Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.74.201.149 (talk) at 23:56, 29 July 2015 (Undid revision 673709691 by 72.74.201.149 (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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
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!

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used


This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 94. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Could we please stop citing Cagematch.net?

So I am cleaning up the bot list and currently it has over 400 wrestling articles where one or more references is tagged as unreliable. My estimate is that at least 50% of those are from Cagematch.net. I also see it used more where it is not tagged as unreliable (yet) and I see experienced editors repeatedly add cagematch as a source. It is a user contributed site, much like Wikipedia except without the sourcing requirement - just like we cannot use Wikipedia as a source we should not use Cagematch as a source either - if we look a little harder a lot of this stuff can be sourced through other means. Can we at least try to stop the bleeding?  MPJ -US  00:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same way about Online World of Wrestling and WrestlingData. Nikki♥311 02:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree  MPJ -US  02:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone up for a blitz on Money Inc. to replace the unreliable references? I started it tonight. I wonder if it could become a Featured Article if the references were improved. Many of them are just to stuff that can be easily sourced, like title changes and pay per view results. (I'll admit that I was the one who originally did the sourcing 7 1/2 years ago.) GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am in, i recently bought a lot of old PWIs dirt cheap and i got some good books too.  MPJ -US  10:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately 1980-1990s WWF is right in my wheelhouse, I got loads of sources for those articles so I went through and put in replacements for everything I thought looked like a questionable source.  MPJ -US  10:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great job on the sources. I'll add the pictures I took of DiBiase and Schyster from 1994-95. I've also taken the liberty of removing "add Online World of Wrestling sources" from the project's outdated "to-do list" ([1]). GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WrestlingData/Genickbruch isn't user-generated. Joe Schmo can register an account, but all that does is let him comment on and rate things, or write a biography section (which almost no profiles have). The "Edit/Draft version" stuff beneath profile info is for that part only.
But yes, OWW is crap. I've been saying that for years. Don't know Cagematch well enough to judge. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:58, June 20, 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, to edit Cagematch, you have to make a request. I asked for some events and I gave to them sources for the results. Also, i gave the results directly to them (for example, I watched Ring Warriors episode 1 and send him the results). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm is it possible to somehow document their editing process? I mean if we can determine that either of those passes WP:RS even better. I use it for research to organize time lines etc. but then track down independent sources afterwards - it would be great if we can actually skip that part and have the two cites actually be reliable sources.  MPJ -US  22:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that article this pops up at me "reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both" if we can show the publication process with the need for sources for submissions to be accepted.  MPJ -US  22:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About Cagematch, I send them an email http://www.cagematch.net/?id=900 I saw an event in YouTube and asked for its own entry, so I gave them a result match from a forum and the create this http://www.cagematch.net/?id=1&nr=100263 I don't know if they looked for more information, but we can ask them. Also, I ask to upload the American Pro Wrestling Alliance titles, but they refused because they didn't find the results. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good sign.
WrestlingData's info matches that (as far as I've seen) in their other websites list, so that's another good sign. We already officially trust most of them. Not sure about their "friends", though. They look a bit sketchy. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, June 20, 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of WrestlingData sources, thanks for changing all those "Cawthorn"s, MPJ! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, June 20, 2015 (UTC)
I think I got them all and hey I made most of that mess, only fair I clean it up too. MPJ -US  00:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Los Angeles Times still refuses to admit they misread whatever the hell WebProNews is about Matt Osborne leaving WWF in 1996, despite me giving them plenty of links. They just added an extra ", WebProNews said," instead. That's a bad sign. Still a pretty reliable source, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

I'm of the view that Cage Match is only reliable on match results and related data to an event. I'm certainly against it on BLP claims (and edited the reliable source list accordingly awhile back after some twits tried to use Cage Match to prove that Buddy Murphy trained only at a Melbourne wrestling academy - and I know for a fact he wasn't trained there but I can't say that in the article because it's OR). I've emailed them myself at times over results and they do check them so it's not a user orientated system in that regard at least. Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can include his emails as source. For example, Vladimir Kozlov sent a message to Wikipedia informing he was born in 1979 --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How did he send a message to Wikipedia and how did you know it was the real one?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

here --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that it could be considered a reliable source for match results, championships wins. Personal bio info is a little more suspect, for instance Rush was trained by Pittbull I and II, not the ECW tag team like that site states but his uncles who do not have entries on WrestleData. But how to enforce that it'd be reliable for results and events?  MPJ -US  13:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They recognize the NZ Switch between Flair and Race and count Booker T as the first WHC, not HHH like the WWE does.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see that before, they're counting the WCW world title as the same as the WHC because they use the same belt design, not the same belt since it was not WWF/WWE branded. At least they're consistent by not listing it for the WCW title either, listing that Booker T's reign ended on the last Nitro. That's... well one way of doing it I guess.  MPJ -US  04:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked them their process for adding results and they have an editorial process, basically they have one or more editors for each region and results usually has to be submitted with a source and the source is checked and they do independent checking to verify at least some of the results before posting them. I think that is very encouraging and actually goes far towards them being reliable for match results.  MPJ -US  02:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely more reliable than the absolutely nonexistent sources we use in many "In wrestling" sections, that much is clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:54, June 24, 2015 (UTC)

Is it a bot that's putting the "Unreliable" tag on the website or actual editors? If it' editors I think if we have consensus we can update the Project PW section on what is reliable sources and point them to that? Once we get that done we can start detagging cagematch.net references? I think we have consensus that Cagematch.net is fine for uncontentious information in regards to match results etc. right? Any objects to it? MPJ -US  23:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it doesn't really work to say that a website is fine for some information but not fine for other information. If their fact checking isn't good enough for contentious material, then their fact checking isn't good enough period. As stated above, a user can submit match results with a source so they can verify it, so wouldn't it be better for us to just use the original source (assuming it is reliable). Nikki♥311 00:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I think I did not state that correctly - what I meant to say is that the stuff we can source from Cagematch is really not contentious material since it's mainly match results, stats etc. I was not trying to limit what we'd use. And if we had the original sources that would be awesome, but they don't publish them as far as I know. MPJ -US  00:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So since there were no objections I have added the following to the "sources" section of the project pages.

  • Cagematch - Database of wresting match results, stats etc. Contains a large quantity of uncontentious material such as match results. Takes user submissions but is reviewed by regional editors that verify all submissions before they are added to the database.

Carry on  MPJ -US  21:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm just going to say that CageMatch has been useful to me when looking at a wrestler's matches in bulk. (Winning streaks, one win in 20 matches etc) I'm totally fine with restricting it to only match results. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think people have problems about the basic biographical stats of wrestlers. For example, date of birth, place of birth, real name, who trained the guy, debut date? Such info is not readily available (due to kayfabe)? Match results are information meant for the public, but these basic biographical stats of wrestlers are not. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say the other stuff isn't meant for the public, but no problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:32, July 19, 2015 (UTC)

Fixing WWE's official title history

wwe.com has some major errors in its title histories: • they forgot to add all of the Hardcore Battle Royal changes at WrestleMania 2000 except the final one • they somehow lost 4 US title reigns (explained it in a discussion a few days ago) • recognize Kevin Nash as a 5-time WCW Champ but don't list his short reign in 2000 (Sid - Nash - Sid) minor error: • sometimes they recognize the date the title changed, sometimes the date the change was aired

We should collect some Twitter names of wwe.com staff and we should all tweet them about this. It would make some things a lot easier, and we would have definitive sources for some of these reigns. And how unprofessional does it look to have such a big company that doesn't care about their own titles?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's worry about Wikipedia, not wwe.com. That's not our job. (And the first one is not incorrect at all. In championship scrambles, only the last winner's reign actually counts; the guys who get pins during the scramble are not counted as former champions. This is borne out by other similar scrambles over the years.) oknazevad (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Each of the people getting a pinfall were announced as new champions during the scramble. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly they've changed the standards of recognition, to keep that event in line with later scrambles like the one for the ECW title at the Bash in 2009. It's their title, so they are allowed to do that. Pro wrestling is a form of serialized fiction after all, it is subject to retcons. There's no use acting like some bit of history has been lost, here. oknazevad (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The scramble champs were only "champs" for the specific purpose of determining the champ at the time limit. Same word, different concept. They don't count as real champs, because the match isn't over. No bell, no winner. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:51, July 1, 2015 (UTC)

They recognize these reigns in their official encyclopedia. They also recognize Viscera as a former Hardcore Champ, even though he only won the title once (during the battle royal). It was not a Scramble match and I'm sure they didn't think about future Scramble matches when not adding these reigns to their official title history. They also consider Hardcore Holly a 22-time Champ in their articles, but he only gets 22 reigns if you count his title reign during the battle royal. They just botched their title history, nothing new. I tweeted some guys, two responded, but didn't seem to care what I had to say and ignored or blocked me. This is so frustrating, you want to help them with obvious mistakes and they get annoyed. There has to be a way to get their attention. I mean in the end, what are titles worth if your title win gets lost because of stupid staff!?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Van Dam's European Championship reign isn't listed in that title history but is listed elsewhere. Seems to be the case with some of these Hardcore reigns, Viscera doesn't get listed in the official title history but is listed as one in his bio. We'll just have to make a note of that as we do with RVD.LM2000 (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Damn didn't know about RVD's lost reign. This is getting disgusting! btw is it only me or is this link dead: http://web.archive.org/web/20110609235351/http://www.wwe.com/superstars/wwealumni/rvd/bio/358594 it was used as a source next to RVD's reign.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RVD's only Euro title reign was when he unified it with the IC title. It's mentioned on RVD's alumnus page, and in the description of Jeff Hardy's final reign as champion (the last full reign for the title's existence), but as often happens, they don't always emotion the winner of the unification match. On the other hand, the Hardcore title page does have RVD listed as the last champ.
Of course, again, it's not our job to correct their errors, presuming they actually are errors and not intentional changes. Maybe you got blocked on Twitter because you wouldn't let things go when it's not your business or job to take care of them. Stop obsessing over it. It's not healthy for you and not productive for us. oknazevad (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not counting RVD's reign but counting it in his bio is an actual error for sure. And I think it is productive, because there won't be any disputes in the future over some title reigns which you count but wwe.com doesn't.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck trying to reason with WWE.com. I tried to get them to change Dominic Denucci's name from "Dominc" once. Ended after three e-mails apiece with some guy who didn't seem to understand the problem in simple English. After that, I only got automated invites to fill out a customer satisfaction survey, and it's still "Dominc."
If you can actually get them to change something as subtstantial as a title history, you're a better man than I. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, July 1, 2015 (UTC)

Seriously are they retarded or what? What did that guy not understand? Dominic was his name and not Dominc, so just change it!? But you go an email conversation? How? I once filled out a form but never got a reply. Or did you have a specific mail address of an employee?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using the word "retarded" like that makes you look really bad. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I'd describe him, too. He was either slightly smarter than a bot, or a slightly smart bot. I just used the Contact Us form, to start. Forget his name, but it was a man's name. Shouldn't have been a conversation, should've just been a simple fix. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, July 3, 2015 (UTC)
As for RVD, he won the belt, but didn't hold it. It ceased to exist apart from the IC immediately. So no reign, not even one second. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, July 3, 2015 (UTC)

Happens, not a native speaker, I live in Germany. But that's not the point, even I can understand that if his name is Dominic, then it's not Dominc ... WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, but I've been trying to get in touch with WWE for months and they do nothing. And now I read about them not understanding the difference between Dominc and Dominic and I got even more pissed. @Hulk: He won it and then it was unified. Like Orton vs Cena TLC 2013, Orton's WHC reign is recognized, or like RVD's Hardcore title reign later in 2002. It was the same guy, same situation, only this time it was IC and Hardcore and not IC and European. + they recognize it in his wwe.com bio and in the WWE encylopedia and in their articles. They want to recognize the reign, but forgot to add it in their title history. That's why I think we should remove the note that the reign is not listed in WWE's title history, it is not missing on purpose. Same with the 4 missing US title reigns. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nay, good sir. Regardless of how the indisputably confused or intentionally misleading WWE.com is, the stipulation in any unification match (even in "real" sports) is simple and in place before the match starts. One title will merge into another, and the winner of the match gets the bigger title. When the ref calls for the final bell, the absorbed title doesn't exist.
Trying to presume what WWE.com truly wants to rewrite and what's their honest, retarded mistake will drive you crazier than worrying about history's constant decay. Don't bother, I say. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, July 3, 2015 (UTC)

So you think they made a mistake counting Orton's 12th world title reign or counting Triple H's 5th IC title reign or counting Jericho's 2nd WCW title reign when he became the Undisputed Champ? They all won the title and at that exact moment it was deactivated / unified. Or are you saying we should edit Orton's bio into "11-time World Champ"? Here you have WWE recognizing RVD as the final champ: http://www.wwe.com/inside/top-25-superstars-of-the-new-millennium/page-10 WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it was a mistake or deliberate, but it's wrong. Unification matches end in unification, not two reigns. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

They count every unification as an additional title win. EVERY. I don't think we should take one title reign away from ever wrestler. Maybe it is not a title reign in your eyes because it lasts less than a second, but those guys won the match and therefore always get the honor of being the last Champion.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Won the title, didn't hold it.
In any case, we already hold WWE.com way higher than any Wikiproject should hold a primary source. It's in every article related to WWE, almost. It's even weirder when we consider WWE's bread and butter is deception. Secondaries at least try to find the truth. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, July 6, 2015 (UTC)
What truth? It's scripted fiction. The dirt sheets seem to forget that sometimes, playing up the TMZ "gotcha" style, trying to "reveal the truth they don't want you to see!" as though kayfabe really mattered anymore and that every promoter is committing fraud. Now, technically, that was once true. (The days of true kayfabe were actually fraud, when you think about it, as it was actually a form of match fixing, though it developed into a distinct form of theatre) But those days are long gone, and frankly the dirt sheets are more than a little bit ridiculous in acting like they still do. WWE.com is a reliable source for plot summaries, which is what all this history is in reality. As serialized fiction, it is subject to retcons, just like comic books and TV series. We should keep that in mind and know that things are changed intentionally sometimes, and that ultimately WWE really only cares about how the history can inform current story lines.oknazevad (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The line between the lies and truth is still there. Just blurrier and permeable. I'd sort of rather not know I don't know than know I only half-know. It's like holding a light switch in the middle. Bzzzz! Also a blurry line between the actors and their roles that we never see in Batman. (Don't read that, it's half-pointless.) InedibleHulk (talk) 06:59, July 7, 2015 (UTC)
People still say "wont to do"? Good stuff! But yeah, better than WebProNews, etc. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

So the point of this was to get some people to help me contact them on Twitter. Anybody?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

US Championship

JBL called Ric Flair a 6-time US Champ at WrestleMania, two days ago during the No 1 Contender Triple Threat, in one of Cena's matches vs Cesaro and many times in between. I have proven that they just forgot to add his 6th reign in the official title history on wwe.com, so could we please remove the "reign no recognized by WWE"? Maybe change it to "not listed in the title history" just like Nash's WCW World title reign. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By clicking at each reign, you get to know the date he won and lost it according to WWE. Flair lost the title in July, but the next reign starts in January. A 6 month vacancy? No, they just forgot / accidentally deleted a Flair and a Valentine reign.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This CFD may need input from this side

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 July 10#Category:Professional wrestling venues in the United States

Please note that none of the other categories in this tree appear to be up for deletion. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see that one in time. Any arena worth its salt is multi-purpose, anyway. I'd like to see them all go, but not just wrestling. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:08, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

Spoilers dispute

Did somebody see this? It's a discussion about Lucha underground. The user is talking about the spoilers policies, taped events and more... it's about LU, but I think it's important, because a lot of articles are included under these policies.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think...maybe I used some spoilers in the dispute XD Sorry :S --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no spoilers at all in the dispute text, I made sure I used totally made up generic events to illustrate the fact that us stating that "this match was taped on April X" is not crystalball because it has already happen and that none of the articles made mention of how it would be shown on TV since it had not.  MPJ -Fiesta Triplemania  09:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NXT TakeOver: Brooklyn

I really feel this WWE Network event of NXT should be it's own article separate from the List of WWE NXT special episodes article due to its nature of being the first WWE Network event for NXT outside Full Sail University's NXT Arena. I would do it, but creating extensive article are just not my area of expertise. I'm good at editing/creating template, creating stubs, and minor edits. So is anyone willing to take on the project? I'm betting with NXT growing in popularity, there won't be a shortage of reliable sources to handle it being its own article. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 05:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @TrueCRaysball: - I could do it. But I don't really want to. It's tough work. What's the rationale for a standalone article? Held outside Full Sail? Just 10,000 people more watching the event live. Presumably around the same number watching on the WWE Network - maximum 1.5 million subs? If this was a pay-per-view, there's more rationale, but if it isn't, it's probably just 10,000 more people watching this than R Evolution. starship.paint ~ KO 00:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We just went through something similar to this with Elimination Chamber. It's about coverage, not method of air or viewership numbers. While it's too early to prove it, I believe there will be the sources to sustain the stand alone article. Let's face it, NXT is growing in popularity. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 00:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TrueCRaysball: okay, let me admit it. There is enough coverage; there are reliable sources out there. If there was enough coverage for NXT Arrival, there is probably enough coverage for every single subsequent NXT Takeover to have their own articles. Instead the question you should be asking yourself is, will there be enough editors to sustain the standalone article? Compare the NXT Arrival Good Article to WWE's Elimination Chamber (2015) and The Beast in the East. The articles of the main roster events are incomplete. The latter has sources to Twitter and Wrestlezone. This is what will happen - prove me wrong, please, I would love to see any NXT Takeover article match Arrival's in completeness and quality. But who's going to volunteer? It won't be me. starship.paint ~ KO 12:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TrueCRaysball: You don't have to answer. I also say this with respect: you are proposing adding work that puts even more strain on the Wikiproject, but you can't shoulder much of this work, and you need others to do it. If the results are poor, it's in a sense ... irresponsible to have even started doing this extra work. starship.paint ~ KO 02:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MPJ-DK: - if they can produce a complete article, then please, go ahead! Do it! But if they can't ... then I'd rather them work on the various incomplete articles the project already has, rather than creating yet another incomplete article. starship.paint ~ KO 02:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Starship.paint: - Whoa how about we dial this back a bit? So if they cannot produce an article to your standards they should work on the articles you think need it? How are we even having such a discussion? The criteria for an article is not "completeness" or anything like that but notability and heck all NXT Takeovers have to have that weather they're in one joint article or separate ones. Remember that today's Stub article is tomorrow's B class article, even if the improvements do not happen on a schedule to your liking. Maybe it is just me but I don't think anyone here has the right to try to dictate which articles someone works on, this is all voluntary work after all, desire, interest, passion drives this. If someone wants to take a shot at the that as a standalone article I fully support the creation of any article that fullfils the Notability criteria. Put it this way, I am here to mainly work on the Lucha Libre articles because that is what I want to work on, I would never put up with others telling me I should work on something else.  MPJ -Viva Esfinge  02:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MPJ-DK: - I'm sorry for pissing you off, man (it sure seems like it). I'm just saying this situation might produce more articles like Triplemanía XII, where you, Nikki311 and I have to work on, because I didn't hear anyone else volunteering for Triplemania expansion. Stubs don't magically become B-Class articles, I'm sure you know it requires time and hard work - all of which is voluntary, as you said. I'm just trying to conserve that precious resource - our voluntary time and hard work, from being overwhelmed by stubs. In an era where the WikiProject was more active - sure you can create stubs and there will be many people to expand it. This is not the era. We are short of people, so we should be prudent in what we create. If there are more editors in the future, then expansion is fine. That's my editing philosophy and you don't have to agree with it. starship.paint ~ KO 03:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Starship.paint: - I am sorry if I came off as pissed off, not at all just a little concerned that the discussion seemed to focus more on restricting what people feel like working on than if the NXT Event could qualify for a standalone article. And yes I know that stub work can be a pain, or a lot of fun doing research. To me the last thing I want to do is discourage anyone from contributing, in whatever manner they choose. MPJ -Viva Esfinge  03:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MPJ-DK: I don't like restricting others, it isn't nice, yes. Unfortunately, I think it's for the greater good. But there are alternatives which haven't been considered. If TrueCRaysball wants to learn how to create a complete PPV-like article from scratch, sure, I can help him, even using Takeover: Brooklyn, why not? starship.paint ~ KO 03:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WWE personnel

I've noticed over the past few months that this template is constantly being edit warred over who belongs on what category (one example is whether or not the four horsewomen should be in the "main roster" section or on the "NXT section", even when the WWE website lists them as NXT divas). I've already sent out a WP:RFPP on the template in order to start a discussion about what standard we should apply the template to. Your thoughts? --wL<speak·check> 06:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As one wise man said Run Fools". Seriously, that's by I hate these articles. My advice: created iron rules. It's a joke to discuss if the horsewomen belong to NXT or the main roster. Iron rules, not personnal interpretation.HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a start, should we just base it on what is written at the main list and its references, Starship.paint? --wL<speak·check> 17:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the instability of both list and the template are notorious (the list article is covered in the media as one of the most contentious articles in Wikipedia). Is it even worth pursuing? --wL<speak·check> 03:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WikiLeon: - if constantly fighting a horde of "red users" is your thing, most of them acting in good faith, a significant number of them unaware of WP:PW/RS reliable sourcing, then pursue it. People will always try to add "correct" info, even without a source, or try to re-categorize wrestlers "properly". Actually, I have an idea - maybe the page needs pending changes protection. starship.paint ~ KO 01:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More like semi-protection. The template is seen on the articles of every person hired/conatracted by WWE, and it's constantly being edited. --wL<speak·check> 05:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Input from project members on a GA nomination

I'm the GA reviewer for Bullet Club and I had a question regarding how to treat descriptions of matches to comply with WP:Writing about fiction if it applies at all. I'm not familiar with Professional Wrestling so I'm unsure of how scripted it is or not, and whether it needs to be covered from an "out of the universe" perspective if that's even possible. Input on the review can be put on the review page. Thanks. Wugapodes (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I listed it after finding the project's style guide and reading through it. Though feel free to use the review as a way to improve the article. Wugapodes (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed feedback. I found it useful, particularly the suggestion that "In wrestling" is perhaps not the best name for the section header. There's probably a better option that we could come up with. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't edit if you don't know all the facts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WWE_United_States_Champions

"WWE recognizes Flair's fourth and fifth reigns as being uninterrupted, and considers this a continuation of the fourth." They do? So why do they state it ended on July 26? http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/unitedstates/3044541222 They just forgot to add the two reigns that happened between July 26 and the January 27 title win by Roddy Piper. And we should not put these reigns in grey even if WWE decided to see the reign as a continuation, because the title changes happened in NWA and were recognized at that time.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

omg. i swear I'll hang myself in my room if I read one more discussion. Please, edit. We apreciate you ask us about the editions. If you're sure something is wrong, change it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't do it, man! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:06, July 23, 2015 (UTC)
I mean, Don't do it, man! Don't want to one day wonder what if I'd only talked bigger. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:09, July 23, 2015 (UTC)

But then the guy responsible for it will just undo my edit and it will go on forever, so I wanted to explain to everyone that I am right. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming he even reads this I guess? You could have simply gone to his talk page instead of rehashing this reheated discussion of a repeated issue. It's like Deja Vu all over again.  MPJ -Viva Esfinge  01:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I posted it on his page too, I just wanted to let everyone know about the stuff nobody looked at (the dates when clicking at the reigns). So next time someone edits it, you know for sure I am right ;) WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter what WWE recognizes? It is a WCW Championship. WWE can't re-write history. What happened, happened. We list facts not "facts according to WWE".--WillC 05:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, so do we even need to say "not listed in the WWE (!!!) title lineage"?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WillC what do you think?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section on WWE Hall of Fame

I know about WP:NPOV and all that, but still I can't help but feel that this is unnecessary and tasteless to have this section in the WWE Hall of Fame article. Anyone else feel this way? TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 07:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. I actually inserted the information. It's criticizing the Warrior Award only, not the entire Hall. The stuff is backed up by reliable sources in WP:PW/RS. "Tasteless" certainly isn't a policy, but on that account you can read up on the various debacles of Hall of Famers. This was reported by mainstream news sites, which is a rare event that tells you of it's significance. [2] [3] - starship.paint ~ KO 09:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that it seems Roberts only criticizes the fact they chose Connor as the first recipient, because he feels it's using the Warrior's memory as a publicity stunt essentially, not criticizing the award itself, wouldn't that information then be better presented in Connor's article? Moreover, (even if I am wrong in the first sentence) despite it being backed up by RS, I have to wonder whether the criticism is notable, he's the only one to criticize it, or at least the only one mentioned by a reliable source. It wasn't widespread criticism. I don't know, just feels out of place. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 09:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TrueCRaysball: - other than notability being established by industry and mainstream RS ... WWE officially responding to it makes it even more notable. I agree with you on one point - there's actually two points of criticism here - 1. WWE revised Warrior's intentions, 2. WWE was insincere in giving to Connor. The second point belongs in Connor's article, yes, so I have trimmed that out and rewritten that section, is it better now? starship.paint ~ KO 03:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two potential DYKs

I'm not loving the people in charge of DYK these days, so I don't think I'm going to be submitting there any time soon. There are a couple of wrestling articles that would qualify, though. Mark Curtis Memorial Reunion and Mark Curtis Memorial Weekend of Champions were both created on July 26, so feel free to nominate them if you want. They are eligible for five days from the articles' creation. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&oldid=673709833"