Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 106

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 01:40, 9 November 2019 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 100←Archive 104Archive 105Archive 106Archive 107Archive 108→Archive 110

Yolo tag team titles

Sooo.... how will we handle the YOLO County tag team titles? Otis and Tucker have the "titles" in their C&A section, there is even an article for the title. WWE Yolo County Tag Team Championship. For me, I would remove the entire thing, looks more like a joke. It's not even sure if WWE will follow the joke or storyline. It's like the "Champion of Liechtenstein" or ""Mexican Heavyweight Champion". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Personal note. I'm scared of reddit users. This is the kind of thing they love and, if we remove it, they will start to complain. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell there is no reason for it. They were not announced on air as champions and there appears to be no recognition. If kept, it should be treated more like FTW or Million Dollar championships. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
" presumably through one of their connections with a minor local promotion in Yolo County, California. " in the lede is scary. Wikipedia should not presume anything. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
No recognition? WWE did an official "new champions with their belts" photo shoot. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
However... their WWE profile is empty. For me, it's just a joke, like Flair's KFC royal rumble win, a Mexican Heavyweight title or Gargano's Liechtenstein title. I created the AfD for the titles. About the C&A section.... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
"To me" is like the poster child start to original Research. Lack of WWE updates do not prove anything. Maybe the WWE were as surprised as we were that it was not a unification match as originally scheduled. You don't know that for a fact MPJ-DK (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

They're cardboard belts. Seriously, this is an obvious joke angle. oknazevad (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

biodegradable and environmental, was the wooden belt a joke? MPJ-DK (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
We all have seen title represented by other thing than belts. The Queen of FCW (a crown), the FCW 15 championship (medal), Progress title ("large staff with an eagle head piece")... but i'm asking if the title is a one night joke or it's gonna be part of WWE programing. Like Lieschstein or mexican heavyweight titles. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
The hemo and wood belt was a gimmick, and reverted as soon as he lost. This I see as WWE mocking low-budget indies. But all of that doesn't really matter, because the storyline is a day old and we don't need to jump into a whole article for something like this. WP:TOOSOON applies. oknazevad (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I do not understand why this was ever added to Wikipedia. As Matt Hardy would say, "delete delete delete". We also need to remove it from their C&A sections. StaticVapor message me! 13:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • it has a more credible introduction than the IC belt, this was not a "tournament in Rio" after all, as for "it is a joke" i am thinking we will need a very reliable source on that or it would be Original Research to.interpret this as a joke. Oh and it was won as legitimately as any other championship, the outcome of a predetermined match. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    • That might be so, but it was never announced to be a title match and they were not announced as having won the titles after the match. So is it really more legit? The Greatest Royal Rumble championship belt had more than that yet its article got deleted. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Your point is moot, the WWE themselves posted a video of the champions with their belts afterward. And who decides when a wwe championship is real? WWE, just like they did with the Million $ Championship, or did someone think DiBiase just made that up? All.championships are "hoaxes" in the way wrestling is not a competitive sport where you actually win. I see this a material discrimination against cardboard. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I think your argument is "ab absurdo". The argument is "wrestling is fake/scripted, so let's include every single title". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I never said that, I said claiming "it is fake" as an argument against this is not valid. I did not state here that this was a reason to not delete, just that it was not a reason tobdelete. Same words, differnt order, opposite meaning. So please do not put words in my mouth. Thanks. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • We have zero evidence of long-term notability. It's been two days. And, unlike the 24/7 title, the belts are cardboard, not the typical leather-and-metal that indicates it's sticking around. It doesn't deserve an article yet, if ever. There's WP:NODEADLINE. We can wait to see. oknazevad (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Se have zero evidence that it won't just because it isn't made with tye typical materials. Don't be sobclose minded, it may be a cost cutting measure, we don't know that. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Here's the question - Does it meet WP:GNG? Probably. Is it something better covered in another article? Those are the only two questions on if there should be an article on the belt. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Technically the GNG question is the only one that matters, which you said "probably ", so i suggest a bold strategy, let us see how it plays out.MPJ-DK (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
      • No it's not the only question that matters. There are plenty of things that are better covered within another article.
      • Now, does it meet GNG? Don't know. The only non-primary source that would be even mentioning this is WP:ROUTINE coverage by pro-wrestling-specific websites; as it is we give too much importance to that sort of routine coverage in determining notability. As for the "better covered in another article" question, the only place i can see it being mentioned is Heavy Machinery's article as part of the storyline. No, we don't know if it's just for this one storyline. But we also don't know that it is not. Any conclusion one way or the other is equally speculative and therefore inappropriate to endorse, which is exactly what having a separate article does. The assumption is unfounded, premature, and based on synthesizing separate facts to draw a conclusion. There is no harm in holding off, and waiting to see what develops. There is no rush, there is no deadline, and Wikipedia is an encyclopdia, not a newspaper. oknazevad (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
        • I will let Lee Vilensk answer that one since he is the only one making a statement on if the subject meets GNG, don't want to speak on his behalf of why he said "probay"MPJ-DK (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
          • I think it most likely meets GNG. I'm sure if I searched enough, I'd be able to find plenty of RS that comment on the this; which is why I said probably. The issues are regarding WP:1E and if this should be commented on elsewhere. It is potentially WP:TOOSOON for an article, as it could potentially be only one event, however, as an article already exists, deleting it would mean that any new title that is created should only have an article after a certain period of time. Titles only held by one person (or only known by one user) should be in that person's page until a WP:SPLIT. I have no problems with an article here, and if it's turned into a single event, redirect and place information into another article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Since we are slinging OR here i got my own take on it. The WWE is paying homage to the territory days with this championship. Territories would often bring in an outside, "billed as champion upon arrival " have them lose to a local guy and bingo, championship without holding a tournament. Also wwe is concerned about the earth so the belts are recyclable, if someone throws it off a bridge (has happened before) it will not harm the environment. Also i applaud WWE for giving fans a low cost option to have a replica championship belt to show off their fandom. So not a hoax or a joke. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
The only part of that that I can even remotely agree with is the first part. The rest of it is such a stretch that one would have to be more flexible than one can even get doing DDP Yoga. Like, it seems like you are joking yourself. Frankly, I can't take you seriously on this. oknazevad (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Just putting other unsoruced arguments out there so that "it is a joke" does stand alone in people putting their own interpretations on in and use is as an argument for/against something. And how you chose to take it is cool with me, i don't judge. Am i being facetious? Serious? Trying to show what is and is not a deletion argument etc.? I may not even know myself any more ;-) MPJ-DK (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
It has enough sources to meet GNG, however as does basically every championship title change. Thats why we have WP:FORK. Could everything be summed up in 2 sentences within another page, absolutely. Therefore, it shouldn't have its own page. The Million Dollar Championship was active for 4 years. So far this had 1 night. Its impossible right now to know what will happen, which is why too soon applies here. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Nothing in that link has to do with this discussion, i am sure you meant content fork, not off Wikipedia copying. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, WP:CFORK. It can be included in another article, it does not warrant its own. At least night at this point. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Did you read it? Very first line defines in at A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles (or passages within articles) all treating the same subject. So that is not actually what is happening here, there no content that it was split off from, it did not fork off something. So again not actually a valid argument in this case. Your argument could apply to any championship list. /the more you know.MPJ-DK (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

This seems like a TNA World Beer Drinking Championship situation to me, but the only thing we can do right now is wait. This discussion isn't going to get very far until SmackDown next week. JTP (talk • contribs) 22:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I think too it's best to wait till the next episodes. Meltzer said on his radio the idea behind this angles is likely again to make wrestling outside WWE look like a joke (I think this is also obvious). We will see if they run further with the angle so that it may become relevant, it's unlikely this will become an actual title though. --Casra (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

How to join

Can someone please tell me how to join this wiki project ? TheWWEThunderbolt (talk) 06:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Read here. --JDC808 ♫ 07:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on tag team notability

Recently, I AFDed The Hype Bros which didn't result in anything. I was wondering we should come up with a threshold for single pages of tag teams? I think this is crucial, not only for knowing which ones to keep/delete, but also to be able to create new ones like The Boss 'n' Hug Connection, Nia Jax and Tamina, Awesome Truth, 3MB, Heath Slater and Rhyno, Miz and Mizdow and so on. This came to my attention when I saw the existence of Vince's Devils. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

We started working on a PW specific notability guideline at one point but not sure what happened to it, but I think its worth finalizing. I think it was saved on MPJ-DK's sandbox - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. This needs clarification. Actually, a no consensus result is probably the right result in this case. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I believe it was at User:MPJ-DK/Notability (professional wrestling). This should definitely be a priority. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I agree. We should have one for tag teams, singles wrestlers, promotions, etc. It is all going to overall go by the WP: GNG, but we can have other criteria that would indicate notability. I know some sports articles, all they have to do is play one game in the major leagues and then they are notable. Obviously we probably should not make it that easy, but championships or tenure with major promotions could indicate notability with our own criteria. StaticVapor message me! 21:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
THere you go, undeleted so that you guys don't have to start from scratch. I am happy to host this while you work through this, or put in it draft space - your call. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The wrestling section needs different notability rules than the rest of the site for a few reasons:

- Wrestling has always gotten little coverage. Not because people didn't care but because places didn't want to cover it due to it being fake.

- Wrestling up until 1980 was regional. This limited how much coverage there was, while the NFL, MLB and other sports didn't have that issue. Coverage is not a good way to determine notability. The Apter mags were also biased towards the Northeast since they were from the Northeast, while places like Continental didn't want Apter reporters there since they were only running Alabama.

- Places like Japan and Mexico still have a very undeveloped internet. One is due to poverty and the other due to people preferring to use their phones. The chances of either of those situations changing anytime soon is low, so even if results were listed in newspapers and stuff, it's going to be a long time, if ever before they get online. The language barrier also makes it very hard for people like myself to find information.

- There's little footage prior to 1980. Not because people weren't watching wrestling, they definitely were. But the VCR wasn't invented yet and due to the other reasons I listed above, it got less coverage.

- Many people have compiled regional results. However, they don't have official websites/publications so therefore they don't meet notability guidelines for sources and it can't be used. So someone like a Matt Farmer who has done a lot of work would have to type up the results then send them to a source like Dave Meltzer to be posted for it to be recognized, which probably won't happen.

KatoKungLee (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • As as the most prolific editor of Mexican articles and a total non-speaker of Spanish I can say that he language barrier also makes it very hard for people like myself to find information. has not been a barrier, nor should it be a reason to lower the notabiliy criteria. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on current notability draft

Thank you MPJ-DK for restoring. Here are some thoughts I have right now based on where things currently are.

  1. The nutshell says A professional wrestler is presumed to be notable if the person has worked for a major professional wrestling promotion on a regular basis or won a significant championship (bolding added by me) however I do not see where this championship is listed, except for groups. How long do they need to hold the championship, since someone like Nicolas held a championship but I do not believe should have his own page. Perhaps holding for over 100 days for individuals as well? 3 months seems to be a rarity in reigns these days.
  2. User:MPJ-DK/Notability_(professional_wrestling)#Professional_wrestlers asks the note of how long they appear full time to be notable. I would say 6 months should suffice. WP:NBASE only requires you to play one game for an MLB team to be notable, so I think this is more than reasonable.
  3. User:MPJ-DK/Notability_(professional_wrestling)#Post_territory_days_(1990s-present) I propose we add NXT UK to NXT or clarify and state any developmental brand, to make it apply once additional NXTs open. In addition we have the note about what makes them notable. I would say we include holding a belt for the 90 days I mentioned above, or appeared on 2 network specials. Street Profits have been on many weekly episodes but consistently keep getting deleted, so I think this criteria makes sense.
  4. I am not very familiar with the European wrestling scene so not sure I can add anything to that discussion, but I am sure someone here is more familiar. Similarly I notice no Canadian promotions on the list, are there none that should qualify?
  • Treker I believe you typically edit the Canadian ones and could perhaps answer more on this, and I feel like you might be from Europe, right?
  1. User:MPJ-DK/Notability_(professional_wrestling)#Professional_wrestling_officials_etc. is a bit confusing to me. Are we saying they need to meet the same criteria as the wrestlers? What exactly makes a referee notable? What about a ring announcer? Do they just need to meet GNG?
  2. User:MPJ-DK/Notability_(professional_wrestling)#Groups I believe criteria for a group to be notable it must be over 1 year. There consistent are teams thrown together for some purpose but they quickly die. 1 year does make it pretty substantial. For example, Owen Hart and Yokozuna were together for almost 6 months, and held the championship twice for a total of 175 days. Based on my suggestions, they do not meet the criteria for length as a team but do for length of a reign, does everyone agree they are notable?
  3. In User:MPJ-DK/Notability_(professional_wrestling)#Events,_tournaments I think we need to clarify what criteria a supercard needs to meet to be considered. This is part of what often led to the debate on WWE_Global_Warning. It was an event, held in a stadium of over 50,000 people, and was released on VHS/DVD. Based on the criteria here, I do not know how many of the pre pay-per-view events like Showdown at Shea meet the criteria and Global Warning doesn't.
  4. For User:MPJ-DK/Notability_(professional_wrestling)#Matches,_rivalries_and_incidents I suggest we include Fingerpoke of Doom and/or Mass Transit incident (professional wrestling) to the list. It makes it less WWE focused and shows incidents in addition to just matches.
  5. When referencing reliable sources we should probably also include a link to WP:PW/RS for reference, although not all inclusive, it gives a good starting point.

I will try and do a more detailed read later, but thats my current thoughts. Anyone else? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for pining me Galatz. Yes I am indeed from Europe, Sweden to be exact, but the most wrestling I'm familiar with is British/Irish and Canadian. I would say personally that I feel that if a Canadian wrestler has hold a title from Stampede Wrestling they really should be assumed to be notable. Even just working in Stampede should most likely grant you enough coverage for notability in most cases. I would also say that coverage from SLAM! Wrestling is a great indicator that a wrestler was noteworthy. British wrestling is a little harder, hopefully someone from the erea can shime in more.★Trekker (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

One other though I forgot to mention. In terms of when to break out a a championship article, I think we need to look at WP:SPLIT. I believe unless it is over 50-60k range, there is no reason to break out. I am just not sure if this belongs here or in style guide (which already says to break out the list if it has 10 entries) but it cannot hurt to mention them in both, as long as they are worded consistently. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts on some of your points:

1 - 100 Days of holding a title is too much. The majority of wrestlers would not meet this criteria, especially since a lot title histories are incomplete.

2 - If one day is good enough for any of the sports leagues, one match should be enough for wrestling as well. But there's discrimination towards wrestling and it's fans and the non-fan editors wouldn't allow it. May have to come down to holding x titles, wrestling for x years or something else for the territory days.

4 - We are sadly going to see almost no European wrestling articles on here ever for anyone before the mid-80's. The only people who could ever meet the criteria were super stars like Jackie Pallo, Big Daddy or people who had long careers in the US. Even tons of WOS wrestlers who had pretty good careers there will be eaten alive by the non-wrestling editors on here. Sourcing on that is next to impossible, since only we really only have WOS tapes and every other site will end up deemed a "personal site" due to the lack of footage. I see similar fates for Canadian wrestlers who never bothered in the US. Had Vince not bought Stampede, it wouldn't have gotten the coverage it got here. Larry Kasaboski ran a Canadian promotion for 30 years and I'd be surprised if even Dave Meltzer knew who he was, since he was regional and no footage exists. But obviously, he was doing something right.

5 - Refs would have to be super specific situations, mostly revolving around people who mainstayed in one promotion for decades or wrestled in matches. Announcers would probably meet similar fates.

As we talked about elsewhere in the thread, wrestling was all local prior to WWF in 1986 and since it wasn't in a national league like other sports, what happened in the middle of Canada wasn't really important to the people in Memphis. And since every territory minus Memphis was dead by 1992 and didn't keep their footage, we really only have various kayfabe mags and whatever newspapers may have covered, but someone would have to look through those and either write their own book or get Dave to publish them. I do have some fan newsletters sitting around from the 70's which would be sources and were the 70's kayfabe version of the Wrestling Observer, but the non-wrestling fan editors would never allow them. KatoKungLee (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Man, all your points are so true and sad. I wish there was a way to solve this somehow.★Trekker (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • KatoKungLee names? Maybe someone else knows of sources. i have a book on Cnafians, maybe there is something there. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I have tons of old magazines from the 90s if anyone needs something specific from those I can try and check too - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 13:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
      • User:Galatz and MPJ-DK, MPJ - I didn't understand your question. I also have tons of old programs(I have all kinds of programs from 90's Japanese companies but I do not know how to cite them), and a huge collection of mags from the 60's-80's along with fan newsletters. I don't even know how we could go about sourcing fan newsletters though because they were regional and the people involved are long gone, but they had all kinds of results that I've never seen elsewhere since there was only maybe one national wrestling magazine in the 60's.

American promotions

I moved the page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Notability where I imagine it will ultimately live. I tagged it as under construction and not yet ready. I also set up some redirects to it so we can short hand refer to it once finalized. Unfortunately WP:PWN and WP:NPW are both already taken. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I made all of the changes mentioned above that seemed to have no objection, either raised by me or others. I also made a few other changes to formatting/wording. Please feel free to review and revert any you disagree with. Anything I believe is still open I have underlined to make it easier to find for anyone who doesnt have time to do a detailed review. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@STATicVapor: Thanks for adding to the list of promotions. It brought a couple thoughts in my head. First, for MLW we should specify that their original run does not qualify, only their relaunch with the BeIN contract. Similarly does wrestling for Impact still make someone notable? I would be ok saying TNA from May 2004 (move off PPV shows) until March 2017 (change from TNA to Impact). At this point I believe being signed to AEW does not make someone notable since they have not put on a show. I suggest we table them until later. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
No problem! I momentarily forgot that they had that original run 2002-2004. We might also have to specify for Ring of Honor, that it would have to be after 2007 (first PPV) or 2009 (first TV deal). However, if they were drawing close to 1000+ to their shows before then, I would support a earlier date. On Impact, I agree on there possibly being a cut off. When they got kicked off Spike, through all the GFW problems they were struggling to give away free tickets. Now, they have turned their business around recently, so I think we should consider 10/2018 or 1/2019 as a new start date for notability. StaticVapor message me! 21:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Question - if Impact Wrestling (after the name change) does not make someone notable Galatz, how would MLW qualify? They are both currently on networks with limited viewership - I don't know the difference between the "BeIN" network and wherever IW is at right now? An option to determine the criteria is to rank all current US promotions from "most notable" to "least" and figure out where the cut off line is. And be sure that we have an appropriate line drawn for where just working for the company for x period of time makes you presumably notable. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Its a tricky question without really a great answer. TNA during its hay-days had over a million views a week and were covered by a lot of sources. Ever since the name change their ratings have plummeted and you really do not see them being covered by major sources much at all. According to Dave Meltzer their ratings right now are about 10,000 per week with another 10,000 on Twitch, so about 20,000 people are watching it. MLW Fushion has roughly 3 times that many views on YouTube plus whatever they get on TV (no clue what that number is). Based on personal experience I just see MLW covered more now than TNA. Its not an exact science but thats why I said what I did. I welcome other opinions though - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 01:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
BeIN has larger reach than Pursuit Channel. BeIN is on the level of El Rey Network (Lucha Underground) and AXS TV (NJPW and Women of Wrestling in America). Outside of television deals we should take the amount of people they draw to their shows into consideration. As well as how much they are covered in reliable sources. I'll do a little detailing here. This is going to be tricky, because all these promotions had their high and low points.StaticVapor message me! 02:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Top tier

WWE 1990–2019, followed by WCW 1990-2001 is probably top tier (less time needed there to satisfy the criteria). After that it would be TNA during their time on national television on major stations (Fox Sports Net and Spike) so that would be 2004–2014. TNA drew less and had lower viewership than WCW, but we're a solid number two behind WWE from 2004/5–2014.

Number two

Following that is where it is not clear as day. ROH only had a network deals (2007–2011 and 2015) and even then, HDNet and Destination America have about the same reach as Pop TV (showed Impact after Spike deal) and BeIN Sports (MLW). Now ROH runs in syndication only in certain markets on FOX or CBS (the non-cable free channels), so viewership data is not available. ROH was the number three promotion for many years and then coinciding with the fall of TNA/Impact, they became the second largest promotion. This is sourced in the Ring of Honor article. They draw about 2000 to a record 6000 for their big shows, with the touring shows doing around 1000. My question is when does the notability start for them? 2015–2019 is probably the highest profile time in their existence, but they were well known as the number 3 promotion from 2005–201x.

After that...

Three is where is gets fishy Impact has a wide international reach, so even though they are not as big in US now, I do not think we need to do the cut-off on them. See List of Impact Wrestling programming for international deals. Then there is MLW (2018-2019). They are the only other promotion with a national deal if you don't count NJPW and Lucha Underground. They fight for third with Impact due to higher attendances. Impact draws about 1000-1500 for PPVs now, usually a lot less than that for television tapings. However, this is a very recent thing where business is picking up for them. While since mid 2018 MLW has been drawing 1000-2100 for their monthly supercards/television tapings.

Above the indies

So all four currently have a significant precense as American promotions. Impact and MLW slightly less than ROH. After that would be Lucha Underground, Women of Wrestling and Ring Warriors due to their television deals. All three of those are not year round promotions though. All three are kind of television shows, rather then full-time promotions. National Wrestling Alliance (late 2018-2019) is the only other one besides (WWE, ROH, MLW, Impact) that comes close to 1000 for their supercards in 2018–2019. While LU, WOW and Ring Warriors do their television tapings in small buildings.

Retrospect

Somewhere in there is where Extreme Championship Wrestling lies. Very notable, but they didn't draw huge crowds and were only seen through tape trading for most of their existence. Only 1999–2001 they were on a major network, but in a awful time slot. StaticVapor message me! 02:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Also we should try to do subsections everytime we talk about a different part of the notability essay. It was hard to find a place to jump into the conversation when I first saw this lol. StaticVapor message me! 02:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

ECW is very hard for me to judge. I discovered them late night NY TV probably in 94/95 time frame and used to wait up until 3am (I think that was when it ended) every Saturday night/Sunday morning to watch. So when they invaded Raw in 1997 I had no idea others didn't know about them. But based on how those old days are still discussed and talked about I think the small reach in the early days shouldn't exclude them from being considered a top tier during those times. At the least if WCW/WWF are tied for #1, ECW is a stand alone #2.
This may be based on my preference of websites/podcasts so others may have different views but here is how I see current products reviewed.
  1. WWE is a clear #1.
  2. ROH and MLW seem to be #2 in coverage, ROH most likely has many more viewers, but their coverage in RS seems to match MLW. AEW probably surpasses them in coverage but they have never put on a show, so being signed by them does not help with notability. NJPW is in this same category, but they are a Japanese promotion that has a US TV deal.
  3. Impact and Lucha Underground get some coverage, but only when something big happens. On a week to week basis they don't appear much. NWA is probably in the same category as here, but they only have 1 full time wrestler signed, and they work with others to put on their shows, so not sure just being signed with them helps at all with notability at this points.
  4. Other than their TV deals I cannot say I have heard anyone ever mention Women of Wrestling or Ring Warriors.
Again this is my own experience, so if anyone disagrees feel free to jump in. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 11:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
It's hard to categorically slot promotions from different eras, as the media landscape is entirely different. ECW worked in an entirely different time period than modern promotions, where the number of available outlets, both in digital cable channels and in internet streaming has made a promotion far more available that ECW ever was back in the 90s. (Not to mention DVRs making something like the Monday Night Wars impossible to truly replicate.)
Plus, the fact is whether or not a promotion does have a TV show actually has nothing to do with notability. Notability is about third-party coverage of something. AEW is definitely notable despite not even having a show yet, because so much has been written about it.
Impact, for all it's regression is still written about enough to be undoubtedly notable. It's just now at what I call "national indy" level – that is promotions that do tour outside a small region, but only in smaller buildings, and have pre-taped television shows that air on semi-obscure channels. Impact, MLW and, arguably, ROH fall into that category, though ROH is fairly big nowadays (though the Elite leaving has definitely hurt them). Those promotions are somewhat difficult to categorize, as they're more notable to fans than the general audience, but specialist coverage does tend to cover them more fully, so there's sufficient coverage to meet the GNG likely.
But also remember that standard results reporting falls under the "routine coverage" aspect of the GNG. Just as a capsule paragraph on last night's games in the sports section of the local newspaper doesn't establish notability as it is a standard part of the paper (and probably just taken from a wire service), a Wrestling website, even one like PW Torch or Meltzer, just listing the results of an indy card does not establish notability for that card, as they routinely list those (and many of them are reader-submitted, so likely don't qualify as reliable, anyway). oknazevad (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I understand your AEW point, but my only issue with that is our criteria we have been building deals with appearing on a regular basis for a company, not just being signed by them. If they have yet to put on a show, they can't meet the criteria spelled out right now. Unless you are proposing over-hauling that, adding AEW to the list wont help them fulfill the criteria. It more so falls into the exception criteria that needs to meet GNG. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes I agree on ECW, the amount of coverage it has received since it's closure is staggering. User:Galatz you hit the nail on the head when it comes to current amount of coverage in reliable sources. WWE–ROH–MLW–Impact–LU–etc. Also AEW is clearly gonna slot itself above Ring of Honor really soon, they have already sold out 1 (technically 2) 10,000+ arenas. So it wouldn't be very long before AEW ends up on our list, but now now. It seems like it would be this way.
1) is WWE and WCW.
2) is TNA (2004–2014) and ECW (1994–2001), maybe ROH (2015–2018) due to the popularity peak with The Elite.
3) Then ROH (undetermined year range) and MLW (2018–2019), Impact (2014–2019) and maybe Lucha Underground (but they are technically AAA right?). As for after that maybe being a long term champion or spending many years in WOW, NWA, or even the big indies such as Combat Zone Wrestling, Evolve Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Guerilla and the formerly popular Chikara and Dragon Gate USA would be a fourth tier. These promotions are covered pretty significantly in reliable sources (especially PWG, Evolve and CZW). StaticVapor message me! 01:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Nwa territories

User:Galatz - I do not agree with only 3 of the NWA territories being marked as notable. You really can't have a rule on notability for territories unless they only existed for a few months because they were all restricted to various regions and the regions were not fair. The WWWF had 3 of the top media markets in the country while people like Ron Wright were doing great business in the hills of Tenessee, where they didn't even have TV, yet alone anything else. Places like Omaha and Columbus were arguably the top territory at various parts in time. And some outlaw promotions like Gunkel's Georgia are really important to the story of territory wrestling yet would also not fit. Just because we don't have great information online about these places or videos doesn't mean they weren't noteable. Places like Florida aren't on the list, yet if it wasn't for Florida, JCP and Dusty would have never been what they ended up being. Please Please Pleaseeeee do not do this. KatoKungLee (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Territory days are not my specialty. I have watched from the time I was 3, but I know much more from 1992 on, so I left that as it was - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 01:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Europe

The notability draft currently lists two European promotions (Joint Promotions and World of Sport). I should mention that this is a bit confusing as Joint promotions ran events including the World of Sport shows on ITV in the 70s. The WOS listed is the article for the 2018 reboot.

I would ask if the reboot could be added in the post 1990 list. Someone like Justin Sysum is probably due facto notable anyway for his body of work (he also played Hawkeye on Disney tours) but I would suggest anyone doing significant things on this show would be notable.

Otherwise, the only other places I could think of to be notable would be potentially FWA, PCW, ICW (Scotland) or PROGRESS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

RESLO and CWA Austria in its various forms also definitely had TV through the 90's. KatoKungLee (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Any ideas what networks? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I saw that about WOS, if no one else was "WOS" except Joint Promotions then we can take them off. I do not know anything much of European promotions pre-2010 to give much an opinion. I do know top promotions right now are Progress, Revolution Pro Wrestling and Insane Championship Wrestling, but those would be in the same tier as (ROH/MLW/Impact 2014–2019) not WWE/WCW or TNA/ECW. User:Lee Vilenski if FWA and PCW draw as much fans as those promotions I don't have a problem including them. I just always see Progress and RevPro covered in reliable sources, with some mentions of ICW. There easily could be stuff I have missed though. StaticVapor message me! 02:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
FWA would probably be the more notable promotion - https://www.cagematch.net/?id=8&nr=38&page=4 but - due to being the only big company in the UK at that time (outside of all star, but that's for a different reason.) Not sure appearing there loads is a good indicator of notability of a wrestler themselves though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Lee Vilenski - If you go on youtube, they have some footage with CWA being on Eurosport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatoKungLee (talk • contribs) 15:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we could source to that. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I do remember seeing them on EuroSport along wih British wrestling (Finlay, Johny Saint etc.). CWA had europe wide coverage. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Open Items

Here is a listing of all the items currently underlined which means we need additional discussion on. This by no way means these are the only items still open to discussions, just ones we still definitely need to discuss. I will try break each into its own bullet and sign individually to make conversations easiest to follow. I ask others to follow the same so we can keep each thought easy to follow. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Length of service
Championship lineage length
NXT Length
  • What is significant for NXT
    • My comment is to include they appear on 2 Network Specials. Those are usually reserved for their notable performers, and if they are included twice, I think thats a good sing of notability. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm ok with this. 2 seems like the sweet spot. I'd make the argument that outside PPVs (Such as TNA's below) should work similarly. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
        • People like Kona Reeves, Riddick Moss and Otis Dozovic would not meet this criteria despite being in the promotion for over a year. TV Appearances would be much better, especially since NXT Takeover's traditionally only have 4-6 matches due to time constraints.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Its not the only criteria and not meeting it doesn't mean it gets deleted. There are several jobbers who have had 4 matches on NXT TV but are not notable. Angelo Dawkins and Montez Ford have been deleted countless times but have has probably dozens of matches. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
            • 2 network specials sounds good. Would this also include Worlds Collide, Mae Young Classic and Cruiserweight classic? I think it should, all three recieved significant coverage during and after their events. We honestly should give more weight to time spent on NXT television, it is broadcast on tv in a lot of countries outside of the US. StaticVapor message me! 03:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Secondary promotions?
  • When do we include TNA/Impact
    • During the asylum years I would not say they are notable, so starting with their move to cable TV. As for today I would again say they are not significantly covered, and my opinion it should be cut off once they went through the rename to Impact then GFW then back to Impact. If not at that point, then end of 2018 when they went off Pop should definitely be. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Might well depend again on length of service. Someone like Elix Skipper is clearly notable, even if he had never stepped foot in WCW. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Yeah this is why I suggested tiers. If I had to choose though it would be 2004–2014. Maybe two or three years service for 2002–2004 and 2014–present. StaticVapor message me! 03:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Thing to remember with TNA/Impact is that those first couple of years at the Asylum may not have had traditional television, but they did get a fair amount of coverage in sources like Meltzer and the PWTorch, in large part because they were the best funded of the post-WCW/ECW startups and has the highest profile founders in the Jarretts. It's profile may not have matched what it later became, but I wouldn't dismiss that as non-notable. oknazevad (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


Outside of USA/Japan
General Comments

Finalizing

I made several WP:BOLD changes based on the above discussion. I think I took all concerns into account. I tried to eliminate the gray promotions ((Ring Warriors, Women of Wrestling and/or Lucha Underground) since they can always be added later. If no one has any objections we can remove the construction tag. I still have some concerns over the length of tag teams (think Riott Squad or Lucha Housparty), who can be together for a while but not be notable. Not enough of a concern to think it should hold up this process, since we have the disclaimer that it still needs to meet WP:GNG even if it meets this criteria. See these edits [2]. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Anyone? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I like it! Can we make the shortcuts consistent? We have things like WP:PWGROUP and WP:PW/NGROUP, is this normal? I do have an issue with "Promotes a large number of events annually--the more events it has promoted, the higher the likelihood it is notable." - I'm not sure how this is different from the idea below about length of service. Notable promotions don't have to hold lots of events every year (they don't even have to promote events anymore). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Its been a few weeks so I have gone ahead and removed the under construction header. I did whatever redirects were available that I thought made sense, but we can add and change as needed. We should probably add it to our banner. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

CZW Wired title

Hi. I have a big question about this title. A few weeks ago, I saw the article and found an error. The article said Joey Janela is a 3 times champion and MJF is one time champion, but according to sources, Janela won the title 4 times and MJF, 2 times. I made the changes, but @Browndog91: reverted, since "I thought the same way as you but I messaged CZW and here is the response. Yes, MJF's win at Cage of Death 19 meant that he never lost the CZW Wired Television Title at the Wolf of Wrestling. We keep trying to make sure it shows that on Wiki are well, but folks keep changing it. It also means MJF has never lost in CZW". Now, that's interesting. I readed several sources and every one has a different title history. CZW says Janela is a 4 times, champion, MJF is a 2 times champion and Lio Rush is a 2 times champion. Solies says Janela is a 3 times champ, MJF is a 2 times and Lio Rush is a 1 time champs (Solies doesn't include the title change between Janela and Rush). Also, Solies includes Rey Fenix as former champion. Wrestlig Titles says Janela is a 3 times, MJF is a 2 times and Rush is 1 time. Maybe Browndog91 can explain the situation a bit betetr than me, but... do you have any idea? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

If CZW want to get the title history right, they should put out media to that effect. We should really follow their lineage, and note differences in other sources. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Yup, publish it or deal with the changes - and if they edit the list they really need to declare their COI on the matter. But if they update their site they won't hage to worry about Qikipedia as much. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Fixing piped redirects

I am been spending a lot of time cleaning up piped redirects. One of the biggest issues with how everything was force piped was things like [[Professional wrestling tag team match types#Multiple man teamed matches|Six-man tag team match]] were all dead because the target page had been changed from "Multiple man" to "Multiple wrestler" a while ago. Instead by having it as [[Six-man tag team match]] all of the tables would be automatically updated with the change of 1 redirect. I have slowly been working my way through the WWE ones, and will continue, but if you guys come across any please fix.

The other thing this is fixing is consistency. I have come across about 4-5 different piped locations for a Hardcore match. Some sent it to Hardcore Wrestling, some sent it to Professional wrestling match types#No Disqualification match and others to Professional_wrestling_match_types#Hardcore-based_variations, among others. By forcing this to the redirect, we ensure consistency in how things are linked as well.

If we see anyone piping redirects we should point them toward WP:NOPIPE and WP:DONOTFIXIT so they understand its policy to have the redirect, and not to force pipe it, whenever possible. Thanks - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Be patient, these guidelines and the redlink guidelines do not seem to register with less experienced or infrequent editors/IPs. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately yes. They also are lost on many experienced ones too. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I get the parts I think I understand. At least as far as I've found. No pipes, don't fix it! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, June 24, 2019 (UTC)
NOPIPE is a how-to guide, and DONOTFIXIT is a guideline. Neither is a policy. DONOTFIXIT specifically applies to people changing links to avoid redirects. Many of the ones you have been changing were created as direct links, and you have been introducing redirects. For example, if the article was originally created with a link to [[Mike Rotunda|Irwin R. Schyster]], there's really nothing wrong with it. Changing it so that it redirects through [[Irwin R. Schyster]] isn't harmful, but it's not really fixing anything, either. I get that you're not wrong, but I question the benefits of these changes--they aren't required by policy, and the guideline is more about people deliberately changing articles to avoid redirects, which is often not the case. The guideline also states that redirect links aren't always the best choice, so there's not necessarily one way to do things. I also question the need to wikilink [[Singles match]] repeatedly in a non-sortable table, or [[King of the Ring]] repeatedly in quaterfinal, semifinal, and final matches in an article about a King of the Ring event. I think we disagree on the phrasing of MOS:REPEATLINK, which says a link should be included only once in an article but can be repeated in a table if it significantly helps the reader's understanding. My interpretation of this is that the link in the article can be repeated once in the table, not that it should be placed in a table over and over again--I also don't think a series of identical links helps anybody's understanding, so I'm not sure that those edits are supported by the Manual of Style. I don't particularly care either way, but I don't think it's helpful to cite policies that aren't policies, and I think this work holds the possibility of biting the newcomers (WP:DONOTBITE), who may be making minor changes as they build their confidence in editing, and who may be helpful editors if given the chance rather than scolded for making changes that have little or no negative impact (not that I have seen you scold anyone, but if the project tries to stamp out a certain harmless behavior, it leads to the possibility that some may get a bit worked up about it. Again, just a few of my thoughts--take them for what they're worth. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. While I agree with some, I disagree with others.
One of the reasons for changing [[Mike Rotunda|Irwin R. Schyster]] to [[Irwin R. Schyster]] is spelled out in what you linked, that it just makes reading the wikitext harder to read. When you have piped link after piped link stuff can get really confusing. Try reading the event section in wikitext when every move is separately linked with a pipe.
This much more so applies to the type of match, in the event box. For example, there used to be a ton of links to [[Royal Rumble|Royal Rumble match]], however last year when I created a separate page for the match, I needed to manually change each one to [[Royal Rumble match]]. By starting with each one as the redirect, once the page is created there is no needed to update the links. Similarly to the examples I gave above with regard to "Hardcore match" being inconsistent, and stale links in where they piped to.
As for the point about linking multiple times, MOS:DL states Duplicate linking in stand-alone and embedded lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader. This is most often the case when the list is presenting information that could just as aptly be formatted in a table, and is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom. I believe this is pretty clear that information which is likely to be read in segments and not in its entirety (top to bottom) that its appropriate to repeat the link. For example, I will consistently go back to a particular event's page to look at something for one match, or something similar. When people go to a table to look at information for 1 match, its helpful to have the information linked just there. For example, if there was a match, say the 2nd match of the night, to determine the #1 contender to the WWE Tag Team Championship, and then the 11th match was a match for that same championship, the championship would not be linked historically in the row for the actual championship. That the user would either need to assume it was linked earlier (why would they assume that if they are a newby and everything else is linked) and search for where, or just manually go to the title page by searching for WWE Tag Team Championship, in the search box. When they search for it however they will wind up at a page summarizing the 11 different championships the WWE has had for tag teams. When they then look at the list they will never be able to figure out which championship it was because none are listed as that name, they would need to know the Raw championship was previously called that. Is this a bit of an extreme example, yes. Is it completely realistic, absolutely.
Every championship article links Raw and SmackDown whenever its mentioned. If a person has won the title 7,000 times their name would be linked 7,000 times. If you look at List of WWE Hardcore Champions you will see that Raven won the championship 27 times and his name is linked 30 times in the article. His name appears 32 times in the article, the only place it is not linked is when its already linked on that row. Why would this be different than events? If you look at Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award or List of Super Bowl starting quarterbacks or Academy Award for Best Director you will see that duplicate names are linked there as well. Thats because each of those lines are pieces of data which are likely to be digested individually, and therefore links are duplicated. As for the Best Director example, lets take that one step further and look at the one time there was a duplicate, at the 11th Academy Awards page. For best director, you will see Michael Curtiz linked once because you would took at all the nominators in one grouping, just like you would look at one match. But his movies Angels with Dirty Faces and Four Daughters are each linked individually each time. Just like how someone is likely to go to the 11th Academy Awards article and look at just Best Director, they are likely to go to WrestleMania IX and look at just the main event.
Thanks - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Matt Taven ROH title defenses

Hello, I was wondering if anyone could find a good source that says Taven defended his title at RCW 16th Anniversary: Showdown? Cagematch has been linked but they don't always get things right for example they will advertise current ROH Champion Matt Taven vs anyone else and Cagematch sometimes puts this as title defense when it is a non title match. So if nothing can be found to suggest that it was for the title I would like to see Taven dropped to 4 defenses. I know this is very nit picky but probably the main problem is people thinking if something is on Cagematch it must be true when it is just a results site. Browndog91 06:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I thought we agreed over a year ago to get rid of that column because it's a pain to maintain as it's easily outdated, poorly sourced as ROH no longer track defenses themselves (and cagematcb is best described as a fan site that can never be considered complete; it's embarrassing that we use it as a source at all), and essentially trivial junk. oknazevad (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the discussion?? If not we can't really get rid of it without proper discussion. Browndog91 06:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Per the project style guide, we only include the column of the promotion recognizes such a number. ROH does not. They used to, but they stopped somewhere along the way, so per the existing guidance the copoumn shluld be removed. Considering how crowded the edit history is with overly frequent updates just t change one number because of a single match somewhere, I frankly think we should get rid of the column from every championship article regardless of promotion, but even if we don't, the ROH titles should have it removed to match the guideline. oknazevad (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I can't even find the title history on the website so I agree with removing it from ring of honor title history's but as for other promotions who do count defenses keep it, it isn't too much of a problem as far as edit history is concerned but anyway 2 people isn't enough for consensus hopefully more people chime in on this. Browndog91 (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
In fact, title defences are very important in Japan. I think is fine, promotion tracks defences, keep. Doens't, delete. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I think we should remove the number of defenses if we do not have a source from the promotion keeping track of it. StaticVapor message me! 22:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I will say Ring of Honors websites seems to be very incomplete, I mentioned that I can't find the title history on the official website but if you look at the alumni section there are alot of names missing so they may be in the process of completing it so I say keep monitoring the website and until such time as they put up a title history with a list of defenses for each it should be removed. Not saying it won't come back but for now it should be removed. Browndog91 (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

July Collab of the Month

Any thoughts on a July monthly collab? I want to nominate Attitude Era...it has 12 cleanup tags and needs tons of work. Any thoughts?

I think it's a good article for CotM. I will do my best. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely. This is long overdue. JTP (talk • contribs) 00:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

ARS Tournament up for deletion

Someone put ARS (wrestling tournament) up for deletion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ARS_(wrestling_tournament). This was definitely covered in the Wrestling Observer when it happened, so if anyone could post a source from it, I would appreciate it. I do not have access to the Observer. It seems to meet all wrestling tournament criteria and I'm not sure if the user understands that japanese female wrestling would have gotten 0 coverage in the US due to multiple reasons. Apparently the 3 sources listed are not enough information. [User:KatoKungLee|KatoKungLee]] (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Problem is that PWHistory, Cagematch and WrestlingData is not enough to establish "significant coverage" since it's just results. Btw. Japanese language sources are fine too. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I can promise it was listed in the Wrestling Observer, but I don't have paid access to it. It was likely also listed in wrestling magazines in Japan, but I don't have access to that, nor would I be able to read it. Cagematch is listed as an acceptable source, but every japanese wrestling article will be up for deletion if it requires the mainsteam media talking about it, since they never covered wrestling, yet alone japanese wrestling. The promotion is also now closed which makes things harder. Stuff like this is really why I don't contribute much and discourage others from doing the same.KatoKungLee (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Cagematch is listed as reliable source for results only. It doesn't establishes notability since covers every single pro wrestling event in the planet. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
        • I really don't see how it's notable. If there are Japanese sources, the WP:BURDEN is on you to find them. Coverage on Wrestling Observer, whilst good, isn't going to prove notability on its own. As above cagematch isn't helpful for notability of the subject. The results can be verified by cagematch, but that's pretty much the whole deal. I should also mention that bringing up the deletion discussion like this could be considered WP:CANVASSING which I'm sure you aren't trying to do, the arguments for and against deletion should be in the deletion discussion alone. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
          • The request was "can you guys help me find sources" not "go vote", after all the best way to surive an AFD is to address the issues, not vote stacking or anything like that. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Go vote at this AfD would have been fine. Linking an AfD then arguing how notable it is isn't in my book. Not that it matters. A search for me doesn't bring up much, and if there is only a mention in the Observer there won't be enough. This conversation should be at the AfD, not here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The original post was a request for help in finding sources to help establish notability. That's an excellent use of a Wikiproject talk page. That's what Wikiprojects should do. The original post did not ask anyone to voice an opinion on the current state of the article. There is no canvassing going on here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The first two tournaments are covered in the Observer but it's literally just results and "they had a tournament". May 18, 1998 and May 10, 1999 issues. Don't see anything on the 2000-2002 tournaments from a skim at issues that would have results.Froo (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

CZW Tag Team title history

Hello, I was going through CZW tag team title history and noticed that the REP are listed as tag team champions. Now at CZW Trifecta Elimination 2019 results sites have The House Of Gangone (Anthony Gangone & The Amazing Red) winning the titles, so I went looking for some sources as to what happened and couldn't find anything but I found a thing on reddit that mentions the finish of the match being botched and that House Of Gangone weren't meant to win the titles. So should we have this in the notes section because I think it is worth mentioning and does anyone have more concrete about what has actually happened thanks. Browndog91 (talk) Browndog91 05:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft:POST Wrestling

Anyone have an idea what to do with this draft? I'm not good at making large website articles myself. I want it to be completed but it has sadly not been edited much in a while.★Trekker (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm for cutting a lot of it. We don't need all the quotes, or the patreon levels IMO. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

NJPW Major Events

Currently there is a page List of NJPW pay-per-view events, that a couple of users would like to move to encompass more than just PPV, I guess similar to how ECW and WCW include more than just PPV. The issue is, what is a major event or what criteria should be used. If more people could chime in at Talk:List_of_NJPW_pay-per-view_events#Major_show_definition, it would be helpful. I just dont know enough about NJPW to be helpful here. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Kofi Kingston article lead

The lead sentence in the Kofi Kingston article uses the term "Ghanaian-American", but as per WP:ETHNICITY, a BLP Lead should not mention previous nationalities or the place of birth unless they are relevant to the subject's notability. The question is whether Mr. Kingston's "Place of Birth" or "Nationality" is notable enough apart from him being billed from "Ghana, West Africa" in WWE. If not then I believe, "Ghanaian-American" in the lead needs to be replaced with "American". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: I believe it should just say "Ghanaian professional wrestler". Although he now lives in the US, its not where he was born. This would be in line with others, such as Killian Dain, Shinsuke Nakamura, Finn Bálor, Becky Lynch, Paige (wrestler), Jinder Mahal, etc. They all were born in a different country, now live in the US, but only list their home country. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Galatz, Do you have any info on his citizenship? If he is still a Ghanaian citizen, then "Ghanaian professional wrestler" in the lead would be totally OK. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Fylindfotberserk: In that same regard, we do not know if he is here on a work visa or a US citizen. He went to HS in the US but that does not make him a citizen. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Galatz, Hmm.. Probably should use the phrase "Ghanaian professional wrestler" then, similar to other articles you mentioned above. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
[3] According to his mother, he was born in Ghana and moved to US in 1982. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, as the policy says, I think the birth place and (possible previous) nationality it's important. Kingston is billed since 2010 from Ghana. Also, he is the first African-born wrestler to win the WWE Championship. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@HHH Pedrigree: Being "billed" from Ghana in WWE is not something that can be considered reliably notable, since Jinder Mahal is also "billed" from India, but his lead says "Canadian professional wrestler". The question is about his citizenship. If he is both a Ghanaian and American citizen then no need to change the lead. If he is only an American citizen, then IMO we should frame it as Ghanaian born American Professional wrestler. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Galatz, @HHH Pedrigree: Any thoughts on the above suggestion? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, Let's try to find his citizen, I always assumed he has both. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Some of our Top importance and Level 5 vital articles

I'm questioning the following wrestlers' ranking on our professional wrestling importance scale and the vital article scale. I'm of the belief that our importance lists are too centered on the United States. I'm sure all of the above wrestlers are American wrestling icons. But did they transcend wrestling to become cultural icons? I'm not so sure. Not like the following non-American wrestlers. starship.paint (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Giant Baba [4] - Japanese people (not specifically only wrestling fans) ranked him in the top 100 historical world figures, ahead of Issac Newton, Chopin and Abraham Lincoln
  • Antonio Inoki (Level 5) - he faced Muhammad Ali in a precursor to modern MMA [5]
  • Blue Demon - one of the "three greatest luchadores in Mexican history", collectively "starred in more than 75 cult films" in-character [6]
  • Mil Mascaras - also one of the "three greatest luchadores in Mexican history", collectively "starred in more than 75 cult films" in-character [7]

So, I'm thinking, we add the above wrestlers to Top-importance, and replace 4 from the top list of Level 5 Vital articles with these 4. As much as those on the first list are wrestling icons, none of them would make the top 100 historical world figures by Americans, none of them will face someone like Ali, and none of them, will have 20+ films about themselves in-character. starship.paint (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Benoit is more important than most of them because of how the end of his life impacted the culture of wrestling and the public view on it. The vital articles are not "best wrestlers ever" listings. And as so far as both Mil Mascaras and Blue Demon goes, yes they are regarded as some of the "best luchadors ever", but on the other hand people like Ric Flair, Bret Hart, Undertaker and Randy Savage are also widely regarded as some of the best of all time. Being a cultural icon in mainsteam culture is also an incredibly vague subject, for example Hart is very much without a doubt the biggest wrestling star to come out of Canada but how important is that overall? For example the link you have with votes for Baba is a nice trivia in his article but hardly something we should take very seriously, it is without a doubt a very biased poll considering it's asking for "favorite" people among a very large and broad subject, Baba, Lincoln and Newton don't have much in common and asking to pick among them emotionally is odd in the first place.★Trekker (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I’m not sure if you got my point. I wasn’t arguing at all for “best wrestlers ever”. My point is simply that the people in the first list are not cultural icons, but the people in the second list are. The people in the first list being regarded as some of the best wrestlers of all time isn’t good enough. In Mexico, Lucha Libre is like a national ‘sport’. Is it the same in the US? I doubt it, there’s Basketball, American Football, Baseball, Hockey? starship.paint (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I understood exactly what you said and I countered it, if you didn't want to have me discuss "best wrestlers" you shouldn't have mentioned it at all. My main point was that "cultural icon" does aply to most of the above people if you look at it from different point of views.★Trekker (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@*Treker: - sources please? ""cultural icon" for these wrestlers. starship.paint (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
For Hart, [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. That took about 15 seconds. Also, please don't ping me, I reply if I feel the need.★Trekker (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Our expert on this field Dave Meltzer: [17] Santo and Rikidozan would be the biggest. Next tier would be Londos, Kim Il, Baba, Inoki, Hogan, The Rock, Blue Demon, Dara Singh starship.paint (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Cena, Undertaker and Benoit have legitimate claims to having cultural impact. Note the word impact, as "icon" would suggest that they were deemed to be iconic wrestlers. Benoit's death, and the field around it is incredibly important. In terms of wrestling, sure, he's not high importance. But his legacy really is. Cena and Undertaker have very clear cultural impact (even if it's just the "you can't see me" memes, etc.)
As much as I respect Dave Metzler, we can't just take his opinion alone for this sort of thing. I'd be very happy with Inoki and Baba being added. Blue Demon potentially, but he doesn't have a great worldwide appeal in my eyes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Problem is there is a limited number of people who can be Vital articles.★Trekker (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd remove Cena and Savage. Cena was never the megastar WWE wanted him to be, at least not until he started working outside the company and did a movie with Amy Schumer. Savage was a major star but Hogan was always the top guy while he was around. House shows would still sell out if he was headlining as IC champion but I don't think his drawing ability compares to the other guys we're talking about here. If we were talking just in terms of United States popularity (we aren't), I'd remove Bret Hart. Hart was the top guy during WWF's worst rated years (at least until recently) and floundered in WCW, but he was a much larger pop culture figure in Canada. Removing Flair is inconceivable (Meltzer has repeatedly said he's the GOAT) and Benoit is one of the most notorious names in industry history. I'd replace Cena and Savage with Baba and Mildred Burke. Inoki is already on the list.LM2000 (talk) 07:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, and I think we should keep all of the current ones. I think Cena and Savage have had, and continue to have, a pervasive influence on popular culture. I think the better choice would be posting on the Vital Articles talk page and requesting an increase in the quota from 25 to 26 so Giant Baba can be included (or requesting that Professional Wrestling be split off with a quota of 20, which would allow for the inclusion of Giant Baba and a second wrestler to be determined by a WP:PW discussion, which seems more promising, as they seem to like multiples of 5). I don't see how that would be problematic--I mean no disrespect to Billings, Montana, but it's a Level 5 Vital Article. Surely Giant Baba can meet the equivalent threshold. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not entirely familiar with how the vital articles process works but we should change the pro wrestling set-up. Shouldn't pro wrestlers have a separate category from the competitive athletes? Regardless, picking a Mount Rushmore of wrestling is very subjective because there are a lot of good candidates, so it's not surprising we have many disagreements here, but the high praise for Baba means we should squeeze him in there somewhere.LM2000 (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@GaryColemanFan: - Cena and Savage have had, and continue to have, a pervasive influence on popular culture. - source? Meanwhile, for Mil Mascaras, [18] How legendary does one have to be to boast his own postage stamp? ... Mascaras was honored in May 2011 by the Mexican Postal Service ... A star in the ring and on Mexico's big screen [19] his film and wrestling career spanned four decades, and he starred in some of the classics of the genre. Furthermore, the Mexican stars starred in films as themselves, fighting monsters like the Mummy, Frankenstein, Dracula, a werewolf, a Cyclops, whereas Cena clearly wasn't playing his wrestler character in movies. The earlier argument that Cena has pop culture influence because he is an Internet meme just ... makes Cena seem less popular, really, because he's apparently popular for being a joke meme than for his actual accomplishments. Santo himself had same media status as some of his American super-hero counterparts like Batman and Superman. starship.paint (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
requesting an increase in the quota from 25 to 26 so Giant Baba can be included (or requesting that Professional Wrestling be split off with a quota of 20 - we could try that, but what I think will happen is that our quota will instead get reduced. We actually have a separate list of 4 for Level 5 Pro wrestling businessmen. Were we to have 25 level 5 vital articles, that would put us on the level of gymnastics, and more than swimming, cycling. Not sure if people will stand for that. starship.paint (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that Cena is both a vital article and one of eight wrestlers to also be a top importance article. If it was up to me he'd be neither but the top importance spot is especially egregious. It is a very WWE-centric list, Inoki would be a better fit for that spot. Starship's concerns about a reduction if we complain are pretty sound as well. We may just have to make tough choices.LM2000 (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Starship, I'm not arguing against Mil Mascaras, but I disagree with some of the points being made. Yes, the list includes a lot of American wrestlers. That's not, in and of itself, a problem. The biggest company in the world is American. It makes the most money and reaches the most people, in part because of its appeal around the world, and in part because the USA has a bigger population than Japan and Mexico combined. Those are just objective facts--I'm neither American nor a WWE fan. Dismissing John Cena's impact on popular culture as merely a meme is disingenuous. Mil Mascaras would be great to add, but not at the expense of anyone currently on the list, and not because of a pile of low-budget movies that probably haven't made as much money combined as John Cena's latest movie. The postage stamp argument doesn't work particularly well, either, because, until recently, the USA and Mexico had different laws about depicting people on stamps. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@GaryColemanFan: - I'm not saying that having many American wrestlers is a problem. If every American wrestler on that list were like Hulk Hogan or The Rock, I wouldn't have a problem with their inclusions. But Cena's simply isn't on these guys' level. Plus Rock is a movie star too. Top yearly earner recently. Cena's movie career isn't that impressive, really. Cameo, WWE Studios x3, direct-to-video x3, minor role in Trainwreck, minor role in Sisters, cameo, direct-to-video, leading role in minor film The Wall, minor role in Daddy's Home 2, leading role in an animated film that did worse than all 5 Ice Age films of the same studio, one of three main characters in Blockers, and well, there's Bumblebee. Cena's greatest film success, of which the draw is Bumblebee itself, as displayed by the title, and the film's poster shows that Cena isn't even the top human character in the film. It certainly seems that Cena doesn't even reach the level of Rock being a leading man for The Scorpion King, and I dare say Batista's role as Drax the Destroyer in the blockbuster Marvel films will go down in memory more than Cena's film characters. starship.paint (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Your entire argument rests on POV.★Trekker (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Over the years, I've begun to realize the US is very very very focused on American wrestling. Not even American wrestling, mainly just WWE. Now this project has always had that issue since I started. The only articles that were expanded were the WWE stuff. I focused on the TNA and indy stuff. MPJ focused on the lucha material. Ribbon Salminen focused on the Japanese articles. Otherwise, everyone else was just focused on WWE history, current events, and future happenings. This section kind of shows that is still an issue. This may be the English Wikipedia but that doesn't mean it is the American Wikipedia. The wrestling world is much larger than the WWE alone. There are figures in the industry who are hugely important that have never ever wrestled for the WWE or even been featured on their programming. Events have occurred that have been more important than WrestleMania. Crowds larger than any WWE show. Matches greater with more significance than WWE stuff. To lay down the importance of the industry, why are the first six mentioned WWE guys? Why is it debatable that Inoki isn't a defacto important person. This man shaped wrestling on multiple continents, shaped promotions, shaped politics, and main evented the largest wrestling crowd in the industry's history. He is more important than Taker, Cena, Savage, and Hart easily. Hogan and Flair are the only ones that challenge him in terms of significance with Benoit being important solely due to June 2007. Otherwise, Benoit isn't even in the ballpark.--WillC 09:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I feel the same, a lot of english wikipedia is focused around WWE. It's normal, is the biggest promotion in the world, but as you said, there are many wrestlers (example, El Santo, Blue Demon, Inoki, Baba...) bigger than WWE wrestlers. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@GaryColemanFan: Some of your arguments placed above I must disagree with, I feel falls under that "WWE is god mentality" I've seen. It is the conditioning the company has done for so long to make them seem like something they aren't. It is very easy to find on message boards these days thanks to fanboys being upset about AEW. You say WWE is the biggest company in the world. Yes, that is true. They are quite large with the network, studios, etc. They have the largest schedule. So on that point it is true. Problem with that, is it is almost entirely in the states but for like a handful of shows a year that are in Europe. It makes alot of money, domestically. Of the 1.5 million subs for the Network, 1.1 of them are domestic. Almost their entire fan base is in the states and it is shrinking drastically. Now falling to under 2 million on average. WCW Thunder numbers and SD are looking alike. Meanwhile, you say it reaches the most people. Which isn't hard. Anyone with an internet connection can sign up for WWE Network, Honor Club, Impact plus, or NJPW World in a handful of minutes. They can all connect all over the planet. Cena has had an impact on pop culture....in the states. Has he over the planet? The states do not have the largest pops by far. In fact, NJPW to an extent has a larger reach to people by spanning all over Asia and the billions...not millions....on that continent. Cena's impact is large to us because we see it regularly. To a Japanese viewer, I'm sure that Okada at this extent has more of a cultural impact than Cena does. Objectively, the largest crowd Cena has been in is a .0002% of the entire US population. Okada has been in .0003% of the Japanese population. One was a larger attendance number, but one has a higher proportion of the population. One may have more of a cultural impact in that country. Beyond that, cultural discussions come into play. I recall during the Mayweather v McGregor press conferences, on the regular Inoki vs Ali was mentioned. That fight allow was revolutionary in sports for its unique style, its crossover appeal, and overall odd-fuckedness. And that fight was before Hulkamania. It was watched by 1.4 billion viewers worldwide. More than anything any other wrestler in the entire business has achieved. Not Hogan, Rock, Austin, Savage, Hart, or Cena have ever ever ever been able to get that many viewers. Hell, the fight got 54 million in Japan and 2 million in the states. More than any Mania, 10 years before Mania 1. Again, just because the guy is in WWE doesn't mean they are that important to the industry. Thats the "WWE is god" mentality. It isn't. It is important in the states. Elsewhere, the hometown company reigns supreme. WWE hasn't sold the Tokyo Dome out. They haven't pulled a massive crowd in the UK in a long long time. They aren't selling out huge arenas around the world, they are doing it in the US. It is easy to look massive when you have 330 million people to work with, but when you add in the other 6.7 billion around the world, they aren't that big at selling. They aren't selling out the Plaza de Toros México, the Dome, or Wembley anymore. They don't have the largest number, thats still WCW and NJPW which was main evented not by Hogan, Cena, Rock, Austin, Hart, Savage, or a single WWE star but by Inoki. WWE's legacy is a false narrative of absolute dominance and ability, when it is a good marketing campaign. Just being in the company doesn't make you important in the industry. Cena certainly didn't draw more than Inoki and even on his best day never got close.--WillC 10:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Like HHH Pedrigree, I agree with everything you said in your first post too. There seems to be rough agreement here that Baba belongs but who do we drop? I again recommend Cena be dropped from both lists, in favor of Baba being promoted to Level 5 and Inoki being promoted to Top importance. I have other suggestions on replacements but perhaps we should take this one step at a time if we want any changes to actually take place.LM2000 (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

April Brooks disambiguation page

Here is a very minor thing that I noticed, but I didn't know what to do with it or whether anything needs to be done so I just decided to send a message here. AJ Lee is listed on the April Brooks disambiguation page, but she is using her own last name (Mendez) instead of CM Punk's (Brooks) despite them being married. Should she be removed from that page (essentially making the whole disambiguation page useless), should it be changed to mention that it's not actually her name, or should it just be kept the way it is right now? Kanavarras (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

She has gone through a few name changes, which is why she was listed under that name. She used AJ Brooks after their wedding, then AJ Mendez Brooks (which her book was initially published under), and has since reverted to AJ Mendez. She never used the "April Brooks" name professionally though, so I have no stance on the dab inclusion. Prefall 11:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

24/7 Champion

Hi. I have a question. Did you read the 24/7 champion article? It's likw "X wrestler, from Y Brand..." Mahal from SmackDown pinned, Maverick from 205 Live, Blayze, a WWE Hall of Famer. What do you think? I think the brand iisn't necessary. The title is defended across all brands, champions aren't draft and the title doesn't change the brand, so I think is unnecesary. I would understand when the champion or the title are drafted, since it's relevant. But It feel tedious.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree, I see no relevance in it. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
There also is a conversation that has been going on at List of WWE 24/7 Champions#Brands. There are two people here and two people there that all feel its not relevant. Only one user has stated it is. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I am in full agreeance that it is irrelevant. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
No need to put so much importance on what brand they are on. StaticVapor message me! 18:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

FL removal

The IWGP Junior Heavyweight Tag Team Championship is up for FL removal at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/IWGP Junior Heavyweight Tag Team Championship/archive1. I'm not surprised. Someone split it off years ago. I brought it to the attention of the project to join them back together. A consensus was obviously reached. They were never joined. So it is up for removal. The IWGP Tag Team Championship will probably be nominated soon as well for the same reasons.--WillC 19:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The IWGP Heavyweight Championship seems fine to me. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that and IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship are good.--WillC 18:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

G1 Climax (2019)

Why is G1 Climax (2019) created when all the editions are merged in their parent article (G1 Climax)? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 10:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, maybe the user didn't know. Or nobody tried to create an individual article for each tournament. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Seems like a valid page creation to me. We never have had it before, but it certainly is notable. We can have the final results on the main page and the details on the subpage. Its similar to what you see with other articles and in sports - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it's fine too. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
It could have a better format but it is a valid creation.--WillC 18:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Yep. It's valid. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

G1 Climax in Dallas

This is comparable to an episode of Raw, does it really need a standalone article? Based on this each day of the G1 tournament could have its own standalone article that really is just a list of results with no context. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Merge with tournament article. Literally covering the exact same topic.--WillC 22:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
If there are multiple articles going into detail about this specific portion of the tournament, it could stand on its own. If not, it should be merged. I suspect that the latter is the case. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I should clarify--by "multiple articles", I meant multiple reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
No more than any other night of the tournament. WrestleView probably has an addition coverage of the event as it doesn't regularly cover NJPW. PWTorch and FigureFour cover every night.--WillC 01:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I saw the article and I think it should be merged.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
It is in very poor shape now, however the event does meet WP:GNG due to coverage in reliable sources. Fightful, SI, WON, Deadspin, Prowrestling.net, among plenty more. StaticVapor message me! 15:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
So does every Raw and Smackdown. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Deadspin and Sports Illustrated, the mainstream sources don't cover every Raw and SmackDown, let alone in depth like this. Also one of NJPW biggest shows in the US so it gains notability from that. If what I am saying isn't changing anyone's mind I wouldn't fight it being redirected. StaticVapor message me! 10:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
But they get plenty of coverage in other sources that are comparable to those two, non-wrestling specific sports sources, I can easily present 2-3 sources on for the last Raw or Smackdown that are considered "Mainstream". MPJ-DK (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear it should be merged.--WillC 21:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be merged. The only thing that really drew unique attention is that it was a card in Dallas. Other than a little extra commentary on that, which can be mentioned in the merged article, the rest of the coverage above is pretty much WP:ROUTINE results, which do not confer notability. oknazevad (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Include partnerships in Navbox?

Right now in many promotions' Navbox we have a "partnerships" section. Looking at Template:Major League Wrestling, Template:Lucha Libre AAA Worldwide, and Template:WWE as examples. According to WP:NAVBOX, Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia. It goes on to say: Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines:

  1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
  2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
  3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
  4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
  5. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles.

I feel that although it might loosely relate in some of those instances its not enough. The likelihood of someone looking at MLW's article and wanting to navigate to NOAH because they have a partnership is pretty slim. I see no value added to including. Thoughts? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Yeah I agree. After seeing some of the older promotions like NJPW's navbox, I made up my mind that it is not very useful. I feel like an exception should probably made to ones like NJPW/ROH, Evolve/WWE(NXT) or AEW/OWE, where a link to the promotion could be included in a "Related articles" section of the navbox. This would only be for significant partnerships that have formed a major impact or a current partnership that is a visable part of their shows (AEW/OWE). StaticVapor message me! 10:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Other on-screen personnel table

Our newer events pages all have tables which discuss who was the Commentator, Referee, Interviewer, Ring Announcer, etc. Our older articles often do not have these, but some do. Wrestlinglover has recently began removing these from some older articles so I thought it was worth the discussion in order to gain a consensus as to whether or not this should be included. Does it matter if the information is in prose and duplicated in the table, similar to the results table duplicating the events table?

As an aside if consensus is to include it, we need parameters around it. WrestleMania_35#Event for example is just ridiculous. Do we need the pre-show panel? Do we need every language; TV shows typically only include native language/home country information?

I am neutral on this topic, but feel its worthy of a discussion, because if we want it, it should be added to the style guide. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Until a consensus is reached, they should be left as is. Wrestlinglover should not remove it until such time. If he hasn't been notified to leave it as is, he should be. He should also be notified about this discussion. Oh and I'm okay with having the table in these articles. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I feel the table becomes super overbearing especially on the Mania articles. Most of the information is trivia. If it couldn't be written in prose, you have to wonder if it's notable information at all... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: It could be written in prose, and in some instances is and some is not. A question is, if there is a hypothetical article that did have everything in prose, what would your thoughts be on the table? If it could be, but is not, should it be included as a table? If you feel it should be what limits for you feel should be implemented? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: Any thoughts on the limits, so they don't become overbearing, or no preference? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Galatz: I see the commentators is the biggest part of the table especially in articles like WrestleMania 35. The Spanish and the German announcers are the only non-English commentators listed. The Russian, French, Mandarin, Japanese, Portuguese, Hindi, and Arabic speaking commentators are left off the table. If we are going to list non-English commentators, we should list them all. Again, I have no problem with having this table in event articles. We just can't pick and choose what we leave off the table. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 03:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
@Galatz: To answer your question, if we are not wanting make the table long and excessive, we have to determine what is left off the table. But at this point, I don't know what would be best left off it. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: If it isn't in a table, it wouldn't fit having all the commentators, pre-show panelists, refs, and whatnot spread throughout the article. These things are not necessary and could be consider trivial mentions. Trivial mentions spread throughout don't do anything to enhance an article. That's why leaving it in a table is best. Like I said, we can't pick and choose what gets added and what doesn't. Like I also said regarding commentators, you can't pick and choose which non-English commentators to list. Or why should only English commentators be listed? WWE caters to a wide audience that doesn't only speak English. So adding non-English commentator should be done and not left because one thinks they are not important or what their reasoning is. It doesn't work that way. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Tables#Prose says otherwise on whether it should be a table. The table shouldn't exist and prose should take its place per the MOS.--WillC 21:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm on my phone. I'll write more later. These tables were never in these articles to begin with and there never was a consensus to even add them to begin with. Removing them is entirely fine because they were replaced with a miscellaneous section that included not only the material in the table but also individuals who appeared on camera but not in a wrestling capacity. I'll explain more later. This was decided at the FA review for TP 08. I'll check the archive for more information later.--WillC 21:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Check 2008 and 2005 TNA PPV events for articles with these sections that Galatz disingenuously suggested were hypothetical that are the entire point of this issue that he has been informed about repeatedly. All of these articles passed review years ago without the table at all.--WillC 21:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Wrestlinglover: I saw there was no need to be specific. We are talking in general terms if its needed or not, it is not disingenuous. I already stated in my original post I have no preference to the outcome, so what would be the benefit of me trying to be disingenuous? And as you have been told countless times, once an article passes GA or FA they are not locked down and cannot be changed, they continue to change and there is nothing wrong with that, so how they were when they passed is irrelevant to the discussion. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 21:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Coming from an individual who hasn't went through the process it seems, you obviously wouldn't understand the argument. The very point of going through GA and FA is to get them to the best quality they can possibly be. Adding a redundant table isn't improving the quality. And don't sit here and say you don't care. You've fought this on your talk page, the edit warring page, and now you've opened an entire new section to talk about a table. You care and you with full knowledge told everyone a half truth. You left out that I am the one who expanded these articles, that the table was never in these articles to begin with and I removed them because they were redundant, told a user of a hypothetical prose section that exists in upwards of 23 individual articles. You knew all of this and painted the picture to benefit yourself. There was never a consensus for this table. It isn't useful when prose works a ton better at explaining to a reader what is going on at the event and who else is involved. Plus it is alot more professional. This has been agreed upon on upwards of 23 individual times as improving the article. These articles existed from 2009 to 2018 without these tables. Lockdown (2005) passed GA review in December 2011. It did not get a table until March of 2018 and there was no consensus or reason stated for adding it other than someone must have saw it in another article. And the person who added the tables has been indefinitely blocked from editing. And repeatedly you've told me these tables and edits have existed for two years which is again wrong. Now lets look at the disingenuous comment. The definition is "not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does." Now lets look above at your comments. "if there is a hypothetical article that did have everything in prose", "If it could be", "I am neutral on this topic", "I have no preference to the outcome", etc are some examples of disingenuous comments. If there is an article, there are 23 of them and you've edited them. You know they exist. It could be? It does and you know it. Neutral? You've argued this alone over 3 pages and opened a section here. No preference? Obviously over 3 pages you do. As for another query: "Do we need the pre-show panel? Do we need every language; TV shows typically only include native language/home country information?" I reply with, are we an encyclopedia or are we sparknotes? The point is to include all relevant sourced information. Are the commentators from Russia shown on camera? Yes. Are the English ones shown on camera? Yes. They have the same job. They are both notable. They should be included because it is relevant information to the show. It would literally be one addition sentence of information. I did it on every TNA article for the Spanish commentators.--WillC 02:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Adding a redundant table isn't improving the quality. Great, then please go through and remove the "results" table from every single article that already has the results in prose.
My issue is that you reverted back to 2 years ago, I did not say it was there 2 years ago, if it was you wouldn't have removed it. My problem is you are just mass reverting, regardless of why the changes were made. Edits like [20] reverted changes to how things were presented across the board and were discussed. Such as how previous events should be presented, something I did not bring to the table, so once again its not MY preference. My issue is not whether or not the table is there, my issue is with your editing style, the content is a different story.
Just because an article passes GA it does not mean there cannot be changes made to it. For example, how many wrestler articles passed GA with "In wrestling" section included. Consensus was to remove it, so it was removed from articles that had previously passed GA. When it passes, it means is that it is a article, based on current standards, but that can change and will change. It does not mean its the the best quality they can possibly be as you state, things can always improve, per WP:GA a good article (GA) is an article that meets a core set of editorial standards. So by reverting back to how it was 2 years ago, if those standards change, you are hurting it, not helping it.
But once again you are trying to deflect from the topic at hand. I am asking the general WikiProject if it should be there or not. I am speaking generally because there are hundreds of future articles that have not yet been created that this will apply to as well. Showing a one off, in my opinion can be misleading since not every article is the same. So just because you find it disingenuous, does not mean it is, for that question to not be specific.
Just because something is shown on screen or is true, does not mean its suitable for inclusion. MOS:TVINTL talks about not including intentional broadcasts. There is nothing that talks about recording in multiple languages. That is why I am asking the question, so we can gain a consensus on it. I am not just trying to push my POV, I am asking questions to gain a consensus, something you are not trying to do, you are trying to push your feelings on to others. 2018 World Series includes English/Spanish. 2018 NBA Finals also is just English and Spanish. Super Bowl LIII shows only English for TV and Spanish for radio as well. In all three examples, these are the two languages there are broadcast in the US as far as I can tell, and no international broadcasts are included. With the WWE Network and their other language option, WWE events post 2014 are a different story, but still worthy of conversation. If MLB, NBA and NFL do not include these announcers, why should we? Does TNA's Russian broadasters give a different answer the NJPW's English announcers?
Now please stay with the topic at hand so an actual conversion can be had on this topic, rather than diverting it away from the topic. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The difference is, those are actually quick reference tables that have an entire section dedicated to them and have a reason per the style guide and previous consensus.
Show me the discussion. You've never done that, so don't point to something you haven't presented as evidence for your argument over this many days.
You've yet to show a consensus that opposes any of the changes I've made. You are pulling dust from the air, hoping it is diamonds. You say those edits improve the article. You've yet to show how any of that is true. You point that consensus can improve an article. You've yet to show an MOS policy or any consensus here that shows it is improving the article. There isn't a consensus on the table. There isn't a policy from the MOS for any of the style.
"So just because you find it disingenuous, does not mean it is, for that question to not be specific." - I pretty much exactly proved it was disingenuous with your own comments and it was very very clear. Laughably clear.
So are we gonna go down this other stuff exists route like those events are similar to this. Tell me, how many in China watch the NBA Finals and the SuperBowl? I'm guessing as many that watch the 2019 Cricket World Cup Final here in the states. Lets look at Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Conor McGregor, which lists the international broadcasters and several of the commentators for these broadcasts from a range of countries, including Brazil. What should we expect though, that one nor none of the ones you listed have even been expanded to include all information or be thoroughly encyclopedic. That really helps us decided what is relevant today for our events by pointing to Start class materials.
You keep saying you want a consensus. Meanwhile, whatever point I make you must disagree with it on ever instance. You opposed moving the Reception section from day one despite a previous consensus and the style guide. Oppose names of matches when redirects to those matches exist. Point to the style guide and MOS for your edits but don't have anything in either that back up your edits. I'm fine with a consensus. It would be nice if all of the relevant information was put out there from the beginning, other than "Wrestlinglover has recently began removing these from some older articles". Which, is also an instance of being disingenuous by not relaying all pertinent information to the project.--WillC 18:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this table should definitely be included. Tables are good for quick reference, so they definitely improve article quality. Holding on to old GA and FA reviews doesn't make sense--some things have improved since then. That's how progress works. The major problem with these tables was that some of them used (continue to use?) the title "Other on-screen talent", and this should be changed to "personnel". As for commentators in other languages, if they are shown on-screen in the main broadcast, that seems like it would be the threshold for inclusion. There is no obligation to include every foreign language commentator because some are included--this project has long had an unhealthy history of "all or nothing" that frequently derails discussions. As for the pre-show panel, that could possibly be converted to prose, but it should not be removed from the table until it has been converted to prose. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@GaryColemanFan: It does say "other on-screen personnel. So I don't know what you are talking about. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I understand that. That is why I used the past tense. The problem was that they used "talent" instead of personnel. However, if I do a search for "Other on-screen talent", I still get several results. They may be lists, or they may be tables. Either way, referring to employees as "talent" has no place in an encyclopedia. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@GaryColemanFan: Semantics. That's not the issue. Stick the why the table is being brought up not what it is called. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Please don't ping me. Love, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
@GaryColemanFan: Calling me "love" is creepy yet condescending. So chill, be civil, and stick to the subject at him. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Stop pinging me. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
@GaryColemanFan: For articles like Mania 35, yeah having a quick reference table may be useful. For Bound for Glory IV is that really relevant when an entire section that would function for the exact same reason exists? The entirety of the table has been covered in 4 sentences: " Mike Tenay and Don West were the commentators for the telecast. Jeremy Borash and David Penzer were ring announcers for the event. Andrew Thomas, Earl Hebner, Rudy Charles, Mark "Slick" Johnson, Traci Brooks, and Steve McMichael participated as referees for the encounters. Lauren Thompson and Borash were used as interviewers during the event." Certainly it wouldn't even be a quick reference table similar to the results table as it isn't displayed with its own section anyway and isn't in most articles that have the table. It is something a reader doesn't find easily unless they already know it exists. Not sure how they would fall under quick reference then.--WillC 18:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I would just like to point out that the MOS says that prose in this situation is more suited than a table for this. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Tables#Prose says "Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain. Tables which are mainly links, which are most useful for browsing subject areas, should usually have their own entries" Better yet, other sporting events as pointed out by Galatz also list commentators as prose and not as a table. Per 2018_World_Series#Television, 2018_NBA_Finals#Broadcast, Super_Bowl_LIII#Broadcasting, and Floyd_Mayweather_Jr._vs._Conor_McGregor#Domestic to just name a few.--WillC 18:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's definitely relevant in the Bound for Glory article. The prose should be deleted, and the information should be left in a table. Prose makes sense in some cases, but there are plenty of times that a list or a table is even better--on-screen talent, signature/finishing moves, and manager lists come to mind. In all of these cases, someone who is interested would want to find the information at a quick glance rather than wade through bulky prose. The MOS doesn't say that prose is best suited to every situation, and you are mischaracterizing its intent in this case. Think of it more like a description of a match. A table with the moves used by Wrestler A on one side and Wrestler B on the other side would obviously be a poor way to convey the information. Or think of it like an actual conversation, like you say. If someone asked who was involved in the pay-per-view, who Kamala's managers were, or what are Bret Hart's "Five Moves of Doom", a quick list would make sense. However, if someone asked what led to a match being scheduled, what happened in a match, or what was the fallout from the match, prose is obviously the way to go. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
The MOS is clear. Tables shouldn't be used in cases like this. It says "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain. Tables which are mainly links, which are most useful for browsing subject areas, should usually have their own entries: see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists for detail. In an article, significant items should normally be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely tabulated." and that is under the section for inappropriate uses for tables. It is as clear cut and dry as that. The MOS says a table for this is inappropriate. Prose is preferred. Other sporting event articles do not have this table and have decided that prose is better for this information. It says significant items should be mentioned and not tabulated. The very commentators, the very voices of the event, the faces, names, and sounds heard more on the broadcast of the event over anyone else is very significant and important. The MOS is clear on this. The table goes against the MOS and is incorrect usage. 2009 World Series is a FA article that has undergone the very process of trying to be inline with the MOS in every way. It does not have the table. 2017 World Series does not either. Super Bowl XLI does not as well. It is a section called Miscellaneous and in some cases On-Screen Talent. That would be an obvious place to look for the material. "If someone asked who was involved in the pay-per-view, who Kamala's managers were, or what are Bret Hart's "Five Moves of Doom", a quick list would make sense." A list of who was involved in PPV would be a standalone article per the MOS, but would also be a dumb creation. Kamala's managers? That would be nice, but that section doesn't even exist in Kamala (wrestler) so it doesn't even seem like anyone wants to even quick reference that. Why would Hart's moves be a table? That could literally be a prose section that would include not only the moves, but comments by Hart from his bio, notes from Meltzer, other comments by WWE, statements from other wrestlers, etc. That sounds far beyond just a simple table. Beyond that, per the MOS section it says prose is meant to explain and a section explaining his moves seems exactly what prose is for, not a table. The consensus for table usage has been established by the MOS. The table is wrong and prose is the way to go. It is pretty clear we are the only ones trying to use a table for commentators in event articles.--WillC 06:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@Wrestlinglover: A list of managers is not there because it was deemed to be WP:CRUFT and removed across the board, along with the rest of the "In wrestling" sections. It was removed from thousands of articles. This was during the period of time while you were gone, so here is the discussion if you want to take a look Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_145#Should_the_"In_wrestling"_section_be_removed_from_professional_wrestling_articles?. I see parallels between them which makes me think not to include. But I also see differences. This is one of the reasons why I am indifferent on this table. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I saw when it was happening. I didn't edit. I still checked stuff the whole time. Don't want the list anyway. Thats Gary's thing.--WillC 18:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree almost entirely with your interpretation of the MOS. I also find your comments about the "very significant and important" "voices of the event" to be...well, let's just say incorrect. If you were to tell someone you watched SummerSlam and requested that they ask you three questions about it, I would be willing to bet that "Who were the commentators?" or "Who were the referees?" would not make their list. This is information that would be awkward at best in prose (as demonstrated by the Bound for Glory IV article). A quick reference list is sufficient and much easier to find and understand. Truly, you can point to all of the reviewed content you want. However, if an article with a table does it better (and it does), then it's better with the table. As I said, I think you interpret the prose discussion in the MOS incorrectly, and, if need be, we should turn to the essay WP:IGNOREPRECEDENT, as looking at semi-related articles doesn't suit the nature of professional wrestling. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
You've yet to show how my interruption is incorrect or even what the correct interruption is of that section. Your entire point is based on WP:LIKE. If someone had three questions about SummerSlam, their first would be "What is that?" Their second would be "You watch wrestling?" Their third would be "What happened to Hulk Hogan?" So that idea doesn't benefit adding the table nor deleting it.
"Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain. Tables which are mainly links, which are most useful for browsing subject areas, should usually have their own entries: see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists for detail. In an article, significant items should normally be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely tabulated."
It starts with prose is preferred to tables. It then goes on and says that prose is to explain to reader material. Tables are meant to just present it, not explain it. We are explaining who the commentators and event staff were to the reader as if they didn't know. As above, it says a table is just links. Thats mainly it. Our table provides links and then more information which is better suited for prose per the explanation. It is a sporting/entertainment event. Staff is important to the very aspect. Per other sports articles. And WP:IAPD doesn't work for this, per WP:IAPD#What Ignore all precedent is not: "It is not an excuse for ignoring all consensus in a content dispute or deletion discussion." You wish to ignore the consensus established by the MOS and shown in several other articles. All because like it and want to keep it.--WillC 22:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
No, you're ignoring what IAPD actually is: (1) When you want to make a change but you are turned down by the reasoning that "We always do it this way" or "This is how it was done in x article" and (2) When pages are outdated but the main editors refuse to let anyone update it (which is also a violation of WP:OWN). Both of these are at play here. As for why your interpretation is wrong, the vast majority of the article is in prose. That is in compliance with the Manual of Style, as it should be. The tangential details don't work well in prose, as they get bogged down in clunky phrasing and unnecessary detail. Nobody wants to know what a commentator or referee is. If anything, they want to know who they were at a particular event. That's all we should be presenting. Feel free to wikilink "referee", but anything beyond a list of who they were does the reader a disservice. As an example, you mentioned that the table had been converted to prose on the Bound for Glory article. I went to find that information in the article. Even knowing that it was there, it took a while to find it, and the information was presented in an awkward manner. One of the few things that you have said that I agree with is that tables should present information rather that explain it. That is exactly what is needed for the "Other on-screen personnel"--a list with no explanation. Wordiness for the sake of wordiness is always a bad idea. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
First, you've completely missed the argument being presented. IAPD doesn't work here for either of those. I'm not pointing to articles as to follow them, I'm pointing to them for interpretation of the MOS for tables. Of which, you have completely ignored trying to give a valid interpretation. Your last statement even proved that you are fighting having no table because you just don't like it: "the information was presented in an awkward manner." When being annoyed by something is literally the argument used in WP:IDL. If anything IAPD, doesn't benefit keeping the table as this entire section was begun with the argument that we have always had the table. Which you just pointed out IAPD voices against. You said my interpretation pf the MOS was wrong. I pointed out a variety of sports articles with the same sections, showing I wasn't. Now you just want to ignore things because you either like it or don't like it. Not that it improves the article or relays information in a better way, which it doesn't and that's entirely why the MOS has that section saying tables don't relay information better. Also, the table would lack information such as "Besides employees who appeared in a wrestling role, SoCal Val, Christy Hemme, Jim Cornette, Raisha Saeed, Jacqueline, Sharmell, and Kevin Nash all appeared on camera, either in backstage or in ringside segments", which is in the BFG article and relates to information regarding people accompanying people to ringside, appeared on camera, made announcements, etc. That table doesn't cover this. You want an article that relays less information, goes against the MOS, and doesn't explain as clearly all because you find, "Mike Tenay and Don West were the commentators for the telecast", as awkward. It is pretty clear your opinion is based on either WP:LIKE or WP:IDL which isn't surprising since that was the same reasons given over the "In Wrestling" sections and historically with the out of narrative writing style.--WillC 03:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Just getting caught up after a weekend away, and I think GaryColemanFan and Wrestlinglover are disagreeing on something that neither are really saying. Looking at their disagreement from above I think there are 2 parts that are being applied differently, but correct me if I am wrong.
  1. I think a difference is coming from 1 particular word in the part that is being quoted from the MOS. In reading what was quoted above In an article, significant items should normally be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely tabulated I think the key wording is significant items. Gary seems to be saying these are not significant enough to be in prose and therefore are fine in a table. The MOS implies that non-significant items are fine in a table, since it specifically says significant ones shouldn't be.
  2. The other issue seems to stem from Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain. This part seems to imply that in prose you want to clarify and explain. If the article went into detail on what a referee does, than said who they were, that is more explanation and clarification. But to list them in prose without explanation it different.
Again, I could be wrong, but this is my interpretation of the back and forth. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I think you've summarized my points well. In some cases, some of the non-wrestling participants at an event are significant. For example, WrestleMania traditionally included celebrity guests (I assume it still does, but I'll stick with what I know). When I look at the WrestleMania V article, I see that it states in the prose that (1) Donald Trump, who hotel hosted the event, appeared on camera, (2) Morton Downey, Jr., appeared as a guest on Piper's Pit, and (3) Rockin' Robin performed "America the Beautiful". All three of these work best in prose, because there is something significant to say about them that isn't captured well in a table. I also see that a table lists the commentators, interviewers, ring announcer, and referees. This works well in this format, as the information is less important. There is nothing more to say about their role, so it is best presented in a table--it can be found and read easily, and we don't get bogged down in detail that adds nothing to the article. I fully support this split between two different types of information being presented in two different ways. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The point of the table is to explain who the staff are. Not to explain what the jobs are. The point of the event section is to explain how the match ended. Thats what makes it different than the results section. It just says winners and losers. The prose section explains not only the positions but also other information related to the event. Tables aren't meant to explain things, they are meant to just be lists of information.--WillC 14:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Unknown times in results table

I was just catching up on WWE Smackville by reading the article since I did not watch it over the weekend. It got me wondering, why does our Style Guide say if the match time is unknown to put N/A. On wikipedia it is defined at n/a as "not applicable" or "not available" but I think "not applicable" is the more common definition. If read as being "not applicable" it could be confusing to the reader. I would suggest instead we should either put "Unknown" or simply a "-". Any thoughts? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that N/A doesn't work well. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of the times as a whole, as they aren't sourced. But it should be left blank without a time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: Typically they are sourced, whenever I see one without them I try to source it. But the issue with blank is that if blank the template does not work right. It will leave an odd blank space instead, and if its the first match, it removes the header - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe we should fix the template? Where do we typically source times from? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: Personally I usually use cagematch, but I think most newer events I see people use Jason Powel's summaries from prowrestling.net - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I really don't like the idea of sourcing match times to cagematch. Our source guide says cagematch should only be used for results, nothing else. Cagematch just takes user suggestions for things like times, which I doubt are very reliable. I don't think there are official times, especially in wrestling, where times that are used are just works. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Harley Race

Probably a prime candidate for a nom at WP:ITN for recent deaths. Needs cleanup for this. All input welcome. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yosuke Santa Maria

I don't want to get to much into these issues (as it's not something I have a huge amount of knowledge on, and I know it can be quite a difficult subject), but should we refer to Exóticos by gender nouns (his, her) in prose of articles like this? This one in particular lists them as being a Japanese male wrestler, but listed as "she" throughout.

There was nothing on the talk page, so I don't know if this is current consensus, or if this should be addressed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I haven't knoeledge about the subjet. I saw some sources about mexican exoticos and the sources call them "he, his".--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I would have thought these articles would have been the same as regular drag acts, which as far as I can see, still refer to them as male. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I agree, there is not set guideline on this. The performers may or may not be homosexual, but in general aren't referred to as transgender etc. I would say it's a case by case basis, if the sources refer to them as "he" use that, or "she" use that. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I have minimal knowledge on this subject, but I think Wikipedia typically uses whatever the person identifies as. I think I have seen
We should refer to the person by their preferred pronoun, if a drag performer has not come out as transgender it would be best to assume that they are not. Sources say Maria is a "he", and Mara has not corrected them or said they are trans, easiest to assume we should refer to them as "he".★Trekker (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

According to the article "Watanabe is also exclusively referred to using feminine pronouns and considered a woman by the Dragon Gate roster". I don't know if Watanabe is referred in character (like, for example, Santina Marella character). As Trekker said, Watanabe hasn't come out as transgender, so maybe we should use "he/his". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll boldly change the article to "he" after this conversation. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

27/ title, too much detail

I love the 24/7 championship. However, do you think the notes section is too detailed? I mean, there is details for every title change, the Hardcore and Ironheavymetal titles doesn't have that level of detail. Elias pinned Truth after attacking with the guitar, after a kick in the groin, after being distracted... I think a note is good if it's something unique, like a hug, buying the title, but no regular attacks or being ditracted. What do you think?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Do the other championships list the move that won it? No and the text up front explains it's "interbrand" and "anywhere, any time" - so 99% of the notes are pointless as it's won in the manner of the championship rules. And while we are at it, the OCD inclusion of brands does not help the readability at all. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @MPJ-DK: I think we have previously removed all the brand talk. Typically I think anything outside of a traditional pinfall is included in the notes. So if its just a simple roll up and passed back and forth I would say no, not included. But to say Jinder attacked Truth on a golf course, yes. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Most pinfalls shouldn't have notes. There's nothing spectacular about a title changing hands backstage or on the entrance ramp after a basic pin. That pinfalls happened at a wedding, on a plane, at a golf course or at a gynecologist appointment is noteworthy but is already listed in the "Location" column. In those cases, the only thing the "Notes" section should detail is if it aired in online.LM2000 (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Without specification, it comes off as looking like a regular singles match (as with regular singles matches, notes are left blank). There has only been one actual scheduled title defense in which the title changed hands. All others were not regularly scheduled matches. --JDC808 ♫ 15:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
          • Yes because "Maria Kanalis' OBGYN Appointment" really drives how that this was a regular singles match. It is explained in prose the whole concept of the title - should only note it if it WAS won in a regular match, or Dibiase who bought it. Not changes that are following the 24/7 concept. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

B. Brain Blair

I'm in a revert situation [21] where the IPs seems hell-bent on using unverified facebook links as references despite the fact that these are not used for much change in the content, only seem to support the date of B. Brian Blair's retirement. Isn't facebook links like this is unreliable as per WP:EL and should not be used atleast in the article body? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:FACEBOOK covers it well. I saw it on Oshawatt's talk page before here, but it's the same response. This could be used if it was a verified account, but it would still be a WP:PRIMARY source. From the looks of it, it's already sourced so it doesn't need to be sourced again.
On another note, the information in the infobox should be in the prose, and doesn't need to be cited in the infobox. See WP:INFOBOXCITE. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
It looks like the IPs are trying to promote their FB page, "Chris's Web Designs". No reason to hog up extra space with an unverified fb account which doesn't even help expand the article. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Multiple fall matches

I added a section Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Style_guide#Elimination_matches based on a previous conversation we had Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_105#Method_of_Elimination. If everyone can take a look and make sure they are good with everything I would appreciate it. I think I captured everything.

It made me think about similar issue with multiple fall matches, either iron man or 2 out of 3 falls. For example, right now on WWE_Great_Balls_of_Fire the table looks like this for the iron man match

Score Fall Decision Notes Time
1–0 Cesaro and Sheamus Pinfall Sheamus pinned Matt after a Brogue Kick 0:20
2–0 Cesaro and Sheamus Pinfall Sheamus pinned Jeff after a White Noise and diving neckbreaker combination 9:48
2–1 The Hardy Boyz Pinfall Jeff pinned Cesaro after a Twist of Fate 12:54
3–1 Cesaro and Sheamus Countout Matt was counted out after Cesaro threw him against a ringpost 16:45
3–2 The Hardy Boyz Pinfall Jeff pinned Cesaro with a cradle 22:57
3–3 The Hardy Boyz Pinfall Matt Hardy pinned Sheamus after a Twist of Fate from the top rope 27:05
4–3 Cesaro and Sheamus Pinfall Cesaro pinned Jeff with a cover after Jeff performed a Swanton Bomb on Sheamus 29:32

But I think it should look more like

Score Fall Method Time
1–0 Sheamus and Cesaro Pinfall 0:20
2–0 Sheamus and Cesaro Pinfall 9:48
2–1 The Hardy Boyz Pinfall 12:54
3–1 Sheamus and Cesaro Countout 16:45
3–2 The Hardy Boyz Pinfall 22:57
3–3 The Hardy Boyz Pinfall 27:05
4–3 Sheamus and Cesaro Pinfall 29:32

A two-out-of-three falls match I think would look like this

Score Fall Method Time
1–0 Sheamus and Cesaro Pinfall 0:20
1–1 The Hardy Boyz Countout 12:54
2–1 Sheamus and Cesaro Disqualification 19:48

Thoughts? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I much prefer not having the prose in the table. I'm not entirely sure they are needed for matches that are multiple falls - just the really notable ones that we would want to go into details about. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. What are you thinking would be notable to go into details? Three Stages of Hell makes sense I guess to add the individual stipulation or something for each fall - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Your version is better. No need for all the prose. Event section covers that. Tables are meant for quick reference.--WillC 00:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Jack the Jobber has a few words for us

One year ago, we gained all internet's hate decided to remove In wrestling section. Now, Jack The Jobber think about our decission. [22]--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm really not sure why we should care. The argument has always been - "we want this information on wikipedia, because we do". If it was a big sticking point about people wanting the information, you would see hundreds of pages with the "professional wrestling persona", but you really don't. People just want to add to a table - and I find that to be the least encyclopedic part of Wikipedia. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
There really isn't any reason to even bring this up honestly. At best more people will come here and try to complain, we will explain that it's not going to happen and exactly why, they will get angry and attack us. Rince, repeat. These people don't understand how Wikipedia works or have any interest in learning about it either.★Trekker (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Comments like they should want the most amount of information as possible show they do not understand wikipedia at all - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
They want it added by someone else, otherwise there would be more articles with this info in prose form. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a shame that you're too busy with your self high-fives to realize that they're making better points than this project has ever put forward. If you're concerned about a few trees, the solution isn't to start a forest fire. And starting a forest fire and then saying, "If you really care about trees, why don't you replant the forest I burned down" is just ridiculous. The idea that we should delete several entire sections from every page because some pages might attract unsourced information is absurd. I would argue that the removal of so much sourced information is blatant vandalism. Even with a project consensus to commit thousands of acts of blatant vandalism, it's still blatant vandalism. Wrestlers' moves are one of the big things that distinguish them from each other. If you're trying to explain a wrestler to someone, the moves are probably going to come up. The parallel to Superman isn't far off--in the Adventures of Superman, the very first words were "Faster than a speeding bullet! More powerful than a locomotive! Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound!" precisely because his abilities are a significant and defining characteristic. The list of managers was also important, as it helped define the wrestlers' personas and how they evolved over the years. When the project insisted on deleting all of this, it came with the thought that we'll convert it into prose. First of all, prose is more dense and less user-friendly (regardless of some people's opinions that "it just doesn't feel encyclopedic"--which is a meaningless argument, as the nature of encyclopedias has evolved over the years and the traditional encyclopedias that the project compares itself to are dying out). Second, there was never any intention for the project to actually do this work. I recommended that, if we had to go along with a terrible idea, we could make it less terrible by only deleting sections after they were replaced with clunky prose. Instead, the project just decided to toss a match onto the articles and walk away with a bunch of self-righteous comments. It seems that you've lost focus on what the encyclopedia was designed for, as the project has become more focused on "winning" arguments with Reddit users than actually building an informative and user-friendly set of articles. Reply if you want, but don't tag me in this discussion. I've said what I want, and I'm not interested in the plugged-ear shouting matches that have become this project's m.o. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Its not that it was removed before it was replaced, its that it really never should have been there to begin with. It wasn't about sourcing. It was about being WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:CRUFT - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Then have Jack and the Reddits get a new consensus established to return it, follow the process. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
If the bulleted format is that beneficial to readers than something else should be proposed, like adding a parameter for finishing maneuvers to the infobox used for professional wrestlers. The other stuff from that section, like signature moves and theme songs, rarely found proper sourcing so I don't see how they could be returned to a bulleted format. I understand how it was useful to the niche crowd, I accidentally came here looking for information on an old theme song a few months ago. In any case, the section was roundly rejected by the wider wikipedia community, so it's out of our hands. Props to Trekker and HHH Pedigree for becoming public enemies number one regardless.LM2000 (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
And I thought I wanted to punch him in the face to begin with.--WillC 00:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Finishing moves, etc

Just a quick thought on this inspired by the above mention of the removal of the "In wrestling section".

I have no objections to the removal. I've been including the "professional wrestling persona" section in articles I've been creating or rewriting, e.g. Ski Hi Lee, and I think it works pretty well and looks and reads better than the long bulleted lists. However, I had a couple of thoughts on potential ways of including info.

Firstly, what about adding a field to the infobox template for "Finishing move(s)"? This'd be very concise, e.g. for Undertaker it'd read something like "Tombstone, Last Ride, Chokeslam". Some level of monitoring would be needed to avoid the template being populated with hundreds of moves, long descriptions, etc but in principle it could display this info in a punchy way without the issues of the "In wrestling" section.

Secondly, the Professional wrestling moves pages are fairly inconsistent in terms of mentioning who does the move. Some moves have examples added, and others not. Could we include a "Used by" paragraph for each entry, like in the old Big Big Book of Wrestling Moves?

I'm not passionate about either suggestion but thought it was worth raising them for people's thoughts. McPhail (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we are attracting fan too much WP:FANCRUFT for the first to be helpful. There are other issues with it, as information in an infobox should still be in the prose and cited. So, you could only include on articles that had the section about persona, and even then, the sources would have to be reliable, and these are the gimmick names, so mean zero in the infobox.
What defines a finishing move? The term "finishing move" is very in universe in itself and jargon, so would have to be called something different to get by on our FAs etc.
I just don't see how this won't cause issues. - the second point I don't really look at those pages. Something well sourced is fine, but I don't see many sources talking about the origins of a chicken wing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't initially a finisher, just set up the jumping heel kick. Way back when "human cockfighting" was about two dudes literally beating each other's cocks to a bloody pulp with their cocks, their whole cocks and nothing but their cocks. Terry Taylor wouldn't last five minutes against the real Red Rooster, Cocker Lewis! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, August 22, 2019 (UTC)

Gauntlet for the Gold

There is a major redundancy on the Gauntlet for the Gold article/list. There is a list of Gauntlet for the Gold winners. That's the redundancy. It doesn't tell you anything the match history doesn't. It doesn't need to be there. It should be removed. There is no valid reason to keep it. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Fishhead2100: The page as a whole needed a clean up. I have done it - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Galatz: You missed fixing a reference. But their website is currently down for maintenance. It will have to wait as the reference is missing the title. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Dave Meltzer disruption

This has been going on forever now on the Dave Meltzer page. Some person/or persons insists that he can not be called a "journalist" (despite every single source calling him that and him having a journalistic degree). I'm getting very tired of having to fix this over and over and have had to have the page protected in the past. This issue crops up on other wrestling writers articles as well, people who don't like them and feel they shouldn't be allowed to be called journalists, blatant POV as it is but they spend a lot of time on their crusades.★Trekker (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

If you really want to preach WP:POV, then provide sources that distinguish him as a journalist and not tabloid writer. You not liking one term due to personal understandings of it is nothing more than your own personal issue. 174.16.184.125 (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The citation for when Frank Deford of Sports Illustrated called him "the most accomplished reporter in sports journalism" isn't good enough for you? Please stop being a disruption, so far every single other editor has disagreed with you and you've since long violated the three revert rule.★Trekker (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
First, no one outside of you has expressed disagreement. Second you have violated the revert rule as well. Knife cuts both ways. Third, once again I'll refer you to the WON and its mediums. If there are multiple sources that reflect the SI remark, then I have no issue admitting I am in the wrong. However, you have defaulted to malicious editing based on other POV articles. I'm not calling him a tabloid writer to discredit him; I'm doing so as fact. He has been given numerous accolades for his work as a historian, not a journalist.174.16.184.125 (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I have expressed disagreement. A quick search of references refers to him as either a journalist or a reporter. Forbes, New York Times, etc. Plandu (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Every other editor so far has reverted you. We also don't care if you do it maliciously or not.★Trekker (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Weren't sanctions supposed to stop silly disruption like this? It's almost as if nothing has changed.LM2000 (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I treid to get the page protected about a week ago, wasn't accepted.★Trekker (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I find it helpful when requesting protection to remind them that its under general sanctions. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a thing? Really? Tabloid writer is a really poor description of the subject regardless, as you could argue he's more like a pundit than that. If they have gone through 3RR and the above is a clear consensus for them being a journalist, then take to ANI. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Also, he won a james Melby award (twice) for his work as journalist. Canoe says "

through his newsletter, The Wrestling Observer." Considered both as a historian and journalist, Meltzer will receive..."--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty clear he is a journalist. Basically the only one in wrestling.--WillC 00:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Wrestlinglover: Just because he is widely known doesn't make him the only one. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 15:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Greg Oliver is legit grizzled and writes for a literal tabloid. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, August 22, 2019 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: @InedibleHulk: Never saw Slam do much other than the occasional rumor and weekly review. Honestly, Oliver has never really been the head of a story. Alot like Keller, seems to always be playing catchup. Then again, Keller is in it for money it seems. Everyone of his podcasts are nothing but ad clips for 2 hours. Could barely make it through his Moxley interview.--WillC 11:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Wrestlinglover: This is not a forum for your opinion. What you think about people and their podcasts is irrelevant to the issue at hand. You of all people should this. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 16:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
That's good advice, but if I may disregard it for a moment, nobody (in our niche or the "real" press) rocks a wrestler obituary like Oliver and company. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:23, August 22, 2019 (UTC)

An admin needs to put the page in semi-protection or whatever appropriate protection is necessary. This should have been done long ago. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

You'd have to request WP:RFPP, which I have just done. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The abominable Wiki troll

A LTA page for a longtime sock on wrestling pages was created at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/The abominable Wiki troll. It's currently up for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/The abominable Wiki troll. Given TAWT's history, this may be of some interest to members here.LM2000 (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Tim Fischer (wrestler): Fischer or Fisher?

I ran into Tim Fischer (wrestler), and saw that the page title and infobox have "Fischer". However, the bolded named in the opening sentence has "Fisher", and the body only refers to him as "Fisher". Hopefully someone here can verify and make the text or page title make sense. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: You could have Googled it and Cagematch would have shown up and shown Fischer is the correct spelling. You can see it here. So you can go ahead make the corrections yourself. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 13:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't know a reliable source from an unreliable source, which is why I left it to the experts here to do as they see fit. At any rate, and maybe I'm missing something, I don't see where that source says what his real name is. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, we shouldn't be using cagematch to verify things like names (specifically real names). It's listed as a situational source. However this link on profightdb and his listing on the PWI 500 in 2013 should be plenty, which verified the name in the lead. A quick find+replace should sort this one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: Actually, you are wrong. Cagematch is listed as a reliable source. It is IWD that is limited reliable. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I said situational, not limited. It's very clear on WP:PW/RS Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: It is not situational either.  Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 03:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
our current consensus say exactly: Marginally reliable. Strictly used for match results and not other information. Takes user submissions but is reviewed by regional editors that verify all submissions before they are added to the database. So, as above, it shouldnt be used to identify real names and the like. Not that it matters, as there are other places I linked that cover this.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Clash of the Champions

I want to split articles of all the editions of Clash of the Champions of WCW. Clash of the Champions was a special supercard and a significant event of WCW and I consider creating separate articles of each and every event of the Clash of the Champions. Kindly suggest if I shall create these articles.--Mark Linton (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Just split or actually ads content and sources. If it is the former then I would say no. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Of course, adding content and sources that is why I want to split. It is the latter option, of course.--Mark Linton (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Might be worth creating splits into articles in draft space, one at a time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
You say "Of course" but when others have split these articles they generally do not end up like that, hence my question. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I have long been surprised that these did not ever have their own pages before. These live TV specials had plenty of build, I would support this, as I would with WWF The Main Event. These were the culmination of feuds that everything built to, unlike shows like Survivor Series Showdown, which although aired, were more like promotional tools for the PPVs. IMO if its the end destination for feuds, they can support their own page, if its to continue build feuds, its not notable individually, just as a series. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Just like you mentioned Survivor Series Showdown, there was another major television special by WWF called "WWF on MSG Network" which aired on the MSG television network and I am also going to create an article and provide results of all the episodes of that special (if I am guaranteed that you are also going to help expand it instead of deleting it). It was just a special show just like Saturday Night's Main Event or Clash of the Champions.--Mark Linton (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
It was a TV that aired, MSG network has a pretty decent distribution, so I would say it automatically meets WP:NTV, so I don't think there is any fear of it being deleted unless there is something I am missing. I am looking at [23] and it seems like almost every month the WWF had a show from MSG that aired on MSG. Is that what you are referring to? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
In this link, you will find "Televised on the MSG Network" numerous times. That is what I am talking about.--Mark Linton (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

NXT UK Tag Team Championship

Looking at the NXT UK Tag Team Championship and I am wondering why James Drake and Zack Gibson are not listed as Grizzled Young Veterans as their team name. They've been referred to as that and WWE has referred to them as that on the clips they've uploaded to YouTube and the clips on their website. In the NXT UK Tag Team Championship title history on WWE.com, they don't have them listed as Grizzled Young Veterans, but just names. I guess we go with what is listed their since it is "official." Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

You answered your own question. It's the same reason we never listed Cesaro and Sheamus as "The Bar" for the Raw Tag Team Championship (but we do for the SmackDown title since that officially became their team name after they transferred to SmackDown). --JDC808 ♫ 06:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@JDC808: Technically, they weren't introduced as the Bar when doing their entrance as far as I can remember. James Drake and Zack Gibson have been introduced as Grizzled Young Veterans when doing their entrance. So... The WWE do refer to them as such in content uploaded during their reign. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
After they moved to SmackDown in last year's Shake-up, they officially became known as The Bar. But anyways, we list them here based on how they are listed on the official title history. --JDC808 ♫ 06:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@JDC808: Sure they were known as the Bar, but weren't announced as such during their entrance while on Smackdown. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I think this becomes the distinction of nickname vs team name. Was he Jerry Lawler or Jerry "The King" Lawler, vs was he Steve Austin or Stone Cold Steve Austin? If you look at [24] they are not listed as Grizzled Young Veterans - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Galatz: So you said what I said in regards to the title history on WWE.com because? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Professional wrestling

I know a number of portals have been getting deleted for being under utilized. Portal:Professional wrestling has not been nominated, but there is some stale information which seems to line up with the ones that have been. For example, the news section hasn't been updated since June (one user is basically the only guy who used to update it, but I guess he stopped). Basically it gets between 60-100 view per week according to [25].

Does anyone have any suggestions for it, so it does not get deleted? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I've updated the "In the News" section, at least.--Calienteramen (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm heartbroken to see our dear Lmuston, who kept the news part of to portal up to date, is on hiatus. I don't watch much wrestling these days so I came to rely on Lmuston's updates for my news.LM2000 (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@Galatz: I have done some news updates. What is the length of time that news is kept before it is deleted? Right now, the oldest news is from August 30th. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

If I can be totally honest, I don't really care if it gets deleted. Portals don't really work, and don't draw enough traffic to be worth the maintenance efforts. oknazevad (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

There isn't really a dynamic of "this will be deleted if not maintained", but there is a likelyhood someone might nominate it if it's not updated. I don't really get why they exist still, but if someone updates it, there's no issue. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Oknazevad, traffic is usually one of the main arguments for them being deleted. Lee Vilenski, being updated won't always save it from being deleted. If the traffic is not there, then it could be deleted. We could easily integrate the news and DYK into the project. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Reigns based on air dates

Many shows, like Impact and Lucha Underground, almost always air on tape delay. We have another table column on articles for WWE titles that show the reign lengths that are recognized by WWE, but why is there not one on pages for other promotions? I feel like it would be very helpful to show it, due to some titles having very extreme differences between actual title changes and the air dates. For example, Pentagon Dark's reign as Lucha Underground Champion lists him as 622 days, but when based on air dates, he actually held it for around 300.

Understandably, WWE has a title history page that easily shows what is recognized by them and other promotions don't, but why not add a column based on the facts that episodes aired on tape delay? We don't have to add "recognized by Impact" or "recognized by LU" (or whatever promotion the page is from) because we don't know exactly what is recognized by them, but we could have it "based on air dates". Sekyaw (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Like you said, WWE's was easy to verify. If we can verify what other promotions recognize, then the same can be done to their championship articles. The Style Guide states that if a promotion recognizes a different date than what actually happens, we put add that too, but we have to be able to verify it. --JDC808 ♫ 03:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
That's true. We report facts, no fiction. The title change happened, that's the date. About days recognized, it's hard since promotions like Impact or ROH doesn't have any official record. We don't know if they recognized the title change when the match happened or was aired. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Just had to point out the funny conundrum of "we report facts, no fiction" when pro-wrestling itself is fiction. --JDC808 ♫ 07:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Inwas going to say the same thing. The mentality of "what really happened" is dirt sheet "gotcha"ism fronthe days before kayfabe became open knowledge. That Meltzer still has that mentality is another reason I think he's a crap excuse for a journalist along with his embarrassingly bad record for accuracy and his obvious biases. But I digress. For the topic at hand, noting when the episode aired in the notes is probably enough; neither ROH or Imapct really hide that they're pretaped and that title changes happened at the taping before they aired. NJPW doesn't either. oknazevad (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
ROH also gets tricky since you can watch their TV tapings live on their app. So they have different air dates. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
At the same time, there is the unique situation of Velveteen Dream winning the NXT North American Championship. The WWE did a double finish at the show to leave us hanging on who really won until the air date and to allow Gargano to appear on WWE shows up to the NXT broadcast as champion. So what do we consider official, given his appearances as champion after the day he lost the championship on tape delay until the broadcast? DrewieStewie (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Midget" wrestling/wrestlers

I was looking at some articles about wrestling in the mid-1990s, several of which I helped write. The term "midget" was used more commonly when these articles were written, but it has become much less acceptable. I recently watched a show with little people talking about their experiences in society, and the one topic that they were all in agreement about was that use of the term needs to end. Some refused to use the word at all, referring it as "the m-word" and their version of "the n-word". I'm wondering if this is a situation in which some WP:Bold changes are needed, or if there is a relevant policy or guideline. For example, can "Bigelow retaliated against Doink and Doink's midget sidekick Dink." be rewritten as "Bigelow retaliated against Doink and Doink's little person sidekick Dink."? GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, Wikipedia:Offensive material. "However, offensive words and offensive images should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner". I think, if the word is offensive, maybe we should change it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
It is offensive but isn't it still the official name for this genre of wrestling? Have sources stopped using the m-word when in reference to this? If they have then we should absolutely start making changes. If not then this is another example of wrestling being far behind in the times and there's less we can do about it without trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.LM2000 (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies, HHH Pedigree and LM2000. It seems like mainstream sources might have moved away, while acknowledging that professional wrestling itself hasn't necessarily done the same. I don't know that sources would yet justify moving the main "Midget wrestling" article (although a note or section mentioning the naming controversy, using a source such as [26] is probably in order, if it doesn't already exist). However, there's no reason we would have to keep the term when referring to individual people, as in my example in the original post. Regardless of how promotions refer to them (or have referred to them in the past), we can use contemporary terms when referring to them in biographical or event articles. Starting a discussion at WP:Offensive Material might be a good step, ensuring that we give the historical background of the term and clarify that it doesn't really seem like promotions have distanced themselves from it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Regardless of how we talk about the genre itself, I don't think we should ever use that word to describe individuals.LM2000 (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Mini-Estrella does not refer to the competitors as "midgets" in any way, so I agree that the main article name may be the common name the article content itself or any other article on it should not use that term in any other context. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
There's this Sports Illustrated article with Hornswoggle that discusses the usage of the term midget in this setting. https://www.si.com/wrestling/2017/11/16/little-person-wrestling-swoggle-dylan-postl --Calienteramen (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

- Which articles are we considering a change here? Contemporary descriptions should stay as such. Regardless of how "offensive" it may be, the official name for the division for decades. If it's an article on modern day midget wrestling, then absolutely. I don't think we should be changing the title for Midget wrestling, for example. In addition to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS above, there is also a Wikipedia:Recentism issue here as well. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

In fact, the SI article says the term Midget wrestling is very common. As you said, historic articles, no (midget wrestling, for example). In the text, like Doink and Dink, yes. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like we're all on the same page with this. I agree that we can't go further than the sources support, and we can't rewrite history. Some of the references should stay as they are--Midget wrestling, PWI Midget of the Year Award and similar awards, NWA Midget Championship and similar titles, Macho Midget and similar ring names, and anything in a direct quotation. Within articles, it would be reasonable to change references to the people involved (individuals and groups). GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about that last part. It's a super gray area. It's not up for us to suggest how a performer would like to be described. We do not need to be consistent with this. Some performers would want to be known as "X is a dwarf professional wrestler", whilst some would want "Y is a midget wrestler from". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
There's no viable way to collect this information about personal preference, and I don't see that it would matter. The subjects do not WP:OWN their articles. If the term is considered offensive, I don't see a good reason to use it. If someone preferred to be identified by a racial slur rather than by the socially accepted term for their race or culture, their preference would have no bearing upon the phrasing in the article. I also don't see that your reference to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS holds up, as we would not be using Wikipedia as a platform to advocate for changing the phrasing, but rather responding to a societal shift in phrasing. I also read through WP:RECENTISM, and it stated that we should not change phrasing based upon usage in breaking news sources, but the Sports Illustrated article mentioned earlier in this discussion states that "the Little People of America condemned it at their inaugural meeting, in 1957". I'm sure we can agree that this push is not merely a recent phenomenon. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

We should not change the phrasing based on things outside of wrestling. Sure the WWE called them juniors and others promotions might call them minis or whatever. But for the most part, they are still called midgets. It's not an offensive term in professional wrestling and saying "dwarf wrestlers" is "stupid" and wouldn't make sense. My buddy Short Sleeve Sampson is a midget wrestler. He is not offended by the term midget because that's the nature of the business. I wouldn't call him that outside of wrestling, but we can't bend and change it just because people are offended. That's not how this works at all. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone for their input. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Offensive material to get some opinions from the broader community. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Rob Van Dam: Not a Triple Crown Champion

I started a discussion on the Rob Van Dam talk page. It is on Van Dam not being a triple crown champion in ECW. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Combined reigns table multiple people on the same amount so days but different number of reigns.

Hello there has been discussion on how the combined reigns table should be done. This is how it is done now.

Rank Champion No. of reigns Combined days
Actual Rec. Actual Rec.
31 Roman Reigns 3 118
Ric Flair 2 118

While other people say it should be done like this.

Rank Champion No. of reigns Combined days
Actual Rec. Actual Rec.
31 Roman Reigns 3 118
32 Ric Flair 2 118

As you can see the person with the more reigns is ranked higher and not equal so what is the right way to do this? Browndog91 (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The second, as I'm pretty sure that's how the Style Guide actually says it should be done if the days are equal. --JDC808 ♫ 06:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I have read the style guide and can't find anything that states the second one should be used just only how it should be ordered inside the same ranking. Browndog91 (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
"The table is sorted by the most combined days as champion. If two or more wrestlers are tied in days, priority is given in this order: most reigns, most successful defenses, alphabetical." The ranking is based on the days, but if they are equal in days, then we go by the reigns, then successful defenses (if a promotion tracks that), then alphabetical. --JDC808 ♫ 06:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
But to me that describes the first example if it said something like "wrestler with more reigns will be ranked higher" then I would agree with you. Browndog91 (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Why does that make you think it's describing the first example? The table is called "combined reigns"; it makes since that the one with more reigns would be ranked higher if they are tied in days. --JDC808 ♫ 06:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Well maybe we should change the name to combined days instead since that is the main criteria on which they are ranked? If it truely were a combined reigns table then it would be in order of whoever has the most reigns not days. Browndog91 (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Firstly you should always link people to the conversation thats already happened which is Talk:List_of_WWE_24/7_Champions#Multiple_reigns_same_amount_of_days. I asked the question there and I will ask you again here since no one could give an answer, what makes this any different than List_of_multiple_Olympic_medalists where you sort by total, but if two people are tied they go by gold - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 11:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Well the medal thing is similar but not exactly a good point of reference, you have 3 different medals with different levels of importance so yes for that article it makes sense but here you have people winning the same thing over again. For me you have 3 options, either keep it how it is, change the name of the table to combined days or change the style guide to represent the second option better. I am not saying either examples I made right or wrong I am just going with what I think the style guide is saying which is the first one. Browndog91 (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I already stated this in the previous thread, but I prefer option B. StaticVapor message me! 17:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Tied in days = Tied in rank. Number of reigns doesn't affect rank. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I think the same. The section is for stadistics of combined reigns. The main stadistic, combined days, not number or reigns. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
And your reasoning? --JDC808 ♫ 03:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

NXT

OK - with NXT going to USA (and WWE flat out calling it their third global brand along with Raw and SD), and the fact that USA is paying $50M a year to air it, should we really still consider it as a "developmental" or something less than Raw or SD at this point? Let's be honest - would USA be ponying up that kind of cash for something considered as "minor league"?

If the company itself is trying to put NXT on even footing with the other 2 brands, why should we say "no, it's lesser." Kind of subjective on our part, no?

Vjmlhds (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

There are no sources saying its "equal to or great than WrestleMania Raw and SmackDown". To say its equal to needs sourcing. To say it started as a developmental brand and has expanded into a global touring brand with a national television show is all perfectly valid (it just needs sourcing which is out there). - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Let me rephrase this - should NXT be considered "main roster" now that it has TV. We can't simply just call it developmental (far outgrew that). When I said equal to Raw/SD, I was referring mainly to status as a main roster brand, not doing an apples to apples comparison of every little thing. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)How the WWE see it, and how it is aren't always the same thing. We deal with what sources say. Development territories having a TV contract is nothing new, so it's just a scale thing. I'm sure it will get plenty of sources soon but nothing yet.
Well, how WWE sees it is kind of important, because it is their brand, so if they want to try to put it in the same class as Raw and SD ("third global brand alongside Raw and SD"), then their word kinda takes precedence...no? Vjmlhds (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
No, not at all. Whether or not the promotion lists it as such is actually not important. It's self-promotional, and therefore not-NPOV. It benefits them financially to make the claims. We do not have to parrot them. oknazevad (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
That source also says “Over the long term, our goal is to develop a following that can be monetized to the same level as our flagship programs, Raw and SmackDown.” Meaning they view it as a step below. Is it a full fledged global touring brand, yes. But that source also tells me it is a step below. Maybe Raw and SmackDown are the NBA and NXT is the D-League with a TV deal. Or MLB vs AAA while NXT UK is AA. However you read it, there are 2 main, and 1 other global. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Here's CBS Sports - which is listed as a reliable source - calling NXT WWE's third major brand, so it's not just WWE tooting it's own horn - other (reliable) sources say the same thing. As far as the "monetizing" comment goes, in plain English that means "We hope we can make big bank on NXT the same way we do for Raw and SD". Nothing there says it's "minor league". Vjmlhds (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Just wanted to make a comment on this. Reliable sources outside of WWE mean shit unless WWE themselves (the one's who own NXT and make the decisions on what exactly it is) say it is in fact a main roster brand. This is something where we go by the primary first, then use third party sources to support it. --JDC808 ♫ 01:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Your original question was whether we should consider it "something less than Raw or SD at this point" and there's a quote from Vince which makes it quite clear that it still is. It's been upgraded but it still ain't equal.LM2000 (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
XFL is not considered minor leagues, its considered professional football. Its not the same thing as the NFL though. They are still a major touring brand, but they aren't flagship. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 22:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Not saying it is "equal" to Raw or SD - those are more established brands, but NXT has been documented as a "global" and "major" third brand. The more apt description would be to call NXT a "fledgling" 3rd brand trying to reach the heights of Raw or SD. Nobody considered ECW as "equal" to Raw/SD, but it was a third brand. Same thing here. I think we're getting too bogged down in minutiae here. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand what Vjmlhds is saying. He's not saying NXT has become equal to Raw or SmackDown, he's asking whether or not it should still be considered developmental. We can't really make that decision though until WWE decides if they still consider it a developmental brand. It has upgraded, but they probably still consider it "developmental", at least to some extent. As far as we know, it is still where those from the Performance Center will go first to learn how to do TV, etc. (though there is a rumor of Evolve becoming their developmental in place of NXT, but that's not confirmed). --JDC808 ♫ 01:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Another thing. The sources point out that it started out as a developmental territory but has become critically acclaimed in its own right. That's not the same thing as saying it's not a developmental territory/brand anymore. It's just clearly on a different level than Deep South Wrestling or FCW.LM2000 (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Here's a story from Bleacher Report - which is a somewhat reliable source (especially post 2014 when Time Warner took it over and it stopped user content) which pretty much sums up what I've been this whole time - NXT is WWE's third brand, not quite at the level of the big 2, but with the new USA show, is trying to get there so with this and the Vince "monetizing" comment, the goal is clearly for NXT to be a legit "big boy" brand. So is it equal to Raw/SD right now as far as notoriety/mainstream awareness? Clearly not (and I never said it was to start with). But is the intent with the move to USA to get it there? The answer there is yes. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • All this guessing and OR'ing. Is it a third "brand"? Sure that looks confirmed. But if it's still developmental or not? just not enough evidence to support that it's not - besides you can be a brand AND a developmental league. Just like Coca-Cola is both a brand and a soft drink. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I have to disagree with oknazevad here. What the company says is very important in this aspect. It is the sole "person" who gets to decide if it is a developmental brand on not. If they say it is no longer a developmental brand then it isn't. And honestly, from a logical point of view, it isn't anymore. You can't put green guys on national tv hoping to teach them how to wrestle and be on tv. Tough Enough was a disaster at that.--WillC 11:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
ideally we shouldn't use subjective terms at all - especially in the lede. We should refer to it as a professional wrestling television show owned and ran by the WWE. Any potential disconnect can be explained in prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, if there were any doubts as to how WWE sees NXT in the USA era, this should erase them. WWE is treating NXT as a main roster brand, so they're gonna pay the wrestlers main roster money. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Vjmlhds, did you even read that article? Says nothing about WWE treating NXT as a main roster brand or that any of the talent will be paid main roster money. Firstly, it says that it's the "latest rumor". Secondly, the article contradicts itself. The first paragraph says "all developmental deals in WWE are expected to be changed to main roster deals", but then the second paragraph says "It's believed that at least the top NXT talent will have new contracts closer to main roster figures than developmental figures." --JDC808 ♫ 03:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

This is about as definitive a statement as there is as to whether NXT is a third main roster brand. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Because Galatz said this interview/post wasn't refuted. That's one person's opinion, but nowhere in there does it state that it's the company's standpoint. Throughout that, it's clear that it's his opinion and not the actual company's standpoint. Even the title says "Triple H Sees", not "WWE Sees". Triple H may run NXT, but he doesn't run WWE. He even admits that although he doesn't like the term, "developmental" works, at least for some parts. --JDC808 ♫ 05:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with JDC808. Start an RfC somewhere before you guys start making changes that affect a dozen articles without consensus. These "brand" arguments are probably the most embarrassing disagreements that come from this project. They always start edit wars on a bunch of articles, end up at ANI, leave non-wrestling fans scratching their heads, and probably has a lot to do with the sanctions being thrown at us last year. Again, Vjmlhds' link does not prove there are three equal brands and does not prove NXT is no longer developmental.LM2000 (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Why are we even using the two terms regardless? As stated above, general editors and readers get confused, it's WP:JARGON, so should be avoided. Can we just say "touring professional wrestling show, broadcast on X?" Deal with facts and not people's opinions, please.
As an aside, the word "brand" should really be a WP:PEACOCK term if it isn't already. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I second that, I hate the "Performing on the XXX brand", which does not make a damn bit of sense to anyone who don't know WWE, really is a phrase to be avoided. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I third that, it's something I hadn't considered. We stopped using "Superstar" and "Diva" ages ago because they're WWE marketing terms. We should not waste so much time describing something that only a niche audience cares about, especially in ledes, which seems to be where these disputes mainly happen.LM2000 (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with not using phrases such as "peforming on xxx brand". We don't say a football player plays for the NFL. No, we say they play/played for the NFL on XXX team. That's essentially what the brands are in this regard. --JDC808 ♫ 05:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
THey don't play on the "Broncos Brand" though. These guys work on Raw or Smackdown related shows. Team is an entity where you can actually play for it. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
A brand is a name, term, design, symbol or any other feature that identifies one seller's good or service as distinct from those of other sellers The term "brand" is used in a non-traditional way on WWE related articles, going into jargon territory that really isn't reader friendly. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
A team isn't a brand, nor is it a subjective term. I suggest we avoid this word in its entirety. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I continue to agree with MPJ-DK and Lee, but also understand why "currently performing on X brand" has been a thing for a long time. In the case of "superstar/diva", we simply switched to using "wrestler" or "star" instead. Would simply using "currently performing on the X roster" be a reasonable replacement in this case?
In the case of whether NXT is a third major "brand", I think it's largely irrelevant. We need spend less time thinking about how WWE promotes their programming. It's embarrassing, something very few people care about and confusing to the uninitiated.LM2000 (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Agreed on both counts. Firstly, "brand" is jargon, as it is a specific, non-standard use of the word. And they're almost entirely irrelevant as they've never been strict about roster assignments if it doesn't suit their immediate plans. How fast did it break down with the wildcard rule this time? Yeah, they say that the upcoming draft will result in the end of the rule and strict brand separation. Color me skeptical based on prior results from both brand splits.
As for NXT's status, it does remain to be seen. But, speaking of the upcoming draft, the fact that NXT is not participating in it as equal to Raw and SmackDown is very telling. oknazevad (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
LM2000, I think that's a suitable rewording. It removes what you all are saying is a confusing and a jargon term, and replaces it with one that readers should understand. Oknazevad, with this upcoming draft, due to how much money FOX is investing here, FOX probably wants a more consistent line up, which is probably largely why this second draft for this year is happening and why the wild card rule is ending. And to answer MPJ-DK's ridiculous question of "do you know what a brand is?" Yes, but I guess you overlooked what I had said. --JDC808 ♫ 04:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Oknazevad, to add further to your point of how WWE views NXT, they still view it as being a separate thing from Raw and SmackDown, based on their recent video they posted showcasing the wrestlers who have won titles in NXT and WWE. They don't do this kind of thing between Raw and SmackDown. --JDC808 ♫ 07:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Ridiculous? Pot, kettle, black after your "Broncos Brand" comment, but to each their own. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed styles guide changes

In the discussion above, many editors believe the usage of the word "brand" in many WWE articles is in violation of WP:JARGON and perhaps our own WP:PW/MARKETING. Should our styles guide be amended to reflect this?LM2000 (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Southpaw Regional Wrestling Championship

Why is T.J. Perkins have the Southpaw Regional Wrestling Championship listed as an accomplishment. "Southpaw Regional Wrestling" is a parody web show. Seth Rollins isn't listed as Southpaw Regional Wrestling Tag Team Champion and probably for this reason. I doubt anyone objects to it being removed, I will remove. But just on the off chance, state your case. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 07:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Realistically, what is the difference between a parody like this and say... CHIKARA? We should totally be removing this (otherwise, someone could literally just say (I won these thousand belts, and we'd have to add them), but maybe there should be some sort of inclusion criteria (especially with how many non-notable indy 24/7 titles there are about. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
CHIKARA is a pro wrestling promotion, which includes comedy wrestling. SRW is a parody, a webserie, not a pro wrestling promotion. For me, the SRW are out. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
The line between parody and "real" wrestling is sometimes hard to find but there is a line. If something happens on a parody show then it's not cannon.LM2000 (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski, realistically, the difference is that Southpaw is/was not a real promotion where CHIKARA is. This shouldn't be hard at all to know why Southpaw should not be included on a list of accomplishments. It could perhaps be included in prose say in the "Other media" section and say that he portrayed Southpaw Regional Wrestling Champion John Johnson in WWE's YouTube parody series Southpaw Regional Wrestling, but that should be the only extent of its inclusion. --JDC808 ♫ 22:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: There are very few 24/7 type championships on the independents. The only ones, that I know of, are the Ironman Heavymetalweight Championship and the WrestleCircus Sideshow Championship. Even if you can name more doesn't mean you just pick and choose which titles we list. If they've won a title, it is listed. Plus this is a terrible comparison. Again Seth Rollins and Rhyno don't have the Southpaw Regional Wrestling Tag Team Championships listed, so why should we list the Southpaw Regional Wrestling Championship on the T.J. Perkins article? You never answered that. You deflected and tried to discredit CHIKARA because they have a comedy element to their promotion and didn't want list them because you might think it is a parody. You wouldn't remove anything to do with Bray Wyatt's Mister Rogeresque character because it is a sort of parody. Why would you do that with CHIKARA? Also, you deflected and unsuccessfully brought up 24/7 Championships. Again, answer the original question. LM2000 brings up a good point, if it happens on a parody show, it is not cannon. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I really wasn't attempting to defend the inclusion. But I do think we should have some sort of inclusion criteria. You mentioned the Ironman Heavymetalweight Championship, which was defended in a dream. For instance, if we had a radio presenter, we wouldn't include an award for "best legs in Norwich" award, but probably would include their "Number 1 DJ in Norwich" award. There are other things that people have won aside from titles that we don't mention, like Tara winning a spider, or similar things on a pole. But it isn't just championships, we also include Money in the Bank; and Slammy awards, which the later is usually a plot device. I think we need to be very specific with what we're including and go with it. Not trying to miscredit Chikara, but it's quite close to parody in shows. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski, you are borderline defending the inclusion of an absolutely fake championship. Now, some would argue that professional wrestling championships and the other awards you mentioned are "fake" accomplishments, which seems to be kinda what you're going for in regard to criteria for inclusion. I would argue that these awards/championships are similar to "employee of the month" awards or some other type of accomplishment that an employer would bestow upon their employees. But, once again, SRW is nor ever was a real professional wrestling promotion. It was a parody, a comedic web series about a fictional promotion (which again, never existed). That's the difference here. Regardless if CHIKARA is "quite close to parody in shows", it is still a real professional wrestling promotion. Like I previously said, the only place SRW should be included is maybe in the "Other media" section for TJ Perkins in this case, or in a section about TV shows/movies that a wrestler has done. --JDC808 ♫ 08:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

huh? At no point have I wanted, or suggested that I would want them included. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Lucha Underground Championship

Why is Jake Hager listed as Lucha Underground Champion still? Now that he has signed with AEW, that essentially means he is no longer in Lucha Underground. Lucha Underground hasn't taped a another season let aired one. The last episode was almost a year ago on November 7, 2018. Plus it has been said that Lucha Underground wants to start over with a new roster. A lot, if not all, of the roster have moved on. I would consider the Lucha Underground Championship vacant, but when is exactly would be needed to update all the necessary articles. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, LU never announced the cancelation of the show. But for me, we can put all titles as inactive since there is no vital signs. It's like WOS, months without news and suddenly, Grado appears as the undisputed champion. Also, remember LU is produce by AAA and AEW has a partnership with the Mexican promotion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
BTW, I don't understand your question. The champion isn't Jake Hager, it's the Demon possesed, The Savage Jake Strong. :P --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@HHH Pedrigree: Jake Hager stated in an interview that El Rey and Mark Burnett Productions were happy with season 4 and wanted to film season 5. But that hasn't happened. He doesn't think there will be another season even though he loved working for Lucha Underground. Executive producer Chris DeJoseph also feels there is not going to be another season. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 03:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_106&oldid=925282470"