Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

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

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 85. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Tag Team relevance

I know that, since articles like ShowMiz, Jerishow or The Unholly Alliance, we have created a lot of Tag team Articles. But I think that this has gone very very far and we need to decide again what makes a tag team relevant. For example, The Encore. One day and the stable has his own article, but I can't see why is relevant. One day only... Or Team Hell No. Yeah, Kane and Bryan have a feud, but they do nothing relevant as a Tag Team. I think that a Tag team regin is not relevant, in that case, we can create articles like Eddie Guerrero and Tajiri, Rey Mysterio and Rob Van Dam or Edge and Chris Benoit. Other examples, the Chickbusters. They only had weekly matches and we have the rule "no weekly event". Also, we have a lot of Tag teams that only focused in singles carers, not in Tag Team action, like TnT or Angelina Love and Winter. I think that we must discus it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have been rating unassessed articles and have seen a lot of these, and I agree. All examples mentioned should at most be sections in their individual articles. Kane & Bryan COULD with time get an article but the rest do not really have the team notability or accomplishments to warrant an article.  MPJ -US  10:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is too soon for Kane and Daniel Bryan. Since they are still an active team they could one day do enough to warrant a separate article but not at this point. I may be wrong but I believe a similar criteria was used for Jerishow and creating an article for them was held off until there was enough content.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I was thinking about this very subject since I've last been on here. Unfortunately, all I can do is rehash my previous comments - these articles seem to proliferate for the same reason that PPV articles proliferate - it's easy to take the contents of another article and just change a few words around. Tag teams which were talked about decades after their heyday, such as Larry Hennig and Harley Race or Black Gordman and Goliath? You might have to start from scratch.RadioKAOS (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I mean, The Chickbusters? I don't think they are relevant. They haven't important feuds, storylines nor PPV matches, only weekly matches. The other kind of Tag Team, TnT. TnT had one match, won the titles and lose them. No more, no storylines, no feuds, only a long tag team championship regin without defences. Also, Love and Winter, the most part of the article talks about how one of them fights for the KO Title, but no TAG TEAM action. It's a article about the storyline or feud, not about the Tag Team and we delete aricles like Austin-McMahon feud or Cena-Edge feud. Finally, Encore? One day? Do you remember A.P.P.L.E or The Dashing Ones (Rhodes/Mcintyre). C'mon, we must discuss about why a Tag Team is relevant and don't create the first alliance between two wrestlers. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the first criteria should be longevity. Roughly two years for an older team or six months for a newer one (to account for the storyline acceleration from all this extra airtime). Exceptions can be made for teams that had an exceptional prominence, like The Mega Powers, The Superpowers or The Power Trip. I'm still a fairly big wrestling geek and I've never heard of The Chickbusters or TnT. I sure remember Dave Wagner and Rick Renslow, but they aren't notable either. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC) Fun fact: Searching Wikipedia for "Rick Renslow" gets "Did you mean Ricky Winslow?" This redirects to Rickie Winslow. That's how non-notable Renslow is; Wikipedia suggests an article it doesn't even have instead. Kind of a sad fact, actually. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The only real determining factor is whether the team is discussed in some detail in reliable independent sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• exactly - and discussed AS A TEAM, not individual coverage.  MPJ -US  22:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • True but I would suggest that length and significant feuds do play role in the sense that the longer the team is active and the more significant the feuds they are in would make it more likely that the team will receive significant coverage. I also agree that any coverage needs to be about the team itself not the individual members. Finally, since no one else mentioned it specifically The Encore should not be an article for obvious reasons.--174.93.164.95 (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That article has been cleaned up for now. It still probably doesn't meet notability standards and uses unreliable sources, but I'm leaning towards seeing how it plays out over the next few weeks. But if someone nominates it for deletion, I won't oppose it. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

What about Rhodes Scholars? I know they just formed, but they teamed before a month ago on Raw when they faced Brodus and Sin Cara. Keith Okamoto (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

What about The Crazy Hoos (Super Crazy and Jim Duggan)? Or Jimmy Wang Yang and Shannon Moore? They wrestler together a lot. No, I think we must wait until the tag teams will be relevant. Encore, Rhodes Scholars, TnT aren't. They need to have exposeture, feuds, important Tag Team storylines (no weekly, poor storylines like Chickbusters, singles storylines or storyline between them). Rhodes Scholars can disband tomorrow, Encore can disband next month. We must wait until the tag teams will be relevant. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Rhodes Scholars specifically, I don't see one previous match a month earlier as anywhere near enough significant coverage to support an article.--174.95.111.105 (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, who thinks that we must nominate the next articles: TnT (professional wrestling), The Encore, Team Hell No, The Chickbusters --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

+Angelina Love and Winter.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Team Hell No stands apart, since the team has a significant storyline about it (not a mere throw-together) and belts. I wouldn't mind replacing it with The Dude Busters on the block. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I'll take this opportunity to repeat: The only real determining factor is whether the team is discussed in some detail in reliable independent sources. Time is completely irrelevant. A team could be together for a single match and warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. If there is a fair amount of discussion of the team in independent reliable sources, the article stays. If not, it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. Please put personal preference aside and stick with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (Please note that some, or maybe even all, of the teams mentioned here do not meet the notability guidelines, but not necessarily for the reasons people are claiming.) GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess. Can we at least agree to delete individual member's moves, titles, entrance music and whatnot from In Wrestling? The topic is the team, after all. Also, can we remove all mentions of Mo from the Men on a Mission article? I'll assume yes to the first question and maybe to the second, until further notice. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that the realible soucres point has a problem. You can add a lot of soucres from WON, PWTorch about weekly shows like smackdown and raw or house shows. An article like the Crazy Hoos can have 100 soucres, +100 about the individual career, but The Crazy Hooos still no relevant. #InedibleHulk, I agree ti delete individual's moves and individual nicknames. But not Individual Titles if the title was won durning the tag team. For example, Jeff Hardy won the IC Title when he was in The Hardys, but Kane never won the ECW Championship when he was in Brothers of Destruction.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. What about listing individual heights in the infobox? Total combined weight makes sense to me, but not this. Seems to be common, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again, saying a bunch of things I've probably already said, but...

A team could be together for a single match and warrant inclusion in Wikipedia.

Not about tag teams, but the point is still the same. Enough has been written about the 1971 Freddie Blassie vs. John Tolos match at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum over the years that, going by your logic, it would deserve its own article. If that's perhaps considered out of line, at least an article on the event or the feud. What's been mentioned about the match thus far on Wikipedia (sourced, even) is a start, though without further knowledge of the event, you may think this to be another opinion-driven invention on my part. Quite possibly there's some truth to that, though that's more the case of my understanding of the significance of that match than in deliberately trying to make something up. Yes, wrestling promotions were (semi-)regularly doing stadium shows during "the wilderness years," even if they weren't selling them out like WrestleMania does today.

My main point *is* a rehash. Reliably sourced information is everywhere. Some of it just requires work to find and bring to the table. Sgt. Slaughter told the same story about how he became a pro wrestler to sports columnist Steve Turcotte of the Anchorage Times in 1985 as he told on the Greatest Wrestling Stars of the 80's DVD twenty-some years later, minus the part about holding his own against Billy Robinson. I would hope this would clue someone in to the notion that there may be other sources out there to explore. It may very well address my most recent, as well as overall, grievances with undue weight and one-dimensional articles in general, which proliferate throughout articles covered under this project.

Something specific about other sources: there was a comment on this page some while back to the effect that sheets are unverifiable. I suppose that few or none of you were aware of the role that Factsheet Five played in popularizing sheets during the 1980s and 1990s. Therefore, you may also not be aware that Mike Gunderloy donated his collection to the New York State Library. That means that a major research library in the United States has quite a number of wrestling sheets amongst its collections. To me, that renders the verifiability argument moot. Looking at individual publications, the remaining major question would be one of editorial standards.RadioKAOS (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Did you really watch World Class? How interesting! GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. It's sad and unfortunate that you would resort to irrelevant bullshit, when you were actually on target in the first place. Evidently, intolerance of abstinence from the Kool-Aid. I dunno if it's the fault of the phone or of Android, but I'm always ending up on errant pages. Imagine my luck finding this gem:

@ANI This is an orchestrated witch-hunt by the pro wrestling Wiki-cabal... To put it bluntly, I am being harassed by a Wikipedia version of a lynch mob.

Common sense and experience tells me a few things: 1) You can point to GA and DYK icons all you want, but a GA or DYK icon and $1.49 will get me a large cup of coffee at the convenience store down the street. 2) "Reliable sources" are not limited to whatever happens to fall into your lap. People out in the real world don't care about your interpretation of a quality product, even if they aren't willing to take a personal role in correcting it. In fact, most people I know out in the real world consider contributing to Wikipedia to be a loathsome activity. 3) Yes, tens of thousands of fans at Texas Stadium actually is more interesting than your typical modern-day indie. If I remember, a chapter of Ring of Hell was entitled "Turd Polish", and with good reason. I'm supposed to be jazzed about some promotion doing TV at a Ramada Inn ballroom, with a smaller audience than for your typical taping of AWA All-Star Wrestling, hosted by someone who sounds like he was hired out of a "Be An Announcer" booth at a wrestling convention? Denis Leary summed it up perfectly when he said "You're not in the Wu-Tang Clan. You're not even in A Tribe Called Quest, asshole."RadioKAOS (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a pretty smart person, but I just don't see what point you're trying to make. Yes, there are many reliable sources that aren't found online. People who are interested and have access to this information may very well choose to make use of these sources; I think this would be a tremendous benefit to Wikipedia. Others, who are either uninterested or do not have access to this information, are much less likely to make use of these sources. I, for one, can guarantee that I will never travel 2000 miles to read old wrestling magazines for a Wikipedia article. I feel absolutely no guilt in saying that.

My comment was in response to your frequent irrelevant reminiscing. Yes, I enjoy older wrestling. No, I don't enjoy anything that has been done in the past 15 years. I've watched some very old matches, but I don't feel the need to remind people of that in almost every single unrelated discussion on this page. I just don't get the point...are you bragging, trying to impress people you assume are younger than you?

If you have a passion for older wrestling, that's great. Wikipedia would benefit from people who are interested in older wrestling. If you have access to offline sources, that's great. Wikipedia would benefit from people who have access to offline sources. If this is the case, edit away with the blessing of everyone associated with this WikiProject. If you can fill in some of the gaps in biographies of older wrestlers, giving more weight to their earlier (often pre-WWWF/WWF career), that would be a huge step forward. If you can convince more people to join your cause, more power to you. If you feel the need to make condescending and critical remarks of people who don't share your interests, I'm just not sure that Wikipedia is the place for you. There are plenty of message boards that cater to older wrestling fans who want to talk about the good ol' days.

Remember that we are all pursuing the same goal: improvement of professional wrestling articles on Wikipedia. Remember also that, in a volunteer project, people will focus on their own interests. People don't need to justify the articles they choose to edit or the sources they choose to use. Ultimately, if you can make your goals more clear, we might be able to come to a better understanding. I just don't know what purpose the trips down memory lane are supposed to serve on this talk page... GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

My point is that we need to agree what make a Tag Team relevant. I think that isn't the Storyline/feud between the wrestlers (like Team Hell No), a name (The Encore) or the poor feud/storyline (The Chickbusters). Why we haven't articles about Robbie McAlyster, Mark Briscoe or Max Buck? Because they aren't relevant as a individual wrestlers, they are relevant as a Tag Team (The Highlanders, The Briscoes and The Young Buck). If we don't create aricles about the Ryback's local jobbers (they have a national TV match) because they aren't relevant, I think that is the same case about Encore, a stable that appear one time and can disband the next week, like APPLE. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia guideline for relevance, because inclusion in Wikipedia has nothing to do with relevance. Articles are included if the subject is notable. Notability is demonstrated through discussion in independent reliable sources. We don't need to agree on anything, because Wikipedia guidelines are already established for this very reason. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

In that case, why The Chickbusters are notable? The most part of the article is about weekly show. Why Winter and Angelina Love is notable? Yeah, the article talks me about the Winter championship regins, the Love championship regins and a storyline between them, but not about the TAG TEAM, because Storyline isn't Tag Team. Similar, Rhodes and Sandow or Kane and Bryan. At the moment, they aren't notable as a Tag Team. Or The Encore, how is possible that a one day stable is notable? They can disband tomorrow. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The Encore is technically a two-day stable (they did a little on Superstars). But yeah, I hear you. These teams are barely blips in the bigger picture. I think that should mean their articles are just very brief, not deleted. They have some notability by just existing in major global promotions. But, of course, an article about a team should not be at all about the individuals, if they have their own articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Soooo, do we have a conclussion? HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

How reliable is prowrestling.net

I need to use prowrestling.net as a source but I want input from WP:PW before do.--Dcheagle | ^{Join the Fight!} 21:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd consider it a sister site to PWTorch, with the same standard of reliability (acceptable). There might be something I'm overlooking, but until I'm aware of it, you've got my blessing (for what it's worth). However, that only applies to stuff written by the site's staff, not reader-submitted stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok thats what I Thought.--Dcheagle | ^{Join the Fight!} 00:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's definitely reliable enough for TV/PPV/DVD reports. Some info about the organization... co-founded in 2008 by Jason Powell, an ex-editor for PWTorch and Fanball Magazine -> See archive link. The organization also offers paid membership for access to more exclusive news or podcasts much like other websites we consider credible, such as F4WOnline, PWTorch. Starship.paint (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Article Assessment

I want to request several article for assessment however when I check Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Assessment it tells be request below but I see nothing. Can someone show me where to ask for an assessment on an article. I was for the assessment of Evan Karagias, Hajime Ohara, Taka Michinoku, Vampiro, Tajiri and Yujiro Kushida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamingWithStatoke (talk • contribs) 16:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Jado

I have made an 8k improvement to Jado's professional wrestling career section and will be needed to be assessed and most likely go to start status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamingWithStatoke (talk • contribs) 19:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't do assessments, but I copyedited the article. For future reference, do not write things like "would go on to win/lose/do" when you can say "won/lost/did". "They" also is usually better than "the pair/duo/tag team". The fewer words, the better. It might make sense to have the stuff with Gedo in The World Class Tag Team and only Jado's single stuff here. I appreciate your efforts, however. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

NXT profiles on WWE.com

According to NXT's page on WWE.com, it looks like some of NXT's most featured superstars and divas have profiles on the website. But when I click on Seth Rollins' profile, it's just a photo gallery and a brief description of him. Should I move the featured NXT superstars and divas on the main roster on the List of WWE personnel page or wait? Keith Okamoto (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"Brought to you by..."

I've been reliving a few weeks worth of Raw from 1994, and if there's anything more prevalent in the SummerSlam hype than Undertaker vs Undertaker, it's Domino's Pizza. Which leads me to wonder what the Wikiproject thinks about about having a "Sponsor" (or similar term) column in the PPV article (the ones for the event in general, like SummerSlam above) tables. I think that the particular brand associations with PPVs add a distinct, intangible overall "feeling" to the show, like the venue or main event does. Hogan vs Warrior at SkyDome wouldn't have the same soul, fueled by Snickers instead of Castrol GTX. Maybe I've just watched too much TV. But I'm sure I'm not alone in that. It's not exactly necessary information, but it might certainly qualify as interesting. Anyone interested? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, nevermind that. Quite a few events aren't explicitly sponsored by anyone, so a table would have blanks. But I've been adding the info to leads of individual events (where applicable), and would like to see a parameter in the infobox for this. Thoughts? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

As long as a citation is given, it seems like a good idea. I would use the "cite video" template from Wikipedia: Citation templates. For example, {{cite video|title=WWF Royal Rumble 1990|medium=VHS|publisher=[[WWE Home Video|Coliseum Video]]|date=1990}}. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I fortunately found a YouTube channel that has a ton of show openings ("And now, ______ presents..."). I figure they're brief enough and lacking in any "valuable" content, so there should be no copyvio problems. They've been up for 2-4 years, so probably not a linkrot risk. For shows that clearly feature the sponsor on the poster, I figure that works as an easily verifiable primary source, so used no citation. Slow work on a PS3; even cutting corners, it took me eleven hours to get these done (still need to do most In Your Houses and a few newer shows). But I'll use that template if my current sourcing is contested. Thanks for the tip. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Arsion

All my Arsion articles have been deleted which was because they are apparently not relevant, can some people vote on their speddy deletion because I think they're important. GamingWithStatoke (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion is usually placed by a party who thinks that the article matches one of the speedy deletion criteria, and a Admin then decides if it does and deletes if necessary. That does not involve voting so there is not much that anyone can do with the possible exception of adding better sources.--70.49.83.129 (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you actually referring to WP:AFD because in that case comments by the community would actually have an effect.--70.49.83.129 (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)