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 80 | ← | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | Archive 87 | → | Archive 90 |
This page seems very WP:POV as regards what is "prominent" and "notable". It seems WP:COMMON SENSE that something like the WWE Championship is included, but ROH? And the "inactive" section is missing titles such as the NWA(Association) title. Has this been discussed before? What are the criteria?
However my main issue is with the section List of World Heavyweight Champions, which is not only WP:POV and WP:OR, but full of factual errors. Roodestorm ( talk) 08:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
You misunderstand. The issue is not what makes something a World Title. It is why certain titles are portrayed as being prominent. You also ignored the other part. Roodestorm ( talk) 12:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The claim is theirs to prove, not mine. Ring of Honor has always made sure to call their title the "ROH World Championship" without including the term heavyweight. A quick visit to their website can confirm it. I'm not making a "claim", I'm stating a fact. It is a prestigious title and it is a world championship, but it is not a world heavyweight championship. It's not even traditionally contended among heavyweights. If someone believes it is a heavyweight championship then they should find a source from ROH, because the current consensus is that only a promotion can decide if a title is a world heavyweight championship. Feed back ☎ 06:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The way I read the article (particularly the nomenclature bit) is "World Heavyweight Champion is pretty much the standard term for a promotion's top belt although the heavyweight bit is generally fairly meaningless because this is pro-wrestling". Seems fine that the ROH title would be in there as they're a touring company whose product can be viewed internationally.
I do not believe the NWA title should be on the main table as it is defended in regional indies and title defences are not legitimately available to an international viewing audience either via TV or PPV.
ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹
Speak
22:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed more and more instances of WWE's marketing terminology slipping into articles and WWE does such a good job of defining itself that people might not even notice it but they should be on the lookout for it. The biggest one seems to be "Superstars" and "Divas" which is doubly wrong - both the terms and the capitalisation is wrong. The term superstar is clearly biased towards self promoting them as big and famous, which they may be but objectively they are wrestlers, performers, sportsmen/women and competitors. Divas is even more meaningless.
Another term people use a lot, or variations of is "the first time in WWE history ever". The last two words there are needless. If something happens for the first time in WWE then by definition it is the first time in history and it is the first time ever. Companies use these extra terms to put extra emphasis on these words but there only needs to be a qualifier after if it is NOT the first time in history every, ie CM Punk was the first Undisputed WWE Champion since Brock Lesnar/in 9 years. If it is the first time in history ever then no extra words are needed ie Kane was the first person to hold all three of WWE's top brand titles; Randy Orton was the youngest person to win the World Heavyweight Championship. Of course there's a further problem here of people noting ridiculously obscure points of someone being the second person in the history of wrestling ever to have held the Hardcore and WWE Tag Team Championships or something similarly otiose.
One term that I'm fairly confident shouldn't be used but may be debated is edition in lieu of episode of Raw, SmackDown, Impact. An edition strikes me as something that does not refer to entertainment; ie an edition of the news. I can't really put my finger on it so I may be wrong but I'm fairly certain NiciVampireHeart used to similarly make edits to reflect this last point.
Any other weasal words that should be wangled out or disagreements with my take on this? Tony2Times ( talk) 10:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
After further thought, I would also like to add the term "talent" to the list of peacock terms. I don't think it should be used to refer to a person (eg. "WWE fired three members of its male talent."). A person can have talent, but a person cannot be talent. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I want to nominate "Sports Entertainment" as one as well. Besides the fact it sounds horrible, its just used by WWE as a means of marketing.-- Will C 03:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
An IP editor is making major changes to the matchups at Sacrifice (2011). I don't know what's right. Could somebody with knowledge check this out? The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 03:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Could someone from this project take a look at this DYK nomination. As I understand it two of the hooks are already verified but the DYK reviewer wants more sources. I've added a few but it's already has 65+ citations and my computer isn't loading the page at this point. As long as at least one of the hooks passes is it really necessary to have so many citations? Granted there's a few primary sources but it not a problem if its verifying basic information, right? Afterall Southern Championship Wrestling passed with 39 citations and Turnbuckle Championship Wrestling had 49. In a worst case scenario, can't any information the reviewer isn't comfortable with just be removed and go with either the Johnny Weaver or 9/11 hook? 72.74.222.188 ( talk) 02:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
There has been an issue that has been a personal bother that I feel needs to be addressed regarding Bob Holly and the Intercontinental Championship. Bob Holly's page lists him as having a reign as champion, with a link to the Wikipedia page for the List of Intercontinental Champions. However, Holly is not included in the list. I have tried to edit Holly's page to remove the reign, as it is not regarded by WWE as an official reign, and the source given on Holly's page states that Jeff Jarrett was stripped of the title and a second match took place to determine the champion. NiciVampireHeart has been very adamant that the source is enough to say Holly had a reign and reverts any attempt to change it. Similarly, when I have tried to edit the List of Intercontinental Champions page to include Holly as having an unofficial reign, as is done on nearly all list pages, he has been removed on the base of the title was held up and WWE does not consider it a reign. That reason was given by TJ Spyke on the list's talk page.
I try not to let things like this bother me, but I feel that it is such a blatant contradiction to have one page say he was a champion, and the other to say he was not. I am presenting this situation to the general population here at the project page in an attempt to have a resolution, one way or the other. I don't care. I just feel that one of the pages needs to be changed. To have pages saying two different things and both being presented as fact ruins the credibility of both. I am unfamiliar with setting up a formal debate, as I've seen done when requesting to change the name of a page for example, and ask for someone to assist me in doing so. 67.181.76.194 ( talk) 13:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Curious for proper way to proceed. WWE purports Big Show's reign as 45 seconds instead of the length of time passed between the initial win and loss. Fudging a bit to make the story more embarassing or impressive maybe, reminds me of the King Kong Bundy bit with S.D. Jones at Wrestlemania. If that's the official number it should take precedence, but should the time closer to the actual amount be noted and sourced as well? Papacha ( talk) 05:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, February is rolling around soon... only 19 hours to go and I'm leaving for the army. Conscripted, actually, just like every single male in Singapore is. I'll be out of there by 2014. Keep up the editing people! It's been a fun ride. Starship.paint ( talk) 05:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Streak vs Career Match I just came across this page and I'm not too sure it should exist What do you guys think.-- Dch eagle 09:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to propose an optional parameter for Template:Infobox wrestler that tells the wrestlers current alignment (i.e. if they're face, heel, tweener or neutral) if the wrestler is active. I think this parameter would come in handy for quick look up instead of having to read a couple of paragraphs and hope you find the answer. Thoughts? CRRays Head90 | We Believe! 22:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Professional wrestling will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles in wrestling. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch ( talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Women's History Month??? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 02:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I've attempted to look but I'm too lazy to look much more. I'm trying to write TNA 2005 Super X Cup Tournament in a subpage along with a bunch of other stuff that connects. I wish to add a infobox to the article but can't find any which would fit the general idea of the article. Anyone got any suggestions, lists, category, etc?-- Will C 09:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
First, an aside: if time allows, I'll do an assessment of the females found in Requested articles and see if there's any interest in a collaboration project on the ones which appear to be notable.
I moved Jack Reynolds (professional wrestling) to Jack Reynolds (broadcaster). First of all, his stints as a wrestling announcer were brief enough to where he may possibly be as well known from working at WUAB than from working for the WWF. Second, check this out. That article title may have not been a good idea in the first place if a few random web searches turn up a Jack Reynolds who was a wrestler (possibly even in main events) in the 1930s. RadioKAOS ( talk) 13:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
On the subject of women in wrestling, I often see Madison Eagles made mention of 1/ 2/ 3 but she's lacking in an article here. I'm not an authority on her but she seems to be of some repute. 1/ 2. Papacha ( talk) 22:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
According to this edit, Turning Point (2008) was just promoted to Featured Article status. This is the first FA since Lockdown (2008) passed on January 3, 2009 and the second TNA PPV to become FA and second overall TNA article to be an FA. Thought it was worth a mention.-- Will C 09:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't wanna dredge up old arguments, but I was wondering if the WWE name classification is necessary on Wikipedia. For the longest time, the World Wrestling Federation was operated by Titan Sports (I believe they were Ltd at the time) but there's no talk of wrestlers working for Titan. Similarly, sometime during the Attitude Era the parent company was World Wrestling Federation Entertainment and again that's not on any wrestlers' page that I've seen. Is WWE the name of the promotion, or the business as a whole? It seems the latter to me, because of all the emphasis the name change placed on "new forms of entertainment" and more failed attempts at films, TV series and the like. Tony2Times ( talk) 10:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Anyone with a Flickr account feel like convincing people to release this image of D-Bry as World Champ or this one of Swagger? Tony2Times ( talk) 11:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there an existing consensus as to whether individual wrestlers should be mentioned on these kind of articles? Example:
Powerbomb refers to the elevated powerbomb being popularised by the Undertaker and the Spin-out powerbomb being popularised by John Cena.
Also, should the articles refer to names that the moves are popularly known by? Example: "The Undertaker popularized this move, naming it the Last Ride." (from
Powerbomb).
ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹
Speak
06:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Good day all. I don't think Montreal Screwjob meets the Featured Article critera any more, I have laid out some of my concerns at Talk:Montreal Screwjob. It should go through another Featured Article review, the last one was 5 years ago and a lot has changed in the article since then (and in the FAC...I think), I wanted to give you guys a chance to fix it up prior to any FAR nomination. Cheers. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 06:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Alright I'm working on TNA Unbreakable in a subpage, finally I must say, and I wish to add the 5 star match rating it was given by Meltzer in the reception. However, my issue is I can't find a reliable source that covers it. Does anyone know where I can find it as I've checked Figure Four?-- Will C 13:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Discuss: Change current wording from
This biographical article relating to an American professional wrestler is a stub
to
This biographical article relating to professional wrestling in the United States is a stub
Rationale: For clarification, since the stub template and category covers both wrestlers and non-wrestlers. Creating separate categories for the few non-wrestlers would certainly be overcategorization. RadioKAOS ( talk) 20:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there any point in an editor just copying some material from this article to create Diving out of the ring maneuvers? Dougweller ( talk) 13:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I pruned the list here - it was getting ridiculously huge. "Era highlights" was too vague a header as well and the section shouldn't be divided into years either. It's just bad style to dump everything in a list like that - ideally, anything notable should be in prose. The list keeps getting reverted back though, so any input is welcome on Talk:The Attitude Era#List. -- Jtalledo (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I have been keeping this list of world champions for a while now updating it every time there is a new champ. It includes all 14 world titles between AAA, AWA, CMLL, ECW, NWA, ROH, TNA, UWA, WCW, WWA, WWA and WWE. There have been 507 reigns between 190 champions. The list is based off the references included in each individual list of champions articles.
I was wondering if this has any place in the mainspace. It seems like a notable topic, but the main problem is choosing what titles to list. I wanted to add NJPW, IWGP and other Japanese titles, but I'm not very familiar with Japanese wrestling. I was hoping someone could help me out with that. Also, I'm not sure about including CZW, PWG, CHIKARA and other independent wrestling companies. But I can leave that up to consensus.
What do you think? Shameless trivia or a potential article? Feed back ☎ 16:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
After the retool of the WWE website there's been a swath of 404s cut into title histories across the board. Any inactive championship outside of ECW/WCW World and the WWF Hardcore title are no longer represented at all. I don't know of any other changes that might affect links, but I'm inclined to think so. Was there an archival bot that can reset dead links or is an article fix going to be a slight more ponderous? Papacha ( talk) 20:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I have nominated Montreal Screwjob for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. kelapstick( bainuu) 09:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Last night,I went to the protecting admin Deryck Chan ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to try to get him to reduce the protection on the article for this year's Extreme Rules PPV to Next Monday rather than April 30th. For those that don't know the PPV is scheduled to happen on April 29th. I explained to him that it need to be unprotected around that time so we could start building the article as the build for the PPV progressed. He replied to me and said he would not reduce the protection because the point was to prevent the article being built "until a day after the actual event, by which the notability of the event or lack thereof will be clearly established." Until then he wants us to build the PPV on the main article ( WWE Extreme Rules). I returned to his page and tried to explain that that's not how things usually work with our project. We usually build the article as the PPV is built on TV and online and that notability was established the moment PPV build starts, usually. After I left that message, I came straight here. I haven't received a reply yet. What I'm wondering is what to do? This is obvious to me one of the editors who question the notability of wrestling PPV's, if it's not I apologize for jumping to conclusions. CRRays Head90 | We Believe! 20:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Do you all think Template:infobox wrestler should be matched with the color scheme Portal:Professional wrestling Ariesk47 ( talk) 19:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Quite a few people apparently. 72.74.226.35 ( talk) 15:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I have been keeping this list of world champions for a while now updating it every time there is a new champ. It includes all 14 world titles between AAA, AWA, CMLL, ECW, NWA, ROH, TNA, UWA, WCW, WWA, WWA and WWE. There have been 507 reigns between 190 champions. The list is based off the references included in each individual list of champions articles.
I was wondering if this has any place in the mainspace. It seems like a notable topic, but the main problem is choosing what titles to list. I wanted to add NJPW, IWGP and other Japanese titles, but I'm not very familiar with Japanese wrestling. I was hoping someone could help me out with that. Also, I'm not sure about including CZW, PWG, CHIKARA and other independent wrestling companies. But I can leave that up to consensus.
What do you think? Shameless trivia or a potential article? Feed back ☎ 16:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Some of them are indie feds, some of them are ancient feds and others are foreign and unknown to most of us, but the fact is they are all considered World titles by their promotions. Should I add some of them? If so, which? Feed back ☎ 01:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
With the build for the PPV started and the articles location still protected, I've started the article in my sandbox. Feel free to build and edit the article there as you would in the mainspace. CRRays Head90 | Get Some! 20:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The article Apple (professional wrestling) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
BulbaThor (
talk)
12:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Should we be referring to it as this now? I don't think I've seen any third party refer to it as such, and I imagine TV guides still read Raw in the US. Tony2Times ( talk) 09:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that two similar search terms redirect to two different articles. WWE Tag Teams/Stables redirects to List of professional wrestling rosters whereas the similar Wwe tag teams and stables redirects to List of WWE personnel. Since these are very similar it appears logical that they should both redirect to the same place but I am not sure what article that should be so I am asking for assistance.-- 174.93.169.157 ( talk) 04:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
These kinds of sentences bother me: "To cover for the injury, Kane revealed The Undertaker had been found in a vegetative state." and "The tag champions defeated The Usos." Do the "the"s in the names have to be capitalised when they are in the middle of the sentence? Our style guide doesn't say anything. From the Wikipedia Manual of Style regarding capital letters, it says.. "Generally do not capitalize the definite article in the middle of a sentence. However, some idiomatic exceptions, including most titles of artistic works, should be quoted exactly according to common usage." Then the MoS links to the Music MoS, which says "the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose". What do you all think? Starship.paint ( talk) 09:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
They call him "'Taker", too. Internet kids call him UT. Regardless of how abbreviated colloquial English becomes, Wikipedia uses the real kind. "The" should always be capitalized in all cases like this, middle of a sentence or not. InedibleHulk ( talk) 18:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Posted this on the template's talk page on 22 April but got no replies. Anyone have any opinion? I propose merging the Raw/SD/NXT/Multibranded sections. Given the virtual end of the brand split where upper-card wrestlers from any brand appear on both Raw/SD as they wish, whereas lower-card wrestlers don't even appear on Raw/SD but on NXT/Superstars and also given that even WWE (through its newest version of its website) doesn't even bother to track which wrestler belongs to which brand, I propose we simply merge the sections. Also, can we separate the commentators/announcers/hosts from the wrestlers... just like we separate the Spanish commentators and the referees? I also propose that we remove the "appearing on the SmackDown brand" from the wrestlers' pages. i.e. Bryan Danielson (born May 22, 1981) is an American professional wrestler signed to WWE and appearing on its SmackDown brand. --> Bryan Danielson (born May 22, 1981) is an American professional wrestler signed to WWE. Starship.paint ( talk) 09:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
A team wins the title, not the titles, yeah? I say yeah. And I change articles accordingly. But I'm just one man, with a PS3 controller (not very efficient for Wikipedia!). If you omnipotent folks at the top with your high-tech marvels are in agreeance that this very common mistake should be widely eradicated, could you please assemble a crack team of editors, or build some sort of bot? The truth must be known! Mustn't it? InedibleHulk ( talk) 18:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
"One half of the tag team champions" makes grammatical sense, but it's unnecessarily wordy. "Tag team champion" would be preferable for Wikipedia, which encourages conciseness. InedibleHulk ( talk) 14:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Fun fact: "Tag team champion" has exactly half the characters of "One half of the tag team champions" (including spaces). InedibleHulk ( talk) 14:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
So... do y'all really need an article about the Triple H-Undertaker rivalry? -- Jtalledo (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I say we don't. Good candidate for Articles for Deletion, but I won't nominate it myself. InedibleHulk ( talk) 16:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, I believe that we do need an article about the Triple H-Undertaker rivalry. Their ultimate fight at WrestleMania XXVIII resulted in the end of an era for Triple H as he relegated himself to backstage roles while the Undertaker continues to wrestle. GVnayR ( talk) 04:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Far too much detail about mundane events, plenty of original research, non-neutral and poorly worded. Much like this user's other articles/essays John Cena-Edge rivalry and Stone Cold Steve Austin-Vince McMahon rivalry (all linked through See Also sections, which smells a bit fishy). These feuds are covered sufficiently in each wrestler's article. I would suggest GVnayR publish these on a personal website after reading WP:NOTESSAY. InedibleHulk ( talk) 05:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep an eye out for this guy's edits. He seems to be making a lot of pointless edits that weaken articles, or inventing a large amount of bunk. Tony2Times ( talk) 09:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to bring to attention Ouloul94 as well. This guy's not exactly a vandal, he's probably editing with good intentions but he keeps removing old finishers from wrestlers' pages even when these old finishers are properly referenced. Examples of what he's removed are Jack Swagger's Red, White and Blue Thunder Bomb and Miz's Mizard of Oz. I'm speculating this is because these particular finishers were used early in the wrestlers' careers and few people knew of these finishers so maybe he removed them because he assumed they didn't exist. If you look at Ouloul94's talk page you'll see that repeated attempts to warn him about his disruptive editing are apaprently ignored because he has never replied to his talk page. Is there something we could do about it? Starship.paint ( talk) 08:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I was recently looking at the talk page for Dolph Ziggler and saw a section pertaining to his status as a Triple Crown Champion. Upon reading it, curiosity got me to the WWE site to see if they listed his World Tag Team Championship on his page (they don't). However, this led me to scroll though his "milestones" section, and the very last one, detailing his victory over Kofi Kingston to win the United States Championship, lists the header as "Triple Crown #Heel" ( http://www.wwe.com/superstars/dolphziggler). Although I know that the WWE site isn't always the best to use as a primary source, given the numerous debates on numerous talk pages about having to wait for WWE to issue a statement on the status of the US title (and ECW Championship) in relation to whether it qualifies as part of a Triple Crown or Grand Slam accolade, I wanted to pose it here on the community page. While the current definition of the Triple Crown is primary, secondary, tag team; this seems to indicate an alternative where the US title is below the Intercontinental title, at a tertiary status and an alternate for a tag title?
I realize this could just be classified as OR, however I wanted to post and gather information/opinions from others before deciding to move forward. I haven't come across any discussions or seen any attempts by others to bring this up, though I am not the most frequent of users on here. 67.181.76.194 ( talk) 10:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I can't speak to whether this "officially" changes the definition of Triple Crown (in my mind, a tag title will always be necessary), but I can say that "Nicky"'s World Tag Team Title reign absolutely counts as a reign for "Dolph Ziggler". Same wrestler, different gimmick. InedibleHulk ( talk) 20:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Someboidy did at least 6 or 7 articles nominate for a deletion i did answer in some but i guess there has to be more opinions then one to keep this articles like Night of champions and royal rumble or extreme rules-- Nakurio ( talk) 05:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok so how you would proof that this articles are notable, for sure not every ppv is as important for the Storylines and the impact on fans as the big 4 but as a fact there are not very often title changes at raw or smack down this most happens at ppvs and at the ppvs are the long matches which never happen on raw due to the little time they have compared ti their talent.-- Nakurio ( talk) 06:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
so i then thank for the friendly advice ;) -- Nakurio ( talk) 08:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Anything advertised on national television should have guaranteed notability. It's dumb for anyone to dispute that. If the only mention of a PPV is during a commercials for a few weeks of Monday Night Raw, guess what, that's millions of people world-wide who could all testify to the fact they know what this PPV is, what it's about and when it will take place. Even if you can't find an online source, it doesn't matter. That isn't the only way to find notability. We're talking about MILLIONS OF PEOPLE here. It's so stupid that someone actually thinks their time is well-spent deleting these articles on Wikipedia. Feed back ☎ 12:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Significance and merit are hard things to evaluate, and probably impossible for a large group (i.e. Wikipedia editors) to unanimously agree on. From my personal perspective, No Mercy 2007 is far more significant than Elizabeth Taylor or bottled water (or countless other topics). But I realize other editors feel quite the opposite. I don't attempt to eradicate these articles, I just don't read them. Their continued existence has had absolutely NO detrimental effect on Wikipedia as a whole.
WWE PPV articles have long been considered significant by the many editors who create and maintain them, and the many more who read them. Those who cannot even recognize this significance are hardly qualified to decide whether it exists more strongly in one PPV than another.
I am familiar with the similar situation with the MMA PPV articles. I hope we can all agree to settle this in a much more reasonable and non-bureaucratic manner. InedibleHulk ( talk) 20:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Do we really need pages specifically dedicated to John Cena v. Edge, Triple H v. Undertaker, or Austin v. McMahon? They appear to be designed solely for people who like one of the two involved, and seem to be already well covered in various pages (Cena v. Edge on their respective pages, HHH v. Taker on both Wrestlemania XXVII and Wrestlemania XXVIII). There would be dozens of pages detailing every feud a wrestler has over the course of a career. HidyHoTim ( talk) 07:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I've proposed these for deletion. Not sure if I've done it properly, but I think so. If someone with deletion experience can confirm or deny this, that'd be cool. InedibleHulk ( talk) 21:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC) My browse freezes when I try to edit Stone_Cold_Steve_Austin-Vince_McMahon_rivalry. Someone else want to tag that one? InedibleHulk ( talk) 21:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, I had PROPOSED instead of NOMINATED these for deletion. I think everything is by the book now, except I still cannot edit Stone Cold Steve Austin-Vince McMahon rivalry to add the AfD tag without crashing. Someone? (I'll pass on the Johnny article, Kaos...) InedibleHulk ( talk) 00:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Per policy, I am informing this Wikiproject. The discussion for all three is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Cena-Edge_rivalry InedibleHulk ( talk) 01:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I left a message at Wikipedia:Did you know about a pro-wrestling related DYK submission. I was hoping someone from the project could take a look at the sourcing and possibly suggest some improvements? 72.74.208.41 ( talk) 18:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
In virtually every wrestler article I've edited, I've seen editors saying "Buddy would win..." or worse, "Buddy would go on to win..." instead of "Buddy won...". It's not just winning, every verb falls victim to this (and not just in wrestling articles). PLEASE do not make this mistake yourself! It is unnecessarily wordy and clunky. "Would be" is never better than "was", if "was" is what you mean.
While I've got my grammar Nazi boots on, please use "...lost to..." instead of "...was defeated by...". Also, try not to use "also" unless necessary. InedibleHulk ( talk) 02:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Yep, in some contexts "would" works. When describing a recurring tendency (e.g. "Big Boss Man would handcuff and assault jobbers after the match") or jumping ahead to the future ("Martel teamed with Tom Zenk (who would go on to become The Z-Man in WCW). But not "Hulk Hogan would defeat Sgt. Slaughter at Wrestlemania VII" or "Shane Douglas ran to the ring and would go on to assault Razor Ramon."
I'm not seeing your logic when you claim "lost to" isn't correct, yet "would win" is perfectly reasonable. If nobody actually loses a match, how can anyone actually win? Shall we say "Mark Calloway (in his 'Undertaker' costume) laid on an entirely cooperative Randy Orton after the two created the illusion of an actual piledriver, while the (kayfabe) referee slapped the mat three times (as the script called for), giving gullible fans the impression he won the fixed bout."? Of course not. Almost everyone knows wrestling is fiction, and the professional wrestling article (linked to in every wrestler's lead) spells it out clearly for those who don't. InedibleHulk ( talk) 22:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a pretty minor thing quibble so pardon my indulgence but it's across the board of the project. On championship lists, in the event column I see no reason why years are mentioned in so many of the event titles when they aren't in that event. As this poster suggests, the title name for this event is SummerSlam, yet in the List of WWE World Heavyweight Champions events column it would read SummerSlam (2009). No-one calls it that on air, in any promotional material or even in any of the articles on Wikipedia. Compare this with Best in the World 2011 where the year IS part of the title and thus in the List of ROH World Champions events column it does read Best in the World 2011. Similarly WrestleMania IV and WrestleMania XI or Slammiversary IX would have that Roman numeral attached to them to differentiate them as they currently do, because that's what they're advertised as, but Final Resolution or Genesis or No Way Out need no year because it's not in their title, it's merely a disambiguation link.
If you disagree with this method, then I propose we be consistent. So as not to confuse anyone as to which Raw, SmackDown, Nitro or Impact that a title changed hands on, we should put the full date in brackets after the title. Tony2Times ( talk) 09:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The articles are named with the year in parentheses, so I can see how it would be slightly easier for editors to type. But yes, it is technically inaccurate to refer to 2006's SummerSlam as SummerSlam (2006), and unnecessary when the date is just to the left. Article names obviously need disambiguation, but text does not. I support changing the link text, while leaving the link targets. TV shows should remain as they are (with the date only in the Date column). InedibleHulk ( talk) 22:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Which should I be putting in square brackets and why? I've seen a lot of changes lately and I'm not sure if it's someone being lazy or how it should really be done. Tony2Times ( talk) 07:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
When someone wins this (or Triple Crown) accolade, it is listed in their C&A section as "Second Grand Slam Champion", however for other titles it does not say WCW Champion (2 times), it reads WCW Championship. Should Grand Slam and Triple Crown be changed in line with this, or is it something else? Tony2Times ( talk) 16:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
For those who haven't seen it yet, 2012 in WWE events was created. I have no idea what the intention behind it is, and Feedback, before you start ranting at me for trying to delete WWE PPV articles, take a look at the article history, I had nothing to do with it's creation, as of this post I have only added a category. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 09:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I hope Talk:2012 in UFC events isn't an indicator of how this is going to go. Maybe we can actually learn something from it instead. InedibleHulk ( talk) 11:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
And even THAT got heated. Touchy subject, notability. Not quite as bad as discussing the "fakeness" of it, but close. You're right, though. Anyone looking to keep the articles once the inevitable happens should study up on (and cite) policy guidelines. Keep arguments short and to the point. Read the opposing arguments carefully and refute points clearly. Don't rant, don't whine, don't compare anyone to Hitler. That crap NEVER helps. Aside from that advice, I'm probably sitting this one out. Good luck! InedibleHulk ( talk) 14:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I am discussing it there Paul "The Wall" ( talk) 23:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I think that it's time to create some articles. I read the articles of the members, but I think that we can create the Tag team article, also delete some individual artcicles, because we can write them entire carrer in the Tag Team article.
What do you think? -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 12:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't recommend it - the Bravado brothers and DCFK have dubious notability and the No Remorse Corps (assuming you mean Richards, Romero and Strong) wouldn't really (IMHO) warrant more than the brief mentions it already has on the member's articles. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 11:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Gordman and Goliath seem a notable enough team to me. I assumed it had an article already, but it turns out they don't even have individual articles! I don't want to get off-topic, but I would totally support the existence of a team page for them. InedibleHulk ( talk) 03:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Earlier today MasterOfTimeForever ( talk · contribs) created plane ride from hell as a copyvio which was speedily deleted; however I thought the incident was probably notable and recreated it as a reasonably well-referenced one-sentence stub. I've alerted the original creator, but I think some input from more clued-up editors would be useful. Thanks in advance! – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 17:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I came across a rather contentious issue when editing Ryback (wrestler)... regarding what the hell his finisher is. I thought it was a Samoan drop, so I searched and found two reliable sources to back me up: Adam Martin of WrestleView says 'modified Samoan Drop finisher'. James Caldwell of PWTorch says 'double marching Samoan Drop'. Meanwhile KingMorpheus thinks it's a delayed cradle suplex, and he's found a reliable source to back it up: Mike Tedesco of WrestleView says 'modified fisherman's suplex'. The situation gets more awkward when reliable sources have also called the move a running Muscle Buster-like finisher.
For the record, I can find many more reliable sources to back my Samoan drop claim. Todd Martin of Wrestling Observer, Dave Hillhouse of SLAM! Wrestling and Richard Trionfo of PWInsider. I've covered all five reliable sources in the style guide that give weekly reports to support 'Samoan drop'. Does that mean that I can override the other description of cradle suplex?
So, essentially, who exactly is right here when reliable sources conflict with each other in the case of wrestling moves? Starship.paint ( talk) 06:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I've seen that move a few times. In my opinion (which is not "reliable"), it's a Samoan drop/Death Valley driver hybrid. Not at all a fisherman or cradle suplex. Like Suriel says, go with the "Holy Trinity". It's definitely SOME sort of Samoan drop, just like a Cane toad is some sort of toad, even if it resembles a bulldog. As a side note, Ryback absolutely sucks. InedibleHulk ( talk) 20:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Here's another. KingMorpheus ( talk) 19:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The Slam Wrestling caption says he suplexes his opponent. It does not say the pictured move is his finisher (explicitly or implicitly). The picture is one frame of a movement. First, we have to assume this is a picture is of the same move we're talking about (probably a safe bet, but still an assumption). Then we must assume he used it as a finisher. That's synthesis. The text sources make it clear he is finishing matches with a Samoan drop. No assumptions necessary. The phrase "running double marching" is a modifier of the noun "Samoan drop". The preposition "into" means the suplex transformed to a different move. Like in "front facelock into a DDT/vertical suplex/swinging neckbreaker". Would you call a DDT a facelock? InedibleHulk ( talk) 00:05, 16 June 2012 (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 80 | ← | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | Archive 87 | → | Archive 90 |
This page seems very WP:POV as regards what is "prominent" and "notable". It seems WP:COMMON SENSE that something like the WWE Championship is included, but ROH? And the "inactive" section is missing titles such as the NWA(Association) title. Has this been discussed before? What are the criteria?
However my main issue is with the section List of World Heavyweight Champions, which is not only WP:POV and WP:OR, but full of factual errors. Roodestorm ( talk) 08:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
You misunderstand. The issue is not what makes something a World Title. It is why certain titles are portrayed as being prominent. You also ignored the other part. Roodestorm ( talk) 12:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The claim is theirs to prove, not mine. Ring of Honor has always made sure to call their title the "ROH World Championship" without including the term heavyweight. A quick visit to their website can confirm it. I'm not making a "claim", I'm stating a fact. It is a prestigious title and it is a world championship, but it is not a world heavyweight championship. It's not even traditionally contended among heavyweights. If someone believes it is a heavyweight championship then they should find a source from ROH, because the current consensus is that only a promotion can decide if a title is a world heavyweight championship. Feed back ☎ 06:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The way I read the article (particularly the nomenclature bit) is "World Heavyweight Champion is pretty much the standard term for a promotion's top belt although the heavyweight bit is generally fairly meaningless because this is pro-wrestling". Seems fine that the ROH title would be in there as they're a touring company whose product can be viewed internationally.
I do not believe the NWA title should be on the main table as it is defended in regional indies and title defences are not legitimately available to an international viewing audience either via TV or PPV.
ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹
Speak
22:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed more and more instances of WWE's marketing terminology slipping into articles and WWE does such a good job of defining itself that people might not even notice it but they should be on the lookout for it. The biggest one seems to be "Superstars" and "Divas" which is doubly wrong - both the terms and the capitalisation is wrong. The term superstar is clearly biased towards self promoting them as big and famous, which they may be but objectively they are wrestlers, performers, sportsmen/women and competitors. Divas is even more meaningless.
Another term people use a lot, or variations of is "the first time in WWE history ever". The last two words there are needless. If something happens for the first time in WWE then by definition it is the first time in history and it is the first time ever. Companies use these extra terms to put extra emphasis on these words but there only needs to be a qualifier after if it is NOT the first time in history every, ie CM Punk was the first Undisputed WWE Champion since Brock Lesnar/in 9 years. If it is the first time in history ever then no extra words are needed ie Kane was the first person to hold all three of WWE's top brand titles; Randy Orton was the youngest person to win the World Heavyweight Championship. Of course there's a further problem here of people noting ridiculously obscure points of someone being the second person in the history of wrestling ever to have held the Hardcore and WWE Tag Team Championships or something similarly otiose.
One term that I'm fairly confident shouldn't be used but may be debated is edition in lieu of episode of Raw, SmackDown, Impact. An edition strikes me as something that does not refer to entertainment; ie an edition of the news. I can't really put my finger on it so I may be wrong but I'm fairly certain NiciVampireHeart used to similarly make edits to reflect this last point.
Any other weasal words that should be wangled out or disagreements with my take on this? Tony2Times ( talk) 10:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
After further thought, I would also like to add the term "talent" to the list of peacock terms. I don't think it should be used to refer to a person (eg. "WWE fired three members of its male talent."). A person can have talent, but a person cannot be talent. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I want to nominate "Sports Entertainment" as one as well. Besides the fact it sounds horrible, its just used by WWE as a means of marketing.-- Will C 03:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
An IP editor is making major changes to the matchups at Sacrifice (2011). I don't know what's right. Could somebody with knowledge check this out? The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 03:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Could someone from this project take a look at this DYK nomination. As I understand it two of the hooks are already verified but the DYK reviewer wants more sources. I've added a few but it's already has 65+ citations and my computer isn't loading the page at this point. As long as at least one of the hooks passes is it really necessary to have so many citations? Granted there's a few primary sources but it not a problem if its verifying basic information, right? Afterall Southern Championship Wrestling passed with 39 citations and Turnbuckle Championship Wrestling had 49. In a worst case scenario, can't any information the reviewer isn't comfortable with just be removed and go with either the Johnny Weaver or 9/11 hook? 72.74.222.188 ( talk) 02:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
There has been an issue that has been a personal bother that I feel needs to be addressed regarding Bob Holly and the Intercontinental Championship. Bob Holly's page lists him as having a reign as champion, with a link to the Wikipedia page for the List of Intercontinental Champions. However, Holly is not included in the list. I have tried to edit Holly's page to remove the reign, as it is not regarded by WWE as an official reign, and the source given on Holly's page states that Jeff Jarrett was stripped of the title and a second match took place to determine the champion. NiciVampireHeart has been very adamant that the source is enough to say Holly had a reign and reverts any attempt to change it. Similarly, when I have tried to edit the List of Intercontinental Champions page to include Holly as having an unofficial reign, as is done on nearly all list pages, he has been removed on the base of the title was held up and WWE does not consider it a reign. That reason was given by TJ Spyke on the list's talk page.
I try not to let things like this bother me, but I feel that it is such a blatant contradiction to have one page say he was a champion, and the other to say he was not. I am presenting this situation to the general population here at the project page in an attempt to have a resolution, one way or the other. I don't care. I just feel that one of the pages needs to be changed. To have pages saying two different things and both being presented as fact ruins the credibility of both. I am unfamiliar with setting up a formal debate, as I've seen done when requesting to change the name of a page for example, and ask for someone to assist me in doing so. 67.181.76.194 ( talk) 13:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Curious for proper way to proceed. WWE purports Big Show's reign as 45 seconds instead of the length of time passed between the initial win and loss. Fudging a bit to make the story more embarassing or impressive maybe, reminds me of the King Kong Bundy bit with S.D. Jones at Wrestlemania. If that's the official number it should take precedence, but should the time closer to the actual amount be noted and sourced as well? Papacha ( talk) 05:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, February is rolling around soon... only 19 hours to go and I'm leaving for the army. Conscripted, actually, just like every single male in Singapore is. I'll be out of there by 2014. Keep up the editing people! It's been a fun ride. Starship.paint ( talk) 05:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Streak vs Career Match I just came across this page and I'm not too sure it should exist What do you guys think.-- Dch eagle 09:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to propose an optional parameter for Template:Infobox wrestler that tells the wrestlers current alignment (i.e. if they're face, heel, tweener or neutral) if the wrestler is active. I think this parameter would come in handy for quick look up instead of having to read a couple of paragraphs and hope you find the answer. Thoughts? CRRays Head90 | We Believe! 22:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Professional wrestling will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles in wrestling. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch ( talk) 19:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Women's History Month??? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 02:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I've attempted to look but I'm too lazy to look much more. I'm trying to write TNA 2005 Super X Cup Tournament in a subpage along with a bunch of other stuff that connects. I wish to add a infobox to the article but can't find any which would fit the general idea of the article. Anyone got any suggestions, lists, category, etc?-- Will C 09:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
First, an aside: if time allows, I'll do an assessment of the females found in Requested articles and see if there's any interest in a collaboration project on the ones which appear to be notable.
I moved Jack Reynolds (professional wrestling) to Jack Reynolds (broadcaster). First of all, his stints as a wrestling announcer were brief enough to where he may possibly be as well known from working at WUAB than from working for the WWF. Second, check this out. That article title may have not been a good idea in the first place if a few random web searches turn up a Jack Reynolds who was a wrestler (possibly even in main events) in the 1930s. RadioKAOS ( talk) 13:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
On the subject of women in wrestling, I often see Madison Eagles made mention of 1/ 2/ 3 but she's lacking in an article here. I'm not an authority on her but she seems to be of some repute. 1/ 2. Papacha ( talk) 22:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
According to this edit, Turning Point (2008) was just promoted to Featured Article status. This is the first FA since Lockdown (2008) passed on January 3, 2009 and the second TNA PPV to become FA and second overall TNA article to be an FA. Thought it was worth a mention.-- Will C 09:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't wanna dredge up old arguments, but I was wondering if the WWE name classification is necessary on Wikipedia. For the longest time, the World Wrestling Federation was operated by Titan Sports (I believe they were Ltd at the time) but there's no talk of wrestlers working for Titan. Similarly, sometime during the Attitude Era the parent company was World Wrestling Federation Entertainment and again that's not on any wrestlers' page that I've seen. Is WWE the name of the promotion, or the business as a whole? It seems the latter to me, because of all the emphasis the name change placed on "new forms of entertainment" and more failed attempts at films, TV series and the like. Tony2Times ( talk) 10:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Anyone with a Flickr account feel like convincing people to release this image of D-Bry as World Champ or this one of Swagger? Tony2Times ( talk) 11:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there an existing consensus as to whether individual wrestlers should be mentioned on these kind of articles? Example:
Powerbomb refers to the elevated powerbomb being popularised by the Undertaker and the Spin-out powerbomb being popularised by John Cena.
Also, should the articles refer to names that the moves are popularly known by? Example: "The Undertaker popularized this move, naming it the Last Ride." (from
Powerbomb).
ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹
Speak
06:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Good day all. I don't think Montreal Screwjob meets the Featured Article critera any more, I have laid out some of my concerns at Talk:Montreal Screwjob. It should go through another Featured Article review, the last one was 5 years ago and a lot has changed in the article since then (and in the FAC...I think), I wanted to give you guys a chance to fix it up prior to any FAR nomination. Cheers. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 06:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Alright I'm working on TNA Unbreakable in a subpage, finally I must say, and I wish to add the 5 star match rating it was given by Meltzer in the reception. However, my issue is I can't find a reliable source that covers it. Does anyone know where I can find it as I've checked Figure Four?-- Will C 13:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Discuss: Change current wording from
This biographical article relating to an American professional wrestler is a stub
to
This biographical article relating to professional wrestling in the United States is a stub
Rationale: For clarification, since the stub template and category covers both wrestlers and non-wrestlers. Creating separate categories for the few non-wrestlers would certainly be overcategorization. RadioKAOS ( talk) 20:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Is there any point in an editor just copying some material from this article to create Diving out of the ring maneuvers? Dougweller ( talk) 13:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I pruned the list here - it was getting ridiculously huge. "Era highlights" was too vague a header as well and the section shouldn't be divided into years either. It's just bad style to dump everything in a list like that - ideally, anything notable should be in prose. The list keeps getting reverted back though, so any input is welcome on Talk:The Attitude Era#List. -- Jtalledo (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I have been keeping this list of world champions for a while now updating it every time there is a new champ. It includes all 14 world titles between AAA, AWA, CMLL, ECW, NWA, ROH, TNA, UWA, WCW, WWA, WWA and WWE. There have been 507 reigns between 190 champions. The list is based off the references included in each individual list of champions articles.
I was wondering if this has any place in the mainspace. It seems like a notable topic, but the main problem is choosing what titles to list. I wanted to add NJPW, IWGP and other Japanese titles, but I'm not very familiar with Japanese wrestling. I was hoping someone could help me out with that. Also, I'm not sure about including CZW, PWG, CHIKARA and other independent wrestling companies. But I can leave that up to consensus.
What do you think? Shameless trivia or a potential article? Feed back ☎ 16:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
After the retool of the WWE website there's been a swath of 404s cut into title histories across the board. Any inactive championship outside of ECW/WCW World and the WWF Hardcore title are no longer represented at all. I don't know of any other changes that might affect links, but I'm inclined to think so. Was there an archival bot that can reset dead links or is an article fix going to be a slight more ponderous? Papacha ( talk) 20:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I have nominated Montreal Screwjob for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. kelapstick( bainuu) 09:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Last night,I went to the protecting admin Deryck Chan ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to try to get him to reduce the protection on the article for this year's Extreme Rules PPV to Next Monday rather than April 30th. For those that don't know the PPV is scheduled to happen on April 29th. I explained to him that it need to be unprotected around that time so we could start building the article as the build for the PPV progressed. He replied to me and said he would not reduce the protection because the point was to prevent the article being built "until a day after the actual event, by which the notability of the event or lack thereof will be clearly established." Until then he wants us to build the PPV on the main article ( WWE Extreme Rules). I returned to his page and tried to explain that that's not how things usually work with our project. We usually build the article as the PPV is built on TV and online and that notability was established the moment PPV build starts, usually. After I left that message, I came straight here. I haven't received a reply yet. What I'm wondering is what to do? This is obvious to me one of the editors who question the notability of wrestling PPV's, if it's not I apologize for jumping to conclusions. CRRays Head90 | We Believe! 20:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Do you all think Template:infobox wrestler should be matched with the color scheme Portal:Professional wrestling Ariesk47 ( talk) 19:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Quite a few people apparently. 72.74.226.35 ( talk) 15:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I have been keeping this list of world champions for a while now updating it every time there is a new champ. It includes all 14 world titles between AAA, AWA, CMLL, ECW, NWA, ROH, TNA, UWA, WCW, WWA, WWA and WWE. There have been 507 reigns between 190 champions. The list is based off the references included in each individual list of champions articles.
I was wondering if this has any place in the mainspace. It seems like a notable topic, but the main problem is choosing what titles to list. I wanted to add NJPW, IWGP and other Japanese titles, but I'm not very familiar with Japanese wrestling. I was hoping someone could help me out with that. Also, I'm not sure about including CZW, PWG, CHIKARA and other independent wrestling companies. But I can leave that up to consensus.
What do you think? Shameless trivia or a potential article? Feed back ☎ 16:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Some of them are indie feds, some of them are ancient feds and others are foreign and unknown to most of us, but the fact is they are all considered World titles by their promotions. Should I add some of them? If so, which? Feed back ☎ 01:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
With the build for the PPV started and the articles location still protected, I've started the article in my sandbox. Feel free to build and edit the article there as you would in the mainspace. CRRays Head90 | Get Some! 20:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The article Apple (professional wrestling) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
BulbaThor (
talk)
12:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Should we be referring to it as this now? I don't think I've seen any third party refer to it as such, and I imagine TV guides still read Raw in the US. Tony2Times ( talk) 09:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that two similar search terms redirect to two different articles. WWE Tag Teams/Stables redirects to List of professional wrestling rosters whereas the similar Wwe tag teams and stables redirects to List of WWE personnel. Since these are very similar it appears logical that they should both redirect to the same place but I am not sure what article that should be so I am asking for assistance.-- 174.93.169.157 ( talk) 04:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
These kinds of sentences bother me: "To cover for the injury, Kane revealed The Undertaker had been found in a vegetative state." and "The tag champions defeated The Usos." Do the "the"s in the names have to be capitalised when they are in the middle of the sentence? Our style guide doesn't say anything. From the Wikipedia Manual of Style regarding capital letters, it says.. "Generally do not capitalize the definite article in the middle of a sentence. However, some idiomatic exceptions, including most titles of artistic works, should be quoted exactly according to common usage." Then the MoS links to the Music MoS, which says "the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose". What do you all think? Starship.paint ( talk) 09:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
They call him "'Taker", too. Internet kids call him UT. Regardless of how abbreviated colloquial English becomes, Wikipedia uses the real kind. "The" should always be capitalized in all cases like this, middle of a sentence or not. InedibleHulk ( talk) 18:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Posted this on the template's talk page on 22 April but got no replies. Anyone have any opinion? I propose merging the Raw/SD/NXT/Multibranded sections. Given the virtual end of the brand split where upper-card wrestlers from any brand appear on both Raw/SD as they wish, whereas lower-card wrestlers don't even appear on Raw/SD but on NXT/Superstars and also given that even WWE (through its newest version of its website) doesn't even bother to track which wrestler belongs to which brand, I propose we simply merge the sections. Also, can we separate the commentators/announcers/hosts from the wrestlers... just like we separate the Spanish commentators and the referees? I also propose that we remove the "appearing on the SmackDown brand" from the wrestlers' pages. i.e. Bryan Danielson (born May 22, 1981) is an American professional wrestler signed to WWE and appearing on its SmackDown brand. --> Bryan Danielson (born May 22, 1981) is an American professional wrestler signed to WWE. Starship.paint ( talk) 09:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
A team wins the title, not the titles, yeah? I say yeah. And I change articles accordingly. But I'm just one man, with a PS3 controller (not very efficient for Wikipedia!). If you omnipotent folks at the top with your high-tech marvels are in agreeance that this very common mistake should be widely eradicated, could you please assemble a crack team of editors, or build some sort of bot? The truth must be known! Mustn't it? InedibleHulk ( talk) 18:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
"One half of the tag team champions" makes grammatical sense, but it's unnecessarily wordy. "Tag team champion" would be preferable for Wikipedia, which encourages conciseness. InedibleHulk ( talk) 14:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Fun fact: "Tag team champion" has exactly half the characters of "One half of the tag team champions" (including spaces). InedibleHulk ( talk) 14:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
So... do y'all really need an article about the Triple H-Undertaker rivalry? -- Jtalledo (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I say we don't. Good candidate for Articles for Deletion, but I won't nominate it myself. InedibleHulk ( talk) 16:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
On the contrary, I believe that we do need an article about the Triple H-Undertaker rivalry. Their ultimate fight at WrestleMania XXVIII resulted in the end of an era for Triple H as he relegated himself to backstage roles while the Undertaker continues to wrestle. GVnayR ( talk) 04:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Far too much detail about mundane events, plenty of original research, non-neutral and poorly worded. Much like this user's other articles/essays John Cena-Edge rivalry and Stone Cold Steve Austin-Vince McMahon rivalry (all linked through See Also sections, which smells a bit fishy). These feuds are covered sufficiently in each wrestler's article. I would suggest GVnayR publish these on a personal website after reading WP:NOTESSAY. InedibleHulk ( talk) 05:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep an eye out for this guy's edits. He seems to be making a lot of pointless edits that weaken articles, or inventing a large amount of bunk. Tony2Times ( talk) 09:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to bring to attention Ouloul94 as well. This guy's not exactly a vandal, he's probably editing with good intentions but he keeps removing old finishers from wrestlers' pages even when these old finishers are properly referenced. Examples of what he's removed are Jack Swagger's Red, White and Blue Thunder Bomb and Miz's Mizard of Oz. I'm speculating this is because these particular finishers were used early in the wrestlers' careers and few people knew of these finishers so maybe he removed them because he assumed they didn't exist. If you look at Ouloul94's talk page you'll see that repeated attempts to warn him about his disruptive editing are apaprently ignored because he has never replied to his talk page. Is there something we could do about it? Starship.paint ( talk) 08:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I was recently looking at the talk page for Dolph Ziggler and saw a section pertaining to his status as a Triple Crown Champion. Upon reading it, curiosity got me to the WWE site to see if they listed his World Tag Team Championship on his page (they don't). However, this led me to scroll though his "milestones" section, and the very last one, detailing his victory over Kofi Kingston to win the United States Championship, lists the header as "Triple Crown #Heel" ( http://www.wwe.com/superstars/dolphziggler). Although I know that the WWE site isn't always the best to use as a primary source, given the numerous debates on numerous talk pages about having to wait for WWE to issue a statement on the status of the US title (and ECW Championship) in relation to whether it qualifies as part of a Triple Crown or Grand Slam accolade, I wanted to pose it here on the community page. While the current definition of the Triple Crown is primary, secondary, tag team; this seems to indicate an alternative where the US title is below the Intercontinental title, at a tertiary status and an alternate for a tag title?
I realize this could just be classified as OR, however I wanted to post and gather information/opinions from others before deciding to move forward. I haven't come across any discussions or seen any attempts by others to bring this up, though I am not the most frequent of users on here. 67.181.76.194 ( talk) 10:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I can't speak to whether this "officially" changes the definition of Triple Crown (in my mind, a tag title will always be necessary), but I can say that "Nicky"'s World Tag Team Title reign absolutely counts as a reign for "Dolph Ziggler". Same wrestler, different gimmick. InedibleHulk ( talk) 20:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Someboidy did at least 6 or 7 articles nominate for a deletion i did answer in some but i guess there has to be more opinions then one to keep this articles like Night of champions and royal rumble or extreme rules-- Nakurio ( talk) 05:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok so how you would proof that this articles are notable, for sure not every ppv is as important for the Storylines and the impact on fans as the big 4 but as a fact there are not very often title changes at raw or smack down this most happens at ppvs and at the ppvs are the long matches which never happen on raw due to the little time they have compared ti their talent.-- Nakurio ( talk) 06:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
so i then thank for the friendly advice ;) -- Nakurio ( talk) 08:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Anything advertised on national television should have guaranteed notability. It's dumb for anyone to dispute that. If the only mention of a PPV is during a commercials for a few weeks of Monday Night Raw, guess what, that's millions of people world-wide who could all testify to the fact they know what this PPV is, what it's about and when it will take place. Even if you can't find an online source, it doesn't matter. That isn't the only way to find notability. We're talking about MILLIONS OF PEOPLE here. It's so stupid that someone actually thinks their time is well-spent deleting these articles on Wikipedia. Feed back ☎ 12:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Significance and merit are hard things to evaluate, and probably impossible for a large group (i.e. Wikipedia editors) to unanimously agree on. From my personal perspective, No Mercy 2007 is far more significant than Elizabeth Taylor or bottled water (or countless other topics). But I realize other editors feel quite the opposite. I don't attempt to eradicate these articles, I just don't read them. Their continued existence has had absolutely NO detrimental effect on Wikipedia as a whole.
WWE PPV articles have long been considered significant by the many editors who create and maintain them, and the many more who read them. Those who cannot even recognize this significance are hardly qualified to decide whether it exists more strongly in one PPV than another.
I am familiar with the similar situation with the MMA PPV articles. I hope we can all agree to settle this in a much more reasonable and non-bureaucratic manner. InedibleHulk ( talk) 20:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Do we really need pages specifically dedicated to John Cena v. Edge, Triple H v. Undertaker, or Austin v. McMahon? They appear to be designed solely for people who like one of the two involved, and seem to be already well covered in various pages (Cena v. Edge on their respective pages, HHH v. Taker on both Wrestlemania XXVII and Wrestlemania XXVIII). There would be dozens of pages detailing every feud a wrestler has over the course of a career. HidyHoTim ( talk) 07:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I've proposed these for deletion. Not sure if I've done it properly, but I think so. If someone with deletion experience can confirm or deny this, that'd be cool. InedibleHulk ( talk) 21:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC) My browse freezes when I try to edit Stone_Cold_Steve_Austin-Vince_McMahon_rivalry. Someone else want to tag that one? InedibleHulk ( talk) 21:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, I had PROPOSED instead of NOMINATED these for deletion. I think everything is by the book now, except I still cannot edit Stone Cold Steve Austin-Vince McMahon rivalry to add the AfD tag without crashing. Someone? (I'll pass on the Johnny article, Kaos...) InedibleHulk ( talk) 00:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Per policy, I am informing this Wikiproject. The discussion for all three is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Cena-Edge_rivalry InedibleHulk ( talk) 01:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I left a message at Wikipedia:Did you know about a pro-wrestling related DYK submission. I was hoping someone from the project could take a look at the sourcing and possibly suggest some improvements? 72.74.208.41 ( talk) 18:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
In virtually every wrestler article I've edited, I've seen editors saying "Buddy would win..." or worse, "Buddy would go on to win..." instead of "Buddy won...". It's not just winning, every verb falls victim to this (and not just in wrestling articles). PLEASE do not make this mistake yourself! It is unnecessarily wordy and clunky. "Would be" is never better than "was", if "was" is what you mean.
While I've got my grammar Nazi boots on, please use "...lost to..." instead of "...was defeated by...". Also, try not to use "also" unless necessary. InedibleHulk ( talk) 02:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Yep, in some contexts "would" works. When describing a recurring tendency (e.g. "Big Boss Man would handcuff and assault jobbers after the match") or jumping ahead to the future ("Martel teamed with Tom Zenk (who would go on to become The Z-Man in WCW). But not "Hulk Hogan would defeat Sgt. Slaughter at Wrestlemania VII" or "Shane Douglas ran to the ring and would go on to assault Razor Ramon."
I'm not seeing your logic when you claim "lost to" isn't correct, yet "would win" is perfectly reasonable. If nobody actually loses a match, how can anyone actually win? Shall we say "Mark Calloway (in his 'Undertaker' costume) laid on an entirely cooperative Randy Orton after the two created the illusion of an actual piledriver, while the (kayfabe) referee slapped the mat three times (as the script called for), giving gullible fans the impression he won the fixed bout."? Of course not. Almost everyone knows wrestling is fiction, and the professional wrestling article (linked to in every wrestler's lead) spells it out clearly for those who don't. InedibleHulk ( talk) 22:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a pretty minor thing quibble so pardon my indulgence but it's across the board of the project. On championship lists, in the event column I see no reason why years are mentioned in so many of the event titles when they aren't in that event. As this poster suggests, the title name for this event is SummerSlam, yet in the List of WWE World Heavyweight Champions events column it would read SummerSlam (2009). No-one calls it that on air, in any promotional material or even in any of the articles on Wikipedia. Compare this with Best in the World 2011 where the year IS part of the title and thus in the List of ROH World Champions events column it does read Best in the World 2011. Similarly WrestleMania IV and WrestleMania XI or Slammiversary IX would have that Roman numeral attached to them to differentiate them as they currently do, because that's what they're advertised as, but Final Resolution or Genesis or No Way Out need no year because it's not in their title, it's merely a disambiguation link.
If you disagree with this method, then I propose we be consistent. So as not to confuse anyone as to which Raw, SmackDown, Nitro or Impact that a title changed hands on, we should put the full date in brackets after the title. Tony2Times ( talk) 09:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The articles are named with the year in parentheses, so I can see how it would be slightly easier for editors to type. But yes, it is technically inaccurate to refer to 2006's SummerSlam as SummerSlam (2006), and unnecessary when the date is just to the left. Article names obviously need disambiguation, but text does not. I support changing the link text, while leaving the link targets. TV shows should remain as they are (with the date only in the Date column). InedibleHulk ( talk) 22:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Which should I be putting in square brackets and why? I've seen a lot of changes lately and I'm not sure if it's someone being lazy or how it should really be done. Tony2Times ( talk) 07:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
When someone wins this (or Triple Crown) accolade, it is listed in their C&A section as "Second Grand Slam Champion", however for other titles it does not say WCW Champion (2 times), it reads WCW Championship. Should Grand Slam and Triple Crown be changed in line with this, or is it something else? Tony2Times ( talk) 16:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
For those who haven't seen it yet, 2012 in WWE events was created. I have no idea what the intention behind it is, and Feedback, before you start ranting at me for trying to delete WWE PPV articles, take a look at the article history, I had nothing to do with it's creation, as of this post I have only added a category. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 09:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I hope Talk:2012 in UFC events isn't an indicator of how this is going to go. Maybe we can actually learn something from it instead. InedibleHulk ( talk) 11:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
And even THAT got heated. Touchy subject, notability. Not quite as bad as discussing the "fakeness" of it, but close. You're right, though. Anyone looking to keep the articles once the inevitable happens should study up on (and cite) policy guidelines. Keep arguments short and to the point. Read the opposing arguments carefully and refute points clearly. Don't rant, don't whine, don't compare anyone to Hitler. That crap NEVER helps. Aside from that advice, I'm probably sitting this one out. Good luck! InedibleHulk ( talk) 14:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I am discussing it there Paul "The Wall" ( talk) 23:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I think that it's time to create some articles. I read the articles of the members, but I think that we can create the Tag team article, also delete some individual artcicles, because we can write them entire carrer in the Tag Team article.
What do you think? -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 12:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't recommend it - the Bravado brothers and DCFK have dubious notability and the No Remorse Corps (assuming you mean Richards, Romero and Strong) wouldn't really (IMHO) warrant more than the brief mentions it already has on the member's articles. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 11:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Gordman and Goliath seem a notable enough team to me. I assumed it had an article already, but it turns out they don't even have individual articles! I don't want to get off-topic, but I would totally support the existence of a team page for them. InedibleHulk ( talk) 03:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Earlier today MasterOfTimeForever ( talk · contribs) created plane ride from hell as a copyvio which was speedily deleted; however I thought the incident was probably notable and recreated it as a reasonably well-referenced one-sentence stub. I've alerted the original creator, but I think some input from more clued-up editors would be useful. Thanks in advance! – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 17:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I came across a rather contentious issue when editing Ryback (wrestler)... regarding what the hell his finisher is. I thought it was a Samoan drop, so I searched and found two reliable sources to back me up: Adam Martin of WrestleView says 'modified Samoan Drop finisher'. James Caldwell of PWTorch says 'double marching Samoan Drop'. Meanwhile KingMorpheus thinks it's a delayed cradle suplex, and he's found a reliable source to back it up: Mike Tedesco of WrestleView says 'modified fisherman's suplex'. The situation gets more awkward when reliable sources have also called the move a running Muscle Buster-like finisher.
For the record, I can find many more reliable sources to back my Samoan drop claim. Todd Martin of Wrestling Observer, Dave Hillhouse of SLAM! Wrestling and Richard Trionfo of PWInsider. I've covered all five reliable sources in the style guide that give weekly reports to support 'Samoan drop'. Does that mean that I can override the other description of cradle suplex?
So, essentially, who exactly is right here when reliable sources conflict with each other in the case of wrestling moves? Starship.paint ( talk) 06:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I've seen that move a few times. In my opinion (which is not "reliable"), it's a Samoan drop/Death Valley driver hybrid. Not at all a fisherman or cradle suplex. Like Suriel says, go with the "Holy Trinity". It's definitely SOME sort of Samoan drop, just like a Cane toad is some sort of toad, even if it resembles a bulldog. As a side note, Ryback absolutely sucks. InedibleHulk ( talk) 20:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Here's another. KingMorpheus ( talk) 19:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The Slam Wrestling caption says he suplexes his opponent. It does not say the pictured move is his finisher (explicitly or implicitly). The picture is one frame of a movement. First, we have to assume this is a picture is of the same move we're talking about (probably a safe bet, but still an assumption). Then we must assume he used it as a finisher. That's synthesis. The text sources make it clear he is finishing matches with a Samoan drop. No assumptions necessary. The phrase "running double marching" is a modifier of the noun "Samoan drop". The preposition "into" means the suplex transformed to a different move. Like in "front facelock into a DDT/vertical suplex/swinging neckbreaker". Would you call a DDT a facelock? InedibleHulk ( talk) 00:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)