Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WP:PW TalkAssessmentRecognized contentStub articlesStyle guideSources
SanctionsArticle alertsTemplatesUnreferenced BLPsPPV expansionNewsletterMembers listTop priority articlesNew articles
WikiProject Professional Wrestling
Professional Wrestling as a whole is under General Sanctions
Welcome to the WikiProject Professional wrestling discussion page. Please use this page to discuss issues regarding professional wrestling related articles, project guidelines, ideas, suggestions and questions. Thank you for visiting!

In wrestling[edit]

Hi. I will open with a disclaimer that I know very little about this area. However I was reviewing a Good Article and thought I would query one of your style guidelines. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#For biographies you have a heading suggestion of "In wrestling". At the article I am reviewing it contains a list of moves. My issue with the heading is that I find it very vague. "In wrestling" could mean anything and I did not find it a very informative heading for the information it contained. What is the reasoning behind suggesting this as a heading? Why can't it be wrestling moves or something similar? AIRcorn (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Aircorn: I am not sure which article you are reviewing, but many contain much more than just moves. Finishing moves, signature moves, managers (and/or wrestlers managed), nicknames, entrance themes, and wrestlers trained, are all listed in the Style Guide as possibilities. If you looks at Kurt Angle for example there is a lot of other information in it. I have never liked the heading personally, as in an article like Angle it is confusing, as he was first an amateur wrestler, and a reader could believe this information related to his time in the Olympics. I am not sure what a better term would be, but at a minimum it should include the word professional before wrestling to avoid the confusion. - GalatzTalk 12:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I should mention that it's currently used in the style guide. I have no issues with it being changed, but we would need a consensus for the new title, and a widespread change across all wrestler profile (As well as teams and managers) for this change. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Concern over this vague heading has been brought up a few times over the years. I think the consensus has always been that it's not ideal but a better alternative has not been presented. Prefall 16:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Thinking on it, would "Characteristics in professional wrestling" make more sense? Though, it has a few issues—perhaps too close to the existing "Wrestling persona" section (...merge?) and potentially misleading as this section currently lists real-life trainees. Prefall 18:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
If I understand it correctly, this is basically for all the other information about a wrestler that doesn't fit into career. Would "Professional wrestling details" or "Professional wrestling particulars" be better. Particulars seems to fit the purpose more accurately. Either way I feel like I should be able to look at a heading and have some idea what the content should entail and "In wrestling " does not do this. Don't worry, I will not fail an article for sticking to existing style guidelines, especially as I can't find any policies or guidelines that say a header has to be named a certain way (apart from not being a question or not repeating the title). I think it would be worth your project trying to come up with an alternative though as it does stick out in the article I am reviewing and the one listed above. AIRcorn (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
What if we combined the championship heading to being a sub-heading under a "Professional wrestling highlights" section? This section could contain everything the current "In wrestling" does, and the championships would just become a subheading? - GalatzTalk 14:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Oooh, I like that idea. oknazevad (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I second that Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm good with that too. Prefall 20:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Looks like consensus. Does someone here want to make the change to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#For biographies. I would, but it would be better coming from someone from this project. AIRcorn (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done I also made "Luchas de Apuestas record" a subsection of Highlights rather than C&A. It seems more appropriate to me but I'd like to know how others feel about this. Prefall 01:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Makes sense to me. I made the change to a number of high profile wrestlers to draw attention to this change, so hopefully people notice. - GalatzTalk 01:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This is going to be a major pain to change every bio, but those who want to can look through Category:Professional wrestlers by nationality to get everyone. JTP (talkcontribs) 01:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I changed every page in categories R-Y in Category:Professional wrestlers by nationality, for anyone keeping track. JTP (talkcontribs) 02:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
FYI I have updated everyone currently on the WWE and Impact personnel pages - GalatzTalk 19:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I noticed today that the style guide was changed as to how that section should be titled. The former title always seemed a bit odd to me But reading through this discussion I wonder why the term "Highlights" was then instituted into the style guide. It seems even less fitting as most of the section doesn't address highlights but rather details like managers, finishers, theme songs etc. Str1977 (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
"Highlights" is more all-encompassing, taking the most notable characteristics of the wrestler and their championships, awards and accomplishments all in one section (plus Luchas de Apuestas). Though, alternatives can continue to be suggested. Prefall 08:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I prefer leaving the name at In Wresting <--- Short and Simple (Easy to to know what this section about)
The Championships/Awards should be left as a section up (not a sub section) to make easier to find when scrolling. Colton Meltzer (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Most agree that "in wrestling" is extremely vague though. It's really not clear what aspect of wrestling it pertains to. I'm indifferent towards C&A being its own section or not, but under the current "Highlights" format it makes sense to be a subsection. Prefall 08:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@Colton Meltzer: A big issue is the "In wrestling" tells you nothing in reality. The contents didn't match the header. Is their theme music really in wrestling? Its not in the match, so it details with professional wrestling but a person could easily assume the section deals with in the ring only. Additionally anyone who had an amateur background someone would naturally go to that section to look for information on their amateur career and find nothing. The section is a high level summary of everything dealing with professional wrestling, which are the highlights. - GalatzTalk 10:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@Galatz: @Prefall: I prefer leaving the Championship/awards in different section. I believe is more organized that way.Colton Meltzer (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it should be left as "in wrestling" while "championships and accomplishments should not be a sub-section. There was nothing wrong with how it was before. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Colton Meltzer: @Fishhead2100: Do you have any reasons other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? You havent said anything to address the concerns with the previous method. Like Kurt Angle, you would go to "In wrestling" to see about his amateur wrestling, it does a disservice to the reader. Keep in mind the reason this topic started is an outside person reviewing a page was confused as to what it meant. - GalatzTalk 11:44, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Galatz: How is "in wrestling" vague? The "in wrestling" section has headers in bold to tell you what each section is. If it's too hard to tell that one section is for "finishing moves" or "entrance themes," than I don't know what to tell you. If they read the lead introduction section, they'll know the person is or was a pro wrestler, than from there, the rest should be easy to get. When do you have finishing moves in amateur wrestling? When do you have entrance themes in amateur wrestling? As far as championships and accomplishments go, you don't put it as a sub-section because it also can include amateur wrestling and other accomplishments outside of wrestling. For instance, Becca Swanson has had accomplishments outside of pro wrestling in body building. That's why the championships and accomplishment section is not a sub-section. The "in wrestling" is for pro wrestling items and the championships and accomplishments section is not strictly pro wrestling. 15:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: If you have to actually look at a section's content to make sense of its heading, then that is an issue. "In wrestling" could pertain to literally anything within professional (or amateur) wrestling and seem redundant to other sections. As I've said before, feel free to recommend a new term for the heading, but falling back to "In wrestling" ignores those issues. I'm also not married to the idea of C&A being a subsection but it's appropriate under the current "Highlights" heading.
This is beside the point, but I would honestly propose to outright remove the "In wrestling/"Highlights" section if I knew that idea wouldn't be despised in these circles. It's pure fancruft and any truly significant material could be covered in "career" or "persona" sections. Prefall 16:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Prefall: The section name "professional wrestling highlights" could also refer to their career because with the career section, you don't put every little thing they do each week and whatnot. If you removed it and people who wanted to know about their move set and whatnot, they would have go off Wikipedia. Wikipedia is more thorough with that stuff than other sites like Internet Wrestling Database, Online World of Wrestling, Cagematch, etc.. I still would rather leave the section titled "in wrestling." How adamant are you in wanting the name change? If you are set on changing the name, I'd have to think on the name. According to WP:CRUFT, using the term "fancruft" can be considered uncivil. It also says that fancruft tends to focus on the fictional aspects of the subject rather than their place in the real world. But that would mean the career section is fancruft considering wrestling is scripted. But I can see how you can could say this section is trivial. But fancruft refers to content that is unencyclopedic that possibly violated policies of verifiability, neutrality, or original research. This section violates none of that. It's not like we just made up the moves, themes, and whatnot. So your use of the term fancruft is not correct. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: I absolutely think it should be changed. Even if you prefer the previous heading, it needs to at least be "In professional wrestling"—shorthand has no benefits and will sometimes cause an overlapping confusion with amateur wrestling.
The truth is that professional wrestling articles are largely ignored by the rest of the Wikipedia community, so rarely are any of our long-standing guidelines put under scrutiny. In my opinion, the "In wrestling" section is typically used as a database to house every ounce of information regardless of its notability. It is not uncommon to find large lists of signature moves that are only supported by a citation saying the wrestler performed the move (which we specifically say not to do in our style guide; "signature moves" is not meant to be a move set), an entire catalog worth of entrance themes cited by a database entry (which does not establish notability), or date ranges, in-depth explanations of moves and other notes that are entirely unsupported. You cannot convince me that any non-fan thinks things like a list of signature move names or entrance themes enhances the article or understanding of the subject.
I also think a good argument can be made about your typical "Professional wrestling career" section being crufty but I'm not interested in diving down that path. Prefall 19:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Prefall: I am okay with the section being called "In professional wrestling" or "In pro wrestling." I changed the style guide to the use the better name for the "in wrestling" section. I do understand that pro wrestling has a niche editor base. That doesn't mean we have to bow down or buckle to the non-wrestling editors. You are saying the "in wrestling" section is cruft, but with how part of the cruft page is worded, that would mean the career section is cruft because it is scripted and has fictional elements to it. That's what I was getting at. I am not saying it needs to be changed. I have no problems with the career section. When it comes to the Luchas de Apuestas, would be it be better in championships and accomplishments rather than the "in professional wrestling" section? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: I think you're jumping ahead a little too quick with the changes. No one besides myself has chimed in and that heading was just an alternate suggestion should an overwhelming consensus be reached to revert. We waited ten days and had unanimous support from five editors at the time. This discussion should continue before we decide to override that or stick with it. Hasty back-and-forth changes benefit no one and could get us in trouble for edit warring. Prefall 04:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Prefall: To make the initial change, there wasn't an overwhelming consensus. There was only three people who agreed. That's not overwhelming. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: To recap: Galatz (the nominator), Oknazevad, Lee Vilenski, and myself agreed. Aircorn also found it acceptable. After the fact, NotTheFakeJTP helped convert a lot of articles and did not oppose the changes when commenting here. Str1977 is not in agreement with the "Highlights" term but was not a fan of the previous heading either. At the moment, it is just you and Colton Meltzer who wholly oppose changes to the previous heading or format.
Idealistically, we want to agree upon a new heading (and possibly format) that clearly and accurately explains what the section is about. "In wrestling" or "In professional wrestling" (which solves one issue but not the major one being its vagueness) are not preferable. Prefall 05:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Prefall: Five is still not that overwhelming. NotTheFakeJTP didn't agree either. By the looks of things, he was indifferent. The format is fine. There is nothing vague about it. Each heading states what the section is. For instance, wrestlers trained is self-explanatory. I would rather have "in professional wrestling" than "professional wrestling highlights." "Professional wrestling highlights" could refer to other sections. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: You keep referring to the content of the section rather than the heading itself. The heading—"In wrestling" or "In professional wrestling"—needs to be a concise representation of what the section is about, and it is not (even less so than "Highlights"). You can not like "Highlights", that is fine, but please suggest something better. Prefall 06:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Prefall: How do you not know what the section is about? Is it to Would you say It houses information not found elsewhere. More specifically, it houses information that isn't necessary in the career section for instance. When it comes to the filmography section, would you question it? Do you not know what it is for? Why is this section difficult to understand? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: Because "in wrestling" or "in professional wrestling" is extremely broad and can pertain to literally anything within wrestling. "Filmography" is a common term, so you immediately know it will be a list of works in film. Prefall 15:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • My attention was recently brought back to this discussion after a message was left on my talk page. I am a little worried by the comment above that says That doesn't mean we have to bow down or buckle to the non-wrestling editors. Wikiprojects exist to develop content within the greater wikipedia environment. If you think wikiprojects should solely set the rules on how this content is presented you would be better off starting your own wiki. If the aim is to produce good encyclopedic articles then good faith outside opinions should be welcomed. To be fair the majority of editors here have been very receptive and it looked like we had unanimous consensus. I still think there is consensus here. If this project can't come to an agreement on a better heading I am willing to start an RFC. If I find it problematic and some editors involved in these articles also do then it is reasonable to expect the wider community will too. AIRcorn (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Aircorn: That wasn't the best choice of words. I've crossed it out. I am actually not against people editing. Like I said, poor choice of words. I've actually did an RFC on another item and got one person or so responding. When it comes to the rest of Wikipedia, pro wrestling has a small editor base. It just doesn't get the attention from the rest of the editors. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I feel that "Professional Wrestling Career Details" or "Professional Wrestling Career Information" could work better instead of Professional Wrestling Highlights. I feel that Championships And Accomplishments should be it's own section due to wrestlers like Angle, Lesnar, Shamrock, etc who have accomplishments in other sports or activities. Keeping Championships and Accomplishments under Professional Wrestling Highlights could be confusing to some readers. HC7 (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I think like HC7. I didn't give my opinion since I didn't think about a better option. However, I think Highlights is wrong. A move it's not a highlight. That secions looks like their biggest moments in their career (like Hulk Hogan Slamming Andre, nWo or Shawn Michaels attacking Jannetty). Pro wrestling information or details fits better. Also, the C&A should be his own section, since some wrestlers won titles in other sports (mma, amateur wrestling, bodybuilding) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I like what HHH Pedrigree said. Professional wrestling information or pro wrestling information works. It is way better than "professional wrestling highlights." People don't get that "professional wrestling highlights" could also refer to the career section. Moves, entrance themes, nicknames, and everything else that goes in that section isn't a highlight. Yes, keep the championships and accomplishments should be separate. I've said it before and I will continue to say it. Luchas de Apuestas section is fine as its own section. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I suppose I don't mind "Professional wrestling details". It still has a vagueness to it but at least it's an improvement over "In wrestling". Luchas de Apuestas is another section I would love to entirely remove but I'm not sure that is a popular opinion. Prefall 23:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
In Mexico that section is more important than the Championship section, just FYI.  MPJ-DK  00:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I was going to elaborate that it is likely very significant in lucha libre culture, but not so much everywhere else. The major focus on individual matches with such a large table has just always stuck out to me. Prefall 00:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@MPJ-DK: Sidenote, I have added Luchas de Apuestas to the style guide. Since you have more acknowledge of this subject than anyone else here, I'd like you to review my edit and make changes or expand on it if necessary. Prefall 21:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I remember a discussion about the Lucha de Apuestas. I think we reduced to mask, hair, titles and maybe (i'm not sure) career/contract. For example, the Punk/Mysterio wouldn't be a lucha de apuestas. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I found these three in the archives:
Consensus seemed to be masks and hair, and sometimes career. I copied the Mysterio example straight from his article (with certain details removed). From my understanding, as long as a mask or hair is wagered, it counts. So, mask vs. stable pledge would count, but title vs. contract would not. Prefall 22:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with that definition, that was the consensus.  MPJ-DK  22:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Also an issue I would have with having a career on the line match included is Ric Flair had 6 months in WWE where his career was on the line for every match. It definitely would need both people to have something on the line. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

How does the Mysterio/Punk not fit into this, btw? Are these matches ONLY for matches that both competitors have something on the line? Careers shouldn't be included, otherwise something like Samoa Joe/Kurt Angle would be included (Joe put his career on the line in that match if I remember correctly). Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I think a lucha de apuestas is a match where both wrestlers apuestan a hair, mask or championship. I mean, other thing, like hair vs join the nexus it's not a lucha de apuestas. For example, I remember a strange thing in TNA Sacrifie 2009, it was a championship/leader of Main Event Mafia/control of TNA/carrer between Foley, Angle, Sting and Jarrett. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Trying to gain clarity (closed)[edit]

Overwhelming consensus is to eliminate the "in wrestling"/"professional wrestling highlights" section in general from biographies and articles on teams/stables. If content is important to the article subject it should be worked into the prose, potentially in a "wrestling persona" section.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So exactly where are we at with this? I see two generally liked suggestions, we should pick one and stick with it. Options are

  • Professional wrestling highlights
  • Professional wrestling details
  • Eliminate the section completly (late addition)
Before we change half the articles to one and half to the other leaving half in the original state (yes I good at math) what is the general feeling on this?  MPJ-DK  01:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with either option. Though, it should be noted that the "Highlights" option goes hand-in-hand with C&A being a subsection beneath it. "Details" would not have to abide by that.
With this new focus on ridding wrestling articles of in-universe and fancruft content, I would also like to reiterate my dissatisfaction with this section and will continue to advocate for its removal. This section, more than any other, will continue to be a magnet for cruft and provide little value. Prefall 03:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
You make a good point, I loathe the "signature move overload" syndrome. That would be a third option, total elimination of the section. managers or people trained lists should be turned to prose and part of the biography, "signature moves" is pointless, entrance music is trivial. I will add a third option.  MPJ-DK  04:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Eliminate - I've always been of the opinion that we need to significantly trim this part of the articles down or remove them altogether. Most of it is cruft or trivial. I prefer the idea of a "Wrestling persona" section (see CM Punk) that describes notable moves, characteristics, songs, etc. but explains how they relate to the person, character or character development rather than an endless list with no context. Nikki311 15:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Eliminate Now that it's an official option. Agree with MPJ-DK and Nikki311 wholeheartedly. I'm not aware of any other articles about fictional characters that group a bunch of character information into a contextless list format such as this. Notable aspects from this section can be covered more adequately in prose. Prefall 19:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Eliminate - I never really understood 100% why we had this section, but its existed for so long I never really questioned the keeping vs not. A lot of the smaller articles have this section as the majority of the article. I do not see it having much encylopediac value as is, it would be much better worked into the article rather than in this section - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Eliminate - it's borderline trivia. if info is important (innovated a more etc.) it should be in the prose instead. I think this elimination would go some way towards articles being less "fan-ish"  MPJ-DK  21:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Comment - I understand the removal of Signature moves, trained wrestlers, managers, as this would help against cruft... However, potentially Finishing Maneuvers and championships seem a bit more neutral. Some finishing moves are more iconic than the wrestler giving the move (Say the Elbow Drop, or the Canadian Destroyer), and I feel a complete removal of the section may drop any links to these sorts of articles. The championships section, whilst clearly being in kayfabe, is comparrable to other awards that are given to people (Say, the OSCARs), so I'd be completely against removing the championships won. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is saying that championship section should be deleted. Finishing moves could and should be worked into article. Seth Rollins losing the curb stomp because it was shown on TV and didn't look good but then getting it back with a new name is easy to have it in prose. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 10:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Clarification this does not include the Championship section. And as mentioned, if important work info into the prose.  MPJ-DK  11:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, that's fine then. Realistically, the awards section is potentially the most notable (And even a potential way of judging notability) aspect of an article. The finishing moves, I agree could be worked into an article, especially for the "Professional Wrestling Persona" section. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry if we weren't clear. I think the "Championships and accomplishments" should stay as well for the reasons you mentioned. Nikki311 14:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Eliminate I was going to add Eliminate but keep C&A but that has since been clarified. It has always been a struggle to find sources for this section, even a major star like Roman Reigns has multiple citations to prove that a move is a "signature move". If it's that difficult to source then it's probably not notable and the multiple sources are probably WP:SYN anyway.LM2000 (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
(Reluctant) Eliminate I'm all for incorporating any notable finishing moves into a "Professional Wrestling Persona" section similar to Punk's or Bryan's articles. Duffs101 (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Pretty unanimous so far, but we should probably keep this open for a few more days so more People get a chance to share Their oppinions so we get consensus (and not just a straight out vote)  MPJ-DK  15:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Eliminate/Comment I'm all for removing the section. However, I'm confused on the situation for finishing moves. Not every wrestler has a finisher with a history like Seth Rollins, so it can be somewhat difficult to include it in prose, however some moves are significantly attached/associated with the wrestler, to which it should be included somewhere in the article. I'm interested in what we can do with the "Wrestling persona" section previously mentioned, as I feel like it can hit some key non-trivial points that the "highlights" section lacked. Sekyaw (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep Championship Section should be separated again to make it organized. Rather make it more complex if we run into a..MMA Fighter who is also wrestler..Championship/Awards Section should never been drag into this. Pro Wresting Moves section should be kept as question ask. 20:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Colton Meltzer (talk)

Can you elaborate on why you want to keep the "In wrestling" section? Prefall 20:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
short and simple - It shows most wrestlers moves a wrestler did in ring against someone. Makes the Wikipedia Wrestler page more interesting to edit. Sources can be made low priority to make it easier to have moves info posted on there (EX 15 users saw this wrestler do a Jumping Suplex on WWE) Rather than linking citing most of time. Colton Meltzer (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
So you want to keep it because it's interesting, and you want to source it with original research? That stuff is for a professional wrestling wikia or database. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Nikki311 21:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Colton Meltzer - I don't think I have seen you post in the pro-wrestling project before, although I have seen your name related to PW edits, so welcome. The suggestion is to keep the championship section and eliminate the "in wrestling" section, so we are on the same page for C&A. As for the "in wrestling" section, the concern is many-fold 1) That section quickly turns into trivia - WP:TRIVIA - which we really should avoid 2) We don't have a good definition for what a "signature move" is, which your comments feed into - just because someone did a "jumping suplex" doesn't necessarily mean it's a "signature move", the section is awash with Original research on what should be listed as very few sources exist to claim what is a "signature move" (example Ricky Steamboat's arm drag is one that's not OR) but becomes a target of repeated, daily additions, changes, edits and to some edit warring when someone puts in what "they saw on Raw" 3) Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a wrestling profile etc. thus all content should ideally be well sourced and most of the "in wrestling" section is poorly sourced 4) anything that's important to the wrestler that was previously in the "in wrestling" should be written into the prose - managers, actual finishing moves etc. instead of the list at the bottom. So I appreciate your interest, but unfortunately, none of your comments are in line with Wikipedia's core guidelines.  MPJ-DK  00:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Eliminate Thinking about it more, most of the moves are simply WP:OR or unsourced, and it'd be better if it was just removed. For example, Seth Rollins' Avada Kedavra's sourcing does not connect the name to the description, and the description in the source does not match the written description. JTP (talkcontribs) 21:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • I am opposed to eliminating this section. I am sure if you looked, you could find sources. You might think this is trivial and not necessary. Again, I think it is good to have. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Duely noted, i am sorry that you disagree with the general consensus but respect your point of view. MPJ-DK  18:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Post-closure discussion[edit]

  • I think we have consensus for the removal. I will update the MOS and I suggest we leave a note in the article to discourage the return of that section. Something along the lines of <!---The Pro Wrestling project reached a consensus in late June 2018 to eliminate the "in wrestling" section. Please do not add it back in. Important information should be added into the article as prose, with reliable sources.--> or words to that effect. Thank you to everyone that participated in the discussion, I think this is an important step forward to eliminate the "fancrufty" elements of pro wrestling articles.  MPJ-DK  00:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)k
Unbelievable, It is what it is, Championship Section should have improvements posting picture of them winning some big company championship like WWE,ROH, TNA or NJPW. Colton Meltzer (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
That is a separate discussion, if you want to start that be my guest. As for pictures we have copyright rules to consider, we cannot just copy a picture off the internet, there are rules for this.  MPJ-DK  00:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We can only use images that are freely licensed (see WP:Image use policy), which are not easy to come by. Non-free file use is extremely strict (see WP:Non-free content criteria) and would not be allowed in these types of situations. Prefall 00:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I tried to applied this new change to but i was given a HG, RIP Colton Meltzer (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, you will need to clarify within the edit summary that your changes are based on a new consensus at WT:PW, and possibly link to this discussion. Otherwise it looks like vandalism to editors who are not involved in this project. Prefall 00:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Bit late to this party, but I saw a "wrestling highlights" where the other thing was for years a day or so ago, and thought it looked dumb. If every single move, manager, championship and trainee is a highlight, none are. That's just the nature of light. But whatever, I can grow to ignore it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, June 29, 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I have updated everyone on the List of WWE personnel page through the UK brand, but not past that. Any bets on how long until IP editors start reverting like crazy to restore? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 03:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

This a defeat for the entire inclusionist if it weren't tragic enough, your uncivil jab at the end has only made it worse. I am now considering leaving Wikipedia already now...there's no place for inclusionists anymore. Tom Danson (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Please don't bring blackmail into this argument. We shouldn't simply include information simply because people like it. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
@Tom Danson: It is not uncivil, there is a WELL DOCUMENTED issue with this on wikipedia. I would like to also point out to you that no one on here said this information has no place on wikipedia, just not as a list which is WP:CRUFT. Please read above and the summary at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional wrestling/Style guide#Professional wrestling highlights / In wrestling, which describes this. Its about prose vs list, but about inclusion vs deletion, please read more carefully before being accusatory. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I like to show one old Ribbon Salminen articles: Nakamura. In japan, finishers are very important. So, their articles read "Nkamura began to work a much rougher style, using a lot of knees and continuing to use a straight right hand as a frequent move in addition to the Bomaye (renamed Kinshasa in WWE), his new finisher." I think it's a great way to include moves into the article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Perfect example, that is exactly how important information should be incorporated. With a purpose, not just indiscriminate data for datas sake.  MPJ-DK  13:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
To those removing the in wrestling/highlights section, please watch out for reference errors. I have come across a few already and expect next week's cleanup listing to be very large. JTP (talkcontribs) 04:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry do you have an example of the issue? In my experience a broken link caused by removal is fixed about an hour later by a bot. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
There is a bot that solves exactly this issue (I think it's called reference medic); but clearly, it's better not to have the issue at all.Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

To those removing the important parts of wrestling wikis, you're driving a lot of people away. This is a very, very bad decision. In fact, the in wrestling section is the main reason a lot of people use wrestling wiki pages. Reverse this decision or forever be known as the people who ruined wrestling on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Please read wikipedia guidelines, IP user, specifically WP:ILIKEIT, as a deletion discussion. The fact that people like, or would use a section of an article, is not a reason to keep it. Wikipedia is a worldwide encylopedia, and this information has been shown to have no basis as a general list on pages. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop removing information. No one cares if your small group made a consensus. This site is for information and you are all actively going against that. Reddit alone has hundreds of people who agree that this is a terrible idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Redit is NOT a reliable source, nor is it in any way related to Wikipedia. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a source or related to wikipedia. Reddit has a massive community of wrestling fans who agree this is a bad idea. What you're doing doesn't just effect wikipedia, it effects any wrestling fan coming here. You are removing information from an information website for no valid reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Scroll up and read carefully. Information should be included in the article in prose as necessary. Not a random list of information. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There is clear reasonings why this is being done above. We have recently had general sanctions placed on our project regarding in-universe being prevelent on our articles, where there shouldn't be. Admins now have more strength than ever to remove disruptive editing and impose topic bans. Refering to us as a small group is rather anecdotal, as the project is here to improve our coverage of pro wrestling topics. However, there are LOTS of guidelines regarding what material is deemed suitible, and those that are not suitible for wikipedia. The consensus (above), is that the section "In Wrestling", provides information that is not-notable, mostly Original Research (Such as signature moves), or could easily be placed into prose. The information being "removed", can simply be placed into text, which is better for the project, and other editors as well. You are welcome to make your own proposal, if you wish, however, talking and consensus is how wikipedia works.
You should also note, that Wikipedia isn't a "information website". It's an online encylopedia. Not everything is permitted. See What Wikipedia is not, and WP:NOTSTATS. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOT has a section called "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". What about "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of sources"? See Pain and Passion: The History of Stampede Wrestling § Reception for an all-too-obvious example. I'm looking at a dumping ground of citations, many of which don't appear to point to reliable sources, in lieu of any meaningful context to speak of. I came across that mess from reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger Joe Tomasso. I laughed my balls off over one comment in that AFD: "He was a mainstay of Stampede, arguably the biggest and most notable Canadian pro wrestling promotion in history". Evidently, folks are still a little too drunk on WWE's Kool-Aid to have paid careful attention to the AN(I) threads in which this project was repeatedly referred to as a walled garden. Stampede's main venue is a 1,500–2,000-seat agricultural pavilion. In the United States, this is the sort of building one would go to during the annual county fair to view the local farmers' prized horses and livestock. Compare this with Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg. During the years of Stampede's heyday, wrestling events in those places were held in real arenas and local promoters mostly had little trouble filling those arenas. The broad syndication of Stampede Wrestling was due more to Canadian content laws than due to the popularity of the program. There are two Vancouver-area radio stations I occasionally receive here thousands of miles away during the colder/darker months. One, CHMJ, broadcasts nothing but traffic reports 24 hours a day. Another, KVRI, broadcasts programming for Vancouver's large Indian community. Because of that, their broadcasting license and transmitter are just across the border in Blaine, Washington, despite their offices and studio being in a Vancouver suburb. That's how wacky Canadian content laws are. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Saying wikipedia "isn't an information website, it's an online encyclopedia" is flabbergasting. An encyclopedia is literally a book of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not a random list. It's a section dedicated to accomplishments and the building blocks of each wrestler. Yes,, wikipedia articles should generally be written out as paragraphs, but there are plenty of times and scenarios, like this, where a list is needed and justified. You're actively going against the community, wikipedia, and information itself by removing these sections. A consensus between the minority opinion does not overrule the majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

This topic was actually brought up from someone outside of the community, reviewing a Good Article nomination. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
This topic has also been discussed here at length for several weeks and is open for anyone to discuss. This topic was open to anyone to contribute to, including yourself. This was not just open to a small group, and discussions such as this are why wikiprojects exist. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I didn't participate since I was againt it, so I dind't want to angry myself. However, reading your arguments I see your point. Also,the last months I was watching the In Wrestling section and it's hard (nearly impossible) to keep. One time names as official nicknames, theme songs without source, a tag team partner accompained a wrestler and becomes his manager... I prefer to delete and include in the article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject describes a wikiproject as the central place for editor collaboration on a particular topic area. Editors there develop criteria, maintain various collaborative processes, keep track of work that needs to be done, and act as a forum where issues of interest to the editors of a subject may be discussed. This is exactly what we did. I suggest if you would like to contribute to these discussions in the future that you register for an account and follow this page, the enable you to know when discussions occur. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • long, very long story short this isn't a place to indiscriminately list Gran Metalik's 200 "signature moves", that is trivial info, which is against the Wikipedia princples. And I say this as Gran Metalik's biggest fan ever. "Reddit users think", then build something on Reddit if they are so gung ho about it.  MPJ-DK  16:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Btw - this is not a wrestling wiki, go find one of those is that is what you want. Article quality is not increased because of a list of moves. Articles do not become GA or FA quality because of a list of moves. If editors are not here to improve the quality of a subject they like, what is thr point? My sound harsh but I have little patience for those thinking this is Wrestlepedia, not Wikipedia. You in the wrong neighborhood buddy.  MPJ-DK  16:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm just some random user like the other guy. Sorry we're dredging all this up when you have a consensus of editors, hope we're not proving too much of an annoyance. But anyway, aren't wrestlers' signature and finishing moves important parts of their individual biographies and performance histories? Baseball pitchers' style entries contain information on what pitches a player uses within their repertoire (cutter, slider, change-up, fastball, etc.), and this doesn't strike me as being too different. I understand sourcing concerns and original research problems make these lists difficult to maintain relative to Wikipedia standards, and the general sanctions by ANI make it fairly clear that the "powers that be" dislike any in-universe discussion in professional wrestling articles. But the section doesn't strike me as in-universe discussion or trivial fancruft so much as biographical information of a performer which cannot be cleanly implemented into the "Career" section. Moreover, while it might raise concerns for being listcruft, incorporating a more frequent "wrestling persona" section like CM Punk's (the most common replacement scheme I've seen for the section) appears to open up a more dangerous fancruft problem for incorporating more qualitative or subjective prose in paragraph form rather than the simple enumeration a list can create. I can see the necessity of a clean-up to standards, but I guess I don't understand the advocacy for a complete excising. (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Civilized conversation is never a problem and I thank you for that. "Signature" is a meaningless germ in 99% of the cases. Example, "Armdrag" signature move of Ricky Steamboat, most everyone else it is "just a move they use" like a CAW assigned moved. Unless the move is significant it had no encylopedic merit IMO. Someone created a move? In the prose, with sources. Someone happens to have learned to do a suplex in wrestling school, trivial. The section was poorly defined and thus open to someone just pouring in move after move. The spend 100 edits adding made up move names or adjusting links, descriptions etc. based on their own opinion or interprtation. If there are valid reasons to include something I am all for including it - if it has encylopedic value and not just random trivial info.  MPJ-DK  16:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
One hundred percent the above. We aren't saying all moves are unimportant, but if it is important, it can be written about. A list of moves with no elaboration is completely irrelevant Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I can appreciate that, but where would significant moves like finishers or innovated moves be included in the new scheme? Direct sources rarely attribute a precise year to a move's innovation or a finisher's first use, so it would be difficult to place the shiranui's invention anywhere chronologically in Naomichi Marufuji's "career" section. More widespread use of a "wrestling persona" section similar to CM Punk's or Daniel Bryan's entries in the styleguide might appear as an invitation for using original research to describe such a persona, and entries for wrestlers like Trevor Lee or Donovan Dijak right now would be likely thin and solely include their finishing move anyway. Trimming down the list to currently or historically significant moves is certainly understandable (though the definition of encyclopedic significance is also a question I'm curious about), lord knows I have no idea why the Styles Clash was listed on Hiroshi Tanahashi's wiki entry. But if information relating to moves is significant (either as a finisher or an innovated move appears to be the consensus thus far), where would it be included? (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) For anyone curious about what the Reddit is actually saying without looking at this situation from an editor's standpoint, here is the thread. The two people who actually somewhat looked at it our way got downvoted to oblivion. JTP (talkcontribs) 17:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I had a read. Some things people say seem to have a deep routed problem with how Wikipedia operates (but then, everything is up for debate on Wikipedia.) The big thing, weirdly is spoilers. Somehow it's a problem that Wikipedia posts up information as and when they happen, and not on a tape delay. People shouldn't look things up in general on Wikipedia if they want to avoid spoilers. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Ro-Rou I was part of that LU Spoiler discussion, I guess Reddit don't like me.  MPJ-DK  19:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for that, it is important to understand the context of comments. I do want to apologize for making your CAW creation harder, I do wish that was a more important aspect of Wikipedia.  MPJ-DK  17:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The "In Wrestling/Pro Wrestling Highlights" section has been a vital resource to those Creating wrestlers in games like the WWE 2k series or Fire Pro. Where knowing that say Travis Banks does an armdrag might be a bit of a no-brainier to some, having even simple moves gives the CAW community more basis for their lighter moves and not just Finishers and a couple others. Also, from a story telling aspect, having a list of moves that a wrestler does regularly gives a basis for a reader of what to expect out of a match. So when someone like John Cena throws out a rare dropkick, it shows that Cena is either: A) Desperate to win the match, and will try anything that could work or B) Adding something new to their repertoire. Which are both notable to the story of the match, and by extension, valuable info to have on a site like Wiki. PopTartPowerbomb (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Soooooooo..... during a John Cena match you pull up his Wikipedia profile to get a better understanding of the story being told in the ring?  MPJ-DK  17:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm saying that if someone's a new fan or unfamiliar with a certain wrestler, they may not care if, for example, Cena does a dropkick.PopTartPowerbomb (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Totally agree. So you agree it is trivial information that new fans won't care about and existing fans either already know or don't care about? I am simply trying to find out if you are for or against removal since your logic is for removing and comment is against it. MPJ-DK  18:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The backlash from hardcore fans was expected (it's called fancruft for a reason). While I do understand their frustration and sympathize, I don't think a lot of them understand what WP:Wikipedia is not, particularly WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. For things such as designing CAWs, the use of an actual database or fan wikia will suit those needs far better than Wikipedia ever could. Prefall 19:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

    • You can link to your WP articles and your long-winded, drawn out, oceans of procedure and rules all you want, it doesn't make you right. The problem is that this is the result of a long, long takeover of Wikipedia by deletionists. They have their policies in place so they can do what they want. The "votes" are a facade, there's no true democracy, they just link to the deletionist policy already in place and you're not allowed to argue against it. There's a reason Wikipedia is bleeding editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Knew It - That one of reason why, wanted to keep the "In Wresting" Section as it been on Wikapedia more than 10 years. I knew this "change" going encounter backlash.🤣 Wikapedia is a information database. (The moves are part of the information) Colton Meltzer (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • No it's not, it's an encyclopedia, not a repository for indiscrimnate or trivial data.  MPJ-DK  19:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
See WP:NOT for more information. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
That is probably just a Wikapedia Logic for that meaning. By the way i basically first person to oppose the "In Wresting" change. I did not realize the majority opposed too.Colton Meltzer (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Removing vast amounts of information because you don't like the way it is formatted is not a solution to anything. Yes, these sections were messy, and could use some cleaning up. But you're removing vital information from these articles. You're disregarding backlash as just being whiny fanboys, completely disregarding that knowing a wrestler's finishing maneuver is one of the number one things an average person coming to Wikipedia for information on a wrestler is going to be looking for. Did we need 50 lines of "signature" moves on every wrestler's page? Of course not. But their key finishing moves are essential information. You keep saying that if the information is so important it should be addressed in the prose. Well then maybe you should've made these edits to the prose first? Did you think about that? As it is you just removed bytes and bytes of information with zero plan of restoring any of it in a more appropriate form. As it is most wrestler's pages do not, at any point, explain what their finishing move is. At the very least you should've maintained a couple lines dedicated strictly to their finishing moves. You could even fit it into their info box at the top of the page. (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

A proposal for something like that could be made. However, consensus above is to remove the section. Any editor that goes against consensus, without being willing to discuss will be warned and then topic banned, due to our general sanctions that we have had imposed. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • So I want to clear up something - the consensus was to remove the section itself. No one has said the article cannot include what their finishing move is, mentioning their manager etc. in the prose of the article. To all those that complain, can you tell me it's "Vital" to list that Gran Metalik uses an "Open-handed chop"? Even with 3 sources showing that he's used it how is Gran Metalik has used an Open-handed chop three times considered "essential"? As for "you should have made these edits" my response is - go for it dude *thumbs up*.  MPJ-DK  20:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
No I do not think that is vital. I do however think it is vital to list that Gran Metalik's finishing move is the Metalik Driver. Which is currently not mentioned a single time on his entire page. Be it in the prose or elsewhere. (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Totally legit, totally allowed with proper sources, no one has said otherwise.  MPJ-DK  20:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
it feel this change going bring lot of admins here to (who are no involved in project) to address this. Colton Meltzer (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
And what will they do? one side sites Wikipedia polices and guidelines as reasons to remove it, other side cites "I like it" and "but my CAWs" as a reason to add it in. I would welcome an Admin review of the consensus to remove the section, no worries.  MPJ-DK  20:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Removing the section without adding certain content back is valid criticism. Personally, their finishing move being included is a nice detail, but in a majority of cases does not significantly enhance the understanding of the subject, so I'm not bothered when it's missing. Feel free to add them yourself. As for the infobox suggestion, that can be proposed but seems inappropriate. We have to draw the line somewhere between these articles being about the performers who happen to portray fictional characters in a simulated sport, or being about the fictional characters themselves. Prefall 20:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • People please do not delete other people's comment on a talk page, against the rules and with the General Sanctions for pro wrestling topics you could end up getting banned.  MPJ-DK  20:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Welp this change..., i guess back to Edit MMA/UFC pages for awhile until the Pro Wresting Wikpedia Project issues get resolved. Have a nice day. Colton Meltzer (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Many of us here have voiced our opinions on why the "In Wrestling/Pro Wrestling Highlights" section should stay. But are we wasting our time if there is nothing that can be done to revert this change? Do we need X amount of people to voice their disapproval in order for something to happen? Or something of that aspect? PopTartPowerbomb (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

  • So here is the thing - this isn't decided by a vote, it doesn't work by majority. Wikipedia is a place of guidelines and structure, I have not seen a single "keep the section" argument that actually explain what Wikipedia guidelines support their point of view that the section is appropriate and should stay. With the discussion being closed before the influx of editors who've never commented on anything here ever before, removing the "in wrestling" section is the current status. Just like before it was the standard to have it included. How did this get changed? We started a community discussion, presented arguments for our point of view based on our interpretations of the various wikipedia guidelines. So if you want this changed you can start a new, separate discussion on this (at the bottom of this page in a seperate section) to try and build a different policy/guideline based consensus. If you would like a broader audience to provide input on if the "In Wrestling" part should be added back in you can always follow the steps outlined in Wikipedia:Requests for comment which usually reached a broader audience who'd give you their policy/guideline based opion, which may or may not favor inclusion.  MPJ-DK  00:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
For those that don't follow wrestling week to week, what if someone new comes up and they want to learn their moves? Now they can't. How does this help anyone? Evil Yugi (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Everyone who is frustrated with this change should check out The Pro Wrestling Wikia. It lists all of the moves for wrestlers, updates with week by week info, and you can edit over there with less restrictions than here. Nikki311 02:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

  • On the topic of the PW Wikia, there is nothing that is stopping us from linking a wrestler's PW Wikia page in their External Links section correct? PopTartPowerbomb (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Knew It - I knew this "change" would create a massive explosion. Colton Meltzer (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Removing it all is bad IMO, it was an easy way to find out what moves a wrestler does. Now it'll be harder to like, create them in games and such. Plus if WWE sign a new dude and you wanna know what moves they use, you were able to go to Wiki and find out. you're doomed. I'd at least keep the finishers.Muur (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Plus it's an invaluable resource for new fans of wrestling.Muur (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Example of how "In wrestling" can be reworked by someone[edit]

  • I figure the best way to show what I'm talking about is to literally show it. So previously the Máscara Dorada article listed at least 26 different moves that are supposedly his "signature" moves - including both a Frankensteiner AND hurricanrana (same move) as well as the "trademark" chop that he and every single other wrestler with hands uses. Instead I added in a new section, Máscara Dorada#Wrestling persona and style, since he has not developed a ton of character beyond "Luchador face" I figured "and style" would be appropriate so his general wrestling style can be described in prose and a couple of moves could be included/explained. It does not invite editors to pile on every move he's done in the ring, but focusing on the non-trivial stuff. It's Encylopedic, sourced and written in prose. I do hope people can live without knowing he has on occasion been called "El Rey de las Cuerdas".  MPJ-DK  01:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
    • This seems like a doable thing for most wrestlers. Is there a page (or pages) on wiki that define certain pro wrestling styles that you could direct me towards that I could link in a wrestler's page? Searching "brawler" for example brings me to, among other things, the boxing style. PopTartPowerbomb (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I've implemented something similar on Adam Page's... page, viewable here. I hope this is up to snuff. I don't mind doing this, and is a bit more fun writing than just listing moves TBH. PopTartPowerbomb (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Not to discourage you, because the content of your edit is mostly what we're looking for, but the sourcing needs a lot of work. The YouTube citations are all copyright violations (see WP:YOUTUBE for more information). The Twitter citation is also unreliable. I'd recommend you look at our list of reliable sources and work from there. Prefall 05:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Fixed the sources, never knew what qualified as a credible source. Also added his PW Wikia page to external links as that site has an "In Wrestling" section for those that still want it PopTartPowerbomb (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
In both the case of Adam Page & Máscara Dorada, the newly created sections are poorly written and hard to read, featuring bad sentence structure and grammatical errors. Additionally, this approach relies too heavily on a writer's perception of a move's relevance as it pertains to a wrestler. For example, while every wrestler can do a "chop", some wrestlers (like Máscara Dorada) have made it a signature part of their moveset & style due to their ability to perform the move. Until a definitive guide or style can be decided upon that makes the information clear, concise, & understandable, all changes going forward should be halted in accordance with WP:DEADLINE and all previous changes should be reverted. There seems to be a lot of rushing to change stuff, but no clear plan of action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Film Noirmbar (talkcontribs) 01:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Film Noirmbar So do you have a reliable source that actually states that the "chop is a signature part of Metalik's moveset"? Everything added should rely on what sources support, not perception or what someone thinks. I included moves that had an actual name in that section, beyond that I'd only add stuff if I find sources that states it is a "signature" or words to that effect, or it becomes Original Research. "Deadline" does not support reverting anything at all, only to not rush to create or delete articles - there was no rush to judgement here, the discussions went on for quite a while and not a single deletion was made before a policy based consensus was reached.  MPJ-DK  01:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I totally understand your point in relation to needing sources, but let's get back to the main topic. The current format, as seen in the Mascara Dorada page, is less than ideal as the way information is presented makes the information hard to read and could become more difficult to read when the topic is related to a wrestler whose career and moveset changes over time, such as Kotaro Suzuki for example. Additionally, I'm not 100% sure how that format would support someone who had signature moves while part of a tag team. If the plan was to delete the "in wrestling" section, only to replace it with a new section if needed, the action plan for how that new section should look should have been established and agreed on before the "in wrestling" section was deleted. Since it wasn't, "Deadline" would apply and support reverting the current changes back as there was a rush to delete the section without having everything in place to support the new section.
(Side-note: In relation to the sources in the first line citing Mascara Dorada as a "face", Source {2} seems to have a linking issue (I keep getting thrown to for some reason) & Source {5} only speaks to his in ring-style, not his position on the face/heel spectrum. Thought I'd let you know since you were working on that.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
There isn't much to decide for its appearance. Whatever the wrestler is known for—their persona and/or wrestling style—should be covered in prose as seen fit, as long as the statements are properly sourced. If there are truly enough significant moves that straight prose looks messy (which should be extremely rare), they can be put into a short bulleted list format (like CM Punk's tattoos). This is all contextual and should be done at an editor's discretion.
Also, since the content was determined to be trivial, I don't think the new section is a high priority. Finishing moves are not critical to the understanding of these subjects. Prefall 04:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Finishing moves are not critical information for understanding a professional wrestler. You heard it here first. Wow. Do you even watch wrestling? (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Let me lay it out this way. the average article covers all of the notable companies they worked for, the years they did so, their significant matches, the championships and awards they won, along with personal information about the performer. Would it be an interesting detail to know what their most important move is? Sure. Is it absolutely necessary to the basic understanding of the performer or character? Not at all. Moves are also rarely discussed in the career section, as opposed to wins or losses, or basic storyline information. They're pretty far down the list in terms of priority. Prefall 04:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I forgot to note that the "Professional wrestling persona" section has been around for years and is not a new creation. It will just be used more prominently now with the removal of this section. Prefall 04:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Another admittedly frustrated person here, the "In wrestling" section was an important resource for myself, but if this is truly vastly more adherent to Wikipedia's guidelines (although extremely strict guideline fetishism is also one of my personal distastes) then I understand it will be fought vehemently for with little chance of "victory" from those who wish for the utmost level of inclusionism. As a side trivia note, a frankensteiner and hurricanrana are considered to be different moves. A huracanrana is followed immediately by a double leg cradle, whereas a frankensteiner excludes any direct pinfall transition. jcw91 (talk) 01:54, June 29, 2018 (UTC)
Then there could never, ever be any move called a "top rope huracanrana" as nobody is able to do the double leg cradle.  MPJ-DK  02:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Those that wish for the "utmost level of inclusionism" have already lost to Wikipedia's guidelines for trivia etc., not because an indiscriminant list of moves and unverfied data has been removed. I offer my condolences for your loss way back when.  MPJ-DK  02:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • So I'd suggest considering WP:DEADLINE when you're doing these changes. I mean, you're saying there's no reason not to include the information and that it can be re-worked -- that means there's literally no good reason to *remove* the sections outright, all at once. You've come up with a great way to improve them without removing them. Over the course of several months or years, that change can probably be implemented. Any argument in favor of flat removing them instead of reworking them one-by-one? (Other than trying to beat the deadline?) Deltopia (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • So 99% of information removed is trivial, would never be included in the article in prose form, temporarily sacrificing 1% relevant info to eliminate 99% is a better option than keeping 99% trivia to not temporarily sacrifice 1%.  MPJ-DK  03:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
* Hypothetically, say someone (like a bot or some misguided but well-intentioned editors) went through and added twelve thousand more articles on wrestlers -- extremely non-notable wrestlers, say every member of every high school wrestling team in the US, and marked them all as part of WikiProject Professional Wrestling. About 1% of the articles in that project would then be notable, encyclopedic content. Would you say it's a valid choice to delete the entire project, assuming that people would eventually go through and re-add the worthwhile content if any? Or would it be more useful to go through one-by-one and make the call on each article, wheat or chaff? I understand where you're coming from on this, but there has to be some effort to avoid tossing baby with bathwater. Deltopia (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Throwing my hat into the opinion that this is a horrific idea. I (and many others) read and use this section to get bullet-point and basic info about a wrestler. Removing all of it and maybe re-adding it as prose completely defeats the purpose of it being easy-to-access information. Not everything has to be nice and neat and uniform. Also, I raise an issue with this quote:
“For anyone curious about what the Reddit is actually saying without looking at this situation from an editor's standpoint, here is the thread. The two people who actually somewhat looked at it our way got downvoted to oblivion. JTP”
Could you not be more pretentious? You all act as if being an editor on Wikipedia somehow makes you better, and you generalize the 300,000-strong community on Reddit as a single, unthinking mass that just “doesn’t understand.” You are simply digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole.
In fact, I’d like to challenge the closing of discussion per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, vía deletion review notice #5, as I believe it to be a significant procedural error that just eight WP editors have judged that they speak for the entire community in making a large and important decision such as this. The Kip (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding my linking to the Reddit thread, what? Where did you get any pretentiousness from? I didn't ever imply a sense of superiority, I didn't ever generalize the subreddit, and I sure as hell didn't say Reddit "doesn't understand." One user brought up that Reddit was unhappy, so I linked it here whilst saying that many just called the decision "stupid" (or more vulgar forms of that) without looking at the amount of unsourced and trivial content in these sections, which goes against Wikipedia policies and standards. So next time you try to insult me, think it through, or just bring it to me politely. JTP (talkcontribs) 05:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
This isn't an accessibility issue. The argument is that even on the rare occasion that the section isn't filled with original research or poorly sourced material, the content itself is still mostly trivial. This clearly falls under WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information / WP:FANCRUFT.
Regarding us supposedly "thinking we are better than Reddit", I don't think that is the case at all. Most of what we're hearing is "I like this section and use it", which is an acceptable way to feel, but does not address the policy issues that were raised. Prefall 05:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The Kip - so saying "I'd like to challege" is easily enough, but there is more to it than just a line - the link you gave (for deleton of articles) has specific steps on how you can appeal the deletion of an article. No one has "spoken for the entire community" - they have formed a consensus of all editors who chose to participate in the discussions around the "in wrestling" that has gone on for weeks now. If you think the close was improper, then I implore you to please follow the procedures and have someone "higher up" take a look at it - and this is coming from the person who closed it.  MPJ-DK  10:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I've been "part of this community" for twelve years and would have chosen to participate if I noticed it in time. "Gone on for weeks" makes it seem like something big, but "started just weeks ago" doesn't. It's both, this agreement. And even in those few/long weeks, not a lot of editors seemed pumped to get rid of the championships. Probably still aren't. Belts matter in wrestling, and even outsiders know this. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, July 1, 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. I've been part of the "community" for about that long. My work situation is crazy in June, and I can barely get online. Now I sign in and see that a major change has been implemented based on limited feedback. Very disappointing, as it's a very bad change. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
It's not as bad as I'd thought. Could've sworn I saw Afa's C&A thrown out with the rest, but it didn't happen. Still seems like a bullshit blanket overreaction to punish his well-sourced article because other articles are more contentious. Dude had one signature, with two clear citations. Is anybody seriously doubting any islander regularly used headbutts in the WWF? Or any black guy? I get the need to spell out some things in prose, but explaining the inherent numbskullery of "those wrestlers" in each and every affected article is going to seem unduly racist in today's day. Why risk Wikipedia getting canceled (never say never) when we can just note they all have headbutts in common and let that bit of history speak for itself? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:07, July 4, 2018 (UTC)

Just to get this section back on-track with the section example, is there a consensus on exactly what gives a wrestling move encyclopedic significance? Finishers and innovated moves appear to be the accepted norm, but what about named signatures? Is Sami Zayn's Blue Thunder Bomb or Kenny Omega's V-Trigger material worth including, or does it fall under WP:FANCRUFT? (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

There is absolutely no consensus on anything regarding signature moves. Never has been, as far as I can tell. There are a few rules (which are or aren't followed) and a few followings (which are or aren't based on the rules). Personally, I feel any move with a wrestler-specific name is naturally the sort of move sources will acknowledge as a signature, and generally the sort of move you can include with a citation. Things like hammerlocks, chops and Irish whips are theoretically never going to reach that level, so should all be deleted (whether they have four citations that don't back the claim or none that do). If I ran this zoo (I don't), Blue Thunder Bomb checks out and so does V-Trigger. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:39, July 1, 2018 (UTC)

How about adding something to the infobox where it was height, weight etc? Just add a “Trademark Move(s)” part and put up to two or three (if more than one stands out) of their most defining moves. Maxwell7985 (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

IMO, the infoboxes are too long and cumbersome as is. Plus, it is up to interpretation in a lot of cases which three moves are a wrestler's most significant. Plus it changes over time. Nikki311 23:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Procedural note[edit]

Just drawing attention to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Procedural note. A well-publicized RfC should be held (possibly at WP:VPP) to try and establish community consensus for this content exclusion. Prefall 07:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal draft

== Should the "In wrestling" section be removed from Professional wrestling articles? == {{rfc|bio|soc|style}}

The "In wrestling" section has been a standard part of professional wrestling biographies for over a decade. It covers mostly character information in a bulleted list format. On May 24, 2018, an editor raised an issue with the section's vague heading to WikiProject Professional wrestling (see WT:PW#In wrestling). The next day, renaming the heading to "Professional wrestling highlights" and adjusting "Championships and accomplishments" into a subsection beneath it was proposed. On June 3, it was considered to have reached consensus after the 5 participants agreed unanimously. In the weeks that followed, a few editors disapproved of the new heading, as well as "Championships and accomplishments" being turned into a subsection. On June 24, clarification of which heading to go forward with was requested, where an additional option to remove the section entirely was proposed. On June 28, the discussion was closed after 10 editors participated, with an "overwhelming consensus" to remove the section but rework any content deemed significant into prose, potentially into a "Professional wrestling persona" section (see WT:PW#Trying to gain clarity (closed)). The changes were immediately enacted into hundreds of articles, causing news of the changes to be spread onto online professional wrestling communities. Many new editors voiced frustration over the removal, with some reverting the changes.

Below is the style recommendations for this section, taken from WikiProject Professional wrestling prior to its removal:

"In wrestling" recommendations per WP:PW/SG

An overview of notable character information is compiled in a bulleted list format. This initial section should be limited to finishing moves, signature moves, managers (and/or wrestlers managed), nicknames, entrance themes, and wrestlers trained. Any taunts, gestures, or other descriptions are better suited for the article prose.

Example of highlights list
  • All items should be sorted alphabetically. An exception is with entrance themes, which can be sorted chronologically if date ranges are sourced.
  • For signature and finishing moves, there must be one reliable source explicitly mentioning that it is a signature move of the wrestler. One reliable source merely mentioning that the wrestler performed the move is not enough.
  • A specially named move should be italicized, with the regular name following in parentheses and wiki-linked.
  • {{Cite episode}} should not be used for citing moves as commentators often call moves wrong or do not give full technical names, leading to speculation.
  • Track names in entrance themes should not be wiki-linked to articles about the compilation albums on which they are sold, unless the article contains further information on the track itself (not just name, number, and wrestler who used it).

This proposal seeks to remove the "In wrestling" section, with the possibility of any of its content that is deemed significant to be contextualized in prose. Much of the information contained within this section would be lost. The content most likely to be reworked is certain Finishing moves, Nicknames and Wrestlers trained. As it stands, Managers are already expected to be covered in prose, primarily in the "Professional wrestling career" section. If necessary, reworked content can be placed within the existing "Professional wrestling persona" section (see WP:PW/SG#Professional wrestling persona).

Below are diffs from various articles, showing before the section's removal, after the removal, and some with content reworked to prose:

Proposal: Should we adopt a default approach of omitting the bulleted list "In wrestling" section, in favor of its notable content being contextualized in prose when appropriate?

As above, just seeing this, a conversation clearly has to be had (And, should indeed be said); regarding making any prospective policies. I think this has now risen above the simple consensus, and now needs to be brought up at the Village Pump. Could someone put a good wording of the proposal forward, indicating exactly which information is to be kept, which information should be moved to prose (if relevant), and which information is to be considered WP:FANCRUFT, or less encyclopedic. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I've never been involved in an RfC or any policy proposal but I took a shot at writing an initial draft that could be used. I tried to recap the situation as closely and neutral as possible, with details of how the section was before. I did not go into the actual reasoning of why this project reached its consensus, but that can be edited in if seen fit. Let me know what you all think, and feel free to make any changes. Prefall 10:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
So I think to truely reflect what has happened the "in wrestling" discussion actually started on May 24.  MPJ-DK  11:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Adjusted it to mention that. I don't want to bog it down with going into detail about the renaming, but will do so if others think it should be fully covered. Prefall 12:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
It probably should be mentioned, for transparency's sake, however, it's a little irrelevant. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Added those details for transparency sake. Hopefully it's not too much of a slog to get through. Prefall 13:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I've updated the proposal draft with more information, as recommended to me on the ANI discussion. Does anyone have more input? Prefall 23:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

When would this be brought up at a Village pump? PopTartPowerbomb (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully in the next few days. Still seeking input to make sure it's as informative, yet neutral, as possible. Prefall 05:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it looks good, and it doesn't seem like anyone has any more input. Is it time to take it to the village pump? Nikki311 12:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I've made a couple additional changes per outside recommendations to me. If all goes well, I will post it later today. Prefall 10:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

This proposal is now live at WP:VPP#Should the "In wrestling" section be removed from professional wrestling articles?. Prefall 14:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Make article on History of WWE semi protected[edit]

There is almost always some repetitive vandalism, disruptive edits and un-sourced changes to the article on History of WWE by "unregistered users". I think the current version is all right and well accepted. This is a vital article as WWE is the leading wrestling promotion in the world and this covers it history very accurately. I know this is not the place to make the request, but I just hope to point out the urgency for it here and think it would be better if a senior member made the request to make the article semi protected. Thank you. Marked Man 808 (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The IP address v2600:8805:d500:6820:e81d:b127:4db3:6ede once again vandalized the article, see edit history for yourselves. No wonder why wrestling articles are getting so much recent criticism if this is allowed to go on without intervention. Marked Man 808 (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Request this at WP:RFPP instead. JTP (talkcontribs) 01:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested, thanks for your response. Marked Man 808 (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling notability criteria?[edit]

During the various discussions on General Sanctions for professional wrestling the topic of a "wrestling notability criteria" was brought up, sort of our version of Wikipedia:Notability (sports). A sort of guideline for when it would be appropriate to create a wrestling related article - be it a biography of a wrestler, a tag team or stable article, a stand-alone show or championship article. Would it help deal with crufty, fanish articles or articles on a team that's teamed up randomly twice and instantly has an article created under 4 different names? This would be a supplement to the General Notability Guideline and could never lessen what is outlined in the GNG. it would help cut down on articles written for every single person signed to a development contract but hasn't done anything yet, championship articles for a promotion where the promotion is not notable etc. Would it help to define one? If people are in favor I'd be happy to help form a consensus for various types of articles.  MPJ-DK  01:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I definitely think it could help. I wrote something up a couple months ago. Don't have time to check the archives right now though. I am sure it needs work, was just a first draft - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 21:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
See previous conversation here, Galatz, MPJ-DK. Although, as above, I doubt it would be suitible as coming under WP:Notability (sports), but more likely WP:ENTERTAINER. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I took some inspiration from the previous attempt and my own ideas to whip up a draft at User:MPJ-DK/Notability (professional wrestling), just putting some of my thoughts down and items that still need to be hammered out. This would not go under "Notability Sports" nor "WP:ENTERTAINER" IMO but be a full blown Wikipedia:Notability (professional wrestling) article, since it's neither clearly sports nor entertainment.
    • Looks awesome, thanks for the hard work!
    • A few comments: I would remove any mention of sports, like the sport specific criteria set forth below or this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures. Any reason why ECW and ROH were removed? I would also say to use the full names, like World Championship Wrestling instead of WCW. I will go through it in more detail later. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I miss some promotions, like DDT, dragon Gate, IWRG, Joshi promotions (Sendai, STARDOM), many female independent promotions (shimmer, shine, wsu), independent promotions (CZW, pwg) or Puerto Rican (WWC, WWL). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The bones of the text came from the sports notability, I missed a couple of places but got it all now. And you are right ECW and ROH needs to be on there. I just used the short hand while I was drafting, it'll be long version with links as i work through it. I am the biggest IWRG nerd there is on Wikipedia, but I don't think it's big enough to warrant being on the Mexico list. I tried to pick the biggest ones to say "if you worked for those you're probably notable" where as if you worked primarily for CZW you'd be measured against the GNG only.  MPJ-DK  20:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I do agree with WWC though.  MPJ-DK  20:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • POpped in the full names/links and a few more. I personally disagree that listing DDT, DragonGate, IWRG, CWZ, PWG and WWL going under "top level promotions", but I would encourage everyone to voice their opinion on this. For Yoshi/Female promotions I am at a loss - I would not be a good judge on what'd be considered "top level" promotions in Japan/US so here I'd definitely like community guidance?  MPJ-DK  20:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The above posted draft page is a proposal for discussion, anything and everything on the page is open for discussion and input  MPJ-DK  20:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, any thoughts on the NXT UK Brand? As it's new, no one could establish "consistent appearances", but potentially for the future. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Also, whilst there isn't much information on Wikipedia, the Joint Promotions (Or World of Sport) in the UK, was a huge deal, and should really be better shown on Wikipedia. A lot of wrestlers became house-hold names (In the UK - to this day), such as Big Daddy, Giant Haystacks and Kendo Nagasaki. A lot of the issues arise around the lack of remaining press information from the federation, but they had a show on ITV for 20 years (And inspired a reboot in 2016 that was not successful). I'd argue that quite a few of these wrestlers are inheritably notable for this, despite the lack of sources (This was the 60s-80s). I have been meaning for a while to expand these articles, but simply haven't had time, but it's worth investigating to see if this is a top level promotion (No other company in Europe has ever been as high, except perhaps All Star Wrestling, but they run 300 shows a year with thousands of wrestlers). Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Notability for referees/managers etc. should be similar to that of the wrestlers. Most referees never get any press coverage (Because that's pretty much the job), but are actually on TV longer than the wrestlers. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I would agree with Joint Promotions and the original World of Sports should be added. As for referees, i disagree 100% just being a referee for ROH is not enough, even if it was 10 years they would have to meet GNG. Managers I do agree that they should have the same guideline as wrestlers.  MPJ-DK  12:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Joint Promotions and the original world of Sport are one and the same, as World Of Sport was the Television show, rather than the name of the company. Referee's generally get very little coverage at all. For instance see List_of_WWE_personnel#Referees, there are some main brand referees that have had articles deleted because they fail WP:GNG; despite clearly being in the public eye. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
BTW, I recently watched the 2012 BBC documentary When Wrestling Was Golden: Grapples, Grunts and Grannies, which I would highly recommend. According to that documentary, the high point of British wrestling was actually the Mick McManus vs. Jackie Pallo feud. They stated that their 1962 match at Wembley Town Hall drew 22 million viewers. As far as the scale of a single country is concerned, the only matches which compare to that are Rikidōzan's matches with Lou Thesz and Freddie Blassie. As the documentary wore on, they claimed that wrestling became too concerned with gimmicks, calling some downright ridiculous (Catweazle) and some a little too controversial to the point that they potentially jeopardized the television deal (Adrian Street, the Carribean Sunshine Boys). Speaking of the latter, Johnny Kincaid was one of the subjects interviewed at length. He found it hilarious that they billed him as hailing from Barbados when everyone knew he was really from Battersea. Anyway, despite Max Crabtree being another subject interviewed at length, they portrayed Big Daddy as a last-gasp attempt after wrestling had basically jumped the shark, and that his 1981 match with Haystacks at Wembley Arena basically exposed the business on account of being such a farce. They also showed a variety of clips demonstrating that McManus was the real household name among wrestlers. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup of kayfabe in articles/ tag[edit]

As above, a few people have mentioned the wider degree of kayfabe being written as fact in pro wrestling articles. Whilst we can all see an article, and find this information, removing kayfabe/rewording can be a little bit difficult. Could we potentially create a tag for this on articles, and then have these articles appear on a hidden category (Similar to Category: Video game cleanup or Category:Video game articles needing infoboxes), and have these appear on our pages somewhere. Perhaps Category: Pro Wrestling articles written in Kayfabe, or similar.

I'd be willing to go through these categories as I do with the other examples for the Video Games WikiProject. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I've created a user template User:Lee Vilenski/Kayfabe, as for a trial. This could potentially let us tag articles specifically for Kayfabe removal, and can be used on a section of an article, or the whole article. The wording may need some work, however. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
The tag {{in-universe}} (see Template:In-universe) already exists. The tag generates a list here on the Cleanup Listing for the project. Your way might be easier, though, and would update more often. The Cleanup Listing only updates every Tuesday. Nikki311 14:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
The in-universe tag is ok, but it's much more of a Wikipedia in general tag. If Kayfabe in PW articles is such a problem, we should have something bespoke. I also like having clean-up categories specific to the Project; as you know any article you find will be a pro wrestling article, rather than say - an anime.
I also think a greater focus on sharing these links within the project would be a good idea, as the current cleanup is quite difficult (As oposed to say the Video games WP, which shows cleanup articles on the tag on talk pages. Here, we have to find the To Do list, which doesn't promote the cleanup in the same way. (Personally, I like seeing 0s in columns, so I'd do cleanup on categories to get the numbers down). Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I like the example you created. We should come up with documentation on where to use it, such as events vs biographies. Also we should probably have a section one, because I am guessing most articles in their career section thats the issue rather than the article in its entirety. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I like, and agree on dokumentation on where to use it and especially WHEN, or those who "rage" against Pro wrestling articles Will carpe bomb everything, and far from everything deservrs this Although quite a bit does.  MPJ-DK  16:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Right, like it should specify that a level Kayfabe is expected in Storylines, Event and Aftermath sections of events and therefore should not be tagged, however the all events must contain a storylines section with a disclaimer that its predetermined. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Galatz - the above example already has a section built in, simply type in |section, and it'll change the wording. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── - I've created something for a documentation User:Lee Vilenski/Kayfabe/doc, which could do with some work. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Uh, why remove that? doing so will make people think Jason Jordan is ACTUALLY Kurt Angle's son. Unless you make a Kurt Angle character page and a Kurt Angle real page that's stupid. Pro wrestling is unique in that they're in character all the time and the info is on the real person's page because there's no page about their character so putting "Angle's son is Jason Jordan" and not mentioning it's kayfabe is stupid. That's just deceiving people.Muur (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Why remove what? The tag is use for articles that keep Kayfabe - so in your example if the article stated that Jason Jordan is Kurt Angle's son like it was a fact and not a storyline. If it is that "stupid" as you put it someone can tag it, which makes it easier for others to come along and fix it.  MPJ-DK  21:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Is there any reason that kayfabe is capitalized in each instance? In its article, it is only capitalized at the start of a sentence. JTP (talkcontribs) 17:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Nope, just my poor grammar. I'll change this. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

WWE vs WWE NXT[edit]

Currently in the C&A section there are two separate sections for anyone who had something on the main roster vs. NXT. Is there a reason for this? We don't break out any other brand, so why this one? The SG says promotions are listed alphabetically, and NXT is not a promotion. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 02:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

  • It is all WWE to me, not sure Why it would be separate?  MPJ-DK  02:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
    • It was discussed months ago. The result, two different sections. I remember something like Coca Cola and Fanta... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
      • [1]
        • Thanks so much for the history. I see that was almost 3 years ago. I think NXT has really changed in the last 3 years and is much more so billed as a third brand. We clearly are not going to have a NXT UK, and based on what HHH has said, additional brands coming. I propose all WWE titles whether while not branded, or from the Raw, SmackDown, ECW, NXT or NXT UK be included in WWE. FCW should remain separate. Thoughts? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
          • Agree. It's promoted as part of the WWE banner. That's enough for me. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
          • Agree as well, it's all 100% WWE after all.  MPJ-DK  01:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
            • Not that I disagree, but why not count FCW if we count NXT?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
              • FCW was treated as a completely different entity. There was no cross promotion and FCW championships werent listed on Right now the NXT and Raw championships are listed and treated no different than Raw and SmackDown ones. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Minor NXT pages[edit]

We have a constant issue of minor NXT performers having pages created and then deleted. There are several that are border line notable that have a page. Perhaps we need to do something like New York Yankees minor league players where we can keep a mini page for these people. In the event they become more notable we can move it to and expand it. If they get released their section gets deleted, no harm done, no AfD to worry about. Any thoughts? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Interesting, so something about the line of List of WWE developmental wrestlers? Wouldn't an entrant on the list still have to meet WP:GNG to be included in an actual section? I'm not sure how it works for lists like this.  MPJ-DK  01:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • So here is what I found for stand alone lists like the one proposed A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met: The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. So I am not sure adding them to a list would technically get around the GNG, it may just hide them more as it'd be entries on a list not a new article that gets patrolled.  MPJ-DK  21:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I believe you are referring to WP:LISTBIO which includes a list of notable XYZ somewhere. I think this is something slightly different, because if all of the baseball players were independently notable, they would all have their own pages. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Wrestler finishing moves[edit]

Did you all get hacked or something? Removing a wrestler's moveset is probably the stupidest move y'all can make. What's the deal? --Evil Yugi (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi there, quick reminder to be WP:CIVIL at all times on Wikipedia, it really helps people actually be receptive to whatever point you are trying to make. As for what "the deal" is, read #In wrestling and relevant sub sections. it's all covered in great detail - but TL;DR recap, the consensus was that the "in wrestling" section is crufty and trivial and not in line with current Wikipedia guidelines and thus should be removed.  MPJ-DK  01:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I gotta say, I've been watching those removals go by, and it's like free cocktails--you couldn't believe it would be happening. Those finishing moves, that is indeed nothing but trivia, and typically unverified. "Evil Yugi", I trust you will be respecting consensus. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
    • And just how can anyone learn more about a wrestler without a listing of their moveset? Just watching doesn't help. --Evil Yugi (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
      • The moves a wrestler does is quite literally a miniscule part of them. The Wider wikipedia consensus is that the article should cover the subject, not the character. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 06:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Well you could watch the matches or read the Wikipedia article itself which tells you more about a wrestler than the mere fact that "this guy knows how to do a suplex".  MPJ-DK  10:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Seems pretty silly to have other articles like Professional wrestling throws and Professional wrestling attacks when there's no longer sections of the articles showing which wrestlers made use of those maneuvers. Might as well just delete those articles too while they're at it.2601:601:CA80:5F7A:6072:9AE7:5663:3955 (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
      • It's not like they would never be written about in prose. And information for a finisher, as has been stated several times, can be written in prose. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 06:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
      • That is a falacy, an article on Wikipedia does not rely on OTHER articles to justify their existence. Is an article on a Ford Fiesta irrelevant without an article on "people who drive a Ford Fiesta"?  MPJ-DK  10:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree with the above. Here is an argument as to why they should not be removed. Other than watching the wrestling, how can it be proved that in the Professional wrestling throws page, John Cena uses the fireman’s carry takoever, which he calls the Attitude Adjustment (formerly the FU), when it’s not even listed on his own article? This goes for every other article affected from this horrific change. There is no point having the lists of wrestling holds/strikes/throws/aerial techniques/double-team maneuvers pages that have the name of a wrestler who uses a specific move and calls it a different name, only for it to be absent in said wrestlers’ own pages. If those pages remain, then the lists of each wrestlers’ movelist, as well as their nicknames and entrance themes. The few people who are trying to represent this whole community and think that this decision is the best, it simply isn’t. You can’t just remove it because it’s ‘messy’ (it’s quite neatly set out the way it was if you ask me). Hundreds, maybe thousands of others rely on Wikipedia to look up their signature moves or nicknames or the name of their entrance themes and when they used it. Removing it is just going to result in a mass exodus of fans to stop looking up all of their favourite wrestlers’ Wikipedia pages. So what if it’s ‘trivial’. Doesn’t mean it’s irrelevent and it’s pointless information. Because it’s not pointless. This is what makes up each wrestler, and what they are known for. If you’re going to ignore this are still think you’re right and the hundreds or thousands of other against you are wrong, then so be it. Like The Kip said in the original thread, you’re only digging yourselves a deeper and deeper hole, and it’s will result in Wikipedia becoming less and less relevant to other wrestling fans. Drummoe (talk) 05:57, 30 June, 2018 (UTC)
      • The AA/FU is mentioned on John Cena, there's even a link to Professional wrestling throws#Fireman's carry takeover. If finishing maneuvers are sourced and notable, then they should be mentioned (and linked, when applicable) in the prose.LM2000 (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)That is rather irrelevent. If it's notable that a wrestler uses a Death Valley Driver, then it can be added in prose. John Cena, for example, could easily have a section written about his use of a fireman carry throw, and how it's name changed. Perfect. Do we really need to know he uses a DDT as a signature move? Why are people looking up on Wikipedia that Cena was once managed by Kenny Bolin? Completely irrelevent. This is exactly what a pro wrestling wiki (Which exists, and I've edited before), is for, but not the main wikipedia site. Wikipedia's stance, is that articles should cover products, events and people in a maner that explains who they are, and how they are notable in the context of the whole world, without using jargon. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I guess this is the latest angle on the section? Starting with "hey put it back I need it for my CAWs" to implying it's killing people's fandom because they don't have a place to look this up? to "Well don't do it now, you can take years to do this intead" so they stall for time to now this "hey you cannot have an article about the moves unless other articles list the finisher." At this point I am going to try and just bow out of this discussion unless there are actual policy/guideline related arguments brought up. Oh and naturally I'd be happy to participate in a future WP:RFC on the matter if there is actual action taken to try and change what is now the status quo.  MPJ-DK  10:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Wrestling moves are unimportant. Period. --Tarage (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • By far one of the most useful aspects of wrestler's profiles is being able to see at a glance not only what moves they regularly use, but what name they call said move. I'd imagine it's a first stop for commentators before calling a wrestler's match for the first time. Some wrestlers get real tetchy when their move isn't called by the right name. So instead of an easy to reference list, move names can be buried in a wall of text! Perfect! Well done guys. Time well spent. Some wrestlers have so many moves uniquely named, there's no way one would remember all of them, and good luck fitting twenty move names in a prose paragraph! This just makes it so much harder for people to learn more about wrestling and wrestling moves. Grizzexploder (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a policy-based argument. Nikki311 20:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
For me, it's like any character of Dragon Ball, Bleach or something. The articles don't include the moves and attack of the characters, are focused on the history, reception... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • What is pro-wrestling without wrestling moves, nicknames, managers, etc? Removing the wrestling moves, managers, nicknames, themes, etc takes a large chunk of information about wrestlers gimmicks/personas and in which style they wrestle. What about certain wrestlers who have innovated wrestling moves? Sure people like Liger will have their name next to the move in wrestling moves lists but what about other less known wrestlers who've innovated moves that are not in wrestling moves lists?HC7 (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
As mentioned before and what it currently says in the Style Guide is that information about wrestling style, moves innovated, gimmicks, etc can be incorporated into a "Professional wrestling persona" section provided it is reliably sourced and neutral. It will be a prose section that includes more context than a bullet list. Nikki311 21:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

My take[edit]

I'm a former admin here so I thought I would chime in. I fought to close the gender gap here now I am willing to close the wresting gap here. In short I plan on protecting the regular Wikipedia users from the abuse of wrestling fanboy editors like I protected women from sexist male editors (like the Gianos of the site). Cullen is right, the abuse regular wikipedians get from wrestling fanboys is almost as bad as the abuse that all Wikipedia editors get from Giano on a daily basis. Maybe Giano is a wrestling fan?? My first act as a member of this project is to topic ban Giano and Eric Corbett from all wrestling topics, just in case the take their abuse here. Secondly, I plan on recruiting reddit wrestling fans to be at home Wikipedian in residences. I have more ideas but i am getting started. BTW WP:IAR that TonyBaloney spouts out. Kevin Gסrman — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Pretending to be an admin (As an IP) is quite a serious thing to do, have you any proof of your adminship? Also, "recruiting editors", in any way is known as WP:CANVASSING, which is a really serious issue as well. Also, I have no idea who any of those people are. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 06:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Cullen's the guy who pinged you last week about those unfamiliar with wrestling being welcome to try and fix glaring problems. Of course, what's glaringly obvious to the untrained eye isn't always going to make a lot of sense to a wrestling fan (boy or girl). But anything's understandable, with a bit of practice, patience and compromise. Tony Marino was a seven-time champ in BTW who ignored all sorts of rules (including the one against promoting yourself as The Caped Crusader), and that's no baloney! Probably not what 176 was getting at, but that doesn't make it totally useless information, just obscured and awkwardly presented. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, July 1, 2018 (UTC)
This IP editor is a troll trying to stir up trouble by using the name of a former administrator who died. Please deny attention to this troll. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

New idea for a potential consensus[edit]

Instead of abandoning the inclusion of wrestler moves in Wikipedia pages we should instead have a section on wrestler pages called "Wrestling persona and style" here we talk about their character as well as their finishing and signature moves. I've already seen this done well in the case of the Andrade Cien Almas page. I think this is a good way to include multiple things under a header that is easy to understand even for a non wrestling fan. Young Babymeat (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

No. --Tarage (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
On a real note, I personally really like the idea of that. It gives the inclusion of finishers in prose alongside its significance with their character. MPJ-DK mentioned the same section for Máscara Dorada in another discussion. I'd like to see what we can do with that. Sekyaw (talk) 07:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
This is pretty much the consensus already. See WP:PW/SG#Professional wrestling persona. Prefall 07:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
indeed, this was no new idea, and already the proposed ideal Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I've been editing here for years and the past few days have been the most active this place have ever been. A lot of hysteria was caused by the removals but if people had read the discussion it would alleviate the tension here. A well-sourced biography of the performer is what we're looking for. That can't be achieved though bullet-pointed lists, but a few things from that list might be able to be incorporated into the biography. That has already happened in some cases.LM2000 (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Now see, this is one I can get behind. My only problem, the loss of the entrance themes information. It's not that important, but for someone like me, who has collected entrance themes since WWF Full Metal, it sucks. lol. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 11:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok I’ve had a bash at Daniel Bryan, hope this is more in style with what people are looking for. Throughout my 10+ years of Wikipedia I have only ever been a very casual editor, helping out here and there, I am hardly an expert and have purposefully stayed away from any politics behind the scenes. Regardless of what people think of this whole situation; weather it is classed as trivia or non-encyclopaedic – A lot of work went into it by a lot of people over many years, and I’ve found this almost celebratory attitude about this mass deletion to be quite disheartening, and honestly what little passion I had left for the topic has pretty much gone. I am all for the Professional Wrestling Persona section, but this has now become a monumental task, made much harder by the deletion of many valid references. A task I feel won’t be taken up by many, but hey maybe that was the plan all along. Duffs101 (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
@Duffs101: I like it. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 15:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I like this idea. This is probably the next best thing we can have and allows a more detailed overlook. HC7 (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Professional Wrestling Highlights[edit]

If it’s not broken, don’t fix it. Getting rid of the moves sub-heading was unnecessary and inconvenient and having it written in prose is a terrible idea, the bullet points are much more concise. SirJohnChegg (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

However, it was broken. That was the issue we face. Specifically the signature moved section. Instead of a list of important moves, it was literally a list of moves that the person did (say, a chop and a suplex), with them sourced by some YouTube video clip, or the WWE article on the 10 ten moves by John Cena. I don't see how anyone can make the argument that the information was so important to the article, if they can't turn it into a section on it's own. IMO, if you can't write about how something is important, it isn't important enough for inclusion Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

For example, Chris Jericho briefly used the “Meltdown” as a finisher from 2001-2002, which not a lot of fans know, briefly mentioning it as a notable part of his moveset is far more convienient than it being lost in a Persona page. To be honest, all of the editors are just agreeing amongst themselves and not listening to the average user, most of whom are against this change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirJohnChegg (talkcontribs) 06:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

If it was only briefly used, then it likely shouldn't be mentioned at all. Prefall 06:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
You might be thinking of this page of suggestions rather than something that actually happened. Used a "Millenium Melt Down" in someone's hypothetical future, but a Lionsault for the rest of us. Or maybe that was meant to be the Walls of Jericho, but whatever it was, it wasn't meant to be. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:33, July 4, 2018 (UTC)
The meltdown was the full nelson facebuster that he briefly used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcw91 (talkcontribs) 04:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

You’re being needlessly stubborn about this useful section and you’re shutting down every opposing argument to keep what should have never been removed. Having a discussion with people who hold the same opinions as you and then declaring it as the general consensus, even though the majority of users are against it, doesn’t help anyone. This persona sub heading is a terrible idea and all moves and entrance themes will be lost within a wall of text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirJohnChegg (talkcontribs) 10:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

If you're talking to me (or both of us), I'm on your side regarding the section. It is useful and prose is harder to parse than points are. It shouldn't have disappeared, but it did. Maybe it'll come back. Anything undone can be redone here. But things like the Meltdown and John Maloof will always be removed. They didn't happen, few students are aware of the myth and no reliable sources bother reporting on their non-existences.
That makes them even faker than The Ultimate Warrior's first death (which we cover fairly enough), and more like telling people Rufus R. Jones is Jon Jones' dad. Or that P.N. News came out to "Fuck Tha Police" for a bit in late '91, before Jazzy Jeff sued WCW. It's just lying for lying's sake, even if it is honestly related to something I truly heard somewhere. It doesn't help this case, or any; just makes needless argument and further inevitable walls of text.
And if someone does find these lies (in the walls or in the lists), they're not guaranteed to factcheck them or "get the joke". They're probably not even likely to, if they're under 25. They're just going to leave with a skewed view of someone or another. And that doesn't help anyone. Especially those like Chris Jericho, who's both a living person and rich enough to sue. "Whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, it should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Just tell the truth and people will believe you're right, sooner or later. It's a weird system, but it generally works. "Trust me." InedibleHulk (talk) 07:43, July 5, 2018 (UTC)

Disappearance of "In Wrestling" section[edit]

This was the primary reason I visited wrestlers' Wikipedia pages; now, it is completely gone. Why? This was valuable and useful information, all organized in an aesthetically pleasing and easy-to-read format. Can we please restore these? If the problem was with people wrestlers' entire movesets, why not just eliminate that one section? You could keep their finishing move (or if it changed throughout their career; i.e., have the Tombstone Piledriver, Last Ride, and Hell's Gate for Undertaker, but no other moves), and then eliminate everything else. Can we please do this? Wrestler pages have lost much of their utility for me now. CinnamonCinder (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@CinnamonCinder: check out the several sections above this one. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 15:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
You can still look at an old revision in the meantime. They're (currently) easy to find in the edit history, because they're the one before the one with huge red letters. Not that clicking two extra times is fun, of course, but it beats leaving without learning what you came for. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:47, July 4, 2018 (UTC)
Helps to remember this went down in June 2018, in case it's permanent. You want stuff, look backward. You don't like stuff, look straight ahead. Everyone wins, with a little extra work. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:56, July 4, 2018 (UTC)

Project Kys - In Wresting (Wrestlers Moves) Section & End Disruptive Edit Protest[edit]

Project Keep Your Section[edit]

A Decade Section

Hello, i came back here to demand the ending of this "In Wresting" protest from many many wikiapedia users. Best Option to bring the "In Wresting" section, because it been here for a decade. Make necessary adjustments to the "In Wresting" if needed. Thanks. Colton Meltzer (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

We had two discussions few days ago. Since then, I never see a good argument except I Like it, My CAWS or something like that. These months I tried to keep track of In wrestling sections and are very hard to deal with. As other user said, full of trivial information, unsourced things, listcruft... as I said, it's like Dragon Ball characters, I see their history, but no their attacks. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Your only argument is that it's been around for a decade. If that's all you have, then there's no point in fighting, because that's not valid. We ask that you respect consensus. JTP (talkcontribs) 20:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Project Kys focuses on bring back "In Wresting" Section wresting pages - Working around Encyclopedia Guidelines

  • Allowing Wikipedia users editing in moves in Wikipedia Wrestler Page as long there sources from any sort (no fake sites) with the use of WP:COMMONSENSE
  • Disallow Wikipedia users from editing in moves that they only used few times or just to mimic his opponent with the use of WP:COMMONSENSE
  • Can be confirm by users as long they saw, with the use of WP:COMMONSENSE and workaround with WP:VERIFY
  • Keep Championship and Achievements Section away from In Wresting Section. Use WP:ORGANIZE

Best option to bring back this decade-old section, because it bring big successful contribution to the wresting pages.Colton Meltzer (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The consensus was stablished a few days ago. Some suers gave an alternative, a Wrestling persona and Style to include the notable things. You're proposing to come back to the previous section and, after 10 years, I think it's a faliure. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@NotTheFakeJTP: @HHH Pedrigree: 10 years and must bring back this wresting moves/entrance music section. The kys project will focuses on bring back this section with some changes. No more mini consensus and to end disruptive edits. Rollback this change is a must. Colton Meltzer (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The idea that something is successful simply because it's been around for a long time is a complete fallacy. The above is completely rediculous, as it suggests you want to actually LAX the procedures of fancruft. You are promoting the ideas of using non-reliable sources, and Original Research for your own ends. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
With all due respect, this place has never cared about sources, it's all been pointless gatekeeping for years upon years. Moves have had incorrect names and descriptions consistently since the site began keeping pages for wrestlers, and when corrected the mods would revert it back even when the source cited was the wrestler themself tweeting wht their move was called. The politics of this place has always been insane and it's why I gave up on editing anything almost 10 years ago. But removing this section gives me literally no reason to *ever* come here again because 95% of the reason anyone visits these pages is to either find out what a move or entrance theme is called. Congratulations, you've finally and successfully closed the loop on the wrestling wiki circle-jerk. Miikro (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
As someone who has produced multiple Good Articles, Featured Articles and Featured Lists it I can totally disagree about "not caring about sources". Also can we please be WP:CIVIL in our conversations please? Also Colton Meltzer you don't even present an argumente for why, only a demand, tell us WHY you think it should be brought back in policy terms. "Common sense" is not an argument, that would just lead to the same issues as before - especiall when you suggest that "Common Sense" circumvents "Verify".  MPJ-DK  18:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Miikro, there are many reasons for this. The first, is that Twitter (or any social network, YouTube, etc), is generally considered an unreliable source. It always throws up a red flag to me when someone makes a claim using these sources. They do have some cases when they can be used (see WP:TWITTER), but this is generally still frowned upon over actual reliable sources. The other issue is these sources are WP:PRIMARY. These issues generally refer to WP:Notability, but can also mean the information they are sourcing.
It's also not your place to say why "95%" of people view this content. That is irrelevant to the information being presented (And also rather POV.) Personally, I'd check an article for championships they have held, or information on where they were born rather than what music they come out too...
Also, there are no "mods" on Wikipedia (I'm assuming this is short for moderators.) There are system admins, Bureaucrats, regular users and IP editors (And a few bespoke user rights.) However, in a conversation, none of these classes are deemed "better" than others (Outside of IP editors, who aren't allowed to vote in administrator elections, and similar.) So, it's not moderators reverting edits. Even if it was an administrator, they don't have special rights to be prejudicial, we all have to obey WP:3RR, and WP:CIVIL. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

New "List of" pages[edit]

Shouldn’t the SmackDown Women’s, SmackDown Tag Team and NXT Women’s Championship have their own list of Champions pages by now? The Raw Women’s Championship does and it’s pretty similar lineage wise to the SmackDown Women’s. Ron234 (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Our style guide recommends waiting until there are 10 or more reigns before creating a "List of Champions" article. See WP:PW/SG#Championship articles. Prefall 21:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh didn’t notice that. But the NXT Women’s Championship should have a combined days section atleast. Ron234 (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
The combined reigns table is added once there are reigns to combine. As of now, there are no multi-time champions, so the information would be exactly the same. Prefall 21:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Fair point. Ron234 (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Removal of wrestler's moves[edit]

The discussion and removal of wrestler's moves from their wikipedia pages not only is hasty, but also disastrous. The discussion was closed very quickly with relatively few editors offering their opinion on a DECADE LONG PRECEDENT, that has been in place for a VERY long time. It makes absolutely no sense to remove it. To make such a big change affecting virtually every wrestling/wrestler article on Wikipedia seems egregious and baffling to me. A majority of wrestling fans primarily go on a wrestler's page to look at a person's moveset/moves, and judging by the backlash of other editors on this talk page, it confirms my assertions. Also, with the removal of such a significant section of a wrestler's article, there has to be a solution to the problem. Instead, there has been NO solution offered by any editor who contributed to the removal of the moves section on wrestler's pages, simply removal of the content. VietPride10 (talk) 04:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

There was a solution offered. A "Professional wrestling persona" section that discusses significant moves, character traits, nicknames, gimmicks, etc in a prose section with context. The movesets of the majority of wrestlers was composed of original research or WP:SYNT of sources. Information can be incorporated into the new section if it is properly sourced and neutral. Anyone who wants a list of a wrestler's moves has plenty of other places on the internet to find it. Cagematch, Pro Wrestling Wiki, and OWW all have movesets. Also, all the people complaining here have not offered one policy based reason to keep the information. All I'm hearing is WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:ILIKEIT. Its hard to take that argument seriously. Does anyone want to make a real case about why that information should stay, how to improve it, and how to properly source it? Nikki311 04:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The problem with the other noted resources is that cagematch, OWW (and also wrestling database) all have *extremely* brief movesets; and Pro Wrestling Wikia itself is primarly sourced from Wikipedia. The vast amount of research on movesets across Wikipedia over the last decade has been removed, and we shouldn't have to sort through archives and reassemble it elsewhere. Sure, movesets can be included to an extent in prose but how does one feature the Blue Thunder Bomb or Okada's tombstone piledriver (rather significant moves) in prose? "Sami Zayn uses the Blue Thunder Bomb as a nearfall move"? I have a feeling that wouldn't be enjoyed. As I've mentioned prior in this talk page, I feel like the problem here (and across Wikipedia, and the internet...) is that people think more about giant lists of abstract policies and guidelines instead of people, and how users / fans use pages and what information they feel they need. The section was fine, it just needed to be cleaned up, possibly with some restrictions / conditions (ie. List could include finishing moves + Wrestler has named move AND/OR uses it to a defined degree that is considered regular AND this move does not appear in (reference of extremely frequently used moves) User Talk:jcw91 5:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
If the sources don't exist, it shouldn't be on wikipedia. Cagematch isn't considered a reliable source for some information, specifically things like height and weight), as you can "suggest an update", and they usually accept almost any source. Things like results seem to be pretty reliable though.
Wikipedia, believe it or not, is NOT somewhere for fans to dump information they want to read; primarily it's designed as an encylopedia, for anyone to find a topic, and learn about the subject. If you'd like to oppose the removal/change/proposal, it's definately worth putting an arguement together that doesn't simply fail WP:ITSUSEFUL, or WP:ILIKEIT. Wikipedia has tonnes of guidelines, and if it was shown that this information being presented as a list with boundaries fitted with these guidelines, I'd put an alternate proposal forward. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we should bring it back but only have moves, nicknames, etc that can be referenced. No more unreferenced items in the section. Is there anyway that that could possibly work?? HC7 (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
As we explained, to mantain this section is too hard. At the end, people always includes moves. I deleted many unsourced moves and few days later, are back. Some problems: we can't source a list of "signature moves". Yes, we have sources about a wrestler performing the move, but no it's a signature move. So, we have to make WP:SYN. That's it, 5 sources means signature move. Wrong. Nicknames, people us every promo to include hundred of nicknames. AJ Styles was called "Georgia Pitbull" once, it's sourced, but it's an irrelevant nickname (or worst, John Cena calling Rollins "Captain Morgan" and Captain Morgan becomes a nickname). Managers, people includes every wrestler who accompained another. For example, John Morrison being manager of The Miz. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Especially with the signature moves....using 5 sources to "source" or "prove" that a move is a signature move is not correct. It just means that move was used 5 times unless the source specifically calls it a "signature move". Plus, the sources very rarely (if ever) listed out the full and correct technical name of the moves. Nicknames is also a problem. What constitutes a nickname? How many times does a person need to be called something for it to be a true nickname? In what context does someone need to be called something for it to be a nickname? There was a problem for a long time of people confusing nicknames and ring names. Nikki311 20:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Quote from me on my idea of what restrictions could be: List could include finishing moves + Wrestler has named move AND/OR uses it to a defined degree that is considered regular AND this move does not appear in (reference of extremely frequently used moves) User Talk:jcw91 4:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── - Difficult to police/source. How is this bulleted list any worse than having an overview of the character, and their most important features, written as prose? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing's only difficult if a claim is untrue or non-notable, and policing's only difficult if you leave the doors open for unregistered users. Most people who want to use Wikipedia to teach true and notable info shouldn't find registering difficult. Others may find continually registering new accounts after being topic-banned difficult, but that's the point. Many "good" entertainment articles are semi-protected from drive-by riff-raff and contain easy-to-scan lists of proper knowledge about stuff which seems pointless to people who don't care. Others, like List of cloned animals in the Jurassic Park series, seem to exist just fine without excluding anyone. As long as we somehow agree to share only plainly verifiable facts, the lists are only better because they're quicker (to read and write). InedibleHulk (talk) 08:25, July 5, 2018 (UTC)
The above article is quite an obvious case of listcruft. I disagree we need to topic-protect PW articles, it goes against what wikipedia is. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
We definitely don't need to, it just makes policing much easier. A blanket topic lock is indeed a bit draconian. Maybe start unlocked by default, and only protect those where bad IP edits outnumber good ones in a month? Ban registered users after three verifiability strikes? Reward newbs who do follow simple rules with thanks (via the Thank button or personally)? Firm, but kind, that's all I propose. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:03, July 5, 2018 (UTC)
Kinda like saying 'why do we have infoboxes?' Because sometimes all you need in the moment *is* the trivia for reference purposes. There is no blanket ban on trivia, only a soft recommendation to avoid as a general rule of thumb - but as is clear from WP:PRINCIPLE the recommendations are only that and there are times where they are wrong. Indeed, all the trivia guidelines and essays note that sometimes the list is superior for collecting information, and WP:TRIVIA is clear that it itself ".. does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose." (Imagine trying to do that to the championship reigns section? I think the sheer awfulness of even envisioning that speaks for itself.) Yes, trivia lists are absolutely prone to effortless and thoroughly unnecessary drive-by expansion, but is that not the job of project editors to police and enforce rather than going WP:BATHWATER on an entire section at the cost of readability and user experience? Yes, it needs regular intensive maintenance to prevent spurious expansion. That's WP:SURMOUNTABLE with tools, is it not? Yes, it is in every respect an uphill battle, but WP:SUSCEPTIBLE is not itself a sufficient excuse for annihilating a section of useful information because dealing with it is frustrating. It should be abundantly clear at this point that there is a reasonably large cohort of casual users who reference these things for quick familiarity - anecdotally I can say I personally checked them on occasion with regards to wrestlers who have a habit of using old finishers from other promotions I'm not familiar with as callbacks - and that the net result makes for a worse article by common use standards. It's not an easy burden to undertake and I'm sympathetic to the issues to a point, but this is far from an ideal solution, and I worry that the open hostility from the outside and built up frustration from editing tedium on the inside is keeping people from looking at this situation in a productive fashion. 2601:641:200:7E30:C4E8:498:4562:F703 (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

To give my two cents, I believe that while some information (for example, very extensive signature move lists) can be unnecessary and often uncited) things like finishing maneuvers for wrestlers would not fall under FANCRUFT as they provide additional context for a wrestler as it is often an integral part of the character, and is in turn encyclopedic knowledge. I think this has the potential of alienating the casual user and messing with a decade-long precedent which I am well-aware is not a legitimate reason for re-establishment, but I do think deserves some thought in the decision-making process. I appreciate the prose suggestion but I feel it may be too long and unneeded for smaller wrestlers and too difficult to establish on a wide-spread basis, and is also insufficient at providing what the previous "In Wrestling" section did as a reference point for information about a wrestler. My solution: I personally believe that, as suggested at some point, a section titled 'Professional Wrestling Information' with "signature" maneuvers (i.e., primary moves that the wrestler uses as one to finish a match) that are named as well as nicknames that have been used for the wrestler to be placed under that heading. I understand that this is continuing to discuss an issue that likely won't get changed, but I do believe that, a, the prose method suggested is clunky and insufficient to serve as an efficient reference point for users, b, information such as "signature" moves and nicknames is encyclopedic, and, c, (perhaps most importantly for some) can be citing effectively. A great example of this is Zack Sabre Jr. who has citations to events where moves were given names on commentary as well as links to his Twitter page where he has given moves names. This is information that I would consider important to a performer's character and encyclopedic in nature. To finally conclude, I am sure many users are sick of this discussion, but I truly believe that there is some noteworthy information within the deleted section and I do hope that I have brought up some fair points for consideration. NotAdamKovic (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@NotAdamKovic: I clicked on Zack Sabre Jr.'s profile and randomly picked a "sourced" wrestling move. The move Orienteering with Napalm Death (Over-the-shoulder single leg Boston crab / calf slicer combination) is "sourced" with a link to a tweet [2] which says "I just took Hiroshi Tanahashi Orienteering with Napalm Death". Nowhere in that tweet does it say anything about an over-the-shoulder single leg Boston crab / calf slicer combination, and nowhere does it say the move is a finisher or a signature move. And you (and I'm using the word you as a generalization) can't just say that "he uses that move all the time" or "it has a name so it must be a signature move" because that is original expert in the field or reliable source must specifically call it that. Also, unless the commentators said specifically that the move being performed was an an over-the-shoulder single leg Boston crab / calf slicer combination and called it the Orienteering with Napalm Death, then it also doesn't count. We as editors cannot make the jump from seeing the move being performed to giving it a technical name and to pairing it with the move's name given on commentary because it is original research. Nikki311 05:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
The most amusing part of this reply is that you seem to be implying that wrestling commentators are reliable sources of wrestling move information 😂 User:jcw91 —Preceding undated comment added 05:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
If you're replying to Nikki's comment, I think you misunderstood. There's a citation in the article referring to commentary on a specific event. Nikki's comment was in response to that.
In regards to the Zack Sabre Jr. article, its "In wrestling" section is in very poor shape. Lots of WP:SYNTH / WP:OR. Prefall 05:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
NotAdamKovic mentioned using commentators as sources, and I was trying to explain why they shouldn't be. Nikki311 06:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
It's been clear for a while that we should not cite the commentary, as the moves called are very often wrong, and is deemed unreliable to this end.
Actually, there is no official "moves authority", unlike in martial arts, where a type of move is denoted officially by a company. So, you could say that a move was a fireman's carry backbreaker, and I could call it a modified death valley driver backbreaker, and both be right. That's a good reason why only the most important moves (such as finishers) should be sourced, and it should be done in prose to show who refers to the move in this way, how the move is done, and when the wrestler used it. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: I do want to say that I agree with you that the most important moves (like finishers) should absolutely be cited, I do feel that there should be a section at the bottom of the page. I think prose works, but if you can give well-cited names and information in prose, why not simplify it and gives a brief description of move names and nicknames at the end of the article? I think that helps the reader and helps all who edit as it allows a point of reference to include moves that gain "official" names.
Some previous commenters are misconstruing my point. While not very reliable at calling moves by official names, they generally call signature moves by their names, for example, Triple H's signature move isn't called on commentary as, "And Triple H hits his double underhook facebuster!" but rather "And Triple H hits the Pedigree!" That I would consider to be a reliable source of information for the move's name and I think that we should all be able to agree on that as that is how many moves, especially in the WWE/on NXT, get their official names.
@Nikki311: Final point of my comment, but the move you cited is actually given as one of his finishes here:, so it's on good account of being a finishing move as cited by New Japan themselves by that name as well. Also, while this varies case-to-case, I also would not say the case of this move is original research. Quote from the page for original research states: "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". Sabre is a reliable source of his own move's title, he gives the name of the opponent and, as a result of the Tweet's date, a date of when this move may have occurred, and his referenced move is listed under his New Japan profile as a "finishing hold". This can be counter-referenced by watching the given match and seeing the finishing hold be used to ensure proper usage, but this last step borders on original research. I think these are all sources that directly support the material without the naming of the move directly by any commentary team without original research or jumping to conclusions being done. NotAdamKovic (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
@NotAdamKovic: "...can be counter-referenced by watching the given match and seeing the finishing hold be used to ensure proper usage..." - That is practically the definition of original research. Only an expert in the field can make that jump. The New Japan profile only gives the wrestler's name of the move, but never describes what it is, so it still isn't properly sourced. Everything else you said goes against synthesis of sources. Quote: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Nikki311 21:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
@Nikki311: I fear my original point may have gotten lost in this discussion about Sabre Jr.'s profile. The 'In Wrestling' section is generally used for quick reference and including them in a 'Pro Wrestling Persona' sort of section which will cover far more than just important moves defeats the functionality of keeping them self-contained in a section that, like 'In Wrestling' was, essentially served that purpose. I understand I may be in the minority here but I do believe that a majority of casual users or readers of the site appreciate this function and you can argue that is not a reason to keep at least a trimmed down version of it, but if I were to look up a professional wrestler's name in a hypothetical encyclopedia I would expect to find a list of important moves in a concise manner. It was not perfect and often far too long, that I wholeheartedly agree with, but it did serve a purpose. I've said just about all I can about this matter. I respect the already-concluded decision but feel that it can continue to be improved upon. NotAdamKovic (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Wrestler themes[edit]

So seeing as I missed the entire discussion because of my inactivity, I wanna ask for some clarification. I see that the project has decided to remove the "In wrestling" section. So what is to come of the wrestler themes on these articles? I know it's an argument to avoid, but it was pretty useful information that's not really seen elsewhere on the internet. (And not that it matters at this point, but I would have opposed the section's removal. But I digress.) TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 14:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The fact that it is not really seen anywhere else on the internet is exactly why we shouldn't include it. It's trivial (very few wrestler themes are actually notable) and full of unsourced claims. If a wrestler's theme is actually notable it should be mentioned in the "pro wrestling persona" section. Some examples I could think of that might be worth noting: CM Pubk's switch to "Cult of Personality" as part of the Summer of Punk; Motörhead performing Triple H's "The Game" (and "King of Kings"), as that sparked a real word friendship between HHH and Lemmy that lead to HHH giving a eulogy at Lemmy's memorial service; that Cena performs his own theme; or that Hogan hijacked "Real American". Mentions of established pieces being used (Flair w/ "Also Spracht Zarathustra", Savage w/ "Pomp and Circumstance", Bryan w/ "Flight of the Valkyries") are probably also worth mentioning. oknazevad (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
In fact, I always thought the themes were the most no-notable thing of the section. As we said, if something is notable, we can include in the article or style/persona section. I'm trying with some legend, if somebody wants to help me, it would be welcome. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree, a random theme done by Jim Johnson is useless info to include in an encyclopedia. Undertaker using American Badass, because it basically became his persona is a different story... - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 01:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Here is an example, from Taker: "he abandoned the somber mortician-themed attires, his funeral dirge ring music, allusions to the supernatural, and the accompanying morbid theatrics. In place of this, he took on a biker identity, riding to the ring on a motorcycle, and wearing sunglasses and bandanas to the ring. His entrance music was replaced with popular rock songs of the time, like Limp Bizkit's "Rollin' (Air Raid Vehicle)" and Kid Rock's "American Bad Ass"" We can also include he started to use the Last Ride as finisher instead the Tombstone. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • If the theme is actually significant and not just a "the WWE assigned him theme X" then it should be in the prose.  MPJ-DK  01:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

How Could This Possibly Help New Fans?[edit]

Removing of movesets makes no logical sense. While their signature moves aren't their entire story, the moves do represent a part of their gimmicks and persona. I'm not sure why a small group of individuals felt they should unilaterally make such a decision, then claim a 'consensus.'

Was their really any complaints regarding the section? Did the group of 'admins' making this decision consider how the decision would hurt new fans who want to learn more? Why wasn't something decided on to reference the moves before deleting the section from every Wikipedia profile?

Wrestling journalists, fans, and those who are simply curious used the sections as a reminder or to learn new information about a given wrestler or tag team. They should be replaced immediately as the decision wasn't well thoughout, goes against the purpose of Wikipedia (to inform), and does nothing to help the function nor purpose of wrestlers pages. SmoothWrestling (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I wonder the day some user brings good reasons, not I Like it or something. Looks like people don't read the multiple issues the section had, like LISTCRUFT, Original Research, SYNTH... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
(1) Remove the cruft. (2) Include only verifiable content. (3) Include only verifiable content. Problem solved. If people are adding nicknames that were only used once, that doesn't mean that you have to remove the Sharpshooter as Bret Hart's finisher. Some of the content would be hopelessly buried in prose--it's ridiculous to think that prose could be anywhere near as useful as bullet lists for a lot of this information, like the wrestlers managed by Freddie Blassie, Ernie Roth, Skandor Akbar, etc. The problems with these lists were the lack of sources, not the bullet points. This project is quick to tell people to WP:SOFIXIT, but when problems of poorly sourced lists come up, the solution is somehow to nuke everything. The project is also quick to tell people that this is based on policy, but it clearly isn't. There's no policy banning bullet points. They are used frequently. A long paragraph explaining the cast of a movie doesn't work nearly as well as a bullet list, so a bullet list is used. A paragraph about notable people from a town would be clunky, so a bullet list is used. I've read a lot of complaints about people not citing policies, and simply stating that the removal of information is harmful, but there are no policies cited to require this massive shift from consensus. This is reminiscent of 2008, when a group of editors decided that, because some Wikipedians don't like wrestling, the project should force itself to over-enforce policies to create sentences reminiscent of "Bret Hart, the performer who portrayed the role of Bret Hart, a supposedly professional athlete in the scripted pseudo-sport of professional wrestling, held the feet of his storyline opponent, stepped over one of the storyline opponent's legs, crossed the other one on the other side of his knee, pretended to storyline force the opponent to roll over, and then feigned an application of pressure to the storyline opponent's back, leading to the storyline opponent conceding defeat, as had been previously decided by a group of executives who owned the company, thus allowing him to retain his position as Intercontinental champion, a title that was assigned by the aforementioned executives rather than actually won in an athletic competition, which professional wrestling is not." It seems like we would benefit from considering the essay WP:BATHWATER: "Content removal can be used to weed out problematic areas, and other adjustments and improvements can sometimes be made, including the addition of new information and corresponding reliable sources. This may take a lot of work, but Wikipedia wasn't built in a day." GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you're getting the bullet point issue from. Both CM Punk#Professional wrestling persona and Daniel Bryan#Professional wrestling persona make use of bullet points. The main characters in those bulleted cast lists you mentioned are also expected to be accompanied by a character summary, with the lesser members covered below in normal paragraphs.
The main issues are that, not only is this list contextless, but most of its content is trivial. The significant content that remains, as well as any additional character information, are still better framed in prose. The only benefit to this section is accessibility for fans, but I don't believe that should be our concern. Prefall 23:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
What context would be necessary for a list of wrestlers managed? Let's take Skandor Akbar's article. The first sentence states that he was a professional wrestling manager. There is a subsection titled "Manager". The list was titled "Wrestlers managed". That was plenty of context. The list of wrestlers managed by a professional wrestling manager is hardly trivial. It's actually essential to an understanding of the character. This is what the article used to look like. Obviously, a lot of referencing work to be done, but certainly no reason for removal. There is absolutely no way you could possibly believe that the list would be better in prose. Making things accessible for fans isn't actually a bad thing, but you also need to understand that not everybody who accesses these articles is a fan. I tried watching three episodes of "ECW" in 2007, but, aside from that, I haven't watched wrestling in over two decades. Wikipedia can also be a good jumping-off point for researchers; it can give quick access to information that can then be verified with reliable sources. However, tossing 65 names into a large prose section would make it unnecessarily accessible. Removing content from thousands of articles was a poor decision, and this constant repetition of, "It doesn't matter if dozens of people hate the new format, because 6 of us held a vote that lasted for 3 days, so that consensus overrides everyone's concerns" is ridiculous. The change obviously doesn't work, and it's just plain overkill to nuke these sections on thousands of articles because you couldn't just remove the cruft and source the valuable information. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the biggest problem is that the majority of information in "in wrestling" isn't source-able...describing the moves is original research. Lists of people managed is a different story. Because Akbar's managed such a long list of people, I'd be willing to make an exception for him and people with a similarly lengthy amount of people managed and keep a "Wrestler's managed" list. Unlike moves, that shouldn't be too hard to source. However, I really don't see how a bullet list is any more accessible than a few sentences for the vast majority of people who have only managed a handful of people. Nikki311 01:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I would think that for actual managers a separate "wrestlers managed" section would be appropriate, especially if the bullet list is A) sourced and B) perhaps had additional information on say how long, where etc. For Bobby Heenan it could list "Haku (1987-1992) WWF, WWF World Tag Team Championship" or something along those lines, adding a little more information/context to the list.  MPJ-DK  01:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)`
Note, my suggestion is that this would be for articles on Managers - not listing John Morrison as the Miz's manager because he accompanied him to the ring etc.  MPJ-DK  01:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)In theory shouldnt all that information already been in their career section? My concern is this list will get way out of hand quickly. My concern is this list will become "Natalya accompanied Jax to the ring on July 2, 2018, and served as her manager for that one match" - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 01:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Which is why that section should not appear in Natalya's article, unless there is a reliable source actually calling her a manager then the "Wrestlers managed" section does not belong there.  MPJ-DK  01:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Aye, piece of cake. Same for trainers. And wrestlers who used these managers. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, July 9, 2018 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding repetetive, in the prose of course. Lets not overcomplicate this.  MPJ-DK  09:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Indeed, the above is fine. Although, do we need to know the thousands of people Slick managed? is it particularly notable that a manager once managed Owen Hart? Not everything is notable. If there is a list of a lot of people someone has managed, that's fine to be in a consise way, but I'd also expect some information about the character, and some prose to explain the list. I think sometimes, people want to copy the "Filmography" section to these types of articles, simply because they like lists. Credits and moves are two seperate things. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't all of this be better served by a Category: People managed by Slick - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Please Restore Important Information[edit]

Hello, I'm here to voice my anger at the recent vandalism done to individual wrestler pages. For years, I've used Wikipedia whenever I need to find out important information on an individual wrestler. Whether that be their entrance music history, signature and finishing moves, nicknames, managers, tag team partners, etc. However recently, all that important information has been deleted, in a truly baffling decision.

The whole point of Wikipedia is to provide information. Removing information goes against the whole point of Wikipedia's existence. In the past if I heard entrance music, wanted to listen to a clean version, and didn't know what it was called, I'd look up that wrestler's Wikipedia page, see the track's name, and then search for it. Now, I can't do that anymore. If I wanted to update a superstar's moveset on the recent 2K game, but didn't know the technical name for a move and the move is only listed under it's technical name in the game, I'd look that wrestler's finisher on their Wikipedia page. I can't do that anymore. If I wanted to know a wrestler's nickname history so I could write it into a promo, I'd look up their Wikipedia page. I can't do that anymore. If I wanted to know the entrance music history of a wrestler, I'd look up their Wikipedia page. I can't do that anymore. The vast majority of times that I've used Wikipedia for wrestling information, it's been to look up information on the "In Wrestling" section.

The point is, a small group of people have decided to limit other readers, and I cannot understand how this is allowed. It's clear that the users removing information are not wrestling fans, because if they were then they'd know how vital this information is to wrestling fans. And considering that the vast majority of readers looking up wrestling pages are wrestling fans, it makes no sense to try to drive them away from a previously useful source of information. Come on, these are wrestling pages. You need important wrestling information on there.

At current time, there is no adequate alternative. There is a pro wrestling wiki, but it's clunky, cluttered, and it's presentation is nowhere near as clean as Wikipedia. Wikipedia used to be the perfect source, but now that's been taken away.

Until the people editing these pages see sense, Wikipedia is now utterly useless to me when it comes to needing wrestling information. So well done, congratulate yourselves on driving frequent users (aka the people these articles should be targeted to) away. There is clearly a large amount of people upset by this change, much greater than the "majority" who made this decision. So I can only hope that this decision will be reversed, and important information restored.

- A very disgruntled reader (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Decision was not made by a "majority vote" but by consensus around various Wikipedia guidelines. Please see more or less every single section above for more details.  MPJ-DK  00:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "The whole point of Wikipedia is to provide information." -- yes--well-verified and relevant information. I'm glad this "finishing move" tripe, which was impossible to define and the source properly, is gone. Now, if wrestling editors would take the next step and trim down the narrative sections, where every single scripted match is recounted, that would be great. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Well at some point this "in wrestling" discussion will hopefully die down and we can move on to other style and content improvement initiatives.  MPJ-DK  01:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry man, but it's not gonna die down. The "in wrestling section" was such a commonly used resource that it's inevitable someone will discover it's removal and voice their complaints every day. I've moved on to finding new ways to compile that info (stay tuned, disgruntled readers) but it's not going to stop any time soon. Jcw91 (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Well one of two things Will happen - someone does more than complain to form a New policy based consensus or 2) People keep complaining ... so far option 2 is winning by ten miles. With each New complain section it becomes more and more background noise, at which point Wikipedians interested in Quality improvements and policies will move on.  MPJ-DK  15:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
If anyone was interested in creating a counter-proposal based on Wikipedia policy, that would be fine. We simply haven't seen it. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Of course we have. Quite a few have proposed restoring the section, but only with verifiable information from reliable sources. If someone adds something else, another should delete it. It's not rocket science (it's not even as complicated as powering a light bulb through a potato). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, July 10, 2018 (UTC)
That is how it was supposed to have worked before too, that is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Yet it was crufty, cluttered and ridiculous at times. A serious proposal would need a little more detail - try to build a consensus on the content, what's in, what's out - how do you source that something is a "signature move"? or an official nickname? and so on, that's what a proposal to generate a new consensus needs to address.  MPJ-DK  01:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I tried to create a section for Kurt Angle. I sead his style includes several suplex and submissions. One of them, the Rear Naked choke. However, the source doesn't sya that choke is a signature move or angle uses it regilarity. Just says "now by Angle, with a rear naked choke...". That's the problem with signature moves, sources doens't say are signature moves. For example, I saw Son Goku using the Destruction Disk. Imagine a section "DB attack", I put the Disk under Goku profile. Same problem, the source doesn't say the disk is a signature attack of Goku, but is sourced and included. If some move is notable (like Kame Hame, Genkidama / Tombstone, Last Ride) it's fine in prose. Same with nicknames, every time somebody says "I'm the man", the man becomes a nickname. WWE called once AJ Styles the Georgia Pitbull and become a nickname.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
If a source doesn't call a move a signature (or clear synonym like "trademark"), simply don't add it to a list of signature moves. If no sources exist for a nickname, don't add it under Nicknames. If no sources say John Cena is dead, don't say John Cena is dead. If you see someone else breaking this exceptionally simple rule, revert them. If you don't want to revert them, let someone who still cares do it. Exact same deal as in prose (which I'm fine with keeping and improving), just easier to quickly find and read. I can't offer any details beyond "follow basic Wikipedia policy" and shouldn't have to. As for building consensus, just look back to how it was before a few editors said fuck it or look straight ahead at all these readers who say don't fuck it.
Getting flustered by an opponent to the point of taking an intentional countout just makes us look like the classic cowardly heels and lets the disruptive vandals (or uninformed overeager newbs) take the disappointing win as the babyfaces. That's some WCW-level shortsighted hotshotting that pops Talk Page views and gets the crowd rumbling, but quickly leads to a future where people remember as "the legit one". That's not even to say we're at "war" with Wikia, but a lack of clear and present competition is no good reason to make our content less appealing to mainstream audiences. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:35, July 10, 2018 (UTC)
Yeah that was tried for 10 years, failed spectacularly by creating fanish, crufty lists. You can say it all you want, but there are 10 years of fail. Removing that content is not a "count out" since the fanish, crufty section is gone.  MPJ-DK  03:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
You can't blame the system for the way some players abused it, and for how some others overlooked that. Maybe this disruption has gotten the point across to everyone to use it properly or lose it forever. Only way to tell is rebooting. Just copy and paste the old list, but cut the cruft. If we can find the energy to delete all of it however many hundreds of times, we can find the energy to restore just the bits of it we were too lazy to separate from the chaff in the first place. And yes, protecting frequent targets from IPs and brand new accounts would help immensely, even if it angers the spirit of Wikipedia. You think that spirit likes unsourced craplists any more than you and mostly everyone else do? We'd be doing him a favour. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, July 10, 2018 (UTC)
A real-world example of how easy it can be to source a list: Click undo on this revision, highlight "Roman Reigns", press backspace, click "Publish changes". I almost did it myself, but remembered the time I was blocked for an even stupider reason. Damn you, chilling effect! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:24, July 10, 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── - The issue is that most of this information, even if we sourced is irrelevent to the subject. The link above has 16 wrestlers that he's trained. Could this seriously not be written as prose? "After leaving the WWF, he began training wrestlers at his Wild Samoan Training Facility, along with Sika. Afa Anoa'i is a successful trainer, and is credited for training wrestler's such as Batista, Havok and Roman Reigns. Having a list afterwards, or a category for Category:Wrestler's trained by Afa Anoa'i would do the trick. Having things written in prose naturally pushes people from adding a source that denotes every move the wrestler does, and it looks better. Noting that he uses a headbutt as a signature move is a bit irrelevent, but if we could mention why this is important - Most Samoans use headbutts, that would be beneficial information. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not at all irrelevant. The guy runs a reputable wrestling school. Many notable wrestlers have careers because he taught them how. You could say the same in text and it would be just as relevant (presuming we mean to include all students instead of an arbitrary three), but look how many extra words you just used (including "Roman Reigns", which I just finished telling you was the only unsourced one). That burns time and effort on the editing end and hampers the reader with more to parse through. Perhaps there are others like you who enjoy learning the long way, but there are certainly many who don't. We could do it both ways, where we think it might help.
Prose is fine for what it is, but to think it deters people from outright lying (or misinterpreting a source) is to kid yourself. Reliability of Wikipedia wouldn't be an article if that were close to true. The far more effective and common way to dissuade people from adding sources which don't back claims is advising them with invisible notes. Then reverting them. Then warning, blocking and finally banning them. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:01, July 11, 2018 (UTC)
That's exactly what the general sanctions we are now ruled over by is for. The issue is Wikipedia as a whole looks down on our content for how it looks, and how it deals with in-universe information. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know who this "Wikipedia as a whole" is, but if "they're" looking down on "us" because we let unverified garbage in, they're right to and I welcome their help. Ff they have useful skills, permissions and/or knowledge. Some people are amazing at things because they didn't watch thousands of hours of wrestling.
But like in the offline world, a lot are just out to make wrestling seem fake, stupid or gay because they "don't know how you can like that stuff" and want strange personal validation. They'll say it's to "prevent confusion" even after you assure them the cat left the bag in the 1930s. They're poison to this Wikiproject, and they'll make you one of them if they can and haven't already.
I think the vastest majority of Wikipedia isn't concerned with wrestling or fact-checking at all, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:13, July 11, 2018 (UTC)

Royal Rumble & Survivor Series information[edit]

Now that the entrance musics and signature moves have been removed and are being worked into the prose, I took a look at some of the other articles related to wrestling. One thing that especially caught my eye was the information of all eliminations in Royal Rumbles and Survivor Series matches, for example in here. It includes a list of all eliminations, elimination orders, the amount of elimination, brands and the time they lasted in the match. In Survivor Series matches the move used to eliminate the wrestler is also listed, without any sources.

Isn't all this equally trivial information that doesn't need to be there? Results -section obviously should be included in PPV articles, and it has good sources, but the Entrances and Eliminations section is just one huge table of pointless information without any sources. Why does a non-fan reading the article need it? All the actually relevant events of those matches are already mentioned in the prose in Event section. Cowposer (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The order of entrances and eliminations is the relevant information for a Royal Rumble match; at the least we would list all the participants, just as we lost the participants for any other match, so might as well list them in order of entrance. It may be pretty dry statistics, sure, but it's part of a full article, not just a list of statistics, so WP:NOTSTATS is accounted for. oknazevad (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Still needs a source. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:09, July 9, 2018 (UTC)
The amount of sources that use this information (specifically WWE bringing up who got the quickest elimination, or most eliminations), makes this slightly different. I'd also argue that match results like this should be treated differently. I don't see why it makes any difference if it's sorted by elimination or by entrance, as it's a sortable table. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 06:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Why would a non fan care about results at all? That's an awful argument. Jcw91 (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I believe the results themselves fall into the same criteria as MOS:TVPLOT, where the event themselves count as the source. A finisher is open ended and therefore cannot be self sourced. But to say X eliminated Y, anyone can reasonably pull up the event and verify the information. Just because it requires a subscription to WWE network, or purchasing of a DVD does not exclude it from being able to be self sourced, per WP:PAYWALL - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Kiss My Ass Club members?[edit]

Sourcing's no problem, but this prestigious guest list has been deemed unsuitably trivial. The prose still says HBK was in tight, and a photo suggests Hornswoggle came close, but that doesn't seem like much of a club. Maybe it's for the best, maybe it isn't, I don't know what I think anymore. But the issue shouldn't get lost in the shuffle of everything else burning down around us lately. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:03, July 9, 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I agree that the members list is extortionate... But I think we are better at waiting to a resolution of what we have got going on. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 06:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
It was a silly thing with no lasting importance, I see no need for it. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Infobox spouse[edit]

I notice that in Beth Phoenix's infobox the spouse is listed as Edge rather than Adam Copeland. The wrestling infobox is split into two sections real life and storyline. Since the spouse is real life rather than storyline would it make more sense to have Adam Copeland as the spouse in the article about Beth Phoenix? Another point I would like to make is that wrestlers regularly change their ring name so using the real name would create more stability. This affects loads of articles. I checked the style guide but there is no clear guidelines about the spouse. Mobile mundo (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Should be the person's real name. This is clearly kayfabe. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The only thing to note is that our article on Adam Copeland is at Edge (wrestler) per WP:COMMONNAME. In some ways we've long accepted that, at least when it comes to the common name guideline, the character name may be the most desirable title. It's a funny thing about pro wrestling that characters are rarely recast, even if performers use different character names over the years of their career. And its one of our difficulty we have in covering it; our articles are both the biography of the performer and articles on their various characters. Just part of the blurring of lines that is part and parcel of the form. oknazevad (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, but she isn't married to the character. COMMONNAME also applies in retrospective. If Edge wrestled again, in say Ring of Honor, and changed his name, our article on him would stay under the same name. However, you would write in prose him by his new gimmick. The same thing happens with musicians. For instance, Frances Tomelty states that she is married to Gordon "Sting" Sumner; which is perhaps how we should manage these things. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I would say that applies to other family related info. After all we don't list Mike Enos and Wayne Bloom as brothers despite playing the Beverly Brothers on TV. Real names, real relationships only in that section please.  MPJ-DK  15:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I agree. Easy enough to pipe entries. Though I can see that using the article name for recognizability, thereby aiding readers' navigation, might have use as well. oknazevad (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I think it should say Edge, not Adam Copeland, the standard across wikipedia is to use their page name, not real name. For example, Pamela Anderson shows Tommy Lee and Kid Rock, not their real names. Sean Penn and Guy Ritchie were married to Madonna with no last name given. Ryan Phillippe is listed as Reese Witherspoon not her legal name. The list goes on and on. For as long as consensus stays that his page is Edge, not Adam Copeland, he should be married to Beth Phoenix, and her to Edge. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Aye, wrestlers are famous people, too. Their stages just have ropes. No more double standards. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, July 10, 2018 (UTC)

Out of date Championship tables[edit]

I just stumbled upon the NWA Florida Tag Team Championship article and noticed that the table format is very much out of date for this and 99% of the articles in Category:Championship Wrestling from Florida championships, not in compliance with the format defined for championship tables. I am asking this project to help me identify other championship articles where the table is out of date so that I (or someone else who feels like pitching in) can update them all. Please list any articles you know are out of date here below. Thank you for your cooperation.  MPJ-DK  01:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I found some titles of IWA (Puerto Rico), Stampede Wrestling. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC on the "In wrestling" section[edit]

FYI: pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see WP:VPP#Should the "In wrestling" section be removed from professional wrestling articles?. Prefall 14:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes, for those looking to start "yet another section" on this, go to the link above and voice your opinion there instead,the only place it will make a difference now.  MPJ-DK  20:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Money in the Bank theme song[edit]

The "Money in the Bank" theme song seems to be the official theme song for all the PPVs, since 2011, since they no longer list them per year on iTunes and they seem to be calling it just Money in the Bank (Official Theme Song). The Money in the Bank (2018) article should be updated to reflect that since it was used as the theme for the PPV and can be verified via WWE Network. Ron234 (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ron234: By saying you are taking the WP:PRIMARY source, the event, and taking the itunes link, and together drawing the conclusion that this is the information is WP:SYNTH. You need one source that says everything - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Usually on the WWE events, the commentators mention on air what the theme song is for the event. Did this not happen? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
It was used throughout the PPV. I don’t think they would mention Jim Jonston anymore since he left the company. But it was the theme for this event. Ron234 (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Just because they played it throughout, that doesn't make it an official theme song. Like Lee said they always say "Thanks to .... for the official theme song......." which if they didnt do, what makes it the official one? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)