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!

Mistakenly recognized by WWE

We say that WWE mistakenly recognizes dates as the end date of a reign. Austin lost the IC title on September 8, but "WWE mistakenly lists Austin's reign as lasting 64 days, ending on October 5, 1997." But on the other hand we accept that WWE counts a Sunday - Monday reign as either 0, 1 or 2 days. So WWE is allowed to make new mathematic rules? If we call the date Austin's reign ended a mistake, then their counting sure is a mistake too. Why does it matter that much? On Raw last night The Miz claimed he will be the longest reigning IC Champ of all time in 62 days. Wrong. He went by WWE's mathematically wrong numbers. The actual number would be 64. If he loses the title on Raw in 9 weeks (63 days), he would break the record according to WWE, but not according to Wikipedia. It also is confusing for a lot of people, why WWE's and Wikipedia's numbers are off 50% of the time. If it is a matter of tape delay, no problem, then we should make a note that WWE recognizes the airing date. But making a note for each time do do the wrong math!?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If we are saying it is air date vs actual date then thats not a mistake, and should not indicate that it is. WWE is a scripted story that does as they please to tell said story. Wikipedia goes based on facts, but also tells what the story is.

Lets look at another example outside of wrestling. The 2013 Big East Men's Basketball Tournament. The NCAA no longer recognizes Louisville's wins. Does that mean they didn't happen? Should we not go through and remove those wins from articles on Wikipedia because the NCAA says they didn't happen? If your answer to that is no, then why apply it to wrestling? - Galatz^Talk 16:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I agreed with that. Air date vs actual date is no issue. But if WWE does not know how to count, we should not change the way people count just because they don't know how to.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Huh? You agree with me, but it doesn't sound like it. And why does the NCAA say it didn't happen?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Because the NCAA later vacated the wins as punishment for rules violations. In wrestling terms, those games were retroactively ruled no contests. oknazevad (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, then we should add it to the article that the wins got vacated.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

They did. Its mentioned at the end of the first paragraph. So just like how that article states the facts and what the NCAA recognizes, we show the facts and what WWE recognizes. - Galatz^Talk 15:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia states the facts. So, it will mention what the actual record is, and also what the company states. If these are the same, there's no issue. WWE can completely say what they want (Within a legal precedent), but we do not have to keep up with that. The WWE (And wrestling in general), the rules and regulations are moved around to fit a story, anyway. The WWE records are actually more likely to be relevant, so Wikipedia keeps track of both. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

But WWE agrees when the reign started and when it ended. They just count... differently. So we can go by their version of start and end dates (then Wikipedia and WWE would agree), or we can go by the way they count (creating a discrepancy in the number of days). So why not go with start and end dates?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Look, what can we say other than it appears no answer will ever satisfy you as to why and how WWE counts title reigns records. You've had many questions and been given many possible explanations, but still you keep asking. The current solution of presenting a stiff calculation and also the WWE's total is the best one. oknazevad (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

WrestlingLegendAS, why do you continuously bring this issue up when we've told you countless times the reasons for why the information is presented? Do you just forget? Also, how do you know that it's confusing for a lot of people? Have you surveyed them? It would be more confusing if people saw WWE's website, and then saw Wikipedia (or vice versa) and noticed that our numbers and dates are different with no explanation (previously, it only said the episode aired on tape delay, and only some mentioned the tape delay date, but that didn't tell readers that that was the date that WWE recognized). In regards to what The Miz said, that was a slip up. He won't be the longest reigning Intercontinental champion come WrestleMania 34. However, he will have the longest combined reign as Intercontinental champion come WrestleMania. That's what he meant. Just to note, come WrestleMania, Miz's current reign will only be about 100 days; the longest single reign is Honkey Tonk Man at 454 days. --JDC808 ♫ 20:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, good point about the confusing people part. But I think you misunderstood what I said about The Miz. On Raw, Miz said he will break Pedro Morales' record (619 days) in 55 days. By the WWE counts, that would be true. But the real number would be 57. So if The Miz loses the title in 8 weeks (56 days), he will have the record according to WWE, but not according to Wikipedia. That's what I meant.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

"WWE recognizes X's reign as lasting # days."

I don't know who's bright idea it was to clutter up all the championship lists with this same sentence in every single row, but I'm shocked that the community here just let it happen. It not only looks terrible, but it adds nothing to the articles. We get it–– WWE.com's calculator counts calendar days rather than the total length. I don't see how that's notable at all since it's most likely a design quirk and not actually WWE's official position on the length of each reign. Case in point, WWE has talked about CM Punk's record-breaking 434 day reign millions of times. The fact that the title history page says 435 doesn't reflect WWE's official position on the matter, it just means the calculator on the website is off. It's beyond silly for us to include this information at all let alone in EVERY SINGLE ROW. At best, the fact that the website adds one day to each reign should be a footnote under each table, and not something that's repeated over and over again cluttering the tables. Feedback 17:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

This has to be done because it doesn't happen in every reign. See the recent discussion above at #Mistakenly recognized by WWE. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Like NotTheFakeJTP said, it's not on every reign, it's only on some. These add up for some and affect the combined reigns table. --JDC808 ♫ 04:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Way to miss the point entirely. I'm saying that WWE.com's calculation mistakes are not notable and don't need to be included in the table at all. A footnote saying that WWE.com has (or may have) different values is really all that's needed. Feedback 11:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Doing this way prevents a lot of unnecessary "corrections" by well-meaning editors who want to change the values to match wwe.com. oknazevad (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Feedback: Actually, I did not miss the point. They are notable because these titles belong to WWE and they go by the number that they calculate, not necessarily what happens in reality because, well, you know, professional wrestling is fictitious and based on fictional storylines. We're presenting both sides here, the reality of the reign lengths, and what WWE claims to be the reign lengths. A little history here, I was the one who started the whole discussion to reach the consensus to have it done this way. It keeps us honest and lets uninformed readers know why our numbers don't match what WWE says. Doing a footnote like you suggest isn't enough and because of what oknazevad said. --JDC808 ♫ 01:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

"They are notable because...they go by the number they calculate"--- You're saying that the website calculations are worthy of inclusion just because they are. That's bogus circular reasoning. I already gave you a prime example of how WWE officially recognizes Punk's reign as 434 but the website calculator says 435. This calculation clearly opposes the official canon and it's misleading to say that WWE recognizes the reign as 435. The calculation by calendar days rather than actual length is a website quirk and nothing more. It doesn't merit inclusion until there's any indication that it represents canon. Feedback 08:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

How is it misleading? It's stating what WWE recognizes for their titles (and if there's not a note, that means it's the same as our calculator). It's more misleading for us to just give our calculations (which is the "real" length) and not say what WWE claims to be their reign lengths. And like mentioned before, the days aren't always off. There are times when our calculator matches up exactly with what WWE's website calculated, then there are times it doesn't, like Punk's reign. To not note this is a disservice to our readers, and that would be misleading. --JDC808 ♫ 20:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It is fairly obvious that WWE.com's calculations are wrong in some cases and simply a mistake. Normally I would agree to list them as what WWE recognizes until their website fixes them, but it's a curious case where WWE is contradicting itself, with Punk's reign being the best example. I'm not sure how to proceed. Prefall 21:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

If there's an obvious mistake, that can be noted. Brock Lesnar losing the WWE Championship at No Way Out 2004 is one. WWE has the actual date on their website wrong, and that is notated in the reigns table. In the case of Punk, I don't really remember which one they claimed on TV (would need verification), but if they do/have in fact promoted 434 on TV and elsewhere, then we can notate that (something like, "Although WWE's website shows the reign as 435 days, they have otherwise recognized his reign as 434 days."[ref(s)] or "WWE incorrectly lists Punk's reign as 435 days, as they officially recognize the reign as 434 days."[ref(s)]) --JDC808 ♫ 22:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Your notes upon notes are nonsense. The easiest solution is to remove all that clutter, and just have one single footnote saying that WWE.com's title history calculates calendar days. If you really think that WWE's own website deserves that much deference, then just delete the articles and redirect them to WWE.com. Feedback 20:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

You miss the point entirely. Again, one single footnote is not enough, and again, it's not on every single reign, and again, there are times when our calculations and WWE's are exactly the same, so stating they go by calendar days is false (or at least not entirely true) and and would be WP:OR. And WrestlingLegendAS in an above discussion brings up a good point here. They're claiming that come WrestleMania, The Miz will have the longest combined reign as Intercontinental Champion, but that's going off of their calculations, which is two days more than ours. Like mentioned before, these numbers add up in the combined reigns and that scenario right there just proved the reason for notating these discrepancies. --JDC808 ♫ 02:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Dana Brooke also a manager?

I notice Titus O'Neil or Apollo isn't listed under people managed by Dana Brooke or vice versa. Wouldn't it be correct to call her their manager? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I haven't ever heard them refer to her as a manager. Only as the statistician (I think thats the term they use). - Galatz^Talk 02:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Dana Brooke is their manager, that's just a matter of semantics. Was Tyson Tomko Christian's manager? He was called his "problem solver" or whatever (not that it matters). A manager accompanies a wrestler to the ring. What they do at ringside really isn't what defines a manager. In fact, I don't remember the last time the WWE even used the term. — Moe Epsilon 04:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Very true, it seems WWE just doesn't use the term "manager". Even Paul Heyman, who's current role is the very model of a pro wrestling manager, is called an "advocate", not a manager. We shouldn't get hung up on the exact storyline term. That said, do we use "manager" or "valet"? oknazevad (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

In describing what Brookes does, traditionally I think the term valet is more correct. Sunny was the quintessential valet, but under the section where you list who they associated with, it still says "wrestlers managed". — Moe Epsilon 05:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the difference is that Sunny was a true Valet. Dana Brooke was asked to join Titus Worldwide, not manage them. She is a female wrestler. Big E isn't considered a manager when the other two of The New Day are wrestling. Owen's isn't Sami's manager but he is out there for every match. Coming out isn't the only criteria. Heyman has said before he is not a manager, he doesn't manage Lesnar, he is only his mouth piece which is why he calls himself the advocate. Its more of a PR role - Galatz^Talk 14:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I think this is more of a difference between kayfabe and not. We're not interested in the reason they are out there for the purpose of storyline. If you don't consider Heyman Lesnar's manager, then you might have to re-evaluate because he is one of the last true managers in WWE. The only criteria for a manager is accompanying them to the ring, providing distractions/assistance, etc. in storyline. They don't have to come on a microphone and announce their "managership". — Moe Epsilon 20:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Heyman is definitely closer to a manager but I do not believe he acts the way typical managers of old do. If it were black or white, then yes he would be a manager, but Dana Brooke would not be. She just happens to be the female member of the the faction. - Galatz^Talk 20:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

That's kind of a gray area that I don't think Wikipedia hits. Chyna was definitely a female member of a faction, DX, but was also a manager. — Moe Epsilon 21:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• There is a source, calling her a valet. [1] I think, call them advocates, coaches, life manager, personal trainer... a lot of names for managers. I think Dana is the female member of TWW and also, the valet. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Since there is a credible source calling her a manager or whatever, it should be added to all articles necessary. I will do that now. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 16:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

person reverting mentions of Pro Wrestling Illustrated withrdrawing recognition of WWF title 1983-1985

User MaverickAC keeps on deleting from the Pro Wrestling Illustrated page any mention - including a reference (although much of the surrounding content is unreferenced) - relating to PWI withdrawing the WWF's world title status 1983-1985. Can anyone assist? 15:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, the whole PWI article needs a bit of an overhaul, but from looking at his history, he has made quite a few edits to this page in this vein. I'll drop him a message, regarding this, as it should be mentioned in the talk page of the article, via WP:BRD. Be careful to not fall foul of the WP:3RR. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Bullet Club again (again)

In case you have free time, we're discussing Gino Gambino's membership in Bullet Club. In case you want to give your opinion Talk:Bullet Club.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Participate on the move progress

Talk:IWGP United States Heavyweight Championship 92.27.41.69 (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Dalton Castle move discussion

Talk:Dalton Castle (wrestler)#Requested move 16 March 2018 - Galatz^Talk 15:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Josh the Grand Champion

According to Impact website, Mathews is the current Grand Champion. [2] However, Don Callis said this reigns isn't oficial months ago. So, any idea? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I would say that to me this sounds like official recognition. Unfortunately its wrestling and they could have decided on future storyline changes and therefore this fits their current future thoughts better. Not really sure - Galatz^Talk 16:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Grand Champion and X-Division Champion Matt Sydal is in the ring to reveal who his spirit guide is. To the shock of many, it turns out to be Josh Mathews! Josh gives Sydal a gift to celebrate his accomplishments, a mask of his spirit animal! In return, Sydal gives Josh a gift of his own – the IMPACT Grand Championship! Josh Mathews is your new Grand Champion. [3] - Galatz^Talk 16:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd wait till next week for (spoiler) the announcement that Impact does not recognize the handoff as valid. It's already known. oknazevad (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The Dusty Rhodes Tag Team Classic

The Dusty Rhodes Tag Team Classic is an annual event as we know. It should have its own article. But it redirects to NXT TakeOver: Respect. I am curious as to why no article has not been created considering it's an annual tournament in a major promotion. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• there is, it is at Dusty Rhodes Tag Team Classic, i fixed the redirect.  MPJ-DK  16:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It does already exist, see Dusty Rhodes Tag Team Classic. For future reference, if you want a page created, either create it yourself, or add it to Portal:Professional wrestling/Opentask. A lot of people don't know about the latter so I'm just putting it out there. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@NotTheFakeJTP:, I've created many pages such as Dean Ambrose, TJ Perkins, and Adam Cole to name a few of the major names. I was confused as to why it redirected to that particular TakeOver leading me to think it had no article hence why I came here. Thank you to @MPJ-DK: for fixing it. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it was created for the first tournament, not knowing that it would be a recurring thing, and everyone just forgot about it.  MPJ-DK  01:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Where to list titles

A few years ago it was standard practice to list a title under the name of the promotion where it was won, but I have started to see a few occasions of titles listed underneath the promotion that owns the championship rather than where it was won (for example, the Dudley Boyz won their second IWGP Tag Team Championship in TNA, not New Japan). I wondered what the style guide is and if I would be right in moving them around? Tony2Times (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)