Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

WikiProject Professional Wrestling
Professional wrestling as a whole is under general sanctions
Welcome to the WikiProject Professional wrestling discussion page. Please use this page to discuss issues regarding professional wrestling related articles, project guidelines, ideas, suggestions and questions. Thank you for visiting!

List of WWE personnel

The page has List of WWE personnel has many issues. One of the biggest issues to me is everyone wants to constantly use their WWE.com profile as a reference, however it is a terrible reference to use. Chris Jericho according to his WWE.com profile [1] is on the SmackDown roster, however he made it very clear he has no WWE contract. WWE has made it clear Hulk Hogan is not under contract but he has a profile [2]. I think its safe to assume Randy Savage is not under WWE contact, but he has a profile [3]. My suggestion is to add a column that is for their WWE profile, and link it there, but not use it as a reference. I suggested this on the talk page but the only response I got was "Don't bother...that's just making a section for the sake of making a section" which does not make any sense, because I am trying to fix an issue in incorrect references. Does anyone have any other thoughts on this? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 12:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

We shouldn't be sourcing back to WWE.com regardless. Fails WP:PRIMARY. I don't really see why we should increase the table. We aren't WWE's official website adapter, there's no need to post to their site when the information can be found elsewhere. (Might be a good use for cagematch.) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but unless the profiles are there in some way it will be a never ending battle to remove them again. If they are included in the table it will hopefully stop people from including it. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

We shouldn't be putting things in simply because "editors will put it back". That should never be the policy. 16:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone else chime in here? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the roster articles are a huge problem. I mean, it's painfull to edit these articles, so I prefer to stay away as much as I can. About your comment, well, we have primary and secondary sources. If WWE lists Jericho but other source says he is not under contract, remove him. Same for Hogan. Also, Savage has a profile as part of Hall of Fame, not current stars. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• This is always one of those pages that doesn't strike me as encylopedic in nature, the sheer dynamics of any roster page is problematic and leads to a number of headaches. But I'm sure deleting them won't happen. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• I don't pay close enough attention anymore to know about roster changes so I avoid the article. It was actually mentioned by mainstream sources as one of the most contentious on the English wiki. I don't think there are any solutions to fix that but to answer Galatz's question, secondary sources should take priority over primary sources. WWE.com is often inaccurate and full of contradictions. If his contract expired and they never moved him from the SmackDown list, that's just an error on their part. We do enough fighting about how they interpret their title histories but rosters are far more cut and dry. You can't interpret a guy as being employed by a promotion when he just isn't.LM2000 (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• Delete roster pages - they attract a battle ground mentality. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Is Jericho a 2-time Raw Tag Team Champion?

In WWE's video "5 Superstars with the most championships: WWE List This!", Jericho gets credited with one Raw tag team title reign (with Edge). wwe.com lists it as two separate reigns when he replaced Edge with Big Show. What is correct?2003:CE:D747:4981:C881:76CF:7E41:62CD (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's another "WWE doing wrong thing". WWE.com says clearly, he has two reigns, one with Edge and one with Show. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

So he won it once, but held it as part of two reigns as the change in partner began a new reign. That article probably was just counting that his reign was continuous while Edge and Show had separate reigns. It was definitely a weird situation. oknazevad (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Style guide updates without actual consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to call attention to the fact that Galatz seems to have made several updates to the style guide without any consensus to actually do so. ANd then turn around and use it as a hammer to hit people over the head with when they don't agree to a rule that was never actually agreed on.

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 101#Year in professional wrestling guide led to being added to the guide under the explanation that it's "Clean Up" - One guy says "looks good" no one else made a positive statement - that is not consensus
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 101#PPV background section led to the inclusion of a "1000 word limit" on the PPV background section, even though there was no consensus.

I am going to remove those changes as there is no consensus to add it - if someone wants that added back please have a proper discussion here and build a consensus before anything gets added to the guidelines. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Consensus before making such claims - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Please point to the section where "one commenter agreeing is consensus" or even "last minute suggestion before the thread is archived equals consensus". MPJ-DK (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Even if 2 people chime in, when no one objects that is still a consensus. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You have followed this page for longer than I have, yet you chose not to object at that time or any other time. You only objected once you wanted something included that I removed. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Right if no one objected - so the two linked archive consists of "Galatz: We should do this. Other Wikipedia: Sounds great"?? There were no disagreements at all? No complaints about the inclusion list that you came up with? No one disagreeing with a word limit? So I follow it just fine, I understand it just fine, which is why I disagree that a consensus was reached. And "you chose not to object" - I provided no input to a discussion that was going nowhere at the time, discussions that were archived from inactivity, not because the subject was fully debated. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The 1,000 word limit is ridiculous and should be removed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Actually you are only pointing to some of the conversation, there was a lot of talk that went into these in other threads as well that you are ignoring. Again proper consensus process was followed, if you don't like it try and gain a new consensus. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Galatz is fine here. However, now it has been brought up, we should seek a consensus, and changes regarding these rules should be put on hold.

• • • • In terms of having a hard limit for any section seems absolutely ridiculous. It should be much more dynamic than this. I don't see why you couldn't have a really long background section that made its own section. For a really contentious PPV - See WWE Crown Jewel we could easily have an article on the background of the event. Saying it shouldn't be excessive is fine, and a lose guideline of under 1000 is fine, but a hard value is against what we should be trying to build - quality articles Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
• Galatz - I am curious, please do share where these discussions were held - "Pics or it did not happen." MPJ-DK (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• Specifically "1000 word limit" and the list of promotion restriction for the year articles. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

For example, [4] which occurred prior to making the guide and the reason for it, you will see as the basis for what it became. Between the 2 threads we had about 10 people over 3 weeks contribute. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 01:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point - there was never a consensus on the "1000 word limit" nor a consensus to censor the "xxx in wrestling". Galatz, I appreciate that. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

It was based on the conversation which led to a proposal, and filed the WP:CONSENSUS guidelines, so yes there was. What was not followed? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Not followed? the part where there was "consensus" to add the limitations. I have no problems with the formatting etc. I have a problem with the arbitrarity limitations that seem to be your personal take, not consensus. You seem to repeatedly miss the point that I'm referring to those limitations, even though I specifically asked for you to prove consensus for those. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Except for the fact that it was followed. Just because only 2-3 people agreed with something, the lack of objections here constitutes a consensus. A page you have followed and were following at that time, and did not object to. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you intentionally not reading my comments? the two discussions I linked, which actually had the limits, did have objections to them. Then you said "well there were other discussions without objections" - but those did not cover the objections, so you're going around in circles. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Guys - right now it makes no difference as to what previous concensus was. It's what the concensus is now.

Whether this needs to be a full on WP:RFC is up for debate. I'd say both parties should have a wording for the changes to the guidelines. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is my changes, simple removals so no wording changes needed. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

1) Remove the "1000 word limit" from the show section

2) Remove the limitation on the "year" articles, if it has an article it can be added, no limit on promotion.

WP:NOTEVERYTHING needs to be included just because its true. These guidelines are set to limit it to what is needed. The Crash Lucha Libre might be notable for inclusion on Wikipedia but it certainly is not a top promotion in the world. If we included everything and anything by anything promotion the page would be insane. The purpose of the page is to add useful information for someone who wanted the highlights of the year, not a WP:INDISCRIMINATE compilation of information. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

So right now WP:INDISCRIMINATE would actually indicate that the "year in professional wrestling" themselves should be deleted - To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources - which none of the articles do anyway, just a list of stats. Is the "death in October 2018" restricted by "level of notability"? No the most visited, most active pages of that nature on Wikipedia disagree with your retroactivly created definition. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I have never looked at those pages, but I imagine they follow WP:LISTBIO and require the person to have a page to be included. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh great we agree, if it has an article in can be included (and actually no, there are red links on that page). Glad we could come to an agreement that easily. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, for a list of Bios. So any wrestler in the debuts, deaths, births section should be included if they have a page. This does not mean it applies to other sections, this policy is about people. (I just looked through Deaths in October 2018 you mentioned and see no red lines]]. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

So don't click on November or December which has red links, instead just call me a liar, it is the easier path. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Silly me not knowing you were now referring to something other than you referenced. I am guessing it involves clean up, because I just checked august and september and they also had no red. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

One does not invalidate the other, the comment "they do includ red links" is indeed true, I did not say "ALL", but sure argue those semantics instead of the actual point. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dean Ambrose for GA

As a fan of WWE and a follower of professional wrestler, I would like to point out that the article of Dean Ambrose needs attention in this community. It is clear that he plays a prominent role in the WWE today. Why him? Well, maybe I am biased. Anyways, I feel like Ambrose does not get enough credit both as an entertainer and wrestler. I am aware that this is not the place to show off one's favoritism, but I want people to help me elevate the article. This community prioritizes a lot on legendary performers and promoters, but I would like ourselves to focus on one of the current stars. Dean Ambrose is the right one for me at least. I am not a regular editor and would appreciate support for making it a GA. One step at a time. Next we could even go for one of the hottest wrestlers now, Becky Lynch for FA! Sorry for getting too ahead of myself. However, I am genuinely looking forward to work on Ambrose. Ikhtiar H (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Mission: Becky Lynch FA

As I have stated earlier, I am working on promoting Dean Ambrose as GA and Becky Lynch ad FA. So far it is going well and I have nominated Dean Ambrose for GA. However, I think it is not possible for one editor to go for FA. Therefore,I would need some help on copyediting and peer reviewing. The article is not that large in length. The biggest issue I have is the reliability of the sources as it is a huge part of the criteria in Wiki. That is why I need some of you experience users to help me achieve my goal. Thanks in advance. Ikhtiar H (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

PS: I have managed to get the page semi-protected for two months as a result of vandalism. Hence, sooner the easier. Ikhtiar H (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a very achievable goal, it has been a GA since 2010. That means the hardest part, which would be covering her pre-WWE career, is largely taken care of. The only error I can see is the use of Online World of Wrestling, which was common at the time but is not considered reliable anymore because they let their standards slide. Someone more familiar with the site could chime in though, it still may be okay to use because their oversight was higher at the time.

This was the state of the article when it passed GA, some links could be archived from that as it looks like they were improperly removed due to WP:LINKROT over the years. Her WWE career is sourced pretty well considering the mess WWE articles are usually in. The one thing that stands out is the use of MOS:CAPS in the PWInsider citations. I'll take a closer look later but I like the chances here.LM2000 (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

My main concern with this article is stability. She is active and in a prominent role at the moment. This article is going to be frequently updated and may change drastically in the upcoming months. This is certain to be a strain during the potential FA process. Prefall 08:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Prefall: you've got a valid point. That might slow down the progress. It would be beneficial to firdt work on the sources and copyediting as LM2000 pointed out. However, I think the article's still missing information on her wrestling persona and character development. Also, (nitpicking) there's a lot of repetition of "On (the) DD MM(, YYYY) episode of RAW/Smackdown Live", which might a concern for reviewers. Ikhtiar H (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. It's my main concern. Usually, IPs and good intentions mess with the article. However, it would be nice to have another FA --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: I can assure you that the page will be protected from IPs for the next two months. She is quite young has a long career ahead. Patrolling the article on a weekly basis will minimize any sort of vandalism. I want to reiterate that the current focus should be on copyediting and checking the sources, essentially, strengthening the bases. To me, this is one of the challenges to move from GA to FA. Ikhtiar H (talk) 11:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Not that there isn't something for the arguement that FAs should be stable, saying that you can't have an FA where things might change like this does suggest that no BLP could be an FA. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The stability criterion is really more about content disputes or evolving situations. If there is an ongoing edit war, RfC, etc., the article can't be considered stable. If something major has just happened that will lead to the article changing substantially in the near future (a revelation in the news, an unexplained death, etc.) or a situation that is unresolved (the Undertaker's article just before trying to extend his undefeated streak at WrestleMania, an election article while the campaign is still going, etc.), these could also be stability concerns. Day-to-day life and careers don't prevent an article from being stable. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Having page protection should only be for protection from vandalism, not for more stability of the article as a whole. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Other then manually fixing the sources (which may take a week or two), is their any shortcut? Ikhtiar H (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Becky Lynch is getting close to WP:FAC. I have copyedited and fixed some of the sources. The biggest issue now are the titles of the sources in CAPS. I have not found any way to fix them other then just doing it manually. Is anyone willing to help me work on that? Ikhtiar H (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure it can be done with AWB, but that would likely cause other issues like NXT becoming nxt/Nxt. Likely easier with a manual edit. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

So I believe I have fixed all the issues brought up here. Do you guys think it is ready to be FAC? Ikhtiar H (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

IPW:UK

This article was recently deleted after a small AfD; can anyone take a look and see, as this seems like quite a notable promotion to me. If this isn't notable, then we also need to look at: All-England Championship for the same reasons. Here's some sources I found for the promotion:

[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

The sheer fact the promotion has a national (United Kingdom) television program should really be enough. They've also been apart of the Fight Network for a few years now. Any thoughts? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Totally should no lt have been deleted. Nominated completely failed to fulfill WP:BEFORE, or else the notability would easily established. Feel free to recreate using the independent sources you already listed here. oknazevad (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not completely familiar with this, so Oknazevad - is this something that WP:REFUND could help us with; or would this have to be a complete re-write without any of the content from the original? I'd be quite happy in a couple days to add the sources present above, and prove notability, but re-writing an entire article for this purpose is a bit beyond me (I'm not very familiar with the product). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I would contact the deleting admin to see if they can transfer the contents of the deleted page to your sandbox to work on before moving it back into mainspace. They may be amenable to that, but make sure to mention that you've found third-party sources to establish notability so they see your request as not just someone who disagrees with the deletion without reason. oknazevad (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• If anyone is interested in rescuing this I would be more than happy to help with editing, sources etc. just not a task I would take on by myself as it's not a topic I am that familiar with. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• I have sent a message to the deleting admin. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling WikiContest

With 2019 on the way, I think it is a good time to create a contest in this wikiproject. More users will be encouraged to edit wrestling articles. There will surely be rules that have to be planned. However, I was think more a "scripted" contest (since pro wrestling works this way!); what I mean here is that certain articles will be assigned on users to work on. To spice things up, competitors may also be divided into classes based on their experiences and activities (like different championships). Or it could just be like a simple tournament like the WikiCup if the majority disapproves (considering my weird taste of competition). Of course, the winner will be awarded. Let me know your thoughts on this. Ikhtiar H (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we particularly worry about the amount of editors in PW wikiproject articles. The issue is with quality, and why we are currently under general sanctions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Vilenski: So how can we ensure quality articles as of now? More importantly, what are the reasons for aiming quality? I hope there is way to maintain efficiency and I most probably missing out on that. Ikhtiar H (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

As a Quality Assurance specialist I'd say Quality is ALWAYS important, but that is just me personally. A quality focus could mean that there would be various points for GA, FA, FL, GT, FT etc. throw in options to earn points by creating articles (that pass WP:GNG of course), expanding anything that is currently a stub, updating list articles to have a better lead or use the most current championship format etc. I think there are plenty of point scoring options for such a contest if the interest is there in general. Can I get credit if it's called the "Wiki Rumble"? . ;-) MPJ-DK (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Please chime in - Style Guide modifications

Currently the Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide includes two arbitrary limitations that I personally feel have no place on Wikipedia and are tantamount to censorship and one users personal opinion. I propose that the following two restrictions be removed

1. In the "Production" section there is text stating he storylines section should contain details on at least three rivalries and contain no more than 1,000 words. I propose that we remove the "and contain no more than 1,000 words"
2. In the "Year in professional wrestling" section there is a sub section called "Notability for Inclusion", which contains a list of promotions that the articles should be restricted to. I propose that the list of promotions be removed, they actually run counter to the first part of the section that states All events which contain their own page and meet wikipedia’s notability WP:GNG may be included in the events section. why would the "event section" had a different rule that the other sections? If it has a stand alone article it is notable enough for Wikipedia and thus notable enough for this list. Why censor articles that pass the most fundamental guideline that we have in the WP:GNG??

Thoughts?? MPJ-DK (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

1. It's worth noting that other media have word limits to their plot sections, so having one may not necessarily be a bad thing. WP:FILMPLOT says 400 to 700 words for a feature film. WP:VG/CONTENT says 700 words for a video game. WP:TVPLOT has various limits, including 400 words for an episode article. With that said, professional wrestling is presented in a different format than traditional media, so maybe a word limit should be tailored based on that. I would be okay with altering it to ~200 words per rivalry (in "Storylines" / "Aftermath") and per match/segment (in "Event").
2. I'm fine with this one going away. I believe the idea behind it was to prevent these articles from being overly bloated. Title histories in particular take up a massive amount of space. We'll see how it goes.

Prefall 21:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• I would be okay to have a discussion on a guideline limit and actually come up with a project level compromise. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

My concern with opening it up to everyone is how huge it will get quickly. Perhaps we should consider not listing secondary belts, which will keep the quantity shown down and make the lists more tolerable. Like is every WWF Hardcore change really needed?

As for the word count, I really do not think we need to get into every match, but that is besides the point. The section can really blow up if there are 7 matches with 200 words each. There really is no need to go into that level of detail. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 23:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

So what would you suggest as an alternative to my suggestion? Status quo has some very obvious issues on what is and is not on that list. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not have an alternative suggestion other than what is there already. If you review the original discussion I got to that number of 1,000 words based on reviewing current GA articles. With the exception of WM and SummerSlam it is usually not an issue. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 23:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

200 words would just be a limit, not a recommendation. But yeah, it can be a huge amount when combined together. I was looking at WrestleMania XXX for reference and a lot of them go beyond 300—the main event is nearly 600! Whew. Prefall 23:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that is the event section not storylines which has the limit. Storylines is actually 998 words, so what that section has, which is a lot, I think is a good max. It may be worth having a limit there too - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 23:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I was basing my post on the theoretical 200 words per rivalry/segment/match suggestion rather than the current limit. Prefall 23:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• Galatz - I was actually asking for an alternative to my suggestion of "no limitation on promotions", you raised a concern about volume ,and then mentioned a company on the list, which means the current style guide does not actually address the issue you raised - so I will ask again, what is your alternative then? MPJ-DK (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @MPJ-DK: That was my alternative. One of the purposes of the restrictions is to keep the page manageable and readable. My alternative is if we are adding more promotions, which could/will fill up quick, than we should limit it to just the top title(s) in each promotion/brand. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 12:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
• Alright let's look at what the list you added will do: CMLL, ECW, FMW, Impact, AAA, NJPW, NOAH, ROH, WCCW, WCW and WWE. Looking at the articles this would result in

• The exclusion of the NWA World Heavyweight Championship - except for the brief times it was promoted by WCW or Impact (TNA), including the period of time where it was THE championship since it is not "notable" enough
• The exclusion of the AWA - one of the "Big Three" in the US from the 1960s to the 1980s
• The exclusion of AJPW - one of the "Big Two" in Japan from the 1970s through the 2000s
• The exclusion of the UWA - one of the "Big Two" in Mexico in the 1970s and 1980s.
• No notable promotion content for years prior to 1933 in case someone ever creates those. I guess there was nothing notable happening prior to that?
• From 1933 until 1963 when the WWWF was created only CMLL was notable, so 1933 through 1963 articles would only have CMLL tournaments and championship changes, pretty sparse articles and pretty misleading ones as well
• No Crockett Cups allowed on the list either FYI
• only one NWA territory (WCCW) is included, so it excludes almost all of the federations in existence prior to the late 1980s. Including JCP, Championship Wrestling from Florida, the Memphis territory, and so on.
• So articles could include

• 18xx - 1932: Nothing (unless someone notable related to pro wrestling was born, died, made their debut or retired that year I guess)
• 1933 - 1962: CMLL Only
• 1963 - 1971: CMLL, WWE,
• 1972 - 1981: CMLL, WWE, NJPW
• 1982 - 1988: CMLL, WWE, NJPW, WCCW,
• 1989 - 1990: CMLL, WWE, NJPW, WCCW, FMW
• 1991: CMLL, WWE, NJPW, FMW
• 1992 - 1993 : CMLL, WWE, NJPW, FMW, AAA, Eastern Championship Wrestling (mid-level indy at best)
• 1994 - 1999: CMLL, WWE, NJPW, FMW, AAA, ECW the Extreme version
• 2000 - 2001: CMLL, WWE, NJPW, FMW, AAA, ECW, NOAH
• 2002: CMLL, WWE, NJPW, FMW, AAA, NOAH, Impact, ROH (mid-level indy at the time)
• 2003 - 2018: CMLL, WWE, NJPW, AAA, NOAH, Impact, ROH (did not grow into one of main US feds for years)

• I don't know about anyone else, but I think that the current list is a bad list, heavily slated towards recentism, not recognizing the history of professional wrestling and with no actual consensus. It should be removed immediately, Either no list or a very different list that actually has consensus needs to be put in it's place. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with you, the list was definitely not perfect. That is why I proposed an alternative. I am not sure why you are still harping on all this detail if I am suggesting something that would be more in line with what your concern was. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry but where is your alternate list? I apologize if I missed it? MPJ-DK (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I said more than once, no list of promotions. My thought was opening up to any promotion but only their top titles. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh that was your suggestion, sorry I did not realise that was it, alright I think that is a workable option. It just needs to be more specific - definition of "top title" needs to be pretty clear sobwe don't have revert wars over what is or is not a "top title". MPJ-DK (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• I agree the list is recentism-laden, and ignores time-period context. We're just better off omitting it, and using article-level editorial judgement. I also think leaving title changes to just top titles in a promotion is a bad idea, as secondary titles in big promotions are significantly more notable to a broad audience than primary titles in small promotions. oknazevad (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Ignoring a lot of what's above - The original proposal, I'm a little suprised we have he storylines section should contain details on at least three rivalries and contain no more than 1,000 words. What about Dismember to Dismember that only had one match noted before the show? How could you have three rivalries if they didn't exist? The second point seems like a no-brainer really. We can't say something wasn't notable if wikipedia believes it is. This should be in addition too, and not in place of. So, any notable event that has an article, or events we don't have for those promotions Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Consensus determined - based on all feedback received here, no one likes the current list of promotions - so I will remove it from the style guide. If someone wants to build consensus for a different list of promotions or other changes they are free to start a discussion to build that consensus. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• At this point we still need to figure out what to do with the imposed word limit, thank you to all who have given feedback so far. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm strongly opposed to word limits. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Is anyone actually for' the current hard rule of "1000 words total" for the storylines section? Guideline only indicates that the limit is for that section only. So anyone in favor of keeping the rule exactly as written?? MPJ-DK (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Championships and accomplishments

I have noticed ‎SeosiWrestling adding the annual awards from CBS Sports (source). I wonder if it's relevant? Ikhtiar H (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fine. CBS Sport is a reliable source and a very notable network. Also, the have covered wrestling, so I think the awards are relevant. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm ok with this. Potentially not the Southside wrestling article he's working on though Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

205 Live - brand or not

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A couple of people at Talk:List of WWE personnel‎ decided themselves, over Christmas, when no one else was online, to reclassify 205 as a brand and changed 30+ pages. Please chime in a join the discussion. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 12:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• This fight again? urgh MPJ-DK (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • If you look at that talk page you will see 6 editors (myself, IanPCP, oknazevad, Mt.FijiBoiz, JDC808, and IP 32) are all in agreement about classifying 205 live as it's own brand, and have provided various references backing us up. Only 1 editor (Galatz) has opposed, throwing anything and everything against the wall. Galatz is clearly going into WP:Own mode (which editor Kjscotte34 point blank called him out on in the ANI issued against Galatz by Fiji). And furthermore, Galatz then issued an obvious "revenge porn" ANI against me, where he was again called out (this time by administrator Bbb23). All totaled, Galatz is merely throwing a tantrum because the consensus is going against him, so he is going to use any form of scorched Earth he can to gain a pound of flesh. It's that simple. It was more than just "a couple of editors over Christmas" 6 agreed on brand classification, 1 called him out for WP:own, and another (an admin on top of it) called him out for his "revenge porn" ANI. That's 8 editors who have had recent issue with him (9 if you also include EEng, who threw in a drive-by zinger during Galatz's ANI). Just saying. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Six editors agreeing seems like a consensus to me, if Galatz had a problem with it he should have spoken up then. By his own logic, the "205 is a brand" consensus stands until a consensus is reached that it's not and it's his own fault for not commenting. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Agreed. His whole spiel really is coming off like sour grapes when you get right down to it...he's not getting his way, so he's throwing a fit. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
        • This argument has been going on for years and has been a total embarrassment all the way through. There should've been an RfC years ago. A second one could've been held if new information became available which changed consensus. Professional wrestling content disputes should never be taken to AN/I, you only open yourself up to scorn by the wider community when you bring that there.

It seems that the overwhelming consensus now is that this is a separate brand. This is a momentous day for the few people who care. Now that that's finished, we can spend the next few years arguing about how to categorize other minute details from a TV show that the McMahon family recently admitted hasn't been good in a long time.LM2000 (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

It certainly seems to be settled for everyone beyond Galatz, especially via the talk page there. The evidence is one sided and it seems as though it's settled overall. Thanks for the input, too. Happy holidays everyone. 32.213.93.209 (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• I agree, this whole thing with multiplebANI reports etc, was a huge contributing factor to the General Sanctions that were put on wrestling. Apparently that was not enough of a hint for someone tovexamine their actions and behavior. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: You are so quick to be aggressive and condescending you did not even both to actually follow the facts. Therefore I will summarize them for you

1. The consensus was the it is NOT a brand as has been the case for the past year since this was first discussed. They wanted to change the consensus not me.
2. If you read the thread you will see I did comment. They decided to make the sweeping change within a day of opening the discussion, during Christmas, when people were not around to comment. The circumstances you are comparing it to happened over multiple weeks.
3. I followed WP:CONSENSUS and tried to get a broad range of opinions from a large group. They went on one pages talk page, and made a determination that affected over 100 pages, many of the editors of those pages would not have seen this discussion
4. The user that I reported is attempting to deflect their actions. They have been banned 10, yes 10 times, for these exact same actions on the exact same page. They have twice prior promised to not make those same edits again at ANI but did anyway. I would have brought them back there as anyone should have under any circumstances. If a user promises an admin they wont do something again and then does, the standard procedure is they get blocked, its that simple.

I will await your apology. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I apologize if you think I am triggered by using your words and logic against you. Please file an ANI against me for the use of your own words. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh and my reply above is a condensed version of your reply after I pointed out that you did not actually have a consensus. The best part of irony is that it is so ironic, LOL. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Except for the fact that there was a consensus, which followed proper procedure. This did not follow procedure. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I am extremely apologetic if you provided evidence that the 1000 word limit and the restriction by promotion has a consensus. Please help this old dunce out and highlith this again and I shall forever be a Galatzamaniac. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not know what you are having trouble understanding. Lets read for example what it says at WP:TALKFIRST shall we, Talk page discussion typically precedes substantive changes to policy. Changes may be made if there are no objections, or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change. There was over two weeks without any objections, so yup that was followed.

Now lets head over to WP:CONACHIEVE and see how we achieve it. A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal. Were all concerns taken into account, well since there were none, that part is met. Therefore it falls into what they consider ideal.

So again I asked you to please show me what part of the policy was not followed. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh just the part where there were objections that were not addressed in any way. Yyou know, like my very first comment on the matter that you have not been able to actually provide so far. please show where the concerns raised by 4 Wikipedias were appropriately addressed before you added something to the style guide. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I do not care if I get my way or not, that is ridiculous and my edit history will prove that. My issue was the process laid out in WP:CONSENSUS was not followed. Since the consensus is now that it is a brand, I am not going to be throwing fits. If you actually read what I wrote, I said multiple times that you are not following procedures, and that changes shouldn't be made while the discussions are happening. Because you guys were in such a rush to make the changes, there were many completely wrong and illogical edits made. Conversations need to occur in order to make sure things are done correctly, not to rush to make the changes just to say you did. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's a late Christmas present for you Galatz - the world's smallest violin. Consensus has spoken, 205 Live is a brand, so please just stop the bellyaching, and let us get on with our lives, OK?. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SmackDown or SmackDown Live?

For some pages, it is changed after the brand split in 2016 and some still uses SmackDown. Which one should be normalized? Ikhtiar H (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ikhtiar H: The first use on the page should be the full name, afterward it is the shortened name. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the suggested approach, short, sweet and appropriate. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup

I just wanted to bring attention to the fact that the 2019 Wikipedia:WikiCup is about to begin, with sign-ups open until the end of February. I know some people dislike contests like this, but after having competed in both the 2016 and 2017 (and 2019) I have had nothing but benefits from being in the Cup. It's not about "bling" or anything like that, but having participated I've gotten a lot of article input/help from non-wrestling editors and it has been tremendously helpful in improving articles. Often pro wrestling articles sit forever at GAN etc. - but with the attention from other cup participants the GA noms or FA/FL Candidates have gotten more attention and not just died from lack of participation. I would not have been able to create 4 Good Topics and 1 Feature Topic in the time that I have if it was not for cup participation. So if any of you are interested you should sign up, a bit of fun and a way to increase article quality. Note - I don't believe this counts as canvassing since it actually reduces my own odds ;-) MPJ-DK (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: Agreed, having participated in 2016. In addition, I think we should create separate taskforces for at least the big ones like WWE and NJPW. This wikiproject is getting too broad and hard to handle. I also think for active users will be drawn there. It's just my opinion. ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Do we have enough active, organized editors? I know there is a LOT of IP editors etc. but how many come here and participate in a taskforce?MPJ-DK (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how much is enough. We lack people for Japanese promotions that I can say. ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Probably true, I only create Japanese content if it's somehow related to Mexico, don't know enough about the Japanese wrestling scene. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Any task force should be nominated (as above), but would also need sufficient backing, or it would be pointless. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll most likely join (I did last year too). I do GA reviews, btw and have done for a few PW articles, and promoted Wrestlemania 2 in the past, and have an on-going GAN at Wrestlemania 4. I'd say the "outside the big companies" argument is right, as most users/IPs only edit WWE articles, or TNA/ROH, but I'd actually argue a task-force for wrestling outside of these companies would be better suited. What about, say German wresting? WXW is a huge company, as is All Star Wrestling in the UK (They are only second to the WWE for the amount of events run annually. These promotions are huge, but get not much editing at all. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Is this the ASW you refer to? I was curious on the claim of number of shows (CMLL 358, just saying). That ASW does not look too active? and I agree there is a need for editors for non-WWE and for more quality editors for WWE articles, two different deficiencies and probably two different solutions. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

They go by Superslam wrestling now, and it should be noted that most are not publisiced like this, so would never make cagematch. I know in 2016 they did wel over 350 shows; 100 of which were in July. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

My focus is on Mexico or 80s/90s wrestling and I know next to nothing about UK or Germ wrestling, but I got wikipedia expertise, can read German etc. and be happy to help out on an iniative, just wouldn't be able to take the initiative on this. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

WikiWrestling

A wikicontest which I need people to make. Rules are given below and any suggestions will be appreciated. RULES:

• Everything will be kayfabe just like real pro wrestling
• Monthly events/gathering to determine winners and losers (like pay-per-views)
• Even if wrestling is scripted, there is real competition between talents regarding their charisma, mic skills and so on. Just like that, here editors who are most active will win championships
• Championship ideas I have: A major single's title, minor titles, tag team titles (the way championships will be won is yet to be determined)
• The audience will mainly be other wikipedians and wikiprojects
• Our scripts should be kept private (privacy depends on wiki policies)
• Promos and storylines will be there. No trash-talking or offensive language. Civility and healthy competition should be maintained.
• The primary goal of this competition is to encourage members of this project to show their writing and editing skills. And there is of course entertainment and lots of fun.
• People who are not into wrestling are also free to participate to help the quality of the articles.

I know this idea is farfetched but I hope that enough will like and support it. Thanks! ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting to be honest. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Same here. We’re an encyclopedia, not a Discord channel. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, an article improvement drive is always welcome, but not as some silly game. oknazevad (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I like the idea, though I would say keep it to this project. Reminds me of the WikiCup and other kinds of "awards" given to editors for their editing. Though I'd say cut a few things: point one (because what's there to be kayfabe about?), point three, scripts being kept private (though not sure exactly what you're meaning here), and promos and storylines (although perhaps bonus points if you can make your edit summary/discussion post sound like a promo). I have ideas on how to improve the other suggestions though. Edit: Looking back over the talk page, I see a contest has been suggested before. Perhaps a merger of the ideas? --JDC808 ♫ 19:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for the confusion, got carried away too much. Basically what I want is more quality articles with more editors. It does not matter if they don't know wrestling. Wikipedia:The 50,000 Challenge is an example. It would won't as silly as oknazevad pointed out. [[Alternatively, we could merge the ideas as JDC808. ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Those things rarely get updated (There is one for WP:VG that has been ignored for ages). I think a good way forward if you are looking for more active members of the WikiProject is to see out people editing in the subject area - {{WikiProject description page}} does a good job at this, if someone knows how you set it up. I could easily create us a advertising template (such as one I created for Cue Sports {{Cue sports welcome}}.)

Better yet, give out barnstars to editors making good edits. Costs nothing, and people enjoy praise. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

We do have {{WikiProject Professional wrestling welcome}}. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd make the argument it looks way too similar to the generic welcome. Some colours/images might be more practical. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

On the topic of article improvement, Attitude Era is arguably the most poorly-kept article in the project's scope and needs a near full rewrite if anyone wants to try to tackle it. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Lee Vilenski. Besides, we should add WP:PW/MOS and WP:PW/Sources since new users often make good faith edits unbeknownst to these. On top of that, I think we should welcome new users who edit relatively smaller promotions other than WWE, as they are more likely to be hardcore wrestling viewers rather than casuals. They could be found on special pages like this one or simply this. ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Slammy Award / WWE Year-End Awards

There is a discussion regarding the merging of the Slammy Award and WWE Year-End Awards. See the discussion here. Prefall 21:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Can stage-names be used as article titles?

Manabu Murakami (wrestler) should, IMO, be moved to Manjimaru, since ja.wiki calls him that and treats his real name "Manabu Murakami" as an obscure real-world biographical detail, and it also provides natural disambiguation, which we prefer to parenthetical disambiguation. That said, I know nothing about pro-wrestling and even less about how Wikipedia handles such articles, so I suspect there might be some specific reason the article title isn't already Manjimaru. The article's creator hasn't edited in almost ten years, but I might as well ping The Great Pancracio (talk · contribs) for their opinion as the apparent primary author of the current text of the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Hijiri88. I am also not a wrestling expert though I worked on one article Dick the Bruiser which is obviously a stage name. And if you look at Category:American male professional wrestlers, you will see many article titles that are obvious stage names. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

99% of the time the stage name is the common name and is what should be used. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

A few things of note here Hijiri88

• WP:COMMONNAME is the only standard we need to commit too, and by that end, most wrestlers are known by their ring names on Wikipedia. See No Way Jose (wrestler), Dolph Ziggler, and The Miz.
• In this case, you've cited ja:w; but we don't take information from this location into account on naming conventions.
• You wouldn't need the blessing of the article creator to make a move, but it is a nice move to ping them anyway.

In this case, it's likely a move would be suitible, however, as he has wrestled under his real name, or he could have notability outside of wrestling, I suggest creating a WP:MOVE discussion. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• • As far a I know there’s no rule against stage names and we do use them as well as nicknames in other fields. I don’t see how wrestlers should be treated any differently than the likes of Lady Gaga, Mark Twain, Charlie Sheen, Sugar Ray Robinson, or Butch Cassidy.--67.68.28.220 (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Two questions

Hi. Happy new year to everyone. I have two questions about to articles. They are in my watchlist and I always see the same editions.

One, it's the template of pro wrestling promotions in US. I asked the same a few months. Is Ring Warriors a National promotion? As some people said, RW is small and don't do shows outside Las Vegas. However, they have a TV deal and, for some users, it's enough.

Second, UE (Undisputed Era) reign. Every week the number change, some users say KO and Strong are in their second reign, others say they are in the first. So, who's right? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi HHH Pedrigree, hope you had a nice christmas/new year:

1. IMO, if any company has a national TV deal, they are a national promotion. Regardless of if they travel or not. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
2. What is UE reign? The NXT Tag Championships? I can't see why they wouldn't be on a second reign. They won the titles, then lost them, and won them back. That's two reigns. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, it's Undisputed Era. I don't know the reason, but every week the number change from 1 to 2. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

We list it as two here: List of NXT Tag Team Champions, I can't see why it would only be one - the WWE fully recognises the intermediate reign (even if it was only 2 days.) I don't follow the product, so I don't know anything more. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

There was a ton of discussion on how to handle this at the time, I don't remember on what talk page. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 22:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the Undisputed Era, they are in their 2nd reign as a team. Remember, their 1st reign was a "Freebird" reign, as Adam Cole, then Roderick Strong were added to the championship team with Kyle O'Reilly after Bobby Fish got hurt (it was Strong & O'Reilly who defended the titles in a losing effort to Mustache Mountain at the NXT UK event, and then won them back a couple of nights later). Regarding Ring Warriors, they are a national promotion due to their TV deal with WGN America. The show gives it national exposure...pretty much cut and dry there. Traveling is nice, and looks good on the resume, but as long as the country can see the product on TV, that's all you really need (remember, for the longest time TNA rarely if ever left the Impact Zone, but because they were on Spike TV, it gave them national coverage...same deal here with Ring Warriors). Vjmlhds (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Mean Gene

I was on the Mean Gene article and I wondered why, because of his death, it has been protected. I seen it was vandalized which was taken care of as I was about to. It usually is protocol to put articles in protection. This article should be no different. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles are only protected if there is a lot of vandalism. If there are a few vandal edits that get reverted, there is no real need for protection. Page protection is never automatic upon the subject's death--it can be requested, and the reviewing administrator will determine if there is a pressing need. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)