Talk:Progress Wrestling

Fixing issues

One of the reason why the advert tag was placed on the results section was because it was poorly written. I've now done some fixes consistent with that, and it is blatant advertising to talk about upcoming shows and matches without independent sources. It's harder to source upcoming events than it is to source results, as primary sources are allowed for the latter but not the former. I'll leave it for now, but it's getting to the point that some general review work should considered for at least 2012 to be placed in one section with a focus on TNA's British Bootcamp taping at the show. BerleT (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Since I was last here, none of the problems have been resolved. Nothing is sourced for 2014, and I'm starting to suspect that this page is being used as a sub promotionsl site. When I have time I'll be looking into this further. BerleT (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Over-detailed

I was discussing an article about another wrestling promotion and somebody mentioned this article as a possible good template. So I came here and had a look and it looks like the opposite of a good template to me. It seems massively over-detailed. There is even a spinoff article with even more fancruft in it. When I look at the sources I see some RS (and quite a bit of non-RS) but not enough good sources to cover the article. There are whole unreferenced sections and detailed tables with not a reference in sight. Stuff like the bracket diagrams strike me as pure fancruft. Even if they can be referenced to things like Cagematch (which is good for verifiability) it doesn't help with demonstrating notability.

So my question is this: Does this article need to go on a crash diet?

I've put a tag on each article (nothing too drastic at this stage) and it would be good if somebody who is better able to judge the real notability than I am (having only just seen it) could have a look. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I reckon the "Jimmy Havoc and Regression" section can go. Same can probably be said for the "Training School" section. All the tournaments can probably be removed too. I'd say the title histories/etc and rosters and necessary though. IanPCP (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with IanPCP on the Havoc and Regression, Training School, and tournament sections. The title histories can stay. I'm apathetic on the roster. There were AfDs for the tournament lists and some of the championships last spring, it seems someone thought it was a good idea to paste them here after they were deleted individually.LM2000 (talk) 07:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. If the AfD results were "delete", not "merge", but a substantial portion of the deleted content was pasted here instead, then that is contrary to the decisions made so that stuff should definitely go, per the AfD results. If somebody rescued a few sentences that might have been OK but not a big chunk of content which everybody else had decided to delete. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progress World Championship, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progress World Cup, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural Progression Series Tournament, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Strong Style 16 Tournament. For the record, I apparently told one of the people responsible that it was ok to copy the World Championship material but not the tournaments. Everyone voted delete, Nickag989 later said that the work was copied from a fansite, so that's something we'll have to look into.LM2000 (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll start by removing the sections I'd suggested (that you seem to agree with). I'll leave the other stuff (the sections that had previously been voted on) for now though IanPCP (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the roster. For one thing, it's unsourced and WP:OR. I don't think that appearing on three shows is a good measurement in judging whether or not these guys are on a "roster".

I've tagged the championships section for a lack of sources too. The Defiant Wrestling folks argued that their championships should appear there because there are similar sections on Global Force Wrestling. The big difference between GFW and these two articles is that ample coverage exists in reliable secondary sources for the GFW belts. I actually got Extreme Rising promoted to GA and that article has a section for its championship because of the coverage it received. The championships will be the next to be removed from this article if there are no improvements.LM2000 (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, a sockpuppet added sources as I requested. I rollbacked them after they were blocked but the sources I asked for are indeed out there. I'll leave it up to someone else to fully remove the championships, I just trimmed out the "combined reigns" section. If we're using GFW as the template, these sections don't exist on the article because they take up way too much space.LM2000 (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Progress Chapter 108/Progress Women’s Championship

During Progress Chapter 108: Of Course You Realize This Means War, Jinny announced that she was abdicating the Women’s Championship due to the circumstances of the pandemic.

http://backbodydrop.com/blog/reviews/progress-chapter-108-of-course-you-realise-this-means-war-april-10-2021/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redertainment (talk • contribs) 21:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)