![]() | 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 105 | ← | Archive 108 | Archive 109 | Archive 110 | Archive 111 | Archive 112 |
I think it's time for the general sanctions thing to be revisited. It was proposed by someone who wants all professional wrestling articles deleted from Wikipedia and supported by a collection of likeminded (wrestling is stupid, people who watch wrestling are stupid, people who write about wrestling are stupid, don't you know it's fake?) editors ( /info/en/?search=Special:Diff/846970509#General_sanctions_for_articles_on_professional_wrestling). Looking at the log of notifications, one editor received a topic ban 3+ years ago, a handful of page-level sanctions were implemented 42+ months ago, and several notifications have been given--aside from one dispute 21 months ago, the last notifications were issued 30 or more months ago. There doesn't seem to be a pressing need for anything, so it seems like it is just declaring that one group of editors is of a lower class because of a bunch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes. Any thoughts? In particular, I know a bunch of you supported implementing sanctions in the first place, so I would be interested in hearing from you about whether you think the need still exists. Thank you. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Support: It's been that long? Thought it was stupid then and that hasn't changed. It's redundant to have sanctions when the intended purposes doesn't happen. I'm all for getting them lifted. Get the balling rolling and I'm sure you will have people, such as myself, supporting it. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 08:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Should we mention all title matches of a wrestler's career? For example, those title matches on the episodes of Raw/SmackDown/NXT that the champions retain their championships; e.g. Mandy Rose vs. Kay Lee Ray ( NXT Women's Title Match) or Charlotte Flair vs. Naomi ( SmackDown Women's Title Match). Are this kind of title matches notable? Or they are WP:PROSELINE material? Mann Mann ( talk) 05:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Discussion here, participation encouraged. — Czello 20:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
If I make his wiki page is it going to be deleted? LIWProWrestling ( talk) 03:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
It is regarding this change by IP, which is unsourced. The slamwrestling.net mentions a birth year of 1966, which I used to update his stats recently. But then again many sources (likely unreliable, mention 1965). Can someone provide a few other reliable sources, especially concerning the subject's birth year? Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 09:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Hey folks, not a project member but I just came across a new editor who has gone hardcore on creating some new articles on wrestling topics, but is definitely in need of some backup to get it right. Special:Contributions/Jdhfox gives you an indication of what's happening there - some questionable pages, some definitely falling into notability, a bit of mayhem overall. Current wrestling stuff is beyond my ken, any chance some editors from here could help out with tidying up some of these? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Some of articles about managers, referees, and ring announcers feels stub/incomplete. For example:
If you are interested in such topics (managers, referees, and ring announcers), then the mentioned articles deserve your attention/work. Mann Mann ( talk) 18:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I saw this edit and the content seems legit because I saw WWE 365: Alexa Bliss and there was a segment about such stuff (eating disorders and cosmetic surgery). Is using WWE Documentaries as source acceptable? e.g. WWE 24, WWE 365, and the others. Mann Mann ( talk) 05:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
The article Team International has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unverified and lacking evidence of notability for 13.78 years
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. —
Fourthords |
=Λ= | 23:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Regarding edits by the now blocked IP 99.247.6.183. Can anyone verify the changes made in Tamina Snuka and Jimmy Snuka articles? Thanks - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 09:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
There is an IP user ( 82.42.64.169) who has been constantly changing the content under the Grand Slam page on-and-off for a while now (possibly at least a year). The user would undo any edits I or others have made (especially in regards to two-time Grand Slam Champions) or make small unnecessary changes that they would revert back to almost instantaneously if someone was to interfere with it. After doing this for a while, they would disappear for a few months, only to come back and continue reverting the same few things on this page (they have done this a few times now). They have been warned several times on their talk page, but it doesn’t seem like it has gotten through to them. Drummoe ( talk) 04:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed that a huge number of wrestling articles contain As of {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}
(almost
400). This use of the "CURRENT" magic words should be avoided when dating statements, as it implies that the article has been verified more recently and is more up to date than it really is. Although these articles don't use the {{
as of}} template, the advice at
Template:As_of/doc#Usage_guidelines still stands that Using this template with values such as
{{
As of|now}}
or variables such as {{
As of|{{CURRENTYEAR}}}}
is a
relative time reference and the equivalent to using "currently", which is generally against the
precise language guideline.
I propose a two-fold solution:
As of [today's date], there have been 145 recognized reigns between 54 recognized champions and 11 recognized vacancies, have a bot go through and replace them all with
{{
As of|{{subst:REVISIONYEAR}}|{{subst:REVISIONMONTH}}|{{subst:REVISIONDAY}}}}
, which will lock in the last-edited date and properly place the articles in the appropriate subcategory of
Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements. It does mean that editors updating the numbers in the second half of the sentence will also have to update the date in the first half, but that isn't a significant amount of extra work.--
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 01:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
As of {{date||iso}}, 2020.
, which are just plain incorrect (as they will show today's month and day, but in a past year). --
Ahecht (
TALKThis IP user1/ IP user2 has added something like this "WWE officially began regarding Wrestler XYZ as a legend..." to the articles of some female wrestlers; e.g. [12], [13]. I reverted their edits because they were unsourced. IP user re-added them by citing a YouTube video from WWE channel; e.g. [14], [15]. So are such content acceptable or unacceptable? Or using that YouTube video? Mann Mann ( talk) 04:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
The term "legend" and "icon" has been thrown around so much that it sometimes loses its meaning. Earlier this year, Summer Rae was in the crowd of an episode of Raw, they called her a "legend" in which she is not. As it's been stated, it adds nothing to the article. If someone wants to create an article on "legends contract," I'm all for it as long as it can be sourced. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 22:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Should Britt Baker ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Randy Orton ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) respectively spell out that they are respectively known as Britt Baker and Randy Orton in each article's first paragraph? KyleJoan talk 19:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
The lead should typically open with the wrestler's real name that is supported by a reliable source, and if they are known by a ring name, it should be noted in one of the proceeding sentences.I think the idea that we're not mentioning the WP:COMMONNAME in the lead is kind of absurd. They are best known by their ring names, and so it is appropriate to mention it after their birth names the same way we would for every other article. — Czello 19:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
It's our manual of style. It's how we format our articles. — Czello 21:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Since MOS:HYPOCORISM and WP:PW/BIO possibly conflict, should BLPs include professional wrestling figures' ring names that only comprise a common hypocorism of the subject's real first name and their real last name in the lead section (e.g., Randy Orton ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), whose ring name is Randy Orton and real name is Randal Keith Orton)?
KyleJoan talk 03:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Beatrice St. Clere Priestley (born 22 March 1996) is an English-New Zealander professional wrestler, best known by the ring name Bea Priestley, which to me, seems obvious... But, if we said:
Beatrice St. Clere Priestley (born 22 March 1996) is an English-New Zealander professional wrestler. Wrestling under the ring name of Bea Priestley, where we cull the bold, it does at least comment that this is her ring name, but doesn't throw it in your face. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 11:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
a common hypocorism of [one's] real first name and their real last namenot being a ring name supports the conclusion that excluding this material is compatible with both MOS:HYPOCORISM and WP:PW/MOS. KyleJoan talk 02:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
If anyone can help revert/check the articles edited by WM17, I would appreciate it. The editor deleted any mention of Meltzer or his reviews from a bunch of articles. I've gone through a few, but there are more--some of which they edited multiple times, so it's important to catch it all rather than just undoing the most recent edit. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
While I personally dislike and see Meltzer as an unreliable narrator who speculates on a lot of stuff that is later proven false and question his sources but recognize his opinions and reviews, this is clearly vandalism. DrewieStewie ( talk) 13:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm aware of WP:PW/Notability but it's a bit confusing for me. So I need your opinion.
Do they pass WP:PW/NBIO criteria? -- Mann Mann ( talk) 20:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sareee#Requested move 17 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Mann Mann ( talk) 09:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Bobby Eaton 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. BloatedBun ( talk) 07:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rok-C#Requested move 11 June 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Mann Mann ( talk) 07:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The titling of articles on tag teams and stables is pretty inconsistent. For example, we have " New World Order (professional wrestling)" but " The Four Horsemen (professional wrestling)", " Corporate Ministry" but " The Corporation (professional wrestling)".
The policy guidance WP:THE is pretty clear that "The" should generally not be used in titles other than in a few circumstances. Given this, and to ensure consistency, I think we should be shifting articles to titles that don't begin with "The" other than where circumstances require an exception be made.
I have moved a few articles, and will raise a move request for some others, but would welcome any thoughts. McPhail ( talk)
This is the discussion so far:
@ Dilbaggg - why exactly is the feud with Rollins "crucial" and "vital"? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha ( talk) 17:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC) @ ItsKesha it was a significant feud, just because you do not think it was, doesn't eman it was not, you erased the entire 2015 section as if orton was inctive back then, and your claim this was week by week coverage is false, it only covers significant feuds and matches during this time frme that have been established here for 7 years, you are no one to just erace them based on your personal views. Dilbaggg ( talk) 20:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
All i am saying is taht this well sourced
WP:RS information that he is trying to remove cover's Orton's entire 2015 year, like as if Orton was out of action for whole of 2015, nobody except @
ItsKesha says its not notable, and as he is removing such lenngthy information I kept urging him to get a proper consensus. He repeatedly refuses. I already started a support/oppose voting on the talk page but he deleted my edit. So I leave it to you guys to decide, if you guys agree with ItsKesha then ok, but without reachinga proper consensus ItsKesha can not purge such crucial contents that he claims are not
WP:Notable based on his personal views. here is what he is removing:
[21]. Anyway decision is left to more experienced
WP:pW members, lets gather a consensus and decide.
Dilbaggg (
talk) 12:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Wow, 200k+ is insane for a wrestling biography. The biographies of the older wrestlers are able to summarize careers that exceeded 30 years in 100k or so, why are the recent ones so absurdly detailed? Ric Flair has been around forever, done it all in 50 years, and his is not even that huge. I would say that only The Rock, Cena, Lesnar, Hogan and the like would warrant something that enormous, given their crossover into other industries. My “vote”? Keep what has been removed off the Orton article and chop it down to a reasonable size. Old School WWC Fan ( talk) 05:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello all. It’s been a minute, I hope all is well with you all. I’ve recently gotten into a bit of a dispute with @ ChicagoWikiEditor: concerning the inclusion of “professional wrestler” and “actor” in the introductory sentence. Ever since his surprise appearance at the Royal Rumble this year, I felt he met the criteria to be considered a professional wrestler, as he was making weekly appearances in the buildup to WrestleMania 37, held the 24/7 Championship for an extended period, wrestled highly proficiently at Mania (as opposed to other celebrity guests over the years), and still makes sporadic in-ring appearances from time to time (such as being in the final 5 in the Royal Rumble match). This, in my opinion, greatly qualifies considering him to be a professional wrestler, and he’s bound to make future appearances whenever he finds a break from touring. As to being an actor, he’s cast in the starring title role for an upcoming Sony’s Spider-Man Universe film, El Muerto, in 2024, based on both his moonlighting as a wrestler and his performance in Bullet Train. Throughout the year, I have reinstated “actor” and “professional wrestler” into the intro sentence as it kept being removed by various IP’s and editors without consensus and usually without an edit summary. However, ChicagoWikiEditor has more aggressively removed the occupation listings, citing WP:ROLEBIO, which I vehemently disagree with, believing that he has achieved independent notability in the wrestling and acting world, aside from being a rapper and singer. The dispute has become a little bit tense between us. I wanted to seek other opinions here on WikiProject Professional wrestling and see what you all think. Thank you for your attention and opinions. DrewieStewie ( talk) 03:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
References
This is a curious case. He is bound to continue doing this for years, since he was WWE’s top selling act for some time and will likely remain a magnet for casual fans for the foreseeable future. After all he is the top ranked pop star, of any genre, ATM. So, where is the threshold to list his part time gig in the lead? Winning a title? That seems good enough for David Arquette. Formal training? He has that, to a degree. A WrestleMania moment? Check. Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with listing him as a professional wrestler, as long as it’s not embellished by calling him “undefeated” or anything that is too fancrufty.
Besides leading “El Muerto”, he now he has enough credits in notable films to be considered notable under WP:ACTORBIO if he was not a musician, by that standard alone it should be mentioned somewhere in the lead. Old School WWC Fan ( talk) 04:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not pushing for blocks. I'm simply stating that both of you have been out of line with the edit warring. This isn't just directed at the two of you, though--many editors in this project feel that it's okay to use argumentative edit summaries in place of actual talk page discussion. As for ChicagoWikiEditor's question about whether I have an opinion, yes, I do: you have been the more argumentative, fingers-in-your-ears, my-way-or-the-highway editor in this discussion. If you mean regarding the content dispute, I'm not particularly interested. I just think both of you (and everyone in this project) would do well to remember that edit summary argument wars deserve a block, and everyone with that editing style contributes to lowering Wikipedia's opinion of people who edit professional wrestling articles. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 07:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
With the announcement of the AEW World Trios Championship, just wondering if the draft of the article has been started. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 00:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello. A few weeks ago, I saw User Drimes removed the timeline from Bullet Club. I asked him, he answered that timelines are against MOS:COLOR or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility. [22] Should we remove timelines from articles? Are pretty common on stables. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 10:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Another question about stables. Since Bullet Club is huge, we include a sub-group section (at least, It's the first article where I saw it). However, during the last years, people include a lot of people as sub-groups. Inner Circle had Santana and Ortiz (good), Le Sex Gods (okey) and Sammy Hager (? just two matches as tag team). Then, I realized that several articles includes sub-groups which are just different combinations of the stable, like Decay [23] or Team Taz [24]. People paired without any criteria. Bullet Club has 22 sub-groups, but only 7 of them have articles. I propose: A sub-section only for factions/teams with article. Article means it's notable, so it's a clear criteria. If we go by a name, several small teams have names, like Sammy Hager. Winning a title... several members won a title as tag team, like Naito and Sanada or Owens and Fale, but it's not a good standard since some of them had briefs title reigns. So, what do you think? Only teams with article? -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 10:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Does MOS:ALLCAPS apply to the whole article? Or is the lead section an exception? e.g. writing an all caps ring name in the lead. Consider Kairi Sane as an example:
A, B, or other suggestions? -- Mann Mann ( talk) 13:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Please participate in this discussion: Talk:NXT Women's Tag Team Championship#Roxanne Perez. The discussion is about if she is a two-time or on-time NXT Women's Tag Team Champion. Regards. -- Mann Mann ( talk) 02:29, 7 August 2022 (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've noticed an uptick in disputes around whether certain partnerships between companies exist, especially when the sourcing isn't explicit. In particular, List of Impact Wrestling personnel has been subject to edit warring. So, as a WikiProject as a whole, let's establish a consensus for how explicit sourcing has to be to make the statement that a working relationship exists. In addition, we should also determine what constitutes a promotion recognising another promotion's championships, and whether a relationship is required for that.
Arguments in favour of clear, explicit sourcing have been that anything outside of this is considered to be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH - things on Wikipedia need to be adequately sourced. Arguments against this are that the appearance of wrestlers/championships on different promotions constitute a WP:COMMONSENSE justification for inclusion.
So, the question is: how explicit does a source have to be to establish a relationship between promotions? Does a source need to state it outright, or is it evident that a relationship exists if there is any degree of crossover, such as a title appearing on/being defended on a different promotion? Or is there a middle-ground to be found?
Courtesy pings to @ HHH Pedrigree, Vjmlhds, SkylerLovefist, and Addicted4517. — Czello 10:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that's how Wikipedia works. With sources. Not with personal assumptions. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 12:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Dude, wtf are you talking about? Brittney? Simple, you said two promotions have a partnership, but the source doesn't support your claim. Everything else, wp:or. This is your usual contempt for Wikipedia policies HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 14:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Admire the persistence, if nothing else. BTW, next time you call me dumb (or any equivalent thereof), I'll make sure an admin pays you a visit. (and BTW me making general jokes about Wikipedia like the house catching on fire isn't WP:Personal, as Wiki has numerous essays where it pokes fun at itself). Vjmlhds (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
My point stills the same. Eric Young has worked for several promotions in USA. Impact titles are defended on other promotions. Only AAW is named as partner. Several years ago, one promotion here booked the ROH champion Davey Richard's. It doesn't mean ROH and the promotion had a partnership, just that the promotion booked Richard's and ROH allowed it. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 20:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the sourcing should be explicit and specific about it being an ongoing partnership, not just drawing a conclusion based on a couple of appearances. That's WP:SYNTH, and ignores the fact that, unlike WWE, Impact and AEW/ROH allow contracted talent to appear in indy promotions with their titles, and that some of those champions have indy promotions they work at fairly regularly because of their personal relationships with those promotions, not because of a partnership between the promotions. Without an explicit source stating that the promotions as a whole have a working relationship, it cannot be assumed that there is such a thing and not just the one promotion giving permission to their champion to appear on a show. oknazevad ( talk) 21:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm in late on this, but to cut a long story short I'm with Czello and company on their points. I'll just add that WP:COMMONSENSE is not a sub for WP:IAR. Where there is original research, it has to be nipped in the bud immediately. That rule is hard and fast and no other rule can replace it. The best source for a partnership existing is the company's official website itself. We had this previously with New Japan. Impact had an announcement of the partnership - that was an instant thumbs up for it to be included. In this case a primary source is actually the best under the circumstances. Just because a wrestler appears doesn't mean there's a partnership - and Mickie James in the Royal Rumble in her Impact persona is the perfect example. WWE hasn't partnered with anyone since the 90's. It was a once off. There appears to have been a lot of assumptions here now, and assuming is original research by default. Addicted4517 ( talk) 00:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
So, from what I can see, there appears to be a moderate consensus for the following two points:
Any final points before we can close this? — Czello 11:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Link. McPhail ( talk) 12:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rinku Singh (wrestler)#Requested move 8 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky ( talk) 08:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
In the Triple H era, many people who have previously been with WWE have been making their returns at a fast rate. In the case of Dexter Lumis, due to the nature of his storyline, he has appeared on both Raw and NXT, and no formal brand designation has been listed.@ Vjmlhds: and I have entered a disagreement over this, with him saying 4 appearances on Raw is sufficient criteria for that designation, and that his NXT appearance was a one off. Personally, I believe the following criteria is sufficient for a returning wrestler on the main roster/debuting wrestler bypassing NXT: 1. If they are under contract, they are listed on WWE’s active roster page. 2. If They debut/return on one show and remain on that one show without appearing on another brand or being declared a free agent, they are on that brand by default (Karrion Kross, Bayley, Hit Row, Johnny Gargano). 3. If they debut on one brand and appear quickly on another brand without mention of brand status (as has happened with Dexter Lumis due to the nature his storyline), they are unassigned until further notice. 4. Any verified internal roster leaks may supersede 2 or 3 if contrary to those criteria.
We cannot say Lumis’s NXT appearance was a one-off already, as that is WP:CRYSTALBALL and the outcome of his storyline is uncertain. As for John Cena, he has been listed as an ambassador, despite his part time wrestling status, his latest recorded match not having quite yet been a full year ago, and his latest appearance being nearly three months ago with a Theory feud having been teased, so I think he should be in unassigned. Titus O'Neil has an official title as Global Ambassador, is in the HOF, and hasn't wrestled since 2020, though insists he hasn't retired and is simply out due to injury, so he can be placed on a brand once he returns. Maryse is a bit more confusing of a situation due to having rarely wrestled since 2016 (though having wrestled in 2022), her only now appearing as Miz’s manager sporadically, and her starring in Miz and Mrs. That one is more up for discussion. But these are my thoughts, what do you think? DrewieStewie ( talk) 15:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
This is at the Talk:New Era (WWE) page, regarding the WWE Championship. Section is called " Break for wider discussion regarding fiction vs real life" I request all WP:PW members tp participate ASAP. Dilbaggg ( talk) 14:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Just came across this, but earlier this month a user took it upon themself to move the page for the wrestler known as ACH from "ACH (wrestler)" to A. C. H. This change was not limited to just the title, but with the help of another user, done throughout the article as well, with every mention of "ACH" changed to "A. C. H." Nor was this style change limited to ACH's article, but in just a couple of minutes of looking, A. R. Fox, B. J. Whitmer, P. J. Black and Q. T. Marshall have all been moved and re-written by the same two users, and I would have to assume there are more. Supposedly this was done in accordance with MOS:SPACEINITS, but MOS:SPACEINITS states periods and spaces should be used unless "1) the person demonstrably has a different, consistently preferred style for their own name; and 2) an overwhelming majority of reliable sources use that variant style for that person," in which case it should be treated as a self-published name change and left as is (example: CCH Pounder). ACH, AR Fox, BJ Whitmer, PJ Black, QT Marshall, and in general most wrestlers this generation with initials in the names (CM Punk, AJ Styles, AJ Lee, MVP, etc.) don't use periods and spaces in their names, and as a result they're names are most often written without periods. Thoughts and opinions, and should these names/articles be reverted to their commonly used forms? 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:21A8:D7C4:F884:19F6 ( talk) 02:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
We need more WP:PW/RS. The issue with PWMania is that Marc Middleton was an editor but he left now and since 2016 PWMania has always published factual and accurate articles. Bleacher Report was rightfully given a second chance, so should PWMania. Dilbaggg ( talk) 14:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Go back and re-read the thread in Archive 109 about The Sportster. Then explain how your arguments meet the criteria for WP:RS. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 01:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I suggest adding WP:FANCRUFT to PW Style Guide => Professional wrestling career because many PW articles about wrestlers have such issues.
Sounds OK? -- Mann Mann ( talk) 05:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Io Shirai#Requested move 4 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Mann Mann ( talk) 08:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the category Openweight wrestling championships and I got to thinking that since AEW doesn't have weight classes. Wouldn't that make the AEW World Championship an Openweight Championship as well? Has there ever been a discussion on what constitutes an openweight championship? If not, it would be good to establish a consensus for the criteria for Openweight Championships. You could also expand that to the ROH World Championship. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 21:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
References
There is a discussion about requesting moving List of IWGP Heavyweight Tag Team Championship to List of IWGP Heavyweight Tag Team Champion which at Talk:List of IWGP Heavyweight Tag Team Championship#Requested Move September 5, 2022.
The list should be titled List of IWGP Heavyweight Champions not List of IWGP Heavyweight Tag Team Championship. But since the former is a redirect, you can't move it. Plus the former is how these lists are titled. You wouldn't have a list of IWGP Heavyweight Champions as List of IWGP Heavyweight Championship. It makes no sense logically. I am submitting it to a technical requests under uncontroversial technical requests. No reason why it would be controversial. Just standard stuff that should have been done awhile ago. I've only started a discussion to cover my bases. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 09:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Just to mention, according to WWE.com, the unification matches took place yesterday, but the final champions aren't Bron & cia. According to their profles, Bron, Rose and Pretty Deadly aren't recognized as UK champs. [30] [31] Also, the titles doesn't mention them as champs. [32] [33] [34]. So, looks like WWE doesn't recognize them as the final UK Champions. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 09:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Kirby1310 adds "inaugural" to Championships and accomplishments. Take a look at their edits; e.g. [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]. Acceptable or unacceptable? Was there a discussion/consensus about this before? -- Mann Mann ( talk) 01:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Reading the history part of the project, the last/final part was included in 2010 [41] the discussion took place on 2008 [42] HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 05:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kay Lee Ray#Requested move 6 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky ( talk) 19:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Recently the article "McMahon-Levesque Era" was deleted at AfD. This article posited that we had entered a new "era" of wrestling. Fram nominated it, pointing out it had no Google News sources. I made the point it was WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, to which LM2000 agreed. HighKing also called it WP:OR. StarTrekker commented that this "era" is not yet well established. Kazanstyle agreed with Fram's original nomination. In the end the article was deleted.
However, now material stating that the New Era has ended and a, uh, newer era had begun, still exists at New Era. My question to this Wikiproject: is the New Era ongoing? Are there substantial sources that state the New Era has ended? Do off-handed comments by Becky Lynch (in the sources for that section) indicate that the New Era has ended and something else has begun? — Czello 13:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
As we appear to agree that a post "New Era" era is disputed, can I suggest this period on History of WWE is simply titled "Retirement of Vince McMahon", as it's a more notable even and more neutral than pushing disputed claims? — Czello 18:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Since you ahve a problem with English, which I consider a personal attack. Please don't do it again. Presently not a single person has agreed with you so I find it difficult for you to say there's not a consensus. As has been explained to you, we're not denying these terms have been used, but they are too vague and ambiguous to stand up as a defined period of wrestling. The sources, incidentally, don't do it this - they just mention that WWE declared a New Era had begun and then it was never mentioned again. I've addressed your points before, please re-read. — Czello 12:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
None of the five sources provided above clearly show that they intend "Post-Vince McMahon Era" as a title for a (probable) forthcoming movement/timespan in WWE. One (F4W) doesn't use the term at all. Two don't capitalize "era", which seems to indicate that they are using it as a common noun rather than a title. The remaining two capitalize "Era" but only in the context of an article title in which all nouns are capitalized. This is far from conclusive. In addition, even if one of the writers is proposing a potential title for a "new era" (assuming people end up calling it that at all), it would obviously make sense to wait to see what the common name comes to be rather than jumping the first sequence of words that someone tosses out. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 19:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I suggested this above, and it has gained the support of StarTrekker and Oknazevad, so I'd like to formalise this discussion.
The problem: Both Reality Era and New Era (WWE) are articles that myself and others have accused of being heavy with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The "New Era" is also a marketing term that was used briefly by WWE in 2016 and never mentioned since, which should be avoided per WP:PROMO. The notability of these articles are also in question. The insistence of wrestling fans to categorise everything into eras is often unencyclopedic WP:FANCRUFT, and these two articles appear to be a clear example of this. Another problem (which caused the above debate) is that these intangible, nebulous, and arbitrary "eras" have subjective start and end points. There will never be a true consensus around these supposed periods of wrestling, because they're ill-defined.
The solution: However, it's pretty undeniable that the retirement of McMahon has caused a major shift within WWE. Furthermore, because the definition of what the period over the past 8 or so years has been is muddy, merging these into a new history article is the most neutral solution, and avoids both original research and marketing terms. It should also please those who argue the "New Era" has ended, as we end this period in 2022. Indeed, I propose this is the best of both worlds as it should please those who want to acknowledge this period but also those who feel the standalone articles are problematic. Finally, it helps reduce the bloat of History of WWE (an article which will frankly have infinite growth) as we can merge excessive content into the new article. As time goes on, we're going to need to do this anyway. — Czello 17:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Per the discussion [ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&diff=1107141841&oldid=1107141668] and the reasons given on the proposal for deletion in the article itself. Dilbaggg ( talk) 13:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for pages PRODed before or previously discussed at AfD or FfD.- from the PROD page). However, as there is now near-unanimous agreement that New Era needs to go, here's what I propose. Originally I suggested that Reality Era and New Era be merged into a new article. It appears you agree with this for New Era, but not Reality Era, correct? As such, I propose that instead of creating a new article, we simply redirect New Era to History_of_WWE#New_Era_(2016–2022), and integrate any additional material there. How does that sound? — Czello 15:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Czello bro a slight problem has arisen @ User:AndyTheGrump is reverting the proposal citing the previous AfD, but that time result was no consensus, I am sure we are allowed to relist it for AfD as no consensus was reached, anyway this time deletion has my full support. Dilbaggg ( talk) 17:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Czello Your new proposal i did not read clearly before pls pardon me bro, but yeah it sounds good. The existing section on History of WWE regarding that era is sufficient enough, so yeah if its just used as a redirect there its all fine, goodluck :) Dilbaggg ( talk) 17:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Ric Flair has one unrecognized US title reign. We made that reign grey and don't count it towards his total number of reigns, even though everybody but WWE recognizes that reign (it got left out for reason at all other than WWE forgetting to add it).
Then we have Kevin Nash awarding himself the WCW title. WCW did not recognize this, WWE does not recognize this. Yet the reign is not grey. It looks like a normal, recognized reign. Only the note says that nobody recognizes it.
I propose making Nash's reign grey, just like Flair's reign, which is way more recognized than Nash's. WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 22:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Over the past few weeks there's been some significant changes to the professional wrestling article, particularly the lead, without discussion, including some back-and-forth and reverting. Can members of this project take a look and see if they agree with these newer edits, or if we should revert back to a more stable version? The latest bulk of changes which have occurred over the past 24 hours can be seen here. — Czello 08:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I would propose we add a field for "Citizenship" to Infobox professional wrestler. This field appears in Infobox person but not in Infobox professional wrestler. I think this would be helpful for wrestlers born in one country but with citizenship in other countries, e.g. Miro (wrestler) or Madusa. What do people think? McPhail ( talk) 14:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The official name of the stable is Damage CTRL. WWE and some sources uses it; e.g. [66] [67]. However, some other sources uses Damage Control as the name; e.g. [68] [69]. So should we use Damage Control or Damage CTRL? Considering Wikipedia guidelines, the official name, and sources. -- Mann Mann ( talk) 01:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Category:Professional wrestling jobbers. McPhail ( talk) 16:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone know an easy way of reverting CRISP CASHMERE's latest series of edits? He removed the managers from match listings in quite a few articles for no apparent reason. [70]. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 15:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:WrestleMania 40#Requested move 9 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 17:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Our "list of personnel" pages generally split the wrestlers by gender. The rationale for this is unclear - e.g. WWE group everyone together. Should we just group all wrestlers together? McPhail ( talk) 09:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Vjmlhds has already updated List of WWE personnel, {{ WWE personnel}}, List of All Elite Wrestling personnel, {{ All Elite Wrestling}}, List of Impact Wrestling personnel, and {{ Impact Wrestling personnel}}. For Gender identity, add the relevant content to the Notes field. For example, Abadon => List of All Elite Wrestling personnel => Women's division => Notes => non-binary and etc. -- Mann Mann ( talk) 02:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:WWE Day 1 (2022)#Requested move 26 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
General sanctions have been levied against projects over the years. I don't remember (or possibly know) what led to the sanctions. (A reminder would be helpful). This project has had sanctions since 2018. I don't know procedure, but I'm thinking enough time has passed that we should review everything and put forth a proposal or what have you to have them lifted. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 20:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
What sanctions are you talking about? Could they lead to something terrible like this WP being taken down? WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 14:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Hey guys, a reviewer came to my draft and says it needs more infomation to be a
WP:SPLIT. i believe this article has enough infomation to be splitted off of
WWE 2K#Create Mode. Just need your help, Wikipedia is all about teamwork and making the wiki better and better so it would be awesome if you would give your thoughts about the draft, and help edit it to make it have a better chance of being accepted. The draft is
Draft:WWE 2K Creation Community. Thanks.
SMBMovieFan (
talk) 13:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet.
Nythar (
💬-
🎃) 00:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I was looking at what is on my watchlist and I realized that I totally forgot I have the following on it.
Last year, it was brought it up that wrestling TV shows such as Raw and SmackDown, for example, should be have a list of episodes. There were varying opinions on the matter. A draft of sorts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/RawDatabase, was created. The person who started all of this, has doesn't anything in over a year. I added to it, but since then, it's fell flat. Since it's a draft of sorts and no further headway will be made, it shouldn't have been around this long. If it was in actual draftspace, it would have been deleted by now. Drafts not edited in six months are deleted. Unless someone wants to take it over and continue working on it (highly unlikely), it should be removed. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 08:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I looked at some title histories. Take Cruiserweight title (96-07) for example. There are columns for days and days recognized by WWE. But then there is also a note saying how many days are recognized by WWE. Am I right in assuming that the note should be deleted and the days recognized by WWE should be changed to the days mentioned by in the note? Screenshot if my text was confusing: https://ibb.co/JdqMdNc Yellow "circle" is what I assume is how it is supposed to be. WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 20:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nikki A.S.H.#Requested move 6 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Mann Mann ( talk) 11:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Template talk:WWE Championships. It also affects the individual titles' articles. More input is needed for consensus. oknazevad ( talk) 19:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
WWE 2K has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. « Ryūkotsusei » 19:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
An editor removed FCW Divas Championship and Queen of FCW in this revision. Should we restore them? -- Mann Mann ( talk) 16:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
"Luke Harper and Erick Rowan" to "Bludgeon Brothers". McPhail ( talk) 19:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
*** Some fresh eyes on the following discussion would be appreciated ***
Not trying to give you a hard time, but on this issue, you are wrong.
With both Roman Reigns and the Usos, they defend both sets of titles at the same time. WWE + Universal = Undisputed WWE Universal Championship, and Raw Tag Team + SD Tag Team = Undisputed WWE Tag Team Championship.
This is the same situation like we had in 2009-10 when Raw's World Tag Team Championship and SD's WWE Tag Team Championship were defended jointly as the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship. The titles retained their individual lineages, but were defended together across both brands (and back then also on ECW)
So to say at this time the titles belong to a particular brand would be incorrect.
Now down the road if/when we get separate champions again, that would be different, but as long as both world titles and both tag titles are defended jointly, they are dual branded.
Don't be so hung up on the names of the titles....what we have here is the same situation we had in 2009-10, so there is a precedent. Vjmlhds 13:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I never said anything was a Raw title...you are putting words in my mouth. The WWE and Universal Titles are defended jointly as the Undisputed WWE Universal Championship, likewise the Raw and SD Tag straps as the Undisputed WWE Tag Team Championship. When they are defended jointly, they are dual branded meaning defended across all main roster shows, not just specific ones. It just appears to me you are stubbornly looking for purity with this attitude of "X Title belongs on X brand, period." - completely disregarding the fact that for going on 8 months now they've been defended jointly on both brands. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Vjmlhds 19:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Similar to the discussion in the WWE Championships template with oknazevad, I agree with Oknazevad and JDC. There are no sourced supporting the titles are dual-brand. The article, as JDC said, explains the situation. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 19:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
MOS:CURRENT: "Except on pages that are inherently time-sensitive and updated regularly (e.g. the "Current events" portal), terms such as now, currently, present, to date, so far, soon, upcoming, ongoing, and recently should usually be avoided in favor of phrases such as during the 2010s, since 2010, and in August 2020. Wording can usually be modified to remove the "now" perspective: not she is the current director but she became director on 1 January 2022; not 2010–present but beginning in 2010 or since 2010."
Your opinion? -- Mann Mann ( talk) 04:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
... is a professional wrestler, currently signed to All Elite Wrestling..."? In which case I'd agree we should remove it. — Czello 09:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Does winning NXT Iron Survivor Challenge pass as an accomplishment? Roxanne Perez won it at NXT Deadline, and then it was added to "Championships and accomplishments" on her article. -- Mann Mann ( talk) 04:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Czello, JDC808, Lee Vilenski, LM2000, McPhail, and Oknazevad: Your opinion? Keep or Delete? -- Mann Mann ( talk) 04:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I believe that the major professional wrestling supercards such as Saturday Night's Main Event, WWF The Main Event, Clash of the Champions and AEW Battle of the Belts are major events unlike the regular weekly professional wrestling television show. I believe that all these major events have a significance of their own so each edition of these events deserves its own article. For example, Battle of the Belts I should have a separate article, Battle of the Belts II have a separate article. Storylines are built on AEW TV for weeks leading to Battle of the Belts, making it a significant event rather than being just a TV show. I can create separate articles for these if you allow me to do so.-- Mark Linton ( talk) 03:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
For your information, the Dwayne Johnson's article is under GA Reassessment. As always, the pro wrestling section has the WP:IN-UNIVERSE problem, with a lot of information about kayfabe storylines. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 14:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Alerting members of the Wikiproject to this discussion: Talk:Liv_Morgan#Relationship_with_Bo_Dallas. Thanks. — Czello 17:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kairi Sane#Requested move 1 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Mann Mann ( talk) 18:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
We reached consensus to not recognize Kevin Nash's WCW world title reign where he awarded himself the title: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_110#Problem_with_how_we_handle_unrecognized_reigns
I checked his Wiki page and the WCW title history on Wikipedia to find out that the reign is now more official than ever, according to Wikipedia. Before, the reign was recognized, but with a note that WWE does not recognize it. Then we made it unrecognized. And now it is recognized again, but not even with a note anymore. How can this happen? Isn't there a rule to prevent people from making changes after consensus has been reached that the opposite of what they are editing is actually right? WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 21:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Could someone please have a look at Jaden (wrestler) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? I've gone searching for some sources but I can't seem to find anything that substantiates anything in the article. I don't have much experience in this topic area though so I may just be looking in the wrong place. Thank you! Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Long story short, I have a bunch of official Japanese wrestling programs that were sold at various events. These are your typical large magazine/books that you can buy at events with pictures, biographies and articles. I have some for All Japan Women, JWP, NJPW, AJPW, FMW and other federations. These are absolutely crucial for sourcing since these wrestlers were from the 70's, 80's and 90's, since there was no internet and since various Japanese magazines/newspapers have never circulated around the English speaking world. Many of these companies also do not exist anymore, which further limits the amount of information we have. I also have some Japanese wrestling yearbooks by Weekly Pro Wrestling that list basically every wrestler in Japan that year(See this for an example - https://imgur.com/a/hrEubuK) and would also be very useful.
What I want to know is:
1) What do I need to do for the people here to accept these as a source? I'll be happy to take photos or videos if needed of the programs.
2) What can be done for the inevitable problems that will arise when people outside of the wrestling section immediately try to get the articles deleted because they won't like the Japanese source? I know this is going to happen and if I could have the support of this section, it would be helpful.
KatoKungLee ( talk) 21:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, just want to advertise this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022, I’m sure all of you have noticed the new visual layout for Wikipedia, please comment if you want to reverse it or keep it. starship .paint ( exalt) 14:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.
Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:
Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.
Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.
|
All received a
Million Award
|
But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):
and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:
... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noting some minor differences in tallies:
|
But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.
Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.
More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.
If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Kurt Angle has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 19:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Do we have a policy on matches that are likely but unconfirmed, especially where it's listed as "X or Y vs Z". This is an example of what I mean. It's probably likely, but also it seems to violate WP:CRYSTAL. — Czello 23:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I've come back to active editing after a while and I plan to put up the article about Money in the Bank (2018) on which I expanded back in 2019 for GAN now (a note of thanks once again to GodofDemonwars). I would really like some assistance on copyediting and any additional info I need to put up before nominating it officially. Thanks. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I just moved Talk:WWE Crown Jewel/GA1 to Talk:Crown Jewel (2018)/GA1, since the review is of the article now at Crown Jewel (2018). There's an inconsistency in the parent pages that I hope editors at this project can figure out: WWE Crown Jewel is not a redirect, but Talk:WWE Crown Jewel redirects to Talk:WWE in Saudi Arabia. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Kevin Nash's WCW title reign (the one where he awarded it to himself) is not recognized by WWE, but by Wikipedia.
Ric Flair's and other people's US title reigns are not recognized by WWE and Wikipedia.
So should we recognize all of these reigns (with a note saying WWE does not) or have them all as unrecognized reigns? WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 01:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello fellow wikipedians,
Is the a possibility we could list all of the wwe tv shows episodes by season and year like the other tv shows have done or can we only do the special episodes only?. Only asking. Mansterman89 ( talk) 21:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
There a related discussion at Talk:Leilani Kai § Real name to which you are invited to particapate. — Bagumba ( talk) 05:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I'm working on taking Kurt Angle back up to GA status - there's a section on all of his Folkstyle/freestyle wrestling accomplishments - any idea where we can cite this too? Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 08:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to invite everyone at this WikiProject to contribute to the discussion here: Talk:AEW_International_Championship#Is_it_a_new_title?. Owing to how AEW have presented the International Championship, there is a lack of clarity on how synonymous it is to the All-Atlantic Championship.
Please keep debate to that thread (rather than here) to avoid splitting the discussion. — Czello 09:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Is winning Elimination Chamber match as notable as winning Money in the Bank and Royal Rumble matches? Can we add it to Championships and accomplishments section? e.g. Austin Theory#Championships and accomplishments -- Mann Mann ( talk) 14:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Paige (wrestler)#Requested move 26 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky ( talk) 15:59, 3 April 2023 (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 105 | ← | Archive 108 | Archive 109 | Archive 110 | Archive 111 | Archive 112 |
I think it's time for the general sanctions thing to be revisited. It was proposed by someone who wants all professional wrestling articles deleted from Wikipedia and supported by a collection of likeminded (wrestling is stupid, people who watch wrestling are stupid, people who write about wrestling are stupid, don't you know it's fake?) editors ( /info/en/?search=Special:Diff/846970509#General_sanctions_for_articles_on_professional_wrestling). Looking at the log of notifications, one editor received a topic ban 3+ years ago, a handful of page-level sanctions were implemented 42+ months ago, and several notifications have been given--aside from one dispute 21 months ago, the last notifications were issued 30 or more months ago. There doesn't seem to be a pressing need for anything, so it seems like it is just declaring that one group of editors is of a lower class because of a bunch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes. Any thoughts? In particular, I know a bunch of you supported implementing sanctions in the first place, so I would be interested in hearing from you about whether you think the need still exists. Thank you. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Support: It's been that long? Thought it was stupid then and that hasn't changed. It's redundant to have sanctions when the intended purposes doesn't happen. I'm all for getting them lifted. Get the balling rolling and I'm sure you will have people, such as myself, supporting it. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 08:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Should we mention all title matches of a wrestler's career? For example, those title matches on the episodes of Raw/SmackDown/NXT that the champions retain their championships; e.g. Mandy Rose vs. Kay Lee Ray ( NXT Women's Title Match) or Charlotte Flair vs. Naomi ( SmackDown Women's Title Match). Are this kind of title matches notable? Or they are WP:PROSELINE material? Mann Mann ( talk) 05:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Discussion here, participation encouraged. — Czello 20:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
If I make his wiki page is it going to be deleted? LIWProWrestling ( talk) 03:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
It is regarding this change by IP, which is unsourced. The slamwrestling.net mentions a birth year of 1966, which I used to update his stats recently. But then again many sources (likely unreliable, mention 1965). Can someone provide a few other reliable sources, especially concerning the subject's birth year? Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 09:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Hey folks, not a project member but I just came across a new editor who has gone hardcore on creating some new articles on wrestling topics, but is definitely in need of some backup to get it right. Special:Contributions/Jdhfox gives you an indication of what's happening there - some questionable pages, some definitely falling into notability, a bit of mayhem overall. Current wrestling stuff is beyond my ken, any chance some editors from here could help out with tidying up some of these? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Some of articles about managers, referees, and ring announcers feels stub/incomplete. For example:
If you are interested in such topics (managers, referees, and ring announcers), then the mentioned articles deserve your attention/work. Mann Mann ( talk) 18:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I saw this edit and the content seems legit because I saw WWE 365: Alexa Bliss and there was a segment about such stuff (eating disorders and cosmetic surgery). Is using WWE Documentaries as source acceptable? e.g. WWE 24, WWE 365, and the others. Mann Mann ( talk) 05:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
The article Team International has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unverified and lacking evidence of notability for 13.78 years
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. —
Fourthords |
=Λ= | 23:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Regarding edits by the now blocked IP 99.247.6.183. Can anyone verify the changes made in Tamina Snuka and Jimmy Snuka articles? Thanks - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 09:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
There is an IP user ( 82.42.64.169) who has been constantly changing the content under the Grand Slam page on-and-off for a while now (possibly at least a year). The user would undo any edits I or others have made (especially in regards to two-time Grand Slam Champions) or make small unnecessary changes that they would revert back to almost instantaneously if someone was to interfere with it. After doing this for a while, they would disappear for a few months, only to come back and continue reverting the same few things on this page (they have done this a few times now). They have been warned several times on their talk page, but it doesn’t seem like it has gotten through to them. Drummoe ( talk) 04:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed that a huge number of wrestling articles contain As of {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}
(almost
400). This use of the "CURRENT" magic words should be avoided when dating statements, as it implies that the article has been verified more recently and is more up to date than it really is. Although these articles don't use the {{
as of}} template, the advice at
Template:As_of/doc#Usage_guidelines still stands that Using this template with values such as
{{
As of|now}}
or variables such as {{
As of|{{CURRENTYEAR}}}}
is a
relative time reference and the equivalent to using "currently", which is generally against the
precise language guideline.
I propose a two-fold solution:
As of [today's date], there have been 145 recognized reigns between 54 recognized champions and 11 recognized vacancies, have a bot go through and replace them all with
{{
As of|{{subst:REVISIONYEAR}}|{{subst:REVISIONMONTH}}|{{subst:REVISIONDAY}}}}
, which will lock in the last-edited date and properly place the articles in the appropriate subcategory of
Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements. It does mean that editors updating the numbers in the second half of the sentence will also have to update the date in the first half, but that isn't a significant amount of extra work.--
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE) 01:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
As of {{date||iso}}, 2020.
, which are just plain incorrect (as they will show today's month and day, but in a past year). --
Ahecht (
TALKThis IP user1/ IP user2 has added something like this "WWE officially began regarding Wrestler XYZ as a legend..." to the articles of some female wrestlers; e.g. [12], [13]. I reverted their edits because they were unsourced. IP user re-added them by citing a YouTube video from WWE channel; e.g. [14], [15]. So are such content acceptable or unacceptable? Or using that YouTube video? Mann Mann ( talk) 04:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
The term "legend" and "icon" has been thrown around so much that it sometimes loses its meaning. Earlier this year, Summer Rae was in the crowd of an episode of Raw, they called her a "legend" in which she is not. As it's been stated, it adds nothing to the article. If someone wants to create an article on "legends contract," I'm all for it as long as it can be sourced. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 22:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Should Britt Baker ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Randy Orton ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) respectively spell out that they are respectively known as Britt Baker and Randy Orton in each article's first paragraph? KyleJoan talk 19:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
The lead should typically open with the wrestler's real name that is supported by a reliable source, and if they are known by a ring name, it should be noted in one of the proceeding sentences.I think the idea that we're not mentioning the WP:COMMONNAME in the lead is kind of absurd. They are best known by their ring names, and so it is appropriate to mention it after their birth names the same way we would for every other article. — Czello 19:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
It's our manual of style. It's how we format our articles. — Czello 21:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Since MOS:HYPOCORISM and WP:PW/BIO possibly conflict, should BLPs include professional wrestling figures' ring names that only comprise a common hypocorism of the subject's real first name and their real last name in the lead section (e.g., Randy Orton ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), whose ring name is Randy Orton and real name is Randal Keith Orton)?
KyleJoan talk 03:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Beatrice St. Clere Priestley (born 22 March 1996) is an English-New Zealander professional wrestler, best known by the ring name Bea Priestley, which to me, seems obvious... But, if we said:
Beatrice St. Clere Priestley (born 22 March 1996) is an English-New Zealander professional wrestler. Wrestling under the ring name of Bea Priestley, where we cull the bold, it does at least comment that this is her ring name, but doesn't throw it in your face. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 11:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
a common hypocorism of [one's] real first name and their real last namenot being a ring name supports the conclusion that excluding this material is compatible with both MOS:HYPOCORISM and WP:PW/MOS. KyleJoan talk 02:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
If anyone can help revert/check the articles edited by WM17, I would appreciate it. The editor deleted any mention of Meltzer or his reviews from a bunch of articles. I've gone through a few, but there are more--some of which they edited multiple times, so it's important to catch it all rather than just undoing the most recent edit. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
While I personally dislike and see Meltzer as an unreliable narrator who speculates on a lot of stuff that is later proven false and question his sources but recognize his opinions and reviews, this is clearly vandalism. DrewieStewie ( talk) 13:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm aware of WP:PW/Notability but it's a bit confusing for me. So I need your opinion.
Do they pass WP:PW/NBIO criteria? -- Mann Mann ( talk) 20:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sareee#Requested move 17 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Mann Mann ( talk) 09:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Bobby Eaton 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. BloatedBun ( talk) 07:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rok-C#Requested move 11 June 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Mann Mann ( talk) 07:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The titling of articles on tag teams and stables is pretty inconsistent. For example, we have " New World Order (professional wrestling)" but " The Four Horsemen (professional wrestling)", " Corporate Ministry" but " The Corporation (professional wrestling)".
The policy guidance WP:THE is pretty clear that "The" should generally not be used in titles other than in a few circumstances. Given this, and to ensure consistency, I think we should be shifting articles to titles that don't begin with "The" other than where circumstances require an exception be made.
I have moved a few articles, and will raise a move request for some others, but would welcome any thoughts. McPhail ( talk)
This is the discussion so far:
@ Dilbaggg - why exactly is the feud with Rollins "crucial" and "vital"? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha ( talk) 17:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC) @ ItsKesha it was a significant feud, just because you do not think it was, doesn't eman it was not, you erased the entire 2015 section as if orton was inctive back then, and your claim this was week by week coverage is false, it only covers significant feuds and matches during this time frme that have been established here for 7 years, you are no one to just erace them based on your personal views. Dilbaggg ( talk) 20:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
All i am saying is taht this well sourced
WP:RS information that he is trying to remove cover's Orton's entire 2015 year, like as if Orton was out of action for whole of 2015, nobody except @
ItsKesha says its not notable, and as he is removing such lenngthy information I kept urging him to get a proper consensus. He repeatedly refuses. I already started a support/oppose voting on the talk page but he deleted my edit. So I leave it to you guys to decide, if you guys agree with ItsKesha then ok, but without reachinga proper consensus ItsKesha can not purge such crucial contents that he claims are not
WP:Notable based on his personal views. here is what he is removing:
[21]. Anyway decision is left to more experienced
WP:pW members, lets gather a consensus and decide.
Dilbaggg (
talk) 12:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Wow, 200k+ is insane for a wrestling biography. The biographies of the older wrestlers are able to summarize careers that exceeded 30 years in 100k or so, why are the recent ones so absurdly detailed? Ric Flair has been around forever, done it all in 50 years, and his is not even that huge. I would say that only The Rock, Cena, Lesnar, Hogan and the like would warrant something that enormous, given their crossover into other industries. My “vote”? Keep what has been removed off the Orton article and chop it down to a reasonable size. Old School WWC Fan ( talk) 05:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello all. It’s been a minute, I hope all is well with you all. I’ve recently gotten into a bit of a dispute with @ ChicagoWikiEditor: concerning the inclusion of “professional wrestler” and “actor” in the introductory sentence. Ever since his surprise appearance at the Royal Rumble this year, I felt he met the criteria to be considered a professional wrestler, as he was making weekly appearances in the buildup to WrestleMania 37, held the 24/7 Championship for an extended period, wrestled highly proficiently at Mania (as opposed to other celebrity guests over the years), and still makes sporadic in-ring appearances from time to time (such as being in the final 5 in the Royal Rumble match). This, in my opinion, greatly qualifies considering him to be a professional wrestler, and he’s bound to make future appearances whenever he finds a break from touring. As to being an actor, he’s cast in the starring title role for an upcoming Sony’s Spider-Man Universe film, El Muerto, in 2024, based on both his moonlighting as a wrestler and his performance in Bullet Train. Throughout the year, I have reinstated “actor” and “professional wrestler” into the intro sentence as it kept being removed by various IP’s and editors without consensus and usually without an edit summary. However, ChicagoWikiEditor has more aggressively removed the occupation listings, citing WP:ROLEBIO, which I vehemently disagree with, believing that he has achieved independent notability in the wrestling and acting world, aside from being a rapper and singer. The dispute has become a little bit tense between us. I wanted to seek other opinions here on WikiProject Professional wrestling and see what you all think. Thank you for your attention and opinions. DrewieStewie ( talk) 03:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
References
This is a curious case. He is bound to continue doing this for years, since he was WWE’s top selling act for some time and will likely remain a magnet for casual fans for the foreseeable future. After all he is the top ranked pop star, of any genre, ATM. So, where is the threshold to list his part time gig in the lead? Winning a title? That seems good enough for David Arquette. Formal training? He has that, to a degree. A WrestleMania moment? Check. Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with listing him as a professional wrestler, as long as it’s not embellished by calling him “undefeated” or anything that is too fancrufty.
Besides leading “El Muerto”, he now he has enough credits in notable films to be considered notable under WP:ACTORBIO if he was not a musician, by that standard alone it should be mentioned somewhere in the lead. Old School WWC Fan ( talk) 04:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not pushing for blocks. I'm simply stating that both of you have been out of line with the edit warring. This isn't just directed at the two of you, though--many editors in this project feel that it's okay to use argumentative edit summaries in place of actual talk page discussion. As for ChicagoWikiEditor's question about whether I have an opinion, yes, I do: you have been the more argumentative, fingers-in-your-ears, my-way-or-the-highway editor in this discussion. If you mean regarding the content dispute, I'm not particularly interested. I just think both of you (and everyone in this project) would do well to remember that edit summary argument wars deserve a block, and everyone with that editing style contributes to lowering Wikipedia's opinion of people who edit professional wrestling articles. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 07:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
With the announcement of the AEW World Trios Championship, just wondering if the draft of the article has been started. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 00:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello. A few weeks ago, I saw User Drimes removed the timeline from Bullet Club. I asked him, he answered that timelines are against MOS:COLOR or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility. [22] Should we remove timelines from articles? Are pretty common on stables. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 10:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Another question about stables. Since Bullet Club is huge, we include a sub-group section (at least, It's the first article where I saw it). However, during the last years, people include a lot of people as sub-groups. Inner Circle had Santana and Ortiz (good), Le Sex Gods (okey) and Sammy Hager (? just two matches as tag team). Then, I realized that several articles includes sub-groups which are just different combinations of the stable, like Decay [23] or Team Taz [24]. People paired without any criteria. Bullet Club has 22 sub-groups, but only 7 of them have articles. I propose: A sub-section only for factions/teams with article. Article means it's notable, so it's a clear criteria. If we go by a name, several small teams have names, like Sammy Hager. Winning a title... several members won a title as tag team, like Naito and Sanada or Owens and Fale, but it's not a good standard since some of them had briefs title reigns. So, what do you think? Only teams with article? -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 10:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Does MOS:ALLCAPS apply to the whole article? Or is the lead section an exception? e.g. writing an all caps ring name in the lead. Consider Kairi Sane as an example:
A, B, or other suggestions? -- Mann Mann ( talk) 13:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Please participate in this discussion: Talk:NXT Women's Tag Team Championship#Roxanne Perez. The discussion is about if she is a two-time or on-time NXT Women's Tag Team Champion. Regards. -- Mann Mann ( talk) 02:29, 7 August 2022 (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've noticed an uptick in disputes around whether certain partnerships between companies exist, especially when the sourcing isn't explicit. In particular, List of Impact Wrestling personnel has been subject to edit warring. So, as a WikiProject as a whole, let's establish a consensus for how explicit sourcing has to be to make the statement that a working relationship exists. In addition, we should also determine what constitutes a promotion recognising another promotion's championships, and whether a relationship is required for that.
Arguments in favour of clear, explicit sourcing have been that anything outside of this is considered to be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH - things on Wikipedia need to be adequately sourced. Arguments against this are that the appearance of wrestlers/championships on different promotions constitute a WP:COMMONSENSE justification for inclusion.
So, the question is: how explicit does a source have to be to establish a relationship between promotions? Does a source need to state it outright, or is it evident that a relationship exists if there is any degree of crossover, such as a title appearing on/being defended on a different promotion? Or is there a middle-ground to be found?
Courtesy pings to @ HHH Pedrigree, Vjmlhds, SkylerLovefist, and Addicted4517. — Czello 10:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that's how Wikipedia works. With sources. Not with personal assumptions. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 12:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Dude, wtf are you talking about? Brittney? Simple, you said two promotions have a partnership, but the source doesn't support your claim. Everything else, wp:or. This is your usual contempt for Wikipedia policies HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 14:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Admire the persistence, if nothing else. BTW, next time you call me dumb (or any equivalent thereof), I'll make sure an admin pays you a visit. (and BTW me making general jokes about Wikipedia like the house catching on fire isn't WP:Personal, as Wiki has numerous essays where it pokes fun at itself). Vjmlhds (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
My point stills the same. Eric Young has worked for several promotions in USA. Impact titles are defended on other promotions. Only AAW is named as partner. Several years ago, one promotion here booked the ROH champion Davey Richard's. It doesn't mean ROH and the promotion had a partnership, just that the promotion booked Richard's and ROH allowed it. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 20:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the sourcing should be explicit and specific about it being an ongoing partnership, not just drawing a conclusion based on a couple of appearances. That's WP:SYNTH, and ignores the fact that, unlike WWE, Impact and AEW/ROH allow contracted talent to appear in indy promotions with their titles, and that some of those champions have indy promotions they work at fairly regularly because of their personal relationships with those promotions, not because of a partnership between the promotions. Without an explicit source stating that the promotions as a whole have a working relationship, it cannot be assumed that there is such a thing and not just the one promotion giving permission to their champion to appear on a show. oknazevad ( talk) 21:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm in late on this, but to cut a long story short I'm with Czello and company on their points. I'll just add that WP:COMMONSENSE is not a sub for WP:IAR. Where there is original research, it has to be nipped in the bud immediately. That rule is hard and fast and no other rule can replace it. The best source for a partnership existing is the company's official website itself. We had this previously with New Japan. Impact had an announcement of the partnership - that was an instant thumbs up for it to be included. In this case a primary source is actually the best under the circumstances. Just because a wrestler appears doesn't mean there's a partnership - and Mickie James in the Royal Rumble in her Impact persona is the perfect example. WWE hasn't partnered with anyone since the 90's. It was a once off. There appears to have been a lot of assumptions here now, and assuming is original research by default. Addicted4517 ( talk) 00:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
So, from what I can see, there appears to be a moderate consensus for the following two points:
Any final points before we can close this? — Czello 11:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Link. McPhail ( talk) 12:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rinku Singh (wrestler)#Requested move 8 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky ( talk) 08:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
In the Triple H era, many people who have previously been with WWE have been making their returns at a fast rate. In the case of Dexter Lumis, due to the nature of his storyline, he has appeared on both Raw and NXT, and no formal brand designation has been listed.@ Vjmlhds: and I have entered a disagreement over this, with him saying 4 appearances on Raw is sufficient criteria for that designation, and that his NXT appearance was a one off. Personally, I believe the following criteria is sufficient for a returning wrestler on the main roster/debuting wrestler bypassing NXT: 1. If they are under contract, they are listed on WWE’s active roster page. 2. If They debut/return on one show and remain on that one show without appearing on another brand or being declared a free agent, they are on that brand by default (Karrion Kross, Bayley, Hit Row, Johnny Gargano). 3. If they debut on one brand and appear quickly on another brand without mention of brand status (as has happened with Dexter Lumis due to the nature his storyline), they are unassigned until further notice. 4. Any verified internal roster leaks may supersede 2 or 3 if contrary to those criteria.
We cannot say Lumis’s NXT appearance was a one-off already, as that is WP:CRYSTALBALL and the outcome of his storyline is uncertain. As for John Cena, he has been listed as an ambassador, despite his part time wrestling status, his latest recorded match not having quite yet been a full year ago, and his latest appearance being nearly three months ago with a Theory feud having been teased, so I think he should be in unassigned. Titus O'Neil has an official title as Global Ambassador, is in the HOF, and hasn't wrestled since 2020, though insists he hasn't retired and is simply out due to injury, so he can be placed on a brand once he returns. Maryse is a bit more confusing of a situation due to having rarely wrestled since 2016 (though having wrestled in 2022), her only now appearing as Miz’s manager sporadically, and her starring in Miz and Mrs. That one is more up for discussion. But these are my thoughts, what do you think? DrewieStewie ( talk) 15:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
This is at the Talk:New Era (WWE) page, regarding the WWE Championship. Section is called " Break for wider discussion regarding fiction vs real life" I request all WP:PW members tp participate ASAP. Dilbaggg ( talk) 14:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Just came across this, but earlier this month a user took it upon themself to move the page for the wrestler known as ACH from "ACH (wrestler)" to A. C. H. This change was not limited to just the title, but with the help of another user, done throughout the article as well, with every mention of "ACH" changed to "A. C. H." Nor was this style change limited to ACH's article, but in just a couple of minutes of looking, A. R. Fox, B. J. Whitmer, P. J. Black and Q. T. Marshall have all been moved and re-written by the same two users, and I would have to assume there are more. Supposedly this was done in accordance with MOS:SPACEINITS, but MOS:SPACEINITS states periods and spaces should be used unless "1) the person demonstrably has a different, consistently preferred style for their own name; and 2) an overwhelming majority of reliable sources use that variant style for that person," in which case it should be treated as a self-published name change and left as is (example: CCH Pounder). ACH, AR Fox, BJ Whitmer, PJ Black, QT Marshall, and in general most wrestlers this generation with initials in the names (CM Punk, AJ Styles, AJ Lee, MVP, etc.) don't use periods and spaces in their names, and as a result they're names are most often written without periods. Thoughts and opinions, and should these names/articles be reverted to their commonly used forms? 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:21A8:D7C4:F884:19F6 ( talk) 02:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
We need more WP:PW/RS. The issue with PWMania is that Marc Middleton was an editor but he left now and since 2016 PWMania has always published factual and accurate articles. Bleacher Report was rightfully given a second chance, so should PWMania. Dilbaggg ( talk) 14:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Go back and re-read the thread in Archive 109 about The Sportster. Then explain how your arguments meet the criteria for WP:RS. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 01:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I suggest adding WP:FANCRUFT to PW Style Guide => Professional wrestling career because many PW articles about wrestlers have such issues.
Sounds OK? -- Mann Mann ( talk) 05:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Io Shirai#Requested move 4 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Mann Mann ( talk) 08:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the category Openweight wrestling championships and I got to thinking that since AEW doesn't have weight classes. Wouldn't that make the AEW World Championship an Openweight Championship as well? Has there ever been a discussion on what constitutes an openweight championship? If not, it would be good to establish a consensus for the criteria for Openweight Championships. You could also expand that to the ROH World Championship. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 21:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
References
There is a discussion about requesting moving List of IWGP Heavyweight Tag Team Championship to List of IWGP Heavyweight Tag Team Champion which at Talk:List of IWGP Heavyweight Tag Team Championship#Requested Move September 5, 2022.
The list should be titled List of IWGP Heavyweight Champions not List of IWGP Heavyweight Tag Team Championship. But since the former is a redirect, you can't move it. Plus the former is how these lists are titled. You wouldn't have a list of IWGP Heavyweight Champions as List of IWGP Heavyweight Championship. It makes no sense logically. I am submitting it to a technical requests under uncontroversial technical requests. No reason why it would be controversial. Just standard stuff that should have been done awhile ago. I've only started a discussion to cover my bases. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 09:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Just to mention, according to WWE.com, the unification matches took place yesterday, but the final champions aren't Bron & cia. According to their profles, Bron, Rose and Pretty Deadly aren't recognized as UK champs. [30] [31] Also, the titles doesn't mention them as champs. [32] [33] [34]. So, looks like WWE doesn't recognize them as the final UK Champions. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 09:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Kirby1310 adds "inaugural" to Championships and accomplishments. Take a look at their edits; e.g. [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]. Acceptable or unacceptable? Was there a discussion/consensus about this before? -- Mann Mann ( talk) 01:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Reading the history part of the project, the last/final part was included in 2010 [41] the discussion took place on 2008 [42] HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 05:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kay Lee Ray#Requested move 6 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky ( talk) 19:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Recently the article "McMahon-Levesque Era" was deleted at AfD. This article posited that we had entered a new "era" of wrestling. Fram nominated it, pointing out it had no Google News sources. I made the point it was WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, to which LM2000 agreed. HighKing also called it WP:OR. StarTrekker commented that this "era" is not yet well established. Kazanstyle agreed with Fram's original nomination. In the end the article was deleted.
However, now material stating that the New Era has ended and a, uh, newer era had begun, still exists at New Era. My question to this Wikiproject: is the New Era ongoing? Are there substantial sources that state the New Era has ended? Do off-handed comments by Becky Lynch (in the sources for that section) indicate that the New Era has ended and something else has begun? — Czello 13:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
As we appear to agree that a post "New Era" era is disputed, can I suggest this period on History of WWE is simply titled "Retirement of Vince McMahon", as it's a more notable even and more neutral than pushing disputed claims? — Czello 18:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Since you ahve a problem with English, which I consider a personal attack. Please don't do it again. Presently not a single person has agreed with you so I find it difficult for you to say there's not a consensus. As has been explained to you, we're not denying these terms have been used, but they are too vague and ambiguous to stand up as a defined period of wrestling. The sources, incidentally, don't do it this - they just mention that WWE declared a New Era had begun and then it was never mentioned again. I've addressed your points before, please re-read. — Czello 12:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
None of the five sources provided above clearly show that they intend "Post-Vince McMahon Era" as a title for a (probable) forthcoming movement/timespan in WWE. One (F4W) doesn't use the term at all. Two don't capitalize "era", which seems to indicate that they are using it as a common noun rather than a title. The remaining two capitalize "Era" but only in the context of an article title in which all nouns are capitalized. This is far from conclusive. In addition, even if one of the writers is proposing a potential title for a "new era" (assuming people end up calling it that at all), it would obviously make sense to wait to see what the common name comes to be rather than jumping the first sequence of words that someone tosses out. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 19:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I suggested this above, and it has gained the support of StarTrekker and Oknazevad, so I'd like to formalise this discussion.
The problem: Both Reality Era and New Era (WWE) are articles that myself and others have accused of being heavy with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The "New Era" is also a marketing term that was used briefly by WWE in 2016 and never mentioned since, which should be avoided per WP:PROMO. The notability of these articles are also in question. The insistence of wrestling fans to categorise everything into eras is often unencyclopedic WP:FANCRUFT, and these two articles appear to be a clear example of this. Another problem (which caused the above debate) is that these intangible, nebulous, and arbitrary "eras" have subjective start and end points. There will never be a true consensus around these supposed periods of wrestling, because they're ill-defined.
The solution: However, it's pretty undeniable that the retirement of McMahon has caused a major shift within WWE. Furthermore, because the definition of what the period over the past 8 or so years has been is muddy, merging these into a new history article is the most neutral solution, and avoids both original research and marketing terms. It should also please those who argue the "New Era" has ended, as we end this period in 2022. Indeed, I propose this is the best of both worlds as it should please those who want to acknowledge this period but also those who feel the standalone articles are problematic. Finally, it helps reduce the bloat of History of WWE (an article which will frankly have infinite growth) as we can merge excessive content into the new article. As time goes on, we're going to need to do this anyway. — Czello 17:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Per the discussion [ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&diff=1107141841&oldid=1107141668] and the reasons given on the proposal for deletion in the article itself. Dilbaggg ( talk) 13:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for pages PRODed before or previously discussed at AfD or FfD.- from the PROD page). However, as there is now near-unanimous agreement that New Era needs to go, here's what I propose. Originally I suggested that Reality Era and New Era be merged into a new article. It appears you agree with this for New Era, but not Reality Era, correct? As such, I propose that instead of creating a new article, we simply redirect New Era to History_of_WWE#New_Era_(2016–2022), and integrate any additional material there. How does that sound? — Czello 15:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Czello bro a slight problem has arisen @ User:AndyTheGrump is reverting the proposal citing the previous AfD, but that time result was no consensus, I am sure we are allowed to relist it for AfD as no consensus was reached, anyway this time deletion has my full support. Dilbaggg ( talk) 17:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
@ Czello Your new proposal i did not read clearly before pls pardon me bro, but yeah it sounds good. The existing section on History of WWE regarding that era is sufficient enough, so yeah if its just used as a redirect there its all fine, goodluck :) Dilbaggg ( talk) 17:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Ric Flair has one unrecognized US title reign. We made that reign grey and don't count it towards his total number of reigns, even though everybody but WWE recognizes that reign (it got left out for reason at all other than WWE forgetting to add it).
Then we have Kevin Nash awarding himself the WCW title. WCW did not recognize this, WWE does not recognize this. Yet the reign is not grey. It looks like a normal, recognized reign. Only the note says that nobody recognizes it.
I propose making Nash's reign grey, just like Flair's reign, which is way more recognized than Nash's. WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 22:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Over the past few weeks there's been some significant changes to the professional wrestling article, particularly the lead, without discussion, including some back-and-forth and reverting. Can members of this project take a look and see if they agree with these newer edits, or if we should revert back to a more stable version? The latest bulk of changes which have occurred over the past 24 hours can be seen here. — Czello 08:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I would propose we add a field for "Citizenship" to Infobox professional wrestler. This field appears in Infobox person but not in Infobox professional wrestler. I think this would be helpful for wrestlers born in one country but with citizenship in other countries, e.g. Miro (wrestler) or Madusa. What do people think? McPhail ( talk) 14:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The official name of the stable is Damage CTRL. WWE and some sources uses it; e.g. [66] [67]. However, some other sources uses Damage Control as the name; e.g. [68] [69]. So should we use Damage Control or Damage CTRL? Considering Wikipedia guidelines, the official name, and sources. -- Mann Mann ( talk) 01:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Category:Professional wrestling jobbers. McPhail ( talk) 16:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone know an easy way of reverting CRISP CASHMERE's latest series of edits? He removed the managers from match listings in quite a few articles for no apparent reason. [70]. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 15:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:WrestleMania 40#Requested move 9 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 17:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Our "list of personnel" pages generally split the wrestlers by gender. The rationale for this is unclear - e.g. WWE group everyone together. Should we just group all wrestlers together? McPhail ( talk) 09:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Vjmlhds has already updated List of WWE personnel, {{ WWE personnel}}, List of All Elite Wrestling personnel, {{ All Elite Wrestling}}, List of Impact Wrestling personnel, and {{ Impact Wrestling personnel}}. For Gender identity, add the relevant content to the Notes field. For example, Abadon => List of All Elite Wrestling personnel => Women's division => Notes => non-binary and etc. -- Mann Mann ( talk) 02:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:WWE Day 1 (2022)#Requested move 26 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
General sanctions have been levied against projects over the years. I don't remember (or possibly know) what led to the sanctions. (A reminder would be helpful). This project has had sanctions since 2018. I don't know procedure, but I'm thinking enough time has passed that we should review everything and put forth a proposal or what have you to have them lifted. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 20:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
What sanctions are you talking about? Could they lead to something terrible like this WP being taken down? WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 14:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Hey guys, a reviewer came to my draft and says it needs more infomation to be a
WP:SPLIT. i believe this article has enough infomation to be splitted off of
WWE 2K#Create Mode. Just need your help, Wikipedia is all about teamwork and making the wiki better and better so it would be awesome if you would give your thoughts about the draft, and help edit it to make it have a better chance of being accepted. The draft is
Draft:WWE 2K Creation Community. Thanks.
SMBMovieFan (
talk) 13:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet.
Nythar (
💬-
🎃) 00:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I was looking at what is on my watchlist and I realized that I totally forgot I have the following on it.
Last year, it was brought it up that wrestling TV shows such as Raw and SmackDown, for example, should be have a list of episodes. There were varying opinions on the matter. A draft of sorts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/RawDatabase, was created. The person who started all of this, has doesn't anything in over a year. I added to it, but since then, it's fell flat. Since it's a draft of sorts and no further headway will be made, it shouldn't have been around this long. If it was in actual draftspace, it would have been deleted by now. Drafts not edited in six months are deleted. Unless someone wants to take it over and continue working on it (highly unlikely), it should be removed. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 08:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I looked at some title histories. Take Cruiserweight title (96-07) for example. There are columns for days and days recognized by WWE. But then there is also a note saying how many days are recognized by WWE. Am I right in assuming that the note should be deleted and the days recognized by WWE should be changed to the days mentioned by in the note? Screenshot if my text was confusing: https://ibb.co/JdqMdNc Yellow "circle" is what I assume is how it is supposed to be. WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 20:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nikki A.S.H.#Requested move 6 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Mann Mann ( talk) 11:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Template talk:WWE Championships. It also affects the individual titles' articles. More input is needed for consensus. oknazevad ( talk) 19:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
WWE 2K has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. « Ryūkotsusei » 19:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
An editor removed FCW Divas Championship and Queen of FCW in this revision. Should we restore them? -- Mann Mann ( talk) 16:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
"Luke Harper and Erick Rowan" to "Bludgeon Brothers". McPhail ( talk) 19:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
*** Some fresh eyes on the following discussion would be appreciated ***
Not trying to give you a hard time, but on this issue, you are wrong.
With both Roman Reigns and the Usos, they defend both sets of titles at the same time. WWE + Universal = Undisputed WWE Universal Championship, and Raw Tag Team + SD Tag Team = Undisputed WWE Tag Team Championship.
This is the same situation like we had in 2009-10 when Raw's World Tag Team Championship and SD's WWE Tag Team Championship were defended jointly as the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship. The titles retained their individual lineages, but were defended together across both brands (and back then also on ECW)
So to say at this time the titles belong to a particular brand would be incorrect.
Now down the road if/when we get separate champions again, that would be different, but as long as both world titles and both tag titles are defended jointly, they are dual branded.
Don't be so hung up on the names of the titles....what we have here is the same situation we had in 2009-10, so there is a precedent. Vjmlhds 13:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I never said anything was a Raw title...you are putting words in my mouth. The WWE and Universal Titles are defended jointly as the Undisputed WWE Universal Championship, likewise the Raw and SD Tag straps as the Undisputed WWE Tag Team Championship. When they are defended jointly, they are dual branded meaning defended across all main roster shows, not just specific ones. It just appears to me you are stubbornly looking for purity with this attitude of "X Title belongs on X brand, period." - completely disregarding the fact that for going on 8 months now they've been defended jointly on both brands. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Vjmlhds 19:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Similar to the discussion in the WWE Championships template with oknazevad, I agree with Oknazevad and JDC. There are no sourced supporting the titles are dual-brand. The article, as JDC said, explains the situation. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 19:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
MOS:CURRENT: "Except on pages that are inherently time-sensitive and updated regularly (e.g. the "Current events" portal), terms such as now, currently, present, to date, so far, soon, upcoming, ongoing, and recently should usually be avoided in favor of phrases such as during the 2010s, since 2010, and in August 2020. Wording can usually be modified to remove the "now" perspective: not she is the current director but she became director on 1 January 2022; not 2010–present but beginning in 2010 or since 2010."
Your opinion? -- Mann Mann ( talk) 04:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
... is a professional wrestler, currently signed to All Elite Wrestling..."? In which case I'd agree we should remove it. — Czello 09:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Does winning NXT Iron Survivor Challenge pass as an accomplishment? Roxanne Perez won it at NXT Deadline, and then it was added to "Championships and accomplishments" on her article. -- Mann Mann ( talk) 04:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Czello, JDC808, Lee Vilenski, LM2000, McPhail, and Oknazevad: Your opinion? Keep or Delete? -- Mann Mann ( talk) 04:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I believe that the major professional wrestling supercards such as Saturday Night's Main Event, WWF The Main Event, Clash of the Champions and AEW Battle of the Belts are major events unlike the regular weekly professional wrestling television show. I believe that all these major events have a significance of their own so each edition of these events deserves its own article. For example, Battle of the Belts I should have a separate article, Battle of the Belts II have a separate article. Storylines are built on AEW TV for weeks leading to Battle of the Belts, making it a significant event rather than being just a TV show. I can create separate articles for these if you allow me to do so.-- Mark Linton ( talk) 03:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
For your information, the Dwayne Johnson's article is under GA Reassessment. As always, the pro wrestling section has the WP:IN-UNIVERSE problem, with a lot of information about kayfabe storylines. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 14:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Alerting members of the Wikiproject to this discussion: Talk:Liv_Morgan#Relationship_with_Bo_Dallas. Thanks. — Czello 17:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kairi Sane#Requested move 1 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Mann Mann ( talk) 18:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
We reached consensus to not recognize Kevin Nash's WCW world title reign where he awarded himself the title: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_110#Problem_with_how_we_handle_unrecognized_reigns
I checked his Wiki page and the WCW title history on Wikipedia to find out that the reign is now more official than ever, according to Wikipedia. Before, the reign was recognized, but with a note that WWE does not recognize it. Then we made it unrecognized. And now it is recognized again, but not even with a note anymore. How can this happen? Isn't there a rule to prevent people from making changes after consensus has been reached that the opposite of what they are editing is actually right? WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 21:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Could someone please have a look at Jaden (wrestler) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? I've gone searching for some sources but I can't seem to find anything that substantiates anything in the article. I don't have much experience in this topic area though so I may just be looking in the wrong place. Thank you! Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Long story short, I have a bunch of official Japanese wrestling programs that were sold at various events. These are your typical large magazine/books that you can buy at events with pictures, biographies and articles. I have some for All Japan Women, JWP, NJPW, AJPW, FMW and other federations. These are absolutely crucial for sourcing since these wrestlers were from the 70's, 80's and 90's, since there was no internet and since various Japanese magazines/newspapers have never circulated around the English speaking world. Many of these companies also do not exist anymore, which further limits the amount of information we have. I also have some Japanese wrestling yearbooks by Weekly Pro Wrestling that list basically every wrestler in Japan that year(See this for an example - https://imgur.com/a/hrEubuK) and would also be very useful.
What I want to know is:
1) What do I need to do for the people here to accept these as a source? I'll be happy to take photos or videos if needed of the programs.
2) What can be done for the inevitable problems that will arise when people outside of the wrestling section immediately try to get the articles deleted because they won't like the Japanese source? I know this is going to happen and if I could have the support of this section, it would be helpful.
KatoKungLee ( talk) 21:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, just want to advertise this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022, I’m sure all of you have noticed the new visual layout for Wikipedia, please comment if you want to reverse it or keep it. starship .paint ( exalt) 14:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.
Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:
Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.
Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.
|
All received a
Million Award
|
But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):
and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:
... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noting some minor differences in tallies:
|
But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.
Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.
More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.
If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Kurt Angle has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 19:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Do we have a policy on matches that are likely but unconfirmed, especially where it's listed as "X or Y vs Z". This is an example of what I mean. It's probably likely, but also it seems to violate WP:CRYSTAL. — Czello 23:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I've come back to active editing after a while and I plan to put up the article about Money in the Bank (2018) on which I expanded back in 2019 for GAN now (a note of thanks once again to GodofDemonwars). I would really like some assistance on copyediting and any additional info I need to put up before nominating it officially. Thanks. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I just moved Talk:WWE Crown Jewel/GA1 to Talk:Crown Jewel (2018)/GA1, since the review is of the article now at Crown Jewel (2018). There's an inconsistency in the parent pages that I hope editors at this project can figure out: WWE Crown Jewel is not a redirect, but Talk:WWE Crown Jewel redirects to Talk:WWE in Saudi Arabia. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Kevin Nash's WCW title reign (the one where he awarded it to himself) is not recognized by WWE, but by Wikipedia.
Ric Flair's and other people's US title reigns are not recognized by WWE and Wikipedia.
So should we recognize all of these reigns (with a note saying WWE does not) or have them all as unrecognized reigns? WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 01:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello fellow wikipedians,
Is the a possibility we could list all of the wwe tv shows episodes by season and year like the other tv shows have done or can we only do the special episodes only?. Only asking. Mansterman89 ( talk) 21:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
There a related discussion at Talk:Leilani Kai § Real name to which you are invited to particapate. — Bagumba ( talk) 05:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I'm working on taking Kurt Angle back up to GA status - there's a section on all of his Folkstyle/freestyle wrestling accomplishments - any idea where we can cite this too? Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 08:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to invite everyone at this WikiProject to contribute to the discussion here: Talk:AEW_International_Championship#Is_it_a_new_title?. Owing to how AEW have presented the International Championship, there is a lack of clarity on how synonymous it is to the All-Atlantic Championship.
Please keep debate to that thread (rather than here) to avoid splitting the discussion. — Czello 09:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Is winning Elimination Chamber match as notable as winning Money in the Bank and Royal Rumble matches? Can we add it to Championships and accomplishments section? e.g. Austin Theory#Championships and accomplishments -- Mann Mann ( talk) 14:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Paige (wrestler)#Requested move 26 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky ( talk) 15:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)