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!

Friendly Reminder: Unreliable and Unproven Sources

I posted this on the sources talk page, but not sure how many will see this, so I'll mention it here as well. If you're on an article and see an unreliable or unproven source, change it or remove it. Don't look at it and think someone else will deal with it. I added Nick Patrick to List of former WWE personnel (N–R) and found such sources for other entries. I either changed or removed them. We should be more of a stickler with sources in terms of not letting them slip through the cracks. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 12:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

"SoCal Uncensored" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect SoCal Uncensored. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 25#SoCal Uncensored until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

This has morphed into a move request below. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress for SoCal Uncensored

There is a move request to rename SoCal Uncensored (professional wrestling) to SoCal Uncensored. Please discuss at Talk:SoCal_Uncensored_(professional_wrestling)#Requested_move_31_March_2021 AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Splitting lengthy C&A sections into articles

I just noticed that during Mitsuharu Misawa's GA review, the reviewer requested that the C&A section be split into a new article and Mitsuharu Misawa's championships and accomplishments was then created. Although this is the first time I've seen them done for wrestling, it's not uncommon to split awards from actor or musician articles. It's worth considering adding something to the styles guide so that we have some guidance on when these splits should happen (WP:FILMCRITICLIST just says such an article should be created when it "overwhelms the rest of the film article"). LM2000 (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue a split proposal isn't really part of a GAR. It would be fine to do, but I'm yet to see a wrestler have an unwealdly long C&A section. Ric Flair is the longest one I know of, and this isn't too long that it isn't suitable in the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Go check the Jerry Lawler article. It's longer. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 06:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove "Time Off for an Injury"

On the main article list of former WWE personnel it says:

"When talent is released of their contract, it could be for a budget cut, the individual asking for their release, for personal reasons, time off for an injury, or retirement."

Time off for an injury is not the same as being released. Generally, a company such as WWE doesn't release someone when they injured. That's a terrible business practice if they did. Plus, it could lead to a lot of other legal issues. That's not the point. WWE adds injury time to contracts. Unless there is proof with a source they do that, "time off for an injury" is not why someone would get released. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 07:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

My bigger concern is that people are using the word "talent" to refer to people. Wrestlers, performers, employees...all good. But never "talent" in an enyclopedia. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

"Talent" is a standard term for performers across all sorts of media, and not just pro wrestling. It's neither a neologism or a euphemism. No need to not use it. oknazevad (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

So I went and removed the clause. The objection is reasonable and based on historical evidence. Also, it really bugged me that it said "released of". Wrong preposition for use in that spot. One is released from contract. Fixed that too. oknazevad (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: I was going to remove what I brought up. It sparked discussion about other stuff within it which I wasn't expecting. But thank you for doing that. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

"Talent" is unnecessary jargon when all of the straightforward alternatives I suggested work. "Talent" in professional wrestling is a term popularized by Vince McMahon in an effort to get out of paying taxes and providing benefits for his employees. It looks terrible, makes wrestling articles look like they're written by fanboys, and has no place in an encyclopedia. We should remove every example as soon as possible. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean you're wrong on many levels. It's not just a term in pro wrestling, Vince didn't create it, and it's used as a collective term when there are multiple roles being covered so more specific terms are inappropriate. oknazevad (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

1, agree to remove "Time off for an injury". 2, About the word talent, no reason to remove it since it's a common term, not a pro-wrestling jargon. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, a talent is a word to describe what someone might have, not a word to describe people. It's an informal word, we should be using workforce or staff etc Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Talent is also a special natural ability to do something well, or people who have this ability. In this case, the people have the ability to wrestle. Maybe, an informal word, but not a term created by McMahon --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Your definition demonstrates that this is a POV term. They are employees. They are performers. We don't get to decide if they "do something well". It should not be used in a formal setting, particularly when there are more common terms that eliminate the POV concern and describe the people more clearly. Simply put, if there's a better word, we should use the better word. And nobody has claimed that Vince McMahon invented the term. Stop trying to misrepresent other people's views. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Chiming in. Although no one said that Vince McMahon created the term, you did credit him for popularizing it, which may or may not be true. I personally have no issue with using the word "talent." It's a universal term used in various entertainment industries and even businesses, but I do agree that if there are better terms, we should use those. --JDC808 ♫ 18:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Issues with Grand Slam page

I’m currently in an issue with a IP address user who constantly reverts my changes on the Grand Slam (professional wrestling) page. It’s in regards to the ‘2-time Grand Slam Champion’ text key where I’ve put The Miz and AJ Styles’ names in italics to indicate that they’ve won the Grand Slam more than once. This user has be constantly reverting these and adding ‘2 times’ next to their names (whole also removing the citations next to each wrestler’s name). I don’t know how else to deal with this, but if anyone knows what to do, please reply ASAP. Thanks Drummoe (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Blimey, there's a lot wrong with that page. Why are we even using italics to denote anything? Why are we only sourcing Styles in that list? Why are we flaunting WP:BOLDAVOID? Doesn't look like you've cited WP:BRD in any of your edit summaries, so I'd leave a link on their talk to here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with the IP. The legend says "italic means more than once", but not how many times. Right now it's not an issue since there are only 2 times (AJ and Miz), but maybe a trouble in the future. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Part timers

Is there something in the MoS about how we should label them? Both David Arquette and Dennis Rodman list them as professional wrestlers in the lead, but there is a user that is irked about Bad Bunny being listed as such. Since he is shouting and posting long edit summaries, I would prefer to discuss this. El Alternativo (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Starting point of Attitude Era

In recent contributions to the History of WWE article , ip [User talk:24.38.208.110] made many edits starting from [1] in which he claims Attitude Era began in 1996, despite wider acceptance being 1997, requesting evaluation of the edits this ip made to the article on its revision history on April 11. Personally, I am following WWF since 1999, and while the attitude era is what git me into wrestling I didnt care for when its started, but as a member of wikipedia I hope the article maintains proper authenticity. Are the edits if this ip agreeable or not, an WP:RfC would be best. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

We really need secondary sources here; what WWE says is kind of irrelevant. Do we have secondary sources that determine the starting point of the AE? — Czello 15:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Secondary sources are needed. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

1998, 1997, 1997, 1997 Eras aren't easy, since several people use one or two big events, but it's rare to find a unique date. Most sources say 1997, WrestleMania 13, Montreal or Hart's debut on Nitro. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I guess the point is no secondary sources are saying 96. We can establish it as being 97 and maybe 98 depending on the source, but no earlier. — Czello 16:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Triple H suggests as far back as 1993, Goldust suggests late 1995 into 1996 when his character began, journalist Alex McCarthy says 1996 for the Austin 3:16 speech, journalist Sam Roberts says 1996 for "Pillman's got a gun". Just take the years off all the section titles, the prose should provide the necessary details of the titles without trying to nail it down to exact dates. ItsKesha (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

93 is god damn hilarious. Does he think New Gen didn't happen or something? — Czello 17:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Fun fact: the montage that opens the broadcast that was used throughout the Attitude Era was first used for Survivor Series 97. So there's that data point. I remember Joey Styles once dated it to the debut of the Titantron in early 97 as that allowed the live crowd to see what was happening backstage more easily, leading to a greater use of such segments, which are sometimes noted as the defining convention of the AE, which is also an interesting take. But, overall, secondary sources are needed. oknazevad (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

We can rule out 1993. Looking at the source mentioned Triple H said It’s funny because you can look at those shows and… it almost felt like, in some way, a little bit of the start of an ‘Attitude’ kind of feel within the vibe of it, yet you still had the Doink The Clowns and all the other things. It hadn’t morphed yet, but it was a game-changer for me in the excitement level. I see the haven’t morphed yet line as confirmation that he doesn’t think the actual era stared in 1993 and actually was saying that Raw created the building blocks of what would later become the Attitude era.--67.70.101.238 (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)