Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources

	WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources 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 page 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
NA	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

History of this page prior to its export from Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide on 29 December 2014

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 10 sections are present.

Can I use the WWE Network as a source?

Hi. Some piece of information which I would like to add to some article or other is backed by a certain program (formerly a DVD?) I watched on the Network. Can I refer to that as a footnote, or is that discouraged (e.g. because it requires paid subscription)? Thanks. כרסומת (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something being behind a paywall doesn't affect whether or not it can be used. In theory yes, you can use the WWE Network - the only question is how the source is used. For example, is it a kayfabe documentary, or something that requires interpretation from a show? — Czello 15:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch. It's someone's non-kayfabe commentary and it will be presented as a claim, not as fact. כרסומת (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling Headlines

As this website isn't on the list I thought I should throw it to the group for their thoughts. It has been used on The Mighty Don't Kneel article to prove past membership. I'm a skeptic of this but I'm not going to add it to the unreliable source list without a consensus. Here is the site. Addicted4517 (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling Headlines used to be Lords of Pain, which was listed as unreliable at WP:PW/RS. This is their personnel list; I do not think there is any evidence that they should be considered reliable.LM2000 (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. They use Marc Middleton. I'll add it now. Addicted4517 (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissing a writer's entire career because they published a false report (that has since been taken down) makes no sense. We need to scrap the non-criteria used on this page, as it doesn't comply with WP:V. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that it's more than 1 false report. Addicted4517 (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gary's right about the non-criteria. We've talked about removing the footnotes before, or altering the way we list unreliable sources generally. I still think Wrestling Headlines is not reliable though.LM2000 (talk) 04:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hey I would like to know if a website is reliable as I could not find it in your list. The website is itrwrestling.com. Shadow345110 (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to have a print magazine, which does increase the chances of it having some quality control, but I can't find any mention of a staff or editors.★Trekker (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of Cagematch.net for recording show cards, matches, wins/loses, and WON ratings

Cagematch.net is currently listed as an "unproven source". While I won't comment on other sections of the website, I feel that Cagematch.net should be listed at least as a Limited reliable source that is considered reliable when discussing the following elements:

Show cards (ie which wrestlers were on a show, the date of show, the venue)
Matches (ie Cagematch.net should be considered a reliable source for stating a match occurred)
Wins/Losses (ie Cagematch.net should be considered a reliable source for who won and/or lost a match)
WON Ratings (ie Cagematch.net should be considered another source, besides that of WON itself, for WON ratings, as it's database lists them and how many stars the match received).

Arguably, it could also be a limited reliable source for the following elements

Nicknames/Monikers
Alter-egos
Signature moves
Wrestling styles

I'm not all that familiar for the process by which the reliability of specific wrestling sources is determined; Can a source be upgraded to a new category by simple consensus here, or does it require other things as well? CeltBrowne (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who runs the site? Who writes for the site? Are they experts in professional wrestling? What qualifies them as experts? GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who runs the site?

Per the "about us" page, It is currently operated by Florian Schreiber (also known by the username "CM Flosch")

Who writes for the site?

30 volunteer participants, who are listed on the "Cagematch team" section.

Are they experts in professional wrestling?

I would not describe them as "experts" per say, but the function of the website is not primarily to be a news source or source of expertise, but as a database of basic information about professional wrestling.

To make a comparison, I looked to a comparable Wikiproject and looked at Wikiproject Football. They have a collection of sources considerable reliable too. For historical/database-like information about Irish football, in their Ireland section they list http://soccerscene.ie/sssenior/index.php as a suitable source.

I would favourably compare http://soccerscene.ie and [www.cagematch.net] as sources for basic, non-controversial information such as wins and losses. In the same way http://soccerscene.ie might be a useful source for stating who played for Ireland in 1969, www.cagematch.net seems to be a useful source for stating "Wrestler X was working for promotion Y in 1989". CeltBrowne (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The football wikiproject you linked specifically says that not all of the sites would qualify as reliable sources. Do we have any reason to believe that Florian Schreiber has any expertise in professional wrestling? Do any of the volunteer writers have credentials that would make them reliable experts? I think the wrestling wikiproject has things wrong at a basic level--sources are either reliable, or they aren't. Unproven sources aren't reliable. "Limited reliability" sources aren't reliable. It's unfortunate that there aren't more sources that would meet the criteria for WP:RS, but we can't water down the standards just because of convenience. As much as it would help the project to have more reliable sources, sites that are merely useful don't make the cut. With that said, a solid case has been made for https://thehistoryofwwe.com as a reliable source. Would that provide much of the same information? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link to the discussion about https://thehistoryofwwe.com ? I don't see it here on this page CeltBrowne (talk) 06:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: Could you link to the discussion of https://thehistoryofwwe.com 's reliability? I'd like to learn what criteria was applied to that site and how it was deemed credible CeltBrowne (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this works. [1] here is an interview where the owner talks about the check process. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of Cagematch.net being cited by other reliable sources:

Also, here is an important interview by Wrestlenomics with Philip Kreikenbohm, head of Cagematch.net, in which he discusses how the website verifies information. (A lot of the interview focuses on match rates because that's what's popular/controversial, but how Cagematch.net verifies match results is discussed as well). During the interview, Kreikenbohm discusses how sometimes the website has been feed intentionally false information to test them, and speaks about how the website responded appropriately and weeded out that false information. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling-news.net

Hi I would just like to check if wrestling-news.net[2] is a reliable source it does say who writes them and it does seem unbias. Shadow345110 (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't gind any about section that covers if they have an editorial team.★Trekker (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be all written by someone called Wayne Daly. Maybe he created the website. Has he had any problems like false information or something over the years that you can find. Shadow345110 (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They take news submissions from anyone - see here. That's a cross against them in my opinion. It's also not possible to find any detail about the staff so I would suggest this is not reliable. Addicted4517 (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle News

This site was added to the reliable list today, but I feel we should discuss it first like we do with other sites. Personally the description from the editor looks promising, but I can not read Japanese so I can not confirm it. ★Trekker (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It does look promising but like you I'm not a Japanese aficionado. We need someone who can translate it and review it properly. Addicted4517 (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Addicted4517 @StarTrekker I know someone that can translate for you. @Layah50 Please can you check the website to see if it is reliable if you are not sure please can you say what the website includes and what it is missing to make it reliable Thanks. Shadow345110 (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadow345110, Looked at some of it and it looks like a reliable wrestling news source. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 00:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Layah50 Thanks. Shadow345110 (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Official Websites

Hey I found the official websites for WRESTLE-1 and Pro Wrestling NOAH I thought you might like to add them to the list. [3][4] Shadow345110 (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to do that I think. The main ones are there and the last part about other promotions covers these two. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestlenomics as a source.

I was asked to move the discussion here; I think Wrestlenomics should be used as a reliable source. It is run by Brandon Thurston, and it's very good at reporting TV ratings, attendance numbers, and most of the quantifiable business metrics in pro wrestling, though it's not a good source for interpersonal news or event recapping. For example, Thurston's reporting on the WrestleMania 32 and All In London attendances shaped the consensus on those numbers, and he's the routine source for wrestling TV ratings. Semicorrect (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://old.reddit.com/r/SquaredCircle/comments/16uew10/brandon_thurston_on_x_an_all_in_attendance/ hes using a random guy on facebook as a source for aew all in numbers being 85,000 https://www.ringsidenews.com/2023/09/28/fake-insider-email-exposed-for-spreading-misinformation-about-aew-all-in-london-attendance/ proof its fake and theyre using a fake source as a real source, this shreads all his credibility Muur (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment is neither for or against Thurston (whom I not overly familiar with) but it's a bit ironic to accuse Thurston of basing his information on random social media posts (Facebook) based off of...random social media posts (Reddit). Also one of the replies to the Reddit comment you've linked has itself replies disputing this and linking back to Thurston saying he's seen primary information to support his claims.

This thread on Twitter seems to show Thurston engaging/communicating with primary sources to base his information on: https://twitter.com/BrandonThurston/status/1707341179753250829

Whether or not the information Thurston is gathering is truly accurate seems to be debated (as, of course, absolutely everything in wrestling is), but as Wikipedians rather than wrestling fans, let's acknowledge that Thurston appears to be doing higher level research than simply trusting screenshots of facebook posts. CeltBrowne (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

bodyslam

https://www.bodyslam.net/2023/09/27/local-london-council-says-aew-all-in-attendance-was-85528/ theyre using a random guy on facebook as a source https://www.ringsidenews.com/2023/09/28/fake-insider-email-exposed-for-spreading-misinformation-about-aew-all-in-london-attendance/ proof its fake and theyre using a fake source as a real source, this shreads all their credibility Muur (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to move them to unreliable, they are a garbage source. Read the thread up above from years ago where they reported rumors started by a random guy on Twitter, then abandoned the story days later.LM2000 (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status of Wrestlezone in 2023? WZ now a part of Yahoo.com

Yahoo.com rehosting WrestleZone content

So I see now that Yahoo.com now actively rehosts Wrestlezone content and promotes it. Does anyone know if this mean that Wrestlezone has more editorial/journalistic oversight going on than previously?

Wikipedia:PW/RS currents lists Wrestlezone as "Unreliable". However, the two notes supporting Wrestlezone's unreliability go back to 2016, so the status may have changed in the 7 years since. Also, one of the "demerits" attributed to Wrestlezone is reposting a frivolous piece of Wrestling trivia from Reddit rather than a serious news story. That's a bit feckless, but minor in the scale of things.

Please note, I do not regularly use Wrestlezone nor am I suddenly pushing for it to be listed as a reliable source, I'm genuinely just asking if other users have more information about the website in it's current state. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! News is an aggregator which hosts content from both reliable and unreliable sources. I have not looked that closely into WZ for awhile, so I can't say which category they belong in, but we have noted before that many of the footnotes used for unreliable sources are flawed.LM2000 (talk) 03:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]