Talk:Global Force Wrestling

Global Force Wrestling is currently a Sports and recreation good article nominee. Nominated by LM2000 (talk) at 08:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Professional wrestling C‑class Low‑importance

	Global Force Wrestling is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Amped Tapings

It has been announced by the newly christened GFW Impact Wrestling that the Amped tapings will be released under the Impact One Night Only strand as Amped Anthology with edits to it compared to how it was originally filmed

http://impactwrestling.com/gfwimpact-wrestling-bring-4-part-amped-anthology-series-ppv/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.151.115 (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GFW Championship Tournaments

The tournament section needs to be cleaned up.

There were only three matches in the Women's Tournament (two Semi-Finals and the Finale):

07-24-15: Women's Championship Tournament Semi-Final: Christina Von Eerie defeated Lei'D Tapa & Mickie James

08-21-15: Women's Championship Tournament Semi-Final: Amber O'Neal defeated Laura James & Katrina Waters

10-23-15: Women's Championship Tournament Final: Christina Von Eerie defeated Amber O'Neal

The Global Championship tournament is also messed up, however cleaning that up may be more difficult because of matches not happening, and losers actually advancing into the tournament.

List of personnel signed to Global Force Wrestling

What happened to the list of personnel signed to Global Force Wrestling? This section needs to be put back on. As far as I know Global Force Wrestling has not folded as a promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.41.189 (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Global Force Wrestling personnel. We have no way of knowing who would be on a regular GFW roster or if they even have on at all.LM2000 (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reno Scum new GFW Tag Team champions

According to reports on the latest Impact tapings, Reno Scum appeared wearing the GFW Tag Team Titles. I am unable to find a reference as to how or when they gained the titles which is why I'm hesitant to add it. The only link is to the Impact tapings report from Wrestling Observer here. 101.182.45.237 (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to this page and edit warring.

There has been a recent edit war on this page and a number of pages that were redirected as per this AfD.

There have been a lot of edits but not a lot of discussion (or any that I can see outside of edit summaries.) Should these articles continue to be redirects? This would be an ideal place for a discussion about that or indeed an AFD. Please discuss it instead of constant reverting back and forth. Woody (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leave as redirects and leave protected per my !vote at the previous AfD. Nothing has changed to make these titles any more notable than they were then, and recent events only strengthen the case that they will never achieve notability independent of the promotion. --Finngall ^talk 05:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leave as redirects and leave protected It's WP:TOOSOON to tell if the "merger" with ~~TNA~~ Impact will make these championships notable someday or if unification is just around the corner.LM2000 (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cody as Nex*Gen champion

Here's a simple fact: we don't know when the title was formally stripped, but the fact is Impact/the new GFW does not list Cody as a current champion at their roster page, meaning he is not a current champion (being that they own all of the former GFW IP), so to continue to claim that he holds the title is factually incorrect. I'm not sure how to phrase or otherwise note this, however. oknazevad (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Until their is a reliable source, it's just conjecture until an official statement is made. Only thing that is known via the Jarrett teleconference call is that the title is not retired, and until Cody is officially stripped of the title saying him being champion is "factually incorrect" is original research and not supported by any sources. Hellboy42 (talk) 08:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's similar to Abyss winning the TV title and then disappearing. They eventually made it clear how they recognized the reign but it took quite some time. Like we did there, we should just list Cody as the champ until they tell us what is going on. On a side note, has the GFW Tag Team Championship been unified? I cannot find any sources that say so.LM2000 (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tag titles were unified when LAX, already Impact Tag champs, won the tournament for the vacant GFW title. The four-way match at Slammiversary was promoted as being for the unified title. They most certainly are unified. As for the Nex*Gen title, Jarrett said they have future plans for it, so it's not retired, but they also do not list Cody as current champion, so it's clear he's not currently recognized as champion. Seems pretty obvious to list it as vacant. oknazevad (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with listing it as vacant right now. If they manage to get Cody back to continue the reign we can adjust accordingly. I found this on Impact's instagram which says LAX became unified champs at Slammiversary.LM2000 (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legal entity name

I have seen no one give a legit reason why not to include it. Can someone please provide one? And saying that a completely unrelated (they never merged) article removed it certainly isn't one. Articles about companies start with the legal name consistently, see WWE, World Championship Wrestling. The article on Starbucks has the corporate name and the number of stores in the lead paragraph. We even have the LLC name in the infobox so why not include it in the actual article? - Galatz ^Talk 04:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 January 2018

The request to rename this article to Global Force Wrestling has been carried out.

If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

Global Force Wrestling (2014–2017) → Global Force Wrestling – As of December 2017, Jeff Jarrett held another GFW event obviously showing he is still full owner of GFW and showing that the promotion isn't closed as some have assumed I feel under these circumstances the (2014—2017) should be removed from the titles name and should simply read Global Force Wrestling JMichael22 (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I feel this a very simple matter of, is the company closed or not and with recent events it's shown that it is not JMichael22 (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)÷[reply]

I have struck out this vote. The nominator is making this look deceptive but voting to agree with his own statement. - Galatz ^Talk 19:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was about chide him for the same thing but was edit conflicted. Support of he nominator is assumed. It's dishonest to put "agree" with yourself. oknazevad (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck it out a second time as he reverted the first. He does have history in !voting for his own motions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This was just discussed here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 100#GFW article and there was a very clear non-consensus and thats why the page without the years became disambiguation. If you wanted to move to Global Force Wrestling (2014 company) than fine. But if your only reason to remove the years is that it still exists than just remove the end date. - Galatz ^Talk 19:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. One event, still in 2017. Jarret used a brand he owns, but that's not a company. It's just again to a piggybacking on others' events (he was not the sole promoter of that December event). Let's wait until it looks like a going concern first. Galatz summarized it well. oknazevad (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~User:Oknazevad what other promotion held the event with GFW? JMichael22 (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~How is my agreeing with the discussion deceptive User:Galatz? JMichael22 (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]~~
Because its obvious that you are agreeing with the discussion since you started it. - Galatz ^Talk 19:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well User:Galatz the definition of deceptive is "giving an appearance or impression different from the true one or misleading" basically calling someone a liar. So just because i agreed with the discussion your calling me a liar? Learn to use proper words to describe the situation because no where in my agreement was it a lie JMichael22 (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Give the impression of 2 people feeling the same way when you are in fact only one person seems to fit your definition exactly. Now knock off the attacks - Galatz ^Talk 19:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

there is only one agreement on my behalf. i have one request move on why i feel it should be moved and then I put why I agree with it being moved there is no deception because there is still only one vote that I am entitled to do once again do not remove my vote you have 0 right to revoke my right to a vote iv been apart of multiple request moves i know that you can't dismiss my vote JMichael22 (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a double vote. Period. You put your reasons for requesting the move in your request. That is your !vkte. You don't vote again. Period. That's not how this works. oknazevad (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this argument could have been avoided had you said "Support as nom" instead of "Agree".LM2000 (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support My concerns raised in the WT:PW discussion turned out to be accurate. Jarrett intends to use the GFW name for future events so the current title is inaccurate.LM2000 (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support As LM2000 said, looks like Jarrett stills in the wrestling world. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support As per LM2000 & HHH Pedrigree. Not to mention, on the talk page referenced by LM2000, as has (WRONGLY) happened in the past here on Wikipedia, an editor (*cough*Galatz*cough*) has clearly, WRONGLY interpreted the final vote (two for option 1:Keep directing to Impact Wrestling as it has been since the name changed back., three for option 2:Update all links and then move Global Force Wrestling (2014–2017) to Global Force Wrestling, and one for option 3:Change it to a disambiguation page) that CLEARLY favors changing the article back to the non-dated GFW article as having a "clear lack of consensus" (which was NOT the case...AT ALL).
Also not to mention, the aforementioned user's closing statement in their initial comment ("I feel the first option is best since it is the most likely destination people would be looking for.") would be technically WRONG, as someone looking for Global Force Wrestling would NOT be looking for Impact Wrestling, but for Jeff Jarrett's GFW.
In fact, once the years are removed from the article for Jarrett's GFW & all links pointing to THAT article are restored BACK to it, I think the aforementioned user should be forced to apologize for their misinterpretation & be prohibited from ANY editing having to do with the article for Jarrett's GFW, as they've shown they CLEARLY cannot comprehend the information they are receiving. 2602:304:CEBF:8650:E004:548B:7400:5233 (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]