Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WP:PW TalkAssessmentRecognized contentStub articlesStyle guideSources
SanctionsArticle alertsTemplatesUnreferenced BLPsPPV expansionNewsletterMembers listTop priority articlesNew articles
WikiProject Professional Wrestling
Professional wrestling as a whole is under general sanctions
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!

RVD and Big Show, Triple Crown champions[edit]

Hi. I had some problems in the Triple Crown article with User Drummoe. He claims since the ECW and WWE US titles have their roots in WCW US and ECW WH titles, Big Show is a WCW Triple Crown champion and RVD, a ECW Triple Crown. So, there is the thing, in case you can help us. Drummoe says both titles are the same as the ECW HW and WCW US titles, so both wrestlers won the titles that conform the ECW and WCW triple crowns. However, for me it's OR and SYNTH. Big Show: WCW was dead years before his victory, so it's hard to achieve an accomplshment of a dead promotion. Also, nor WCW or WWE informed the WWE US title reigns are part of WCW triple crown. I tried to find in the internet something about Show as TTC, but I found nothing. The WCW and the WWE are the same title, but there is no source about WWE reings count for the WCW Triple Crown. RVD: harder, since the title is the same and the ECW was bring from the dead. It was a brand, not a promotion. But again, I didn't find anything about RVD as ECW Triple Crown champion. So, opinions are welcome. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • WCW title reigns don't count in WWE or Luger would be a WWE triple crown champ as WCW world, tag and US were transferred/merged into WWE titles. Cannot become triple crown winner after the promotion died. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I’ve been involved with this debacle for about a month now, regarding Big Show being a WCW Triple Crown Champion. As we know, Big Show, when he was The Giant, is a former WCW World Heavyweight Champion and and former WCW World Tag Team Champion. Of course their secondary title was the WCW United States Championship, which is now the WWE United States Championship. Now, The Giant never won the US title in WCW, but he did win it in WWE, shorty after it was reintroduced. The key word here is ‘reintroduced’, meaning the WWE brought back a deactivated championship. It didn’t ‘introduce’ it as a whole new championship which just so happens to have a similar name to an older championship (e.g. the current WWE Cruiserweight Championship). This means that the WCW US Championship and the WWE US Championship are one and the same, and even though Big Show won the WWE United States Championship, it would still make him a WCW Triple Crown Champion. I’ve stated this many times when I added him to the WCW Triple Crown table in the Triple Crown page, only for it to be removed mere moments later. Despite WCW being defunct for nearly three years when he won it, that doesn’t mean any titles that have somehow remain active under different promotions, i.e. the US title, no longer count toward their Triple Crown for anyone requiring that title. Each time I’ve put back up his name in the table, it’s gone and I’m told that it’s OR and/or SYNTH, and I’m told I need a source to prove it, when really this is a situation where a source isn’t needed. If anything, the source is the championship itself. It’s not OR or SYNTH at all, it’s simply pure logic. Under the WWE United States Championship page, in the main table, it shows its previous names were the ‘NWA United States Heavyweight Championship (Mid-Atlantic and Undisputed) and the WCW United States Heavyweight Championship. Again, this proves that they are one and the same, except with a slightly different name and defended in a different company. Look at the WWE Grand Slam. Kurt Angle and Edge won the US title during the Invasion, when the title was still the WCW United States Championship, and it counted toward their Grand Slam. Two years after the title was deactivated, it was brought back, albeit a new design and with ‘WWE’ instead of ‘WCW’. Yes, Big Show won the title under a different company, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t count toward its defunct previous company’s Triple Crown. Because the championship still continues the lineage from it’s time in previous or now-defunct companies, and not start a whole new lineage (like the Cruiserweight Championship), then it should still count toward the Triple Crown. Same goes for the ECW World Title. It was brought back from the dead to operate under the new ECW. RVD was awarded the title, making him an ECW Triple Crown Champion. I know the Original ECW has been dead for years by then, but again, this title continues the lineage from when it was in the original ECW. So from that point up until it closed in 2010, anyone who needed the ECW World Heavyweight title would become Triple Crown Champions. User:Drummoe (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
That's the definition of OR and SYNTH. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Dead company, no triple crown. It's not just which titles they won, it's where they won them. One cannot be a triple crown champion in WCW if you're not in WCW.
    More importantly, you're not going to find a reliable source calling him a triple crown champ, so it doesn't belong as Wikipedia does not publish original conclusions.
    Finally, if it keeps getting taken out, that's usually a pretty good indication that there's no consensus for it, and you should take the hint. oknazevad (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with everything oknazevad said. Do not include them.LM2000 (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Fine, call it what you want. But to me and a lot of other smart wrestling fans, Big Show is a WCW Triple Crown Champion and RVD is an ECW Triple Crown Champion, regardless if the promotion the titles were originally from are defunct. Drummoe (talk) 11:51, 29 October, 2018 (UTC)

You do realise this is wikipedia, Drummoe, where we catalogue what official sources say about things. This isn't a fan club. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I suppose none of the people arguing that you cannot win a championship in a dead promotion are not "smart"? MPJ-DK (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I am one of the smart fans that recognizes RVD as an ECW Triple Crown winner. I also recognize my cat as a former Hardcore Champion. We can recognize whatever the hell we want to but there's not much we can do with it here without sources. Unfortunately, there is a lot of WP:OR on Grand Slam and Triple Crown articles because WWE changed the criteria over time and they rarely announced winners until recently. One thing is for sure though, we shouldn't be adding people based on criteria that they never went by in the first place.LM2000 (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The only reason your cat was champion for a year is because the Arabian sand cat didn't want to work Tuesdays! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:04, October 31, 2018 (UTC)
As funny as this is; it does just prove that anyone can have an opinion, but it needs sourcing to be relevant. 10:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Meets criteria, only source needed is proof and event of title win First of all, while I’m here I will announce my intention to discuss wrestling article related debates with all of us here, as well as contribute to the project. I’m sorry for my previous outburst at the village pump. I’ll make myself useful here, and even if I won’t always agree with you all, I will love working with you people. And also, on a smaller note, Its always nice to see InedibleHulk’s witty, ass off the chair onto the floor deadpan, well informed and educated debate lighten up mood humor on here. While your humor is always funny (with you describing the racist murder camp and the left wing hippies and right wing prudes on the village pump after my outburst and so much more), that Paul Heyman One Night Stand 2005 reference knocked it out of the park 😂😂 But anyway, casting my Supreme Court justice-like vote of this matter, the promotion it’s sactioned in doesn’t matter. As long as the titles have the same lineage, it counts for those triple crown/grand slam criterium for WCW and ECW. WWE simply just purchased the rights to sanction those titles. It shouldn’t matter if the original companies has been merged and consolidated into the WWF/E. As long as they meet the criteria (won all the (minimum) required championships for the distinction, titles have the same lineage regardless of promotion and name revisions) and there’s proof of the title win, it counts for the distinction. That’s my opinion, and I respect all of yours too, and I’m happy y’all respect mine. LM2000’s personal agreement with this philosophy, even if he points out how the other side’s arguments are more policy based, give weight and support towards Drummoe’s strong arguement regarding that, and I’m adding even more support and rationale for that arguement. Cheers. DrewieStewie (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
He might have met all the criteria per se, but the thing is, all that criteria went out the window after WCW went under. You can't complete the criteria for an achievement that doesn't exist anymore (well you can, but it's a non-existent accomplishment). In one instance, you're right in that the promotion it's sanctioned in doesn't matter. What does matter, however, is if said promotion recognizes the accomplishment. WCW doesn't exist anymore, and has not since 2001, so they can't recognize the accomplishment. WWE, who bought all of the championships and their history therein, are the only ones who can officially recognize Big Show as a WCW Triple Crown Champion, but they do not because he did not win the United States Championship while it was still a WCW title. --JDC808 06:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I’d consider it a Triple Crown unless WWE states otherwise. My interpretation of it is that when they purchased WCW and ECW’s assets and titles, they obtained the rights to their triple crown achievements too. However, they never addressed or modified their status, nor formally discontinued the achievement, so it still is active. While they don’t report on subsequent winners, preferring to publicize their triple crown/grand slam winners, they never formally discontinued the previous achievements after they acquired them, thus making, in my interpretation of it, Big Show and Rob Van Dam’s stake to the WCW and ECW triple crowns valid. DrewieStewie (talk) 08:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
DrewieStewie - That argument fails WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, and is the opposite of how wikipedia works. Whether or not a person has completed the triple crown is actually not-important. We need to source facts that CAN be backed up by sourcing. Saying that something is true simply because a RS hasn't said it isn't; goes against how Wikipedia works. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
DrewieStewie Yes, WWE did purchase and obtain the rights to the championships and accomplishments, but no, the Triple Crown is not active (it can't be). The Triple Crown ceased to be active after the dissolution of WCW (this also applies to ECW) and the unification of WCW's championships into WWE's. Although the US title was reactivated two years later and carried with it the history from the NWA and WCW, it was no longer a WCW title. Furthermore, the criteria calls for three championships, and two of those no longer exist (and have not since 2001). The Triple Crown cannot still be active if one or more of the needed components to satisfy its criteria no longer exists. --JDC808 20:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
JDC808- I have already conceded defeat for my WP:IAR argument and will not argue it further. However, I must make one minor correction in your logic. You stated that "The Triple Crown [or any other related reward regardless of promotion such as Grand Slam]] cannot still be active if one or more of the needed components to satisfy its criteria no longer exists". If that's so, how did Grand Slam winners under the original WWE format still win them up until 2012 even though the Hardcore and European championships were discontinued 10 years earlier? Because they won it before the titles were discontinued. Despite that, grand slam winners were still noted and honored. The promotion no longer exists so they cant recognize the distinction? That's fair. But I had to correct that logic contradictory to the original WWE Grand Slam post-2002. Cheers DrewieStewie (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Admittedly forgot about that, but there is a difference, which has basically been explained. --JDC808 22:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Everybody, I have an idea for a compromise measure. How about everybody who won it in WCW/ECW remain listed, but Big Show And RVD get a side note regarding the fact that they’ve won the eligible championships but because it was after the promotions closed down and the WWE hasn’t recognized them, they don’t count as triple crowns. What would you all think? DrewieStewie (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
If this is agreed upon, I would mention it in the prose instead of including it in the table. --JDC808 22:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Copy that. Agreed. DrewieStewie (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
A note is fine, and would be similar to unofficial reigns for championships. Technically they have won the triple crown, but there is no concrete sourcing either way. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
In fact, the previous version of the article includes a note about Show and RVD. [1] However, User C. Fred removed it. He told me we don't add text like "it is unknown if…" to articles; instead, it's better to stay silent on the issue until there is a reliable source to cite. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

AfD Notice[edit]

Hi all,

Just to say that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Dennis could do with some more input. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The Road Warriors[edit]

An IP user continues to insert content with no citation, and when presented with that inserts unreliable references. I don't honestly have time for their nonsense, so I would appreciate someone dealing with this. — Moe Epsilon 10:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, I will handle with this. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Pinging[edit]

There's a comment at Talk:Main Page implying that professional wrestling isn't suited for the Main Page. (I think they're responding to Today's Featured Article.) Ignoring the comment is an option, of course, but this might be an opportunity to educate people, too. - Dank (push to talk) 13:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Question is, which people need educating?
(ALERT: time for guess who to jump in with both feet....) Sca (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
ALERT: some would consider these kinds of "complaints" to be equivalent to "trolling". We all know what articles are eligible for the Main Page, and since this project has at least one featured article, then there's absolutely no reason in policy or guideline for it to be prevented from running on the main page. Education is certainly required, and it seems self-explanatory by whom. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The ridiculousness of these types of things go completely against WP:ILIKEIT (Or, I suppose, I don't like it.) It saddens me that people feel the need to be like this. The conversation is silly, and the close is even more silly "There is no useful outcome of this discussion" - Of course there's a useful outcome, and that would be a clear message that any article of significant quality, regardless of genre is suitible for the main page.[a] Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ Provided it meets the other guidelines!

.

Featured quality source review RFC[edit]

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Is Rob Van Dam a former WWE European Champion?[edit]

Having an issue with another user about this. The title was indeed retired after Van Dam (Intercontinental Champion) defeated Jeff Hardy (European Champion) to unify the belts, but Van Dam is absolutely not recorded in formal WWE listings of European titleholders, either on WWE.com[2] or in the WWE Encyclopedia (2009, p. 94). This archived WWE piece could possibly be interpreted as describing Van Dam as a former European Champion, but official listings trounce a now-deleted article in which a web scribe may or may not be saying something. Where do you stand? Sharonaj (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)