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!

Redirects

We've had a couple of redirects created by Ranze that I've brought to RfC, they include Madame McMahon, Unicorn Freaks, Raw Champ and Raw Champion. You can voice your thoughts at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 31#Unicorn Freaks.LM2000 (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

New set of Rfds listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 7. They include: Rybotch, Cryback, Big E Jackson, Dawn of the Altitude Era and The Man That Mother Nature Forgot To Make Good-Looking.LM2000 (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh My f'n God. This is beyond mine comprension. As Broken Matt says, DELETE, DELETE.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: you seem someone as well-versed if not more well-versed than I am, so I find it implausible that you are unaware of these names having been used.

In special:diff/738267050 when you declare "not real nicknames" I am worried about either your memory or honesty. Ranze (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Based on responses like the one above, I've started a discussion about Ranze's behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ranze on pro wrestling articles. I've requested a topic ban for him on professional wrestling articles.LM2000 (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ranze has been topic banned from editing wrestling articles, as well as from creating and editing redirects.[1] If you see him do either, report it to WP:ANI.LM2000 (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

How does that effect any prior redirects or talk page discussions they are in? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 06:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Anything he has already done can't be counted against him but I do not believe he can continue any ongoing discussions. If he does I'll ask the admin that closed the ANI thread to look into it.LM2000 (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Current WWE Championships template

I propose that the WWE Championships template gets changed to the same format as the WWE Personnel template and have each brands championships sorted into a similar fashion.

Example:

Raw:
Primary: WWE Universal
Secondary: WWE United States
Divisional: WWE Tag Team . WWE Women's

SmackDown:
Primary: WWE World
Secondary: WWE Intercontinental
Divisional: SmackDown Tag Team . SmackDown Women's

NXT:
Primary: NXT
Divisional: NXT Tag Team . NXT Women's

Accomplishments: Ect.

I would do it myself but I'm not totally skilled with templates, I just like to see your opinion. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I did it in the styleof {{WWE personnel}}, please tell me if I did anything wrong or if something could be improved. Pinguinn 🐧 17:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I object to such a change as proposed. It would create subgroupings with only one item, e.g.Group "RAW" with the subgroups "primary" (sole item: WWE Universal), "secondary" (sole item: WWE United States) and "divisional" (two items: WWE Tag Team, WWE Women's). Also, the categories are not really solid. I dread someone coming up "tertiary".

The only fesible way to do this would be if we could create two-dimensional grid, e.g.

Brand       Primary       Secondary         Divisional
Raw         Universal     United States     Women's  Tag Team
Smackdown   World         Intercontinental  Women's  Tag Team
NXT         NXT                             Women's  Tag Team

But I think that is very hard to achieve syntaxwise and frankly not worth the trouble. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Look at the already-edited template, and you'll see that your concerns are addressed. It groups by brand, but does nit slides ribs the titles as any particular division or primacy. oknazevad (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I had already looked at it and I am fine with the current version. I was responding to the proposal above just in case someone actually attempted to implement it.

I have no clue what you mean by "but does nit slides ribs the titles" but maybe I don't need to know. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow, autocorrect has really been playing havoc on me lately! That was supposed to be "but does not ascribe the titles to any particular division of primacy (other than the order in which they're listed). oknazevad (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

New title RMs

There are ongoing move requests on Talk:WWE Raw Women's Championship, Talk:WWE Raw Tag Team Championship, Talk:WWE SmackDown Tag Team Championship and Talk:WWE SmackDown Women's Championship. All of these involve dropping "WWE" from their title.LM2000 (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Hell the first two should not even have the name "Raw" in them, there is no way that's the "common name" after one show.  MPJ-DK  22:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• WWE officially renamed them to include Raw. --JDC808 ♫ 21:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

At this moment, the evidence for that is still retty slim. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"The title was renamed the Raw Women’s Championship following the 2016 WWE Brand Extension Draft." from WWE.com. Raw's Tag Team title says the same thing (except replacing "Women's" with "Tag Team"). --JDC808 ♫ 23:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• I absolutely agree, User:MPJ-DK. It is another case of the current outbreak of WP:TOOSOONism on wrestling articles. However, it is just as important to not let it degrade any further. Also, what I think is worse than insert "Raw" in these titles' name is the all to prevalent urge of some to mention the supposed the name change in other articles (such as the SmackDown title articles). Maybe you could chime in. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't we move WWE Women's Championship (1956–2010) back to WWE Women's Championship since the original title was more known by that name than the current Raw title was?LM2000 (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

No. Both have been known by the name, making it ambiguous no matter what. It needs a disambiguator. The dates work for that. oknazevad (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, as I see yet another attempt to give undue weight to recent events. However, the real reason why I came here was this passage in the article: "On September 18, 1956, The Fabulous Moolah became the inaugural Women's Champion as recognized by World Wrestling Entertainment". No, not really. I shouldn't have to explain that in 1956, there wasn't a World Wrestling Entertainment around to recognize anything, nor was there a World (Wide) Wrestling Federation. Whether the title was recognized by anyone else is a matter of question. From what I've seen, Moolah controlled the title and booked title matches herself. It may have been recognized by the NWA considering that she mostly worked in NWA territories. The women and midgets, just like Andre the Giant and the NWA world champion, traveled from territory to territory constantly because the nature of the business didn't favor them staying put in one place very long. Moolah would occasionally appear on W(W)WF shows, mostly after athletic commission bans on women wrestlers were lifted. She only became more than an occasional presence in the WWF via the 1984/5 angles leading up to her dropping the title to Wendi Richter. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

WWE Women's Championship redirects to the Raw Championship. Can this at least be turned into a dab page since there's no way it's the primary topic and it no longer goes by that name?LM2000 (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I think 1) WWE Women's Championship (1956-2010) move back to WWE Women's Championship. The New title shared name, but right now, It's WWE Raw Women's Championship. Even the World Tag Team Championship (WWE) was named WWE Tag Team Championship for a few months. 2) WWE Women's Championship, a disambiguation page to the original title, the raw title and the SD title (even the Divas title). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think any of them should move (as I said), but turning the redirect into a disambiguation page makes sense. Same for the tag titles. oknazevad (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

RM at Talk:WWE Women's Championship (1956–2010)#Requested move 16 September 2016.LM2000 (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

WWE.com redesign

Is anyone else noticing that a lot of old URLs are dying off and not displaying properly because of this lagfest? Just displaying a "WWE: Premier Shows" overview? Where possible I'm hoping archive.org could come to the rescue, but otherwise perhaps it's possible to find them in a different format via the new archive setups at http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/archive and http://www.wwe.com/shows/smackdown/archive and http://www.wwe.com/shows/wwenxt/archive curious hidden at the bottoms of their pages? The impression I've gotten is even viewing these they seem to have merged some things together instead of having distinct page URLs like they used to.

As follow-up... is anyone even able to navigate these archive pages? I click it and there's this drop-down menu with years but when I click the years nothing happens. Ranze (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Archive.org should be able to help out. They're good about that. I've found captures of WCW.com from the like '98-'01, so they should be able to get more recent stuff from WWE.com. You click the year, then it breaks it down to month and the days of the month that they have archived. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 03:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Two wwe title templates

There are currently two WWE Championship templates, Template:Current WWE Champions and Template:WWE Championships. We can't have two of these, one is enough, so which one are we gonna keep and delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:5644:600:F478:BDEB:F930:5BE6 (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete first, keep second. --JDC808 ♫ 16:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The firs is way too bloated and a template listing all the current champs seems unecessary to me. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Plus the current champions template will have to be updated every time there is a title switch, and that template will also have to be removed from the one wrestler's article and added to the new champ. It's a maintenance nightmare and exactly the reason we long ago chose not to list the current champion in the second navbox. Remove and delete. Oh, and the same with the "me too" TNA one. oknazevad (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I removed the unneeded, redundant, new template from all pages that transcluded it except AJ Styles (because that's currently locked) and User:Aleuuhhmsc's sandbox draft of the Universal Championship article (he should probably clear that, but I don't mess with other people's sandboxes unless invited). We can delete them safely, I think. There's certainly a consensus against using them in this conversation. oknazevad (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Revisionist history agenda plaguing the pro wrestling section on Wikipedia?

What's with the WWF Championship being renamed "WWF World Heavyweight Championship" all over Wikipedia? On WWF TV in the 90s, the title was clearly referred to as the "WWF Championship". I challenge anyone to find a Bret Hart/Shawn Michaels/Diesel clip where they are described as the "WWF World Heavyweight Champion". Didn't happen, although the articles of those men (and numerous others) are now permeated by this new wording. WCW announcers very much DID call their titleholder "World Heavyweight Champion", but WWF ones didn't.

Is there a revisionist history agenda plaguing, and undermining the credibility of, the pro wrestling section here on Wiki? 185.54.163.136 (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I've seen "Heavyweight" added into the Intercontinental Championship's name as well, and there's an ongoing discussion over whether WWE dropped "Heavyweight" from the US Championship after they acquired it (Talk:WWE United States Championship#Did the title's name change in 2001 when the WWF purchased WCW?). Announcers never used "Heavyweight" in the name but they don't count as WP:RS. What do WP:RS say about these names?LM2000 (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Doing site searches for both "WWF World Heavyweight Championship" and "WWF Championship" at the long-running, wrestling-dedicated publications – pwinsider.com, pwtorch.com, thehistoryofwwe.com, canoe.com and pwi-online.com (on Google using the 'site:' method) – there's a comparable number of hits for both names, albeit with a tendency toward the latter. At prowrestling.net, "WWF Championship" is much more common.

Yes, the physical "winged eagle" belt did indeed have "heavyweight" etched on it, but so did the WCW and ECW straps, and WWF/E omitted that term from the official title names (save for a brief period following the ECW title's exhumation). Heck, the current WWE World Championship belt has "heavyweight" printed on it and that's no longer part of the title name. Google Image browsing shows that WWF event posters and VHS covers from the 80s and 90s (and the one WWF magazine cover I can see where the title is mentioned [2]) consistently refer to the "WWF Championship". 185.54.163.236 (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

A big part of the discussion on the US title relies on the fact that "Heavyweight" was written on the WCW belt, so they believe the name wasn't changed. Like you, I don't find this piece of evidence convincing. The sources you list above are more reliable than Wrestling-Titles.com, which is what we've used in the past.LM2000 (talk) 08:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That is one part of the argument. The other part is that there is zero reliable evidence for a name change. Pointing to the unproven fact that WWF/WWE commentators never said "US heavyweight champion" is not enough.

The accusation above of "revisionism" is also wrongheaded. The title represented by the Winged Eagle belt was occasionally called "World" and frequently "Heavyweight" champion. The belt contained the world. Any claim that there was a name change in 1998 (under Austin) rests on the identification of the title's name by belt inscription.

The omission of "Heavyweight", which happened to quite a few titles, was an overall trend across pro-wrestling, not some clear-cut decision of this or that promotion to change the names.

In Wikipedia terms all this however is beside the point. There is no source for such name changes and hence we leave them out. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

PWG World Championship

@Vjmlhds: keeps removing it from the A.J. Styles article. Yet the title is a world championship. (See: PWG World Championship.) ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 19:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

PWG is a different animal than WWE, TNA, ROH, and NJPW - those promotions have national TV deals, PPV shows, and frequently travel abroad. PWG is an indy that barely leaves LA, has no TV or PPV. You can't equate them with WWE and the rest. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, ROH's is a syndication deal through Sinclair Broadcasting affiliates. They're not on a national network. Most likely not all Sinclair affiliates air ROH. So, calling it a "national tv deal" is a bit much. Also, PWG has held a show in Germany, then in England, and that was when the title became known as the PWG World Championship. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 19:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

ROH currently also has a deal for Comet (TV network), and has in the past had deals on Destination America and what was then HDNet (now AXS TV), so they most certainly have had national TV deals.

Also, did PWG run those shows in Europe, or did they have a couple of guys appear on another promotions card and defend the title as part of a cross-promotion deal. The former gives them an actual international presence, the latter is as common in the indies as rain. oknazevad (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

For Oknazevad, per the PWG World Championship article:

The title became known under its current name in February 2006, when PWG had a two-event European Vacation tour stopping in Essen, Germany and Orpington, England. The title has also been defended in Japan in the Dragon Gate promotion, as well as in the United Kingdom in 1PW and again on PWG's European Vacation II tour in Paris, France, Portsmouth, England and Essen, Germany. The title was later defended by Chris Hero in Queensland, Australia on two occasions.

I think the first sentence answers your question. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 20:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, note, they had national tv deals, they can go from national back down to non-national. The one with DA was a trial run and ended after what, a month? Also, HDNet wasn't national at the time, not sure if it still is, technically speaking also, Comet's not exactly national. But, whatever. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 20:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, ROH still tours quite extensively around the entire country, and even the world; they're in England in November, not to mention their working agreements with NJPW and CMLL that put ROH-contracted guys on Japanese and Mexican shows somewhat frequently. Contrast this with PWG, which did two shows ten years ago and hasn't left Southern California since, plus has never had a national TV deal at all. Is ROH as large as WWE? Is TNA? Of course not, nothing is. But the two of them are comparable to each other in many ways. PWG is not, it's just a fairly prominent Indy from Southern California. It's closer to Evolve or Chikara. oknazevad (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

According to a previous discussion, we don't decide the world title. Wrestling hasn't a real goverment body who discuss that titles are world titles. PWG says the PWG is a World title, it's a World title. Every other discussion (TV, national exposure...) it's OR. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Now see, growing up, I grew up with this "crazy" thinking that a World title had to occasionally be defended around the world. Something the PWG title, has. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 22:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Why not remove the sentence entirely? I honestly hate everything about it. First of all, AJ held the PWG Championship in 2005, it became the PWG World Championship in 2006. The syntax is off, this sentence comes before PWG or the PWG World Championship are even mentioned. Also, I've always been against the lede just being a readout of the Championships and accomplishments section, there's a section for that. Most of these championships are already mentioned elsewhere in the lede, I don't think we need to summarize again and do a tally count.LM2000 (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I've never thought of it that way, LM....I say go with LM2000's idea!!! ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 23:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with LM2000. I gringe everytime I see the "so and so has held this many world championships" in ledes since any promotion, no matter how small or insignificant, can declare their top title a world championship. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 02:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I think an brief overview of championships can be useful in the lead, but I strongly disagree with including a statement like "... time world champion" for this exact reason. HHH Pedigree is right on. We don't set criteria for world championships. Promotions can call their titles a "world championship", and it's not the place of Wikipedia editors to dispute their claim. Removing statements about "... time world champion" and replacing them with something more meaningful seems to be the way to go. In the case of A.J. Styles, the lead already has a decent rundown of his accomplishments without the sentence in question. For an article like Bret Hart's, I would take "He is a seven-time world champion, having held the WWF World Heavyweight Championship five times and the WCW World Heavyweight Championship twice" and trim it to "He held the WWF World Heavyweight Championship five times and the WCW World Heavyweight Championship twice." This also gets around the dispute that crops up from time to time about whether the WWC Universal Heavyweight Championship, by claiming to represent an area larger than the world, is therefore also a world championship. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm I add one thing to the lead and this is the result. Strange.--WillC 03:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree with LM. It's the best solution. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Also agree. Keep the OR out. oknazevad (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Cruiserweight Championship

Is this the same belt? Main page of WWE site says First champion which to me says no.--WillC 03:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• yep It is not the same belt.--WillC 03:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Wait and see for the title history to show up on the superstars page. In keeping with recent practice, c.f. the (now-Raw) Women's title, it may very well be considered a new championship, but we'll see. It certainly is a new belt, but the real question is it a new championship (just a gentle rib ;-). oknazevad (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

"It was there that Triple H put the brand-new WWE Cruiserweight Championship around his waist, in front of a worldwide audience that now recognized him as the winner of the inaugural WWE Cruiserweight Championship."--WillC 04:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a new championship, as per WWE's official title history. --JDC808 ♫ 07:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment I'm sick and tired of them naming a championship after a previous one. I mean, why not bring back the one that actually has a history??? Personally, I'd rather hold the title with more history than be the first to hold a new title. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 18:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Crash Underride. But they - and not only they - are enamored by the words "first ever". (Well, some to that extent that they actually write "second ever". Str1977 ^(talk) 20:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Lets leave the Hornswoggle tarnished belt in the trash where it belongs now.--WillC 06:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

WWE Cruiserweight Column

Should the cruiserweights get their own separate column on List of WWE personnel? Similar to List of New Japan Pro Wrestling personnel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.243.188.49 (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hm. Depends on how much they treat the division as a separate group. We'll have to see, starting Monday. oknazevad (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Why? Tag teams have a separate section, but the members who have their own articles are listed with everyone else. Why should cruiserweights be treated differently? ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 01:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was thinking of the template. lol. I think it's fine the way it is now. Honestly, I don't even seen a need to denote "Cruiserweight" in the notes column. If we're gonna do that, why don't we list Big E, Xavier Woods and Kofi Kingston as "Members of The New Day", etc.? ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 01:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jesse Ventura

Notifying the project of this discussion, seeing as how the article's wrestling-related infobox and image were removed during the timeframe that warring in general over images has been going on. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Issues

Okay, there are two issues that plague our project more than others. It's the use of an ampersand (&) when talking about a tag team matches or multi-man matches. The other is people not spelling state names. The just put Las Vegas, NV rather than Las Vegas, Nevada. We need to work on fixing these issues, both are unencyclopedic and look horrible when reading an article. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 19:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I've been writing out the states in every championship article I do. It is the WWE articles that do it and people will refuse to spell it out. I tried one time. People don't like change.--WillC 06:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Using abbreviations for states in charts is fine. Keeps it briefer, and is actually quite often used professionally in all sorts of publications. That said, running body text should spell out states. oknazevad (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations doesn't have anything about states. Just countries and objects. Abbreviating doesn't solve anything or save anything. It is done just cause and no one ever questioned it at all. No one has any idea why it is done.--WillC 23:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm completely fine with it in tables. It's just in the body of the article that drives me nuts. I think we need to set some kind of guideline about ti in the body of the articles. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 00:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Current champions TfDs

For those who haven't noticed/participated, we got some current TfDs, which include Template:Current WWE Champions and Template:Current TNA Champions. You can post your opinions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 18#Template:Current WWE Champions and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 20#Template:Current TNA Champions. Nickag989^talk 09:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Moves and deletions

There are some ongoing deletions that have been relisted, or will be relisted, due to inadequate input. Among these are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heath Slater and Rhyno, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heath Slater and Justin Gabriel (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Boom (2nd nomination). Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IWRG_Máscara_vs._Máscara_(August_2016) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IWRG Máscara vs. Máscara (September 2016) are also being discussed.

Requested moves at: WWE Women's Championship (1956–2010) to WWE Women's Championship, Big E Langston to Big E (wrestler) and Rhino (wrestler) to Rhyno.LM2000 (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Extreme Giant, Magic Mohawk and Leader of the Altitude Era are probably the last of the redirects going to RfD, see those at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 18.LM2000 (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Another move at Talk:Alexander Rusev#Requested move 23 September 2016. oknazevad (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Bret Hart biase accusation, request for input from other editors.

There's a big disagreement on the Bret Hart talk page about the Bret Hart article's lead section. One editor believes that the lead section gives Hart too much credit, isn't objective and that the sources aren't enough. Could some other people please add some input? We seem to be going nowhere right now.*Treker (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The user who kicked off the dispute was recently trying to force uncited hero worship into Eddie Guerrero. After failing to find sources supporting his desired hagiography and having it gutted, he seems to have turned to revenge editing. His angle is that we cannot use a WP:RS (in this case IGN, a reputable entertainment site with a dedicated wrestling section) to support consensus opinion regarding Hart's impact on the business and must state that we're giving only the cited publication's opinion. What he's not grasping (or choosing to ignore) is that the site's opinion is NOT being used: we're using its article as an RS to support consensus opinion. Since the beginning of time here on Wiki, we've used reliable sources to support consensus opinion on films, albums, books and everything else, so I see nothing wrong with the article. Warlock82 (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said in the talk page, I'm simply advocating the manual of style. My angle is that WP:PEACOCK should be favored here by quoting and linking the claim to the source directly. One journalist opinion from IGN or even all of us here agreeing can't constitute proof for validating a claim like "Hart changed the perception of mainstream pro-wrestling" in a lead. Quoting the article, on the other hand, with something like "according to IGN, Bret Hart did this and that", looks like a factual representation of what's been said about Hart and to me it should be favored here. I'm still failing to realize what's actually wrong with my edit, because even in Eddie Guerrero's case this was the format chosen in the end (read: "according to Fox News, Guerrero was one of the ring greats"... and then it was dropped to a renewed "Legacy" section two or three days after with no one, me included, complaining). It's like reporting the simple fact that it was said by IGN is supposd to overall diminish Hart's value.

As a mere reader, I'd like to bring everyone's attention on something. A lot, and I mean a lot, of pro-wrestling articles (from Hulk Hogan to Junkyard Dog) on some of the great names of the industry have been becoming increasingly loaded with puffery in the lead, with generally a very volatile policy about what's a good/relevant source and what's an actually verifiable claim, with small groups of dedicated editors acting as arbitrators about who is being a wrestler deserving of aforementioned puffery and who is not With puffery I'm referring to stuff like:

---

• Adam is widely regarded as one of the greatest/best (quote = another wrestler or journalist that says that "Adam is widely regarded as" in one article).
• Adam revolutionized this and that (quote = medium like an internet article when journalist A says "Adam revolutionized this and that").
• Adam would go on to become one of the finest performers of this or that decade
• Adam was one of the premiere stars of this or that period

---

Some of the above are usually unsourced or do not specify the source as well. You can find quite a bunch of them simply by scrolling Warlock82's own contribution feed (not wanting to point fingers, just to give people an idea). On smaller scale, you have objectively reported stuff used as a slight-medium added flavor (which - while factual - mostly would make someone raise the question: why is this guy quoted here and not someone else? Why is it given so much weight?) like:

---

• Wrestler X, or industry veteran Y said about wrestler Z that he's really good (which is at least acceptable per WP).

---

Again, this all looks like in more or less apparent contradiction with the WP:PEACOCK which says one should reword things by letting facts speak for themselves (i.e. Adam was a six-time champion a recordman, main evented three WrestleManias and worked in all the major promotions in North America) - and honestly, in the twelve years I've been reading Wikipedia, it looked like it was always like that up until very recently when these peacock terms started to fill the articles. FA like CM Punk's (who has been very well-received in the popularity department as well) pretty much respect the criteria I have in mind, while the articles I found some problems with above are usually C-class. Doesn't someone believe that the general guideline should be revised to keep the most important facts (titles won, federations the guy worked in, length of their wrestling shtick) and leave out the embellishments to be as neutral as possible and avoid people bickering on what should go in the lead and what not? Because I believe this is bound to get out of hand sooner or later. 151.57.66.224 (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)