Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 99

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95←Archive 97Archive 98Archive 99Archive 100Archive 101→Archive 105

Forbes = unreliable source

When people cite Forbes as a source on professional wrestling, what they're usually citing is the latest rambling by Alfred "Big Nasty" Konuwa, a prominent wrestling "columnist" from Bleacher Report[1] (a banned source here in the wrestling section) who has graduated to writing silliness for Forbes. Poor quality reporting has followed Konuwa from Bleacher Report to the bigger platform of Forbes. Here, he cites Wrestling Inc (a banned source) for his nonsense article on CM Punk's "struggles".[2] Outlawed sourcing raises its ugly head again here,[3] and again, here.[4]

Konuwa's Forbes colleague Blake Oestriecher is no more respectable, considering Wrestlezone (banned source) a worthwhile outlet.[5]

I'd like to see Forbes added to the list of unreliable sources at WP:PW/RS, and the patently unreliable "Big Nasty"/Konuwa singled out as a banned author given his long legacy of garbage reporting. Anyone else? 2A02:C7F:8E43:2F00:A80F:54FD:B301:62B5 (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

When looking at Forbes homepage, under TODAY'S TOP STORIES they list the authors as either "contributor"s or "Forbes staff". All of the wrestling articles, as far as I can tell, have authors listed as "contributors". Konuwa's bio describes himself as a "pro wrestling columnist and video blogger for a leading national sports website since 2010." This leads me to believe the wrestling part of their site is a WP:NEWSBLOG and should only be used for opinions, such as in reception sections on PPVs. Thoughts?LM2000 (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Categorically disregarding a generally high-quality source such as Forbes because of one particular blogger who appears on their website is a VERY BAD idea. If you need to blacklist the blogger, that's fine. I dunno if anyone else took the time to read some of the coverage of Linda McMahon's campaigns for U.S. Senate, but I did. We appear to have project regulars who didn't read any of it and didn't realize or care to realize that much of what was written is rather relevant to telling an encyclopedic story about professional wrestling. Of specific interest to me was the mention of her pre-Titan Sports career in the field of copyright law. I figured out as long ago as 1985 that the company was basing their economic model on intellectual property rights more than on the traditional "bread and butter" ways the business had used to make money. The idea appears to be that if fanboy website writers don't possess such a perspective, then our readers don't need to be bothered with such a perspective, either. There's also the rather scary suggestion that some may believe the New York Times and Washington Post to not be reliable sources because they aren't on the project's list of cherry-picked websitesapproved sources. I'm sure that many of you have grown tired of me pointing out that that page may be impeding some editors' understanding of reflecting higher-quality sources when they exist. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
It's obvious that Forbes is generally a reliable source. We just need to use columns and blogs appropriately.LM2000 (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

SmackDown Live

There is a lot of inconsistency in articles using the terms "SmackDown" and "SmackDown Live" that should be sorted out.

  • "performing in WWE under the SmackDown brand" vs. "performing in WWE under the SmackDown Live brand"
  • "On the October 11 episode of SmackDown" vs. "On the October 11 episode of SmackDown Live"

Not sure if I'm missing any other cases in which these occur, but these are really the main ones. Sekyaw (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. lol. They call it SmackDown Live, the logo says SmackDown Live, so I would assume the brand is the SmackDown Live brand...as much as I hate to say that because I hate the SmackDown Live name. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 02:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, SmackDown is the brand, SmackDown Live is the show. oknazevad (talk) 02:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
See, Okanzevad, that's what I've been thinking. I just don't know, it's like when TNA Wrestling first changed the name of TNA iMPACT! to Impact Wrestling. People weren't sure if it was the show's name or the company name. lol. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 02:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Three submissions at Articles for Creation

Hello, folks. We have three submissions at Articles for Creation that address various regional championships. We would greatly appreciate your input as to the notability of these championships.

The three submissions are Draft:NWA Tri-State Heavyweight Championship (original), Draft:NWA Louisiana Tag Team Championship, and Draft:NWA Columbus Heavyweight Championship. Comments can be left on the talk pages of those drafts.

Thank you for any assistance that you can provide. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@NewYorkActuary: I'm not sure what good it's going to do. I was patrolling new pages on behalf of WikiProject Alaska from late 2011 until around 4 or 5 months ago. The egregious WP:BITE/WP:OWN complex and proclivity for brain-dead script editing, carrying out process for the sake of process and other forms of going through the motions favored by some AFC regulars is the main reason why I quit doing it, as well as various article creators and their individual OWN complexes. I grew very tired of leaving comments only to see them ignored, more often than not resulting in notable topics being deleted and non-notable topics and/or blatant spam being kept time after time. Most of the folks at AFC I've dealt with appear to view its purpose as a one-way judgement pipeline and island unto itself. A few of them appear to have no qualms about bullying and harassing anyone who disagrees with their peculiar way of doing things. I don't know how long you've been around AFC, but my experience has been that only blatant COI/spam contributors bother to keep coming back once their submissions have been rejected and/or deleted enough times. However, I do appreciate editors such as you and Anne Delong for having the courtesy to make these notifications. Several years back, WRT the aforementioned other WP, Anne left a notification regarding a submission which wound up fitting within a paragraph of an existing article. Contrast that with a submission about an arguably high-importance topic to that WP, which is also an inherently notable topic and gave indication of such in the text of the submission. I found it lying around in AFC purgatory (pre-draftspace), where it had been sitting for 13 months at that point, with zero notification given to potentially interested editors and zero improvement made in the meantime, pretty much a WP:TNT case the whole time. Regarding this project, read this failed AFD for a good example of a self-appointed AFC guardian with little regard for the health of the greater encyclopedia. A whole pattern of behavior such as this for years has led me to believe that AFC is broken. Like adminship, because it's "popular" and because it's a process mandated by WMF, I don't believe anything will fix it short of large-scale regime change, which isn't likely to happen as interest in Wikipedia continues to decline. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Very well said. Just a quick glance around AfC has been enough to keep me away. I've got no use for projects dedicated to fostering someone's inflated sense of self-worth. *insert fake coughing sound* DYK, FAC, and especially RY *another fake cough* As mentioned above, I do appreciate the notification, and I'm glad that it seems to indicate that there are people who want to take the project in a positive direction. It seems like a step forward...a bit of an olive branch, I suppose. I can't say I'll necessarily get to it, but I might be inclined to step in if it goes through the usual "irrelevant and incorrect template, improvement, identical template, improvement, ignored" cycle. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:WWF/E World Heavyweight champions moved to Category:WWF/WWE World Heavyweight Champions

Since I've been very busy with real life lately, I've been trying to catch up on some things coming across my watchlist today while I have the time. This category was WP:BOLDly moved by Davide King within the past day or so. I'm just wondering if there's something I'm missing, as I thought that category renames were supposed to go through WP:CFD in all cases. Furthermore, I thought that page names with slashes in them were generally discouraged outside of subpages in project or user namespaces. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can understand why "WWF/WWE" is a superior choice for a category name (the construct "WWF/E" has always looked awkward). But I also agree that it's unneeded. No reason that we can't just use the present name for the category. It's not like that name doesn't encompass the promotion's entire history. And the current new name doesn't succeed in being all inclusive, being it's not "WWWF/WWF/WWE". Cats don't need to go through CFD strictly, but it is encouraged to make sure that there's a thorough discussion. In this case, I would think that a consensus might emerge that "WWE" alone is sufficient. oknazevad (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move

Charlotte (wrestler) to Charlotte Flair.LM2000 (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Template color

*Treker made Template:Bret Hart look beautiful this week, this inspired me to add some color to Template:New World Order and others. I took a look around and noticed that other sports leagues and teams use signature colors for their navboxes, such as Template:Boston Red Sox. I experimented with WWE's colors on their navbox in my sandbox; with both tabs open I mistakenly saved the real template, this is what I came out with. Is this something we should implement? The only thing I'm having trouble with is getting the lists (Television, Animated, Pay-per-view and WWE Network events, etc) to be red, white and black like the rest of it.LM2000 (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty great. Very recognizable as WWE. Thumbs up icon *Trekker (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
This was previously discussed and rejected. See here. Please do not add colors needlessly per WP:DEVIATIONS. oknazevad (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Well that sucks hard.*Trekker (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
@Oknazevad: so we're not allowed to have another discussion about it? lol. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 18:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The guidelines that underlaid the conclusions of that discussion have not changed. If anything, the application of them in practice has become more thorough. So while a new discussion isn't bad, any conclusion other than what had previously been arrived at is unlikely, so let's not waste the electrons. oknazevad (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
A civil discussion is never a waste of electrons as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't have learned about these guidelines if this discussion had not come up.*Trekker (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I just read through that and it says that it's good as long as the contrast is good enough. I don't see how white/black isn't ok in that case. As well as pink/blue. I think it would be ok to start a new disscussion about this. That other one was from half a decade ago.*Trekker (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Pink/Blue actually does not provide enough contrast. See WP:ACCESSABILTY, where the tools for checking the contrast of colors are given. Black and white are accessible (of course), but outside of decoration what purpose does it serve? Navboxes are for navigating between articles, not for decorating the articles. oknazevad (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Because it's the people's signature colours. I didn't add the color for fun. I did it because it makes it directly recognizable as belonging to said person. Fine if Pink background/blue link doesn't work but it should still be able to be used when it works.*Trekker (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. Vjmlhds brought up a good point, "Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Burger King, McDonalds...they all have templates in their respective colors. They aren't sports teams." And to contradict what someone else said about WWE and TNA not being sports teams, they are organizations that sign people to contracts to perform for them, as do sports teams. So, kinda, technically. lol. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 18:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, even the sports teams' colors are contentious, especially in arrangement and having to get the colors to be accurate while still accessible (it's lead to good editors being blocked for months!) Not worth the trouble, especially since, unlike a sports team, not every bit of WWE merchandise has the same color scheme. I'd also note that Template: McDonald's has Likewise been de-colored. oknazevad (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know about the previous discussion, if I did I would've brought it here first. With that said, that was five years ago and consensus can change. These things appear to be handled at a case-by-case basis, Template:Burger King is colorful, Template:McDonalds is not. There's absolutely no difference between the changes proposed here and Template:Italian American Sports Hall of Fame, which Bruno, Savage and others get placed in.LM2000 (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support reinstating the reverted color templates and examining future colored templates on a case-by-case basis. There is no blanket ban on using colors, I don't know why we should have one for this project. Just as Template:WWE personnel currently has different hues for brands, Template:New World Order used different colored text to list various incarnations (Wolfpac/Elite in red, nWo2000 in silver, etc). These things are useful to readers.LM2000 (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support by case-by-case per LM2000.*Trekker (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose colored templates. They're both inaccessible and frankly they make the template look like some fansite from 2006 Crisis.EXE 20:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Adding a little color jazzes things up a bit, and doesn't take away from the information provided - I see no reason why templates can't have a little color to them. Vjmlhds 9talk) 22:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Adding color to the templates makes sense as certain professional wrestlers and professional wrestling groups/stables are associated with certain colors just like various sports teams. Editors should not go overboard and add colors just because they think they look nice but colors like the black/white for the NWO and pink/black for Bret Hart do indeed add something to the templates. - ZSJUSA 4:37 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Monster vandalism and WP:PUFFERY vio at Bill Goldberg

A self-righteous vandal, masquerading as the good guy (and taking advantage of the anti-IP user agenda prevalent on Wikipedia), has gone and got the article protected so he can load it up as a poorly supported hagiography (one of his sources is WhatCulture, a thoroughly reviled source within the wrestling section that's long been banned at WP:PW/RS). The Goldberg history speaks for itself.[6] 195.88.75.75 (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Persona and reception of Roman Reigns/Roman Reigns Merge Proposal

Could I possibly get the opinion of a more qualified editor in this merge discussion? The issue is whether or not Reigns's persona and its reception are independently significant enough to merit a separate article. Any input would be appreciated. R. A. Simmons Talk 18:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Notification

An image from Commons that we use of the WrestleMania 22 set design has been listed for deletion. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 22:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Mailing WWE

I found some mistakes on wwe.com title histories and I also saw them refer to the Usos as 3 time champs in their info graphic, even though they are 2 time champs. I mailed them so many times over the years, NEVER have they replied or fixed anything. I even tweeted about 20 online staff guys, but they didn't care either or just made fun of me for caring. What am I supposed to do when I want to help? Any ideas?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Simple, go with WP:RS facts. It could be a simple screw up like when they listed Rhyno as a former ECW Hardcore Champion (a title that never existed). They're people, accidents happen. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 16:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I know they screwed up, that's not why I wrote this. I want them to fix it, but they don't care about my mails or tweets. What can I do? I don't want millions of people to see false facts on TV.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

What does his have to do with Wikipedia? Please read WP:NOTAFORUM. It's not your responsibility to correct their errors, so I would really advise you for your own sake to just let it go. oknazevad (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I has much to do with Wikipedia, because if they change it, we don't have to put stars next to stuff and say "WWE doesn't list them", "WWE doesn't recognize this"... Would make things easier.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe they're leaving them out intentionally. Ever think of that? It's not your job to tell them they're wrong. It's actually pretty arrogant for you to think you know more than they do. oknazevad (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

They have these reigns in their encyclopedia, so they are errors on wwe.com.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is nothing archived

I looked through many title histories on Wikipedia and no sources are archived. WWE.com changed its design a year or so ago, many links from before that are now dead because nobody archived them. This could become a huge problem and should be discussed.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Legendas, with all respect, you can do something. Looking your contributions history, you only appear in talk pages (and send mails to WWE). You can fix the problems you see.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to be the craziest of them all who spends hours archiving every title win. The IC title is archived, the WWE World title isn't. That's odd.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes as odd as asking someone else to do something you are not willing to do. You don't want to be "one of the crazies" but instead want that someone else to be.... hmmm MPJ-DK  20:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I would probably mess stuff up with my Wikipedia skills and get banned for vandalism.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC) I just noticed that archiving the new title histories on wwe.com archives every "see more" of every reign as well. Problem solved. Only some weird dates for title wins need to be archived now. Is this a credible source: http://prowrestling.wikia.com/wiki/1993_List_of_Monday_Night_RAW_results ?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikis are never reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Today I spent hours going through WWE's title reigns, looking for dates that were off on either Wikipedia or wwe.com. I found some dates that are confusing. WWE has many title wins on Raw listed on thursdays. Raw was never taped on a thursday, right? How do they get these dates?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Tag titles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Tag_Team_Champions_(WWE) Why does it say the titles were vacated August 1977 but it's not clear when exactly? wwe.com says it was August 1, so why not just go with it?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that's another WP:SOFIXIT situation. It's okay to be WP:BOLD.LM2000 (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Well maybe there is a reason for this and WWE just went by taking the first day of the month? I saw cagematch saying August xx as well...WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Ed Francis

This appears to me to be yet another case of trying to reflect particular sources rather than reliable sources. Ed Francis was added to Deaths in 2016 and sourced to the Twitter feed of PBS Hawaii (KHET), which was tagged with {{Better source}}. As PBS Hawaii is a perfectly legitimate media organization, I'm not so sure what the problem is. Perhaps those of you who regularly read the wrestling website are aware of a "better source". I searched the website of the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, but that was a waste of time. Nothing on Ed Francis, but plenty of hits related to San Francisco and University of Hawaii volleyball player Jennings Franciskovic (huh??!!??!?!). The article itself is in poor shape and its only source contains a dead link. Just thought I'd mention this in case anyone can do anything. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move

Comment at Talk:Antonio Cesaro. oknazevad (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The Charlotte to Charlotte Flair RM is still ongoing at Talk:Charlotte (wrestler)#Requested move 29 October 2016. Feel free to chime in if you haven't yet.LM2000 (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Fixing WWE's mistakes

I always send mails from their contact page on wwe.com, but I guess the mails were never sent because I used wwe.com even though being supposed to use de.wwe.com (Germany). So I can only mail app feedback (because that adress is available on their page), but that won't help much in terms of fixing their title history errors. So are people here interested in mailing WWE about their title history errors (4 US title reigns missing, RVD as last European Champ missing...)? Would be nice if Wikipedia's and WWE's title histories are the same, so everybody knows what the truth is.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

No. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Why not? Don't you care about the official title histories being flawless? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
It's not our job. For the fifth time. And using a Wikipedia talk page to discuss something other than Wikipedia is inappropriate. Please, we've asked before, now we're asking one more time, just drop it and don't ask here to fix WWE's mistakes. That's not our purpose and task in this project. oknazevad (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree, ask me to make sure something on Wikipedia is correct is one thing, but to fix something somewhere else? Nah. I'd rather use my energy to make sure that the hundreds of championship articles that have outdated table formats are updated to the current format.  MPJ-DK  14:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Imagine if WWE would be missing 50 title reigns and we had daily discussion which title reigns we should count and which not. Then it would make sense to get WWE to fix their stuff. Now they only have a few missing title reigns, but there will be more. Why not fix it before there will be too many?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that such a hypothetical scenario would ever play out. Most of the time when a reign isn't listed it's because they don't recognize it, this is especially true with belts that they acquired from other companies; Moolah dropped her title a few times in NWA but WWE considers her reign to have been interrupted. Sometimes they recognize a reign in one place on their website but not on another, we usually make a note of this somewhere in that entry. None of this is anything to lose sleep over. If you have a question about why WWE contradicts themselves on certain reigns, this isn't the place to ask it. In case you haven't noticed, members of this project are losing their patience because you are repeatedly asking the same question.LM2000 (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

They obviously forgot 4 US title reigns.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

No one but you seem to care.*Trekker (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
How do you know they aren't deliberately refusing to recognize those reigns? They didn't always have control of the US title but it's their intellectual property now and nobody else has any say in what they recognize.LM2000 (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

WWE.com's title history states that Ric Flair's title reign ended July 26, 1980. The next reign according to WWE.com starts January 27, 1981 (Roddy Piper). So was there a 6 month vacancy between July and January? No, WWE just forgot to add these title wins: Greg Valentine beat Ric Flair on July 26, 1980, and Ric Flair beat Valentine on November 24, 1980. There is no reason for them to leave this title reigns out. And WWE calls Ric Flair a 6-time champ, without this title win he would be a 5-time champ.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

If you are this concerned about providing a perfect lineage of the US Championship, perhaps I could recommend that your time may be better spend looking for reliable sources for these reigns. Currently, the reigns you mention are sourced to wrestling-titles.com, which would not stand up to scrutiny. There is an article here that may help for reigns up at April 16, 1983. For the first reference, you could use <ref name=torch>{{cite web|title=Bring The Pain: Detailed history of U.S. Heavyweight Title|url=http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/font_color_770000_TPFKATL_font_24/article_4597.shtml#.WDs2NPkrLIU|first=Mike|last=Sempervive|publisher=''Pro Wrestling Torch''|date=2003-07-20|accessdate=2016-11-27}}</ref>, with <ref name=torch/> for subsequent references.GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Most of the WWE title history is wrong anyway because they like bending the truth. Good examples? Bob Backland is a 4 time champ not a 2. Inoki won the WWE belt. Ric Flair is a 20 time world champ, not a 16.--WillC 07:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

But in Inoki's and Backlund's cases they don't recognize these reigns on purpose, that's fine with me. But just forgetting to add these reigns is WCW style (their official title history is REALLY bad). And thanks for the PWTorch source.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is the WWE job list. Send them you CV, work with them and fix WWE.com. Until then, our "work" is Wikipedia, not WWE.com --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
But one of the jobs on Wikipedia is to gather sources. Fixing the official source (wwe.com) is therefore part of our Wikipedia job.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
What he said. Firstly, we don't have jobs here; we're volunteers. Our mission, if we choose to accept it, is to build an online encyclopedia based on sources. Where the sources conflict, for whatever reason, we use our judgement to assess the best interpretation. We don't try and change the sources, nor do we try to push novel readings of them. oknazevad (talk) 12:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
WWE are not particularly honest about history and I would prefer if we did not rely on them for information. But that's just my opinion.
Also, please use these : to format your comments, it's not that hard and makes it much easier for us to see who you are meaning to reply too.*Trekker (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Pre-taped title wins

Many title wins are pre-taped and air days or even months later. Shouldn't we just go by when it was aired? The sources for many pre-taped title wins are dead anyway, so we don't know for sure when the title was actually won. All we know for sure is when the title win was aired. And that way title wins with a negative amount of days (WWE Tag Team Championship) won't be possible anymore.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

No, we report when the title was actually won. That is the date of the actual match, not when it happens to air on tape delay. Sure, sometimes the delays can be weeks (only WWE airs live on a regular basis), but the title reign starts the second the ref rings the bell, not months later. oknazevad (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
But in a few years from now all the sources will be dead and some can't be archived (I tried to archive Pro Wrestling Torch but it didn't work). So in a few years (maybe decades) people can give random taping dates and nobody can prove that the dates are wrong. That's what bothers me, I totally get the part about the ref ringing the bell.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
So we find other, archivable sources before the links die. There's lots of wrestling result sites, even if they aren't perfect. We can't change facts just to worry about future problems. oknazevad (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

And if it's too late for some of them? Jack Swagger's ECW title reign started on January 12, 2009 and aired one day later according to Wikipedia. But January 12 was a Monday and ECW was taped before SD not Raw. So that seems like an error and there is no source for this on the ECW Wiki page.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, sometimes the world just isn't perfect. We do, and will continue to do, the best we can with the most reliable sources available. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


It is well worth noting that the last time this issue was discussed at length, the consensus favored using Air-Dates by a wide margin. Discussion was archived before action was taken, seems very appropriate to begin using Air Dates in Title History pages. As majority of users seem to agree, and only a handful of pesky/persistent users seem to disagree. Cheetoburrito (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

And the consensus at the last discussion didn't favor air dates at all. One editor was very much advocating for it, but no one ultimately agreed. I mean, that's not even a remotely disputable reading of that discussion. I brought up one potential oddball case that turned out not to be oddball after all (except that it directly lead to Broken Matt Hardy, who is very odd indeed), but the longstanding consensus of match dates was very much confirmed. oknazevad (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Paragon Pro Wrestling

Would somebody mind talking a look at Paragon Pro Wrestling? No sources are cited, and it was created by a fairly new editor who might not be too familiar with WP:TVSHOW. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Toni Storm's birthday

As I wrote on Talk:Toni Storm I can't find any source about her being born on 25 may 1991. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.3.180.234 (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Stardom says her birthday is October 19, 1995 here. It's in Japanese, but easy to figure out. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 20:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 99 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

George Kidd from Scotland

Hey there, just so you know, I've submitted this draft Draft:George_Kidd_(wrestler) to the Wikipedia: WikiProject Articles for creation. Although I'm already familiar with WP editing, I thought it was a good idea to go through the usual channel since it's my first brand new article. Reviews seem to take weeks sometimes, so I'm posting here to make sure no one starts working on something I've already worked on a lot. --Tsort142 France 13:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

PARTICIPATE ON BIG CASS' MOVE

Talk:Colin Cassady — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.40.239 (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Referencing help for AFC

Hi all,

Wondering if I could get some help for two wrestling title articles I submitted to WP:AFC awhile back? Draft:NWA City of Mobile Heavyweight Championship and Draft:NWA Columbus Heavyweight Championship were rejected because of sourcing issues. They were both declined even after I added more references. I'm a little confused since I used the same sourcing for the NWA Macon championships. I've also seen KayfabeMemories.com and Wrestling-Titles.com on a bunch of other pro wrestling articles.

By the way, I merged Draft:NWA Tri-State Heavyweight Championship (original) to NWA Tri-State Heavyweight Championship. I'm not sure if someone wants to take a look to see if I messed anything up.

Thanks. 72.74.201.80 (talk) 08:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:WWE tournaments has been nominated for discussion

Category:WWE tournaments, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion by another editor. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Wrestle Kingdom 9 - Today's Featured Article

Great work to everyone who helped get the article to featured status. Be sure to stop by the main page and check it out. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Searching for sources

I was searching for sources of the "aired on tape delay" world title wins in WWE. I typed in the original date in many different versions, same goes for the air date. I never found anything. What am I doing wrong? I see that the title histories on Wikipedia have some pwtorch reports, but I can't even find those on my own. Help me.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The last time you asked for help with sources (for the List of WWE US Champions article), I found one, gave you the link, and provided you with a fully formatted citation. You didn't use it. I don't feel particularly inclined to help again, but I would suggest you check thehistoryofwwe.com, which will probably give the date of the matches and the airdates. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm saving these links in OpenOffice and if a dispute comes up I will provide the link. But right now there are no disputes about dates so I won't bother wasting 5 hours to change one link (I don't get how to properly edit on Wikipedia, I've just done some minor things like switching dates and title reigns lengths). But thehistoryofwwe.com is just a fan made site, so it won't be eligible as a source anyways, right?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It's overseen by Graham Cawthon, who has been cited in other reliable works. This lends some credibility to his site. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

What is his connection to the business?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This is just wrong

So WWE says that Flair's 4th reign ended on July 26, 1980 and the next reign began on January 27, 1981. The two reigns inbetween aren't recognized. So what is WWE's official version for that time? A 6 month vacancy that nobody has ever heard of? WWE obviously just forgot to add these two reigns by Valentine and Flair, no need for us to say these two reigns aren't recognized, especially considering they always refer to Flair as a 6-time US Champ.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

They are not listed on their official title history, so yes, we mark them as not recognized. Whether or not they "forgot" or it was intentional, we don't know, but we notate what their sources say. --JDC808 ♫ 18:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
So what is the official explanation for the 6 month gap? A vacancy? Did they title not exist during that time? These title changes took place in the NWA and they recognized it, WWE then just forgot them, otherwise they would've said Flair's reign ended January 27.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
There is no reported explanation (I was going to check to see if there were match descriptions, but WWE.com's title histories are down at the moment). Maybe they did forget, but we can't say that or that would basically be WP:OR. Their official title history does not list them, so the only thing we can safely say is that they do not recognize those two reigns. Also, WWE doesn't always recognize NWA's history, as is the case with The Fabulous Moolah and the original WWE Women's Championship (reigns). --JDC808 ♫ 19:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
But isn't it super obvious that they didn't intentionally leave them out? And does it even matter? It happened in the NWA not WWE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrestlingLegendAS (talk • contribs) 19:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
It's WWE's belt, not NWA's (hasn't been NWA's since 1991). They're still listed here because they did happen in the NWA, but according to WWE's title history, they do not recognize them, which is why they are marked that way. --JDC808 ♫ 19:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
This has been explained to you multiple times. We don't know why it's omitted; though it's likely an error, we can't say that. Nor is it our responsibility to get them to fix it. Drop it, please. And we've also asked you to indent properly. Please start doing that. oknazevad (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Like this?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. And if the indents get too great, there's a template, {{od}}, that resets with the appropriate line from the prior post. oknazevad (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
We can't know for 100% but to me it is super obvious that they botched it. But without 100% confirmation we leave it like it is, right? What if WWE botches Andre The Giants reign and says it ended in 2008? Do we give him an official 20-year reign?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
If we cannot confirm the reasons, we go by what WWE's official history lists (I feel like I'm repeating myself here). If there is an obvious mistake, and sources can verify that, we notate that as such. Perfect example is Johnny Valentine's reign on List of WWE United States Champions. On WWE.com's title history, the end date of his reign is wrong, but the following reign dates are correct. --JDC808 ♫ 22:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
If that's what they say then we should go by it. Double champs! Like Cena and Punk in 2011. Their history, their rules.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Not entirely sure what you were trying to say, but Johnny Valentine's case is not the same as Cena and Punk's. Valentine's case that I noted above is a clear mistake (and one that we can verify). Cena and Punk was a storyline. --JDC808 ♫ 00:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Can we verify Valentine? There are no notes on these old title reigns, so who knows if WWE just says he was a co-champ for 4 years? Can we prove (using wwe.com) that that's not what they were going for? I know they just messed up, but I also know they messed up one of Flair's reigns. Can I verify it? No. Can you verify this case? I don't think so.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
So, once again, we go to the facts and take this as the best example ever of why primary sources should not stand alone, there are plenty of reliable sources listing the actual dates, those should be used in the articles anyway. The WWE one's should really only be used to supplement third-party sources. It should not be on us to indicate "they messed up" (Original Research if that claim stands without sources). Reliable Sources & Original Research - two core Wikipedia principles that really should put an end to this insessant inability to let it go.  MPJ-DK  00:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

In response to WrestlingLegendAS, yes, we can verify Valentine's case. He had a career-ending plane crash on October 4, 1975 that paralyzed him for life, which is cited. --JDC808 ♫ 02:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe that plane crash didn't happen according to WWE and Valentine continued his reign as a co-champ? I know it's ridiculous but if we always put the WWE dates and lengths in the notes, why should this be any different?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you doing this on purpose? If you know it's ridiculous, then why do you keep questioning it? This is the last time I'm explaining it (as it's in detail above): if WWE's dates are different from the real dates, it's notated in the Notes column. If there are verifiable mistakes, they go in the Notes column. Valentine IS notated as such. NO WHERE on WWE.com does it consider him as co-champ after his plane crash. --JDC808 ♫ 18:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

"List of Champions" articles in regards to official reign dates

A couple of days ago, WWE reported that Asuka had become the longest reigning NXT Women's Champion. I saw that and was like, wait, that's not true, Paige is, then come to find out that WWE goes by the tape delay date, and not the date that the show was recorded. So, I took it upon myself to do as seen here (scroll down to Reigns). As you notice in the table, Paige's official reign is listed as recognized by WWE, and below that is her real number of days (taking tape delay into account) in parenthesis with a note stating what that is and why it's there. Over in the Notes tab, There's a description of the match, and then a description of the tape/tape delay dates and stating that WWE begins her reign on the tape delay date.

Some editors have taken issue, even claiming that this was against consensus. I looked over the style guide and what I did was actually within consensus (at the very least, nothing there said what I was doing was wrong or against consensus). I looked over the history of the talk page for a consensus and found none.

I will say this as it was pointed out, yes, WWE is inconsistent as sometimes they take into account the tape delay date and sometime they do not. Here is my argument to that: it is their history that they scripted. If we are putting dates by the actual dates the championships were won/lost, then we are reporting inaccurate information based on WWE's official title histories. We may be right in that those are the actual dates, but we are also wrong. We have to remember, professional wrestling is all scripted, and as such, the title reigns are too. For those against what I am dong, you are trying to apply the real world to a scripted event.

TL;DR: My solution above gives both the official reign dates, and the "actual" reign dates, with descriptions noting as such. --JDC808 ♫ 15:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I will repost what I said in the List of WWE Champions talk page. I completely disagree with the changed format. A discussion should have been had before JDC808 took it upon themselves to make these changes. The reason WP has always used the date the title change actually happened as opposed to the date that the title change aired is because WWE themselves are very inconsistent with their title histories. WWE.com's title history sections are a mess. Sometimes they count when a title change actually happened and sometimes they count from when it aired. There's no consistency and that's why WP always goes by the date that the title change happened. I'll give you several examples of inconsistency. The New Day just surpassed Demolition's record as longest reigning Tag Team Champs. That's because WWE recognizes July 18, 1989 as the day Demolition lost the belts. If they went by the date the match aired, July 29, 1989, Demolition would still hold the record. Also both of Mr. Perfect's IC Title wins are counted from the date he won them, April 23 & November 19, 1990. Not the day those matches aired, several weeks later. Also, WWE.com counts Paige's NXT Women's Title win from the day it aired, yet Paige defended the title on house shows for weeks before the match aired. I can go on and on with plenty of more inconsistent examples. The way the WP tables were set up for years is we always go by the actual date the title changed hands and then make a note of when the match aired. Not go by the date it aired and then make a note about when it actually happened. That is backwards.
You're right. It is their history, and they've been known to change their history at the drop of a hat. WP is here to seperate fact from fiction and tell what really happened and keep consistency. WWE.com can change their history on their own website all they want, WP does not. If WWE.com decided to say that Hulk Hogan is a former 12 time WWE World Champion, it doesn't mean it's true and WP would not make that change. Leave the title changes the way they've always been until we get a consensus on this. OldSkool01 (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I guess you did not actually read my post. --JDC808 ♫ 15:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I read the whole thing. The general disagreement we have is that you think WWE.com's word is gospel whereas I don't think it should be due to the many discrepencies I've point out. I'll give you another example of how WWE.com should not be taken as the be-all end-all, they say Mr. Perfect won the IC Title on November 19, 1990 yet if you watch the Survivor Series ppv on their website, from November 22, 1990, The Texas Tornado is still the IC Champion. So not only does WWE.com contradict what really happened, they contradict themselves on their own website. OldSkool01 (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I guess you fail to see the fact that what I am doing also give the "real" dates, but you're disregarding that because you don't want the "official" dates. --JDC808 ♫ 15:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
You completely missed my point that they themselves don't even know what the "official" date is. Just taking that example I gave about Mr. Perfect, if we go by WWE.com, who was the IC Champion on November 20th and 21st of 1990? Was it Mr. Perfect or the Texas Tornado? According to WWE.com it's both. And that's just one of many contradictions I can find on their own site. OldSkool01 (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Once again, my version is giving the real dates. Regardless of inconsistencies, there's an official title history for each belt. That's the list we should go by in terms of official dates. If there are inconsistencies, like those you've pointed out, we can note that in the "Notes" box. --JDC808 ♫ 16:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
And what about the many times that WWE.com announced a title change happened at a tv taping before it aired? They did it when Edge won the World Title from Taker in 2007, when Mankind beat Rock at Halftime Heat in 1999, when Great Khali won the title in 2007 and several other times. Do we still count when the match aired? Even though WWE.com themselves already acknowledged it several days earlier? OldSkool01 (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
In some cases, they do go by the actual date, in some they go by the air date. The Mankind incident, for example, they go by the air date for the official title history. --JDC808 ♫ 16:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
But that right there is a conflict. On one hand they announce that Mankind won the belt on a certain date, but then in their history section they announce a different date. If someone wants WWE's version of "history", then they can just go to WWE.com. If they want factual, non-revisionist history, then they come to WP. Also, you ignored my question about WWE.com contradicting themselves on their own site. They have different versions of "official" history that doesn't add up. OldSkool01 (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I did not ignore it, I actually addressed it in the "edit conflict" post. --JDC808 ♫ 19:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems that one side is pushing for inclusion of both dates. The other side is pushing for inclusion of one date. The argument in favor of one date seems to be that there is inconsistency in whether or not WWE recognizes tape delay dates. I would suggest including both dates, as I don't see a convincing reason to decide which facts we should report (and yes, both dates are facts--one is the real world facts, and one is the fact that WWE recognizes a different day). I understand that their "dartboard" approach to choosing how to recognize different reigns is frustrating and baffling. To counter the inconsistency in how reign length are calculated (i.e. a person holding a belt for 38 real days could be recognized by WWE as having a shorter reign than someone holding the belt for 32 days), I suggest listing (and sorting) the reigns by "real world" days, with WWE's recognized reign lengths in parentheses with the appropriate note. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

GaryColemanFan, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. Go by the actual date the title was won, except we then make a note saying what date the match aired on TV in the "notes" column. Which is how we've always listed them. OldSkool01 (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree with this. The factual data comes first; the air date is a footnote. McPhail (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) OldSkool01 That is not what you suggested. What GaryColemanFan described is what I was essentially doing and you disagreed with it. --JDC808 ♫ 19:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Not what I suggested? I said at the beginning of this thread that we should include the actual date in the main column and the date it aired in the "Notes" column, like we've always done on WP. That's been my stance the whole time. Go back and re-read this convo. Also that is not what you were doing. You put the date it aired first, and then used the real dates in parenthesis with footnotes. By doing it the way you did, you screwed up the combined reigns table by only acknowledging total days as they were added by air date. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I said "essentially what I was doing", not exactly, and that is putting both reign lengths. Mine was just the reverse of what GaryColemanFan said. And if you noticed, my version did specify the tape delay date issue in the notes box. --JDC808 ♫ 21:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
No, what you did was the exact opposite of what GaryColemanFan suggested. You put the air date in the main column and the real date using parenthesis and mentioned the real date in the notes. What was suggested is the opposite. Leave the real date in the main column. This way it doesn't mess up the combined reigns table as well. OldSkool01 (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
"No, what you did was the exact opposite" I swear you're not fully reading what I am posting. I said that -> "Mine was just the reverse of what GaryColemanFan said". I'll spell it out further. Under the "Days held" column, I had put WWE's official reign first, and then the "real" reign in parenthesis (with a footnote stating that it is the real number of days). Gary said to do it the other way: real reign first with official in parenthesis and a note. Then in the Notes box, I noted that the show was recorded on one date, and then aired on another date, and then noted which date that WWE officially begins the reign – the date that actually matters for the official history. --JDC808 ♫ 03:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I also agree. There's a lot of talk about MOS:INUNIVERSE in our project lately. They're WWE's titles and they can do whatever they want with them, and we have to reflect that somewhere, but the factual data should come first. Personally, I prefer listing the air dates in the "notes" column rather than cramming both dates into the same column.LM2000 (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Here's the thing with "factual data": professional wrestling is scripted. Not listing both dates and reign lengths (where applicable) disregards the fact that professional wrestling is scripted. --JDC808 ♫ 19:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Scripting has nothing to do with this debate. Who wins and who loses is scripted. Promos are scripted. Injuries can be scripted. Storylines are obviously scripted. The date that something actually takes place has nothing to do with being scripted. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually it does, because it is their stories, their characters, their belts, etc. You want to present "factual" data. That's great, but we also need to represent what WWE actually says of their own product. What you're arguing for does not fully represent that. --JDC808 ♫ 21:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we should mention what they say. In this case we should mention the TV air dates of title changes... in the notes column. OldSkool01 (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
But you're not covering all bases, because only doing that leaves out what WWE says their reign length is. --JDC808 ♫ 03:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Per MOS:INUNIVERSE, it's similar to the release dates of the Star Wars movies. In their universe episodes 1-3 come first but in reality 4-6 were released first; policy says the latter should take precedence.LM2000 (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
This situation is not really similar to Star Wars. That there is an issue of chronology. --JDC808 ♫ 21:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Completely missing the point of the Star Wars reference. It's not about chronology, it's about seperating fact from fiction. In the Star Wars universe, they say one thing, but in the real world we say another. The example he presented was in "storyline", for lack of a better term, if you were to list the movies in order, it would be episodes 1-7, but on WP(the real world) we list them in the order they actually happened. Meaning on places like WWE.com, they can write whatever they want about their version of history, but on WP we write the real history of what happened. We don't list the Star Wars movie in order from 1-7 and then make notes about the order in which they originally premiered in theaters. We list them in the order they premiered and list the chronology order in the notes. That's the analogy that's being made. OldSkool01 (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. The issue right now seems to be that WWE are claiming that someone is a record-setting champion but the actual records suggest otherwise. This may make sense in their universe, but we don't write articles that way. That's why Princess Leia's first appearance is listed as the 1977 film and not the 2005 film. The bottom line in both cases is that "real world time line should take precedence".LM2000 (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm not saying to get rid of the "real" numbers. I'm suggesting to include both the real and the official. --JDC808 ♫ 03:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with MOS:INUNIVERSE. We have to keep a real world perspective first and then make notes regarding any alternate perspectives. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's the gist of my stance on this, because this thread is getting way too long. My suggestion is to leave things the way they've always been, with the actual date that a title change happened listed in the "date" column and then make a note in the "notes" column mentioning the date the match aired on tv(if the match was taped in advance). Doing it any other way just convolutes the tables. The "combined reigns" table will also not be affected if we keep it this way. OldSkool01 (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The issue with that is that it does not provide the official reign lengths. Yes, you're providing the air date, but it doesn't say the significance of that air date and what it actually means (in a lot of cases, that is the official start/end date of the reign). Also, without providing the official reign lengths, it looks as if we're providing inaccurate information to any reader who may look at both Wikipedia's list and WWE's list. --JDC808 ♫ 05:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible solutions:

  1. Keep everything as is, but if the official reign length is different from the actual reign length, put a footnote -> {{efn}} <- stating what the official reign is and the dates WWE dictates the official reign (the footnote can be something like "WWE officially recognizes the reign as 274 days, beginning on July 24, 2013 and ending on April 24, 2014."). In the Notes column, if the air date is different, specify which date that WWE officially begins the reign. If the combined reigns is affected, do the same with the footnote.
  2. In the Notes column, after the air date, state which date WWE officially begins the reign, and then state what the official reign length is. Example: "Aired on July 24, 2013, the date WWE officially begins the reign. WWE officially recognizes the reign as 274 days held." -- Something like that, or more concise if possible. If it's a case of where the reign begins on the recorded date as opposed to the air date, it can go something like "Aired on July 24, 2013, but WWE officially begins the reign on June 20, 2013." Also, as in point 1, do same with combined reigns. --JDC808 ♫ 06:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I made a similar edit to what JDC808 is suggesting back in July 2014. Link
More concise and useful to the reader. I agree with using a variation of it. Prefall 06:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I like that wording, and if it's a case where the beginning and end date are both tape delays, it could be "beginning on [date] and ending on [date], both of which aired on tape delay" or some variant of that. And if it's a case where only the end date was a tape delay, then just use you're original wording but replace "beginning" with "ending". --JDC808 ♫ 06:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Prefall 06:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
This also works for me.LM2000 (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm ok with making notes about what WWE recognizes, as long as the actual real dates and real number of days as champion takes precedence over what WWE considers the dates and number of days as champion. Meaning, for example, Paige will still be listed at 308 days while Asuka is behind her. Obviously until Asuka passes her in a few weeks. The only problem that we potentially run into is what I've mentioned a few times before, if we consider WWE.com as the "official" source for title reigns, then what exactly do we go by, because there's several instances on WWE.com where they contradict themselves on their own site. Again, I mention how they can have an article about a title change that happened at a taping before it airs, and then on the title history list they have it as the day it aired. Theoretically we could consider the "official" reign as both. You would have to make a long note about how WWE.com announced the title change happening on "date A", but also recognizes it happening on "date B". But as long as the real dates are the ones that WP goes by, I'm fine with it. OldSkool01 (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I would say in most all cases, go by what WWE's title history says. If they have an article that contradicts the title history, then like you said, make a note. There is a similar case of this on the US title page here, for instance, Ric Flair's fifth reign is not recognized by WWE, but an article on their site said he held the US title six times. That is the only article that says that, so it could have just been an error on the author's part. Regardless, this is noted in the Notes column. --JDC808 ♫ 16:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Something else I just thought of for combined reigns, which would be easier to implement over what I previously said. With the combined reigns, in the cases where the official reign is different, do this -> 308(274) <- and have a note, maybe in the guide box, that states that the smaller number is what WWE officially recognizes.
Also, this post only applies to WWE, but do other promotion's have this real reign versus official reign issue? --JDC808 ♫ 17:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
In the case of TNA, I don't think they even have a title history section. I don't know because their site is a complete mess. ROH on the other hand does have a title history section. A really good one too. It includes not only the title changes, but every title defense as well. And I think the dates are accurate, as far as going by the real dates they changed hands, not the TV air dates. But back to the WWE titles, like I said, as long as the real dates take precedence, then I'm cool with it. Just as long as the notes don't become overwhelming and convolute everything. Try to keep the text to as few words as possible. OldSkool01 (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright, it looks as if everyone seems to be in agreement. Are there any issues with the below:

1. Real reign length(s) and date(s) take precedence.

2. In dealing with tape delay dates and notating which date is the officially recognized reign by WWE, it is notated as one of the following in the Notes column:

  • If the official reign date begins on a tape delay episode:
  • "WWE recognizes [wrestler]'s reign as lasting [x] days, beginning on [mm/dd/yyyy], when the episode aired on tape delay."
  • If the official reign date ends on a tape delay episode:
  • "WWE recognizes [wresters]'s reign as lasting [x] days, ending on [mm/dd/yyyy], when the episode aired on tape delay."
  • If the official reign date begins and ends on dates that are both tape delay episodes:
  • "WWE recognizes [wrestler]'s reign as lasting [x] days, beginning on [mm/dd/yyyy] and ending on [mm/dd/yyyy], both episodes of which aired on tape delay."
  • If the recorded date is recognized as the official start date instead of the tape delay date:
  • "Aired on tape delay on [mm/dd/yyyy], but WWE recognizes [mm/dd/yyyy] as the beginning of the reign."
  • If it is a rare case where the recorded date is the official start date, but the recognized end date is a tape delay date (not sure if there actually are any cases of this):
  • "Aired on tape delay on [mm/dd/yyy]. but WWE recognizes [mm/dd/yyyy] as the beginning of the reign. The reign ended on the [mm/dd/yyyy] tape delay episode."

3. If a WWE.com article has information contradicting their official title history, make note in the Notes column and cite it. See Ric Flair's 5th reign on List of WWE United States Champions as an example.

4. In the combined reigns table, where an official combined reign is different from the real combined reign, notate as such -> [real#]([official#]) <- The table guide notates that the smaller, bracketed number is WWE's officially recognized number.

If someone can think of more concise notes for point 2, that would be great. Could possibly remove "when the episode aired on tape delay", and just pipe link the date to tape delay, e.g., "beginning on [mm/dd/yyyy]". --JDC808 ♫ 19:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Point 4 is unneeded (that's what the note is for) and looks unweildly. Just skip that, leaving only the "real" days. that is, from taping to taping. (The scare quotes are a nod to the fictional nature of all of this.) As for the notes, theyre pretty good, except that last one (which I think applies to Foley's first reign), which is self-contradictory (there's no need for a "but" when the taping day and the listed day are the same). It probably can be skipped outright as the next line covers it, after all. oknazevad (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
As to point 4, though the notes would cover the official reign for that particular reign, it wouldn't cover the official combined reigns, hints the reason for point 4. For the last one you pointed out, it clarifies that although it aired on tape delay, they're going by the real date, since for a lot, that is not the case. --JDC808 ♫ 20:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Everything looks good so far, except for this one:

If the recorded date is recognized as the official start date instead of the tape delay date: "Aired on tape delay on [mm/dd/yyyy], but WWE recognizes [mm/dd/yyyy] as the beginning of the reign."

There's no need for that as the record date already takes precedence. It's redundant to explain that the WWE officially recognizes the reign beginning on the day it was recorded since we go by those dates anyway. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
It was mainly for reader clarification (i.e., those unfamiliar). --JDC808 ♫ 21:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
But if there's no difference there's no need for a note at all. oknazevad (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
If you guys don't think there would be any confusion for an unfamiliar reader, than okay. --JDC808 ♫ 23:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Consensus

If no one has any objections, can we say that this is consensus?

1. Real reign length(s) and date(s) take precedence.

2. In dealing with tape delay dates and notating which date is the officially recognized reign by WWE, it is notated as one of the following in the Notes column:

  • If the official reign date begins on a tape delay episode:
  • "WWE recognizes [wrestler]'s reign as lasting [x] days, beginning on [mm/dd/yyyy], when the episode aired on tape delay."
  • If the official reign date ends on a tape delay episode:
  • "WWE recognizes [wresters]'s reign as lasting [x] days, ending on [mm/dd/yyyy], when the following episode aired on tape delay."
  • If the official reign date begins and ends on dates that are both tape delay episodes:
  • "WWE recognizes [wrestler]'s reign as lasting [x] days, beginning on [mm/dd/yyyy] and ending on [mm/dd/yyyy], both episodes of which aired on tape delay."
  • If the recorded date is recognized as the official start date instead of the tape delay date, notate as has always been:

3. If a WWE.com article has information contradicting their official title history, make note in the Notes column and cite it. See Ric Flair's 5th reign on List of WWE United States Champions as an example.

4. In the combined reigns table, where an official combined reign is different from the real combined reign, notate as such -> [real#]([official#]) <- The table guide notates that the smaller, bracketed number is WWE's officially recognized number. --JDC808 ♫ 23:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

4. In the combined reigns table for WWE championships that have their official reigns affected by tape delays, make a new column titled "Combined reigns recognized by WWE", as seen at NXT Women's Championship#Combined reigns. This shows both the real and officially recognized combined reigns. --JDC808 ♫ 18:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we might finally be on the same page. Lol Now to put this plan into execution. That's a lot of edits that need to be made. OldSkool01 (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Yup lol maybe we can divide this up or something. There are 24 title histories on WWE.com (if there are more, they are hidden, or maybe we have them archived somewhere?). Of those 24, we don't have to worry about the Universal, Raw Women's, SmackDown Women's, SmackDown Tag Team, and new Cruiserweight, as none of those have tape delay issues (though it wouldn't hurt to make sure WWE.com has those dates reported correctly). Since I had already attempted the three NXT titles, the WWE Championship, and the US, I can do those. --JDC808 ♫ 04:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I experimented with the combined reigns. At first, I did as said above as seen here, but then the idea popped in my head to do as seen here. I personally like the second one more. It's cleaner. Any objections? --JDC808 ♫ 05:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The second looks far better. As you said, much cleaner. That said, I still don't know if we need it at all, but that may just be me. oknazevad (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Definitely go with the second version. I was never that big on the parenthesis idea to begin with. OldSkool01 (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Cool. Also, I noticed a weird 1 day discrepancy on some reigns. Sami Zayn for example. We have the exact same dates listed as WWE.com does and we have ours in the conversion template that automatically tallies his days held, which says 62 days, but WWE.com says 63 days. Some others, like Kevin Owens, do not have this issue. Is this a mistake on WWE's part and they'e accidentally/purposefully giving them an extra day, or is there some technicality there that I'm unaware of? --JDC808 ♫ 18:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
WWE.com has a history of getting statistics wrong. This is one of the reasons I wasn't that much of a proponent of using their word as gospel because there's a lot of inconsistencies. The issue with the dates being off by 1 day is probably something as simple as the writer not knowing how to count. Keep in mind this is the same company that doesn't know the difference between "annual" and "anniversary". They called Mania 25 "the 25th Anniversary" when it was actually the 24th anniversary. And they've gotten that annual/anniversary thing wrong a few other times as well. OldSkool01 (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, they're hardly the only ones to screw up the "anniversary" vs "edition" issue. The one day discrepancies are probably a difference between counting a difference between dates vs counting dates inclusive. The latter is technically correct (on dates where there's title changes, there actually are two champions and the day counts for both of them), so WWE is not actually wrong. But at that point we are splitting hairs. oknazevad (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
But it IS wrong. You can't have 2 wrestlers sharing the same 24 hour period as champion(unless it's something like Jericho & Chyna being declared co-IC Champs). What it appears WWE did was include the entire day that someone wins a title. At best, on the day of a title change, it would count as a half day for the champion who loses the belt and a half day for the wrestler who wins the belt. So it's mathematically incorrect. OldSkool01 (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, technically, if one is counting by whole days as a level of precision, then any portion of a day counts for both. But that's a matter of pedantry we need not worry about. The current counting is fine. oknazevad (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
With no major disagreements to the suggested changes, I went ahead and updated the style guide (which could use some expanding in general). Prefall 22:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Good job on the style guide change. OldSkool01 (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Ditto. --JDC808 ♫ 23:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

WWE can't count. A title reign that starts on a Sunday and ends 3 weeks later on a Sunday can't be 22 days (they can change their own history but they can't change the calendar). It's just confusing to everybody reading. WWE gives the same start and end date of the reign and then just fail to count in same cases, no need to make a note mentioning the wrong numbers their math guys came up with. They also say that Lesnar's reign ended 2 days before he lost the title to Guerrero which is obviously just an error on their behalf. We should mention if they recognize a different date (tape / air date) but not them miscounting reigns.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It's what WWE officially recognizes for their titles, and the reason why it's in the Notes column. The 1 day discrepancy on some is an odd case that I'm not entirely sure what's going on there, but in a lot of cases, the reign length is different because of the tape delay date. It's in the notes so that it is not at the forefront. We're covering all bases and notating what WWE says their official reigns and dates are. --JDC808 ♫ 18:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
So should we edit Lesnar's reign and say it ended February 13 (2 days before Eddie's reign starts both officially and in reality)?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
No, because both the real date and WWE's date is February 15 (WWE.com's title histories are annoyingly down at the moment so I can't double check, but when I went through yesterday, I remember it being February 15 or else I would have notated it). --JDC808 ♫ 19:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, WWE says Eddie's reign started February 15. BUT they also say Lesnar's reign ended February 13 (last time I checked was a few weeks ago but considering they never fix anything I guess it's still that way).WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 19
21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Whenever WWE.com's title histories come back online, I'll double check, and if they do in fact say February 13 for Lesnar's end date, then I'll notate that in the notes (unless you or someone else gets to it before me). --JDC808 ♫ 19:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
See my above comment about inclusive counting. A title reign that starts on a Sunday and ends on a Sunday 3 weeks later does last for 22 days, because both Sunday's count. oknazevad (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
But then on another occasion it just counts for 21 days or only for 20 days on wwe.com.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I have a question. I see the new editions in WWE United Stated Title article. A lot of notes is about " WWE recognizes XX's reign as lasting XX days." I mean, It's just one day (real days 50, WWE days 51) It's usefull? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It's what they recognize, which also offsets what they consider the combined reigns to be. It also covers all bases for anyone who wants to fact check what Wikipedia says versus what WWE says. --JDC808 ♫ 01:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I understand, but it's just one day and both dates (day when a wrestler won and lost the title) are live (Reigns at Clash of Champions and RAW for the US title) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments on RfC Donald Trump requested

There is currently an RfC about the outcome of the presidential election here. Participation would be appreciated. This project is being contacted because it is one of the projects listed on the Donald Trump talk page. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Kevin Nash's 3rd WCW reign

wcw.com AND wwe.com don't list his 3rd reign where he awarded himself the title. They only called him a 5-time Champ somewhere. But considering we don't count Ric Flair's US title reign because WWE forgot to add it to their title history, we shouldn't count Nash's title reign that only exists because WWE once called him a 5-time Champ. His reign should be removed or at least put in grey. Anybody disagree?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Constant complaining about WWE.com has no place on Wikipedia. Sometimes they reflect reality. Other times they don't. I appreciate that you have a question about Wikipedia attached to your most recent complaint, but your editing trends as a whole may be viewed as not being here to build an encyclopedia (specifically the clause about a Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia). GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
This is more than complaining, this is me wanting to edit the title history because neither WWE or WCW recognized the reign.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

To answer the original question, without having looked too much into it yet, Nash's third reign should be put in grey with the proper notation, just like Flair's fifth reign on the US title list. That list in general needs more work than that though. --JDC808 ♫ 23:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

And this is exactly why I was against using WWE.com as a basis for history to begin with. Way too many inconsistencies, revisionist history and just flat out incompetence. But as long as we keep the actual real dates, and they take precedence over everything else, then that's all that matters. Best case scenario, the writers at WWE.com will look at these title pages on WP, which they absolutely do, and maybe they'll fix their mistakes. OldSkool01 (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
In regards to your last sentence, I was really hoping that was the case when both the WWE Championship and United States Championship's title histories on WWE.com were down all day the other day (I think it was Monday). I had just finished going through both of those articles here, and then the next day, both of those on WWE.com were down (and the only two that were down). When they came back up, I checked, but they did not fix them :( it was just a coincidence.
Also, I have finished WCW's title history and fixed Nash's reign that was brought up by WrestlingLegendAS. Also fixed an issue with Ric Flair's second/third reign and the vacancy between them (it was only notated in the notes). --JDC808 ♫ 20:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Do we actually know that Flair's reign began on April 19 opposed to WWE's date, April 20? No source to back it up for April 19.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
....yes, we have sources other than WWE for this reason. --JDC808 ♫ 21:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

April 19, 1980<ref>{{cite journal|date=2008|title=WCW/WWE U.S. Heavyweight Title|journal=Pro Wrestling Illustrated|volume=29|issue=5|pages=93-94|issn=1043-7576}}</ref> GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Link does not workWrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@WrestlingLegendAS: Mine or GaryColemanFan's (who forgot to sign) PWI reference? The one I provided does work (I just checked). Gary's is not a link. It's a reference to a print source. --JDC808 ♫ 00:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering that too, the link works for me as well so I'm not sure what that comment was aimed at?  MPJ-DK  00:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I thought the PWI reference was supposed to be some kind of link. Otherwise I have no idea what it's for.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
It is something older people refer to as "print media", cannot link to a paper source, but we can still cite it.  MPJ-DK  12:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
LOL also, we actually can link paper sources if we scan them and turn them into PDFs. --JDC808 ♫ 20:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it was designed to be copied and pasted in as a citation. I picked up the almanac, flipped to page 93, saw that they list the title change as April 19, and formatted the citation in case anyone is interested in putting the discussion to rest by taking the citation, pasting it into the appropriate location in the article, and moving forward. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I added the reference, and thanks for it. --JDC808 ♫ 20:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Ichiro Furutachi

If I remember correctly, InedibleHulk and I were discussing him a while back, as I was trying to confirm if this was the same person who was the NJPW announcer during their first heyday in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I'm guessing that the article was created on this wiki because of this controversy. Regardless, the Google-translated version of the ja.wiki article makes more sense than this article, much like one of Meltzer's readers once pointed out that folks who don't understand Japanese would conclude that he makes more sense than Gordon Solie did by that point. Anyway, just thought I would point out that the article exists in case there's any hope of improving it, particularly the part about his announcing career. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hai. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
So desu ne. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Snuka's death

Go to WP:ITN/C#RD: Jimmy Snuka to chime in on getting him listed on the main page.LM2000 (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Posted. A few of us worked on this article last year and it paid off, someone actually suggested this would be a good WP:GAN.LM2000 (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Matt Riddle

Hi, was wondering if anyone here had an different opinion for a proposed article change. Last night, the MMA fighter turned professional wrestler Matt Riddle won the Progress Atlas Championship. His article is listed at "Matthew Riddle", and has been moved previously from "Matt Riddle (fighter)". Currently, the "Matt Riddle" article refers to a punk musician, but I feel it's best suited to the pro wrestler. Thoughts? APM (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)AmorPatiturMoras

Best to leave it as is. "Matt" sounds better, but he chose to switch to "Matthew" and now he's stuck with it. "Matt" would need a disambiguator, so we'd have to pick between fighter (which he's best known for) or wrestler (which he is now). That's one of those riddles without answers. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

2016/17 in pro wrestling

Well, do you think this kind of articles are usefull? 2016 in professional wrestling 2017 in professional wrestling. I mean, when I saw 2016 article, I think is stupid, a lot of promotions around the world, events, title defences... But I think people cares. However, after a couple months, people stop caring about the article in summer. Do you think we should delete the articles? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  • The idea has merit, but I think it could be done better - looking at the 2016 one it lists events in various places, repeating information that is not really necessary. If it's about 2016 stick with the "by month" section and remove the lists by company and have some sort of notability criteria for inclusion so we don't get "Joe's Xtreme Fed" listing their "Momma's BasementMania XIV" show etc. Death section makes senese, if we did older articles those could also include debuts or births of notable wrestlers, although debuts/births for 2016 is a tough one to do ;-)  MPJ-DK  19:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Why has the Bill Goldberg lede been allowed to become a biased shrine of worship?

In Bill Goldberg's lede, we have the following hyperbole:

  • "Goldberg was WCW's highest paid athlete"
  • "WWE Universal Champion wrestler Kevin Owens said about Goldberg 'he was the figurehead of WCW. The poster boy'."
  • "Known for his brute incalculable strength and athletic agility"
  • "notably executed a delayed vertical suplex before performing the Jackhammer on the then nearly 500 lb Big Show"
  • "Stone Cold Steve Austin, the top star during the late 1990s of WWE, then main rival company of WCW, described Goldberg as one of the strongest guys in the history of professional wrestling."
  • "WWE describes Goldberg as 'one of the most dominant Superstars to ever set foot inside the squared circle'."
  • WWE Hall of Famer and industry veteran Arn Anderson likened Goldberg's popularity at his late 1990s peak to that of Hulk Hogan, The Rock and Stone Cold Steve Austin, saying that he 'was as hot as anybody has ever been in the history of this business'."

Seriously? Most, if not all of this, has to go. This is an objective encyclopedia, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.148.89.246 (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I removed 1, 2 and 4. Some of those, like the quote from Arn Anderson I would say are true and should remain since they have sources. As for the Big Show one, how many do you think could get and keep a guy that size up there? lol (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 17:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I guess the Anderson quote is relevant and informed, so it should stay. The 500 pound Big Show Jackhammer is esoteric industry detail so I elected to move it into the body (the supporting cites from 'Accelerator3359.com' and '100megsfree4.com' don't seem reliable at all, so I removed those). I still think having a hyperbolic WWE.com quote in the lede is unnecessary, as they have a vested interest: Goldberg is a product they monetize through DVDs, figures etc (and currently through PPV appearances). Your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.148.89.126 (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd say some of that should be moved into the body, or "legacy" section. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 18:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I gave it a significant trim. Per WP:LEAD, the lede really needs to summarize why a subject is notable and I think the salient details get buried when it's five paragraphs long and contains a series of quotes. I encourage Trepcost to make a "legacy" section with the things that we've taken out of the lede today because some of that may be useful there.LM2000 (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

PPV dates and details in biographies

A new user has removed a number of dates, as well as descriptive details of events, from some BLPs. For example, "On July 24 at the Battleground pay-per-view" became "At Battleground". If you have thoughts on this, chime in at Talk:Roman Reigns#Date removals.LM2000 (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

All this belly ache over the US title history

My god I just now took a hard look at the WWE US Championship and List of US Champions since there has been a lot of time and attention and repeated complaints about various nits that apparently needed to be picked. Considering the obsession over a couple of details I thought the articles were in good shape. BUt I was wrong, I cannot imagine how the heck a list with 75% primary sources from WWE ever made it to FL status. The insistence on using the lazy option of just going with whatever WWE feels like putting out there is part of the reason why - there are plenty of good, independent, reliable third party sources out there that could be used - the WWE sources should be used sparringly, not overwhelmingly. And don't get me started on the main US Championship article - ONE source.

So how about this proposal - the next time someone feels like complaining about a minor detail - improve the article instead, there are 10,000 things that needs to be fixed. Less complaining, more working.  MPJ-DK  16:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC) (certified "Grumpy Old Man")

Asre you talking about my complain about ""WWE recognized this title as 1 day less? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I had not even seen that comment, no I was talking about requests to get us to help fix the WWE's listings etc. on and on and on.  MPJ-DK  17:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I said above (consensus) the new idea about the title is annoying to me. Every reigns has a note with WWE recognized this reign as... I don't know if you're talking about this. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I spent a good part of my day a week or so ago fixing the list article, comparing it between WWE's list and a third-party list to try and ensure that we are giving both the real dates/reigns and what WWE officially recognizes (since it's their belt). There are a lot of reigns with "WWE recognizes", but not all. --JDC808 ♫ 20:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I guess it's mainly directed at WrestlingLegendAS but the fact that the article sources are in such a poor state for an FL is concerning, so is the main article. Surprised that articles on a current WWE championships are not in better shape.  MPJ-DK  21:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I haven't looked into whether or not the list meets FL criteria, but FL is more laxed than FA. --JDC808 ♫ 22:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I say blow them up and start all over. Every WWE Title list needs to go under review. They should have been demoted years ago and now they've only been made worse out of this idea that WWE is actually correct in its history. It isn't. The WWE manipulates its own history to something it isn't.--WillC 10:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

No need to start over. Just fix what's there. The title lists for the WWE Championship, United States Championship, NXT Championship, NXT Women's Championship, NXT Tag Team Championship, and WCW World Heavyweight Championship have all been fixed, representing both the real reign/dates of champions, and what WWE officially recognizes (since they are their titles). --JDC808 ♫ 11:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The way these 6 titles are now is perfect and it even gives us a shot of WWE noticing and finally fixing their errors.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I will agree to an extent with WrestlingLegendAS that anyone here could have implemented the source, but at the same time, WrestlingLegendAS could have tried to learn how to do it. Regardless, I have added the source, but it only covers up to when Roddy Piper dropped the belt to Greg Valentine due to excessive bleeding. Some dates mentioned in that source didn't quite match what was already on the article here. I'm not sure which one is correct and will require additional research. Does PWTorch just have a list of dates? --JDC808 ♫ 00:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Does PW Torch have title histories or articles since the 70s online? Or are you just talking about print?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't care if it's online or print, as long as it's verifiable. --JDC808 ♫ 02:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
That's not what I was trying to say. I'm just wondering whether its print or online. Does anyone know?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Make sure you're clear in what you're posting, because I'm still not quite sure on what you're asking. --JDC808 ♫ 21:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
PW Torch does Raw and SD and all kinds of reports. Are all of these reports online? Even from the 80s? Or are these reports only available by buying the print versions of PW Torch?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if PWTorch has anything in print. I think you may be confusing PWTorch with PWI? Regardless, I do not know the answer to your question. Someone more familiar can probably give you an answer. --JDC808 ♫ 03:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Recognised days held by WWE column.

Can someone get rid of them they are literally pointless as far as I am aware Wikipedia is based on fact and WWEs title history usually goes off date aired not date won so therefore it is not correct and not what Wikipedia is for.

WWE owns these titles (which are fictional, by the way). What they say they recognize is important because they own it, and it's their storyline. Remember there's no "real facts" here, it's all fictional storyline which they wrote. John Cena has never won a single world title in legitimate competition. It's showbiz, not a sport. oknazevad (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Ditto. Also to clarify, are you talking about the Reigns table or the Combined Reigns table? --JDC808 ♫ 03:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Combined reigns you don't need a separate table for it all you need is to put in the notes section this match was aired at this date if its different than the date actually won. Browndog91 5:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Instead of repeating it, please refer to oknazevad's comment, and to further that, WWE's days recognized do not always match the real numbers (which affects the combined days). Also, including WWE's recognized days is based on consensus. --JDC808 ♫ 06:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I can understand it but I do not like the added table saying the date aired in the comments is sufficient or even a note saying the table represents combined days from date won not date aired it makes the page look like a complete mess it shouldn't be on the page at all. Browndog91 6:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

But that doesn't notate the amount of days WWE recognizes for the reigns. There is a current issue right now where WWE says Asuka is the longest reigning NXT Women's Champion, when it's actually Paige, so we need to notate why WWE says that for the uninformed reader. Also, please use periods and/or commas. --JDC808 ♫ 08:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Well for starters can we at least have it so each number is defined, as in if the number from days won and days wwe recognizes is the same it shouldn't be merged. And secondly maybe put a separate table for wwe days because you have to admit its not a great setup. Browndog91 3:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
If they're the same, why not merge them? Assuming I understand what you mean by table, and how would you implement a second table? --JDC808 ♫ 05:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
just put a separate table underneath the one that's already there all it needs is a copy and paste, and as for merging them well it looks silly have a number in a really large box. Browndog91 10:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
So instead of keeping them in the same table, you want to add another table below that and unnecessarily extend the article? Much easier to have one table instead of two similar tables. --JDC808 ♫ 11:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Browndog here, that column makes the table looks disgusting; I understand WWE owns the titles and they count the days themselves via TV tapings, but it would be better if there were two different tables. In addition, not all the tables for the titles, such as the IC title, have this extra column. And finally, if this extra column is so important, which one do you sort the table by? Aleuuhhmsc 01:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
To me, a tiny column seems less disgusting than a redundant table. It is also easier to compare the numbers when they are side-by-side than if they are split apart.
Some of the articles have not been updated since the discussion. Also, "real" days will always take priority over what WWE recognizes, it is just useful to know the difference. Prefall 02:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
So what should we do personally I think that unmerging the columns with the same days should happen, there is no point in having a tiny number in a large box and tables such as these should look even throughout, but maybe what we might be able to do is remove the wwe days column and put the wwe days in brackets underneath actual days because we don't really need to be able to sort it since rankings go by actual days.Browndog91 1:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
@Aleuuhhmsc: As Prefall pointed out, the IC list and a couple of others haven't been updated yet since the last discussion where we reached a consensus to include WWE's numbers (which was earlier this month). It takes a good bit of time to filter through WWE's official lists. Again, a second table would unnecessarily extend the article. Also, each column has their own sort list.
@Browndog91: As per previous consensus, a bracketed number as you're suggesting actually looks worse. A second column is much more organized than a second, practically redundant table. --JDC808 ♫ 03:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

But look at Bob Backlund's first reign and that bracket that looks okay to me, or we could try having the wwe days in the comments section as in "wwe recognizes this reign as 45 days" etc. Browndog91 1:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Bob Backlund is an odd situation. As to the other point, they already are that way for the individual reigns, but that doesn't show WWE's recognized combined reigns. --JDC808 ♫ 04:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
well im out of ideas you got any ideas on how to improve it?? Browndog91 4:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, what is currently there (e.g., NXT Women's Championship since it started it all). That was what was decided in the last discussion that I actually started (though the merging as seen there in combined reigns came after consensus was met, but it makes since). --JDC808 ♫ 05:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
But surely there is a better way of doing it like im not sure you could do it on Wikipedia but having a button where it would switch between actual days and wwe days without the extra column it would just switch between numbers depends what tab you were looking at maybe a bit technical but not a bad idea if you can do it. Browndog91 5:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll admit, that's not a bad idea, but I have no idea how that could be implemented. --JDC808 ♫ 07:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay so we have a solution but no way to implement it I will set something up in my sandbox and see if I can get it to work not going to be easy but I am more than happy to give it a shot.Browndog91 9:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I like the extra column. It can be a useful visual to see the discrepancies, and this would be lost with a separate table or separate tabs. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move

David Hart Smith to Davey Boy Smith Jr. is being requested.★Trekker (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Not quite yet a requested move...

Our handling of Mike DiBiase is problematic. The primary topic is a WP:TWODABS page containing Mike DiBiase (wrestler, born 1923) and Mike DiBiase (wrestler, born 1977). First off, we're using parenthetical disambiguation when natural disambiguation is possible. The use of "wrestler" in the article title is extraneous considering that we're not disambiguating anyone named Mike DiBiase who is not a wrestler. Furthermore, in the case of the older wrestler, someone who sees the article title pop up in the search dialogue box and doesn't investigate further might be misled into believing that he's still alive by seeing "born 1923" but not his year of death. The simple solution would be to rename the article on the older wrestler "Iron Mike DiBiase". However, common sense and the simplest Google search clearly indicate that he's the primary topic for "Mike DiBiase" by virtue of a far more distinguished career and the attention he received over the decades due to the nature of his death. The first hits for the younger wrestler concern his police standoff, not his wrestling career. If anyone can think of a better solution, let me know. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've never seen a dab title with the death date in it...ever. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 14:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I saw a few cases John Smith (New South Wales politician, born 1821) John Smith (New South Wales politician, born 1811) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I believe the others were referring to what I suggested, rendering "1923–1969" in the title as opposed to "born 1923". Either way, it's unnecesarily clunky. The dab page for John Smith is 20,754 bytes. In contrast, the dab page for Mike DiBiase is 482 bytes, which includes the standard invisible comment added to short dab pages. Such a naming convention obviously works in the cases of more common names where there's a real need for such disambiugation, but not in this case.
As I was rushing to get out the door, I didn't even look at the revision history. It appears the dab page was clumsily created in February 2011 by a user who was indef'ed about a year later for disruptive editing. The articles were moved to their current titles last month from Michael DiBiase and Mike DiBiase II. The revision history of the dab page shows an attempt by InedibleHulk in June 2014 to fix the problem with a rationale similar to what I and others in this thread suggested. In response, we saw yet another example of Boleyn's extensive history of WP:OWN behavior and edit warring as it concerns dab pages, which has continued in this case of this page to the present day. As I've been the victim of this sort of behavior who knows how many times in the past, it might be best for me to bow out of the issue. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
A move to Iron Mike DiBiase would work but I agree he's ultimately the primary topic either way. There's nothing wrong with birth year in dab titles but it's not ideal and I can't think of a better title to move the younger DiBiase to.LM2000 (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
An example from hockey would be Jack Adams. The one who is clearly more notable is at Jack Adams. The other one is at Jack Adams (ice hockey, born 1920). Jack Adams has a hatnote linked to the disambiguation page (Jack Adams (disambiguation)), while Jack Adams (ice hockey, born 1920) has a hatnote linked to Jack Adams. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I like "Mike" and "Iron Mike". My second choice is plain "Mike" for the elder and Mike DiBiase (non-ferrous Mississippian Virgo). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
How about Mike DiBiase (20th century wrestler) and Mike DiBiase (21st century wrestler)? McPhail (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Centuries are only supposed to be used if there's no more-specific date available. In this case, the dates of birth are know and already in use. Now, an argument for Iron Mike DiBiase for the elder man is possible, and I agree we don't need "wrestler" in either disambiguator, so that's what I'd do, move the older DiBiase to "Iron Mike DiBiase" as WP:NATDIS, and move the younger to Mike DiBiase (born 1977). oknazevad (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I like that. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I like that too.LM2000 (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with this as well. What do we do with the Mike DiBiase link? I think it would be for the best to redirect it to Iron Mike.★Trekker (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I do think the grandfather is more notable, but then we run into the issue of why not just use the plain name if it's a redirect. It's definitely a WP:TWODABS situation, though, and a dab page is utterly unneeded and against established guidelines, so any whining and ownership behavior glcqn to take a flying leap. oknazevad (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Well I belive the elder DiBiase is the most well known under the "Iron Mike" moniker so I think it makes sense to redirect it to him.★Trekker (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit war at the Survivor Series (1992) article

There seems to have been an edit war at the article and it looks kind of like a mess right now. I have opened up a discussion on the talk page and I would appreciate if any others would like to participate. I can't edit it myslef since it's been protected so I'm not sure what to do.★Trekker (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Bret Hart

Okay, so, I have video proof that for at least one match in the WWF, Bret Hart was billed as "Brett Hart". Would it be proper to use this as a source, or, since it could end up getting removed, do we need a more permanent source? (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 20:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not the only time this has happened. However, in the real world, one would consider that a "typo", not a "source". There is also "proof", namely his 1979 match with Buzz Sawyer which originally aired on WTBS and was included in the Dungeon Collection DVD, that Hart was billed from Great Falls, Montana (see here). We don't appear to acknowledge that, however. Considering what Piper and Benoit had to say about extraordinary dealings with U.S. Customs due to the lack of work visas in the business, I figure that had something to do with such billing, despite Solie having called him a "Canadian provincial champion" amateur wrestler directly before the commercial break. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Sound like a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move

TNA King of the Mountain Championship to TNA Television Championship.LM2000 (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Well that is just dumb. The title underwent an actual peer review. It was at the appropriate name. It died under the King of the Mountain name and the entire fanbase knew it was renamed. Its technical commonname is the King of the Mountain Championship.--WillC 09:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
So "appropriate" is not about "knowing it was renamed", and I'm not sure what the differecne between "Common name" and "technical common name" is - but it was known as the TV title for a lot longer.  MPJ-DK  11:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
A second RM has been started, so chime in if you didn't get the chance last time.LM2000 (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps dumb. I closed that first RM as move, since it was unopposed. Is this article so thinly watched that nobody noticed? Dicklyon (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: you closed it after one vote. That was cast the day you closed it. Was it even actually listed here? It doesn't say so. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 06:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
No, the project was never notified. oknazevad (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Would the project normally be notified of an open RM discussion? How? There's no standard process for this, but some projects do set up a way. Anyway, it was relisted after a week, and sat in the RM backlog for a few weeks, and never got any opposition, so I would have closed it as move based on the proposer alone if that support had not come in. It's looking like a lot of opposition to moving back now, so I guess it was not so dumb. Dicklyon (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It died as King of the Mountain. It was revived and retired under that name. It went under so many names it is hard to truly say what the common name is but it died under KoTM so it is best as that.--WillC 17:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

What about those dead links in reigns tables in WWE titles articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.156.93.97 (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Vacancy days

Why are there in the tables numbers of days for reigns but not for vacancies? It should be clear that the title was vacated for 12 days or something.

Don't tell me I can calculate that. You can also calculate it for reigns, but there are numbers of days indicated directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.156.93.97 (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

A past discussion basically said that because the column is titled "Days held", vacancies aren't a person, and thus don't hold belts. --JDC808 ♫ 22:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
So rename column, why do you make problems? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.156.93.97 (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I sincerely hope that phrase is more an expression of English not being your native language and not a negative attitude directed towards anyone here. A change to the general championship table format requires a consensus - granted there are tons of championship tables that are not up to date, but the general format needs a general discussion to be changed.  MPJ-DK  00:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm for renaming all "Days held" to "Days". I think I was for it before, but forget. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Changes in Roster articles

Hi. User:Vjmlhds started a discussion in WWE Roster talk page. He wants to change the roster (and other roster articles). Point 1, remove the Other on air personnel section and include them into one big section for male workers and female workers. 2, remove the NXT House Show wrestler section. 3, put the McMahon Family into their own section. Point 1, I'm against it, the current format works very well and in some cases (WWE, AAA, NJPW) it would be a huge, confusing section. Also, his proposal is random, he just wants to include Other Personnel into one section, why not referees and broadcast members too? Point 2, I had no problem. Point 3, it's not neutral to give some people special treatment. Should we give the Peña Family special their own section? McMahon are just workers with roles in their own company. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Updated List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE) to the current format with days recognized by WWE

It looks like List of WWE champs right now.

The only problem is 1st Ziggler's reign because it lasted shorter than 1 day and the episode was on tape delay. I didn't know how to properly describe it and wrote: "WWE recognizes Ziggler's reign as lasting 1 hour, beginning and ending on February 18, 2010, when the following episode aired on tape delay.".

Please correct these sentences because it doesn't seem good.

Please share your thoughts about this update, maybe there's something I should correct. Cheers. ThunderBaker (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for updating that one. Since the recent consensus, it's a big endeavor. Anyways, if it's less than a day, the notation of how many hours is unnecessary. In that case there, all that's needed is "Aired on tape delay on February 18, 2010." because the real reign and what WWE recognizes are the same. --JDC808 ♫ 22:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. You're right that this "1 hour" thing is not important. However, I think "Aired on tape delay on February 18, 2010." is not enough because it suggests that WWE recognizes beginning and ending of the reign as February 15 ("If the recorded date is recognized as the official start date instead of the tape delay date" <- not in this case). But they recognize it as February 18. We can't use this one: "WWE recognizes [wrestler]'s reign as lasting [x] days, beginning on [mm/dd/yyyy] and ending on [mm/dd/yyyy], both episodes of which aired on tape delay because it was one, not two episodes. Do you have some idea how to do this? ThunderBaker (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I tried this: "WWE recognizes Ziggler's reign as beginning and ending on February 18, 2011, when the episode aired on tape delay.". In my opinion, it describes the case in the best way. Hope for your opinions.ThunderBaker (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Trimmed it down to "Aired on tape delay on February 18, 2011, the date WWE recognizes for the reign." The beginning/ending is not necessary in this case as the table dictates that it did not go beyond one day. --JDC808 ♫ 23:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Great, I was just looking for short explanation including WWE recognition info. Thanks~, I think it's really good now.ThunderBaker (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Royal Rumble Championship for deletion

Could you mark this article for deletion. RR is not a championship and all the information from here is in Royal Rumble.

I tried but I don't know how to properly report this on for deletion. ThunderBaker (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I boldly redirected it to Royal Rumble. Utterly redundant and incorrect to have a separate article. There's a Royal Rumble winner every year, but there's no such thing as a "Royal Rumble Championship". oknazevad (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
That was my point, redirection seems like a good choice.ThunderBaker (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

List of WWE Intercontinental Champions uptaded to the current consensus (days recognized by WWE)

I think this article was top-priority in the context of the current consensus so I edited this one after the one about WHC.

WWE site have a few strange dates (especcially in Benoit's case, like one reign ending after two next have started).

Not sure about Jarrett-Ramon and Goldust cases. WWE site gives another dates than this article, don't know it they recognize other periods or just mistyped dates (in case of house shows I consider the recognizin-thing, in other cases I pointed out that WWE have incorrect dates on their site.

Please check if everything's OK. It was very tidious thing to do. There may be a few mistakes in spelling or something.

Hope for feedback. ThunderBaker (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I was meaning to get around to it, just hadn't yet. I'l check over it here in a bit, but to answer something, WWE.com has mistyped dates for some reigns. For example, on the US title on WWE.com, Johnny Valentine is listed to have held the title for like 3 years after he had a career ending injury. There should be a secondary source there to check against. --JDC808 ♫ 03:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, there'll be a few things to change in the article (firmly dates and days number arrising from dates). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.156.93.97 (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
It shouldn't be going by days recognized by WWE. It should be going by what actually happened. Facts over fiction.--WillC 07:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, professional wrestling is fictitious in and of itself, but that's besides the point. With the reigns here, what actually happened takes precedence over what WWE recognizes. We also include WWE though because these are their belts. --JDC808 ♫ 08:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
So? Does that magically mean what actually happened is somehow irrelevant because WWE is trying to make history so they can market it differently and thus increase revenue?--WillC 08:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
No. Did you not read where I said "what actually happened takes precedence"? The main "reigns" table itself retains what actually happened. The notes column notates if WWE recognizes something different. This was particularly an issue when Asuka became the longest reigning NXT Women's Champion at 275 days, but Paige was actually the longest at 308. We needed to notate why WWE was saying that. We had a big discussion and the consensus was to include WWE's days, but real days take precedence. --JDC808 ♫ 21:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, feel free to correct that. I did some work adding those info. If something's wrong, fix this.ThunderBaker (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Prince Justice Brotherhood

Someone nominate Prince Justice Brotherhood for deletion because I'm so inactive with work and school that I can't deal with it.--WillC 17:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Nikki♥311 11:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Monday Night Wars

Please join the discussion here to discuss the scope of the Monday Night Wars article. oknazevad (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you talking about the article as it exists now or the TNA and Raw SmackDown weekly rating war additions specifically?--64.229.167.158 (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Specifically the TNA and current "war" stuff that is now gone from the article.  MPJ-DK  23:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I never actually looked at the rest of the article since that was not in question.... no comment.  MPJ-DK  01:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

List of Pro Wrestling Illustrated awards

The formatting of this article has bothered me for a while, and I'm interested in making it consistent with the List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards article. Though, these changes are drastic so I'm curious to see what everyone here thinks.

The biggest difference between them is that the PWI article lists three runner-ups. It is some nice trivia, but overall does not seem notable nor helpful. The runner-up columns take up an enormous amount of space, which restricts the practical inclusion of the promotion(s) the awards were won in, allows no room for photos to liven up the article, and is generally an eyesore.

I have setup an incomplete version of the re-worked article in my sandbox to get an idea of the changes. It also toys with a small change of listing the win # in parentheses where applicable—something that is present in articles such as NBA Most Valuable Player Award and Associated Press NFL Most Valuable Player Award. Prefall 07:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I like this new version. I think the runner-ups are pointless --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't like the change. Unlike the WON awards, as far as I can tell, PWI actually lists the runners up. They also make references to runners up in future stories, indicating significance for the runner up positions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
WON lists runners up as well. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 16:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
And PWI mentioning their own articles in later articles does nothing to establish independent significance; it's just self-promotion. oknazevad (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I think the first runner-up (AKA the runner-up) is fairly important. Shows who the winner beat. Can't properly put something over without putting something under. It's why Intercontinental Dean Douglas never worked. The second is only who the runner-up beat. Useless information, since the runner-up clearly didn't win anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Just listing the first runner-up is much more acceptable than the current format. Though, I'm not sure how it could fit in with the proposed format without looking out of place. I would still prefer avoiding the runner-ups altogether. Prefall 23:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Aside from "Match of the Year", there's plenty of blank space for a runner-up column (or anything, really). Could use promotion initials, participant line breaks and no Shawn Michaels for the problem spot. Or maybe just ignore those runners-up. Second-best matches usually aren't so great, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I added a runner-up column to the Wrestler and Tag Team of the Year tables to see how it looks. Putting the promotion's initials in parentheses for the runner-up seems to be fine, except for the Feud of the Year table where it gets somewhat convoluted when it involves tag teams/stables. As for the Match of the Year table, there is so much space required that it seems hopeless to even try. Prefall 10:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't like the runner up idea. However, If this version is approved, I think the Promotion section is unnecesary. I mean, the winner has a colum for the promotion but the runner up, the promotion is with the runner Up. I think we can include the promotion into the winner colum. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with removing information from the article. Reasons given above include that it is not helpful (I disagree, as I refer to it), doesn't allow for pictures (which aren't necessary), and is an eyesore (which points to cleanup required rather than deleting a large amount of information). The inclusion of promotions is much less useful than the runners up, as the promotion can be determined easily by clicking on the name and seeing where the wrestler/team was working at that point. No such substitute would be available if we were to remove runners up. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

John Cena's WrestleMania Streak

can someone delete these John Cena's WrestleMania Streak, Wwe rumblers, WWE Unlimited, WWE Multi Time Champions, WWE auction, Wwe hd, Wwe john cena, WWE Kids, Wwe live tours, WWE Logos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.159.195 (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

They appear to be harmless redirects. If they really bother you, you can create an account and nominate them for deletion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

List of professional wrestling championships

Why do we not have such a list? The link for "List of professional wrestling championships" redirects to "Professional wrestling championship", which is just an overview of the different types of championships in pro-wrestling (like weight class or region specific), but not a list of all titles. I feel that this list could be useful. Earlier, I was commenting on MPJ-DK's Current Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre championships FTC, and I was trying to figure out which active championship is the oldest world wide, and I couldn't because we don't have such a list, and the Professional wrestling championship article doesn't say what's the oldest active title. If we did make such a list, we would need a discussion on exactly what and what not to include (for example, make it a list of title that are active, and inactive titles could have a separate list). --JDC808 ♫ 23:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: Just looked over the history of the redirect, and it was in fact a list, but in my opinion, poorly done. I have ideas on how we could go about this and make it complete to the best of our abilities if we want to pursue this. --JDC808 ♫ 23:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  • That is not a bad idea, the trick would be put it together in a way it does not become a crufty list with every little obscure title being listed there. I think active is definitely a criteria as well as notable - no sources to prove notability they should not be on the list. I think an "active" list is feasible, the "inactive" is a tough one because it would be humongous.  MPJ-DK  23:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps an "Active Professional Wrestling Championships" and "Inactive Professional Wrestling Championships" category would make sense too?  MPJ-DK  23:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Categories are a better choice. The previous articles were impossible to properly maintain because there is no agreement on what to include. On one hand, any title with its own article is, by Wikipedia standards, notable. Additionally, declaring a title a world championship has no controlling authority so limiting the list is OR. On the other hand, the idea that the belt of some non-televised indie that does one show a month and has never been seen outside of its one venue is equal to the WWE title is silly. So we got rid of the lists a while back. Very broad categories like the proposed ones don't have to deal with any of the valid judgements that were so problematic for the prior lists, and any comprehensive list would be too long to be practical. oknazevad (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
That's why we would have a much better system of how to maintain it and what exactly to include. My idea would be to have a subsection for every promotion and only include those promotions that, by Wikipedia's standards, are notable. This list wouldn't specify what is and isn't a world title (unless the name of the title itself says it's one of course). It would just be a list of championships, divided into subsections by promotion, and then under each promotion would be their championships in order by rank. What I think should be included for each title would be name of title, date established, current champion, date won, event. I don't think the match stipulation is important for this list, though it can be included. --JDC808 ♫ 05:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Maintenance nightmare. Any promotion with an article is considered notable by Wikipedia standards, and there's a lot of them. Far more than you realize. Add in the fact that they likely all have multiple titles, and it's a much bigger task than you realize. Now, some of those promotions are likely not actually notable by Wikipedia standards (sourced to all first party sources, or if they're third-party the sources are just mentions in a column of indy results, which falls under the "routine coverage" clause and doesn't contribute to notability) and therefore shouldn't have articles. But even so, a single list would be huge, and containing so much info on the titles would make it a maintenance headache. I just don't see the need. oknazevad (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
We have such lists for video games, which are massive lists with more info than what I've proposed for the titles, add on to the fact that games come out every week (talk about a headache). It being a headache to maintain should not be the factor for not doing such a list. --JDC808 ♫ 05:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Did we ever get a consensus for the Mike DiBiase situation?

Neither article has been moved and the discussion seems to have been archived.★Trekker (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Does anybody disagree that the elder should be moved to Iron Mike DiBiase and the younger should be moved to Mike DiBiase (born 1977)?LM2000 (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm fully in support of that. As I said in the last discussion I also think that Mike DiBiase should redirect to Iron Mike but I would be fine if it was kept as a disambiguation instead.★Trekker (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Seems the strongest solution, consensus wise. oknazevad (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Yep. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

No disclaimers

Is there any reason why Wikipedia:No_disclaimers_in_articles does not apply to wrestling articles? As I have stated in previous discussions, disclaimers are not required in these articles, especially "The professional wrestling matches at Money in the Bank featured professional wrestlers performing as characters in scripted events pre-determined by the hosting promotion, WWE. Storylines between the characters played out on WWE's primary television programs, Raw and SmackDown." a simple link to the professional wrestling article is more than enough. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm in agreement. At this point in time, it's common knowledge that pro wrestling is scripted. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 12:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
We had an RfC during the summer (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 98#Requests for comment) where we decided that "The card featured ten matches, which resulted from scripted storylines and had results predetermined by the WWF" would be the only disclaimer going forward. That's the current consensus, feel free to update old articles that still use the eyesore.LM2000 (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you LM2000, I did not feel like reliving that discussion. It has been discussed and consensus reached, it just has not been carried out in that many articles. So more talk than action so far, perhaps this is the motivation to get the articles fixed?  MPJ-DK  13:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I think in line with Wikipedia:No_disclaimers_in_articles the whole thing should be removed and the only thing left should be a link to the professional wrestling article. Wikipedia:No_disclaimers_in_articles is content guideline not an essay, and wrestling articles do not fit any of the list of notable exceptions. Unless of course someone has a reason why content guidelines don't apply to this article, other than just not liking them. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The current version says "there are x amount of scripted matches put on by x promotion at this PPV". These are things that would have to be said somewhere anyway so it's not much of a disclaimer, unlike previous versions.LM2000 (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Did you actually read the guideline or just the title?
  • For the purpose of this guideline, disclaimers are templates or text inserted into an article that duplicate the information at one of the five standard disclaimer pages:
  • Wikipedia:General disclaimer: Wikipedia makes no guarantee of validity
  • Wikipedia:Content disclaimer: Wikipedia contains content that may be objectionable
  • Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer: Wikipedia does not give legal opinions
  • Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer: Wikipedia does not give medical advice
  • Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer: Use Wikipedia at your own risk
Perhaps there are different versions of the disclaimer in current articles? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Fastlane (2017)#Background is a good example of what the RfC consensus looks like. It's not the same one you started the thread with.LM2000 (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
So, as per consensus I should have no issues modifying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payback_(2014) ? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
There shouldn't be any issues.LM2000 (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree, modifying it to the shorter version is fine, full removal is not.  MPJ-DK  17:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Ideally, I would prefer full removal - but making it in the shorter version sounds like a good compromise. Thanks. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Ron Simmons date of birth

The source on the article is Online World of Wrestling, which I would honestly say isn't too reliable. However, his NFL.com profile has the same date, just a different year. NFL.com being the NFL's official website is much more reliable for that sort of information. So, would it be okay to use that? (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 16:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. oknazevad (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
If two "reliable sources" have different information and one is Online World of Wrestling - I'd always go with the other source.  MPJ-DK  04:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Steve Lombardi

The article for Steve Lombardi really needs cleaned up and worked on. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 18:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

WrestleMania 33

Has anyone looked at the storylines section for the above article? Because WrestleMania 33 has way too much content and it needs a good copyedit. Alot of week by week nonsense.--WillC 02:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. The storylines section is much too long and is in dire need of a trim. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
It is also very in universe.--WillC 03:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
There are twelve matches (and at least two more to be added), but nonetheless, trimming has been done. Also, you don't need to ask permission to do some trimming. --JDC808 ♫ 06:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Duh, I just don't have time to do it. I've expanded like 50 articles. It takes alot of time.--WillC 00:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Uso split

It appears that Jimmy Uso has been split from The Usos articles. I looked through it and I don't really see anything which would justify a split honestly.★Trekker (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we should interfere with this. I seriously doubt that either needs a separate article.★Trekker (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Neither article needs / should be split. No member has done anything solo that would warrant their own article. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 18:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The Bucks and the Usos shouldn't be separated, there would be very little unique content in individual articles.LM2000 (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah he seems to.be off doing odd moves, he moved Hunico to "Hunico (wrestler)" for no specific reason etc. Disruptive editing or just uninformed? We should probably try to make sure he understands why those are not edits.  MPJ-DK  19:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
If Nick superkicks Matt and puts him through a window, The Young Bucks have potential for separate careers (and articles). But that only works because one looks more heelish. Jimmy looks like Jey. Jey looks like Jimmy. Ron looks like Don and Benny looks like Billy. It may not be fair, but wrestling rarely is. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Some other edits made might need to looked at. The first is the move of Maryse Ouellet to Maryse Mizanin I also have doubt about having Braun Strongman redirect to Braun Strowman.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

AWA Southern Tag Team Championship

I just brought the AWA Southern Tag Team Championship table up to the format featured in most of our FLs and it made me curious about something. There were 455 championship reigns - does anyone know of a championship with more reigns that 455?  MPJ-DK  01:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The Ironman Heavymetalweight Championship supposedly has over 1,200, if that counts. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Holy Crap!! I think it may be a while before I try to update that table.  MPJ-DK  14:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Number 1,000 was the belt! That's the best thing I've ever heard. About anything. Reading that Jun Akiyama beat the belt for itself is up there, too. Thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Challenge accepted. I'm gonna stick that in a subpage and when I get bored I'm gonna work on it. Looks like a giant pain in the ass. But I'm gonna do it.--WillC 05:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •  Done a total of 1212 champions, although a couple is missing between #666 and #999 but I reconciled that as best possible. And Will, you can check my work instead of working on the table ;-) Fortunately this had very few gaps in the history so I could use Excel to deal with some of the repetitive nature of the table. Less work than the AWA Southern Tag surprisingly.  MPJ-DK  12:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Championship lists

Recently I have been looking at our various championship list articles and comparing them against the most recent Feature Lists and finding a lot does not conform to the FL formats, some are close (older FLs, for instance, need a slight tweak) and others are horrendous, ex. British Mid-Heavyweight Championship has a format I did not thin we ever used, of if we did it was a decade ago. And yes WP:SOFIXIT applies here, so I am working on it but the list is huuuuoge and if anyone is interested in helping that would be greatly appreciated. I am currently going through the Category:Professional wrestling championships by promotion to find those in need of fixing.  MPJ-DK  12:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Championship move

I have suggested that Memphis Wrestling Southern Heavyweight Championship gets moved to AWA Southern Heavyweight Championship per WP:COMMONNAME, please chime in on the Talk page. Thanks in advance.  MPJ-DK  20:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

WWE Diva

I've started a discussion to move WWE Diva to Women in WWE given that the current scope of the article covers the Moolah days to the Charlotte days and "Diva" was used to describe lady wrestlers for part of that time. An editor questioned whether the scope should focus around the term "Diva" instead of covering what it does right now. Please give your thoughts in the thread.LM2000 (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Cesaro / Claudio Castagniolo birthplace

There is a discussion taking place on Talk:List of people from Lucerne regarding Claudio Castagniolo's birthplace. Most sources say Lucerne, though some sources say Weggis which is a small town in the district of Lucerne. Any imput would be most welcome. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

is this really a thing?

List of premature deaths in the WWE - I am sure there are a lot of policies that this list breaks?  MPJ-DK  22:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Ja, this seems pretty inappropriate. There's no denying that pro wrestling tends to take a toll on a person and that many of them have died young but to single out a specific company like this is probably not right.★Trekker (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Tragic that speedy was declined and now we'll have to waste time at AfD.LM2000 (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
90% of the wrestler didn't work in WWE. Just a list of wrestlers who worked at some point in WWE and are dead. As far as I remember, Hart Guerrero and Benoit are the ones who died while working in WWE. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't like the list either. However, it does have extensive coverage in the media, which gives it notability. Specifying a company prevents it from being labeled indiscriminate. The term "premature" seems POV, but it is used in sources. This one actually seems to make the notability cutoff, although I agree that something about it should be changed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Funny fact, three of them (the von erich) never worked in WWE. What's the point of the article then? What's the criteria? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe we should make an article called something like "health effects of the professional wrestling lifestyle", or "life expectancy of professional wrestlers", or "Deaths attributed to the living conditions of the professional wrestling profession". I don't know, the title right now seems kind fo weird.★Trekker (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I remember a list of young deceased wrestlers was brought up on various news programs (most notably Nancy Grace) after the Benoit tragedy. That list included guys who never worked for WWF, like Jumbo Tsuruta, Gary Albright and The Renegade. We could create a new article with appropriate scope or we could create/expand a section on another article, like Professional wrestling#Injury and fatality, which already discusses premature deaths of WrestleMania VI competitors.LM2000 (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
There's also User:Skudrafan1/List of professional wrestlers who died young. 72.74.203.5 (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Talk:List of premature deaths in WWE#Scope of article. User:Skudrafan1 and those that have been updating the list linked above may want to chime in.LM2000 (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
LOL, I made that list YEARS ago just, more than anything else, out of personal curiosity and to experiment with formatting. It kind of took on a life of its own when others discovered it and started adding to it. I have no attachment to it and, should it be the consensus of the project, I agree it can be deleted (as is probably appropriate). Skudrafan1 (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I went ahead and blanked that userpage. Skudrafan1 (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hazing in WWE

I've made this redirect for now, I'm thinking about turning it into a full article. I feel like there is more than enough coverage on the subject both past and present to expand on it. This is a controversial subject so I would like input form others if you agree or disagree.★Trekker (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm feeling increasingly tempted to split it into another article like John Layfield bullying and harassment allegations by now, it's still ongoing and darn long already.★Trekker (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
You know what I think I'm going to be real bold here and do it. It's starting to take a life of its own it seems.★Trekker (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
So yeah, it's done now. It might be merged back again later but I feel like this is still developing right now.★Trekker (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Nickname/ring name?

Feel like we need to get a consensus here. User:HHH Pedrigree (and a couple of others) have been reverting edits with the argument that the "Cien" part of Andrade "Cien" Almas is a nickname similar to Bret "Hitman" Hart or Jerry "The King" Lawler etc, and that the correct ring name for this performer is just Andrade Almas. IMO this is clearly not correct. AFAIK this performer has never been referred to as just Andrade Almas, he is billed as Andrade "Cien" Almas in his official WWE profile, official match listings such as [7] [8] [9] (which are the sources we use for PPV results), on his entrance graphic, on official match graphics etc. And while the "Cien" is in parenthesis (which seems to be the main argument for it being a nickname), no other wrestlers on the WWE roster have a 'nickname' listed in this way, Tye Dillinger's profile doesn't say "The Perfect 10" Tye Dillinger, for example. By every official measure and source this performer's ring name is Andrade "Cien" Almas, and while I understand why there may be some confusion due to it involving parenthesis there are plenty of previous examples of a 'nickname' being part of a ring name (such as Stone Cold Steve Austin and Jushin Thunder Liger). IMO this performer should be correctly billed as Andrade "Cien" Almas on roster pages, results boxes etc, and to bill him as just Andrade Almas is WP:OR given that he has never been called that by the company or any official sources. But I don't want to keep edit warring over this so happy to go with whatever consensus people think is best. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The same way, WWE.com says Bret "Hitman" Hart [10] [11] "Macho Man" Randy Savage [12] Brutus "The Barber" Beefcake [13] "Ravishing" Rick Rude [14] or "Rowdy" Roddy Piper [15]. Sometimes, WWE.com includes the nickname in their articles/results. But clearly, Cien is a Nickname. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I have no problem if the Project agrees to include Cien as part of the ringname, but I'm not very convinced. WWE make a lot of nonsense (ex, calling Ted DiBiase Sr The Million Dollar Man just because his son [16]) As far as I know, the only exceptions we made were John Bradshaw Layfield and Stone Cold Steve Austin. But again, if the project agrees, I'll the first user to include Cien in the articles. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Notable?

Is The Undertaker vs. Mankind (Hell in a Cell match) notable enough for a standalone article? It seems to be content forking from King of the Ring.--WillC 06:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I would definitely say it should have its own article. It's probably one of if not the most famous wrestling match of all time. I do feel like it could be expanded on and have more sources added.★Trekker (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree. If any single match should have a standalone article, its this one, which has a tremendous amount of coverage and commentary about it from reliable third-party sources: that is the very definition of notable. oknazevad (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I've always had mixed feelings about this article because we don't have any articles like it, but I lean towards keeping it because of what Oknazevad said. What really matters is GNG and I think this passes it.LM2000 (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree, if anything I feel like there are several matches that could in theory have their own articles if done correctly and some effort is put into it, which is why I took the effort to make an infobox for professional wrestling matches which I inserted into the Undertaker/Mankind article today. Like I said before so is this article in particular in great need of expansion, there's a lot that can be added to the article.★Trekker (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

La Luchadora

Hi. In the last few month, I saw La Luchadora ringname removed from the infoboxes of Mickie James, Becky Lynch and Alexa Bliss. Suddenly, I found a conversation bewteen WarMachineWildThing and User:DantODB where they agree La Luchadora is a gimmick, not a ringname. However, I don't think like that. First, La Luchadora is a gimmick, just like Alexa Bliss or Becky Lynch. Second, We have a lot of similar cases, wrestlers who appear under a mask for just one day but still a ringname. Calgary Kid, Mr. America, The Spider Lady, The Midnight Rider, Black Scorpion, Suicide (wrestler), Los Conquistadores (E&C and Hardys). I think we had this conversation long time ago around the Daniel Wyatt ringname. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I simply think that there's a difference between Dustin Rhodes wrestling as Goldust, and Becky Lynch competing under La Luchadora, only to be revealed as Becky Lynch playing a joke in storyline. Same goes for Alexa Bliss. I also feel this way about The Spider Lady. Suicide is a different story because it is a character that has been a prominent figure that so happens to be portrayed by multiple wrestlers. La Luchadora is a storyline gimmick. Becky is still Becky in the end, Alexa is still Alexa, and Mickie was only under the mask long enough to be revealed minutes later, same as the other two. Should Deonna Purrazzo's article list La Luchadora under ring name? She's portrayed it even though it's never revealed on television. DantODB (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, regardless of my opinion on The Spider Lady, it was a gimmick that was exclusive to Moolah. La Luchadora has been portrayed by four different wrestlers, and the character was never acknowledged as an active competitor on its own. This is why I feel as if the standard regarding adopting a gimmick as a moniker or a ring name is that it is either exclusive to a wrestler (e.g. Cactus Jack, Stardust), or it is a standalone character that competes as such (e.g. Suicide). Let's not forget that Becky Lynch was never listed as La Luchadora on WWE.com, and neither have Alexa Bliss or Mickie James. DantODB (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Even if this is a joke, both wrestled as La Luchadora. Austin Aries joked the Impact Zone dressed as Suicide for just one match. The Miz joked WWE as The Calgary Kid or The Hardys and Edge and Christian as Los Conquistadores. About Purazzo, if we have sources, we can list the ringname, like The Swagger Soaring Eagle. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the joke aspect of it. I'm talking about the fact that it is neither a standalone character–played by multiple people–with exclusive storylines, or a gimmick exclusive to a wrestler in which said wrestler is known for. If the rule of thumb is every name adopted by any performer is considered a ring name, then should we list Brie Bella as AJ Lee, and AJ Lee as AJ Bella (in regards to these gimmicks being used once a piece in 2014)? DantODB (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

  • It is a name that a wrestler was announced as on purpose (so no "Bret Clarke") even if just for one match. I have no clue about the AJ/Bella storyline so I could not give you an informed answer on that but if AJ Lee wrestled a match billed as "Brie Bella" then I'd say yes, if it was a skit mocking each other then no. MPJ-DK  22:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I recall a similar discussion with Damien Sandow back in 2014. The consensus was that it was the Damien Sandow character portraying all of these various personas, so they would not be listed as separate ring names. This seems to be the case here as well, where WWE makes it clear that it was just them in-character pretending to be someone else. I don't think they should be listed in that instance, either. Prefall 22:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I think Prefall's point is what I've been trying to say. In this instance, it has been Becky Lynch and Alexa Bliss revealed to be under the La Luchadora mask every single night. It was never a scenario in the vein of Cody Rhodes became Stardust. Also, I've been making the point that the "joke" factor of it has no weight whatsoever. AJ wrestled in a match where she was announced as AJ Bella, but it was in the world of AJ Lee pretending to be someone else. Same case here. La Luchadora was introduced, and then it was revealed to be Bliss/Lynch under the mask. It does not hold the same weight as characters like Suicide. DantODB (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Stardust is an invalid comparison. Jake Roberts as El Diablo or Edge/Christian as Los conquistadors seems to be more appropriate or similar.  MPJ-DK  23:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Hence, why I pointed out that this is not in the same vein as Stardust. DantODB (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk about a pointless comment then? BTW it is also nothing like El Hijo del Santo, just saying '  MPJ-DK  00:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
How is it pointless to point out how La Luchadora is nothing like Stardust and that it doesn't hold the same weight in regards to considering it as a ring name compared to Stardust? Was it pointless because it weakened the opposing argument? DantODB (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
It is irrelevant to the discussion, we are talking about if a ring name used once or twice should be listed. He was Stardust for around 2 years thus is apropos of nothing in this conversation. How does that weaken an argument made pro or con?  MPJ-DK  01:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
That's Dant's exact point! That, unlike Stardust or other such alternate identities used for long periods of time where they became the wrestler's full time gimmick, which we all can agree should be listed, gimmicks like La Luchadora or Los Conquistadors are not significant enough for listing as ring names. I agree with that point. oknazevad (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Oknazevad. Exactly. Changing gimmicks to compete under another moniker than what one is known for is one thing (e.g. Mick Foley becoming Dude Love), but it is another thing to compete under another moniker AS what one is known (i.e. Alexa Bliss masquerading as La Luchadora). DantODB (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Based on what i am reading the argument is that Sam Adonis should not have "Bill Callous" listed as a ring name since he only used it for one match in TNA and then never again?? Not really seeing the logic here.  MPJ-DK  06:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how much more I can elaborate. The argument is that there's a difference between multiple distinct monikers that are independent of each other (e.g. Mick Foley and Dude Love) and a single moniker pretending to be another one (e.g. Becky Lynch competing under a disguise, having been Becky Lynch the whole time). Sam Adonis wrestling as Bill Callous in TNA means that Bill Callous is a ring name that Sam Adonis used. Alexa Bliss wrestling as Alexa Bliss masquerading as La Luchadora means that La Luchadora is a fictional character facilitated under the Alexa Bliss ring name. Same with Becky Lynch. Does that make sense? DantODB (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Alexa Bliss is a fictional character for Alexis Kaufman. Even that, Andy Kaufman wrestled as La Luchadora once, just like Los Conquistadores. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I remember a discussion long time ago about the Daniel Wyatt gimmick. [17] Bliss and Lynch wrestled under that name, so it's a ringname and it's sourced. As far as I know, the only exceptions we make is with parody gimmick (Like Big Show/Showkishi, Charlie Haas/Charlito and Damien Sandow (except Damien Mizdow because became his ringname)--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking at this page, the current ruling is at two that favor listing it as a ring name, and three that oppose it. So, La Luchadora should not be a listed as a ring name. DantODB (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

This is not votation. We have a full list of consensus with Los Conquistadores, Spider Lady, Calgary Kid, ustin Aries/Suicide, Swagger Soaring Eagle. You're removing ringnames just because you want. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

HHHPedrigree, have you not been reading the discussion? I've maintained that La Luchadora should not be a ring name because it is a double gimmick (a gimmick within a gimmick). Alexis Kaufman wrestling as Alexa Bliss masquerading as La Luchadora; think about it. Would La Luchadora hold the same weight as a ring name as Alexa Bliss would? Come on. DantODB (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's see if I can restate this point to show what the objection is. When a real person, Alexis Kaufman, assumes the fictional persona of Alexa Bliss, we note that as a major part of the real woman's professional career. But when the fictional character of Alexa Bliss uses a disguise as part of a storyline, that's just a plot point and not a defining feature. That's what we're arguing here. oknazevad (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  • So a Fictional character is okay, but a "fictional-fictional" character is not okay?? ooookay then. As stated above, we don't count votes like we're electing a president, we try to build consensus - 5 people out of I dunno how many people edit wrestling is not enough for a consensus.  MPJ-DK  11:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

A consensus is reached when all editors involved in the discussion express their say, which has been done. It only takes the number of editors interested in the issue. If you would like to get more editors involved, please do. As of now, it's looking like it's leaning towards La Luchadora not being a ring name. DantODB (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  • ERM a consensus is not when "everyone who are interested have a say and the we count", that is the definition of a "vote" right there. Going "meta" and what-not leans into Original Research, who determines what is what? Who says Jake Roberts was El Diablo but Mickie James was not La Luchdora? Now if there is some clear guideline that is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines I would be all for it. MPJ-DK  00:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
How do you suppose we resolve this then? Should we list La Luchadora as a ring name when there are two editors in favor of it, even with three editors opposing it? I don't think that's in line with Wiki standards. Plus, all of the original research stuff is farfetched because all of these are facts. I don't disagree with anything you're saying, it's just that I feel that the theory of them being La Luchadora is not taken far enough. La Luchadora was created in the world of their established gimmicks. Ring names are supposed to be the world of the gimmick itself, not what is created within. DantODB (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I guess my real issue is that I don't want to go through a separate discussion each time, I would love some sort of general guideline instead of a case-by-case approach. If we can figure out a way to get consistency then I am willing to go with whatever the approach is.  MPJ-DK  07:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I think wrestling is too intricate for a general guideline on this. Certain things just have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and that is unavoidable. Like, it's hard to give the same weight to things such as Damien Sandow as "Lance Stephenson" (amongst numerous others) and AJ Lee as "AJ Bella" when WWE themselves dismiss it as the characters just fooling around. Prefall 08:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
"too intricate"? I have never heard pro wrestling being accused of this. So instead of even trying you're okay with incessant discussions, rehasing the same points over and over again? Somehow that is not something care to do, pick whatever you want for La Luchadora I've got more interesting things to do.  MPJ-DK  08:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
As an on-screen product? Nah. In determining which mundane details are relevant to an encyclopedia? Apparently so. I still remember the clusterfuck over the inclusion of the "Daniel Wyatt" ring name. Prefall 09:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Prefall that a guideline isn't going to be helpful here. I generally agree that one-time disguises used for storyline purposes shouldn't be listed but still support listing The Black Scorpion for Flair because it was the payoff to a major storyline and in kayfabe it was him the entire time. Consensus should be achieved on a case-by-case basis on the individual talk pages.LM2000 (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree as well. This isn't the sort of thing where we can make a broad rule (which would be instruction creep), but need to use editorial judgement on a case-by-case basis. There's nothing wrong with that and it does not constitute original research; it's not original research when editors (by consensus) decide what details to include in the plot summary of a film article. oknazevad (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move

Hi. We are haveing some troubles with this move. Somebody can help? Talk:Diamanté (female wrestler) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Renee and Dean marriage

I'm getting astoundingly tired of trying to keep a track of these two articles, can someone help figure out if the marriage certificate is real or not? I don't trust WWE's statements on the marriage date but I'm getting tired of being pestered by new editors and IPs who do.★Trekker (talk) 06:59, April 22, 2017 (UTC)

Official marriage record states October 2016. More WWE bs changing history. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 17:16, April 23, 2017 (UTC)
Yeah that's what I assumed. I've grown tired of trying to keep their articles in check. May be time to get them protected for a while.★Trekker (talk) 17:23, April 23, 2017 (UTC)
Added them to watchlist, 2 watching should help. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 17:26, April 23, 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Dean Ambrose/Archive 1#Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2017 needs some attention related to this as well. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:16, April 25, 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the 2017 date is correct. The official marriage record states

  • Recording Number: 2017302173
  • Recording Date: 04/18/2017 08:17:51 AM
  • Marriage Date: 04/09/2017
  • Filing Number: MA2016-6356
  • Filing Date: 10/10/2016 12:55:28 PM

Meaning that they originally applied for a marriage license back in October, but didn't actually get married until April 9, with the official recording date April 18. No BS from the WWE, just someone misreading the official record. oknazevad (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Nice to have that cleared up.★Trekker (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

WWE Championship changes

I admit I'm pretty bad with keeping title apart but I'm not sure these changes (here, here and here, for example) by the same editor are correct.★Trekker (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

They are correct. The name they put was the official name of the title at that time. The WWE Championship was called the WWF World Heavyweight Championship from 1983 to 1998. It was often shorthanded to WWF Championship during that time, but WWF Championship did not become its official name until 1998. --JDC808 ♫ 18:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok tanks. I wish the company didn't renaming it's titles, gets confusing, maybe it's just me.★Trekker (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
It does get confusing a little bit, especially the last 6 months of 2016 when they changed the name of it 3 times. From the 60s to the 80s, the name changes were because of the company leaving, rejoining, and then again leaving the NWA. Three of the name changes were because the company changed its name (it was originally the WWWF, then the WWF, and now WWE). A couple of other name changes were because of title unifications: the Undisputed Championship in 2001-2002 and the WWE World Heavyweight Championship in 2013-2016. --JDC808 ♫ 18:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, this is what happens when you have made up prices and the titles don't matter.★Trekker (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I get the reference, but now how it pertains to these name changes, but okay? --JDC808 ♫ 19:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I just kind of feel like it's the epitome of a lot of wrestling recently. You can make up new titles and call them whatever you want even if it doesn't make sense. Sorry I brought it up I'm just kind of tired of WWE's insistance of having so many titles when none of them feel like they have any prestige. Just my inner fanboy peeking out.★Trekker (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Bret Hart nonsense again

Some new editor is trying to revert the article to ten years ago. I can't see any conceivable way that that's ok even with the bullshit excuse that they're giving.★Trekker (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll/Archive. This editor has a long history of feuding with members of this Wikiproject. Just an FYI. Sro23 (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on April 30 2017

Could someone please restore this edit at Bill Goldberg([18]) as this well-sourced Legacy section was removed by career vandal User:The abominable Wiki troll. Thanks! 77.234.46.169 (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. JTP (talk • contribs) 00:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The legacy section was created by another career vandal, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000. Do not restore.LM2000 (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

List of ROH pay-per-view events

This article has been tagged with {{cleanup}} and {{confusing}} for quite some time now regarding that fact that it includes events like Final Battle and Supercard of Honor (not PPVs) which got me to thinking: should we remove these events, or keep them and rename the list to something along the lines of List of ROH events or List of ROH special events? Decided to get a community consensus before making any significant changes. JTP (talk • contribs) 02:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, let us take an example from WCW and Clash of the Champions. They were special events (non-pay-per-views), they have their own article away from WCW pay-per-views. So should ROH. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride
I'd follow the same format as List of ECW supercards and pay-per-view events. McPhail (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking if the ECW article as well. At first I didn't like the expansion to include non-televised events, but it makes sense considering the nature of the live event is much the same. In the case of the ROH events, like Supercard of Honor, they do get televised, but not live (they're really just held as significant TV tapings). I can see that model working here as well. oknazevad (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • All lists shoud have a clear criteria for inclusion - who determines what a "supercard" is for ROH?? the linked definition is kinda vague "comprises multiple high-level matches and/or special attractions" - "high level" a value judgement and "romoters advertise supercards heavily, and tickets typically cost more than at standard-card events." would mean we'd have to find out if this is true for a show or not? "Cleanup" and "confusion" could still apply if the criteria is unclear.  MPJ-DK  23:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC on sports notability

An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Please join in the conversation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Portal:Curreweqds

Editors familiar with professional wrestling might be able to help at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Curreweqds. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

List of Royal Rumble participants

Including a "participants" section in Royal Rumble seems unnecessary, but it gets worse if there is a separate List of Royal Rumble participants. Why does that article even exist? I'm surprised that this wasn't deleted sooner.

And I'm saying that because listing individuals who took part in the match under different gimmicks (personas) once, it's a maintenance nightmare, since we have to update the Rumble participants across all/most recent matches. Nickag989talk 06:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Canvassing. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

History of the WWE Championship belt design

If anyone is interested in making a separate article just for the history of a championship belt design, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the WWE Championship belt design. Nickag989talk 07:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

AfD debate on British Wrestling Championships

There is currently a bulk Aricle for Deletion in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Heavyweight Championship (XWA) primarily focussing on the major old school British wrestling championships as seen defended on national British network ITV on World of Sport . Contributions would be welcomed from pro wrestling orientated Wiki editors, especially with regard to establishing notability for a championship. Romomusicfan (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

In fact, sportsfan (the user who open the AfD) has opened a lot of AfD for british wrestling promotions, like RevPro --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I get the general impression from looking back at his/her contributions log that he/she is an Olympic wrestling fan with a chip on his/her shoulder about "not Real" Pro Wrestling. Still there's a good issue that has been raised on that particular AfD about what constitutes Notability in a pro wrestling title- are there any secondary criteria after GNG? Romomusicfan (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
There's another user on the AfD called Eggishorn who seems to think that Wrestling-Titles.com is not a reliable source. As I've pointed out to him/her, in that case he/she should seriously consider starting up an AfD over the WWE Championship since the sources on there are Wrestling Titles, the WWE's own site and fan-run news sites. Romomusicfan (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't "seem to think," it's unreliable, I'm pretty certain it's fan-submitted data (a look at their acknowledge "sources" makes this impossible to ignore) and therefore not reliable within project standards. They are very nearly a wrestilng title wiki, with minimal indication of any editorial selectivity. Mentioning it's cited at WWE Championship is a classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, which has the same bearing on this AfD as the price of tea in China. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Honestly anything sourced to ONLY WWE and Wrestling-Titles.com is just plain lazy, there are a million different sources for any and all WWE championships that should be used.  MPJ-DK  12:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Well this is why all wrestling WikiEditors should take an interest in this particular AfD - if we're not careful then the likes of Sportfan1234 and Eggishorn will be knocking at the door of even the two main World Heavyweight titles that Hulk Hogan held - and just because we viscerally assume that you can't get more notable than that won't make it wash with non-fan Wiki-editors. Romomusicfan (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's asking much for fans of this, well, athletic activity should be holding their sourcing and notability to standards any less than fans of any other athletic activity. Cyclicsts' titles are not sourced to a cycling wiki, hockey players are not sourced to fan data, etc. If you want other non-project editors to take these titles seriously, then arguments like "I remember this growing up" are not going to impress. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll concede you make reasonable points about sourcing, but the IP editor who actually wrote "I remember this growing up" made a fair point too, inasmuch as those titles were a part of mainstream British culture in an era well within living memory. There were lesser options Sportsfan 1234 could have plumped for like tags for sourcing and "may not meet Notability standards" which editors can tag articles with when they're not reasonably sure it's a case of someone trying to big up something insignificant. Romomusicfan (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
If they were part of mainstream British culture within living memory, then I'm not sure why it isn't relatively easy to find WP:RS. In the almost two weeks since Sportsfan_1234 nominated British Heavyweight Championship (XWA), there has been no attempt to improve the article. If sourcing tags should alert other editors to problems, a nomination for AfD surely should do so. None of the title's defenders has yet seen fit to add any new sources. Aren't there any at least semi-independent wrestling news sites? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
There are several independent wrestling news sources which are reliable. Either the titles aren't notable or no-one cares enough to find the sources. I perosonally don't know anything about British Wreslting so I can't comment on whether they were "main-stream" or not but if they are notable it's disapointing to me that no-one has bothered to find the sources to actually improve the articles. People who want to keep stuff should put some effort into it as well.★Trekker (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Eggishorn - I did in fact make some specific suggestions on the AfD about sources which could be used to back up an assertion of notability - something which I never received any feedback from yourself about. If you'd agreed that that was an acceptable source then I could have started work myself on articles. If you disagreed then there was little point in my doing the work. I thought it would be best to seeks some consensus from you (and maybe Sportsfan 1234 too) before proceeding.Romomusicfan (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I find it incredible that, if these titles were indeed contested on national TV in the UK, there are no other sources other than obvious fansites. Are there no program listings or any other news articles about the TV coverage claimed? It's up to those who make a claim of notability to substantiate it. Also, I think you are personalizing this debate far too much. I don't want to speak for Sportsfan_1234 but your treating him and I as opponents of wrestling is skating close to the boundaries of the policy on personal attacks. As that policy states: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Statements like ...Olympic wrestling fan with a chip on his/her shoulder... and ...then the likes of Sportfan1234 and Eggishorn will be knocking at the door... are not helpful in achieving consensus. I may disagree with you about notability of these wrestling titles but I am not your enemy. There are notability and sourcing guidelines which have been established by the wider community through extensive discussions and they apply this subject as they do to others. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Dude how about instead of talking about sources you add some of them to the articles?★Trekker (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
At the risk certainty of repeating myself: "It's up to those who make a claim of notability to substantiate it." I have no interest in substantiating claims I about subjects I have no inherent interest in. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Wasn't talking to you man. Haha.★Trekker (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I apologize, then, for my misunderstanding. These highly-indented discussions can be confusing sometimes about who is responding to whom. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It's ok man, I thought it was a little funny. I'm kind of on your side on this whole discussion I feel. I don't think it's ok that Romomusicfan is implying some bias on your part.★Trekker (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

On a similar note, there is an IP editor prod'ing a large number of wrestling titles and promotions (see list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Article alerts). Could a few editors help me pick out which ones should be saved? Nikki♥311 21:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

What Notability guidelines does this project work to?

The discussion in the previous thread but one prompted me to ask for some assistance in understanding what criteria this project uses to determine the notability of individual professional wrestlers. There's nothing in WP:NSPORTS, except a referral to WP:ENTERTAINER. (And there's not much there to help me either). I frequently encounter long, incredibly detailed, yet poorly referenced articles on Japanese 'professional wrestlers' which seem to me to be nowhere near meeting WP:GNG. Most of the references offered in these types of articles seem only to point to wrestling websites or online video broadcasts - rarely anything 3rd-party or newsworthy to suggest notability of the individual. I'm loathe to wade into an area I know absolutely nothing about and cause unreasonable problems, but as an outsider I find it hard to understand how articles on Japanese wrestlers like Takuya Nomura (wrestler), Teruaki Kanemitsu, Yoko Bito, Katsuya Kitamura or Hiro Sasaki merit retention. The cynic in me wonders if articles like these are created by event promoters or by overly keen enthusiasts who've not read the same notability criteria that I do. But maybe I've missed something. Any help would be welcome as I don't want to unreasonably slap AfDs on other articles like these if there's a consensus that they really are noteworthy. Thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I personally always go by GNG, I honestly don't know why any other guidelines are needed. Availability of reliable sources is the only thing which should really matter. As for the Japanese wrestlers, I cant really comment. I'm not into Puroresu and I don't know any Japansese so I can't realy find sources in that language that might help establish notability.★Trekker (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:ANYBIO says that significant awards count towards GNG. Generally wrestling championships are considered awards rather than typical sport championships in these discussions, so if they've won a notable championship there's a good chance they're notable too. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Eaver (wrestler) recently ended in deletion because the championships he won weren't significant enough to pass that bar.LM2000 (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback @*Treker: and @LM2000:. I'll stick with assessing just against GNG, then, though it may be difficult if there are still championships with articles that aren't themselves significant. Is that an issue in this field of sports entertainment, and is it often flouted by fans promoting their favourite games and championships?
And wow, you really floored me with the WP:ANYBIO suggestion, LM2000. That's one interpretation of WP policy I really can't accept, no matter how little I know about the world of wrestling. To suggest that all these wrestling championship wins are considered 'awards' (so that if a person wins one they then become notable under point 1 of WP:ANYBIO) is stretching the interpretation of that policy well beyond reason. If one reads the policy, and then reads the Wikipedia definition of an Award, and then refers to the List of prizes, medals and awards article and its sub-pages, it's absolutely clear to me that, apart from major national or international sporting events, these are honours or awards laid upon a person by their peers. eg Sports personality, architectural awards, business awards, Michelin stars, military honours and political awards etc. Apart from Freestyle wrestling and Greco-Roman wrestling, nothing in either article persuades me that the term 'award' applies to these championship events. Anyway, I'm really learning and do appreciate the feedback. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd argue that from a reputable company it may definitely lend prestige to a wrestler career. Main eventing a show or "winning" a title or tournament is more akin to an actor landing a big role in a movie or show for a wrestler. Of course there are some legitimate awards that are given in pro wrestling as well such as from the Wrestling Observer Newsletter. I've always questoned why these things are included in the same section.★Trekker (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not a perfect comparison, but like Treker said the company chooses its champions to represent the company. To be clear, I don't recall a case where a wrestler's notability hinged solely on their championship (that would border on WP:NOTINHERITED). GNG is always the ultimate bar for any AfD, WP:PW/RS has a list of sources that have extensive coverage of wrestling.LM2000 (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I also use WP:GNG. Be careful with WP:PW/RS, though. Just because these sites are considered reliable sources, it doesn't mean they help establish notability...specifically, the sites listed under "Industry specific" like cagematch. Nikki♥311 01:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Aye. WrestlingData is great for letting us know there were six Jason the Terribles, a Jason el Terrible and a New Jason the Terrible, but that doesn't mean they're the sort of people general audiences want to or need to know. In fact, a few had terrible careers. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I can't help but think this thread has raised more questions than answers.LM2000 (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
There are six Spoiler #1s, but nine Spoiler #2s. One of the Spoiler #1s was better known as Doug Gilbert, but wasn't the better-known Doug Gilbert. The Doug Gilbert Wikipedia knows had about 786 matches between 1987 and 2016 and the Doug Gilbert Wikipedia doesn't know had 2,342 matches between 1957 and 1986. Four days before Doug Gilbert was born, Doug Gilbert teamed with Assassin #1. When Doug Gilbert was two days old, Doug Gilbert teamed with Assassin #2. You'd think that'd make him one of the three Assassin #3s, but nope. Neither Doug Gilbert was one of the six Assassin #1s or the ten Assassin #2s, either, but two wrestlers played both one of four Cuban Assassins and one of four Cuban Assassin #2s.
Now forget all that crap and remember this: The Doug Gilbert who isn't notable bodyslammed and pinned Andre the Giant fifteen years before Hulk Hogan did. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Does this count of Spoilers include Drew McDonald as the masked Spoiler in Britain in 1987? [19][20] Romomusicfan (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The Spoilers are a distinct shady bunch. WD counts seven of them (and one New Spoiler). But (SPOILER ALERT) McDonald isn't among them. 1987 was mainly Western Canada, by this recollection, with two matches as The Great Scot against Steele and Valentine. It's not complete, though, so maybe.
The only record of McDonald teaming with either of the two King Kendos in any form is from November 11, 1994, in Liverpool. The Ultimate Chippendales over the Liverpool Lads. And if those names aren't goofy enough, the one and only Bastion Booger was there.
WrestlingData doesn't seem to have any idea about that Spoiler. I tend to think it is McDonald, but will get to the bottom of this, or go insane trying. Thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Well we know Drew was that Spoiler because he was unmasked as him by Big Daddy at the end of bout number two as cited above. We also know that he teamed with Bill Clarke's King Kendo in bout number 1 above. You're right about Western Canada though - he appeared in Stampede Wrestling as Ben Doon McDonald and IIRC even got listed in their ratings in Pro Wrestling Illustrated. Romomusicfan (talk) 08:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Dammit, man. I got sidetracked, and hadn't watched the finishes yet. Now you've destroyed the surprise. Or crushed the anticipation. Or something like that.
All's forgiven, though, because you taught me a valuable lesson about looking at the top. Thanks. Maybe pass those links along? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The Welcoming Committee

I did a lot of work on The Welcoming Committee expanding the history and adding sources. Anything that can be added to the article to help expand it or make it better is more than welcome. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 10:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

For future reference, we don't make articles for teams until they've really become established as a team and there's enough coverage of them as a team. As of yesterday's SmackDown Live, it seems that The Welcoming Committee are no more. --JDC808 ♫ 20:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

WWE title reign lengths

What is with the title reigns articles that say WWE recognizes the reign lasts a day longer than what it actually is? Some of the numbers are correct and some of them are incorrect. I took a sample article which had this and looked at WWE's website to compare. I did the WWE Universal Championship:

  • WWE's website says Finn Balor's reign lasted 22 hours, which is correct. Our numbers say it lasted 1 day, which if we aren't counting the hours, this is accurate as well (although less than 1 is more accurate). The actual number is 22 hours, though.
  • Title was vacated on August 22 until August 29.
  • Kevin Owens won the title on August 29. The WWE website recognizes his reign at 189 days. This is correct. Why do we say it was only 188 days? Who is doing the math here? In addition to that, it says in the notes, "WWE recognizes Owens' reign as lasting 189 days." It was 189 days. Including August 29, 2016, the day he won it, and the day he lost March 5, 2017, is 189 days. What day are we not including?
  • Goldberg won on March 5, 2017 and lost it on April 2, 2017. WWE says it was 28 days, which is correct. We also say it is 28 days. No problem.
  • Brock Lesnar won on April 2, 2017 and has held it since. WWE says he has held it for 50 days and 13 hours as of this writing and this is incorrect. Since it is attempting a live update, this number I can assume this is an error in the website. We say he has held it 51+, and this is also incorrect. Including April 2 and including today's date, May 23, is 52+ now.

This is a serious issue and is affecting the accuracy of our statistics since this is widespread throughout WWE-related title reign articles. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  • The calculations are done using the "age in days nts" template. Is that template's math off?  MPJ-DK  12:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Check and see if the template has the correct dates listed.--WillC 17:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
      • The templates have the correct dates, but what is considered a day in a title reign is not the same as "age in days" since title reigns count on the day they are won and the day they are lost, which adds a day. WWE's website for Owen's title reign is correct and we are not. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 18:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
        • Sometimes, the "age in days" template is the same as what WWE says, but sometimes it is off by a day from what WWE says. I believe part of the reason it sometimes gets off is because Wikipedia goes by UTC time, which means that the day begins at what would be 8:00pm US Eastern Time where I Live. The reason the discrepancy in the notes are there is because I did the same as you: I compared what we were saying to what WWE's website was saying and noticed some were different. In some cases, the number was different because WWE goes by the tape date, instead of the actual date the title was won, other cases were the one day discrepancy that you have brought up. I brought this issue up and we came to a consensus to note the discrepancies. --JDC808 ♫ 20:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
          • Okay, but the age in dates template is wrong, not the WWE website. If the WWE website is correct, then we should report that number and there shouldn't be an annotation. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Money in the Bank

Hi. I have a lot of questions about the female MITB. As you can see, WWE revoked Carmella's victory and it's gonna held another MITB. What should we do about the MITB article? I took of the match from the table because the result was revoked, so Carmella never won the briefcase. Should we include the match? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I would think so. Even if the result was vacated, the match took place. So including it with a note about the result being vacated is probably the best course of action. oknazevad (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah that seems like the best idea.★Trekker (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
He didn't revoke her victory, he revoked her prize. Just because she was stripped of the briefcase, that doesn't mean the match no longer happened. She still technically won the first match. It's still in the record books. It will still be on the home video release. --JDC808 ♫ 16:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
According to WWE.com, Carmella isn't a Money in the Bank winner. WWE decided to revoke her victory and will held the match again. http://wwe.com/superstars/carmella --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Regardless, everything else I said is true. --JDC808 ♫ 17:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Carmella didn't won a match if the result was reversed. Jericho won the WWE Title but the decision was reversed. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Wait... but Jericho didn't become WWE Champion in 2000 since the referee reversed this decision. Carmella won the MITB ladder match, but it didn't revoked, but rather was stripped of the briefcase. Nickag989talk 08:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
And WWE.com doesn't listed Carmella as a Money in the Bank winner. Her victory was revoked, not just the briefcase. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The first time wasn't listed that's for sure. However, the updated bio "Though she was stripped of the contract at first, Carmella survived another Money in the Bank Ladder Match to claim a contract that could guarantee she becomes SmackDown Women's Champion." lists her as the MITB winner, but it means that she won that match once, right? Nickag989talk 12:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Okey, I agree. She won the first match. BUT, I think she is only one time MITB winner, no two times. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Same here, but the worst part is that everyone thinks that Bryan stripping the contract from Carmella doesn't negate that she won the match, which is why the Money in the Bank#Females shows that Carmella won 2 victories in both appearances. :/ Nickag989talk 18:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Impact possibly rebranding as GFW

I've just read this story in the Observer today about Impact being rebranded again, this time as Global Force Wrestling. I think we should wait for more confirmation before we start making changes to the related articles but it does look legit because the Impact Wrestling twitter account retweeted an article from The Tennessean about it. I don't know what the Impact Wrestling and Global Force Wrestling articles will look like if this goes through. I also don't know why Impact would take on the name of a previously existing organization that nobody cared about.LM2000 (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

For me, looks legit. Also, PWInsider reported this situation. Maybe a good idea is to merge both articles. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's a better brand than the immature joke that was the "TNA" initials. But that's just obnoxious. But, oof, that Tennesseean article gets many details wrong. Not exactly a paragon of good research. oknazevad (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I think we should keep the articles separate, GFW was a separate entity for three years. If we end up having to move Impact Wrestling to Global Force Wrestling, I'd recommend moving the currrent GFW article to Global Force Wrestling (2014–2017).LM2000 (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Not a merger, as they were separate entities, and have distinct histories that would be lost. The use of dates as disambiguatirs is standard and appropriate. oknazevad (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I found articles from ImpactWrestling.com where they refer to themselves as GFW/Impact Wrestling. I brought this up at Talk:Impact Wrestling a few days ago. JTP (talk • contribs) 16:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I just got around to reading the linked articles. I support waiting until confirmation during tapings or Slammiversary or something. Since they are currently referring to themselves as GFW/Impact Wrestling for the time being (Exhibit A and Exhibit B), should those changes be made ASAP? JTP (talk • contribs) 00:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?

Hi, just wonder if there is any template or program in the project to recruit newcomers or new editors to join the project? Bobo.03 (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bobo.03: Yep, we have a talk page welcome at {{WikiProject Professional Wrestling welcome}}. JTP (talk • contribs) 18:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Got it. I wonder how does the project usually recruit or welcome new editors. I am a PhD student from the University of Minnesota. We are planning on a study to help projects identify and recruit new editors to contribute. I am not sure if this is something WPPW would be interested. Here is our project detail. Bobo.03 (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Indicating who pinned who in a tag team match

Do we have a system for indicating this in match results? If not, we should, as it would be especially important in the large 6-10 man matches NJPW likes to do. Pinguinn 🐧 04:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The only time I see something like this done is for elimation matches where it's often more than one wrestler pinning or submitting an opponent. An example would be the Elimination Chamber.--76.65.43.125 (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Mitsuhiro Matsunaga

Mr. Pogo's death today reminded me that his fellow deathmatch celebrity, Mr. Danger, doesn't have an article despite being mentioned a fair bit in other articles. Just something to consider if anyone's bored. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

And if anyone's still bored after that, Shadow Winger isn't exactly chopped liver. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

02:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_99&oldid=1140105932"