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!

"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)

Well, Bad Bunny is not a professional wrestler. Not even a part-timer. Both David Arquette and Dennis Rodman actually had somewhat of a wrestling career. Bad Bunny just made some appearances and competed in one match over the course of about 2.5 months. There was also a video package that aired during WrestleMania 37 Night 2 with Bad Bunny and Triple H where it basically confirmed that Bad Bunny was done with wrestling, at least for the foreseeable future. In terms of the MoS, no, but to label someone as a part-timer would mean that they make periodic appearances with a few matches over an extended period of time, not a few guest appearances and one match over a very short period of time. --JDC808 ♫ 01:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

If (say) someone who has acted in one film is an actor, I think anyone who has wrestled a match is a wrestler. But it doesn't need to appear in the lede. McPhail (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it absolutely shouldn't appear in the lead. I remember a few years ago that "professional wrestler" was listed in the opening sentence of Snooki's article, which is ridiculous. Let's not repeat it for Bad Bunny. — Czello 08:32, 15 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)

I agree 100% with you Czello! It's a huge reach on his part, and I'd certainly not try and argue for the article to say it started in 1993 based off that, but it's not Joe Bloggs or Kay Fabe saying this. I think the opinion is worth mentioning somewhere as he's such a prominent figure both historically and in modern times, and it's an interesting perspective. ItsKesha (talk) 19:22, 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)

Personally, I feel Survivor Series (1997) is best fit as the starting point as it is when McMahon went full heel and it is when wwf's Attitude logo first appeared, but yeah am gonna go with any reliable WP:PW/RS, wwe themselves can be quoted but they have too conflicting opinions, as with Triple H's quotations mentioned in this discussion. The earliest I think can be acceptable KOTR 1996, thats when Austin's character really kick started and while other hints like Goldust's introduction in 1995 can be considered, they are coming from Goldust's own words, not officially recognized. the stand-alone Attitude Era article itself has been a mess for a long time. Before Survivor Series 1997 the term itself was never used at all which solidfies the introduction of the attitude logo as the most likely starting point while previous incidents were mere "hints". I think we should come to agree on a date and then set it in the article as the most possible starting point and if any unregistered ips try to change it without appropriate WP:PW/RS, we should seek WP:RfPP. Thank you to Czello for restoring the previous version, I think change to this should only be made after proper WP:RfC. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It's all up to interpretation. There was no clear beginning or end of the era. There was a slow transition out of New Generation and much of the early Ruthless Aggression era was indiscernible from the AE. Personally, I view AE as having lasted from Survivor Series 97 to WrestleMania X-7, but I'm just some guy. ItsKesha's proposal of removing dates and describing everything in the prose makes sense to me.LM2000 (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Arena tenancies

Yesterday, I visited Dorton Arena to take photographs of the building. Today, I looked at the article to see if any of the photos could be used. After reading the article, a long-simmering complaint came bubbling up to the surface. In general, many arena articles are blatant POV exercises skewed by ice hockey fanboys. Specific to the complaint, arena tenancies are portrayed solely as involving named sports teams. Also, these articles skew the coverage of wrestling shows towards PPV and similar events from the past 25-30 years.

Having gone over the background, here's the crux of the complaint. The article states "Dorton Arena has hosted numerous sporting events and teams throughout the decades. The longest-running tenant was the Raleigh IceCaps (ECHL) ice hockey team from 1991–1998." If a wrestling promoter held regularly-scheduled shows in an arena for X number of years, that's a tenancy. Really, that applies to any sort of promoter or event, but that's beside the point. I'm pretty sure the Murnick family (local promoters for JCP) held regularly-scheduled wrestling shows at Dorton for far longer than seven years. This isn't a WP:SOFIXIT deal involving one edit to one article, as this problem is pretty widespread across many articles. I'm not sure many others look at it this way, otherwise this POV wouldn't be so pervasive, so I'd be interested in hearing what others think about this. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, especially when you look at recent times with WWE taking residencies for their ThunderDome shows, as well as AEW at Daily's Place. Sure, pro-wrestling isn't a "real" sport, but that doesn't change the fact that promotions have had tenancies at arenas. --JDC808 ♫ 03:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure the legitimacy of pro wrestling as a sport versus any other sport really matters to this argument. If a promoter books an arena to hold trade shows eight times per year, year in and year out, that's also a tenancy. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that to argue against you, but that's probably the argument those guys (the "ice hockey fanboys" as you called them) would try to use. --JDC808 ♫ 05:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Would we count recurring annual pay per views in a single arena as a tenancy? For instance SummerSlams 2009-14 at Staples Center, 2015-18 at Barclays Center, January 4 Tokyo Dome Show, Wrestlemania 4 and 5 in Boardwalk Hall, Payback 2013-14/16, etc. DrewieStewie (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Database of WWE Raw episodes

I’ve started compiling a table of Raw episodes over on my personal sandbox, I wanted to get peoples opinions on this, obviously this has never been done on Wikipedia besides the lists of special episodes of RAW, Smackdown, Dynamite etc.

I’ve completed 1993-94 so far, before continuing on, I really just wanted to gather some opinions, would this be a useful article, or am I wasting my time, would it be better off split into different time periods to avoid a huge list?

Sandbox link: User:Copper1993/sandbox

Copper1993 (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Copper1993 - I fully support this! However, here's how I would do it, year-by-year like professional sports teams seasons, rather than all one batch. There could also be a month-by-month summary of major events and goings on, or episodic synopsis, providing it's all well sourced. It's been on my to-do list a while, just haven't got around to it yet! ItsKesha (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi ItsKesha, thanks for the ideas! I feel like that’s what I had in the back of my mind but I just couldn’t work out the best way to approach it, I really like the idea of being able to provide an overview of each year, I’m hoping this can become a group effort, maybe different people can work on specific years once we’ve got a format in place. Copper1993 (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I worry this would go against WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTCRUFT. — Czello 16:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Czello That was my biggest concern, especially since it would be quite a time consuming project.. I’ll leave it for the time being until we can come up with some other suggestions, if we could perhaps expand on each episode by including the card, and any addition information rather than just have a basic list, it might prove to be more useful, although again...very time consuming when all said and done. Copper1993 (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think this is really what Wikipedia is for. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Czello and Lee Vilenski: We have lists of episodes for other TV shows, as well as lists for special episodes of wrestling and lists of pay-per-views, what's so different about this? --JDC808 ♫ 07:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Copper1993, this has sorta been talked about before, but I'm for it. Like I just mentioned to Czello and Lee Vilenski, we have articles for list of episodes for each season of a TV show, this really isn't that much different, though because there's not truly "seasons" with wrestling shows (even if WWE has "season premieres"), a list of episodes by year makes the most sense to me. I think what you got going Copper in your sandbox is a good start. It could even be taken one step further and instead of "Final match," have a summary of the episodes main points, like the big matches for that episodes and any developments in ongoing major storylines (sorta like how the list of special episodes does it). Or perhaps one box with the match card (notating which was the main event) and another box to summarize main storylines. There are a couple of different ways that we could go with it, but again, what you've done in your sandbox is a good starting point. --JDC808 ♫ 07:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a clear case of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Plus, those other lists of TV episodes are normally a) much shorter (this is 25 years of weekly episodes we're talking about) and b) have a plot synopsis that justifies its existence. I think just having a list of matches will again come under WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTCRUFT. — Czello 07:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

If you're going to bring up longevity, The Simpsons has been on longer. Also, in regard to a plot synopsis, that's why I suggested a summary of the main storylines for the episodes, because these are TV shows. --JDC808 ♫ 08:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Though if you think adding the plot synopsis for each episode will justify the article's existence more, you could attempt it and see if it works -- but that's a lot of work. That's 1400+ episodes you're talking about. Realistically, is this ever going to happen? — Czello 06:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I’ve gone ahead and modified my table a bit, for the debut episode I’ve added in the full card underneath the episode information, obviously the ‘Final match’ column would be deleted, but this gives a basic idea of how it would look, any thoughts? User:Copper1993/sandbox Copper1993 (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I’ve also added in details on various segments in paragraphs above the card list, I feel that if we’re able to provide information like this it stops it from becoming simple a list of dates, I’m not sure if there’s a better place I can put this other that my sandbox, ideally I’d like to put it in a place where others can work on it too, is there any way to do so? A project subpage perhaps, starting with the debut episode and then we can work down from there? Copper1993 (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about listing the final match for each episode. It's not a particularly defining characteristic, particularly when the heavily promoted matches came earlier. For example, October 11, 1993, featured Razor Ramon vs. Rick Martel for the vacant intercontinental championship. Telling readers instead that the show ended with the Rock 'n' Roll Express vs. Duane Gill and Barry Hardy doesn't seem to serve a purpose. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly why I’ve opted to remove that column entirely and add in a paragraph underneath listing the entire card, once I started seeing that most of the early shows ended with jobber matches, I figured it was a dumb idea. If you check my sandbox now I’ve added in a much more detailed description to the debut RAW Copper1993 (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I’ve gone ahead and started a subpage within the project page wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/RawDatabase anyone feel free to make changes/contribute Copper1993 (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

YouTube personality infobox

I'm seeing that some professional wrestling BLPs contain the {{Infobox YouTube personality}} template in the other media section, which I find odd since the template is intended to replace the {{Infobox person}} template for YouTube personalities. That aside, I'm not sure I would regard any wrestler as notable as a YouTube personality. Yes, some wrestlers post vlogs, and it becomes a gray area when reliable sources discuss the vlogs' content (e.g., Sammy Guevara's apology to Sasha Banks), but more often than not, the vlogs and channels themselves aren't notable either. The only exceptions I can think of are UpUpDownDown and Being the Elite, but it's also arguable whether those channels make their creators notable as YouTube personalities. Thoughts? KyleJoan^talk 08:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

One infobox on a page is plenty. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

That’s makes sense for me and I don’t see a reason to have the YouTube infobox unless there’s a suggestion that a particular wrestler is actually better known as a YouTuber.--67.70.101.238 (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)