Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

WikiProject Professional Wrestling
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!

Josh the Grand Champion

According to Impact website, Mathews is the current Grand Champion. [1] However, Don Callis said this reigns isn't oficial months ago. So, any idea? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I would say that to me this sounds like official recognition. Unfortunately its wrestling and they could have decided on future storyline changes and therefore this fits their current future thoughts better. Not really sure - Galatz^Talk 16:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Grand Champion and X-Division Champion Matt Sydal is in the ring to reveal who his spirit guide is. To the shock of many, it turns out to be Josh Mathews! Josh gives Sydal a gift to celebrate his accomplishments, a mask of his spirit animal! In return, Sydal gives Josh a gift of his own – the IMPACT Grand Championship! Josh Mathews is your new Grand Champion. [2] - Galatz^Talk 16:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd wait till next week for (spoiler) the announcement that Impact does not recognize the handoff as valid. It's already known. oknazevad (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure Impact has their story straight on this entire thing. When Sydal came out, he was announced as Grand Champion, but the Impact website makes it clear that Mathews was the champion going in [3]. Based on what aired and what is currently on their website, that the page is currently correct. Anyone disagree? - Galatz^Talk 16:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Tournament brackets

I was wondering about everyone's opinions on how we display tournament brackets, and where to list them. For example, we are currently independently updating the Women of Honor tournament at Women of Honor Championship#Inaugural championship tournament (2018), Supercard of Honor XII#Women of Honor Championship tournament and Ring of Honor tournaments#Women of Honor Championship (2018). The latter of which is actually not as up to date as the other two. Do we really need the same bracket listed 3 times? The new WWE Cruiserweight tournament is also listed in the WM article, the WWE Tournaments article, and it was in the belt's article until I removed it from there replaced with prose, a few weeks ago.

What does everyone think about how this stuff should be displayed? I am all for the pages like WWE tournaments, but perhaps only the tables that don't live elsewhere should live there. For example, WWE tournaments#The Wrestling Classic is already saying that the main page is at The Wrestling Classic#Tournament bracket, yet the "main article" section it links too has less content than the tournament page. We could have the bracket live only in the main page and remove it from the tournament page. The tournament page would be more like the a listing, with links to the relevant articles. It already does this for WWE tournaments#King of the Ring and WWE tournaments#Dusty Rhodes Tag Team Classic. Then tournaments that do not live elsewhere can live on the tournament page with the full details.

For the Women of Honor, if we want to keep it in the Supercard of Honor and title's page, then they should be transcluded rather than updating everything twice.

Any thoughts? - Galatz^Talk 19:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I think transclusion is probably the way to go, the only question where the brackets should be housed. The promotions' tournament pages seems like the best bet, but it seems kind of odd to not house the Dusty Classic brackets at Dusty Rhodes Tag Team Classic, for example. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I started transcluding tables rather than duplicating and this edit made the navboxes stop showing up, and this edit made the references stop. Anyone know why? - Galatz^Talk 15:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion history

I moved User:MadMax/precedents to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Deletion discussion history since MadMax hasn't been around since 2007 and I thought it might be helpful to you. Feel free to delete it. Daask (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I've tried to clean the page up a little, thanks for creating it.★Trekker (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Main page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources

Hi, just wanted to pass by and say that I think I'd be good if more people would chime in on what the think could be good sources for the project, especially non english language ones. It's WrestleMania soon so I figured there's be more people passing by who might be new here.★Trekker (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Future events

There are constantly people changing future PPV events away from the advertised match because the champion might change. This is obvious, but perhaps we need some sort of banner or table change to show this? Right now when we set Template:Pro Wrestling results table to future the only change is Results and Matches headers switch. Perhaps can we also change it so when that is set to yes, the (c) legend also changes to something like "current champion, subject to change" or something like that. Thoughts? - Galatz^Talk 11:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, the card is always scheduled to change. Listing a proposed card doesn't mean that any of those matches will happen (Or, indeed, the event may be cancelled, changed location, etc), so nothing is actually set in stone until it has already happened. I think a little tagline of *"Card is scheduled to change", or *"Event may differ from listed above" should cover it, as I don't feel we need to spell it out. We list things about unreleased video games; that may or may not be used in the eventual release, this should be no different. We use sources to determine the match cards, so if they report something different, so do we.

Building a little tagline into the template would be pretty good for this purpose. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree completely, but we constantly have edit wars over this, so I was thinking this might fix these issues. Maybe we could get that "Card is subject to change" to auto-populate when future is set to yes. - Galatz^Talk 13:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable solution. It's standard phrasing for a reason. oknazevad (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Anyone have any idea how to make the changes to the template? Its pretty complicated coding. - Galatz^Talk 14:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I created a sandbox to test it. I'm no template expert, which is probably why my initial test didn't work. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I had a quick play with that sandbox, I got it to come up with the words, it just needs better aesthetics Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

No.	Matches*	Stipulations
(c) – refers to the champion(s) heading into the match *Card subject to change

I agree, I'm just not sure of a better way. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I've added an asterix and bolded the text, it looks slightly better. Any ideas? It's not too hard to transfer across to the main template; but obviously would need some consensus on style, and if it's right Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the asterisk can be removed, as that implies (to me at least) that certain matches are subject to change when tagged with an asterisk, like an Efn. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, dont think it needs the asterix because we arent putting that next to something, unless the word matches is changed to Matches*, which I am ok with. Either way is fine. - Galatz^Talk 15:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I made the change to include the asterisk after matches, thinking it might be better showing above and below. Thoughts? - Galatz^Talk 16:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I put it live. Looking at WWE Greatest Royal Rumble its working properly. I also checked Royal Rumble (2018) and its properly not showing, so I think we are good. Thanks! - Galatz^Talk 00:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. I like it. And Lee Vilenski, although it is true that the card is always subject to change, not every reader of Wikipedia who might happen to read one of these articles knows that. And I know well about video game articles. That's why they have a development section and will state if a feature gets cut. --JDC808 ♫ 01:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

WWE Hall of Fame

There have been multiple conversation about the set up of the current WWE Hall of Fame article. Its very large and choppy right now and hard to follow. My suggestion was to create events for the individual events, and have the article become much more summarized to make it easier to follow. I have begun creating those article and before I continue creating more and integrating in the changes to the article I wanted everyone to take a look and either offer suggestions and/or make changes. Once these pages are all created the main page would no longer list so much detail and just become a summarized list that is easier to follow. As of now I have created the following articles:

• WWE Hall of Fame (2012)
• WWE Hall of Fame (2013)
• WWE Hall of Fame (2014)
• WWE Hall of Fame (2015)
• WWE Hall of Fame (2016)
• WWE Hall of Fame (2017)
• WWE Hall of Fame (2018)

2016 and 2017 are probably the most well developed of the articles right now. The event section of the earlier years is where I need the most help developing. Any thoughts? - Galatz^Talk 13:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree. The events themselves each year are notable enough, although I'd be looking for some more secondary sources regarding each year. I'd say the main article should really have the images removed, as they are stretching out the articles, and don't seem very encylopedic to me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

2018 has many more secondary sources...definitely agree the older ones need more. - Galatz^Talk 14:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

They will exist, might need to change the date and do a news search on google. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yup, I'd say at least most of the HoF years have been notable.★Trekker (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I have gone through and added many independant sources to the pages already created. I will keep working through them before revamping the main page. - Galatz^Talk 18:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

No objection to splitting the articles but your titles don't really work. "WWE Hall of Fame (2018)" etc doesn't really mean anything. "WWE Hall of Fame class of 2018", "WWE Hall of Fame ceremony (2018)" or "WWE Hall of Fame inductees (2018)" would be more meaningful. McPhail (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This what what the events are called though, see [4] as an example. - Galatz^Talk 21:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the WWE hof is also kind of a "show" like everything else they do.★Trekker (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

{

I oppose the idea of having individual lists. At best, I would support a split between a WWE Hall of Fame article talking about the institution itself, and the individual events, and a separate List of WWE Hall of Fame inductees which lists them all in one table. Although there's no physical building, there's an annual Hall of Fame exhibit at Axxess which is notable enough for the main article. With regards to the list of inductees, we should follow football's lead and have one large table with different columns for Class, Classification and Achievements. Rather than football positions, the classification in the wrestling context would be the category of individual, group, celebrity, or legacy inductee. Feedback 17:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

We should not format wrestling articles like sports articles, and the WWE hof inductions are also a show event, the articles should not be "lists" as you call them anyway, but an overview of the event.★Trekker (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I support the creation of List of WWE Hall of Fame inductees as well. Articles for individual events are fine, but not having a central list of inductees seems like a mistake. Prefall 18:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I would endorse a larger simpler list as well.★Trekker (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, now having seen the main article, a condensed list is present for Classes with event articles, while the old format is present for those without. From reading this discussion I was under the impression that the central list had been removed completely. Regardless, I still support the creation of the List article, providing the extra detail that was covered prior. Prefall 18:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we need a source for the headliner of each class. I mean, we use to say the last inductee is the headliner. But I remember Randy Savage being the headliner, but Kevin Nash was the last inductee of the night because WWE wanted a speech by a living wrestler. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Great point.★Trekker (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

A single list is a little bit more complicated than how Football does it. For instance how do you list Ric Flair who is inducted twice? Do you only list The Four Horsemen or do you list them individually? - Galatz^Talk 19:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This isn't rocket science, we already do it correctly with the WON Hall of Fame. Feedback 00:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure we can figure out how to make an overarching list, but I still think the individual articles are good to have.★Trekker (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Fans vs sourcing

I'm ceding ground at Shayna Baszler to the crazies. I understand fans (like you) enjoy crafting the narrative about your favorite actors/actresses who purport to be athletes. However, we still require sources for claims likely to be challenged. It would help if this WikiProject would correct the many editors involved in this area and teach them that Wikipedia is not a blog. It's not worth it to me to edit war over it. I'm one of these guys that followed Shayna and Ronda back when they were legit fighters and I can tell you these articles have gotten worse since the two of them went into pro-wrestling and your cohort got involved. Please put your house in order. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Chris troutman Please don't paint all editors with the same brush. The editors that you were reverting aren't members of this WikiProject, and also look like brand new editors, who are likely working in WP:GOODFAITH. I'd actually wonder why this section on wrestling was removed, when a lot of the information could be sourced. I have readded the section, and sourced partially, and tagged the rest.

I'd actually argue that the MMA sections specifically championships and records are completely unsourced, by the same values. - Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

MMA fanboys (like yourself) are crazy about consistently writing the match announcement in one sentence with one source, then the result in another with another. Just delete the old one, for fuck's sake! And stop capitalizing weight divisions. In the meantime, I've helped you out this much. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:01, April 5, 2018 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: and @InedibleHulk: I have less than zero interest in hearing anything resembling "rivalry" from either MMA or pro wrestling fans.★Trekker (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries, we're just throwing "working" punches (at least I was). We're the same breed of editor, essentially. Just want to relay fights and prove ourselves to others within the confines of the rules, with reliable refs. Nice and friendly-like. Sometimes vandals attack our buses, be they DX gangsters or SBG thugs, but that's because they're heels, not because they prefer one type of sports entertainment to the other. We all do what we can with what information we have, and good edits always win in the end.

Fun Fact: McGregor's invasion angle was recently called the hottest of WrestleMania weekend. I think we can all agree to not include this in any relevant articles. Nor say Brock Lesnar could get an immediate title rematch or that CM Punk is better than Michael Jackson. At least until we compare the coverage Rousey gets for whatever it is she has up her sleeve. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, April 7, 2018 (UTC)

Change to champion pictures

I wanna update all the pics here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_champions_in_WWE Instead of having pictures of different size, I want to put in pictures of the same size only showing their faces. Am I good to just go and do it or does anybody think this is a stupid idea?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

If we can get pictures of them with he titles that would be way better than just the face.★Trekker (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Are we allowed to use their wwe.com pics?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

No, those are not free.★Trekker (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Then we don't have much of a choice. So should I make the face pics?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

No, what gave you that idea?★Trekker (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

But the pics all have different sizes.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there a practical reason to care about that?★Trekker (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I prefer seeing them with titles.LM2000 (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Troll edits lasting months

I fixed some troll edits that have been there for months (RVD being called SSP, WWE 2K18's Deluxe edition being called Cena nuff edition). Why does stuff like that exist for that long? I thought a lot of people are watching all these pages and check every edit that someone makes? Or do I have a wrong understanding of how Wikipedia works?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@WrestlingLegendAS: I hope you realize that we all have better things to do than patrol all day and can't get to every minute detail as it goes up. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah yeah sure, but if 10 active users are subscribed to one article, shouldn't someone notice? I am not BLAMING anyone, I am just wondering how all of this works. Nothing else, don't get me wrong.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe the deluxe edition really was known as the "Cena Nuff" edition... Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Checking several store websites as well as a promotional video on WWEs on YouTube channel (therefore not a clever fake) the Cena (Nuff) edition is real. I also reverted the change on RVDs page that removed the Cena Nuff name since it was in fact not vandalism.--67.68.161.151 (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Wrestlemania Good Articles

As it's been Wrestlemania season, I was taking a look through some of the earliest shows, and I was surprised there wasn't more GA articles. I was also suprised they were all "mid" class importance. Surely the biggest annual shows should be high importance? Anyway, I was wondering if it was worth putting some time aside to increasing the coverage for the Wrestlemanias, currently they are ranked:

• WrestleMania (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania I (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania 2 (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania III (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania IV (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania V (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania VI (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania VII (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania VIII (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania IX (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania X (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania XI (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania XII (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania 13 (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania XIV (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania XV (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania 2000 (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania X7 (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania X8 (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania XIX (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania XX (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania 21 (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania 22 (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania 23 (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania XXIV (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania XXV (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania XX (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania XXVI (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania XXVII (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania XXVIII (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania 29 (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania XXX (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania 31 (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania 32 (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania 33 (edit talk links history)
• WrestleMania 34 (edit talk links history)

That's 35 articles, and only 7 Good Articles, and 8 Start class Wrestlemanias. Would anyone be interested in working on improving a few of these articles? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to work on helping improve, but one of the biggest issues right now with something like 34 is the tiny level of detail everything is going in to. Its way too much in the details to ever be a GA. - Galatz^Talk 23:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Portals

Just in case anyone is interested in the discussion, there is talk of eliminating all portals Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Ending the system of portals - Galatz^Talk 14:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I have very little knowledge of our portal; the only thing I would salvage for the WikiProject would be our list of Good Topics. Currently we have 13 such articles (well, 12, as the list of WWE champions is no longer featured.) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Much to my surprise there is actually someone who is manually updating the news feed. I had no idea, but that seems to be the only thing they do Special:Contributions/Lmuston. - Galatz^Talk 15:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I follow his editions to update titles for wrestlers. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Galatz and HHH Pedrigree. Yes I am a real person! I'm from South Africa and I run the Watching the Indies Facebook page and until it recently ceased running weekly rankings was one of the international panelists and the main results compiler on the Indy Power Rankings. (talk)

List of WWE champions is still featured last I looked.★Trekker (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, List of current champions in WWE. Although, theoretically, we could change the one in the group, as that list IS featured. I always assumed the current events was pushed from WikiNews... Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

So did I. Figured it was some bot generated thing based on wikinews. Looking through the portal there really isn't much that would be missed. Even the list of articles to create is not typically up to date, but any of those sort of things could be migrated here. - Galatz^Talk 16:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I probably would've voted to delete the portals had it not been for Lmuston's tireless work in keeping our news portal updated. Honestly, I learn most of my wrestling news this way.LM2000 (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Style Guide: Reception section for Event articles

Why was it decided that the Reception section for event articles should go after the Aftermath section (more specifically, as a subsection after what's written about the event's aftermath)? That literally makes no sense. Take WrestleMania 34 for example, as this has become an issue there. It makes no sense to put the Reception of WrestleMania 34 after the events that happened on Raw, SmackDown, and 205 Live, which are shows that happened after WrestleMania 34. The Reception is about what happened at WrestleMania 34, not what happened at WrestleMania 34, Raw, SmackDown, and 205 Live (putting Reception after the aftermath looks as if it is about all of those). Even if for whatever reason it has to go after Aftermath, Reception should be its own section, not a subsection of Aftermath. Aftermath is what happened on the shows following the event, reception is how good or bad the event was received. --JDC808 ♫ 23:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with all of this, and I don't have much to add.★Trekker (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Reception although is about the event, does take place after the event, so I understand the placement. In the WM article in your example, perhaps reception then Raw then SmackDown make sense since it follows the order. Based on the nature of what reception is, it must take place after the event, which is why I am guessing that is where it was placed. - Galatz^Talk 23:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Well yes, the reception does happen after the event, but it's not aftermath between the performers who were involved in the show. The reception is from outside sources giving their review of the show. --JDC808 ♫ 00:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Who said aftermath is exclusive for aftermath between the performers who were involved in the show? Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Aftermath talks about rivalries (also check out what level of detail you should go in to because you go way beyond it), critical reception and DVD/VHS. Its about the entirety of aftermath. You even tried to add details about random NXT stars that didn't compete at WM debuting on Raw the next day, so clearly you don't even believe your own statement that its between those who performed. - Galatz^Talk 01:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

General statement, and that strays away from the point that Reception should be separate from Aftermath (but to note, the SG also says elaborate in the briefest way possible; that's such a contradiction). Reception is not the same thing as Aftermath. Look at video game and movie articles for example. The Reception is its own section. --JDC808 ♫ 02:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you check out the first definition of the word elaborate [5] and then revisit your comment. I love how you contradict yourself time and time again yet ignore it when its pointed out. I attempted to look at movie articles as you suggested, but none of the ones I went to have an aftermath section, so do you have an example? I tried to stick with major box office movies since those pages will have the most number of experienced editors watching them and ensuring they are set up correctly. Each of the Pirates of the Caribbean (film series) and The Lord of the Rings (film series) individual pages (so thats 8 movies in total), do not have an aftermath section. Looking at Titanic (1997 film) it had a release section of which accolades is under, which is pretty close to reception being under aftermath. There are 10 movies under X-Men (film series) and they seem to vary, some had reception under release, some did not, X-Men: First Class even had the section with the combined names. A big difference is though that the X-Men movies that do have them separate have 4 subsections under release which is very different than the 1 paragraph our style guide calls for in regard to aftermath. As for video games, I do not know much about them, so the biggest franchise that popped into my head was Grand Theft Auto. There are 15 games under that page and 14 do not have a section similar to aftermath, and reception is a main category. The only the exception is Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars which has it under release, but also has no aftermath type section. This all seems to line up more in line with a page like Road Wild (1997), which reception is the main category since there is no Aftermath section. - Galatz^Talk 03:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

No revisiting needed. And where in my comment did I state that video game and movie articles had an Aftermath section? I said that they have separate Reception sections (the point being that Reception is treated as a main section instead of a sub of something else). I didn't look through every single one of the ones you pointed out, but with each movie for Pirates and Lord of the Rings, the Reception is a main section. I can list a number of Featured video game articles that also have the Reception as a main section. --JDC808 ♫ 04:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

And events that don't have an aftermath section its the main one also, see example above. So whats your point? If there isn't an aftermath section to park it in, it becomes a main one. - Galatz^Talk 04:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I've already said my point, do I really have to restate it? I guess I will. Reception should not be a subsection of Aftermath. --JDC808 ♫ 06:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree reception should not be part of the aftermath section. Because the "reception" section is mostly about reviews and other critical commentary of the show itself, while "aftermath" is mostly about how the storylines continued after the show. The later is actually really questionable to even include in the first place, as it's a bit off-topic; the topic of PPV articles is the event, not the general state of the promotion at the time. That said, the background section is a logical addition to show why those particular matches occurred on that card, and the aftermath section is a logical counterpart to that, while also providing the courtesy to readers of not spreading info out over many articles. (Plus reinforces the nature of pro wrestling storylines, wherein the match might be the climax, but not necessarily the conclusion, or the story.)

That doesn't change the fact that the reception section is not part of that storyline flow, and should be s separate mainnsection, not a subsection. Which comes first isn't really important, as a case could be made for either way ("reception" first because it's about the event as opposed to the follow ups vs "aftermath" first because it keeps the storyline material together.). oknazevad (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree with everything you've said. Personally, I'd put the Reception section before Aftermath as the event itself takes priority—WrestleMania XXX is a great example. Prefall 08:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I think (As above), it should probably be it's own section. However, we have GA articles that have set a precedent of this (See WrestleMania I.) So, we'd have to create a concensus that this isn't how PPVs should be recorded for their reception sections Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:The Undisputed Era (2)

Hi, I was on WP:AfC, and Nick Sideris has created a draft for The Undisputed Era. What are your thoughts on the current redirect for The Undisputed Era to ReDRagon; and the notability this draft puts forward? If you guys agree, I'll get the admins to do a technical move for the draft, if it's a good idea. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The sources currently in the article don't establish notability. They are primary or WP:ROUTINE match results. But I do agree that the team has a better case for notability now than they did when the article was previously deleted. Nikki♥311 15:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

 Note: Another draft exists at Draft:The Undisputed Era. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Which of the two drafts do you want to get ready? That one needs to meet GNG and have significant coverage? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I had to remove a recent attempt to paste a third version. Please decide which draft is going to be the official one and make sure it gets approved by the admins, AFC reviewers, new page reviewers first and cleared of their concerns. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I attempted to do a lot of cosmetic type clean up since I am not as familiar with the NXT product as the other brands. I do believe the history section should show more about the tag team at ROH prior to moving to NXT, like the first version has. - Galatz^Talk 20:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)