Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 96

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 90←Archive 94Archive 95Archive 96Archive 97Archive 98→Archive 100

Hulk Hogan collaboration

In an effort to breathe some new life into the project collaboration, I propose we work on Hulk Hogan's article for the next two weeks. This is one of our most important articles, and it could use a lot of work on sourcing. Thoughts? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Just try to (also) remember the good times, brother! Even Gary Coleman was only human. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Support. Nikki♥311 20:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
GaryColemanFan stated in a recent edit summary that all I do is criticize. You know, two can play that game; whenever I see a response from GaryColemanFan on this page, it almost always reflects careful cherry-picking of my comments to come up with responses which suit that editor's purposes, usually avoiding acknowledging any facts I may bring to the table in the course of the discussion. I think one such comment had to do with validating "The Church of Born and Raised", the attitude many editors have that biographical articles and talk pages need be categorized by the subject's birthplace and little or nothing else (in the case of that discussion, it was conveniently glossed over that Kerry Von Erich has deep familial ties to Texas and that he was only incidentally born in New York state). In the case of Hogan's article, it is tagged for WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) but not for WikiProject Florida, despite how infinitesimal Hogan's association with Georgia is compared to his association with Florida. I would hazard a guess that his employment with WCW constituted his greatest association with Georgia, not the fact that he was born there. I bring this up again because this affects a whole lot of articles, not just Hogan's. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Mantaur isn't under Wikiproject Greece or Wikiproject Nebraska. As far as wrestlers most of you are more likely to take seriously, Jake Roberts doesn't have much to do with Texas (mainly being born there and that Tuesday in 1991). He's not Stone Mountain, but he's Georgia, isn't he? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
And yes, RadioKAOS, I know he was briefly in World Class. Trust me. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Oddly enough, Jake Roberts happens to be Stone Cold's podcast guest today...from Georgia. Also, Jim Ross had Justin Roberts, and he has a similar problem. He ays he's an Arizona guy since college, only goes to Chicago to visit family, but he's Wikiproject Chicago and Illinois. Do we have to tell the other Wikiprojects we're relisting these, or is just like any old edit? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

If other projects have taken on some oversight of articles, they've apparently felt that the subjects are of some importance to their projects. It's not our place to say that a given project shouldn't view a person as related to their state (or whatever the case may be). If Georgia says that they consider Hulk Hogan to be under their mandate, then they share in the oversight of the article. We have no business changing that. The projects that have tagged an article are of no importance to anyone outside that particular project. The professional wrestling project has tagged Dennis Rodman's article; nobody from the basketball project, NBA project, Chicago project, etc. has any business removing the tag because they don't view professional wrestling as a major part of Rodman's life. Likewise, the project has not decided to tag Drew Carey's article. While it is conceivable that someone may add a professional wrestling tag, nobody outside the project should remove such a tag. WP:PW decides what articles are under its mandate, and that is not to be taken away by anyone outside the project. Forget about the tags, RadioKAOS. Unless you're a part of WP:Georgia, it doesn't matter, and it's not your place to make decisions about them. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The way I see it, if they truly are watching over it, they'll notice if we remove the tag. If they mind, they'll revert. If they're not really watching it, they won't notice or care. I've barely noticed and hadn't barely cared about these things till now.
Hadn't really looked at Hogan's article, either, till now. Went it to trim some "would" and "however", but almost every instance was surrounded by bigger problems. Did "Bollea" have a May 1979 world title match? If not, was it Boulder or Golden? Did McMahon really plan Hogan vs Hart at SummerSlam? Was he really turning face when he was "severely injured" in a Texas Tornado? "Thru?!?"
I'd fixed that much before it came crashing down and it hurt inside. Since I'm not a real American, I had to let it slide. Lost my smile. Laid down. Took my ball and went home. Hit the Cancel button. You still have my moral support in the fight for what's right, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I like a lot of subjects I've never touched on Wikipedia, and don't like a lot that I have. Perpetually popular things (especially popular wrestlers) just feel a bit Sisyphean, when it comes to overall cleanup. Take your eye off the watchlist for even a few days, and it would go on to challenge, in a losing effort.
Speaking of Charles Montgomery and shit everywhere, he's as much an exception to the rule on Wikipedia as he is in the real world, because despite lucky losers whining loudly on Twitter, the rightful number one contender has remained undisputed in his article since December. It's almost like he's got a power and a force that we've never seen before. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Can someone help me?

User:Wrabbjr902 has vandalized Template:WWE personnel on more than one occasion and has violated the 3RR rule. I've already reverted it twice and I even said I wasn't going to edit war with him, but he wants to anyway. He's already been warned by other users, but he blanks his talk page as a response. Can someone please help me? -Keith Okamoto (talk) 05:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Peer review of La Sombra

I have logged a request for Peer Review here: Wikipedia:Peer review/La Sombra (wrestler)/archive1 on this guy La Sombra (wrestler), and since it is a wrestling article ya'll would qualify as peers for sure ;-) So if anyone has time, even if it is just 5 minutes, to make suggestions for improvements i would appreciate it. Thanks in advance and i am willing to return the favor to anyone that provides input. MPJ-US  21:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I may be able to find some time to drop a couple of lines for you.--WillC 21:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks man, everything helps. MPJ-US  23:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Merge Dean Ambrose and Roman Reigns into The Shield (professional wrestling)

Somebody started a page for Dean Ambrose and Roman Reigns as a tag team. There's already a page for them as The Shield. I figured that we should merge the page into The Shield page as, while not named Shield on TV, the group is back together as a tag team. -Keith Okamoto (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose - unless they start calling themselves the Shield again or reform the Shield, they are not the Shield, and have no business being in the Shield's article. Two people are not a "group", they are a pair. starship.paint ~ KO 23:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Really? I was just wondering. Still, they're both former Shield members so I thought it would be best to merge the articles because they worked together before the split of the group. -Keith Okamoto (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Merge them. Create an aftermath section. Everything they do can be placed into that section until they actually do something significant than random tag team matches.--WillC 23:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

My take is that they have not done much as a team, should not have an aricle on the two as a team.  MPJ-US  00:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, they don't deserve a separate article and everything should be merged unless they do something significant.LM2000 (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

  • @Wrestlinglover and LM2000: - I am against an Aftermath section as well. The thing is, if we have this section, where do we stop adding content? I predict, people are going to list every interaction between Rollins, Ambrose and Reigns until they leave WWE, and these guys may have 8, 10 years ahead of them in the company. The Rollins-Ambrose and Rollins-Reigns feuds in 2014 and 2015 will be added, a future Ambrose-Reigns feud will be added, or a future Ambrose-Rollins team or Rollins-Reigns team. Now, where all these info really belongs is in the individual articles. Not the Shield's. Look at other stable articles: The Corre, New World Order (professional wrestling), Immortal (professional wrestling), The Nexus (professional wrestling), what Aftermath sections? If Ambrose and Reigns gain enough notability as a team, they deserve their own page, if not, no need to put the info in the Shield's article. starship.paint ~ KO 03:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    I'm in agreement with Starship. Yes, they are both former Shield members, but they have not been called the Shield in the latest teaming. Specifically, Cole has said "former Shield brothers". An aftermath sections is also not necessary, per Starship. I also agree that they have not met the burden for their own article yet either. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 05:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Since they aren't notable as a team yet, the only option is including in the stable or delete the article just mention the stuff on the individual articles. I don't see this team lasting anyway.--WillC 06:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Braun Strowman

Would someone please check the recent edits. The current problem is that the height and weight in the infobox are broken, but when I tried to find a stable version of the article to revert back to, it was not clear whether to go back a couple of days or a couple of weeks. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Should be good now. Prefall 07:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Help evaluate a draft at AFC

Please take a look at Draft:List of professional wrestling managers and valets to review it for acceptability into mainspace. If you do not wish to, or know how to do a full AFC review, please simply post your comment to the draft's Talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Please.... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Just a few quick things, because I'm sure you know I could nitpick all day:
    • Adnan Al-Kaissie was called General Adnan when he managed Slaughter and Mustafa. As Adnan Al-Kaissie, he managed Ken Patera, and in the immortal words of Gordon Solie, a host of others, none of whom are mentioned. We're evidently also confusing him with Skandor Akbar by virtue of listing the Rat Pack.
    • In the same vein as above: Ernie Roth wasn't called The Grand Wizard when he managed The Sheik, nor was Melissa Anderson called Cheerleader Melissa when she managed Awesome Kong. I'm sure there are others to whom this applies; didn't Bert Prentice and/or Bruce Prichard manage under their real names in addition to using ring names? At any rate, the list's format doesn't appear to accommodate such variations without making things more messy.
    • We're not reflecting a NPOV by expressly referring to Jim Crockett Promotions or World Class Championship Wrestling and linking to those articles, while at the same time referring to counterpart promotions with Wikipedia articles generically as the "National Wrestling Alliance". Speaking of promoters, who worked as a manager for Aubrey Griffith? (you do realize that if I keep mentioning this dude's name enough times, eventually it will become the next "Steve DiSalvo meme") RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Ugh, this thing got accepted?!? Why? It's a terrible article inherently. The level of details belongs in individual managers' articles, not a list, and the categorization belongs in, well, categories. Should never have been accepted, as its an inherently unworkable collection of unrelated, indiscriminate trivia. Frankly, I don't care how new it is, it should be hauled off to AFD as crap. oknazevad (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
With a few exceptions (and a big thank you to those exceptions), AFC participants have a really bad habit of treating AFC as an island unto itself. I don't see a whole lot of concern from there about collaboration or whether or not their decisions have a negative impact on the encyclopedia as a whole. The problem with this list is that the editor who created it copied the table formatting from List of professional wrestling promoters. One size does not fit all, I suppose. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Since the project was asked, but did not reply i think it would probably be better to.do something about the article than complain about the approval. Ya'll had a chance to speak up.  MPJ-US  01:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I did speak up. If you actually look at the edit history (diff), I did comment, making the exact same complaints. They were promptly ignored. Can't say I didn't participate when I clearly did. oknazevad (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Well I stand corrected, that sucks.  MPJ-US  02:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

WWE and WWE NXT

Hello I am writing this to see if there can be a decision made on NXT Champions to WWE Champions in all of the Championship and accomplishment sections of Wrestlers who have won NXT Championships I've noticed a lot of them being listed under WWE but I feel since it is the developmental territory it should be under the proper listing WWE NXT because that is where they have won the Championship, WWE and NXT seem to be two different promotions owned and controlled by the same organization, Florida Championship Wrestling and Ohio Valley Wrestling were both Developmental territory's for WWE and Championships won by wrestlers who worked and won championships there were listed under that promotions name not under WWE so I hope there can be a discussion and decision made on the issue Thank You JMichael22 (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The original decision was to include them as NXT titles because WWE.com didn't recognize them. However, NXT is promoted like a WWE brand (no a diferent promotion) and WWE main roster lists NXT titles (Rollins as NXT champion, Neville as Tag Team and NXT Champion). I think both titles, WWE and NXT, should be listed as WWE. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather it be two separate companies. Sure NXT is promoted differently now. They need programming for the network. Brand extension is dead. It is just a developmental territory. It wasn't until Owens they really discussed the NXT Titles and that was because of the Network.--WillC 21:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@Wrestlinglover, HHH Pedrigree, and JMichael22: - this is kinda a late reply, but I think all should be under WWE. NXT's logo has WWE'S logo in it. NXT stuff is found on WWE.com. The proper name is "WWE NXT". Last time in FCW, no WWE logo in FCW logo and FCW had a separate website. WWE NXT is no longer an external developmental territory but an internal developmental system. starship.paint ~ KO 08:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies JMichael22 (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
All NXT Titles should be listed under WWE. NXT is directly owned by WWE, OVW and FCW were not...WWE just used them as developmental territories. NXT IS NOT a separate entity from WWE. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
FCW was pretty much straight owned by WWE to the point WWE chose to kill it.--WillC 00:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Exactly - FCW was its own separate entity that did business with WWE. WWE flat out owns NXT - HUGE difference. FCW ran it's own website, while NXT is incorporated into WWE's website - another tell that FCW did it's own thing.Vjmlhds (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Y'all really need to understand what a subsidiary really is. TNA is a subsidiary of Panda Energy. TNA has executives. It is still owned by Panda Energy. Your arguments for this are illogical in the context of how businesses are ran. Steve Keirn helped found FCW, but it was not up to Keirn to kill FCW. That came from WWE executives.--WillC 17:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

WWE promotes NXT as a promotion it holds its separate events from WWE events they have there own championships there own arena it isn't a roster like ECW was its a promotion if a champion like Seth Rollins won the NXT Championship he didn't wrestle or defend it on Raw or Smackdown WWE Main Shows he won defended and lost it in NXT there for you list it under WWE NXT its really simple not hard to think about JMichael22 (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Also To Add WWE promotes WWE Live Events and Promotes NXT Live Events there for showing they treat NXT as its own promotion JMichael22 (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
NXT is a brand owned by WWE, not a separate promotion. WWE is the one who promotes NXT. Also, wwe.com lists nxt titles in the wrestlers profiles. Nxt is wwe.

WWE NXT is a developmental territory for training for wrestlers to wrestle until their are called up to the main roster NXT is the name of the developmental territory a developmental territory is a farm system that allows inexperienced wrestlers to develop their skills and gain in ring experience in smaller, often regional, promotions before they are called up to compete in front of a global/national audience. Generally called farm leagues or developmental territories there for a developmental territory falls under the banner of separate promotion WWE created there own so when a champion wins a title under the WWE it will be listed under WWE and when a wrestler wins a title under NXT its should be listed under WWE NXT as that's the name of the promotion and for those calling NXT a brand WCW, ECW and others are all apart of the WWE brand as they own the rights to all of them but NXT is produced and released as its own promotion their is no way it's considered apart of Main WWE the wrestlers who work in NXT get pushed up to WWE JMichael22 (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I've always been in favor of listing them separately, like we did with Deep South, OVW and FCW; they're all comparable to NXT.LM2000 (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Are the WWE logos all over the NXT product? Yepperdoodles.  MPJ-US  23:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The question isn't whether WWE owns NXT, that is true. The issue is whether they are separate beyond that. NXT is a subsidiary of WWE, it is not WWE.--WillC 03:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
NXT is a brand of WWE - Just like Sprite is a brand of Coca Cola. Looking at the videos of the dusty Rhodes tournament released this week you clearly see the WWE logo in the middle of the NXT Logo and by itself as well, champions listed on wwe.com, titles acknowledged and defended on WWE shows, featured heavily on the WWE network. All this is unlike previous FCW, OWV, YMCA, KGB etc. promotions that were their developmental territories. They truly are WWE owned and operated just as "Raw" and "Smackdown" when they were portrayed as separate entities. List the NXT titles under the WWE headline.  MPJ-US  03:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
And is the WWE version of ECW listed separately or simply under "WWE"? I believe they are listed as WWE? MPJ-US  03:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Y'all really aren't making much point. NXT appearing on WWE stuff? Yes. Undertaker wrestled for an OVW show. Kane wrestled Batista when he was Leviathan in OVW. NXT still has a charter and under the law it is still its own organization under the WWE banner. The brand extension is dead. There are no more brands. ECW was a brand but at one point a separate company, back in 2001. That doesn't work since WWE never brought ECW back as a company. NXT operates as NXT Wrestling. WWE promotes it as WWE NXT. However, NXT is a subsidiary based on state filings through the secretary of state. Appearing on programming is one thing, but to be accurate and factual is not to come with arguments about what it seems to be but instead look at what they are legally. Are they two companies? Yes. Why? Because WWE formed NXT separately from itself in Florida. Is NXT under WWE control? Yes, as a subsidiary of WWE, not as a brand. Does NXT get more promotion now? Yes. Does that make it a brand? No. Why? Because how does popularity change Sprite into Coke when it is a separate product?--WillC 10:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm currently searching state filings through Florida but it is also possible they chartered in Connecticut. I'm a Paralegal and an Economist, corporate filings and corporate law is annoying to look through to find exactly what something is filed as.--WillC 11:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

You know this is not a legal argument or what they are ot not, it is about how Wikipedia will list it. So even if it was shown to be a "subsidiary" that really does not sway me, NXT titles should be listed under WWE. Kinda like how NWA titles were listed by the territory and not NWA (with obvious exceptions natch).  MPJ-US  16:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

To claify the NWA thing, listed by the company that owned the actual titles. Like the WWE owns.NXT. MPJ-US  16:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
NWA doesn't really work here. NWA is a governing body, it wasn't a straight up promotion like WWE. There was no NWA show, it was NWA TNA, NWA Georgia Championship Wrestling, NWA WWWF, etc. Legal aspects play a giant role in this. What is actually factual? Like I said above, how does popularity change Sprite into Coke? A subsidiary is a subsidiary. A subsidiary is basically a brand of a company. Brand as in marketing term, not brand as in brand extension. Simple as that. We report what is the truth and factual, not what our opinions are. Legally, NXT is not a brand extension of WWE but a subsidiary developmental program. The wrestlers win the titles in NXT, that is why the titles are called the NXT Championship not the WWE NXT Championship. To quote MPJ, list them as the promotion they won them as. They won the titles in NXT (TNA) so list them as NXT (TNA) not WWE (NWA).--WillC 01:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you - truth and fact. Truth, WWE owns NXT, fact WWE owns NXT. MPJ-US  01:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Truth, Panda Energy owns TNA, we list them as Panda Energy. That is the argument being made here.--WillC 03:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Alright if you are not going to take this serious I am done. Have fun going round and round in circles, just do not get dizzy. MPJ-US  07:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Backtracking a bit here, I googled NXT Wrestling using WP:PW/RS, searching for results in 2014 and later. Once you discount all the bogeys, only one mentioned the existence of NXT Wrestling in 2014. Another mentioned that FCW was rebranded to NXT Wrestling but this was done in 2012. The last relevant one pertains to a lawsuit, but the incident being sued on happened in 2009 in FCW, not in 2014 in NXT. So we have a very weak case that NXT Wrestling still exists now separately, as 1) the first source might have still been using the old name and 2) WillC, you haven't turned out any legal proof yet. The case that NXT was absorbed into and within WWE is all over WWE.com. starship.paint ~ KO 05:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why someone would consider an NXT title a WWE title, as it CLEARLY isn't. Other than what has been mentioned before, there's an easier way of proving it. When NXT stars have made the jump into the main roster, they are said to be making their WWE debuts. Don't believe me? Go check all the fuzz they made about Kevin Owens beating John Cena in his WWE debut. Another similar point is that when an ex-NXT champ has competed or won a championship in the main roster, they say that they have won their first WWE championship, just like when Seth Rollins became Tag Team champ with Reigns, or when Neville, Zayn, and Kevin Owens challenged Cena for the US title, as it was stated that they were trying to win their first WWE title. This proves that even the WWE doesn't view NXT titles as being WWE titles, because it's a developmental territory, and it's refered to it that way by everyone. NXT achievements should be listed the proper way, under WWE NXT. PRwrestlinganalyst (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @PRwrestlinganalyst: your point about debuts are invalid because WWE is utterly revisionist in their history. Charlotte really debuted on Raw in December 2014, losing to Nattie in 2 minutes. Yet, WWE said she made her "Raw debut" (really meaning main roster promotion) in July 2015 as part of the Divas Revolution. This has also happened to Neville, Bo Dallas and the Ascension, to name a few. It will happen to Sami Zayn and Tyler Breeze, who have already wrestled on Raw before, and will "debut" on Raw in the future. starship.paint ~ KO 06:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the WWE debut argument doesn't exactly work but the mention of first WWE Title still stands. I haven't produced a legal document yet mainly because I'm busy. Going through incorporation filings is not as easy as a google search. Wrestling sites don't give legal documents. I have to go through state governments to find the filings. "The case that NXT was absorbed into and within WWE is all over WWE.com." The problem here is this: how can WWE absorb a company it already owns? Secondly, if this is the case I'd like to see a WWE corporate memo which suggests that WWE considers NXT an actual WWE Brand now. Otherwise we are on the border of original research. If WWE actually considered NXT a brand on level with Raw and Smackdown then they would have some sort of proof of this on the corporate website like with ECW being created as a brand. Also, this situation is new to wrestling. The network just now exists and WWE needs programming. If this had been created when OVW, DSW, and FCW were around I can bet they'd be featured on the network as well. Just being on the network does not mean they are a brand of WWE now. It just means they are a WWE owned company.--WillC 07:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Here it is straight from the WWE Corporate site - WWE considers NXT along the same lines of Raw, SmackDown, Total Divas, and WWE Superstars Everything is all under the WWE umbrella. NXT is not it's own separate little entity. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing in that link that says NXT is a brand. If that is what makes it a brand, being listed as a tv program (which it is on the network) then I guess we have to make total divas a brand too since it is mentioned directly before NXT.--WillC 18:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

NXT Titles are NXT titles and WWE Titles are WWE titles if The NXT title was a WWE title it would be named the WWE Championship but instead it's the NXT Championship which makes it a NXT title not WWE JMichael22 (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

And again, WWE owns NXT... feels like the beginnin. WWE also had the ECW Title, not the WWE ECW Title. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I know Will seems to be fighting it out alone for the most part but his argument still makes the most sense to me.LM2000 (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The point is to find sources. WWE owns NXT? It's a develoment brand, a brand extension... we can find examples about how titles were named in WWE, but it's OR. Right now, we need a source. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
All of this is OR. The only thing we factually know is the titles are called the NXT Titles and are defended in NXT, not on Raw and Smackdown. I'd have a source if I'd ever actually look for one but I care so little about WWE stuff that I'm waiting to be bored enough. WWE owns NXT, but WWE also owned FCW and ran OVW and DSP while they used them (Heyman, Cornette, and JR all ran OVW at one point or another). The difference between ECW and WWE is, WWE never tried to bring ECW back as its own promotion entirely. From the very beginning ECW was involved with the main roster. WWE didn't even reference NXT until the network really came around.--WillC 22:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
The Insider talks about NXT as a brand, similar to RAW and SD. A develoment brand, but a WWE brand after all. FCW, OVW and DSW were develoment territories. NXT is a brand. Right now, WWE.com includes a whole section about NXT, photos, Network events... wrestlers profiles include NXT titles. It's like the brand extension. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
How exactly is it OR? The ownership? The wwe logo on nxt? What is OR? There are plenty of.things we know factually beyond the name of the title. To throw that out is a filibuster move in my eyes, trying to end the debate without having a valid argument. So please do share, what statements made.about NXT is original research?  MPJ-US  22:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It is OR in that WWE says the brand extension is dead and we are trying to say it exists. The term brand can refer to a subsidiary, it does not mean it is part of the brand extension which we effectively know is dead. Yes, WWE lists NXT up there, it appears on the network, why would they not? NXT is still a subsidiary. It is as if you all can't tell what a subsidiary is. A brand is completely part of WWE, it has no separate entity whatsoever. A subsidiary is overseen and partially ran by a company but it is still separate from the rest of the company. NXT hosts shows on its own with WWE oversight. The WWE PPVs are not Raw, Smackdown, and NXT. The PPVs feature the main roster while the NXT events are primarily NXT wrestlers. NXT is a brand of WWE, but it is not a brand extenstion of WWE. It is a subsidiary of WWE thus that makes it a brand. The wrestlers win the titles on NXT promoted events with NXT on the banner. WWE is featured, but they are the NXT Championships, not the WWE NXT Championships.--WillC 23:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The NXT Titles should be listed under NXT not WWE. My main argument comes down to this, if you buy a Sprite do you buy a Sprite or a Coke? The argument for listing them under WWE is that you bought a coke regardless of what it actually is since Coke owns Sprite.--WillC 23:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
NXT is more heavily promoted than previous developmental farms (thanks to the WWE Network) but it is still a developmental farm. Unlike ECW, it was never promoted as being equal to Raw and Smackdown as main WWE rosters; like ECW, NXT is owned by WWE except is a subsidiary and is treated as a separate beast from the main roster. It's still a lot closer to FCW than it is to ECW. We should reflect that by listing the belts separately.LM2000 (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

So I use the word "brand" with its actual meaning, not in the "brand extension" weirdness wwe tried to do. So by that definition NXT is a brand of wwe and while I do appreciate the "then should list wwe Total Divas" as brand comment was probably facetious I would say yes. But since they don't have a championship that is really not relevant to this discussion. Are you denying that Sprite is a brand owned by Coca cola? And if Sprite ever creates a wrestling championship it should be listed under coke ;-), just like if Panda Energy actually promoted wrestling that argument may have a leg to stand on. So is it OR to say that NXT is a "name, term, design, symbol or other feature that distinguishes one seller's product from those of others" that the WWE own and makes money off?  MPJ-US  23:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Additional: if everyone involved with running the NXT shows are wwe employees how is that "oversight"? S subsidiary can hire people directly, pretty sure every wrestler actually signed to a.contract is signed with WWE, same eith commentators, refrees etc. You know i do see OR going on, stating that NXT is a subsidiary (a corporate term) without sources to back that up?  MPJ-US  00:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Through that logic though, we'd list OVW wrestlers as having won the title under WWE. Orton didn't sign a contract with OVW, he signed with WWE. Cena, Batista, Punk, Anderson, etc. all signed with WWE but competed in OVW. There is really no difference between what happened with OVW and NXT now, just that NXT is getting way more promotion than OVW got because of the network.--WillC 08:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Same thing, eccept the wwe did not own OVW, so that is not really the same, more like a guy winning the USWA but not actually signed to the USWA. MPJ-US  10:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

OVW was a contracted company. Basically WWE had investment in OVW or close to a majority sharehold in it. WWE funded, ran, contracted, etc. OVW during the entire run. OVW did not run independently of WWE. NXT is the exact same. The only difference is who founded OVW and NXT. OVW already existed prior to WWE, NXT was formed by WWE. Still, they are separate companies. Wrestlers won the titles in NXT, just like they did in OVW. The titles have NXT in the name. The wrestlers compete at NXT shows. They are called NXT Takeover, not WWE Takeover. Promoted, marketed, run, showcased, etc. as NXT. When Samoe Joe debuted, he did not say he was in WWE, he said he was in NXT. NXT is a subsidiary, not a brand extension of WWE. It is not like Raw or Smackdown, it is closer to OVW, DSW, and FCW than Raw and Smackdown.--WillC 13:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • wwe owns nxt
  • EVERYONE on an nxt show is contracted with wwe (ovw also had non-wwe employees on their roster)
  • title name means nothing, see ECW in WWE or. exican national or NWA titles in cmll.
  • As there is a difference in ownership the OVW comparison is moot, there is no comparable examples i. now of, which is.why we discuss.how to.handle it, not legal ownership etc but how wikipedia lists it. MPJ-US  15:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
"not legal ownership etc but how wikipedia lists it"
  • Ownership matters none then. WWE owns NXT is moot now. OVW's ownership is moot
  • Wikipedia lists a title won in the promotion that is was won.
  • NWA Title was won in WCW, ECW, TNA, etc. as being won there, not NWA.
  • TNA titles won in TNA
  • WWE Titles won in WWE
  • WCW titles won in WCW
  • ROH titles won in ROH
  • All listed under those companies
  • NXT Titles won in NXT under NXT banner. Listed under NXT. Consistency--WillC 18:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC
NXT is owned by WWE. It is not WWE. John Cena is not competing for the NXT Championship. MITB is not for the NXT Championship. Royal Rumble winner is not challenging for the NXT Championship. Like you said, whether WWE owns NXT doesn't matter so it being in WWE is not important. It is still NXT.--WillC 18:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

File:NXT Wrestling.png <= what is that in the center? WWE logo, was never on ovw Don't think it was on the FCW logo either.

How is it NOT WWE? they're all WWE employees top to bottom, it is featured heavily on the WWE network, with their website being part of WWE.com and their NXT logo having the WWE logo right slab-bang in the center of it? Who is credited with the nxt success? Mr. WWE himself Triple H, how is it NOT WWE? Just as much as "ECW" was WWE, yet called ECW, this is WWE even if it's called NXT for branding purposes.  MPJ-US  18:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a fine line between them. (Do believe that logo is in fair-use by the way). NXT is owned by WWE but it is not full WWE. NXT still has its own identity and we can't say WWE has absorbed NXT completely to where it has no identity without a source. OVW was run just as NXT is. WWE logos were featured on the OVW ring. The promotion for OVW featured WWE on it. I'm from Kentucky. OVW was everywhere around here. The wrestlers are contracted by WWE but they don't say they are in WWE, but NXT. That identity still exists.--WillC 02:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
A line so fine I cannot see it, and I just got new glasses ;-). Who says it has to be "absorbed so has no identity"? No source needed for a statement not made. And Matt Hardy was the ECW Champion working for ECW, so to some extend it had an "identity" too (poorly defined but still).  MPJ-US  04:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The ECW comparison keeps being made when that doesn't fit the issue. ECW came back in 2006 as a brand. Now in 2005 it was more like a promotion having a reunion show but 06 it was entirely a brand extension under WWE with its own style but its identity was WWE brand extension. It used WWE wrestlers, appeared on WWE PPVs, and we equal to the WWE and WH Championships. NXT is different. It has none of that. It is developmental. The NXT Title is on level at best with the U.S. Title but not really. The NXT events are sole events known as NXT Takeover, not WWE Takeover. ECW was never meant to be a separate promotion, it wasn't founded again it just was a marketing term for WWE shows. NXT actually was founded as a promotion.--WillC 04:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

ECW featuring WWE Wrestlers - like Kevin Owens, Finn Balor, Charlotte and so on and so on? they're all WWE wrestlers. And you know NXT feature such unknowns as Tyson Kidd or Zack Ryder?
ECW on WWE PPVs - like the champion of NXT, being acknowledged and promoted as such, fighting against "the face of WWE"?
ECW title equal to the WWE & WH Championship - Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, ... or were you serious?
And does it have to be "equal"? the US title is listed under WWE so I am not seeing that point. NXT is nothing but blurred lines. I don't think the two of us will agree on this, and we don't have to either, that's the beauty of this place - But I will follow whatever the consensus is.  MPJ-US  04:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, lets use that logic. OVW featuring Bradshaw, CM Punk, Ken Kennedy, The Prototype, Leviathan, Brock Lesnar, and such names as Paul Heyman, Stone Cold Steve Austin, and Kane. NXT is still a farm territory. Owens dropped the title during that feud with Cena. It wasn't about NXT, it was about bringing Steen up to the main roster.--WillC 14:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You notice that this goes round and round in circles? I state OVW had non-WWE workers on their roster, you say well the NXT guys are NOT WWE, I say they all signed with WWE and you go "Batista worked for OVW", lather, rinse, repeat as we are back at step one. Let's not do the time warp again eh? MPJ-US  15:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I think you and I are destined to do this forever.--WillC 17:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Straight from HHH's mouth - HHH flat out calls NXT a brand of WWE. And also consider this - WWE built a brand new spiffy performance center to have everything in-house. FCW, OVW, and Deep South were all outside companies that WWE made deals with to use as farm leagues. NXT is 100% in-house and owned lock, stock, and barrell by WWE. It is not, and has never been a separate company. You heard it straight from the boss' mouth...it is a brand of WWE. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

We've already went over what a brand is, did you not pay attention? It is a brand of WWE like Sprite is a brand of Coke. We don't know if he means brand extension. Also, when exactly does he say that in the video because I didn't find it? FCW, OVW, and DSW were not owned but they were entirely ran by WWE, promoted with WWE, and used WWE rings. Your WWE Performance Center houses NXT per ref number one. Even WWE is saying it is a developmental program, not a main roster program. Titles are still won on NXT promoted shows. We list wrestlers winning titles on Raw and SD in bio and tag team articles because they still won them in specific places.--WillC 20:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You do know that Finn Balor won the NXT title at The Beast in the East - which is a main roster show, and that Kevin Owens defended the NXT Title on Raw vs Neville and on SmackDown vs Zack Ryder (as he was aping John Cena's U.S. Open gimmick during their feud). And I never said NXT wasn't a minor league/developmental brand. My only thing is that NXT titles should be listed under WWE and not separately because NXT is in-house and not it's own company. All of WWE's other developmental territories were indys that WWE made deals with to use as farm teams. WWE and NXT are not separate entities - NXT is a division/brand within WWE. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

" minor league/developmental brand" - Not main roster then. WWE Titles are WWE Titles. Developmental are developmental. List them under where they were. NWA Titles are defended in NWA Promotions, titles are listed under where they were won. NJPW, TNA, WCW, etc. WWE made deals with other companies yes, but those deals included making them entirely in house. OVW was not run by someone else. It was operated by WWE management. Ross, Cornette, and Heyman all booked OVW. NXT is a subsidiary, that is what a brand is. Powerade is a Coke brand, not Coke. NoS is a brand of Coke, not Coke. You watch a commercial for one of these do you go, Coke? No.--WillC 02:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Further evidence that the WWE doesn't recognize NXT titles as WWE titles was shown on Night of Champions, for several reasons. The most obvious one being that NoC's whole gimmick is that EVERY WWE TITLE is defended in the event, yet not 1 NXT title was defended in it. The other piece of evidence was the one I brought up earlier about former NXT champions challenging for WWE titles; Kevin Owens' Intercontinental title win against Ryback was refered to as his FIRST championship in the WWE, and it wasn't just on NoC but was also refered to that way on Raw, for those of you who don't have the WWE Network (only $9.99 btw), further proving everything Wrestlinglover, myself, and anyone else who has stood by the statement that NXT titles are not WWE titles have said. PRwrestlinganalyst (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Will has reverted back to the WWE NXT version of these listings. It should remain there until a new consensus emerges as that was the old consensus, at this point the debate remains 50/50 on each side.LM2000 (talk) 08:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I mainly reverted it back since Vjmlhds has been reverting edits trying to place it the way he desires it to be. Wasn't aware he had been going around changing everything to his preferred outcome without consensus until now. There won't be a clearly defined consensus established here that I see of. The company is a brand but not a brand extension of WWE. It is a brand as a subsidiary of the company. WWE clearly defines NXT as its developmental company with those wrestlers coming to the main roster to win their first "WWE championship" there.--WillC 09:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

F4Wonline.com updated -> broken links?

I noticed that the Observer updated their website, and some (or many) old links were broken. Hope archive.org still has them (or the Observer should fix their website)! starship.paint ~ KO 08:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ribbon Salminen: I know you have a subscription—has this issue been brought up on the F4W board at all? Otherwise we'll have to try and get their attention through e-mails. Archiving/correcting those links one-by-one is going to be a pain if it isn't addressed. Prefall 21:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
There's been some talk about dead links from Alvarez, but I think it's more about the older newsletters and radio shows. They are still talking about working on the site, but I don't expect them to bring back all the old articles. It's a huge pain, but for what it's worth, most of the dead links can be found archived. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 08:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Lex Luger

Is everyone cool with Lex Luger as the next collaboration? He was mentioned by several people as a good candidate. Nikki♥311 01:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm down.LM2000 (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. I've been busy with work lately, so I haven't had much time, but I'll see what I can do. I was also thinking that Bobby Heenan might be a good idea for a future collaboration. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
A particular area of need on this article is replacing unreliable references. If anyone can help replace some Online World of Wrestling, Wrestling-Titles, Pro Wrestling History, etc., links, that would be great. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Good TFL candidate, with a little cleanup work

Hello, wrestling editors. I am the director of the featured list process and choose most of the lists that appear on the Main Page in the today's featured list section. While looking through our roster of FLs for lists to run in the future, I noticed List of celebrities involved with WrestleMania, which I think is really interesting. I think that Main Page readers would really enjoy this article, and I don't recall us featuring a WWE-related list yet. However, it is an older FL and could stand to have a few things cleaned up. There are some entries without any references, the lead is short on citations, and some of the table formatting could use accessibility updates (row and column scopes in particular). It's not the worst FL we have, but the uncited content and other things are discouraging me from picking it. Knowing that some editors here have done FL work before, I come to you with a proposal: if work can be done to add references and update the table formatting, I'll choose this list to make a Main Page appearance, most likely in November. If any of you are looking for a project that is a bit different from your normal editing, please consider taking this on. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Giants2008: I could look into it, see what I can do. May need some more specific tips later on to update it. I figure it would be best to run it in April when discussion of Mania is hot.--WillC 22:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah I agree with WillC, pro-wrestling is hottest in late-March to early-April because of WrestleMania, plus the list is already related to WrestleMania. If you can delay it until then, I should be able to help out ... in December this year. starship.paint ~ KO 02:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • For now, I'm most concerned about the unreferenced table entries (I count 8 overall), along with the possibility of content in the lead that isn't supported by what is sourced in the table. I would start with working on the sourcing and worry about table formatting later. Scheduling this to coincide with WrestleMania is a great idea. I may still pick something else from the wrestling category in the near-future to run as well; I believe there's been only one wrestling TFL in over 4 years, so we haven't exactly been overweighing the topic. Thank you both for your interest; drop me a talk page message and I'll be happy to offer advice when you are ready to work on the list. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

List of WWE personnel question

I'm asking about the NXT section on the List of WWE personnel page. I was thinking that we can split it into two subsections, one for those who appear on WWE NXT and the other for the NXT house shows. The reason I'm asking is because on the Unassigned personnel section there's some that have "Wrestling on NXT" and others that have "Wrestling on NXT house shows". Can we spilt it or keep it as is? -Keith Okamoto (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Well... usually, WWE assigned their wrestlers to NXT or the main roster. However, it's a bit stupid to keep wrestlers as unassigned when they're working in NXT. maybe a "house show" section?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
A house show section should work. Great idea, HHH Pedrigree. -Keith Okamoto (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll get to work on it. It will be split into two sections, "Television roster" and "House show roster". -Keith Okamoto (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Wrabbjr902

This user has done some vandalism/Sockpuppetry on List of WWE personnel and Template:WWE personnel. He has moved Emma, Eva Marie and Zack Ryder to NXT, moved Damien Sandow to Unassigned personnel and moved Stone Cold Steve Austin to Ambassadors. I can't talk to him because he wipes out his talkpage. If you try to restore it, he will revert it back. We need to do something.-Keith Okamoto (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

First, ask for a bann (IP and user). second, protect the template (again) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

TNA timeline

Hi. If you don't know, Matt Hardy vacated the TNA World title. So, TNA booked a World Title Series, which were taped long time ago (in July 2015). If the winner of the world title series were crowned in July, what does it mean? How affected EC3 and Hardy's reigns? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if they are the same tournament. We'll have to wait and see how it plays out. An issue like this happened in WCW. Business as usual. Note the situation and calculate from day the title was won.--WillC 22:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't read the TNA spoilers. But I'll just say: Matt Hardy finally winning a world championship (ignoring WWECW) in the main event of TNA's equivalent of WrestleMania, only to vacate it two days later on YouTube due to a fictional lawsuit is one of the best LOLTNAs ever. Even funnier that WillC has compared this to WCW. starship.paint ~ KO 06:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

New parameter for infobox

I understand this could be kind of contentious seeing as it's a violent sport and certain parties involved in it would want to keep such things quiet. But should the infobox have a field for cause of death? Most articles infoboxes have that field. It would only make sense to add it to the infobox here. I've also proposed this addition to the NFL project, for those that are in both. Crash Underride 05:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Afterall, Hart, Benoit, etc.--WillC 20:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Just curious if anyone else has an opinion on this parameter? As WillC said, I think it would be a good feature to have seeing as how their profession may have played a part in their passing. Crash Underride 00:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
No opposition from me. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 08:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
With no opposition after 10 days, I've gone ahead and added it. Use the death_cause parameter. Prefall 08:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Just try to remember a cause of death isn't a manner of death. Wikipedia's a bit bad with that, in general. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

A question about wrestlers' career lengths

Should a retirement period be subtracted when talking about a wrestler's overall career length? Say a guy competes from 1980–2005, with a five-year retirement period from 1990–1995. Did he have a 25-year career, or a 20-year one? Cheers. DoubleYouSeaDoubleYou (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The reputation and starpower lives on. If he's doing anything in his off-time that capitalizes on this, I'd say that counts as part of the whole shebang. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

WCW International World Heavyweight Championship

I have given the WCW International World Heavyweight Championship page an overhaul and turned the separate list of champions into a redirect towards it. I was wondering if someone more familiar with the pro wrestling project on wikipedia could take a quick look at it, as it's the first article on the subject matter I've had much involvement with and I was hoping to take it to FLC in the future, so any help would be useful. Thanks in advance for anyone taking a gander. GRAPPLE X 11:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure it is long enough for FLC. Not many reigns. I thought about expanding it on several occasions.--WillC 18:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
It just needs to be long enough to stand alone from any potential parent article; with no other article making sense for the information that shouldn't be a problem. GRAPPLE X 23:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Lina Fanene move

Discussion here. I want to move Lina Fanene to Nia Jax, but I want to discuss it first so we can have consensus. Should we or shouldn't we move it to Nia Jax?--Keith Okamoto (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

NSFW image

I just want to flag for the group that we have an unsafe image present on an article - specifically File:Mickie James vs Tessa Blanchard.jpg on Mickie James contains a nip slip. Tabercil (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Isn't really an issue as far as I am concerned. Afterall articles like Nipple, Breast, Penis, etc. exist with images. A female breast is not sexual or dirty in any way, it is part of human anatomy. I don't see an issue at all.--WillC 02:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
True, within those contexts. You expect to be able to see a penis in an article about a penis. But in an article about a person who has had no history of nudity? Gratuitous IMO. Tabercil (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Mickie James actually has quite a history of nudity. Google it, if you'd like. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Can somebody pixel it?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Tabercil. It's unexpected and could easily offend the easily offendable. DoubleYouSeaDoubleYou (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I've tried pulling it out as it's not essential to the article but it kept getting put back in by user:TheBellaTwins1445. @TheBellaTwins1445: Tabercil (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The reason this is a non-issue is it has already been discussed countless times. At one point I do believe that @TrueCRaysball: was blocked or involved in a similar situation. Wikipedia does not censor. Trying to remove, delete, or hide the image is against policy last I checked. I'm no expert on the matter but this really is a non-issue.--WillC 22:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I can see how this may be a privacy issue, as we are publishing unintended nudity without the subject's consent. However, I'm not sure what the guidelines state for a situation like this. Prefall 22:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not a nip, just a nearfall. You know what else can offend the easily offendable? Anything. If someone wants it gone, best to go the pointlessness route, rather than the puritanical. Tessa Blanchard isn't even an article, so it's not like this illustrates some major career moment for James. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, @Wrestlinglover, for bringing up my past. The image I tried to censor was this one. As you can see, they are vast differences between this image and the one I tried to get deleted. One is blatant nudity, the other is an "areola slip" (you can't even see the nipple). In the end, Will is right. Wikipedia isn't censored. I don't see much encyclopedic use out of this image though, and as Prefall stated, the only potential problem is privacy. And yes, Mickie has done some nudies. BTW, Will, face it, the female breast is sexual or it wouldn't be a target of interest in lingerie stores or porn. (However, this is something we can discuss privately on Facebook.) TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 23:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The reason I tagged ya Aaron was to give some knowledge since you had more knowledge on this subject than I did. See, liberals aren't always big headed :P As for the last, that is more of an American thing. Most of the world views it differently. Anyway, to the point. Wikipedia is not censored. I see the point of privacy, but then again it is open to the public because it happened at a live show. Moreso it isn't even nudity so not exactly sure how much privacy there is here.--WillC 01:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Nothing is sexy until it's sexualized. That's on you, the viewer. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Again. Pixel the nipple. End of the problem. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The image is unused (and there's no reason to use it), so there is no problem. oknazevad (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The image was removed after the nipple incident. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Because it's an unneeded image. It's a pretty lousy one, too, in my opinion. Not bra sue of the areola ("near fall", lol. Perfect) but because of poor composition and angle. Don't need it for anything, so no harm, no foul in it sitting unused somewhere. oknazevad (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Been following the discussion and I must agree with oknazevad. Firstly, yes, nearfall was a good punfall. And it is a pretty crappy image, angle and what not. I personally don't think it should be used based on that and not the "nearfall" as it's been referred too. Crash Underride 04:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it truly a bad angle? Not really. It shows her wrestling and applying a chinlock. A good image for the in wrestling section hands down. It is a clear image where you can see who is involved without having to try. I think this image is getting the shakedown because of the close but no cigar nip slip. Honestly, it should be placed in the in wrestling section. There is no policy against using it in that section or using it at all.--WillC 08:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

What purpose would it serve in the In Wrestling section? A chinlock is not listed as a signature or finishing move. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I think it's a good illustration of a chinlock, but would probably be better served in an article on holds rather than one on a particular individual (though should Blanchard become notable it's worth having a picture of her on hand as well). GRAPPLE X 23:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
It pictures her wrestling, doesn't have to be a special move. Alot of articles are lucky to get one picture, and most in those sections aren't even special moves. They are just moves in general. The Rollins article has a picture of J&J and a running knee in the section. Kane has a clothesline. etc.--WillC 00:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Start pages for The Mechanics, Scott Dawson and Dash Wilder

Should we start the pages for The Mechanics (professional wrestling), Scott Dawson (wrestler) and Dash Wilder since they won the NXT Tag Team Championship last night?--Keith Okamoto (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

  • @Keith Okamoto: - wow spoiler it, man! I guess we should start pages. But by the way, they haven't been called 'The Mechanics' on TV for a long time, if they were even ever called that. It's been 'Dash & Dawson' or 'Dash and Dawson' on their entrance graphics, and by commentators too. They did good work against Finn and Joe at Respect. starship.paint ~ KO 05:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
So I guess we can start a Dash and Dawson page then?--Keith Okamoto (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Chuck Palumbo and Swede Hanson were the mechanics. But they weren't The Mechanics. Chris Benoit and Ross Hart once fought guys named Mechanic #1 and Mechanic #2. Probably safe to assume those were The Mechanics, but WrestlingData only has a profile for one of them (and it ain't #2.) InedibleHulk (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

WWE United States Championship

I've been seeing IP users turning the WWE United States Championship into the Mex-America Championship because of what Alberto Del Rio said on an episode of SmackDown. I believe the page needs protection until the matter dies down.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Until WWE changes the name to MexAmerica Championships, stills a unofficial name. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't even trust those gringos, eh? They say this hoser was the United States and Mexican Heavyweight Champion. We don't know that ese, but old Max Moon held the AAA Americas Heavyweight Championship. Like they say down south, WWE has a "certain je ne sais quoi" when it comes to history and geography. Has there been a single IC title match in South America yet? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
hey south america got the tournament for the first ic champ, that really should be enough forbthem. And lord it is editors like this that keeps pushing me away from wwe articles, even the alberto one which is right in my lucha wheelhouse. Unless the WWE officially endorses it no change. And at least WCW officially acknowledged the AAA Americas title by the wonderfully generic "mexican championship", at least for like 10-15 minutes. MPJ-US  03:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually @MPJ-DK: that "tournament" never happened. Crash Underride 03:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, it happened. It damn happened! It just didn't have a parallel in the spoiler universe. Like the Rockers deal, but with the dip switch flipped. Patterson still beat the crap out of the South American Champion, as far as the plot goes. Pierre Clermont just got to stay up North while that went down.
WCW was actually pretty good about Mexican history, as long as Mike Tenay was around. They sure as hell never called Schiavone a professor, but the guy could shill forever. He's like a slightly better Michael Cole. Don't forget to tune into the SuperStation on Wooo! Nation at 6:05 PM EST! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

So Crash i guess i needed to pull out my sarcastic font now? But thank you for the chuckle. MPJ-US  12:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Most likely, lol. I'm a very sarcastic person but with text it's a pain. Crash Underride 16:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
¡. GRAPPLE X 16:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget that the IC tournament was not the only title tournament to not happen in Rio de Janeiro, and for the same promotion based a continent away to boot! I know that I've been annoying people for years about this, but it's important to maintain a proper historical perspective and not just think of more recent events. In actuality, the 1963 tournament was probably more firmly rooted in reality, as Rocca was still wrestling then and I believe that his Argentine roots were made a part of the tournament's storyline. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
1963 tournament, eh? I thought I was a geek, but I'd just realized I'd never even considered how Rogers got that title. It'd always just sort of started when Bruno killed him for me. That's some pretty huge fake history. Thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GuilhermeRV/WWE TLC: Tables, Ladders and Chairs 2011

I don't know if there's interest but Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GuilhermeRV/WWE TLC: Tables, Ladders and Chairs 2011 relates to a userspace draft of the matches and times (all unsourced) for various WWE wrestling events in table forms. I don't know if that's appropriate or if there's interest in keeping those pages (more likely moving them to draftspace or something). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

BTW, these were deleted under WP:G3 as a hoax. Just wanted to respond to GaryColemanFan's comment "I came here to say that userspace stuff doesn't hurt anybody". Based on what's come across my watchlist quite often the past few months, it appears that Ricky81682 is a participant of WikiProject Articles for creation, who has been busy going through various userspaces and the draftspace and attaching AFC's peculiar criteria and peculiar WP:OWN complex to nearly everything found in those namespaces. This includes contributions which were never intended to be AFC submissions, such as drafts created by other WikiProjects to fill gaps in the encyclopedia's coverage of inherently notable topics (which has included the efforts of WikiProjects specifically created for that purpose such as WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles). Ricky himself has already deleted multiple drafts which fall under the description provided in the previous two sentences. I don't know if any of this project's participants are using userspaces or the draftspace in this manner, but I just thought I'd warn you. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Wait, is there a problem? Plausible drafts that haven't been touched in at least a year (with an editor who hasn't edited in months or at least one year) are treated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts and in accordance with those guidelines, rather than putting the pages up for MFD, I'm sort of adopting them and dropping them off in draftspace under the AFC format. Otherwise those would all be deleted for the most part with the only difference between AFC has basically a six-month check on the article. If there are users with drafts in their place, they should add Template:WikiProject Professional wrestling and put in Category:Draft-Class Professional wrestling articles as they can if there are articles in draftspace they want. If article alerts are set up, those pages will pop up if they appear at MFD or get tagged for G13 and I've asked to include more G13 notification for that as well. Otherwise if the objection is that drafts that haven't been touched in more than six months shouldn't be discussed, well I can't say much against that. I mean, do you actually object that I took a draft of made-up events that hadn't been edited since 2011 and put it for deletion at MFD? I only informed the project as a courtesy in case it was relevant here in some way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
That's a loaded statement, you know? The discussion clearly shows you weren't aware that these were "made-up events" until you brought it to MFD and that was brought to your attention by project participants. I object to needlessly fucking with the contributions of active, experienced editors who don't require AFD's coddling, simply on account of that editor's choice of namespace for a particular piece of content. Your response dances around not only that point, but the point made by GaryColemanFan. Furthermore, you didn't feel it necessary to inform the project on something far more important, namely the venue categories. If you need me to refresh your memory, see here, here and here. Prior to this, we had a functional category tree. You only raise suspicion when you CFD each category piecemeal with the exact same rationale, when you could have CFD'ed the whole tree at once. Now, what do we do with the handful of venues which are defined by hosting professional wrestling events? Pretend that it doesn't matter? From looking at this, it appears to really not matter that bringing up WrestleMania isn't relevant to discussion of a venue which was torn down in 1968, that regularly-scheduled events (at times as frequently as every three or four weeks) were held in this venue and its successor venue for something like three or four decades straight, or that the numerous fan riots during wrestling events in the 1950s and 1960s could arguably be considered as defining moments in the arena's history. Never mind any of that, just play it safe, maintain a steady course and keep drinking that Kool-Aid and everything will be just fine, eh? Really, if you're bored and looking for something to do to prove your mettle as an admin, you're going about it entirely the wrong way. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No Australian section?

Hi. One of your members reverted an edit I made to List of professional wrestling promotions. I'm not arguing with the revert but I am curious why a section on Australia isn't allowed on the list. The Mexican section has the same number of promotions so shouldn't that be moved to the "Other section"? And how many promotions does a country need to justify having its own section? It'd be helpful to have a guideline so this doesn't happen to other editors in future. Thanks. 72.74.196.235 (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I also tried adding websites to the blank External links section but they were removed as well. Cagematch.net and OWW.com are both used on CM Punk so I thought it was ok to use. Are references/external links on the list unnecessary? 72.74.196.235 (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
On a related note, looking through these edits, it looks like banned User:Curse of Fenric is back under IP 185.67.177.80. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I restored the Australia edit. The user who reverted it gave no legitimate reason for their revert. They have a reason, but no evidence just said "no". Crash Underride 06:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
You are mistaken. I've reverted three times, not four times. Now I've started a thread on the page concerned, and it would be prudent if you went there and discussed this for a consensus. Mega Z090 (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Discuss it here. It's already been started. Crash Underride 06:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
No, discuss it where the issue is. That is SOP. Mega Z090 (talk) 06:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Should let you know that hopefully I've fixed the issue by dividing up the article he claimed was duplicated into states. Now he can't claim duplication - I think. Addicted4517 (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
This conversation is duplicated now. Meta. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Meta indeed. Man, Mega came across as a major dick in the conversation there. When told to discuss it here and just flat out said "no". I mean, childish much? lol Crash Underride 13:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
It seems like a small thing, but I don't hold it against him. If we were all in the same actual boardroom, I'd have probably choppy choppied a pee pee or two over stuff like serial commas, common nouns or "would go on to" by now. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

ECW Title

There is an issue over on the ECW Title. Apparently PowerSlam magazine says that WWE no longer views the title as a world title, which WWE have not made any mention of the such. I don't find PowerSlam reliable nor do I think it has the power to dictate what is a world title and what is not. That is left up to WWE to decide in this case.--WillC 00:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Power Slam, eh? Seems like it had a good run, but yeah, not the authority on anything like this. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, the magazine said "T]he ECW [Championship], which WWE brass have decided is no longer a world title, despite it being promoted as such only last year"... mmmm... The magazine reported WWE decided to promote ECW title as a regular title, nothing like PWI "We decided TNA is no longer a World Title for our magazine". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The Wiki article actually didn't say "promote", but "retcon". That was a leap. Also not leadworthy, since that was from February 2010, the same month it stopped mattering. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
They're no authority on the issue. To my knowledge the last time WWE mentioned it was in 2011, they noted that "some fans considered the new ECW Championship to be a de facto World Championship" but stopped short of saying that the company had stopped recognizing it as a world title. PWI was always clear on what they recognized, we would need similar statements from WWE if we were to make those changes.LM2000 (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
There's no disputing that up until Bobby Lashley, it was considered a world title. RVD was awarded the title based on being WWE Champ. Big Show was in the Cyber Sunday main event pitting all three world champs against each other. Lashley was one of the guys Taker could've chosen to face at Mania. And Vince himself considered himself a World Champ when he won the title. Everything after that is odd.
Pros Cons
Kane and Taker were called World Champs together. Chavo was in the Royal Rumble for a future World title shot
CM Punk had a feud with Kane over whether he would cash in his World title shot against him. They gave Mark Henry a silver belt
Tommy Dreamer considered himself a 2-time ECW World Champ. Christian and Matt Hardy cut a promo about never winning a World title.
Christian cut a promo about being upset how Edge never considered him for the Rumble shot The Rumble winners did not consider Chavo or Christian.
I guess we'll never know for sure. WWE has sent tons of mixed signals on the issue. The Big Show, Mark Henry, Kane, Christian and Jack Swagger all went on to win more World titles anyway. John Morrison, Chavo Guerrero, Bobby Lashley, Matt Hardy and Ezekiel Jackson are the ones who still don't know whether they are considered World Champions in the history books. Feedback 23:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Some of those cons I think can be talked away pretty easily. Chavo in the Rumble isn't really an issue. He can be a double champion like RVD. When Ziggler held the Money in the Bank he discussed winning the rumble, then cashing in to win one of the championships so he could unify the titles at Mania. Didn't really hurt the title, the lack of explanation hurt the situation. Never understood why the silver belt issue was a thing. The attitude era belt wasn't even gold, it was black, blue, and reddish. Hardy/Cage promo could be discussing not having won the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) since WWE is so unclear about that. Rumble winners not considering Chavo and Cage was more because of storyline. Edge wanted revenge on Jericho. Cena wanted the WWE Title back. When there wasn't a blood feud going on they considered the title. See Taker's win. All the rumble wins afterwards had some purpose. Cena wanted Orton, Orton wanted to beat the McMahons, Edge wanted Jericho, etc. They deactivated the title before another chance to see when Del Rio won in 2011.--WillC 23:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, Hardy won a World Championship, according to WWE. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Hey folks! Long time no wiki. Glad to see everyone alive and well. Just thought I would drop by and give my 2 cents on this little issue at hand. I'd like to remind everyone that this entire discussion has been had and handled numerous times, so many that I won't be wasting your time with a full-fledged essay. I'd like to invite everyone to take a look at the last few discussion sections archived at talk:ECW World Heavyweight Championship. Perhaps one of you familiar with the archived discussions will be kind enough to link to them directly. The reason that archive is worth a look is that it provides sources that invalidate the notion arguing that the title lost "world status" in the eyes of the promotion. Enjoy the read! Lastly, a quick look at ECW.com, followed by a slight scroll down, reveals a caption under the image of the ECW belt which reads something along the lines of "take a look into the history of the most extreme world title." This of course is the ECW section of WWE.com, which was added during the massive overhaul of the website about 2 years ago and long after the title had been retired. --UnquestionableTruth-- 02:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Join the Uprising. But no, not like this. Not like this! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Holy crap, Rodney Mack is still a thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I fixed the categories. Clearly the moron good faith editor is a clueless tool knows jack shit lacks the competency to edit in this area. oknazevad (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Global Force Wrestling tournaments

Shouldn't this article be merged into the main article? There are no independent sources and merging seems better than having a bad standalone article.Mdtemp (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge--WillC 20:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Aye. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I see your Aye and raise you an Aye. Crash Underride 19:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
This article effectively duplicated GFW World Heavyweight Championship Tournament.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Title Reigns/Tape Dates/Air Dates

This user is altering the title reigns by replacing the actual win date during tape delay to those when the titles were won on television. I've asked him why he was doing that, but he erased it instead and only said "Your opinion". Can someone help?--Keith Okamoto (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

How polite of you to share both sides of the story. "When someone "wins" the title, their reigns start that day" That is your opinion. And not one that is shared by WWE. For most professional wrestling title reigns wwe, the air date is not considered the start of the reign. But, for the NXT Championship, NXT Tag Team Championship, and NXT Women's Championship, the air date is officially recognized as the start of the reign. WWE doesn't even do this for their other titles, just the titles under the NXT brand, which is why I didn't make these changes to any of the other WWE titles. The above user posted his opinion on my page as if it were some type of open forum, rather than simply ask me why these changes were made. People who don't behave politely like most normal people would do don't receive the time of day from me.Funkatastic (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's like, your opinion man.........reigns occur on a date. It is a proven fact that reigns occur on a specific date, verifiable by dozens of sources that do not follow along with what WWE has placed on their list. The majority outweighs the minority. Son, you are fighting a losing battle. Take the Swagger reign you like to change that I change back. Swagger wins the title on March 30. If he is not the official champion why does he carry the belt up to April 2 when the air date occurs. Why does WWE in front of a live audience call him the new champion if they do not intend him to be champion until April 2? WWE markets the reigns as occurring on the air dates because they want SD to feel like it is Raw and ignore that spoilers occur. What is the fact of the situation? Date occurs is the actual start date of the reigns.--WillC 02:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, change your links to hyperlinks instead of references. Learn the editing process before arguing for a change in policy.--WillC 02:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
And just because WWE decide to be inconsistent for reasons only known to themselves is not a reason for us to be inconsistent. Mega Z090 (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus was established long time ago. We use the date when a wrestler wins a title, not when th victory is aired.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I reported him to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. However, he did the same with me in the 3RR (fair enough). Do you wanna help? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I'll tell them my experience with him.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. If I win a Block Title, remember me like a martir. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I've put my two cents in as well. Mega Z090 (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree and I believe that a related discussion at the talk page for Lucha Underground came to the opposite conclusion that the views shared by Funkatastic.--67.68.163.32 (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I saw mostly red-linked users arguing against spoilers. I think virtually all of the experienced users didn't have a problem with the spoilers. That said if consensus is established here, and a certain subpage reaches another consensus, the subpage's editors should come over here to discuss a definitive conclusion. starship.paint ~ KO 05:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I've always thought we should go by air date with WWE titles. But I know I'm in the extreme minority on that so I never say anything. I mean take the afforementioned Swagger WHC reign. He won at a SmackDown taping on March 30th and that's what we list. But WWE's official title history page doesn't recognize the reign until the win aired in the U.S. on April 2nd. I personally don't like this inconsistency. But I also feel I have a snowball's chance in hell of changing consensus. So whatever. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 19:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Potential issue in near future

I'm wondering if this is going to get really messy very shortly. Supposedly, the currently airing episodes of Impact Wrestling, which focus on a tournament to crown a new TNA World Heavyweight Champion following Matt Hardy's vacating the title were supposedly taped back in the mid summer (late July, I believe). According to scuttlebutt, that includes the final, with the crowning of the new champ. So when does that reign start? Taping day? There was already a recognized champ at the time (and he continued to be so recognized after the tapings), so we may be up s--t's creek with our usual approach. food for thought. oknazevad (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing new there, wcw champions losing titles they won them and stuff. Dates won are used, date aired are mentioned. MPJ-US  21:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with  MPJ-US . It should list dates won but also mention dates aired, in keeping with WCW and the way it's been for however long. Crash Underride 22:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
My concern here, though, is that it isn't simply a matter of "champ A lost to champ B on this date, but the match didn't air on tape delay until this later date". In this case the new champ won a tournament to fill a vacancy that didn't exist yet, as the previous champ was still actively defending the title. ECIII didn't loose the title until Bound for Glory in early October, a month and a half later, and indeed actively defended it up to and including that defense. So I don't think we can legitimately say that his title reign ended before that date, no matter when the tournament finals were actually taped. The conundrum l have, then, is from when do we date (in terms of number of days reign length and such) the new champs reign? I really don't think we can say the new champ has been champ since the day of that taping in July since ECIII was still the officially recognized, actively defending champion for weeks after that. oknazevad (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, facts. Solies says EC3 reigns started on June 25. Cagematch says EC3 reigns started on June 25. Officilay, The Duldey Boys are 9 times World Tag team Champions. Officialy, The Dudleys are 23 times World Tag team Champions. Officialy, TJ Perkins won his first Title in TNA in 2009. All of these are In universe. Perkins didn't wrestled for TNA in 2009 and EC3 won the title on June 25. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
EC III's reign ended when it ended, next champ won it when he won it, if it overlaps (and it may not have been taped yet) then that is how it is, simple facts, they overlap and ao be it.  MPJ-US  01:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see a problem with overlapping reigns. I'm sure some fans saw whatever wrestler win the title at the July tapings . That is TNA's fault for screwing up their own timeline with overlapping reigns. Just count the days accordingly to real date won and real date lost. starship.paint ~ KO 05:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Users would still sooner blame a wrestling company for their own inaccurate edits then consider compromising with users and admitting that the way they're doing things is wrong. You are a shining example of this. You guys could be claiming that your reign start dates are determined by Doc Brown's time machine and still would not consider compromising. There's no hope for Wikipedia's Pro Wrestling section to ever be taken seriously, and if you're alright with that then whatever. Funkatastic (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I asked the same (See TNA Timeline). I think TNA will crown their champ in India. We don't have any source about they crowned a champion in July. I think WCW made the same. A tag team lost their title before they won the title. However, a champion is a champion when he wins the title. FACT 1, EC3 won the title on June 25. FACT 2, his victory was aired on July 1. We have both sources, we can't say EC3 won the title on July 1, he won the title 5 days prior. Also, at BFG 2014, TNA presented Joe and Havok as their champions, but they lost their titles weeks ago. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I think Funkatastic was on to something. I mean, we have never faced a situation like TNA's before. I think we need to come up with a solution that we can still show the new champions, but add the air date so it can be official.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The Mechanics won their titles on Oct 22. However, they wear the tag team belts. WWE hasn't aired their victory, but they were presented as champions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Pro wrestling spoilers are still aloud on Wiki and when a show is pre-taped we still know the air date. So even if we consider air dates the start of the reign we can still include spoiler title changes. NXT, TNA and Lucha Underground all consider airdates as the start of the reign. It's really not our place to put a different date, especially when it defies logic and leads to confusing title history's that only exist on Wiki. I still believe all titles on main WWE roster don't use air dates as the start of the reigns, but for NXT, TNA and Lucha Underground we consider the air date as start of the reign Funkatastic (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
We must put a different date when a reliable source says the wrestler won the title days before. Isn't our falut TNA is messing around with the TV tapings. IF TNA crowned their champion in July, it's simple. Two wrestlers held the TNA title at the same time. Also, sometimes the promotions spoil their own results, like TNA Twitting about Mickie James or Drew Galloway debuts. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
"We MUST put a different date" That's your opinion, don't present it as fact. We most certainly don't have to put a different date. You've made no legitimate argument that we should use tape dates other than you personally believe we should do so. Your opinion has been counted. Funkatastic (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Who are you? Mr. Opinion? Every thing against you is an opinion. What about this: "We most certainly don't have to put a different date." That's your opinion, don't present it as fact. Your opinion has been counted. Again, please, be polite. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Dude you're accusing me of the exact same thing you're doing. "We MUST put a different date" is your opinion which you're presenting as fact because we don't have to put a different date, that's what we're here to discuss. When I said "we most certainly don't have to put a different date" is me presenting a fact because I'm saying we don't HAVE to do something, which is true, technically we don't have to do anything at all if we don't want to or if we don't feel like it (we could all just stop logging onto WP if we wanted to). You saying we "MUST" do something is opinion presented as fact because you're implying we don't have any other choice, which we do and that's what we're here to discuss. You're trying to imply that we have no other choice but to comply with your opinion, which is very un-community-friendly editing. Now if you don't mind I'd like to talk about professional wrestling, not the things we learned in elementary school. Funkatastic (talk) 02:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Current opinions are 4 for using air dates and 4 users for using tape date. Would also like to point out that the users for using air dates have been much more polite in this thread. Doesn't effect the possible consensus, but hopefully encourages those rude users to behave more appropriately Funkatastic (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You were warned for personnal attacks. I think you should be polite. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
No personal attacks were made, just stated a fact. Chill. If it wasn't true you wouldn't be offended by it. Funkatastic (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Here are my arguments. 1) We show FACTS. First fact, A wrestler becomes a champion when he won the match. Second fact, the match is aired a few days later. However, the wrestler We put both facts with reliable sources. 2) All of this are In Universe stuff. In TNA World, EC3 won the title on July and TJ Perkins is two times X Division champion. However, in the real world, he won the title on June and Pekins never won the X Division title in 2009. Sources like Solie's or wrestling titles (reliable sources) recogniced June. PWInsider, PWTorch and others also reported champions when the wresrler wins the title, not when TNA decides to air. No matter TNA says, we aren't TNA website. EC3 won the title on June. 3) The wrestler is carrying the title. Right now, The Mechanics were presented in a House Show as the NXT Champions. Their title victory wasn't aired yet, but WWE presented them as champions. 4) Alberto Del Rio defeated Big Show at SmackDown. However, WWE announced his victory that same day. 5)TNA problem. Take a look on WCW Tag team title. The Freebirds has a -6 reign. Why? Because they lost the title before they win it. For a few days, WCW had 2 tag teams as the champions, Doom (their reign ended on February 24) and the Steiners (their reign started on February 18). As Paint said, isn't our problem if TNA decides to mess around with their titles and crown two wrestlers as World Champion at the same time, we reflect facts. IF a wrestler won the title in July, it's simple. TNA had two champions, (like CM Punk and John Cena) TNA crowned a second champion while EC3 was the champion. And the mysterious champion holds the title since July. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You've stated almost all of these things already and the fact of the matter is there are users that disagree with you. You need to start dealing with that and edit cooperatively to try and compromise almost all other users are willing to do so and you need to realize there's a chance we don't go with what you want. Repeating yourself isn't helping your cause, what we're doing now is waiting for a ninth opinion to see if we can find a consensus. Our side already said if we make the change the changes won't be reflected on main roster WWE titles, yet here you are continuing to argue examples from WWE main roster titles. You need to chill out, all we can do at the moment is wait. Funkatastic (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Please, Watch your language. All your messages start with a personal attack against me. Instead of arguing with me, you're attacking me . First, we're trying to search a consensus and you attacking me saying I'm not giving arguments. I give my arguments and I sumarized all my reasons and suddenly, you say I'm no coperating. Instead, your anwser was to attack me and insult me again. Anyway, as MPJ says, you didn't give any reason why should we ingnore facts and choose TNA Fiction. Also, If we search a consensus about it, it should include all titles, not you personal preferences. A consensus should work for LU, TNA and WWE. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Somebody blatantly pointing out a mistake or inconsistency you posted isn't a personal attack. Any statement that contradicts your opinion isn't a personal attack. And you trying to "point the finger" at me saying I'm making personal attacks when all I'm doing is disagreeing with you is, in fact, a personal attack. So as you like to say, watch it. Funkatastic (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you know what the tie breaker should be? History, this has been the accepted approach since title history articles.were created. And i have yet to hear a logical, sound argument for ignoring facts instead of TNA or WWE fiction (call it kayfabe or whatever you like). MPJ-US  21:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Reading through the comments i actually do not see an argument made for WHY the fictional date should be pushed over the factual date. What WWE choses to acknowledge is at times at odds with facts, this is an encylopedia, neutral, factual, not a vessel for WWE or TNA kayfabe, next the James Storm article will refer to "15 years in the indies". Following the Funktastic logic that is what the article should state. Oh and Kane.... was never a dentist and so on. Should an encylopedia only reflect the storyline only? And the WWE is wildly inconsistent on this front, going by facts we are.able to.be consisten. And why should 1 or two feds dictate format? CMLL shows are usually on tv a week or two after they happen, but they use the actual dates, 99% of all title changes are acknowledged on the day it happened.  MPJ-US  21:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Resident TNA editor (basically the only one that expands content to peer review) and the person who got the TNA list to FL. Figured I'd give comments. WCW did have a tag title reign start after it had already ended. As far as I can tell, no one has won the TNA Title at the summer tapings. Something like that would have been revealed by now. The tapings are public afterall. That most likely won't be an issue. Though if someone has won the title, then where is the issue? The fact there are two champions. A won it on ???, B won it on ?? note is they situation. Days of reigns is not a number but a note for B, explaining their reign is counted from when they won the title not when it was revealed. Now as for the air dates argument, the only thing stated is that we must go by the company because we don't make the facts. That part is true, we don't make the facts. We just report them. Guess what? The company don't make the facts. Chris Benoit exists afterall. Hulk Hogan exists too. We go by the date it happened because that is the fact. It is verifiable, it is credible, and it is true. The reason we go by the date it occurred is based on several polices: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, Wikipedia:FICTION, WP:PROMOTION, etc. There is really no discussion here. By these policies the only conclusion is the date the reigns occurred.--WillC 23:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know who Funkatastic has referred to in 4:4. Anyway, it's not numbers, but policy that decides consensus. WillC has cited relevant policies. The other side (only Funkatastic??) seems to be promoting an WP:INUNIVERSE point of view. If you are going to ignore policy and past consensus you will likely be ignored yourself.
  • Real dates are simple, there is only one date Mil Muertes won the Lucha Underground Championship. Air dates are problematic, because there are multiple air dates. LU airs in English on Wednesday on El Rey, and on Saturday in Spanish on UniMas. SmackDown airs (or at least used to) on different days in different countries (some Thursday, some Friday, maybe some Wednesday?) starship.paint ~ KO 02:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Proof: [1] - Canada gets SmackDown on Wednesday, US gets SmackDown on Thursday. To prevent discrepancies, just use the real date of the usual Tuesday taping! starship.paint ~ KO 02:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • HULK BANG SHOE ON TABLE A perfect encyclopedia would count the day it aired, like it does for other TV shows. But Wikipedia isn't perfect and wrestling fans are weird. So, we should do the right thing, but it's OK if we don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • We can list both real date and air date. I think that's what we're doing now. Just that, for days as champion, we use real date so there is no dispute with which date the episode aired (Wed, Thurs, Fri?) starship.paint ~ KO 03:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
If we can do and do do, then we must do. That said, if we didn't, we'd probably go with American airdates for American shows, Japanese for Japanese and Botswanan for Botswanan. Sportsnet 360 SmackDown! is literally a window to the future, and TV taping crowds are there to make some noise, not report. What they see happen in the ring is no more real (in a story sense) than those giant robots Jurassic Park extras saw. Only the finished product is real, and The Rockers were never WWF champions. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Would just like to point out that user Starship.paint has clearly tried to argue his opinion without even reading any points of view of the other side, where he claims I'm the only person who supports the side (referring to my previous 4-4 comment) when anyone can read above that users oknazevad, Keith Okamoto and 67.68.163.32 clearly supported it when I posted said comment. Also he continues to make arguments based on WWE-related topics even though our side stated multiple times that this problem was more for NXT, TNA and Lucha Underground and not main roster WWE titles since main roster titles officially recognize tape dates as start dates and are the only titles that don't have scenarios where title changes are taped months in advance of airing and cause confusion (though I do personally believe all should be changed, this is a compromise that was proposed). I highly doubt we're gonna find a reasonable compromise for all sides if certain people try to unproductively argue while only reading what they personally feel like reading. Funkatastic (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I read the short ones first, then the ends of the long ones. I agree we should highly doubt everything, or wrestling has taught us nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
No I didn't clearly support your view at all. You are reading into the discussion (which is not a vote) what you want to see, not what is actually said. I was inquiring about one case where the unique situation and long delay between taping date and air date may have (and it's not confirmed) created a situation where one person may have won a title match while the promotion still recognized someone else as holding the title, and how we could figure out when the reign actually begins. That is not a !vote of support for using air dates instead of taping dates in all cases.
Truth is, I think some people are too worried about reporting "reality" for fictional titles that don't actually exist outside the promotion and it's fictional universe; the promotion owns the title and we do have to report what they say about recognition. That's just facts. Yet at the same time, saying that the (fixed) match that "awarded" the title (which is determined by writers) occurred on such-and-such date is a real-world perspective, which were supposed to keep when writing about fiction. On the other hand, pro wrestling doesn't have the same "eternal present" nature of other forms of fiction (which is why plot summaries of novels and films are written in the present tense, for example). A TV taping is part of the production process; it's not like we add scenes to a film's plot summary on the day they shoot the scene. But at the same time, there was an crowd watching the show live and in person, so it's not like the events didn't happen for at least some audience. It makes it complicated. That's the odd nature of the unique art form of pro wrestling. oknazevad (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • If you, Funkatastic, think Keith Okamoto and 67.68.163.32 "clearly supported it when I posted said comment" ... good for you. I'm totally not reading that. Keith wanted to "add the air date" ... which is already present in articles like Lucha Underground Championship like so: "Aired on tape delay on August 5, 2015.". It's also present on List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions: "This episode aired on tape delay on July 1, 2015." I read 67.68.163.32 pointing out a possible problem instead of supporting Funkatastic. To conclude, I agree with you, Funkatastic: I highly doubt we're gonna find a reasonable compromise for you if certain people try to unproductively argue while only reading what they personally feel like reading. starship.paint ~ KO 00:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
"I think Funkatastic was on to something. I mean, we have never faced a situation like TNA's before. I think we need to come up with a solution that we can still show the new champions, but add the air date so it can be official" posted by Keith Okamoto. But that's none of my business. *sips tea* Funkatastic (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey, @Funkatastic: how about those policies that you have completely glossed over and ignored that basically makes your argument mute and the fact of any change you desire happening mute as well?--WillC 04:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Mootness isn't muteness. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm a paralegal, I use mute.--WillC 05:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
That's unfortunate. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
And wrong usage to boot, funkatastic was not mute but vocal. Cannot have a "mute" argument when he is an active participant. But at this point that may be a moot point.  MPJ-US  17:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Mute in legal terms has nothing to do with being vocal. Mute in legal has to do with a point being at its end so that no argument can be made, thus mute. That was the point I was trying to make. Does anyone actually research anymore?--WillC 23:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
yes i did, i always do hefore i am a smartass :-D. The link provided forn ecinition dealt more with someone not comitting to a plea by either not saying anything or in essence changing the subject. By that definition the Funky man is not mute. He has stated his side, "made his plea" as it is. So i agree it is not about being vocal per say, but actually stating his position, which was done. C- William, sorry harsh teacher here ;-). MPJ-US  23:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Aye. On top of that, it was used to describe his argument and a "fact of any change", not him. Unless we were charging that argument and fact with a crime, "mute" makes little sense in context, even if Funktastic had zipped his lip/fingers.
But no, not very important. The important thing is it's Abdullah the Butcher's birthday today. At least according to some sites. Not Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
EVERYONE, we've strayed from the topic at hand. Let's please get back to the problem. (Be it the dating or Funky.) Crash Underride 00:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, why is my definition is mute so important to everyone? I used it in the way I chose that befit my expertise. Not going to be able to change the definition of the word. Y'all are arguing point D when I'm on point A. Back to subject.--WillC 08:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

My dear William, when throwing your education around please throw it correctly, we all care because we love you. Toodles. MPJ-US  12:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Problem with that is I did and y'all don't understand it. Before it was me explaining what a subsidiary is, now I have to define words for y'all. Getting sad.--WillC 15:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay get off your high horse "ya'll don't understand" is wonderfully condescending. You provided a link to try and lord it over people that you use certain words in a fancy way. But the link did not support your claim on what "mute" meant. Honestly it makes you look like you were trying to cover up for mistakenly saying "mute" instead of "moot". And yes "subsidiary" was so important to you (and no one selse) that you were going to research if nxt was a subsidiary in legal terms but never actuallly told us if you found anythong out. I get it , you go to college, you get edumacation, we dumb troglodytes when we disagree. And yes i am straying from, the topic because 1) it is NOT a new or even recent situation and B) we seem to be nowhere different than when it started. MPJ-US  15:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
LOL yes mom. We deal with the "unique" TNA section the same way we dealt with WCW doing the same.thing, because why wouldn't we? MPJ-US  23:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Simple as above. Dates are dates. Note the issue.--WillC 02:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
WCW is where the big boys play. I had to Google TNA's slogan; the closest seems to be "Make The Change" (thanks, Obama 2010). So if we're to deal with them accordingly, we must deal with them separately. United, we'll fall (never trust anyone named Colter). So, which of us are big boys and which of us are progressive? It's a simple question, Norm! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, any SCSA fan knows that WCW was really "where the big boys play with themselves", the home of Monday NyQuil. To all of you WCW marks still talking up big corporate wrestling and the legacy of WCW on here, I have two names to throw at you: Judy Bagwell and Tank Abbott. Checkmate, no need to go any further and mention Vince Russo or David Arquette. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
As the great luchador El Viaje Misterioso de Nuestro Jomer once said, "Well, of course everything looks bad if you remember it. Now where are my chili boots? Besides, at least late WCW had a bunch of heavyweights who used to be cool. Who did WWF have? Rikishi? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of Tank Abbott...

Found the following potential WP:NOTNEWS violation in the lead of his article:

On September 23, 2015, Tank Abbott made controversial comments on his podcast stating " I will fight any woman on this earth for free " " If I win, which is gonna happen, you have to make me a sandwich. " If you win, I'll give you $100,000. " The comments were made when Abbott stated that boxer, Floyd Mayweather, Jr would have no trouble in defeating UFC women's bantamweight champion Ronda Rousey in a no holds barred fight.

Hmmm...is he trying to become the next Andy Kaufman or something? Maybe he could recruit Rousey to perform a reenactment of the Lawler/Kaufman deal. Naw, scratch that, I don't believe that "I'm from Huntington Beach" would work quite as well. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

UFC is having their first stadium (and Melbourne) show on Saturday. Ten bucks on the boxer over the professional wrestler gets you $125, if and only if Tank Abbott runs in with a chair without the referee seeing it, and also gets lucky.
There's an AOW mini-interview with Johnny Legend, partially about Kaufmann's plans. Might be interested. The Mickie James part isn't so great, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Fun Fact: "The Big Show" is also fighting in Melbourne. Funner Fact: He's the little guy on the right. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Sad Fact: Tank vs Rousey's marketability just dropped 3,000%. That was like Lesnar over Cena and Taker combined. Tank vs Holm sounds good, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I called it for Holm. It's been fun the past few days arguing with people who believed that Rousey was unbeatable. I didn't make any bets, but probably should have. So as not to be completely off-topic, was that 'ol Coach I saw on SportsCenter, implying that Rousey's appearance at WrestleMania was further indication that she had gotten soft? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Coach, as in the coach of the little girls' softball team? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
An odd thing about pro wrestling is that, while that was clearly a neck kick, the mainstream news has made the unanimous decision to say Holm "stunned" her in the headline. Hell yeah! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm stunned that this stunner is at the top of ITN on the main page today! That's got to be a first for MMA. Poor Taker. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
And now poor UFC. How massive an event does a sport need to hold to compete with rowing, table tennis or MotoGP around here? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Bret Hart / GOAT vs. "one of the great"

IP:2.218.47.194 is edit warring on the grounds that they staunchly believe Bret is not one of the greatest of all time, but rather "one of the great pro wrestlers of the mid 1990s". Perhaps someone with more time and a faster 'Net connection could take a look at it. I tried to go on a ref hunt, but my connection is too slow on weekends. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It should read "considered one of the greatest professional wrestlers of all-time" or something to that effect. Decade doesn't matter. Any reputable pro wrestling publication that I've ever seen considers him one of the greatest of all-time. Therefore it should read with the consensus of the pro wrestling media. Crash Underride 19:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
BBC says Hart is "widely regarded as one of the greatest wrestlers of all time".[2] DoubleYouSeaDoubleYou (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
So, the GWOAT. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be "The Greatest There Is, the Greatest There Was, the Greatest There Ever Will Be"? Seriously, I would contend that Ray Stevens has a better claim on "all-time great" than Bret Hart. An "examination of sources" wouldn't help resolve that; obviously, WWE can drum up far more press attention than could a local/regional booking office for a wrestling territory. If you just said something simple like "one of the greats", at least you would be playing it safe. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 12:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Likewise, Stevens was no Great Antonio, but got far better press. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Nick Bockwinkel

Hi folks, I've nominated our article for Nick Bockwinkel at RD. I don't know if it will make it through, but it's worth a shot. Could someone help to fix up the page when the have a chance? Also, this source says he was born in St. Louis, Missouri. But apparently WWE.com says he was born in Saint Paul, Minnesota. Could someone look into that? Thanks, Scorpion0422 15:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I've added a few references. I'll try to do a few more later. All help is appreciated. There's already one Oppose vote based on referencing; although the referencing can be fixed, few people tend to bother to retract or change their votes after the concerns have been dealt with, so it would be great if we could get a bunch done over the next couple of days. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll also do what I can, but I don't have much time these days. Have you found out anything about his birthplace? Sources vary, so I'm basically waiting for the Meltzer obit. -- Scorpion0422 02:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Not only have I not found a conclusive birthplace, but searching for him through my findmypast account gives different information altogether. It lists his birth year as 1935 and his spouse as Susan (unless this is a different Nicholas Warren Bockwinkel born at that time, whose father was also named Warren...there is only one Nicholas Bockwinkel listed on the site). GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, the article specifies that Darlene was his second wife. I can add the information about the first marriage. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

EWA Tag Team Championship

I've WP:PRODed this article. Please have a look and lets get this over with as quickly as possible. Crash Underride 07:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Taking a closer look the promotion itself was deleted at AFD as not being notable. While anything is possible I can't see hoe a title of a wrestling promotion can be more notable than the promotion itself.--65.94.253.102 (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
That's why it was PRODed. Crash Underride 23:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Official nicknames

@Crash Underride: regarding your recent revert, if the "in wrestling" bullet is only for what you term an "official" nickname, why do we simply say "nicknames" without prefixing it with official?

What qualifies a nickname as "official" anyway? Have we defined such a status' requirements? Kinda seems made-up Who has to say it? An announcer? A WWE.com article? Themself? Why would a nickname given from a fellow superstar be less notable?

If this was a question of notability, perhaps in terms of frequency, I could see a requirement of a nickname having to be repeated over time, but in that case we would need at least 2 references for every nickname. A lot of articles don't even list 1 for some nicknames. Like "Red Arrow" for Neville lacks a source and I notice you did not remove that. Triple H did use it repeatedly to describe him during the Green Arrow teamup with Stephen Amell though. Ranze (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Your other revert also includes an inaccurate edit summary. In Special:Diff/692741324 you claim "he called himself that once". If you look closer, I included 2 references for August 5th and August 19th. Breeze refers to himself as "face of the rising sun" at least twice, 2 weeks apart. Why did you include an inaccurate edit summary? Did you not pay attention? Ranze (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I didn't see the second one. Besides, how many times does a wrestler call them self something once or twice and it doesn't get added? It's when the WWE (or whatever promotion their in) calls them that that it sticks. That's the way it's been for countless articles I've seen over the 8 years I've been here. Also, about Triple H using that for Neville, you realize he was just insulting him right? Trips is heel ya know. Crash Underride 00:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
how many times does a wrestler call them self something once or twice and it doesn't get added?
No idea, but we have a huge amount of nicknames on pages which list no references at all, so I think we should give priority to those which are actually referenced. WWE is a corporation, it can't talk, so it can never call a wrestler something. Could you explain more about what you mean by the WWE calling a wrestler something? Like for example, do you mean a ring announcer, a match caller, an article on WWE? I don't know what you mean about Trips insulting Neville (he already had a move called Red Arrow, so calling him that in contrast to Green Arrow seems fitting), but insulting nicknames are still nicknames.
This issue actually came up before with adding "Captain Morgan" to Seth Rollins back in September. Special:Diff/680054025 is another example of a misleading editing summary as @EdgarCabreraFariña: claimed to merely be "adding a more reliable source". Although he did did do this for "The Man" by substituting a vague reference to Raw with an actual article (although in all fairness, when I added it, the article had not yet been published, I did so as it was uttered repeatedly throughout the show, articles usually come out a few hours after) he also covertly removed the Captain Morgan reference without explanation, even though I had twice sourced it.
I am tempted to restore it right now, albeit with some properly templated references. But I expect you might remove that too, so I'd like to run it by you first:
  • Cena, John (17 August 2015). "John Cena vs. Seth Rollins Contract Signing: Raw, Aug. 17, 2015". I figured there was no chance in hell I was ever getting close to that championship again until Captain Morgan over here opened his big fat stupid mouth!
  • Gregovich, Andrea (19 August 2015). "Quoth John Cena and Seth Rollins on the RAW before Summer Slam".
  • "Seth Rollins gets an unwelcome Night of Champions surprise: Raw, Aug. 31, 2015". 31 August 2015. John Cena: "do I have a match against Captain Morgan .. at Night of Champions .. for the United States Championship?" Stephanie McMahon: "Yes."
Ignoring for the moment of the question of whether either qualifies for your "official" status a moment, I am interested in knowing which you think is more notable. I'd personally think Captain Morgan more notable than Face of the Rising Sun because FOTRS was used self-referentially on backstage interviews for NXT while CapMorg was used by the face of the company in the company's prime feud (at the time) in the middle of the ring on the flagship show, plus Stephanie McMahon didn't correct him. When scheduling a match for the WWE World Heavyweight Champion versus United States Champion she simply replied "yes" acknowledging Cena's use of Captain Morgan to refer to Seth Rollins, something he had done 2 weeks previously.
I bring this up because it's another "2 weeks apart" instance of multiple uses. I'm just wondering if you think they are equally un-notable and if so for what reasons. I'm not saying Captain Morgan is the most notable, just that it occurred enough to be worth mentioning, and I went to the trouble of referencing it for that reason. Ranze (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the Captain Morgan one would be fine to add, because as you said, Stephanie McMahon acknowledged it with her "Yes" statement. However, self-referential nicknames shouldn't be added (at least in a commons sense manner) until WWE has started to refer to them as such, on a consistent basis, merch, etc. Crash Underride 00:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Crash Underride: thanks for the support, have added Cap Morgan, now to hope and see if it stands or gets reverted again. Regarding FOTRS what if there was media coverage about Breeze being called this outside of the aforecited two video segments:

I'm not sure how notable any of these are but it got a lot of repeating:

He said he's going to become the face of the rising sun..."

  • Aug 12 WrestlingNewsWorld.Com: "Breeze will be the face of the rising sun."
  • Aug 13 AXS.com: "Tyler Breeze cuts a nice short promo about how he's the face of the Rising Sun"
  • Aug 14 WrestleView.Com: "Domo arigato, Liger, thanks for helping me become the face of the Rising Sun."
  • Aug 16 DailyWrestlingNews.Com: "loved him saying he was going to become the face of the Rising Sun."
  • Aug 16 TJRwrestling.Com: "Breeze says he’s now the face of The Rising Sun." (also referend Aug 20)

A lot of self-referential nicknames may be obscure, forgettable, and not make waves, but this appears to have made waves and gotten repeated uniquely phrased mentions from NXT reviewers at the time. Ranze (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


I want to start this discussion long time ago. I'll give my POV, without any specific case. For example, I don't like the Captain Morgan nickname. When we're talking about promos, it's too hard. Captain Morgan feels like a joke, not like a nickname. In wrestling, wrestlers include jokes or personal attacks in their promos, but I don't see it as nicknames. Same for commentator, journalist or WWE.com writers. For example, Luke Harper. He had a nickname "the bizarre". Source, a WWE video "X is fighting the bizarre Luke Harper". I see that as an adjetive, not a nickname. Señf-referential... Breeze presented himslef in SmackDown under 3 nicknames (They call me The Gorgeous One, The King of Cuteville, and The Sultan of Selfies). Wrestlers include a lot of big word in their promos (I'm the Man, I'm the Face, I'm the Sensation...) I think, if we include promo jokes (Rollins as Captain Morgan, Taker as Obi Wan Kenobi), random adjetives (the bizarre Luke Harper)... we'll have an endless nickname section. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I see that is a good point Since I see a difference between a commonly used nickname and a one off insult made by a another wrestler. For example Heath Salter and Billy Gunn were once called the Wendy's Girl and Billy Billy Bitchcakes but John Cena and Edge respectably though neither article included these name no do I believe that they should.--65.94.253.102 (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Suddenly, Sheamus has two new nicknames. The first, some random insult/joke Big E. The other... I don't know, unreliable sources. Again, are you sure these are nicknames? Because I see all of them as insults, jokes, promos, adjetives... no nicknames. We're realy f*k with people like Wyatt, Cena or New Day during their promos. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

My proposal for nicknames. 1, a source about nicknames. Like OWOW, Cagematch... where we can find a section about Nicknames. 2, the promotion. A source with the promotion names a wrestler under a nickname (for example: The Deviant Michael Hutter returns Home) 3, articles or bios...for sure WWE, TNA articles'll contain nicknames. WHAT TO AVOID: Journalist, commentators, wrestlers promos... (except the promotion includes them into sources). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

At the barest of minimums, we need these to be backed up by some reliable sources. I've seen WrestleZone, Cageside Seats, and various other dirtsheets used by those who are adding dubious nicknames across various articles. See WP:PW/RS, anything unreliable must go. LM2000 (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem with dismissing "joke" nicknames based on them originating from a personal attack promo is that this is exactly how "Fruity Pebbles" originated, and WWE has explicitly referred to this as a nickname. Your concern about numbers building up could I guess be dealt with by requiring a nickname to be mentioned more than once? Only problem there is you could have people go around deleting very established nicknames just because we haven't cited 2 sources for it. Did Cena use "Wendy's Girl" more than once? Did Edge use "Billy Billy Bitchcakes" once or more?

Requiring infrequently edited encyclopedias (these are very wiki-ish to begin with, no?) to mention something seems too high a resource. If there's direct evidence from the programs that the names are used repeatedly, it should be enough. The idea of there being an "official nickname" is oxymoronic, the whole point of nicknames is that they aren't the official names.

The unreliable sources issue LM2000 brings up, isn't that pretty much to avoid dirt-sheet predictions and unverified rumors? Basic facts like when a match occurred or who won the match or nicknames introduced in dialogue are all pretty reliably covered even in otherwise unreliable sites. Ranze (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If a reliable source hasn't covered it then it's not encyclopedic.LM2000 (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
If WWE refers an insults as a nickname, no problem. However, we can't interpretate every promo to include every joke or insult, like Sheamus Magic Mohawk, Rollins Captain Morgan. We have sources about one wrestled said something about other wrestler. However, not a nickname. For example, CM Punk-John Cena feud: You are a dynasty (new nickname The Dynasty), you're the New York Yankies (new nickname, The New York Yankies) You Son of a Bitch (new nickname, the Son of a Bitch).... endless. Again, I'm against usen wrestlers promos or comentators as source for nicknames (again, because we're screw with people like New Day, Heyman, Cena or Wyatt). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Sometimes a commentator will coin a nickname and it will stick, like JR calling Triple H "The Cerebral Assassin" or Tazz dubbing Taker and Kane as "the Brothers of Destruction". But a) that happens at a very low percentage compared to the other passing comments that don't stick, and b) it will take weeks or months before we really know that it's a nickname that has stuck (usually when it shows up on a t-shirt!). So we shouldn't use something that was said on TV once as a "nickname", and especially on tha same day it's said! That runs very afoul of WP:RECENTISM. Frankly we shouldn't treat any one promo or announcer as a reliable source at all, unless it's reinforced by something else, and even then you e got to remember that the WWE will gladly resort to hand waving and painting history in broad strokes if it serves the current and future storylines. oknazevad (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
This seems like a common sense approach. Triple H is "The Game", "The Cerebral Assassin", and "The King of Kings"; he is not "The Big Nose Bastard" because Kurt Angle called him that on a couple of SmackDowns in 2002.LM2000 (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The Fruity Pebbles example has a major flaw. Granted that was a nickname that originated from a insult but that does mean that every insult will became a nickname. Also, when people here are against using a name from a insult they most likely mean that they don't want a name only traced back to a single insult identified as a nickname and not a ban on well known nicknames that happen to originate from insults. To put it more clearly Fruity Pebbles is fine since it carried over but it appears that Captain Morgan has not carried over so it should not be included.--67.68.208.222 (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Merging Roman Reigns and Dean Ambrose with The Shield (professional wrestling)

I propose that Roman Reigns and Dean Ambrose be merged into The Shield (professional wrestling) and ask for feedback and support for the merge.

Please see my reasons and the discussion so far here. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heytherehowsitgoin (talk • contribs) 21:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

WWE World Heavyweight Championship reign totals

They cite the chart at http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/wwe-world-heavyweight-championship as grounds to do so, which is OR. They blatently ignore the declaration of merged lineages, which as the above sources prove, means that holding the World Heavyweight Championship also counts as a former reign as WWE World Heavyweight Champion.

These sources are being ignored and the reverters are not addressing this or how they keep removing evidence which contradicts them while failing to add reliable sources to support the claims they introduce. They do WP:SYNTH and then falsely accuse detractors of doing so.

People keep removing these sources from pages, can this WikiProject please help prevent the vandalism? 174.92.132.81 (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The sockpuppet investigation involving this IP and Ranze may interest some members of the wikiproject. You can find that at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ranze.LM2000 (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Well now that that unjust ban is over, since I was simply editing on a tablet I don't log in due to technical handicaps (not to pretend to be someone else), do you have any interest in actually addressing the arguments I brought up here @LM2000: ? Your above response seems like an ad hominem attack, like "pay no attention to these words, they were written by someone who was trying to engage in mischief!"

The reliable sources above have been removed from the page. Why are we opting to ignore them when we have no reliable sources stating otherwise?

I would like to negotiate with you some kind of recognition of what they represent. If we are not going to conclude "Sheamus is a 4-time WWE Champion" could we at least acknowledge that Cole, Sheamus and WWE.com staffers are all calling him this? Just as we should acknowledge Cena is being called 15-time and Orton is being called 12-time and Rock is being called 10-time?

I'm not opposed to 'teaching the controversy' but I think if we are merely going to call them 12of15-time, 8of12time, 8of10time and 3of4time, these conclusions should be reliably sourced.

That means specifically citing a source which counts 12/8/8/3 not simply linking to http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/wwe-world-heavyweight-championship and being all "see I counted this" because that is treating Wikipedians like reliable experts on interpreting the data, something we shouldn't do. If someone counts a number of reigns on that page and that count leads them to a conclusion and that conclusion is contraicted by a reliable source then we should defer to that reliable source and re-examine our conclusions.

It seems kind of absurd that WWE.com's "title history" page is being used as a source to support these lower numbers when WWE.com on other pages is reaching other conclusions.

WWE.com is interpreting that chart differently than Wikipedians reading it and writing these lower numbers are. They are the authority here, so we should be calling Cena 15-time, Orton 12-time, Rock 10-time and Sheamus 4-time just like they are. The former World title reigns are consistently being counted as former WWE World Heavyweight Championship reigns. It is not only WWE/WWF reigns being counted.

While it is true that they do not appear on the chart on the 'title history page', that page does not say anything about it being conclusive, and it even says that the lineages were merged. By the counts they give us, the lineage-merge clearly means these World reigns count. Ranze (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

WWE was doing this before the unification. It has been an issue for years. It is nothing new. It is a simple misunderstanding of what they mean. WWE has not merged the title histories. They are still two titles. Sheamus is a four time WWE World Heavyweight Champion. He is not a four time WWE Champion. He has held been a world heavyweight champion in WWE on 4 different times. It is about how things are said and marketed.--WillC 19:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This not being a new issue of debate doesn't mean we should just considered it settled forever, we should always be analyzing this issue. The WWE has officially stated that they merged the lineages. That they keep a separate chart for the World Heavyweight Championship is irrelevant, it is a lineage merged with that of the WWEWHW, WWE.com actually says this and have made statements to that effect, calling him a 4-time WWEWHW champ. I agree that it IS about how things are said and marketed: we should describe these titles and how they work as WWE does, not make up our own more convenient rules about it. Ranze (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"The WWE has officially stated that they merged the lineages" When did they do this?LM2000 (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
"At WWE TLC on Dec. 15, 2013, WWE Champion Randy Orton defeated World Heavyweight Champion John Cena to unify the two titles, melding the two most vital championship lineages in all of sports-entertainment and creating the WWE World Heavyweight Title." [3] Feedback 03:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
"The Viper unified the two most vital title lineages." [4] Feedback 03:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Feedback. I think that means something different than what Ranze thinks it means. World Heavyweight Championship (WWE)#Historical lineage discusses the WHC's relation to previous titles and uses similar language. Despite sharing heritage with the NWA and WCW titles, the WHC's exact title history is different. As Will points out, they've been doing this for awhile and it's the same now as it was then.LM2000 (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Tyson Kidd and Cesaro

Can someone do something about this page? Editors keep adding that they "were a tag team" and that they disbanded in June when Kidd got hurt. I keep undoing the edits with the summary that just because a member gets injured doesn't mean they've disbanded. Besides, there's been no mention of them splitting up ever made. Crash Underride 06:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? No one has an opinion on this matter? Crash Underride 14:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that there will be something official that states that they are disbanded, Cesaro will continue doing his thing and by the time that Kidd comes back he should have moved up in the card. El Alternativo (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Well can we at least get people to stop saying they've disbanded until Kidd returns and see if he starts teaming with Cesaro again? To me it's presumptuous to assume they've split up. Crash Underride 16:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I guess that we can say that the team is "inactive", despite being pretty much disbanded for the reasons mentioned before. El Alternativo (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject tag

I am curious to know why this project still uses the arbitrary "importance" category when classifying its articles. It seems like most of the other projects have dropped it. 166.172.189.110 (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I am intrigued by this as well, it seems that the importance scale gives more importance to any midcard card wrestler that has competed in WWE/WCW/TNA than some wrestlers that are pretty much legends in their respective countries. El Alternativo (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I've been changing the importance tags on alot of articles. It is mostly because people don't pay attention to those articles. It takes certain editors to get things changed. When I got here all of the TNA articles were completely underdeveloped. The ROH stuff barely existed. With time we get editors with knowledge of certain areas and things get changed. It is because of the American culture, we are very American-centric. The samething is happening on the Spanish and Japanese pedias. The stars in those countries have all of the expansion while somewhat known wrestlers here have little expansion. The problem is just not enough editors, not the importance criteria.--WillC 20:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I see... Well, I am willing to translate anything that is more detailed in the Spanish Wikipedia if anyone here is willing to help me polish some of the articles that I'm interested in. I can get sources and help verify anything that I witnessed, but English is still my second language and I don't feel confident enough to nominate anything to GA/FA. For example, I believe that with a little work we can get WWC Universal Heavyweight Championship to FL, I can even expand the history section a bit. What do you guys say, quid pro quo? El Alternativo (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I can probably help expand that to FL next month. Sourcing is the issue.--WillC 09:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, if I am given a week or so, I can extract sources for this and many more articles from the internet archive. Also, is there any Spanish-language topic that is particularly underdeveloped? If so, I can begin by translating the articles within it. El Alternativo (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

All Japan Pro Wrestling

Could someone that is familiar with Japanese wrestling (more so than I am) please come to my talk page and explain to me the what that style is? How it compares to lucha libre, the American style and the New Japan style? I've seen it on the AJPW article every time I've been there and I have no clue what it is. Thanks. Crash Underride 16:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

AAA Mega Championship

The latest revert in this article is weird. Is Jeff Jarret's cameo of a disguised belt, that wasn't even acknowledged by its its name ever, more notable that the inaugural and record champion? If that is considered "international consideration" wouldn't Mesias' use of "El Mega Triple Campeón de AAA" as a ring name abroad be "international consideration" too (at least he made reference to the name)? What about any of the other guys that had more than one reign, or at least more than one defense? 166.172.188.89 (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Well... I think we sould put an image according to the section. We don't have a Texano photo, so the wrestler with most reigns (a records) it's more appropiate. One suggestion, the intro is huge. Maybe, we can create a History section and include Jarrett. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The title recently went through the FL process. It is peer reviewed. The image chosen was because Jarrett appeared with the title over two countries and on Impact with it. This is the English wikipedia. The image is of good quality and clear to meet with FL standards. The other image was grainy and not up to par. The article does not need a history section or anything else because all of that information is already included.--WillC 20:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
FLs go by different standards than regular articles also. If a good quality clear image can be presented then fine, but switching out a good one for a bad one does not make the article any better.--WillC 20:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Problem is, it's not "List of AAA Mega Champions", it's the only article on the title at all. So list article criteria are the incorrect standard for it. The lead is too long, the article does need a history section, and the image should reflect the actual title, not some use in an outside promotion. Sorry, but the article is poor and needs an overhaul; FL is incorrect because it misrepresents the scope of the article. oknazevad (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It can not stand alone as a normal article. It is an FL. It passed the Fl criteria. The project is wrong for it was designed as a list, it was agreed upon to be a list, and it passed the criteria. This is already a consensus. It is a list. Choosing to turn it into a standard article that can't pass GA is against policy standards. Degrading the quality of an article on a moment's notice just for a whim is illogical. An article does not have to have the word list in it to be a list. It is a table of champions with a summary of the important history. That is exactly what a title list has always been. This was expanded by two editors who have a long history of Fl and article expansion, myself and @MPJ-DK:--WillC 02:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft page tagging

I guess I'll ask here but is this project against tagging Drafts for some reason? I tagged Draft talk:Naomi & Tamina (Professional wrestling) and other wrestling articles so that they appear in Category:Draft-Class Professional wrestling articles and MFD and other places but they've be removed under the claim that the project doesn't want them if they've been rejected by AFC (even if there's a chance they could be worked on). A lack of tagging has been an issue in the past when it comes to notifications for this project in particular. I'm asking because a number of projects have been incorporating the draftspace with their requested articles and building out drafts there but I'd suggest this project turn off draft-class if it's actually against it for whatever reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

three of the four untagged will never be article as they were 1) an article that already exsts, 2) a cruft list of video game characters and an article on a team that existed for 10 days. None would survive and AFD. Why tag that.stuff? Fourth one is an AFD nom that was rejcted 3 months ago notability and nothing was done. Why tag old junk? If it had potential i could see it be tagged. MPJ-US  05:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Articlez, Draft talk:TASW Cruiserweight Championship, Draft talk:List of Characters in WWE 2k16, Draft talk:Naomi & Tamina (Professional wrestling) and finally Creating Draft:WWE 2K16 which he deleted himself. Really these are such crap.i already wasted too much time on them. MPJ-US *

New AfD

I have nominated The League of Nations (professional wrestling) for AfD. The discussion can be found here. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 20:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Announcerless Game

Discovered this through the DYK section of the main page. Left a note on the talk page about Lawler's heart attack and how that episode of Raw continued without any commentary during the matches. Someone responded on a positive note about mentioning it in that article. While I've read any number of things about that episode, I'm clueless about what might constitute the best sources for such a thing in a non-wrestling article. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Problem is, commentary did continue on that episode. Michael Cole continued to broadcast uninterrupted during the match where Lawler had his heart attack, and continued after the commercial. In fact, it was his cool-under-fire reaction that is often mentioned as the hallmark of his professionalism, burnishing his reputation for the better, and the point where they dropped the annoying heel turn he had been stuck with. In short, I'm sorry to say, you're wrong about it being an announcerless episode. oknazevad (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I never watched the entire episode. What portions I did watch had no commentary during the actual matches, only Cole explaining before or after the commercial breaks about what had occurred and that there would be no commentary during the program's remaining matches out of respect to Lawler, which was consistent with what I read. I have a copy of the Lawler DVD which goes over that night's events in some detail, but I don't remember if it contains anything which would confirm or deny that. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of Jerry Lawler: right this minute, I'm listening to a radio broadcast of a prior edition of the "Yukon Jamboree", a Koyukon music festival held in Galena, Alaska (if you at all care, Athabaskan fiddle describes this subgenre). The first song I heard was "Bad News", written by J. D. Loudermilk and recorded by Johnny Cash, among others, including Jerry Lawler. The other day, for whatever reason, I was reminded of hearing Lawler do this song many decades ago. Then, lo and behold, there it is on the radio, albeit not Lawler's version. While Googling Lawler's music career just a minute ago, I see the following comment from a discogs.com user: "Truly the reason I collect records". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Professional wrestling decisions

Hey there needs some more eyes on Professional wrestling. Some users are adding "technical knockout" and "technical submission" when there is no such decision that has ever been recorded. It's either knockout or submission (or ref stoppage). One user that I've warned claimed in edit summary that the whole thing is unsourced, leading to him thinking he can just add anything he wants. So what do we do? Maybe we need to source the proven decisions but honestly isn't that a waste of time? 101.182.142.136 (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Guys, what the f? The anon is trying to stop vandalism, why are you giving him such a hard time? He formatted his request exactly the same way many of us have done such over the years. What, just because he's an IP he's the one who needs to be scrutinized and treated like shit? Seriously? A 5 second glance at the recent edit history of professional wrestling (the article which the IP specifically asked about and linked) shows that a single user keeps trying to reinsert original research using justifications about the section being unsourced (and so claiming that that user, who is not an anon, can add what ever he wants) despite being reverted multiple times by multiple users. It's obvious who is in the wrong here, so why does the guy who is actually doing the right thing here get crapped on? oknazevad (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not giving them a hard time. They're being lazy. It's called evidence. Provide some. I'll make it easy for them. Add a link to the difference page of the article showing the change(s) you are referring too. It takes less than a minute. You can do it easily. Try doing that and being more civil. "Professor Doink" lol. CrashUnderride 12:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
It's about the pattern of behavior, which is the entire recent edit history. Do you want a dozen or so recent diffs to cutter up the page, or are you going to not be so lazy and just click the bloody link? oknazevad (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Good job, you abrasive attitude just made me not give a damn about his complaint now. CrashUnderride 13:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yawn... --wL<speak·check> 17:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to see how the SPI regarding Mega Z090 and the 101 IP turns out (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mega Z090) before I lose much sleep over this. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup Bot Listing

I am not sure how many people know we have a pro wrestling project Clean up bot listing that shows which pro wrestling articles are tagged with what issues? Go to the page, sort alphabetically and you can see that we have a lot of articles listed (1591 or 23% of all artices) which includes 6 FAs, 8 FLs and 78 GA articles and a slwe of lower rated articles. I have been working on this list for a couple of weeks, bringing the percentage down sigificantly, but I am believe that those that promoted the articles to FA/FL/GA have a vested interest in fixing the article issues, after all if they remain they may affect their FA/FL/GA status. And hey if you feel like helping clean up articles within your area of interest that's even better. MPJ-US  07:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It's great to have a reminder from time to time. Unfortunately, some of the categories are very vague--I've looked through a few "Articles with reference errors", but I can't see what the errors would be. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Well i fixed those already. Usually that means that the same cite name was define twice, they stand out and can be fixed with no knowledge of the actual article. But yes some arr vague, i believe i have figured out what triggers each section so.if you have questions you can always just ask me.  MPJ-US  17:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

combined reigns/combined names

Hi. A new nitpick question. In the combined reigns, If a wrestler won a title under two ringnames (for example, Rocky Maivia/The Rock or Keji Mutho/The Great Muta) we include both ringnames in the combined reigns section. However, in WWE Tag Team Championship and Intercontinental, an IP and Aleuuhhmsc delete ringnames only to one (Johhny Nitro/John Morrison to John Morrison). IC and WWE Tag Team are FL, so I saw other FL (IWGP Heavyweight, WCW World Tag Team, WWE Cruiserweight, IWGP Junir Heavyweight). All these FL include the combined reigns with the combined names. So... who's right? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  • If two or more ring names while holding a title, include them all! We can't say only the second or the first name won the title. starship.paint ~ KO 02:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    • They are the exact same person! I pointed out in the list of reigns that someone was formerly known as their previous ring name (for example, John Morrison: formerly known as Johnny Nitro). Plus, the tables look so much neater if you just put the most recent name in there.Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
      • yes. He is the same person working under two or more ringnames. I think each table should work by itself. combined reigns and combined names. For example, the ovw tag team title. Why should I search in table 1 to understand table 2 and find mr black also wrestled as cousin otter?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
        • because they are on the same page...any reader that stumbles upon an article kinda needs to read the whole article to understand it. If this doesn't work, then something needs to be done to make the table look neater because with all the slashes and the fact that the table's width is doubled makes it look really bad. Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Include all ring names. All the notable information should be included.--WillC 04:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

How about including their real name in small text and parenthesis below their ringname? Gimmicks change all the time and sometimes a wrestler may win a title under more than one name, or worse yet, two different wrestlers may win the same title under the same gimmick (especially in places where masked characters are common). El Alternativo (talk) 17:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

WWE

Apparently, User:Mega Z090 doesn't realize that WWE's name is WWE and not World Wrestling Entertainment anymore. So they keep reverting edits on the List of professional wrestling promotions list so it reads incorrectly "World Wrestling Entertainment". While that is the company's legal business name they have been WWE in all other aspects since 2011, therefore we've been listing them as such. I'm in full support of a temporary ban or some form of sanction because this use refuses to stop. <sarcasm>They're always right, we're always wrong, etc.</sarcasm> CrashUnderride 00:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I've sent them a detailed message on why they're wrong and have also warned them for edit warring. If they do another revert it can get taken to WP:AN/EW.LM2000 (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I'm so sick and tired of this crap. They've started a section on the list's talk page. CrashUnderride 01:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

One more: Combined reigns

Hi. One more question. In the NXT Championship, we have a discussion about WHEN we include the table "combined reigns". @Wrestlinglover: and @Aleuuhhmsc: say we should include the table after the second champion overall. According to WillC, " The only discussion took place at FL, where all notable information is to be included. That includes all statistics regarding a championship" (when Will appears, he'll include more information about his POV). @Mega Z090: and I say we should include the table when the first two times champion is crowned, so we have reigns to combine. I say "Without a multi-times champion, the table doesn't include new information, only repeats the same information we have in the main table" because "Click in "days held " and all champions will be ordered". Also, is a practice people makes over the years (Divas title, NJPW IC Title, ROH TV Title and [[6]]) So... what do you think, wikiproject? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should have a combined reigns section without any multi-time champs. With a sortable title history, it's completely pointless. Also, it is called "combined" reigns. When there's only one-time champs, there's nothing to combine. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 20:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree. There's nothing to combine. The table becomes pointless retread. oknazevad (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:TENFOOTPOLE. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

If there are no repeat champions then the sorting functionality covers it. Redundant if there are no combined reigns to calculate etc. MPJ-US  01:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Is the real point of the table multiple reigns or who has held the title the longest? It is the latter. The multiple reigns are not even the primary purpose. It is a minor thing covered. Total days is what is discussed and displayed. The other table does not focus on this. It focuses on the history of the title. This table tells exactly who has held the title the longest regardless of the number of reigns. That is notable information.--WillC 20:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
you totally lost me. Combined reign or who held it the longest?? That is like saying water or H2O

? If there are no multi champs then just sort by length. Would we really add a whole table to it a different default sort order?  MPJ-US  21:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

We are already doing that. We wouldn't even need the table if there were multiple champions. A reader could just add up the days themselves. If we are basing policy decisions on that, then what is the point of the table in the first place. The information is notable regardless. If there were two reigns, only one sector of the entire table would change.--WillC 23:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
As I said, if you click in Days held, you have all reigns ordered shortest-longest. It's the exact same information. I don't see the point, isn't new information, it's the same information. However, if somebody wins the title twice, we have new information. Also, "we're doing that", but Ribbon, MPJ-DK, Oknazevad, Mega and myself are against that practice. Combined reigns, but no reigns to combine, pointless. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
soooo.... let me get my tenfoot pole out, with the whiplash inducing 180 in the discussion i cannot take this discusion serious any more.  MPJ-US  00:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Why? The discussion includes a significat number of articles. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

UTC)

Because one argument went from "Always included" to "nah bro remove them completed, they can do their own math.", at this point my contributions would be to repeat the argument that they are needed when there is a multi champion.  MPJ-US  01:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Which means Will resorted to reductio ad absurdam, a logical fallacy. oknazevad (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
well, I came here with the discussion because in the nxt article we stop at the same point, so I looked for new opinions. If we have the same problem, maybe a votation will be another way. Will repeats his arguments and i repeat my arguments over and over. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Yup the cycle of repeated argument, I stated my position, the logic behind it and what my preference is. I have been caught repeating my argument over and over with Will until people turn a deaf ear to it and just ignore it. So perhaps we need some kind of poll to see where we stand 1) Always include the combined reign table 2) only include when there are repeat champions 3) never include them, not arguments pro, con, unincorn for the arguments but to see where people stand. MPJ-US  04:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

What I did was use your logic against you. I didn't take it to absurdity levels. The argument against the table is "You can use the sorting function to get the information." My argument is "You can look at the table and get multiple reigns from a champion and the amount of days the champion held the belt." The exact same argument. Use the previous table to get the information. My basis for keeping it as is, is because all information is included. Some users have no idea that the tables are sorted. Some aren't even sortable. Look at the WWE Title lists. They've included multiple rowspan columns which messes up all sorting. The argument that the previous table gives the information is incorrect because the tables do not operate accurately, effectively, and efficiently.--WillC 07:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

If the table isn't right, we should repair it. We can use "some tables aren't right" as a reason. And again, I'll repeat myself "combined reigns is to combine reigns, we haven't reigns to combine"... the point of the table isn't show reigns by lengt, instead combined days from different reigns. Somebody want's a poll? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
If the point of the table is multiple reigns then remove the last column of combined days. Because if the point is reigns, then days are not important. If the days are the important part, then the days are the purpose of the table. It is combined reigns, but what are we combining? The days as champion. What is the difference between 1 reign and 2? A day. Same reason to get rid of it, is to keep it. The previous table gives the information. Tables performing incorrectly is a huge issue. If we are getting rid of the table because the other gives the information and the other table is incorrect then what is the point of getting rid of the correct table? As far as voting. I remember consensus is based off discussion, not voting per policy. Though I'm rusty on whether voting is allowed anymore.--WillC 13:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, discussion. However, we stucked at this point two days ago. And I was in many project discussion where after two days arguing, people get tired and the discussion never closed. I think the main table is perfect, with individual days. For combined reigns, I can combine different reigns of the same wrestler, I can't combine John Cena and Randy Orton reigns, but I can combine Cena's 12 reigns. Here, what's the point of the second table? Pointless, it's the exact same information I have in the main table. Again, the purpose of the combined reigns table is to combine the days of each wrestler to get the combined days as champion. Without multi-times champion, I have nothing to combine. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The point, combined reigns. All wrestlers of the NXT title are one time champion. Can you explain to me what in the hell are you combining? Ribbon said better "hen there's only one-time champs, there's nothing to combine." Nothing. And many users agree, the table it's pointless without a multi-times champion. How many times I have to explain the puropose of the combined reigns table? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem you aren't seeing is the difference between one reign and two is 1 day. Under your logic, the table is not needed until multiple people have multiple reigns. Look at the ROH World Championship list. I got it passed by FLC when it didn't have multiple champions. Look at it now. Only 2 wrestlers have more than 1 reign. No major difference. You are acting as if the title once it gets a 2 time champion, the whole table changes. No, one sector changes. If the policy is once someone gets it twice a table is needed, then why not just put it in there now and get it over with?--WillC 14:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

-After the second reign overall.

-After the first two times champion --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

If anyone is questioning whether I regret invoking WP:TENFOOTPOLE, the answer is no. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Believe me @GaryColemanFan: I wish I could as well.--WillC 15:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
side note, a comment from Will made me curious, after checking out title articles outside.my focus area (Mexico) i see a ton of lists that are like several versions out of date, i did not realize that.  MPJ-US  16:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
That is the consistency now MPJ. Lists I did are out of date now. Not enough editors to keep them up to date anymore. It is really sad. The state of some articles. I honestly think the Mexican lists are probably the best ones on here now because of you.--WillC 05:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Wow even some in Category:WWE championships are old versions of the table. MPJ-US  03:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk page merge

Does anyone know how to move Talk:Stan Frazier to Talk:Uncle Elmer if there is already content on the target page? I'm assuming there's a way to merge them, but I don't know how. Is this an administrator job? GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've requested that be moved via Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.LM2000 (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
It's been moved. Thank you. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Another userbox

Let me tell you something, Jimmy Valiant. This user is going to go through you just like Ex-Lax through a widow woman!

As I've been accused in this forum of "only caring about old school wrestling" or words to that effect, I came up with an old school wrestling userbox. At this point, it's not exactly finished. For one, I'm not sure where to insert the gratuitous link to Lawler's article. For another, the use of "Ex-Lax" could be construed as being an improper use of a trade name, even though that's Lawler's exact quote. For still another, this image would be a better one to use, but the file description page says that explicit attribution is required, and I can't see how that could be accommodated in a userbox. Nightscream, any thoughts on that? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The attribution in question refers to its use outside of Wikipedia. Let me know if you end up creating that Userbox, so I can bookmark it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 09:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Nightscream, thank you for the clarification. Two things made me decide to stick with this photo, though: 1) it renders better at this resolution, and 2) more importantly, it appears to have been taken in 2003, so depicting a younger Lawler helps better represent the "old school" context of the userbox. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Cool beans. Thanks for all your work. Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Consensus vote

I've started a vote on the talk page of NXT Championship regarding the combined reigns table. This also has an effect on the NXT Women's Championship at least. Could everyone pop over and voice your thoughts, please? I'm done debating the issue, and I think a vote is the only way to settle it (maybe - we'll see). Mega Z090 (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I knew that. It's why I said "maybe". Mega Z090 (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Be careful, remember how Mega is. It'll keep going and going and going and going, etc. CrashUnderride 20:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
You can't tell Mega anything. He wants his way and is willing to whine all day and force his way despite not knowing what he wants to begin with. For the last few days I've been saying random stuff just to watch him throw a fit.--WillC 01:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Which proved my point that you aren't interested in a consensus - so I went to a vote simply to show how many people felt that same way I did. You only have one supporter so far last I looked. It looks like you're the one chucking a fit. Mega Z090 (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, if you post on their talk page more than twice and they don't like what you have to say, they remove it and "ban" you from their talk page. They think they're more important and better than they actually are. Their sense of Wiki-self worth is insanely over inflated. CrashUnderride 01:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Mega, a consensus is not established by 2 people. It is established by many. Sorry I didn't think a consensus was going to be established with someone who has been under review and not liking to discuss constructive ideas. Again, consensus is not a vote. Unless they are directly involved in a solution, their statements are pointless. Look above, the previous discussion has already died. This one will problem die as well since no one is actually discussing the information. They are just repeating the same stuff and stating policies they have no idea what they are about. Like you quoting NPOV of view and having no idea you are.--WillC 02:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Your idea is not constructive and you have admitted to fueling the debate with random stuff to try and gain your way. I'm not the one trying to destroy consensus. You're doing a fine job trying to wreck it yourself, and the vote is a fine demo of your folly. Of course the pure numbers mean nothing. It's the underlying message that is more important. It's not going to die until a consensus is achieved - people voting proves it. Your reference to the SPI is useless because I know how it's going to end, and it will end well for me as I know I have never edited under those IP's or that account. The check user will prove it. Mega Z090 (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
As far as I recall, I proposed a compromise and an idea to fix it. You just wanted to delete it and refused to discuss a compromise. You wishing to not work together led me to fueling the discussion with random statements because no one else was around and it is fun to poke you. However it works out in the end, if you are happy you got a table removed then I guess that is a small victory for bullshit mountain. Otherwise I'll go off and make constructive edits on articles undergoing peer review. If you are on the winning side of the discussion I'll be sure to give you a star. Something you can place on your desk to help you out.--WillC 04:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Your "compromise" was simply a smoke screen to maintain your original preference of keeping the table as it stands. Everyone so far except Starship Paint has seen it. What if the vote was going the other way? Would I be complaining and crying? No. I would accept the majority in the absence of anything concrete to the contrary (ie like there is with World Wrestling Entertainment/WWE). You on other hand....... Mega Z090 (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
You know what? I'm done. I've got better things to do. Do what you want. I don't care anymore. Mega Z090 (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
See you space cowboy.LM2000 (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, that was anticlimatic.--WillC 01:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

MadMax lists

Editor User:MadMax years ago created lists of wrestling things. Are these considered useful here? Could they be merged into something here? Else I'll list them for deletion.

I figured the work shouldn't go to a complete waste. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Eh, they're so outdated, having not been substantially edited since 2007, that I doubt they hold much value anymore. The website ones in particular; the websites the lists are compared to are long dead and/or were never really that notable, and the lists themselves, which were supposed to be maintenance lists of topics mentioned in those websites that we didn't get have articles for, are just outdated. For example, the first one is now all blue links, so the list is pointless. The notability guidelines for Indies is just one guy's opinion, not actually based on the GNG, and has a bunch of dead promotions on it. The precedents are pointless; outdated and XFD doesn't (always) work on precedent. And we already have a list of reliable references. So in short, an interesting group of relics, a great example of using one's sandbox as a place to coordinate your own notes and links, and hopefully something that proved useful in its time, but not needed anymore. I'd think it be okay if they were to be removed in routine cleanup. oknazevad (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Combined reigns table with defenses

I was cleaning up and fixing the combined reigns table for the List of ROH World Champions and @Browndog91: over here says that combined defenses goes last on the table and it has been that way for years. However, if you look at all the other tables with defenses, combined days always goes last, so I want to make sure I am correct here... Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

well ive been doing edits on the pages for 2 and half years I think and its always been defenses last and the only other company I can think of that count defenses is PWG and they put defenses before days but ive always liked it with defenses last simply because not every company records defenses so when people click from one company to another everything is in the same order from name, number of reigns, days held then defenses if recorded, also I take advice from people that were here before me so I had a quick chat with someone about tables a couple of months after I started and they had been edited for years before me and they said they wanted every table looking the same way so ive always stuck with that just because they knew better than me.
So we have a style guide linked at the top of this page, which has the number of defenses as the last column before the notes section.  MPJ-US  05:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
It is getting funny at this point. I've been watching this issue transpired and I hate to say it but we really have no actual agreement on what is the preferred style. I expanded the ROH list to FL. I put the combined defenses section in that article. When I did it was unusual. No other title had combined defenses. Only ROH and New Japan actually kept track of them until I did the AAA belt with MPJ and found that AAA does as well. Literally either way can work. We never discussed how the column should go to my knowledge. I just placed it in where I thought it looked best.--WillC 07:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok, but the table is ranked via the combined days, correct? So why would that column be in the middle, shouldn't it be last? It would make the most sense. Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I just placed it in that article because it needed to be. It is different in most of them that I did. I switched back and forth between styles.--WillC 00:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Lets just stick with the style guide at the top and agree on it makes everything a lot easier.
I never trust the style guide. It has been edited randomly with stuff added and changed without a consensus. This is an example of that. Looking at it, it is wrong from first look. I had to fix the table. The table was not sortable. Probably the best course of action is to have the days last but it can be either way.--WillC 11:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

My edits

Dear WikiProject Professional wrestling, All I am trying to do is help. I am doing my best to make pages about professional wrestling as best as they can. I spent a few hours editing all sorts of championship lists to make them look neat and tidy, and to make them look the same. Hell, one of the goals of the project says, "to establish a uniform style for wrestler biographies, wrestling events and wrestling promotions," and that is what I am trying to do, but maybe this is what I get for my efforts. Maybe it's just because I'm somewhat new at this. So sorry if my editing doesn't cut it for all of you, I'm just trying to help. Thanks. Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

When the title is vacated

I know for the WWE World Heavyweight Championship (the primary world championship in terms of reading and editing), the row is colored gray when the title is vacated. I have been looking at other title listings and formatting the table as such when the title is vacated, but some people are reverting my edits. Someone explain why and/or if my logic is correct or explain why my edits are being reverted... Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the edit you did for List of IWGP Tag Team Champions, that is totally in line with the most recent format, the # column is bold and a slightly different shade etc.  MPJ-US  17:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Where could we see this "current format" in its complete state (background colors, alignments, etc.)? It's so fucking tiring to have different editors come up and make different edits and all claim to follow a format. Just give us something we can point to and say THAT'S how it should be. This should be on the style guide. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 19:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

To start, the WWE title list is horrid. It is wrong on so many levels and would be demoted rather easily. Secondly, alot of the format changes were never discussed and just placed in by random ips. The format approved by the FL review should be kept unless the project agrees on an actual format.--WillC 19:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Stampede_Wrestling_50th_Anniversary_Show

This draft has come to AfC and none of us has a clue about wrestling, so it would be helpful for us AfC'rs and the creators of this article to get a "first opinion" assessment of it. It's been kind of lingering since none of us feels competent to handle it. Can someone pop in and help? Thanks, LaMona (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The submission was declined despite obviously meeting GNG. I moved it to mainspace. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Simpson and Simpson move request

For whatever reasons Shaun and Steve Simpson currently sit at articles Shaun Cohen and Steve Cohen (wrestler) when their actual last names are Simpson. Their dad used Cohen as his ring name and someone mistakenly thought that was his real name or something. I have requested a move for both articles, I believe it's uncontroversial but figured I'd put it here for everyone to see. MPJ-US  02:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Bill Apter would like to get in touch

This wrestling journalist discovered his article and would like to discuss it: [7]. I left a note on his IP talk page linking to WP:AUTO#IFEXIST, but an email might be in order as well. Does someone want to handle this? Please keep WP:Hazing in mind, and maybe link to Wikipedia:Notable person survival kit if it becomes necessary. FourViolas (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

His only complaint seems to be that we linked to an "official webpage" which he claims isn't his and features a book which he didn't write. Amazon does credit Apter with penning that book but Miami Herald claims he just wrote his first book, Is Wrestling Fixed, in 2015. I've removed the external link in question since I don't think that's a controversial request.LM2000 (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, the PWI 500 of 1994 told the world Luger was eighty spots better than Hase. I think we're even now. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
How do we even know it is Bill Apter? One second, let me drop to an ip and do the same edit. Do we really think Bill Apter is so dumb to not notice the discussion tab at the top of the page? This guy is supposed to be somewhat intelligent and the best he can come up with is a caps note on his own page? I don't buy it.--WillC 18:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Harvey Wippleman seemed like a nerd on TV, and this is the best he came up with. No impostor there, he mentions it on his Art of Wrestling interview. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I honestly agree with Will. I had that same thought when I first saw this. CrashUnderride 18:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
There's no way to know if it's him but I removed the "official website" either way because I did not think it would be controversial to do so. The IP traces to Pennsylvania and similar IPs have edited the page before, some with most of their edits just being made to that one article. If it's not him then somebody has a weird obsession with him to the point where they're making fake official websites and pretending to be him on wikipedia.LM2000 (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't know how long this has been, but all links to slam.canoe.ca are now apparently dead. However, the links can be fixed easily by changing them to slam.canoe.com. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 13:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like something that a bot could fix since it is a straight up replacement. MPJ-US  15:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
You sold out! You sold out! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Balls Mahoney

The Balls Mahoney article needs maintenance done in the indy section. I've tagged the section that needs work. I'd do it, but I'm busy catching up on Arrow and The Flash. CrashUnderride 03:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_96&oldid=1136048333"