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 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 85. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Article Assessment

I want to request an article for assessment however when I check Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Assessment it tells be request below but I see nothing. Can someone show me where to ask for an assessment on an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamingWithStatoke (talk • contribs) 18:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

What article do you need assessed.--Dcheagle | ^{Join the Fight!} 21:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

GamingWithStatoke, If you want a GA review, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations. On a separate note, I need Extreme Rules (2012) assessed for GA. Could you help out, Dcheagle? Starship.paint (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Add NXT Championship to List of current champions in WWE?

I've noticed that the NXT Championship has the WWE logo on the belt design. Does this make the championship and it's current holder Seth Rollins apart of the List of current champions in WWE?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say no, unless it's actually been defended/featured in WWE proper. Even those replica belts they sell have a WWE logo on them. It doesn't make Living Room Champion Little Billy Johnson a legit WWE champ. Sorry, Billy (and Seth). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It is an official WWE title belt, I don't see why it shouldn't be listed as a WWE championship? KANE 22:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Rumors of a WWE-AJPW alliance

PWInsider.com has reported that WWE and APJW will be entering some sort of a talent exchange/alliance with each other. I've posted the link to both pages, but should I continue adding more info when or if WWE and AJPW acknowledges the rumor?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd remove the whole thing until either WWE or AJPW confirm it as more than just a rumor. At this point AJPW's website has nothing on it and neither does Tokyo Sports (the original source) or any other major Japanese pro wrestling site.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• • Well according to this http://superluchas.net/2012/09/22/wwe-y-ajpw-habrian-firmado-una-alianza-centro-de-desarrollo-o-intercambio-de-talento-the-big-show-podria-ir-a-japon/ (Google translate is your friend) the Japanese newspaper "Tokyo Sports" confirms the agreement between the two promotions.  MPJ -US  08:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

List of WWE pay-per-view events

Hello, could I please request that the article List of WWE pay-per-view events by protected as it has been vandalised a lot recently. I have posted on the articles talk page too but I though if I post here it will get noticed quicker, thanks, KANE 22:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Championship list images

Hello, a bit of a dispute has arisen regarding the lead images on championship pages, and I'd appreciate it if others could chip in opinions. Essentially, the dispute goes like this: For a while, championship lists used an image of a champion with the belt, even if that person was not the current champion. It simply used the best image we had. (example) In recent times, users have started switching the lead image to one of the current champion, with or without the belt. (example)

I disagree with this, because I think it's more important to show what the belt looks like (after all, it is a list of CHAMPIONS) as opposed to going for recentism. I noticed this yesterday and made some changes. The US champion list used an image of Claudio Castagnoli long before he became Antonio Cesaro. The List of WWE Champions used double stacked images, which collided with the table below. I switched the images, and didn't expect a problem. But there was one.

Now a user has come up with a one-person "compromise", decreeing that from now on champions lists should use an image of the belt, with an image of the champion further below. (example) I disagree with this because 1) The page is about the champions, not the belt itelf. and 2) The images further below collide with the tables on smaller browsers.

So could some others please chip in on this. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed 100% on all accounts. The picture of the lone belt is unnecessary on a list of champions, it fits just fine on the main page of the title itself.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with this, only use the championship belt image when there's no one holding the belt at the time. Vacancies only.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What about the original issue. Should the page use an image of the current champion, even if they aren't depicted holding the belt, or an image of any former champion with the belt? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I say use the image of the first champion who won it, and maybe use a image of a champion when a title belt changes looks.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I say use the best pic of a champion wearing/holding the belt.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that automatically including a picture of the most recent title holder is giving too much weight to recent events. There are a few options as I see it - having a high quality picture that clearly shows the title belt; having a collage showing several different pictures of the title belt and title holders, or having a picture of a title holder who is strongly associated with the title (the last is a bit subjective, but there are a few instances where I think it would be appropriate, e.g. Davey Boy Smith for the WWF European Championship or Edge and Christian for the WWF World Tag Team Championship). McPhail (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I would say at the very least the last picture used for the US Championship article was not good because not only does it not show the belt the picture of Claudio Castagnoli was taken over 4 years before he even joined the WWE and his appearance has changed quite a bit since then.--70.49.73.84 (talk) 04:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Tag Team relevance

I know that, since articles like ShowMiz, Jerishow or The Unholly Alliance, we have created a lot of Tag team Articles. But I think that this has gone very very far and we need to decide again what makes a tag team relevant. For example, The Encore. One day and the stable has his own article, but I can't see why is relevant. One day only... Or Team Hell No. Yeah, Kane and Bryan have a feud, but they do nothing relevant as a Tag Team. I think that a Tag team regin is not relevant, in that case, we can create articles like Eddie Guerrero and Tajiri, Rey Mysterio and Rob Van Dam or Edge and Chris Benoit. Other examples, the Chickbusters. They only had weekly matches and we have the rule "no weekly event". Also, we have a lot of Tag teams that only focused in singles carers, not in Tag Team action, like TnT or Angelina Love and Winter. I think that we must discus it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have been rating unassessed articles and have seen a lot of these, and I agree. All examples mentioned should at most be sections in their individual articles. Kane & Bryan COULD with time get an article but the rest do not really have the team notability or accomplishments to warrant an article.  MPJ -US  10:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is too soon for Kane and Daniel Bryan. Since they are still an active team they could one day do enough to warrant a separate article but not at this point. I may be wrong but I believe a similar criteria was used for Jerishow and creating an article for them was held off until there was enough content.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I was thinking about this very subject since I've last been on here. Unfortunately, all I can do is rehash my previous comments - these articles seem to proliferate for the same reason that PPV articles proliferate - it's easy to take the contents of another article and just change a few words around. Tag teams which were talked about decades after their heyday, such as Larry Hennig and Harley Race or Black Gordman and Goliath? You might have to start from scratch.RadioKAOS (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I mean, The Chickbusters? I don't think they are relevant. They haven't important feuds, storylines nor PPV matches, only weekly matches. The other kind of Tag Team, TnT. TnT had one match, won the titles and lose them. No more, no storylines, no feuds, only a long tag team championship regin without defences. Also, Love and Winter, the most part of the article talks about how one of them fights for the KO Title, but no TAG TEAM action. It's a article about the storyline or feud, not about the Tag Team and we delete aricles like Austin-McMahon feud or Cena-Edge feud. Finally, Encore? One day? Do you remember A.P.P.L.E or The Dashing Ones (Rhodes/Mcintyre). C'mon, we must discuss about why a Tag Team is relevant and don't create the first alliance between two wrestlers. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the first criteria should be longevity. Roughly two years for an older team or six months for a newer one (to account for the storyline acceleration from all this extra airtime). Exceptions can be made for teams that had an exceptional prominence, like The Mega Powers, The Superpowers or The Power Trip. I'm still a fairly big wrestling geek and I've never heard of The Chickbusters or TnT. I sure remember Dave Wagner and Rick Renslow, but they aren't notable either. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC) Fun fact: Searching Wikipedia for "Rick Renslow" gets "Did you mean Ricky Winslow?" This redirects to Rickie Winslow. That's how non-notable Renslow is; Wikipedia suggests an article it doesn't even have instead. Kind of a sad fact, actually. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The only real determining factor is whether the team is discussed in some detail in reliable independent sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• exactly - and discussed AS A TEAM, not individual coverage.  MPJ -US  22:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • True but I would suggest that length and significant feuds do play role in the sense that the longer the team is active and the more significant the feuds they are in would make it more likely that the team will receive significant coverage. I also agree that any coverage needs to be about the team itself not the individual members. Finally, since no one else mentioned it specifically The Encore should not be an article for obvious reasons.--174.93.164.95 (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)