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 88. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Unnecessary Redundancy revived

I'd like to revive thess two conversations from the archives. It's still so stupid and redundant that this is included in the background section. The nature of the event is already explain in the first sentence and the way pro wrestling works is pipe linked in the first sentence. There's no need for it. CRRaysHead90 | ^#OneMoreGame 14:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I definitely think it should be removed from PPVs that have already happened, but I have no opposition to them being in upcoming PPVs (particularly if we have like no other information at all – really, it can be used as filler if the article has only just been created). That said, I won't be opposed to it being removed from upcoming articles either. — Richard BB 15:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

We've also someone on the style talk page with the same annoyance. I still say it should go. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:10, December 18, 2013 (UTC)

Yep lets axe it out, at the least in PPVs that have already happened. STATic message me! 23:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Money in the Bank featured professional wrestling matches involving different wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feuds, plots, and storylines that played out on WWE's television programs. Wrestlers portrayed fan favourites or villains as they followed a series of events that built tension and culminated in a match or a series of matches.

Pardon me, but can someone be more specific on what exactly is proposed to be axed? The first sentence, the second sentence, or both sentences? Starship.paint (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Both. CRRaysHead90 | ^#OneMoreGame 15:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Remove it. It's annoying redundancy that treats our readers like idiots. If anyone is unclear about the nature of pro wrestling as scripted spectacle, that's included in the already-linked main article. We don't need to repeat it ad nauseum every pro wrestling related article. oknazevad (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It can't be removed. It is a compromise from previous consensus. It keeps the articles within the guidelines of wikipedia. Jargon, in-universe, and several others dictate these things. This disclaimer is to explain the nature of the event instead of explaining it in every single sentence. Would you rather explain scripted in every line or just place this in the beginning and be done with it? Those are the choices to comply with the wikipedia guidelines which over-rule anything we decide here.--WillC 20:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The funny thing about guidelines is that they're just that, guidelines, not a policy. So yeah, it's not needed and it borders on demeaning. CRRaysHead90 | ^#OneMoreGame 02:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines here are policy when it comes to the MoS. It may seem demeaning to you but it is moreso professional. Look at Sacrifice (2005) which I just nominated for GA again. It is far different from what we began with at December to Dismember (2006). The policy can be tuned with. It is not as far reaching as believed. It is rather simple to work with and get a good professional product which is not a seeming insult to people but an informative topic to everyone.--WillC 06:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Going back to your previous response, it brings to my mind a question. You say that including a disclaimer prevents us from having to over explain that wrestling is scripted every line. But why does that have to be explained for pro wrestling via a disclaimer when there is no such disclaimer attached to the plot summary section of a film or play? Pro wrestling event recaps are exactly the same thing: they summarize the plot developments of a fictional work. That's what's insulting, demeaning and unnecessary about it; let's give our readers some credit that they know pro wrestling is fiction just like we already give them credit for knowing that films and plays are fiction. Please stop treating our readers like idiots; pro wrestling's scripted nature is common knowledge, not something that has to be restated every single damn article. And if the reviewers at FAR and GAR don't promote because of that, they need to be called out on it for the exact same reason. There's nothing more unprofessional than being patronizing. oknazevad (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You pretty much answered and rebutted your own question. You said people already understand and know pro wrestling is scripted, basically. Yet the FAR and GAN reviewers don't understand this. You've proven your own statement false. So yes, it shows we need to explain whether some things are real and whether somethings aren't by following certain polices such as WP:IN-U, WP:JARGON, etc. If in the current state something is not understood then obviously we aren't writing the articles for everyone but for a select few to understand. Really only the most hardcore fans know all of the terms used in the articles. Some speak for themselves, some do not. To this day I still have people reading the PPVs and they have no idea what is going on. It is not insulting the readers who already know, it just annoys them. The basic explanation is simple, all it says is these people play characters. It does not go in-depth, it gives the basic idea out there. Helps prevent from things like December to Dismember happening. It allows people the idea of what is going on. And yet films and plays do explain the actions in the film are scripted. That is done through the use of the words "plot" and "narrative." Perhaps even further with the production sections going in-depth on the writing process. It shows that these events are planned out in a way one does not notice. The way most of the background sections are wrote are not like film articles. They write like novels, telling stories, not storylines. They read like soap operas with additions of the words heel and face. These background sections are not professional but love songs to the pro wrestling fanboy. That is why the disclaimers are there, because the rest of the section is constantly written like a novel. It allows the reader to understand that the actions are scripted from the beginning.--WillC 11:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

"You said people already understand and know pro wrestling is scripted, basically. Yet the FAR and GAN reviewers don't understand this." Then I really have to question their competence. The use of jargon is a separate issue from the disclaimer paragraph. It's one thing to explain what "heel" means in passing, it's entirely different, and utterly unneeded, to over explain pro wrestling as a form every article. For a comparison, we don't explain what a train is in every article about a commuter rail system, we link the term and leave it at that. That's all that's needed. Why professional wrestling gets singled out for such treatment is a genuine question. oknazevad (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:IN-U doesn't apply here, we're not writing about it in-universe, if that's even possible with wrestling articles. And tell me, what is so complex about "heel", "face", "storyline" and "feud" that they have to be explained? That is insulting. You only need to link pro wrestling, heel and face once and the terms is explained. Or if it bugs you so much that it must be explained in line, that's simple too without having these demeaning two sentences. Simply put either "[...] he turned face (changed sides to a good guy) [...]" or "[...] the heel, or villainous, stable came down to ring side." The other two are self explanatory. There are ways to explain jargon without being demeaning or assuming they can't deduce it or look it up as well. Last, we are not writing for FAR or GAR, quit writing to impress them and worry about the ones who count...the readers. It will come as a side effect. CRRaysHead90 | ^#OneMoreGame 14:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You are arguing that we explain pro wrestling in the articles, but exactly where do we explain pro wrestling? We explain there are storylines, where do we go in-depth on this explanation?--WillC 23:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Next, your example of how to use heel and face is not professional and is obviously not a good way to write an article. Yes we have to worry about FAR and GAN, mainly due to the fact we are supposed to make the articles the best they can be and those processes are peer review. Peer review explains to us whether something really meets the standards that has been determined by several consensus over the years. This is an encyclopedia, not a fanpage. We are not writing stories here but information and to want to go out of our way to write heel and face and explain it when it is simpler to just explain them, wikilink the explanations, and leave out the words is absurd. There is entirely no point to have to make it difficult to satisfy a need. Professional wrestling has to be done this way because it chooses to act like it is real. The lines are blurred and must be shown which is the truth. And yes, IN-U works here because of the way the PPVs are written. They are written as if the events are actually real and mean something. Scripted works that are written in a way to seem like they are non-fiction. And again, WP:JARGON says to not be heavy on wikilinking. That linking is not an excuse for explaining. So basically your argument is linking is enough when there is a policy which shows you that you are wrong.--WillC 00:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I think WillC has hit the nail on the head and he has good pedigree (not this) when it comes to creating articles which are accepted by the wider Wikipedia community. The standard paragraph conforms to the general style guidelines and explains the premise simply to readers who have no knowledge of professional wrestling. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd just offer my opinion that I don't really care if it stays or is deleted. The paragraph's not very long anyway. Seeing fan favourites and villains kinda bugs me though. Starship.paint (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I took some time and considered the arguments presented by Will, but in the end, the statement is just simply insulting, redundant and unneeded. Even for a GA or FA. You don't explain how football works in each years Super Bowl article. You don't explain how baseball works in each years World Series article. It just not needed to explain the basics of wrestling to achieve a FA or GA. CRRaysHead90 | ^#OneMoreGame 02:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Main difference between those sports and pro wrestling. Those are portrayed as legitimate because they are. Pro wrestling is portrayed as legitimate because of suspension of disbelief. It is fiction meant to seem like reality. In my last GA reviews for TNA Unbreakable, Chris Candido Memorial Tag Team Tournament, and Bound for Glory (2005) the fact of wrestling being scripted was all brought up because the articles needed to be clear on what was real and what wasn't. So that shows that the articles actually don't go far enough in informing readers. I think it is best left as is before we push too far and find out we need to make it even clearer, thus more insulting in some people's minds.--WillC 06:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the comparison to football had anything to do with fake or real. Only that there's no need to explain the general topic in every sub-topic. In crocodile, there's no preamble about reptiles. In Forrest Gump, nothing about film. In 1972, no talk of the Earth's annual trip round the sun. All useful info, but all simply Wikilinked. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:23, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

Yet you are entirely missing the point. You are talking about things that are not trying to tell the general public it is real. None of them are trying to fool the viewer. Wrestling is trying to fool the viewer and that has to be explained because of WP:IN-U, WP:FICTION, and WP:JARGON. Movies are stories and no movie is sitting there going "Hey, you see that dude right there that got hurt, well he is actually hurt. And that dude who is dead. He won't be at the premiere because he is dead." Meanwhile this is wrestling "Hey, you see that guy that just broke his ankle. Yeah he really broke his ankle and won't be back for a while. Oh you say you saw him running on the beach with his wife and kids today. Umm that wasn't him because he is in a hospital bed in Texas....no wait in New York..yeah New York. You just heard the announcers say he is so it must be true. Oh and that guy who calls himself The Undertaker, well he really did die at Royal Rumble (1994) and we've been watching his ghost. You say his name is Mark? No no, it isn't Mark. ummm I got to go." The difference between Forest Gump and wrestling. One is not trying to say everything that happens is actually real. Thus the explanation is needed. This isn't the first conversation had on this subject. There have been somewhere around 5000 since 2008 on the matter.--WillC 07:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm certainly entirely missing this point. The Undertaker isn't written like that. If any wrestling articles are, sure, that's a problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:07, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

Good, because that is what is wrong with the PPVs. Certainly the newest ones which say that Wrestler A used a chair to break Wrestler B's ankle. Then say he was sidelined for a while then came back to attack and start a heated rivalry. No where in there do they explain this was a scripted angle and that the wrestler needed time off for an entirely different injury or needed no time off at all for any reason other than to sell the storyline. Once that is included the ips take it out saying it is an insult to explain this. It isn't an insult to explain the basic fact that it is all a work.--WillC 08:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Will, the point your missing is that what your problem is can explain in line when needed, the nature of pro wrestling does not need to be explained in every PPV article. Some thing happened that's real? Mark it as legit and move on. Otherwise it's easily assumed to be part of the show. Part of what was meant to happen. There is zero need by any policy or guideline to redundantly state the nature of a sport, or sports entertainment, in every sub-event. That's why wikilinks exist, to link people to more information. CRRaysHead90 | ^#OneMoreGame 17:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That I understand. We should always be clear in distinguishing actual injuries (and other events) from the plot. But yeah, it can get weird when a paragraph jumps between in-universe and real world, especially by poorer writers. Other fiction articles don't mix them like that. We could take a hint from Forrest Gump (which, by the way, is more deceptive than WWE, which admits the acting part in every "Don't try this at home" bit) and User:Matt723star at Talk:Vince McMahon, and try...InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, January 10, 2014 (UTC)

Aaron, obviously you haven't been reading the guidelines because the guidelines are quite clear on not relying on wikilinks. Yes it is needed to explain in everyone because they are stand alone articles. Every single PPV review I've had after expanding an article as had the difficulty of the reviewer not understanding what was legit and what wasn't. Even when it would appear obvious as part of the show. Aaron, until you actually expand an article and get it peer reviewed around here by a disconnected person will you truly see that what appears to be common sense to you, it really isn't.--WillC 11:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Will, how does those two sentences address when something specific is or isn't part of story line? But here, I'm willing to work with you. See the next section...I have a proposal. CRRaysHead90 | ^#OneMoreGame 16:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

The point of the two sentences is to explain the nature of professional wrestling, correct? Maybe we can compromise somehow between axing the two sentences and keeping them. Here's my suggestion. Axe the two sentences first of all. Next replace it with a one line sentence like {{see also}} that reads "For information on the nature of professional wrestling, see Professional wrestling." Or you cna use {{main}}, your choice. But I believe this is a compromise that explains what's needed and doesn't use those two sentences ad nauseum. CRRaysHead90 | ^#OneMoreGame 18:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Amend proposal. Reasoning: Your subject is incorrect. The point of the paragraph is to not explain pro wrestling, but the idea. The storylines are the issue. It is to give an idea to the reader that what is going on is scripted hense WP:FICTION, WP:IN-U, and WP:JARGON. We aren't trying to explain all that is of pro wrestling as that would be content forking. Instead we are trying to inform the reader that what is happening is not a legitimate sport. It is a narrative. That is why it says storylines.--WillC 01:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone one else gonna comment? CRRaysHead90 | ^#OneMoreGame 20:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Legit incident sections in wrestler bios

Bodies have been broken, careers ended in an instant, ankles slightly twisted, characters written off the show. How do the Wikiwarriors feel about a separate section for these types of things, which we could link to the story sections by footnotes? So rather than

The following night on Raw, Orton and Legacy attacked Batista and (kayfabe) broke his arm, forcing him to vacate the title. It was later revealed that Batista was suffering from a torn biceps and Legacy was given on-screen credit for his injury.

we have

The next night on Raw, Legacy attacked Batista and broke his arm, forcing him to vacate the title.

Then a footnote to "Bautista had earlier torn his biceps, and this angle was designed to write him off TV."

Just looking at Randy Orton, this approach could cut the article size drastically, making it clear and concise. (Regardless, that article could be cut in half just by grammar edits). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, January 10, 2014 (UTC)

I find this a bit redundant. The original way is fine it just needs to be fixed. "The next night on Raw, Orton and Legacy were scripted to break Batista's arm, forcing him to vacate the title due to injury in the storyline. This was done so that Batista could take time off for a legitimate biceps injury." The writing can be clear and straight forward with practice. We avoid kayfabe but link it to scripted. Makes the world go round.--WillC 11:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we should use legit, kayfabe or booked when it's ambiguous. I mean, a relationship, an injure. Did Lesnar break Henry's arm? Better to use Kayfabe and legit in that case. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

PWInsider

Congratulations, guys. We appear in PWInsider Q&A http://www.pwinsider.com/ViewArticle.php?id=84124 A guy said "I use PWInsider as source, but the edits are deleted because PWInsider Isn't reliable". It's true? Also, who wrote to PWInsider? Step foward. (by the record, Dave says we aren't reliable too XD)--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The one chance PWInsider had to make them seem reliable they instead chose to make themselves look like children.--WillC 00:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Must be a IP or a newer user. Actually guys, since 2012 we've considered PWInsider to be as reliable as PWTorch and F4Wonline and maybe more reliable than Wrestleview, which means they're all reliable for non-controversial TV/PPV results and the like. They're all not reliable for 'dirtsheet rumours', although if the rumour is very notable like CM Punk walking out of WWE, we can still add it to articles like "the Wrestling Observer reported that CM Punk walked out of WWE".

So guys don't remove PWInsider unless it's a rumour.

I know that before I joined in 2011, PWInsider was considered not reliable because there was malware on its website? Something like that? But I think it's fine on that front now. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 00:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I really doubt it was anyone involved in the project. But dang I did not expect such a indignant, childish response, I thought they were more professional than that. STATic message me! 03:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

In this case attack wasn't the best form of defense for PWInsider. But I'm afraid members of the Wikiproject might have removed PWInsider from here? WillC at least until recently still thought it was just a dirtsheet until I pointed out an FAC reviewer OK'ed it (maybe he still does think so!) starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 04:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I've always believed that Pro Wrestling Insider was accepted during the review because the reviewer confused it with Pro Wrestling Illustrated. I don't think there has ever been sufficient explanation of what makes Pro Wrestling Insider reliable. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

In terms of longevity they've been reporting on wrestling around for 10 years now, and their chief editors Scherer and Johnson were previously writing for 1Wrestling in 1997 and the Wrestling Lariat newsletter before that in 1995. Scherer and Johnson have had experience in the business in ECW. Unlike self-published sources like Bleacher Report or certain blogs and wordpresses they have an incentive to be accurate due to their paid membership service, therefore their TV/PPV reports and other uncontroversial claims (not rumours) should be accurate? What does the Observer, Torch and Wrestleview have that PWInsider doesn't if you consider PWInsider unreliable?

Another plus point is that I believe they have more detailed coverage then SLAM!, Observer, Torch and Wrestleview. For example I was looking to add a source that Mojo Rawley (Dean Muhtadi) had signed with WWE around August 2012. I couldn't find any information in the previous sources, but I found a report by PWInsider. Previously, WWE's developmental territory FCW had a TV show that aired only in Florida. Again, PWInsider had much more reports on that show compared to the previous sources. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is about what they report, it is how they report it. We know Meltzer is there, live, or atleast has connections that help. We know how his information and history works. We know Meltzer is involved in the media and has earned a sense of credibility. I would say the same for Wade Keller and Caldwell, thus helping establish PWTorch. WrestleView has Adam Martin, who is becoming a bigger name in my opinion through various interviews and gaining more respect from what I've seen as being credible. However, PWInsider I just don't know. Who there establishes the credibility? How do they get information to report? etc.--WillC 08:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

How they report "it"? What's it? If we're talking about TV/PPV results, you'll just need to watch the shows on TV, or on the Internet, do you need to be live in person? If you were talking about Dean Muhtadi signing with WWE, PWInsider simply happened to look at Twitter in August 2012. Or are you talking about rumours here? You're saying Meltzer is live at every taping?

Additionally it's all fine to say that Meltzer, Keller, Caldwell, Martin have credibility through the media etc. but where's the evidence for that? If you show me how instead of only stating how, perhaps I can see whether PWInsider is similar in that regard. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The notable person working for/with them does not really establish reliability for them at all. I mean Justin LaBar has appeared on a nationally televised NBC show talking about wrestling, but we do not consider WrestleZone (I cannot believe I ever payed attention to that rumor capital) or BleacherReport reliable in the slightest. On the topic, PWInsider looks borderline reliable just as we have it labeled, so for non-controversal things like results, if they are well written and accurate, why not? STATic message me! 08:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Meltzer has been published. He works with Yahoo sports. He has been interviewed as a wrestling journalist in documentaries. His credibility has been established through mentions in books, such as Bret Hart: Hitman. These things have helped to make his reports reliable. He isn't there everytime but we know he has been at events live, we know he has actually watched the event, we know he has connections in the industry because we have wrestlers state this, etc. When he reports rumors he can be seen as reliable because of these connections. We can make an argument for it. However, I could go right now and purchase a domain name for a website. Grab a book about coding I could make a website just like PWInsider. I can establish an entity to work under with the secretary of state in really no time or work as a sole proprietor. Review WrestleMania and then report that AJ Styles just signed with WWE. Some people would see my review as correct and thus deem my reporting as correct. Am I reliable? I have no connection, I have no background, I have no evidence, etc. The one thing I do have is a website. That is what the issue with PWInsider is about. We have to determine what makes them special to be able to make an argument other than "They seem correct most of the time." We are talking about convincing other people. People who have no idea what PWInsider is all about.--WillC 09:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh I was not talking about Meltzer at all, anyone that has ever been on an wrestling news site knows who he is, anything with his name on it sort of stands out as reliable. STATic message me! 09:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I was replying to paint. You and I had an edit conflict.--WillC 09:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Meltzer would be the easiest to nail down as a reliable source, I don't dispute that. Well how about Keller, Caldwell and Martin then? I'd like you to explain all of them, but especially Martin. Also, your argument is skewing towards rumours again. I don't need nor want PWInsider for rumours, all I want them is for TV/PPV results and other uncontroversial stuff. Likewise they don't need to be live at the event to report such things. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Static that there' no harm in using PWinsider the way we do now (for reports and results). Scherer and Johnson seem to have pretty solid reputations are far as being reporters go. We should be cautious about adding rumors regardless of where they come from, as is evident from the recent Meltzer/CM Punk fiasco from last week.LM2000 (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

When you use a source you have to be able to deem it reliable, even for results. How can we explain they are reliable on one thing and not another? The argument that anyone can watch the show and report it does not establish its reliability. Keller has been published and PWTorch has connections in the industry. WrestleView on the otherhand has connections as well through its paid service.--WillC 20:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"Evidence plz" WillC? For PWTorch has "connections" and Wrestleview has "connections through paid service"? Keller is "published" is a secondary issue but good if you could also provide links. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

PWTorch interviews with Dixie Carter, Styles, Angle, Punk, etc etc etc. WV has had the same interviews through subscriptions.--WillC 04:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You were a bit vague there... you didn't mean WV had the exact same interviews as PWTorch right? You meant that WV has done some interviews with wrestlers, I assume. But it's weird - I'm looking at the WV website now, and there's no evidence of a paid service or subscription for WV?

If that's (having done interviews with wrestlers is your criteria, I'd just like to say that PWInsider definitely has a paid subscription service. A quick google search easily confirms that PWInsider also does interviews - though I'm not a paid member, I can't see what the actual interview is. On the first few pages of google search I have found Doug Williams, Billy Robinson, Bret Hart... Oh wait, the Bret Hart one links to a PWInsider's youtube channel. Wow, even more video interviews, Daniel Bryan, Triple H, Jeff Jarrett, Young Bucks, Sheamus, Xavier Woods? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Good. My point is to not discredit PWInsider, it is to help you try to prove it reliable. You are asking what makes others reliable, the point is showing how PWInsider is reliable. Show how it checks facts, how it gets information, etc. Show its connections. Show its credibility. You can ask me to present evidence for other sources, that doesn't do anything. Trying to argue their reliability does not make PWInsider reliable, it means we could lose sources to use if we aren't successful in showing the reliability. Focus on the matter at hand and prove PWInsider's reliability. WV VIP service is the paid subscription just for you to know. Reliability is established with credibility. Credibility is established through fact checking and a sense of professionalism. So far we know professionalism isn't the highest from the remarks by the authors. However, what about fact checking? How does PWInsider check facts, ranging from results to rumors, etc?--WillC 09:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

OK you gotta help me out a bit here. I am unsure how to prove fact checking. How would you prove that a newspaper like.. the Guardian has fact-checking? How would you prove that a wrestling source like the Observer has fact checking? I need to understand what boxes are to be ticked. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Most will have a section of their website which explains their editors backgrounds and the history of the website. Through that an argument can be made as to how they are reliable and credible.--WillC 20:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

A professionally fact-checked report is preferable (you can usually e-mail or phone for details), but keep in mind that fact-checking isn't the specialty it used to be. Instead of visiting libraries or searching microfilm archives, the typical fact-checker (especially for a high-paced site) will use the same Internet we have (and sometimes even the "best" fail miserably). So, if you run across a claim (from any source), see if another, independent source says the same thing. In the Mojo Rawley case above, this would seem to fail. If a story is attributed ("According to...", "...reports"), get to the root before comparing.

We aren't paid like editors with desks, but Wikipedia editors serve the same basic function. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

Also, a "sense of professionalism" doesn't really mean shit. Politicians, lawyers and talking heads are usually well-dressed and punctual, but often notorious for lying. Getting an interview simply means you paid for it, doesn't imply expertise. Check out the NoKayfaben guy on YouTube. He's a dolt, but has good guests. As far as that goes, the interviewer doesn't matter. If some crazy guy off the street interviews Bret Hart, the answers matter, and it becomes a primary source. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:45, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

Writers' backgrounds? Scherer - webmaster for the Extreme Championship Wrestling website until 2001. Penned the Saturday pro wrestling column at the New York Daily News for two years. Founder of "The Wrestling Lariat" in 1995. Joined 1Wrestling.com in 1997. Started PWInsider in 2004. Wrote for the now-defunct WOW and ECW magazines.

Johnson - was Extreme Championship Wrestling's official website historian and researcher on International talents... and helped with DVD / action figure / video game lines in ECW. Wrote for Wrestling Lariat, 1Wrestling and PWInsider. Consultant for Capstone Press on a series of children's books about professional wrestling. Co-hosts "The Mouthpiece Wrestling Show" - a radio show. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Mike Johnson also helps make Reddit a better place. Though he does get suckered by the Internet immediately, he makes up for it by shitting on WrestleZone. I think? Anyway, a good introduction to the guy and his site. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:51, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

"I speak to people that work in all facets of every major national company, from execs to wrestlers to staffers, every day. Sometimes I call them looking to confirm something. Sometimes, they reach out to us. It all depends on the circumstance and the story.

BTW, I don't like the dirtsheet term personally. We seek out, source, doublecheck our information. We are no different to pro wrestling than the Hollywood Reporter would be to TV and film."

But is he lying about that? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:07, March 12, 2014 (UTC)

It's impossible to tell if he lying just from that alone. We can't prove nor disprove. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 22:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm convinced. The overview of Scherer and Johnson that Starship.paint provided is exactly what we look for when determining the reliability of a source. Their work for the third largest professional wrestling company in the country, as well as their experience with major industry magazines and websites, indicates that they are established experts in the field of professional wrestling. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, I'd hope to get a new reliable source. It would help in expanding articles a bit more. We'll have to really see when it is used and judged by people who specialize in this sort of thing. Maybe we need to get some outside reviewers in here so we can make the ruling concrete.--WillC 05:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

These guys could give us some insight if need be.LM2000 (talk) 05:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Finally asked them. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please explain how Wrestle View is considered a "reliable" source while PWInsider is not when Wrestle View's entire setup is to re-post news and rumors from other sites including PWInsider[1]. How is one website deemed reliable if the source they got the information from is not? 99.43.175.19 (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Benoit incident RM.

You are cordially invited to Talk:Chris Benoit double-murder and suicide#Requested move. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:31, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

HOF Infobox

Should Hall of Famers have a variant of the regular Infobox to emphasize their role? I have seen that baseball players have infoboxes colored after their teams, so maybe HOFs could have a gold/blue scheme for WWE HOFs and red/silver scheme for TNA HOFs. Maybe decorated with stars or something besides the name of the wrestler on top of the box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.120.161 (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Meh. They really don't have much a different role from any other retired wrestler. Just a matter of opinion whether they're "Hall of Famers". Seems a little too much weight to put on the honour. And there are a few Hall of Fames out there. The colours may get confusing, especially for guys (and Moolahs) who are in several. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:20, March 18, 2014 (UTC)

Instead of color, lets add a new section where we list all hall of fames they are in.--WillC 15:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Those accomplishments are in Championships and Accomplishments. At least, they should be. I'm sure some are missing. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:06, March 18, 2014 (UTC)

Yes they are, but the box is in the lead and the lead is meant to summarize the whole article. Having the hall of fame info in the box is also a useful thing.--WillC 22:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with saying it in the lead, with the major titles. Terry Funk's is duly noted. That'd look like a rainbow in colour, and rainbows don't really sum up the Funkster. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:43, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

If anything, what we need to create is an infobox to use on pages like WWE Hall of Fame, just like you will find on Grammy Award. STATic message me! 04:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Or on Hockey Hall of Fame, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:42, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah definitely, it would make the article look better. I've always disliked when articles don't have an infobox and just have a picture sitting there. STATic message me! 17:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I've copied it over. If anyone thinks of any other parameters, borders or whatnot, go nuts. I suck at everything except text. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:54, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Wrestling event

With three (two?) WrestleMania's now having hosts (Kim Kardashian at WM24(?), The Rock at WM27, and Hulk Hogan at WM30), I would like to suggest adding a parameter to the PPV infobox to list the host. It seems relevant enough to the event to be included in the infobox. What do y'all think? CRRaysHead90 | ^#WelcomeHome 22:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

To my knowledge, WrestleMania is the only event in any company that has this. Seems rather pointless for such little demand.--WillC 22:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

In Japan, big names get retirement shows. More guests of honour than hosts. Inoki might be closer to a host for many, but these are usually named for him, so goes without saying. Same for the retirement shows. I say nay. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:55, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

It's not about quantity, Will, it's about relevance. CRRaysHead90 | ^#WelcomeHome 23:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Really it is about quantity. Why amend the infobox for something that is relatively small. Some events end with stupid endings, should we have a sector in the box which says this? Some events feature celebrities, should we have a sector listing them? If anything we need a parameter regarding the buyrate.--WillC 03:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

No, Will, it's about relevance. It's about having the template ready to display relevant information. Quit counterpointing with fallacies. But if having the parameter is such a worry to you, you can make two or three blank parameters and only use them when needed. Blank parameters are not unheard of on WP. CRRaysHead90 | ^#WelcomeHome 18:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Those blank parameters you speak of are still used on more than three events. The only one not used at this current time is the brand parameter, and we have WWE events from 2003 to 2007 for that. Meanwhile, three guest hosts on three events. That is better suited for the prose until it becomes more important.--WillC 18:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Will, you're talking about something completely different from me. CRRaysHead90 | ^#WelcomeHome 00:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You wanted to talk about blank parameters, I discussed blank parameters. But still, you've given no good reason to create a section just for this. 3 events is not a reason to make a change that isn't really a large thing. Show me this is a normal thing amongst events instead of having a fit.--WillC 09:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No you talked about unused paramters. I said blank parameters. You know, the kind you only use when needed, the kind that are blank until you fill in the name of the parameter when using it and then add the information? CRRaysHead90 | ^#WelcomeHome 18:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

So the samething. Aaron, give a reason for this addition. You had the idea then got upset when it got shutdown.--WillC 21:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds completely irrelevant and would be a generally unused parameter. If it would not be used very frequently, no point in adding. If it is notable, it can be covered in the prose. STATic message me! 04:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian hosted WrestleMania??? Also, I found this article: List of celebrities involved with WrestleMania. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 04:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed we don't have a field for the gate. Should be right under Attendance, no? And yes, buyrate. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:21, March 19, 2014 (UTC)

I say, right under Attendance, no? Even if there's no dissent, I forget how to do it myself. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:54, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

Template:Wrestling Pay-per-views

Delete or to not delete? I really see this as completely pointless and helps very little.--WillC 21:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, completely arbitarily. I like it, it's useful and doesn't do any harm. Looks good and is valuable. 3,340 Google News hits. Wikipedia is not censored, man! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:52, March 20, 2014 (UTC)

I'm bringing this here just to get an idea of whether to nominate it for deletion, not whether to actually keep it or delete it.--WillC 23:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well. Unless you're seeing something in it aside from the broken code I do, I say speedy delete. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:57, March 21, 2014 (UTC)

And unless someone is seeing something besides what Hulk and I are seeing, then speedy is the way to go.LM2000 (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I see... broken code. speedy --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Kaisen: Outbreak

I'd like some outside voices to settle a dispute.

Ribbon Salminen and I are in disagreement on how to list the Kaisen: Outbreak event in Japan.

I contend that the show is a Wrestle-1/TNA supershow, as TNA sent 14 wrestlers, had 3 championships defended, was involved (at least somewhat) in the booking of the matches, and filmed the event for a future One Night Only PPV.

He contends it was strictly a W-1 production, as it was announced in November before TNA came into the picture.

And I countered that by saying the Keiji Mutoh (Wrestle-1's owner/star wrestler/chief bottle washer) may have had all these grand plans, but realized he needed help and reached out to TNA, and then a deal was struck.

So who's in the right here?

Vjmlhds (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Both of you are. It started as a Wrestle-1 show then became a joint show. It should be noted this way. It is overall a Wrestle-1 show, so it should be introduced as such, then transitioned into it being a joint show.--WillC 15:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The point of a talent loan lies in the "loan" part. A promotion still builds its own shit, but with the neighbour's tools. If there's some indication of a TNA booker (not familiar with the show, myself), then it's a co-promotion. Also really helps if "TNA" (or its Japanese equivalent, if it has one) is in the ads, like the WWF/SWS or WCW/New Japan shows. If no to the last two, no to co-promotion. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:00, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

Here's a promotional poster showing that the event was promoted as a W-1/TNA supershow. Again, not doubting Mutoh had wanted to run a W-1 show in November, but at some point realized he needed some help, so he then made a deal with TNA, thus it became a W-1/TNA supershow, and now it's evident it was promoted as such. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The one on the left is the promotional poster and it doesn't have a single mention of TNA or its wrestlers nor does it have the TNA logo on it. The one on the right is a brochure (which can be bought here) hyping up the W-1 vs. TNA matches for the event. TNA gave W-1 the wrestlers, but had nothing to do with setting up the event or booking the arena or the matches.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You're reaching Ribbon. At the end of the day, there's evidence the thing was promoted as a co-op event. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Well. Present it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:27, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

1. The above brochure - indicates that Wrestle-1 had promoted the event as a joint effort between W-1 and TNA. They put TNA's titles and TNA's wrestlers front and center on the brochure making them the selling point of the show.

2. Here's Sanada's profile from TNA's website In it, TNA refers to him winning the X Division Title in a TNA/Wrestle-1 event.

To sum it up, W-1 put out promotional material hyping the show as a TNA/W-1 supershow, and TNA came right out and called it a TNA/W-1 event. Both promotions consider it as a joint effort, and since it was their show, if they consider it as such, then that should be that. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll give some weight to the second thing. None to the first. Ribbon explained that. W-1 is advertising TNA wrestlers, but not advertising a TNA show. Like when Zellers advertises a sale on Zoodles. Not necessary that Mr. Heinz plans anything. Just stocks the ark. You say it yourself. "...indicates that Wrestle-1 had promoted the event as a joint effort between W-1 and TNA. They put..." InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

Here's a TNA source calling Kaisen: Outbreak a "huge Wrestle-1 event featuring the Impact Wrestling superstars. That's what it was; a Wrestle-1 event featuring TNA wrestlers. Just get over it.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

And then later on when TNA created Sanada's profile, they referenced it as a joint event...you can't cherry pick. TNA has gone on record as calling the show a joint event. And don't tell other editors to "get over it". User:Vjmlhds (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Then why are you cherry picking?リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of Cherry, did she not contribute to Deuce 'n Domino? But do we call it Deuce 'n Domino 'n Cherry? Did the kid who helped make Shake 'n Bake really help? Do joint events lead to food-related musings? Yes, no, sort of and maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, we call them Deuce and Domino. Not cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, March 22, 2014 (UTC)

I fixed that. McPhail moved it without consensus in August. The talk page shows that it passed GA under it's original name and it should stay that way. Feedback ^☎ 16:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the official TNA press release promoting Kaisen: Outbreak. In it, TNA Executive VP Jon Gabruick is on record in saying that "...we are honored to partner with Mutoh and Wrestle-1 to give our fans an exceptional night of unparalleled entertainment." This clearly shows that TNA considers the event as a joint collaboration, and not merely as just sending guys out there. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• No one is denying that Wrestle-1 collaborated with Wrestle-1 for the event. It's in the lead. They collaborated in the same way TNA had previously collaborated with NJPW for the Wrestle Kingdom shows. The question is: who produced the event and how was it advertised; in essence, who "owns" the event? The press release makes no claim of ownership or co-production of the event. TNA had absolutely nothing to do with the event until their wrestlers and some backstage guys (including Gaburick) boarded a plane and landed in Tokyo for a press conference the previous day. All over the net in both advertising and results the event is billed as "(Fighting Entertainment) Wrestle-1 Kaisen: Outbreak", there's not a single one calling it "Wrestle-1/TNA Kaisen: Outbreak". This includes NTV G+, who air TNA's shows and PPVs in Japan and therefore could feasibly be seen as doing something like that. The collaboration is extensively mentioned in the article, but at the end of the day, the event was not a TNA event. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is a story from Bleacher Report talking about the show and going into some more detail about it. This indicates that the show was viewed as a TNA/W-1 co-production by what is viewed as a reputable sports website. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

1.Bleacher Report is considered an unreliable source, 2.even if it was reliable, it's not for them to decide whose show it is. Again, who produced the show and how was it advertised? It was produced by Wrestle-1/GEN Sports and advertised as "Wrestle-1 Kaisen: Outbreak". リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's go step-by-step:

• November 2013 - Wrestle-1 announces show
• January 2014 - TNA announces as part of their partnership with Wrestle-1, they would contribute talent, and have their championships defended at the show, as well as sending their production crew to film the event for a One Night Only PPV.
• March 2014 - Kaisen: Outbreak takes place
• TBA 2014 - TNA airs the show as a One Night Only PPV under the subtitle of Outbreak

The whole point of this is once TNA got involved, it no longer was just a strictly Wrestle-1 show, and became a joint affair with TNA. As it will be shown as a ONO PPV, the show (as all TNA PPVs and broadcasts) are considered TNA productions (as per the ending copyright credits at the end of TNA broadcasts). There's a lot of presumption on your part that it was all Wrestle-1 with TNA just along for the ride, and what I'm saying was that once TNA got involved, they had some skin in the game as well.

• Was it a Wrestle-1 live event...yes.
• Was it a TNA PPV...yes.
• Did the companies work together to put the show together...yes.

Both companies had skin in the game here...to nitpick over how much X did, and how much Y did is missing the point. TNA played a huge part in this show...Wrestle-1 made them the main selling point, and TNA flat out said it was a joint effort.

Vjmlhds (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. So much discussion over this. produced by Wrestle-1 in partnership with Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA) seems fine. But for Promotion: Wrestle-1/TNA how about doing this the music single way? Promotion: Wrestle-1 featuring TNA. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Then we should add "New Japan Pro Wrestling featuring Pro Wrestling Noah, All Japan Pro Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Zero1 and Total Nonstop Action Wrestling" in the Wrestle Kingdom show infoboxes too. The "featuring" part again is in the lead, but doesn't belong in the infobox as the promoter of the event. The One Night Only pay-per-view (which they BTW haven't named "Outbreak") is TNA show filmed with their own camera crew (much like the Global Impact!s of the past). Kaisen: Outbreak was a W-1 show, half of which didn't even feature a single TNA wrestler. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it's too unreasonable for an exception to be made for Outbreak. "Half 1", the W-1 exclusive half, had only 4 matches, while "Half 2", had twice the number (8 matches) and a TNA wrestler in every match. That's a very high percentage, does any January 4 Dome Show compare? With so many wrestlers from different promotions at the dome shows, can any promotion other than NJPW appear in more than 33% of the matches? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrestle Kingdom II had TNA wrestlers in six of the ten matches. TNA is very well represented in the article like it should, but doesn't belong in the infobox as the promoter. If TNA had had anything to with the production, surely Wrestle-1 would have given them joint billing for the event. But no, they just call it a Wrestle-1 event and don't even include TNA in the promotional poster in any way. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A change to the style guide for PPV articles

WillC and I have been working on PPV articles and promoting them to GA/FA status. With his support, I'm proposing a change to the style guide for PPV articles. The style guide currently lists that any information before the Event section should be under the Background section.
Instead I propose we follow WillC's current GA/FAC Slammiversary (2008) or Slammiversary (2005). The Background section will be renamed to Production. Within Production there will be two sub-sections, Background (for announcements, venues, tickets stuff, read via the links above) and Storylines. If a PPV doesn't have anything related to its background, like Money in the Bank (2011), then the section can simply be called Storylines. Anyone disagree? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been following this style for a long time, since I my expansion of Turning Point (2008 wrestling) in 2009 I've been adapting all of the PPV GAs I've done with this format. TP went to FA in 2012 and the format was approved by Featured Articles reviewers. I feel it makes the article complete and gives them a style that seems more credible. I feel all PPVs should have a production section since it is quite important, but if they don't have one then it can be named Storylines, unless some prefer just to call it the Background until an overall production section is created. Production should encompass both the storylines and the creation of the event since that is what they both exist.--WillC 17:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Here, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:05, March 24, 2014 (UTC)

Count me in too. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, looks better to me. STATic message me! 22:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be unanimous.--WillC 01:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed! oknazevad (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Great. I'll be changing the style guide, then. Feel free to chip in on that as well. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 02:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

These articles may contain graphic images.

Kind of stupid how "graphic" has come to mean "disturbing", and "may" means "does".

All I mean is we might get some pictures for Adrian Adonis and Gran Naniwa. Their looks were important to understanding them, and plenty of good pics meet the non-free content criteria. Others, too. We're underillustrated. We don't even show readers Alushe. Somebody like uploading/filling out forms? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, we can use photos for deceased people. For example here. However, I don't know about it (maybe, we can use it for Adonis and Naniwa, not KeMonito). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Go search Flickr, check licenses. You'll be surprised what you find.--WillC 03:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I have an account, so if you find something, I can ask. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Free Image Search Tool failed to find free Flickr pictures. So for non-free pictures... Is this Adonis at his most popular? one and two. Here's Gran Naniwa. Unfortunately, I haven't done a fair use image upload before. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hall or Ramon?

I have a question. WWE nominated Scott Hall to the HOF. However, he'll be inducte as Razor Ramon and the video only shows his carrer as the Bad Guy. Should we list only 4 Times IC Champion in the Notes column? Looks like WWE inducted Ramon, not Hall (rumour, Hall will be indutee with the NWO) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. WWE calls him Razor but also lists his WCW accomplishments.LM2000 (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is a stupid disconnect between WWE television programming and WWE.com. The HOF to-be-inducted video clearly refers to the character Razor Ramon, not Scott Hall; no WCW title at all is mentioned in the video but the WWF IC title is. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know we haven't ignored the accomplishments of a person because a different character was officially inducted (KVE/Texas Tornado's IC reign, Hennig/Perfect's AWA reign). We didn't ignore it because, as far as I know, WWE didn't ignore the accomplishments. I think we'll just have to wait and see if something more concrete comes out... just because something like this hasn't happened in the past doesn't mean this can't be the first precedent.LM2000 (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wait-and-see sounds sensible. How about now, we only list the IC accomplishments. When Ramon is actually inducted (less than two weeks time right?) we can watch his induction, if no post-Ramon stuff is mentioned, then we don't add the WCW accomplishments, if WCW stuff is mentioned, we add it in. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm rather shocked we're even discussing this. Hadn't realized a gimmick could be inducted instead of a person. Probably because they can't. Reading a bit too literally, some of you. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:36, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Well, as I said, WWE only talks about his WWE career as Razor Ramon, not as Scott Hall in AWA, WCW or WWF (2002). I mean, Hennig was inducteed as "Mr. Perfect" Curt Hennig, is strange to include only Razor Ramon. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I think by now we've realized we're better than WWE. WWE.com, anyway. They're a source, but they're not Gospel. We acknowledge plenty of things they didn't during induction packages. They didn't mention George Steele is also in the Pro Wrestling Hall, and almost certainly never called The Grand Wizard a heel. Virtually every WWE-related article contains things WWE doesn't mention. That's a good thing. This is the same thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:52, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this is not WWE's personal encyclopedia, they induct individuals, not gimmicks. They just placed the majority of the focus on his WWE time, as is normal for anyone with a notable WWE run. I do not think Scott Hall is going to show up dressed as Ramon or introduced as Ramon, why would they? STATic message me! 01:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Authority again

I would also like to bring up (again) the issue of who the Authority is. Twice in the last week I've heard Michael Cole (on SD and Raw) claim that the Authority is only HHH and Steph, there's official video evidence on the article talk page. But WWE.com claims that Kane / Orton etc. are part of the Authority. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

WWE has the last word. Do you remember when JBL claimed to be a Grand Slam after he won the US Title? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying WWE.com has the last word? Regardless on what their lead commentator is telling the world on SD? (3:35) I have access to yet another video (for now) on the March 24 Raw where Cole says ladies and gentlemen, we heard from Stephanie McMahon, a little bit later on tonight we're going to hear from the other half of the Authority, her husband Triple H. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

yes. I think so. For example, when WOrld Wrestlinf Entertainment changed the name to WWE, an user said the company stills WOrld Wrestling Entertainment because CM Punk called it once.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think that is a good example. WWE's name change was legitimate, not a storyline event like the Authority. It's not even a total contradiction because I'm sure Punk didn't say "the company's name is World Wrestling Entertainment, not WWE", whereas Cole is outright contradicting WWE.com here. By the way, the legal name is World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was saying WWE. com, WWE or World Wrestling Entertainment Inc has the last word because the company has the creative control. Wrestlers and commentators, like Cole, can be wrong. JBL called himself a Grand Slam, but WWE didn't validate the Grand Slam status. I mean, WWE has power over Michael Cole, but Michaels Cole hasn't power over WWE. Anyway, These days i'm Naan violence, so this is my last argument XD --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Michael Cole also says wrestlers literally take others' heads off with clotheslines. He's probably the reason some editors here say "would go on to do" the thing. JBL's often correcting his historical trivia. And "Michael Cole sucks" gets over 500 Google hits (or 385,000 if you believe Google's estimate).

WWE is the authority on some things, but Cole should only be used (with caution) as a source for his own personal info. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:23, March 27, 2014 (UTC)

InedibleHulk and I formed a consensus for a project guideline 2 years ago. WP:COLEISATROLL: Ignore Michael Cole's gibberish at all costs. Feedback ^☎ 19:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice, forgot about that. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:15, March 29, 2014 (UTC)

I just watched the press conference. Cole said this was Cena's 10th WrestleMania, when it is in fact his 11th. I'm telling u, Cole is a total mess. Feedback ^☎ 20:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Potential Reliable Source

I would like to proposed to the project teh wrestling news site Wrestling News World (WNW) for use as a reliable source. Now seeing as this is the first time I've ever proposed such a thing, I don't know what information to provide you all to help this along. However, I personally find the site to be reliable. They correct their mistakes, never intentionally report false information. Their main writer/editor is Richard Gray who repeatedly as stated he likes to be able to confirm information before he posts, and if he can't more than likely it doesn't get posted and if it does, it comes with a disclaimer. CRRaysHead90 | ^#WelcomeHome 20:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems mostly a recycler to me, but yeah, noticed a few (seemingly) exclusive bits. I wouldn't say we should never use it, but can't recommend giving it a full blanket pass. That it has "WWE Rumors" right there in the homepage header is a bit unsettling.

What I can recommend is that we stop relying so heavily on whether a site is listed here "proven reliable". It's a good general guide, but we must take many things case-by-case. If you see something useful, do a quick Google. If you find supporting evidence, or no contradictory evidence, add it. If someone objects on a factual basis, we work it out. If nobody does, great. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:25, March 30, 2014 (UTC)

That isn't how wikipedia works. We only post information if we know it is factual, not because we think it is. We have to be able to prove it is true, not debate whether it could be.--WillC 23:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

So you know everything from anyone writing for any of the proven reliable sites is factual? That's not really a valid argument, so it's a good thing we're not debating. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:04, March 31, 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you missed my point entirely. You are advocating for placing any information that any site publishes in the article. It is suspected that Sting has signed with WWE, but can any site really prove it? Can we prove it? No. Then it is just a rumor. We have verify the information and the site.--WillC 17:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Will, your argument is flawed. Over in WP:MLB we rely on sources like Ken Rosenthal to be the sources on whether something as happened or it hasn't, because we can't prove it otherwise. He is a reliable source. We don't have to prove the information, we have to prove the source reliable, that by extension proves the information. Now on occasion, things change, and he posts so, Wikipedia isn't permanent. You post the most reliable information available at the time, and if things change, you update it. And sometimes, the the fact something didn't happen when it was widely reported it would is noteworthy in itself, like pitcher Grant Balfour when he was supposed to sign with the Orioles but ultimately didn't over a physical and landed later with the Rays. CRRaysHead90 | ^#WelcomeHome 18:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You forget the point of an encylopedia is to convey knowledge, not rumors. We rely on Dave Meltzer to be correct and report that information. We expect it to be true. That is a reliable source. However, we have to verify information from all sources by proving those sites reliability. We can't just post what Wrestling News World posts because we think it is true. We have to prove the source's reliability. Now you brought up the discussion on whether it is reliable, not me. The ball is in your corner to prove its reliability.--WillC 19:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

And that was the purpose of my original post, to prompt you to give me a direction on how to prove it to you. I've never done this before. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 19:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

How it gets its information. Take it to the noticeboard. Best way to know exactly which questions need to be answered.--WillC 02:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Conciseness proposal.

In virtually every mainstream wrestler article, we have a crazy amount of sourcing. Often, there's more citation in a paragraph than text.

I think that can be alleviated greatly if we use TheHistoryOfWWE.com more. For example, look at Shawn Michaels' various feuds (2004-05). How much there isn't covered by the 2004 and 2005 pages? From thirteen sources to two. One footnote for each paragraph doesn't disrupt reading, and for editing, we don't have to see a goddamn <ref>{{cite web|first=Chris|last=Sokol|url=http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/PPVReports/2005/06/27/1106996.html|title=Batista retains with a Vengeance|accessdate=2011-02-03|date=2005-06-27|publisher=[[Canadian Online Explorer]]|work=Slam! Sports}}</ref> after every line (or so).

I think <ref>[http://www.thehistoryofwwe.com/04.htm 2004 WWE Results, from TheHistoryOfWWE.com]</ref> looks much neater.

So yeah? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:41, March 30, 2014 (UTC)

First off, that isn't how a citation is done. Second, the more sources the better in most cases. Some sources don't need to be in there because some of the information is pointless and not notable. The issue isn't too many sources, it is basic article layout.--WillC 23:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

That's how I cite things. I know it's proper to include the access date and split everything into compartments, but it's silly. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:50, March 31, 2014 (UTC)

As of right now HistoryofWWE is not even in the "reliable" tier of secondary sources in the style guide. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but try and find an error. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, March 31, 2014 (UTC)

Here's something to consider: PWInsider is in the "proven reliable" list. According to Mike Johnson, TheHistoryOfWWE is "An amazing and excellent resource that I use almost daily to double check facts."

Figure that one out. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:42, March 31, 2014 (UTC)

If you recall the discussion we held earlier, PWInsider was never proven reliable nor taken to the notice board to my knowledge.--WillC 17:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I recall it going in circles with you. You're going to have define "proof" if you expect people to meet it. Until then, it is a clear and verifiable fact that it's presently listed there, and has been since January. The one before last. Apparently proven reliable by factchecking from the not yet proven.

That second part's illogical as fuck, but the first is a simple experiment. Observe, compare, conclude. That's how I propose we test sites. Compare them to the primary source (wrestling shows) and secondaries (other sites, newsletters, whatever) and look for contradictions. If you find a lot, the site is unreliable. If things consistently jive, it's reliable. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, March 31, 2014 (UTC)

We already have a consensus on this: WP:Reliable Source. Yes, the discussion went in circles, but because there was no solid evidence other than "I find it fine." I wasn't the only one who questioned its validity and there was a valid point made on it being confused with the PWI. You forget, this project is governed by several other things. All we determine is the style and small things related to wrestling articles. If we expand articles to FA and GA, we have to be able to show how they were verified. I still propose PWInsider going to the noticeboard. The more RS the better. We can compare sites on what they report, but us comparing 6 pieces of shit does not make one of them an apple.--WillC 02:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If you analyze them closely enough, you might find one is made of apple. Literally, I mean. Metaphorically, I got nothing.

Don't forget, we're general Wikipedians as well as wrestling geeks. We can determine all kinds of stuff. Small things, big things, whatever. As long as they're helpful things. We can make like Mo on a Mission, or a difference like Fatu. Community, yo.

But yes, we can also put things on noticeboards. No objections to a trial here, Commissioner Will. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:58, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

Apparently nobody got my pings, because I have already taken PWInsider to the RS noticeboard days ago ... and pinged those who recently discussed it. Maybe I can't ping in small. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No ping here. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

Just managed to get in before it was archived. That was quick. Someone might want to unarchive and spank the bot. I'm not sure how. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, April 2, 2014 (UTC)

erm, I did it via "ignore all rules". starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Man one, machine zero. The binary system works. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:24, April 2, 2014 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling Illustrated magazine

Just checking, does anyone have the physical copy of the issue (or online access) where the magazine awards the 2011 Wrestler of the Year / 2011 Match of the Year etc? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read a physical PWI magazine since about 1997. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

Do you remember my comments about PWI and WON awards? Nop, I don't know where to see the winners (magazine or online). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

NXT titles listed in WWE.com

Go to WWE.com, mouse over the Superstars tab. To your right, under Championship History, the three NXT titles are listed below WWE Tag Team Championships. The history of winners for each championship is linked. However, I forgot what changes are in order. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Something about a template? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:49, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

Would it be Template: WWE Championships by any chance? STATic message me! 20:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It's possible. But I remember something about Template:CMLLShows, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

Eh? The NXT championships are already there. But what is the André the Giant Memorial Trophy doing there, and when is it going to be taken down? Or was it combining WWE and NXT championships in individual wrestler bios Championships and Accomplishments? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure. But I am sure Big Show's winning that trophy. Any opposition to ignoring the crystal ball ban? Slightly more seriously, I think this battle royal might be the new thing, instead of the traditional non-named lower-card battle royal. Something about the way they stress "first ever".InedibleHulk (talk) 01:22, April 2, 2014 (UTC)

Honestly it's quite stupid to have a yearly battle royal since it's so close to the Royal Rumble. Big Show would be a favourite if it weren't for the fact that WWE themselves has touted him as the victor. At first I thought it might be Rusev but they haven't even promoted him being in it yet. Sheamus is the last realistic pick other than the two above. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes WWE is painfully obvious about stuff and then just goes ahead with it. Rey Mysterio/Randy Orton wins the Royal Rumble. Or Triple H wins the belt again. Or Daniel Bryan was in the building after all. Or Hulk Hogan closes the show posing (possibly an obsolete example).

Anyway, they've had battle royals at quite a few WrestleManias lately, and it doesn't seem to hurt the Rumble. Usually just jobber melees. Used to be dark and pre-show, but now that everything's on the Network, no harm in giving their "moment" a little name value. Maybe not. Speaking of maybe, Mark Henry seems a likely dark horse (no offense). Something of a giant, and he wasn't in that Piper's Pit scramble. Could have been intentionally hiding him, and letting Big Show get his shine now. Sort of like how Bryan got to "win" on Raw. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:50, April 2, 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, I forgot about Lesnar's personal punching bag. Well the battle royal's no longer on the pre-show. Did you know Yoshi Tatsu won WM26's dark battle royal? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I did. Andre, Bad News Brown, The Legion of Doom, Test and D'Lo, Hardcore Holly, The Iron Sheik, Booker T, Viscera, Kane, Santina Marella and The Great Khali also had their moments. Is Tatsu more gigantic than Marella? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:41, April 2, 2014 (UTC)

Incoming WP:FORUM violation:: I disagree that Big Show is the only realistic pick. If the winner is going to walk around with the trophy, that's gonna be a really cocky thing to do. I think a heel wins, and will feud with Big Show for Extreme Rules. I would pick Miz if I didn't know any better. ([i.imgflip.com/7whnl.gif Considering Triple H isn't a big fan of his]). Feedback ^☎ 20:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Results table again

I'd like to revive my proposal from this past December, it seemed to be on it's way to passing then people just stop commenting. What does everyone think? CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 00:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Eh, it was also supported by HHH Pedrigree, LM2000, InedibleHulk and myself, the latter two who definitely do not prefer pink (I prefer purple). Only Feedback disagreed. In fact you must have brought it up because I tried to insert it into WrestleMania XXX. Here is how I did it, though it has since been reverted. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 00:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I really need people to participate this time, I hate the lack of discussion participation that normally plagues this project anymore. And maybe the purple isn't good either. Maybe something better? IDK. Oh, and I didn't bring it up because of your edit, just a coincidence. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 01:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have much further to add. Still cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, April 2, 2014 (UTC)

Eh fine. Then ping people like so: @Wrestlinglover: could you take a look at this? I don't want red/pink or blue because they remind me of Raw and SmackDown. I'd probably be fine with purple or green or yellow. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

We have table guidelines that were determined through FLC, FAC, and various other places to consider. The FA review in Turning Point (2008 wrestling) also covers this issue. The tables need to be sorted and the bar across the top conflicts with the need for sorting.--WillC 01:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Might I add that your Turning Point tables can't be sorted, at least when I'm clicking Results, Duration etc. Is there a need for sorting... only No. is most crucial IMO. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll have to check, but I think someone changed the table in TP. I may have changed it back, idk. I wasn't the one who chose how they are done. I just did what the guidelines said in the FA review. Consult the FA review for the reasoning. The sorting comes from my FL knowledge because that is one particular thing covered in pretty much all reviews, whether they are sortable or not.--WillC 02:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

eh WillC has a point. See MOS:DTT#Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 02:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah he does, however I disagree with the MoS here. I think my proposal reads and functions better then a stretched out column. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 02:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, after reading the MoS, maybe my proposal is not the exact answer, but it's a starting point. I just know the status quo can not be kept. It's looks bad. There should not be show titles in the number column. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 02:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Aye. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, April 2, 2014 (UTC)

The MOS has "good examples". So which one looks worse, the current iteration of the table with Pre-show in the number column, or we have two separate tables for the pre-show and the main show, which would result in two "No. / Matches / Stipulations / Time". starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright here you go, before and after. Compare. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I definitely think what we have now looks worse and the new suggestion looks better. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 03:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The separate tables seems unnecessary.--WillC 05:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't support any table that doesn't call the first match (alone) "1". I like the second, but it needs coloured headers. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:30, April 2, 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Madison Eagles

Dear wrestling fans: This old Afc draft will soon be deleted. Is this a notable wrestler, and should the article be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I might have heard of her but I can't really remember. But, a #1 PWI ranking is certainly impressive. She would probably qualify for "major success in minor promotions". She most probably is notable.

Upon further thought I don't see why we shouldn't publish the draft. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 04:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I added a couple of more recent references. I don't know anything about professional wrestling, though - can someone here check to see if there are some references that are too closely connected or not reliable which should be removed before the draft is published? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems pretty good. But the LethalWow bio redirects to the home page, and Diva-Dirt isn't a magazine. Not sure it's notable enough that being one of its "Women of the Year" counts for much. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:45, April 2, 2014 (UTC)

One thing to note is that the an article about this person was deleted by a consensus less than a month ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Eagles (4th nomination). A good question is, is this version different than that version was because if not it would likely be deleted again?--70.49.72.34 (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)