Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

WikiProject Professional Wrestling
Professional wrestling as a whole is under general sanctions
Welcome to the WikiProject Professional wrestling discussion page. Please use this page to discuss issues regarding professional wrestling related articles, project guidelines, ideas, suggestions and questions. Thank you for visiting!

PCW Ultra

Hello, WikiProject,

This is a brand new article about professional wrestling by a fairly new editor and I'm hoping some here who are experienced content creators can give it a look. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I'm not sure how "experienced" I am, but having a glance it appears to have been supported with a primary source and a bunch of sources to past results (which make the article look very listy). I can't find much else on google, so it sounds like an AfD case to me. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PCW Ultra. I've never heard of this company. starship.paint (exalt) 13:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested moves for discussion

• "Butch Miller (wrestler)" to "Bushwhacker Butch"

• "Luke Williams (wrestler)" to "Bushwhacker Luke"

• "Taz (wrestler)" to "Tazz"

McPhail (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• • Also, "Kevin Wacholz" to "Nailz". McPhail (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

January 4

There is a discussion in the talk page of the Talk:January 4 Tokyo Dome Show. The issue, if the article should include the WrestleKingdom events that takes place on Jan 5 (and Jan 8). If you want, you can give your opinion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move for discussion

• "Ferrin Barr Jr." to "Jimmy Jack Funk". McPhail (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• • Also, "Kim Nielsen (wrestler)" to "Desire (wrestler)". McPhail (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Title changes when a taped show has yet to broadcast

I've recently reverted an edit which listed a title change that hadn't yet aired. My reasoning is that if the show hasn't aired, the title change is not yet official (the promotion's website, for example, still shows the previous champion). What is this wikiproject's rule on this sort of thing? When do we alter articles to reflect the current champion, if this is technically something in the "future"? — Czello 13:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Have reliable wrestling sources covered this if so it should be covered. An example would be at Talk:Jake Hager where there was a consensus to cover his 2010 MITB contact cash in against Chris Jericho before SmackDown aired on TV.--67.70.101.198 (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Long-standing consensus is that as long as it's reliably sourced we list title changes and edit title histories to reflect when the match actually took place, not when it aired on TV via tape delay. That's because the announcement of the winning of the title occurs for the people in attendance, who are no less valid than the people watching at home. Now, an argument could be made that since pro wrestling is not an actual sport, but a form of performing art, and it's very much made-for-tv these days that the air date is more important, but that would require a major overhaul of practice as a result of an RFC or some such. But for now, someone editing in good faith to update for events that took place as part of a TV taping, so long as it's reliably sourced, should not be reverted. oknazevad (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Per WP:SPOILER " the results of reality television programs, and live radio and television events broadcast on a delay in certain areas of the world such as the Eurovision Song Contest and the Olympics." As Oknazevad said, it's a consensus and there are reliable sources and the title change already happened. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm clearly in the minority here! Well, that settles that. — Czello 22:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:KOPW (New Japan Pro-Wrestling)#Requested move 26 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:KOPW (New Japan Pro-Wrestling)#Requested move 26 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I found this interesting.... (potential UPE)

The Wrestling Observer/F4WOnline website's Daily Update from yesterday has a job listing for a "Wikipedia guru". [1] Did Dave and Bryan already have a "Wikipedia guru"? I hope there isn't any UPE going on here. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 16:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

It says: "JOB LISTING: Wikipedia guru... Do you have experience writing Wikipedia pages? Please contact..." It could be a sign of paid editing or they just want to improve WON-related content on WP. Maybe it's better to contact them and ask them clarifying their concerns. Mann Mann (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Unidsputed Era

Happy New Year to everyone. With this new year 2022, I have some question that I want to ask. Feel free to give me your toughts.

First, is about the Undisputed Era article. As you known, Fish, Cole and KO joind AEW and began to work together. However, the article UE say they still active. While it's true to some point (Strong stills with WWE), it's weird to say that UE, a WWE stable, still active as a sub-group of The Elite because they're the same members. What do you think? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree. The Undisputed Era is a WWE faction -- it shouldn't be listed as "active" because, quite simply, it's not active. There is no faction called Undisputed Era anymore. When AJ Styles and the Good Brothers were in WWE, we didn't call them Bullet Club, because they became something new. I've noticed the odd IP trying to add "Undisputed Era" to the sub-groups section of the Elite article, and I (and others) have been removing it; I'd extend this to the UE article too. — Czello 17:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Are Kyle O'Reilly and Bobby Fish official members? Or are they just associates? O'Reilly brought up the past problems with Cole in which there were many in ROH and NXT. Just because O'Reilly teamed with Cole one time in AEW doesn't mean he is a member. So there needs to be some clarification. But as for the Undisputed Era specifically, I'm all for listing it as 2021 when they disbanded. Cole, O'Reilly, and Fish being official members or associates of The Elite have nothing to do with The Undisputed Era which is a WWE faction. Therefore, The Elite should not be listed in the infobox. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Evolution rename

This one, I asked McPhail. iI want to open a rename request for Evolution (AJPW). The AJPW disambiguation doesn't work, since no wrestling readers don't known the topic of the article. Also, the disambiguation doesn't explain what it is (a title, a wrestler, an event??). So, I want to change the name, but there is also Evolution (professional wrestling), which is the primary topic. So, do you have any sugestion for the Japanese article? My ideas: Evolution (AJPW stable) or (Japanese stable) or (Japanese professional wrestling stable) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

(Japanese professional wrestling stable) is probably the most consistent with Wikipedia guidelines -- passing editors won't know what a "stable" means in that context, so the additional descriptor is probably required (though it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue). — Czello 17:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move for discussion

"Jon Hugger" to "Johnny Stamboli". McPhail (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Cagematch for titles

I know I forget something. Cagematch is one of the most used sources in the project. However, the project says "Marginally reliable. Strictly used for match results and not other information". There is any reason why isn't reliable for title history? Match results are tied with the title history. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I use Wrestling Titles. Sure you can use Cagematch, but you should always cross reference. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree that if Cagematch is deemed reliable for match results it should also be an accepted source for title histories. Though as noted having two sources is ideal. McPhail (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I've always found cagematch to be a superior source to Wrestling Titles Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Cagematch allows people to submit things. That should be taken into consideration. But, Wrestling Titles has had contributions from people as well. Solie.org on the other hand can be spotty with some title histories. For example, Nikki Bella is a two time Diva's Champion, but Solie.org has one reign listed. You can use Solie.org. But again, cross reference. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 16:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

So, there is no opposition to change the RS list and include Cagematch for matches and title history? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The WP:PW Sources page says they do fact checking on user-submitted results (although I can't find this on the site itself). My question is who is doing this fact checking, and what makes them qualified to do so? What makes BarKing81, Franjise, RutlandInsurance, etc., experts in the subject matter? I don't see any assertion of specialized knowledge or experience in the "About Us" or "Cagematch Team" pages. Is the site listed as reliable because it meets the criteria of WP:RS or because it's convenient? GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@GaryColemanFan: It's like Online World of Wrestling. It's user submitted, but it's listed as unreliable unlike Cagematch which is listed under "industry specific." Even Internet Wrestling Database is listed as "limited reliability. In the note regarding Cagematch it says "Marginally reliable. Strictly used for match results and not other information. Takes user submissions but is reviewed by regional editors that verify all submissions before they are added to the database." As you mentioned, there is nothing stating their fact checking process. The about us is just the site history. I doubt there will be a site with title histories that will be 100 percent reliable or accurate. I would be all for making them limited reliability if nothing else. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 07:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks like they would fit in the "Unproven sources" category, as there doesn't seem to be any assertion or evidence of meeting WP:RS. It's true that there might not be an up-to-date site with comprehensive lineages for all titles--I don't think Solie's Title Histories, Wrestling Titles/Puroresu Dojo, or Cagematch would hold up to WP:RS scrutiny--but that would mean that we would need to gather our information from what does exist (the Duncan/Will book, match results and biographies from reliable sources, promotion websites) rather than going with the site that falls the least short of WP:RS. I would suggest that the WP:PW/RS page needs some WP:TNT and a fresh start altogether. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

There are too few WP:PW/RS, also i see nothing Cagematch has done to be considered unreliable. Its not overly used anywhere. It fits WP:reliability and WP:V guidlines. If things goes on at this rate, evrything will be considered unreliable and there will be no sourceleft to use and all wrestling articles might end up having blank pages. I don't see Cagematch causeing any big issues, it is no less teliable than Dave Meltzer's dirtsheet WON and his numerous faulty reports (like Punk coming back to WWE in 2014 which did not happen). Cagematch has never made any unproven faulty report like that. Lets just leave the articles that already uses it as a source alone and its OK if we don't use it in future but there is no need to remove any existing contents that uses it as a source, and as a matter of fact it has been used in very few places. Thats all I have to say on this matter. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Standards for reliable sources can't be lowered because of a low number of sources. They're either reliable, or they aren't. A site doesn't need to "do something" to be considered unreliable. They need to "do something" to be considered reliable (i.e. establish their qualifications and expertise in a specific field). In other words, every site would be considered unreliable unless it can be proven otherwise. There are many reliable sources, and slippery slope, "what about x?"-style arguments have no place on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Cagematch doesn't have to cause big issues to not be used. It just shouldn't be used unless it can be established that it meets WP:RS. Dave Meltzer is a recognized journalist, and a single error (or even series of errors) doesn't make a source unreliable. He is considered reliable because he has specific qualifications and expertise, which can be demonstrated in numerous ways (not the least of which are his recognition by the Cauliflower Alley Club and the George Tragos/Lou Thesz Hall of Fame, honors which I don't believe DanTalksRasslin, RKO1982, or The Sick Lebowski of Cagematch have yet attained). A source that doesn't meet WP:RS shouldn't be left in articles, even if it's only a small number of articles. The big question is that, if you claim that Cagematch meets WP:RS and WP:V, can you offer policy-based arguments to prove this? GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

While cagematch journalists don't have as much recognition as Dave Meltzer, that doesn't mean that tehy are not accurate and reliable. Byb this logic cbs sports, 411 mania, and all otehr accpted WP:PW/RS can be dismissed just because their writers do not have enough recognition according to WP:PW members. Anyway do whateve you want but I fail to see any reason that can cause Cagematch to be considered unreliable, they have not reported anything inaccurate and also have their own valid reputation among the wrestling world... Dilbaggg (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Just so people know what Dilbaggg deems to be a reliable source on information, have a guess what his source is for Dave Meltzer being wrong about Punk's return in 2014. When you're ready to find the answer, go here. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)