Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

WikiProject Professional Wrestling
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!

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 94. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Professional wrestling decisions

Hey there needs some more eyes on Professional wrestling. Some users are adding "technical knockout" and "technical submission" when there is no such decision that has ever been recorded. It's either knockout or submission (or ref stoppage). One user that I've warned claimed in edit summary that the whole thing is unsourced, leading to him thinking he can just add anything he wants. So what do we do? Maybe we need to source the proven decisions but honestly isn't that a waste of time? 101.182.142.136 (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• maybe some examples of what you are talking about would help? Who?? What articles.  MPJ-US  20:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• Have a look at the history of the page and your questions will find their answers (101.182.142.136 with a re-booted modem) 101.189.22.150 (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• @101.189.22.150: you don't seem to understand how this works. You make a request and you provide evidence, not "you can go see for yourself". CrashUnderride 01:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• What? What do I look like, a lecturer at Clown University? Come on, I refuse to treat people like idiots, which is what you are asking me to do. There's a history link on Professional wrestling. Everything I said is there on one page. 101.189.22.150 (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Well have fun with that Professor Doink. MPJ-US  04:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Okay obviously I'm wasting my time with this project. 101.189.22.150 (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Guys, what the f? The anon is trying to stop vandalism, why are you giving him such a hard time? He formatted his request exactly the same way many of us have done such over the years. What, just because he's an IP he's the one who needs to be scrutinized and treated like shit? Seriously? A 5 second glance at the recent edit history of professional wrestling (the article which the IP specifically asked about and linked) shows that a single user keeps trying to reinsert original research using justifications about the section being unsourced (and so claiming that that user, who is not an anon, can add what ever he wants) despite being reverted multiple times by multiple users. It's obvious who is in the wrong here, so why does the guy who is actually doing the right thing here get crapped on? oknazevad (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not giving them a hard time. They're being lazy. It's called evidence. Provide some. I'll make it easy for them. Add a link to the difference page of the article showing the change(s) you are referring too. It takes less than a minute. You can do it easily. Try doing that and being more civil. "Professor Doink" lol. CrashUnderride 12:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It's about the pattern of behavior, which is the entire recent edit history. Do you want a dozen or so recent diffs to cutter up the page, or are you going to not be so lazy and just click the bloody link? oknazevad (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Good job, you abrasive attitude just made me not give a damn about his complaint now. CrashUnderride 13:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yawn... --w^{L<speak·check>} 17:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to see how the SPI regarding Mega Z090 and the 101 IP turns out (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mega Z090) before I lose much sleep over this. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

New AfD

I have nominated The League of Nations (professional wrestling) for AfD. The discussion can be found here. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 20:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Announcerless Game

Discovered this through the DYK section of the main page. Left a note on the talk page about Lawler's heart attack and how that episode of Raw continued without any commentary during the matches. Someone responded on a positive note about mentioning it in that article. While I've read any number of things about that episode, I'm clueless about what might constitute the best sources for such a thing in a non-wrestling article. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Problem is, commentary did continue on that episode. Michael Cole continued to broadcast uninterrupted during the match where Lawler had his heart attack, and continued after the commercial. In fact, it was his cool-under-fire reaction that is often mentioned as the hallmark of his professionalism, burnishing his reputation for the better, and the point where they dropped the annoying heel turn he had been stuck with. In short, I'm sorry to say, you're wrong about it being an announcerless episode. oknazevad (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I never watched the entire episode. What portions I did watch had no commentary during the actual matches, only Cole explaining before or after the commercial breaks about what had occurred and that there would be no commentary during the program's remaining matches out of respect to Lawler, which was consistent with what I read. I have a copy of the Lawler DVD which goes over that night's events in some detail, but I don't remember if it contains anything which would confirm or deny that. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• @RadioKAOS and Oknazevad: - link to PWTorch report. Heart attack happened during match 6. Cole continued to call match 6, and then also called match 7. Cole was silent during match 8. The decision to acknowledge the heart attack and stop commentary was announced before match 9. starship.paint ~ KO 00:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of Jerry Lawler: right this minute, I'm listening to a radio broadcast of a prior edition of the "Yukon Jamboree", a Koyukon music festival held in Galena, Alaska (if you at all care, Athabaskan fiddle describes this subgenre). The first song I heard was "Bad News", written by J. D. Loudermilk and recorded by Johnny Cash, among others, including Jerry Lawler. The other day, for whatever reason, I was reminded of hearing Lawler do this song many decades ago. Then, lo and behold, there it is on the radio, albeit not Lawler's version. While Googling Lawler's music career just a minute ago, I see the following comment from a discogs.com user: "Truly the reason I collect records". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

combined reigns/combined names

Hi. A new nitpick question. In the combined reigns, If a wrestler won a title under two ringnames (for example, Rocky Maivia/The Rock or Keji Mutho/The Great Muta) we include both ringnames in the combined reigns section. However, in WWE Tag Team Championship and Intercontinental, an IP and Aleuuhhmsc delete ringnames only to one (Johhny Nitro/John Morrison to John Morrison). IC and WWE Tag Team are FL, so I saw other FL (IWGP Heavyweight, WCW World Tag Team, WWE Cruiserweight, IWGP Junir Heavyweight). All these FL include the combined reigns with the combined names. So... who's right? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• • More specific: [1](i used the wor d "consensus" bcause I found 5 FL with multiple names, so I think is the way to follow) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• If two or more ring names while holding a title, include them all! We can't say only the second or the first name won the title. starship.paint ~ KO 02:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • They are the exact same person! I pointed out in the list of reigns that someone was formerly known as their previous ring name (for example, John Morrison: formerly known as Johnny Nitro). Plus, the tables look so much neater if you just put the most recent name in there.Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    • yes. He is the same person working under two or more ringnames. I think each table should work by itself. combined reigns and combined names. For example, the ovw tag team title. Why should I search in table 1 to understand table 2 and find mr black also wrestled as cousin otter?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
      • because they are on the same page...any reader that stumbles upon an article kinda needs to read the whole article to understand it. If this doesn't work, then something needs to be done to make the table look neater because with all the slashes and the fact that the table's width is doubled makes it look really bad. Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Include all ring names. All the notable information should be included.--WillC 04:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• this was the version of the IC title at FL promotion. The 'formerly known as' were in the Wrestler column, not the Notes column. starship.paint ~ KO 09:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • For the love of God, lets not use the WWE lists as placeholders for format. I could take any of the WWE lists to FL removal and they would fail, except the ECW possibly since I redid it a couple of years ago.--WillC 00:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

How about including their real name in small text and parenthesis below their ringname? Gimmicks change all the time and sometimes a wrestler may win a title under more than one name, or worse yet, two different wrestlers may win the same title under the same gimmick (especially in places where masked characters are common). El Alternativo (talk) 17:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup Bot Listing

I am not sure how many people know we have a pro wrestling project Clean up bot listing that shows which pro wrestling articles are tagged with what issues? Go to the page, sort alphabetically and you can see that we have a lot of articles listed (1591 or 23% of all artices) which includes 6 FAs, 8 FLs and 78 GA articles and a slwe of lower rated articles. I have been working on this list for a couple of weeks, bringing the percentage down sigificantly, but I am believe that those that promoted the articles to FA/FL/GA have a vested interest in fixing the article issues, after all if they remain they may affect their FA/FL/GA status. And hey if you feel like helping clean up articles within your area of interest that's even better. MPJ-US  07:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It's great to have a reminder from time to time. Unfortunately, some of the categories are very vague--I've looked through a few "Articles with reference errors", but I can't see what the errors would be. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Well i fixed those already. Usually that means that the same cite name was define twice, they stand out and can be fixed with no knowledge of the actual article. But yes some arr vague, i believe i have figured out what triggers each section so.if you have questions you can always just ask me.  MPJ-US  17:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

One more: Combined reigns

Hi. One more question. In the NXT Championship, we have a discussion about WHEN we include the table "combined reigns". @Wrestlinglover: and @Aleuuhhmsc: say we should include the table after the second champion overall. According to WillC, " The only discussion took place at FL, where all notable information is to be included. That includes all statistics regarding a championship" (when Will appears, he'll include more information about his POV). @Mega Z090: and I say we should include the table when the first two times champion is crowned, so we have reigns to combine. I say "Without a multi-times champion, the table doesn't include new information, only repeats the same information we have in the main table" because "Click in "days held " and all champions will be ordered". Also, is a practice people makes over the years (Divas title, NJPW IC Title, ROH TV Title and [[2]]) So... what do you think, wikiproject? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should have a combined reigns section without any multi-time champs. With a sortable title history, it's completely pointless. Also, it is called "combined" reigns. When there's only one-time champs, there's nothing to combine. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 20:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. There's nothing to combine. The table becomes pointless retread. oknazevad (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:TENFOOTPOLE. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

If there are no repeat champions then the sorting functionality covers it. Redundant if there are no combined reigns to calculate etc. MPJ-US  01:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Is the real point of the table multiple reigns or who has held the title the longest? It is the latter. The multiple reigns are not even the primary purpose. It is a minor thing covered. Total days is what is discussed and displayed. The other table does not focus on this. It focuses on the history of the title. This table tells exactly who has held the title the longest regardless of the number of reigns. That is notable information.--WillC 20:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

you totally lost me. Combined reign or who held it the longest?? That is like saying water or H2O

? If there are no multi champs then just sort by length. Would we really add a whole table to it a different default sort order?  MPJ-US  21:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

We are already doing that. We wouldn't even need the table if there were multiple champions. A reader could just add up the days themselves. If we are basing policy decisions on that, then what is the point of the table in the first place. The information is notable regardless. If there were two reigns, only one sector of the entire table would change.--WillC 23:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

As I said, if you click in Days held, you have all reigns ordered shortest-longest. It's the exact same information. I don't see the point, isn't new information, it's the same information. However, if somebody wins the title twice, we have new information. Also, "we're doing that", but Ribbon, MPJ-DK, Oknazevad, Mega and myself are against that practice. Combined reigns, but no reigns to combine, pointless. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

soooo.... let me get my tenfoot pole out, with the whiplash inducing 180 in the discussion i cannot take this discusion serious any more.  MPJ-US  00:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Why? The discussion includes a significat number of articles. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

UTC)

Because one argument went from "Always included" to "nah bro remove them completed, they can do their own math.", at this point my contributions would be to repeat the argument that they are needed when there is a multi champion.  MPJ-US  01:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Which means Will resorted to reductio ad absurdam, a logical fallacy. oknazevad (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

well, I came here with the discussion because in the nxt article we stop at the same point, so I looked for new opinions. If we have the same problem, maybe a votation will be another way. Will repeats his arguments and i repeat my arguments over and over. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup the cycle of repeated argument, I stated my position, the logic behind it and what my preference is. I have been caught repeating my argument over and over with Will until people turn a deaf ear to it and just ignore it. So perhaps we need some kind of poll to see where we stand 1) Always include the combined reign table 2) only include when there are repeat champions 3) never include them, not arguments pro, con, unincorn for the arguments but to see where people stand. MPJ-US  04:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

What I did was use your logic against you. I didn't take it to absurdity levels. The argument against the table is "You can use the sorting function to get the information." My argument is "You can look at the table and get multiple reigns from a champion and the amount of days the champion held the belt." The exact same argument. Use the previous table to get the information. My basis for keeping it as is, is because all information is included. Some users have no idea that the tables are sorted. Some aren't even sortable. Look at the WWE Title lists. They've included multiple rowspan columns which messes up all sorting. The argument that the previous table gives the information is incorrect because the tables do not operate accurately, effectively, and efficiently.--WillC 07:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

If the table isn't right, we should repair it. We can use "some tables aren't right" as a reason. And again, I'll repeat myself "combined reigns is to combine reigns, we haven't reigns to combine"... the point of the table isn't show reigns by lengt, instead combined days from different reigns. Somebody want's a poll? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

If the point of the table is multiple reigns then remove the last column of combined days. Because if the point is reigns, then days are not important. If the days are the important part, then the days are the purpose of the table. It is combined reigns, but what are we combining? The days as champion. What is the difference between 1 reign and 2? A day. Same reason to get rid of it, is to keep it. The previous table gives the information. Tables performing incorrectly is a huge issue. If we are getting rid of the table because the other gives the information and the other table is incorrect then what is the point of getting rid of the correct table? As far as voting. I remember consensus is based off discussion, not voting per policy. Though I'm rusty on whether voting is allowed anymore.--WillC 13:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, discussion. However, we stucked at this point two days ago. And I was in many project discussion where after two days arguing, people get tired and the discussion never closed. I think the main table is perfect, with individual days. For combined reigns, I can combine different reigns of the same wrestler, I can't combine John Cena and Randy Orton reigns, but I can combine Cena's 12 reigns. Here, what's the point of the second table? Pointless, it's the exact same information I have in the main table. Again, the purpose of the combined reigns table is to combine the days of each wrestler to get the combined days as champion. Without multi-times champion, I have nothing to combine. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The point, combined reigns. All wrestlers of the NXT title are one time champion. Can you explain to me what in the hell are you combining? Ribbon said better "hen there's only one-time champs, there's nothing to combine." Nothing. And many users agree, the table it's pointless without a multi-times champion. How many times I have to explain the puropose of the combined reigns table? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem you aren't seeing is the difference between one reign and two is 1 day. Under your logic, the table is not needed until multiple people have multiple reigns. Look at the ROH World Championship list. I got it passed by FLC when it didn't have multiple champions. Look at it now. Only 2 wrestlers have more than 1 reign. No major difference. You are acting as if the title once it gets a 2 time champion, the whole table changes. No, one sector changes. If the policy is once someone gets it twice a table is needed, then why not just put it in there now and get it over with?--WillC 14:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

-After the second reign overall.

-After the first two times champion --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

If anyone is questioning whether I regret invoking WP:TENFOOTPOLE, the answer is no. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Believe me @GaryColemanFan: I wish I could as well.--WillC 15:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

side note, a comment from Will made me curious, after checking out title articles outside.my focus area (Mexico) i see a ton of lists that are like several versions out of date, i did not realize that.  MPJ-US  16:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

That is the consistency now MPJ. Lists I did are out of date now. Not enough editors to keep them up to date anymore. It is really sad. The state of some articles. I honestly think the Mexican lists are probably the best ones on here now because of you.--WillC 05:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow even some in Category:WWE championships are old versions of the table. MPJ-US  03:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

WWE

Apparently, User:Mega Z090 doesn't realize that WWE's name is WWE and not World Wrestling Entertainment anymore. So they keep reverting edits on the List of professional wrestling promotions list so it reads incorrectly "World Wrestling Entertainment". While that is the company's legal business name they have been WWE in all other aspects since 2011, therefore we've been listing them as such. I'm in full support of a temporary ban or some form of sanction because this use refuses to stop. <sarcasm>They're always right, we're always wrong, etc.</sarcasm> CrashUnderride 00:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I've sent them a detailed message on why they're wrong and have also warned them for edit warring. If they do another revert it can get taken to WP:AN/EW.LM2000 (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm so sick and tired of this crap. They've started a section on the list's talk page. CrashUnderride 01:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Another userbox

Let me tell you something, Jimmy Valiant. This user is going to go through you just like Ex-Lax through a widow woman!

As I've been accused in this forum of "only caring about old school wrestling" or words to that effect, I came up with an old school wrestling userbox. At this point, it's not exactly finished. For one, I'm not sure where to insert the gratuitous link to Lawler's article. For another, the use of "Ex-Lax" could be construed as being an improper use of a trade name, even though that's Lawler's exact quote. For still another, this image would be a better one to use, but the file description page says that explicit attribution is required, and I can't see how that could be accommodated in a userbox. Nightscream, any thoughts on that? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The attribution in question refers to its use outside of Wikipedia. Let me know if you end up creating that Userbox, so I can bookmark it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 09:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Nightscream, thank you for the clarification. Two things made me decide to stick with this photo, though: 1) it renders better at this resolution, and 2) more importantly, it appears to have been taken in 2003, so depicting a younger Lawler helps better represent the "old school" context of the userbox. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Cool beans. Thanks for all your work. Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk page merge

Does anyone know how to move Talk:Stan Frazier to Talk:Uncle Elmer if there is already content on the target page? I'm assuming there's a way to merge them, but I don't know how. Is this an administrator job? GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've requested that be moved via Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.LM2000 (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It's been moved. Thank you. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Consensus vote

I've started a vote on the talk page of NXT Championship regarding the combined reigns table. This also has an effect on the NXT Women's Championship at least. Could everyone pop over and voice your thoughts, please? I'm done debating the issue, and I think a vote is the only way to settle it (maybe - we'll see). Mega Z090 (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Mega Z090: just saying Wikipedia:Consensus is not a vote. starship.paint ~ KO 12:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Be careful, remember how Mega is. It'll keep going and going and going and going, etc. CrashUnderride 20:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You can't tell Mega anything. He wants his way and is willing to whine all day and force his way despite not knowing what he wants to begin with. For the last few days I've been saying random stuff just to watch him throw a fit.--WillC 01:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)