included in 'Other Royal Rumble matches' section. 86.3.174.49 ( talk) 16:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Completely agree that this belongs under "other Royal Rumble matches".
I'm also wondering if we should be listing the championship at the List of current champions in WWE. Because WWE doesn't; it and Braun do not appear with the current champions at wwe.com. Nor is it listed with the titles below that. Because, despite being presented with a belt, it is not a championship title like the others, but akin to the Andre Battle Royal. The entire WWE Greatest Royal Rumble Championship article is bluntly incorrect in treating it as a title, and the listing at list of current champions article is wrong. oknazevad ( talk) 02:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I was on WP:AfC, and Nick Sideris has created a draft for The Undisputed Era. What are your thoughts on the current redirect for The Undisputed Era to ReDRagon; and the notability this draft puts forward? If you guys agree, I'll get the admins to do a technical move for the draft, if it's a good idea. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I replaced the reDRagon redirect and started the article yesterday. I believe that they have obviously accomplished a lot compared to when it was previously deleted. I tried my best to exclude the week-by-week results, as well as include info on their ROH background. Noticing that there was a draft for this, feel free to add anything to the article from the draft. Sekyaw (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I've looked at the second draft and they use a lot of sources that are deemed unreliable like Bleacher Report, The People's Wrestling Website, Wrestling Inc., and PWMania. Anything from either of the drafts that can be moved over, that isn't moved over, to the namespace, than it should be. We need to avoid unreliable sources. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 04:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
On Galatz's talk page, Powderkegg brought up a good point to something I never noticed. The infbox stats that Vince K and Linda McMahon founded the WWE. It says all throughout the article that Roderick McMahon (Vince K's grandfather) and Toots Mondt founded it as Capitol Wrestling Corporation. Vince McMahon Sr. took it over from his dad, Roderick. Vince Sr. kept CWC going as the sanctioning body of the WWWF than WWF till Vince Sr. sold the WWF to Vince Jr. who started Titan Sports thus ceased CWC operations in the early 80s.
Powderkegg made a change only to have it reverted. The fact is Vince and Linda didn't start the WWE. They only changed the name because of the World Wildlife Foundation. You can clearly see in the History of WWE that the founding of WWE is credited to Toots and Roderick. I didn't make any changes as I know for a fact it would be reverted. But as you can see, there is a discrepancy. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 03:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, WWE did it again. After Fish was injured, WWE.com listed Cole as an official NXT Tag Team Champion. However, when Strong was named NXT Tag Team Champion, Cole disapeared. His WWE.com profile doesn't list him as Tag Team Champion. So... how should we include him? Unofficial champion? Briefly recognized, but not anymore? Delete the title from the C&A section? -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 13:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Getting a wee bit anal here...The Freebird Rule was invoked so Cole could also defend the title after Fish got hurt (and was recognized as such). Strong then joined the stable, and was ALSO given a share of the titles. Long story short, the whole Undisputed Era collectively hold the titles, and any 2 can defend them (and all 4 have defended them)...that's how the Freebird Rule works. We're getting into nitpick territory here, as well as trying to read the WWE webmaster's minds. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Bo Dallas once replaced Oliver Grey to defend the Tag titles with Neville; doesn't make him a former Tag champ either. WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 00:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Please ease up...continuing an argument when you're a one man army is never a good thing here (BELIEVE ME...I know). Let it go, and move on...not worth the continued back-and-forth - won't lead to anything good (again - trust me on this, because I have been in your shoes more times than I care to count). Vjmlhds (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I’ll add my view onto this. Cole isn’t recognized by WWE as a current tag team champion, so I don’t think we should say he is one, but we shouldn’t completely exclude the fact that he was once recognized as one. Looking at the List of NXT Tag Team Champions, I agree with how it’s formatted and how it shows Cole was a champion, but isn’t recognized. But as for the Undisputed Era article, Cole's article, and the main championship article, we shouldn’t include Cole as a current title holder. Sekyaw (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Here’s the thing though Adam Cole’s page on wwe.com lists him as a double champion but the tag team Chamionship omits him. I believe somebody should contact WWE to solve this confusion. Ron234 ( talk) 06:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
No I meant as in ask them whether or not they recognize Cole as champion. Ron234 ( talk) 09:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
That’s true for the NXT Tag Titles article but there’s conflicting information on the Adam Cole and Dusty Classic articles which calls him a double champion. Ron234 ( talk) 06:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
... which is today's feature article on the main page. Would benefit from a few extra watchers today and the next few days until no linger linked from main page. Nici Vampire Heart 18:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I plan on creating an article on a former ECW tag team of Balls Mahoney and Axl Rotten called Hardcore Chair Swingin' Freaks but before creating an article, I want suggestions from other users either to start it or not because I do not want my entire hardwork to be wasted and the article be ultimately deleted just like it was done with the Funk Masters of Wrestling in the past.-- Mark Linton ( talk) 12:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Nia Jax's article is protected which is fine. But it is protected so new and unregistered editors edits have to be reviewed. I was fine, than one day my edits are now put under needing be reviewed. I am not a new editor. Been here for 13 years. Anybody know why this happened? Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 23:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Why was it decided that the Reception section for event articles should go after the Aftermath section (more specifically, as a subsection after what's written about the event's aftermath)? That literally makes no sense. Take WrestleMania 34 for example, as this has become an issue there. It makes no sense to put the Reception of WrestleMania 34 after the events that happened on Raw, SmackDown, and 205 Live, which are shows that happened after WrestleMania 34. The Reception is about what happened at WrestleMania 34, not what happened at WrestleMania 34, Raw, SmackDown, and 205 Live (putting Reception after the aftermath looks as if it is about all of those). Even if for whatever reason it has to go after Aftermath, Reception should be its own section, not a subsection of Aftermath. Aftermath is what happened on the shows following the event, reception is how good or bad the event was received. -- JDC808 ♫ 23:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree reception should not be part of the aftermath section. Because the "reception" section is mostly about reviews and other critical commentary of the show itself, while "aftermath" is mostly about how the storylines continued after the show. The later is actually really questionable to even include in the first place, as it's a bit off-topic; the topic of PPV articles is the event, not the general state of the promotion at the time. That said, the background section is a logical addition to show why those particular matches occurred on that card, and the aftermath section is a logical counterpart to that, while also providing the courtesy to readers of not spreading info out over many articles. (Plus reinforces the nature of pro wrestling storylines, wherein the match might be the climax, but not necessarily the conclusion, or the story.)
That doesn't change the fact that the reception section is not part of that storyline flow, and should be s separate mainnsection, not a subsection. Which comes first isn't really important, as a case could be made for either way ("reception" first because it's about the event as opposed to the follow ups vs "aftermath" first because it keeps the storyline material together.). oknazevad ( talk) 08:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Is there anyone against this change? If not, let's make this change to the style guide. -- JDC808 ♫ 23:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
IMO making "Reception" a subsection of "Aftermath" looks awkward, especially if the "Reception" comes first. This way, readers wanting to read about the aftermath are presented with reviews first. Better to keep them separate. Then the, chronological sequence of Reception first, then Aftermath, does no damage. Str1977 (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Is it safe to assume that we all agree that Reception should be a main section, separate from Aftermath? Also, placement. It seems that more would prefer it to go before Aftermath since Reception deals with the event itself, and Aftermath is what happened on the shows following the event. -- JDC808 ♫ 19:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
As there are no opposes, let's make the change to the Style Guide. -- JDC808 ♫ 18:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
He supposedly wrestling in Europe and Japan. I'm not able to find anything from reliable sources for this, just [wrestlingdata.com/index.php?befehl=bios&wrestler=25929 WrestlingData.com], WWFOldSchool.com, and WrestlingForum.com. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Also, please ping me if you reply to ensure I see it. (talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 02:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Currently Category:Professional wrestling by country only has select few countries which have more than just wrestlers from that country. When I look at Category:Professional wrestling in the United States by state however, there are currently 8 out of 50 states which currently only house the wrestlers category. I get that this completes the tree and makes it easier for the navigation. Why would the same not apply to countries? Shouldn't we have a category, even if its just a container category, for every country there is a category for wrestlers from? In order to complete the tree I would expect we should have a category for every country even if it holds just one article or the wrestler category. For example, Category:Professional wrestling in Ukraine would be created, and the only thing in it would be Category:Ukrainian professional wrestlers. Any thoughts? - Galatz Talk 18:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Why is Samir Singh listed as a SmackDown superstar even though he posted on his Instagram that he’s on Raw. And if it is because he is listed as a SmackDown superstar on wwe.com then why are Sunil Singh and Maria Kanellis listed as Raw superstars on the wwe personnel page even though they are too listed as SmackDown superstars on wwe.com? Ron234 ( talk) 20:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Not sure what the criteria for creating an article for a wrestling promotion is, thinking RISE Wrestling could be added? Its been around since 2016 it appears, looks like it's linked to SHIMMER and some other indy promotions. [14] Thoughts? Sephiroth storm ( talk) 14:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Something I noticed recently WWE lists them as seperate events. In the NoC archives its listed from 2007-2015, link - http://www.wwe.com/shows/nightofchampions/archive. It seems they consider them seperate and the 2007 event is considered a dual event. Ron234 ( talk) 18:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone has any opinion on this or should I split the page? Ron234 ( talk) 12:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
This problem has become more apparent to me over the last few months, with editors adding these enormous tables listing each video game appearance (see The Undertaker or Edge). Their inclusion is not new, but at least before they were secluded to a sentence-long wall of links (see Kane or Randy Orton).
These games are routine in the sports world, where the athlete's likeness is used and nothing more. They rarely contribute a performance, so it's not like an appearance on a television series or film. Looking at how other sports projects handle it, they only note these games specifically if the athlete is featured on the cover (see Cristiano Ronaldo, Tom Brady, Patrick Kane, etc.).
I think we should adopt a similar approach here; only include if their involvement is notable, such as a voice performance or featured as the cover athlete. What do you think? Pre fall 14:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
There should be pages about the individual Usos. There is enough material about them to warrant different pages like the Bella Twins. Ron234 ( talk) 20:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
At Talk:Money in the Bank (2018) there is a discussion about the order to present matches prior to an event. KingOfTheRing has created his own method to arrange them and is reverting other editors that don't agree with him. There is no consensus that I can see on how to present this. I think the best answer is they should just be shown in the order the are announced until the night itself. Creating his own "order of relevance" as he phrases it makes no sense. Any thoughts? - Galatz Talk 13:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
It’s settled then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingOfTheRing ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The NWA refer to their World title as the NWA Worlds Heavyweight Championship as opposed to the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. The page should be updated. Opinions? Ron234 ( talk) 20:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
But is it "Worlds Heavyweight Champioship" or "World's Heavyweight Championship" - the former actually doesn't make any sense and might just be sloppy writing. Str1977 (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The posters for WrestleMania V, 2000 and X8 are different from the ones WWE published on this WrestleMania posters article, link - https://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/wrestlemania-posters-photos#fid-26023284. The articles should be updated. Ron234 ( talk) 08:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I think that the articles are given a better perspective if we allow the following format to be used in the years of each section as the following example:
Just in the same way it is used for articles of even more famous people like in:
I wait for the comments. TheBellaTwins1445 ( talk) 16:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 11:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 95 | ← | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | Archive 101 | Archive 102 | Archive 103 | → | Archive 105 |
It was recently mentioned above including the list professional wrestling year articles in the style guide. One concern is that non-notable information would be added and it could get out of control. I took a first shot of writing something up, let me know your thoughts.
==Year in professional wrestling==
===Lead===
The lead section should be brief. It only needs to include a one sentence introduction of what the article contains, such as "YYYY in professional wrestling described the year's events in the word of professional wrestling."===Sections===
The sections the article may contain, should appear in the following order:
- Calendar of notable live events (broken out into months if the year contains more than 30 events)
- Tournaments and accomplishments
- Title changes
- Awards and honors
- Notable incidents
- Retirements
- Births
- Deaths
Any section which would be empty, such as births in the 2015 in professional wrestling article is better to not include rather than to include an empty section.
===Notability for inclusion===
All events which contain their own page and meet wikipedia’s notability WP:GNG may be included in the events section. For example, the Brian Pillman Memorial Show was not produced by one of the below companies, however it contains its own page and therefore can be included on in all four years it was presented. Supercards and pay-per-view events may also be included for the promotions listed in the next section, regardless of their own page existing or not.The following promotions and their legacy names (acquisition by one of these promotions does not create notability) are deemed notable for inclusion of their tournaments, accomplishments and title changes (or events as described above):
- Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre
- Extreme Championship Wrestling
- Frontier Martial-Arts Wrestling
- Impact Wrestling
- Lucha Libre AAA Worldwide
- New Japan Pro-Wrestling
- Pro Wrestling Noah
- Ring of Honor
- World Class Championship Wrestling
- World Championship Wrestling
- WWE
Currently the only two awards that qualify for the awards are Pro Wrestling Illustrated awards and the Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards.
Incidents for inclusion in the notable incidents section should contain their own page, or at least their own section within the article for inclusion. For example, events such as Death of Owen Hart and WWE Performance Center shooting do not contain their own page but contain their own subjection, therefore they can be included. Other events such as Black Saturday and the Montreal Screwjob which contain their own page are also notable for inclusion.
The criteria for inclusion of births, deaths and retirements fall within the criteria laid out in WP:LISTBIO. No red links or unlinked names should be included in this section. Any birth, death or retirement from someone involved in professional wrestling, with their own Wikipedia page, may be included in this section, as long as the proper WP:RS is included.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Galatz ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
{{Year nav topic5|2012|professional wrestling}}
(much like we note the inclusion of Infoboxes). Also, to maintain consistency with how sectional organization is presented in the style guide, we should either add that to the existing section or split them all off individually—either way is fine by me.
Prefall
20:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I went through a small handful of these and most of them appear to be the usual WP:INDISCRIMINATE-violating data dumps cobbled together from various other pieces of content on the encyclopedia. You're worried about a "consistent" format while not showing the least concern about consistent information which is contextually relevant to the title of the article in question. There has been a troubling pattern exhibited by more recently active members of the project, one of attempting to unilaterally define what is and isn't notable when merely reflecting it would suffice just fine. As seen here and here, this particular POV is being pushed in high-profile corners of the encyclopedia, with no real checks and balances by this community or the community at large. I coulda swore that mere mention by Slam Wrestling was considered the gold standard by any number of project members, seeing the way that website gets pushed down readers' throats incessantly even when their perspectives amount to blatant WP:UNDUE.
==Calendar of notable live events==
Promotion(s) | Event | Date | Venue | Location | Attendance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMLL | 15. Aniversario de Arena México | Unknown | Arena México | Mexico City, Mexico | |
EMLL 38th Anniversary Show | September 24 |
I really did want to end it there, but I forgot the numerous other things which deliberately defy reality. Such as explicit mention of "PWI Awards" for numerous years prior to the actual existence of PWI. Unless, that is, I missed reading the source which states that the term "Pro Wrestling Illustrated" was used for the awards themselves, which would have actually been published in either Inside Wrestling or The Wrestler (the benefits of having someone around who actually remembers collecting wrestling magazines; all the rest of these guys would have been happy to expect you to believe that PWI was around in 1972 when it was not, just like they expect you to believe that Texas Stadium was around in 1961 when it was not, or that wrestling shows in stadiums with attendances of 25,000+ or 30,000+ aren't notable if no one has bothered to write an encyclopedia entry about them). Such as continuing to give short shrift to wrestling promotions of the territorial era despite fairly regularly putting on the sort of "non-notable" shows described above (a show at Soldier Field or Comiskey Park is only notable if someone has bothered to write an article about it? Bitch please.), as evidenced in the list of promotions seen above. Such as claiming that the WWE Performance Center shooting is a "notable incident". This is how the end of that section reads today, January 18, 2018:
He faced trial in February 2016 on charges of aggravated assault, resisting an officer with violence, and trespassing. A public defender representing Montalvo has entered a written plea of not guilty on his behalf.
So this incident is so "notable" that the conclusion or word of the expected conclusion of events has fallen into a black hole for nearly two full years? Oh yeah, BTW, mentioning someone by name before they were convicted of anything may run afoul of WP:BLP. By this point, some of you may object to my repeated use of two particular words, so I'll cease, but why is it so blatant that this is all so fucked up? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:INDISCRIMINATE-violating data dumps cobbled together from various other pieces of content on the encyclopediaI have to disagree with you. When I wrote the above and worked on improving the articles themselves I looked at many other YYYY in XXXX on wikipedia and went based off of that. For example, take a look at 2017 in film or 2017 in baseball or 2017 in basketball or 2017 in American television or 2017 in the United States. Are these really so dissimilar? None of them are prose and all but the baseball one are classified as lists, yet that article is included in the wikiproject for lists, so in essence all are classified as lists, as these should be as well.
First off, of far more concern to me was the following caption I found in the article on December 23: "Kazuchika Okada, held the IWGP Heavyweight Championship throughout 2017, breaking the record for the longest reign in the title's history on October 22". No matter how you want to excuse it away, that's blatant WP:CRYSTAL.You are saying that on December 23 someone wrote a comment about something that happened 2 months prior. Please explain how an event that happened in the past is WP:CRYSTAL. No one can just read that and book and match to show someone else who is boss, after something happens.
1948 in professional wrestling is a complete WP:UNDUE exercise towards lucha and births of late-20th-century wrestlers and has precious little to do with 1948.is just ridiculous. No one is saying that is what the article has to be about, its just what people are chosen to put in so far. No one is stopping you from adding other information.
1) something dependent on or subordinate to something else of greater or principal importance. 2a)an occurrence of an action or situation that is a separate unit of experience . 2b) an accompanying minor occurrence or condition. 3) an action likely to lead to grave consequences especially in diplomatic matters.It sounds to me like perhaps you are only considering the 3rd definition of the word, however it is third for a reason. As far as I can tell it meets the other definitions quiet well.
Well, at least the list of promotions is arbitrary as hell. WP:RECENTISM comes to mind almost immediately when reading that list, since it begins by excluding pretty much everything that preceded the 90s. There were promotions/NWA territories that outsold some of those and not all ended in VKM's pocket, I call BS on them not being "notable" enough. El Alternativo ( talk) 04:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I have seen HHH Pedrigree try and clean up the background section and getting reverted. A lot of IP users have theories like this one Talk:Royal Rumble (2018)#Question about “Unnessecary” reversions. Perhaps can we come up with a word limit for this section because they have gotten out of control and impossible to read. Putting this in the SG would be helpful. MOS:TVPLOT limits these, perhaps shorter than we need, but same idea applies. Thoughts? - Galatz Talk 02:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Currently the style guide states The storylines section should contain details on at least three
rivalries leading into a pay-per-view.
I propose just tweaking it slightly to add ", and contain no more than 1,000 words." to the end of it. As a side note the background guide right now just says The background section should contain ...
we should probably say what it contains. -
Galatz
Talk
14:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I need someone to go fix the last several reigns that are in grey for some reason. (talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 23:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I have researched and suggested to create an article on a Frontier Martial-Arts Wrestling women's stable initially called Combat Army and later Mad Dog Military but I will not create it. I just want a suggestion should I create this article? Because I don't want to work hard until and unless I don't have surety that it will remain and no one will delete it.-- Mark Linton ( talk) 03:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
The NWA title articles really do need updating and cleaning up, I've cleaned up the NWA Women's title article but I need some help with the others as their is a lot to do. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 20:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I posted a question on the Talk:WWE Hall of Fame page, about trying to make the page more readable, and potentially breaking it off by year, so this page becomes more high level and the details live on the sub pages. For reference, take a look at how the page looked when it became a featured list here compared to now. Its a lot larger now, with some great information, it just can be over whelming. - Galatz Talk 16:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 13#Wrestling and professional wrestling - Galatz Talk 04:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Attitude Era has recently been tagged with 8 cleanup tags, the most I've ever seen on one article. If some people could try and resolve these, even in small quantities, that'd be great. JTP ( talk • contribs) 16:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
So I got to thinking while watching the most recent ROH episode. We currently have the promotion at Ring of Honor and the TV series at Ring of Honor Wrestling. But the full name of the promotion includes "Wrestling" as well, so we're using a non-existent distinction to inaccurately disambiguate the two articles.
Similar with Impact Wrestling and Impact!, which had relied on a tweet by Jeff Jarrett that GFW was the promotion and Impact the TV series, but that was before the merger/rename completely fell through, and now both the show and promotion use the same name and logo again. Additionally, the exclamation point is just stylization and shouldn't be part of the title unless everyone uses it in running text; the sources do not. (So many messes caused by the upheaval of the past year!)
So ultimately, I think we need to rethink these titles and their disambiguation. oknazevad ( talk) 15:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
If you don't know, there is a discussion about Emma common name. Talk:Emma (wrestler) -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 21:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Our guide, here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Reigns shows a successful defenses column. Yet none of the WWE, WCW, Impact, and ECW titles have this. Its trivia and not value added, in my opinion. Should this column be removed from our guide? It could just be a note to add it if the promotion tracks. Otherwise its confusing, and makes it seem like its needed, when its really just optional. - Galatz Talk 15:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I created a conversation about merging the two pages (WCW and WWE). Conversation can be found here Talk:The Great American Bash#Page merge, but in short they were split when the page housed information on 18 different events. The PPVs have all been broken out and so the split logic no longer applies. Due to the amount of duplicated information, I think it now makes sense to re-merge. Any thoughts on the talk page would be appreciated. - Galatz Talk 17:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I had a question regarding the notability of professional wrestling articles, we generally use WP:GNG to support or delete articles. However, I have also seen people point to WP:ENT or other genre-specific notability guidelines when discussing WP:PW articles. However, none of these are particularly good at discussing the way that Professional Wrestling works. In contrast, WP:NBOX displays that any boxer who's fought for a world title is defacto notable, or WP:NFOOTY points that any player who's played a game in a professional league is notible. Would it make sense to put forward a set of guidelines for PW articles, due to the unique nature of what pro wrestling is? It could easily be as a subsection of Entertainer (Although I realise it would put us directly next to WP:PORNBIO), or on the sports section, whichever is more likely.
Let me know if you think this is something worth persuing, or if it's dead in the water. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline.In essence we would could come up with guidelines to help a user understand if the person is notable. If they don't meet them, they still might meet GNG. The other issue is do we have notability guidelines for:
Here are my thoughts
Individuals (used WP:NBASE as example)
- Are a member of a major promotion's Hall of Fame, such as the WWE Hall of Fame or the WCW Hall of Fame or the Impact Hall of Fame or the AAA Hall of Fame.
- Have appeared consistently over the course of one year or signed to a full time contract at: Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre, Extreme Championship Wrestling, Frontier Martial-Arts Wrestling, Impact Wrestling, Lucha Libre AAA Worldwide, New Japan Pro-Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Noah, Ring of Honor, World Class Championship Wrestling, World Championship Wrestling, or WWE.
- Have served as a commissioner, president, general manager, owner, or manager in one of the above-mentioned promotions.
- Have served as a referee on a regular basis for over one year in one of the above-mentioned promotions.
Players and other figures who do not meet the criteria above are not presumed to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and promotion's sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability.
Tag teams or group
- Have appeared consistently as a tag team or group over the course of a year at: Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre, Extreme Championship Wrestling, Frontier Martial-Arts Wrestling, Impact Wrestling, Lucha Libre AAA Worldwide, New Japan Pro-Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Noah, Ring of Honor, World Class Championship Wrestling, World Championship Wrestling, or WWE.
- Have held the tag team championship for over 100 consecutive days at one of the above-mentioned promotions.
Tag teams or groups who do not meet the criteria above are not presumed to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and promotion's sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability.
Promotions
- Promotions must meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).
Events
- Supercards or pay-per-view events held by: Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre, Extreme Championship Wrestling, Frontier Martial-Arts Wrestling, Impact Wrestling, Lucha Libre AAA Worldwide, New Japan Pro-Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Noah, Ring of Honor, World Class Championship Wrestling, World Championship Wrestling, or WWE.
- Memorial shows held in honor of one of the individuals who meet the individual criteria.
- An event that is the precedent or conclusion of something which meets WP:LASTING
Events which do not meet the criteria above are not presumed to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability, as described in WP:NEVENTS. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and promotion's sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability.
Galatz Talk 14:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
That being said, I think this starts out well as a template, and is very similar to what GNG already states. We can now work with this and come up with a more well rounded notability criteria. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 12:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Could someone with knowledge of this subject area look into the edit request there? Thanks. Beeblebrox ( talk) 02:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Anyone who is more familiar with the topic, can you please check to make sure this edit [2] is accurate? Due to that edit they also made [3] this edit. If it is accurate there are several other events in the Supercard of Honor heading in the template which would need to be removed. Thanks - Galatz Talk 02:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi all,
I noticed the following TNA template is up for discussion, but I can't seem to find what the discussion is. It keeps forwarding to on Template:!Primary. Am I missing something?
Template:2006 TNA pay-per-view events
Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
There's another edit request on the talk page of the Bullet Club. One editor there I believe is being rather stubborn. Gambino has not been proven to be a member of the Club. It's all unreliable sourcing (and one primary source that isn't even NJPW - the source just promoted the publicity stunt as that's what it was). 101.189.95.32 ( talk) 20:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Burrhead Jones and Norvell Austin are being used by someone as venues to push the fact that racial segregation was once widespread in the wrestling business. This sort of information is relevant to the topic of professional wrestling and notable within the context of that topic. Considering that both debuted years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, however, the inclusion of such information in these two articles and probably others is highly suspect. The wrestling industry had had a major legal battle with the United States Department of Justice only a decade or so before which ended in a consent decree, so common sense should tell you that promoters weren't very likely to engage in behavior which would lead Justice to focus further attention on the business. The information in Jones's article lacks suitable sources, while the information in Austin's article is sourced to a book co-written by everyone's favorite website writer. While assuming good faith towards the offline source, something tells me that if I found a copy and read it, that what was written would substantially relate to Sputnik Monroe and not Austin. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
We say that WWE mistakenly recognizes dates as the end date of a reign. Austin lost the IC title on September 8, but "WWE mistakenly lists Austin's reign as lasting 64 days, ending on October 5, 1997." But on the other hand we accept that WWE counts a Sunday - Monday reign as either 0, 1 or 2 days. So WWE is allowed to make new mathematic rules? If we call the date Austin's reign ended a mistake, then their counting sure is a mistake too. Why does it matter that much? On Raw last night The Miz claimed he will be the longest reigning IC Champ of all time in 62 days. Wrong. He went by WWE's mathematically wrong numbers. The actual number would be 64. If he loses the title on Raw in 9 weeks (63 days), he would break the record according to WWE, but not according to Wikipedia. It also is confusing for a lot of people, why WWE's and Wikipedia's numbers are off 50% of the time. If it is a matter of tape delay, no problem, then we should make a note that WWE recognizes the airing date. But making a note for each time do do the wrong math!? WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 15:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
WrestlingLegendAS, why do you continuously bring this issue up when we've told you countless times the reasons for why the information is presented? Do you just forget? Also, how do you know that it's confusing for a lot of people? Have you surveyed them? It would be more confusing if people saw WWE's website, and then saw Wikipedia (or vice versa) and noticed that our numbers and dates are different with no explanation (previously, it only said the episode aired on tape delay, and only some mentioned the tape delay date, but that didn't tell readers that that was the date that WWE recognized). In regards to what The Miz said, that was a slip up. He won't be the longest reigning Intercontinental champion come WrestleMania 34. However, he will have the longest combined reign as Intercontinental champion come WrestleMania. That's what he meant. Just to note, come WrestleMania, Miz's current reign will only be about 100 days; the longest single reign is Honkey Tonk Man at 454 days. -- JDC808 ♫ 20:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
User MaverickAC keeps on deleting from the Pro Wrestling Illustrated page any mention - including a reference (although much of the surrounding content is unreferenced) - relating to PWI withdrawing the WWF's world title status 1983-1985. Can anyone assist? 15:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't know who's bright idea it was to clutter up all the championship lists with this same sentence in every single row, but I'm shocked that the community here just let it happen. It not only looks terrible, but it adds nothing to the articles. We get it–– WWE.com's calculator counts calendar days rather than the total length. I don't see how that's notable at all since it's most likely a design quirk and not actually WWE's official position on the length of each reign. Case in point, WWE has talked about CM Punk's record-breaking 434 day reign millions of times. The fact that the title history page says 435 doesn't reflect WWE's official position on the matter, it just means the calculator on the website is off. It's beyond silly for us to include this information at all let alone in EVERY SINGLE ROW. At best, the fact that the website adds one day to each reign should be a footnote under each table, and not something that's repeated over and over again cluttering the tables. Feed back 17:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
In case you have free time, we're discussing Gino Gambino's membership in Bullet Club. In case you want to give your opinion Talk:Bullet Club.-- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 12:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Talk:IWGP United States Heavyweight Championship 92.27.41.69 ( talk) 23:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Dalton Castle (wrestler)#Requested move 16 March 2018 - Galatz Talk 15:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I notice Titus O'Neil or Apollo isn't listed under people managed by Dana Brooke or vice versa. Wouldn't it be correct to call her their manager? Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 00:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The Dusty Rhodes Tag Team Classic is an annual event as we know. It should have its own article. But it redirects to NXT TakeOver: Respect. I am curious as to why no article has not been created considering it's an annual tournament in a major promotion. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 15:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
A few years ago it was standard practice to list a title under the name of the promotion where it was won, but I have started to see a few occasions of titles listed underneath the promotion that owns the championship rather than where it was won (for example, the Dudley Boyz won their second IWGP Tag Team Championship in TNA, not New Japan). I wondered what the style guide is and if I would be right in moving them around? Tony2Times ( talk) 15:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I am looking at the TNA Epics article and it lists that there are 14 episodes that have aired and 1 that never aired. Now looking at the GWN website (don't ned to subscribe but you can see listings without) [5] it shows 17 episodes. The first 10 episodes appear to match up but the others do not. Does anyone know more about this topic, as the article would need to be updated as it doesnt seem to be accurate. - Galatz Talk 16:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if this has already been discussed but can we establish a consensus not to include WWE Performance Center in the 'trained by' section for wrestlers who were trained and competed elsewhere before joining NXT? I'm looking at the article for Killian Dain and he's currently listed as being trained by the Performance Center, which makes no sense as he was wrestling for over 10 years before joining WWE. And I've noticed the same thing for a number of other wrestlers with years of indy experience. IMO this is pointless and misleading as well as being completely redundant, since every single NXT signing spends at least some time training at the Performance Center and even main roster guys use the facility from time to time. To me, the only time the Performance Center should be listed as a trainer is for guys like Lars Sullivan and Riddick Moss who joined WWE with no prior wrestling experience and were trained there from the ground up. 86.3.174.49 ( talk) 23:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, I understand the counter-argument so I'll bow to consensus on this one although I still think it's dumb and misleading to list wrestlers as being trained by the Performance Center when they debuted and in some cases were established stars many years before it was built. 86.3.174.49 ( talk) 01:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
According to Impact website, Mathews is the current Grand Champion. [6] However, Don Callis said this reigns isn't oficial months ago. So, any idea? -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 16:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Grand Champion and X-Division Champion Matt Sydal is in the ring to reveal who his spirit guide is. To the shock of many, it turns out to be Josh Mathews! Josh gives Sydal a gift to celebrate his accomplishments, a mask of his spirit animal! In return, Sydal gives Josh a gift of his own – the IMPACT Grand Championship! Josh Mathews is your new Grand Champion.[7] - Galatz Talk 16:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure Impact has their story straight on this entire thing. When Sydal came out, he was announced as Grand Champion, but the Impact website makes it clear that Mathews was the champion going in [8]. Based on what aired and what is currently on their website, that the page is currently correct. Anyone disagree? - Galatz Talk 16:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to pass by and say that I think I'd be good if more people would chime in on what the think could be good sources for the project, especially non english language ones. It's WrestleMania soon so I figured there's be more people passing by who might be new here. ★Trekker ( talk) 14:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I moved User:MadMax/precedents to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Deletion discussion history since MadMax hasn't been around since 2007 and I thought it might be helpful to you. Feel free to delete it. Daask ( talk) 06:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
There are constantly people changing future PPV events away from the advertised match because the champion might change. This is obvious, but perhaps we need some sort of banner or table change to show this? Right now when we set Template:Pro Wrestling results table to future the only change is Results and Matches headers switch. Perhaps can we also change it so when that is set to yes, the (c) legend also changes to something like "current champion, subject to change" or something like that. Thoughts? - Galatz Talk 11:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
No. | Matches* | Stipulations | |
---|---|---|---|
|
I put it live. Looking at WWE Greatest Royal Rumble its working properly. I also checked Royal Rumble (2018) and its properly not showing, so I think we are good. Thanks! - Galatz Talk 00:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm ceding ground at Shayna Baszler to the crazies. I understand fans (like you) enjoy crafting the narrative about your favorite actors/actresses who purport to be athletes. However, we still require sources for claims likely to be challenged. It would help if this WikiProject would correct the many editors involved in this area and teach them that Wikipedia is not a blog. It's not worth it to me to edit war over it. I'm one of these guys that followed Shayna and Ronda back when they were legit fighters and I can tell you these articles have gotten worse since the two of them went into pro-wrestling and your cohort got involved. Please put your house in order. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman ( talk) 01:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
There have been multiple conversation about the set up of the current WWE Hall of Fame article. Its very large and choppy right now and hard to follow. My suggestion was to create events for the individual events, and have the article become much more summarized to make it easier to follow. I have begun creating those article and before I continue creating more and integrating in the changes to the article I wanted everyone to take a look and either offer suggestions and/or make changes. Once these pages are all created the main page would no longer list so much detail and just become a summarized list that is easier to follow. As of now I have created the following articles:
2016 and 2017 are probably the most well developed of the articles right now. The event section of the earlier years is where I need the most help developing. Any thoughts? - Galatz Talk 13:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
{
I oppose the idea of having individual lists. At best, I would support a split between a WWE Hall of Fame article talking about the institution itself, and the individual events, and a separate List of WWE Hall of Fame inductees which lists them all in one table. Although there's no physical building, there's an annual Hall of Fame exhibit at Axxess which is notable enough for the main article. With regards to the list of inductees, we should follow football's lead and have one large table with different columns for Class, Classification and Achievements. Rather than football positions, the classification in the wrestling context would be the category of individual, group, celebrity, or legacy inductee. Feed back 17:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Just in case anyone is interested in the discussion, there is talk of eliminating all portals Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Ending the system of portals - Galatz Talk 14:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I fixed some troll edits that have been there for months (RVD being called SSP, WWE 2K18's Deluxe edition being called Cena nuff edition). Why does stuff like that exist for that long? I thought a lot of people are watching all these pages and check every edit that someone makes? Or do I have a wrong understanding of how Wikipedia works? WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Would someone please browse Special:Contributions/115.88.201.167 which shows a several edits today. I suspect that reverting them may be desirable but it needs topic knowledge. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I was wondering about everyone's opinions on how we display tournament brackets, and where to list them. For example, we are currently independently updating the Women of Honor tournament at Women of Honor Championship#Inaugural championship tournament (2018), Supercard of Honor XII#Women of Honor Championship tournament and Ring of Honor tournaments#Women of Honor Championship (2018). The latter of which is actually not as up to date as the other two. Do we really need the same bracket listed 3 times? The new WWE Cruiserweight tournament is also listed in the WM article, the WWE Tournaments article, and it was in the belt's article until I removed it from there replaced with prose, a few weeks ago.
What does everyone think about how this stuff should be displayed? I am all for the pages like WWE tournaments, but perhaps only the tables that don't live elsewhere should live there. For example, WWE tournaments#The Wrestling Classic is already saying that the main page is at The Wrestling Classic#Tournament bracket, yet the "main article" section it links too has less content than the tournament page. We could have the bracket live only in the main page and remove it from the tournament page. The tournament page would be more like the a listing, with links to the relevant articles. It already does this for WWE tournaments#King of the Ring and WWE tournaments#Dusty Rhodes Tag Team Classic. Then tournaments that do not live elsewhere can live on the tournament page with the full details.
For the Women of Honor, if we want to keep it in the Supercard of Honor and title's page, then they should be transcluded rather than updating everything twice.
Any thoughts? - Galatz Talk 19:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I started transcluding tables rather than duplicating and this edit made the navboxes stop showing up, and this edit made the references stop. Anyone know why? - Galatz Talk 15:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion on renaming La Sombra to Andrade "Cien" Almas. You can view it here. Anybody who wishes to chime in is more than welcome too. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 22:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
These articles ( Bruno Sammartino and Paul Jones (wrestler)) are nominated for inclusion in the Recent Deaths section on the main page. Both need a little more work on referencing. If you have a few minutes, it would be great if you could help out. The nominations page is Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
As this issue is currently flaming up again - is there any reason why WWE's monday show should only ever be referred to as "Raw" and not its full name "Monday Night Raw", while the other show, currently on Tuesdays, should (always?) have its full name spelled out as "SmackDown Live"? At least, that is how some editors interpret the current wording of the style guide.
To make my point clearer: I'm all for using the shorter forms as much as possible. But this should be handled consistently for both shows. What I don't get is why SD(L) has to have the Live so many instances. There even was an agreement between users to use the full names (Monday Night Raw, SmackDown Live) at the first mentioning of the show and then to proceed with the shorter forms (Raw, SmackDown) but apparently this is disregarded in some articles. Str1977 (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I keep seeing people changing this back and forth, and it would be nice if we could get a consensus and add it to our SG so we have a frame of reference of how to display. Here are the three ways I keep seeing it changed between:
The arguments for #1 appear to be that it shows the full name each wrestles as. #2 there is no need to show the last name twice, that how you would normally say it if you were discussing two real life brothers you know. #3 the last name isn't needed at all since its already implied.
This would obviously apply to more than just the Hardys, it would apply to any, such as The Dudley Boyz, The Basham Brothers, The Smoking Gunns, The Usos, The Bella Twins, The Singh Brothers, etc. Any thoughts? - Galatz Talk 13:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Not everyone will know about the subject, however someone could just go to The Hardy Boyz page and see what their names are if they were confused. That only works though for instances where the tag team has its own page. Although we don't need to spoon feed things to everyone, its important that we don't mislead them either. Based on this MOS that AngusWOOF posted, it appears that #1 best complies with MOS:SAMESURNAME. The question I ask for those who think #2 is the better option, are you against #1 or do you just prefer #2? Because it seems like those who are for #1 are against #2, not just a preference of one over the other. - Galatz Talk 01:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
To distinguish between people with the same surname in the same article or page, use given names or complete names to refer to each of the people upon first mention.Why would the same not apply here? All of the older pages might not have the same detail, but for the newer articles there is always a Storylines and Events and Results section. I would say in the first mention of the team in the article it should be spelled out. That means the Storylines section will be the first mention, and it is a narrative as you state it applies to. So we could basically say any time it is wikilinked its the full name, all other mentions it is not. - Galatz Talk 15:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Please take a look at MOS:SAMESURNAME on some more suggestions on how to handle this. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
As it's been Wrestlemania season, I was taking a look through some of the earliest shows, and I was surprised there wasn't more GA articles. I was also suprised they were all "mid" class importance. Surely the biggest annual shows should be high importance? Anyway, I was wondering if it was worth putting some time aside to increasing the coverage for the Wrestlemanias, currently they are ranked:
That's 35 articles, and only 7 Good Articles, and 8 Start class Wrestlemanias. Would anyone be interested in working on improving a few of these articles? Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 11:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I've been thinking about these for a while, and finally decided to put them here:
JTP ( talk • contribs) 03:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
NiciVampireHeart has removed the "professional wrestling career" subheadings from a number of articles which currently only have one section such as Riddick Moss, Montez Ford and Lars Sullivan, under the rationale that it's 'messy' (see diff). To me, there's no guarantee these wrestlers will spend their entire career with WWE and so this heading is essential to keep the article formatted properly, even if a little redundant at present in the early part of their career. Anyone have an opinion on this? Dannys-777 ( talk) 20:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I just replaced {{ age in days nts}} with a version that checks that dates are valid. Articles with an error are shown in Category:Age error. Shortly after the change, 61 articles were listed as having errors, and all of them appear to be part of this wikiproject. This diff shows a correction to an error that I made after checking the reference. Any help would be appreciated. In an article in the category, search for "Error:" to see the problem. The message boils down to saying that either the first date is invalid, or the second. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
{{age in days nts|month1=08|day1=19|year1=2016|month=09|day2=18|year2=2016}}
which is an error because "month" should be "month2". However, that template is embedded in {{
sort}} which hides the error.
Johnuniq (
talk)
03:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)@ Galatz: I just replaced {{ age in days}} and now there are more errors in Category:Age error. It would be great if you would check the wrestling articles. Some TLC would help because, for example, AWA United States Heavyweight Championship is showing "the title reign lasted between −82 days and Error..." for note 5. I doubt that a negative age is wanted; presumably the relevant dates are in the wrong order? Johnuniq ( talk) 05:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I have a question. Do you think the "promotion" section in the tag team/stables infobox is usefull? I mean, for tag teams like DX or The Shield is fine. However, tag teams like The Young Bucks, oVe or War Machine is annoying, since there is a huge list of promotions, some of then hasn't an article. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 10:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever.More specifically, if you read WP:LISTBIO, it shows that those included in the bio lists should be notable, I feel the same applies to here. Just because it doesn't have a page doesn't mean it doesn't have verifiable notability, but if its had a page deleted, then for sure it shouldnt be. - Galatz Talk 16:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I wanna update all the pics here: /info/en/?search=List_of_current_champions_in_WWE Instead of having pictures of different size, I want to put in pictures of the same size only showing their faces. Am I good to just go and do it or does anybody think this is a stupid idea? WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 22:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn’t the greatest Royal Rumble be listed as another event since it wasn’t billed as the 32nd annual Royal Rumble as they do with the regular rumbles. Also shouldn’t the stats for the match be on their own “Royal Rumble match” page as opposed to the event, similar to Money in the Bank and Elimination Chamber matches. Separate pages for the match and PPVs. Ron234 ( talk) 18:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I don’t think GRR shouldn’t be included, just that it shouldn’t be on the regular RR page. Plus the match should have its own page like the MITB and EC matches have so that all the match stats can be posted there and not on the PPV page. Ron234 ( talk) 20:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
It looks like the WWE are treating the Royal Rumble and Greatest Royal Rumble as two separate events. Also I agree the PPV and the match should have separate pages like the articles of Elimination Chamber, Money in the Bank and Tables, Ladders and Chairs matches and their PPV named after then. TheDeviantPro ( talk) 12:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
It is two separate events, just like "No Way Out" and "Elimination Chamber" are separate events who happen to have the same type of specialty match. But let's also not go crazy and create a page for the show, then a separate page for the 50 man rumble after one event, everything about the event should be on one page, no sign of it being a recurring thing at the moment. MPJ -DK 13:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Another vote for GRR being removed from the Royal Rumble match statistics and included in 'Other Royal Rumble matches' section. 86.3.174.49 ( talk) 16:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Completely agree that this belongs under "other Royal Rumble matches".
I'm also wondering if we should be listing the championship at the List of current champions in WWE. Because WWE doesn't; it and Braun do not appear with the current champions at wwe.com. Nor is it listed with the titles below that. Because, despite being presented with a belt, it is not a championship title like the others, but akin to the Andre Battle Royal. The entire WWE Greatest Royal Rumble Championship article is bluntly incorrect in treating it as a title, and the listing at list of current champions article is wrong. oknazevad ( talk) 02:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I was on WP:AfC, and Nick Sideris has created a draft for The Undisputed Era. What are your thoughts on the current redirect for The Undisputed Era to ReDRagon; and the notability this draft puts forward? If you guys agree, I'll get the admins to do a technical move for the draft, if it's a good idea. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I replaced the reDRagon redirect and started the article yesterday. I believe that they have obviously accomplished a lot compared to when it was previously deleted. I tried my best to exclude the week-by-week results, as well as include info on their ROH background. Noticing that there was a draft for this, feel free to add anything to the article from the draft. Sekyaw (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I've looked at the second draft and they use a lot of sources that are deemed unreliable like Bleacher Report, The People's Wrestling Website, Wrestling Inc., and PWMania. Anything from either of the drafts that can be moved over, that isn't moved over, to the namespace, than it should be. We need to avoid unreliable sources. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 04:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
On Galatz's talk page, Powderkegg brought up a good point to something I never noticed. The infbox stats that Vince K and Linda McMahon founded the WWE. It says all throughout the article that Roderick McMahon (Vince K's grandfather) and Toots Mondt founded it as Capitol Wrestling Corporation. Vince McMahon Sr. took it over from his dad, Roderick. Vince Sr. kept CWC going as the sanctioning body of the WWWF than WWF till Vince Sr. sold the WWF to Vince Jr. who started Titan Sports thus ceased CWC operations in the early 80s.
Powderkegg made a change only to have it reverted. The fact is Vince and Linda didn't start the WWE. They only changed the name because of the World Wildlife Foundation. You can clearly see in the History of WWE that the founding of WWE is credited to Toots and Roderick. I didn't make any changes as I know for a fact it would be reverted. But as you can see, there is a discrepancy. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 03:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, WWE did it again. After Fish was injured, WWE.com listed Cole as an official NXT Tag Team Champion. However, when Strong was named NXT Tag Team Champion, Cole disapeared. His WWE.com profile doesn't list him as Tag Team Champion. So... how should we include him? Unofficial champion? Briefly recognized, but not anymore? Delete the title from the C&A section? -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 13:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Getting a wee bit anal here...The Freebird Rule was invoked so Cole could also defend the title after Fish got hurt (and was recognized as such). Strong then joined the stable, and was ALSO given a share of the titles. Long story short, the whole Undisputed Era collectively hold the titles, and any 2 can defend them (and all 4 have defended them)...that's how the Freebird Rule works. We're getting into nitpick territory here, as well as trying to read the WWE webmaster's minds. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Bo Dallas once replaced Oliver Grey to defend the Tag titles with Neville; doesn't make him a former Tag champ either. WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 00:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Please ease up...continuing an argument when you're a one man army is never a good thing here (BELIEVE ME...I know). Let it go, and move on...not worth the continued back-and-forth - won't lead to anything good (again - trust me on this, because I have been in your shoes more times than I care to count). Vjmlhds (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I’ll add my view onto this. Cole isn’t recognized by WWE as a current tag team champion, so I don’t think we should say he is one, but we shouldn’t completely exclude the fact that he was once recognized as one. Looking at the List of NXT Tag Team Champions, I agree with how it’s formatted and how it shows Cole was a champion, but isn’t recognized. But as for the Undisputed Era article, Cole's article, and the main championship article, we shouldn’t include Cole as a current title holder. Sekyaw (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Here’s the thing though Adam Cole’s page on wwe.com lists him as a double champion but the tag team Chamionship omits him. I believe somebody should contact WWE to solve this confusion. Ron234 ( talk) 06:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
No I meant as in ask them whether or not they recognize Cole as champion. Ron234 ( talk) 09:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
That’s true for the NXT Tag Titles article but there’s conflicting information on the Adam Cole and Dusty Classic articles which calls him a double champion. Ron234 ( talk) 06:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
... which is today's feature article on the main page. Would benefit from a few extra watchers today and the next few days until no linger linked from main page. Nici Vampire Heart 18:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I plan on creating an article on a former ECW tag team of Balls Mahoney and Axl Rotten called Hardcore Chair Swingin' Freaks but before creating an article, I want suggestions from other users either to start it or not because I do not want my entire hardwork to be wasted and the article be ultimately deleted just like it was done with the Funk Masters of Wrestling in the past.-- Mark Linton ( talk) 12:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Nia Jax's article is protected which is fine. But it is protected so new and unregistered editors edits have to be reviewed. I was fine, than one day my edits are now put under needing be reviewed. I am not a new editor. Been here for 13 years. Anybody know why this happened? Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 23:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Why was it decided that the Reception section for event articles should go after the Aftermath section (more specifically, as a subsection after what's written about the event's aftermath)? That literally makes no sense. Take WrestleMania 34 for example, as this has become an issue there. It makes no sense to put the Reception of WrestleMania 34 after the events that happened on Raw, SmackDown, and 205 Live, which are shows that happened after WrestleMania 34. The Reception is about what happened at WrestleMania 34, not what happened at WrestleMania 34, Raw, SmackDown, and 205 Live (putting Reception after the aftermath looks as if it is about all of those). Even if for whatever reason it has to go after Aftermath, Reception should be its own section, not a subsection of Aftermath. Aftermath is what happened on the shows following the event, reception is how good or bad the event was received. -- JDC808 ♫ 23:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree reception should not be part of the aftermath section. Because the "reception" section is mostly about reviews and other critical commentary of the show itself, while "aftermath" is mostly about how the storylines continued after the show. The later is actually really questionable to even include in the first place, as it's a bit off-topic; the topic of PPV articles is the event, not the general state of the promotion at the time. That said, the background section is a logical addition to show why those particular matches occurred on that card, and the aftermath section is a logical counterpart to that, while also providing the courtesy to readers of not spreading info out over many articles. (Plus reinforces the nature of pro wrestling storylines, wherein the match might be the climax, but not necessarily the conclusion, or the story.)
That doesn't change the fact that the reception section is not part of that storyline flow, and should be s separate mainnsection, not a subsection. Which comes first isn't really important, as a case could be made for either way ("reception" first because it's about the event as opposed to the follow ups vs "aftermath" first because it keeps the storyline material together.). oknazevad ( talk) 08:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Is there anyone against this change? If not, let's make this change to the style guide. -- JDC808 ♫ 23:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
IMO making "Reception" a subsection of "Aftermath" looks awkward, especially if the "Reception" comes first. This way, readers wanting to read about the aftermath are presented with reviews first. Better to keep them separate. Then the, chronological sequence of Reception first, then Aftermath, does no damage. Str1977 (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Is it safe to assume that we all agree that Reception should be a main section, separate from Aftermath? Also, placement. It seems that more would prefer it to go before Aftermath since Reception deals with the event itself, and Aftermath is what happened on the shows following the event. -- JDC808 ♫ 19:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
As there are no opposes, let's make the change to the Style Guide. -- JDC808 ♫ 18:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
He supposedly wrestling in Europe and Japan. I'm not able to find anything from reliable sources for this, just [wrestlingdata.com/index.php?befehl=bios&wrestler=25929 WrestlingData.com], WWFOldSchool.com, and WrestlingForum.com. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Also, please ping me if you reply to ensure I see it. (talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 02:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Currently Category:Professional wrestling by country only has select few countries which have more than just wrestlers from that country. When I look at Category:Professional wrestling in the United States by state however, there are currently 8 out of 50 states which currently only house the wrestlers category. I get that this completes the tree and makes it easier for the navigation. Why would the same not apply to countries? Shouldn't we have a category, even if its just a container category, for every country there is a category for wrestlers from? In order to complete the tree I would expect we should have a category for every country even if it holds just one article or the wrestler category. For example, Category:Professional wrestling in Ukraine would be created, and the only thing in it would be Category:Ukrainian professional wrestlers. Any thoughts? - Galatz Talk 18:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Why is Samir Singh listed as a SmackDown superstar even though he posted on his Instagram that he’s on Raw. And if it is because he is listed as a SmackDown superstar on wwe.com then why are Sunil Singh and Maria Kanellis listed as Raw superstars on the wwe personnel page even though they are too listed as SmackDown superstars on wwe.com? Ron234 ( talk) 20:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Not sure what the criteria for creating an article for a wrestling promotion is, thinking RISE Wrestling could be added? Its been around since 2016 it appears, looks like it's linked to SHIMMER and some other indy promotions. [14] Thoughts? Sephiroth storm ( talk) 14:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Something I noticed recently WWE lists them as seperate events. In the NoC archives its listed from 2007-2015, link - http://www.wwe.com/shows/nightofchampions/archive. It seems they consider them seperate and the 2007 event is considered a dual event. Ron234 ( talk) 18:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone has any opinion on this or should I split the page? Ron234 ( talk) 12:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
This problem has become more apparent to me over the last few months, with editors adding these enormous tables listing each video game appearance (see The Undertaker or Edge). Their inclusion is not new, but at least before they were secluded to a sentence-long wall of links (see Kane or Randy Orton).
These games are routine in the sports world, where the athlete's likeness is used and nothing more. They rarely contribute a performance, so it's not like an appearance on a television series or film. Looking at how other sports projects handle it, they only note these games specifically if the athlete is featured on the cover (see Cristiano Ronaldo, Tom Brady, Patrick Kane, etc.).
I think we should adopt a similar approach here; only include if their involvement is notable, such as a voice performance or featured as the cover athlete. What do you think? Pre fall 14:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
There should be pages about the individual Usos. There is enough material about them to warrant different pages like the Bella Twins. Ron234 ( talk) 20:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
At Talk:Money in the Bank (2018) there is a discussion about the order to present matches prior to an event. KingOfTheRing has created his own method to arrange them and is reverting other editors that don't agree with him. There is no consensus that I can see on how to present this. I think the best answer is they should just be shown in the order the are announced until the night itself. Creating his own "order of relevance" as he phrases it makes no sense. Any thoughts? - Galatz Talk 13:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
It’s settled then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingOfTheRing ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The NWA refer to their World title as the NWA Worlds Heavyweight Championship as opposed to the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. The page should be updated. Opinions? Ron234 ( talk) 20:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
But is it "Worlds Heavyweight Champioship" or "World's Heavyweight Championship" - the former actually doesn't make any sense and might just be sloppy writing. Str1977 (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The posters for WrestleMania V, 2000 and X8 are different from the ones WWE published on this WrestleMania posters article, link - https://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/wrestlemania-posters-photos#fid-26023284. The articles should be updated. Ron234 ( talk) 08:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I think that the articles are given a better perspective if we allow the following format to be used in the years of each section as the following example:
Just in the same way it is used for articles of even more famous people like in:
I wait for the comments. TheBellaTwins1445 ( talk) 16:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 11:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)