Talk:Glossary of professional wrestling terms

	Glossary of professional wrestling terms is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Moved from the article:

These need fleshing out, not sure of deep meaning of all of these terms --Vodex 22:28, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

by Gwalla 02:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think we'd be better off integrating all the terms into one article. As it is, with one article per term, it's somewhat dictionary-like and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Furrykef 03:30, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some of them are reasonably encyclopedic in style (like heel (professional wrestling), which talks about how heels traditionally operate) but yeah, for a lot of them a combined article would probably be better. — Gwalla | Talk 03:35, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since we now have the Professional wrestling slang category, is this article even necessary anymore? — Gwalla | Talk 19:39, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good question. On one hand, this article's content is largely redundant. Maintaining two lists instead of one may turn out to be a headache. On the other hand, I can think of three good reasons for this article to exist:

It may be a redundant list, but a list of one-line definitions may be precisely what some may be looking for. If they want a more detailed definition, complete with notable examples, they can read the full article.
As noted in earlier comments on this talk page, some of these slang terms probably do not deserve their own article because they'd never grow out of stubhood. This list is the logical place for them to exist.
The article starts out with an overview of professional wrestling slang. I honestly don't know what else to say about wrestling slang in general (I'm not a huge wrestling fan), but maybe someone else will. It would make for an interesting read.

—Benc (talk)[[]] 03:19, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You make some good points there. I agree. — Gwalla | Talk 04:14, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Separate article for Rib?

The definition for Rib is becoming rather lengthy and unweildy, and is beginning to contain information that, for other terms, is in a separate article. Personally, I feel it'd be best to trim the definition down to, "a joke played on a wrestler by another wrestler," and move the clarifying information and examples to a separate article. Anybody agree? --HBK 00:17, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I say go ahead and write the article. --Chrysaor 01:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jargon vs. Slang

I think it might be a good idea to differentiate between jargon used in the business and slang used by fans. They cross over, but they're not the same thing. — Gwalla | Talk 23:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Match of the Year

I had put up "Match of the Year," and it was deleted as the contributor believed the definition to be obvious and used in places other than PWI. While I agree that the term is used in other publications, I thought "Match of the Year" to be reasonably encyclopeidic and thus should be included somewhere in Wikipedia -- if not on this page, then as a separate link. I guess a good question would be – is there already a "Match of the Year entry on Wikipedia? User:Briguy52748 10:08 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why my definition of cetard is being erased again. Its been here for a month or so, after I revised the definition, but since Cena won his title back somebody keeps deleting it again. I think the explanation I provided is completely neutral.--Gusiman 01:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the person who's erasing it, but personally, the only place I've ever seen the term used is on this list. --HBK|Talk 01:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary Is Not Encyclopedic

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Commentary, be it from Scott Keith, someone who read his books, or anyone else is not encyclopedic. - Chadbryant 04:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The remarks are relevant due to Keith's involvement with the professional wrestling business; also, they serve as a perfectly good example of usage for other wrestling terms while building on the entry itself. You are trolling. Please stop. --Eat At Joes 04:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Keith has no involvement with the wrestling business. He's authored a few books on the subject. His commentary is by no means encyclopedic. Please read Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, lurk, and learn. - Chadbryant 04:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? Because he has written books on the subject he has no involvement with the business? That's like saying George Orwell has no involvement with government, he's just written a few books on the subject. Or Bill Clinton doesn't know anything about being President, he's just written a few books on the subject. Keith's commentary is valid because -- as you have just stated -- he is a published author on the subject and thus a viable source of information. I submit it is YOU who must "lurk, and learn." --Eat At Joes 05:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chill out, people. Follow WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:3RR and WP:NPA or I'll block you both and lock the page. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was defending the article from intentional vandalism, and in the face of misbehaviour by someone who has registered over 135 accounts (most of which have been blocked for abuse), I was doing so as nicely as humanly possible. Note that you essentially made the same judgement call that I did, in that the content this user was insisting on re-inserting was not encyclopedic. I realize that 'assume good faith' is a Wikicommandment, but the 'duck test' hasn't failed us yet, either. - Chadbryant 06:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were largely correct as far as content was concerned, but when you violate any of the things I cited, your actions warrant blocking. Period. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, 3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism (which is what someone insisting on re-adding unencyclopedic content is guilty of). Please correct me if I am wrong . - Chadbryant 07:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was not vandalism reversion, it was a content dispute. You ignored the main issue with my warning: WP:CIVIL. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So someone re-adding unencyclopedic content simply to be disruptive is not vandalism? - Chadbryant 20:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparantly not, Chad. Guess you'll have to find another reason to manipulate Wikipedia administrators while running with your own bias in articles. --Eat At Joes 03:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moves

If you need to create a move please be carefull!

moves

If you need to create a move please be carefull!

Angles and Storylines are not the same thing!

From: http://www.stormwrestling.com/030406.html

"Q: In one of your last commentaries you said that WWE should start doing angles instead of storylines, what does that mean?Also, does TNA, ECW, or WCW do angles or storylines? A: I explained this in my last Q and A you should look back for it. In a nut shell: Angles are the drama created between 2 or more people which leads to a match. The Rey – Orton stuff using Eddie, would be an angle in my opinion. It created tension between them, which made you want to see them fight. The Shelton Benjamin stuff with his Momma is what I would call a storyline. There is a lot of drama and stuff going on but it doesn’t build to anything. There is no match for us to see. It really only involves the one performer."

There you have it, an actual seasoned Professional Wrestler showing us the difference between the two. SilentRage 14:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Storm is wrong and just arguing semantics. -- Bdve 14:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement concerning slang glossary policy discussion

As you are probably aware, there are many slang glossaries on Wikipedia with widespread acceptance, yet virutally all of them violate the following policy:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not:

Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a good definition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.
Lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields.
A usage guide or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.

This has created a situation where editors trying to enforce policy frequently nominate such glossaries for deletion, with most of the glossaries surviving the process with a consensus of Keep or No concensus. This ongoing battle has been raging on with respect to slang glossaries for at least the past two years. Yet the glossaries have survived, and more continue to be created. Based on the results of the majority of the Article for Deletion (AfD) discussions, the general concensus seems to be that slang glossaries should have a place on Wikipedia. The relevant policy is no longer consistent with general consensus, and this schism has resulted in a large number of pointless AfD discussions which serve only to waste the time and effort of those involved. When the majority of Wikipedians defy a policy, it is time to reevaluate the policy.

Therefore, I have started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Slang glossaries to discuss the fate of slang glossaries (such as this one) and to discuss whether or not the policy should be ammended to reflect the defacto acceptance of slang glossaries on Wikipedia. They are here, and based on the results of AfD discussions, they seem to be here to stay. So shouldn't the policy be updated? If the policy was changed to allow slang glossaries or changed to provide for their speedy deletion, either of these solutions would save a lot of time and effort wasted on fruitless AfDs. You are welcome to join the discussion. --List Expert 10:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that they seem to violate Wikipedia policies, but lists such as this IMO are far more 'encyclopaedic' than descriptions of every Pokemon character/card ever created, or every episode of a TV series. This is a really good list in an area where Wikipedia is pretty good overall, pro wrestling (and could be great if some of the fans quit 'updating' every single kafaybe event in a promotion or a career). Having said that, I'm about to change bum from saying anything about an "unknown superstar", an oxymoron if there ever was one. Rlquall 13:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion on a new term should be on the list.

Cena Finish or Cena'd Match/Cena Match. I think it should mean that Cena [or another wrestler we can refer to as "The Cena"] starts off the match blowing up, by doing 1 move after the other, and pinning the opponent after each move, then the opponent pummels him badly for most of the match, then The Cena gains an ultra second wind (a la Popeye[without the spinach] and Hulk Hogan[without the hulking up]), and does a few moves[The Moves of Doom], then wins the match. Well its up to a consensus to decide I guess. --TJ Sparks 08:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]