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 100 | ← | Archive 103 | Archive 104 | Archive 105 | Archive 106 | Archive 107 | → | Archive 110 |
So above it was suggested that we pick a topic of improvement for a specific month and try to drum up some support and work from other Wikipedians as well as regular members of this project. If you are all for the idea we should try and define a topic for February. Any support and topic suggestions?? MPJ-DK ( talk) 03:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I would say either no sources or BLP with sources needing improvement would be a good starting point. -
Galatz גאליץ
שיחה Talk
14:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I know we had this conversation before about creating a unique PW notability but it seems to have died. I have it bookmarked as having been at User:MPJ-DK/Notability (professional wrestling) but that appears to be dead. Does anyone have a copy of it and want to work on trying to finalize? - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 17:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, all. I feel like on NJPW's roster page, signifying which unit (faction) a wrestler is in would help some readers, and make understanding easier for a casual audience. I propose a new column in the Heavyweight and Junior Heavyweight lists to detail which unit a wrestler is listed as being apart of (as of NJPW’s website, as there can be disputes).
These pages are kept relatively in kayfabe but in Japan they usually go beyond that, with wrestlers usually only travelling with members of their own stable. They're also usually listed underneath the name of a wrestler on-screen, and are prominent in websites almost as much as WWE's brands. I feel as though this could help someone new to the product as well, as it's a key thing you need to learn to understand NJPW.
It could look like:
Ring name | Real name | UNIT | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Tanga Loa | Tevita Fifita | Bullet Club | NEVER Openweight 6-Man Tag Team Champion |
Tetsuya Naito | Tetsuya Naito | Los Ingobernables de Japon | IWGP Intercontinental Champion |
Toa Henare | Aaron Henry | Main unit | |
Togi Makabe | Shinya Makabe | Great Bash Heel (He would probably be listed as just a Main Unit member as GBH has no non-kayfabe ties. |
Feel free to dismiss it, but discuss civilly. ItChEE40 ( talk) 08:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi again, guys. I have another problem. A few months ago, I saw two users reverting themselfs in the Impact roster article. Their problem was two wrestlers, one said he was with the promotion, the other said he wasn't. So, I tried to help and use the rules: sourcing. However, every few days, user:Damolisher revert my editions. Impact Wrestling uses a lot of outside talent just for one ocasion and, since the rosters are for wrestlers who are signed with the promotion or stay regularly with the promotion, I delete wrestler who are unsourced. I tried to explain the user how wikipedia works and show him several policies and why his edits are wrong. For example, one week ago I deleted Bram, Crimson, Crazy Steve and Jax Dane. His answer was "I'd wager money they'll air a vignette for Steve on Impact this week" "Crazzy Steve is a former talent appearing on an episode of Impact who won a match and has posted things which indicate he is back with the company." I explained that sources don't support Steve's return to Impact, just he worked one night like Raven, Kikutaro... and this is SYNTH and assumptions and we need a source about them signing a contract or they will work regulartly with Impact. Now, he has said if someone can block me for my unconstructive edits. Can somebody help me? -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 09:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:PW/MOS#Professional wrestling career should have more guidelines. Examples of how to avoid proseline should be showed. Better writing guidelines should be added with examples of how to summarize properly. This is one of the most important sections of this project. ImmortalWizard (chat) 18:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
List of Ring of Honor pay-per-view events and List of NWA/WCW closed-circuit events and pay-per-view events list everything by the date of the event, not the date it airs. List of WWE Network events has it by the date it airs. They should be consistent. I believe actual date is more consistent with how things are typically treated. Air dates are typically listed as secondary, rather than primary. Any other thoughts? - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 21:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Anyone else have any thoughts? - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 19:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately User:ImmortalWizard went and got himself blocked and no unblock in sight. The reason I am posting here about it is that he nominated Dean Ambrose for "Good Article" and I am in the middle of providing a review of said article. But without IW around I am wondering if someone else wants to take over making improvements, or if I should just wrap up the GA review for now and fail it. Anyone interested in picking this up? MPJ-DK ( talk) 01:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Should Halftime Heat have it's own article or should it be left in the WWE Heat article. I prefer the latter, any ideas? --HC7 19:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
This is just a friendly reminder that February has begun, so, per the discussion here, we are looking to tackle any and all sourcing issues, particularly BLPs lacking sources and other articles that cite no sources. These can be found at our cleanup listing. Perhaps someone could replace the general sanctions banner at the top of the page to spread the word? JTP ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately User:ImmortalWizard went and got himself blocked and no unblock in sight. The reason I am posting here about it is that he nominated Dean Ambrose for "Good Article" and I am in the middle of providing a review of said article. But without IW around I am wondering if someone else wants to take over making improvements, or if I should just wrap up the GA review for now and fail it. Anyone interested in picking this up? MPJ-DK ( talk) 01:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of User:ImmortalWizard, his block is now over and he’s free to edit again. Hopefully he finishes his business with this GA Review of Dean Ambrose. Welcome back buddy! DrewieStewie ( talk) 01:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Just noticed this, lets get some comments here: Talk: Chris Hero#Requested move 5 February 2019. STATic message me! 00:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
All, I started a few nominations that could use a bit more attention. If you all have a minute if you could please take a look I would appreciate:
Thanks - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 00:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
As part of our clean up project I came across the article Gold Dust Trio. The entire thing is unsourced and written as if its copied from somewhere but I cannot find it elsewhere so who knows. The person who wrote it in 2007 (which is barely changed [3] from the current version) has been blocked permanently since not long after creating and based on their block log they have been blocked before for copyright violations [4]. Does anyone know more about this that they could help clean up the page? - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 16:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Here are the statistics for our Project Focus of the Month thus far:
Week | Focused | % Change | Total | % Change |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1610 | — | 1867 | — |
2 | 1605 | -0.31% | 1866 | -0.05% |
3 | 1629 | 1.47% | 1887 | 1.11% |
I am going on a short Wikibreak, but I am hoping that we get all of the help we can! JTP ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I was just wondering if anyone had an answer as to why we include sponsor on Template:Infobox Wrestling event. In my opinion unless its an issue, like WM34 when sponsors threatened to pull out over the naming of the women's battle royal, there is no reason to include this information at all. Besides for no reason to include at all, is it really important enough to include in the infobox? This seems like a pretty meaningless inclusion. No other event that I could find includes this. Does anyone really care that Castrol GTX sponsored Royal Rumble (2009)? I propose we exclude the sponsor from all events (and delete the parameter from the infobox), unless there is a notable reason to include. Thoughts? -
Similarly what are the thoughts on Tagline and Theme Song being included? Neither one really has an significance to the event. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 20:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, I don't know if it's already been mentioned, but No Way Out (2004) is todays featured article. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 15:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
== Fun (Miscellaneous) ==
When and how did you get into wrestling? Write down your favorite wrestler, match, event moment etc. THE NEW
ImmortalWizard
(chat)
23:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Greetings, I have requested page move at Talk:Justin Gabriel#Requested move 16 February 2019. Feel free to leave your opinions. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 17:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Please review the following, Thanks! THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 18:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I have created (well technically I turned it from a redirect into an article) a start-class article for current NXT UK Tag Team Champion James Drake. Feel free to improve on it (in fact please do), this was intended as a starting building block developed just enough to be added in as an article. I just wanted to put an opening product out. It obviously needs more information, which I'm requesting help on. But for now, I feel pretty proud that I've created my first Wikipedia article from the ground up :) DrewieStewie ( talk) 04:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I was surprised to see the Pedro Morales article is in such great shape. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#RD:_Pedro_Morales to get it listed on the main page. LM2000 ( talk) 02:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
In the early 90s there were three WCW/New Japan Supershows. In 1991 we had WCW/New Japan Supershow I, per WCW in 1992 we had WCW/New Japan Supershow II and 1993 we had WCW/New Japan Supershow III. The issue is that the 1992 and 1993 ones were called Super Warriors in Tokyo Dome and Fantastic Story in Tokyo Dome according to NJPW. There is no reason to have two pages for the same event. Therefore I propose:
The reason I am coming here rather than just merging is I have a couple of logistical questions I was hoping you guys could help with before I do.
Any objections? - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 20:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think it is high time that both Jimmy and Jey should have their own pages. Even the Bella Twins are separated. Or are they treated the same as Wright brothers? THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 20:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I have nominated CM Punk for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 21:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
If anyone is looking to do anything soon, we have eleven drafts in our project's scope:
Article existsBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Not sure if notableBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Not sure on the sources (they are spanish), but seems pretty notableBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Don't think is notableBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Article existsBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
PromtoedBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Could be notable - Sourcing doesn't sell it to meBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Promotion is borderline notable. Title history certainly isn'tBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Promotion is borderline notable. Title history certainly isn't - Seems like a vanity itemBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:NPOV violationBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
not enough sourcingBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
JTP ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
A user is going around making edits like this and this. Is this proper? Did the same thing to many articles like Jake Roberts and Greg Valentine. StaticVapor message me! 16:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I have been scanning through a few number of wrestlers' pages. Unfortunately, I was disappointed with the quality of most of them. The lead concentrates too much too much on their championship wins. Championship wins, while they are really important, there are other valuable stuff worth mentioning. I will be coming up with other articles also to enhance quality. Let me know your opinions. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 13:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I know WM is in a few weeks, but I was reading some websites and PWInsider [12] and SI [13] critized Lynch's storyline, around The Authority like Daniel Bryan. Do you think I can create a reception section with this sources? Like "Lynch's storyline was critized for including The Authority like the storyline Daniel Bryan had at WM..." -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 08:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
So I had this conversation with Galatz regarding when it's OK to have unsourced material of pro wrestling TV shows. They pointed out WP:PRIMARY and compared it other TV/movie plots. While this is understandable, I would like to know your opinions and clarification. The problem I have with this is say the show Raw is not the main subject of a BLP or a pay-per-view event. It's not like we are just talking about X beat Y and describing the show, both in BLP and event articles, a certain storyline is built on that TV show. It is known that whenever a primary source is interpreted, a secondary source is obviously required. I think sourceless material could exist at the very least in the Event section of say WWE Evolution, not the Production (Background and Storylines), since they were technically not part of the event and are literally secondary information. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 16:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I think the Method of Elimination columns should be completely removed from Elimination Chamber match tables since it ads nothing to the readers. If it exists, than the match results table should include all the wrestlers' finishing maneuver through which they finished the match. The finishes could be elaborated in the event match description instead. It is not a big deal of a change in this community and would not take much of our time, since there are a relatively few number of Chamber matches. Once approved, I would gladly remove the column from each table. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 15:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, I strongly disagree. I think the tables are of great interest to the readers (myself included) and shows how the match progressed and it makes it more clear to the readers. One thing it does that isn’t appropriate to put in prose but is appropriate in the table is that it shows the times of the respective eliminations. I am just not convinced that it needs to go and I can’t see how including this hurts. It’s relevant info, it gives something to read, it’s not crufty, trivial, or irrelevant. Plus, December to Dismember (2006) and SummerSlam (2003) have the table yet they’re still considered featured articles anyway. Plus, Elimination Chamber (2010) and Unforgiven (2008) (in that case the Scramble) have the tables and it’s still considered a good article. That’s just my view though. I see the point of including it. DrewieStewie ( talk) 22:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@ DrewieStewie: Here is an example. Right now the table on Elimination_Chamber_(2014) looks like this
Eliminated | Wrestler | Entered | Eliminated by | Method of elimination | Time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Sheamus | 2 | Christian | Pinned after a body splash from the top of a chamber pod | 26:03 |
2 | Christian | 4 | Daniel Bryan | Pinned after a running knee | 27:12 |
3 | Cesaro | 1 | John Cena | Submitted to the STF | 30:10 |
4 | John Cena | 5 | Randy Orton | Pinned after a Sister Abigail from Bray Wyatt | 32:38 |
5 | Daniel Bryan | 3 | Randy Orton | Pinned after an RKO | 37:30 |
Winner | Randy Orton (c) | 6 | Winner | Winner | 37:30 |
In my opinion it should look like this:
Eliminated | Wrestler | Entered | Eliminated by | Method of elimination | Time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Sheamus | 2 | Christian | Pinfall | 26:03 |
2 | Christian | 4 | Daniel Bryan | Pinfall | 27:12 |
3 | Cesaro | 1 | John Cena | Submission | 30:10 |
4 | John Cena | 5 | Randy Orton | Pinfall | 32:38 |
5 | Daniel Bryan | 3 | Randy Orton | Pinfall | 37:30 |
Winner | Randy Orton (c) | 6 | Winner | Winner | 37:30 |
It looks very similar, but we just show the method of their elimination. The move before it is not needed, in line with the results table. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 13:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Even though nobody has specifically countered my GNG argument that I used as a qualifier for the table, I give up and concede the lost argument. I’m honestly a little tired of being the only inclusionist that argues for the interest of the readers on this project and seeing things differently from the other users, there’s no way it seems like my side of the argument will ever win a consensus here, I honestly feel like an isolated radical and minority compared to everybody else here but I won’t give up my core beliefs since I’m entitled to them. But still I respect you all enough to concede here. I just ask for one compromise though. How about the finishers only be included on the table when the event section is yet to be written when the event just happened? Same thing with numerous articles (such as some early survivor series cards and WrestleMania 12) where the event section remains unwritten and the finishers info is nowhere else on the page. Does that at least sound fair and reasonable to you? DrewieStewie ( talk) 16:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
You right. Sometimes I just get frustrated and express it. I just gotta chill. It’s sometimess just frustrating when I feel I’m right and reasonable but there’s no real policy or guidelines out there to help my case such as now. At least I’m keeping my cool and not making any outburst claims like “IW shoulda never been unblocked since he wouldn’t have been able to suggest this”. But I’d much rather be civil and nice, as the pillar says. Anyways, about the discussion at hand. Is my compromise suggestion at least reasonable when above mentioned circumstances make it necessary, even if only short term temporary? DrewieStewie ( talk) 17:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Just for clarification and update, this conversation did not end up to just "keep all" or "delete all". I initiated by saying that there is no point on keeping the Method of Elimination column and it "should be completely removed". On the other hand, Lee Vilenski pointed out the whole elimination table is "a bit irrelevant" and the notable stuff (such as entering and elimination numbers) should be written in prose. Galatz then brought a very good point (which I am starting to agree with) that Method of Elimination should be about whether it was pinfall or submission, not the their finishing maneuvers. However, DrewieStewie suggested that the finishing moves should be written whenever the event section is empty and "the finishers info is nowhere else on the page".
I strongly oppose DrewStewie's suggestion. Let's take any other pay-per-view/event which does not have any Elimination Chamber, Champions Scramble or any sort of those matches. Assume the event is relatively new, and therefore the event section is empty, but the results table is accurately given with which wrestler won and match time. There ares till many things missing from the article one could argue. Those could be the finishing moves through which the match ended, if it's a no disqualification match, the interfering wrestler used his/her finishing move and helped someone to win (e.g. Bray Wyatt with a sister abigail to Dean Ambrose and Seth Rollins pins). Now you could also say that those information could be included in the results table, but that is too complex and not required. That is why, it shouldn't be an issue if the Elimination Chamber table does not have the close finishes mentioned.
Between Lee Vilenski and Galatz, I am neutral and sort of in between, although I lean more towards the latter. I would urge other members to chime in here too and aim to reach for consensus. If none is reached, I might ask for a third party opinion to have a fresher and general point of view. Thanks. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 16:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
As STATicVapor pointed here, a user was blocked for promoting ITNWWE. However, (Redacted) has created Vips 17 and they are promoting themselves such as here. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 10:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@ STATicVapor and ImmortalWizard: What was the account that was blocked? I can't investigate if the new account is a sock, if I don't know what the previous account was! -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@ ImmortalWizard and MelanieN: Sorry for not being clearer in my original post about this. The user in question was User talk:ITNWWE. StaticVapor message me! 22:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Anyone have a list of articles needing this added or are we stuck randomly going through show articles, hunting and pecking for articles? MPJ-DK ( talk) 23:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Here are WCW ones
Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 21:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I proposed a merge at Talk:List of WWE pay-per-view events that could use some more comments, it would be appreciated if some more people would chime in. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 15:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 18:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi everyone, feel free to let me know if this is considered WP:CANVASSING, however I'm looking for a new reviewer for my GA nomination of Wrestlemania IV.
If anyone fancies doing the review (the original reviewer never left a review), I'd appreciate it, even if it's a fail. I'm more than willing to review an article in return (QPQ). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Reading the WM and Fastlane articles, as always, the storyline section gained my atention. Did we agree how many storylines put in the section? I readed FA, like December to Dismember or GAB 2005. DtD 2006 only includes two storylines and GAB, three. Fastlane includes a storyline for every match, but som of them are too short, like Asuka-Many, Usos-McMiz, Revival-NXT-Roode and Gable, Rey-Andrade or New Day-Naka Rusev. This storylines are very short, only two or three lines. However, I can't find any policy or rule in our Style Guide. For me, this storylines aren't notable, they are just "the match was announced" without anything behind. What do you think?-- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 10:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
At the Royal Rumble, SmackDown's Shinsuke Nakamura won the men's Royal Rumble match, earning a world championship match of his choosing at WrestleMania. Nakamura chose WWE Champion AJ Styles. At Fastlane, Styles retained the WWE Championship in a six-pack challenge, confirming the Styles-Nakamura match at WrestleMania. On the post-Fastlane episode of SmackDown, Styles and Nakamura expressed respect for each other, but Nakamura promised to deliver a Kinshasa to Styles at WrestleMania and become WWE Champion, and teased a Kinshasa on Styles after saving him from an attack the following week.Styles warned Nakamura to not take him lightly and mentioned their previous encounter in New Japan. Styles then teased a Phenomenal Forearm on Nakamura after the two had won a tag team match on the April 3 episode.
At the Royal Rumble, SmackDown's Shinsuke Nakamura won the men's Royal Rumble match, earning a world championship match of his choosing at WrestleMania. Nakamura chose WWE Champion AJ Styles.
At the Royal Rumble, The Miz and Shane McMahon defeated The Bar ( Cesaro and Sheamus) to win the SmackDown Tag Team Championshipon Elimination Chamber (2019). The Bar had nothing to do with the match, we just need to know who was champion going in, not why. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 15:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING
A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details.
At the Royal Rumble, The Miz and Shane McMahon defeated The Bar (Cesaro and Sheamus) to win the SmackDown Tag Team Championship. On the following episode of SmackDown, The Usos (Jey Uso and Jimmy Uso) defeated The Bar, The New Day (represented by Big E and Kofi Kingston), and Heavy Machinery (Otis Dozovic and Tucker Knight) in a four-corners tag team elimination match to earn a championship match at Elimination Chamber.Could be written as
On the January 29 episode of SmackDown, The Usos (Jey Uso and Jimmy Uso) defeated The Bar, The New Day (represented by Big E and Kofi Kingston), and Heavy Machinery (Otis Dozovic and Tucker Knight) in a four-corners tag team elimination match to earn a SmackDown Tag Team Championship match at Elimination Chamber against The Miz and Shane McMahon.Much more simplified. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 20:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
There is an ongoing deletion discussion for the template {{ WWE personnel}}. Randy Kryn ( talk) 16:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I see that apuestas matches are becoming the general term around here for hair and mask matches. No issues with that and I totally support them being tracked here. However, I think that Loser Leaves Town Matches should also count as apuestas matches. They are not title matches or tournaments, so they cannot fall under those categories. They are not hair or mask matches, despite in kayfabe being just as important. The wrestlers are putting something on the line, so it is an apuesta aka bet, however, since Mexico has a different wrestling set-up without territories, they did not have such matches, so they've never really fallen under there. I think LLT matches are relevant and definitely noteworthy and in territories such as Memphis, they would be worth tracking. What are your thoughts?— Preceding unsigned comment added by KatoKungLee ( talk • contribs)
Hair and Mask matches are super common matches. Villano 3 had close to 200 total on his own. Super Muneco had over 100 and Estrella Blanca had 200. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatoKungLee ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
You have to understand why LLT matches were created in the first place. The US was really the only country with a territory style system, where you could leave a place and still have other places to work. Japanese companies always toured the whole country as did Puerto Rican companies and European companies. Mexico did have some areas that had their own little scenes, but it was never on a scale of the US. I'm not even sure if Mexico had any career vs career matches until Triplemanía I and I'm not actually sure if they ever had a LLT match, hence why it wouldn't be considered an apuesta. Mexico also had a ban on wrestling on TV from the 50's up until about '89-'90 and along with CMLL owning many of the arenas, it was a different situation.-- KatoKungLee ( talk) 16:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you guys retarded? Why does this website actively go out of its way to remove useful information? Video game soundtracks, movelists and now PPV theme music. Might as well just make all the pro wrestling pages blank while you're at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.101.126.133 ( talk) 21:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, could someone take a look at Talk:WrestleMania IV/GA2 (The original one was never completed either), regarding a conversation between myself and User:RadioKAOS. Should I remove this from the GAN list, start a new page, or otherwise? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 07:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
what threats?= then you imply that if you get called to ANI for your behavior that basically "PW Sources will suffer" is a nice piece of irony and shows a lack of self-awareness. MPJ-DK ( talk) 09:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm late for an appointment so don't have time to continue this right this minute. To touch upon something I referred to in this thread, it appears that CoffeeEngineer is being dragged through some Commons equivalent of ANI over those files and is now nominating many if not all of them for deletion. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a community reassessment for Cody Rhodes at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Cody Rhodes/1. It could use some input from knowledgeable editors. AIRcorn (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Recently a user has removed a lot of content from John Cena and Dave Bautista, citing it as trivial. It would be great if someone could go through it and make sure nothing significant has been removed. I noticed there is practically nothing in Cenas bio from 2002–2005, which is not okay. I am just trying to make sure I was not the only one seeing this happen and there is consensus for these content removals. StaticVapor message me! 02:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
For now, I don't feel the need to explain my actions in full details. If anyone feels like I have excluded some notable feuds, feel free to add them back. Other than that, I tried to compress the info as much as possible. Professional wrestling articles are complicated, or at least made complicated by the community. I chose to edit Bautista and Cena over other wrestling BLPs for a reason (again, I don't want to explain explicitly for now. It seems like many of the wrestling BLPs contradicts the projects own guide. The guide I believe is derived from Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). It says there: "Articles on fiction are expected to follow existing content policies and guidelines, particularly Wikipedia is not simply plot summaries. Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than "in-universe" details.". That's the best I could quote for now. Essentially, in my eyes a lot wrestling biographies fails to separate fictional content and real life aspect. Although it isn't entirely true, for many of the general audience, Bautista plays Batista the same way as he plays Drax. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 15:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I have requested and been granted suppression of 7 revisions on this page dated February 27 by an oversighter over a real life name that has now been redacted that was linked to a Wikipedia as a potential sockpuppet. This was suppressed as outing and harassment and defamation are against Wikipedia policy. Thanks for understanding. DrewieStewie ( talk) 03:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the way we use the pro wrestling event info box I feel like we're over complicating something. The info box has the option to include an "event chronology" (ex. links to previous SummerSlam and next SummerSlam) the "lastevent2" and "nextevent2" parameters. Right now the "last" and "next" even shows the full name of the article. Which means that currently we repeat the show name three times in very close proximity, making the info box more cluttered than it needs to be in my opinion and to some extend we are talking down to our readers and their ability to put information together.
Lethal Leap Year (1982) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Promotion | Southpaw Regional Wrestling | ||
Lethal Leap Year chronology | |||
|
Lethal Leap Year (1982) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Promotion | Southpaw Regional Wrestling | ||
Lethal Leap Year chronology | |||
|
So nothing illustrates a point like examples. so I see three types of show names where we can simplify (info box examples to your right)
First up - events that are called the same but just has the year behind it to distinguish between them
Second example clearly shows that the event is called "Lethal Leapyear" and that the last event was in 1978 and the next one was in 1986 without having to see "Lethal Leapyear" all over the place.
Swamp Slam: Doing it for Dewey | |||
---|---|---|---|
Promotion | Southpaw Regional Wrestling | ||
Swamp Slam chronology | |||
|
Swamp Slam: Doing it for Dewey | |||
---|---|---|---|
Promotion | Southpaw Regional Wrestling | ||
Swamp Slam chronology | |||
|
First example is pretty straight forward, but then some promotions throw us a curveball by having slightly different names for their events - example: NXT TakeOver or WWF's "In Your House" once they dropped the numbering scheme. Once again I think we can simplify this for everyone.
The focus is on the part that's different and have the "Show chronology" line fill in the rest, but it's still clear what the previous and the next event iis
Shopping Mall Mayhem XXI | |||
---|---|---|---|
Promotion | Southpaw Regional Wrestling | ||
Shopping Mall Mayhem chronology | |||
|
Shopping Mall Mayhem XXI | |||
---|---|---|---|
Promotion | Southpaw Regional Wrestling | ||
Shopping Mall Mayhem chronology | |||
|
Next I hear "Well what about Roman numerals"?? Your WrestleManias, your Clash of Champions etc.?
Treating the roman numeral the same way we would the year indicator.
I take issue with this. Lethal Leap Year never happened. They forgot to check the calendar! Seriously though, I'm also fine with this as long as it's consistent. -- JDC808 ♫ 06:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:WWE is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:WWE until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 02:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Recently, I AFDed The Hype Bros which didn't result in anything. I was wondering we should come up with a threshold for single pages of tag teams? I think this is crucial, not only for knowing which ones to keep/delete, but also to be able to create new ones like The Boss 'n' Hug Connection, Nia Jax and Tamina, Awesome Truth, 3MB, Heath Slater and Rhyno, Miz and Mizdow and so on. This came to my attention when I saw the existence of Vince's Devils. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 14:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
The wrestling section needs different notability rules than the rest of the site for a few reasons:
- Wrestling has always gotten little coverage. Not because people didn't care but because places didn't want to cover it due to it being fake.
- Wrestling up until 1980 was regional. This limited how much coverage there was, while the NFL, MLB and other sports didn't have that issue. Coverage is not a good way to determine notability. The Apter mags were also biased towards the Northeast since they were from the Northeast, while places like Continental didn't want Apter reporters there since they were only running Alabama.
- Places like Japan and Mexico still have a very undeveloped internet. One is due to poverty and the other due to people preferring to use their phones. The chances of either of those situations changing anytime soon is low, so even if results were listed in newspapers and stuff, it's going to be a long time, if ever before they get online. The language barrier also makes it very hard for people like myself to find information.
- There's little footage prior to 1980. Not because people weren't watching wrestling, they definitely were. But the VCR wasn't invented yet and due to the other reasons I listed above, it got less coverage.
- Many people have compiled regional results. However, they don't have official websites/publications so therefore they don't meet notability guidelines for sources and it can't be used. So someone like a Matt Farmer who has done a lot of work would have to type up the results then send them to a source like Dave Meltzer to be posted for it to be recognized, which probably won't happen.
KatoKungLee ( talk) 15:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
he language barrier also makes it very hard for people like myself to find information.has not been a barrier, nor should it be a reason to lower the notabiliy criteria. MPJ-DK ( talk) 16:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you MPJ-DK for restoring. Here are some thoughts I have right now based on where things currently are.
A professional wrestler is presumed to be notable if the person has worked for a major professional wrestling promotion on a regular basis or won a significant championship(bolding added by me) however I do not see where this championship is listed, except for groups. How long do they need to hold the championship, since someone like Nicolas held a championship but I do not believe should have his own page. Perhaps holding for over 100 days for individuals as well? 3 months seems to be a rarity in reigns these days.
I will try and do a more detailed read later, but thats my current thoughts. Anyone else? - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 16:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
One other though I forgot to mention. In terms of when to break out a a championship article, I think we need to look at WP:SPLIT. I believe unless it is over 50-60k range, there is no reason to break out. I am just not sure if this belongs here or in style guide (which already says to break out the list if it has 10 entries) but it cannot hurt to mention them in both, as long as they are worded consistently. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 17:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
My thoughts on some of your points:
1 - 100 Days of holding a title is too much. The majority of wrestlers would not meet this criteria, especially since a lot title histories are incomplete.
2 - If one day is good enough for any of the sports leagues, one match should be enough for wrestling as well. But there's discrimination towards wrestling and it's fans and the non-fan editors wouldn't allow it. May have to come down to holding x titles, wrestling for x years or something else for the territory days.
4 - We are sadly going to see almost no European wrestling articles on here ever for anyone before the mid-80's. The only people who could ever meet the criteria were super stars like Jackie Pallo, Big Daddy or people who had long careers in the US. Even tons of WOS wrestlers who had pretty good careers there will be eaten alive by the non-wrestling editors on here. Sourcing on that is next to impossible, since only we really only have WOS tapes and every other site will end up deemed a "personal site" due to the lack of footage. I see similar fates for Canadian wrestlers who never bothered in the US. Had Vince not bought Stampede, it wouldn't have gotten the coverage it got here. Larry Kasaboski ran a Canadian promotion for 30 years and I'd be surprised if even Dave Meltzer knew who he was, since he was regional and no footage exists. But obviously, he was doing something right.
5 - Refs would have to be super specific situations, mostly revolving around people who mainstayed in one promotion for decades or wrestled in matches. Announcers would probably meet similar fates.
As we talked about elsewhere in the thread, wrestling was all local prior to WWF in 1986 and since it wasn't in a national league like other sports, what happened in the middle of Canada wasn't really important to the people in Memphis. And since every territory minus Memphis was dead by 1992 and didn't keep their footage, we really only have various kayfabe mags and whatever newspapers may have covered, but someone would have to look through those and either write their own book or get Dave to publish them. I do have some fan newsletters sitting around from the 70's which would be sources and were the 70's kayfabe version of the Wrestling Observer, but the non-wrestling fan editors would never allow them. KatoKungLee ( talk) 02:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I moved the page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Notability where I imagine it will ultimately live. I tagged it as under construction and not yet ready. I also set up some redirects to it so we can short hand refer to it once finalized. Unfortunately WP:PWN and WP:NPW are both already taken. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 15:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
WWE 1990–2019, followed by WCW 1990-2001 is probably top tier (less time needed there to satisfy the criteria). After that it would be TNA during their time on national television on major stations (Fox Sports Net and Spike) so that would be 2004–2014. TNA drew less and had lower viewership than WCW, but we're a solid number two behind WWE from 2004/5–2014.
Following that is where it is not clear as day. ROH only had a network deals (2007–2011 and 2015) and even then, HDNet and Destination America have about the same reach as Pop TV (showed Impact after Spike deal) and BeIN Sports (MLW). Now ROH runs in syndication only in certain markets on FOX or CBS (the non-cable free channels), so viewership data is not available. ROH was the number three promotion for many years and then coinciding with the fall of TNA/Impact, they became the second largest promotion. This is sourced in the Ring of Honor article. They draw about 2000 to a record 6000 for their big shows, with the touring shows doing around 1000. My question is when does the notability start for them? 2015–2019 is probably the highest profile time in their existence, but they were well known as the number 3 promotion from 2005–201x.
Three is where is gets fishy Impact has a wide international reach, so even though they are not as big in US now, I do not think we need to do the cut-off on them. See List of Impact Wrestling programming for international deals. Then there is MLW (2018-2019). They are the only other promotion with a national deal if you don't count NJPW and Lucha Underground. They fight for third with Impact due to higher attendances. Impact draws about 1000-1500 for PPVs now, usually a lot less than that for television tapings. However, this is a very recent thing where business is picking up for them. While since mid 2018 MLW has been drawing 1000-2100 for their monthly supercards/television tapings.
So all four currently have a significant precense as American promotions. Impact and MLW slightly less than ROH. After that would be Lucha Underground, Women of Wrestling and Ring Warriors due to their television deals. All three of those are not year round promotions though. All three are kind of television shows, rather then full-time promotions. National Wrestling Alliance (late 2018-2019) is the only other one besides (WWE, ROH, MLW, Impact) that comes close to 1000 for their supercards in 2018–2019. While LU, WOW and Ring Warriors do their television tapings in small buildings.
Somewhere in there is where
Extreme Championship Wrestling lies. Very notable, but they didn't draw huge crowds and were only seen through tape trading for most of their existence. Only 1999–2001 they were on a major network, but in a awful time slot.
StaticVapor
message me!
02:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Also we should try to do subsections everytime we talk about a different part of the notability essay. It was hard to find a place to jump into the conversation when I first saw this lol.
StaticVapor
message me!
02:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Galatz - I do not agree with only 3 of the NWA territories being marked as notable. You really can't have a rule on notability for territories unless they only existed for a few months because they were all restricted to various regions and the regions were not fair. The WWWF had 3 of the top media markets in the country while people like Ron Wright were doing great business in the hills of Tenessee, where they didn't even have TV, yet alone anything else. Places like Omaha and Columbus were arguably the top territory at various parts in time. And some outlaw promotions like Gunkel's Georgia are really important to the story of territory wrestling yet would also not fit. Just because we don't have great information online about these places or videos doesn't mean they weren't noteable. Places like Florida aren't on the list, yet if it wasn't for Florida, JCP and Dusty would have never been what they ended up being. Please Please Pleaseeeee do not do this. KatoKungLee ( talk) 22:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The notability draft currently lists two European promotions (Joint Promotions and World of Sport). I should mention that this is a bit confusing as Joint promotions ran events including the World of Sport shows on ITV in the 70s. The WOS listed is the article for the 2018 reboot.
I would ask if the reboot could be added in the post 1990 list. Someone like Justin Sysum is probably due facto notable anyway for his body of work (he also played Hawkeye on Disney tours) but I would suggest anyone doing significant things on this show would be notable.
Otherwise, the only other places I could think of to be notable would be potentially FWA, PCW, ICW (Scotland) or PROGRESS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Lee Vilenski - If you go on youtube, they have some footage with CWA being on Eurosport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatoKungLee ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Here is a listing of all the items currently underlined which means we need additional discussion on. This by no way means these are the only items still open to discussions, just ones we still definitely need to discuss. I will try break each into its own bullet and sign individually to make conversations easiest to follow. I ask others to follow the same so we can keep each thought easy to follow. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 14:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking about this. I don't know if we could get it to pass, but Wrestlemania Weekend is definitely a wrestling event and is something worth keeping track of. It's been around now since 2005 and it's definitely notable. Seems like it would be worth a page. Thoughts? KatoKungLee ( talk) 20:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
There is an edit war going on at Dave Bautista in his wrestling career. My edits seems to have triggered a couple of editors. This has become a larger issue than I expected, that is of this WikiProject. Now, I am eager to really wait. I would provide all my arguments whenever I get enough time. I want to take away any judgements of mine and my opposing editors' actions. Instead, I want this discussion to solely concentrate on content relevancy. It appears to require a strong consensus, an possible third party involvement, depending on how far it goes. I advocate this complicated changes.
For now, I would like others to compare this version of Bautista with the current version. Try to identify the flaws and advantages of each. Leave your comments below, as many as possible. I will try to response whenever I get time, and will bring up my arguments in great detail. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 17:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I chose Bautista to show parallels to his movie career.
Consider this: "As 2005 began, Triple H realized the possibility of Batista becoming a threat to his World Heavyweight Championship. Triple H suggested that he not enter the Royal Rumble, claiming that it would be selfish of him to do so, and to simply focus on Triple H retaining the title. Batista entered anyway and went on to win the Rumble earning the right to participate in the main event of WrestleMania 21 against the World Champion of his choice.[42] In an attempt to persuade Batista to challenge WWE Champion John "Bradshaw" Layfield and challenger John Cena in a triple-threat match rather than him, Triple H concocted a scheme to have Batista run over in a limousine resembling the one used by Layfield. Initially, Dave did not want help from Evolution and wanted to confront JBL by himself. Triple H insisted that Evolution stick together and accompanied Dave anyway, saving him from the oncoming vehicle.[43] Batista became aware of the plot while sneakily eavesdropping on fellow Evolution members and signed a contract guaranteeing him a match with the World Heavyweight Champion Triple H at WrestleMania 21, thus leaving Evolution and officially turning into a fan favorite. Batista initially pretended that he would sign with SmackDown!, giving Triple H and Flair the "thumbs up", but turned it into a "thumbs down" before attacking the pair. He emphasized his departure by powerbombing Triple H through the table used for the contract signing.[44] " being changed to "In January 2005, Batista won the Royal Rumble, which gave him a world championship match opportunity of his choice at WrestleMania 21.[38] Despite initially choosing the WWE Championship,[39] Batista turned on Triple H and challenged him for the World Heavyweight Championship match at WrestleMania while leaving Evolution and turning fan favorite.[40] Batista won the World Heavyweight Championship from Triple H on April 3 in the main event of WrestleMania 21.[4][41]" I think that was a valid and necessary trim.
You have to reduce the fictional aspect and concentrate more on the real world aspect. You don't include "Bautista played this role in the movie, where the character did this and that."
Now, was all my trimming perfect? No. I shouldn't have removed the Deacon Batista. But I tried to compress as much as possible like the example I showed above. It's just reverting my whole edits were wrong. It is also wrong to say I practically removed everything between 2001-2005. Yes, I did remove some less notable feuds, which I could have been careful with. It also hurts the prose to include stuff like Y attacked X, they started a feud, X defended the title successfully. After that, Z attacked X, X then defeated Z successfully. Instead, I tried to change to X successfully defended the title against Y,Z and various others throughout the year.
Phrases like "Batista made his return on October 20 episode of Raw, interfering in a match between Goldberg and Shawn Michaels and "shattering" Goldberg's ankle with a chair. After the interference, Evolution came out, and Triple H rewarded Batista with $100,000" irritates me a lot. I want to keep this fictional stuff away, as supported in WP:Notability (fiction). I instead made it really reasonable in order to make sense to all types of audience: "He made his return in October and continued to work with Evolution.[30][31]".
I hope you guys understand my intentions. These are all best for both wrestling articles and Wikipedia. People in this community hate wrestling articles for stuff like John Cena is so long and equally emphasized than more notable people like Martin Luther King Jr. The too many fictional character mention on weekly basis is in fact bad for the encyclopedia. For the most part, I believe my edits were good. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 14:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
So what are your takes on this? I can volunteer on making a supplementary PW content guide. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 18:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
This month, we don't have a focus as we have for the last two. However, as this is the busiest time of the year for wrestling, I would suggest that as a team, we attempt to focus on the WrestleMania 35 article (and the corresponding articles, such as the WWE Hall of Fame). This article will likely be a big target for vandalism, or poor prose, so we should look to update and work well together. The article is also a good candidate for WP:ITN, so needs to be stable for inclusion on the mainpage. Let me know if anyone has any other proposals, or suggestions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello
A few months ago, I discussed the possibility of adding a 'unit' column to the NJPW Roster page. Among some not knowing the difference between NJPW units and stables, I was told that it could work if I gave a summary of what they meant in the opening paragraph. Well, I'm ready to implement it and I just wanted to know your thoughts before doing so.
Let me know what you think. ItChEE40 ( talk) 07:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you everybody, have just added it now. ItChEE40 ( talk) 23:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi. As every WM, we have problems with the storylines. I always think the storyline section is huge and over detailed. Like the last year, I have a problem with User:JDC808. I think he includes a lot of detail, he thinks I remove a lot and information is lost. The PW:SG says the storyline section has to include no more than "The storylines section should contain details on at least three rivalries and contain no more than 1,000 words." My version ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=WrestleMania_35&diff=prev&oldid=891009440) includes 1.900 words and his version ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=WrestleMania_35&diff=next&oldid=891009440) includes 2.500. I try to include just key points that changes the match, not promos, brawls or tag team matches. For example, the match between Rollins and Lesnar doesn't change if the match with Benajmin and the last brawl is removed. Also, the match between Miz and McMahon doesn't change if the Sanity match is removed, this is just middle points, not key points. The main event is full of Key Point, since the match changes with every one of them. Also, I hate the "On the XXX edition. On the XXX edition"... I think we can avoid it, like changing "Flair won the title. On the XXX edition of XXX Steph announced that the match becomes a Winner Takes All" to "Flair won the title, becoming the match in a Winner Takes All". So, what do you think? What section do you think is better? Which apporach is the best? -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 01:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone note http://www.pwmania.com/ on WP:PW/RS ? Their news and informations seem to be factual, accurate, up to date and reliable and they have been ai it for over a decade now. I think sources from them should be noted as reliable. Dilbaggg ( talk) 23:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok, understood. Dilbaggg ( talk) 12:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I missed any discussion of this, but in the past I noticed that for WWE steel cage matches, if a victor was declared via cage escape, it was noted as "[wrestler A] defeated [wrestler B] by escaping the cage". Now, I noticed that it is no longer on a few articles. Is this intentional or not? Since a cage escape is not a pinfall, and usually in the results table if theres no description like submission, countout, DQ, or cage escape, it is assumed to have ended via pinfall, which in these cases it hasn't. Thank you. DrewieStewie ( talk) 23:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I noticed it for No Way Out (2005) and Extreme Rules (2014). Might try a more broad search attempt soon though. Wanted to check in here though so I dont add disallowed information and also because nothing was mentioned in the MOS over this. As further clarification, these descriptions don't apply to matches like Punjabi Prison matches (since thats the only method of victory for the stipulation). DrewieStewie ( talk) 15:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Done I went through just about, if not every WWE results table, and found that all but 5 ( No Way Out (2012), Extreme Rules (2017), Greatest Royal Rumble (as mentioned above by Galatz), Extreme Rules (2018), and Starrcade (2018) events with a steel cage ending in an escape victory did not mention that finish in the results column. I have added "by escaping the cage" on every WWE results table with a steel cage match ending in escape in just about, if not every results table. Worked the whole day to do that, and it paid off. Accordingly, I'll add it into the MOS too. Cheers. DrewieStewie ( talk) 03:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
There are some inconsistencies with the British Championship that RevPro promotes. I've been doing some research and the RevPro website has the IPW:UK Heavyweight/World Championship history dating back to 2005. You can see it here. That is not correct. The British Championship came about in 2009 when the IPW:UK Heavyweight Championship and the All-England Championship were unified to create the Undisputed British Heavyweight Championship. Prior to the titles being unifed, that title history is IPW:UK Heavyweight Championship history. That should not be in the British Heavyweight Championship list. The history on the RevPro site and the list on here doesn't list the All-England title history. Having that in the list wouldn't make sense. So the IPW:UK World Heavyweight Championship shouldn't be any different.
If you look on the IPW:UK website, Wrestling-Titles.com, and Cagematch; you see that people listed as IPW:UK Heavyweight Champion after 2009 when the British Heavyweight Championship was created and before the split. Once RevPro was founded in August 2012, the IPW:UK and RevPro split in September 2012. Sha Samuels continued to be recognized as the IPW:UK Heavyweight Champion and the British Heavyweight Champion by RevPro. That means Dave Mastiff and Leroy Kincaide were also recognized as IPW:UK Heavyweight Champions even though the British Heavyweight Championship was born out of said unification. The unification seems pointless since they were both recognized as both IPW:UK Heavyweight and British Heavyweight Champions.
I want to make changes to the British Championship list. The only title history that should be on there is from 2009 onward. I would go ahead and do it, but someone will revert it. I can see that happening. That is why I decided to come here first and made this post. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 12:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking something. Recently, Sawyer Fulton joined Ohio Versus Everything. So, OvE is a stable, with the Crist Brothers and Callihan. However, the article is 90% about the tag team of The Crists. Do you think we should keep Irish Airborne (or other name) and Ohio Versus Everything as two separate articles? Like The Addiction and So Cal Uncensored. One is the tag team, the other is a stable. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 18:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/142.113.215.142 This person repeatedly puts non-sense on the same few wrestler pages and numerous articles for wrestling music albums. Maxwell7985 ( talk) 18:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for letting me know that the PPV sponsors don't appear in the infoboxes anymore. Why is this? I have noticed the same for theme songs also? -- TheVaughano ( talk) 12:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a topic that has been covered a lot recently, and it's something this project has been toying with for a while in the past. Maybe we should try to make it happen now. ★Trekker ( talk) 08:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, in that case, who's gonna make the first step?
Recently, ROH hired Angelina Love and Velvet Sky, creating The Allure with Mandy Rose. The stable is very similar to The Beautiful People, even sources support it. However, should we talk about The Allure in The Beautiful People article? I remember a discussion about The Band (TNA's nWo) would be included in NWO article. Some people said it's similar to Balor Club-Bullet Club, similar concept, even similar members, but different stables, so different articles. What do you think? -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 23:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a draft at Draft:Sky Pirates (professional wrestling) which I find concerning. I don't follow WWE's extensive social media output so someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this.
The Sky Pirates were Io and Kairi in NXT, Kairi and Asuka's team on Smackdown doesn't appear to have a name as yet. As Asuka and Io haven't teamed in WWE their prior history as two-thirds of Triple Tails (which was Askuka, Io and Mio Sharai) which makes up the overwhelming majority of the draft isn't relevant to a potential article about the Sky Pirates. Don't get me started on the largely made-up alternate names for the Sky Pirates that appear in the infobox.
What are the thoughts of others about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moab12 ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I suggest we remove the "Resides" field from "Infobox professional wrestler". There are a few reasons for this:
I don't see that the "resides" field adds much value (or at least not enough to outweigh the above drawbacks) so would suggest we remove it. Any thoughts? McPhail ( talk) 21:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be an inconsistency between when those three terms are used. Most seem to use stable, but there are plenty of pages that have the other two. Is there any reason why we do one over the other? Our infoboxes all say stable, so it seems inconsistent to have the lead not. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 17:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Should arenas be in the project scope? I noticed TD Garden on one of our listings, which has hosted eight pay-per-views, but I fail to see why some arenas are in our scope in some aren't. JTP ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Can the event listings for all professional wrestling promotions use a uniform format? Currently, they're arbitrarily mixed up for no discernible reason
WWE, NJPW, WCW, and Impact use the following format:
Year
Date | Event | Venue | Location | Main Event |
---|---|---|---|---|
Date (without year) | Event Name | Venue name | Location Name | Example main event |
WWE also has an added decade header before each decade's set of years (understandable, given that they're the only promotion that spans more than two decades of PPV events).
Ring of Honor uses a slightly different format of the above, with an additional column for PPV number at the beginning. Also, Ring of Honor uses the phrases (taped) and (aired) instead of the more commonly used "Air date" (with the tape date being implied as the other date listed).
NXT and now All Elite Wrestling cut the year header from above the event list and just add the year to the date column. NXT and AEW also have their venue and location columns transposed.
I'm not a Wiki editor myself but I think this would help unify the formats and establish something useful going forward.
{{small|Aired MMMM, DD, YYYY}}
Hey there. So with the 24/7 championship, we are presented with a problem of convenience. That would be constantly updating the reigns. Should we propose something like "dont change the reigns until the show is over, given that reigns can change within a split second"? Especially for aritcles listing pictures for champions such as "List of WWE personnel" and "List of current champions in WWE". Don't get me started with expanding the reigns table. The quick reign changes can trigger amssive edit conflicts on a scale larger than ongoing ppv results and regular title changes. But with a championship constantly changing hands from that rule, should we refrain from updating the list until the show is over? This wouldn't necessarily be a rule, just a personal guideline/advice of thumb that editors can choose to follow out of convenience. This problem didn't exist with the hardcore championship, because Wikipedia both didn't exist and once it existed, it hadn't adequately expanded to this subject matter yet before it was retired. Thanks for the input. DrewieStewie ( talk) 05:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The current consensus is to not add visible match or frame scores to an article until the match is completed- in wrestling terms until a match is over, not the whole show. Best example would be a 2-out-of-3 falls match updated after each fall, or a Rumble match updated with each entry/elimination. Once the title is won it is actually not against the "liveupdate". As long as the editing is 1) Competent and 2) sourced, there is no guideline reason to not update it. MPJ-DK ( talk) 10:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Just wait until the. changes are taped and not live, fighting over "actual time vs. Kayfabe time ". Fun times ahead. MPJ-DK ( talk) 18:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm very glad I prompted discussion about this here, this is clearly a championship with many possible hypothetical scenarios that we need to discuss so that we're very well prepared for it. Galatz made yet another excellent evaluation regarding this, WWE could have many unimaginable scenarios for this belt, like social media title changes, or even Axxess, or even potentially (planted) fans claiming the belt. We need to figure out courses of action to take, with all these new-age problems that didnt exist with the hardcore championship. DrewieStewie ( talk) 20:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Couple of questions:
1. If Adam Cole wins the NXT Championship at TakeOver XXV, will he become an NXT Triple Crown Champion, if his brief run as NXT Tag Team Championship is recognised? Just to clarify, WWE somehow does not recognise Adam Cole’s brief run as one-half of the NXT Tag Team Champions with Kyle O’Reilly, when Cole replaced Bobby Fish after Fish got injured, before Roderick Strong joined and replaced Cole.
2. Dan Lawrence is listed as an AAW Triple Crown Champion, but the date of his AAW Heritage Championship win says ‘Unknown’. Should he be removed completely from the list? Drummoe ( talk) 10:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone else chime in here Talk:Triple_Crown_(professional_wrestling)#Is_someone_going_to_add_the_WWE_Women_section? - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 13:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I have never watched MMA, but I stumbled across an article which happened to be in Category:Scheduled mixed martial arts events. It made me wonder why they have articles for basically every announced UFC event. For PW we wait until there is 1 match announced or it is the next pay-per-view. For those who don't edit current articles, we created WrestleMania 35 as soon as the Royal Rumble ended, since it meant there were 2 matches announced. WWE Stomping Grounds is one month from today, we have a name, city, and venue but no matches; since it is not the next PPV it has no article. WrestleMania 36 has been announced for several months now. What makes UFC on ESPN+ 23 which airs 7 months from now notable enough for an article, when only the date has been announced, no city or venue. What makes our standards different than theirs? - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 16:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
There are always matches that have their own stand alone notability. Typically we include details about these matches at their events, but sometimes there are notable matches that are not at notable events. I just created Bret Hart vs. Tom Magee and Last Battle of Atlanta since both of those are extremely big matches, that have been discussed for over 30 years. Does anyone have any other matches they think should have their own page? I am happy to help work on them. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 19:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Talk:Grand Slam (professional wrestling) regarding the order of the lists that can use broad input. Please comment there. oknazevad ( talk) 17:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In light of the notices on the wikiprojects of aviation and military history, this is a notification of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 27#AEW on whether AEW should target Airborne early warning and control (the current redirect) or All Elite Wrestling (the proposed redirect). starship .paint ( talk) 11:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
In light of their NXT tag team championship win and inclusion in WWE 2K19, can we have an admin un-delete the article and allow us to expand the article? DrewieStewie ( talk) 02:14, 2 June 2019 (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 100 | ← | Archive 103 | Archive 104 | Archive 105 | Archive 106 | Archive 107 | → | Archive 110 |
So above it was suggested that we pick a topic of improvement for a specific month and try to drum up some support and work from other Wikipedians as well as regular members of this project. If you are all for the idea we should try and define a topic for February. Any support and topic suggestions?? MPJ-DK ( talk) 03:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I would say either no sources or BLP with sources needing improvement would be a good starting point. -
Galatz גאליץ
שיחה Talk
14:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I know we had this conversation before about creating a unique PW notability but it seems to have died. I have it bookmarked as having been at User:MPJ-DK/Notability (professional wrestling) but that appears to be dead. Does anyone have a copy of it and want to work on trying to finalize? - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 17:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, all. I feel like on NJPW's roster page, signifying which unit (faction) a wrestler is in would help some readers, and make understanding easier for a casual audience. I propose a new column in the Heavyweight and Junior Heavyweight lists to detail which unit a wrestler is listed as being apart of (as of NJPW’s website, as there can be disputes).
These pages are kept relatively in kayfabe but in Japan they usually go beyond that, with wrestlers usually only travelling with members of their own stable. They're also usually listed underneath the name of a wrestler on-screen, and are prominent in websites almost as much as WWE's brands. I feel as though this could help someone new to the product as well, as it's a key thing you need to learn to understand NJPW.
It could look like:
Ring name | Real name | UNIT | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Tanga Loa | Tevita Fifita | Bullet Club | NEVER Openweight 6-Man Tag Team Champion |
Tetsuya Naito | Tetsuya Naito | Los Ingobernables de Japon | IWGP Intercontinental Champion |
Toa Henare | Aaron Henry | Main unit | |
Togi Makabe | Shinya Makabe | Great Bash Heel (He would probably be listed as just a Main Unit member as GBH has no non-kayfabe ties. |
Feel free to dismiss it, but discuss civilly. ItChEE40 ( talk) 08:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi again, guys. I have another problem. A few months ago, I saw two users reverting themselfs in the Impact roster article. Their problem was two wrestlers, one said he was with the promotion, the other said he wasn't. So, I tried to help and use the rules: sourcing. However, every few days, user:Damolisher revert my editions. Impact Wrestling uses a lot of outside talent just for one ocasion and, since the rosters are for wrestlers who are signed with the promotion or stay regularly with the promotion, I delete wrestler who are unsourced. I tried to explain the user how wikipedia works and show him several policies and why his edits are wrong. For example, one week ago I deleted Bram, Crimson, Crazy Steve and Jax Dane. His answer was "I'd wager money they'll air a vignette for Steve on Impact this week" "Crazzy Steve is a former talent appearing on an episode of Impact who won a match and has posted things which indicate he is back with the company." I explained that sources don't support Steve's return to Impact, just he worked one night like Raven, Kikutaro... and this is SYNTH and assumptions and we need a source about them signing a contract or they will work regulartly with Impact. Now, he has said if someone can block me for my unconstructive edits. Can somebody help me? -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 09:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:PW/MOS#Professional wrestling career should have more guidelines. Examples of how to avoid proseline should be showed. Better writing guidelines should be added with examples of how to summarize properly. This is one of the most important sections of this project. ImmortalWizard (chat) 18:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
List of Ring of Honor pay-per-view events and List of NWA/WCW closed-circuit events and pay-per-view events list everything by the date of the event, not the date it airs. List of WWE Network events has it by the date it airs. They should be consistent. I believe actual date is more consistent with how things are typically treated. Air dates are typically listed as secondary, rather than primary. Any other thoughts? - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 21:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Anyone else have any thoughts? - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 19:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately User:ImmortalWizard went and got himself blocked and no unblock in sight. The reason I am posting here about it is that he nominated Dean Ambrose for "Good Article" and I am in the middle of providing a review of said article. But without IW around I am wondering if someone else wants to take over making improvements, or if I should just wrap up the GA review for now and fail it. Anyone interested in picking this up? MPJ-DK ( talk) 01:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Should Halftime Heat have it's own article or should it be left in the WWE Heat article. I prefer the latter, any ideas? --HC7 19:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
This is just a friendly reminder that February has begun, so, per the discussion here, we are looking to tackle any and all sourcing issues, particularly BLPs lacking sources and other articles that cite no sources. These can be found at our cleanup listing. Perhaps someone could replace the general sanctions banner at the top of the page to spread the word? JTP ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately User:ImmortalWizard went and got himself blocked and no unblock in sight. The reason I am posting here about it is that he nominated Dean Ambrose for "Good Article" and I am in the middle of providing a review of said article. But without IW around I am wondering if someone else wants to take over making improvements, or if I should just wrap up the GA review for now and fail it. Anyone interested in picking this up? MPJ-DK ( talk) 01:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of User:ImmortalWizard, his block is now over and he’s free to edit again. Hopefully he finishes his business with this GA Review of Dean Ambrose. Welcome back buddy! DrewieStewie ( talk) 01:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Just noticed this, lets get some comments here: Talk: Chris Hero#Requested move 5 February 2019. STATic message me! 00:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
All, I started a few nominations that could use a bit more attention. If you all have a minute if you could please take a look I would appreciate:
Thanks - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 00:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
As part of our clean up project I came across the article Gold Dust Trio. The entire thing is unsourced and written as if its copied from somewhere but I cannot find it elsewhere so who knows. The person who wrote it in 2007 (which is barely changed [3] from the current version) has been blocked permanently since not long after creating and based on their block log they have been blocked before for copyright violations [4]. Does anyone know more about this that they could help clean up the page? - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 16:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Here are the statistics for our Project Focus of the Month thus far:
Week | Focused | % Change | Total | % Change |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1610 | — | 1867 | — |
2 | 1605 | -0.31% | 1866 | -0.05% |
3 | 1629 | 1.47% | 1887 | 1.11% |
I am going on a short Wikibreak, but I am hoping that we get all of the help we can! JTP ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I was just wondering if anyone had an answer as to why we include sponsor on Template:Infobox Wrestling event. In my opinion unless its an issue, like WM34 when sponsors threatened to pull out over the naming of the women's battle royal, there is no reason to include this information at all. Besides for no reason to include at all, is it really important enough to include in the infobox? This seems like a pretty meaningless inclusion. No other event that I could find includes this. Does anyone really care that Castrol GTX sponsored Royal Rumble (2009)? I propose we exclude the sponsor from all events (and delete the parameter from the infobox), unless there is a notable reason to include. Thoughts? -
Similarly what are the thoughts on Tagline and Theme Song being included? Neither one really has an significance to the event. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 20:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, I don't know if it's already been mentioned, but No Way Out (2004) is todays featured article. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 15:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
== Fun (Miscellaneous) ==
When and how did you get into wrestling? Write down your favorite wrestler, match, event moment etc. THE NEW
ImmortalWizard
(chat)
23:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Greetings, I have requested page move at Talk:Justin Gabriel#Requested move 16 February 2019. Feel free to leave your opinions. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 17:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Please review the following, Thanks! THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 18:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I have created (well technically I turned it from a redirect into an article) a start-class article for current NXT UK Tag Team Champion James Drake. Feel free to improve on it (in fact please do), this was intended as a starting building block developed just enough to be added in as an article. I just wanted to put an opening product out. It obviously needs more information, which I'm requesting help on. But for now, I feel pretty proud that I've created my first Wikipedia article from the ground up :) DrewieStewie ( talk) 04:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I was surprised to see the Pedro Morales article is in such great shape. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#RD:_Pedro_Morales to get it listed on the main page. LM2000 ( talk) 02:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
In the early 90s there were three WCW/New Japan Supershows. In 1991 we had WCW/New Japan Supershow I, per WCW in 1992 we had WCW/New Japan Supershow II and 1993 we had WCW/New Japan Supershow III. The issue is that the 1992 and 1993 ones were called Super Warriors in Tokyo Dome and Fantastic Story in Tokyo Dome according to NJPW. There is no reason to have two pages for the same event. Therefore I propose:
The reason I am coming here rather than just merging is I have a couple of logistical questions I was hoping you guys could help with before I do.
Any objections? - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 20:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think it is high time that both Jimmy and Jey should have their own pages. Even the Bella Twins are separated. Or are they treated the same as Wright brothers? THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 20:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I have nominated CM Punk for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 21:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
If anyone is looking to do anything soon, we have eleven drafts in our project's scope:
Article existsBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Not sure if notableBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Not sure on the sources (they are spanish), but seems pretty notableBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Don't think is notableBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Article existsBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
PromtoedBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Could be notable - Sourcing doesn't sell it to meBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Promotion is borderline notable. Title history certainly isn'tBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Promotion is borderline notable. Title history certainly isn't - Seems like a vanity itemBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:NPOV violationBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
not enough sourcingBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
JTP ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
A user is going around making edits like this and this. Is this proper? Did the same thing to many articles like Jake Roberts and Greg Valentine. StaticVapor message me! 16:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I have been scanning through a few number of wrestlers' pages. Unfortunately, I was disappointed with the quality of most of them. The lead concentrates too much too much on their championship wins. Championship wins, while they are really important, there are other valuable stuff worth mentioning. I will be coming up with other articles also to enhance quality. Let me know your opinions. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 13:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I know WM is in a few weeks, but I was reading some websites and PWInsider [12] and SI [13] critized Lynch's storyline, around The Authority like Daniel Bryan. Do you think I can create a reception section with this sources? Like "Lynch's storyline was critized for including The Authority like the storyline Daniel Bryan had at WM..." -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 08:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
So I had this conversation with Galatz regarding when it's OK to have unsourced material of pro wrestling TV shows. They pointed out WP:PRIMARY and compared it other TV/movie plots. While this is understandable, I would like to know your opinions and clarification. The problem I have with this is say the show Raw is not the main subject of a BLP or a pay-per-view event. It's not like we are just talking about X beat Y and describing the show, both in BLP and event articles, a certain storyline is built on that TV show. It is known that whenever a primary source is interpreted, a secondary source is obviously required. I think sourceless material could exist at the very least in the Event section of say WWE Evolution, not the Production (Background and Storylines), since they were technically not part of the event and are literally secondary information. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 16:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I think the Method of Elimination columns should be completely removed from Elimination Chamber match tables since it ads nothing to the readers. If it exists, than the match results table should include all the wrestlers' finishing maneuver through which they finished the match. The finishes could be elaborated in the event match description instead. It is not a big deal of a change in this community and would not take much of our time, since there are a relatively few number of Chamber matches. Once approved, I would gladly remove the column from each table. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 15:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, I strongly disagree. I think the tables are of great interest to the readers (myself included) and shows how the match progressed and it makes it more clear to the readers. One thing it does that isn’t appropriate to put in prose but is appropriate in the table is that it shows the times of the respective eliminations. I am just not convinced that it needs to go and I can’t see how including this hurts. It’s relevant info, it gives something to read, it’s not crufty, trivial, or irrelevant. Plus, December to Dismember (2006) and SummerSlam (2003) have the table yet they’re still considered featured articles anyway. Plus, Elimination Chamber (2010) and Unforgiven (2008) (in that case the Scramble) have the tables and it’s still considered a good article. That’s just my view though. I see the point of including it. DrewieStewie ( talk) 22:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@ DrewieStewie: Here is an example. Right now the table on Elimination_Chamber_(2014) looks like this
Eliminated | Wrestler | Entered | Eliminated by | Method of elimination | Time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Sheamus | 2 | Christian | Pinned after a body splash from the top of a chamber pod | 26:03 |
2 | Christian | 4 | Daniel Bryan | Pinned after a running knee | 27:12 |
3 | Cesaro | 1 | John Cena | Submitted to the STF | 30:10 |
4 | John Cena | 5 | Randy Orton | Pinned after a Sister Abigail from Bray Wyatt | 32:38 |
5 | Daniel Bryan | 3 | Randy Orton | Pinned after an RKO | 37:30 |
Winner | Randy Orton (c) | 6 | Winner | Winner | 37:30 |
In my opinion it should look like this:
Eliminated | Wrestler | Entered | Eliminated by | Method of elimination | Time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Sheamus | 2 | Christian | Pinfall | 26:03 |
2 | Christian | 4 | Daniel Bryan | Pinfall | 27:12 |
3 | Cesaro | 1 | John Cena | Submission | 30:10 |
4 | John Cena | 5 | Randy Orton | Pinfall | 32:38 |
5 | Daniel Bryan | 3 | Randy Orton | Pinfall | 37:30 |
Winner | Randy Orton (c) | 6 | Winner | Winner | 37:30 |
It looks very similar, but we just show the method of their elimination. The move before it is not needed, in line with the results table. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 13:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Even though nobody has specifically countered my GNG argument that I used as a qualifier for the table, I give up and concede the lost argument. I’m honestly a little tired of being the only inclusionist that argues for the interest of the readers on this project and seeing things differently from the other users, there’s no way it seems like my side of the argument will ever win a consensus here, I honestly feel like an isolated radical and minority compared to everybody else here but I won’t give up my core beliefs since I’m entitled to them. But still I respect you all enough to concede here. I just ask for one compromise though. How about the finishers only be included on the table when the event section is yet to be written when the event just happened? Same thing with numerous articles (such as some early survivor series cards and WrestleMania 12) where the event section remains unwritten and the finishers info is nowhere else on the page. Does that at least sound fair and reasonable to you? DrewieStewie ( talk) 16:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
You right. Sometimes I just get frustrated and express it. I just gotta chill. It’s sometimess just frustrating when I feel I’m right and reasonable but there’s no real policy or guidelines out there to help my case such as now. At least I’m keeping my cool and not making any outburst claims like “IW shoulda never been unblocked since he wouldn’t have been able to suggest this”. But I’d much rather be civil and nice, as the pillar says. Anyways, about the discussion at hand. Is my compromise suggestion at least reasonable when above mentioned circumstances make it necessary, even if only short term temporary? DrewieStewie ( talk) 17:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Just for clarification and update, this conversation did not end up to just "keep all" or "delete all". I initiated by saying that there is no point on keeping the Method of Elimination column and it "should be completely removed". On the other hand, Lee Vilenski pointed out the whole elimination table is "a bit irrelevant" and the notable stuff (such as entering and elimination numbers) should be written in prose. Galatz then brought a very good point (which I am starting to agree with) that Method of Elimination should be about whether it was pinfall or submission, not the their finishing maneuvers. However, DrewieStewie suggested that the finishing moves should be written whenever the event section is empty and "the finishers info is nowhere else on the page".
I strongly oppose DrewStewie's suggestion. Let's take any other pay-per-view/event which does not have any Elimination Chamber, Champions Scramble or any sort of those matches. Assume the event is relatively new, and therefore the event section is empty, but the results table is accurately given with which wrestler won and match time. There ares till many things missing from the article one could argue. Those could be the finishing moves through which the match ended, if it's a no disqualification match, the interfering wrestler used his/her finishing move and helped someone to win (e.g. Bray Wyatt with a sister abigail to Dean Ambrose and Seth Rollins pins). Now you could also say that those information could be included in the results table, but that is too complex and not required. That is why, it shouldn't be an issue if the Elimination Chamber table does not have the close finishes mentioned.
Between Lee Vilenski and Galatz, I am neutral and sort of in between, although I lean more towards the latter. I would urge other members to chime in here too and aim to reach for consensus. If none is reached, I might ask for a third party opinion to have a fresher and general point of view. Thanks. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 16:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
As STATicVapor pointed here, a user was blocked for promoting ITNWWE. However, (Redacted) has created Vips 17 and they are promoting themselves such as here. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 10:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@ STATicVapor and ImmortalWizard: What was the account that was blocked? I can't investigate if the new account is a sock, if I don't know what the previous account was! -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@ ImmortalWizard and MelanieN: Sorry for not being clearer in my original post about this. The user in question was User talk:ITNWWE. StaticVapor message me! 22:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Anyone have a list of articles needing this added or are we stuck randomly going through show articles, hunting and pecking for articles? MPJ-DK ( talk) 23:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Here are WCW ones
Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 21:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I proposed a merge at Talk:List of WWE pay-per-view events that could use some more comments, it would be appreciated if some more people would chime in. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 15:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 18:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi everyone, feel free to let me know if this is considered WP:CANVASSING, however I'm looking for a new reviewer for my GA nomination of Wrestlemania IV.
If anyone fancies doing the review (the original reviewer never left a review), I'd appreciate it, even if it's a fail. I'm more than willing to review an article in return (QPQ). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Reading the WM and Fastlane articles, as always, the storyline section gained my atention. Did we agree how many storylines put in the section? I readed FA, like December to Dismember or GAB 2005. DtD 2006 only includes two storylines and GAB, three. Fastlane includes a storyline for every match, but som of them are too short, like Asuka-Many, Usos-McMiz, Revival-NXT-Roode and Gable, Rey-Andrade or New Day-Naka Rusev. This storylines are very short, only two or three lines. However, I can't find any policy or rule in our Style Guide. For me, this storylines aren't notable, they are just "the match was announced" without anything behind. What do you think?-- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 10:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
At the Royal Rumble, SmackDown's Shinsuke Nakamura won the men's Royal Rumble match, earning a world championship match of his choosing at WrestleMania. Nakamura chose WWE Champion AJ Styles. At Fastlane, Styles retained the WWE Championship in a six-pack challenge, confirming the Styles-Nakamura match at WrestleMania. On the post-Fastlane episode of SmackDown, Styles and Nakamura expressed respect for each other, but Nakamura promised to deliver a Kinshasa to Styles at WrestleMania and become WWE Champion, and teased a Kinshasa on Styles after saving him from an attack the following week.Styles warned Nakamura to not take him lightly and mentioned their previous encounter in New Japan. Styles then teased a Phenomenal Forearm on Nakamura after the two had won a tag team match on the April 3 episode.
At the Royal Rumble, SmackDown's Shinsuke Nakamura won the men's Royal Rumble match, earning a world championship match of his choosing at WrestleMania. Nakamura chose WWE Champion AJ Styles.
At the Royal Rumble, The Miz and Shane McMahon defeated The Bar ( Cesaro and Sheamus) to win the SmackDown Tag Team Championshipon Elimination Chamber (2019). The Bar had nothing to do with the match, we just need to know who was champion going in, not why. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 15:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING
A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details.
At the Royal Rumble, The Miz and Shane McMahon defeated The Bar (Cesaro and Sheamus) to win the SmackDown Tag Team Championship. On the following episode of SmackDown, The Usos (Jey Uso and Jimmy Uso) defeated The Bar, The New Day (represented by Big E and Kofi Kingston), and Heavy Machinery (Otis Dozovic and Tucker Knight) in a four-corners tag team elimination match to earn a championship match at Elimination Chamber.Could be written as
On the January 29 episode of SmackDown, The Usos (Jey Uso and Jimmy Uso) defeated The Bar, The New Day (represented by Big E and Kofi Kingston), and Heavy Machinery (Otis Dozovic and Tucker Knight) in a four-corners tag team elimination match to earn a SmackDown Tag Team Championship match at Elimination Chamber against The Miz and Shane McMahon.Much more simplified. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 20:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
There is an ongoing deletion discussion for the template {{ WWE personnel}}. Randy Kryn ( talk) 16:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I see that apuestas matches are becoming the general term around here for hair and mask matches. No issues with that and I totally support them being tracked here. However, I think that Loser Leaves Town Matches should also count as apuestas matches. They are not title matches or tournaments, so they cannot fall under those categories. They are not hair or mask matches, despite in kayfabe being just as important. The wrestlers are putting something on the line, so it is an apuesta aka bet, however, since Mexico has a different wrestling set-up without territories, they did not have such matches, so they've never really fallen under there. I think LLT matches are relevant and definitely noteworthy and in territories such as Memphis, they would be worth tracking. What are your thoughts?— Preceding unsigned comment added by KatoKungLee ( talk • contribs)
Hair and Mask matches are super common matches. Villano 3 had close to 200 total on his own. Super Muneco had over 100 and Estrella Blanca had 200. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatoKungLee ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
You have to understand why LLT matches were created in the first place. The US was really the only country with a territory style system, where you could leave a place and still have other places to work. Japanese companies always toured the whole country as did Puerto Rican companies and European companies. Mexico did have some areas that had their own little scenes, but it was never on a scale of the US. I'm not even sure if Mexico had any career vs career matches until Triplemanía I and I'm not actually sure if they ever had a LLT match, hence why it wouldn't be considered an apuesta. Mexico also had a ban on wrestling on TV from the 50's up until about '89-'90 and along with CMLL owning many of the arenas, it was a different situation.-- KatoKungLee ( talk) 16:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you guys retarded? Why does this website actively go out of its way to remove useful information? Video game soundtracks, movelists and now PPV theme music. Might as well just make all the pro wrestling pages blank while you're at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.101.126.133 ( talk) 21:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, could someone take a look at Talk:WrestleMania IV/GA2 (The original one was never completed either), regarding a conversation between myself and User:RadioKAOS. Should I remove this from the GAN list, start a new page, or otherwise? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 07:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
what threats?= then you imply that if you get called to ANI for your behavior that basically "PW Sources will suffer" is a nice piece of irony and shows a lack of self-awareness. MPJ-DK ( talk) 09:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm late for an appointment so don't have time to continue this right this minute. To touch upon something I referred to in this thread, it appears that CoffeeEngineer is being dragged through some Commons equivalent of ANI over those files and is now nominating many if not all of them for deletion. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a community reassessment for Cody Rhodes at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Cody Rhodes/1. It could use some input from knowledgeable editors. AIRcorn (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Recently a user has removed a lot of content from John Cena and Dave Bautista, citing it as trivial. It would be great if someone could go through it and make sure nothing significant has been removed. I noticed there is practically nothing in Cenas bio from 2002–2005, which is not okay. I am just trying to make sure I was not the only one seeing this happen and there is consensus for these content removals. StaticVapor message me! 02:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
For now, I don't feel the need to explain my actions in full details. If anyone feels like I have excluded some notable feuds, feel free to add them back. Other than that, I tried to compress the info as much as possible. Professional wrestling articles are complicated, or at least made complicated by the community. I chose to edit Bautista and Cena over other wrestling BLPs for a reason (again, I don't want to explain explicitly for now. It seems like many of the wrestling BLPs contradicts the projects own guide. The guide I believe is derived from Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). It says there: "Articles on fiction are expected to follow existing content policies and guidelines, particularly Wikipedia is not simply plot summaries. Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than "in-universe" details.". That's the best I could quote for now. Essentially, in my eyes a lot wrestling biographies fails to separate fictional content and real life aspect. Although it isn't entirely true, for many of the general audience, Bautista plays Batista the same way as he plays Drax. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 15:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I have requested and been granted suppression of 7 revisions on this page dated February 27 by an oversighter over a real life name that has now been redacted that was linked to a Wikipedia as a potential sockpuppet. This was suppressed as outing and harassment and defamation are against Wikipedia policy. Thanks for understanding. DrewieStewie ( talk) 03:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the way we use the pro wrestling event info box I feel like we're over complicating something. The info box has the option to include an "event chronology" (ex. links to previous SummerSlam and next SummerSlam) the "lastevent2" and "nextevent2" parameters. Right now the "last" and "next" even shows the full name of the article. Which means that currently we repeat the show name three times in very close proximity, making the info box more cluttered than it needs to be in my opinion and to some extend we are talking down to our readers and their ability to put information together.
Lethal Leap Year (1982) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Promotion | Southpaw Regional Wrestling | ||
Lethal Leap Year chronology | |||
|
Lethal Leap Year (1982) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Promotion | Southpaw Regional Wrestling | ||
Lethal Leap Year chronology | |||
|
So nothing illustrates a point like examples. so I see three types of show names where we can simplify (info box examples to your right)
First up - events that are called the same but just has the year behind it to distinguish between them
Second example clearly shows that the event is called "Lethal Leapyear" and that the last event was in 1978 and the next one was in 1986 without having to see "Lethal Leapyear" all over the place.
Swamp Slam: Doing it for Dewey | |||
---|---|---|---|
Promotion | Southpaw Regional Wrestling | ||
Swamp Slam chronology | |||
|
Swamp Slam: Doing it for Dewey | |||
---|---|---|---|
Promotion | Southpaw Regional Wrestling | ||
Swamp Slam chronology | |||
|
First example is pretty straight forward, but then some promotions throw us a curveball by having slightly different names for their events - example: NXT TakeOver or WWF's "In Your House" once they dropped the numbering scheme. Once again I think we can simplify this for everyone.
The focus is on the part that's different and have the "Show chronology" line fill in the rest, but it's still clear what the previous and the next event iis
Shopping Mall Mayhem XXI | |||
---|---|---|---|
Promotion | Southpaw Regional Wrestling | ||
Shopping Mall Mayhem chronology | |||
|
Shopping Mall Mayhem XXI | |||
---|---|---|---|
Promotion | Southpaw Regional Wrestling | ||
Shopping Mall Mayhem chronology | |||
|
Next I hear "Well what about Roman numerals"?? Your WrestleManias, your Clash of Champions etc.?
Treating the roman numeral the same way we would the year indicator.
I take issue with this. Lethal Leap Year never happened. They forgot to check the calendar! Seriously though, I'm also fine with this as long as it's consistent. -- JDC808 ♫ 06:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:WWE is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:WWE until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 02:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Recently, I AFDed The Hype Bros which didn't result in anything. I was wondering we should come up with a threshold for single pages of tag teams? I think this is crucial, not only for knowing which ones to keep/delete, but also to be able to create new ones like The Boss 'n' Hug Connection, Nia Jax and Tamina, Awesome Truth, 3MB, Heath Slater and Rhyno, Miz and Mizdow and so on. This came to my attention when I saw the existence of Vince's Devils. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 14:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
The wrestling section needs different notability rules than the rest of the site for a few reasons:
- Wrestling has always gotten little coverage. Not because people didn't care but because places didn't want to cover it due to it being fake.
- Wrestling up until 1980 was regional. This limited how much coverage there was, while the NFL, MLB and other sports didn't have that issue. Coverage is not a good way to determine notability. The Apter mags were also biased towards the Northeast since they were from the Northeast, while places like Continental didn't want Apter reporters there since they were only running Alabama.
- Places like Japan and Mexico still have a very undeveloped internet. One is due to poverty and the other due to people preferring to use their phones. The chances of either of those situations changing anytime soon is low, so even if results were listed in newspapers and stuff, it's going to be a long time, if ever before they get online. The language barrier also makes it very hard for people like myself to find information.
- There's little footage prior to 1980. Not because people weren't watching wrestling, they definitely were. But the VCR wasn't invented yet and due to the other reasons I listed above, it got less coverage.
- Many people have compiled regional results. However, they don't have official websites/publications so therefore they don't meet notability guidelines for sources and it can't be used. So someone like a Matt Farmer who has done a lot of work would have to type up the results then send them to a source like Dave Meltzer to be posted for it to be recognized, which probably won't happen.
KatoKungLee ( talk) 15:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
he language barrier also makes it very hard for people like myself to find information.has not been a barrier, nor should it be a reason to lower the notabiliy criteria. MPJ-DK ( talk) 16:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you MPJ-DK for restoring. Here are some thoughts I have right now based on where things currently are.
A professional wrestler is presumed to be notable if the person has worked for a major professional wrestling promotion on a regular basis or won a significant championship(bolding added by me) however I do not see where this championship is listed, except for groups. How long do they need to hold the championship, since someone like Nicolas held a championship but I do not believe should have his own page. Perhaps holding for over 100 days for individuals as well? 3 months seems to be a rarity in reigns these days.
I will try and do a more detailed read later, but thats my current thoughts. Anyone else? - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 16:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
One other though I forgot to mention. In terms of when to break out a a championship article, I think we need to look at WP:SPLIT. I believe unless it is over 50-60k range, there is no reason to break out. I am just not sure if this belongs here or in style guide (which already says to break out the list if it has 10 entries) but it cannot hurt to mention them in both, as long as they are worded consistently. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 17:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
My thoughts on some of your points:
1 - 100 Days of holding a title is too much. The majority of wrestlers would not meet this criteria, especially since a lot title histories are incomplete.
2 - If one day is good enough for any of the sports leagues, one match should be enough for wrestling as well. But there's discrimination towards wrestling and it's fans and the non-fan editors wouldn't allow it. May have to come down to holding x titles, wrestling for x years or something else for the territory days.
4 - We are sadly going to see almost no European wrestling articles on here ever for anyone before the mid-80's. The only people who could ever meet the criteria were super stars like Jackie Pallo, Big Daddy or people who had long careers in the US. Even tons of WOS wrestlers who had pretty good careers there will be eaten alive by the non-wrestling editors on here. Sourcing on that is next to impossible, since only we really only have WOS tapes and every other site will end up deemed a "personal site" due to the lack of footage. I see similar fates for Canadian wrestlers who never bothered in the US. Had Vince not bought Stampede, it wouldn't have gotten the coverage it got here. Larry Kasaboski ran a Canadian promotion for 30 years and I'd be surprised if even Dave Meltzer knew who he was, since he was regional and no footage exists. But obviously, he was doing something right.
5 - Refs would have to be super specific situations, mostly revolving around people who mainstayed in one promotion for decades or wrestled in matches. Announcers would probably meet similar fates.
As we talked about elsewhere in the thread, wrestling was all local prior to WWF in 1986 and since it wasn't in a national league like other sports, what happened in the middle of Canada wasn't really important to the people in Memphis. And since every territory minus Memphis was dead by 1992 and didn't keep their footage, we really only have various kayfabe mags and whatever newspapers may have covered, but someone would have to look through those and either write their own book or get Dave to publish them. I do have some fan newsletters sitting around from the 70's which would be sources and were the 70's kayfabe version of the Wrestling Observer, but the non-wrestling fan editors would never allow them. KatoKungLee ( talk) 02:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I moved the page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Notability where I imagine it will ultimately live. I tagged it as under construction and not yet ready. I also set up some redirects to it so we can short hand refer to it once finalized. Unfortunately WP:PWN and WP:NPW are both already taken. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 15:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
WWE 1990–2019, followed by WCW 1990-2001 is probably top tier (less time needed there to satisfy the criteria). After that it would be TNA during their time on national television on major stations (Fox Sports Net and Spike) so that would be 2004–2014. TNA drew less and had lower viewership than WCW, but we're a solid number two behind WWE from 2004/5–2014.
Following that is where it is not clear as day. ROH only had a network deals (2007–2011 and 2015) and even then, HDNet and Destination America have about the same reach as Pop TV (showed Impact after Spike deal) and BeIN Sports (MLW). Now ROH runs in syndication only in certain markets on FOX or CBS (the non-cable free channels), so viewership data is not available. ROH was the number three promotion for many years and then coinciding with the fall of TNA/Impact, they became the second largest promotion. This is sourced in the Ring of Honor article. They draw about 2000 to a record 6000 for their big shows, with the touring shows doing around 1000. My question is when does the notability start for them? 2015–2019 is probably the highest profile time in their existence, but they were well known as the number 3 promotion from 2005–201x.
Three is where is gets fishy Impact has a wide international reach, so even though they are not as big in US now, I do not think we need to do the cut-off on them. See List of Impact Wrestling programming for international deals. Then there is MLW (2018-2019). They are the only other promotion with a national deal if you don't count NJPW and Lucha Underground. They fight for third with Impact due to higher attendances. Impact draws about 1000-1500 for PPVs now, usually a lot less than that for television tapings. However, this is a very recent thing where business is picking up for them. While since mid 2018 MLW has been drawing 1000-2100 for their monthly supercards/television tapings.
So all four currently have a significant precense as American promotions. Impact and MLW slightly less than ROH. After that would be Lucha Underground, Women of Wrestling and Ring Warriors due to their television deals. All three of those are not year round promotions though. All three are kind of television shows, rather then full-time promotions. National Wrestling Alliance (late 2018-2019) is the only other one besides (WWE, ROH, MLW, Impact) that comes close to 1000 for their supercards in 2018–2019. While LU, WOW and Ring Warriors do their television tapings in small buildings.
Somewhere in there is where
Extreme Championship Wrestling lies. Very notable, but they didn't draw huge crowds and were only seen through tape trading for most of their existence. Only 1999–2001 they were on a major network, but in a awful time slot.
StaticVapor
message me!
02:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Also we should try to do subsections everytime we talk about a different part of the notability essay. It was hard to find a place to jump into the conversation when I first saw this lol.
StaticVapor
message me!
02:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Galatz - I do not agree with only 3 of the NWA territories being marked as notable. You really can't have a rule on notability for territories unless they only existed for a few months because they were all restricted to various regions and the regions were not fair. The WWWF had 3 of the top media markets in the country while people like Ron Wright were doing great business in the hills of Tenessee, where they didn't even have TV, yet alone anything else. Places like Omaha and Columbus were arguably the top territory at various parts in time. And some outlaw promotions like Gunkel's Georgia are really important to the story of territory wrestling yet would also not fit. Just because we don't have great information online about these places or videos doesn't mean they weren't noteable. Places like Florida aren't on the list, yet if it wasn't for Florida, JCP and Dusty would have never been what they ended up being. Please Please Pleaseeeee do not do this. KatoKungLee ( talk) 22:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The notability draft currently lists two European promotions (Joint Promotions and World of Sport). I should mention that this is a bit confusing as Joint promotions ran events including the World of Sport shows on ITV in the 70s. The WOS listed is the article for the 2018 reboot.
I would ask if the reboot could be added in the post 1990 list. Someone like Justin Sysum is probably due facto notable anyway for his body of work (he also played Hawkeye on Disney tours) but I would suggest anyone doing significant things on this show would be notable.
Otherwise, the only other places I could think of to be notable would be potentially FWA, PCW, ICW (Scotland) or PROGRESS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 13:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Lee Vilenski - If you go on youtube, they have some footage with CWA being on Eurosport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatoKungLee ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Here is a listing of all the items currently underlined which means we need additional discussion on. This by no way means these are the only items still open to discussions, just ones we still definitely need to discuss. I will try break each into its own bullet and sign individually to make conversations easiest to follow. I ask others to follow the same so we can keep each thought easy to follow. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 14:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking about this. I don't know if we could get it to pass, but Wrestlemania Weekend is definitely a wrestling event and is something worth keeping track of. It's been around now since 2005 and it's definitely notable. Seems like it would be worth a page. Thoughts? KatoKungLee ( talk) 20:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
There is an edit war going on at Dave Bautista in his wrestling career. My edits seems to have triggered a couple of editors. This has become a larger issue than I expected, that is of this WikiProject. Now, I am eager to really wait. I would provide all my arguments whenever I get enough time. I want to take away any judgements of mine and my opposing editors' actions. Instead, I want this discussion to solely concentrate on content relevancy. It appears to require a strong consensus, an possible third party involvement, depending on how far it goes. I advocate this complicated changes.
For now, I would like others to compare this version of Bautista with the current version. Try to identify the flaws and advantages of each. Leave your comments below, as many as possible. I will try to response whenever I get time, and will bring up my arguments in great detail. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 17:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I chose Bautista to show parallels to his movie career.
Consider this: "As 2005 began, Triple H realized the possibility of Batista becoming a threat to his World Heavyweight Championship. Triple H suggested that he not enter the Royal Rumble, claiming that it would be selfish of him to do so, and to simply focus on Triple H retaining the title. Batista entered anyway and went on to win the Rumble earning the right to participate in the main event of WrestleMania 21 against the World Champion of his choice.[42] In an attempt to persuade Batista to challenge WWE Champion John "Bradshaw" Layfield and challenger John Cena in a triple-threat match rather than him, Triple H concocted a scheme to have Batista run over in a limousine resembling the one used by Layfield. Initially, Dave did not want help from Evolution and wanted to confront JBL by himself. Triple H insisted that Evolution stick together and accompanied Dave anyway, saving him from the oncoming vehicle.[43] Batista became aware of the plot while sneakily eavesdropping on fellow Evolution members and signed a contract guaranteeing him a match with the World Heavyweight Champion Triple H at WrestleMania 21, thus leaving Evolution and officially turning into a fan favorite. Batista initially pretended that he would sign with SmackDown!, giving Triple H and Flair the "thumbs up", but turned it into a "thumbs down" before attacking the pair. He emphasized his departure by powerbombing Triple H through the table used for the contract signing.[44] " being changed to "In January 2005, Batista won the Royal Rumble, which gave him a world championship match opportunity of his choice at WrestleMania 21.[38] Despite initially choosing the WWE Championship,[39] Batista turned on Triple H and challenged him for the World Heavyweight Championship match at WrestleMania while leaving Evolution and turning fan favorite.[40] Batista won the World Heavyweight Championship from Triple H on April 3 in the main event of WrestleMania 21.[4][41]" I think that was a valid and necessary trim.
You have to reduce the fictional aspect and concentrate more on the real world aspect. You don't include "Bautista played this role in the movie, where the character did this and that."
Now, was all my trimming perfect? No. I shouldn't have removed the Deacon Batista. But I tried to compress as much as possible like the example I showed above. It's just reverting my whole edits were wrong. It is also wrong to say I practically removed everything between 2001-2005. Yes, I did remove some less notable feuds, which I could have been careful with. It also hurts the prose to include stuff like Y attacked X, they started a feud, X defended the title successfully. After that, Z attacked X, X then defeated Z successfully. Instead, I tried to change to X successfully defended the title against Y,Z and various others throughout the year.
Phrases like "Batista made his return on October 20 episode of Raw, interfering in a match between Goldberg and Shawn Michaels and "shattering" Goldberg's ankle with a chair. After the interference, Evolution came out, and Triple H rewarded Batista with $100,000" irritates me a lot. I want to keep this fictional stuff away, as supported in WP:Notability (fiction). I instead made it really reasonable in order to make sense to all types of audience: "He made his return in October and continued to work with Evolution.[30][31]".
I hope you guys understand my intentions. These are all best for both wrestling articles and Wikipedia. People in this community hate wrestling articles for stuff like John Cena is so long and equally emphasized than more notable people like Martin Luther King Jr. The too many fictional character mention on weekly basis is in fact bad for the encyclopedia. For the most part, I believe my edits were good. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 14:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
So what are your takes on this? I can volunteer on making a supplementary PW content guide. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 18:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
This month, we don't have a focus as we have for the last two. However, as this is the busiest time of the year for wrestling, I would suggest that as a team, we attempt to focus on the WrestleMania 35 article (and the corresponding articles, such as the WWE Hall of Fame). This article will likely be a big target for vandalism, or poor prose, so we should look to update and work well together. The article is also a good candidate for WP:ITN, so needs to be stable for inclusion on the mainpage. Let me know if anyone has any other proposals, or suggestions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello
A few months ago, I discussed the possibility of adding a 'unit' column to the NJPW Roster page. Among some not knowing the difference between NJPW units and stables, I was told that it could work if I gave a summary of what they meant in the opening paragraph. Well, I'm ready to implement it and I just wanted to know your thoughts before doing so.
Let me know what you think. ItChEE40 ( talk) 07:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you everybody, have just added it now. ItChEE40 ( talk) 23:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi. As every WM, we have problems with the storylines. I always think the storyline section is huge and over detailed. Like the last year, I have a problem with User:JDC808. I think he includes a lot of detail, he thinks I remove a lot and information is lost. The PW:SG says the storyline section has to include no more than "The storylines section should contain details on at least three rivalries and contain no more than 1,000 words." My version ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=WrestleMania_35&diff=prev&oldid=891009440) includes 1.900 words and his version ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=WrestleMania_35&diff=next&oldid=891009440) includes 2.500. I try to include just key points that changes the match, not promos, brawls or tag team matches. For example, the match between Rollins and Lesnar doesn't change if the match with Benajmin and the last brawl is removed. Also, the match between Miz and McMahon doesn't change if the Sanity match is removed, this is just middle points, not key points. The main event is full of Key Point, since the match changes with every one of them. Also, I hate the "On the XXX edition. On the XXX edition"... I think we can avoid it, like changing "Flair won the title. On the XXX edition of XXX Steph announced that the match becomes a Winner Takes All" to "Flair won the title, becoming the match in a Winner Takes All". So, what do you think? What section do you think is better? Which apporach is the best? -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 01:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone note http://www.pwmania.com/ on WP:PW/RS ? Their news and informations seem to be factual, accurate, up to date and reliable and they have been ai it for over a decade now. I think sources from them should be noted as reliable. Dilbaggg ( talk) 23:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok, understood. Dilbaggg ( talk) 12:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I missed any discussion of this, but in the past I noticed that for WWE steel cage matches, if a victor was declared via cage escape, it was noted as "[wrestler A] defeated [wrestler B] by escaping the cage". Now, I noticed that it is no longer on a few articles. Is this intentional or not? Since a cage escape is not a pinfall, and usually in the results table if theres no description like submission, countout, DQ, or cage escape, it is assumed to have ended via pinfall, which in these cases it hasn't. Thank you. DrewieStewie ( talk) 23:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I noticed it for No Way Out (2005) and Extreme Rules (2014). Might try a more broad search attempt soon though. Wanted to check in here though so I dont add disallowed information and also because nothing was mentioned in the MOS over this. As further clarification, these descriptions don't apply to matches like Punjabi Prison matches (since thats the only method of victory for the stipulation). DrewieStewie ( talk) 15:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Done I went through just about, if not every WWE results table, and found that all but 5 ( No Way Out (2012), Extreme Rules (2017), Greatest Royal Rumble (as mentioned above by Galatz), Extreme Rules (2018), and Starrcade (2018) events with a steel cage ending in an escape victory did not mention that finish in the results column. I have added "by escaping the cage" on every WWE results table with a steel cage match ending in escape in just about, if not every results table. Worked the whole day to do that, and it paid off. Accordingly, I'll add it into the MOS too. Cheers. DrewieStewie ( talk) 03:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
There are some inconsistencies with the British Championship that RevPro promotes. I've been doing some research and the RevPro website has the IPW:UK Heavyweight/World Championship history dating back to 2005. You can see it here. That is not correct. The British Championship came about in 2009 when the IPW:UK Heavyweight Championship and the All-England Championship were unified to create the Undisputed British Heavyweight Championship. Prior to the titles being unifed, that title history is IPW:UK Heavyweight Championship history. That should not be in the British Heavyweight Championship list. The history on the RevPro site and the list on here doesn't list the All-England title history. Having that in the list wouldn't make sense. So the IPW:UK World Heavyweight Championship shouldn't be any different.
If you look on the IPW:UK website, Wrestling-Titles.com, and Cagematch; you see that people listed as IPW:UK Heavyweight Champion after 2009 when the British Heavyweight Championship was created and before the split. Once RevPro was founded in August 2012, the IPW:UK and RevPro split in September 2012. Sha Samuels continued to be recognized as the IPW:UK Heavyweight Champion and the British Heavyweight Champion by RevPro. That means Dave Mastiff and Leroy Kincaide were also recognized as IPW:UK Heavyweight Champions even though the British Heavyweight Championship was born out of said unification. The unification seems pointless since they were both recognized as both IPW:UK Heavyweight and British Heavyweight Champions.
I want to make changes to the British Championship list. The only title history that should be on there is from 2009 onward. I would go ahead and do it, but someone will revert it. I can see that happening. That is why I decided to come here first and made this post. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 12:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking something. Recently, Sawyer Fulton joined Ohio Versus Everything. So, OvE is a stable, with the Crist Brothers and Callihan. However, the article is 90% about the tag team of The Crists. Do you think we should keep Irish Airborne (or other name) and Ohio Versus Everything as two separate articles? Like The Addiction and So Cal Uncensored. One is the tag team, the other is a stable. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 18:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/142.113.215.142 This person repeatedly puts non-sense on the same few wrestler pages and numerous articles for wrestling music albums. Maxwell7985 ( talk) 18:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for letting me know that the PPV sponsors don't appear in the infoboxes anymore. Why is this? I have noticed the same for theme songs also? -- TheVaughano ( talk) 12:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a topic that has been covered a lot recently, and it's something this project has been toying with for a while in the past. Maybe we should try to make it happen now. ★Trekker ( talk) 08:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, in that case, who's gonna make the first step?
Recently, ROH hired Angelina Love and Velvet Sky, creating The Allure with Mandy Rose. The stable is very similar to The Beautiful People, even sources support it. However, should we talk about The Allure in The Beautiful People article? I remember a discussion about The Band (TNA's nWo) would be included in NWO article. Some people said it's similar to Balor Club-Bullet Club, similar concept, even similar members, but different stables, so different articles. What do you think? -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 23:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a draft at Draft:Sky Pirates (professional wrestling) which I find concerning. I don't follow WWE's extensive social media output so someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this.
The Sky Pirates were Io and Kairi in NXT, Kairi and Asuka's team on Smackdown doesn't appear to have a name as yet. As Asuka and Io haven't teamed in WWE their prior history as two-thirds of Triple Tails (which was Askuka, Io and Mio Sharai) which makes up the overwhelming majority of the draft isn't relevant to a potential article about the Sky Pirates. Don't get me started on the largely made-up alternate names for the Sky Pirates that appear in the infobox.
What are the thoughts of others about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moab12 ( talk • contribs) 16:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I suggest we remove the "Resides" field from "Infobox professional wrestler". There are a few reasons for this:
I don't see that the "resides" field adds much value (or at least not enough to outweigh the above drawbacks) so would suggest we remove it. Any thoughts? McPhail ( talk) 21:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be an inconsistency between when those three terms are used. Most seem to use stable, but there are plenty of pages that have the other two. Is there any reason why we do one over the other? Our infoboxes all say stable, so it seems inconsistent to have the lead not. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 17:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Should arenas be in the project scope? I noticed TD Garden on one of our listings, which has hosted eight pay-per-views, but I fail to see why some arenas are in our scope in some aren't. JTP ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Can the event listings for all professional wrestling promotions use a uniform format? Currently, they're arbitrarily mixed up for no discernible reason
WWE, NJPW, WCW, and Impact use the following format:
Year
Date | Event | Venue | Location | Main Event |
---|---|---|---|---|
Date (without year) | Event Name | Venue name | Location Name | Example main event |
WWE also has an added decade header before each decade's set of years (understandable, given that they're the only promotion that spans more than two decades of PPV events).
Ring of Honor uses a slightly different format of the above, with an additional column for PPV number at the beginning. Also, Ring of Honor uses the phrases (taped) and (aired) instead of the more commonly used "Air date" (with the tape date being implied as the other date listed).
NXT and now All Elite Wrestling cut the year header from above the event list and just add the year to the date column. NXT and AEW also have their venue and location columns transposed.
I'm not a Wiki editor myself but I think this would help unify the formats and establish something useful going forward.
{{small|Aired MMMM, DD, YYYY}}
Hey there. So with the 24/7 championship, we are presented with a problem of convenience. That would be constantly updating the reigns. Should we propose something like "dont change the reigns until the show is over, given that reigns can change within a split second"? Especially for aritcles listing pictures for champions such as "List of WWE personnel" and "List of current champions in WWE". Don't get me started with expanding the reigns table. The quick reign changes can trigger amssive edit conflicts on a scale larger than ongoing ppv results and regular title changes. But with a championship constantly changing hands from that rule, should we refrain from updating the list until the show is over? This wouldn't necessarily be a rule, just a personal guideline/advice of thumb that editors can choose to follow out of convenience. This problem didn't exist with the hardcore championship, because Wikipedia both didn't exist and once it existed, it hadn't adequately expanded to this subject matter yet before it was retired. Thanks for the input. DrewieStewie ( talk) 05:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The current consensus is to not add visible match or frame scores to an article until the match is completed- in wrestling terms until a match is over, not the whole show. Best example would be a 2-out-of-3 falls match updated after each fall, or a Rumble match updated with each entry/elimination. Once the title is won it is actually not against the "liveupdate". As long as the editing is 1) Competent and 2) sourced, there is no guideline reason to not update it. MPJ-DK ( talk) 10:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Just wait until the. changes are taped and not live, fighting over "actual time vs. Kayfabe time ". Fun times ahead. MPJ-DK ( talk) 18:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm very glad I prompted discussion about this here, this is clearly a championship with many possible hypothetical scenarios that we need to discuss so that we're very well prepared for it. Galatz made yet another excellent evaluation regarding this, WWE could have many unimaginable scenarios for this belt, like social media title changes, or even Axxess, or even potentially (planted) fans claiming the belt. We need to figure out courses of action to take, with all these new-age problems that didnt exist with the hardcore championship. DrewieStewie ( talk) 20:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Couple of questions:
1. If Adam Cole wins the NXT Championship at TakeOver XXV, will he become an NXT Triple Crown Champion, if his brief run as NXT Tag Team Championship is recognised? Just to clarify, WWE somehow does not recognise Adam Cole’s brief run as one-half of the NXT Tag Team Champions with Kyle O’Reilly, when Cole replaced Bobby Fish after Fish got injured, before Roderick Strong joined and replaced Cole.
2. Dan Lawrence is listed as an AAW Triple Crown Champion, but the date of his AAW Heritage Championship win says ‘Unknown’. Should he be removed completely from the list? Drummoe ( talk) 10:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone else chime in here Talk:Triple_Crown_(professional_wrestling)#Is_someone_going_to_add_the_WWE_Women_section? - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 13:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I have never watched MMA, but I stumbled across an article which happened to be in Category:Scheduled mixed martial arts events. It made me wonder why they have articles for basically every announced UFC event. For PW we wait until there is 1 match announced or it is the next pay-per-view. For those who don't edit current articles, we created WrestleMania 35 as soon as the Royal Rumble ended, since it meant there were 2 matches announced. WWE Stomping Grounds is one month from today, we have a name, city, and venue but no matches; since it is not the next PPV it has no article. WrestleMania 36 has been announced for several months now. What makes UFC on ESPN+ 23 which airs 7 months from now notable enough for an article, when only the date has been announced, no city or venue. What makes our standards different than theirs? - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 16:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
There are always matches that have their own stand alone notability. Typically we include details about these matches at their events, but sometimes there are notable matches that are not at notable events. I just created Bret Hart vs. Tom Magee and Last Battle of Atlanta since both of those are extremely big matches, that have been discussed for over 30 years. Does anyone have any other matches they think should have their own page? I am happy to help work on them. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 19:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Talk:Grand Slam (professional wrestling) regarding the order of the lists that can use broad input. Please comment there. oknazevad ( talk) 17:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In light of the notices on the wikiprojects of aviation and military history, this is a notification of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 27#AEW on whether AEW should target Airborne early warning and control (the current redirect) or All Elite Wrestling (the proposed redirect). starship .paint ( talk) 11:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
In light of their NXT tag team championship win and inclusion in WWE 2K19, can we have an admin un-delete the article and allow us to expand the article? DrewieStewie ( talk) 02:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)