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
Professional Wrestling as a whole is under General Sanctions
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!

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

Sections older than 14 days are automatically archived

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

In wrestling

Hi. I will open with a disclaimer that I know very little about this area. However I was reviewing a Good Article and thought I would query one of your style guidelines. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#For biographies you have a heading suggestion of "In wrestling". At the article I am reviewing it contains a list of moves. My issue with the heading is that I find it very vague. "In wrestling" could mean anything and I did not find it a very informative heading for the information it contained. What is the reasoning behind suggesting this as a heading? Why can't it be wrestling moves or something similar? AIRcorn (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: I am not sure which article you are reviewing, but many contain much more than just moves. Finishing moves, signature moves, managers (and/or wrestlers managed), nicknames, entrance themes, and wrestlers trained, are all listed in the Style Guide as possibilities. If you looks at Kurt Angle for example there is a lot of other information in it. I have never liked the heading personally, as in an article like Angle it is confusing, as he was first an amateur wrestler, and a reader could believe this information related to his time in the Olympics. I am not sure what a better term would be, but at a minimum it should include the word professional before wrestling to avoid the confusion. - Galatz ^Talk 12:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that it's currently used in the style guide. I have no issues with it being changed, but we would need a consensus for the new title, and a widespread change across all wrestler profile (As well as teams and managers) for this change. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concern over this vague heading has been brought up a few times over the years. I think the consensus has always been that it's not ideal but a better alternative has not been presented. Prefall 16:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking on it, would "Characteristics in professional wrestling" make more sense? Though, it has a few issues—perhaps too close to the existing "Wrestling persona" section (...merge?) and potentially misleading as this section currently lists real-life trainees. Prefall 18:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand it correctly, this is basically for all the other information about a wrestler that doesn't fit into career. Would "Professional wrestling details" or "Professional wrestling particulars" be better. Particulars seems to fit the purpose more accurately. Either way I feel like I should be able to look at a heading and have some idea what the content should entail and "In wrestling " does not do this. Don't worry, I will not fail an article for sticking to existing style guidelines, especially as I can't find any policies or guidelines that say a header has to be named a certain way (apart from not being a question or not repeating the title). I think it would be worth your project trying to come up with an alternative though as it does stick out in the article I am reviewing and the one listed above. AIRcorn (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What if we combined the championship heading to being a sub-heading under a "Professional wrestling highlights" section? This section could contain everything the current "In wrestling" does, and the championships would just become a subheading? - Galatz ^Talk 14:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, I like that idea. oknazevad (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I second that Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with that too. Prefall 20:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like consensus. Does someone here want to make the change to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#For biographies. I would, but it would be better coming from someone from this project. AIRcorn (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done I also made "Luchas de Apuestas record" a subsection of Highlights rather than C&A. It seems more appropriate to me but I'd like to know how others feel about this. Prefall 01:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. I made the change to a number of high profile wrestlers to draw attention to this change, so hopefully people notice. - Galatz ^Talk 01:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be a major pain to change every bio, but those who want to can look through Category:Professional wrestlers by nationality to get everyone. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed every page in categories R-Y in Category:Professional wrestlers by nationality, for anyone keeping track. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I have updated everyone currently on the WWE and Impact personnel pages - Galatz ^Talk 19:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed today that the style guide was changed as to how that section should be titled. The former title always seemed a bit odd to me But reading through this discussion I wonder why the term "Highlights" was then instituted into the style guide. It seems even less fitting as most of the section doesn't address highlights but rather details like managers, finishers, theme songs etc. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Highlights" is more all-encompassing, taking the most notable characteristics of the wrestler and their championships, awards and accomplishments all in one section (plus Luchas de Apuestas). Though, alternatives can continue to be suggested. Prefall 08:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer leaving the name at In Wresting <--- Short and Simple (Easy to to know what this section about)

The Championships/Awards should be left as a section up (not a sub section) to make easier to find when scrolling. Colton Meltzer (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most agree that "in wrestling" is extremely vague though. It's really not clear what aspect of wrestling it pertains to. I'm indifferent towards C&A being its own section or not, but under the current "Highlights" format it makes sense to be a subsection. Prefall 08:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Colton Meltzer: A big issue is the "In wrestling" tells you nothing in reality. The contents didn't match the header. Is their theme music really in wrestling? Its not in the match, so it details with professional wrestling but a person could easily assume the section deals with in the ring only. Additionally anyone who had an amateur background someone would naturally go to that section to look for information on their amateur career and find nothing. The section is a high level summary of everything dealing with professional wrestling, which are the highlights. - Galatz ^Talk 10:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Galatz: @Prefall: I prefer leaving the Championship/awards in different section. I believe is more organized that way.Colton Meltzer (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be left as "in wrestling" while "championships and accomplishments should not be a sub-section. There was nothing wrong with how it was before. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Colton Meltzer: @Fishhead2100: Do you have any reasons other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? You havent said anything to address the concerns with the previous method. Like Kurt Angle, you would go to "In wrestling" to see about his amateur wrestling, it does a disservice to the reader. Keep in mind the reason this topic started is an outside person reviewing a page was confused as to what it meant. - Galatz ^Talk 11:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Galatz: How is "in wrestling" vague? The "in wrestling" section has headers in bold to tell you what each section is. If it's too hard to tell that one section is for "finishing moves" or "entrance themes," than I don't know what to tell you. If they read the lead introduction section, they'll know the person is or was a pro wrestler, than from there, the rest should be easy to get. When do you have finishing moves in amateur wrestling? When do you have entrance themes in amateur wrestling? As far as championships and accomplishments go, you don't put it as a sub-section because it also can include amateur wrestling and other accomplishments outside of wrestling. For instance, Becca Swanson has had accomplishments outside of pro wrestling in body building. That's why the championships and accomplishment section is not a sub-section. The "in wrestling" is for pro wrestling items and the championships and accomplishments section is not strictly pro wrestling. 15:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Fishhead2100: If you have to actually look at a section's content to make sense of its heading, then that is an issue. "In wrestling" could pertain to literally anything within professional (or amateur) wrestling and seem redundant to other sections. As I've said before, feel free to recommend a new term for the heading, but falling back to "In wrestling" ignores those issues. I'm also not married to the idea of C&A being a subsection but it's appropriate under the current "Highlights" heading.

This is beside the point, but I would honestly propose to outright remove the "In wrestling/"Highlights" section if I knew that idea wouldn't be despised in these circles. It's pure fancruft and any truly significant material could be covered in "career" or "persona" sections. Prefall 16:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Prefall: The section name "professional wrestling highlights" could also refer to their career because with the career section, you don't put every little thing they do each week and whatnot. If you removed it and people who wanted to know about their move set and whatnot, they would have go off Wikipedia. Wikipedia is more thorough with that stuff than other sites like Internet Wrestling Database, Online World of Wrestling, Cagematch, etc.. I still would rather leave the section titled "in wrestling." How adamant are you in wanting the name change? If you are set on changing the name, I'd have to think on the name. According to WP:CRUFT, using the term "fancruft" can be considered uncivil. It also says that fancruft tends to focus on the fictional aspects of the subject rather than their place in the real world. But that would mean the career section is fancruft considering wrestling is scripted. But I can see how you can could say this section is trivial. But fancruft refers to content that is unencyclopedic that possibly violated policies of verifiability, neutrality, or original research. This section violates none of that. It's not like we just made up the moves, themes, and whatnot. So your use of the term fancruft is not correct. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fishhead2100: I absolutely think it should be changed. Even if you prefer the previous heading, it needs to at least be "In professional wrestling"—shorthand has no benefits and will sometimes cause an overlapping confusion with amateur wrestling.

The truth is that professional wrestling articles are largely ignored by the rest of the Wikipedia community, so rarely are any of our long-standing guidelines put under scrutiny. In my opinion, the "In wrestling" section is typically used as a database to house every ounce of information regardless of its notability. It is not uncommon to find large lists of signature moves that are only supported by a citation saying the wrestler performed the move (which we specifically say not to do in our style guide; "signature moves" is not meant to be a move set), an entire catalog worth of entrance themes cited by a database entry (which does not establish notability), or date ranges, in-depth explanations of moves and other notes that are entirely unsupported. You cannot convince me that any non-fan thinks things like a list of signature move names or entrance themes enhances the article or understanding of the subject.

I also think a good argument can be made about your typical "Professional wrestling career" section being crufty but I'm not interested in diving down that path. Prefall 19:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Prefall: I am okay with the section being called "In professional wrestling" or "In pro wrestling." I changed the style guide to the use the better name for the "in wrestling" section. I do understand that pro wrestling has a niche editor base. ~~That doesn't mean we have to bow down or buckle to the non-wrestling editors.~~ You are saying the "in wrestling" section is cruft, but with how part of the cruft page is worded, that would mean the career section is cruft because it is scripted and has fictional elements to it. That's what I was getting at. I am not saying it needs to be changed. I have no problems with the career section. When it comes to the Luchas de Apuestas, would be it be better in championships and accomplishments rather than the "in professional wrestling" section? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fishhead2100: I think you're jumping ahead a little too quick with the changes. No one besides myself has chimed in and that heading was just an alternate suggestion should an overwhelming consensus be reached to revert. We waited ten days and had unanimous support from five editors at the time. This discussion should continue before we decide to override that or stick with it. Hasty back-and-forth changes benefit no one and could get us in trouble for edit warring. Prefall 04:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Prefall: To make the initial change, there wasn't an overwhelming consensus. There was only three people who agreed. That's not overwhelming. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fishhead2100: To recap: Galatz (the nominator), Oknazevad, Lee Vilenski, and myself agreed. Aircorn also found it acceptable. After the fact, NotTheFakeJTP helped convert a lot of articles and did not oppose the changes when commenting here. Str1977 is not in agreement with the "Highlights" term but was not a fan of the previous heading either. At the moment, it is just you and Colton Meltzer who wholly oppose changes to the previous heading or format.

Idealistically, we want to agree upon a new heading (and possibly format) that clearly and accurately explains what the section is about. "In wrestling" or "In professional wrestling" (which solves one issue but not the major one being its vagueness) are not preferable. Prefall 05:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Prefall: Five is still not that overwhelming. NotTheFakeJTP didn't agree either. By the looks of things, he was indifferent. The format is fine. There is nothing vague about it. Each heading states what the section is. For instance, wrestlers trained is self-explanatory. I would rather have "in professional wrestling" than "professional wrestling highlights." "Professional wrestling highlights" could refer to other sections. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 06:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fishhead2100: You keep referring to the content of the section rather than the heading itself. The heading—"In wrestling" or "In professional wrestling"—needs to be a concise representation of what the section is about, and it is not (even less so than "Highlights"). You can not like "Highlights", that is fine, but please suggest something better. Prefall 06:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Prefall: How do you not know what the section is about? Is it to Would you say It houses information not found elsewhere. More specifically, it houses information that isn't necessary in the career section for instance. When it comes to the filmography section, would you question it? Do you not know what it is for? Why is this section difficult to understand? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 14:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fishhead2100: Because "in wrestling" or "in professional wrestling" is extremely broad and can pertain to literally anything within wrestling. "Filmography" is a common term, so you immediately know it will be a list of works in film. Prefall 15:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My attention was recently brought back to this discussion after a message was left on my talk page. I am a little worried by the comment above that says That doesn't mean we have to bow down or buckle to the non-wrestling editors. Wikiprojects exist to develop content within the greater wikipedia environment. If you think wikiprojects should solely set the rules on how this content is presented you would be better off starting your own wiki. If the aim is to produce good encyclopedic articles then good faith outside opinions should be welcomed. To be fair the majority of editors here have been very receptive and it looked like we had unanimous consensus. I still think there is consensus here. If this project can't come to an agreement on a better heading I am willing to start an RFC. If I find it problematic and some editors involved in these articles also do then it is reasonable to expect the wider community will too. AIRcorn (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: That wasn't the best choice of words. I've crossed it out. I am actually not against people editing. Like I said, poor choice of words. I've actually did an RFC on another item and got one person or so responding. When it comes to the rest of Wikipedia, pro wrestling has a small editor base. It just doesn't get the attention from the rest of the editors. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 14:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that "Professional Wrestling Career Details" or "Professional Wrestling Career Information" could work better instead of Professional Wrestling Highlights. I feel that Championships And Accomplishments should be it's own section due to wrestlers like Angle, Lesnar, Shamrock, etc who have accomplishments in other sports or activities. Keeping Championships and Accomplishments under Professional Wrestling Highlights could be confusing to some readers. HC7 (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think like HC7. I didn't give my opinion since I didn't think about a better option. However, I think Highlights is wrong. A move it's not a highlight. That secions looks like their biggest moments in their career (like Hulk Hogan Slamming Andre, nWo or Shawn Michaels attacking Jannetty). Pro wrestling information or details fits better. Also, the C&A should be his own section, since some wrestlers won titles in other sports (mma, amateur wrestling, bodybuilding) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like what HHH Pedrigree said. Professional wrestling information or pro wrestling information works. It is way better than "professional wrestling highlights." People don't get that "professional wrestling highlights" could also refer to the career section. Moves, entrance themes, nicknames, and everything else that goes in that section isn't a highlight. Yes, keep the championships and accomplishments should be separate. I've said it before and I will continue to say it. Luchas de Apuestas section is fine as its own section. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I don't mind "Professional wrestling details". It still has a vagueness to it but at least it's an improvement over "In wrestling". Luchas de Apuestas is another section I would love to entirely remove but I'm not sure that is a popular opinion. Prefall 23:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Mexico that section is more important than the Championship section, just FYI. MPJ-DK 00:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was going to elaborate that it is likely very significant in lucha libre culture, but not so much everywhere else. The major focus on individual matches with such a large table has just always stuck out to me. Prefall 00:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MPJ-DK: Sidenote, I have added Luchas de Apuestas to the style guide. Since you have more acknowledge of this subject than anyone else here, I'd like you to review my edit and make changes or expand on it if necessary. Prefall 21:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a discussion about the Lucha de Apuestas. I think we reduced to mask, hair, titles and maybe (i'm not sure) career/contract. For example, the Punk/Mysterio wouldn't be a lucha de apuestas. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found these three in the archives:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_97#Luchas_de_Apuestas? – The largest discussion about inclusion. MPJ-DK has multiple sources about it mainly covering masks or hair. Sometimes career is included.
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_95#Luchas_de_Apuestas_table_format – Focuses on the format, but MPJ-DK briefly comments on stipulations sometimes including a mask or hair vs. something else (such as a title or career).
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_78#Luchas_de_apuestas – This is brief and doesn't have many participants, but the idea was to limit it to just Mexican promotions. I wouldn't mind this discussion being started up again.

Consensus seemed to be masks and hair, and sometimes career. I copied the Mysterio example straight from his article (with certain details removed). From my understanding, as long as a mask or hair is wagered, it counts. So, mask vs. stable pledge would count, but title vs. contract would not. Prefall 22:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that definition, that was the consensus. MPJ-DK 22:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also an issue I would have with having a career on the line match included is Ric Flair had 6 months in WWE where his career was on the line for every match. It definitely would need both people to have something on the line. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does the Mysterio/Punk not fit into this, btw? Are these matches ONLY for matches that both competitors have something on the line? Careers shouldn't be included, otherwise something like Samoa Joe/Kurt Angle would be included (Joe put his career on the line in that match if I remember correctly). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lucha de apuestas is a match where both wrestlers apuestan a hair, mask or championship. I mean, other thing, like hair vs join the nexus it's not a lucha de apuestas. For example, I remember a strange thing in TNA Sacrifie 2009, it was a championship/leader of Main Event Mafia/control of TNA/carrer between Foley, Angle, Sting and Jarrett. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to gain clarity (closed)

Overwhelming consensus is to eliminate the "in wrestling"/"professional wrestling highlights" section in general from biographies and articles on teams/stables. If content is important to the article subject it should be worked into the prose, potentially in a "wrestling persona" section.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So exactly where are we at with this? I see two generally liked suggestions, we should pick one and stick with it. Options are

Professional wrestling highlights
Professional wrestling details
Eliminate the section completly (late addition)

Before we change half the articles to one and half to the other leaving half in the original state (yes I good at math) what is the general feeling on this? MPJ-DK 01:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with either option. Though, it should be noted that the "Highlights" option goes hand-in-hand with C&A being a subsection beneath it. "Details" would not have to abide by that.

With this new focus on ridding wrestling articles of in-universe and fancruft content, I would also like to reiterate my dissatisfaction with this section and will continue to advocate for its removal. This section, more than any other, will continue to be a magnet for cruft and provide little value. Prefall 03:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point, I loathe the "signature move overload" syndrome. That would be a third option, total elimination of the section. managers or people trained lists should be turned to prose and part of the biography, "signature moves" is pointless, entrance music is trivial. I will add a third option. MPJ-DK 04:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminate - I've always been of the opinion that we need to significantly trim this part of the articles down or remove them altogether. Most of it is cruft or trivial. I prefer the idea of a "Wrestling persona" section (see CM Punk) that describes notable moves, characteristics, songs, etc. but explains how they relate to the person, character or character development rather than an endless list with no context. Nikki♥311 15:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminate Now that it's an official option. Agree with MPJ-DK and Nikki311 wholeheartedly. I'm not aware of any other articles about fictional characters that group a bunch of character information into a contextless list format such as this. Notable aspects from this section can be covered more adequately in prose. Prefall 19:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminate - I never really understood 100% why we had this section, but its existed for so long I never really questioned the keeping vs not. A lot of the smaller articles have this section as the majority of the article. I do not see it having much encylopediac value as is, it would be much better worked into the article rather than in this section - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminate - it's borderline trivia. if info is important (innovated a more etc.) it should be in the prose instead. I think this elimination would go some way towards articles being less "fan-ish" MPJ-DK 21:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand the removal of Signature moves, trained wrestlers, managers, as this would help against cruft... However, potentially Finishing Maneuvers and championships seem a bit more neutral. Some finishing moves are more iconic than the wrestler giving the move (Say the Elbow Drop, or the Canadian Destroyer), and I feel a complete removal of the section may drop any links to these sorts of articles. The championships section, whilst clearly being in kayfabe, is comparrable to other awards that are given to people (Say, the OSCARs), so I'd be completely against removing the championships won. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is saying that championship section should be deleted. Finishing moves could and should be worked into article. Seth Rollins losing the curb stomp because it was shown on TV and didn't look good but then getting it back with a new name is easy to have it in prose. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 10:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification this does not include the Championship section. And as mentioned, if important work info into the prose. MPJ-DK 11:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's fine then. Realistically, the awards section is potentially the most notable (And even a potential way of judging notability) aspect of an article. The finishing moves, I agree could be worked into an article, especially for the "Professional Wrestling Persona" section. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if we weren't clear. I think the "Championships and accomplishments" should stay as well for the reasons you mentioned. Nikki♥311 14:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminate I was going to add Eliminate but keep C&A but that has since been clarified. It has always been a struggle to find sources for this section, even a major star like Roman Reigns has multiple citations to prove that a move is a "signature move". If it's that difficult to source then it's probably not notable and the multiple sources are probably WP:SYN anyway.LM2000 (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Reluctant) Eliminate I'm all for incorporating any notable finishing moves into a "Professional Wrestling Persona" section similar to Punk's or Bryan's articles. Duffs101 (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty unanimous so far, but we should probably keep this open for a few more days so more People get a chance to share Their oppinions so we get consensus (and not just a straight out vote) MPJ-DK 15:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminate/Comment I'm all for removing the section. However, I'm confused on the situation for finishing moves. Not every wrestler has a finisher with a history like Seth Rollins, so it can be somewhat difficult to include it in prose, however some moves are significantly attached/associated with the wrestler, to which it should be included somewhere in the article. I'm interested in what we can do with the "Wrestling persona" section previously mentioned, as I feel like it can hit some key non-trivial points that the "highlights" section lacked. Sekyaw (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Championship Section should be separated again to make it organized. Rather make it more complex if we run into a..MMA Fighter who is also wrestler..Championship/Awards Section should never been drag into this. Pro Wresting Moves section should be kept as before..no question ask. 20:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Colton Meltzer (talk)

Can you elaborate on why you want to keep the "In wrestling" section? Prefall 20:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

short and simple - It shows most wrestlers moves a wrestler did in ring against someone. Makes the Wikipedia Wrestler page more interesting to edit. Sources can be made low priority to make it easier to have moves info posted on there (EX 15 users saw this wrestler do a Jumping Suplex on WWE) Rather than linking citing most of time. Colton Meltzer (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to keep it because it's interesting, and you want to source it with original research? That stuff is for a professional wrestling wikia or database. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Nikki♥311 21:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colton Meltzer - I don't think I have seen you post in the pro-wrestling project before, although I have seen your name related to PW edits, so welcome. The suggestion is to keep the championship section and eliminate the "in wrestling" section, so we are on the same page for C&A. As for the "in wrestling" section, the concern is many-fold 1) That section quickly turns into trivia - WP:TRIVIA - which we really should avoid 2) We don't have a good definition for what a "signature move" is, which your comments feed into - just because someone did a "jumping suplex" doesn't necessarily mean it's a "signature move", the section is awash with Original research on what should be listed as very few sources exist to claim what is a "signature move" (example Ricky Steamboat's arm drag is one that's not OR) but becomes a target of repeated, daily additions, changes, edits and to some edit warring when someone puts in what "they saw on Raw" 3) Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a wrestling profile etc. thus all content should ideally be well sourced and most of the "in wrestling" section is poorly sourced 4) anything that's important to the wrestler that was previously in the "in wrestling" should be written into the prose - managers, actual finishing moves etc. instead of the list at the bottom. So I appreciate your interest, but unfortunately, none of your comments are in line with Wikipedia's core guidelines. MPJ-DK 00:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminate Thinking about it more, most of the moves are simply WP:OR or unsourced, and it'd be better if it was just removed. For example, Seth Rollins' Avada Kedavra's sourcing does not connect the name to the description, and the description in the source does not match the written description. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am opposed to eliminating this section. I am sure if you looked, you could find sources. You might think this is trivial and not necessary. Again, I think it is good to have. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duely noted, i am sorry that you disagree with the general consensus but respect your point of view. MPJ -DK 18:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Post-closure discussion

I think we have consensus for the removal. I will update the MOS and I suggest we leave a note in the article to discourage the return of that section. Something along the lines of  or words to that effect. Thank you to everyone that participated in the discussion, I think this is an important step forward to eliminate the "fancrufty" elements of pro wrestling articles. MPJ-DK 00:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)k[reply]

Unbelievable, It is what it is, Championship Section should have improvements too..like posting picture of them winning some big company championship like WWE,ROH, TNA or NJPW. Colton Meltzer (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a separate discussion, if you want to start that be my guest. As for pictures we have copyright rules to consider, we cannot just copy a picture off the internet, there are rules for this. MPJ-DK 00:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) We can only use images that are freely licensed (see WP:Image use policy), which are not easy to come by. Non-free file use is extremely strict (see WP:Non-free content criteria) and would not be allowed in these types of situations. Prefall 00:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to applied this new change to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tye_Dillinger but i was given a HG, RIP Colton Meltzer (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you will need to clarify within the edit summary that your changes are based on a new consensus at WT:PW, and possibly link to this discussion. Otherwise it looks like vandalism to editors who are not involved in this project. Prefall 00:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bit late to this party, but I saw a "wrestling highlights" where the other thing was for years a day or so ago, and thought it looked dumb. If every single move, manager, championship and trainee is a highlight, none are. That's just the nature of light. But whatever, I can grow to ignore it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, June 29, 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I have updated everyone on the List of WWE personnel page through the UK brand, but not past that. Any bets on how long until IP editors start reverting like crazy to restore? - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 03:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This a defeat for the entire inclusionist movement...as if it weren't tragic enough, your uncivil jab at the end has only made it worse. I am now considering leaving Wikipedia already now...there's no place for inclusionists anymore. Tom Danson (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't bring blackmail into this argument. We shouldn't simply include information simply because people like it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom Danson: It is not uncivil, there is a WELL DOCUMENTED issue with this on wikipedia. I would like to also point out to you that no one on here said this information has no place on wikipedia, just not as a list which is WP:CRUFT. Please read above and the summary at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional wrestling/Style guide#Professional wrestling highlights / In wrestling, which describes this. Its about prose vs list, but about inclusion vs deletion, please read more carefully before being accusatory. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 12:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like to show one old Ribbon Salminen articles: Nakamura. In japan, finishers are very important. So, their articles read "Nkamura began to work a much rougher style, using a lot of knees and continuing to use a straight right hand as a frequent move in addition to the Bomaye (renamed Kinshasa in WWE), his new finisher." I think it's a great way to include moves into the article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect example, that is exactly how important information should be incorporated. With a purpose, not just indiscriminate data for datas sake. MPJ-DK 13:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To those removing the in wrestling/highlights section, please watch out for reference errors. I have come across a few already and expect next week's cleanup listing to be very large. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry do you have an example of the issue? In my experience a broken link caused by removal is fixed about an hour later by a bot. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 12:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bot that solves exactly this issue (I think it's called reference medic); but clearly, it's better not to have the issue at all.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To those removing the important parts of wrestling wikis, you're driving a lot of people away. This is a very, very bad decision. In fact, the in wrestling section is the main reason a lot of people use wrestling wiki pages. Reverse this decision or forever be known as the people who ruined wrestling on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.116.246 (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wikipedia guidelines, IP user, specifically WP:ILIKEIT, as a deletion discussion. The fact that people like, or would use a section of an article, is not a reason to keep it. Wikipedia is a worldwide encylopedia, and this information has been shown to have no basis as a general list on pages. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing information. No one cares if your small group made a consensus. This site is for information and you are all actively going against that. Reddit alone has hundreds of people who agree that this is a terrible idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.165.62.168 (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redit is NOT a reliable source, nor is it in any way related to Wikipedia. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was a source or related to wikipedia. Reddit has a massive community of wrestling fans who agree this is a bad idea. What you're doing doesn't just effect wikipedia, it effects any wrestling fan coming here. You are removing information from an information website for no valid reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.165.62.168 (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll up and read carefully. Information should be included in the article in prose as necessary. Not a random list of information. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)There is clear reasonings why this is being done above. We have recently had general sanctions placed on our project regarding in-universe being prevelent on our articles, where there shouldn't be. Admins now have more strength than ever to remove disruptive editing and impose topic bans. Refering to us as a small group is rather anecdotal, as the project is here to improve our coverage of pro wrestling topics. However, there are LOTS of guidelines regarding what material is deemed suitible, and those that are not suitible for wikipedia. The consensus (above), is that the section "In Wrestling", provides information that is not-notable, mostly Original Research (Such as signature moves), or could easily be placed into prose. The information being "removed", can simply be placed into text, which is better for the project, and other editors as well. You are welcome to make your own proposal, if you wish, however, talking and consensus is how wikipedia works.

You should also note, that Wikipedia isn't a "information website". It's an online encylopedia. Not everything is permitted. See What Wikipedia is not, and WP:NOTSTATS. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saying wikipedia "isn't an information website, it's an online encyclopedia" is flabbergasting. An encyclopedia is literally a book of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.165.62.168 (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a random list. It's a section dedicated to accomplishments and the building blocks of each wrestler. Yes,, wikipedia articles should generally be written out as paragraphs, but there are plenty of times and scenarios, like this, where a list is needed and justified. You're actively going against the community, wikipedia, and information itself by removing these sections. A consensus between the minority opinion does not overrule the majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.165.62.168 (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This topic was actually brought up from someone outside of the community, reviewing a Good Article nomination. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This topic has also been discussed here at length for several weeks and is open for anyone to discuss. This topic was open to anyone to contribute to, including yourself. This was not just open to a small group, and discussions such as this are why wikiprojects exist. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't participate since I was againt it, so I dind't want to angry myself. However, reading your arguments I see your point. Also,the last months I was watching the In Wrestling section and it's hard (nearly impossible) to keep. One time names as official nicknames, theme songs without source, a tag team partner accompained a wrestler and becomes his manager... I prefer to delete and include in the article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject describes a wikiproject as the central place for editor collaboration on a particular topic area. Editors there develop criteria, maintain various collaborative processes, keep track of work that needs to be done, and act as a forum where issues of interest to the editors of a subject may be discussed. This is exactly what we did. I suggest if you would like to contribute to these discussions in the future that you register for an account and follow this page, the enable you to know when discussions occur. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

long, very long story short this isn't a place to indiscriminately list Gran Metalik's 200 "signature moves", that is trivial info, which is against the Wikipedia princples. And I say this as Gran Metalik's biggest fan ever. "Reddit users think", then build something on Reddit if they are so gung ho about it. MPJ-DK 16:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Btw - this is not a wrestling wiki, go find one of those is that is what you want. Article quality is not increased because of a list of moves. Articles do not become GA or FA quality because of a list of moves. If editors are not here to improve the quality of a subject they like, what is thr point? My sound harsh but I have little patience for those thinking this is Wrestlepedia, not Wikipedia. You in the wrong neighborhood buddy. MPJ-DK 16:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just some random user like the other guy. Sorry we're dredging all this up when you have a consensus of editors, hope we're not proving too much of an annoyance. But anyway, aren't wrestlers' signature and finishing moves important parts of their individual biographies and performance histories? Baseball pitchers' style entries contain information on what pitches a player uses within their repertoire (cutter, slider, change-up, fastball, etc.), and this doesn't strike me as being too different. I understand sourcing concerns and original research problems make these lists difficult to maintain relative to Wikipedia standards, and the general sanctions by ANI make it fairly clear that the "powers that be" dislike any in-universe discussion in professional wrestling articles. But the section doesn't strike me as in-universe discussion or trivial fancruft so much as biographical information of a performer which cannot be cleanly implemented into the "Career" section. Moreover, while it might raise concerns for being listcruft, incorporating a more frequent "wrestling persona" section like CM Punk's (the most common replacement scheme I've seen for the section) appears to open up a more dangerous fancruft problem for incorporating more qualitative or subjective prose in paragraph form rather than the simple enumeration a list can create. I can see the necessity of a clean-up to standards, but I guess I don't understand the advocacy for a complete excising. 67.244.146.250 (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Civilized conversation is never a problem and I thank you for that. "Signature" is a meaningless germ in 99% of the cases. Example, "Armdrag" signature move of Ricky Steamboat, most everyone else it is "just a move they use" like a CAW assigned moved. Unless the move is significant it had no encylopedic merit IMO. Someone created a move? In the prose, with sources. Someone happens to have learned to do a suplex in wrestling school, trivial. The section was poorly defined and thus open to someone just pouring in move after move. The spend 100 edits adding made up move names or adjusting links, descriptions etc. based on their own opinion or interprtation. If there are valid reasons to include something I am all for including it - if it has encylopedic value and not just random trivial info. MPJ-DK 16:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One hundred percent the above. We aren't saying all moves are unimportant, but if it is important, it can be written about. A list of moves with no elaboration is completely irrelevant Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate that, but where would significant moves like finishers or innovated moves be included in the new scheme? Direct sources rarely attribute a precise year to a move's innovation or a finisher's first use, so it would be difficult to place the shiranui's invention anywhere chronologically in Naomichi Marufuji's "career" section. More widespread use of a "wrestling persona" section similar to CM Punk's or Daniel Bryan's entries in the styleguide might appear as an invitation for using original research to describe such a persona, and entries for wrestlers like Trevor Lee or Donovan Dijak right now would be likely thin and solely include their finishing move anyway. Trimming down the list to currently or historically significant moves is certainly understandable (though the definition of encyclopedic significance is also a question I'm curious about), lord knows I have no idea why the Styles Clash was listed on Hiroshi Tanahashi's wiki entry. But if information relating to moves is significant (either as a finisher or an innovated move appears to be the consensus thus far), where would it be included? 67.244.146.250 (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) For anyone curious about what the Reddit is actually saying without looking at this situation from an editor's standpoint, here is the thread. The two people who actually somewhat looked at it our way got downvoted to oblivion. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had a read. Some things people say seem to have a deep routed problem with how Wikipedia operates (but then, everything is up for debate on Wikipedia.) The big thing, weirdly is spoilers. Somehow it's a problem that Wikipedia posts up information as and when they happen, and not on a tape delay. People shouldn't look things up in general on Wikipedia if they want to avoid spoilers. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ro-Rou I was part of that LU Spoiler discussion, I guess Reddit don't like me. MPJ-DK 19:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, it is important to understand the context of comments. I do want to apologize for making your CAW creation harder, I do wish that was a more important aspect of Wikipedia. MPJ-DK 17:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "In Wrestling/Pro Wrestling Highlights" section has been a vital resource to those Creating wrestlers in games like the WWE 2k series or Fire Pro. Where knowing that say Travis Banks does an armdrag might be a bit of a no-brainier to some, having even simple moves gives the CAW community more basis for their lighter moves and not just Finishers and a couple others. Also, from a story telling aspect, having a list of moves that a wrestler does regularly gives a basis for a reader of what to expect out of a match. So when someone like John Cena throws out a rare dropkick, it shows that Cena is either: A) Desperate to win the match, and will try anything that could work or B) Adding something new to their repertoire. Which are both notable to the story of the match, and by extension, valuable info to have on a site like Wiki. PopTartPowerbomb (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soooooooo..... during a John Cena match you pull up his Wikipedia profile to get a better understanding of the story being told in the ring? MPJ-DK 17:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm saying that if someone's a new fan or unfamiliar with a certain wrestler, they may not care if, for example, Cena does a dropkick.PopTartPowerbomb (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. So you agree it is trivial information that new fans won't care about and existing fans either already know or don't care about? I am simply trying to find out if you are for or against removal since your logic is for removing and comment is against it. MPJ -DK 18:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The backlash from hardcore fans was expected (it's called fancruft for a reason). While I do understand their frustration and sympathize, I don't think a lot of them understand what WP:Wikipedia is not, particularly WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. For things such as designing CAWs, the use of an actual database or fan wikia will suit those needs far better than Wikipedia ever could. Prefall 19:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- You can link to your WP articles and your long-winded, drawn out, oceans of procedure and rules all you want, it doesn't make you right. The problem is that this is the result of a long, long takeover of Wikipedia by deletionists. They have their policies in place so they can do what they want. The "votes" are a facade, there's no true democracy, they just link to the deletionist policy already in place and you're not allowed to argue against it. There's a reason Wikipedia is bleeding editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.44.75.199 (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knew It - That one of reason why, wanted to keep the "In Wresting" Section as it been on Wikapedia more than 10 years. I knew this "change" going encounter backlash.🤣 Wikapedia is a information database. (The moves are part of the information) Colton Meltzer (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not, it's an encyclopedia, not a repository for indiscrimnate or trivial data. MPJ-DK 19:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOT for more information. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably just a Wikapedia Logic for that meaning. By the way i basically first person to oppose the "In Wresting" change. I did not realize the majority opposed too.Colton Meltzer (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing vast amounts of information because you don't like the way it is formatted is not a solution to anything. Yes, these sections were messy, and could use some cleaning up. But you're removing vital information from these articles. You're disregarding backlash as just being whiny fanboys, completely disregarding that knowing a wrestler's finishing maneuver is one of the number one things an average person coming to Wikipedia for information on a wrestler is going to be looking for. Did we need 50 lines of "signature" moves on every wrestler's page? Of course not. But their key finishing moves are essential information. You keep saying that if the information is so important it should be addressed in the prose. Well then maybe you should've made these edits to the prose first? Did you think about that? As it is you just removed bytes and bytes of information with zero plan of restoring any of it in a more appropriate form. As it is most wrestler's pages do not, at any point, explain what their finishing move is. At the very least you should've maintained a couple lines dedicated strictly to their finishing moves. You could even fit it into their info box at the top of the page.206.45.59.254 (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal for something like that could be made. However, consensus above is to remove the section. Any editor that goes against consensus, without being willing to discuss will be warned and then topic banned, due to our general sanctions that we have had imposed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I want to clear up something - the consensus was to remove the section itself. No one has said the article cannot include what their finishing move is, mentioning their manager etc. in the prose of the article. To all those that complain, can you tell me it's "Vital" to list that Gran Metalik uses an "Open-handed chop"? Even with 3 sources showing that he's used it how is Gran Metalik has used an Open-handed chop three times considered "essential"? As for "you should have made these edits" my response is - go for it dude *thumbs up*. MPJ-DK 20:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not think that is vital. I do however think it is vital to list that Gran Metalik's finishing move is the Metalik Driver. Which is currently not mentioned a single time on his entire page. Be it in the prose or elsewhere.206.45.59.254 (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Totally legit, totally allowed with proper sources, no one has said otherwise. MPJ-DK 20:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it feel this change going bring lot of admins here to (who are no involved in project) to address this. Colton Meltzer (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And what will they do? one side sites Wikipedia polices and guidelines as reasons to remove it, other side cites "I like it" and "but my CAWs" as a reason to add it in. I would welcome an Admin review of the consensus to remove the section, no worries. MPJ-DK 20:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the section without adding certain content back is valid criticism. Personally, their finishing move being included is a nice detail, but in a majority of cases does not significantly enhance the understanding of the subject, so I'm not bothered when it's missing. Feel free to add them yourself. As for the infobox suggestion, that can be proposed but seems inappropriate. We have to draw the line somewhere between these articles being about the performers who happen to portray fictional characters in a simulated sport, or being about the fictional characters themselves. Prefall 20:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People please do not delete other people's comment on a talk page, against the rules and with the General Sanctions for pro wrestling topics you could end up getting banned. MPJ-DK 20:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welp this change..., i guess back to Edit MMA/UFC pages for awhile until the Pro Wresting Wikpedia Project issues get resolved. Have a nice day. Colton Meltzer (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many of us here have voiced our opinions on why the "In Wrestling/Pro Wrestling Highlights" section should stay. But are we wasting our time if there is nothing that can be done to revert this change? Do we need X amount of people to voice their disapproval in order for something to happen? Or something of that aspect? PopTartPowerbomb (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So here is the thing - this isn't decided by a vote, it doesn't work by majority. Wikipedia is a place of guidelines and structure, I have not seen a single "keep the section" argument that actually explain what Wikipedia guidelines support their point of view that the section is appropriate and should stay. With the discussion being closed before the influx of editors who've never commented on anything here ever before, removing the "in wrestling" section is the current status. Just like before it was the standard to have it included. How did this get changed? We started a community discussion, presented arguments for our point of view based on our interpretations of the various wikipedia guidelines. So if you want this changed you can start a new, separate discussion on this (at the bottom of this page in a seperate section) to try and build a different policy/guideline based consensus. If you would like a broader audience to provide input on if the "In Wrestling" part should be added back in you can always follow the steps outlined in Wikipedia:Requests for comment which usually reached a broader audience who'd give you their policy/guideline based opion, which may or may not favor inclusion. MPJ-DK 00:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For those that don't follow wrestling week to week, what if someone new comes up and they want to learn their moves? Now they can't. How does this help anyone? Evil Yugi (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who is frustrated with this change should check out The Pro Wrestling Wikia. It lists all of the moves for wrestlers, updates with week by week info, and you can edit over there with less restrictions than here. Nikki♥311 02:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Example of how "In wrestling" can be reworked by someone

I figure the best way to show what I'm talking about is to literally show it. So previously the Máscara Dorada article listed at least 26 different moves that are supposedly his "signature" moves - including both a Frankensteiner AND hurricanrana (same move) as well as the "trademark" chop that he and every single other wrestler with hands uses. Instead I added in a new section, Máscara Dorada#Wrestling persona and style, since he has not developed a ton of character beyond "Luchador face" I figured "and style" would be appropriate so his general wrestling style can be described in prose and a couple of moves could be included/explained. It does not invite editors to pile on every move he's done in the ring, but focusing on the non-trivial stuff. It's Encylopedic, sourced and written in prose. I do hope people can live without knowing he has on occasion been called "El Rey de las Cuerdas". MPJ-DK 01:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another admittedly frustrated person here, the "In wrestling" section was an important resource for myself, but if this is truly vastly more adherent to Wikipedia's guidelines (although extremely strict guideline fetishism is also one of my personal distastes) then I understand it will be fought vehemently for with little chance of "victory" from those who wish for the utmost level of inclusionism. As a side trivia note, a frankensteiner and hurricanrana are considered to be different moves. A huracanrana is followed immediately by a double leg cradle, whereas a frankensteiner excludes any direct pinfall transition. jcw91 (talk) 01:54, June 29, 2018 (UTC)

Then there could never, ever be any move called a "top rope huracanrana" as nobody is able to do the double leg cradle. MPJ-DK 02:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those that wish for the "utmost level of inclusionism" have already lost to Wikipedia's guidelines for trivia etc., not because an indiscriminant list of moves and unverfied data has been removed. I offer my condolences for your loss way back when. MPJ-DK 02:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I'd suggest considering WP:DEADLINE when you're doing these changes. I mean, you're saying there's no reason not to include the information and that it can be re-worked -- that means there's literally no good reason to *remove* the sections outright, all at once. You've come up with a great way to improve them without removing them. Over the course of several months or years, that change can probably be implemented. Any argument in favor of flat removing them instead of reworking them one-by-one? (Other than trying to beat the deadline?) Deltopia (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lucha Libre

This page needs to reflect that lucha libre is a term used throughout most (if not all) of Latin America in reference to a number of styles, not all of which meet the style/rules/traditions of the Mexican variant. Days ago, "Lucha_libre"_as_a_series_of_articles I proposed branching it into a "Lucha libre in..." series, which was to begin by renaming the entry for Professional wrestling in Puerto Rico (to "Lucha libre in Puerto Rico") and the current entry to "Lucha libre in Mexico". In addition, I had envisioned more entries for Argentina, Dominican Republic, Colombia, Panama, Ecuador and Chile, being somewhat familiar with the scene of these countries.

However, fellow editor Lee Vilenski proposed creating a "Professional Wrestling in..." article for Mexico and turning "Lucha Libre" into a hub with a "worldwide bearing". This seems like a sensible proposal that does not include renaming other pieces, and which could be complemented by creating similar pieces for the other countries that were previously mentioned. Before proceeding with any changes, I want feedback, and expect to collaborate with any consensus solution as long as it solves the ethnocentrism of the current entry. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is used as Professional wrestling in Mexico which is incorrect and misleading, I agree. Just like how Puroresu is a style, not professional wrestling in Japan, although they are basically used interchangeably around WP. - Galatz ^Talk 18:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "Lucha Libre" is not synonymous with "Pro wrestling in Mexico" and that that is 99% of what the Lucha Libre article talks about. I think an article on "in Mexico" would be great, it would focus more on timeline, events, federations etc. and less on the "what is lucha libre" aspects of what's in the current article. I'd be happy to contribute to a Professional wrestling in Mexico article. I wish I could make "Non-Mexican" contributions to the Lucha Libre article but that's outside my area of expertise, although I can do my part to turn it into a less "Mexico-centric" article. MPJ-DK 01:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the "Professional Wrestling in..." articles are really poor. Professional wrestling in Canada being the worst offender. I'd like to see something for this, as there are lots of countries missing, and the ones that are there are poorly looked after. No idea why no Professional Wrestling in Germany article exists, for example. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the Canada article makes no sense. There has been so much history of Canada there and there is no mention of any of it. - Galatz ^Talk 13:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: The Canada article is just a list, not a complete list, of Canadian wrestlers who wrestled overseas. It seems redundant to have such a list. I am willing to help fix the article if others are willing as well. Being as I am from Canada, I can add information where necessary. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 16:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, exactly. A non-complete list is completely pointless. The article needs to be created similarly to the Professional wrestling in New Zealand article or Professional wrestling in the United States. Realistically, all of these articles need a good look at, as the NZ one isn't even really up to it's GA status anymore. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Regardless if the New Zealand article isn't good article status anymore, it is at least something you can use a gauge to how articles should be in this particular scope. If we used draft space or even a sandbox to write the Canada article, before moving it over, that would be beneficial. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this would be a good opportunity to define a standard for these kinds of articles? A "suggested sections" list or "this is denfinitly NOT what the article should be" (looking at the Canadian one that's a big old example of what NOT to do.) Might make it easier to get some progress around some of these national level articles? MPJ-DK 16:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That would be a good! I'd also argue we should make some of the more blatent articles that are missing as stub/starts. Might be a job for when we've got some spare time. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A very Good point. Mexico is needed, Canada needs to be rewritten, what Else is totally missing or low Quality? MPJ-DK 18:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theres tonnes of wrestling everywhere, but the most glaring omission is Germany. But places like Portugal and Switzerland have history with wrestling. I'm sure there could be enough information for quite a few places to have an overview. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The UK piece has a nice amount of prose, but issues with the use of footnotes. I can help by gathering sources in Spanish, which besides Latin America may also be useful for Europe. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

205Live

Hi. There is some discussion about 205Live. Is 205Live a sub-division of RAW or is his own brand? We have some problems Here --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I specially visited here to remove such unasusual arguements regarding 205 Live and RAW excepting this where I'm leaving you message here. I added Responsible tagging of Article being Confusing. Mattspac already clarified and said correct that 205 Live is sub-division of RAW. Reason of removal is This Which I was intended to remove at all. If I ever get attack or any bans of blocks for unasusual I'll Create my another Wikipedia Account and do the thing for Which I got previously blocked 2 times as per block templates at my talk page of last year. If you think I'm doing wrong by removing Discussion or gonna do such thing that results blocks or bans, I would like to recommend you to Request Protection again. At the announcement of Survivor Series 2017, It was clearly announced that Every RAW Champions will face their SD Live Counterparts excepting Cruiserweights for NOT HAVING THEIR SMACKDOWN COUNTERPARTS. CK (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep all discussion at the one page. This was intended as a neutral notification, nor a second discussion. oknazevad (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before 205 Live, they used to appear on RAW. The 25th Anniversary was the last time they appeared as far as I can remember. I've seen the cruiserweights still listed as part of RAW. The last time any of the cruiserweights appeared on a regular secondary pay-per-view in any capacity whether pre-show or main card was Great Balls of Fire which is going on a year ago. That was a RAW event. It's like they only get pay-per-view time on is on major pay-per-view events even if it is pre-shows. Regardless, unless we have consensus to change it or you can find it mentioned somewhere that are no long apart of RAW, it's best to just leave it as is. I'm not opposed to changing it, it's just how things need to be handled. I can't find anything saying they are no longer apart of RAW. Take that for what you will. As well, before they got their own general manager, it was Kurt Angle who was the general manager overseeing the cruiserweights and 205 Live. You could make argument that 205 Live getting their own general manager could be seen as becoming their own stand alone brand. But I digress. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 21:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fishhead2100: I did many arguements at Personnels talk page, I deleted discussions and messages of IP user, I made that IP User quiet by applying spurious block template to his talk page, I closed discussion, I reported to administrator, I received warning messages by User:Oknazevad, see my talkpage, see my contributions, see my discussions at article's talkpage with full of arguements and authenticated IP messages.I try to do as same as I read what you said Regardless, unless we have consensus to change it or you can find it mentioned somewhere that are no long apart of RAW, it's best to just leave it as is. I'm not opposed to changing it which is right by your opinion. It's better to not to argue IanPCP, Vjmlhds, Galatz and 32.213.92.177. All Cruiserweight BLP has received recent changes from RAW to 205 Live and removal of RAW referances today. I don't mean to create any sockpuppet as I already have 2 blocked socks and myself got blocked last year for 2 weeks(blocked 2 days before New Year). Article was protected for 3 days when arguements initiated. HHH and Mattspac cites me and my edit. IanPCP Whom I believe he might be authentic editor and accurately edit article but he also found out one culprit and starter of argumentation. Being politely, neither wwe.com has made any update nor WWE itself made such announcement. Fishhead, your opinion might works. Great work. CK (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{@Broken nutshell: If you're deleting other editor's comments on a talk other than your own, you might want to stop. That can get you into trouble. Threatening people can also get you in trouble. Yes, there are rules about non-admin closure, but it's not up to you to close discussions if there isn't a consensus. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Professional wrestling in ... content discussion

So I've been giving it some thought as to what we should aim for to include in an article about professional wrestling in "Country" and I've looked at all the articles we have on it (US, UK, Puerto Rico, Australia, NZ, Israel, "Mexico", "Japan" - Canada does not count except for what not to do.) and I suggest that all article should at a minimum have the following sections:

History

Beginning (xxxx-xxxx)
etc. (xxxx-xxxx)

"Country" style
Wrestling promotions

Major promotions
Independent circuit
Foreign tours
Defunct promotions

Any other suggestions? Comments? likes or dislikes?? Other options I considered was "Television history" (hard to find consistent sources), "wrestlers from XXX known outside XXX" (which for Japan, UK, Mexico would be unwieldy and crufty) but felt like those may make sense if you have the info etc. MPJ-DK 01:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think certain things like foreign promotion tours add something to certain articles. For example, Israel and Australia have them and it adds something because its rare or minimal. The WWE goes to the UK yearly and Canada multiple times a year (I think). Do we draw a line somewhere, or do we include it no matter what? To come up with a list of foreign promotions that have worked in the US could be endless. - Galatz ^Talk 01:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MPJ-DK: There are lists for independent promotions in Canada and United States. It lists both active and defunct promotions. So not sure if that's what you were wanting to do with that part. 08:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you'd have a {{main article}} for that part, and have an overview for the country. Makes total sense to me. I'd say that they should really be some information on particularly notable wrestlers, championships or achievements. For example, Sheamus being the first United Kingdom WWE Heavyweight Champion is quite important. Or, some countries have a national championship (Or, like in the UK, a lot of national championships), that could potentially have their own section. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that for the bigger markets, there could be enough material for separate articles convering the independent circuits. But, they need prose instead of being bullet lists. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Jericho - WWE Contract

The following quote is the second sentence of the lead section.

"He is also currently competing in WWE as a signed talent, where he makes sporadic appearances on a part-time basis on both the Raw and SmackDown brands."

He mentioned in an interview as recently as April which you can see here, he says he is on a per appearance "one and done" type deals when he appears in the WWE. At the 7:38 mark he says he is not contracted. I know removing or modifying it would have people up in arms. It needs to be corrected. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 08:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infact the line BEST KNOWN FOR TENURE refers to those who completely leaves WWE. if a person list himself as WWE person but retired or part timing and being a member there but competing in other promotions then the line CURRENTLY SIGNED TO WWE still to be used. CK (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Broken nutshell: But he isn't signed. Signed would mean he has a contract which he doesn't. Checking the article, it has been changed. Now I can't even find the sentence I quoted and I even went through the history. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 16:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed a live one which said roughly the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:19, June 20, 2018 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk:

Done This Worked. CK (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: It's good. He isn't signed at the present and the wording reflects that. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 14:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to wrestling articles

All, there is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Egregious_personal_attacks_and_other_inappropriate_conduct_by_User:Nickag989 that could potentially affect all professional wrestling articles. - Galatz ^Talk 00:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Their attitude sucks, but on the other hand they are not wrong about a lot of edits. And really need tondirect everyone to this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#General_sanctions_for_articles_on_professional_wrestling MPJ-DK 05:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeez, I've taken a bit of a break recently and didn't realize how many people we've lost from this project. I didn't even realize Treker got blocked. Never had issues with Nickag989 either. Toughening sanctions in an attempt to crack down on the many content-related issues this project deals with will almost certainly backfire, these guys were always against that but were brought down by being uncivil in the process. Guys, always try to keep cool! We can't lose any more good editors.LM2000 (talk) 06:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I really don't understand what causes people to lose that much patience with such minor issues. Use the system, don't go all crazy. With that being said, I tried to read the discussions, but my knowledge of general sanctions are nil. What is the suggestion here? I'm against punishing real editors. A quicker response method to personal attacks would be ok with me, however. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is why I would be in favor of requiring extended confirmed users only being able to edit. They would have to be on wikipedia for 30 days and have 500 edits. We would only be getting experienced editors who understand how things work. It would cut down on a lot of issues. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 12:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is that particularly necessary though? I know there is a lot of editors that don't feel the need to be confrontational even if they are inexperienced. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        There shouldn't be confrontation regardless of situation. But there is a ton of socks and IP edits that create a ton of issues for those in this project. Requiring 30/500 helped fix tons of issues in Israel related topics. I can tell you first hand from editing a lot there it worked. We just get too many people vandalizing articles or good faith edits that need to be reverted. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Does that not seem like a lot though? Personally, when I signed up for an account on Wikipedia, it was due to in part, updating articles, with quite a few articles being in the pro wrestling category. I could understand maybe simply the autoconfirmed process being a good place for this, as it would limit annonymous edit wars, so at least people would be liable for edits. However, if you come to wikipedia specifically for work on Pro Wrestling; we would potentially push away help due to a prejudice that they may be a poor editor. I'm not sure many good editors would stick around for a full month to help with the project. I'm against turning away good editors. WP:ANI should be enough to deal with the childish editors. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, 500 edits is a lot, more so than the 30 days. I have seen socks edit their talk page to build up the edits needed, which gets them blocked immediately. Any protection is better than none. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I really understand the problems we face (If people are going to sign up to wikipedia to be disruptive, they'll simply find another topic to be disruptive in if they can't. However, if we are to have something along these lines, I think we shouldn't be too hasty in pushing away potential editors. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: I know that we shouldn't push away potential editors. But what about those who are not familiar with wrestling that want to edit? That could turn problematic. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you aren't familiar with wrestling, why are you editing professional wrestling articles, though? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski, any editor can work on any article for any reason, as long as they comply with our policies and guidelines. Subject specific knowledge is not required because we summarize published sources rather than relying on personal knowledge. I have made major revisions to many articles where I knew far less about the topic than I do about professional wrestling. You do not need to be a topic expert to see that a given article has glaring problems and set out to fix it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI this was just closed as authorize [1] - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 01:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, it passed. Our general sanctions page is at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling. I'm not totally familiar with the process here but I think we report offenders to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement after they've been warned, correct?LM2000 (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not 100% sure. My only experience really deals with WP:ARBPIA3, which is much more extreme. There we allow all pages to automatically have indefinite extended confirmed, so any time I see a page with even 1 issue I go to WP:RPP and have it locked down. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 02:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I consulted an admin who said we still need to report violations to WP:ANI or directly to an admin. It's unfortunate that AN/I still needs to be involved, most discussions there quickly dissolve into clusterfucks.LM2000 (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the proposal at all. I feel like a lot of non-professional wrestling editors, and admins have voted in favor of this sanction, but I don't feel like it's well explained. This seems like a tool for administrators to topic ban users, but only if they see the offense.

I think I'm simply asking how this will effect me, as I'm not familiar with much to do with administators (Other than the occasional vote, or what I've read.) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion there is closed now, with a consensus to impose the edit warring sanctions, but GOD are some of the people on that thread really smug about not liking wrestling.DoveArcher (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This basically gives admins the ability to levy sanctions on users or pages to curb bad behavior. I don't see this affecting very much to be honest, a lot of the discussion was out of scope and addressed unrelated problems with our articles and disdain for the topic in general. I see List of WWE personnel getting 1RR restrictions and some of the usual suspects getting topic banned but that's about it. I'd recommend taking any behavior complains to a single admin rather than AN/I. Comments from the peanut gallery quickly derail those threads.LM2000 (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would it maybe make sense to have a list of admins within the project (Or ones that would be willing to learn a little about the nuances of pro wrestling articles)? I feel like quite a few admins (Specifically the ones being so incredibly smug about how they'd like to get rid of the project all together) wouldn't really understand the particular issues we face. I also have issues that I know some admins, but without specifically going onto someone's userpage, it's not always the easiest to know if they do indeed have the admin rights.

It's always better to make something where potential disruptive editing, or bullying would be more instructive; so any editor could bring these charges to the correct place, without having to read tonnes of guidelines (I read the whole sanctions article, and I was still none the wiser as to what the proposal really was). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said most of my experience with GS deals with Israel related articles. There articles just get locked down when we have problems, an we have WP:1RR restrictions, which this does not. Cullen328 has written on my talk page that he is an admin that plans to enforce these sanctions. Perhaps it would be best of he could chime in here and let us know exactly what the admins expect from us, and the best way we can go about helping improve this. Since events get vandalized consistently, especially in the 30 days before and after it, can we get all events locked down automatically without waiting for it to get vandalized first? Or when Big Cass got released the page was instantly vandalized and then locked, do we need to wait for this to happen to lock articles? I would be ok with everything in professional wrestling permanently requiring at least auto-confirmed but thats a different story.

Unfortunately most of the vandalism occurs from IP addresses, and how do these restrictions get imposed on these anonymous users? If the get banned they will just come back the next day with a new IP address. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 11:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 You have always been very helpful I know when I have needed help with vandalism, SOCKS, etc. Would you mind chiming in here on the way we can best help improve wikipedia with these sanctions? - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond at greater length later but I want to give a preliminary response now. The discussion at the Administrator's Noticeboard showed that the wider editing community has grave concerns about a wide range of editor misbehavior in the pro wrestling topic area. The consensus is that the problems are serious enough that administrators are being given a heightened level of authority to deal promptly and firmly with disruptive behavior in this topic area. Articles will not be semi-protected before vandalism takes place but promptly when it begins. Take such requests to WP:RFPP and report vandals to WP:AIV. This is routine. However, this discussion so far is not dealing with the elephant in the room: Kayfabe. Generalist editors are disgusted and angered by the massive amount of in-universe content in countless pro-wrestling articles. That violates the Manual of Style and our well-established policies and guidelines. There is deep opposition to presenting pro wrestling as an actual athletic completion and an insistence that all pro wrestling articles accurately reflect the fact that these are scripted fictional events. This is simply not negotiable and all pro wrestling articles must be written to reflect these facts. Articles must not be dominated by lengthy, detailed plot summaries written from an in-universe perspective. MOS:PLOT is the relevant section in the Manual of Style, and Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works is an essay that also reflects widespread editing norms. So, the challenge to every established pro wrestling editor is to cut way, way, way back on the kayfabe content throughout the entire group of articles in this topic area. Editors who persist in adding this excessive in-universe content to the encyclopedia will be warned, and then blocked if they persist. The blocks will be indefinite if warnings and short blocks are not effective.

The specific article that was discussed at AN is Israeli Wrestling League, and the response of several uninvolved editors to this article was justifiable rage. This article is about 90% in-universe kayfabe, and this type of article must be chopped with a machete. So, read that article and ask yourself whether or not you are prepared to clean up these messes. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and not a gushing fansite, and editors who persist in trying to turn it into one will be blocked to prevent disruption. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarifications, I was myself not sure exactly it meant to be under "General sanctions" even after reading the guidelines repeatedly, so this has been very helpful. I don't disagree that there is a lot of crap going on in wrestling articles, especially by IPs and fanatics on anything WWE related, hell those articles can be so toxic that I personally try to stay away from them as much as possible. I'm curious if this GS will address uncivil, negative and hostile comments from some editors? I do hope it will, it would be a breath of fresh air to not have to deal with some of the negativity and uncivility presented in the linked discussions. I'm not sure who had the "justifiable rage"?? those saying it was "crap" or those saying it was not? (sorry if I am dense) I personally think "justifiable" and "rage" is an oxymoron and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. MPJ-DK 00:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MPJ-DK, when large numbers of articles are crammed full of kayfabe, then that is utterly unacceptable and justifies a feeling of rage among editors who are committed to a neutral encyclopedia. Wrestling editors who produce high quality encyclopedic content in full compliance with the Manual of Style, and our policies and guidelines, have nothing to fear from these new sanctions. Those who cram kayfabe into the encyclopedia should be very afraid. They must either change their ways or go away to edit wrestling fansites instead. Otherwise, they will be blocked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Getting strict on kayfabe is great, but that is still a very vague instruction. LM2000 had a great point on the sanctions proposal which went completely unnoticed—kayfabe is going to mean different things to different people. Is saying someone "won" a championship or "was defeated" in a match considered kayfabe? Specifics like this, along with the level of detail used in articles, need to be established through a RfC or something. Prefall 15:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prefall, those judgments must be made by developing a deep understanding our core content policies like Verifiability, No original research and the Neutral point of view, combined with guidance from the Manual of Style's instructions about how to describe works of fiction, and also guided by good old fashioned editorial judgment. Reporting about who won and lost scripted matches is acceptable, as long as the event is notable and article has a crystal clear disclaimer stating that it is a scripted fictional performance. Plot summaries should be a relatively brief part of a well-referenced article written from a real-world perspective. The in-universe perspective is not acceptable, and is far too common in this topic area. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

justifies a feeling of rage among editors who are committed to a neutral encyclopedia - @Cullen328: On this, we will have to agree to disagree, I understand the rage, but I don't think it's acceptable for any Wikipedian to be uncivil. But instead of lingering on something I cannot change I will instead move on and try to influence some positive changes for the pro wrestling articles so that they don't induce as much rage in the future. As the president, founder, only member and grand Poobah of The "No Drama Professional Wrestling Society" (NDPWS) I am fully onboard with more quality less drama. MPJ-DK 01:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that I have been uncivil in this conversation, MPJ-DK, and if you perceive otherwise, please let me know with specifics. I saw a basic misunderstanding at the AN discussion. Uninvolved editors expressed grave concern about the quality of a large percentage of articles in the pro wrestling topic area. Some of the pro wrestling editors responded that they did not like being attacked for enjoying pro wrestling. In fact, generalist editors do not care at all what other editors enjoy. They care only about the quality of the articles produced by editors who enjoy pro wrestling. If, by working together, we can improve the general quality of that group of articles, then the conflict will fade quite naturally. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 - No, no not you - sorry if I even implied that, you've been courteous and helpful. I was referring to those showing "justificable rage" at pro wrestling. I am all about the quality myself and hope that this is the kick in the keister to help improve quality overall. MPJ-DK 02:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Sorry for the delay in responding, was away for the weekend. Some of my concerns with this is by the very nature, every event will focus on the events themselves. I think the biography articles themselves are the worst offenders as they should focus on the people not the kayfabe, but our IP editors love adding every little detail. Unfortunately due to this I do not follow many individuals because the sheer volume of edits would fill up my watchlist too quickly.
As for the events, lets take for example WrestleMania 33. I previously tagged the storylines section as being too detailed, which really needs to be cut down. WP:PW/PPVG recommends this section being no more than 1,000 words, but its currently almost 4 times thats. Any work I have put in previous articles in trying to trim these section back get reverted, so I've given up. I even brought the issue to talk and people tried telling me it shouldn't apply to WrestleMania, see Talk:WrestleMania_34#Storylines section. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think you are trying to say that WrestleMania 33 or whichever year is not notable, just that there is too much kayfabe in it. Even if all the fluff garbage was removed from the article, you would still have a build up section (called storylines, which does have the disclaimer), event section, and aftermath section. By the events very nature this is part of what makes the event notable, and will therefore contain a lot of in universe information. Ronda Rousey for example made her debut this year at WrestleMania 34 for which she got tons of main stream press, including Sports Center on ESPN, which covered the storylines she was involved in. The fact that she debuted is not kayfabe, but the stories she was involved in were. Therefore outside of just saying she debuted there is only so much you could discuss outside of the in-universe talk. Where do you draw the line? Even the reception section will have a certain in-universe feel because their review is of things that happened during the scripted matches, so their review isn't kayfabe, but what they are discussing is.
Also in terms of when to go to WP:RPP what qualifies as enough vandalism? In the past it seems like I usually need to prove 3-4 example in a 24 hour period to qualify. When I look at WWE Super Show-Down I see a couple over the course of a few days, would this be enough or should we wait until it gets worse? Also this event isn't taking place for a few months, would an admin lock this down until after the event airs, because the build up is normally when the vandalism occurs. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 21:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also there is discussion above about removing a section that is filled with CRUFTy information. Everyone seems to be in favor of it, but if we do, we all know the IPs will be reverting it like crazy because its their favorite section to update with every tiny little detail. What could we do to prevent these edit wars, since we obviously dont want to go to RPP with thousands of articles. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 21:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It will take consistency and enforcement of rules. With the sanctions in place we would have an easier time striking these down and if we have to protect articles from unregistered users then that's what needs to be done - just because it's hard doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted. MPJ-DK 22:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vader (wrestler)

If anyone wasn't aware, Vader has died. Anyone want to work getting his article ready for an In The News nom? Nikki♥311 21:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The article needs a severe amount of work (Just in general.) Here's some notes:

Referencing Style - Should be consistent, some use of cite web, but some use of short
I've updated the article to show his death date (That someone had removed)
We could potentially remove the extra sources tag. There is plenty of sources for his life.
Do we usually have the football section above the career section? It seems like something that should be below the professional wrestling career section.
Filmography section should potentially include at least a sentence to show he's was an actor.
The video games section requires sourcing, as it's the connection to Big Bear is unfounded.

Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there would be a death tag on the page. The recent death tag isn't totally correct since the article isn't being heavily edited and the cause of death will hopefully be sourced when proper sourcing becomes available. Regardless, a tag should be put up. I just don't know which one is best. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 14:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: I think the football section usually does go first (examples: Bill Goldberg and Roman Reigns) because generally, it was first chronologically. In Brock Lesnar's article it is farther down because he pursued that career after having worked as a professional wrestler. That said, I don't really have an opinion on the matter so whatever everyone else agrees on is fine with me. Nikki♥311 23:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Network Events

Right now List of WWE Network events is organized by air date. But if you look at List of NWA/WCW closed-circuit events and pay-per-view events, List of ECW supercards and pay-per-view events, List of Ring of Honor pay-per-view events, etc. its all organized by taped date. I see no reason why this one should be set up differently.

Also I changed the total event count to count UK championship tournament as 1 event, just because its over 2 days it doesn't make it multiple. ROH page also counts multi-day ones as 1. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Make article on History of WWE semi protected

There is almost always some repetitive vandalism, disruptive edits and un-sourced changes to the article on History of WWE by "unregistered users". I think the current version is all right and well accepted. This is a vital article as WWE is the leading wrestling promotion in the world and this covers it history very accurately. I know this is not the place to make the request, but I just hope to point out the urgency for it here and think it would be better if a senior member made the request to make the article semi protected. Thank you. Marked Man 808 (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestling notability criteria?

During the various discussions on General Sanctions for professional wrestling the topic of a "wrestling notability criteria" was brought up, sort of our version of Wikipedia:Notability (sports). A sort of guideline for when it would be appropriate to create a wrestling related article - be it a biography of a wrestler, a tag team or stable article, a stand-alone show or championship article. Would it help deal with crufty, fanish articles or articles on a team that's teamed up randomly twice and instantly has an article created under 4 different names? This would be a supplement to the General Notability Guideline and could never lessen what is outlined in the GNG. it would help cut down on articles written for every single person signed to a development contract but hasn't done anything yet, championship articles for a promotion where the promotion is not notable etc. Would it help to define one? If people are in favor I'd be happy to help form a consensus for various types of articles. MPJ-DK 01:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think it could help. I wrote something up a couple months ago. Don't have time to check the archives right now though. I am sure it needs work, was just a first draft - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 21:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See previous conversation here, Galatz, MPJ-DK. Although, as above, I doubt it would be suitible as coming under WP:Notability (sports), but more likely WP:ENTERTAINER. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took some inspiration from the previous attempt and my own ideas to whip up a draft at User:MPJ-DK/Notability (professional wrestling), just putting some of my thoughts down and items that still need to be hammered out. This would not go under "Notability Sports" nor "WP:ENTERTAINER" IMO but be a full blown Wikipedia:Notability (professional wrestling) article, since it's neither clearly sports nor entertainment.
- Looks awesome, thanks for the hard work!
- A few comments: I would remove any mention of sports, like the sport specific criteria set forth below or this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures. Any reason why ECW and ROH were removed? I would also say to use the full names, like World Championship Wrestling instead of WCW. I will go through it in more detail later. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 19:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I miss some promotions, like DDT, dragon Gate, IWRG, Joshi promotions (Sendai, STARDOM), many female independent promotions (shimmer, shine, wsu), independent promotions (CZW, pwg) or Puerto Rican (WWC, WWL). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The bones of the text came from the sports notability, I missed a couple of places but got it all now. And you are right ECW and ROH needs to be on there. I just used the short hand while I was drafting, it'll be long version with links as i work through it. I am the biggest IWRG nerd there is on Wikipedia, but I don't think it's big enough to warrant being on the Mexico list. I tried to pick the biggest ones to say "if you worked for those you're probably notable" where as if you worked primarily for CZW you'd be measured against the GNG only. MPJ-DK 20:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with WWC though. MPJ-DK 20:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

POpped in the full names/links and a few more. I personally disagree that listing DDT, DragonGate, IWRG, CWZ, PWG and WWL going under "top level promotions", but I would encourage everyone to voice their opinion on this. For Yoshi/Female promotions I am at a loss - I would not be a good judge on what'd be considered "top level" promotions in Japan/US so here I'd definitely like community guidance? MPJ-DK 20:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above posted draft page is a proposal for discussion, anything and everything on the page is open for discussion and input MPJ-DK 20:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, any thoughts on the NXT UK Brand? As it's new, no one could establish "consistent appearances", but potentially for the future. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, whilst there isn't much information on Wikipedia, the Joint Promotions (Or World of Sport) in the UK, was a huge deal, and should really be better shown on Wikipedia. A lot of wrestlers became house-hold names (In the UK - to this day), such as Big Daddy, Giant Haystacks and Kendo Nagasaki. A lot of the issues arise around the lack of remaining press information from the federation, but they had a show on ITV for 20 years (And inspired a reboot in 2016 that was not successful). I'd argue that quite a few of these wrestlers are inheritably notable for this, despite the lack of sources (This was the 60s-80s). I have been meaning for a while to expand these articles, but simply haven't had time, but it's worth investigating to see if this is a top level promotion (No other company in Europe has ever been as high, except perhaps All Star Wrestling, but they run 300 shows a year with thousands of wrestlers). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for referees/managers etc. should be similar to that of the wrestlers. Most referees never get any press coverage (Because that's pretty much the job), but are actually on TV longer than the wrestlers. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Joint Promotions and the original World of Sports should be added. As for referees, i disagree 100% just being a referee for ROH is not enough, even if it was 10 years they would have to meet GNG. Managers I do agree that they should have the same guideline as wrestlers. MPJ-DK 12:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Promotions and the original world of Sport are one and the same, as World Of Sport was the Television show, rather than the name of the company. Referee's generally get very little coverage at all. For instance see List_of_WWE_personnel#Referees, there are some main brand referees that have had articles deleted because they fail WP:GNG; despite clearly being in the public eye. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup of kayfabe in articles/ tag

As above, a few people have mentioned the wider degree of kayfabe being written as fact in pro wrestling articles. Whilst we can all see an article, and find this information, removing kayfabe/rewording can be a little bit difficult. Could we potentially create a tag for this on articles, and then have these articles appear on a hidden category (Similar to Category: Video game cleanup or Category:Video game articles needing infoboxes), and have these appear on our pages somewhere. Perhaps Category: Pro Wrestling articles written in Kayfabe, or similar.

I'd be willing to go through these categories as I do with the other examples for the Video Games WikiProject. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a user template User:Lee Vilenski/Kayfabe, as for a trial. This could potentially let us tag articles specifically for Kayfabe removal, and can be used on a section of an article, or the whole article. The wording may need some work, however. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The tag {{in-universe}} (see Template:In-universe) already exists. The tag generates a list here on the Cleanup Listing for the project. Your way might be easier, though, and would update more often. The Cleanup Listing only updates every Tuesday. Nikki♥311 14:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The in-universe tag is ok, but it's much more of a Wikipedia in general tag. If Kayfabe in PW articles is such a problem, we should have something bespoke. I also like having clean-up categories specific to the Project; as you know any article you find will be a pro wrestling article, rather than say - an anime.

I also think a greater focus on sharing these links within the project would be a good idea, as the current cleanup is quite difficult (As oposed to say the Video games WP, which shows cleanup articles on the tag on talk pages. Here, we have to find the To Do list, which doesn't promote the cleanup in the same way. (Personally, I like seeing 0s in columns, so I'd do cleanup on categories to get the numbers down). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like the example you created. We should come up with documentation on where to use it, such as events vs biographies. Also we should probably have a section one, because I am guessing most articles in their career section thats the issue rather than the article in its entirety. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like, and agree on dokumentation on where to use it and especially WHEN, or those who "rage" against Pro wrestling articles Will carpe bomb everything, and far from everything deservrs this Although quite a bit does. MPJ-DK 16:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, like it should specify that a level Kayfabe is expected in Storylines, Event and Aftermath sections of events and therefore should not be tagged, however the all events must contain a storylines section with a disclaimer that its predetermined. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 16:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Galatz - the above example already has a section built in, simply type in |section, and it'll change the wording. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- I've created something for a documentation User:Lee Vilenski/Kayfabe/doc, which could do with some work. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CURRENTMONTH in Championship articles

Take a look at the discussion here Wikipedia talk:As of#As of CURRENTMONTH for a discussion that could impact our articles. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 17:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WWE vs WWE NXT

Currently in the C&A section there are two separate sections for anyone who had something on the main roster vs. NXT. Is there a reason for this? We don't break out any other brand, so why this one? The SG says promotions are listed alphabetically, and NXT is not a promotion. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 02:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is all WWE to me, not sure Why it would be separate? MPJ-DK 02:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It was discussed months ago. The result, two different sections. I remember something like Coca Cola and Fanta... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - [2]
    - Thanks so much for the history. I see that was almost 3 years ago. I think NXT has really changed in the last 3 years and is much more so billed as a third brand. We clearly are not going to have a NXT UK, and based on what HHH has said, additional brands coming. I propose all WWE titles whether while not branded, or from the Raw, SmackDown, ECW, NXT or NXT UK be included in WWE. FCW should remain separate. Thoughts? - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Agree. It's promoted as part of the WWE banner. That's enough for me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Agree as well, it's all 100% WWE after all. MPJ-DK 01:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Too many subheadings

I know we've discussed this here before, but if we could gain consensus and update the SG accordingly it would be good. If you look at Tucker Knight, Bianca Belair, or Taynara Conti, its a little ridiculous that we have 3 levels of headings to get to 2 paragraphs. We should have no subheadings under "Professional wrestling career" under there is enough to warrant it. Velveteen Dream for example should have 2 subheadings but no need for any under WWE. MOS:BODY saying the purpose of subheading is for readability, the example above, the subheadings do not increase readability. Any proposals on how we word this or any other thoughts? - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 02:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t really see any problems with the way their moves/nicknames/themes are set up. I say keep them the way they are. Drummoe (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drummoe - That was not what this conversation was about. Just remove them Galatz, they are built by WP:CRYSTALBALL, especting in the future, that they will require lots of sections. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man you have hit on a point of irritation with me (perhaps the next big topic we deal with). Velveteen Dream should have the PW level 2 headline and a WWE sub headline, "early career" is just unnessary it is implied that "it happened before WWE", i wish we did not have any level 3 headlines right under a level 2 without content between it. Just bugs me personally and I wish we could simplify this instead of slicing pw career into 20 wafer thing slices with headlines. (20 is a number pulled out of the air, none of these examples actually had 20). MPJ-DK 14:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I just went through the performance center/NXT roster and removed tons of subheadings. Some performance center people had 3 levels of headings for the 1 sentence that says they signed a developmental deal. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor NXT pages

We have a constant issue of minor NXT performers having pages created and then deleted. There are several that are border line notable that have a page. Perhaps we need to do something like New York Yankees minor league players where we can keep a mini page for these people. In the event they become more notable we can move it to and expand it. If they get released their section gets deleted, no harm done, no AfD to worry about. Any thoughts? - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, so something about the line of List of WWE developmental wrestlers? Wouldn't an entrant on the list still have to meet WP:GNG to be included in an actual section? I'm not sure how it works for lists like this. MPJ-DK 01:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestler finishing moves

Did you all get hacked or something? Removing a wrestler's moveset is probably the stupidest move y'all can make. What's the deal? --Evil Yugi (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, quick reminder to be WP:CIVIL at all times on Wikipedia, it really helps people actually be receptive to whatever point you are trying to make. As for what "the deal" is, read #In wrestling and relevant sub sections. it's all covered in great detail - but TL;DR recap, the consensus was that the "in wrestling" section is crufty and trivial and not in line with current Wikipedia guidelines and thus should be removed. MPJ-DK 01:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta say, I've been watching those removals go by, and it's like free cocktails--you couldn't believe it would be happening. Those finishing moves, that is indeed nothing but trivia, and typically unverified. "Evil Yugi", I trust you will be respecting consensus. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- And just how can anyone learn more about a wrestler without a listing of their moveset? Just watching doesn't help. --Evil Yugi (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]