This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 95 | Archive 96 | Archive 97 | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | → | Archive 105 |
Lana (wrestling) to Lana (wrestler). McPhail ( talk) 18:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
User talk:Captain Styles II Jr. has created an article for The Golden Gorgeous Truth (participate in the AfD, even though it's an obvious hoax) and has moved Enzo Amore and Colin Cassady to The SAWFT (professional wrestling). In his summaries, he simply states, "WWE Official The Golden Gorgeous Truth" or "WWE Official The SAWFT". Now, in my mind, these names are completely false. Previously before he moved the Enzo and Cass page, SAWFT was one of the names in the infobox, supported by an unreliable source. After he moved the page, he simply added "The" before "SAWFT" in the box (I reverted his edits but I can't move the article back to its original name). Are there any sources to prove that these names are valid? Are these names actually official names once used by WWE? Sekyaw (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Sekyaw you are correct as that is not their tag team name never has been.This is not the first questionable edit he has done.
Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ( talk) 00:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Currently some wrestlers have links to Online World of Wrestling in the external links sections. I've looked through quite a few profiles and they don't seem to offer a unique resource (contrast cagematch and similar, which offer databases of matches, title reigns, etc), it doesn't seem to be particularly well written, or authoritative. Career highlights are what should be in a wikipedia article, and lists of matches seem to be much better as databases (such as cagematch), so I don't think they really add much value to articles. I propose we delete links to the site when included in the external links section (at least where there are other, more reliable sources linked to), and if used as a reference then supported by a more reliable source (where possible). Silverfish ( talk) 23:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
As we seem to have agreement, I'm going to start removing the links, and adding the template I mention above ( Template:Professional_wrestling_profiles), which adds links to cagematch.net, wrestlingdata.com and the Internet Wrestling Database, which seem to be more reliable sources. Silverfish ( talk) 22:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I have a dbout. WHat should we do with the List of Global Force Wrestling personnel? A few months ago, GFW looked like a powerful promotion with a good roster. However, it's a (WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:NONEUTRAL) joke. If you take a look on GFW events, a few roster wrestlers appear at the events ( http://www.cagematch.net/?id=1&nr=144773). Also, the roster isn't actualized. Wrestlers who signed with other promotions (doc gallows, karl anderson, the young bucks) still listed as GFW wrestlers. Many others are in a dubius situation (trevor lee, andrew everet, sanada, EVIL)... so, do you think we should delete the article? A lot of independent promotions haven't a roster section. The artice is sourced by an unactualized website and doesn't represent the GFW roster when you see the events. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 14:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok. I made an AfD -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 12:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, the article was deleted. However, the template isn't Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 8 -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 23:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Two new GFW AfDs may be of interest to you: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current champions in Global Force Wrestling and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Force Wrestling tournaments. LM2000 ( talk) 20:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
And the GFW navbox is up for discussion, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 June 2. LM2000 ( talk) 02:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Would anyone object to me creating templates to add links to cagematch.net and wrestlingdata.com profiles of wrestlers? They are both databases of professional wrestling, with information on wrestlers, events, matches, etc, and seem to be very comprehensive. The template would be similar to [1] that links to someone's IMDb page, and be included on the external links section of articles. Silverfish ( talk) 01:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think having them on one line would work, as the standard format seems to be for someone's name to be the link (See John Cena, for example). We could have one template that generates a line for each database, so we could change the formatting or add new websites if we want. My plan would be for the template to pull the identifiers from wikidata (as the imdb template does), ignoring sites that don't apply. I also propose that we include Online World of Wrestling profiles too, as that seems to be a good source, and we already use OWW on some wrestlers' pages (see Mike Bell (wrestler), say). Silverfish ( talk) 11:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Excuse my ignorance (I'm still pretty new) but I don't really understand what it is that you are asking to do. Does this mean that the sources will be counted as one? *Treker ( talk) 01:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
My preference is to store the identifier (the part that specifies the person referred to, so 691 for John Cena on Cagematch) for each website on WikiData, and then when you use the template on someone's page it pulls the identifier for them from Wikidata, and uses it to link to their profile on each website (if they have one). In case you are not familiar with Wikidata, it's a website that acts as a database for Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects such as Wikisource, Wikiquotes, etc), that aims to have a page for each Wikipedia article, that has information about the subject of the article. The page for John Cena has information about him, and is connected to his Wikipedia article (in different language Wikipedias). His identifier at CageMatch is already there (the CageMatch worker id). The advantage of storing data on Wikidata is that any language version of Wikipedia can use the information. Alternatively we could have the template set up like this: {{prowrestlingprofiles|cagematch = 691, wd = 336, iwd = john-cena-350, oww = j/john-cena/}}, where we include the identifiers in the template. My preference would be to pull data from Wikidata, but possibly with the option to include the identifiers in the template for people less comfortable with Wikidata. The identifiers could then be imported into Wikidata. I hope this is clear, but if not let me know, and I'll try to explain further.
I think the key parts of my question/proposal were 1) Are these websites worth including, 2) How do we format the links and 3) Do we store the identifiers locally, on Wikidata, or a combination of the two. Silverfish ( talk) 11:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I've created the template. As it just covers cagematch, I've reused the Template:cagematch that already existed but it was hardly used, and could only link properly to Summer Rae's profile. I've added the template to AJ Lee, and John Cena. I plan to add it to other articles in time, if you like the template. It is setup so it defaults to importing the identifier from Wikidata and using the pagename (without anything in brackets), as the name for the link. I think importing from Wikidata is the ideal, and the corresponding property for the identifier is Cagematch Worker Id (property 2728) on Wikidata, if someone is missing an identifier. We already have a few hundred wrestler's with identifier on Wikidata.
Does anyone have any comments, or does anyone object to me adding it to other articles? Silverfish ( talk) 22:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I've created a template ( Template:ProfessionalWrestlingProfiles), that links to profiles from cagematch.net, wrestlingdata.com and the Internet Wrestling Database, with a format similar to that suggested by User:Prefall. It pulls the identifier from Wikidata if it isn't included in the template. I've used it at John Cena as a test and it looks like this:
I think this is a good compromise between providing useful information and not making the external links section too cluttered. Does anyone have any comments or suggestions? I plan to add it to other articles if people are happy with it. Silverfish ( talk) 17:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Edgars2007 asked at Module talk:Professional wrestling why we don't also include other profile links in this template, such as those from WWE, which are currently maintained through the {{ WWE superstar}} template. Personally, I agree with merging it and also including any other notable promotions, but I wanted to bring it here for consensus.
After a little bit of digging, here are a few notes:
What do you guys think? Prefall 11:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone, there are two articles and one list seeking the Featured status. Please offer your thoughts if you are free and willing. starship .paint ~ KO 06:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Many articles of wrestlers of Lucha Underground vary in the way info of results are written.
Much of the articles show results by the date taken place at the taping.
Example from Fénix (wrestler): "At the season two Ultima Lucha on January 31, 2016, Fénix, Aero Star and Drago defeated Jack Evans, Johnny Mundo and PJ Black to win the Lucha Underground Trios Championship."
Ultima Lucha 2 has not even aired yet. There are also articles that follow the show's results by the date the episodes were aired.
Example from John Morrison (wrestler): " King Cuerno attacked Mundo on the February 4 episode, beginning a feud between them; the second installment took place on the episode which aired March 11, where Mundo and Cuerno wrestled in a Steel Cage match, which was won by Mundo."
It may be very confusing to readers that watch without knowing the air date is about 4-5 months after the actual date of the taping. Is there a correct way to show the info? Sekyaw (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
There's an editor who doesn't agree with the following content " WrestleMania 32 consisted of professional wrestling matches that involved wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feuds or storylines that played out on WWE television. Wrestlers portrayed heroes or villains as they followed a series of events that built tension and culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches", because of the following reasons:
1. It's merely stating something that every single reader over the age of 5, would be blatantly aware of.
2. The wording is awful, it sounds like some badly scripted warning on a TV show.
3. It is covered in a lot of detail on the
Professional wrestling article, which is linked directly before previous location of the offending content.
if you think this is informative for every PPV, please let me know. Nickag989 ( talk to me!) - 07:50 (UTC)
I find it not useful myself only because it is common knowledge to everyone around the world that that's how pro wrestling works, it doesn't need to be explained to people on the article, If it was added there we would have to add it to every article involving pro wrestling. It is better left off. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ( talk) 10:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
S
I think the "produced and scripted by WWE" is a good compromise if nobody has any major objections. Nikki♥ 311 18:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I've seen this thread dozens of times but I don't recall ever chiming in before. The wording is clunky but has always served a purpose to readers who lack common sense. The "and scripted" proposal is far less clunky and serves the same purpose. Let's go with that. LM2000 ( talk) 04:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Your issue regarding tweeners can be solved. I solved it on every single PPV I've ever done. The problem is the WWE PPVs can't keep up. Look at Bound for Glory IV. Sure the paragraph can be re-written. It is only 2 bloody sentences, not 20. The issue is the WWE disclaimers are different than the TNA disclaimers. Someone decided they needed to focus on each program instead of the overall product. Another issue is that the storyline and heel/face alignment is absolutely never ever ever flushed out in the sections. The moment after that paragraph, the articles are written in universe and act give very little incite to the character development. Otherwise, people throw the words heel and face in there without any explanation as to how the characters are that. It is easy to suggest throwing out something, but this isn't the Republican Party, we need to come up with solutions and replacements, not just stall and destroy whatever we can touch. I'd be interested in rewording, but one word does not fix the issue nor does 5. There are policies to attend too regardless. Y'all may think this is about Featured Articles, but it is more than that. Like I have said a billion times. It is about the numerous policies such as WP:IN-U, WP:FICTION, WP:JARGON, etc. If we are going to change or update, the solution has to be inline with those policies, not focused on the concern of smart marks who don't like being told their fantasy is false.-- Will C 08:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
It is hilarious how you think there is a consensus when you can't have a consensus to go against the very policy that is the entirety of Wikipedia. Your supposed consensus is to ignore the three policies I have listed above entirely. Guess what? You can't do that because they policies are beyond our very control and thus we'd be failing the manual of style. Plus, I'm not alone. MPJ above also was arguing for the disclaimer. I'm completely open to updating. The problem is there is no idea on how to update it. The only idea presented is to blow everything up. No one is explaining how to bring new ideas and how to go by policy. Just the new users who have never written a single article and thus have very little understanding of what they are doing.-- Will C 18:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Oknazevad: Oh please, you can complain all you want, I have yet to see you do one thing other than leave a comment here and there. Please show an article you have gotten reviewed or contributed a single useful edit too. You can say you are trying to improve, but that entire statement never left one useful statement. I'm simply trying to suggest that we actually do something that will counteract the effects done by new users. A one word statement does not negate the effect that the articles are still written in universe. The paragraph helps to counteract that. My efforts may come off as "obstinacy and obstructionism" but that is because I have come to recognize after years that news users don't care. They want to writer fan fiction, not encyclopedia content.-- Will C 05:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Version 1: "Professional wrestlers perform as characters in events scripted and pre-determined by their professional wrestling promotions."
Version 2: "Professional wrestlers perform as characters in the scripted events that are pre-determined by the professional wrestling promotion or organization."
Version 3: "Professional wrestlers perform as characters in scripted events pre-determined by professional wrestling promotions or organizations."
Version 2 or 3 Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ( talk) 14:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
First off let me say I was asked my opinion on which sounded better and I gave said opinion, I never voted for anything to be put on there I was under the impression the decision was already made. Secondly I was also unaware there was already a consensus done for removal or I would not have given my opinion on which one I preferred unfortunately. With all that said being the webmaster for a retired wrestler who makes sure I not only post his good things but also makes sure I post his past drug problems not only here but also on his website and that I wrestled myself 20 yrs ago when I was in my 20's for about 4 yrs, people are not stupid, no one believes that any of it is real anymore like it was in years past or when I was a kid for that matter. Most kids now a days know its all for show, at least most kids I have met over the years. If we are doing a Consensus then I would be voting for it not to be there or to just be "and scripted by WWE". Sorry guys but I was just giving my opinion on which ones I thought sounded better if it was going to be on there.
Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ( talk) 06:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
After going back and doing some reading I did vote it down to be removed during the last discussion. I was unaware a consensus was reached for it to be removed but I did vote it to be removed, I apologize for my forgetfulness in my old age.
"I find it not useful myself only because it is common knowledge to everyone around the world that that's how pro wrestling works, it doesn't need to be explained to people on the article, If it was added there we would have to add it to every article involving pro wrestling. It is better left off. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)"
Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ( talk) 06:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
First off it was made very clear on my own user page when it was created I was the webmaster for someone,"which by the way I am not paid for doing I do it for free so I don't really work for him". Secondly there were admins made aware when I joined who I was and I was told how I was to handle my editing as not to cause any issues to arise. Quite frankly I do more edits on other stuff than I ever have done on his. Not one other person in the wrestling wiki community or wiki period who knows who i am and what I do has ever said a word until you now. So now because I don't take your side on this ridiculous argument your going to attack me? Got it glad to see how it works on here thanks for clearing that up for me. I withdraw myself from this conversation as clearly noone can have civil conversations about this matter without being hostile when someone doesn't side with them. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ( talk) 00:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
It seemed that we were headed towards something that looked like a consensus but new proposals sent us in a couple of different directions. Before the discussion is archived and we end up at "no consensus" I would just like a quick count on where everyone stands. LM2000 ( talk) 19:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Some MMA guys are trying to delete the article for Gzim Selmani because he narrowly fails the notability requirement for MMA fighters. I tried to explain that he is notable as part of the featured NXT television roster, can someone clarify that this is the case? If not then this also affects others such as Elias Samson and No Way Jose who were also given articles when they debuted on NXT. The Selmani article's existence clearly is justified BTW, it's fully sourced and according to WP:PAGEVIEW it has been viewed over 2,000 times per day on average since its creation. 94.174.101.121 ( talk) 05:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
It's currently at WWF The Wrestling Classic. That sounds terrible, nobody says it and disambiguation isn't needed. Should just be the The Wrestling Classic. All in favour? All opposed? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I've never uploaded a fair use image until now. At least I'm sure I left a "detailed" FUR as is typically requested. See File:Nippon TV acknowledges KPLR-TV in broadcast of Giant Baba vs. Harley Race match.png and KPLR-TV#Programming. As this falls under the project's topic, any comments are welcome. I would particularly look for hints from more experienced FU uploaders, as I'm sure I have some more lying around. Somewhere in my backups is a screenshot I cropped but never uploaded of Terry Gordy slamming the cage door on Kerry Von Erich from December 25, 1982, which started the Von Erichs/Freebirds feud. Considering that World Class Championship Wrestling is a nearly 90K article with only a FU logo in the infobox and a free image of far, far less value than my proposed FU image (and here's the funny thing: it depicts someone with an article, but isn't even used in that article!), I wonder if someone would try to delete it merely on account of the existence of the free image. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
We haven't done a group collaboration on a priority article in awhile, so may I suggest Jake Roberts? There will be two weeks to improve the article. All help is appreciated, no matter how minor. Nikki♥ 311 08:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I have created templates to add external links for NJPR and ROH. I've used them on it Matt Sydal to start with. They look like this:
=
Does anyone have any comments? I'll probably create other templates if I come across any more that seem useful, while I'm adding the Template:Professional wrestling profiles template. Silverfish ( talk) 14:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Colin Cassady Colin Cassady → Big Cass - SethAdam99 ( talk) 06:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I am having a bit of a debate with one of your members, I have removed sections similar to the following:
"The event consited of twelve professional wrestling matches with different wrestlers involved in pre-existing scripted feuds or storylines. Wrestlers portrayed either heels (wrestlers portraying the "bad guy" characters) or faces ("good guy" characters) as they competed in wrestling matches with pre-determined outcomes."
from various PPV event pages as I feel they are not needed for specific events. In my opinion if someone is looking at the event page they probably understand the basics professional wrestling and if they don't they can check Professional Wrestling.
Having such a section on every event page would be the equivalent of having a section explaining the basics of football on every Superbowl page.
Opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachoha ( talk • contribs) 18:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
It would be a nice thing to discuss with the project before removing it from a few dozen articles. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 21:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I knew I'd see this blasted discussion again. I didn't know I'd see it again so quickly though. LM2000 ( talk) 23:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
If we're not going to get rid of the disclaimer then we should probably expand rather than reduce it. If the intention is to explain professional wrestling, most people who post in these threads agree it does a piss poor job of it. LM2000 ( talk) 23:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I still dislike it as much as the other nine or ten times someone else has complained about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Can anyone please help me find a reliable source for Zhukov (a.k.a. James Harrell, a.k.a. Pvt. Jim Nelson) being born in Roanoke, Virginia? Thanks. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 04:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone. There doesn't seem to be as much written about him as a lot of other wrestlers, so I really appreciate the help. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 15:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
This guy has been causing trouble here for awhile, I've started an ANI thread at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Shinkazamaturi personal attacks and WP:CIR. LM2000 ( talk) 17:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Should the "Return to WWE section of the A.J. Styles article really be named as such? I mean, prior to 2016, he only made two appearances for the company and he was never under contract. Crash Under ride 10:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
While we're on the topic of what others outside of the wikiproject think of our articles, can we talk about article size? Other editors are often baffled at the size of our BLPs, A.J. Styles' article leaves me startled. I remember one time someone compared Bret Hart to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s article, A.J. Styles is even larger than MLK's. Can we start trimming some stuff here? LM2000 ( talk) 03:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC) I think trimming needed, larger issue is how everyone thinks Everytime someone sneezes it needs added to their article. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ( talk) 18:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
As you all know, the brand split is coming back so the roster listing on List of WWE personnel is going to need to divided, one of the subjectings was making 4 separate list, another was highlight the columns of the superstars and divas on Raw and Smackdown in Red and Blue respectively (similar to WWE brand extension#Superstar selections this article).
What do you all think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:5644:600:1109:F2F6:680B:25A0 ( talk) 08:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
So, the Draft was yesterday. Any idea for the roster article? To me, the current format is a complete mess. It's easier to split the main roster into two subsections. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 13:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I was just looking at the Guild of Copy Editors' July backlog elimination drive and noticed that three wrestling articles are tagged as needing copy editing. If anyone is feeling inspired, they are Kayfabe, The Authority (professional wrestling), and Desperado (professional wrestling). No pressure--just if anyone is looking for something to do or is particularly interested in any of those articles. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 19:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Reidgreg has started a discussion about the External Links templates, at Template talk:WWE superstar. Feel free to comment there. Silverfish ( talk) 20:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason that draft is spelled with a lowercase "D"? WWE Draft appears to be the proper name of the event. Shouldn't the "D" be capitalized? WWE capitalizes it. True CRaysball | #RaysUp 08:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
You can't keep moving the goal posts. I've provided you with 14 sources that in some way or another support my position, and you keep dismissing them. Granted, some are better than others, but it almost seems to be that your counter argument boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. True CRaysball | #RaysUp 06:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph on this page is misleading as it is simply a copy-and-paste of the introductory to List of WWE Personnel. I tried to edit the title before getting consensus. I apologize for it, but I would like to offer now, that this introduction is used:
In professional wrestling, a tag team is a team of wrestlers who fight as a team, fighting alternatively and a stable is a group of three or more wrestlers who regularly fight together. In the latter's case, usually two members of the stable fight in a tag team match. This is a list of all tag teams and stables who regularly fight as a team and are apart of the roster of American professional wrestling promotion, WWE.
The list is sorted into teams from WWE's main roster television shows, Raw and SmackDown and the promotion's developmental territory, WWE NXT. The list of NXT tag teams and stables will also be sorted into those that can appear on its television events, and those that only appear at non-televised events.
Each table also includes the managers, valets and former members if such members existed. The list also includes current WWE and NXT Tag Team Champions, The New Day and The Revival, respectively.
I also think that this page should be deleted altogether, because no other promotion as an article like this. 0737290632t2x273n ( talk) 01:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Redirect sounds like the way to go. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ( talk) 09:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
@ 0737290632t2x273n and MPJ-DK: page redirected per suggestions of the other editors. starship .paint ~ KO 00:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Just had to redirect again, Someone moved it back. May have to get a protect on it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ( talk) 02:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
So, List of WWE tag teams and stables now redirects to List of wrestling tag teams and stables#Active under the active section. Shouldn't it be under the WWE Section? 0737290632t2x273n ( talk) 18:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The "WWE Championship" has been renamed "WWE World Championship" on the WWE website. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 23:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
These two pages are very similar and anyone reading one can get the same information from the other. I suggest the List of early world heavyweight champions in professional wrestling be merged into the World Heavyweight Wrestling Championship (Original version). Any one searching for the former will be redirected to the "Reigns" section under the latter. Currently, that section only explains how it was inaugurated and when it was retired, so the table present in the former can be moved to this "Reigns" section. 0737290632t2x273n ( talk) 17:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay. I am about to publish a new edit for World Heavyweight Wrestling Championship (Original Version) that includes all the same information of List of early World Heavyweight Champions in professional wrestling, but could someone delete the list article? I'm not sure how. 0737290632t2x273n ( talk) 14:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
The Sin Cara article, in my opinion, is really, really redundant. The character has only been portrayed by two wrestlers and the sections that divide the two people that portrayed Sin Cara are almost exactly the same compared to their respective main articles. Take La Parka for example. There is no La Parka article that shows the info between the two "portrayers", but there is La Parka and La Parka II. Is it really necessary to have an article for a character that has only been portrayed by two people and has the exact same info on their main respective articles in their respective sections like Sin Cara? In my opinion, Sin Cara should be redirected to Hunico, with a hatnote on top that distinguishes the two, directing it to Místico. Thoughts? Sekyaw (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
After looking it over as well Gonna have to agree that Sin Cara should be directed at Hunico with a hatnote for Mistico. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ( talk) 05:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
There's good reasons to keep a separate article on the Sin Cara identity. The main one being the two Sin Caras storyline, which was specifically about the identity, not specific to either wrestler. Also, if we were to redirect to Hunico, then we'd probably have to move Hunico to Sin Cara as the most common name, which then just confuses the issue further. No, the real solution is to trim the week-by-week recaps from the article so it's not redundant and make it Solely focused on the identity. And such trimming is something we need to do in wrestling articles a lot more anyway. oknazevad ( talk) 13:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Are there any other thoughts on the Sin Cara article? Again, I see no relevance in the character other than the two respective wrestlers portraying it and the short feud between two Sin Cara's, which I believe isn't enough to warrant a separate article. Sekyaw (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
So since all of this brand split happen and multiple editors began adding the brand where they were drafted to on the wrestlers pages, is it really necessary to add this because you know they already work for WWE but adding the brands on the top of its page is certainly not necessary about since it would be also on her full wrestling history also because this kind of editors just add the things they saw on the programs from WWE so I don't really think this is necessary some help to close this case ? Thanks. TheBellaTwins1445( talk) 03:56, July 21, 2016 (UTC)
As user:LM2000 said before It was already discussed with the last brand split to add them, You are the only editor who keeps removing it from the 50+ articles today because you think it isn't important but it is to the less informed fan or a new fan who is using Wikipedia for information. When something like this has been added by an X amount of editors to different articles there is a pretty good bet it should be there. Do you also understand that every revert you preformed today on these 50+ articles will now have to be fixed again if this consensus is to add the info? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ( talk) 21:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to go out on a limb and oppose the inclusions of the brands in the lead. They're purely WP:INUNIVERSE and far too easily changed, despite all the hype about guys meeting "for the last time". Nonsense. We all know, based on history from the prior split, that brand assignments are hardly permanent and entirely too temporary. So, count me as against. oknazevad ( talk) 03:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Quick question though. The Raw television show is italicized but is the Raw brand? I don't remember us using italics for brands in the past but I'm seeing them used in some articles this time. LM2000 ( talk) 21:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Earlier today, I tried submitting List of Continental Wrestling Federation alumni and List of Gulf Coast Championship Wrestling alumni to WP:AFC as redirects to List of Continental Championship Wrestling alumni. I provided a source for each but they were both were rejected. The editor basically said no one would ever type in those exact titles but it also doesn't make since to have separate lists since both CWF and GCCW wrestlers are already listed at the CCW. There's plenty of similar redirects (e.g. List of World Wide Wrestling Federation alumni to List of WWE alumni) and these are hardly obscure promotions. 72.74.207.230 ( talk) 08:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Appreciate the assistance. List of Mid-South Wrestling alumni could also be redirected to List of Universal Wrestling Federation alumni (Bill Watts) since it covers both the Mid-South and UWF years. 72.74.204.52 ( talk) 21:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Category:NWA Wrestling Legends Hall of Heroes, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
The New articles bot has been updated to scan for Professional wrestling related articles. The list is at User:AlexNewArtBot/ProWrestlingSearchResult. The list can be added to a project page using one the methods listed here. -- Bamyers99 ( talk) 23:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
An IP has been edit warring on the list of IC champions over a content dispute that has been going on for years regarding Bob Holly's status as unrecognized IC Champion. Please chime in at Talk:List of WWE Intercontinental Champions#Requests for comment. LM2000 ( talk) 05:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The article was re-created....again. Yes, the "article" was created for a third time in a month. But this time it was on the old article's talk page. I've nominated it for deletion. So, should I really quote "Broken" Matt Hardy here? Sure, "Delete! Delete! Delete! Delete!" Crash Under ride 02:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The question isn't whether What Culture is reliable (we're not talking about whether is should continue to be used as a source), but whether it is notable, and should have an article. The former has no bearing on the latter; Page Six, the gossip column, is notoriously full of pot-stirring BS, but it is notable because others have written about it. Even if What Culture gets stuff wrong sometimes (and even the New York Times does that), the fact that other reliable sources have written about What Culture's influence makes it notable. That said, discussions about whether the site as a whole is notable are outside the scope of the project. We're really only concerned with their startup wrestling promotion. Which, despite being like a month and a half old, may be the most widely known British promotion in the world. oknazevad ( talk) 18:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe that The Social Outcasts is a textbook example of why we don't just rush in and create articles for any and all teams the WWE puts together since they were basically together for a lukewarm cup of coffee and now are spread all over. A footnote in individual articles, not actually something that should have its own. MPJ -DK 22:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
I wrote Promo Azteca awhile ago and was hoping for some advice on Draft:List of Promo Azteca alumni. I created a separate page for the alumni section because the AFC submission screen wouldn't load when I originally posted the full article. This seemed to be the most logical choice since there's already a category for similar lists. WikiProject Professional wrestling's MOS guide didn't cover alumni lists so I used other lucha libre rosters and WP:PW's featured lists as a guide (as opposed to just having a bullet list of names) and used many of the reliable sources recommended by your project.
The article was rejected as a " meaningless list" a few weeks ago but the reviewer didn't offer any advice on improving it. I don't understand what I did incorrectly or how it specifically qualifies as "listcruft". Do I need to add more sources or should I just merge it to the main article? I'm interested in bringing Promo Azteca up to a GA-class article but adding back the alumni list, as it appears in the preview screen, makes the article overly large and clunky (not to mention very slow loading!). Could this be a potential issue for a GA nomination?
On a sidenote, I submitted the company's logo (via ProWrestlingHistory.com) to WP:IFU around the time Promo Azteca was created. One user wanted me to post the image link but when you click the logo it takes you to another page. I had to describe what the logo looked like and provided an alternate example. It's still sitting there two months later. Could someone from the project take a look at it? It uses the same fair use rationale as File:Logo-CMLL-10.png so I didn't think there would be an issue.
Thanks for your time. 72.74.205.248 ( talk) 22:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
So, after 16 straight edits removing content from the List of professional wrestling promotions page, I've given 2601:586:4402:310:E907:3AF2:438E:361 one and only warning, based on the amount of times they removed things from the article. Just wanted to let people know of their behavior. Crash Under ride 13:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. There is a clear consensus to adopt GaryColemanFan's proposal "The card featured ten matches, which resulted from scripted storylines and had results predetermined by the WWF".
Editors suggested revisions to GaryColemanFan's proposal like InedibleHulk's "The card featured ten matches with results predetermined by WWF-scripted storylines". But there is insufficient discussion about the revisions to determine whether there is consensus to adopt or reject them. I recommend that editors implement GaryColemanFan's proposal, boldly make revisions to it if needed, and open a new discussion if there is any dispute about those changes.
The following disclaimer appears on professional wrestling event articles: The event consisted of professional wrestling matches that involved wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feuds or storylines that played out on WWE television. Wrestlers portrayed heroes or villains as they followed a series of events that built tension and culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches. Is this (or any) disclaimer necessary for people with little knowledge of the subject? Would linking to Professional wrestling and scripted be a suitable alternative? LM2000 ( talk) 14:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The RfC expired but was never closed. It seems a consensus is forming around Gary's proposal. Can we agree on this and move on? LM2000 ( talk) 08:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
This came up at the WK9 FAC when GaryColemanFan reviewed. I wrote this style in the article: "... a Kokeshi diving headbutt from Honma", italicizing the Kokeshi move name, because it's done so in the wrestler's In wrestling section as a special name and not the technical name (diving headbutt). So, do you all think the italicization is needed in article text? starship .paint ~ KO 06:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
So it's probably not a surprise to anyone that the pro wrestling articles get very little respect and recognition outside of those that are already fans of it. But unfortunately that also means that most often wrestling articles who are Feature Article Candidates, Feature List Candidates and Good/Feature Topic Candidate die on the vine for lack of people participating in the process. I just had the Mexican National Women's Championship fail due to inactivity, not due to opposes and the same happened to Wrestle Kingdom 9 that has been nominated for FA three times (or is it four) and not passed three times, not because of opposition but because of lack of attention. I am not advocating going to just give a support comment, but please help review and comment on these to help improve the quality of each candidate. /Shameless plug MPJ -DK 02:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The WWC Universal Heavyweight Championship (only one of the most important world titles in wrestling) has never had an image of the belt in its infobox. Here it is: [3]. Could someone please add this to the article under fair use, akin to the AWA World, WWA World, WWE Intercontinental and WWE Tag Team Championships? Thanks. 2A02:C7D:6A44:4600:C591:A99E:42DA:B980 ( talk) 16:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
So? 2A02:C7D:6A44:4600:45B6:6A64:BF3A:A418 ( talk) 01:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, there's a way to get an image of the belt on Wikipedia. Photobucket user FernanElFather19 has posted a photo of a replica WWC Universal belt; [4] per PB's terms, all images uploaded to its servers are completely free and users wave all rights to them. [5] So, could someone please up this image, in the style of the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) image? Thanks. 185.54.163.204 ( talk) 02:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
It's now uploaded. Warlock82 ( talk) 20:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Naomi (wrestler) was recently moved to Naomi Knight when nobody responded to a RM. I started a new one at Talk:Naomi Knight#Requested move 23 August 2016. There's an ongoing one on Talk:Cameron (wrestler)#Requested move 22 August 2016, where Ranze wants it moved to Cameron Lynn again. LM2000 ( talk) 07:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
For those who haven't noticed/participated, we got some current AfDs, all of which are tag teams.
Sekyaw (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
The criteria for recent death nominations has recently changed, per Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal. Anybody with a standalone article is considered notable enough for inclusion, discussion focuses only on article quality. Bockwinkel, Gange, and Rhodes probably would've been posted under this criteria. LM2000 ( talk) 10:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
There seem to be a few active editors on the wrestling front. I figured I would ask for help on those articles which spread over into your realm, e. g. Doug Wycoff and Bill Middlekauff, or Cy Williams or Frank Speer. Cake ( talk) 13:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Is anyone else noticing that a lot of old URLs are dying off and not displaying properly because of this lagfest? Just displaying a "WWE: Premier Shows" overview? Where possible I'm hoping archive.org could come to the rescue, but otherwise perhaps it's possible to find them in a different format via the new archive setups at http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/archive and http://www.wwe.com/shows/smackdown/archive and http://www.wwe.com/shows/wwenxt/archive curious hidden at the bottoms of their pages? The impression I've gotten is even viewing these they seem to have merged some things together instead of having distinct page URLs like they used to.
As follow-up... is anyone even able to navigate these archive pages? I click it and there's this drop-down menu with years but when I click the years nothing happens. Ranze ( talk) 03:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I propose that the WWE Championships template gets changed to the same format as the WWE Personnel template and have each brands championships sorted into a similar fashion.
Example:
Raw:
Primary: WWE Universal
Secondary: WWE United States
Divisional: WWE Tag Team . WWE Women's
SmackDown:
Primary: WWE World
Secondary: WWE Intercontinental
Divisional: SmackDown Tag Team . SmackDown Women's
NXT:
Primary: NXT
Divisional: NXT Tag Team . NXT Women's
Accomplishments: Ect.
I would do it myself but I'm not totally skilled with templates, I just like to see your opinion. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 18:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Brand Primary Secondary Divisional Raw Universal United States Women's Tag Team Smackdown World Intercontinental Women's Tag Team NXT NXT Women's Tag Team
We've had a couple of redirects created by Ranze that I've brought to RfC, they include Madame McMahon, Unicorn Freaks, Raw Champ and Raw Champion. You can voice your thoughts at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 31#Unicorn Freaks. LM2000 ( talk) 08:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
@ HHH Pedrigree: you seem someone as well-versed if not more well-versed than I am, so I find it implausible that you are unaware of these names having been used.
In special:diff/738267050 when you declare "not real nicknames" I am worried about either your memory or honesty. Ranze ( talk) 02:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Ranze has been topic banned from editing wrestling articles, as well as from creating and editing redirects. [6] If you see him do either, report it to WP:ANI. LM2000 ( talk) 05:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
What's with the WWF Championship being renamed "WWF World Heavyweight Championship" all over Wikipedia? On WWF TV in the 90s, the title was clearly referred to as the "WWF Championship". I challenge anyone to find a Bret Hart/Shawn Michaels/Diesel clip where they are described as the "WWF World Heavyweight Champion". Didn't happen, although the articles of those men (and numerous others) are now permeated by this new wording. WCW announcers very much DID call their titleholder "World Heavyweight Champion", but WWF ones didn't.
Is there a revisionist history agenda plaguing, and undermining the credibility of, the pro wrestling section here on Wiki? 185.54.163.136 ( talk) 10:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
There are currently two WWE Championship templates, Template:Current WWE Champions and Template:WWE Championships. We can't have two of these, one is enough, so which one are we gonna keep and delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:5644:600:F478:BDEB:F930:5BE6 ( talk) 07:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I removed the unneeded, redundant, new template from all pages that transcluded it except AJ Styles (because that's currently locked) and User:Aleuuhhmsc's sandbox draft of the Universal Championship article (he should probably clear that, but I don't mess with other people's sandboxes unless invited). We can delete them safely, I think. There's certainly a consensus against using them in this conversation. oknazevad ( talk) 23:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Should the cruiserweights get their own separate column on List of WWE personnel? Similar to List of New Japan Pro Wrestling personnel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.188.49 ( talk) 01:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Notifying the project of this discussion, seeing as how the article's wrestling-related infobox and image were removed during the timeframe that warring in general over images has been going on. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Is this the same belt? Main page of WWE site says First champion which to me says no.-- Will C 03:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
It's a new championship, as per WWE's official title history. -- JDC808 ♫ 07:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
For those who haven't noticed/participated, we got some current TfDs, which include Template:Current WWE Champions and Template:Current TNA Champions. You can post your opinions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 18#Template:Current WWE Champions and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 20#Template:Current TNA Champions. Nickag989 talk 09:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, there are two issues that plague our project more than others. It's the use of an ampersand (&) when talking about a tag team matches or multi-man matches. The other is people not spelling state names. The just put Las Vegas, NV rather than Las Vegas, Nevada. We need to work on fixing these issues, both are unencyclopedic and look horrible when reading an article. (talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 19:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
There are some ongoing deletions that have been relisted, or will be relisted, due to inadequate input. Among these are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heath Slater and Rhyno, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heath Slater and Justin Gabriel (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Boom (2nd nomination). Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IWRG_Máscara_vs._Máscara_(August_2016) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IWRG Máscara vs. Máscara (September 2016) are also being discussed.
Requested moves at: WWE Women's Championship (1956–2010) to WWE Women's Championship, Big E Langston to Big E (wrestler) and Rhino (wrestler) to Rhyno. LM2000 ( talk) 23:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Extreme Giant, Magic Mohawk and Leader of the Altitude Era are probably the last of the redirects going to RfD, see those at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 18. LM2000 ( talk) 23:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Another move at Talk:Alexander Rusev#Requested move 23 September 2016. oknazevad ( talk) 05:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
There's a big disagreement on the Bret Hart talk page about the Bret Hart article's lead section. One editor believes that the lead section gives Hart too much credit, isn't objective and that the sources aren't enough. Could some other people please add some input? We seem to be going nowhere right now. *Treker ( talk) 02:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
As I said in the talk page, I'm simply advocating the manual of style. My angle is that WP:PEACOCK should be favored here by quoting and linking the claim to the source directly. One journalist opinion from IGN or even all of us here agreeing can't constitute proof for validating a claim like "Hart changed the perception of mainstream pro-wrestling" in a lead. Quoting the article, on the other hand, with something like "according to IGN, Bret Hart did this and that", looks like a factual representation of what's been said about Hart and to me it should be favored here. I'm still failing to realize what's actually wrong with my edit, because even in Eddie Guerrero's case this was the format chosen in the end (read: "according to Fox News, Guerrero was one of the ring greats"... and then it was dropped to a renewed "Legacy" section two or three days after with no one, me included, complaining). It's like reporting the simple fact that it was said by IGN is supposd to overall diminish Hart's value.
As a mere reader, I'd like to bring everyone's attention on something. A lot, and I mean a lot, of pro-wrestling articles (from Hulk Hogan to Junkyard Dog) on some of the great names of the industry have been becoming increasingly loaded with puffery in the lead, with generally a very volatile policy about what's a good/relevant source and what's an actually verifiable claim, with small groups of dedicated editors acting as arbitrators about who is being a wrestler deserving of aforementioned puffery and who is not. With puffery I'm referring to stuff like:
Some of the above are usually unsourced or do not specify the source as well. You can find quite a bunch of them simply by scrolling Warlock82's own contribution feed (not wanting to point fingers, just to give people an idea). On smaller scale, you have objectively reported stuff used as a slight-medium added flavor (which - while factual - mostly would make someone raise the question: why is this guy quoted here and not someone else? Why is it given so much weight?) like:
Again, except for the very last, this all looks like in more or less apparent contradiction with the WP:PEACOCK which says one should reword things by letting facts speak for themselves (i.e. Adam was a six-time champion a recordman, main evented three WrestleManias and worked in all the major promotions in North America) - and honestly, in the twelve years I've been reading Wikipedia, it looked like it was always like that up until very recently when these peacock terms started to fill the articles. FA like CM Punk's (who has been very well-received in the popularity department as well) pretty much respect the criteria I have in mind, while the articles I found some problems with above are usually C-class and open to editing, but can't be ever-so-slightly touched without starting a war. Doesn't someone believe that the general guideline should be revised to keep the most important facts (titles won, federations the guy worked in, length of their wrestling shtick) and leave out the embellishments to be as neutral as possible and avoid people bickering on what should go in the lead and what not? Because I believe this is bound to get out of hand sooner or later. 151.57.66.224 ( talk) 15:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that the tagline for WWE Clash of Champions was recently removed, and there is a semi-protected edit request at No Mercy (2016) to add the tagline "There Will Be No Mercy". Are we doing away with taglines, or do we need a reliable source? JTP ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I was looking on Karl Anderson and Luke Gallows's article and In see they are in the ROH, GFW, and NJPW stable and tag team categories. Shouldn't it be for current stables and tag teams? Or would have an alumni category for that be redundant and not needed? Just wanting clarification. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 15:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I see no article on them has been created. I could start one on my sandbox until it is ready to be moved to its namespace. That is unless someone else has. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 00:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
There are ongoing move requests on Talk:WWE Raw Women's Championship, Talk:WWE Raw Tag Team Championship, Talk:WWE SmackDown Tag Team Championship and Talk:WWE SmackDown Women's Championship. All of these involve dropping "WWE" from their title. LM2000 ( talk) 03:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't we move WWE Women's Championship (1956–2010) back to WWE Women's Championship since the original title was more known by that name than the current Raw title was? LM2000 ( talk) 01:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I think 1) WWE Women's Championship (1956-2010) move back to WWE Women's Championship. The New title shared name, but right now, It's WWE Raw Women's Championship. Even the World Tag Team Championship (WWE) was named WWE Tag Team Championship for a few months. 2) WWE Women's Championship, a disambiguation page to the original title, the raw title and the SD title (even the Divas title). -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 23:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I closed the RM and retargeted WWE Women's Championship into a dab page. Should we link to the dab page at the top of each related article rather than specifically link each in the hatnote? LM2000 ( talk) 00:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I archived RVD's wwe.com profile because it says he won the European Championship (the title history doesn't list him). So I archived it and got this ugly thing: http://www.webcitation.org/6l56YLdzH
Why is the archived page all messed up? Did I do something wrong? WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 14:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
So there's nothing I can do about it? And how do we know if this is a real copy of wwe.com and not some fake site? I know I archived the real deal, but how do others know? WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 14:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you prefer webcitation or webarchive? I am currently archiving everything important about title histories with webcitation.org WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 20:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Vjmlhds: keeps removing it from the A.J. Styles article. Yet the title is a world championship. (See: PWG World Championship.) (talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 19:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The title became known under its current name in February 2006, when PWG had a two-event European Vacation tour stopping in Essen, Germany and Orpington, England. The title has also been defended in Japan in the Dragon Gate promotion, as well as in the United Kingdom in 1PW and again on PWG's European Vacation II tour in Paris, France, Portsmouth, England and Essen, Germany. The title was later defended by Chris Hero in Queensland, Australia on two occasions. [1]
According to a previous discussion, we don't decide the world title. Wrestling hasn't a real goverment body who discuss that titles are world titles. PWG says the PWG is a World title, it's a World title. Every other discussion (TV, national exposure...) it's OR. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 22:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I think an brief overview of championships can be useful in the lead, but I strongly disagree with including a statement like "... time world champion" for this exact reason. HHH Pedigree is right on. We don't set criteria for world championships. Promotions can call their titles a "world championship", and it's not the place of Wikipedia editors to dispute their claim. Removing statements about "... time world champion" and replacing them with something more meaningful seems to be the way to go. In the case of A.J. Styles, the lead already has a decent rundown of his accomplishments without the sentence in question. For an article like Bret Hart's, I would take "He is a seven-time world champion, having held the WWF World Heavyweight Championship five times and the WCW World Heavyweight Championship twice" and trim it to "He held the WWF World Heavyweight Championship five times and the WCW World Heavyweight Championship twice." This also gets around the dispute that crops up from time to time about whether the WWC Universal Heavyweight Championship, by claiming to represent an area larger than the world, is therefore also a world championship. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 02:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm coming into this a bit late, sorry. So when late-1980s Stampede started calling its main title a world title because they started running shows in Montana, that's something I'm supposed to automatically take at face value and accept? I think I've already mentioned the hypothetical example of a wrestler defending a championship out of a former bowling alley in Parma, Ohio (don't laugh, the original NWF started out taping TV at the WUAB studios, which was precisely that) who then starts calling himself a world champ because he traveled "across the pond" to defend his title in a Toronto suburb. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Another editor disagreed with me on article content. Is now pissed off and removing relevant content from article lead for no reason. Would like for someone else to chim, I feel like the original disscussion has been lost. *Treker ( talk) 01:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
A few concerns here: (1) Edit summaries in this dispute accusing the other of vandalism. Stop that immediately. (2) Going straight to edit warring rather than discussing proposed changes. (3) While Wikipedia articles were listed in the references, this is more an issue of improper formatting, as they would have been fine as a footnote. (4) Way too much detail in the lead. The In Your House stuff wasn't overly significant. (5) I would support the removal of the USWA championship from the lead. If someone asked me for the highlights of Hart's career and an explanation of his significance, I would not mention the USWA. (5) Five-star matches mean something to very few people. (6) That claim about being considered one of the greatest of all time is probably the worst offense in the article. It's sourced to an article that lists him as the 33rd best wrestler of the 1990s. The article does state that he is considered by his peers to be one of the best of all time, but there is no evidence in the single sentence written about Hart. We also need to keep in mind this is from Crave Online, which is just another pop culture click bait atrocity (at the bottom of the story, I'm invited to read "A Woman Had To Have Her Vibrator Surgically Removed From Inside Of Her After It Got Stuck"). It's written by the esteemed Rob Fee, who also contributes such masterpieces as "Pokémon Go VS. Zombie Apocalypse: A Venn Diagram". If Hart's peers truly feel this way, it's got to be reported somewhere better than Crave Online. (7) Missed in all of the bickering, a vandal added the word "screaming" to the statement that Hart fell to his death, but this was missed because people were focused solely on arguing about the lead. I agree that it needs to be redone, but let's do it with some legitimate dicussion about the highlights of his life and career, and let's stop with the edit warring and name calling. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 14:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
WWE considers NXT as a third brand, complimenting both Raw and SmackDown. HHH just came right out and said so himself.
I mean really, when the guy who oversees the brand and is a top executive in the entire company classifies NXT as a third brand, that's pretty much definitive to me. This isn't some smark in his mother's basement on his blog saying this...it's freaking HHH - the guy WHO RUNS THE PLACE!
Not seeing the issue here.
Vjmlhds (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
So.... what the heck does it matter that it's "a brand" I don't get this whole argument - what are you guys quibbling over here? MPJ -DK 02:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Please do not merge "WWE" and "WWE NXT" until you reach consensus. There had been a large debate in September 2015 about this. Nobody owns articles on Wikipedia. JC · Talk · Contributions 19:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Requested move 14 October 2016
talk:Camacho (wrestler) -> Tanga Roa
2A02:C7D:3B50:2400:8117:41BF:E063:3D4E ( talk) 05:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Can someone please explain to me who thought it was a good idea include Lucha Underground spoilers on Wikipedia pages? That's makes it impossible for someone to look up LU or their stars without spoiling everything from themselves. It's extremely frustrating and seems counter intuitive to what Wikipedia is for.
If someone had leaked the Star Wars: The Force Awakens script before it premiered, would have added the plot and all its spoilers to its Wikipedia page?
And don't argue that they're different because LU is produced like a TV show, not a traditional pro wrestling show. And I remember that SmackDown spoilers weren't allowed before. So I really don't understand this. 2600:1017:B02F:643D:8C9F:FE84:8B05:4C89 ( talk) 18:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 95 | Archive 96 | Archive 97 | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 | → | Archive 105 |
Lana (wrestling) to Lana (wrestler). McPhail ( talk) 18:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
User talk:Captain Styles II Jr. has created an article for The Golden Gorgeous Truth (participate in the AfD, even though it's an obvious hoax) and has moved Enzo Amore and Colin Cassady to The SAWFT (professional wrestling). In his summaries, he simply states, "WWE Official The Golden Gorgeous Truth" or "WWE Official The SAWFT". Now, in my mind, these names are completely false. Previously before he moved the Enzo and Cass page, SAWFT was one of the names in the infobox, supported by an unreliable source. After he moved the page, he simply added "The" before "SAWFT" in the box (I reverted his edits but I can't move the article back to its original name). Are there any sources to prove that these names are valid? Are these names actually official names once used by WWE? Sekyaw (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Sekyaw you are correct as that is not their tag team name never has been.This is not the first questionable edit he has done.
Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ( talk) 00:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Currently some wrestlers have links to Online World of Wrestling in the external links sections. I've looked through quite a few profiles and they don't seem to offer a unique resource (contrast cagematch and similar, which offer databases of matches, title reigns, etc), it doesn't seem to be particularly well written, or authoritative. Career highlights are what should be in a wikipedia article, and lists of matches seem to be much better as databases (such as cagematch), so I don't think they really add much value to articles. I propose we delete links to the site when included in the external links section (at least where there are other, more reliable sources linked to), and if used as a reference then supported by a more reliable source (where possible). Silverfish ( talk) 23:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
As we seem to have agreement, I'm going to start removing the links, and adding the template I mention above ( Template:Professional_wrestling_profiles), which adds links to cagematch.net, wrestlingdata.com and the Internet Wrestling Database, which seem to be more reliable sources. Silverfish ( talk) 22:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I have a dbout. WHat should we do with the List of Global Force Wrestling personnel? A few months ago, GFW looked like a powerful promotion with a good roster. However, it's a (WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:NONEUTRAL) joke. If you take a look on GFW events, a few roster wrestlers appear at the events ( http://www.cagematch.net/?id=1&nr=144773). Also, the roster isn't actualized. Wrestlers who signed with other promotions (doc gallows, karl anderson, the young bucks) still listed as GFW wrestlers. Many others are in a dubius situation (trevor lee, andrew everet, sanada, EVIL)... so, do you think we should delete the article? A lot of independent promotions haven't a roster section. The artice is sourced by an unactualized website and doesn't represent the GFW roster when you see the events. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 14:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok. I made an AfD -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 12:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, the article was deleted. However, the template isn't Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 May 8 -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 23:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Two new GFW AfDs may be of interest to you: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current champions in Global Force Wrestling and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Force Wrestling tournaments. LM2000 ( talk) 20:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
And the GFW navbox is up for discussion, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 June 2. LM2000 ( talk) 02:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Would anyone object to me creating templates to add links to cagematch.net and wrestlingdata.com profiles of wrestlers? They are both databases of professional wrestling, with information on wrestlers, events, matches, etc, and seem to be very comprehensive. The template would be similar to [1] that links to someone's IMDb page, and be included on the external links section of articles. Silverfish ( talk) 01:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think having them on one line would work, as the standard format seems to be for someone's name to be the link (See John Cena, for example). We could have one template that generates a line for each database, so we could change the formatting or add new websites if we want. My plan would be for the template to pull the identifiers from wikidata (as the imdb template does), ignoring sites that don't apply. I also propose that we include Online World of Wrestling profiles too, as that seems to be a good source, and we already use OWW on some wrestlers' pages (see Mike Bell (wrestler), say). Silverfish ( talk) 11:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Excuse my ignorance (I'm still pretty new) but I don't really understand what it is that you are asking to do. Does this mean that the sources will be counted as one? *Treker ( talk) 01:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
My preference is to store the identifier (the part that specifies the person referred to, so 691 for John Cena on Cagematch) for each website on WikiData, and then when you use the template on someone's page it pulls the identifier for them from Wikidata, and uses it to link to their profile on each website (if they have one). In case you are not familiar with Wikidata, it's a website that acts as a database for Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia projects such as Wikisource, Wikiquotes, etc), that aims to have a page for each Wikipedia article, that has information about the subject of the article. The page for John Cena has information about him, and is connected to his Wikipedia article (in different language Wikipedias). His identifier at CageMatch is already there (the CageMatch worker id). The advantage of storing data on Wikidata is that any language version of Wikipedia can use the information. Alternatively we could have the template set up like this: {{prowrestlingprofiles|cagematch = 691, wd = 336, iwd = john-cena-350, oww = j/john-cena/}}, where we include the identifiers in the template. My preference would be to pull data from Wikidata, but possibly with the option to include the identifiers in the template for people less comfortable with Wikidata. The identifiers could then be imported into Wikidata. I hope this is clear, but if not let me know, and I'll try to explain further.
I think the key parts of my question/proposal were 1) Are these websites worth including, 2) How do we format the links and 3) Do we store the identifiers locally, on Wikidata, or a combination of the two. Silverfish ( talk) 11:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I've created the template. As it just covers cagematch, I've reused the Template:cagematch that already existed but it was hardly used, and could only link properly to Summer Rae's profile. I've added the template to AJ Lee, and John Cena. I plan to add it to other articles in time, if you like the template. It is setup so it defaults to importing the identifier from Wikidata and using the pagename (without anything in brackets), as the name for the link. I think importing from Wikidata is the ideal, and the corresponding property for the identifier is Cagematch Worker Id (property 2728) on Wikidata, if someone is missing an identifier. We already have a few hundred wrestler's with identifier on Wikidata.
Does anyone have any comments, or does anyone object to me adding it to other articles? Silverfish ( talk) 22:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I've created a template ( Template:ProfessionalWrestlingProfiles), that links to profiles from cagematch.net, wrestlingdata.com and the Internet Wrestling Database, with a format similar to that suggested by User:Prefall. It pulls the identifier from Wikidata if it isn't included in the template. I've used it at John Cena as a test and it looks like this:
I think this is a good compromise between providing useful information and not making the external links section too cluttered. Does anyone have any comments or suggestions? I plan to add it to other articles if people are happy with it. Silverfish ( talk) 17:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Edgars2007 asked at Module talk:Professional wrestling why we don't also include other profile links in this template, such as those from WWE, which are currently maintained through the {{ WWE superstar}} template. Personally, I agree with merging it and also including any other notable promotions, but I wanted to bring it here for consensus.
After a little bit of digging, here are a few notes:
What do you guys think? Prefall 11:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone, there are two articles and one list seeking the Featured status. Please offer your thoughts if you are free and willing. starship .paint ~ KO 06:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Many articles of wrestlers of Lucha Underground vary in the way info of results are written.
Much of the articles show results by the date taken place at the taping.
Example from Fénix (wrestler): "At the season two Ultima Lucha on January 31, 2016, Fénix, Aero Star and Drago defeated Jack Evans, Johnny Mundo and PJ Black to win the Lucha Underground Trios Championship."
Ultima Lucha 2 has not even aired yet. There are also articles that follow the show's results by the date the episodes were aired.
Example from John Morrison (wrestler): " King Cuerno attacked Mundo on the February 4 episode, beginning a feud between them; the second installment took place on the episode which aired March 11, where Mundo and Cuerno wrestled in a Steel Cage match, which was won by Mundo."
It may be very confusing to readers that watch without knowing the air date is about 4-5 months after the actual date of the taping. Is there a correct way to show the info? Sekyaw (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
There's an editor who doesn't agree with the following content " WrestleMania 32 consisted of professional wrestling matches that involved wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feuds or storylines that played out on WWE television. Wrestlers portrayed heroes or villains as they followed a series of events that built tension and culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches", because of the following reasons:
1. It's merely stating something that every single reader over the age of 5, would be blatantly aware of.
2. The wording is awful, it sounds like some badly scripted warning on a TV show.
3. It is covered in a lot of detail on the
Professional wrestling article, which is linked directly before previous location of the offending content.
if you think this is informative for every PPV, please let me know. Nickag989 ( talk to me!) - 07:50 (UTC)
I find it not useful myself only because it is common knowledge to everyone around the world that that's how pro wrestling works, it doesn't need to be explained to people on the article, If it was added there we would have to add it to every article involving pro wrestling. It is better left off. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ( talk) 10:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
S
I think the "produced and scripted by WWE" is a good compromise if nobody has any major objections. Nikki♥ 311 18:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I've seen this thread dozens of times but I don't recall ever chiming in before. The wording is clunky but has always served a purpose to readers who lack common sense. The "and scripted" proposal is far less clunky and serves the same purpose. Let's go with that. LM2000 ( talk) 04:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Your issue regarding tweeners can be solved. I solved it on every single PPV I've ever done. The problem is the WWE PPVs can't keep up. Look at Bound for Glory IV. Sure the paragraph can be re-written. It is only 2 bloody sentences, not 20. The issue is the WWE disclaimers are different than the TNA disclaimers. Someone decided they needed to focus on each program instead of the overall product. Another issue is that the storyline and heel/face alignment is absolutely never ever ever flushed out in the sections. The moment after that paragraph, the articles are written in universe and act give very little incite to the character development. Otherwise, people throw the words heel and face in there without any explanation as to how the characters are that. It is easy to suggest throwing out something, but this isn't the Republican Party, we need to come up with solutions and replacements, not just stall and destroy whatever we can touch. I'd be interested in rewording, but one word does not fix the issue nor does 5. There are policies to attend too regardless. Y'all may think this is about Featured Articles, but it is more than that. Like I have said a billion times. It is about the numerous policies such as WP:IN-U, WP:FICTION, WP:JARGON, etc. If we are going to change or update, the solution has to be inline with those policies, not focused on the concern of smart marks who don't like being told their fantasy is false.-- Will C 08:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
It is hilarious how you think there is a consensus when you can't have a consensus to go against the very policy that is the entirety of Wikipedia. Your supposed consensus is to ignore the three policies I have listed above entirely. Guess what? You can't do that because they policies are beyond our very control and thus we'd be failing the manual of style. Plus, I'm not alone. MPJ above also was arguing for the disclaimer. I'm completely open to updating. The problem is there is no idea on how to update it. The only idea presented is to blow everything up. No one is explaining how to bring new ideas and how to go by policy. Just the new users who have never written a single article and thus have very little understanding of what they are doing.-- Will C 18:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Oknazevad: Oh please, you can complain all you want, I have yet to see you do one thing other than leave a comment here and there. Please show an article you have gotten reviewed or contributed a single useful edit too. You can say you are trying to improve, but that entire statement never left one useful statement. I'm simply trying to suggest that we actually do something that will counteract the effects done by new users. A one word statement does not negate the effect that the articles are still written in universe. The paragraph helps to counteract that. My efforts may come off as "obstinacy and obstructionism" but that is because I have come to recognize after years that news users don't care. They want to writer fan fiction, not encyclopedia content.-- Will C 05:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Version 1: "Professional wrestlers perform as characters in events scripted and pre-determined by their professional wrestling promotions."
Version 2: "Professional wrestlers perform as characters in the scripted events that are pre-determined by the professional wrestling promotion or organization."
Version 3: "Professional wrestlers perform as characters in scripted events pre-determined by professional wrestling promotions or organizations."
Version 2 or 3 Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ( talk) 14:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
First off let me say I was asked my opinion on which sounded better and I gave said opinion, I never voted for anything to be put on there I was under the impression the decision was already made. Secondly I was also unaware there was already a consensus done for removal or I would not have given my opinion on which one I preferred unfortunately. With all that said being the webmaster for a retired wrestler who makes sure I not only post his good things but also makes sure I post his past drug problems not only here but also on his website and that I wrestled myself 20 yrs ago when I was in my 20's for about 4 yrs, people are not stupid, no one believes that any of it is real anymore like it was in years past or when I was a kid for that matter. Most kids now a days know its all for show, at least most kids I have met over the years. If we are doing a Consensus then I would be voting for it not to be there or to just be "and scripted by WWE". Sorry guys but I was just giving my opinion on which ones I thought sounded better if it was going to be on there.
Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ( talk) 06:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
After going back and doing some reading I did vote it down to be removed during the last discussion. I was unaware a consensus was reached for it to be removed but I did vote it to be removed, I apologize for my forgetfulness in my old age.
"I find it not useful myself only because it is common knowledge to everyone around the world that that's how pro wrestling works, it doesn't need to be explained to people on the article, If it was added there we would have to add it to every article involving pro wrestling. It is better left off. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)"
Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ( talk) 06:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
First off it was made very clear on my own user page when it was created I was the webmaster for someone,"which by the way I am not paid for doing I do it for free so I don't really work for him". Secondly there were admins made aware when I joined who I was and I was told how I was to handle my editing as not to cause any issues to arise. Quite frankly I do more edits on other stuff than I ever have done on his. Not one other person in the wrestling wiki community or wiki period who knows who i am and what I do has ever said a word until you now. So now because I don't take your side on this ridiculous argument your going to attack me? Got it glad to see how it works on here thanks for clearing that up for me. I withdraw myself from this conversation as clearly noone can have civil conversations about this matter without being hostile when someone doesn't side with them. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ( talk) 00:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
It seemed that we were headed towards something that looked like a consensus but new proposals sent us in a couple of different directions. Before the discussion is archived and we end up at "no consensus" I would just like a quick count on where everyone stands. LM2000 ( talk) 19:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Some MMA guys are trying to delete the article for Gzim Selmani because he narrowly fails the notability requirement for MMA fighters. I tried to explain that he is notable as part of the featured NXT television roster, can someone clarify that this is the case? If not then this also affects others such as Elias Samson and No Way Jose who were also given articles when they debuted on NXT. The Selmani article's existence clearly is justified BTW, it's fully sourced and according to WP:PAGEVIEW it has been viewed over 2,000 times per day on average since its creation. 94.174.101.121 ( talk) 05:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
It's currently at WWF The Wrestling Classic. That sounds terrible, nobody says it and disambiguation isn't needed. Should just be the The Wrestling Classic. All in favour? All opposed? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I've never uploaded a fair use image until now. At least I'm sure I left a "detailed" FUR as is typically requested. See File:Nippon TV acknowledges KPLR-TV in broadcast of Giant Baba vs. Harley Race match.png and KPLR-TV#Programming. As this falls under the project's topic, any comments are welcome. I would particularly look for hints from more experienced FU uploaders, as I'm sure I have some more lying around. Somewhere in my backups is a screenshot I cropped but never uploaded of Terry Gordy slamming the cage door on Kerry Von Erich from December 25, 1982, which started the Von Erichs/Freebirds feud. Considering that World Class Championship Wrestling is a nearly 90K article with only a FU logo in the infobox and a free image of far, far less value than my proposed FU image (and here's the funny thing: it depicts someone with an article, but isn't even used in that article!), I wonder if someone would try to delete it merely on account of the existence of the free image. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
We haven't done a group collaboration on a priority article in awhile, so may I suggest Jake Roberts? There will be two weeks to improve the article. All help is appreciated, no matter how minor. Nikki♥ 311 08:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I have created templates to add external links for NJPR and ROH. I've used them on it Matt Sydal to start with. They look like this:
=
Does anyone have any comments? I'll probably create other templates if I come across any more that seem useful, while I'm adding the Template:Professional wrestling profiles template. Silverfish ( talk) 14:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Colin Cassady Colin Cassady → Big Cass - SethAdam99 ( talk) 06:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I am having a bit of a debate with one of your members, I have removed sections similar to the following:
"The event consited of twelve professional wrestling matches with different wrestlers involved in pre-existing scripted feuds or storylines. Wrestlers portrayed either heels (wrestlers portraying the "bad guy" characters) or faces ("good guy" characters) as they competed in wrestling matches with pre-determined outcomes."
from various PPV event pages as I feel they are not needed for specific events. In my opinion if someone is looking at the event page they probably understand the basics professional wrestling and if they don't they can check Professional Wrestling.
Having such a section on every event page would be the equivalent of having a section explaining the basics of football on every Superbowl page.
Opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachoha ( talk • contribs) 18:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
It would be a nice thing to discuss with the project before removing it from a few dozen articles. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 21:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I knew I'd see this blasted discussion again. I didn't know I'd see it again so quickly though. LM2000 ( talk) 23:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
If we're not going to get rid of the disclaimer then we should probably expand rather than reduce it. If the intention is to explain professional wrestling, most people who post in these threads agree it does a piss poor job of it. LM2000 ( talk) 23:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I still dislike it as much as the other nine or ten times someone else has complained about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Can anyone please help me find a reliable source for Zhukov (a.k.a. James Harrell, a.k.a. Pvt. Jim Nelson) being born in Roanoke, Virginia? Thanks. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 04:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone. There doesn't seem to be as much written about him as a lot of other wrestlers, so I really appreciate the help. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 15:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
This guy has been causing trouble here for awhile, I've started an ANI thread at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Shinkazamaturi personal attacks and WP:CIR. LM2000 ( talk) 17:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Should the "Return to WWE section of the A.J. Styles article really be named as such? I mean, prior to 2016, he only made two appearances for the company and he was never under contract. Crash Under ride 10:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
While we're on the topic of what others outside of the wikiproject think of our articles, can we talk about article size? Other editors are often baffled at the size of our BLPs, A.J. Styles' article leaves me startled. I remember one time someone compared Bret Hart to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s article, A.J. Styles is even larger than MLK's. Can we start trimming some stuff here? LM2000 ( talk) 03:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC) I think trimming needed, larger issue is how everyone thinks Everytime someone sneezes it needs added to their article. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ( talk) 18:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
As you all know, the brand split is coming back so the roster listing on List of WWE personnel is going to need to divided, one of the subjectings was making 4 separate list, another was highlight the columns of the superstars and divas on Raw and Smackdown in Red and Blue respectively (similar to WWE brand extension#Superstar selections this article).
What do you all think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:5644:600:1109:F2F6:680B:25A0 ( talk) 08:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
So, the Draft was yesterday. Any idea for the roster article? To me, the current format is a complete mess. It's easier to split the main roster into two subsections. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 13:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I was just looking at the Guild of Copy Editors' July backlog elimination drive and noticed that three wrestling articles are tagged as needing copy editing. If anyone is feeling inspired, they are Kayfabe, The Authority (professional wrestling), and Desperado (professional wrestling). No pressure--just if anyone is looking for something to do or is particularly interested in any of those articles. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 19:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Reidgreg has started a discussion about the External Links templates, at Template talk:WWE superstar. Feel free to comment there. Silverfish ( talk) 20:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason that draft is spelled with a lowercase "D"? WWE Draft appears to be the proper name of the event. Shouldn't the "D" be capitalized? WWE capitalizes it. True CRaysball | #RaysUp 08:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
You can't keep moving the goal posts. I've provided you with 14 sources that in some way or another support my position, and you keep dismissing them. Granted, some are better than others, but it almost seems to be that your counter argument boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. True CRaysball | #RaysUp 06:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph on this page is misleading as it is simply a copy-and-paste of the introductory to List of WWE Personnel. I tried to edit the title before getting consensus. I apologize for it, but I would like to offer now, that this introduction is used:
In professional wrestling, a tag team is a team of wrestlers who fight as a team, fighting alternatively and a stable is a group of three or more wrestlers who regularly fight together. In the latter's case, usually two members of the stable fight in a tag team match. This is a list of all tag teams and stables who regularly fight as a team and are apart of the roster of American professional wrestling promotion, WWE.
The list is sorted into teams from WWE's main roster television shows, Raw and SmackDown and the promotion's developmental territory, WWE NXT. The list of NXT tag teams and stables will also be sorted into those that can appear on its television events, and those that only appear at non-televised events.
Each table also includes the managers, valets and former members if such members existed. The list also includes current WWE and NXT Tag Team Champions, The New Day and The Revival, respectively.
I also think that this page should be deleted altogether, because no other promotion as an article like this. 0737290632t2x273n ( talk) 01:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Redirect sounds like the way to go. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ( talk) 09:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
@ 0737290632t2x273n and MPJ-DK: page redirected per suggestions of the other editors. starship .paint ~ KO 00:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Just had to redirect again, Someone moved it back. May have to get a protect on it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ( talk) 02:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
So, List of WWE tag teams and stables now redirects to List of wrestling tag teams and stables#Active under the active section. Shouldn't it be under the WWE Section? 0737290632t2x273n ( talk) 18:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The "WWE Championship" has been renamed "WWE World Championship" on the WWE website. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 23:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
These two pages are very similar and anyone reading one can get the same information from the other. I suggest the List of early world heavyweight champions in professional wrestling be merged into the World Heavyweight Wrestling Championship (Original version). Any one searching for the former will be redirected to the "Reigns" section under the latter. Currently, that section only explains how it was inaugurated and when it was retired, so the table present in the former can be moved to this "Reigns" section. 0737290632t2x273n ( talk) 17:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay. I am about to publish a new edit for World Heavyweight Wrestling Championship (Original Version) that includes all the same information of List of early World Heavyweight Champions in professional wrestling, but could someone delete the list article? I'm not sure how. 0737290632t2x273n ( talk) 14:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
The Sin Cara article, in my opinion, is really, really redundant. The character has only been portrayed by two wrestlers and the sections that divide the two people that portrayed Sin Cara are almost exactly the same compared to their respective main articles. Take La Parka for example. There is no La Parka article that shows the info between the two "portrayers", but there is La Parka and La Parka II. Is it really necessary to have an article for a character that has only been portrayed by two people and has the exact same info on their main respective articles in their respective sections like Sin Cara? In my opinion, Sin Cara should be redirected to Hunico, with a hatnote on top that distinguishes the two, directing it to Místico. Thoughts? Sekyaw (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
After looking it over as well Gonna have to agree that Sin Cara should be directed at Hunico with a hatnote for Mistico. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ( talk) 05:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
There's good reasons to keep a separate article on the Sin Cara identity. The main one being the two Sin Caras storyline, which was specifically about the identity, not specific to either wrestler. Also, if we were to redirect to Hunico, then we'd probably have to move Hunico to Sin Cara as the most common name, which then just confuses the issue further. No, the real solution is to trim the week-by-week recaps from the article so it's not redundant and make it Solely focused on the identity. And such trimming is something we need to do in wrestling articles a lot more anyway. oknazevad ( talk) 13:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Are there any other thoughts on the Sin Cara article? Again, I see no relevance in the character other than the two respective wrestlers portraying it and the short feud between two Sin Cara's, which I believe isn't enough to warrant a separate article. Sekyaw (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
So since all of this brand split happen and multiple editors began adding the brand where they were drafted to on the wrestlers pages, is it really necessary to add this because you know they already work for WWE but adding the brands on the top of its page is certainly not necessary about since it would be also on her full wrestling history also because this kind of editors just add the things they saw on the programs from WWE so I don't really think this is necessary some help to close this case ? Thanks. TheBellaTwins1445( talk) 03:56, July 21, 2016 (UTC)
As user:LM2000 said before It was already discussed with the last brand split to add them, You are the only editor who keeps removing it from the 50+ articles today because you think it isn't important but it is to the less informed fan or a new fan who is using Wikipedia for information. When something like this has been added by an X amount of editors to different articles there is a pretty good bet it should be there. Do you also understand that every revert you preformed today on these 50+ articles will now have to be fixed again if this consensus is to add the info? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ( talk) 21:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to go out on a limb and oppose the inclusions of the brands in the lead. They're purely WP:INUNIVERSE and far too easily changed, despite all the hype about guys meeting "for the last time". Nonsense. We all know, based on history from the prior split, that brand assignments are hardly permanent and entirely too temporary. So, count me as against. oknazevad ( talk) 03:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Quick question though. The Raw television show is italicized but is the Raw brand? I don't remember us using italics for brands in the past but I'm seeing them used in some articles this time. LM2000 ( talk) 21:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Earlier today, I tried submitting List of Continental Wrestling Federation alumni and List of Gulf Coast Championship Wrestling alumni to WP:AFC as redirects to List of Continental Championship Wrestling alumni. I provided a source for each but they were both were rejected. The editor basically said no one would ever type in those exact titles but it also doesn't make since to have separate lists since both CWF and GCCW wrestlers are already listed at the CCW. There's plenty of similar redirects (e.g. List of World Wide Wrestling Federation alumni to List of WWE alumni) and these are hardly obscure promotions. 72.74.207.230 ( talk) 08:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Appreciate the assistance. List of Mid-South Wrestling alumni could also be redirected to List of Universal Wrestling Federation alumni (Bill Watts) since it covers both the Mid-South and UWF years. 72.74.204.52 ( talk) 21:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Category:NWA Wrestling Legends Hall of Heroes, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
The New articles bot has been updated to scan for Professional wrestling related articles. The list is at User:AlexNewArtBot/ProWrestlingSearchResult. The list can be added to a project page using one the methods listed here. -- Bamyers99 ( talk) 23:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
An IP has been edit warring on the list of IC champions over a content dispute that has been going on for years regarding Bob Holly's status as unrecognized IC Champion. Please chime in at Talk:List of WWE Intercontinental Champions#Requests for comment. LM2000 ( talk) 05:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The article was re-created....again. Yes, the "article" was created for a third time in a month. But this time it was on the old article's talk page. I've nominated it for deletion. So, should I really quote "Broken" Matt Hardy here? Sure, "Delete! Delete! Delete! Delete!" Crash Under ride 02:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The question isn't whether What Culture is reliable (we're not talking about whether is should continue to be used as a source), but whether it is notable, and should have an article. The former has no bearing on the latter; Page Six, the gossip column, is notoriously full of pot-stirring BS, but it is notable because others have written about it. Even if What Culture gets stuff wrong sometimes (and even the New York Times does that), the fact that other reliable sources have written about What Culture's influence makes it notable. That said, discussions about whether the site as a whole is notable are outside the scope of the project. We're really only concerned with their startup wrestling promotion. Which, despite being like a month and a half old, may be the most widely known British promotion in the world. oknazevad ( talk) 18:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I believe that The Social Outcasts is a textbook example of why we don't just rush in and create articles for any and all teams the WWE puts together since they were basically together for a lukewarm cup of coffee and now are spread all over. A footnote in individual articles, not actually something that should have its own. MPJ -DK 22:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
I wrote Promo Azteca awhile ago and was hoping for some advice on Draft:List of Promo Azteca alumni. I created a separate page for the alumni section because the AFC submission screen wouldn't load when I originally posted the full article. This seemed to be the most logical choice since there's already a category for similar lists. WikiProject Professional wrestling's MOS guide didn't cover alumni lists so I used other lucha libre rosters and WP:PW's featured lists as a guide (as opposed to just having a bullet list of names) and used many of the reliable sources recommended by your project.
The article was rejected as a " meaningless list" a few weeks ago but the reviewer didn't offer any advice on improving it. I don't understand what I did incorrectly or how it specifically qualifies as "listcruft". Do I need to add more sources or should I just merge it to the main article? I'm interested in bringing Promo Azteca up to a GA-class article but adding back the alumni list, as it appears in the preview screen, makes the article overly large and clunky (not to mention very slow loading!). Could this be a potential issue for a GA nomination?
On a sidenote, I submitted the company's logo (via ProWrestlingHistory.com) to WP:IFU around the time Promo Azteca was created. One user wanted me to post the image link but when you click the logo it takes you to another page. I had to describe what the logo looked like and provided an alternate example. It's still sitting there two months later. Could someone from the project take a look at it? It uses the same fair use rationale as File:Logo-CMLL-10.png so I didn't think there would be an issue.
Thanks for your time. 72.74.205.248 ( talk) 22:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
So, after 16 straight edits removing content from the List of professional wrestling promotions page, I've given 2601:586:4402:310:E907:3AF2:438E:361 one and only warning, based on the amount of times they removed things from the article. Just wanted to let people know of their behavior. Crash Under ride 13:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. There is a clear consensus to adopt GaryColemanFan's proposal "The card featured ten matches, which resulted from scripted storylines and had results predetermined by the WWF".
Editors suggested revisions to GaryColemanFan's proposal like InedibleHulk's "The card featured ten matches with results predetermined by WWF-scripted storylines". But there is insufficient discussion about the revisions to determine whether there is consensus to adopt or reject them. I recommend that editors implement GaryColemanFan's proposal, boldly make revisions to it if needed, and open a new discussion if there is any dispute about those changes.
The following disclaimer appears on professional wrestling event articles: The event consisted of professional wrestling matches that involved wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feuds or storylines that played out on WWE television. Wrestlers portrayed heroes or villains as they followed a series of events that built tension and culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches. Is this (or any) disclaimer necessary for people with little knowledge of the subject? Would linking to Professional wrestling and scripted be a suitable alternative? LM2000 ( talk) 14:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The RfC expired but was never closed. It seems a consensus is forming around Gary's proposal. Can we agree on this and move on? LM2000 ( talk) 08:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
This came up at the WK9 FAC when GaryColemanFan reviewed. I wrote this style in the article: "... a Kokeshi diving headbutt from Honma", italicizing the Kokeshi move name, because it's done so in the wrestler's In wrestling section as a special name and not the technical name (diving headbutt). So, do you all think the italicization is needed in article text? starship .paint ~ KO 06:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
So it's probably not a surprise to anyone that the pro wrestling articles get very little respect and recognition outside of those that are already fans of it. But unfortunately that also means that most often wrestling articles who are Feature Article Candidates, Feature List Candidates and Good/Feature Topic Candidate die on the vine for lack of people participating in the process. I just had the Mexican National Women's Championship fail due to inactivity, not due to opposes and the same happened to Wrestle Kingdom 9 that has been nominated for FA three times (or is it four) and not passed three times, not because of opposition but because of lack of attention. I am not advocating going to just give a support comment, but please help review and comment on these to help improve the quality of each candidate. /Shameless plug MPJ -DK 02:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
The WWC Universal Heavyweight Championship (only one of the most important world titles in wrestling) has never had an image of the belt in its infobox. Here it is: [3]. Could someone please add this to the article under fair use, akin to the AWA World, WWA World, WWE Intercontinental and WWE Tag Team Championships? Thanks. 2A02:C7D:6A44:4600:C591:A99E:42DA:B980 ( talk) 16:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
So? 2A02:C7D:6A44:4600:45B6:6A64:BF3A:A418 ( talk) 01:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, there's a way to get an image of the belt on Wikipedia. Photobucket user FernanElFather19 has posted a photo of a replica WWC Universal belt; [4] per PB's terms, all images uploaded to its servers are completely free and users wave all rights to them. [5] So, could someone please up this image, in the style of the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) image? Thanks. 185.54.163.204 ( talk) 02:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
It's now uploaded. Warlock82 ( talk) 20:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Naomi (wrestler) was recently moved to Naomi Knight when nobody responded to a RM. I started a new one at Talk:Naomi Knight#Requested move 23 August 2016. There's an ongoing one on Talk:Cameron (wrestler)#Requested move 22 August 2016, where Ranze wants it moved to Cameron Lynn again. LM2000 ( talk) 07:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
For those who haven't noticed/participated, we got some current AfDs, all of which are tag teams.
Sekyaw (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
The criteria for recent death nominations has recently changed, per Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal. Anybody with a standalone article is considered notable enough for inclusion, discussion focuses only on article quality. Bockwinkel, Gange, and Rhodes probably would've been posted under this criteria. LM2000 ( talk) 10:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
There seem to be a few active editors on the wrestling front. I figured I would ask for help on those articles which spread over into your realm, e. g. Doug Wycoff and Bill Middlekauff, or Cy Williams or Frank Speer. Cake ( talk) 13:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Is anyone else noticing that a lot of old URLs are dying off and not displaying properly because of this lagfest? Just displaying a "WWE: Premier Shows" overview? Where possible I'm hoping archive.org could come to the rescue, but otherwise perhaps it's possible to find them in a different format via the new archive setups at http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/archive and http://www.wwe.com/shows/smackdown/archive and http://www.wwe.com/shows/wwenxt/archive curious hidden at the bottoms of their pages? The impression I've gotten is even viewing these they seem to have merged some things together instead of having distinct page URLs like they used to.
As follow-up... is anyone even able to navigate these archive pages? I click it and there's this drop-down menu with years but when I click the years nothing happens. Ranze ( talk) 03:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I propose that the WWE Championships template gets changed to the same format as the WWE Personnel template and have each brands championships sorted into a similar fashion.
Example:
Raw:
Primary: WWE Universal
Secondary: WWE United States
Divisional: WWE Tag Team . WWE Women's
SmackDown:
Primary: WWE World
Secondary: WWE Intercontinental
Divisional: SmackDown Tag Team . SmackDown Women's
NXT:
Primary: NXT
Divisional: NXT Tag Team . NXT Women's
Accomplishments: Ect.
I would do it myself but I'm not totally skilled with templates, I just like to see your opinion. Speedy Question Mark ( talk) 18:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Brand Primary Secondary Divisional Raw Universal United States Women's Tag Team Smackdown World Intercontinental Women's Tag Team NXT NXT Women's Tag Team
We've had a couple of redirects created by Ranze that I've brought to RfC, they include Madame McMahon, Unicorn Freaks, Raw Champ and Raw Champion. You can voice your thoughts at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 31#Unicorn Freaks. LM2000 ( talk) 08:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
@ HHH Pedrigree: you seem someone as well-versed if not more well-versed than I am, so I find it implausible that you are unaware of these names having been used.
In special:diff/738267050 when you declare "not real nicknames" I am worried about either your memory or honesty. Ranze ( talk) 02:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Ranze has been topic banned from editing wrestling articles, as well as from creating and editing redirects. [6] If you see him do either, report it to WP:ANI. LM2000 ( talk) 05:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
What's with the WWF Championship being renamed "WWF World Heavyweight Championship" all over Wikipedia? On WWF TV in the 90s, the title was clearly referred to as the "WWF Championship". I challenge anyone to find a Bret Hart/Shawn Michaels/Diesel clip where they are described as the "WWF World Heavyweight Champion". Didn't happen, although the articles of those men (and numerous others) are now permeated by this new wording. WCW announcers very much DID call their titleholder "World Heavyweight Champion", but WWF ones didn't.
Is there a revisionist history agenda plaguing, and undermining the credibility of, the pro wrestling section here on Wiki? 185.54.163.136 ( talk) 10:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
There are currently two WWE Championship templates, Template:Current WWE Champions and Template:WWE Championships. We can't have two of these, one is enough, so which one are we gonna keep and delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:5644:600:F478:BDEB:F930:5BE6 ( talk) 07:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I removed the unneeded, redundant, new template from all pages that transcluded it except AJ Styles (because that's currently locked) and User:Aleuuhhmsc's sandbox draft of the Universal Championship article (he should probably clear that, but I don't mess with other people's sandboxes unless invited). We can delete them safely, I think. There's certainly a consensus against using them in this conversation. oknazevad ( talk) 23:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Should the cruiserweights get their own separate column on List of WWE personnel? Similar to List of New Japan Pro Wrestling personnel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.188.49 ( talk) 01:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Notifying the project of this discussion, seeing as how the article's wrestling-related infobox and image were removed during the timeframe that warring in general over images has been going on. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Is this the same belt? Main page of WWE site says First champion which to me says no.-- Will C 03:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
It's a new championship, as per WWE's official title history. -- JDC808 ♫ 07:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
For those who haven't noticed/participated, we got some current TfDs, which include Template:Current WWE Champions and Template:Current TNA Champions. You can post your opinions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 18#Template:Current WWE Champions and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 20#Template:Current TNA Champions. Nickag989 talk 09:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, there are two issues that plague our project more than others. It's the use of an ampersand (&) when talking about a tag team matches or multi-man matches. The other is people not spelling state names. The just put Las Vegas, NV rather than Las Vegas, Nevada. We need to work on fixing these issues, both are unencyclopedic and look horrible when reading an article. (talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 19:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
There are some ongoing deletions that have been relisted, or will be relisted, due to inadequate input. Among these are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heath Slater and Rhyno, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heath Slater and Justin Gabriel (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Boom (2nd nomination). Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IWRG_Máscara_vs._Máscara_(August_2016) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IWRG Máscara vs. Máscara (September 2016) are also being discussed.
Requested moves at: WWE Women's Championship (1956–2010) to WWE Women's Championship, Big E Langston to Big E (wrestler) and Rhino (wrestler) to Rhyno. LM2000 ( talk) 23:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Extreme Giant, Magic Mohawk and Leader of the Altitude Era are probably the last of the redirects going to RfD, see those at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 18. LM2000 ( talk) 23:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Another move at Talk:Alexander Rusev#Requested move 23 September 2016. oknazevad ( talk) 05:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
There's a big disagreement on the Bret Hart talk page about the Bret Hart article's lead section. One editor believes that the lead section gives Hart too much credit, isn't objective and that the sources aren't enough. Could some other people please add some input? We seem to be going nowhere right now. *Treker ( talk) 02:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
As I said in the talk page, I'm simply advocating the manual of style. My angle is that WP:PEACOCK should be favored here by quoting and linking the claim to the source directly. One journalist opinion from IGN or even all of us here agreeing can't constitute proof for validating a claim like "Hart changed the perception of mainstream pro-wrestling" in a lead. Quoting the article, on the other hand, with something like "according to IGN, Bret Hart did this and that", looks like a factual representation of what's been said about Hart and to me it should be favored here. I'm still failing to realize what's actually wrong with my edit, because even in Eddie Guerrero's case this was the format chosen in the end (read: "according to Fox News, Guerrero was one of the ring greats"... and then it was dropped to a renewed "Legacy" section two or three days after with no one, me included, complaining). It's like reporting the simple fact that it was said by IGN is supposd to overall diminish Hart's value.
As a mere reader, I'd like to bring everyone's attention on something. A lot, and I mean a lot, of pro-wrestling articles (from Hulk Hogan to Junkyard Dog) on some of the great names of the industry have been becoming increasingly loaded with puffery in the lead, with generally a very volatile policy about what's a good/relevant source and what's an actually verifiable claim, with small groups of dedicated editors acting as arbitrators about who is being a wrestler deserving of aforementioned puffery and who is not. With puffery I'm referring to stuff like:
Some of the above are usually unsourced or do not specify the source as well. You can find quite a bunch of them simply by scrolling Warlock82's own contribution feed (not wanting to point fingers, just to give people an idea). On smaller scale, you have objectively reported stuff used as a slight-medium added flavor (which - while factual - mostly would make someone raise the question: why is this guy quoted here and not someone else? Why is it given so much weight?) like:
Again, except for the very last, this all looks like in more or less apparent contradiction with the WP:PEACOCK which says one should reword things by letting facts speak for themselves (i.e. Adam was a six-time champion a recordman, main evented three WrestleManias and worked in all the major promotions in North America) - and honestly, in the twelve years I've been reading Wikipedia, it looked like it was always like that up until very recently when these peacock terms started to fill the articles. FA like CM Punk's (who has been very well-received in the popularity department as well) pretty much respect the criteria I have in mind, while the articles I found some problems with above are usually C-class and open to editing, but can't be ever-so-slightly touched without starting a war. Doesn't someone believe that the general guideline should be revised to keep the most important facts (titles won, federations the guy worked in, length of their wrestling shtick) and leave out the embellishments to be as neutral as possible and avoid people bickering on what should go in the lead and what not? Because I believe this is bound to get out of hand sooner or later. 151.57.66.224 ( talk) 15:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that the tagline for WWE Clash of Champions was recently removed, and there is a semi-protected edit request at No Mercy (2016) to add the tagline "There Will Be No Mercy". Are we doing away with taglines, or do we need a reliable source? JTP ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I was looking on Karl Anderson and Luke Gallows's article and In see they are in the ROH, GFW, and NJPW stable and tag team categories. Shouldn't it be for current stables and tag teams? Or would have an alumni category for that be redundant and not needed? Just wanting clarification. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 15:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I see no article on them has been created. I could start one on my sandbox until it is ready to be moved to its namespace. That is unless someone else has. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 00:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
There are ongoing move requests on Talk:WWE Raw Women's Championship, Talk:WWE Raw Tag Team Championship, Talk:WWE SmackDown Tag Team Championship and Talk:WWE SmackDown Women's Championship. All of these involve dropping "WWE" from their title. LM2000 ( talk) 03:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't we move WWE Women's Championship (1956–2010) back to WWE Women's Championship since the original title was more known by that name than the current Raw title was? LM2000 ( talk) 01:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I think 1) WWE Women's Championship (1956-2010) move back to WWE Women's Championship. The New title shared name, but right now, It's WWE Raw Women's Championship. Even the World Tag Team Championship (WWE) was named WWE Tag Team Championship for a few months. 2) WWE Women's Championship, a disambiguation page to the original title, the raw title and the SD title (even the Divas title). -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 23:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I closed the RM and retargeted WWE Women's Championship into a dab page. Should we link to the dab page at the top of each related article rather than specifically link each in the hatnote? LM2000 ( talk) 00:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I archived RVD's wwe.com profile because it says he won the European Championship (the title history doesn't list him). So I archived it and got this ugly thing: http://www.webcitation.org/6l56YLdzH
Why is the archived page all messed up? Did I do something wrong? WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 14:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
So there's nothing I can do about it? And how do we know if this is a real copy of wwe.com and not some fake site? I know I archived the real deal, but how do others know? WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 14:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you prefer webcitation or webarchive? I am currently archiving everything important about title histories with webcitation.org WrestlingLegendAS ( talk) 20:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Vjmlhds: keeps removing it from the A.J. Styles article. Yet the title is a world championship. (See: PWG World Championship.) (talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 19:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The title became known under its current name in February 2006, when PWG had a two-event European Vacation tour stopping in Essen, Germany and Orpington, England. The title has also been defended in Japan in the Dragon Gate promotion, as well as in the United Kingdom in 1PW and again on PWG's European Vacation II tour in Paris, France, Portsmouth, England and Essen, Germany. The title was later defended by Chris Hero in Queensland, Australia on two occasions. [1]
According to a previous discussion, we don't decide the world title. Wrestling hasn't a real goverment body who discuss that titles are world titles. PWG says the PWG is a World title, it's a World title. Every other discussion (TV, national exposure...) it's OR. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 22:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I think an brief overview of championships can be useful in the lead, but I strongly disagree with including a statement like "... time world champion" for this exact reason. HHH Pedigree is right on. We don't set criteria for world championships. Promotions can call their titles a "world championship", and it's not the place of Wikipedia editors to dispute their claim. Removing statements about "... time world champion" and replacing them with something more meaningful seems to be the way to go. In the case of A.J. Styles, the lead already has a decent rundown of his accomplishments without the sentence in question. For an article like Bret Hart's, I would take "He is a seven-time world champion, having held the WWF World Heavyweight Championship five times and the WCW World Heavyweight Championship twice" and trim it to "He held the WWF World Heavyweight Championship five times and the WCW World Heavyweight Championship twice." This also gets around the dispute that crops up from time to time about whether the WWC Universal Heavyweight Championship, by claiming to represent an area larger than the world, is therefore also a world championship. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 02:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm coming into this a bit late, sorry. So when late-1980s Stampede started calling its main title a world title because they started running shows in Montana, that's something I'm supposed to automatically take at face value and accept? I think I've already mentioned the hypothetical example of a wrestler defending a championship out of a former bowling alley in Parma, Ohio (don't laugh, the original NWF started out taping TV at the WUAB studios, which was precisely that) who then starts calling himself a world champ because he traveled "across the pond" to defend his title in a Toronto suburb. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Another editor disagreed with me on article content. Is now pissed off and removing relevant content from article lead for no reason. Would like for someone else to chim, I feel like the original disscussion has been lost. *Treker ( talk) 01:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
A few concerns here: (1) Edit summaries in this dispute accusing the other of vandalism. Stop that immediately. (2) Going straight to edit warring rather than discussing proposed changes. (3) While Wikipedia articles were listed in the references, this is more an issue of improper formatting, as they would have been fine as a footnote. (4) Way too much detail in the lead. The In Your House stuff wasn't overly significant. (5) I would support the removal of the USWA championship from the lead. If someone asked me for the highlights of Hart's career and an explanation of his significance, I would not mention the USWA. (5) Five-star matches mean something to very few people. (6) That claim about being considered one of the greatest of all time is probably the worst offense in the article. It's sourced to an article that lists him as the 33rd best wrestler of the 1990s. The article does state that he is considered by his peers to be one of the best of all time, but there is no evidence in the single sentence written about Hart. We also need to keep in mind this is from Crave Online, which is just another pop culture click bait atrocity (at the bottom of the story, I'm invited to read "A Woman Had To Have Her Vibrator Surgically Removed From Inside Of Her After It Got Stuck"). It's written by the esteemed Rob Fee, who also contributes such masterpieces as "Pokémon Go VS. Zombie Apocalypse: A Venn Diagram". If Hart's peers truly feel this way, it's got to be reported somewhere better than Crave Online. (7) Missed in all of the bickering, a vandal added the word "screaming" to the statement that Hart fell to his death, but this was missed because people were focused solely on arguing about the lead. I agree that it needs to be redone, but let's do it with some legitimate dicussion about the highlights of his life and career, and let's stop with the edit warring and name calling. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 14:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
WWE considers NXT as a third brand, complimenting both Raw and SmackDown. HHH just came right out and said so himself.
I mean really, when the guy who oversees the brand and is a top executive in the entire company classifies NXT as a third brand, that's pretty much definitive to me. This isn't some smark in his mother's basement on his blog saying this...it's freaking HHH - the guy WHO RUNS THE PLACE!
Not seeing the issue here.
Vjmlhds (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
So.... what the heck does it matter that it's "a brand" I don't get this whole argument - what are you guys quibbling over here? MPJ -DK 02:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Please do not merge "WWE" and "WWE NXT" until you reach consensus. There had been a large debate in September 2015 about this. Nobody owns articles on Wikipedia. JC · Talk · Contributions 19:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Requested move 14 October 2016
talk:Camacho (wrestler) -> Tanga Roa
2A02:C7D:3B50:2400:8117:41BF:E063:3D4E ( talk) 05:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Can someone please explain to me who thought it was a good idea include Lucha Underground spoilers on Wikipedia pages? That's makes it impossible for someone to look up LU or their stars without spoiling everything from themselves. It's extremely frustrating and seems counter intuitive to what Wikipedia is for.
If someone had leaked the Star Wars: The Force Awakens script before it premiered, would have added the plot and all its spoilers to its Wikipedia page?
And don't argue that they're different because LU is produced like a TV show, not a traditional pro wrestling show. And I remember that SmackDown spoilers weren't allowed before. So I really don't understand this. 2600:1017:B02F:643D:8C9F:FE84:8B05:4C89 ( talk) 18:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)