Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 108
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 105 | Archive 106 | Archive 107 | Archive 108 | Archive 109 | Archive 110 | → | Archive 112 |
WWE Hall of Fame
As per a discussion at my talk page. At present, the tables on the WWE Hall of Fame articles have a column for "WWE recognized accolades", however, we are only listing a summary of said accolades, not all of what WWE actually recognizes for their Hall of Fame induction. I have tried to rectify that issue, but HHH Pedrigree disagrees based on a discussion that halted 8 years ago. His argument is essentially that "I think I'm right because this is how we've done it for years." He fails to see the fallacy in his argument that I've tried to explain (saying one thing but meaning something else). So, what are your all's thoughts? Should we only list a summary of their accolades, or actually list all of the accolades that WWE recognizes, as the title of the column states? --JDC808 ♫ 11:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Well, by parts.
- 1, As far as I know, the Hall of Fame articles list only the major accomplisments of the wrestler. No just WWE, but every other Hall of Fame like the WON Hall of Fame. After several years and many users following this idea, I think there is a consensus. It's not something I invented yesterday, It's how the project has worked for several years.
- 2, I'm not right because we have done it for years. I think the approach it's right. Some wrestlers, like Kurt Angle, Edge or Shawn Michaels have won several titles in WWE, so their boxes would be huge. I think the major ones are the important for the Hall of Fame. it's just a brief summary of his career, not a copy-paste of the C&A section. Edge is a 11 times World Champion, 14 times World Tag Team Champion, Money in the Bank winner, King of the Ring winner, Royal Rumble Winner. I don't think holding the US Title for 6 days it's in the same level. For example, the JBL article mentions his reigns as WWE Champion, World Tag Team Championship, United States and Intercontinental. But doesn't mention the European and Hardcore titles.
- 3, If I remember well, we change the name to "WWE recognized accolades" to avoid titles outside the WWE corporation (WWE, WCW, ECW, AWA, some NWA). For example, including TNA titles (Sting and Angle) or AJPW titles (DiBiase). Just to include WWE recognized accolades, not every WWE recognized accolades.
- So. that's the way the project worked for several years and I think it's right, just the most notable accolades if thee wrestler has won several championships. If the problem it's the name of the column, just change it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- @HHH Pedrigree: You proved JDC808's point. You said what he said you said. You "think" it is "right" because that's the way it's always been done. Just because something has always been done a certain way doesn't make it correct or doesn't mean it can't be changed. You can't use that as an argument. Looking at the discussion on JDC808's talk page, you have no footing. You are wrong. Do you even known what "WWE recognized accolades means?" The column doesn't say "only a few WWE recognized accolades that a few editors choose to add because they think the rest are not notable enough to be added because this is how it has always been done even though no consensus was reached." You have yet to show JDC808 (whether here or on his talk page) where a consensus was reached. You can't considering there was never a consensus reached. If you can't accept that all accolades includes all the titles they have won that are recognized by WWE, you should refrain from editing the WWE Hall of Fame articles. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think this is the right approach not because it's how it's done, it's because I think the most important titles are the notable for the Hall of Fame induction, no teritary titles and minor awards. Steve Austin is included for his work in the main event of WWE, not because he won the Million Dollar Championship. Michaels it's a Hall of Famer after winning several major accolades, not the Bragging Right trophy or the WWE Tag Team Title a few month before his retirement. If the problem it's the name of the colum, change it to "notable accolades". But again, it's the way the project has worked for several years, that's how consensus is built. Consensus it's not always created by discussion, also by editing and several users edited the Hall of Fame articles in that way for years. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- In fact, the section was called "Notes", until 2014, when Vjmlhds changed to WWE recognized accolades/Notes. I assume the Notes would be deleted after that. I don't know what do you want? A conversation? As I said, that how the Hall of Fame was written before I started here. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- @HHH Pedrigree: Why are you so adamant about something being "right" when a consensus was never reached? Let's take John Bradshaw Layfield Bradshaw for example. In the original format, he is a Grand Slam Champion. That means you have had to have won the European or Hardcore Championships to become one. If you actually look, he won both. You also said "if I remember well, we change the name to "WWE recognized accolades" to avoid titles outside the WWE corporation (WWE, WCW, ECW, AWA, some NWA)." Your argument of "only the important ones" fails on every level. The revision history you linked to says "WWE recognized accolades." You can keep proving JDC808 right. Stop backing yourself into a corner and just admit you are wrong. There is no harm in that.
- In fact, the section was called "Notes", until 2014, when Vjmlhds changed to WWE recognized accolades/Notes. I assume the Notes would be deleted after that. I don't know what do you want? A conversation? As I said, that how the Hall of Fame was written before I started here. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think this is the right approach not because it's how it's done, it's because I think the most important titles are the notable for the Hall of Fame induction, no teritary titles and minor awards. Steve Austin is included for his work in the main event of WWE, not because he won the Million Dollar Championship. Michaels it's a Hall of Famer after winning several major accolades, not the Bragging Right trophy or the WWE Tag Team Title a few month before his retirement. If the problem it's the name of the colum, change it to "notable accolades". But again, it's the way the project has worked for several years, that's how consensus is built. Consensus it's not always created by discussion, also by editing and several users edited the Hall of Fame articles in that way for years. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- @HHH Pedrigree: You proved JDC808's point. You said what he said you said. You "think" it is "right" because that's the way it's always been done. Just because something has always been done a certain way doesn't make it correct or doesn't mean it can't be changed. You can't use that as an argument. Looking at the discussion on JDC808's talk page, you have no footing. You are wrong. Do you even known what "WWE recognized accolades means?" The column doesn't say "only a few WWE recognized accolades that a few editors choose to add because they think the rest are not notable enough to be added because this is how it has always been done even though no consensus was reached." You have yet to show JDC808 (whether here or on his talk page) where a consensus was reached. You can't considering there was never a consensus reached. If you can't accept that all accolades includes all the titles they have won that are recognized by WWE, you should refrain from editing the WWE Hall of Fame articles. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- You can't use the Million Dollar Championship as an example. That was a gimmick title to go along with Ted Dibiase's character. It was never officially recognized.
- Did you actually read the page on consensus? I quote: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." It is being disputed now. It doesn't say when something has to be disputed. It doesn't state time length. You obviously didn't read the revert through discussion section. Consensus is not being achieved through editing alone. So no consensus. Try again. What you are wanting to do is only add certain accolades because you deem them as unimportant. Accolades means everything that WWE recognizes not what you feel should be put in based on your point of view. Your point of view is not neutral and that's a problem. You don't pick and choose what to list and not to list. That's not how this works. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Consensus was reached several years ago by other users. Yes, there is consensus. What do you want, a discussion where every user in 2009 said "I agree"? Does JDC want to change it? Okey, but with a discussion, no with editions against the previous consensus. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Did you actually read the page on consensus? I quote: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." It is being disputed now. It doesn't say when something has to be disputed. It doesn't state time length. You obviously didn't read the revert through discussion section. Consensus is not being achieved through editing alone. So no consensus. Try again. What you are wanting to do is only add certain accolades because you deem them as unimportant. Accolades means everything that WWE recognizes not what you feel should be put in based on your point of view. Your point of view is not neutral and that's a problem. You don't pick and choose what to list and not to list. That's not how this works. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Her eis the history. In 2007, User:Scorpion0422 created an article List of members of the WWE Hall of Fame with the table. The section was called "remarks" and doesn't include titles, just a few remarkable things. Then, was changed to Notes and included titles. AGX7 changed remarks to notes. [1] But ALWAYS, the most notable titles are listed. [2] [3] --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Things are revisited all the time. You can't just sit on what happened then. Governments, companies, etc. revisit things all the time. Just because a consensus may have beenn made 20 years ago, for example, doesn't mean you are not allowed to look at it again. If you don't know how consensus works, you should leave the discussion. If you think you need to contact those people to get them to chime in now, that's pretty sad. It's about people discussing it now. It's not about WHO discussed it then. It should also be in the style guide. If the someone is a Grand Slam Champion, those titles should be noted as well. You said you can go to their article and see it. By that logic, titles are not necessary to list since you can go to the articles and see them. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 20:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- And to tag off of looking at a wrestler's respective article to see all of their accolades, as I said on my talk page, that lists everything they've done in and outside of WWE, not just what WWE recognizes for their Hall of Fame induction (as they don't recognize a majority of accomplishments that did not happen in WWE or one of the promotions they acquired). --JDC808 ♫ 22:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- @JDC808: I know they've mentioned NJPW on TV in recent years, but have they mentioned any of IWGP titles on TV. I can't remember them doing so. To your point, they've mentioned TNA when they had an episode of that show where they showed pictures to superstars and they reminiscence about stuff. The episode was AJ Styles. So they've referenced TNA before. He is afraid of change. He is a yes man follows the so-called status quo. That mentality needs to change. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 02:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- They have mentioned New Japan, and they have mentioned the IWGP Heavyweight Championship (they even recognized Kenny Omega as Heavyweight Champion and The Young Bucks as the tag champs when The New Day and The Elite had the Street Fighter tournament). But with NJPW, it's kind of hit and miss on what they recognize from there (for example, they recognize Jushin Thuner Liger's IWGP Junior Heavyweight titles, but seemingly not the others). They have only mentioned TNA like once or twice on TV, but have done it a few times on those WWE Network specials; however, WWE have yet to recognize their titles/accomplishments from TNA. --JDC808 ♫ 02:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- As I said, that's how the project wrote the article since 2009 and several users supported it. If somebody want to change it, the place is the discussion, no just editing saying "I don't like it, this is new consensus now". BTW, I think the "afraid of change" and "yes-man" comments aren't neccesary. I just think that a brief summary is enough for a Hall of Fame description, similar to an actor listing his biggest awards. Edge has 10 accomplishments, Michaels has 9 accomplishments (including the Grand Slam since he was the first), 24 if we include the Slammys (since are noted in The Bellas section). Including all titles would create a huge section full of expandable accolades. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- They have mentioned New Japan, and they have mentioned the IWGP Heavyweight Championship (they even recognized Kenny Omega as Heavyweight Champion and The Young Bucks as the tag champs when The New Day and The Elite had the Street Fighter tournament). But with NJPW, it's kind of hit and miss on what they recognize from there (for example, they recognize Jushin Thuner Liger's IWGP Junior Heavyweight titles, but seemingly not the others). They have only mentioned TNA like once or twice on TV, but have done it a few times on those WWE Network specials; however, WWE have yet to recognize their titles/accomplishments from TNA. --JDC808 ♫ 02:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- @JDC808: I know they've mentioned NJPW on TV in recent years, but have they mentioned any of IWGP titles on TV. I can't remember them doing so. To your point, they've mentioned TNA when they had an episode of that show where they showed pictures to superstars and they reminiscence about stuff. The episode was AJ Styles. So they've referenced TNA before. He is afraid of change. He is a yes man follows the so-called status quo. That mentality needs to change. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 02:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- And to tag off of looking at a wrestler's respective article to see all of their accolades, as I said on my talk page, that lists everything they've done in and outside of WWE, not just what WWE recognizes for their Hall of Fame induction (as they don't recognize a majority of accomplishments that did not happen in WWE or one of the promotions they acquired). --JDC808 ♫ 22:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Things are revisited all the time. You can't just sit on what happened then. Governments, companies, etc. revisit things all the time. Just because a consensus may have beenn made 20 years ago, for example, doesn't mean you are not allowed to look at it again. If you don't know how consensus works, you should leave the discussion. If you think you need to contact those people to get them to chime in now, that's pretty sad. It's about people discussing it now. It's not about WHO discussed it then. It should also be in the style guide. If the someone is a Grand Slam Champion, those titles should be noted as well. You said you can go to their article and see it. By that logic, titles are not necessary to list since you can go to the articles and see them. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 20:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- I for one cannot see a reason for the column at all. I could potentially get behind a "tenure" column instead, denoting when they worked for the company, but the other information is very pick-and-choose. Regardless of the WP:ILIKEIT arguments, I don't feel it adds anything we can't simply write in prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- In fact, I have looked other Hall of Fames. Most of them don't include titles, torunaments, etc... Sports Hall of Fame doesn't include that. Television Hall of Fame doesn't include Grammys. Texas Film Hall of Fame doesn't include Academy Awards or Palme d'Or. International Boxing Hall of Fame includes the boxing record, but not titles. UFC Hall of Fame was edited by wrestling user JMichael22 [4], sure he followed the WWE Hall of Fame scheme because used the TNA Hall of Fame as base. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: A "tenure" column would not work, especially for guys who are being inducted for their careers outside of WWE. For example, this year's inductee Jushin "Thunder" Liger, who only had two matches in WWE but never actually worked for them. Sting is another one. Although he finally signed to WWE in 2014 and had three matches and various appearances over that next year, his induction was largely for his JCP and WCW career (though not TNA as WWE doesn't recognize TNA/Impact, not yet anyways).
- @HHH Pedrigree: Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean everything has to be the same. That's the way they do it, doesn't mean what we do has to be a carbon copy of them. There's also the difference in the fact that this is professional wrestling. --JDC808 ♫ 07:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think Other stuff is valid here. Pro Wrestling isn't different from combat sport and performing arts, so it's a good idea to see how other Hall of Fames are written. I don't know why pro wrestling is always the exception to the rule. Maybe, the idea is just the wrestler and the person who inducteed him. We have the prose section to write about his influence, career and accolades. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- There is no issue to see how those others do it, but again, doesn't mean it has to be the same. The reason pro-wrestling often has an exception is because it's pro-wrestling. It's not like real sports or other forms of entertainment, it's a mixture of the two (sports entertainment). Not that it can't be done in prose, but the table is more efficient to list accolades here, the prose can expand more on their influence (by the way, there are also females in wrestling). --JDC808 ♫ 09:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Pro wrestling it's a performance, sport entertainment. I don't see different from acting Hall of Fames where there is no accolades like Golden Globes or Academy Awards. Also, isn't different from boxing where people win titles. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- You're still going off of "I think" this and that as opposed to sound arguments. Again, just because other stuff exists doesn't mean everything has to be the same. They do it one way, doesn't mean we have to be forced to do it that way too. Their way is not the only way. --JDC808 ♫ 11:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Other stuff exist is valid, since every other Hall of Fame I saw doesn't include accolades. Again, pro wrestling it's always the exception just because we want. We are arguing just because one user, in 2014 and (I think) without discussion, changed the Notes title to WWE recgonized accolades. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- @HHH Pedrigree: It's already been pointed out by JDC that "other stuff" is not a valid argument here. Just because boxing, for example, is one way doesn't mean that it has to be the same for other articles. Why is that hard to understand? It also has been pointed out that you are not neutral with your arguments. You are going off "I think." Do you not know that one of pillars of Wikipedia as an editor is to remain neutral? No? You need to step back and learn how to be neutral. You are letting your feelings dictate your arguments. That needs to stop. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm neutral. As I aid, consensus was established several years ago, supported by many users. However, that's not neutral for you. Also, I made a research, how other projects handle the Hall of Fames. Also, it's no neutral. It's not different, you want to include every title just because you think is the right approach after an user, in 2014, changed "Notes" to "WWE recognized accolades". I think the opposite and, after watching other articles, support Lee's idea and delete the section. That's being neutral. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- No, you are not being neutral, you are being a yes-man, and based on your response, you do not understand what being neutral means. Your argument is still "I think this way is right because that's the way it's always been done". Also, I'm not trying to be rude in saying this, but can you please proofread your posts? It is sometimes hard to decipher what you are trying to say. --JDC808 ♫ 03:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm neutral. As I aid, consensus was established several years ago, supported by many users. However, that's not neutral for you. Also, I made a research, how other projects handle the Hall of Fames. Also, it's no neutral. It's not different, you want to include every title just because you think is the right approach after an user, in 2014, changed "Notes" to "WWE recognized accolades". I think the opposite and, after watching other articles, support Lee's idea and delete the section. That's being neutral. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- @HHH Pedrigree: It's already been pointed out by JDC that "other stuff" is not a valid argument here. Just because boxing, for example, is one way doesn't mean that it has to be the same for other articles. Why is that hard to understand? It also has been pointed out that you are not neutral with your arguments. You are going off "I think." Do you not know that one of pillars of Wikipedia as an editor is to remain neutral? No? You need to step back and learn how to be neutral. You are letting your feelings dictate your arguments. That needs to stop. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Other stuff exist is valid, since every other Hall of Fame I saw doesn't include accolades. Again, pro wrestling it's always the exception just because we want. We are arguing just because one user, in 2014 and (I think) without discussion, changed the Notes title to WWE recgonized accolades. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- You're still going off of "I think" this and that as opposed to sound arguments. Again, just because other stuff exists doesn't mean everything has to be the same. They do it one way, doesn't mean we have to be forced to do it that way too. Their way is not the only way. --JDC808 ♫ 11:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Pro wrestling it's a performance, sport entertainment. I don't see different from acting Hall of Fames where there is no accolades like Golden Globes or Academy Awards. Also, isn't different from boxing where people win titles. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- There is no issue to see how those others do it, but again, doesn't mean it has to be the same. The reason pro-wrestling often has an exception is because it's pro-wrestling. It's not like real sports or other forms of entertainment, it's a mixture of the two (sports entertainment). Not that it can't be done in prose, but the table is more efficient to list accolades here, the prose can expand more on their influence (by the way, there are also females in wrestling). --JDC808 ♫ 09:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think Other stuff is valid here. Pro Wrestling isn't different from combat sport and performing arts, so it's a good idea to see how other Hall of Fames are written. I don't know why pro wrestling is always the exception to the rule. Maybe, the idea is just the wrestler and the person who inducteed him. We have the prose section to write about his influence, career and accolades. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- In fact, I have looked other Hall of Fames. Most of them don't include titles, torunaments, etc... Sports Hall of Fame doesn't include that. Television Hall of Fame doesn't include Grammys. Texas Film Hall of Fame doesn't include Academy Awards or Palme d'Or. International Boxing Hall of Fame includes the boxing record, but not titles. UFC Hall of Fame was edited by wrestling user JMichael22 [4], sure he followed the WWE Hall of Fame scheme because used the TNA Hall of Fame as base. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't really see why the length of the career in the company wouldn't be a suitable thing to mention. Yes, people get inducted for careers away from the company, but that is actually more of a notable thing, rather than something to hide. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not saying we couldn't notate how long they worked for WWE, but to have a tenure column specifically on how long they worked for WWE wouldn't work for those guys who barely or did not work for WWE (again with Liger, that column would only say he worked two matches in WWE, so how exactly would that make his tenure with WWE a Hall of Fame worthy induction?). --JDC808 ♫ 20:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't really see why the length of the career in the company wouldn't be a suitable thing to mention. Yes, people get inducted for careers away from the company, but that is actually more of a notable thing, rather than something to hide. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Speaking of other stuff, give Meltzer's edition some wonder. IW. (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I am way late to this discussions and I apologize for being so late, but life has been crazy playing father/teacher and getting work done with all this Coronavirus fun. I tried reading everything in this but I am sure there is stuff I missed. As far as the 8 year ago discussion, I would say that discussion is moot in entirety as it related to a much smaller section before everything was broken out by year. An advantage of breaking everything out is we now can go into more detail. I dont think we should go crazy in detail, but I see no reason not to list every WWE/WCW/ECW championship. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Galatz: It doesn't matter when you join the discussion. More input is always good. HHH Pedrigree is always saying "I think" which is not neutral. He thinks that because they are not a major title or award, it shouldn't be listed. But WWE.com lists accolades that he thinks shouldn't be listed. See the problem. Again, he is saying "I think." WWE.com puts the Hardcore Championship in John Bradshaw Layfield's Hall of Fame profile as an accolade. Plus (I've already mentioned this), JBL is a Grand Slam Champion. Either the Hardcore and European Championships, under the first format, were required to become such. He won both of those. Why would you ignore those two titles when becoming a Grand Slam is a big accomplishment? I've wondered if we should go off what WWE.com has listed. After all, that section is "WWE recogized accolades. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- Stop saying I'm not neutral because I used the sentence "I think". You are the one obsessed with including every single accolade. My comments are based on consensus and policies. I support to include key information to understand his career and why is in the Hall of Fame. JBL's profile list every title he won in the promotion, like other WWE profiles. However, the article about his induction doesn't include European and Hardcore titles nor the Slammy award because aren't key point, highlights of his career. Michaels isn't in the Hall of Fame because he won the WWE Tag team title two months before his retirement. Edge is not in the Hall of Fame because he won the United States championship. They are because their work in the main event (and Edge, because his work as tag team wrestler). You don't like the "WWE recognized"? Change back to Notes, since one user changed several years ago and nobody cared. Or we can just delete this part like many other Hall of Fame (again, no reason to be diferent from other Hall of Fame, pro wrestling isn't that special) and improve the prose section. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- That's false accusations. Every single accolade is not what we're wanting to be included, just those that WWE recognizes, which is what the column is titled (also, changing it to Notes doesn't work because that still doesn't tell readers what exactly is being listed, and no where did we say we didn't like its current name, quite the contrary). Your "I think" comments are based on what you think is right because it's how it's been done, despite the issues regarding consensus, among others, that have been pointed out to you. You are continuing your same arguments without any valid support. The prose in the Background section does need improved, but that doesn't mean this column has to be outright removed (you weren't even for deleting it until Lee mentioned the possibility). --JDC808 ♫ 16:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- I always though the Notes/WWE recognized section doesn't help that much, that's why I supported a prose section. Hogan notes doesn't explain his impact in pro wrestling and pop culture. Same for Dusty Rhodes. Same for Steve Austin. Same for Antonio Inoki. Compare Mil Máscaras Hall of Fame sentence ("Mexican luchador. Máscaras was the first masked wrestler to perform in Madison Square Garden") with his prose section in the Homenaje a Dos Leyendas (2018). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ugh. No prose section. People can click on the articles if they want more. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think we need every little thing that is included on the profile, but championships recognized makes sense to include. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ugh. No prose section. People can click on the articles if they want more. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- I always though the Notes/WWE recognized section doesn't help that much, that's why I supported a prose section. Hogan notes doesn't explain his impact in pro wrestling and pop culture. Same for Dusty Rhodes. Same for Steve Austin. Same for Antonio Inoki. Compare Mil Máscaras Hall of Fame sentence ("Mexican luchador. Máscaras was the first masked wrestler to perform in Madison Square Garden") with his prose section in the Homenaje a Dos Leyendas (2018). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- That's false accusations. Every single accolade is not what we're wanting to be included, just those that WWE recognizes, which is what the column is titled (also, changing it to Notes doesn't work because that still doesn't tell readers what exactly is being listed, and no where did we say we didn't like its current name, quite the contrary). Your "I think" comments are based on what you think is right because it's how it's been done, despite the issues regarding consensus, among others, that have been pointed out to you. You are continuing your same arguments without any valid support. The prose in the Background section does need improved, but that doesn't mean this column has to be outright removed (you weren't even for deleting it until Lee mentioned the possibility). --JDC808 ♫ 16:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- Stop saying I'm not neutral because I used the sentence "I think". You are the one obsessed with including every single accolade. My comments are based on consensus and policies. I support to include key information to understand his career and why is in the Hall of Fame. JBL's profile list every title he won in the promotion, like other WWE profiles. However, the article about his induction doesn't include European and Hardcore titles nor the Slammy award because aren't key point, highlights of his career. Michaels isn't in the Hall of Fame because he won the WWE Tag team title two months before his retirement. Edge is not in the Hall of Fame because he won the United States championship. They are because their work in the main event (and Edge, because his work as tag team wrestler). You don't like the "WWE recognized"? Change back to Notes, since one user changed several years ago and nobody cared. Or we can just delete this part like many other Hall of Fame (again, no reason to be diferent from other Hall of Fame, pro wrestling isn't that special) and improve the prose section. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Well. Looks like I'm the only one that agrees with the consensus. It's normal, most of the users left wikipedia or didn't answer. So, I think the new consensus has been stablished. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- @HHH Pedrigree: Stop saying "I think." That's not neutral. You are agreeing with what JDC808 and I said. We said to include all recognized titles and you were dead set against it. Now that Galatz said it, you agree. This would have not dragged on this long if you agreed from beginning. *Shake my head* Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Fishhead2100: Stop fucking with me, you stupid. I have spent 10 years in Wikipedia, taking part in several discussions and voting several policies just to see how people undid my editions and told me they don't like the consensus is voted. I talk the way I want. If I use I think, it's because other users complained the way I talk, since English isn't my first language, I sound to agressive. I'm sick of every disrespect you made, calling me yes-man and similar. I don't agree with you. I don't agree with JDC. I think the new idea is for the worst. Suprise, I dont agree with every decision the project made. I saw several users prefers a new consensus. Now, go fuck yourself. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Your English has come a long way, from wrong like donkey to strong like mule. Count me in for following the Old Ways. WWE's hall, WWE's accolades, then, now, forever! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Fishhead2100: Stop fucking with me, you stupid. I have spent 10 years in Wikipedia, taking part in several discussions and voting several policies just to see how people undid my editions and told me they don't like the consensus is voted. I talk the way I want. If I use I think, it's because other users complained the way I talk, since English isn't my first language, I sound to agressive. I'm sick of every disrespect you made, calling me yes-man and similar. I don't agree with you. I don't agree with JDC. I think the new idea is for the worst. Suprise, I dont agree with every decision the project made. I saw several users prefers a new consensus. Now, go fuck yourself. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Howard Finkel
Anyone want to help source this article and hopefully get it posted on Recent Deaths? GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- I can try. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- @GaryColemanFan: The page is protected and only an admin can make edits of any kind. You have to make an edit request to ask an administrator to make an edit if it is uncontroversial or supported by consensus. The cause of death needs to be removed from the infobox again. I removed it and it got put back because someone is assuming that just because he had a stroke last year, that is what he died from. The cause of death has not been revealed. It will take some time to be revealed. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think I've ever seen this happen to a RD nomination before, even to a wrestling bio. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- @GaryColemanFan: The page is protected and only an admin can make edits of any kind. You have to make an edit request to ask an administrator to make an edit if it is uncontroversial or supported by consensus. The cause of death needs to be removed from the infobox again. I removed it and it got put back because someone is assuming that just because he had a stroke last year, that is what he died from. The cause of death has not been revealed. It will take some time to be revealed. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
COVID-19 help
On COVID-19 lock down? Here is a list of things you could do to keep you from going insane. To those of us who are already insane... well no list will help there ;) MPJ-DK (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Pick an article from the Category:Stub-Class Professional wrestling articles list and improve it
- Shoot a pro wrestling mockumentary featuring your cats
- Update the championship table format for those articles listed as
Not done on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Championship watchlist - Help make Jushin Thunder Liger Good Article ready, the man is an international treasure people.
- Look at the Clean up listing, pick an article and fix whatever is wrong with it.
- Look at F4WOnline.com, they had a daily history article that can be used to source championship changes etc. there are so many articles where this would help
- See a red link? Add the article.
- Go out and get some sunlight (just kidding)
- with some rewording and additional sourcing for his early career, Liger could be done. I'll take a look later. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- I also made a list of all unreferenced pages in the scope a while back, it can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 107#Unreferenced pages in project scope. JTP (talk • contribs) 19:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Then replace "going outside" with "Source articles on JTP's page" instead ;) MPJ-DK (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
TNA Impact Special Episodes, Clash of the Champions and Battle of Los Angeles
I have worked very hard on creating the articles of special episodes of TNA's Impact Wrestling, which replaced their former pay-per-view events and were equivalents to their pay-per-views but these articles were deleted and merged because the mentioned sources were considered unreliable. I want cooperation and advice from all the admins of this project on creating articles on the special episodes of TNA equivalent to their pay-per-views such as Destination X, No Surrender, Victory Road, Turning Point, Lockdown, Hardcore Justice, Final Resolution, Sacrifice and Against All Odds, because they were not just television episodes but special major events of TNA/Impact Wrestling.
Similarly, WCW promoted Clash of the Champions supercards and I want to create separate articles for all the Clash of the Champions editions but I will initiate them only if you allow me to do so and if you assure that you are not going to delete or merge them. I do not want to waste my time and energy on a thing which will not come to fruition. PWG also promotes the "Battle of Los Angeles" supercards and tournaments annually which is their biggest enough and I believe I have enough significant sources and details regarding these events that I can create their separate articles but it will be possible only if I am assured that these articles will be retained.--Mark Linton (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Several years ago, TNA cut all his PPV just to 3 or 4. The rest of the events were relegated to TV Specials, so the project thought the results in the main article is enough. Reading the articles, it's just the usual coverage for Weekly episodes, like RAW, SmackDown, Dynamite or any other nameless impact. For example, Hardcore Justice 2014. 23 sources, but 15 are unreliable. The others are just TV reports of previous and future shows. Reading the 23 sources, Hardcore Justice is just mentioned in 4 sources: PW Mania results (unreliable) OWOW results (unreliable), SmackDown Hotel results (unreliable) Bleacher report results (unreliable). No mention of Hardcore Justice before or after the event. No notable for his own article. On the other hand, WWE RAW 1000, which was considered for deletion has 43 sources, some of them, national media like USA Today, NY Times, Los Angeles Times and Variety. It was no just a special TV show, but a highly covered show for the historic meaning. There are many examples, like 2012 SmackDown Great American Bash or 2017 Starrcade, no notable event with the results on the main article. About PWG BOLA, it's like other independent tournament (CZW Tournament of Death, CHIKARA King of Trios). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- If someone can demonstrate
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
for a show then according to WP:GNG it can have a stand alone article. That part isn't really open for debate on a project level. The biggest failing here seems to be presenting reliable sources for the shows in the cited examples that were redirected. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)- Yes. I readed several article, but most part of the sources aren't reliable. Also, most of them doesn't mention the PPV. It's just the usual weekly coverage every website makes, no significant coverage. For example, Turning Point 2016: 4 sources, 3 of them are unreliable. Just TV results. Destination X 2017, 7 sources, 4 are unreliable. Just results (also, Superluchas doesn't even call the event Destination X, just "Results GFW Impact (August 17, 2017) Sienna and Dutt retain; the employer is stripped of the title"). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- "Battle of Los Angeles" and "Clash of the Champions"? What about them?--Mark Linton (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Broken record time, read the criteria above - do you think you can meet that for BOLA or CotC? It doesn't matter what the subject it, what matters is if you can show significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- I've not seen or followed TNA/Impact since they left Spike so I won't comment on post-2015 material, but I agree with the consensus achieved in 2013 that the special episodes of Impact that share names with the PPVs are not notable enough to have separate articles. You always need to rely on reliable sources, your edits to TNA's move to Monday night's, which is a good article, did not provide any source at all.LM2000 (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Broken record time, read the criteria above - do you think you can meet that for BOLA or CotC? It doesn't matter what the subject it, what matters is if you can show significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- "Battle of Los Angeles" and "Clash of the Champions"? What about them?--Mark Linton (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. I readed several article, but most part of the sources aren't reliable. Also, most of them doesn't mention the PPV. It's just the usual weekly coverage every website makes, no significant coverage. For example, Turning Point 2016: 4 sources, 3 of them are unreliable. Just TV results. Destination X 2017, 7 sources, 4 are unreliable. Just results (also, Superluchas doesn't even call the event Destination X, just "Results GFW Impact (August 17, 2017) Sienna and Dutt retain; the employer is stripped of the title"). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- If someone can demonstrate
There were several Raw episodes I nominated for deletion a year or so ago and they were closed as keep. I don't think we can blanket say qualifies or not. I would suggest taking each article on its own and see if it meets the criteria. There was a time we said individual PPVs don't meet notability, but now they do. I dont have an issue with the articles Mark Linton as long as they establish GNG. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
Ken Anderson (wrestler), an article that the project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Not cool. First of all, own up to it. It wasn't just "nominated"--you put it up for reassessment. Second, if you don't like it, then you can WP:SOFIXIT or ask for help. Putting it up for GAR just annoys people by placing an artificial timeline on it. It's another way of saying, "Hey, this article has been at this quality level for a while, but I've suddenly decided, in the middle of a pandemic, that you all need to drop what you're doing and focus on my priority." Not cool at all. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm forcing no-one to fix the article. But, in his current state, doesn't meet the GA criteria since, at least, 2014. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- If you don't like it, then you can WP:SOFIXIT or ask for help. Putting it up for GAR just annoys people by placing an artificial timeline on it. It's another way of saying, "Hey, this article has been at this quality level for a while, but I've suddenly decided, in the middle of a pandemic, that you all need to drop what you're doing and focus on my priority." Not cool at all. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm forcing no-one to fix the article. But, in his current state, doesn't meet the GA criteria since, at least, 2014. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- You've gone about this the wrong way. I hope you learn from your mistake. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Not my mistake. he article is better now, the user who edited the article agrees the GAR was the way. If this is the result, I will open more GAR. You only complained and no edited. You are the one who told me "aks for help", but you didn't help. Complained about me opening a GAR, but you don't care about articles that don't meet the GA criteria. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Why are you so worked up about this? If a GA doesn't meet the criteria to keep its status, this is what happens. Chill out. JTP (talk • contribs) 03:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- HHH did exactly what one is supposed to do if they think a GA has declined in quality and no longer meets the criteria. The only one here wrong is you GaryColemanFan. The attitude is unneeded, and wrong. oknazevad (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Oknazevad: @NotTheFakeJTP:. I don't know why, at the end, I'm the target of everyone's attacks --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Did you forget that's the price you must pay, when you are the game and they want to play? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Oknazevad: @NotTheFakeJTP:. I don't know why, at the end, I'm the target of everyone's attacks --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- You've gone about this the wrong way. I hope you learn from your mistake. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm forcing no-one to fix the article. But, in his current state, doesn't meet the GA criteria since, at least, 2014. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- If you don't like it, then you can WP:SOFIXIT or ask for help. Putting it up for GAR just annoys people by placing an artificial timeline on it. It's another way of saying, "Hey, this article has been at this quality level for a while, but I've suddenly decided, in the middle of a pandemic, that you all need to drop what you're doing and focus on my priority." Not cool at all. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm forcing no-one to fix the article. But, in his current state, doesn't meet the GA criteria since, at least, 2014. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
There's more than one way to get an article improved. HHH has done one of them. Gary has proposed another method. They are both viable. I do not think HHH Pedrigree did anything particularly wrong. starship.paint (talk) 06:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- GaryColemanFan - this is exactly how the GA Reassement should be done - this is common practice. What's more - suggesting that it isn't and the user is causing issues borders on a personal attack. Please do not do this in future. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I am trying to share the benefit of my experience. When I was fairly new around Wikipedia, I messed up and initiated a couple of reviews without first putting in enough effort to work with the projects. I must say that my response to HHH has been pretty tame compared to what I received. I initially dug in my heels with the "upholding Wikipedia standards" line, and, while some editors expressed support for what I did, I quickly realized that I was in the wrong--not because I wanted to improve articles, but because the way I went about opening the review was perceived more as bullying and demanding that people be on my timeframe rather than a genuine attempt at collaboration. That's the same issue here. I learned my lesson. I hope HHH can learn it as well. That doesn't mean we can't work together to make articles better. It just means that this wasn't a particularly good way to try, and I hope for a different approach in the future. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)