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 109 | Archive 110 | Archive 111 | Archive 112 |
Am I imagining things after my 15+ years (wow) on this wiki, or did the PPV event infobox have the theme song parameter removed at some point? And if I am, I feel like this should be in the infobox. True CRaysball | #RaysUp 03:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Support theme songs being re-added. I don't believe taglines were removed, but if they were then I support those being re-added as well. -- THE $R$. Habla! Hancock! 23:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Okay, any other input? I don't want to act on a flimsy consensus. True CRaysball | #RaysUp 04:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
So can we say this is a consensus to re-add the theme song parameter? True CRaysball | #RaysUp 01:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at
Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent
Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class=
parameter to {{
WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{
WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present.
Aymatth2 (
talk) 20:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
If somebody wants to give their 2 cents, there is a discussion for a name change in Aiden English. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 06:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I have nominated CMLL World Heavyweight Championship for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 20:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
An example:
Mayu Iwatani
As you see the sub-sections of Mayu Iwatani's Stardom career are just pure years. It seems this format has been used for some other articles about Japanese female wrestlers; e.g. take a look at
Hazuki,
Koguma, and
Nanae Takahashi. Those sub-sections look lazy in my opinion. --
Mann Mann (
talk) 15:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Used to be way more active. Now I can create threads where nobody responds. Where did all the contributors go? Is there a new pro wrestling WP? WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 21:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Per
WP:PRECISELANG, we should "avoid using statements that will date quickly."
I noticed
this edit to
Omos today and it got me thinking: Should we be using the opening paragraph of an article to state that a wrestler is a "free agent" in WWE's storylines? I have not followed the current draft at all (or wrestling in general much at all lately outside of the major WrestleMania storylines going into it and the Brawl Out hilarity) so I don't know if anyone is meant to be a "free agent" (outside of special attractions ie John Cena) or if it's just a holding title until they are drafted in-story.
Regardless, I'm not sure we should be PROMOting which TV show each wrestler performs on in the opening sentences to begin with. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Since we are talking about free agent. What do you think about articles like 2023 WWE Draft? The article includes a section called "free agents". As you know, per MOS:INUNIVERSE we should avoid "Describing aspects of the work as if they were real." Lesnar, Corbin, Ziggler and the rest aren't free agents, since they are under contract with WWE, so we shouldn't label them as free agent, it's just fictional terminology from WWE storylines. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 16:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, recently myself and JDC808 were discussing what the correct naming for the All In (2023) article should be, as they were of the view it should be "AEW All In (2023)". Normally we don't include the company name in a PPV (so, SummerSlam (2022) rather than WWE SummerSlam (2022)), and I believe that, as it's fundamentally the same series of shows, it's enough for the lead of the article to specify that it's produced by a new company, rather than breaking with naming convention. JDC808 pointed out, however, that when NXT have reused Halloween Havoc the new shows specifically had "NXT" in their title (e.g., NXT Halloween Havoc (2022)). I think part of the reason for this is that almost all NXT shows have "NXT" in the title, regardless of whether those shows have appeared in a different company (e.g., NXT TakeOver 36, rather than simply TakeOver 36).
I suppose what we've discovered is that there is an inconsistency in naming PPV articles, especially when a show is produced by a new company. Here's what I'd like to discuss:
— Czello ( music) 12:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
WWE recognizes their reign starting April 2 (Sunday). We add least need to add a note, because we recognize it as starting April 1. Or was it really Sunday? Mania ended a few minutes after midnight eastcoast time. WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 18:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
We had a consensus on one of Nash's WCW reigns being unrecognized. Changes were made accordingly. Then, against consensus, someone undid those changes. That's still the way it is. What now? Just undo the changes the person undid to go back to consensus? And then what? The person undoes it again? I am not interested in an editing war. WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 22:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I've always been intrigued by Andre the Giant and our photos of him. A couple of years again I managed to track down all the important info about the image Commons:File:Andre the Giant.jpg. Recently I made a similar breakthrough with his article's lede photo. It turns out that that photo is part of a large set of photos, all taken on a single night, that make up a large portion of the photos on Wikipedia covering the WWF's 80's superstars. You've surely seen these photos while browsing. On Commons I created a new category to group these photos all together. This "John McKeon Flickr photos" Commons category description contains a link to a very interesting news article about this set of photos that you'll surely enjoy reading about. Plus if you wish to help organize the photos on Commons that will be welcomed too. Jason Quinn ( talk) 11:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
i dont see why people are trying to pretend like the title havent switched shows. wwe will probably fix it soon enough, maybe at night of champions, but they titles as of right now are on the opposite shows. Muur ( talk) 20:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Feel free to chime in regarding Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#RD: Superstar Billy Graham. LM2000 ( talk) 02:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Why do we have them listed as vacant? Until wwe.com lists it that way, Raquel and Liv are still Champs. Maybe WWE is waiting for mew Champs to be crowned before officially ending the reign. WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 17:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I just posted a new topic regarding the infobox for championships. Please see Template talk:Infobox professional wrestling championship#Addressing title vacancies. JDC808 ♫ 01:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Join the discussion at Template talk:Professional wrestling results table. Pre fall 13:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't watch WWE weekly shows, so I'm relying on other editors here to fill in the gaps for me. Last night Trips introduced a new World Heavyweight Championship. There are a few questions I have that will influence our current articles. I'm unsure if these were addressed on Raw (if they weren't, we might be in for some editing disputes).
— Czello ( music) 08:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
This affects multiple articles. The 3 main titles in the male WWE roster are the WWE Championship WWE Universal Championship World Heavyweight Championship (WWE, 2023–present). Roman Reigns only holds 2 out of the 3 titles, so post Night of Champions 2023 is he still Undisputed WWE Universal Champion? Would it be more accurate to describe him as Unified WWE Universal Champion? ( Fran Bosh ( talk) 19:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC))
Could you help to disambiguate links to WWE World Heavyweight Championship. There are over 100 links shown on the list at https://dplbot.toolforge.org/dab_fix_list.php?title=WWE_World_Heavyweight_Championship, but many seem to be before 2002 which is he earliest shown on the dab list.— Rod talk 21:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Matt Hardy 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. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 19:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello. A few weeks ago, we talked about the name of the PPV and other PLE, iPPV, supercard events. I was thinking about this issue for a long time. I propose to include the name of the company in the article. Let me explain. If an article shares a name with other article, then a disambiguation is needed. For example, Mercury (element), Mercury (planet) and Mercury (mythology). If the article has the same name and the same category, we include the year. For example, Frozen (1997 film), Frozen (2005 film), Frozen (2010 American film), Frozen (2010 Hong Kong film), Frozen (2013 film). While there are unique names, like WrestleMania, WrestleKingdom or SummerSlam, there are other events with common names. Since we include only the year, the disambiguation is useless, since the reader doesn't know the subject. For example, Departure (2004), Destiny (2005), Resurgence (2023) or No Way Out (2006). Other articles include something to explain the article besides the year, like No Way Out (1987 film), No Way Out (1950 film), Destiny (2018 film), Destiny (2006 film), Departure (1938 film), Departure (1931 film). So, I propose to include the name. Something like WWE No Way Out (2006), since the year alone doesn't work as disambiguation. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 16:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WikiProject: Professional wrestling/Sources: Cagematch.net to discuss the reliability of Cagematch.net as a source. There is a proposal that Cagematch.net be moved to at least the Limited reliable sources section when making claims about specific elements such as match results. CeltBrowne ( talk) 11:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
An IP user has suggested this. Does IP user's request look acceptable? What do you suggest for the related sections (e.g. lead + Championships and accomplishments)? -- Mann Mann ( talk) 17:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Paul Heyman has always lugged around Roman Reigns' belts for him going down to the ring, be it 1, 2, or now 3.
Heyman is a toady, that's what toadies do, because lugging around your own title belts is too menial a task for a "tribal chief".
All 3 belts are in play (as WWE.com still individually lists the lineages of the WWE and Universal titles under the standard belts), so who actually physically carries them to the ring really doesn't matter. They all collectively represent the Undisputed WWE Universal Championship, so once Roman loses them, then we can see what comes of it/them. But until then, it's 3 belts representing 2 titles under 1 banner. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Here's where we are - what say y'all? Vjmlhds (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Motor City Machine Guns#Requested move 19 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 17:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia ( per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 06:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I was looking at the Bloodline and noticed the timeline coding is all messed up. I noticed in the history that @ Czello, HHH Pedrigree, and Dahumorist: have recently made edits to that section. I'm not going to point the finger at any of you. But whatever was done, it needs to be fixed. I don't know how, or I would myself. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 21:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
For a while I've been uncomfortable with the "associates" section of faction articles, as it strikes me as a breeding ground for WP:OR. To summarise the issues with it:
I am therefore proposing that we remove the "associate" section of articles, and instead only mention anyone worth mentioning in the body of the article itself. If there are compelling cases for exceptions to be made in unique circumstances (perhaps Zayn's "Honorary" status in the Bloodline - though even that I'm sceptical of) they could be made on the talk pages of the respective articles. — Czello ( music) 07:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it needs removed but rather tightened up on who qualifies as an "associate". What is the definition of an associate? I don't think we need sources to explicitly use the word "associate" if they use terminology that would align with the definition of associate. And I would disagree that it's OR if sources are using terminology that would indicate they are associates (i.e., "worked with", "teamed up", "partnership", "alliance", etc.). -- JDC808 ♫ 12:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I've updated The Crash Tag Team Championship. The Lucha Bros. vacated titles due to an apparent injury to Fenix. No sources were provided for said injury. But they were billed as champions on the date stated when they returned. Would we continue on with the previous reign in terms of days reigned? That makes the reign length 202 days. Others wise, they held the titles a combined 44 days. I've tried looking up other sources, but unfortunately, Cagematch is the only one I can find that lists it as a continuous reign. I was thinking to changed the combined days to 202, but left it as is for now as to see what the general consensus is. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 00:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Template:Professional_wrestling_profiles is extremely useful for automatically adding links to three databases to articles on individual wrestlers. Given the websites in question have pages for tag teams and stables as well, could a new template be developed to allow links to the databases to automatically be added for articles on tag teams and stables? McPhail ( talk) 22:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
|type=
has been added to the template to differentiate these formats. For example, I added the template to
Hardy Boyz using {{
Professional wrestling profiles|wrestlingdata=1871|type=team}}
. Cagematch team and stable IDs will be automatically fetched from Wikidata, but Wrestlingdata does not currently have team or stable properties supported on Wikidata, so you'll have to enter those manually. Let me know if you encounter any bugs.
Pre
fall 07:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I think is pure WP:OR to call the Raw Women's Championship now called WWE Women's Championship a world championship when WWE or no WP:RS like say PWI and WON or anything says its a world champion, some editors can't simply call it a world championship based on personal views, it is NXT Women's Championship level, possibly a women's Intercontinental Championship. Unless WWE or any established mainstream WP:RS says its a world championship we should refrain from calling it a world title. The SmackDown Women's Championship now known as the Women's World Championship (WWE) is recognized and named a Women's WORLD Championship and it is the sole WOMEN's world championship in the WWE as per WWE themselves and all WP:RS that i am aware of and starting with Becky Lynch as the first Champion at Backlash (2016). So please stop from calling the Raw Women's title a world championship based on personal views, as per WP:RS only the SmackDown Women's title is a world championship. Anyway this is just my take on this, hope a consensus can decide and I will respect all your decisions but I just ask for a proper consensus and not to refer to the Raw title as a world title without official sources. Dilbaggg ( talk) 11:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I would say if "world" is in the name it's a world title
@Dilbaggg WWE have literally called both titles world championships multiple times. Just look at the Royal Rumble for example, the winner earns a world championship match and they say this every year. Additionally, why would one of their top two main roster women's championships not be considered a women's world championship? Charlotte Flair is also touted as being a 14-time women's world champion. They can't say that if the WWE Women's Championship (formerly Raw Women's Championship) was not a world championship. And speaking of primary and secondary sources, a secondary source can't go and dictate what is and is not a title's designation for a promotion. The promotion dictates that so this is a case where we use the primary as the definitive source and the secondary simply backs it up.
Also, calling it a world championship is not based on personal views, it's based on WWE's recognition, which secondary sources have backed up. However, to say it's not a world championship is your personal view simply because the word "world" is not part of its name, and therefore you think it's not a world championship. That would be like saying the WWE Championship is not a world championship because it doesn't have "world" in the title's name. JDC808 ♫ 23:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Seen that someone started discussion, five days ago, on moving Jungle Boy to Jack Perry. I'm the only to have responded. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 08:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
This isn't AIV but no one has warned this person and various Wikipedia:PW articles replacing sourced contents (and even erasing sources) with his own personal narratives. I am gonna take a hike from Wikipedia and won't be around to see all this. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions/179.6.14.219&target=179.6.14.219&offset=&limit=500] @ Czello already dealt with a few of his edits but he has messed up a lot more articles since July 23, 2023 and all are exclusively wrestling articles. Please see to it. Dilbaggg ( talk) 15:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Jamie Hayter identifies as a British professional wrestler on her Twitter account (bio). Her WP article says an English professional wrestler. So which term is accurate? British = English = interchangeable terms? Asking this because I saw Dynamite Kid articles says he was a British professional wrestler. But almost all other articles use "an English professional wrestler". -- Mann Mann ( talk) 07:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Lee Vilenski: So British is preferred to English as a means of self-identification. Right? Asking because of edits like this. -- Mann Mann ( talk) 13:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Is this ESPN list notable to be added to the Championships and accomplishments of those wrestlers? -- Mann Mann ( talk) 04:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Something that's been on my mind for a year or so now. WWE notoriously inflate their attendance figures "for entertainment purposes" (sometimes beyond the actual seating capacity), even by their own admission. [1] [2] Most fans know this, and while we do report this in PPV articles, the infobox still displays the kayfabe figure (albeit, often with a "disputed" tag). For examples of this, take WrestleMania 39, WrestleMania 38, WrestleMania III, and several others.
Given that these are effectively figures done for marketing and do not reflect reality, it seems to be a big violation of WP:NPOV and WP:INDY, not to mention WP:PROMO and WP:INUNIVERSE. What's the justification for this?
My proposal:
How does this sound to everyone? — Czello ( music) 16:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Piniging a few other users to try to keep this discussion going: Mann Mann Drickfire JDC808 Sekyaw WaimiriMaina Addicted4517 — Czello ( music) 08:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I hold two views. The more relevant one is that the official attendance should be there somewhere because it is reported in independent secondary reliable sources that don't question it in normal circumstances. The ones that do question it need to be regarded consistent with our reliable source list. If it came from an unreliable source - it doesn't get added.
My second view can be disregarded because it's OR but I strongly feel that Dave Meltzer (as an individual and not as part of Wrestling Observer) should be regarded as unreliable on this subject simply because he got the attendance at the MCG for Super Showdown in 2018 totally wrong. I know this (OR remember) because I was there, I know the MCG like the back of my hand and there was definitely 70,000 in attendance. It just does my heart god to say that - nothing more. As I said it's OR. Take my first view officially. 08:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm now seeing six people in favour including myself and no real opposition. I'm going to consider this consensus and will make the changes shortly. — Czello ( music) 08:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
The thing is that using WWE's figures (or any promotion – but WWE are the biggest offender) without question is one of the biggest breaches of WP:ABOUTSELF going. They had to announce 100k for Mania 32 to beat Mania III, and they announced 93k for Mania III because they wanted to beat the Pope. Indeed, in the case of Mania 32 even McMahon admitted the number was vastly inflated. And in some cases, the figures announced on the night don't match up to common sense; there's no way WrestleMania 39 could've outsold the Super Bowl by 10,000 with one of the end zones blocked off for the stage. I just find it a little perplexing that some people are arguing WWE's numbers aren't a work even when accepting that everything else is. And yes, this does apply to All In as well; let's wait for Meltzer et al to give the real numbers. Sceptre ( talk) 20:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Soapboxing about an unrelated article
|
---|
Bigboss9893 Your comments haven't been removed, they've been collapsed to keep the discussion about a different article separate to the PPV discussion. Please don't undo this. If you want to discuss that article either do it within this collapse section or do it on that article's talk page. — Czello ( music) 12:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
You see how it is done here? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-attended_concerts that’s a great page on wikipedia that has been viewed and used more as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigboss9893 ( talk • contribs) 08:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Imagine thinking all of the attendance numbers reported everywhere in all sports,concerts,other wrestling promotions are all real but it is only wwe Imagine thinking WWE invented that, WWE learn their stuff from other sports,attendance is a unique thing because it could mean everyone inside that building which includes comps tickets,employees,ushers,performers, families,production crew and most importantly suite boxes,ATT stadium suite boxes could have 14K people in the suites The reporter brandon thurston who spread that WM 32 number admitted that he asked the dallas secrutiy police officer for it and he asked him months later if it included suites and he told him he doesn’t know,that’s the guy that you are using as a ‘source’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigboss9893 ( talk • contribs) 11:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
|
References
The attendance as would be normally announced for an event was 93,730 people, breaking the WWE's all-time total attendance (paid plus comps) record of 79,127 set at the 1992 SummerSlam show at Wembley Stadium, which barely beat out the 1987 WrestleMania III show which did more than 78,000. The actual number in the building was 97,769. ... the company had pushed the idea from the start of drawing 100,000 people (pretty much insuring [ sic] they would have to announce a number over that or it would be a disappointment to the fans) ... The WWE announced the number at 101,763, which is the mythical number "for entertainment purposes" as Vince McMahon told me about the difference between real numbers and announced numbers years ago.
I've requested protection of multiple biographies that have long been disrupted by South Korean IPs [16]. If you encounter more of the same at other articles, check the IPs and know that sanctions are available through ANI and at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 05:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Just looking for a consensus on prowresltingstories.com [17], and whether it should be used as a source on Wikipedia. It isn't listed on the recognised content page as either reliable or not. Seems to be a lot of retelling of established stories, without a lot of attribution. Daff22 ( talk) 13:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Hey folks, this is an old User:Bellhalla article that is up for GAR. There's been a degradation in the reading quality since it was written in 2008, but it also needs some help with what might now be unreliable sources. Is anyone up for the challenge? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Can we get more eyes on CM Punk ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to help maintain its FA status? At this time, I think it needs substantial improvements (in adhering to core content policies and some guidelines) to pass any potential FA review. Since that article is this WikiProject's only BLP to achieve FA level, it's in the project's best interest to ensure it still meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. KyleJoan talk 03:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
So right now i am currently working on my draft, SmackDown 1000. I have submitted it for review and i wanted to see your thoughts on it so i can improve it more so it can be ready for article mainplace. My article is linked here. Thanks for reading. Summerslam2022 ( talk) 20:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I'd appreciate views from the project on some points of contention in the article CM Punk. I have set out my own views but am happy to take the steer of project members.
Any thoughts from the project would be welcomed. McPhail ( talk) 11:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Should Punk's "Real World Championship" be referred to in the lede?
Should the most recent section be titled "Real world champion" or "Real World Champion"?If AEW capitalises it, we should too.
Should this image be included in the article?I don't see an issue with it - that part of the article is mostly text and no images. Is there an argument against the image (other than its quality)? I suppose we could always replace it with a better quality one later should one become available.
Should the text "An internal investigation into the incident concluded that Punk "would likely be exiting the company entirely"." be included?I'm inclined to say no as it's hearsay. That said, we currently don't include anything about the backstage altercation. There should be some mention of it as well as his suspension.
Should the article state Intercontinental Champion or WWE Intercontinental Champion?WWE, as there are multiple Intercontinental championships. — Czello ( music) 12:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Should Punk's "Real World Championship" be referred to in the lead?( bolding mine, see NOTLEDE): No. This is a storyline device given the greenlight by Tony Khan, who has previously expressed desires to keep his championships lineal (see: his reluctance to strip Thunder Rosa, creating "interim" championships). The "championship" is otherwise completely unrecognized by AEW, with the pre-match graphic for matches using scarequotes to refer to it. It can be explained in prose, but doesn't carry enough WP:WEIGHT for the lead.
Should the most recent section be titled "Real world champion" or "Real World Champion"?: ""Real World Champion"", with the scarequotes. The primary source linked to here also uses them.
Should this image be included in the article?: Yes, in a relevant section in prose. Great shot!
Should the text "An internal investigation into the incident concluded that Punk "would likely be exiting the company entirely"." be included?: No. BLP policy states that we must be certain that everything we write about living persons is accurate. Clearly the conclusion wasn't accurate if it was relating to Brawl Out.
Should the article state Intercontinental Champion or WWE Intercontinental Champion?: WWE per Czello. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I guess all the questions around the "real" world championship are now irrelevant. — Czello ( music) 23:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Brodie Lee#Requested move 27 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
McPhail ( talk) 10:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
"The Inner Circle (professional wrestling)" > "Inner Circle (professional wrestling)". McPhail ( talk) 09:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pat Patterson (wrestler)#Requested move 1 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
I think Wrestlenomics should be listed as a reliable source for wrestling business news. It focuses on economics (TV ratings, attendances, quarterly profits) and has been the go-to for wrestling TV ratings for several years. Semicorrect ( talk) 15:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
E.g. "The Rock's signature moves include the Samoan drop, the spinebuster, and the Rock Bottom (a side slam)." The manual of style does not specify whether non-generic move names should be italicised. McPhail ( talk) 20:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello. A few weeks ago, I had a small discussion with another user, but since I was traveling... Looking the PPv/PLE, we include the same lead "this was the main event". Then, we include a list of "prominent mayches". I think we should avoid the "prominent matches". Everything in the LEAD has to be sourced in the body of the article. Most times, I can't find a source for "prominent matches", looks more like our personal suggestions rather than sourced material. Payback, for example, included Rollins-Nakamura, JD-Owens & Sami, Lynch-Stratus and Kinght-Miz. What makes these matches more prominent than Rey's or Ripley's? [18] Looks like our personal sugestion. Same for Great American Bash [19] A card with 6 matches, 1 main event (Hayes- Ilja) and 4 prominent matches (NA title, Womens title, Tag title, Stevenson debut). Why are these matches prominent but the Davenport-Perez isnt? My suggestion, include only the main event, avoiding WP:OR. If reliable sources state a match is prominent, include it, like WM X8 with Rock-Hogan or WM3 with Savage-Steamboat. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 11:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Discussion here. McPhail ( talk) 12:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Timelines are often being included for stables and there have been some inconsistencies. In a few timelines, there are inclusions of title reigns (ex: The Judgment Day). There are also a variety of colors used in different articles (ex: The Judgment Day, The Bloodline, and Chaos all use different colors for roles in their timelines). I feel like there needs to be some consistency for every timeline. Was there ever a consensus on how they should be used and what should/shouldn’t be included? Sekyaw (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
sorry for the delay. summer time. several years ago, an admin deleted some time tables, i dont remember the reason, maybe something with accesibility. I think are fine for large groups like Bullet Club. for small, linear stables like JAS, Inner Circle or Bloodline, not that much. I would include only members and leader, no tag team or title reigns.-- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 11:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree with points made by HHH Pedrigree, Czello, Mann Mann. Here’s my proposal for timelines:
Would love to hear any more suggestions to reach a consensus about these timelines. Sekyaw (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Been a couple weeks. Pinging some users to see if we can get a consensus on how timelines should be treated and presented consistently. HHH Pedrigree Czello Mann Mann Lee Vilenski Mr. C.C. McPhail JDC808 Sekyaw (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
It seems like there’s an agreement that timelines should only be for larger groups (or whenever it seems necessary), omit title reigns from timelines, and having a thin line for both leaders and managers. I proposed a black bar for all members, thin yellow line for leaders, and a thin blue line for managers. I’ll begin implementing these if there are no objections. Sekyaw (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
As part of the recent controversy around wrestling attendance figures, I would like to present the following from Dave Meltzer on the Wrestling Observer Radio on how WWE counts attendance. This was initially posted on Reddit by u/ABCDEXYZWV12345
Pinging users to get this topic going:
Mann Mann
Drickfire
JDC808
Sekyaw
@Addicted4517 @
Czello
TLDR Summary:
When WWE announces their attendance records for shows, they add:
No one in the venue is actually counting non-ticket holders, so WWE makes an inflated number in agreement with the venue through back-and-forth emails prior to the show.
Full Transcript: (8:14 - 12:10)
Garrett: Who audited the WrestleMania 32 number (101,763)? Didn’t Vince say something like, “Oh yeah maybe there was like 20,000 ticket takers and people in the back.” ( Referring to Vince’s quote in the 2017 Q1 Investors Earnings Call)
Meltzer: It’s not even that. Like, when they do a number like that; at the Royal Rumble (2023), we saw exactly what they do, because Brandon Thurston (from WrestleNomics) actually got the public record (from San Antonio Officials) because it was a city promotion of them (WWE) explaining what they want as attendance. The number that they released for San Antonio for Royal Rumble, it’s a complete fake number (51,338), but they tried to justify it. It’s the number of tickets out including people who weren’t in the building but might have gotten free tickets, so that total number (tickets distributed), plus everyone working in the building which nobody counts, there’s nobody who counts that. Plus if every press box seat was filled, nobody counts press, even if nowhere near full, they’re all counted. If every luxury box was full which also wasn’t full, they’re all counted, including luxury boxes that were tarped off, they were quoted in the capacity. Everyone working in the building was counted, and everyone working in the parking lot, they’re counted too. So that’s how they got the number (Royal Rumble 2023), it’s a completely fake number.
The Dallas number (WM32 - 101,763), that’s like WM3 (93,173) where it’s just “We’re making up a number” and they (WWE) had to announce over 100,000 because they had promoted it in that direction ( From WM32 press conference announcement in 2015), but it’s totally made up. Even if you included everyone working in the building, there were 80,709 in the building that went through the turnstiles that were actual fans with paid and/or free tickets, but it does not include people who had tickets that didn’t come ( 84,000 tickets distributed), so that’s where the 80,709 number comes from (Reported by Arlington Police Department), the 101,763 is just a made up number. There’s probably 93,000 ( Meltzer reported 97,000 the day after WM32) if you include everything (ticket takers, etc) and all that. With WWE, you count everyone backstage. You count all the performers, all the performers friends, their relatives, the agents, the cameramen etc.
Garrett: Whose job is that to start pointing and counting and make sure they get that number?
Meltzer: I don’t know, but when they went for the Royal Rumble (2023), they got a number, and then they went right back to the building and said, “This number isn’t high enough.” There’s a message, there’s an actual email message from WWE saying, “This isn’t high enough, can you figure out a way to get us a bigger number?” “Okay we’ll count the tarped up luxury boxes that nobody is in or opened, we’ll count the people who are directing traffic into the parking lot.” Those numbers are ludicrous because nobody counts them. If we’re going to do a real record, that show (WM32) was 79,800. (Reported on WWE Key Indicator Performance)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example: WrestleMania 32
The actual number of fans in the building with a ticket was 80,709. This was provided by the Arlington Police Department to Brandon Thurston in 2017. WaimiriMaina ( talk) 18:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Maybe this is actually a better reason to not comment on attendances at all, unless they are particularly notable. It's not that WWE's numbers shouldn't be mentioned if they are particuarly notable, nor should we discount independent numbers, but both sides are unlikely to be reliable figures, considering these third party sources are either being told a number by one of their sources inside the arena, or (more likely), guestimating from photos/attendance, which is rarely super reliable. They aren't counting tickets sold either. How many articles (outside of the largest selling events) actually matter what the "official attendance" is? Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 12:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I've stayed away from this discussion thus far, but it's gotten ridiculous. The WWE numbers are probably incorrect. Other sources (Meltzer included) are unlikely to have definitive evidence for a specific number. I recommend that we change the infobox to read "Reported Attendance" and list the promotion's official number. Then, in the Event section (not aftermath, reception, or whatever else I saw suggested)--at the beginning of the section--we give information in the prose about the official number and mention other notable figures (e.g. Meltzer's estimates/calculations). I don't see any other way to have consistency between articles (why portray WWE's numbers on other articles as definitive and true just because nobody has published a different number?) and to present the information in a way that doesn't rely on extensive footnotes. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 20:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
why portray WWE's numbers on other articles as definitive and true just because nobody has published a different number?- because WWE's inflated numbers tend to be on bigger shows. If they're not corrected by independent sources (normally for regular PPVs) then the assumption is that it's an accurate number. — Czello ( music) 21:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
As usual I'm late in here and this accusation of anti-Meltzer sentiment is a case of reverse bias and it makes those who claim that no better than those they are accusing. The point here is thus - we have no way of telling what figure is really right no matter what. The thing is, Meltzer is expressing an opinion. He may believe it but it's an opinion. I mean I've gone anti Meltzer previously but by my own admission that particular note I made was OR - so I'm not repeating it. I don't think we should use F4W's general good sourcing record as an excuse to believe Meltzer as an individual. This is very different to reporting facts, which F4W does very well.
So we go back to the balance of independent reliable sources outside of this. Now here we are trapped by WP rules as reliable sources (as previously mentioned) agree with WWE. Sure, we can turn and question it and ask for more sources and be right to do so. It's controversial. I have done that in the past (and been jumped on for it). It's in the WP spirit to question for accuracy, particularly for promotional purposes which inflated attendance figures goes to. It's a tough one because it's right to put attendance figures in the box - in fact I would call that required.
With that in mind I think GaryColemanFan has the best solution - the reported figure (even if it's wrong) and a sourced correction in the box. Then the details in the article itself. Addicted4517 ( talk) 03:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
There's nothing in-universe about stating the billed number (including in the infobox, specifically including the word "billed") and then explaining the multiple claims in the prose. That's the very definition of out-of-universe. My solution remains the only one that is factual and presents all of the information in a manner that is simultaneously consistent, verifiable, and neutral. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 01:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The second LWO timeline is messed up. Not sure how to fix or I would have done it myself. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 23:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Editors have been in the habit of copying and pasting the same text explaining the concept of professional wrestling into the Storyline section of every wrestling event, citing entertainment.howstuffworks.com: "The event comprised X matches that resulted from scripted storylines, where wrestlers portrayed heroes, villains, or less distinguishable characters in scripted events that built tension and culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches.".
I've started removing this text when I see it, as it's unnecessary and inappropriate to explain the concept of professional wrestling in every wrestling event article when there is a professional wrestling article for that purpose. The
Super Bowl XLIV article doesn't explain what American football is, it just links to the American football article.
The Matrix doesn't explain what an action film is, it just links to the action film article. However, this has become standard practice in professional wrestling articles for some reason, and I'd like to discuss this to gain consensus against including this content in every single wrestling event article.
Cjhard (
talk) 04:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
There was an RfC ( Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 98#Requests for comment) in 2016 about this issue; it included members from inside and outside of the wikiproject. Consensus was that a short disclaimer was needed (something like: "The card featured ten matches, which resulted from scripted storylines and had results predetermined by WWE") but there was clear consensus against long disclaimers like the one discussed in this thread. How the fuck this got weaseled back in and pasted into most event articles in the years since is beyond me. It should be removed and replaced immediately everywhere where it appears. LM2000 ( talk) 10:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I've been monitoring this since my last post. To try and reach a more solid consensus, as noted by LM2000, the previous consensus (which had editors in and outside of the project involved) decided that a small disclaimer was needed.
With that in mind, I propose that the disclaimer be as follows:
The card featured [#] matches, which resulted from scripted storylines and had results predetermined by [promotion(s)]. Storylines were produced on the promotion's weekly television shows, [name of show(s)].
So as example with a past WWE event,
The card featured eight matches, which resulted from scripted storylines and had results predetermined by WWE. Storylines were produced on the promotion's weekly television shows, Monday Night Raw and Friday Night SmackDown.
And if a promotion also has a streaming show, that can be added (e.g., Storylines were produced on the promotion's weekly television show, NXT, and the supplementary streaming program, Level Up).
And to answer you LM2000 on who or how the long disclaimer got added back, in late 2018, Galatz added it to a number of articles. In this discussion from October 2018, he asserted that it should be on every event article based on the Style Guide (you can read his whole reason there for more details). It seems it wasn't challenged enough to have it back to the shorter disclaimer and de facto became the status quo. -- JDC808 ♫ 03:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
A discussion you may be interested in as started on Talk:The Radicalz#Merger discussion, proposing that two articles be merged into you. Your input would be appreciated. CeltBrowne ( talk) 20:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I have nominated Shelton Benjamin for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 03:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm working on an article for this tag-team, there is some decent coverage but I still feel its WP:TOOSOON. What do you think? ★Trekker ( talk) 00:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 111#Wrestlenomics as a reliable source and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources#Wrestlenomics as a reliable source, there seemed to be a general consensus that Wrestlenomics was a reliable industry specific source. I've now added it to the list of sources on Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources.
I hope that's alright; I'm taking the initiative here because no action seemed to be happening even though a general agreement seemed to be met. Given how difficult it is to get reliable sources for the topic of professional wrestling, discussing and listing acceptable sources is something WikiProject Professional wrestling needs to do well and not let fall to the wayside.
I'd like to see more discussion on other possible reliable sources such as Cagematch.net if possible. CeltBrowne ( talk) 16:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
To clarify, I can't see any evidence presented in either discussion to assert reliability for Wrestlenomics. What makes the author an expert in the subject matter? Please cite any training, background, education, accolades, etc. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 21:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
This (which does seem to usually be spelled "US" not "U.S.") seems to be the only major American wrestling event/title for which we don't have an article. It's redlinked or unlinked in a whole lot of bios, and was recently removed from U.S. Open (disambiguation). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
When do you think Brian Pillman Jr. ought to be moved to Lexis King? ★Trekker ( talk) 06:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Professional wrestling ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article has been in poor shape for some time, and I think some of the reason is that overhauling a 15,000 word article is probably too much for one person to handle by themselves. I'd like to scope out if there's any enthusiasm for a small bunch of us (about half a dozen?) to adopt a section of the article each to clean up? Sceptre ( talk) 21:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Talk:Consejo_Mundial_de_Lucha_Libre#Proposed_merge 2A00:23C6:761C:AF01:C88C:7DB0:5190:17BA ( talk) 11:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Bound for Glory (wrestling pay-per-view) 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. Hog Farm Talk 21:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Per the Manual of Style, "Terms such as "current", "now", and "recent" should be avoided". Any thoughts on how this is dealt with in terms of wrestlers who hold titles? McPhail ( talk) 19:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Impact! (TV series)#Requested move 4 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 14:17, 4 January 2024 (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 109 | Archive 110 | Archive 111 | Archive 112 |
Am I imagining things after my 15+ years (wow) on this wiki, or did the PPV event infobox have the theme song parameter removed at some point? And if I am, I feel like this should be in the infobox. True CRaysball | #RaysUp 03:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Support theme songs being re-added. I don't believe taglines were removed, but if they were then I support those being re-added as well. -- THE $R$. Habla! Hancock! 23:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Okay, any other input? I don't want to act on a flimsy consensus. True CRaysball | #RaysUp 04:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
So can we say this is a consensus to re-add the theme song parameter? True CRaysball | #RaysUp 01:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at
Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent
Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class=
parameter to {{
WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{
WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present.
Aymatth2 (
talk) 20:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
If somebody wants to give their 2 cents, there is a discussion for a name change in Aiden English. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 06:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I have nominated CMLL World Heavyweight Championship for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 20:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
An example:
Mayu Iwatani
As you see the sub-sections of Mayu Iwatani's Stardom career are just pure years. It seems this format has been used for some other articles about Japanese female wrestlers; e.g. take a look at
Hazuki,
Koguma, and
Nanae Takahashi. Those sub-sections look lazy in my opinion. --
Mann Mann (
talk) 15:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Used to be way more active. Now I can create threads where nobody responds. Where did all the contributors go? Is there a new pro wrestling WP? WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 21:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Per
WP:PRECISELANG, we should "avoid using statements that will date quickly."
I noticed
this edit to
Omos today and it got me thinking: Should we be using the opening paragraph of an article to state that a wrestler is a "free agent" in WWE's storylines? I have not followed the current draft at all (or wrestling in general much at all lately outside of the major WrestleMania storylines going into it and the Brawl Out hilarity) so I don't know if anyone is meant to be a "free agent" (outside of special attractions ie John Cena) or if it's just a holding title until they are drafted in-story.
Regardless, I'm not sure we should be PROMOting which TV show each wrestler performs on in the opening sentences to begin with. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Since we are talking about free agent. What do you think about articles like 2023 WWE Draft? The article includes a section called "free agents". As you know, per MOS:INUNIVERSE we should avoid "Describing aspects of the work as if they were real." Lesnar, Corbin, Ziggler and the rest aren't free agents, since they are under contract with WWE, so we shouldn't label them as free agent, it's just fictional terminology from WWE storylines. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 16:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, recently myself and JDC808 were discussing what the correct naming for the All In (2023) article should be, as they were of the view it should be "AEW All In (2023)". Normally we don't include the company name in a PPV (so, SummerSlam (2022) rather than WWE SummerSlam (2022)), and I believe that, as it's fundamentally the same series of shows, it's enough for the lead of the article to specify that it's produced by a new company, rather than breaking with naming convention. JDC808 pointed out, however, that when NXT have reused Halloween Havoc the new shows specifically had "NXT" in their title (e.g., NXT Halloween Havoc (2022)). I think part of the reason for this is that almost all NXT shows have "NXT" in the title, regardless of whether those shows have appeared in a different company (e.g., NXT TakeOver 36, rather than simply TakeOver 36).
I suppose what we've discovered is that there is an inconsistency in naming PPV articles, especially when a show is produced by a new company. Here's what I'd like to discuss:
— Czello ( music) 12:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
WWE recognizes their reign starting April 2 (Sunday). We add least need to add a note, because we recognize it as starting April 1. Or was it really Sunday? Mania ended a few minutes after midnight eastcoast time. WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 18:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
We had a consensus on one of Nash's WCW reigns being unrecognized. Changes were made accordingly. Then, against consensus, someone undid those changes. That's still the way it is. What now? Just undo the changes the person undid to go back to consensus? And then what? The person undoes it again? I am not interested in an editing war. WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 22:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I've always been intrigued by Andre the Giant and our photos of him. A couple of years again I managed to track down all the important info about the image Commons:File:Andre the Giant.jpg. Recently I made a similar breakthrough with his article's lede photo. It turns out that that photo is part of a large set of photos, all taken on a single night, that make up a large portion of the photos on Wikipedia covering the WWF's 80's superstars. You've surely seen these photos while browsing. On Commons I created a new category to group these photos all together. This "John McKeon Flickr photos" Commons category description contains a link to a very interesting news article about this set of photos that you'll surely enjoy reading about. Plus if you wish to help organize the photos on Commons that will be welcomed too. Jason Quinn ( talk) 11:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
i dont see why people are trying to pretend like the title havent switched shows. wwe will probably fix it soon enough, maybe at night of champions, but they titles as of right now are on the opposite shows. Muur ( talk) 20:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Feel free to chime in regarding Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#RD: Superstar Billy Graham. LM2000 ( talk) 02:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Why do we have them listed as vacant? Until wwe.com lists it that way, Raquel and Liv are still Champs. Maybe WWE is waiting for mew Champs to be crowned before officially ending the reign. WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 17:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I just posted a new topic regarding the infobox for championships. Please see Template talk:Infobox professional wrestling championship#Addressing title vacancies. JDC808 ♫ 01:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Join the discussion at Template talk:Professional wrestling results table. Pre fall 13:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't watch WWE weekly shows, so I'm relying on other editors here to fill in the gaps for me. Last night Trips introduced a new World Heavyweight Championship. There are a few questions I have that will influence our current articles. I'm unsure if these were addressed on Raw (if they weren't, we might be in for some editing disputes).
— Czello ( music) 08:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
This affects multiple articles. The 3 main titles in the male WWE roster are the WWE Championship WWE Universal Championship World Heavyweight Championship (WWE, 2023–present). Roman Reigns only holds 2 out of the 3 titles, so post Night of Champions 2023 is he still Undisputed WWE Universal Champion? Would it be more accurate to describe him as Unified WWE Universal Champion? ( Fran Bosh ( talk) 19:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC))
Could you help to disambiguate links to WWE World Heavyweight Championship. There are over 100 links shown on the list at https://dplbot.toolforge.org/dab_fix_list.php?title=WWE_World_Heavyweight_Championship, but many seem to be before 2002 which is he earliest shown on the dab list.— Rod talk 21:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Matt Hardy 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. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 19:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello. A few weeks ago, we talked about the name of the PPV and other PLE, iPPV, supercard events. I was thinking about this issue for a long time. I propose to include the name of the company in the article. Let me explain. If an article shares a name with other article, then a disambiguation is needed. For example, Mercury (element), Mercury (planet) and Mercury (mythology). If the article has the same name and the same category, we include the year. For example, Frozen (1997 film), Frozen (2005 film), Frozen (2010 American film), Frozen (2010 Hong Kong film), Frozen (2013 film). While there are unique names, like WrestleMania, WrestleKingdom or SummerSlam, there are other events with common names. Since we include only the year, the disambiguation is useless, since the reader doesn't know the subject. For example, Departure (2004), Destiny (2005), Resurgence (2023) or No Way Out (2006). Other articles include something to explain the article besides the year, like No Way Out (1987 film), No Way Out (1950 film), Destiny (2018 film), Destiny (2006 film), Departure (1938 film), Departure (1931 film). So, I propose to include the name. Something like WWE No Way Out (2006), since the year alone doesn't work as disambiguation. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 16:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WikiProject: Professional wrestling/Sources: Cagematch.net to discuss the reliability of Cagematch.net as a source. There is a proposal that Cagematch.net be moved to at least the Limited reliable sources section when making claims about specific elements such as match results. CeltBrowne ( talk) 11:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
An IP user has suggested this. Does IP user's request look acceptable? What do you suggest for the related sections (e.g. lead + Championships and accomplishments)? -- Mann Mann ( talk) 17:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Paul Heyman has always lugged around Roman Reigns' belts for him going down to the ring, be it 1, 2, or now 3.
Heyman is a toady, that's what toadies do, because lugging around your own title belts is too menial a task for a "tribal chief".
All 3 belts are in play (as WWE.com still individually lists the lineages of the WWE and Universal titles under the standard belts), so who actually physically carries them to the ring really doesn't matter. They all collectively represent the Undisputed WWE Universal Championship, so once Roman loses them, then we can see what comes of it/them. But until then, it's 3 belts representing 2 titles under 1 banner. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Here's where we are - what say y'all? Vjmlhds (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Motor City Machine Guns#Requested move 19 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Captain Jack Sparrow ( talk) 17:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia ( per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 06:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I was looking at the Bloodline and noticed the timeline coding is all messed up. I noticed in the history that @ Czello, HHH Pedrigree, and Dahumorist: have recently made edits to that section. I'm not going to point the finger at any of you. But whatever was done, it needs to be fixed. I don't know how, or I would myself. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 21:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
For a while I've been uncomfortable with the "associates" section of faction articles, as it strikes me as a breeding ground for WP:OR. To summarise the issues with it:
I am therefore proposing that we remove the "associate" section of articles, and instead only mention anyone worth mentioning in the body of the article itself. If there are compelling cases for exceptions to be made in unique circumstances (perhaps Zayn's "Honorary" status in the Bloodline - though even that I'm sceptical of) they could be made on the talk pages of the respective articles. — Czello ( music) 07:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it needs removed but rather tightened up on who qualifies as an "associate". What is the definition of an associate? I don't think we need sources to explicitly use the word "associate" if they use terminology that would align with the definition of associate. And I would disagree that it's OR if sources are using terminology that would indicate they are associates (i.e., "worked with", "teamed up", "partnership", "alliance", etc.). -- JDC808 ♫ 12:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I've updated The Crash Tag Team Championship. The Lucha Bros. vacated titles due to an apparent injury to Fenix. No sources were provided for said injury. But they were billed as champions on the date stated when they returned. Would we continue on with the previous reign in terms of days reigned? That makes the reign length 202 days. Others wise, they held the titles a combined 44 days. I've tried looking up other sources, but unfortunately, Cagematch is the only one I can find that lists it as a continuous reign. I was thinking to changed the combined days to 202, but left it as is for now as to see what the general consensus is. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 00:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Template:Professional_wrestling_profiles is extremely useful for automatically adding links to three databases to articles on individual wrestlers. Given the websites in question have pages for tag teams and stables as well, could a new template be developed to allow links to the databases to automatically be added for articles on tag teams and stables? McPhail ( talk) 22:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
|type=
has been added to the template to differentiate these formats. For example, I added the template to
Hardy Boyz using {{
Professional wrestling profiles|wrestlingdata=1871|type=team}}
. Cagematch team and stable IDs will be automatically fetched from Wikidata, but Wrestlingdata does not currently have team or stable properties supported on Wikidata, so you'll have to enter those manually. Let me know if you encounter any bugs.
Pre
fall 07:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I think is pure WP:OR to call the Raw Women's Championship now called WWE Women's Championship a world championship when WWE or no WP:RS like say PWI and WON or anything says its a world champion, some editors can't simply call it a world championship based on personal views, it is NXT Women's Championship level, possibly a women's Intercontinental Championship. Unless WWE or any established mainstream WP:RS says its a world championship we should refrain from calling it a world title. The SmackDown Women's Championship now known as the Women's World Championship (WWE) is recognized and named a Women's WORLD Championship and it is the sole WOMEN's world championship in the WWE as per WWE themselves and all WP:RS that i am aware of and starting with Becky Lynch as the first Champion at Backlash (2016). So please stop from calling the Raw Women's title a world championship based on personal views, as per WP:RS only the SmackDown Women's title is a world championship. Anyway this is just my take on this, hope a consensus can decide and I will respect all your decisions but I just ask for a proper consensus and not to refer to the Raw title as a world title without official sources. Dilbaggg ( talk) 11:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I would say if "world" is in the name it's a world title
@Dilbaggg WWE have literally called both titles world championships multiple times. Just look at the Royal Rumble for example, the winner earns a world championship match and they say this every year. Additionally, why would one of their top two main roster women's championships not be considered a women's world championship? Charlotte Flair is also touted as being a 14-time women's world champion. They can't say that if the WWE Women's Championship (formerly Raw Women's Championship) was not a world championship. And speaking of primary and secondary sources, a secondary source can't go and dictate what is and is not a title's designation for a promotion. The promotion dictates that so this is a case where we use the primary as the definitive source and the secondary simply backs it up.
Also, calling it a world championship is not based on personal views, it's based on WWE's recognition, which secondary sources have backed up. However, to say it's not a world championship is your personal view simply because the word "world" is not part of its name, and therefore you think it's not a world championship. That would be like saying the WWE Championship is not a world championship because it doesn't have "world" in the title's name. JDC808 ♫ 23:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Seen that someone started discussion, five days ago, on moving Jungle Boy to Jack Perry. I'm the only to have responded. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 08:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
This isn't AIV but no one has warned this person and various Wikipedia:PW articles replacing sourced contents (and even erasing sources) with his own personal narratives. I am gonna take a hike from Wikipedia and won't be around to see all this. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions/179.6.14.219&target=179.6.14.219&offset=&limit=500] @ Czello already dealt with a few of his edits but he has messed up a lot more articles since July 23, 2023 and all are exclusively wrestling articles. Please see to it. Dilbaggg ( talk) 15:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Jamie Hayter identifies as a British professional wrestler on her Twitter account (bio). Her WP article says an English professional wrestler. So which term is accurate? British = English = interchangeable terms? Asking this because I saw Dynamite Kid articles says he was a British professional wrestler. But almost all other articles use "an English professional wrestler". -- Mann Mann ( talk) 07:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Lee Vilenski: So British is preferred to English as a means of self-identification. Right? Asking because of edits like this. -- Mann Mann ( talk) 13:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Is this ESPN list notable to be added to the Championships and accomplishments of those wrestlers? -- Mann Mann ( talk) 04:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Something that's been on my mind for a year or so now. WWE notoriously inflate their attendance figures "for entertainment purposes" (sometimes beyond the actual seating capacity), even by their own admission. [1] [2] Most fans know this, and while we do report this in PPV articles, the infobox still displays the kayfabe figure (albeit, often with a "disputed" tag). For examples of this, take WrestleMania 39, WrestleMania 38, WrestleMania III, and several others.
Given that these are effectively figures done for marketing and do not reflect reality, it seems to be a big violation of WP:NPOV and WP:INDY, not to mention WP:PROMO and WP:INUNIVERSE. What's the justification for this?
My proposal:
How does this sound to everyone? — Czello ( music) 16:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Piniging a few other users to try to keep this discussion going: Mann Mann Drickfire JDC808 Sekyaw WaimiriMaina Addicted4517 — Czello ( music) 08:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I hold two views. The more relevant one is that the official attendance should be there somewhere because it is reported in independent secondary reliable sources that don't question it in normal circumstances. The ones that do question it need to be regarded consistent with our reliable source list. If it came from an unreliable source - it doesn't get added.
My second view can be disregarded because it's OR but I strongly feel that Dave Meltzer (as an individual and not as part of Wrestling Observer) should be regarded as unreliable on this subject simply because he got the attendance at the MCG for Super Showdown in 2018 totally wrong. I know this (OR remember) because I was there, I know the MCG like the back of my hand and there was definitely 70,000 in attendance. It just does my heart god to say that - nothing more. As I said it's OR. Take my first view officially. 08:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm now seeing six people in favour including myself and no real opposition. I'm going to consider this consensus and will make the changes shortly. — Czello ( music) 08:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
The thing is that using WWE's figures (or any promotion – but WWE are the biggest offender) without question is one of the biggest breaches of WP:ABOUTSELF going. They had to announce 100k for Mania 32 to beat Mania III, and they announced 93k for Mania III because they wanted to beat the Pope. Indeed, in the case of Mania 32 even McMahon admitted the number was vastly inflated. And in some cases, the figures announced on the night don't match up to common sense; there's no way WrestleMania 39 could've outsold the Super Bowl by 10,000 with one of the end zones blocked off for the stage. I just find it a little perplexing that some people are arguing WWE's numbers aren't a work even when accepting that everything else is. And yes, this does apply to All In as well; let's wait for Meltzer et al to give the real numbers. Sceptre ( talk) 20:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Soapboxing about an unrelated article
|
---|
Bigboss9893 Your comments haven't been removed, they've been collapsed to keep the discussion about a different article separate to the PPV discussion. Please don't undo this. If you want to discuss that article either do it within this collapse section or do it on that article's talk page. — Czello ( music) 12:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
You see how it is done here? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-attended_concerts that’s a great page on wikipedia that has been viewed and used more as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigboss9893 ( talk • contribs) 08:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Imagine thinking all of the attendance numbers reported everywhere in all sports,concerts,other wrestling promotions are all real but it is only wwe Imagine thinking WWE invented that, WWE learn their stuff from other sports,attendance is a unique thing because it could mean everyone inside that building which includes comps tickets,employees,ushers,performers, families,production crew and most importantly suite boxes,ATT stadium suite boxes could have 14K people in the suites The reporter brandon thurston who spread that WM 32 number admitted that he asked the dallas secrutiy police officer for it and he asked him months later if it included suites and he told him he doesn’t know,that’s the guy that you are using as a ‘source’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigboss9893 ( talk • contribs) 11:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
|
References
The attendance as would be normally announced for an event was 93,730 people, breaking the WWE's all-time total attendance (paid plus comps) record of 79,127 set at the 1992 SummerSlam show at Wembley Stadium, which barely beat out the 1987 WrestleMania III show which did more than 78,000. The actual number in the building was 97,769. ... the company had pushed the idea from the start of drawing 100,000 people (pretty much insuring [ sic] they would have to announce a number over that or it would be a disappointment to the fans) ... The WWE announced the number at 101,763, which is the mythical number "for entertainment purposes" as Vince McMahon told me about the difference between real numbers and announced numbers years ago.
I've requested protection of multiple biographies that have long been disrupted by South Korean IPs [16]. If you encounter more of the same at other articles, check the IPs and know that sanctions are available through ANI and at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 05:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Just looking for a consensus on prowresltingstories.com [17], and whether it should be used as a source on Wikipedia. It isn't listed on the recognised content page as either reliable or not. Seems to be a lot of retelling of established stories, without a lot of attribution. Daff22 ( talk) 13:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Hey folks, this is an old User:Bellhalla article that is up for GAR. There's been a degradation in the reading quality since it was written in 2008, but it also needs some help with what might now be unreliable sources. Is anyone up for the challenge? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Can we get more eyes on CM Punk ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to help maintain its FA status? At this time, I think it needs substantial improvements (in adhering to core content policies and some guidelines) to pass any potential FA review. Since that article is this WikiProject's only BLP to achieve FA level, it's in the project's best interest to ensure it still meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. KyleJoan talk 03:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
So right now i am currently working on my draft, SmackDown 1000. I have submitted it for review and i wanted to see your thoughts on it so i can improve it more so it can be ready for article mainplace. My article is linked here. Thanks for reading. Summerslam2022 ( talk) 20:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I'd appreciate views from the project on some points of contention in the article CM Punk. I have set out my own views but am happy to take the steer of project members.
Any thoughts from the project would be welcomed. McPhail ( talk) 11:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Should Punk's "Real World Championship" be referred to in the lede?
Should the most recent section be titled "Real world champion" or "Real World Champion"?If AEW capitalises it, we should too.
Should this image be included in the article?I don't see an issue with it - that part of the article is mostly text and no images. Is there an argument against the image (other than its quality)? I suppose we could always replace it with a better quality one later should one become available.
Should the text "An internal investigation into the incident concluded that Punk "would likely be exiting the company entirely"." be included?I'm inclined to say no as it's hearsay. That said, we currently don't include anything about the backstage altercation. There should be some mention of it as well as his suspension.
Should the article state Intercontinental Champion or WWE Intercontinental Champion?WWE, as there are multiple Intercontinental championships. — Czello ( music) 12:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Should Punk's "Real World Championship" be referred to in the lead?( bolding mine, see NOTLEDE): No. This is a storyline device given the greenlight by Tony Khan, who has previously expressed desires to keep his championships lineal (see: his reluctance to strip Thunder Rosa, creating "interim" championships). The "championship" is otherwise completely unrecognized by AEW, with the pre-match graphic for matches using scarequotes to refer to it. It can be explained in prose, but doesn't carry enough WP:WEIGHT for the lead.
Should the most recent section be titled "Real world champion" or "Real World Champion"?: ""Real World Champion"", with the scarequotes. The primary source linked to here also uses them.
Should this image be included in the article?: Yes, in a relevant section in prose. Great shot!
Should the text "An internal investigation into the incident concluded that Punk "would likely be exiting the company entirely"." be included?: No. BLP policy states that we must be certain that everything we write about living persons is accurate. Clearly the conclusion wasn't accurate if it was relating to Brawl Out.
Should the article state Intercontinental Champion or WWE Intercontinental Champion?: WWE per Czello. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I guess all the questions around the "real" world championship are now irrelevant. — Czello ( music) 23:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Brodie Lee#Requested move 27 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
McPhail ( talk) 10:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
"The Inner Circle (professional wrestling)" > "Inner Circle (professional wrestling)". McPhail ( talk) 09:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pat Patterson (wrestler)#Requested move 1 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
I think Wrestlenomics should be listed as a reliable source for wrestling business news. It focuses on economics (TV ratings, attendances, quarterly profits) and has been the go-to for wrestling TV ratings for several years. Semicorrect ( talk) 15:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
E.g. "The Rock's signature moves include the Samoan drop, the spinebuster, and the Rock Bottom (a side slam)." The manual of style does not specify whether non-generic move names should be italicised. McPhail ( talk) 20:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello. A few weeks ago, I had a small discussion with another user, but since I was traveling... Looking the PPv/PLE, we include the same lead "this was the main event". Then, we include a list of "prominent mayches". I think we should avoid the "prominent matches". Everything in the LEAD has to be sourced in the body of the article. Most times, I can't find a source for "prominent matches", looks more like our personal suggestions rather than sourced material. Payback, for example, included Rollins-Nakamura, JD-Owens & Sami, Lynch-Stratus and Kinght-Miz. What makes these matches more prominent than Rey's or Ripley's? [18] Looks like our personal sugestion. Same for Great American Bash [19] A card with 6 matches, 1 main event (Hayes- Ilja) and 4 prominent matches (NA title, Womens title, Tag title, Stevenson debut). Why are these matches prominent but the Davenport-Perez isnt? My suggestion, include only the main event, avoiding WP:OR. If reliable sources state a match is prominent, include it, like WM X8 with Rock-Hogan or WM3 with Savage-Steamboat. HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 11:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Discussion here. McPhail ( talk) 12:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Timelines are often being included for stables and there have been some inconsistencies. In a few timelines, there are inclusions of title reigns (ex: The Judgment Day). There are also a variety of colors used in different articles (ex: The Judgment Day, The Bloodline, and Chaos all use different colors for roles in their timelines). I feel like there needs to be some consistency for every timeline. Was there ever a consensus on how they should be used and what should/shouldn’t be included? Sekyaw (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
sorry for the delay. summer time. several years ago, an admin deleted some time tables, i dont remember the reason, maybe something with accesibility. I think are fine for large groups like Bullet Club. for small, linear stables like JAS, Inner Circle or Bloodline, not that much. I would include only members and leader, no tag team or title reigns.-- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 11:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree with points made by HHH Pedrigree, Czello, Mann Mann. Here’s my proposal for timelines:
Would love to hear any more suggestions to reach a consensus about these timelines. Sekyaw (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Been a couple weeks. Pinging some users to see if we can get a consensus on how timelines should be treated and presented consistently. HHH Pedrigree Czello Mann Mann Lee Vilenski Mr. C.C. McPhail JDC808 Sekyaw (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
It seems like there’s an agreement that timelines should only be for larger groups (or whenever it seems necessary), omit title reigns from timelines, and having a thin line for both leaders and managers. I proposed a black bar for all members, thin yellow line for leaders, and a thin blue line for managers. I’ll begin implementing these if there are no objections. Sekyaw (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
As part of the recent controversy around wrestling attendance figures, I would like to present the following from Dave Meltzer on the Wrestling Observer Radio on how WWE counts attendance. This was initially posted on Reddit by u/ABCDEXYZWV12345
Pinging users to get this topic going:
Mann Mann
Drickfire
JDC808
Sekyaw
@Addicted4517 @
Czello
TLDR Summary:
When WWE announces their attendance records for shows, they add:
No one in the venue is actually counting non-ticket holders, so WWE makes an inflated number in agreement with the venue through back-and-forth emails prior to the show.
Full Transcript: (8:14 - 12:10)
Garrett: Who audited the WrestleMania 32 number (101,763)? Didn’t Vince say something like, “Oh yeah maybe there was like 20,000 ticket takers and people in the back.” ( Referring to Vince’s quote in the 2017 Q1 Investors Earnings Call)
Meltzer: It’s not even that. Like, when they do a number like that; at the Royal Rumble (2023), we saw exactly what they do, because Brandon Thurston (from WrestleNomics) actually got the public record (from San Antonio Officials) because it was a city promotion of them (WWE) explaining what they want as attendance. The number that they released for San Antonio for Royal Rumble, it’s a complete fake number (51,338), but they tried to justify it. It’s the number of tickets out including people who weren’t in the building but might have gotten free tickets, so that total number (tickets distributed), plus everyone working in the building which nobody counts, there’s nobody who counts that. Plus if every press box seat was filled, nobody counts press, even if nowhere near full, they’re all counted. If every luxury box was full which also wasn’t full, they’re all counted, including luxury boxes that were tarped off, they were quoted in the capacity. Everyone working in the building was counted, and everyone working in the parking lot, they’re counted too. So that’s how they got the number (Royal Rumble 2023), it’s a completely fake number.
The Dallas number (WM32 - 101,763), that’s like WM3 (93,173) where it’s just “We’re making up a number” and they (WWE) had to announce over 100,000 because they had promoted it in that direction ( From WM32 press conference announcement in 2015), but it’s totally made up. Even if you included everyone working in the building, there were 80,709 in the building that went through the turnstiles that were actual fans with paid and/or free tickets, but it does not include people who had tickets that didn’t come ( 84,000 tickets distributed), so that’s where the 80,709 number comes from (Reported by Arlington Police Department), the 101,763 is just a made up number. There’s probably 93,000 ( Meltzer reported 97,000 the day after WM32) if you include everything (ticket takers, etc) and all that. With WWE, you count everyone backstage. You count all the performers, all the performers friends, their relatives, the agents, the cameramen etc.
Garrett: Whose job is that to start pointing and counting and make sure they get that number?
Meltzer: I don’t know, but when they went for the Royal Rumble (2023), they got a number, and then they went right back to the building and said, “This number isn’t high enough.” There’s a message, there’s an actual email message from WWE saying, “This isn’t high enough, can you figure out a way to get us a bigger number?” “Okay we’ll count the tarped up luxury boxes that nobody is in or opened, we’ll count the people who are directing traffic into the parking lot.” Those numbers are ludicrous because nobody counts them. If we’re going to do a real record, that show (WM32) was 79,800. (Reported on WWE Key Indicator Performance)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example: WrestleMania 32
The actual number of fans in the building with a ticket was 80,709. This was provided by the Arlington Police Department to Brandon Thurston in 2017. WaimiriMaina ( talk) 18:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Maybe this is actually a better reason to not comment on attendances at all, unless they are particularly notable. It's not that WWE's numbers shouldn't be mentioned if they are particuarly notable, nor should we discount independent numbers, but both sides are unlikely to be reliable figures, considering these third party sources are either being told a number by one of their sources inside the arena, or (more likely), guestimating from photos/attendance, which is rarely super reliable. They aren't counting tickets sold either. How many articles (outside of the largest selling events) actually matter what the "official attendance" is? Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 12:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I've stayed away from this discussion thus far, but it's gotten ridiculous. The WWE numbers are probably incorrect. Other sources (Meltzer included) are unlikely to have definitive evidence for a specific number. I recommend that we change the infobox to read "Reported Attendance" and list the promotion's official number. Then, in the Event section (not aftermath, reception, or whatever else I saw suggested)--at the beginning of the section--we give information in the prose about the official number and mention other notable figures (e.g. Meltzer's estimates/calculations). I don't see any other way to have consistency between articles (why portray WWE's numbers on other articles as definitive and true just because nobody has published a different number?) and to present the information in a way that doesn't rely on extensive footnotes. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 20:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
why portray WWE's numbers on other articles as definitive and true just because nobody has published a different number?- because WWE's inflated numbers tend to be on bigger shows. If they're not corrected by independent sources (normally for regular PPVs) then the assumption is that it's an accurate number. — Czello ( music) 21:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
As usual I'm late in here and this accusation of anti-Meltzer sentiment is a case of reverse bias and it makes those who claim that no better than those they are accusing. The point here is thus - we have no way of telling what figure is really right no matter what. The thing is, Meltzer is expressing an opinion. He may believe it but it's an opinion. I mean I've gone anti Meltzer previously but by my own admission that particular note I made was OR - so I'm not repeating it. I don't think we should use F4W's general good sourcing record as an excuse to believe Meltzer as an individual. This is very different to reporting facts, which F4W does very well.
So we go back to the balance of independent reliable sources outside of this. Now here we are trapped by WP rules as reliable sources (as previously mentioned) agree with WWE. Sure, we can turn and question it and ask for more sources and be right to do so. It's controversial. I have done that in the past (and been jumped on for it). It's in the WP spirit to question for accuracy, particularly for promotional purposes which inflated attendance figures goes to. It's a tough one because it's right to put attendance figures in the box - in fact I would call that required.
With that in mind I think GaryColemanFan has the best solution - the reported figure (even if it's wrong) and a sourced correction in the box. Then the details in the article itself. Addicted4517 ( talk) 03:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
There's nothing in-universe about stating the billed number (including in the infobox, specifically including the word "billed") and then explaining the multiple claims in the prose. That's the very definition of out-of-universe. My solution remains the only one that is factual and presents all of the information in a manner that is simultaneously consistent, verifiable, and neutral. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 01:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The second LWO timeline is messed up. Not sure how to fix or I would have done it myself. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 23:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Editors have been in the habit of copying and pasting the same text explaining the concept of professional wrestling into the Storyline section of every wrestling event, citing entertainment.howstuffworks.com: "The event comprised X matches that resulted from scripted storylines, where wrestlers portrayed heroes, villains, or less distinguishable characters in scripted events that built tension and culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches.".
I've started removing this text when I see it, as it's unnecessary and inappropriate to explain the concept of professional wrestling in every wrestling event article when there is a professional wrestling article for that purpose. The
Super Bowl XLIV article doesn't explain what American football is, it just links to the American football article.
The Matrix doesn't explain what an action film is, it just links to the action film article. However, this has become standard practice in professional wrestling articles for some reason, and I'd like to discuss this to gain consensus against including this content in every single wrestling event article.
Cjhard (
talk) 04:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
There was an RfC ( Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 98#Requests for comment) in 2016 about this issue; it included members from inside and outside of the wikiproject. Consensus was that a short disclaimer was needed (something like: "The card featured ten matches, which resulted from scripted storylines and had results predetermined by WWE") but there was clear consensus against long disclaimers like the one discussed in this thread. How the fuck this got weaseled back in and pasted into most event articles in the years since is beyond me. It should be removed and replaced immediately everywhere where it appears. LM2000 ( talk) 10:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I've been monitoring this since my last post. To try and reach a more solid consensus, as noted by LM2000, the previous consensus (which had editors in and outside of the project involved) decided that a small disclaimer was needed.
With that in mind, I propose that the disclaimer be as follows:
The card featured [#] matches, which resulted from scripted storylines and had results predetermined by [promotion(s)]. Storylines were produced on the promotion's weekly television shows, [name of show(s)].
So as example with a past WWE event,
The card featured eight matches, which resulted from scripted storylines and had results predetermined by WWE. Storylines were produced on the promotion's weekly television shows, Monday Night Raw and Friday Night SmackDown.
And if a promotion also has a streaming show, that can be added (e.g., Storylines were produced on the promotion's weekly television show, NXT, and the supplementary streaming program, Level Up).
And to answer you LM2000 on who or how the long disclaimer got added back, in late 2018, Galatz added it to a number of articles. In this discussion from October 2018, he asserted that it should be on every event article based on the Style Guide (you can read his whole reason there for more details). It seems it wasn't challenged enough to have it back to the shorter disclaimer and de facto became the status quo. -- JDC808 ♫ 03:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
A discussion you may be interested in as started on Talk:The Radicalz#Merger discussion, proposing that two articles be merged into you. Your input would be appreciated. CeltBrowne ( talk) 20:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I have nominated Shelton Benjamin for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 03:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm working on an article for this tag-team, there is some decent coverage but I still feel its WP:TOOSOON. What do you think? ★Trekker ( talk) 00:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 111#Wrestlenomics as a reliable source and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources#Wrestlenomics as a reliable source, there seemed to be a general consensus that Wrestlenomics was a reliable industry specific source. I've now added it to the list of sources on Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources.
I hope that's alright; I'm taking the initiative here because no action seemed to be happening even though a general agreement seemed to be met. Given how difficult it is to get reliable sources for the topic of professional wrestling, discussing and listing acceptable sources is something WikiProject Professional wrestling needs to do well and not let fall to the wayside.
I'd like to see more discussion on other possible reliable sources such as Cagematch.net if possible. CeltBrowne ( talk) 16:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
To clarify, I can't see any evidence presented in either discussion to assert reliability for Wrestlenomics. What makes the author an expert in the subject matter? Please cite any training, background, education, accolades, etc. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 21:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
This (which does seem to usually be spelled "US" not "U.S.") seems to be the only major American wrestling event/title for which we don't have an article. It's redlinked or unlinked in a whole lot of bios, and was recently removed from U.S. Open (disambiguation). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
When do you think Brian Pillman Jr. ought to be moved to Lexis King? ★Trekker ( talk) 06:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Professional wrestling ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article has been in poor shape for some time, and I think some of the reason is that overhauling a 15,000 word article is probably too much for one person to handle by themselves. I'd like to scope out if there's any enthusiasm for a small bunch of us (about half a dozen?) to adopt a section of the article each to clean up? Sceptre ( talk) 21:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Talk:Consejo_Mundial_de_Lucha_Libre#Proposed_merge 2A00:23C6:761C:AF01:C88C:7DB0:5190:17BA ( talk) 11:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Bound for Glory (wrestling pay-per-view) 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. Hog Farm Talk 21:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Per the Manual of Style, "Terms such as "current", "now", and "recent" should be avoided". Any thoughts on how this is dealt with in terms of wrestlers who hold titles? McPhail ( talk) 19:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Impact! (TV series)#Requested move 4 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 14:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)