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!

British or English professional wrestler

Jamie Hayter identifies as a British professional wrestler on her Twitter account (bio). Her WP article says an English professional wrestler. So which term is accurate? British = English = interchangeable terms? Asking this because I saw Dynamite Kid articles says he was a British professional wrestler. But almost all other articles use "an English professional wrestler". --Mann Mann (talk) 07:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Refer to Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom.

Basically, it seems that view of Wikipedia as expressed above is that is that the terms are interchangeable, and one is not superior to the other. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

However, I think the preference of the subject of the article can/may also be taken into account. For example, the article of comedian Frankie Boyle reflects his preference to be known as Scottish rather than British. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

A subject's preference is a factor per MOS:IDENTITY. I find it common to include the description that most reliable sources use. A lot of times, the common description is compatible with the preference. From my observation, in cases where the two aren't compatible, a discussion is had, and in cases where there's not a clear common description, the preferred is used. KyleJoan^talk 01:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@CeltBrowne and KyleJoan: So is it OK to change English to British ( for Jamie Hayter)? BBC also uses British: "When Paige Wooding, better known by her ring name Jamie Hayter, became the first British woman to be crowned All Elite Wrestling (AEW) women's champion..."[1] --Mann Mann (talk) 05:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Since the BBC, The Independent (a reliable source for news),[2] and Fightful[3] say "British", it's fair and appropriate to use that term. Inside the Ropes,[4] which looks unproven at worst, also says "British". KyleJoan^talk 08:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:TWITTER supports the change from English to British, as it is not an extraordinary or self-serving claim. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Well we don't call Drew McIntyre British despite Scotland being a part of Britain, so why should English wrestlers like3 Wade Barret be called British? Both England and Scotland are part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Dilbaggg (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

So generally the default for bios is British, unless there is a reason not to. If you aren't a Brit, it might be difficult to realise that some people are nationalist towards their region (it's a very common thing in Scotland). If she comments she is English, she's English.

{{U|Dilbaggg}} - sure, but England is also part of the British Isles and the Commonwealth. That doesn't mean we use those terms. We also use sovereign states for a lot of sportspeople where they represent those specific countries, which is a little abstract in this sense, but no reason not to go with what they say about themselves. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: So British is preferred to English as a means of self-identification. Right? Asking because of edits like this. --Mann Mann (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Not particularly "preferred", rather that we would use British ahead of another term unless there is a reason to use the other term. In sportspeople, for example, they represent specific countries - see Judd Trump as an English snooker player, whereas Olympic Athletes would be representing Britain. If a majority of sources talk about the subject as being English, we should follow suit. FWIW from what I know from when I worked with her she'd probably not care either way. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Smack Down's Womens Championship is a World Championship, Raw Women's Championship is not

I think is pure WP:OR to call the Raw Women's Championship now called WWE Women's Championship a world championship when WWE or no WP:RS like say PWI and WON or anything says its a world champion, some editors can't simply call it a world championship based on personal views, it is NXT Women's Championship level, possibly a women's Intercontinental Championship. Unless WWE or any established mainstream WP:RS says its a world championship we should refrain from calling it a world title. The SmackDown Women's Championship now known as the Women's World Championship (WWE) is recognized and named a Women's WORLD Championship and it is the sole WOMEN's world championship in the WWE as per WWE themselves and all WP:RS that i am aware of and starting with Becky Lynch as the first Champion at Backlash (2016). So please stop from calling the Raw Women's title a world championship based on personal views, as per WP:RS only the SmackDown Women's title is a world championship. Anyway this is just my take on this, hope a consensus can decide and I will respect all your decisions but I just ask for a proper consensus and not to refer to the Raw title as a world title without official sources. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really sure there is a distinction to be had here. There's no hard and fast rules around what a world championship is, and any promotion can name their belt the world championship. Whilst we should look to third parties to suggest something is a "world championship", I'm not sure that term is a good one to explain what the belt is for, regardless. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I would say if "world" is in the name it's a world title, regardless of whether it is defended internationally etc. Agree if "world" is *not* in the title then a source would be needed. McPhail (talk) 08:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Is that feasible though? My local indy fed has a world heavyweight championship and it's defended bimonthly in a social club. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

It's really a difficult one. What the company calls it should, in theory, be irrelevant as that's a WP:PRIMARY source. Lee's local fed is a perfect example. There have been examples in the past of titles called "world" but the wider community haven't seen it as such (WWE's incarnation of the ECW title, for example). Similarly, there are titles that are considered "world" championships that don't have the word in it at all (AAA Mega, for example).

At the same time, a brief google search shows it's difficult to source in the first place. I couldn't see any sources that call the Raw Women's championship a world title - but similarly I couldn't see any that describe the Women's World Championship as one (despite its name - again, WP:PRIMARY). Realistically I'm sure WWE did intend for both to be world titles, but sourcing it is a challenge. — Czello ^(music) 10:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I would say if "world" is in the name it's a world title

That's really not a good metric; for example in Extreme Championship Wrestling, they went through period of calling ALL their titles "World titles; the ECW "World" Television Championship and the ECW "World" Tag-team Championship(s). However, in "practical terms", these were not "world" titles and the likes of Bubba-Ray Dudley did not become a "world champion" by becoming an ECW "World" tag-team champion.

Per what Czello said, in this instance we would need to avoid primary sources and refer instead to reliable secondary sources where possible, such as WON or PWI.

Generally, I would say a "World" title is a wrestling promotion's highest tier title, and traditionally in western "mixed" promotions, only the top men's title is acknowledged as a "world" title. Of course women's exclusive promotions refer to their top tier title as "world" titles and other promotions are happy to acknowledge this. In recent decades, some "mixed" promotions are happy to say they have a "world" title for both men and women, but typical there is one top tier title for the men and one top tier title for the women.

I don't want to get into specifics with WWE because they have so many championships at this point, even previously venerated terms like "world" have become blurred there. CeltBrowne (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@CeltBrowne While "world championship" is often considered to only mean the top men's title, each division does in fact have their own world championship, which simply means it's the top title for that division. Now men's is usually "world heavyweight championship" but that's often truncated to just "world championship" (which is AEW's case because they don't have weight divisions), but the other divisions will say it's the "world tag team championship" or the "women's world championship". You may not always see the word "world" attached to a title's name but they are world championships for that division and this women's championship case here is a prime example. Every active major promotion that I can think of off the top of my head has a world championship for their men's, women's, and tag team divisions. Now granted, I do think it's silly that indie promotions call their titles world championships, but it is what it is, especially without some kind of governing body like back in the territory days with the NWA, but I digress.

In regards to WWE, since they do the brand split for the main roster, each brand has a men's world championship, a women's world championship, a world tag team championship, and a secondary men's championship, and then there's one women's tag team championship shared between them (since each brand doesn't have enough women's tag teams to have their own set). JDC808 ♫ 00:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think "world" is always synonymous with "top title in division", it's normally a category in its own. Divisions can have top titles without them being considered "world". As CeltBrown says, Bubba-Ray didn't become a world champion by holding tag titles. Similarly we don't consider the top titles in cruiserweight or hardcore divisions to be world, either. NXT could be considered its own division but its title isn't considered a world title. — Czello ^(music) 07:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dilbaggg WWE have literally called both titles world championships multiple times. Just look at the Royal Rumble for example, the winner earns a world championship match and they say this every year. Additionally, why would one of their top two main roster women's championships not be considered a women's world championship? Charlotte Flair is also touted as being a 14-time women's world champion. They can't say that if the WWE Women's Championship (formerly Raw Women's Championship) was not a world championship. And speaking of primary and secondary sources, a secondary source can't go and dictate what is and is not a title's designation for a promotion. The promotion dictates that so this is a case where we use the primary as the definitive source and the secondary simply backs it up.

Also, calling it a world championship is not based on personal views, it's based on WWE's recognition, which secondary sources have backed up. However, to say it's not a world championship is your personal view simply because the word "world" is not part of its name, and therefore you think it's not a world championship. That would be like saying the WWE Championship is not a world championship because it doesn't have "world" in the title's name. JDC808 ♫ 23:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, here is a secondary source that does in fact call the Raw Women's Championship (now WWE Women's Championship) a "world championship". JDC808 ♫ 23:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, that settles that. — Czello ^(music) 07:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Why do we even make this distinction? As said above, there is no governing body to award a championship as a "world championship". Surely we are better off just listing what people have won Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski if the promotions make the distinction, why would we not also make the distinction? JDC808 ♫ 00:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Because there is no official distinction between titles. This is where a lot of our issues come about from organisations making designations for things that either contradict other sourcing (such as title reigns) or are the sole source of information.

Even third party sources just echo what promotions say in the most part. We don't make the same distinction for midcard belts, it's just ones that are "world championships", but in every other sport out there, there is a governing body that awards that status out to events (or at least backs up the info). There's also an argument that if there is more than one world championship for a single division, it's not a world championship at all. I get that this is also a thing in boxing and MMA, but you don't see this in more traditional sports - there's no J-League soccer world championship for example.

Whilst it may be worth on an article about a championship to say whether third parties consider something a world championship, the rabbit hole our articles fall down is listing a person as a "7-time world champion", which outside of where this specifically interacts with their character (see Flair, Cena and Charlotte) it's not all that helpful to the reader at all. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski What do you mean by there is no distinction between titles? We do make distinction for mid-card belts. We typically call them "secondary titles", but if that doesn't quite fit the bill, then either tertiary or even specialty championships (it really just depends on what the gimmick is for the others). We also have to remember that professional wrestling is scripted, so whether or not a title is considered a world championship, it's all fictional anyways, which is why third party sources in this case shouldn't exactly be the gospel when it comes to saying whether or not a title is considered a world championship, although that could be mentioned in Reception if there is a third party that has a differing opinion on a title's designation (e.g., WWE's new World Heavyweight Championship). JDC808 ♫ 10:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Huh? Why on earth are we making that distinction on Wikipedia? This seems very Wikipedia:INUNIVERSE. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@JDC808 the secondary source you used to desribe the Raw women's championship as a world title is before the 2023 remaining, after the 2023 remaining there are many secondary sources that calls the SmackDown's woman's championship a world championship but non cites the Raw women's championship as a world championship. PWI stopped recognizing the TNA world title as a world title from 2015-2022 when it was again recognized as a world title, so as of 2023 the Raw women's championship is not a world title until further notice, please use Wp:PW/RS to claim it is. But there aren't any. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dilbaggg It's literally the same title. There was no demotion of its status, it was just renamed to get rid of the brand name, which was the same reason the SmackDown title was renamed, and of course you're going to see secondary sources say "world" for it because that's now in its name and they need to say that so we know which title they're talking about, but conversely, it wasn't promoted to a world championship, it was always a world championship too. As for the WWE Women's Championship, they even stupidly put the word "undisputed" on the physical belt so that it's on an equal level as Roman's title (which is a world title, actually two, they just present it as one currently).

A third party source was provided but you're still denying it simply because it was renamed and doesn't have the word "world" in its name. You have to get over the fact that some world titles don't always have the word "world" in their name. Again, the WWE Championship does not have the word "world" in its name but it's a world title (or was it demoted too because it was renamed?). Same thing for the Universal Championship (which has never had the word "world" in its name). But since you're so adamant that the WWE Women's Championship is not a world championship (or not anymore), you need to provide an RS that proves that. JDC808 ♫ 10:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

And in regards to PWI and it not recognizing the TNA title during those years, that doesn't really matter. That was just their opinion. They have no actual say on if a title is or isn't a world title. JDC808 ♫ 10:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Article move discussion at Talk:Jungle Boy (wrestler)#Rename article

Seen that someone started discussion, five days ago, on moving Jungle Boy to Jack Perry. I'm the only to have responded. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 08:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

IP 179.6.14.219 Help

This isn't AIV but no one has warned this person and various Wikipedia:PW articles replacing sourced contents (and even erasing sources) with his own personal narratives. I am gonna take a hike from Wikipedia and won't be around to see all this. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/179.6.14.219&target=179.6.14.219&offset=&limit=500] @Czello already dealt with a few of his edits but he has messed up a lot more articles since July 23, 2023 and all are exclusively wrestling articles. Please see to it. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

This could also potentially be dealt with by leaving a message on the user's talk page. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

GaryColemanFan i am more consenered by the unsourced mess being left behind, who will clean all that up? Dilbaggg (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

you . --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Stable timelines

Timelines are often being included for stables and there have been some inconsistencies. In a few timelines, there are inclusions of title reigns (ex: The Judgment Day). There are also a variety of colors used in different articles (ex: The Judgment Day, The Bloodline, and Chaos all use different colors for roles in their timelines). I feel like there needs to be some consistency for every timeline. Was there ever a consensus on how they should be used and what should/shouldn’t be included? Sekyaw (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of them because we can very rarely cite when someone actually is in a stable. It can be difficult to even get a start and end date of when the whole thing exists let alone individual members. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: I personally don’t mind them and I think they could be helpful for stables that have several lineup changes. Otherwise, I don’t think they’re necessary. I especially just feel like there should be a consistent way of how they’re used. Some timelines include title reigns; the problem about that is that if we include them in some, we should include them for all timelines and I feel like that’s just excessive for some groups. Sekyaw (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

We can't just have a table without it being cited to something. We have specific times that a performer works for an organisation (although even this can be gray), but an example would be CM Punk - when did he leave the Nexus? He's credited at still being so months after having been with the group at Money in the Bank. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

sorry for the delay. summer time. several years ago, an admin deleted some time tables, i dont remember the reason, maybe something with accesibility. I think are fine for large groups like Bullet Club. for small, linear stables like JAS, Inner Circle or Bloodline, not that much. I would include only members and leader, no tag team or title reigns.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: I agree. In a similar case with musical groups, timelines are mainly used for larger groups with several lineup changes and only include official members; I think it should be the same for wrestling stables. The inclusion of title reigns can complicate and crowd timelines too. Maybe a consensus should be reached about this and added to the style guide. Sekyaw (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

i would include table members if there are too many for the infobox, maybe more than 6 (no need for Damage Control, for example). Timelines, I dont know... bloodline or judgment day, hurt business are very simple. I would delete the colours, except leader, as I said.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Where colour is concerned I think we should go with whatever is currently the most common across all articles. The Judgement Day one will have to change - clearly whoever put it in tried to theme it to the group's colour scheme, but that's not how Wikipedia operates and it might affect readers who are colour blind.

I'm against including title reigns in them. Leader should also be a thin bar going through the middle (rather than the whole bar being a different colour) to make it consistent with factions whose leader might change often (e.g. Bullet Club). — Czello ^(music) 16:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm 100% against that kind of timelines; e.g. random colors, colors based on stable members' gears or some user's taste, title reigns, and other unnecessary/excessive stuff. A timeline should be something meaningful and informative like the one used on Demolition article. And why The Judgment Day does not have the years? Or why some stables like Damage CTRL and The Undisputed Era do not have that section at all? We need to reach a consensus for a standard. --Mann Mann (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue Damage CTRL and the Undisputed Era don't need them as there's nothing really to display. They never had any changes in membership (UE just had the late addition of Strong). It's the same reason a band like Rammstein doesn't do timelines, compared to say Metallica. — Czello ^(music) 08:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with points made by HHH Pedrigree, Czello, Mann Mann. Here’s my proposal for timelines:

• Only used for factions that have had 3 or more lineup variations.
• Omit title reigns from timelines. Only lines included should be for Members and a thin additional line for Leaders and Managers. Not sure about “Associates”.
• Colors need consistency. I don’t even know what the most common colors are in articles right now because it’s all inconsistent. I suggest black for members, yellow for leaders, and blue for managers (all to avoid problems for colorblindness)

Would love to hear any more suggestions to reach a consensus about these timelines. Sekyaw (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Why do we prioritise WWE's claimed attendance numbers rather than what independent sources say?

Something that's been on my mind for a year or so now. WWE notoriously inflate their attendance figures "for entertainment purposes" (sometimes beyond the actual seating capacity), even by their own admission. Most fans know this, and while we do report this in PPV articles, the infobox still displays the kayfabe figure (albeit, often with a "disputed" tag). For examples of this, take WrestleMania 39, WrestleMania 38, WrestleMania III, and several others.

Given that these are effectively figures done for marketing and do not reflect reality, it seems to be a big violation of WP:NPOV and WP:INDY, not to mention WP:PROMO and WP:INUNIVERSE. What's the justification for this?

My proposal:

• Where an independent source that this WikiProject has deemed is reliable disputes WWE's figure and states a legitimate number in return, the infobox should display the real number
• WWE's claimed figure still remains in the article, but only in the "Reception" section (could also be in the lead).
• Where there is no independent source that disputes WWE's figure, we include the announced attendance number as normal.

How does this sound to everyone? — Czello ^(music) 16:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I've said "WWE", as they're the most notorious at this, but I mean it to apply to any and every promotion. — Czello ^(music) 16:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:LAME#WrestleMania III and WP:LAME#WrestleMania 23 tells me that this has been disputed for a long time on Wikipedia. The timing of this discussion seems curious to me, seeing as how AEW partisans have flooded social media with claims of the Wembley Stadium show selling more tickets than various major WWE events.

BTW, the length of this subject header may be an issue for people using less capable or powerful devices. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Not surprised this made WP:LAME, but I don't think we should avoid the debate because of it. I have no ulterior motive with this suggestion - I actually attempted to change WrestleMania 28 to prioritise the actual numbers a year ago but was reverted. I've been dissatisfied with the status quo since, which is why I'm raising it. — Czello ^(music) 18:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

agree with Czello. independent source has priority over public relations. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Why do we even make such a large weight on attendance if it's in dispute? On really large shows where someone makes a claim that it's the largest attendance at a venue/situation, we can write in prose what the stated amounts are per different sources. I don't think it's a suitable infobox item or just to mention on every show (unless it's commented on as being large/small by sources) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I am in favor of this proposal and specifically keeping the marketed number for any event in the Reception rather than in the lead. As @Czellohas stated, this would apply to all promotions, not just WWE.

I'm of the mind that it's in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia that we only included reliable numbers rather than marketed numbers (to me, focusing on marketed numbers is the equivalent of treating a worked storyline as a shoot). However, since the marketed numbers are commonly cited, I'm ok with a compromise were they are still acknowledged somewhere in the article. Drickfire (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Piniging a few other users to try to keep this discussion going: Mann Mann Drickfire JDC808 Sekyaw WaimiriMaina Addicted4517 — Czello ^(music) 08:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Czello I've admittedly always gone with the status quo on this, probably just due to the fact that we do acknowledge that there typically is a dispute and make note of what that dispute is. I agree with your proposal though and I think that would probably work better. JDC808 ♫ 08:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Czello: I also agree with your proposal: Prioritize the number from the independent source and include WWE’s number in the Reception section. Sekyaw (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I hold two views. The more relevant one is that the official attendance should be there somewhere because it is reported in independent secondary reliable sources that don't question it in normal circumstances. The ones that do question it need to be regarded consistent with our reliable source list. If it came from an unreliable source - it doesn't get added.

My second view can be disregarded because it's OR but I strongly feel that Dave Meltzer (as an individual and not as part of Wrestling Observer) should be regarded as unreliable on this subject simply because he got the attendance at the MCG for Super Showdown in 2018 totally wrong. I know this (OR remember) because I was there, I know the MCG like the back of my hand and there was definitely 70,000 in attendance. It just does my heart god to say that - nothing more. As I said it's OR. Take my first view officially. 08:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

On the first point: we'd always retain WWE's numbers, I'm just proposing it'd be in the body of the article but not the infobox (only if it's disputed. If it's not disputed it stays in the infobox as normal). On the second point - I think the reliability of the independent sources can come afterward. If we decide not to go with Meltzer, then fine - there're usually others who report more accurate figures. — Czello ^(music) 08:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Czello that WWE's (and any other organization's) gimmicked number should be in the body not the infobox. Wikipedia is a bastion of truth not the pavilion of Kayfabe.

I think we should go with Meltzer for historical events. He's been able to get actual numbers from local promoters, the police and WWE investor relations. For more recent events WrestleTix has proved to be a very reliable source. WaimiriMaina (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Worth noting that we don't actually require "truth" - see WP:TRUTH, rather verifiability. In this case, we are simply looking for the third party source, rather than the primary one. It doesn't make the WWE's number "wrong" per se, but it makes it a less reliable figure in Wikipedia's stakes. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm now seeing six people in favour including myself and no real opposition. I'm going to consider this consensus and will make the changes shortly. — Czello ^(music) 08:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

What are you doing? We already talked about this,this is a mess and we already agreed that attendance inside the pages will be reported and put disputed note after it with the source,it has been like that for years and nobody gave permission to do this Bigboss9893 (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

and yes,you have real opposition to this including me and Mr Fiji and all wwe users,your timing doing all of this is so suspicious,and we are gonna say it 100 times,those twitter accounts like wrestletix are using the paid tickets not including the comp tickets and suite boxes,even the sources admitted to that on Twitter Bigboss9893 (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Soapboxing about an unrelated article

I agree with Lee Vilenski and i ‘m glad that’s your stance about this subject because people have ruined this page the last couple of days https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_wrestling_attendance_records those journalists that are used as sources are well known people who have agenda towards a specific company,have changed their mind over the years about the numbers so it is a waste of time and should be taken with a grain of salt,those exact disputed numbers aren’t even exactly true because it came from an assumptions and they don’t even have access to suite boxes attendance numbers in the stadium and it can’t be known by guys like meltzer or people who are following ticket maps and they even admitted that literally the dispute about attendance for wrestlemania 3 in 1987 is that reporter saying ‘someone who used to work for wwe told me that’ and he is the same guy who changed his mind about Wrestlemania 32 attedance 10 times over the years,that’s why those sources and so claimed journalists claims shouldn’t take priorty over the attendance number who is reported on every single mainstream website i want you to take a look about what happened in this page about wrestling attendance records,so many edits over the last week,they even ended up creating 2 columns of different figures,i hope you can revert/undo it back to what it was they basically ruined it and put 2 attendance columns,they ruined a page that had been normal for years just now for a weird reason and i hope you can reverse those edits and make it what it was last week because those attendance figures are different than every page on wikipedia about those wrestling events it has been ruined by czello and other users who have agenda here is the link: List of professional wrestling attendance records Bigboss9893 (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC) those journalists that are used as sources are well known people who have agenda towards a specific company This is a bad-faith, almost conspiratorial argument. This Wikiproject has determined the people in question are reliable sources. Meltzer is one of the most widely regarded critics in the industry; if you wish to change that you should take it up at WP:PW/RS. it has been ruined by czello and other users who have agenda You've been warned about personal attacks and not assuming good faith before. Please stop making insinuations like this. — Czello (music) 11:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC) (edit )I dont see the article ruined, but improved. Also, no agenda or bias on the editions. per Wikipedia:Independent sources, we use independent, third party sources to avoid self-promotion. "Reliance on independent sources ensures that an article can be written from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the subject's own viewpoint or from the viewpoint of people with an ax to grind." for example, if Netflix releases a movie and says "the movie is themost watched movie, 4 million view" and an independent, reliable source states "the movie had onyl 2.000 views", we give priority to independent source rather than a company with his own interest to promote their content.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC) I want Lee Vilenski to take a look at it and decides how it looks now,it looks like an absoulte mess and the rankings doesn’t make sense since you have 2 columns,a proof that the 2 columns is a bad idea because those aren’t numbers,it’s ranked and you need rankings and the numbers are completely different both way,the rankings doesn’t make any sense i want MR Vilenski just look at how the page looked last week and see all the edits that happened from non wikipedia users,the timing is suspicious for this to happen now it is different than evey single page about those events attendance numbers and Czello,it is a fact,meltzer claimed WM 32 did 97K then 94K then 84K then 80K then 79K and all of those happened years after the event ended and the known attendance is reported on every single mainstream website you can think of,imagine people going to wikipedia and seeing numbers different than every single website on the internet just trying to be ‘cool or ‘smart’ and like i said many times,this happens in every single sport,concert or any live events but they don’t have weird fans like wrestling reporter who changed his mind many times over the years Bigboss9893 (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC) Take this back to the talk page of the actual article, as it's not the subject of this discussion. — Czello (music) 12:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC) Bigboss9893 Your comments haven't been removed, they've been collapsed to keep the discussion about a different article separate to the PPV discussion. Please don't undo this. If you want to discuss that article either do it within this collapse section or do it on that article's talk page. — Czello (music) 12:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC) Indeed, I was not referring to that article, but rather that attendances should be kept to a minimum outside where it is relevant. For what it's worth, the article about attendances should absolutely mention all cited mentions for the total attendance. I echo for the warning about personal attacks. Please don't do it. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC) You see how it is done here? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-attended_concerts that’s a great page on wikipedia that has been viewed and used more as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigboss9893 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC) You're aware these are records that aren't in dispute? WWE actively lies about their attendance records, which is the issue. — Czello (music) 09:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC) Imagine thinking all of the attendance numbers reported everywhere in all sports,concerts,other wrestling promotions are all real but it is only wwe Imagine thinking WWE invented that, WWE learn their stuff from other sports,attendance is a unique thing because it could mean everyone inside that building which includes comps tickets,employees,ushers,performers, families,production crew and most importantly suite boxes,ATT stadium suite boxes could have 14K people in the suites The reporter brandon thurston who spread that WM 32 number admitted that he asked the dallas secrutiy police officer for it and he asked him months later if it included suites and he told him he doesn’t know,that’s the guy that you are using as a ‘source’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigboss9893 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC) Just to summarize. WWE/any wrestling promotion has their own interest and aren’t independent. Reliable independent sources takes priority. if you doesnt undestand this, its not ojr fault. if you think an article with fictional numbers is a good article, read again the policies. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

References

ESPN The Best Pro Wrestlers Under 30

Is this ESPN list notable to be added to the Championships and accomplishments of those wrestlers? --Mann Mann (talk) 04:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see being in the top 30 as enough of an accomplishment to mention. For example, I doubt many would care thwt Tyler Bate was 28th out of 30.--65.93.193.235 (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Some IP user request to add it. --Mann Mann (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mann Mann I don't see why not since we add the PWI list of best wrestlers each year. At the very least, a mention somewhere in the article. JDC808 ♫ 08:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling Stories

Just looking for a consensus on prowresltingstories.com [5], and whether it should be used as a source on Wikipedia. It isn't listed on the recognised content page as either reliable or not. Seems to be a lot of retelling of established stories, without a lot of attribution. Daff22 (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The "Meet the Team" page author biographies are all over the place. Some show a good connection with the industry, and I would trust them as reliable sources--Evan Ginzburg, Ethan Absler, Lanny Poffo, Dr. Mike Lano, for example. Many of the others don't have much more to say than that they're wrestling fans. Kind of hit or miss. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)