Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 86

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80←Archive 84Archive 85Archive 86Archive 87Archive 88→Archive 90

Job Opportunity for Reference-minded Editor

Arn Anderson needs our help! We owe it to him, as wrestling fans, to back up at least a few facts with footnotes. It's been tagged for nearly two years. Any editor could remove virtually all of the article at any moment, and it would stand up in Wikicourt. His entire story would be completely lost to history, and future generations would tend to assume "The Enforcer" was either a crappy movie or a monster truck. Horseman or not, no article is "too big to fail". I've done my part, by mentioning it. Won't you do yours, and save Arn from obscurity? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I was tempted to start with "Arn who?", given that I've never actually seen Anderson wrestle before. Anyway, the obvious problem here is that reliable online sources (which the bulk of current wrestling articles rely on) aren't very helpful at all when it comes to Anderson's wrestling career. The current WWE website isn't of much help, although I've found an archived version of Anderson's profile (but there is no current profile, only that of the horsemen). Perhaps someone who has a Four Horsemen DVD would be a better help in detailing Anderson's page. Also unfortunately SLAM! doesn't have a bio of Arn but whoa they sure do have bios on quite a few wrestlers. Cool gold mine if someone hasn't found it already. Starship.paint (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This, this and this would be good places to start. Google News archive searches are also often useful. And yes, Slam Wrestling is a great site! It may not have an Anderson profile, but it undoubtedly contains some relevant information somewhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Googling ("arn anderson" site:slam.canoe.ca) confirms my theory. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If you're looking for a DVD which actually contains relevant information, go back to Greatest Wrestling Stars of the 80's instead.RadioKAOS (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

A concern

Hello folks, it's been a long time since I've posted here, but I have a concern I wanted to bring up. I have no idea if this has been discussed here, but it should be. I'm sure most of you have noticed that many MMA articles are being deleted or merged into a big hard-to-read list. When I first saw this happening, I was immediately concerned for pro wrestling articles. If these MMA events, which routinely receive front page coverage in some of the largest sports news sites out there, are being deleted as non-notable, what chance do WWE events have? Now, anyone who did go after pro wrestling ppvs would have a much harder time, because there are more articles, more GAs, and more dedicated editors. But it could happen. I decided to look at some of our GAs and FAs, and I see them sourced almost entirely to pro wrestling sites (and I am aware that there are few to no sources other than dedicated wrestling sites that cover these events - that certainly doesn't help on the notability side). For example, SummerSlam (2003), which is a FA. Reliable sources, sure. But the fact remains that they are dedicated to pro wrestling. It certainly doesn't prove that the event had any kind of notability outside of wrestling. Anyone seeking to delete them would simply cite WP:ROUTINE. Sure the articles are long, but they're just a bunch of detailed (in many cases, overly detailed) summaries of matches. In all honesty, and I am a huge fan of wrestling, I look through some of our GAs and see no reason why they can't be trimmed and merged back into the old system of having all the ppvs listed on the page for the main event.

I think editors need to work harder on proving notability. I know they can be hard to find, but the articles are out there. Many times when a ppv is about to happen, newspapers in the city where it is being held cover the event. A lot of effort should be made to find some of those and use them, because they help prove notability. Either way, I'm hoping that the active editors of this project are aware of this, because it could be a problem down the road. -- Scorpion0422 03:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The omnibus plan was recently attempted here. We should improve our crappier articles, yeah, but I don't think we're in the same boat the poor MMA project has been thrown into. We don't have the same (alleged) cabal here, with the same (alleged) conflicts of interest or undying tenacity. Yet. I hope you do not intend to fill that position here, or use this project to make another point in that MMA war. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Nope, I'm just a concerned wrestling fan who doesn't want to see the hard work of our editors torn apart. -- Scorpion0422 15:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Good to hear. Yes, "real" newspaper sources are handy when deletionists attack. A Google News Archive search can find those much easier than a regular web search (that might seem obvious to some, but maybe not to others). And yeah, the overdetailing is a widespread problem. I'll whittle some PPV articles down a bit (or a lot) soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

SummerSlam (1995) is now six kilobytes less full of crap, for what it's worth. Still the same links, though. My browser crashes when I try touching the lead. Would someone mind deleting the second paragraph there, and moving the third to the "Aftermath" section (or a new section)? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of the World Heavyweight Championship from the Triple Crown

I believe that this [1] indicates that the WHC is not considered an acceptable substitute for completing the Triple Crown, as it states on the Triple Crown Championship page. It states the the WWE triple crown is "the WWE Championship, the Intercontinental Championship, and the World or WWE Tag Team Championship." There is already a section here, but I wanted to post on the project page as well to gather more input. 67.181.76.194 (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It does not state that. It asks a question: "Can you name the Superstars that once held the WWE Championship, the Intercontinental Championship and the World or WWE Tag Team Championship during their careers?". This question happens to be under the heading "WWE Triple Crown Winners". It's a question about certain kinds of Triple Crown winners. The similar question below asks about certain kinds of IC Champions (those who reigned for 200+ days). Would you say a wrestler has to hold the IC title for 200 days before it counts as a reign? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
There is still one thing wrong The article lists 23 triple crown champions while the WWE list only has 20 meaning that 3 of the people listed are not reconogised by the WWE. Upon looking the three are Chris Benoit, Booker T, and John "Bradshaw" Layfield. The Benoit case is pretty obvious revisionist history so I don't think we should remove him to protect the WWE though the other two cases may need to be looked at since there appears to be much less of a motive for revisionist history for them.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I made a few mistakes JBL was listed but Dolph Ziggler was not. I also noticed that there were actually 24 listings in the article and that the other wrestler not on the WWE list is Christian. In the end the 4 people not on the WWE.COM list are Booker T, Chris Benoit, Christian, and Dolph Ziggler.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
None of those folks - including Benoit - were ever WWE champeen. The page per InedibleHulk is right, but what you're effectively arguing is whether the page title invalidates these guys, yes? I'd argue yeah actually, better than even chance. This page on WWE.com lists wrestlers via the same definition, naming Show as the last to do it and specifically counting Punk's MitB win as an entry. Anyone got disparate results or a source corroborating that the World/United States belts count for something? Papacha (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
This PWTorch article explicitly states "The Triple Crown is generally considered the WWE Title or World Heavyweight Title, the Tag Team Championship, and the Intercontinental Belt." InedibleHulk (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Hulk, while the section above the IC reigns asks the general question "Can you name the Superstars who once one...", the first full sentence of the directions reads "Name all 20 Superstars who won WWE's Triple Crown during their careers." The insertion of the titles is a definition, and the use of the word "all" indicates there are no more than those 20. They do not use any language that it is only a "certain kind" of the Triple Crown, the specifically call it their Triple Crown. 67.181.76.194 (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Papacha, the page lists the wrestlers that meet the criteria, but doesn't say the criteria must be met to be a Triple Crown winner. "Throughout WWE history, there have been a number of Superstars who captured the three original titles, WWE, Intercontinental and World Tag Team, on their way to becoming WWE's Triple Crown winners." Notice my italics, and the omission of the WWE Tag or Unified Tag (or whatever it's called now) title. It's a list of Triple Crown winners who went the "original belts" route. Nothing more. IP 67, I'll get back to you soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, 67, I'll have to take your word on what the game says. It keeps hanging my browser. Is a Flash game a reliable source, though, and would it be considered WP:SYNTH to interpret a direction as a declarative statement? I've noticed the Wiki article has no source for including the WHC, so I guess a flimsy source trumps no source (IF the RS and Synth problems aren't real problems). I'll look for a good countersource. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Everyone consider that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. This is a surprising claim, not (apparently) covered by multiple mainstream sources. It is supported purely by self-published sources. It seems against the interest WWE previously defended. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Also, Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

On 5 April 2010, I posted on Talk:Triple Crown Championship that WWE officially defined the criteria for the Triple Crown here. Hopefully that settles this silly argument. Feedback ☎ 17:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

No interpretation needed there. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

AFC

Hi project menmbers!
A few minutes ago, one of our reviewers declined the submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MDW Tri-State Heavyweight Championship. I believe that this championship is notable, although it lacks some more good sources. Would/Will somebody help that submitter? mabdul 13:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes please help these guys. They did good work on the article the only thing keeping it out of ArticleSpace is the lack of references. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 13:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrestling podcast article submission in need of major help

Hi folks, I was asked to look at the article draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Two and a Half Wrestlers, and my personal opinion is that it is almost certain to be declined in its current form. The article author is obviously literate and reasonable, and has already made some changes at my request - he's prepared to make more changes. The list of references is long and perhaps useful, but I have no idea which of them are reliable in this field (or might come close to reliable).

Underneath it all there may be the makings of a topic notable enough to need an article, but someone with more knowledge of the wrestling topic will need to work with the author to achieve that. Equally, the topic might be not notable or not yet notable.

So, if anyone here can help work all this out, that would be fantastic. (I will also be watching this thread, but relatively little to add on my part.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Demiurge1000 was very helpful in this creation process. I believe the article may need to be written less first person and less from my perspective and more from reliable sources. I feel if i can get these sources that this is a very deserving article.

Here is the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Two_and_a_Half_Wrestlers&oldid=499025465

Most of those sources would be considered unreliable. Wrestlezone and Bleacher Report are explicitly prohibited here. Most others are fan pages, forums, blogs and rumour sites, almost always discouraged by WP:RS. One source is another Wikipedia article, which isn't allowed. Bathroom graffiti is much more reliable than Urban Dictionary. OWW, Wrestleview and NYProwrestling are the only good ones I see. Scout.com would be alright, but it doesn't back up the claim it is used for. All these words shouldn't be in bold, and the writing style is very informal and non-neutral. The only source indicating notability is the podcast's own page. I don't think this article has much hope, but if you can fix all these problems, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Need a hand

It seems that we've got a user who is copy/paste moving ppv. I could use a hand in reverting this.--Dcheagle | Thunder Up 20:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Money in the Bank matches, input needed

Your input would be greatly appreciated at this discussion I have started. Thanks. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 13:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Royal Rumble FLRC

I have nominated Royal Rumble for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello!

I am Jayemd, the newest member of WikiProject Pro Wrestling --Jayemd (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome Jayemd! Do read the style guide if you haven't done so already, it'll direct you to the reliable sources. Looking forward to your contributions! Starship.paint (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

One Question:

Are there any articles I can expand? Jayemd (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Very many! It may help to look here. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Or here. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Raw 1000

I don't know if anyone has already done this, I doubt it. Anyway, I started an article for Raw's 1000th episode in my sandbox. Feel free to expand and edit it like it was in mainspace. I did this because I thought this upcoming episode of Raw would meet notability guidelines to have a stand alone article like a PPV. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 14:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

How notable is appearing in a dark match or house show for an FCWer?

May I direct your attention to Tyler Black and Jon Moxley. In both articles, it is reliably sourced that both have appeared in WWE dark matches and house shows. My question is that... is this information even relevant enough to their overall careers for it to be included in their Wikipedia articles? They are already developmental wrestlers, so why should we note these "try-out matches" when every single match in developmentals would also qualify as a try-out match? Starship.paint (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say their first WWE dark match and/or house show is a major and notable step in their careers. The fact that they're wrestling on an actual WWE show is the notable part, not that it's a tryout. But not their second or so on. Then they're just as non-notable as anyone's. Unless some other significant thing (injury, title win) happens, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds fair to me. Removing the un-notable info then. Starship.paint (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Article Note

I wonder if any of you guys could create an article about the former WCW manager Ralphus. He usually managed Norman Smiley but at one match he managed Chris Jericho. The first time I remembered him in WCW was in (I think) early 1999. Jayemd (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a requested articles page somewhere within the project. I don't know whether anyone actually pays attention to it, or if it's really a dumping ground for topics that particular editors could care less about. Late-period WCW would certainly qualify as something I could care less about.RadioKAOS (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if there's anything to his career that can't be said in Jericho's article. He wasn't exactly busy, from what I remember. I might be wrong, though. And he's probably more notable than Jamieson. I won't create the article, but I won't oppose it either, if you feel like giving it a go. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. I was asking you guys about creating the article because I have no idea about his life outside of wrestling, his weight, or height. Oh well! Thanks anyway! Jayemd (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
He drove a truck for WCW for quite a while. He was pretty short and chunky. That's all I know. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't touch Triple Crown Championship!!

Well, someone can go ahead and add The Miz as a Triple Crown winner, but don't go around changing the criteria because of the buffoon Michael Cole. He said the Triple Crown involved the US, IC and WWE titles, but that is simply not true and we have WWE sources to back it up. There's also multitude of sources that show us that Michael Cole is an idiot and says stupid things on Raw all the time. Just this episode, he called Sin Cara "Mysterio" three times during his match, he forgot that Christian's finisher has been the spear for months, and misnamed about 90% of all moves in the few matches he's been calling tonight. Whatever Michael Cole says doesn't counts. This should be made into a guideline. WP:COLEISATROLL Feedback ☎ 01:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd support that guideline. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Credible Website for Results?

Hi, everyone. It's been a while since I've posted here. However, I've been surfing through the Internet for a while since I haven't posted here and found this website called WrestleEnigma.com. They have the results for every WWE and TNA event. For an example, click here and here. Thoughts? BOD (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems a bit like a Bleacher Report style blog. I would think it's unreliable for the same reasons, but I could be wrong. The Become a Writer page has me a bit worried. Seems like they just want opinions from average Joes. Also, I can't find the "results" page (though many other established reliable sources already have extensive results sections). I'll give it a thumbs down, for now (as a Wikipedia source, not knocking it as a website). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The History of WWE is by far the best source for results I've seen on the Internet. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

List of WWE personnel question

Should we go ahead and merge the Raw and SmackDown rosters into one roster since the brand extension is mostly dead and done with? Both on TV and house shows have both rosters active and all championships can be defended on both brands. Should it be done?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Kinda curious why this hasn't already been done actually. MrZoolook (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Brilliant idea! --Jayemd (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Name changes

User Bright Darkness has changed the name of many articles Primo and A.W. without discussion. Also, Wingman1 has change AJ to AJ Lee. I think that we must to change them again or discusses them.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Reading through Bright Darkness moved AJ's page for starters, initiating a second one after the wedding fiasco by Wingman1. Shouldn't have been done to begin with, probably should contact an admin about moving AJ Lee (wrestler) back to regular ol' AJ Lee. Papacha (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a much more serious problem. The talk page is at April Jeanette however the article is not at that title and I can't seem to find it anywhere. It seems that the article might have somehow been deleted unless it has been moved to some unusual location. Can someone please fix?--70.49.81.140 (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
What a mess. You're right, the article's a revolving door now after a botched requested move. Papacha (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I think User:Anthony Appleyard deleted it. I have requested it to be undeleted. Then maybe the article title can be fixed Wrestling0101 (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Article's returned under April Jeanette. Finished tidying up all the double redirects created off this bust-up. Papacha (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Did "Sam Robins" ever exist?

Came across Tyler Black's talk page where an IP questioned the apparent one-time use of "Sam Robins" instead of "Seth Rollins" for Black in a dark match before a SmackDown taping in December 2010 when Black faced Cody Rhodes. The apparent source for Robins was from PWTorch, what we consider a reliable source. Yet such reports are usually sent in by readers of the site who are attending the show. When checking other reliable sources, PWInsider reports Seth Rollins and the Internet Wrestling Database reports Seth Rollins while other websites (not confirmed as reliable, yet...) also report Seth Rollins (OWOW and prowrestling.com). Searching for "Sam Robins" with "Cody Rhodes" and "dark match" yields mostly clones of the current Wikipedia entry. So is it safe to say that Sam Robins never existed? Starship.paint (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I have always been 99% certain that "Sam Robins" was a mistake made by the PWTorch reader, but didn't bother to start an edit war over it due to PWTorch being a reliable source.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Articles by actual Torch writers are reliable, but user-submitted content is the same as that from anywhere else. It's a moot point, anyhow. I removed the info from the article since it wasn't actually his debut match (that was as Tyler Black, vs Trent Baretta). It was just another non-notable dark match. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, since there's no objection I'll be removing the ring name Sam Robins from Black's page. Starship.paint (talk) 05:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Armageddon 2000

Have you seen my edit to Armageddon 2000? Although there might have been slight edits by other users since, mine was the first to include an entire 'Event' section. It also includes some add information to the 'Aftermath' section. I wonder what all of you guys think about this article being nominated. I have never been a major contributor to a nomination before, and i'm looking to make a major step in my Wikipedia career. --Jayemd (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

After a quick glance, it seems like a definite improvement. Before being nominated, though, it needs reliable sourcing. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I've added reliable sources. They're Lords of Pain and PWTorch. Now can it be nominated? --Jayemd (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Lords of Pain is unreliable, according to this Wikiproject's style guide. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I found a reliable source for you from SLAM Wrestling. Unfortunately I can't find reports of the event from PWTorch, PWInsider or Wrestleview. Problem is that the PPV happened before the wrestling reports came to the Internet, I guess. Also unfortunate is that the sources aren't as detailed as your commentary... which means that there are certainly unsourced statements in the page that will not stand up to nomination. Starship.paint (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Two articles which could use attention/ a read over/etc.

In both cases, significant changes were made recently to the article, mostly by IP editors. In each case, these IP edits just so happened to resemble what you would come to expect from an experienced Wikipedia editor. This sort of behavior comes across my watchlist often enough to where I would think it flies under the radar of sockpuppet investigations.

The first problem is with Kayfabe. Within the past week-plus, two large portions were removed, one after the other, including sourced content. The content which has been added since amounts to more week-to-week nonsense. Particularly troubling is the blanking of the "Etymology" section, since this is after all an article which attempts to explain the meaning of a word. The edit summary reads, and I quote: "rm completely unsourced section after 6 months of waiting". Um, waiting for what, exactly? Someone to do the work for you? I only had the time to write this because my roommate's boyfriend woke me up at 6 o'clock this morning for no reason and I couldn't go back to sleep. Also compare the quality of the sources used in the material which was removed versus the material which was added afterward.

The second problem is with Mil Máscaras. There were a recent series of IP edits, once again by someone who obviously knows what they're doing as opposed to what we're used to seeing by IP editors. Sourced content was removed and a lot of unsourced content was kept. The main issue here is the tone of the article after these edits, which is now so complimentary to where it might as well be labeled an advertisement. I forget whether it was Randy or Jason who said this, but all of a sudden, the line "Mil, your mascaras is running" takes on a whole new meaning after reading this puff piece. The "Criticism" section was rewritten to be a point-counterpoint, once again making the subject look rosy. People have been writing about Mil's monstrous ego since long before there was any such thing as wrestling websites. Note this passage: "Mascaras was also the heavyweight champion of the IWA wrestling promotion, which was founded by Eddie Einhorn, and still holds the title to this day." If you look hard enough, this can be explained by discussion of how the IWA's failure was largely attributed to his unwillingness to put any opponents over, even if such was written by Dave Meltzer.RadioKAOS (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Extreme Rules (2012)

With the release of the official buyrate figures for ER2012, I feel that the article is finally complete (save the conclusion of Lesnar/HHH for the aftermath section). I have worked extensively on the whole article and so I would like to see some fruit for my efforts... Is there any way WP:PW members could guide it to GA-status? I would very much appreciate it if you would take a look. Starship.paint (talk) 08:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't take it personally.

NJZombie and I have a difference of opinion. It's my thinking that a wrestler that does not go by a personal name (i.e. CM Punk, Big Show, The Ultimate Warrior, you get it) can be referred to in an abbreviated fashion (Punk/Show/Warrior). NJZombie's thought is that these are not surnames and thus should be written in full wherever used in an article. <ex:Punk & Show to lesser extent>


Not to say there isn't but I don't see an official policy endorsing this; seems a rather clumsy way of noting anything and far from the ideal. While Wikipedia doesn't base its writing style by another website's example WWE has no issue with it, nor would I argue that it's in a casual way inappropriate for use in an encyclopedia. Guidelines'll vary surely but I see proper names abridged across the breadth of the site. Feedback or direction appreciated as always. Papacha (talk) 14:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

And of course these fellas are often credited as "Punk" and "Show" on commentary, though whether that's a point to me or NJZombie for relying on Cole and Lawler's in-ring analysis is a steaming amount of dubious. Papacha (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, Papacha. Last name or not, it just reads far smoother abbreviated. It's not like it's going to confuse anyone (unless Ultimate Warrior has a match with Giant Warrior). That paragraph is excessively wordy in other ways, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree I don't see why that is necessary. Similar to what was mentioned earlier unless CM Punk faces a opponent also named punk I don't see any reason to always use CM Punk and even then we would only need to use the full name when we are talking about Storylines involving the other wrestler named Punk.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct! Full names are only neccessary to be reapeatedly mentioned when attempting to differentiate legitimate or storyline brothers (e.g. The Hardy Boyz, The Dudley Boyz) or unrelated people with the same surname (e.g. Flash Funk and Terry Funk.) --Jayemd (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see a good argument for Punk and Warrior. "Show" sounds ridiculous to me, though. While he might be referred to as Show on wrestling websites, it has too much of an unencyclopedic tone for my liking. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

CM Punk and Big Show are ineresting cases, as they both prefer to be referred to by the 2nd half of their ringname, even by their friends. Crisis.EXE 01:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind, "Jericho", "Martel" and "Hogan" are also not surnames, strictly speaking. They are partial stage names, like Punk or Show, though they more closely resemble proper names. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

They ARE however the characters' surnames making this point somewhat moot. My point that the character's first name is not CM and his last name is not Punk. Referring to them as Punk, Show, Warrior is casual and not in the style of an actual encyclopedia which is what Wikipedia is meant to emulate. Referring to someone by a last name, whether it's a fictional or non-fictional last name, is not as casual and is acceptable. Using the argument that other website refer to them in an abbreviated manner is invalid also. It's fine if other sites choose to use a more casual tone but Wikipedia does not. Therefore, what other sites do is not a precedent. NJZombie (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd say Punk could be seen as a character surname. Sure, it's not as "normal" sounding as Johnson (or even Ziggler), but that's his name. CM Punk. If they called him Phil "The Punk" Brooks, I'd agree with you. But, storywise, there's no reason to believe his parents didn't put that name on his birth certificate (like Mr. and Mrs. Booger did with Bastion, or the Bombs with Adam). Same with Big Show, who hasn't been The Big Show in years. Sometimes names just happen to sound stupid. Like InedibleHulk (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC) On that note, The Ultimate Warrior's actual offstage name is Warrior. So that's totally formal. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
That's not true considering he has been referred to as Phil while in WWE and I'm sure that someone has referred to Big Show as Paul at least once during his years with the company. Referring to Warrior as such is fine when in context. For example, stating that he had his name legally changed and referring to him with that name from that point on in the article is fine. Neither his given name nor his character name were simply "Warrior" though before that. So casually calling him by that name, as if it were his last name, is incorrect for an encyclopedia. Names like CM Punk, The Big Show and The Ultimate Warrior are more a type of descriptive nickname than they are a given name, whether fictional or non-fictional. Referring to words within that name as a last name is fine in casual use. Casual use does not apply here though.
I should also point out that New Jack's first name is not New and his article addresses him properly. It doesn't refer to him as "Jack" because it's obviously not meant to be a given name. NJZombie (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Until we get a source clearing up whether it's a nickname or a name, it's all opinions. For now, the consensus opinion seems to be toward using concise names. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
No, for now we're still discussing consensus. You don't need a source to know whether that Big doesn't resemble a real first name and Show doesn't resemble a last name. NJZombie (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I know there are stupider legal names out there. For the sake of discussion, how about you point out the policy that says calling him "Show" is too "casual" for Wikipedia? I'll throw WP:TERSE out there. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
While there may not be precise policy to address it, Wikipedia's own policy on tone calls for articles to read in a businesslike manner and to use common sense. Considering their real names have been used on television, it's safe to say that it's acknowledged that Big Show and CM Punk are not intended to be the characters' given names. Common sense dictates that they shouldn't be referred to as such then. I guarantee that within their real life contracts, whenever the characters' names are mentioned, apart from the wrestlers' real life names, they don't just start referring them to Punk or Show. That's because, like Wikipedia, it's to be read in a professional and businesslike manner. If we were talking about a WWE Magazine article, or their website articles as mentioned before, I'd agree 100%. Those are in-house articles and they're free to use any tone they choose. For an encyclopedia though, it's just poor form. NJZombie (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Read the part of that policy where it says "Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable." If WWE, PWTorch or Slam think abbreviating is acceptable and preferred, we should follow suit. Even if it didn't reduce wasted syllables by 66%. Even if it may cause socialites to faint and monocles to drop into wineglasses (like a New Generation WWF ad). I'm not implying you wear a monocle, just that standards of formality are looser in wrasslin'. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I still disagree and find it to be in poor form and lazy writing. While I won't go in and attempt to change every instance, I personally will not be writing any new material on their pages using that approach. That would be like writing about a another fictional character, Green Lantern for example, and referring to him as GL or Lantern in most instances because other characters or sources use it shorthand. NJZombie (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd hope you wouldn't change any instance, as this has been shown to be consistent with policy. As the only argument you've presented is "I don't like it", expect any new material you add in your style to be corrected. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
No, the argument is based on proper writing form and nothing to do with personal opinion. Do what you feel you have to. I'll be doing the same. NJZombie (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

NXT and FCW

I want to discuss the situation with NXT and Florida Championship Wrestling (FCW). FCW has changed their name to NXT Wrestling and moved everything FCW-related to the NXT name, while also dropping all of the FCW titles (including the Jack Brisco 15 medal) in the process. NXT also changed this year as well, dropping the "Rookie/Pro" aspect in late 2011 and cutting major storylines short in early 2012. NXT has also developed a championship belt called the NXT Championship and giving it to Seth Rollins after defeating Jinder Mahal for it in a "Gold Rush" tournament. What I was thinking was renaming and modifying FCW to NXT Wrestling and modify the NXT page to reflect the changes from merging with FCW to become WWE's developmental territory.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Superstars brand

Do you think that the titles and superstar are assigned to a brand? For example, Cena's article:"an American professional wrestler and actor. He is currently signed to WWE as a member of its Raw brand.[7]" But now, in WWE.com, I can't see raw roster and SD roster, I only can see superstars and divas. I think that now, titles and wrestler haven't a brand. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That's because as a result of the current 'People Power' era, there is simply no incentive to continue the 'brand warfare' between the two shows. --Jayemd (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

If you check the "Current" tab at the bottom of the Superstars page on WWE.com, you'll see that there are options for both Raw and SmackDown. You can see who's officially on Raw and SmackDown by looking at that. SilentGanda (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I propose the removal of "as a member of ___ brand" from all WWE wrestlers' pages. The brand extension is practically dead - even if officially, as SilentGanda has pointed out, you can see what brand the wrestlers belong to. SmackDown wrestlers appear on Raw (Bryan, AJ, Slater, Clay, Sandow) and Raw wrestlers appear on SmackDown (Miz, Santino, Ziggler, Kofi) all the time now. Not to mention many undercard wrestlers mostly appear on NXT/Superstars even when assigned to Raw or SmackDown. The information of officially belonging to whatever brand is irrelevant to be included in the articles. It simply does not serve much purpose. Starship.paint (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Anyone have any objections to my proposal? Starship.paint (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Fine by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'm went ahead and did it. Starship.paint (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the brands are dead and don't need to be noted to distinguish where the wrestler appears primarily. However, noting that "and appearing on both its Raw and SmackDown television programs" as several article have done is not the same thing as saying that they are brand specific. In fact, it's the exact opposite. Why remove that? NJZombie (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it's enough to say they work for WWE. Raw and Smackdown (and Superstars and NXT) are WWE shows, on which any WWE wrestler may appear on any given week. We could also say "appearing on its RAW, Smackdown, Superstars and NXT programs, as well as PPVs, house shows, autograph signings, charitable/political functions, talk shows and YouTube content." But we don't, for the same reason we shouldn't specify either or both of the main TV shows. Not in the lead, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I took so long to reply... anyway, noting that a wrestler appears on both Raw/SD is as irrelevant as mentioning they belong to which brand is because... a large majority of them already do that (appear on both main shows) so it's nothing special to mention that. It's not important enough to mention in the lead. Starship.paint (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Tyler Black, FCW Grand Slam

Todya, I have loked the NXT Tyler Black's bio and I saw that NXT call him the "first ever “FCW Grand Slam” champion, having held FCW tag team gold, the coveted Jack Brisco 15 medal and the Florida Heavyweight Championship". Do you think that we must add this information to the Grand Slam and Tyler Black articles? Also, if Black won the FCW Grand Slam, Richie Steamboat won too. http://www.fcwwrestling.info/Roster/Seth-Rollins.html --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't be against adding it to both Rollins and Steamboat's pages. Starship.paint (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Cool. I think that we also can add to the Grand Slam Championship article, but it sounds me lie a Triple Crown Championship. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Right to Censor

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 28#Template:Right to Censor. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Madison Eagles

There was a previous discussion of this in February but this article, most recently deleted two years ago with sock puppet voting, should probably be taken to DRV or someone inputting a new version. It's an interesting oversight that the #1 ranked female wrestler in the world by PWI is the only one without a wikipedia article due to notability discussions several years ago. –– Lid(Talk) 05:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

My only issue would be the lack of reliable sources, although that is a problem with the vast majority of articles on professional wrestlers. This article would be a good starting point. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
As I remember it (and this may be wrong), last time there was an article it was put up for deletion and just before it was deleted someone made a really good job of citing a lot of the article and smartening it up but they did it late in the day and by then most people had voted to delete it through lack of sources because the edits were made so late. I only saw it once so it may have been the sources weren't valid but if there's anyway to resurrect the deleted article it seemed fairly well written from a passing glance. Tony2Times (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

With all due respect to John Cleese (there I go again!)...I've mentioned at various times that hip-hop shows obvious signs of being influenced by pro wrestling. Sometimes it appears that tunnel vision is rampant to where this isn't viewed as encyclopedic. I was listening to music just now, and MC Lars came up. He mentions a "musical associate" named "Kay Flabe" (or possibly "Kayflabe"; it's unclear to me whether the name is one or two words). Am I supposed to believe that this is mere coincidence and not at all in reference to kayfabe?RadioKAOS (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. 192.76.82.90 (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Why you no active?

Seriously, what happened here? Did a nuke go off of something? Simply asking because I can't help but notice the unbelievable decline in organization around here. --UnquestionableTruth-- 23:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember a nuke. Is there anything in particular you'd like to see more organized? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Long ass section headers in wrestler articles noting every face/heel turn, championship win, ect... Yea section headers shouldn't be that long.
  • After 7 years, this project still can't make a distiction between what a brand is (you don't italicize brands) and a show is (you italicize shows).
  • Numerous capitalization issues in multiple recent articles where WrestleMania and SmackDown are still (again after 7 years of the WP:PW/MOS being right there) incorrectly capitalized as Wrestlemania and Smackdown.
  • The ridiculously trivial nature of listing "main events" in a PPV article main page for every event in the Dates and venues section.
  • The constant additon of weekly events as it pertains to a wrestler in said wrestler's article page.

Just a small list of things, still something I thought should have been addressed by now. --UnquestionableTruth-- 17:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I fix the first three where I see them. I fixed a SmackDown! in two ways an hour or so ago, before reading this. Not sure what you're saying in the fourth, but you're probably right. You're definitely right about the weekly updates, but deleting long sections with a PS3 is ridiculously tedious. No highlight and delete for me; just VERY slow backspace. It's why I stick mainly to retired/dead wrestlers. People with functioning mice and keyboards, your Wikiproject needs you! And Arn Anderson still needs references. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, I have seen a different tables in the championships regins' articles. Compare the following articles: List of WWE Champions, SMW Heavyweight Championship, Memphis Wrestling Southern Heavyweight Championship, SMW Beat the Champ Television Championship. They are different between them. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Both of you are right on those ends. I had no idea you've been editing out of a PS3. Day-umn! I can tell there's been a major change in the project where a lot of our veteran members have retired. I see a lot of new users though which is always good. That said, anyone against enforcing the five points? If not, we can start a collective plan to fix some of the articles in need of attention. --UnquestionableTruth-- 18:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Cool. I can help, but English it's no my native language, so I can oly make small changes. Other thing, for example, the PPVs. WWE PPVs have a lot of sections, like Aftermatch or Background, but I see a lot of PPV without this develoment, like TNA (Hardcore Justice, Bound for Glory IV), ECW (Living Dangerously) and WCW (Bash at the Beach). If the project make some changes, we have to do them in ALL the articles.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I think I know the problem here. Simply put, we lack a prepared "next generation". We should make a concerted effort to educate the (current) regular Pro Wrestling editors, many of whom are "red names" and haven't been to this Particular portal before. They are the ones doing the bulk of editing now and they are unfamiliar with the style guide leading to all the problems mentioned above. In addition to the problems I keep seeing Wrestlingattitute popping up as a source. Anyway, a concerted effort must be made to identify these "new users" who regularly edit the articles and to bring them here to teach them the style guide. I can name seven after some research: Sir Wrestler, SCWA Ladies Champion, Valentfred, Jeffhardyred, GamingWithStatoke, Lets Get Weird and Hemmeband17. We need to make them a part of the solution, instead of being potential problems. Starship.paint (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Haven't been on too much lately (not by choice, of course), but I agree with UnquestionableTruth's original bullet points concerning the project. I also try to do those particular tasks, and you're also correct in that a lot of folks don't seem to notice/adhere to the style guide. A decent amount of week-to-week event edits and such are from IP's and I try and remove them when I'm on, although lately I've also been doing too much page skimming, but the user names mentioned by Starship.paint also are guilty. I agree that those users who are sincere in contributing to the project should be taught the style guide, but I guess I'm not sure how to do that one. I just stumbled upon here a couple years ago, found the style guide, and sorta taught myself from there. Actually, most of the guide contains stuff I would have done anyway, such as 'WrestleMania' and 'SmackDown', should kinda be common sense to a long-time/passionate fan in my opinion. And also a new level of respect for InedibleHulk working on a PS3. InFlamester20 (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary (or possible) to teach everyone the style guide, but showing it to those who make mistakes would be pretty simple and possibly effective. Just a quick link to it on a talk page or in an edit summary. I'm getting a laptop this month, so I'll be much more efficient at correcting things soon. But thanks for the respect. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we could formally induct (haha?) these new users into the WP:PW community. I'm thinking of sending them a link to this page through their talk page. Bring them here, drink some tea... hello hello and all of that. Starship.paint (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is the project inactive? Well, some people burned themselves out. Other people moved on to different phases of their lives. Not a lot of new people took a big role in the project, because interested editors had been chased away. Rather than mentoring newcomers, the approach was often edit wars, criticism, and an insistence on doing things a certain way "because that's just how it's done" or "because someone said that we had to do it that way in an FA review." In the pursuit of "being viewed positively" by the Wikipedia community, the project tried to justify its existence with featured content. Between over-application of (sometimes unhelpful) suggestions and a perpetual inferiority complex ("I think everything is harder for people who write about an unappreciated topic like professional wrestling, so I'll try to have sources declared unreliable and articles deleted to justify my self-fulfilling prophecy."). All of this, combined with people who left in anger and directed their later efforts to attacking the project, left it somewhat of a ghost town. Does this mean the project is unsalvageable? Of course not. But it would take a lot of co-operation and understanding to bring new users into the fold. (Please note that I am not an active member or editor, and I'm simply in a state of limbo because I'm stuck at 98 DYKs and don't want to leave without 100 but can't bring myself to write 2 more articles, so I just check my watchlist 2 or 3 times a week). Oh, and your five points sound fine. I never liked the idea of Wikipedia deciding what constitutes a PPV main event (much like my distaste for Wikipedia deciding which titles are legitimate "world championships"). GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been busy writing an NFL article and doing related image work on the Commons, but if there's something needing to be done, let me know because I'm still around. Regards, — Moe ε 19:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry guys, had a busy start of the week. Anyway the ponts brought up here have been pretty informative. It is true that a lot of people have moved on to other things. Perhaps as suggested in a cooment above we should engage in a concentrated effort to educate some of the lookie loos?--UnquestionableTruth-- 18:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Ray Whebbe hosted a wrestling talk show in the Twin Cities, on either WCCO or WWTC (I forget exactly), ca. 1990-91. His co-host, known as Scooter Pie, was a local radio guy who was also involved with the wrestling promotion run by Whebbe at the time. One time, they discussed the problem that there's no institutional memory on the part of the fan base, using as an example the fact that many of the "shining stars" from the "golden era" of 1984 and 1985 had been largely forgotten about by then. Scooter, who mostly wisecracked about everything, summed it up when discussing those fans: "They're probably all in jail by now." Anyway, the lack of institutional memory is most certainly a problem. If I really felt like it, I could probably compile a list of 100 modern-day indie wrestlers who have Wikipedia articles, who combined haven't sold as many tickets as did Larry Chene, who doesn't have a Wikipedia article. Also, InedibleHulk makes a valid point. Because it's impractical to lug my laptop around while working, the vast majority of my Internet access for the past 13 months has come from my by-now-ancient smartphone (an HTC Hero), which I'm sure is about the same as a PS3 inasfar as physical and technical limitations. I've been ready to give up on more than one occasion from losing work-in-progress because it was a little too much for the phone to bear. I'll offer my own list of issues:
  • PW articles which feature extensive portions in which the only wlinks are to other PW articles, no matter whether it may be more appropriate to link to other things.
This is inherently bound to happen, since most of the Career section will naturally refer to wrestlers, promoters, promotions and many other facets of this unique world. (Your point list here itself has three PWikilinks and zero other. One, I mean. Or two...) But yeah, if there's any term that should be Wikilinked in any article (not just wrestling), I generally turn it blue. I like the "branching" aspect of this site, it leads to learning more than we're biased towards seeking out. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Biography articles which consist of excessively detailed accounts of wrestling storylines and treat the remainder of the subject's life as an afterthought.
Yep. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Being very careful about the historical presentation of the differences between WWWF/WWF/WWE/etc., yet not affording this same courtesy to the territories, which are often presented in articles in terms more appropriate to describing modern-day wrestling promotions.
Not following you. Example? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Similarly, in many bio articles, giving more weight to a particular wrestler's limited appearances in WWF(E)/WCW/TNA or similar, giving short shrift in the process to their stints in other promotions, even when those stints involved spending years appearing in main events before thousands of people on a nightly basis.
Damn straight! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
    • (As to the last two items, this is actually understandable. I remember reading an interview Johnny Valentine gave many years ago in which he was dismayed at the attention given to Bruno Sammartino versus other stars of the era, but he explained it in terms of Sammartino being "the champion out of New York" and New York City being a media center. This was back in the days when most network television programs were produced out of New York City, before that industry largely moved to the Los Angeles area.)
  • Promoting the notion that there's only a finite number of reliable sources in the entire world. When I first began doing historical research as a hobby, back in the Dark Ages of 1985 or 1986, I used pro wrestling as a test case on how easy it was or wasn't to find things, because I knew that wrestling had a long history of being shunned by the mainstream media. I discovered back then that there still was a treasure trove of material to be found. If you've ever checked out Wrestling As We Liked It, you know that J. Michael Kenyon spent decades proving this to be true.
  • The next problem is hardly limited to this project, but treating Wikipedia as a form of video gaming, where it's all about how much self-congratulatory junk you can fill a project page or your user page with, rather than being concerned about creating a quality product which will stand the test of time in what is (certainly figuratively, if not literally) a billion-website universe. The project rates Kayfabe as high importance, but that rating must be in itself a form of kayfabe, because it's not being given attention befitting a high-importance article. Obviously, that article is a tar baby inasfar as sourcing properly, but that doesn't mean it should be effectively abandoned.
I've visited that article. It's a scary mess, but I think the mess arguing with those kinds of editors about trimming fat would be downright terrifying. Not it! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
There are other things, but I think I've said enough for now.RadioKAOS (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm back on the aforementioned crappy phone, so a more extensive reply will have to wait. I've already said plenty over the years about rampant recentism and over-reliance on Google as a means to find sources. Ever watch the WWE footage of Verne Gagne and notice that one eye of his? He took a fish hook in that eye while fishing at Lake Iliamna in August 1985. I've yet to find a source, so I haven't included it in the article (I would think such might be necessary for a BLP). Something tells me that it would be a more appropriate thing to mention than his dementia-fueled flashback to the Marigold Arena when he met Mr. Gutmann. I have a certain affinity for the Anchorage Times because my first-ever job was delivering that newspaper. Because the Times has been out of business for a little over 20 years, not much of it can found online. Going back to working 60 or 70 hours per week some weeks means not a whole lot of time to visit the library and look up microfilm. Since my main area of interest is Alaskan history, that source is such a mother lode that I'm constantly distracted when I do look it up. Maybe one of these days I'll be successful. And wouldn't you know, I found reason to wlink more non-wrestling articles!RadioKAOS (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The last wrestling article I touched was Stevie Richards. The size of TNA section compared to the ECW (or even WWF) section is unsettling. But because deleting large chunks is so tedious on this machine, I let it slide (mostly). Once I'm better equipped, I'll finish the job (and add to the good old days). Recentism is evil. On that note, at least you can actually touch your virtual keyboard or telephone keypad. I have to point and click mine, and not with a mouse, either; Castlevania-style. It also doesn't fit right in my pocket. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The point about too much recentism... well, to be honest, you're not going to get more editors who were watching wrestling in the 1980s. You're going to get more (younger) editors like myself who started watching wrestling at 2000 at the earliest (though I'd daresay a lot will be after 2007). Stevie who? Sammartino who? I don't know. Therefore, it's hard for me to care about wrestlers I've never watched before - if I have limited time, I'd rather edit articles on current wrestlers whom I'm more interested about. And the point about the over-reliance on Google... well, I don't know an alternative actually. I certainly do not have access to print material. The Internet's all I know of. Starship.paint (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
There's a fair share of us "old folks" (I'm 29, watching since '86) on the Internet, even already here on Wikipedia. Otherwise we wouldn't have the articles we do. We probably won't find many who vividly recall '40s wrestling, but the '80s weren't THAT long ago (Stevie Richards was most famous in the '00s, by the way). Lots of kid fans tune into YouTube and 24/7 Classics to see what they missed, thanks to this "WWE Legends" stuff the past decade. A ten-year-old editor can find an abundance of '80s (and earlier) info with Google almost as easy as last week's Raw results. If you, personally, are more interested in current things, that's fine. Those articles need editors, too. But you whippersnappers (in general) need to remember that not everything a wrestler does each week is encyclopedic or significant to their overall career, even if it's verifiable and relevant to this month's feud. The articles on wrestlers all unnaturally balloon in size in the post-2004 Career sections, not because the wrestler did more notable things, just that the bar on notability is lowered when we add things as they happen, instead of with hindsight. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Another thing more pertinent to Wikipedia in general versus this project in particular: it appears to me that the number of warm bodies willing to actually maintain and expand the encyclopedia is at an all-time low since I've been active on here. You have a core of active users, but many appear to be admins, WikiGnomes, full-time editors and the like, plus others who offer the appearance of having ulterior motives (e.g. people maintaining external websites based on sourced contributions to Wikipedia, people trying to push a book they wrote on a particular topic which has an article, etc.). There's a lot of politics and strange beliefs evident on here, which may frustrate people who just wish to share knowledge. Between knowing that my current lull in paying work isn't going to last forever, and the appearance that the aforementioned crappy phone may be dying, I dunno how much longer I can remain active in discussions such as this. I participate in other WPs which see far less activity than this one does, and see work which needs to be done from as long as 5 to 7 years ago which has been left to languish. In all likelihood, this is because that work amounts to drudgery and is not very glamorous, or fits in with either the interest or skill set of very few users.

Back to recentism, as well as perhaps the lack of regional perspective due to the one-size-fits-all global attitudes brought on by the Internet and television: I just noticed Category:Wrestling people from Ontario. Of the professional wrestlers listed in that category (there are also amateur wrestlers), Abdullah the Butcher is the sole entry who was a star prior to the past 10-15 years. The first name I would have added was Whipper Billy Watson, who was synonymous with wrestling in Toronto (and it could be argued that Maple Leaf Gardens was a far more important wrestling venue than even Madison Square Garden) for longer than many of the names currently found in that category have been alive. Gary Will has written extensively enough to where I don't believe lack of available information is the problem there.RadioKAOS (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Whipper Watson is now officially a wrestling person from Ontario. Oddly enough, I'm currently taking a break from an Abdullah the Butcher shoot interview. Speaking of shoots, I saw a Sammartino one not long ago where he said something about MLG shows being his biggest paydays anywhere at one point. Jack Tunney wasn't elected President for nothing! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of revisionism...

An IP just added this to the lead of Gorilla Monsoon. Thought I would share it before it gets reverted (or perhaps more importantly, before I no longer have the time to dig it up):

Despite posthumous, revisionist acclaim, Marella was widely derided during his commentary career.

The only problem I see with this statement is that in reality, it applies to just about every wrestling announcer, with the possible exception of Lance Russell, Dave Brown and Jim Ross. Yes, it even applies to Gordon Solie.RadioKAOS (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It has already been removed for being unsourced so unless someone plans to add this back I think we can bring this discussion to an end. I have to agree with the analysis you made though and unless the derision was significantly worse than it was with most other commentators I don't think its needed.--70.49.74.113 (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
That legendary quote from Bill Mercer comes to mind: "Nord the Norwegian. He's from Norwegia!" Need I say anything more? Actually, maybe I should. I read the Q&A on ol' J.R.'s site one time, with someone asking him when the WWE was going to release a DVD on announcers. J.R.'s assessment was that few people really care that much about announcers. Throughout the history of wrestling on television, half these guys looked and sounded like they did the announcing gig for $10 and a half gallon of Wild Turkey.RadioKAOS (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This reminds me of another common mistake PW editors should watch out for/not make themselves: those who call the match or babble through it are commentators, those who introduce the wrestlers and relay the ref's decision are announcers. I've fixed the Monsoon article accordingly. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Just one minor point, which I was reminded of while glancing at Kent Walton. In the UK (where English is also the primary language, duh), the term "presenter" is commonly used in place of "announcer" when referring to broadcasting personalities.RadioKAOS (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I suppose it would be right to call them presenters, if referring to their work on British TV. But Lord Alfred Hayes, though British, is a commentator, since he worked primarily for international TV. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Shelby question

WWE has been putting Daniel Bryan and Kane through a "Anger Management" storyline with a character called "Dr. Shelby" as their counselor. Last night on Raw, Dr. Shelby informed both Bryan and Kane that they will work together as a tag team to solve their anger issues. I just wanted to know if it's ok to add Dr. Shelby in the Other On-air employees section on the List of WWE personnel page or wait until after Night of Champions?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Do we know who the person behind the character is? We can't list a character as an employee. On that note, I see there are wrestlers listed as "Unassigned Employees". Wrestlers are technically not employees, but independent contractors. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Weird userpages

I know nothing of pro wrestling so could some people that do take a look at the following userpages and determine if any of these are actual legit drafts or WP:FAKEARTICLE violations?

My impression, after digging, is that a number of common IPs link these pages to User:IFL(MMA Company) & User:Fight League (IFL); all seem to be the work of User:Justin Bianco/User:Michael Cage. Before I plow into a large MfD, I want to know if any of the subjects listed above have a chance at a Wiki article.

Thanks, — Scientizzle 20:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Those pages/people appear to be fakes. Info contained in the articles are false/inaccurate/made-up. InFlamester20 (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Off to WP:MFD I go... — Scientizzle 13:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Link: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sammy Vega — Scientizzle 14:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Can someone else move this?

Kendell Windham recently had an "a" replaced by an editor who says he read it should be "e" in unspecified "public records". I've reverted the article text and added a reference for the familiar spelling, but I'm not sure how to revert the page move. Someone here is sure, I'm sure. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This editor is rather busy today. Sheesh. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Doing it now!--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed a lot of this sort of thing from this user fairly recently, not just today. If these are based on "public records", it should be easy enough to look up in this day and age. The only question would be whether or not providing a URL is appropriate, such as maintaining compliance with BLP policies, or whether or not the maintainers of these sites appreciate or support having such a link from this website to their website.RadioKAOS (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Even if true and sourced, this doesn't affect his ring name, which is what was changed in the billion or so articles mentioning him. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Is there a way to add the extra "b" back to every instance of "Brian Knobs" on Wikipedia with one button? That's a trickier one than undoing "Kendell" since there are good edits since then. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Lynn Denton should be moved back, too. You may remember him (like the rest of the wrestling world does) as Len Denton. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Brian Knobs was moved due to an alleged e-mail, despite all sources in the article calling him Brian Knobbs. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been following this on my watchlist since this user became more and more active, but not to any great extent. To figure it out better, I just went through Special:Contributions/Wrestla1967. Wow. All I can say is that this appears to be a rather extreme example of an SPA. I get the impression (again, without paying enough attention to say for sure) that very little to none of this is properly sourced. Any of WP:AIV/WP:BLPN/WP:RSN may be appropriate places to report this to.RadioKAOS (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems like most of the edits are "sourced" to things he claims to have read. The Brian Knobbs move (still uncorrected *nudge, nudge*) was made by a seemingly different editor, but(same guy) with similarly unreliable sources. Wrestla1967 sure seems involved, though. Especially here. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Here's something else which came to mind yesterday. My phone is back to screwing up on me, so I had to wait until now to mention it. I've watched more than one WWE DVD featuring footage of Kurt Angle from before he became a pro wrestler. This footage offers clues, if not obvious evidence, that his surname actually is/was Engle. There are far too many revisions to that article to pour through to say for certain, but it appears that our friend hasn't even touched that (nor has anyone else, for that matter). As for Kendall Windham, his article states that he was convicted of counterfeiting. I haven't spent very much time at all going through U.S. District Court records (state court records are a whole other matter), but that should be able to provide insight as to the legitimacy of these revisions and the claimed "sources".RadioKAOS (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
It would help establish the spelling of his legal name, but it wouldn't affect WP:COMMONNAME, which makes it clear that the article title should follow the most commonly known name for the subject. Kendall is the clear winner there, so the article needs to be located at Kendall Windham, and any reference to him as a wrestler should follow suit. If his legal name is Kendell, then that should be noted in the lead, and should be used in the personal life section. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The article in question has been moved again by the same user. It should be moved back and possibly protected so the user can't do so again without a consensus.--174.93.171.108 (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I've fixed the Windham article, though haven't moved it. He has sources for the legal name, but this doesn't affect the ringname at all. I agree it should be protected from improper or unilateral moves, if possible. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Add NXT Championship to List of current champions in WWE?

I've noticed that the NXT Championship has the WWE logo on the belt design. Does this make the championship and it's current holder Seth Rollins apart of the List of current champions in WWE?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say no, unless it's actually been defended/featured in WWE proper. Even those replica belts they sell have a WWE logo on them. It doesn't make Living Room Champion Little Billy Johnson a legit WWE champ. Sorry, Billy (and Seth). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It is an official WWE title belt, I don't see why it shouldn't be listed as a WWE championship? KANE 22:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

List of WWE pay-per-view events

Hello, could I please request that the article List of WWE pay-per-view events by protected as it has been vandalised a lot recently. I have posted on the articles talk page too but I though if I post here it will get noticed quicker, thanks, KANE 22:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Rumors of a WWE-AJPW alliance

PWInsider.com has reported that WWE and APJW will be entering some sort of a talent exchange/alliance with each other. I've posted the link to both pages, but should I continue adding more info when or if WWE and AJPW acknowledges the rumor?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd remove the whole thing until either WWE or AJPW confirm it as more than just a rumor. At this point AJPW's website has nothing on it and neither does Tokyo Sports (the original source) or any other major Japanese pro wrestling site.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Article Assessment

I want to request an article for assessment however when I check Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Assessment it tells be request below but I see nothing. Can someone show me where to ask for an assessment on an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamingWithStatoke (talk • contribs) 18:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

What article do you need assessed.--Dcheagle | Join the Fight! 21:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Dcheagle, sorry for the wait, I have several projects on the go but I'd like you to assess Taka Michinoku Yoshihiro Tajiri and Vampiro — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamingWithStatoke (talk • contribs) 19:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
GamingWithStatoke, If you want a GA review, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations. On a separate note, I need Extreme Rules (2012) assessed for GA. Could you help out, Dcheagle? Starship.paint (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Championship list images

Hello, a bit of a dispute has arisen regarding the lead images on championship pages, and I'd appreciate it if others could chip in opinions. Essentially, the dispute goes like this: For a while, championship lists used an image of a champion with the belt, even if that person was not the current champion. It simply used the best image we had. (example) In recent times, users have started switching the lead image to one of the current champion, with or without the belt. (example)

I disagree with this, because I think it's more important to show what the belt looks like (after all, it is a list of CHAMPIONS) as opposed to going for recentism. I noticed this yesterday and made some changes. The US champion list used an image of Claudio Castagnoli long before he became Antonio Cesaro. The List of WWE Champions used double stacked images, which collided with the table below. I switched the images, and didn't expect a problem. But there was one.

Now a user has come up with a one-person "compromise", decreeing that from now on champions lists should use an image of the belt, with an image of the champion further below. (example) I disagree with this because 1) The page is about the champions, not the belt itelf. and 2) The images further below collide with the tables on smaller browsers.

So could some others please chip in on this. Thanks, Scorpion0422 18:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed 100% on all accounts. The picture of the lone belt is unnecessary on a list of champions, it fits just fine on the main page of the title itself.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I also agree with this, only use the championship belt image when there's no one holding the belt at the time. Vacancies only.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
What about the original issue. Should the page use an image of the current champion, even if they aren't depicted holding the belt, or an image of any former champion with the belt? -- Scorpion0422 18:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I say use the image of the first champion who won it, and maybe use a image of a champion when a title belt changes looks.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I say use the best pic of a champion wearing/holding the belt.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd say that automatically including a picture of the most recent title holder is giving too much weight to recent events. There are a few options as I see it - having a high quality picture that clearly shows the title belt; having a collage showing several different pictures of the title belt and title holders, or having a picture of a title holder who is strongly associated with the title (the last is a bit subjective, but there are a few instances where I think it would be appropriate, e.g. Davey Boy Smith for the WWF European Championship or Edge and Christian for the WWF World Tag Team Championship). McPhail (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I would say at the very least the last picture used for the US Championship article was not good because not only does it not show the belt the picture of Claudio Castagnoli was taken over 4 years before he even joined the WWE and his appearance has changed quite a bit since then.--70.49.73.84 (talk) 04:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I have since found a more up to date picture of Cesaro. But to the point at hand, I don't see what the problem is with including the current champion. He is the one who presently has the title, and people may not know who the current champion is (and unlike what some people think, it's not assuming people are stupid, but some people just simply may not know who the current champion is). I have no real problem with the "guy with belt" picture, or the record title holder's picture, but I just think it's short sighted to not include the current champion. Every article should have 3 pics--guy with current style belt, who's held it the most, and who holds it now. That covers both the past and present history of the title. It doesn't "tilt" the article to the present, just gives a quick acknowledgement to it. Vjmlhds 01:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. The article is "List of United States Champions", no WWE United States Championship. I think that we can put a Cesareo's picture in the WWE United States Championship's article. Also, maybe we can do like WWE Hall of Fame, we put to the right some pictures of important Champions. For example, in the List of WWE Champions, we can put Hogan, Rock, Austin or Cena. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Article Assessment

I want to request several article for assessment however when I check Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Assessment it tells be request below but I see nothing. Can someone show me where to ask for an assessment on an article. I was for the assessment of Evan Karagias, Hajime Ohara, Taka Michinoku, Vampiro, Tajiri and Yujiro Kushida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamingWithStatoke (talk • contribs) 16:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Jado

I have made an 8k improvement to Jado's professional wrestling career section and will be needed to be assessed and most likely go to start status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamingWithStatoke (talk • contribs) 19:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't do assessments, but I copyedited the article. For future reference, do not write things like "would go on to win/lose/do" when you can say "won/lost/did". "They" also is usually better than "the pair/duo/tag team". The fewer words, the better. It might make sense to have the stuff with Gedo in The World Class Tag Team and only Jado's single stuff here. I appreciate your efforts, however. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

How reliable is prowrestling.net

I need to use prowrestling.net as a source but I want input from WP:PW before do.--Dcheagle | Join the Fight! 21:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd consider it a sister site to PWTorch, with the same standard of reliability (acceptable). There might be something I'm overlooking, but until I'm aware of it, you've got my blessing (for what it's worth). However, that only applies to stuff written by the site's staff, not reader-submitted stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok thats what I Thought.--Dcheagle | Join the Fight! 00:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it's definitely reliable enough for TV/PPV/DVD reports. Some info about the organization... co-founded in 2008 by Jason Powell, an ex-editor for PWTorch and Fanball Magazine -> See archive link. The organization also offers paid membership for access to more exclusive news or podcasts much like other websites we consider credible, such as F4WOnline, PWTorch. Starship.paint (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Tag Team relevance

I know that, since articles like ShowMiz, Jerishow or The Unholly Alliance, we have created a lot of Tag team Articles. But I think that this has gone very very far and we need to decide again what makes a tag team relevant. For example, The Encore. One day and the stable has his own article, but I can't see why is relevant. One day only... Or Team Hell No. Yeah, Kane and Bryan have a feud, but they do nothing relevant as a Tag Team. I think that a Tag team regin is not relevant, in that case, we can create articles like Eddie Guerrero and Tajiri, Rey Mysterio and Rob Van Dam or Edge and Chris Benoit. Other examples, the Chickbusters. They only had weekly matches and we have the rule "no weekly event". Also, we have a lot of Tag teams that only focused in singles carers, not in Tag Team action, like TnT or Angelina Love and Winter. I think that we must discus it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I have been rating unassessed articles and have seen a lot of these, and I agree. All examples mentioned should at most be sections in their individual articles. Kane & Bryan COULD with time get an article but the rest do not really have the team notability or accomplishments to warrant an article.  MPJ -US  10:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it is too soon for Kane and Daniel Bryan. Since they are still an active team they could one day do enough to warrant a separate article but not at this point. I may be wrong but I believe a similar criteria was used for Jerishow and creating an article for them was held off until there was enough content.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Funny, I was thinking about this very subject since I've last been on here. Unfortunately, all I can do is rehash my previous comments - these articles seem to proliferate for the same reason that PPV articles proliferate - it's easy to take the contents of another article and just change a few words around. Tag teams which were talked about decades after their heyday, such as Larry Hennig and Harley Race or Black Gordman and Goliath? You might have to start from scratch.RadioKAOS (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I mean, The Chickbusters? I don't think they are relevant. They haven't important feuds, storylines nor PPV matches, only weekly matches. The other kind of Tag Team, TnT. TnT had one match, won the titles and lose them. No more, no storylines, no feuds, only a long tag team championship regin without defences. Also, Love and Winter, the most part of the article talks about how one of them fights for the KO Title, but no TAG TEAM action. It's a article about the storyline or feud, not about the Tag Team and we delete aricles like Austin-McMahon feud or Cena-Edge feud. Finally, Encore? One day? Do you remember A.P.P.L.E or The Dashing Ones (Rhodes/Mcintyre). C'mon, we must discuss about why a Tag Team is relevant and don't create the first alliance between two wrestlers. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the first criteria should be longevity. Roughly two years for an older team or six months for a newer one (to account for the storyline acceleration from all this extra airtime). Exceptions can be made for teams that had an exceptional prominence, like The Mega Powers, The Superpowers or The Power Trip. I'm still a fairly big wrestling geek and I've never heard of The Chickbusters or TnT. I sure remember Dave Wagner and Rick Renslow, but they aren't notable either. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC) Fun fact: Searching Wikipedia for "Rick Renslow" gets "Did you mean Ricky Winslow?" This redirects to Rickie Winslow. That's how non-notable Renslow is; Wikipedia suggests an article it doesn't even have instead. Kind of a sad fact, actually. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The only real determining factor is whether the team is discussed in some detail in reliable independent sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

  • exactly - and discussed AS A TEAM, not individual coverage.  MPJ -US  22:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
    • True but I would suggest that length and significant feuds do play role in the sense that the longer the team is active and the more significant the feuds they are in would make it more likely that the team will receive significant coverage. I also agree that any coverage needs to be about the team itself not the individual members. Finally, since no one else mentioned it specifically The Encore should not be an article for obvious reasons.--174.93.164.95 (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
That article has been cleaned up for now. It still probably doesn't meet notability standards and uses unreliable sources, but I'm leaning towards seeing how it plays out over the next few weeks. But if someone nominates it for deletion, I won't oppose it. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
What about Rhodes Scholars? I know they just formed, but they teamed before a month ago on Raw when they faced Brodus and Sin Cara. Keith Okamoto (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
What about The Crazy Hoos (Super Crazy and Jim Duggan)? Or Jimmy Wang Yang and Shannon Moore? They wrestler together a lot. No, I think we must wait until the tag teams will be relevant. Encore, Rhodes Scholars, TnT aren't. They need to have exposeture, feuds, important Tag Team storylines (no weekly, poor storylines like Chickbusters, singles storylines or storyline between them). Rhodes Scholars can disband tomorrow, Encore can disband next month. We must wait until the tag teams will be relevant. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the Rhodes Scholars specifically, I don't see one previous match a month earlier as anywhere near enough significant coverage to support an article.--174.95.111.105 (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


Anyway, who thinks that we must nominate the next articles: TnT (professional wrestling), The Encore, Team Hell No, The Chickbusters --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

+Angelina Love and Winter.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I think Team Hell No stands apart, since the team has a significant storyline about it (not a mere throw-together) and belts. I wouldn't mind replacing it with The Dude Busters on the block. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I'll take this opportunity to repeat: The only real determining factor is whether the team is discussed in some detail in reliable independent sources. Time is completely irrelevant. A team could be together for a single match and warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. If there is a fair amount of discussion of the team in independent reliable sources, the article stays. If not, it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. Please put personal preference aside and stick with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (Please note that some, or maybe even all, of the teams mentioned here do not meet the notability guidelines, but not necessarily for the reasons people are claiming.) GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess. Can we at least agree to delete individual member's moves, titles, entrance music and whatnot from In Wrestling? The topic is the team, after all. Also, can we remove all mentions of Mo from the Men on a Mission article? I'll assume yes to the first question and maybe to the second, until further notice. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that the realible soucres point has a problem. You can add a lot of soucres from WON, PWTorch about weekly shows like smackdown and raw or house shows. An article like the Crazy Hoos can have 100 soucres, +100 about the individual career, but The Crazy Hooos still no relevant. #InedibleHulk, I agree ti delete individual's moves and individual nicknames. But not Individual Titles if the title was won durning the tag team. For example, Jeff Hardy won the IC Title when he was in The Hardys, but Kane never won the ECW Championship when he was in Brothers of Destruction.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
That makes sense. What about listing individual heights in the infobox? Total combined weight makes sense to me, but not this. Seems to be common, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again, saying a bunch of things I've probably already said, but...

A team could be together for a single match and warrant inclusion in Wikipedia.

Not about tag teams, but the point is still the same. Enough has been written about the 1971 Freddie Blassie vs. John Tolos match at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum over the years that, going by your logic, it would deserve its own article. If that's perhaps considered out of line, at least an article on the event or the feud. What's been mentioned about the match thus far on Wikipedia (sourced, even) is a start, though without further knowledge of the event, you may think this to be another opinion-driven invention on my part. Quite possibly there's some truth to that, though that's more the case of my understanding of the significance of that match than in deliberately trying to make something up. Yes, wrestling promotions were (semi-)regularly doing stadium shows during "the wilderness years," even if they weren't selling them out like WrestleMania does today.

My main point *is* a rehash. Reliably sourced information is everywhere. Some of it just requires work to find and bring to the table. Sgt. Slaughter told the same story about how he became a pro wrestler to sports columnist Steve Turcotte of the Anchorage Times in 1985 as he told on the Greatest Wrestling Stars of the 80's DVD twenty-some years later, minus the part about holding his own against Billy Robinson. I would hope this would clue someone in to the notion that there may be other sources out there to explore. It may very well address my most recent, as well as overall, grievances with undue weight and one-dimensional articles in general, which proliferate throughout articles covered under this project.

Something specific about other sources: there was a comment on this page some while back to the effect that sheets are unverifiable. I suppose that few or none of you were aware of the role that Factsheet Five played in popularizing sheets during the 1980s and 1990s. Therefore, you may also not be aware that Mike Gunderloy donated his collection to the New York State Library. That means that a major research library in the United States has quite a number of wrestling sheets amongst its collections. To me, that renders the verifiability argument moot. Looking at individual publications, the remaining major question would be one of editorial standards.RadioKAOS (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Did you really watch World Class? How interesting! GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Yawn. It's sad and unfortunate that you would resort to irrelevant bullshit, when you were actually on target in the first place. Evidently, intolerance of abstinence from the Kool-Aid. I dunno if it's the fault of the phone or of Android, but I'm always ending up on errant pages. Imagine my luck finding this gem:

@ANI This is an orchestrated witch-hunt by the pro wrestling Wiki-cabal... To put it bluntly, I am being harassed by a Wikipedia version of a lynch mob.

Common sense and experience tells me a few things: 1) You can point to GA and DYK icons all you want, but a GA or DYK icon and $1.49 will get me a large cup of coffee at the convenience store down the street. 2) "Reliable sources" are not limited to whatever happens to fall into your lap. People out in the real world don't care about your interpretation of a quality product, even if they aren't willing to take a personal role in correcting it. In fact, most people I know out in the real world consider contributing to Wikipedia to be a loathsome activity. 3) Yes, tens of thousands of fans at Texas Stadium actually is more interesting than your typical modern-day indie. If I remember, a chapter of Ring of Hell was entitled "Turd Polish", and with good reason. I'm supposed to be jazzed about some promotion doing TV at a Ramada Inn ballroom, with a smaller audience than for your typical taping of AWA All-Star Wrestling, hosted by someone who sounds like he was hired out of a "Be An Announcer" booth at a wrestling convention? Denis Leary summed it up perfectly when he said "You're not in the Wu-Tang Clan. You're not even in A Tribe Called Quest, asshole."RadioKAOS (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm a pretty smart person, but I just don't see what point you're trying to make. Yes, there are many reliable sources that aren't found online. People who are interested and have access to this information may very well choose to make use of these sources; I think this would be a tremendous benefit to Wikipedia. Others, who are either uninterested or do not have access to this information, are much less likely to make use of these sources. I, for one, can guarantee that I will never travel 2000 miles to read old wrestling magazines for a Wikipedia article. I feel absolutely no guilt in saying that.
My comment was in response to your frequent irrelevant reminiscing. Yes, I enjoy older wrestling. No, I don't enjoy anything that has been done in the past 15 years. I've watched some very old matches, but I don't feel the need to remind people of that in almost every single unrelated discussion on this page. I just don't get the point...are you bragging, trying to impress people you assume are younger than you?
If you have a passion for older wrestling, that's great. Wikipedia would benefit from people who are interested in older wrestling. If you have access to offline sources, that's great. Wikipedia would benefit from people who have access to offline sources. If this is the case, edit away with the blessing of everyone associated with this WikiProject. If you can fill in some of the gaps in biographies of older wrestlers, giving more weight to their earlier (often pre-WWWF/WWF career), that would be a huge step forward. If you can convince more people to join your cause, more power to you. If you feel the need to make condescending and critical remarks of people who don't share your interests, I'm just not sure that Wikipedia is the place for you. There are plenty of message boards that cater to older wrestling fans who want to talk about the good ol' days.
Remember that we are all pursuing the same goal: improvement of professional wrestling articles on Wikipedia. Remember also that, in a volunteer project, people will focus on their own interests. People don't need to justify the articles they choose to edit or the sources they choose to use. Ultimately, if you can make your goals more clear, we might be able to come to a better understanding. I just don't know what purpose the trips down memory lane are supposed to serve on this talk page... GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
My point is that we need to agree what make a Tag Team relevant. I think that isn't the Storyline/feud between the wrestlers (like Team Hell No), a name (The Encore) or the poor feud/storyline (The Chickbusters). Why we haven't articles about Robbie McAlyster, Mark Briscoe or Max Buck? Because they aren't relevant as a individual wrestlers, they are relevant as a Tag Team (The Highlanders, The Briscoes and The Young Buck). If we don't create aricles about the Ryback's local jobbers (they have a national TV match) because they aren't relevant, I think that is the same case about Encore, a stable that appear one time and can disband the next week, like APPLE. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
There is no Wikipedia guideline for relevance, because inclusion in Wikipedia has nothing to do with relevance. Articles are included if the subject is notable. Notability is demonstrated through discussion in independent reliable sources. We don't need to agree on anything, because Wikipedia guidelines are already established for this very reason. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
In that case, why The Chickbusters are notable? The most part of the article is about weekly show. Why Winter and Angelina Love is notable? Yeah, the article talks me about the Winter championship regins, the Love championship regins and a storyline between them, but not about the TAG TEAM, because Storyline isn't Tag Team. Similar, Rhodes and Sandow or Kane and Bryan. At the moment, they aren't notable as a Tag Team. Or The Encore, how is possible that a one day stable is notable? They can disband tomorrow. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
The Encore is technically a two-day stable (they did a little on Superstars). But yeah, I hear you. These teams are barely blips in the bigger picture. I think that should mean their articles are just very brief, not deleted. They have some notability by just existing in major global promotions. But, of course, an article about a team should not be at all about the individuals, if they have their own articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Soooo, do we have a conclussion? HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

NXT profiles on WWE.com

According to NXT's page on WWE.com, it looks like some of NXT's most featured superstars and divas have profiles on the website. But when I click on Seth Rollins' profile, it's just a photo gallery and a brief description of him. Should I move the featured NXT superstars and divas on the main roster on the List of WWE personnel page or wait? Keith Okamoto (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that we should merge the developmental roster with the main roster on the List of WWE personnel page or the template. NXT is now the developmental territory, developmental wrestlers should be separate from the main roster. One thing to consider though, if the NXTers do get detailed profiles on the main website, is that we include the NXT Championship in the List of current champions in WWE. Starship.paint (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"Brought to you by..."

I've been reliving a few weeks worth of Raw from 1994, and if there's anything more prevalent in the SummerSlam hype than Undertaker vs Undertaker, it's Domino's Pizza. Which leads me to wonder what the Wikiproject thinks about about having a "Sponsor" (or similar term) column in the PPV article (the ones for the event in general, like SummerSlam above) tables. I think that the particular brand associations with PPVs add a distinct, intangible overall "feeling" to the show, like the venue or main event does. Hogan vs Warrior at SkyDome wouldn't have the same soul, fueled by Snickers instead of Castrol GTX. Maybe I've just watched too much TV. But I'm sure I'm not alone in that. It's not exactly necessary information, but it might certainly qualify as interesting. Anyone interested? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, nevermind that. Quite a few events aren't explicitly sponsored by anyone, so a table would have blanks. But I've been adding the info to leads of individual events (where applicable), and would like to see a parameter in the infobox for this. Thoughts? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

As long as a citation is given, it seems like a good idea. I would use the "cite video" template from Wikipedia: Citation templates. For example, {{cite video|title=WWF Royal Rumble 1990|medium=VHS|publisher=[[WWE Home Video|Coliseum Video]]|date=1990}}. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I fortunately found a YouTube channel that has a ton of show openings ("And now, ______ presents..."). I figure they're brief enough and lacking in any "valuable" content, so there should be no copyvio problems. They've been up for 2-4 years, so probably not a linkrot risk. For shows that clearly feature the sponsor on the poster, I figure that works as an easily verifiable primary source, so used no citation. Slow work on a PS3; even cutting corners, it took me eleven hours to get these done (still need to do most In Your Houses and a few newer shows). But I'll use that template if my current sourcing is contested. Thanks for the tip. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes are still a bit foreign to me. Can I just add the Sponsor parameter to each article by simply typing it in, or do I need to edit a central infobox template page somewhere? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC) I've tried both at Elimination Chamber (2011) and Template:Infobox Wrestling event. I'm still missing a piece of the puzzle, apparently. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Got it. We now have a "Sponsor" field, if anyone cares to use it. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I would still strongly recommend providing sources (even primary ones) for the sponsors. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I have, for quite a few. Citations are tedious work with a PS3, though, and there are a lot to cite. I'd appreciate help with this. It shouldn't take long for someone with a conventional keyboard and copy/paste function. I assure everyone that the sponsor info is accurate, but if a helpful editor cares to verify for themself, YouTube channel "IDestroyallV2" is very useful. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Arsion

All my Arsion articles have been deleted which was because they are apparently not relevant, can some people vote on their speddy deletion because I think they're important. GamingWithStatoke (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion is usually placed by a party who thinks that the article matches one of the speedy deletion criteria, and a Admin then decides if it does and deletes if necessary. That does not involve voting so there is not much that anyone can do with the possible exception of adding better sources.--70.49.83.129 (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Are you actually referring to WP:AFD because in that case comments by the community would actually have an effect.--70.49.83.129 (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Taking a closer look the article was deleted per WP:A7 which means that at least according to the administrator that deleted the article that it does not even make a credible claim of importance (which is a lower bar than notability). In this case I see two choices. First, try a find better sources a for the article since they are likely extremely weak or nonexistent based on the A7 failure (I can't see the original article to know for sure. The second choice, would be if you think that the A7 is wrong would be to go to WP:DRV where the article could be recreated if there is a consensus to overturn. Please note a consensus to overturn the A7 deletion would only be a consensus that the article did not meet the narrow criteria of WP:A7 not a consensus that the article is notable or that it would survive a full deletion debate so you should try to find better sources so the article could survive a future AFD.--70.49.83.129 (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Arsion is notable, but the problem is that the articles you wrote are, quite frankly, awful. You really need to learn some sourcing and determining what's a reliable source and what's not if you're going to keep creating articles. Also, use your sandbox, don't create an article like Twin Stars of Arsion "just to save it" and then start bitching about how you weren't "fucking finished".Ribbon Salminen (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you'd be better off leaving all and any ARSION related info in the main ARSION article itself... stuff like the Twin Star championships, just merge it. You're already facing enough sourcing issues as it is. I searched F4WOnline and WrestleView and found passing mentions of ARSION but nothing much about the promotion itself. I hit gold, one single link to help you out through PWTorch. You might want to try googling site:slam.canoe.ca , there are some passing mentions there too. Starship.paint (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

format of professional wrestler based articles

I believe there's glaring folly with professional wrestler based articles ON A WHOLE here at Wikipedia: When the real name of a professional wrestler is looked up, one is often immersed with an article, chocked full of information based predominately on the fictitious, storylined wrestling character and/or career of the person. A professional wrestler's wrestling career and character, believe it or not, is but one mere aspect of them and should not cover 95% of their article, but this is the format used in most, if not all Wikipedia articles based upon professional wrestlers. It follows the same exact logic as not having the Jaleel White article focus predominately on his Steve Urkel character; instead, there's a separate article for Steve Urkel. This is not, however, the case with Mark Calaway. Just as is the case with Steve Urkel solely being Jaleel White's on-screen character and not the man behind the character, The Undertaker is Mark Calaway's on-screen character, HBK is Michael Hickenbottom's on-screen character, etc.

In most articles based upon public figures, we learn about their: childhood years, early years, how the star started out in the industry, personal trials and tribulations, etc., but we only learn a smidgen of this at best in articles based upon professional wrestlers because they're dedicated to facts and figures relating to the professional wrestling careers or characters of the person. It makes no sense to me as to why these professional wrestlers don't have separate articles as between their major wrestling gimmicks and their real lives. It's just shocking that if people want to know about Mark Calaway on Wikipedia, they're inundated with facts about The Undertaker gimmick. You're certainly not going to get much on Mark Calaway from this article: The Undertaker.

By the way, there's currently an ongoing poll on whether to merge the Mr. McMahon article with the Vince McMahon article. I expressed these same concerns in the poll. 173.0.254.226 (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

They won't get much on Mark Callaway because there is not much to get, some personal info, the basics - but frankly what should be added about him? Hobbies? Dog's name? most of the personal info turns really trivial. Unlike Jaleel White wrestlers play a single role through out their career (That of a wrestler), keeping Kayfabe as much as possible.  MPJ -US  03:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
His dog's name actually is somewhat notable. But yeah, that's generally not the case. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Having just glanced at the article you mentioned - that article is 99% about his career as an actor, so to me I don't see the difference with wrestlers articles being 99% about their careers.  MPJ -US  03:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is the near solitary emphasis on his one "gimmick", and not even really his gimmick, but rather the gimmick's match-by-match history. (This is not only exampled by the Undertaker article, but many professional wrestler articles and only professional wrestler articles). Mark Calaway has competed in a number of different wrestling leagues with different wrestling gimmicks, done movies, TV shows, been involved in controversies, etc. What we get, however, when we view the Mark Calaway article is a match-by-match map of the Undertaker gimmick's career. There needs to be a separation between heavy emphasis on his one gimmick's feud-by-feud career and his public figure life as a whole. The Mark Calaway article should concisely touch upon his wrestling career as whole:

Example: these are his early years and where he went to K-12 and college; BOOM! this is where he went to wrestling school; BOOM! this is the wrestling industry he started out in; BOOM! he played this, this, this, this in WCW; BOOM! He spent the majority of his career in WWE as Undertaker and for more see "Undertaker gimmick" article; BOOM! He did this in hollywood (Poltergeist, Suburban Commando); BOOM! These are his controversies and criticisms; BOOM!, etc.) But when we look up Mark Calaway, what we find is his scripted match-by-match career as The Undertaker: Undertaker fights Diesel in March 1996; Undertaker then fights Goldust at In Your House Be Ware of Dog in May of 1996; Undertaker then gets in a fight with Mankind in June of 1996, Undertaker then fights Goldust again at the following pay-per-view of In Your House.

It's basically like looking up Jaleel White and getting what he did episode-by-episode on Family Matters as Steve Urkel. 173.0.254.226 (talk) 04:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The biggest difference is that Jaleel White, who has been discussed in multiple reliable sources, meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Most professional wrestlers, who are not particularly forthcoming about their private lives, most likely wouldn't meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, as they, personally, are not discussed to much extent in reliable sources. Their characters, which are discussed in sources, are notable. In the cases in which professional wrestlers are discussed, most of the information would be insuffcient to stand on its own--Jaleel White's article (probably) discusses his career as an actor, while wrestling biographies contain little information about the people as it relates to their occupations. They are hired, they work for a company for several years, then they move on to a different company. They aren't constantly hired for this, this, and this. They just remain employed. Not much to write about there. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
True, there may be a few wrestlers who are notable outside of their careers as wrestlers (Jessie Venture, possibly Chris Jericho due to his band etc) but that is not the case for most wrestlers so a separate article under their real names would likely not work and even if they were created would likely be merged back to their stage name articles.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, if the leading argument for keeping a massive timeline of Calaway's fictitious character appearances under his biography article (and other wrestler's alike) is "not enough noteworthy acts as his real-life self", should we then saturate the following succinct biography articles with lengthy timelines on their most popular reoccuring roles: Josh Saviano, John Lawlor, Roger Perry, Helen Kleeb? After all, these are all individuals who seem to have done only a few noteworthy acts in the entertainment industry, yet they have articles that don't focus on their popular fictitious roles. Besides all this, I believe with the amount of times that professional wrestlers switch wrestling companies, make returns, change gimmicks, get legit injuries, do behind the scenes work in the wrestling industry, involve themselves in wrestling training, and sometimes work outside of the wrestling industry as well, there would still be a significant amount of information in a professional wrestler's biography article. Bottomline, I think it's ridiculous to have a timeline of a public figure's fictitious character appearances from beginning to end, taking up 90% of their biography article. I believe all this material ought to be covered in separate article about their fictitious character. The separate article on the fictitious character would: first, actually describe the wrestler's fictitious character; detail its past and present and and how it came into being in a literal and figurative sense (Undertaker character has a complete childhood and history, different from that of Mark Calaway, in which he committed arson/murder on his family, burning down his funeral home as a child and running away from home), followed by going into this "timeline of appearances" that we're currently using as wrestler biographies /: \. All the more reason to separate fact from fiction is that multiple wrestlers can, and have been known to play these fictitious gimmicks (and not under impostor roles like fake Kane and fake Undertaker). For example, all wrestlers who've played The Doink The Clown character, the 2 wrestlers who've played the Diesel character, the two wrestlers who've played the Sin Cara character, etc. 173.0.254.226 (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

~

Even if we did separate the gimmick from the real life person into two articles we would still run into the issue of the other Users here who believe Pro Wrestling shouldn't even be included in this encyclopedia. So unless some major policy's were changed around here to stop that from happening I don't see this getting anywhere.--Dcheagle | Join the Fight! 05:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
That's why, in spanish wikipedia, we have some wrestlers under them real name. I think that the point is the difference about a Gimmick (trademark name) and a Stage Name. For example, John Morrison is a trademark owned by WWE. Hennigas isn't John Morrison, because John Morrison is a character created by WWE. He is best known as John Morrison, but Morrison still being a character. Now, he wrestles as John Hennigan because he can't use a WWE's trademark. On the other side, we have Austin Aries. Mr. Solwold uses the name Austin Aries as stage name, he promotes himself under this name, he owns the copyright... Dan Solwold IS Austin Aries, like Stefani ermanotta is Lady Gaga. We can write about Dan Solwold as Austin Aries because he is Austin Aries, also, we can talk about Austin Starr because Aries performing under that name.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree Pedigree 173.0.254.226 (talk) 08:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a misconception that wrestlers should follow actors in format - they're not 100% actors, not 100% athletes but somewhere in between, they're a mixture of fact and fiction that does not really exist in any other venue/sport/entertainment segment that I know of. What is my point? My point is, why try to brassknuckle wrestler profiles into something they aren't (they're not actors). Accepte them for what they are, unique - and the focus on defining HOW should wrestler profiles be formatted - not saying "They need to be like Jaleel White" because they're not like Jaleel White.  MPJ -US  23:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
So let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. Your position is: The Undertaker gimmick is partly factual of Mark Calaway out of character and that he's not completely acting, thusly a timeline of his gimmick appearances should continue to detail 95% of his biography article?! Call me crazy but I don't find the following video partly, or even sightly, characteristic of Mark Calaway out of character: [2]. To me, it looks as though he's acting out a role. Besides that, let's say for argument's sake that the gimmick was very characteristic of Mark Calaway and that he did talk of "burying souls" while out of character. At the end of the day, it's all still a character he's acting out because it follows a scripted format. Due to the scripted nature, he's not being 100% who he is out of character. When actors commonly say "the role I'm playing is exactly like me out of character", it doesn't mean that due to these similarities, the actor has stopped "acting" when playing the role before an audience. As long as there's any such pretenses for public audience display at play, it's still acting. You say that professional wrestling is not acting. I contend that professional wrestling is a category of acting. It encompasses predetermined match outcomes, lengths, formats; scripted promos; gimmick; etc. In fact, our very own Wikipedia definition of acting is: a person in theatre, television, film, or any other storytelling medium who tells the story by portraying a character". Wrestling is a category of acting that resolves its issues within the realm of a scripted storyline, solving issues through scripted combat. As a whole, professional wrestling encompasses predetermined match outcomes, lengths, and formats; promos, which follow scripts and general script directions; and storylines designed by a creative team, as shown here [3]. 173.0.254.226 (talk) 08:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I keep trying to give you an answer, but you keep edit conflicting me by editing your question. So I'll just say I agree with MPJ-DK. Wrestlers aren't like sitcom actors. If Jaleel White was "Urkel" ~300 days a year for ~20 years, I could see your point. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Here's where your logic collapses, IncredibleHulk. Kevin Nash is a professional wrestler who only played the Diesel character from 1993 to 1996 (a span of only 3 years), yet this timeline of his fictional Diesel character's first to last appearance is still taking up a significant portion of his biography article. Now, Paul Reubens, on the other hand, spent a full decade performing as Peewee Herman. Moreover, the SEPARATE Paul Reubens article even notes: Reubens would be completely committed to his character, doing all of his public appearances and interviews as Pee-wee. Yet, under the same circumstances, we do not have a timeline of Peewee's first to last appearance on Peewee's Playhouse taking up 95% of the Paul Reubens article. 173.0.254.226 (talk) 09:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The "Diesel" stuff takes up a significant portion of the Professional Wrestling Career section of his biography. As it should. I'd have no problem with you expanding Reubens' "Pee Wee" section. But they're like apples and oranges. Also, my name is InedibleHulk. No relation to Bruce Banner or Terry Bollea. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Please don't put words in my mouth to make it support your position - let me put this clearly. My position is that the Undertaker is a wrestler, his article should be judged by the standards of a WRESTLER, not an actor, just like we should not force articles about fruit to adhere to the format of an actor because a banana appeared in commercials dressed up as a super hero. As long as your stance is - "I don't care if they have their own format, I want them to use the format I think they should use", I have nothing to add cause we already know your stance (ad nauseum).  MPJ -US  11:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
One last thing - we are discussing wether or not wrestler articles should have all the info in ONE article or multipl, not if the content should be changed, reduced, incresed or anything else, just where it is located in the articles. Should we not focus on improvements and not movem--173.0.254.226 (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)ent? Does it make Wikipedia better or worse by moving stuff? I see no improvement in any way at all achieved by the suggested approach, so excuse me while I look at ways we can actually make stuff better instead.  MPJ -US  11:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Show how exactly words have been put in your mouth; you wrote that wrestlers: are not 100% actors, not 100% athletes but somewhere in-between, they're a mixture of fact and fiction. I responded to that by telling you false: when Mark Calaway portrays himself as a supernatural, morbid character and follows a scripted storyline, believe it or not, he's 100% acting. I said that when he, and other wrestlers alike, are acting out gimmicks and following scripted storylines, it is acting. Now, it might not be the exact same category of acting as we see in a sitcom, but it's still acting. It's a category of acting that must involve scripted physical combat. Nowhere in the dictionary does it say that acting requires the existence of sitcom format, believe it or not; acting, even as described on wikipedia, is merely a person in theatre, television, film, or any other storytelling medium who tells the story by portraying a character. Professional wrestling takes the format of a storyline that leads to a wrestling match that's direction and outcome is scripted. You then reply to all this with fancy bolded letters and accusations of me putting words in your mouth. Show me where! You also add, superficially so, simply that Undertaker is a wrestler while failing to note what "professional wrestler" actually means under these specific terms, which is: A person who acts out a character within a storyline and participates in a wrestling match that's scripted in direction and outcome.173.0.254.226 (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Lather, rinse, repeat - we get your position on this. I have stated mine, I see no point in just moving content into seperate articles, I see no benefit, no improvement to the overall quality of Wikipedia. And Professional Wrestler profiles have an established standard, it's different than actors because they are not 100% actors.  MPJ -US  11:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Yup, seems like this discussion has run its course. "You will make unnecessary cumbersome changes because of my irrelevant analogies and condescending tone" yet again fails to inspire the masses... GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me if I tl;dr, but there's a Personal life sub-section for most articles on pro wrestlers. If you want to tell the story of Mark Calaway's life, you can do it that sub-section. Are the wrestlers' personal lives so interesting and full of information that they warrant a separate article? I doubt it. Starship.paint (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

@MPJ-US: I summarized your argument and mine for the specified purposes of showing I put no words in your mouth as you accused me of, and you reply to all that by complaining of repetition instead of pointing out where exactly I put words in your mouth; OBVIOUS CONCLUSION FROM THIS: I put no words in your mouth.
You argue with some fancy bold type that "wrestlers are not 100% actors; wrestlers are wrestlers and should be treated as wrestlers"; I explain to you that a "wrestler" in the context of "WWE" is an actor given the definition of an "actor". (From Wikipedia, an actor is "a person in theatre, television, film, or any other storytelling medium who tells the story by portraying a character"). I highlight to you that an actor does not have to be on sitcom television, that because Mark Calaway is not really a supernatural character legitimately involved in all these storyline feuds, he is 100% acting. You solely reply to all that with "wrestlers are not 100% actors", solely restating your position without supprting it. CONCLUSION FROM THIS: Wrestlers are acting.
The benefits of separating the biographical life of a real-life person from the timelined life of their fictitious character lies in balance and consistency. As far as balance, the amount of gimmick information is bulky and taking up too much of the biographical article on the real-life person (balance). It makes no sense to see a bunch of information on a gimmick when you look up the real person (consistency). And in fact, it's leading to conflicts and editing disputes. This is exampled on the Vince McMahon article, where due to the pure bulk of gimmick-based information, the article got to be too long and led to merging disputes between real-life person and gimmick, a dispute OTHER EDITORS BROUGHT FORTH. I only recently involved myself as a mediator because I noticed the utter absurdity with the format of wrestler-based articles. When the format is leading to conflicts and disputes among editors, it should be a wake up call.173.0.254.226 (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it's pretty obvious that Vince McMahon is the exception rather than the rule here. Unlike many of the other wrestlers, Vince has far more non-gimmick content available because he is the CEO of WWE. There's actually something to talk about. But other wrestlers have far, far less information about their non-gimmick lives that it simply wouldn't be practical to separate the articles into two. Just look at the Undertaker, which you have brought up earlier. You'd probably have the Personal life and Other media parts in the non-gimmick article... which would be rather short, wouldn't it? There's not a lot of content. How about other wrestlers? Kofi Kingston? Shawn Michaels? Samoa Joe? Kenta Kobashi? Juventud Guerrera? Do we really need separate articles for their non-gimmick lives that are 1-5 paragraphs long? Starship.paint (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
@Starship: I've already replied to the argument of "too few noteworthy acts, so it only makes sense to fill up the person's biography article with information on their fictitious character". Please read the following copy and pasted from above: If the leading argument for keeping a massive timeline of Calaway's fictitious character appearances under his biography article (and other wrestler's alike) is "not enough noteworthy acts as his real-life self", should we then saturate the following succinct biography articles with lengthy timelines on their most popular reoccuring roles: Josh Saviano, John Lawlor, Roger Perry, Helen Kleeb? After all, these are all individuals who seem to have done only a few noteworthy acts in the entertainment industry, yet they have articles that don't focus on their popular fictitious roles. Besides all this, I believe with the amount of times that professional wrestlers switch wrestling companies, make returns, change gimmicks, get legit injuries, do behind the scenes work in the wrestling industry, involve themselves in wrestling training, and sometimes work outside of the wrestling industry as well, there would still be a significant amount of information in a professional wrestler's biography article.173.0.254.226 (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I thank you for raising the four examples like Helen Kleeb. Looking at those articles, this is exactly what I do not want to happen. Small articles of less than five paragraphs which would have fit in the Personal life or Other media section of any article on a pro wrestler's article... I do not think this is the way forward. A single article is enough, we do not need separate articles' for the majority of the pro wrestlers. I am willing to look at special cases such as Vince McMahon on a case by case basis, but articles like Dwayne Johnson have also shown how pro wrestlers with special non-gimmick exploits can fit into a single article. Starship.paint (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
@GaryColemanFan: I understand that you can be hostile in a fancy-shmancy way, but I'm not here for that. I'm not here to exchange who can be hostile the fanciest. I'm here because the saturation of character information within a biography of the person who played the character doesn't make sense. And contrary to your belief, "the masses" don't agree with you. This started as a big dispute among OTHER EDITORS on a wrestler's article talkpage. It's a dispute that has been ongoing for several months and I only recently involved myself as a mediator, so stop speaking for other people.173.0.254.226 (talk) 00:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I would consider it "direct" rather than "hostile". There was a proposal put forward here. It failed to gain support. Why continue discussing it? Please note that the question is rhetorical and does not need an answer. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
@GaryColemanFan: Not only is your behavior hostile but it's downright domineering to viewers, and potential participants of this discussion: you've spoken for "the masses", told them all what their opinions are, and are now demanding that we all stop discussing it as the number of participants who've opined suits you. To any and all viewers and potential participants of this discussion out there, I do not intend on telling you what your opinions are and using it to insist on getting my way. I simply suggest what I believe to be a logical subject to focus on in a "biography of a living person" article and that's the living person, not the fictitious characters they've played. Since Wikipedia doesn't describe it as a "biography of living person's fictional character" article, perhaps a link to a separate article, detailing the fictitious character would be more appropriate. To me, the living person is the only logical subject to focus on in a 'biography article of a living person', but that's just my opinion. Take it or leave it. It's up to you, but that's my say as a mediator in a conflict that arose as a result of the subject focus being on the fictitious character. I'm not here to tell you what your opinions are however. Just think it would make for a much more logical, well-organized Wikipedia. But I leave you all with that and I'll be on my way now. :) 173.0.254.226 (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, there is an ongoing (rather, stagnant?) discussion on whether to merge the Vince McMahon and Mr. McMahon articles Here. Anyone care to weigh in? Starship.paint (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Info box for tournaments

We have info boxes for wrestlers, teams, stables, events, promotions and championships - would it make sense to come up with one for tournaments? or just use the champions info box? Tournaments such as King of the Ring, Leyenda de Azul etc. may benefit from one single, consistent info box? not sure of content but is it even a good idea to try to create one? MPJ -US  23:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to see it (or at least have it explained) before I can call it a good or bad idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

TNA Hall of Fame template

Is this template really needed? Having a navbox with a single entry (and, most likely, no other entries for close to a year) seems fairly unnecessary. I'd propose deleting it.

Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox is relevant here.

{{TNA Hall of Fame}}

McPhail (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, a totally ridiculous navbox. Delete it.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I recently supported censoring Right to Censor's five-entry navbox, so I guess I must also have a problem with this. The table on the Hall of Fame article is pretty pointless, as well. So is an infobox, if anyone wants one. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

How about {{LayCool}} Starship.paint (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

About as useless, but with a far lamer name. Vandalize, then destroy. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. Help me undo that will you? Starship.paint (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Nice work! InedibleHulk (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Nominated both for deletion. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 October 15.RadioKAOS (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

3 NXT articles...

Recently it has come to my attention that we have three NXT articles... NXT Wrestling, WWE NXT and History of WWE NXT. Firstly, "NXT Wrestling" is the renamed Florida Championship Wrestling article, renamed after FCW was rebranded to NXT. As for the latter two articles, it was proposed (click!) by Srsrox in August to split the article. Recently Kerbymanuel split the two articles, but I look at it now and there's still a lot of overlap IMO. I'd like for the project to weigh in on this matter... should we have only two articles, one for NXT 1-5 (proposed by Keith Okamoto) and the second for FCW + NXT6? Or any other alternative anyone wants to propose? Starship.paint (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's a litte info on what Starship eluded to. I wanted to create a NXT page that focused on the "Reality Competition" version (Seasons 1-5) and a page for the new NXT. But Kerbymanuel messed up and now there's three pages for NXT instead of the two I've proposed. The NXT Wrestling article is ok, but it needs more help. Keith Okamoto (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Begone, ye villains and heroes!

This is annoying. Wikipedia is supposed to be educational, but we're not using the proper terms for face and heel. I get that these words are a bit foreign for non-fans, but there are many terms in many fields across Wikipedia that are Greek to a far greater readership. These are explained by Wikilinks. A new reader will go "Heel? What's that?", click the link and be enlightened. Next time they see the word (on Wikipedia or anywhere), they'll recognize it. Mission accomplished. And we don't sound like idiots for dumbing it down. Who's into repealing this crap? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

And yes, I'm aware that this has been discussed. But times change (and I wasn't there). InedibleHulk (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

How about the stance that face/heel turns shouldn't be mentioned in headers? Are you against that as well? Starship.paint (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
If you mean starting a new section for every turn, yeah, I'm against that. Especially for guys who go back and forth every few months. But I'm not against it in the cases where it's genuinely a big deal. I don't think we need an absolute rule for that. Do we have one? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Of course we must add it. Everything has his jargon, but we can't eliminate it because some non-fans can't understand. For example, Linux. I can't understand anything because I'm not a geek, but I can use the Wikilink to know the words that I don't understand. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I was never a big fan of heroes and villains. I do not know if face and heel as the best terms but I think we can come up with better terms than we have now.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Face and heel are the standard among fans, wrestlers and writers. There may be better terms, but none more proper. Consider how much better Sexual intercourse could be if we replaced the proper terminology with the finest slang. But encyclopedias typically don't work that way. If you have suggestions, though, I'm listening. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that "heroes" carries quite the same meaning as "face" to begin with. I was around for these discussions back in 2008; I opposed removing jargon then, and I support putting it back now. I realize that trying to draw a parallel with other subjects isn't always the best way to explain a point, but I think it is appropriate to look at a subject like baseball--it would be awkward and confusing to try to remove jargon or to explain it all within a biographical article. If a pitcher has a 2.37 earned run average, say so. The wikilink is sufficient for most of these cases. If an explanation of the term flows naturally, add it in. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
The kayfabe rags used to refer to "fan favorite" and "rulebreaker", which is probably about as meaningless to the uninitiated as "face" and "heel". Yes, filling up every article explaining something in place of a wlink to another article which serves the same purpose is plain stupid.RadioKAOS (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
A very good point. These terms have always been somewhat problematic (eg. at the height of his Hulkamania run, Hulk Hogan was a blatant cheater), but they perhaps became even more so in the "Attitude" era, when "anti-heroes" became commonplace and more people began cheering for the heels. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, Hogan's heel turn started for me at WrestleMania VII. I don't care if you're fighting Satan himself, throwing powder is a dick move. But, as is clear by Team America: World Police, the world needs dicks to fuck the assholes, and Slaughter certainly was. So perhaps we should define wrestlers as dicks, assholes or pussies in addition to the traditional faces or heels. That should clear things up, for modern times. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's a pretty strong consensus. I'll rewrite the part of the MoS that recommends "heroes" and "villains" (and "damsels", if it's there). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_86&oldid=1190142869"