![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 |
How did we decide which site went into which category?
Is there a mechanism to appeal a site in the future? Like for example if a formerly reliable site became unreliable, could we demote it? If a formerly unreliable site became reliable, could we promote it?
Was there a vote or something? Ranze ( talk) 03:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
What do we do if we find a source that is not yet listed here? Does that go under 'other websites (not yet proven)' as an automatic starting place? How does it get bumped up to 'proven reliable' or down to 'unreliable' from there? Like say Inquisitr.com or whatev. Is there a more general list of sites we could link to from here for ones which are not wrestling-focused? Ranze ( talk) 05:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Should this be grounds to call it an unreliable source? I'm not exactly sure. Even though the title was just "World Heavyweight Championship" at the time, this name is also used for titles outside WWE so perhaps Examiner meant it in the sense of "WHWC in the WWE" rather than "WWEWHWC" as being the actual name. Although they repeat it in full throughout and never use WHWC on its own so I'm not sure. Ranze ( talk) 05:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
As per Alvarez [1] [2]. Another incident of false rumours attributed to F4Wonline's paid content. Essentially what they did is they copied a made up rumour on Reddit. The following sites are guilty: Inquisitr, WhatCulture, Daily DDT, WrestleZone, GiveMeSport and more. Poor fact-checking, unreliable. List was updated. starship .paint ~ KO 00:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding Special:Diff/689272355 even though they took down the 'gay hair stylist' article, since it was only report of an idea being toyed with, it's hard to prove as a blatent falsehood. Has Middleton made any stronger claims about something he claimed happened or will happen and did not? Merely saying someone is considered for a gimmick may not have a listed source (but then, a lot of reporters keep those confidental) but it's hard to falsify. Ranze ( talk) 03:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
@ HHH Pedrigree: regarding your recent removal of the fact-tags, doesn't this help us recognize which allegedly unreliable sources still lack explanations/examples of their unreliability? Ranze ( talk) 04:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to understand this better since I am not familiar with the project's history. I just noticed that when @ Starship.paint: made this page the summary "Creating separate article for sources from style guide." so clearly there's additional history I'm not aware of. Do you think we could make a note either on the page or its talk directing people on where to read the history prior to 29 December 2014 so people can consult that discussion?
Based on "style guide" I managed to locate the export at special:diff/640048988 so checking the history prior to then would be useful. I can also see the associated talk has Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Style_guide#Sources so I'll read that too.
I think it would still be good, if we can locate them, to list examples next to each, so post-2014 members/visitors can understand why a source is classified a certain way.
Presently as a start, it looks like source 5 could be merged into the first source since it all pertains to the Becky Lynch vacation claim.
Do you know if any archive.is alternatives to some of these exist? Been having trouble getting archive.org loading lately, I dunno if maybe it's locking me out due to overuse. I'd like to (if not for the page then for the talk) go through a proper template:cite web (including author name, archive dates) for each, and possibly a quote= so it's clear for those having trouble viewing archives like I presently am how each author/website conveyed false information.
I'm just going to try and dig these up by searching the archives for examples. I'm having trouble finding one for Ryan Clark, and he seems like a priority since due to BLP concerns, backing criticism of a person is more important than backing criticism of a website... although we should probably list every author who participated in an article for which a website was blacklisted, if we haven't.
A list of what I had fact-tagged so I know what to look for examples on:
It's funny we list Reddit at all, that would seem to go without saying for any open-publish sites except in rare exceptions where you can actually verify a posting account. Like in the example of https://www.reddit.com/user/PlanetPeacockROH and the questions answered at https://www.reddit.com/r/SquaredCircle/comments/3ow4lo/dalton_castle_ama_live_now/ since http://rohwrestling.com/news/dalton-castle-address-planet-peacock-reddit-ama verifies it. Any case of places like Reddit being considered reliable would essentially require off-site verification from a reliable source. Ranze ( talk) 03:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Steve Carrier writes for All Wrestling News, Ringside News, and Wrestling Newz. He has written for NoDQ.com in the past. I will put him and Wrestling Newz under unreliable. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 22:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Starship.paint: I noticed at special:diff/691468072 you explain with some hyperlinks why PXpix.net is not reliable. I was wondering, to avoid the hassle of people having to digg through the history for stuff like this to understand the classification of a site, do you think it would be okay to use reference tags to includes links such as the ones you included in the edit summary next to the site? This would give a basis for which to argue for something's continued inclusion. It also might help set apart sites which don't have references for their unreliability. Or let's say if someone claimed a story was or wasn't reliable and others wanted to analyze that on the talk or something, just helps to group the information accordingly. This isn't about the example in question (I know nothing of this MJH situation) it just stood out as the most recent one. Ranze ( talk) 05:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any mention of Sportskeeda anywhere. I am wondering if the consensus is they are unreliable or am I the only one? Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 06:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Considering this is an interview series I assume it would be ok site in most cases? ★Trekker ( talk) 16:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
There are several sources listed under unreliable without having a source/explanation/motivation for them, shouldn't there always be that? ★Trekker ( talk) 21:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Site has been around for awhile now. Anyone have any feelings about its reliability? ★Trekker ( talk) 15:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Should http://www.wwenetworknews.com be added as a reliable source? They cover when things are added or taken down from the network. In addition they cover changes to the network. For example, on the 205 Live page, can we use them as a reference for the change in time to the show? Or can the addition of old NXT shows use [3] as a ref on the NXT page (as it is now) to say that all old episodes are available on the network? - Galatz Talk 16:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't see Rajah.com on either list. It's basic looking site with news, results (TV, pay-per-views, and house shows), previews, etc.. I don't see any sources even if it is PWInsider, PW Torch, etc.. They only have two writers, but nobody of note. Thoughts? Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 19:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Should Diva-Dirt.com be considered a reliable source for professional wrestling articles. Nikki♥ 311 03:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
This discussion is being started to form a consensus on Diva Dirt's reliability as it still has yet to be proven. Sure they do a great job on writing about women's wrestling and are the leading website for women's wrestling. But other than that, are they reliable? Dan Murphy, a writer with Pro Wrestling Illustrated since 1997 took over as editor-in-chief of Diva Dirt and Online World of Wrestling. Someone established taking a big role helps. Thoughts? Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 06:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
After being informed of this discussion and looking at the site, I've honestly never read it before or heard of it that I remember, I see nothing that shows them as reliable, now with that said said If we were voting, which we don't really do, I'd have to vote it's unreliable until something is shown otherwise. As for PWI, yes it's a joke, yes it's still partly in kayfabe, and I personally wouldn't use that as proof anything is reliable. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 21:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Scrolling through their news scroll, it seems to be stuff gathered from the rest of the Internet (with analysis), like much of the rest of the Internet. Is there anything original in particular we would (or do) cite them for? I think I remember seeing interviews there a while back, but I don't see a section like that today. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
There is also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You can get some outside editor opinions. Nikki♥ 311 00:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Here's my thoughts...upon first glance, the site "looks" unreliable. The name "Diva-Dirt" makes it sound like it reports rumors and speculation. The "staff" is only known by first names, and their profiles look like fan Q&A's ( Example). With that said, looks aren't everything. What matters is whether they have a reputation for fact checking. I see nothing on the site that indicates they have a fact-checking process. It looks like anyone can submit a "news scoop" ( [6]). The biggest question, though, is why would we use this site if it mostly just posts stuff from other sites with added analysis? These people are not experts in the field, so why do we care about their analysis? Seems unreliable to me. Nikki♥ 311 23:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Since we haven't gotten any input from the Reliable Source noticeboard, I've added a request for comment to hopefully attract some more people to this discussion. I've also set up a survey section to make it easier to tell where editors stand on the issue. Nikki♥ 311 03:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I am looking at this edit here [7] which relies solely on superluchas.com which does not appear to qualify as a RS to me. I already reverted the post the first time it was added as I don't find it value added and the first time it was titled controversy. I am not interested in an edit war over it, but others might agree. I also wanted to check the reliability of the source, which is not on the list and I do not believe is. Any other thoughts? - Galatz Talk 14:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I have redirected WP:PW/Sources to the source page of the Wikiproject. It makes it easier when linking editors to the sources page. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 02:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Finding older results can be hard. I was editing Danny Duggan and he made some appearances in ROH. I only found results for two of the shows he worked. I can't use the DVD reviews since they don't include the dark matches. Where is the best place to look for results from past show results for any wrestler? Some of the smaller promotions are harder to find. Thanks for any and all help. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 15:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Thoughts [8]? - Galatz Talk 13:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The site is reliable. There have never been any notes to show that anything on there is inaccurate. The site was created in 2000 and has writers that have never been questioned. There isn't an argument here that definitetively proves it to be unreliable at all. It does a great job covering events that other sites don't (like AWA Super Sunday). 101.189.113.1 ( talk) 03:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
IP user is now blocked. - Galatz Talk 15:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
There are two references that are unreliable, but I can't find any reliable sources to replace those two. If anybody can find them to replace those other references, that would be appreciated. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 23:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Has been around for a while now, has broken a couple of stories, seem to have an editorial staff, headed by former TMZ guy (might be a sign against it depending on how you feel about it), has been cited by many other publications both wrestling specific and mainstream. Opinions on it? ★Trekker ( talk) 10:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Their About Us page indicates that there is editorial oversight, and the fact that they have been sited by Meltzer [14] would lead me to consider them to be a reliable source. Nikki♥ 311 03:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Online World of Wrestling is considered "unreliable," is it still being heavily used. In fact, I've used it as a source myself many times. It's going to be hard get people to stop using. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 10:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
The Online World of Wrestling website is happy (and proud) to be a website for wrestling fans and by wrestling fans. Sure we get input from the workers themselves but really everything on the site is for you. As you have likely discovered by now, OWW cannot be undertaken by a single person. That is why OWW enlists fans to help track down information to make the site more complete. With over 5000 profiles, there are plenty of blanks that need to be filled and everyone should be encouraged to contribute a little bit to help the cause. Even the tiniest piece of information, such as a hometown, or a real name, makes a big difference. Send the information to OWW and we will add the information to the website.Their criteria for inclusion is to send it in and they will update it. To me this shows no review or over sight. - Galatz Talk 22:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Learned about this site today, it seems to have several former Live Audio Wrestling alumni working for it. Thoughts? ★Trekker ( talk) 14:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Anyone who knows Spanish have an idea of this place? ★Trekker ( talk) 18:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
This used to be a printed newsletter, anyone know anything about it? ★Trekker ( talk) 10:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I think most of these printed newsletters can be okay to use. Some should be used with caution because they were written in a kayfabe style. I know Pro Wrestling Illustrated is one of these and they're still around. They're listed in the reliable column.13:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Just wondering about people's thoughts on Fightful Wrestling. I have listened to their podcast for a bit and at the end of the most recent episode they were talking about how they take provide in verifying all information they put on their website before posting it. Looking through it, they report certain speculation, such as [18] but are giving the source its based on, and not making claims that it is true, no different than the NYT will do. It appears to be mostly confirmed news rather than speculation. Any thoughts? - Galatz Talk 14:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't see this site listed anywhere. I've checked out the site and it looks like they have one person writing articles while two, with one person regularly, writing columns/editorials. The site looks good and all, but they don't list their writers in the about section. I see they use Dave Meltzer and Wrestling Observer as sources. As well, they used BBC in a recent article as well. Thoughts? Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 20:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Should ovwmania.blogspot.com be considered a reliable source? I removed a number of links to this blog from OVW Southern Tag Team Championship, OVW Television Championship and OVW Heavyweight Championship but it's been reverted by Browndog91 twice who claim that It has been endorsed by OVW in the past and it is the only site that gives OVW results. but I'm unable to see anything about this blog on their official website or on Google. Thank you GSS ( talk| c| em) 10:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
They claim to have editors, but also that their writers are independent and not staff. Thoughts/opinions? ★Trekker ( talk) 11:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Use with caution, mainly for uncontroversial claims such as the attendance of the event, as these sites do not have proven fact checking.So to me that applies to every item in that entire category. - Galatz Talk 14:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
http://www.nzpwi.co.nz/ is a source I came across as part of some recent AfD. I never heard of it before. The appear to have news, opinions and interviews. I cannot find about an editorial staff on their site, but their news appears to not be reporting of rumors. Anyone have thoughts? - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 01:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
They are currently listed in the not yet proven section but I think as far as news related to Southern California wrestling they've been proven more than reliable. They've been around since 2001 and have a staff. They are constantly cited by both Dave Meltzer and Mike Johnson at PWInsider who are on the reliable list. They break quite a bit of news, especially in regards to PWG and Lucha Underground. I can't think of an example of them being wrong. I bring this up because of sourcing on Lucha Underground updates I have to use Dave Meltzer as a source even though his report credits SoCal Uncensored. TrinitySkyBoat ( talk) 00:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
This used to be a print magazine the same as Super Luchas back in the day, according to the books I researched it seems it's been around at least as long as Super Luchas and one book said that it was known for having more text than Super Luchas. Thoughts? ★Trekker ( talk) 08:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Websites that may be reliable but only exist in archive form now. Thoughts? ★Trekker ( talk) 07:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Some podcasts and other series are well known and might be good to include on a list of shows that have a history of having real interviews and not copying others stuff. ★Trekker ( talk) 19:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't see Wrestling-Titles.com listed anywhere. It is a great resource for wrestling title histories. I've used it as a source multiple times. Even though Obsessed Wrestling used to be popular before Online World of Wrestling was around, I don't see it listed anywhere either. I would say to use them cautiously. But what's the consensus of others? Discuss. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 02:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
How is Bryan Alvarez a reliable source if he's as inaccurate as Dave Meltzer? The Staples Center themselves have not mentioned anything about Enzo Amore, yet I'm supposed to believe Bryan Alvarez? Please explain. -- Evil Yugi ( talk) 20:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Can cagematch.net be used as a reliable source for stats like height and weight of the Pro Wrestlers? - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 10:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I added WrestleTalk to the unreliable sources section. They have a reputation online (Reddit etc.) for making up false news stories for clicks, like Ringsidenews and others do. StaticVapor message me! 19:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
In the Unproven section we had several items which were considered reliable only for specific things. Since thats not really unproven I gave it its own section for limited reliable. I think we should review whats left in Unproven and see if we can upgrade anything else, and if so, what - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 21:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I think there is a fundamental fraud in our system of labelling reliable sources. For quite a few occasions, we are disregarding sources just because Reddit users investigated that they got one or two facts wrong. In the overview section, the image perfectly demonstrates this trait and stated "to draw the line between usable and unreliable sources". Usable is the key word here. From now onwards, we need to assess unreliable sources much carefully and make use of the context of the sources. Thanks. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 01:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
At https://comicbook.com/wwe/ they have a ton of hits come up. Is anyone familiar with the site? - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 19:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Following up on this discussion, I feel like this site could be promoted to our reliable sources. They have editors: [20]. The wrestling editor Larry Csonka is somewhat well known. StaticVapor message me! 20:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Is 'WrestleCrap' reliable? - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 11:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Is it a RS? - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 01:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is ITNWWE.com reliable? I stumbled upon this here. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 11:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
My goal is to give all news about WWE, Rumours, videos, results. I want to entertain all WWE fan with the help of my WWE knowledge" JTP ( talk • contribs) 21:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to see us discuss adding a few sites to our Reliable sources section. The first one I am throwing out there is Fightful. There has been previous discussion at, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources#Fightful that seemed pretty positive about them. StaticVapor message me! 00:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Anyone familiar with this website? I cannot find an about page but the main text says "THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE FOR TNA KNOCKOUTS VELVET SKY. WITH OVER 40000 WWE VIDEOS AND THE LATEST NEWS ON FASTLANE 2019". It seems to more or less just be a video compiler. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 13:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
This site claims to have been around since 1999 and seems to be a registered company with several employees. Thoughts? ★Trekker ( talk) 12:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
How did we decide which site went into which category?
Is there a mechanism to appeal a site in the future? Like for example if a formerly reliable site became unreliable, could we demote it? If a formerly unreliable site became reliable, could we promote it?
Was there a vote or something? Ranze ( talk) 03:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
What do we do if we find a source that is not yet listed here? Does that go under 'other websites (not yet proven)' as an automatic starting place? How does it get bumped up to 'proven reliable' or down to 'unreliable' from there? Like say Inquisitr.com or whatev. Is there a more general list of sites we could link to from here for ones which are not wrestling-focused? Ranze ( talk) 05:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Should this be grounds to call it an unreliable source? I'm not exactly sure. Even though the title was just "World Heavyweight Championship" at the time, this name is also used for titles outside WWE so perhaps Examiner meant it in the sense of "WHWC in the WWE" rather than "WWEWHWC" as being the actual name. Although they repeat it in full throughout and never use WHWC on its own so I'm not sure. Ranze ( talk) 05:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
As per Alvarez [1] [2]. Another incident of false rumours attributed to F4Wonline's paid content. Essentially what they did is they copied a made up rumour on Reddit. The following sites are guilty: Inquisitr, WhatCulture, Daily DDT, WrestleZone, GiveMeSport and more. Poor fact-checking, unreliable. List was updated. starship .paint ~ KO 00:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding Special:Diff/689272355 even though they took down the 'gay hair stylist' article, since it was only report of an idea being toyed with, it's hard to prove as a blatent falsehood. Has Middleton made any stronger claims about something he claimed happened or will happen and did not? Merely saying someone is considered for a gimmick may not have a listed source (but then, a lot of reporters keep those confidental) but it's hard to falsify. Ranze ( talk) 03:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
@ HHH Pedrigree: regarding your recent removal of the fact-tags, doesn't this help us recognize which allegedly unreliable sources still lack explanations/examples of their unreliability? Ranze ( talk) 04:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to understand this better since I am not familiar with the project's history. I just noticed that when @ Starship.paint: made this page the summary "Creating separate article for sources from style guide." so clearly there's additional history I'm not aware of. Do you think we could make a note either on the page or its talk directing people on where to read the history prior to 29 December 2014 so people can consult that discussion?
Based on "style guide" I managed to locate the export at special:diff/640048988 so checking the history prior to then would be useful. I can also see the associated talk has Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Style_guide#Sources so I'll read that too.
I think it would still be good, if we can locate them, to list examples next to each, so post-2014 members/visitors can understand why a source is classified a certain way.
Presently as a start, it looks like source 5 could be merged into the first source since it all pertains to the Becky Lynch vacation claim.
Do you know if any archive.is alternatives to some of these exist? Been having trouble getting archive.org loading lately, I dunno if maybe it's locking me out due to overuse. I'd like to (if not for the page then for the talk) go through a proper template:cite web (including author name, archive dates) for each, and possibly a quote= so it's clear for those having trouble viewing archives like I presently am how each author/website conveyed false information.
I'm just going to try and dig these up by searching the archives for examples. I'm having trouble finding one for Ryan Clark, and he seems like a priority since due to BLP concerns, backing criticism of a person is more important than backing criticism of a website... although we should probably list every author who participated in an article for which a website was blacklisted, if we haven't.
A list of what I had fact-tagged so I know what to look for examples on:
It's funny we list Reddit at all, that would seem to go without saying for any open-publish sites except in rare exceptions where you can actually verify a posting account. Like in the example of https://www.reddit.com/user/PlanetPeacockROH and the questions answered at https://www.reddit.com/r/SquaredCircle/comments/3ow4lo/dalton_castle_ama_live_now/ since http://rohwrestling.com/news/dalton-castle-address-planet-peacock-reddit-ama verifies it. Any case of places like Reddit being considered reliable would essentially require off-site verification from a reliable source. Ranze ( talk) 03:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Steve Carrier writes for All Wrestling News, Ringside News, and Wrestling Newz. He has written for NoDQ.com in the past. I will put him and Wrestling Newz under unreliable. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 22:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Starship.paint: I noticed at special:diff/691468072 you explain with some hyperlinks why PXpix.net is not reliable. I was wondering, to avoid the hassle of people having to digg through the history for stuff like this to understand the classification of a site, do you think it would be okay to use reference tags to includes links such as the ones you included in the edit summary next to the site? This would give a basis for which to argue for something's continued inclusion. It also might help set apart sites which don't have references for their unreliability. Or let's say if someone claimed a story was or wasn't reliable and others wanted to analyze that on the talk or something, just helps to group the information accordingly. This isn't about the example in question (I know nothing of this MJH situation) it just stood out as the most recent one. Ranze ( talk) 05:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any mention of Sportskeeda anywhere. I am wondering if the consensus is they are unreliable or am I the only one? Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 06:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Considering this is an interview series I assume it would be ok site in most cases? ★Trekker ( talk) 16:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
There are several sources listed under unreliable without having a source/explanation/motivation for them, shouldn't there always be that? ★Trekker ( talk) 21:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Site has been around for awhile now. Anyone have any feelings about its reliability? ★Trekker ( talk) 15:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Should http://www.wwenetworknews.com be added as a reliable source? They cover when things are added or taken down from the network. In addition they cover changes to the network. For example, on the 205 Live page, can we use them as a reference for the change in time to the show? Or can the addition of old NXT shows use [3] as a ref on the NXT page (as it is now) to say that all old episodes are available on the network? - Galatz Talk 16:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't see Rajah.com on either list. It's basic looking site with news, results (TV, pay-per-views, and house shows), previews, etc.. I don't see any sources even if it is PWInsider, PW Torch, etc.. They only have two writers, but nobody of note. Thoughts? Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 19:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Should Diva-Dirt.com be considered a reliable source for professional wrestling articles. Nikki♥ 311 03:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
This discussion is being started to form a consensus on Diva Dirt's reliability as it still has yet to be proven. Sure they do a great job on writing about women's wrestling and are the leading website for women's wrestling. But other than that, are they reliable? Dan Murphy, a writer with Pro Wrestling Illustrated since 1997 took over as editor-in-chief of Diva Dirt and Online World of Wrestling. Someone established taking a big role helps. Thoughts? Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 06:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
After being informed of this discussion and looking at the site, I've honestly never read it before or heard of it that I remember, I see nothing that shows them as reliable, now with that said said If we were voting, which we don't really do, I'd have to vote it's unreliable until something is shown otherwise. As for PWI, yes it's a joke, yes it's still partly in kayfabe, and I personally wouldn't use that as proof anything is reliable. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 21:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Scrolling through their news scroll, it seems to be stuff gathered from the rest of the Internet (with analysis), like much of the rest of the Internet. Is there anything original in particular we would (or do) cite them for? I think I remember seeing interviews there a while back, but I don't see a section like that today. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
There is also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You can get some outside editor opinions. Nikki♥ 311 00:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Here's my thoughts...upon first glance, the site "looks" unreliable. The name "Diva-Dirt" makes it sound like it reports rumors and speculation. The "staff" is only known by first names, and their profiles look like fan Q&A's ( Example). With that said, looks aren't everything. What matters is whether they have a reputation for fact checking. I see nothing on the site that indicates they have a fact-checking process. It looks like anyone can submit a "news scoop" ( [6]). The biggest question, though, is why would we use this site if it mostly just posts stuff from other sites with added analysis? These people are not experts in the field, so why do we care about their analysis? Seems unreliable to me. Nikki♥ 311 23:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Since we haven't gotten any input from the Reliable Source noticeboard, I've added a request for comment to hopefully attract some more people to this discussion. I've also set up a survey section to make it easier to tell where editors stand on the issue. Nikki♥ 311 03:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I am looking at this edit here [7] which relies solely on superluchas.com which does not appear to qualify as a RS to me. I already reverted the post the first time it was added as I don't find it value added and the first time it was titled controversy. I am not interested in an edit war over it, but others might agree. I also wanted to check the reliability of the source, which is not on the list and I do not believe is. Any other thoughts? - Galatz Talk 14:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I have redirected WP:PW/Sources to the source page of the Wikiproject. It makes it easier when linking editors to the sources page. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 02:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Finding older results can be hard. I was editing Danny Duggan and he made some appearances in ROH. I only found results for two of the shows he worked. I can't use the DVD reviews since they don't include the dark matches. Where is the best place to look for results from past show results for any wrestler? Some of the smaller promotions are harder to find. Thanks for any and all help. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 15:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Thoughts [8]? - Galatz Talk 13:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The site is reliable. There have never been any notes to show that anything on there is inaccurate. The site was created in 2000 and has writers that have never been questioned. There isn't an argument here that definitetively proves it to be unreliable at all. It does a great job covering events that other sites don't (like AWA Super Sunday). 101.189.113.1 ( talk) 03:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
IP user is now blocked. - Galatz Talk 15:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
There are two references that are unreliable, but I can't find any reliable sources to replace those two. If anybody can find them to replace those other references, that would be appreciated. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 23:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Has been around for a while now, has broken a couple of stories, seem to have an editorial staff, headed by former TMZ guy (might be a sign against it depending on how you feel about it), has been cited by many other publications both wrestling specific and mainstream. Opinions on it? ★Trekker ( talk) 10:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Their About Us page indicates that there is editorial oversight, and the fact that they have been sited by Meltzer [14] would lead me to consider them to be a reliable source. Nikki♥ 311 03:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Online World of Wrestling is considered "unreliable," is it still being heavily used. In fact, I've used it as a source myself many times. It's going to be hard get people to stop using. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 10:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
The Online World of Wrestling website is happy (and proud) to be a website for wrestling fans and by wrestling fans. Sure we get input from the workers themselves but really everything on the site is for you. As you have likely discovered by now, OWW cannot be undertaken by a single person. That is why OWW enlists fans to help track down information to make the site more complete. With over 5000 profiles, there are plenty of blanks that need to be filled and everyone should be encouraged to contribute a little bit to help the cause. Even the tiniest piece of information, such as a hometown, or a real name, makes a big difference. Send the information to OWW and we will add the information to the website.Their criteria for inclusion is to send it in and they will update it. To me this shows no review or over sight. - Galatz Talk 22:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Learned about this site today, it seems to have several former Live Audio Wrestling alumni working for it. Thoughts? ★Trekker ( talk) 14:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Anyone who knows Spanish have an idea of this place? ★Trekker ( talk) 18:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
This used to be a printed newsletter, anyone know anything about it? ★Trekker ( talk) 10:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I think most of these printed newsletters can be okay to use. Some should be used with caution because they were written in a kayfabe style. I know Pro Wrestling Illustrated is one of these and they're still around. They're listed in the reliable column.13:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Just wondering about people's thoughts on Fightful Wrestling. I have listened to their podcast for a bit and at the end of the most recent episode they were talking about how they take provide in verifying all information they put on their website before posting it. Looking through it, they report certain speculation, such as [18] but are giving the source its based on, and not making claims that it is true, no different than the NYT will do. It appears to be mostly confirmed news rather than speculation. Any thoughts? - Galatz Talk 14:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't see this site listed anywhere. I've checked out the site and it looks like they have one person writing articles while two, with one person regularly, writing columns/editorials. The site looks good and all, but they don't list their writers in the about section. I see they use Dave Meltzer and Wrestling Observer as sources. As well, they used BBC in a recent article as well. Thoughts? Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 20:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Should ovwmania.blogspot.com be considered a reliable source? I removed a number of links to this blog from OVW Southern Tag Team Championship, OVW Television Championship and OVW Heavyweight Championship but it's been reverted by Browndog91 twice who claim that It has been endorsed by OVW in the past and it is the only site that gives OVW results. but I'm unable to see anything about this blog on their official website or on Google. Thank you GSS ( talk| c| em) 10:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
They claim to have editors, but also that their writers are independent and not staff. Thoughts/opinions? ★Trekker ( talk) 11:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Use with caution, mainly for uncontroversial claims such as the attendance of the event, as these sites do not have proven fact checking.So to me that applies to every item in that entire category. - Galatz Talk 14:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
http://www.nzpwi.co.nz/ is a source I came across as part of some recent AfD. I never heard of it before. The appear to have news, opinions and interviews. I cannot find about an editorial staff on their site, but their news appears to not be reporting of rumors. Anyone have thoughts? - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 01:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
They are currently listed in the not yet proven section but I think as far as news related to Southern California wrestling they've been proven more than reliable. They've been around since 2001 and have a staff. They are constantly cited by both Dave Meltzer and Mike Johnson at PWInsider who are on the reliable list. They break quite a bit of news, especially in regards to PWG and Lucha Underground. I can't think of an example of them being wrong. I bring this up because of sourcing on Lucha Underground updates I have to use Dave Meltzer as a source even though his report credits SoCal Uncensored. TrinitySkyBoat ( talk) 00:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
This used to be a print magazine the same as Super Luchas back in the day, according to the books I researched it seems it's been around at least as long as Super Luchas and one book said that it was known for having more text than Super Luchas. Thoughts? ★Trekker ( talk) 08:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Websites that may be reliable but only exist in archive form now. Thoughts? ★Trekker ( talk) 07:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Some podcasts and other series are well known and might be good to include on a list of shows that have a history of having real interviews and not copying others stuff. ★Trekker ( talk) 19:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't see Wrestling-Titles.com listed anywhere. It is a great resource for wrestling title histories. I've used it as a source multiple times. Even though Obsessed Wrestling used to be popular before Online World of Wrestling was around, I don't see it listed anywhere either. I would say to use them cautiously. But what's the consensus of others? Discuss. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 02:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
How is Bryan Alvarez a reliable source if he's as inaccurate as Dave Meltzer? The Staples Center themselves have not mentioned anything about Enzo Amore, yet I'm supposed to believe Bryan Alvarez? Please explain. -- Evil Yugi ( talk) 20:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Can cagematch.net be used as a reliable source for stats like height and weight of the Pro Wrestlers? - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 10:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I added WrestleTalk to the unreliable sources section. They have a reputation online (Reddit etc.) for making up false news stories for clicks, like Ringsidenews and others do. StaticVapor message me! 19:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
In the Unproven section we had several items which were considered reliable only for specific things. Since thats not really unproven I gave it its own section for limited reliable. I think we should review whats left in Unproven and see if we can upgrade anything else, and if so, what - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 21:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I think there is a fundamental fraud in our system of labelling reliable sources. For quite a few occasions, we are disregarding sources just because Reddit users investigated that they got one or two facts wrong. In the overview section, the image perfectly demonstrates this trait and stated "to draw the line between usable and unreliable sources". Usable is the key word here. From now onwards, we need to assess unreliable sources much carefully and make use of the context of the sources. Thanks. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 01:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
At https://comicbook.com/wwe/ they have a ton of hits come up. Is anyone familiar with the site? - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 19:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Following up on this discussion, I feel like this site could be promoted to our reliable sources. They have editors: [20]. The wrestling editor Larry Csonka is somewhat well known. StaticVapor message me! 20:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Is 'WrestleCrap' reliable? - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 11:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Is it a RS? - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 01:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is ITNWWE.com reliable? I stumbled upon this here. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 11:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
My goal is to give all news about WWE, Rumours, videos, results. I want to entertain all WWE fan with the help of my WWE knowledge" JTP ( talk • contribs) 21:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to see us discuss adding a few sites to our Reliable sources section. The first one I am throwing out there is Fightful. There has been previous discussion at, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources#Fightful that seemed pretty positive about them. StaticVapor message me! 00:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Anyone familiar with this website? I cannot find an about page but the main text says "THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE FOR TNA KNOCKOUTS VELVET SKY. WITH OVER 40000 WWE VIDEOS AND THE LATEST NEWS ON FASTLANE 2019". It seems to more or less just be a video compiler. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 13:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
This site claims to have been around since 1999 and seems to be a registered company with several employees. Thoughts? ★Trekker ( talk) 12:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)