Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

WP:PW	Talk • Article alerts • Assessment • Members list • New articles • Notability • Recognized content • Sanctions • Sources • Style guide • Templates • Top priority articles

WikiProject Professional Wrestling
Professional wrestling as a whole is under general sanctions
Shortcut WT:PWWT:PW 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!

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by if there are more than 1.

Help with first page

Hi Everyone, I made my first Wiki page for a promotion in Winnipeg Pro Wrestling. I was wondering what advice y'all may have for helping me make it better. I am also going to their February show and i hope to get some pictures to make it better that way too. Thank you in advance. McCIrishman (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the deletion of the redundant "List of AEW Dynamite special episodes" article

The "List of AEW Dynamite special episodes" article just duplicates the Dynamite-related information on the "List of All Elite Wrestling special events" article, except for the ratings and the match card (which doesn't need to be stated there). It's redundant. Thus, I request that the ratings from the "List of AEW Dynamite special episodes" be transferred to "List of All Elite Wrestling special events" before deleting the "List of AEW Dynamite special episodes". TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TheVoicelessWriter the special events article covers ALL special events, not just Dynamite (so in addition to the Dynamite specials, it also includes the two specials that happened in summer 2019, the special episodes of the former Rampage, the special episodes of Collision, any specials of Dark or Dark Elevation, the former Battle of the Belts series, and any other special that wasn't a special episode of their regular weekly programs). The Dynamite one only includes the Dynamite specials. JDC808 ♫ 20:24, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know all of that. I'm saying that the "List of AEW Dynamite special episodes" article is redundant since the "List of All Elite Wrestling special events" article already covers the events in the "List of AEW Dynamite special episodes" article. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Katsuhiko Nakajima

Katsuhiko Nakajima has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Colour legends in tables

Low priority Can we come to a consensus on what colours we are using in tables such as the Royal Rumble?
First, I feel these three colours are too close:

– Raw

– TNA

– Celebrity entrant

Not enough contrast for those who struggle with colours. All three are used in the 2025 Men's RR table. Then we also have inconsistent use for HOF, used across multiple years.

– Hall of Famer (HOF)

Similarily, Impact/TNA has used

– TNA

– Impact Wrestling (Impact)

With some argument for distinguishing the two, the Impact colour is very similar to

– NXT

And then in 2020 we run into this

– NXT

– NXT UK

– Hall of Famer (HOF)

Where not only do the three colours lack contrast, but NXT is using the same colour that then became Impact (and was also previously used for ECW), and is different from future NXT colours.

I think we get the point! The concern for me is more about contrasting colours, and will admit having two different brands match across pages years apart is hardly a real problem, but I do think some consistency would be nice. This is also not even discussing the inconsistencies in bolding/not bolding, using abbreviations, phrasing, and black/silver borders. I also do recognize that there is not going to be a perfect solution, especially in terms of contrast, no matter what (though we could always use symbols - ◊, ⌑, etc. - too) –uncleben85 (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be using colours to show information like this on their own regardless. See WP:ACCDD and MOS:COLOR:

Color should not be used as the sole visual means of conveying information, or for distinguishing elements such as links, templates, or table rows. Always provide an alternative method—such as an accessible symbol and/or text (for example, ✔ Approved), a colored table with an icon and text (for example, see table on the right), or clearly written footnote labels.

As for how we should handle contrasts, see MOS:COLORS for examples. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the tables do have a column for which brand they are from, when applicable. –uncleben85 (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why have the colours at all then? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a secondary, quick glance additional formatting. Similar coloring is used alongside a superscript marker at list of Super Bowl champions to denote the teams' conferences, for example. We cannot rely on color solely because of accessibility concerns, but there's nothing saying we can't use it in conjunction with other markers for aesthetic and convenience purposes, just as long as the colors themselves are sufficiently accessible. oknazevad (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Below is every single colour guide that has been used across Rumbles–uncleben85 (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Brand	Distinction
– Raw – Raw – Raw	Raw branding has stayed consistent in colour, but swapped between black and silver borders, and being bolded or not
– SmackDown! – SmackDown – SmackDown! – SmackDown! – SmackDown	SmackDown has been listed as both SmackDown! and SmackDown due to change in branding, and has swapped between black and silver borders, and being bolded or not
– NXT – NXT – NXT	NXT has appeared as pale yellow, and a slightly paler yellow
– NXT UK
– ECW – ECW – ECW	ECW has appeared as yellow, beige, and silver, and swapped between black and silver borders, and being bolded or not
– Lucha Libre AAA Worldwide (AAA) – AAA	AAA has been listed by both its full name Lucha Libre AAA Worldwide and its common name AAA
– 205 Live
– TNA – Impact Wrestling (Impact)	Total Nonstop Action Wrestling competitors have appeared under the TNA and Impact brands with different colours
– Hall of Famer (HOF) – Hall of Famer (HOF) – Hall of Famer (HOF) – Hall of Famer (HOF) – Hall of Famer (HOF) – Hall of Famer (HOF)	The "Hall of Fame" distinction has appeared as yellow, beige, and silver, and swapped between including the abbreviation in the link or not and being bolded or not
– Unaffiliated – Unbranded – Legend – Legend	The terms "Unaffiliated", "Unbranded", and "Legend" have each been used for wrestlers that were not affiliated to a brand at the time, and has swapped between black and silver borders, and being bolded or not
– Celebrity entrant
– Unable to compete due to injury
– Unable to compete due to illness
– Winner – Winner – Winner	The "Winner" distinction has stayed consistent in colour, but swapped between black and silver borders, and being bolded or not

This would be my personal suggestion–uncleben85 (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

– Impact / TNA depending on branding at the time of the event
– Raw
– Celebrity
– Winner
– NXT UK
– NXT
– AAA
– ECW
– SmackDown! / SmackDown depending on branding at the time of the event
– 205 Live
– Hall of Famer (HOF)
– Unable to compete
– Free agent

outside of RAW and Smackdown, why do we need to give everything a colour? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Having the colours helps understand the content at a quick glance, imo. But what threw me, and started this process, was that flipping between pages, I could no longer immediately go, "Oh, yellow! That means NXT!" It's a more effective/efficient visual guide than reading the labels, for users like me, though should remain accessible for others.–uncleben85 (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But, 80% or more of the event is going to be the RAW or Smackdown participants. Do we need a colour code for "celebrity" or "Hall of Famer". Surely we can keep everything else white and list them in the column. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts on standardizing:

Per my formatting proposal further down in this discussion; remove the color legend in articles entirely. We can maintain a list of what colors should be used at WP:PW/SG, for user reference.
Restrict color usage to one column—the Brand and the Winner's name—rather than the entire row. This will improve readability and WP:COLOR accessibility, and make the colors obvious as to what they refer to without the need of a color legend.
Bold should only be used on the Winner's name.
Remove any "Status" indicators and only list Brand. That would remove Celebrity, Legend, HOF and Unable to compete.
Instead of "Free agent", we would list "Unaffiliated" under Brand, with no color.

As for which actual colors to use, I think we need to test readability before deciding. How easy is the text to read with the color in the background of the column? Prefall 08:20, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To follow-up on the colors, here's a quick comparison to show what they look like in the table. I used the colors @Uncleben85: suggested above. (Note: Other editors, feel free to add more colors to this table for comparisons/suggestions.)

#FAB4AF	Raw
#AFB9FF	SmackDown
#FF8	NXT
#DCB57A	NXT UK
plum	205 Live
#DCEEFF	ECW
lightgreen	AAA
#FF6060	Impact / TNA
gold	Winner
#ffe6bd	Winner

Generally, bolder colors feel too harsh on the eyes. I would prefer to tone down Impact (#FF6060), 205 Live (plum) and Winner (gold) into lighter shades. ECW as a light blue feels strange too—it's a good color, but ideally it would be something closer to its brand identity. I also added #ffe6bd as a suggestion to Winner—the same color used to indicate active champion on championship articles—as I think that's a nice-looking color that's easy to read. Prefall 08:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I feel good about all of that. I agree ECW feels wrong, but we had red for Raw and TNA already... –uncleben85 (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents. 1, Strong oppose to Free agent. It's kayfabe, some free agents, like Omos, aren't free agents at all since he is signed by WWE. 2, I never understand the HOF part. It's not a brand, it's a distinction. Also, sometimes, a Hall of Famer is part of a brand. 4, I don't get the Celebrity, but wharever. 5, I agree with Lee. Maybe it's too much color. We can include color brands but other stuff, keep it white. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about free agent. "Unaffiliated" might be better. And, I don't understand why we are currently using a silver HOF guide in the 2026 Men's Rumble, only to not use that colour and just list Rey Mysterio as "HOF" next to his Raw designation. I think your idea to keep the colours limited to brands is a good idea. List everything else out with labels. –uncleben85 (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

6 Can you tell me in which Rumble "– Unable to compete due to illness" took place? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Rumble '94. We don't actually even have a colour guide, but orange is used to note Bastion Booger's illness, so I included it. ETA: 1998 used just a plain cell to note Skull being ruled out. –uncleben85 (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've long thought the use of color in our articles is extremely overdone. I don't think we should get rid of it entirely, but instead it should be limited to the "Brand/Status" column, and the winner's name, to improve readability / WP:COLOR accessibility. For example:

Current example, from Royal Rumble (2026)
Draw	Entrant	Brand/Status	Order	Eliminated by	Time	Elimination(s)
1	Charlotte Flair	SmackDown	23	Lash Legend	59:49	2
2	Alexa Bliss	SmackDown	5	Charlotte Flair	13:29	0
14	Liv Morgan	Raw	—	Winner	43:50	3

Proposal: How limiting color to one column would look, and other formatting changes to "Winner"
Draw	Entrant	Brand/Status	Order	Eliminated by	Time	Elimination(s)
1	Charlotte Flair	SmackDown	23	Lash Legend	59:49	2
2	Alexa Bliss	SmackDown	5	Charlotte Flair	13:29	0
14	Liv Morgan (Winner)	Raw	—	—	43:50	3

With these changes, the Color Legend would also not be needed anymore, since it'd be clear from reading the columns which color applies to what.

Still, I'm fine with standardizing which colors are tied to which brands. And sidenote, I recall a previous discussion about not using the term "free agent" anymore due to the confusion it could cause. Just list "None" or "Unaffiliated" as the brand. I'm a little more torn on the use of "HOF". Prefall 20:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's better in general. I do think it should be SmackDown, RAW and other. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should have some distinction between other WWE brand extensions (NXT, Evolve, ECW, 205 Live, NXT UK) and non-WWE-exclusive brands (TNA, AAA). It admittedly is a lot of colours, but I listed all options and realistically we usually don't get more than 4 or 5 in a table at a time, including Raw and SmackDown. By biggest interest in the matter though is consistency and readability, so if that means cutting back on colours, then that makes sense too. –uncleben85 (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's much improved. oknazevad (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:BLPN § Ludwig Kaiser

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:BLPN § Ludwig Kaiser. Left guide (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Sherri Martel

Sherri Martel has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]