Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

WP:PW	Talk • Article alerts • Assessment • Members list • New articles • Notability • Recognized content • Sanctions • Sources • Style guide • Templates • Top priority articles

WikiProject Professional Wrestling
Shortcut WT:PW 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 88. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Wikilinking theme songs to CD track listings.

I've noticed the theme songs in "In Wrestling" sections are often Wikilinked to the article about the compilation CD they're on. This adds nothing to the understanding of the song, just repeats the track name and who uses it. Seems the only purpose is promotional, letting readers know where they can buy the song. Not what Wikipedia is about, is it? Or is there something I'm missing? I've unlinked a few, but am certainly not about to unlink the millions without consensus (and bot help, preferably). Thoughts? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I think that it's promotional. Only a CD music.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter?

Do you think that we can use official twitter accounts as source? I saw today that Marty Wright (also, I think that we can change the name to The Boogeyman or similar) signed a contract with WWE because he confirmed the information in Twitter. But I don't know if it is true. I see a lot of information like that (Buff Bagwell and Honkey Tonk Man signed with TNA). But I don't read that WWE hired Boogeyman. What do you say, can we use Twitter as source or not? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not, as long as we're reasonably sure the account is who it says it is, and the tweet actually backs the claim. Not long ago, Heath Slater tweeted something like "Encore, baby!" and that became the name of 3MB's article. That wasn't cool. Not sure I see him confirming anything here. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

I think if you include that information in the article it should only read as, "Wright confirmed via Twitter that he had signed a contract with WWE" or something similar, rather than just saying, "Wright signed a contract with WWE". – Richard BB 22:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, found it in the article. That's not a good source at all. He says he's "coming back" (actually just says "Yes" to a question). That could mean in 2020. Jumping to the conclusion that he's signed a contract already is as wrong as The Encore was. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

Suplex article

I have noticed the Suplex article has recently had a number of random sections removed with the editor claiming uncited information. I know this article has had problems with it's citations since it's inception, but just what would be considered as valid sources? The ones normally used don't detail individual move techniques or how to perform them. I've had a little scout around to try and find something but these are all I can come up with:

http://wrestling.isport.com/wrestling-guides/how-to-suplex

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts93oddwWRs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpiqr3buI5k

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/german-suplex

http://wrestling.wonderhowto.com/how-to/perform-regular-vertical-suplex-wrestling-move-316755/

http://wrestling.wonderhowto.com/how-to/do-northern-lights-suplex-pro-wrestling-move-417507/

http://wrestling.wonderhowto.com/how-to/do-butterfly-suplex-315172/

http://headlockbackdrop.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/17-exploder-suplex/

http://headlockbackdrop.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/12-tiger-suplex/

Would any of these be considered valid? and if not where does this leave the status of this article and others like it? Duffs101 (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the Big, Big Book of Wrestling Moves to be something like gospel. Not sure if Wikipedia agrees. I don't think any of those sources pass the WP:RS test, sadly, except maybe the first one. They all seem to be "anyone can contribute" types of sites. TheSuicidalDragon is a cool channel, though! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll try to give the whole article a re-vamp when I get chance. Duffs101 (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NXT's Champ and Tag Champs

WWE.com's listin' the championships at http://www.wwe.com/shows/wwenxt includin' who the champs defeated when got'em. Can I list'em on the WWE's championships template as developmental titles since they are recogniz'd? AARDJ (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, they're on the NXT section of WWE's site, so they're NXT titles, not WWE. WWE owns NXT, but they're still rather distinct promotions. Like if a kid wins a hockey or spelling bee trophy, it's not the parent's, even though the parent was a huge part of winning it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

Just saying, Template:WWE personnel lists the developmental roster, so that is a case for listing the NXT titles under Template:WWE Championships...? Starship.paint (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But NXT ain't a distinct promotion. There ain't no own wrestlers like OVW durin' its WWE develop days. It's more like a develop brand. And like Starship guy said if we list NXT wrestlers on WWE articles and templates why not the NXT champs? AARDJ (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not distinct in the same way OVW or HWA were, no. I wasn't aware we listed the NXT guys in the WWE personnel template. It would make sense to be consistent and list the titles that way, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:37, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

File:Real WWE Championship.jpg is up for deletion here

I'm the original uploader and think this deletion discussion is rather silly. It's an excellent photo of the WWE Championship and has been the main picture for the past few years. Now that there is a new title, the picture is serving its purpose along with the other "past designs" in the article's infobox. I frankly think this discussion should be snowballed, but as the uploader, I feel I don't have the right to bring that up. Those who are commons users should voice their opinions there. Thank you, Feedback ^☎ 19:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I've never seen the need for it since we have this picture but that doesn't seem like a practical reason to delete the image either. Surely all of them would be deletable by that line of thinking? Tony2Times (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That image is now up for deletion as well by the same person who nominated the first and for the same reason. Here's the discussion. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 00:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He nominated three others from what I can tell: here, here and here. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 00:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation: The design of the belt is copyright, any photograph of the belt is a derivative work. You can't take a picture of a copyright object, work of art, etc. and licence it as free. See Commons:Derivative works. It's the same reason you can't take a picture of a Micky Mouse toy to illustrate the article on Micky Mouse (to use the same example they use). It will likely have to be reuploaded as fair use.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same is technically true of all in-ring wrestler images (and the term "Stone Cold Steve Austin"). We could theoretically face "liability for up to three times actual damages". But yeah, should be an easy fair use claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

Aside from re-uploading everything under fair use rationale, someone could simply e-mail permission@wwe.com and ask (nicely) to use all derivative works in the limited, non-commercial way Wikipedia already does. I'll bet they'd be cool with it. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

All images on Commons must be available for any use, even commercial. That is their mandate. Unless WWE is going to allow commercial use, they will not be allowed at Commons, and I highly doubt they will. I think there is a way to move them from Commons to here (similar to the way we can copy images from here to there), they would just need a Fair Use Rationale for all articles. I would suggest asking to do that if participating in discussions. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wwe2013title.jpg is up for deletion as well.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]