Talk:Grand Slam (professional wrestling)

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5

Bayley - Women's Grand Slam

Would this be evidence that WWE has established a Women's Grand Slam (Raw, SD, NXT, Women's Tag)?

Just askin'.

Vjmlhds (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

During the Survivor Series 2017 pre-show Charlotte called herself a Grand Slam champion (Raw, SD, NXT and Diva). That was not included, but this being written and published on their twitter is slightly better. It definitely meets the first 4 criteria in WP:TWITTER, but if it is the sole basis for inclusion, so I would think #5 would come into play. Its not an article, but its the sole basis for the entire sections inclusion. #5 is moot however because we have WP:SECONDARY sources mentioning it too [1] [2] [3] - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Galatz So if this is good to go, then someone (who is much better at making a chart than I am) can make a section/chart to acknowledge Bayley. Also, if she's a Slam winner, then the Triple Crown stuff is a moot point an not worth fussing over. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Done, but someone else feel free to edit any of the color changes I made to make room for adding NXT (thought the gold and yellow were too close), or other format changes. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I know I'm just a simple anon, but if the "grand slam" is going to be recognized so should be the Triple Crown. (I'd actually argue against the Grand Slam as the NXT isn't a tertiary title, but the primary title of the minor brand, and they have their own version of the men's triple crown, already established. Including the NXT title in WWE accolades could get dicey if nxt women's tag titles ever get introduced and you have NXT and NXT UK titles you could group for a women's nxt triple crown...but I digress.)

The triple crown is the step prior to the grand slam, historically they formed by having three (triple crown) then four (grand slam) available titles.

Becky Lynch never won the NXT title, so if she wins the tag titles she would be a triple crown winner, but Bayley will still have done it first. Also, I think the Cathy Kelley stating in a press release that Bayley is the first female triple crown winner should hold more weight than a Grand Slam Champ tweet.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Firstly being an IP editor or registered user makes no difference. Second as to your points, Wikipedia is built based on WP:RS abd WP:SECONDARY sources are extremely important. I have provided three sources here that are unrelated to the WWE which state this is a grand slam, in addition to the WWE tweet. The WWE twitter account holds more weight than what Cathy Kelly states back stage, I am not sure what press release you are referring to, because as far as I am aware a backstage comment is not a press release. I provided a link to Charlotte claiming Diva, Raw and SmackDown makes a triple crown, but we have nothing other than that stating it. The Triple Crown and Grand Slam must be achieved independently, its not a one than another. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh and as for the term Tertiary being used, it is open to other suggestions. One of the definitions from webster is of, relating to, or being higher education, being as NXT is the WWE equivalent of "higher education" I felt it was appropriate, but we could always just make it 3 singles and tag. Its always wikipedia policy to wait to add things, its better to be missing something than risk having something wrong included. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright, press release wasn't a good term...but WWE also tweeted the same video

https://mobile.twitter.com/WWE/status/1130329317718650881

And here is a secondary source

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/5-things-you-missed-at-money-in-the-bank-2019/ss-AABBbRp#image=3

WWE often has these videos which aren't really in the WWE Universe (the odd aspect of professional wrestling where its the fine line between a sport or a TV show). The example I gave about Charlotte and the women saying they are in the Royal Rumble last year, all appears in their videos but did not apply to the reality of their shows. (I am using these two since both involved previous discussions on WP.) Due to this their backstage WWE.com videos fail under WP:VIDEOREF. Sportskeeda is unfortunately not a RS under WP:PW/RS. I have looked and cannot find anything other than them (which the MSN link is) to mention it. If you have something from a RS that discusses it, that is very different. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I’ve noticed some back and forth edits from Vjmlhds and JDC808 about the NXT Women’s Championship being the secondary/tertiary singles championship for the women’s Grand Slam. It makes no sense for the women’s Triple Crown and Grand Slam format to be the exact same format. That’s just a Triple Crown. Triple Crown and Grand Slam are two different things to accomplish. Drummoe (talk) 08:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, JDC is right. No source includes the NXT titles as part of the grand slam. I made a quick research in WWE.com [4] but the text says " the victory also made Bayley the first Superstar to ever hold the Raw Women’s Championship, the SmackDown Women’s Championship and the WWE Women’s Tag Team Championship — the Women’s Grand Slam, if you will." Wrestlers always make claims during their promos, but it's necessary being recognized by the promotion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Drummoe: You're right that it doesn't make sense, but that's what WWE's sources say. WWE have confirmed that both the Triple Crown and Grand Slam are those three titles, but have not included any other in their recognition for the Grand Slam. We may actually be wrong in saying the women's Grand Slam is an actual accomplishment (all we have to go on are a Tweet from WWE that says Bayley is a Grand Slam winner but fails to acknowledge which titles, and the WWE.com source that I provided and HHH Pedrigree quoted where it says "the Women's Grand Slam, if you will"). The thing is though, and Vjmlhds seems to not understand this, it's not for us to decide that the NXT Women's Championship is included in the Grand Slam when the WWE themselves have yet to acknowledge or confirm its inclusion. --JDC808 ♫ 01:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

So are we basically making the decision for WWE and including the NXT title, or what? --JDC808 ♫ 00:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

0 sense to it, it will just make wikipedia more "unreliable" making up a non existent accomplishment based on ideas by editors , or some twitter rant by a single star, if WWE cites there is such a think then only should it be added, other wise not, thats just my view. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I heard my name being called, so I'll chime in - I added a story in the Calgary Sun newspaper written by Natalya Neidhart where she specifically lists the Raw, SD, NXT, and Women's Tag Team Titles as being the components of the Grand Slam as a reference. So this isn't a "twitter rant" or original research. The Calgary Sun had hometown girl Nattie serve as a special correspondent to write about the MITB event. That's as good a source as any. Vjmlhds (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

That just sounds like a similar case to Charlotte Flair saying such and such titles made her a Triple Crown and Grand Slam champion, which WWE did not recognize, and thus far, they haven't recognized Natalya's claim either. That's the issue. We need an actual WWE source confirming the titles, not just a wrestler saying it. The one that we do have does not include the NXT title. --JDC808 ♫ 07:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I also think we are taking a tweet out of context. There was absolutely no mention of the NXT Championship anywhere near the Bayley tweet. Let's not forget that the FCW Grand Slam consists of winning 3 championships, i.e every title available. Bayley completed the Triple Crown but also won every title available in WWE, i.e a Grand Slam. I don't think this was meaning two completely separate categories. I find it especially hard to believe given how WWE treats the main roster and NXT as two completely separate entities. "Samoa Joe has never won a title since coming to WWE two years ago" and many statements like that heavily imply they are completely separate, no different than FCW was. This would also make the grand slam impossible to anyone that failed to win a developmental title so that's another reason why I don't think this is legit. MARIO^Fan78 21:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

As I don't have this saved in my watchlist, I kind of forgot about this discussion, but are we ever gonna come to some kind of consensus on this issue? There's still no official recognition from WWE that they recognize the NXT Women's Championship for the Grand Slam (if the women's Grand Slam is an actual accomplishment, yet). --JDC808 ♫ 11:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, WWE Shop has just come out with a Bayley "Grand Slam Champion" T-Shirt where all 4 titles are shown (as well as the MITB case). Vjmlhds (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I can concede to that. --JDC808 ♫ 09:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

So, are we now arguing the MITB is part of the Grand Slam? I think that's just a shirt with everything Bayley has accomplished in addition to the Grand Slam label they designated in this article: They've only offhand referred to the accomplishment as a Grand Slam, and have meanwhile made two official statements with custom pictures (for Bayley and Alexa) calling the same achievement a triple crown. Tldr; I think its two different names for the same accomplishment... and so does WWE. MARIO^Fan78 02:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Page content and order

Order of contents: per WP:LIST, "Although lists may be organized in different ways, they must always be organized. The most basic form of organization is alphabetical or numerical (such as List of Star Wars starfighters), though if items have specific dates a chronological format is sometimes preferable (List of Belarusian Prime Ministers). When using a more complex form of organization, (by origin, by use, by type, etc.), the criteria for categorization must be clear and consistent." Putting WWE first because they created the concept of the Grand Slam only works if all other entries are in chronological order. Otherwise, this is just editors subjectively putting content they consider the most important at the top.

If the page is going to be ordered any way other than alphabetically, the rationale for the order should be clear.

Division between national and regional/independent: no explanation is given for this distinction on the page, it is therefore arbitrary. If the entries are going to be divided, the reasons for this should be clear.

McPhail (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Once you were first reverted you should not revert again but leave the article as it was until discussion is concluded. Please don't edit war.

That said, I think making a distinction between national and regional promotions is important. Some of these regionals are barely even notable enough for articles, let alone appearing before major companies that defined the concept. But that's just my 2¢.

I left a note at the project talk page to hopefully draw some discussion so we can find a broader consensus. oknazevad (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

"Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring." Your edits are contrary to WP:LIST and can therefore validly be reverted.

Sorting the promotions by the date when the Grand Slam accolade was introduced is an acceptable alternative to alphabetical order, if this is supported.

If promotions are not notable, they simply should not appear in the article. Putting them at the bottom of the page is not a sensible compromise. McPhail (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• We should 100% only include notable grand slams. To me that is just national promotions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree non-notable promotions should be excluded. I would avoid the "national" distinction though which is subjective. McPhail (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I prefer chronological order, since WWE was the first and the most notable one. for me, the limit is if the promotion is notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we should only include national promotions. WWE/Impact/ROH and any others that recognize a Grand Slam champion. I support listing WWE at the top, followed by the other promotions in alphabetical order. StaticVapor message me! 18:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

It's the same problem with the triple crown. I don't remember who, but somebody complaines about the inclusion of independent promotions. But these are notable promotions, I think it's enough since the article covers the TC and GS in pro wrestling, no just TC and GS for national promotions. Any case, I don't see Explosive notable. Most of the sources are cagematch, wrestling titles and wrestling data. Outside an agreement with GFW, it's hard to see as a notable promotion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Listing WWE first then other promotions alphabetically is not a consistent or clear ordering, which is required by the policy. The discussion above appears to support the removal of non-notable promotions and the ordering of the remaining promotions chronologically, which I will implement. McPhail (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The point is "notable" promotion. These promotions (CZW, OVW, Revpro) have articles, so they are notable. I understand promotions with no article, but these promotions are notable to have an article about them --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

We should remove "non-notable" promotions but there seems to be little consensus on what that means. I agree with HHH Pedrigree that any promotion with an article is notable and I think anything notable can be included.LM2000 (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That's what WP:Notability says. All of these promotions that were deleted are notable. Imagine a list of Disney films with only notable ones and suddenly, the direct to DVD are removed since it wasn't shown on theaters. Yes, these are Direct to DVD movies, but have articles, so they are notable. Also, the independent vs nationals it's a little outdated, since some promotions has On Demand services and internet fanbase around the world. As LM2000 said, we have to agree about notable", since it's a bad word. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I can see we haven't come to a conclusion yet, but McPhail has already taken down the regional promotions, and ECW and LU. I don't think that they should have been taken down, because the company would have recognised a Triple Crown/Grand Slam format one way or another if they were up there in the first place. For example I'm from the same place where EPW is, and they've recognised that Gavin McGavin is the 'first ever EPW Triple Crown and Grand Slam Champion' after he won the Heavyweight title in August 2018.Drummoe (talk) 0:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

We haven't come to a conclusion yet and any substantial changes should be reverted until we come to one. The ECW removal was particularly sloppy, the rationale was that the source included came from an interview but there was a second source.LM2000 (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright well I've just reverted it back then, and I put the second source for ECW up there. Drummoe (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The source you've added says simply "Though he was a Triple Crown Champion in ECW". It does not say "The Extreme Championship Wrestling (ECW) Triple Crown consisted of the ECW World Heavyweight Championship, the ECW World Television Championship and the ECW World Tag Team Championship." which is what the article claims. This is WP:SYNTHESIS. Material should not be added without a robust source. McPhail (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

That is all there was, so there is no other option, it is not "synthesis" to say that "red, yellow and green" are three colors. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Multiple Grand Slams?

For the WWE (modern) and TNA Grand Slam listings, is there a better way to list the dates of the 2nd Grand Slam? For example, maybe list the dates and reigns that compose of the second reign as Grand Slam? retched (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Bret Hart

Bret Hart is a Grand Slam Champion too. He won the WWE Title, the tag titles, the IC title and the US title. 89.204.130.246 (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

So WWE does not recognize WCW-owned reigns of the championships when counting for the WWE Grand Slam Championship. However, the argument does make sense as the lineages for both titles DO line up. (WWE recognizes the US title as starting back in the NWA era through the end of the WCW/Turner era.) Nonetheless, WWE didn't update their original list (nor the revised list) to include any WCW title reign which is what matters most. retched (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

WCW?

Why isn't there a WCW section? 2600:387:C:6A14:0:0:0:2 (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Because WCW never defined a Grand Slam criteria before they went under. Sure, the idea of using their Triple Crown (World, US, and Tag titles) with the addition of the TV title seems plausible, but a) since they never declared it as such, we cannot say it was, and b) the TV title was abandoned well before the company folded, so it's clear they didn't really care much about it themselves. But mostly a). We can't introduce something that didn't actually exist. oknazevad (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

bret won the wwe US title as well

bret hart being a grand slam champions was brought up and the reason for not adding him was that wwe doesn't count wcw US titles but bret won the wwe US title back in 2009 or so

so he's part of the new grand slam format 2607:FEA8:BF1D:7700:FCE1:6CF3:6193:3D0 (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

No. As I stated above, Bret won the WCW United States States Championship. WWE only counts title reigns that were started during the WWE's ownership of WCW and onward as part of the Grand Slam. While the histories are the same, that qualifier makes it not a part of the WWE Grand Slam. retched (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Rhea Ripley Grand Slam note

In addition to Rhea Ripley becoming the 5th female to become a grand slam champion in WWE joining Askua Sasha Banks Charlotte Flair and Bayley and doing it the fastest. Rhea Ripley is also the first wrestler in history to conquer the female titles of RAW, SmackDown, NXT and NXT UK with the exception of the NXT Womens Tag Team Championship. - 2A02:C7C:53C1:E00:6D68:BFEC:AC91:7F55 (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Split proposal

I proposed that the section about WWE Grand Slam winners be split into a separate page called List of WWE Grand Slam winners because the section is too long. -St3095 ^(?) 04:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's too long per se. The question is, I suppose, if you remove the WWE Grand Slam stuff, is the other Grand Slams notable on their own? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Article is about wrestling Grand Slams. If you take out WWE, then it would open up Pandora's Box for people to want the other Slams to have their own page. Let sleeping dogs lie. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Unnecessary content forking. --Mann Mann (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)