Talk:List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling personnel

TNA "Superstar".

Apparently, at least one of us thinks TNA uses "Superstar" as a proper noun, like WWE. Any evidence for this?

Here, it's used lowercase, along with "stars".

Lowercase here, here and here.

It's just a word, like wrestler, talent, performer, competitor, etc. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, compares this "Wrestler Roster" to WWE's "Superstars". InedibleHulk (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2016

Please remove "Janice Carter" & "Owner; President / Chief Executive Officer of Panda Energy International (parent company of TNA)". Please change Dixie Carter's status from "President" to "Owner & President". Reason: TNA UPDATE: MAJOR CHANGES COULD COME SHORTLY 76.235.248.47 (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done that article clearly states "MAJOR CHANGES COULD COME SHORTLY" not have actually occurred - Arjayay (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, the article does mention that Dixie bought out both Panda Energy & Jeff Jarrett's stakes in TNA, placing her as the sole shareholder (a.k.a. Owner) of the company. That information is in no way in dispute at all. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Chris Melendez

Is Chris Melendez still part of TNA or not? I haven't heard any news of Chris Melendez being released so I would assume that he is still part on TNA. Yet there is edit war going on as Melendez keeps getting added and removed from the TNA Wrestling personnel page here on Wikipedia. Also, it imposable to currently check http://www.tnawrestling.com/roster/Wrestler-Roster because TNA's roster page is saying that it is forbidden 2.222.35.142 (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Jeff Jarrett

Per sources, all Jarrett has been announced as is working in a backstage capacity. It doesn't matter if he wrestled the last time in TNA during the GFW angle, he has not been announced as wrestling in any capacity at this point in time. Until he has an actual TNA sanctioned match annouced, he should remain in backstage personnel section. Hellboy42 (talk)

Alexxis Neveah

Just to provide clarity regarding Alexxis Neveah...she appeared during the January 11 tapings, and she appeared again for the following night's tapings.

It is quite apparent that they are building up the feud between the Wolves as Mr & Mrs Edwards vs Mr & Mrs Richards. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Alberto El Patron

How is this a photo off of Facebook, reliable, But this is not? I'm calling shenanigans.Hellboy42 (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You were edit warring so anything you post especially after you were warned for violating 3rr is pretty much unreliable, which is your fault. I told you to stop several times and you continued edit warring, which ended up getting you warned and reported. Also your linking to some guys personal twitter page, not TNAs Twitter or Alberto's or anyone associated with either of them but some random dudes twitter. The Facebook one actually links a picture, the Twitter just links some guys twitter. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Impact Wrestling

Should this page not be moved to "List of Impact Wrestling personnel" instead? 194.28.124.55 (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 29 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

---

List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling personnel → List of Impact Wrestling personnel – Companies name has been changed to 'Impact Wrestling', as per the companies article here on Wikipedia, as shown in the lead paragrapgh. 194.28.124.55 (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Support - as nom. Darkson (I survived the 525!) 19:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose until the change becomes more prominent. It's still in its beginning stages. There's no indication that their business venture/trademarking has changed. Plus, title belts still say TNA. DantODB (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply: see http://wrestlingnews.co/tna-news/its-official-the-tna-name-is-dead-former-wwe-star-makes-his-impact-wrestling-debut/ The company has been renamed. 194.28.124.55 (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nom. oknazevad (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Impact Wrestling personnel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111114074423/http://oversight-archive.waxman.house.gov/documents/20081231140812.pdf to http://oversight-archive.waxman.house.gov/documents/20081231140812.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Jarrett no longer Chief Creative Officer

Per Sports Illustrated: "Jeff Jarrett is out as Global Force Wrestling’s Chief Creative Officer". As stated here. Tabercil (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The Harris Brothers

Hi. Do you know something about the Harris Brothers status? They were producers during the Dixie Carter era because TNA had a deal with Aroluxe. Right now, I don't now. Aroluxe failed in the race for TNA and they are creating a lucha underground-like promotion. Do you think they still working at Impact? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Rebel

Alright, since she's been added and removed several times, what is the official stance on Rebel being an Impact talent? She's making regular appearances again on TV even if it's just as a jobber, but then by the same token, Ishimori is listed as an Impact talent even though he spends most of his time back in Japan now. What's the diff? 210.48.190.88 (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

What Constitutes a Guest?

Alright, because some people keep removing talents when they disappear for five seconds citing "they're a guest," or removing LU talents which get added for the same reason, what's the reasoning here? In theory, shouldn't that mean Ishimori gets removed? If Ishimori counts as an Impact talent, shouldn't Steiner and Dreamer stay, and shouldn't Drago, Fenix and Aerostar be put back on the roster since they've all worked for Impact more recently than Ishimori recently? And what of Vikas Kumar and Bhupinder Singh who haven't even debuted with the company yet in spite of being announced as part of the Desi Hit Squad back in January?

210.48.190.88 (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

several problems

Hi, guys. I don't watch Impact since 2014. However, this days I saw a lot of edit wars about Impact roster. I know Impact has changed, several wrestlers aren't under iron-contract, some of them are doing some dates... do you have this under control? Remember, sourcing it's important and if there is some problem, discuss it here. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm gonna remove Steiner, Dreamer and Rebel. I know they are the problematic ones, but 1, Impact official website list them as alumni. 2, there is no source about them hired by Impact, even as backstage producers. If somebody wants to put them back, include sources about them being hired by Impact. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

So, you don't watch Impact, haven't watched Impact in ages, yet somehow feel it's your place to dictate to those of us who do who works for Impact based on your feelings even though Dreamer, Steiner and Rebel have worked for Impact recently with Rebel having worked the last three sets of tapings. And yet because they don't have active profiles it's not good enough for you and only you, the guy who says he never watches Impact. Brilliant logic there, chief. Damolisher (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

First of all, be WP:CIVIL since you're agressive in your last comments.I explained several times, Wikipedia works with sources. If Steiner and Dreamer are moved to the alumni section, they're out (except another reliable source claims they still with the company). I don't need to watch the TV show, just to read the sources. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

First of all, don't quote bureaucracy at me, and secondly, yeah, again, you're trying to dictate to people who watch Impact what they are and aren't watching. That isn't helpful in the slightest, that's just arrogance for the sake of arrogance. Your argument is literally "my opinion means more than everyone else's.

And furthermore, Dreamer and Steiner were in the alumni section while Steiner was one of the tag team champions and so was Dreamer while in the middle of a feud with Eddie Edwards. Rebel has a recent photo gallery and tweeted several times she's with the company. You're literally trying to claim only one source is valid. Damolisher (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

If you don't want to read bureaucracy, leave Wikipedia right now, since that's how wikipedia works. I explained the rules and guidelines of the website. I'm not dictating what are you watching, I'm saying who of these people aren't under contract with the promotion, a system Impact and ROH uses a lot (reading the tapings, I see al least 5 names). No sources, they're out. A theme song and a photo gallery means nothing. End of discussion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

No, not end of discussion. They're current talent and it's called to roster, not a contracted wrestlers list. If they make regular appearances for the company then they're part of the company. Even if you want to argue that Dreamer and Steiner haven't been seen since Slammiversary or before, Rebel is still currently apppearing. Photo galleries and videos DO mean something because they indicate that talent is working with the company unless otherwise noted. You are not the authority on wrestling articles and yet again, you don't even watch Impact so if anyone's opinion is moot, it certainly isn't mine. You don't get to dictate how articles work.Damolisher (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. Sources don't say they are hired, just SYNTH and OR "they have a video, so that means..." No, it should be pretty clear. BTW, Rebel didn't work in the August TV tapings. And one more time, an user doesn't have to see the TV show to work in an article, just have to use sources. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Now if you could try using your own words instead of quoting technical jargon, that would be wonderful. My point stands, Rebel has worked with the company, has a new gallery and has her theme up on the Impact YouTube channel. You're splitting hairs and being obstinate for the sake of being a bureaucrat. Impact say Zach Wentz debuted, his theme is new, he did an interview before his match, so again, you're being obstinate. You have no proof which tells me I'm wrong, ergo, you're making edits which aren't constructive and go against Wikipedia's policy yourself. Damolisher (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You're adding unsourced material, doing WP:SYNTH. Find a proper reliable source which says Rebel and Zachary signed cotnrcts with Impact, don't assume, that's how wikipedia works. That's why admins hate pro wrestling in wikipedia, full of synth, fans who include everything without knowing Wikipedia rules or guidelines. I'm not going to discuss since you don't know how Wikipedia works and looks like you don't read the guidelines I provided --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Taya Valkyrie

I get she has been inactive. It says that it is because of visa issues. If it is visa issues, than why is she being booked by independent promotions in the United States? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

LU Trios champion

Hi. I have a question. As far as I know, Callihan never appeared in Impact as the LU Trios Champion. Do you think the note should be in the roster? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Gun-Jumping Reversions

Now, it's wonderful that HHH Pedrigree wants to be diligent and undo edits to the roster as soon as they happen, but wouldn't it make more sense under Good Faith to wait until something has been proven utterly false before undoing an edit? For example, The War Kings and Bram are obviously ambiguous and shouldn't be added to the roster until they appear in more than just a dark match, but Crazzy Steve has more evidence suggesting he's returned than he doesn't. I've included sources which somehow aren't good enough even though they back my point of view up. It's the same thing with Trevor Lee having not departed formally until January and it's the same thing with the Rascalz debuting. Somehow 3 weeks of usage and Trey Miguel being booked for the PPV doesn't mean they're under contract.

I'd wager money they'll air a vignette for Steve on Impact this week. My point is this: Can people lay off reversions until after Impact has aired? Because it literally seems like arrogance and hairsplitting for the sake of it when 9 times out of 10 the edits are correct to be there in the first place. Damolisher (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

First, I only want wikipedia articles follow the rules and policies of the websites. It's amazing how, the first reaction I have is "fuck the rules, let me do what I want" or "don't be a bureaucrat". Wikipedia has rules and we have to follow and one of the reasons the pro wrestling has a bad reputation is articles that don't follow guidelines. About the roster, is for wrestlers who are under contract and perform regularly. Right now, there is no sources of Bram, Crimson, Jax returning, just worked one day. For example, last week Raven apepared. Can I include him? Or why not James Logan? Again, not evidences or assumptions, sources. But, if you want to keep Crazy Steve, fine.

About the Trevor Lee, it wasn't my fault. A reliable source announced he left Impact. A few hours later, Lee said he was under contract. Let it go. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

So did you actually bother reading what I wrote? Because what I said was literally "The War Kings and Bram are obviously ambiguous and shouldn't be added until they appear in more than just a dark match." James Logan is obviously a jobber they bought in for the tapings which is why he hasn't been added. Petey Williams himself confirmed Raven was only there for the lead-up to Homecoming. If he shows up again actually managing someone, on the roster he goes. Crazzy Steve is a former talent appearing on an episode of Impact who won a match and has posted things which indicate he is back with the company. It isn't "fuck the rules, let me do what I want," it's "stop reverting things because you personally don't agree with them." You've been proven wrong multiple times before, yet you still do it to an article of a company you don't follow and don't watch. A little bit of common sense goes a long way. And the Lee example is literally you making an edit based on an assumption. It's exactly what you're complaining about, bud. Damolisher (talk) 08:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Did you read yourself? "James Logan is obviously a jobber they bought in for the tapings which is why he hasn't been added" WP:OR, WP:SYNTH WP:CRYSTALBALL. It's not i'm not agreeing with your edits, it about your edits being unsourced and full of OR and assumptions. The Lee edit it's the opposite, a reliable source informed Lee left the promotion at the moment. Then, he denied it, informing he was with the promotion. It's the opposite of an assumption, I follow what a source said. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

So I agree with the Steve edit as he didn't work in Mexico, but once again, STEINER HAS WORKED WITH THE PROMOTION MULTIPLE TIMES IN THE PAST TWO YEARS. HE IS IN A RECURRING ROLE. Also, stop quoting jargon at me. Ask anyone who edits these articles and they don't have the foggiest as to what the hell "WP BLEH BLEH" is. Explain it in layman's terms or don't bother. Damolisher (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I am just gonna touch on a few here:

• Steiner has not wrestled a match for Impact since April 2018. He appeared at that one taping and that was it. He has made a cameo or two since, but those are just for legend/nostalgia pops and he hasn't wrestled.
• Austin Aries is on their roster page, however Impact producer Peter Williams said here his contract ended at Bound For Glory 2018. He is among their biggest names, so don't you think Impact would be using him if he's under contract? His not injured because he has been wrestling for other promotions.
• Dreamer should be left out of the wrestling section, probably will still compete but his backstage role will supersede his ring work I would assume. But if he continues to be invovled in programs we shoild leave him with the wrestlers
• If someone cameos at a taping just because they are a local on a pay per appearance deal, do not add them unless we have a source saying the signed a deal with the company. There's a reason why Puma King, Disco Inferno, Raven etc. are not on here. STATic message me! 11:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Rules and policies

I have to explain this one more time. Like it or not, Wikipedia is based around rules and policies and we have to follow. It's not about beign a bureaucrat, it's about follow the rules to have good articles. Then, roster articles are for people who are under contract and work regiarly with the promotion. It's not about who worked with them last week, it's about who are part of the promotion, no a one day appearance. Wikipedia is not about "he appeared, that means he is back" (that's WP:SYNTH) or "I bet money he will be again" (WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:OR)... we need sources about the wrestler signed a contract or they work regularly, no just a one-day thing, like for example, Kikutaro, Crazy Steve or War Kings. It's the same for Melissa Santos. She was the ring announcer during the Mexico Tapings, but that doesn't mean she will be the ring announcer the rest of the year. Rign now, without sources, she only worked one day. About Steiner, he only makes guest appearances. He is not part of the roster, we can't include him just because he makes one appearance every 6 months. It's not like Taker or Lesnar (wrestlers under contract who make guest appearances). He is not under contract and don't work regularly with Impact, he is called when Impact wants. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Or, here's an idea: You don't dictate to those of us who watch Impact what to do. You've repeatedly stated you don't watch, you repeatedly act like we answer to you when making edits and you repeatedly get in edit wars with other users, your latest instance being the status of Gursinder Singh! You first tell Chaosithe that Austin Aries being on the Impact profile page doesn't matter and then use the same alumni section as if it's gospel! Give it a rest!

Damolisher (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is another aidea. Read the policies I gave to you and understand my editions. And stop this harassment you made to me every time I make an edit. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Tommy Dreamer

So what's the difference between say, Tommy being a producer and Petey being a producer? Because Tommy wrestles more than "occasionally," he wrestled again during the Vegas tapings, twice in fact. He wrestles more than some of the roster, if we're honest. So why is he classified as backstage personnel rather than a wrestler as opposed to a wrestler with "producer" in his notes like Petey and like Abyss used to? 121.74.130.168 (talk) 08:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Ace Austin and Sawyer Fulton

Yet again, wrestlers have debuted with the company and yet again, somehow actual spoilers from the tapings aren't a credible source? How does that work? It's getting more than a little tiring going through this pointless rigmarole every single time someone debuts. Where is the contradicting evidence? The spoilers literally state that Sawyer Fulton joined OVE, even if you will say Austin winning both matches that weekend are circumstantial.

Damolisher (talk) 08:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, why do I keep having to justify any edit I make to the same 2 people all the time? 2 people who've been proven wrong multiple times, might I add?

Damolisher (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

This content needs to be removed immediately for violating WP: SYNTH. This user is passing off information that the source he is using does not say. Impact constantly uses local talent for a single taping, it does not mean they are a part of the company now. WrestlingInc is one of the most unreliable sources out there. I am sure they are giving accurate spoilers, but nothing they say is reliable to us. The source you cited does not even say they are signed to the company at all. It says nothing of the sort. That is WP: OR and WP: SYNTH. StaticVapor message me! 08:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

That's nice. If you'd like to explain that to me not using technical jargon, that would be lovely. What would be lovelier is actually reading the source and using common sense. It's hardly "original research" when the people sending in the spoilers are actually at the show. Why would Sawyer Fulton show up and align himself with OVE for one show only when he's not a big enough name for a oncer and isn't an Impact legend? Why would Ace Austin show up both days and win his matches rather than be used to put over currently established talent? Because it seems to be like every time things like this come up, rather than going "that makes sense actually, my bad," yourself and HHHPedrigree would rather go "Oh, well here's some Wikiproject thing which says that even though we can't prove you wrong and what you say makes sense, jargon."

C'mon, dude. There's listening to jargon and there's using commonsense. Damolisher (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Click the links I am providing and you could learn something about Wikipedia policies. Original research is you pretending that the sources say they are signed when they do not. StaticVapor message me! 08:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

That comment literally addresses nothing I just said. Not only are you making unhelpful edits, you're literally choosing to ignore reasonable and truthful counterpoints. Damolisher (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not go off what we as editors think happened (WP: OR), it goes off what reliable sources report as facts. (WP:V). StaticVapor message me! 08:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

"Yes, you're right. I won't admit it, but you're right. I have nothing, so I'll revert to jargon and bureaucracy." Damolisher (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Ace Austin

Hey, look kids! A promo for Ace Austin aired tonight AND his Twitter bio says he's an Impact Wrestling star! I'll be editing him back in and I expect no further harassment. Damolisher (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

If you do not learn to become civil with other editors you will not improve your Wikipedia experience. StaticVapor message me! 19:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

People wasting my time by removing edits which myself or others then have to edit back in later doesn't improve my experience either. It costs nothing to say "I was wrong, I'm sorry." Damolisher (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Delilah Doom

While Impact are calling tonight's episode of Impact Delilah's debut, is it fair to assume that was a "debut" in the vein of Zach Wentz, Trey Miguel and Ace Austin where she's simply enhancement talent until a future date, or is she actually with the company? Can anyone clarify this?Damolisher (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

A Reliable source saying that she has signed a contract or will work with the company henceforth. If not, assumption is WP:OR --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

That isn't what I'm asking. I'm asking if anyone can provide one. Thus "can anyone clarify this." Damolisher (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I made a research and I found nothing. Only she worked during the tapings, not that she signed with Impact. Also, SoCalUncensored (which I don't know if it's reliable) said she didn't signed with Impact --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you for confirming. Damolisher (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

So these Disco Inferno rumours...

He's working the Vegas tapings but I've also heard the odd rumour here or there he's sticking around as a producer. Does anyone have any proof from anyone credible that he's not just there as a tapings only feud for Scarlett? Damolisher (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I made a research, but I found nothing noting him as a producer. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the source Static Vapor posted for Ace Austin states Don Callis has been on a hiring spree but also states Disco "was hired for Vegas." Reddit says someone he was a full-timer but I'll wait for something more concrete before he goes in. Damolisher (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Gursinder Singh's status with the company.

Simply because I am getting beyond annoyed with having to undo people removing Gursinder because for whatever reason Impact moved him to their alumni section, here it is in black and white: Gursinder is still with the company. Gursinder's "firing" was a storyline firing which they haven't explained because I don't think they know exactly what they're doing with the Desi Hit Squad. But Gursinder himself has been promoting himself being at Impact's Canadian tapings in March on Twitter since at least December and is doing a countdown of days as seen here: [1] , here: [2] and here: [3] , in addition to still being used on house shows and teaming up with Raj Singh here: [4]

So please, stop removing Gursinder. He is still with the company until otherwise confirmed by the man himself or the company itself officially. Damolisher (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with this. I say if March comes and goes with no update from the company or the talent, we should remove him. StaticVapor message me! 19:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• That's fair enough. The next tapings take place on March 22nd and 23rd per the references posted. If there's no sign of him by that point even at house shows, fair enough. Damolisher (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Rob Van Dam's Impact Status.

https://amp.wrestlinginc.com/news/2019/03/rob-van-dam-reveals-impact-future-651769/

RVD himself says he's sticking around after United We Stand. Now, normally there'd be no better source than the man himself but these days apparently that isn't a sure thing anymore. May I edit him in or shall I wait until Impact themselves officially announce it. Damolisher (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

For a list of reliable sources see WP:PW/RS, WrestlingInc is unreliable and unusable. Just trying to make that clear, I would honestly not use that site for news ever. However, this seems reliable. If RVD says he is coming back for more than a one-off then let's include him in the roster. StaticVapor message me! 11:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I was going to say the same. WrestlingInc is not reliable, but since it's an interview we can go straight from the horse's mouth (the original interview). Also, RVD saying he will stay in Impact is nice. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Tag Teams and stables

I know some articles used to have sections which listed the tag teams and stables within a promotion. Would we be able to include one in this article or are they not something used in wrestling articles anymore?SkylerLovefist (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

No. We used to do it back in the day, but it led to too much hulla-balloo over who was an "official team", and there was a ton of back and forth edit warring, and it just isn't worth the hassle. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Using sources for removing people / Havok and Mitchell

I notice we have a lot of editing disagreements lately over people making assumptions regarding departures. Pentagon, Fenix and James Mitchell have been removed when nothing says they had left nor we leaving to start with.

What I'm trying to say is that as is true with adding talent, please attempt to provide a source in at least the editing reason field when removing talent. Otherwise, it is still unsourced and potentially incorrect information. SkylerLovefist (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem is the opposite. The roster articles are for people who are regular performers. Impact uses a lot of outside talent just for dark matches or some appearance. For example, during a TV tapings, Impact used Crazy Steve, Crimson, Jax Dane and people included them just because "looks like they are back", "looks like it's a full time...", which is WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We're always making exceptions in this article. To include them is necesary a reliable source, no just "they wrestled during the last TV Tapings". About Fenix and Penta, Meltzer said AEW are trying to make them AEW exclusive talent, but right now, they're with Impact too.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Not the point I'm trying to make, I'm afraid. What I'm saying is that lately people are being removed for no reason other than "rumour has it." To me that constitutes a form of vandalism. That said, I feel that rather than removing edits as far as adding talent is concerned it would be prudent to add sources rather than immediately jumping on an edit too if possible. SkylerLovefist (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I think both points are related. At the end, people do whatevery they want with the article without sources and don't follow the policies. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Mitchell is good to include, he has been a member of the roster and was recently disruptivly removed without a source, just someone's speculation. Havok is not. She has no active roster page on their website and we have no confirmation of her signing. Could just be one match title match and that's it. Impact often uses talent for single tapings or short periods. Either we include every instance of the Disco Inferno/Sabu/Havok or we include none of them. I support the latter, because with no roster page or proof of signing to rely on the information could be constantly changing. StaticVapor message me! 10:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

As for removing people, if I see anyone removing people without valid reason and reliable source(s), instead just offering their own speculation. I will be issuing warnings and taking it to ANI, because Wikipedia is not the place for anyone's own speculation on what is going on. StaticVapor message me! 10:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we shoudn't. in that case, we're open the door to anyone including every wrestler "just becuase he appeared". Every month we have the same problem, Impact uses external talent, people include them and next month, they're out. The question is not a reliable source about them leaving, is about them satying with the company. I agree we can't have the article changing, so let's go by the basics. A reliable source about them working in a regular basis or signing a contract. We're always making exceptions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

In a perfect world it would be nice if everybody were under the same contract. But we really must make a common sense assumption that EVERYBODY that appears on Impact is under some sort of contract. Nobody just shows up and works for free. Different people have different contracts, some are short term, and others are long term. I think we spend too much time pulling our hair out over minutiae and fine print and overlook what is staring at us that we can see with our own eyes. It's the old "can't see the forest for the trees" axiom. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are working without a contract or free. Everybody has signed a cotnract. The point is if they're part of the Impat regular roster or they just make one ocasional match. Several weeks ago, some user included Crimson, Jax Dane and Crazy Steve just becuase they wrestler. Did they signed a contract to work for Impact for one day? Yes. Does it mean they are part of Impact? No, they just worked one date and next week, disapeared. A few days ago, during the TV Tapings, Ashley Vox, Karissa Rivera, Wrecking Ball Legursky, Solo Darling and Tasha Steelz worked for Impact. Are these women part of Impact or are just one night deal? Should we include them just to remove them next month? They are no different from Sabu or Havok. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not remotely correct at all and I feel you're intentionally being obtuse so as to try and win an argument. Sabu was a one-off ECW tribute, those young women were local performers to make an appearance in the same sense as BCW talent in Canadian tapings, Havok is neither a legend nor local talent, appeared with a talent who has been used numerous times in an ongoing storyline and set up a cliffhanger indicating her appearing again in the future. Using the OVW talent example repeatedly is not the same either, as those wrestlers appeared in dark matches, Havok appeared in a televised segment.

There's a difference between OR, SYNTH et al and actually deducing the difference between a tryout/one shot and a talent returning to the roster. SkylerLovefist (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

And after all that, Havok is at the current tapings with James Mitchell cutting a promo about how she is going to destroy Rosemary, indicating she is staying long-term.

In order to remedy this ongoing problem, would it be more prudent to refrain from adding talent which hasn't been announced prior after they've appeared on television, or is this an issue with people being overzealous? SkylerLovefist (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Glenn Gilbertti again

First of all, good work team on sorting out the vandalism.

With Glenn though, Impact HAS used him a lot lately. While I don't agree with unsourced information, I am legitimately curious if there are rules stating that a talent must be signed to a roster in order to be classified as a part of that roster or not. If not, I have a suggestion I'd like to run by the other people who edit this page.

SkylerLovefist (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Sabu

https://www.sportskeeda.com/amp/wwe/excluive-josh-mathews-reveals-if-two-legends-will-show-up-on-impact-wrestling-again

Is this sufficient enough to add Sabu to the roster, or would it fall under OR or SYNTH at this stage? SkylerLovefist (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The thing is, the appearance at the recent taping has not yet aired. So he is promoting the upcoming appearance under the impression that everyone has not read the spoilers yet. We need a reliable source that he is signed for multiple tapings in a reoccuring role. StaticVapor message me! 04:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, upon re-reading that article, you're absolutely right. I skim read and thought he was asked about the current tapings rather than United We Stand.

SkylerLovefist (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

So Sabu is booked for the next TV tapings... SkylerLovefist (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Still is WP:OR... just continuing the feud with The North. Maybe just the one more match, who knows. StaticVapor message me! 23:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring on The Rascalz' names.

Their names are still Dezmond Xavier, Zachary Wentz and Trey Miguel according to official Impact sources so I see some very pushy editing going on. Either way, this constant back and forth isn't helpful at all. And if we must revert them to their nicknames, can changes to the list reflect that Wentz's name is no longer alphabetically last? 05:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkylerLovefist (talk • contribs)

I think we should keep the full names, they use both and the full names are their COMMONNAME. StaticVapor message me! 19:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. As I stated at one point during this dispute with the user in question, the short names are nicknames.SkylerLovefist (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

This poster for Impact's California tapings.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D_xsgP4VUAAS9tD.jpg

This seems to indicate the signings of Scott Steiner and seems to confirm Rhino. Reasonable train of thought, or SYNTH?

SkylerLovefist (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

We would need more confirmation on Steiner, he is used mainly in a legends role, so we would need more. Rhino, I would want a reliable source confirming his future, which we would probably need. StaticVapor message me! 18:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

So where do we go from here then? It seems to me that based on Rhino's official return being leaked by the company themselves as well as him being used on future promotional material, he is indeed a permanent part of the company again. If that isn't enough, perhaps we need to look at how new additions to the roster are added, as I think it's fair to say Impact's roster is quite a contentious subject on this Wiki, wouldn't you? SkylerLovefist (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Only because Impact is different from WWE/ROH/NJPW as the majority of their talent are on per appearance deals. Since they may or may not be signed, we cannot add people based off one or two appearances. Once Rhino gets added to their roster page or keeps appearing at tapings, or a reliable source says something specific, then we can add him. StaticVapor message me! 00:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

On the Steiner note, he and Glenn Gilbertti have made pretty regular appearances over the last while for Impact, even if they have been sporadic. Would it make sense to add a legends section to the list? Or is that too ambiguous, as opposed to WWE's legends program which is more formal? 118.149.139.137 (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

It would be trivial and ambiguous. Steiner does not at all make regular appearances, he appeared at three tapings (including this one) in the last two years. One of those tapings he didn't even wrestle. StaticVapor message me! 16:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The Impact Roster page as a source

I know it's considered one of those things we should use to indicate whether someone has signed with the company, but honestly, the roster page on Impact's website is unreliable IMO given the inaccuracies on there. For example, Kongo Kong is still there despite being released, Suicide is still there despite no-one portraying the character and Bhupinder Singh being moved to the alumni section in spite of still being employed with the company. Daga has no profile despite being signed, Mahabali Shera is still listed as an alumni despite signing a new contract, Eddie Kingston having two profiles, etc. 27.252.201.190 (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I should also make sure to sign in before I start discussions... SkylerLovefist (talk) 08:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

It a good source, but not the only source. StaticVapor message me! 17:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Laredo Kid

So we have Laredo Kid on the roster page for some reason. The two citations there say nothing of him being signed or being an active roster member. One is a link to his roster page, which says he is alumni. The second is a link to a Twitter post that does not say he is signed, he is coming back for more or he is a roster member. He has not appeared in 2 months and without any furthur indication he is with the company (sources or advertisments for future events), then we cannot leave him on. We cannot just sit here and leave possibly incorrect information on the page. Just like when we had Flamita on there for a few months and he never debuted. StaticVapor message me! 17:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

LAX done

LAX is indeed done with Impact Wrestling, and here it is from LAX member Santana, so it's straight from the horse's mouth.

Vjmlhds (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Good removal, I updated the LAX page, but got busy and didn't update this one. StaticVapor message me! 03:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Non-existent links on Wentz/Trey names

The Wentz and Trey Miguel names currently have linked to non-existent pages (red links). Someone has added to not remove the links. Anyone know the reason for this?

Please see WP:REDLINK, they are there because they are useful. StaticVapor message me! 03:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Tony Gunn

How official do we need the signing of Tony Gunn from OVW to be before we can add him to the roster? Because there's a video of Scott D'Amore offering him a "tryout" with the implication being that it's a formality and that Gunn has already signed a contract.

SkylerLovefist (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Petey Williams

Because I'm getting annoyed with the one versus all editing going on, I'd like an official word from someone relating to the dubious removal/edit war going on over Petey. Because somehow repeatedly appearing for a company for 3 years now means you *aren't* working for the company you signed for now? SkylerLovefist (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

You need to learn how Wikipedia works. This is the situation: we need a genuine source that he is a full-time member of the company. I'm afraid the only information people are able to provide so far is an old ImpactWrestling.com link and the fact that he showed up at recent tapings. As stated at the top of the chart (not my words) "a reliable source is either ImpactWrestling.com, Wrestling Observer.com, Slam Sports, WrestleView, or PWTorch.com." Therefore, citation needed is perfectly reasonable until concrete evidence that he is a contracted full-time member of the roster. Because so far, he just seems to be a glorified guest. We need a reliable source that he is an actual roster member, anything else is speculation, and speculation is not how Wikipedia works. icaldonta (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Someone doesn't get it and it's not me. You keep removing him and the sources indicating he's working for the company without providing any proof he left to start with. SkylerLovefist (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Issue has been resolved, references/inline citations have been added to his entry on the list. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I forgot to comment that using an archived copy of a dead/expired url reference is acceptable as a reliable source to verify content. WP:DEADREF recommends that editor's do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working. Check the internet archive and if you can't find it there, then attempt to find a replacement source, and another alternative is to tag it as a dead link, so link rot bots or editor's can properly find and fix it. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The Rascalz' Names. Again.

Alright, here we are again with the same user making the same edits with the same.ensuing edit war.

WP:CommonName dictates Trey's surname is Miguel. He's been referred to as Trey Miguel on commentary as such, his mother's name was given as "Ms Miguel" during his feud with Ace Austin, his name is for all intents and purposes Trey Miguel. This constant edit war every 6-12 months is getting annoying. 111.69.70.125 (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Bhupinder Singh

Because I'm at the end of my rope with constant edit wars over Bhupinder Singh, until there's proof he's left Impact, or at least is no longer under a developmental contract, I'd like any edits on him by FranXBC or whatever his name is undone and editor intervention taken. At this point the edits no longer constitute unnsourced edits, they constitute vandalism, given they've been at this since at least December last year. SkylerLovefist (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

User as described above now vandalising article logged out using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2.153.191.121. Same deal goes. User been at this since December 2019, seems to not understand what a development contract is, is easily detectable by removing Bhupinder Singh and Shogun Jackson Stone and the broken English he uses in his edit notes. 2407:7000:9C7F:9464:95EA:743F:8B6F:667E (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

AEW-Impact

Please don't add AEW wrestlers to the roster if they happen to pop up on Impact.

Impact and AEW have an off-screen business partnership and are doing an on-screen "Invasion" style storyline where wrestlers are going on each other's shows and causing trouble.

So knowing all this, don't rush to the keyboard/iPhone to add names to the list if a guest pays a visit.

Thank you.

Vjmlhds (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

An amendment - if a visitor wins a title, then they get an automatic free pass. This was the case for NJPW's FinJuice after they won the Tag Team Titles, and should Kenny Omega win the Impact World Title tonight at Rebellion. Obviously once they lose their titles, they get removed...works both ways. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

That's not how that works. Kenny Omega is not contracted by Impact. He is there through an agreement between AEW and Impact. Yes, he holds the Impact World Championship, but again, he is not contracted by Impact Wrestling. --JDC808 ♫ 12:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Nobody ever said he was contracted by Impact. However, champions automatically get added to the list - been that way for like a decade. This isn't new - champions have ALWAYS gotten a free pass on the premise of if you're gonna do a list of wrestlers, then the champions have to be included. Once Omega (or FinJuice, since they're in the same boat) loses the title, he goes bye-bye. I was the one who cautioned not to include everyone who makes a crossover, and I still hold true to that (like if for example if someone added The Good Brothers to the AEW page, I'd be the first to remove them)...BUT...if you hold a company's title, then that's the proverbial exception to the rule. What's the point of having a list of wrestlers if you don't include the champions? Vjmlhds (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

You're correct, nobody said he was contracted by Impact, which is why he does not belong here. It doesn't matter how long something has been done if it's been done wrong. You really have to stop with this "free pass" thing. They are not contracted employees of this company thus do not belong on this list of personnel for a company they do not work for. Again, they are only appearing through an agreement. Yes, they hold Impact's championship, but they ARE NOT employees (i.e., personnel) of Impact Wrestling. Like I linked to you in my last edit summary, they ARE NOT listed as wrestlers of Impact Wrestling. They are only listed on the champions page because they hold the championships. That is as far as it goes. "What's the point of having a list of wrestlers if you don't include the champions?" Well first off, this isn't just a list of wrestlers, it's a list of all the employees of the company, which again, Omega and FinJuice are not. Secondly, if their wrestlers don't hold the championship(s), then the champion isn't listed. Simple as that. --JDC808 ♫ 15:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Taylor Wilde

Alright, this is getting annoying. If you're going to add Taylor Wilde in, include a source. That's the entire point of having the ability to add a source, otherwise anybody could add anyone whether they're there or not. SkylerLovefist (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I've since added a reliable source stating that she has indeed returned. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Not a Rolodex

We have no business listing the entire staff/whatever of this outfit. User:Vjmlhds just put a bunch of em back in (not notable people, of course, without a Wikipedia article), saying they are "the ones who sign the checks and make the major comapny decisions". Well, that doesn't make em notable; the person who answers the phone is arguably as important, or more important, than a videographer or an accountant. We should treat this like an encyclopedic article, and list notable people, just as we do for, for instance, radio and TV stations. Entries without secondary sources can easily be argued to be BLP violations also. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

And so who gets to make this call? You simply came in here deleting things without notice. SkylerLovefist (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Policy makes this call. Read this. The list being removed is trivia, and as Drmies said not notable. There is also a consensus that lists should not have any redlinks or no links. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Addicted4517: In that case, the WWE and NWA rosters need to be changed. NWA roster includes camera operators and photographers. --83.40.25.172 (talk) 08:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

And so removed. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, Addicted, why are all of your edits undoing other people's work instead of adding to articles? Edit: I rest my case. That's the second time you've undone that same user's edits improperly citing a Wikipedia Guideline. "I don't know who or what that is and I haven't witnessed it myself, therefore it's an incorrect edit" isn't the standard we edit by. SkylerLovefist (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you refreshed your knowledge of properly addressing other users and so on thank you. Addicted4517 (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop undermining other users all the time because quite frankly it comes across as uncivil. Not only have you once again improperly used a WP because I haven't made any personal attacks and certainly haven't done any of the examples in that article, none of your edits actually seem done to add to articles. They're all you undoing other people's edits and as you've done with myself and this other user, rather than accepting it when you're proven wrong, you further nitpick to get the last word. This is where edit wars and violations of the three revert rule begin happening. SkylerLovefist (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Warning: Making unfounded accusations may result in a formal complaint through WP:AN. Addicted4517 (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

That's yet another incorrect citation. Legitimate criticism for negative behaviour is neither a personal attack, nor an unfounded accusation. Your edit history indicates a significant majority of, if not all of your edits are you undoing other user's edits, often incorrectly citing WP articles, using your own opinions for invalidating other users along with starting edit wars and being inflexible. SkylerLovefist (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

And yet you accuse him of deleting stuff when it's YOU deleting stuff here!! I know who I would believe out of you two with the rules around that! He's putting rules right and all you come back with is your opinion. Anyway - for Addicted here's your proof from an independent source. Next time, Skyler, go get a proper source instead of being a stick in the mud and pushing opinions and social media hmmm? 1.136.105.207 (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

How about you make an actual account and mind your own business? You want to talk about violating WP: Civil? And as I've explained to Addicted (who I'm not entirely convinced isn't whoever you are) multiple times, Twitter is a Valid source, especially when the source is the guy who runs Fightful. Mind your own business. SkylerLovefist (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Social Media is NEVER a valid source and don't talk to me about "civility", Mister Rude! Looks like you're running around trying to avoid scrutiny! 1.136.104.127 (talk) 07:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

This is not correct. Social media can be a valid source in limited circumstances. And it is not appropriate to behave in a manner that is the same as that which you are concerned with. In fact I would suggest your lack of civility and attacking is even worse. The only thing you provided correctly was the link that was indeed the variety of source that was required. I support Skyler's assertion that you obtain an account and also that you avoid disputes between users. Speaking for myself I consider this matter closed. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Hmph! 1.136.104.127 (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

This "Last Word" Nonsense.

Can people please refrain from trying to get the last word in when people are proving they've made an unhelpful subtraction from this article? If you're proven wrong, gracefully accept it, or don't make the edit to start with, and don't follow it up by nitpicking the correction which was made solely to save face. It doesn't come across as WP: Civil, but more of an ego issue. Thank you. SkylerLovefist (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not unhelpful if the edits are against wikipedia policies. They explained to you and you keep doing the same thing. The problem is that you see this policies that you ignored as nitpicking. --83.40.25.172 (talk) 11:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, random IP address, but that's not what I'm getting at. Read what I wrote again. SkylerLovefist (talk) 09:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

'Honor No More' addition and removal from talent roster

Matt Taven, Mike Bennett, Maria Kanellis, PCO, Vincent have been added/removed a few times from the article. I would presume they aren't on the ImpactWrestling.com roster page because they're being billed as 'outsiders'. They are however appearing weekly for the promotion and have an upcoming PPV match. I would think they should be added. Thoughts? BBX118 22:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• I agree - Bennett, Kanellis, and PCO all have references where they have signed, and it seems silly not to include the rest. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  • WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. As you know, you need sources for ALL of them. Not just "sources for 3, let's include everyone". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• Surely this website has a commonsense rule somewhere. Why would they only sign 3 of the 6 people invading? SkylerLovefist (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  if there is no source, is un sourced. That's basic policies for the website--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  SkylerLovefist I believe you are referring to WP:Common Sense, in which the gist is that don't be so hung up on following the letter of the law so religiously that it precludes good contributions. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  wp:commonsense is not for override basic sourcing policies--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  It's 3 against 1...gotta know when to hold them and know when to fold them. This is why we have discussions, to reach consensus and hash out differences. Last I checked, when something goes 3-1, 1 doesn't win. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  this is not 3 vs 1.it's about I asked for sources and no one give any source to support the information. Consensus is not to forget other policies, like wp:sources. Last time I checked, the article has no source about them signing a contract--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

BTW, I recommend to reas WP:consenus. "consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals, i.e., the five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." 1not the result of a vote 2,my concerns have not been resolved. 3 respecting Wikipedia policies and guidelines, the information stills unsourced--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The whole point of consensus is to have multiple sets of eyeballs look at something and come to a decision on the best way to go forward - 1 man does not hold an article hostage when 3 others have come to an agreement. So why are HHH Pedrigree's concerns more important than those of Vjmlhds, SkylerLovefist or BBX118? You are exhibiting a lot of WP:Own tendencies here - you know "my way or the highway". You expressed your concerns, great. Three other editors felt that it wasn't that big of a deal and we should go ahead and add the others. That's how consensus works. Sometimes you just can't have things go exactly your way...you take the "L" and move on. God knows I've done it my fair share of times around here. You can't preach consensus on some issues and then not want to follow it on others. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, consensus is NOT a vote and YOUR editions are against WP policies because are unsourced. Here is the thing. You want to include a new information. I asked for souces supporting that. No one had given any source, but you decided to include the information anyways. NO. Consensus "while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". A consensus can't end with including unsourced information, since it's against the rules. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Got news for you - a policy isn't a rule. If consensus gives something a thumbs up, then you just have to live with it It doesn't matter what YOU ask for since it isn't YOUR job to play gatekeeper. A discussion was held, three said add, one said no, therefore consensus is to add. You can ask for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches all day long - doesn't mean you're gonna get any. Sometimes, consensus just goes against you - just how this pop stand works. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable." If you don't understand this... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

It's beginning to annoy me, actually. I'm growing increasingly annoyed at how for some reason one or two people seem to have reached the understanding with themselves that everyone else's edits must reach their interpretation of WP policies or we're not allowed to add our edits. Logic would dictate that if you have an invading group of six people, you'd sign all of them, not just three members and pick another three at random. I'm not asking for "Well WP: herpandderp says this," I'm asking if that makes sense using Common sense. SkylerLovefist (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

We don't know what's going on on Impact backstage, why they didn't sign the 6 of them. But sources state that Impact only signed PCO, Mike and Maria, not the others. Since at least we need one third-party source stating that the wrestler signed with the company (or at least, appearing on the roster page). While commonsense can work sometimes, I think but this enter into the WP:OR or WP:SYNTH category (since 3 signed a contrat, that means the 6 signed a contract).--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I mean, the idea of the rosters is to include people who are under contract with the promotion. Not a pay-per-appearence deal, to avoid tryouts, special appearences and similar (like wrestlers who perform on AEW Dark). So, with that bar, there are sources for Mike, Maria and PCO and I tried to find sources for the other 3, but I cant find nothing. Aksing why they didn't sign all of them.. it's a mysterie. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem in your wording l. "*I THINK* it falls under Synth/OR." Three other people disagree, and your only counterpoint to "does signing three and not the others make sense" seems to be "I don't know, but here's my interpretation of every WP being cited here." Therefore it stands to reason that the only counterpoint here to a consensus and to common sense is one person's personal interpretation, which in itself goes against Wikipedia's guidelines. As VJ says- it comes across as WP:Own to a point. SkylerLovefist (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Stating that a wrestler signed a contract just because other wrestlers signed a contract it's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Stills no source to verify that information, just sources for Mike, Maria and PCO, not the others. You including it's based because you think that, maybe, they signed a contract, but no third-party sources nor the promotion reported it. So, no reason to include based on your personal opinion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

At the end of the day anyone can whip out WP:This and WP:That and throw it in everyone's face. Dirty little secret - a lot of Wiki policies contradict each other and essentially cancel each other out (a by product of having TOO MANY policies to be honest). This is why we have discussions - to cut through the BS so we can come to agreements. Can't please everyone...I get that, but sometimes you have to grin and bear it. 4 editors discussed the matter, 3 said A, 1 said B, thus making A the consensus. That's just how it works. No one policy carries more weight than when a consensus is met...that's why we go through all this back and forth to begin with. Bottom line, all the other guys should be added. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS ""while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines"." Please, make a try and read the argument I gave. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

You can respect a policy all day long, but if a consensus of editors doesn't feel it's relevant to a certain topic, then that's it. No policy trumps consensus...heck, policies THEMSELVES change if a consensus wanted to do it, so please don't treat wiki policies like they are constitutional law. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS ""while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines"." --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

It feels like you keep trying to counterpoint what we've said with the very things we're arguing against. A consensus has been reached and I kinda feel like Administrator intervention may be our best option here, particularly when it's 3 versus 1. I also note, HHHPedrigree, you keep avoiding addressing my point about common sense. So I again put to you: why would they sign three and not the other three? SkylerLovefist (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I know Impact signed 3 because there are sources. Why not the 6 of them? I don't know, but still no sources. Again, Consensus is not a vote and my concerns (lack of sources) aren't addressed. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

And again, you're not the one we have to get approval from. So I feel we need to get an official last word because this is going nowhere. None of us are gonna budge. You're insisting you're right in spite of consensus, and we feel our edits are valid due to what we believe to be common sense. SkylerLovefist (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

if you want to reach an adim, ok. I'm still. To include a wrestler in the roster, we need a source stating that he signed a contract. Since there is no source, it's unsourced and WP:OR. Even if 3 users agree, the information is unsourced and no consensus can override that. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

It isn't OR or SYNTH... That's the problem. This *is* WP: Own, however. SkylerLovefist (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

It really is almost to the point where one is so devoted to observing every single letter of the "law" (which it really isn't, it's just a guideline when you get right down to it) so precisely, they can't see the forest for the trees. It really is almost like the story of the Wikipedian whose house caught on fire, but wouldn't call the fire department because he needed a source to say his house was in fact on fire. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

And that's why I get frustrated at times editing this particular article. It's where my problems with a certain other user come from too: Why does it feel like whenever we make edits we have to make sure it's OK by one or two other users? This is a community encyclopedia, yet several users seem to have this "I have to say it's OK first and it has to meet my criteria for being a valid edit" attitude? SkylerLovefist (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

SkylerLovefist Truthfully, you should just add the people who should be added, and not let certain other editors bother you. Remember, YOU are PART of the consensus, not the one going against it. So if you want to set things a certain way, you are well entitled to do so...don't let outside noise influence you...you have just as much right to make an edit as anyone else does. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm also kinda curious why that Addicted guy has been snitch tagged on his talk page. SkylerLovefist (talk) 07:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I have come in late to this one and while HHH Pedrigree has a point, there is an out - and that's putting the ROH wrestlers in a separate section. There is no doubt they are working for Impact but obviously they wouldn't be listed so sourcing that would be impossible as Impact would be maintaining the kayfabe line. The best compromise I think is a separate section, which can be combined if they win the match at No Surrender. The signed match can serve as the source. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Kind of a moot point now seeing as No Surrender is this Saturday. The easiest thing to do at this point is keep the status quo. if the ROH crew wins (which is the more likely scenario) they stay, or they go bye-bye if they lose. This way we don't have to go through all the muck of a separate section. If this were a month ago, I'd be more inclined to go along with it, but at this point we're too close to No Surrender to go through the hassle. Let's just cool our jets and see what happens Saturday, and then we go from there. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

And there we go. They're staying. Matter resolved once and for all. SkylerLovefist (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The Honor No More crew are all now officially listed on the Impact website roster under the collective "Honor No More" banner. Check and mate. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Whilst it did work out in the end, it may be an idea in the future to avoid crystal balling in effect. For future reference I think if anything like this happens in the future (knock on wood) that maybe my suggestion may be the most neutral solution until we get certainty one way or the other. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Except we had this discussion already and there are times where letting being anally retentive override commonsense doesn't make any sense. This entire discussion followed Wikipedia policies up to and including census. SkylerLovefist (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually it didn't and it was only let go for reasons of practicality and timing and not because of Wikipedia policies. This comment is another example of your failure to observe the rules of civility. Addicted4517 (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Whatever you say, chief. The point is, consensus was reached and that's how we do things here, the article doesn't belong to one or two people. The issue is resolved, point proven. SkylerLovefist (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Josh Alexander

What do we do about Josh? I see JoshProst99 has removed him, but given the current storyline, can we be certain this isn't some massive work? The guy quite his job a few months back because he'd gotten a payrise from Impact. That kind of indicates he signed a new contract. Plus Eddie Edwards is the only one who's said anything on Twitter. *Plus* there was that "I'm gonna miss this place" tweet from when he got "suspended" which mysteriously went missing after gaining traction.

So what should we do? Keep him gone until we have confirmation either way? SkylerLovefist (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

For now, let's just keep him off. If he pops up at No Surrender or on Impact, that will tell us all we need to know. But until then - to keep the peace - leave him off. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Certain Editing.

Just a reminder that WP:OWN is a thing. Undoing edits because you personally don't know what was edited in falls under that principle. We've had edit wars previously to the real names of two Knockouts and it looks like we're heading in that direction with Matt Cardona's titles. Are we going to undo literally every single edit which doesn't have an article attached to it now? SkylerLovefist (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes because without a source it is original research, certainly when it comes to Matt Cardona's titles being recognised by Impact. This is not a matter for WP:OWN so please stop bringing that up as it is disruptive. Addicted4517 (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I have to say, it's very, very interesting how you seem to show up wherever I edit. It IS a case of WP:OWN, because you constantly expect people to edit to YOUR specifications. Any time an edit happens with information you don't have knowledge of, you undo it. As I stated in my opening statement: do we have to now inline source every single piece of information in the article such as real names, titles owned, roles in the company, the name of the company, the owners of the company, etc? SkylerLovefist (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Not gonna single anyone out, because I've dealt with plenty of these kinds of editors over the LOOOOOOOOOOONG time I've been here, but some people just kind of like to play "gatekeeper" around here - "you can't add such and such until I say so!" They take it upon themselves to fight for truth, justice, and the Wikipedia way, and it comes off as very off putting. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Yep, and it's why I struggle to stay civil sometimes. It's difficult when you know you're right yet some people have come to the conclusion you need their permission to add content. Especially when the only time they ever edit is to remove other people's content. I think the regular editors on this article do a pretty good job. But it's a group effort, not a group effort until one or two people say so and then they turn into Fallah Bahh. SkylerLovefist (talk) 06:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Curious how VJ is the editor who usually edits the article but he complains others to WP:OWN the title. In the last 50 edits, 25 are from VJ. On the other side, in the last 250 edits, Addicted just made 5. Again, stop with the "everyone is against me". Addicted is right, with no sources, the content is WP:OR. No sources, no Wikipedia. He is no acting as the owner of the article, but following a basic policy of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Verifiability "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable.". No my way or Addicted way, the Wikipedia way. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I never said anything about WP:Own regarding this article, so don't put words in my mouth. Vjmlhds (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, both your attitude is deplorable. Every time I see Addicted making a edit, is for the same reason. You don't source the information, so he removes (which is right, since every information must be sourced in Wikipedia). Stop with the attitude of "everyone is against me". If you read the rules and follow them, everything is gonna be better for everyone. If you want the info about Cardona, use a source to prove the information, no just a comment in the edit summary. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Disagreeing with someone's edit/reasoning does not make one - or their attitude - "deplorable"...someone else once used that word, and it blew up in their face, so don't be so quick to throw people in baskets. Vjmlhds (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

There's a lot of pot calling the kettle black in this response. You're doing exactly what we're talking about: gatekeeping. You think something should be a certain way, therefore it has to be that way, and if it's not the way you like it, it's wrong. The number of edits has nothing to do with WP:OWN, and most of VJ's edits are good edits fixing things and adding things, as opposed to constantly undoiing other people's edits and legitimately engaging in WP:OWN.

Addicted isn't right. It's more disruptive, WP:OWN editing. The goal is to provide accurate information, not make one or two people happy or have our edits undone. It's interesting how the policies which agree with you are "the Wikipedia way" while ignoring other policies such as WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:CONSENSUS don't. If it's not WP:OWN, please explain why you tagged him into the Honor No More discussion when you were outvoted 3-1 on the edit as if his opinion held more merit than the majority? Every single bit of this falls under WP:OWN.SkylerLovefist (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Addicted is right. He asked for source, you gave nothing, which is against Wikipolicies. Not OWN since he barely edits the article and his complains follows Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you see it as gatekeeping, that's your problem. But the edit stills unsourced. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, remember Wikipedia:Consensus: "Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Consensus doesn't override Wikipedia:Verifiability and Addicted concerns hasn't been incorporated (nosource to your claim) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't talking specifically the article. It was blatant what I meant. It's WP:OWN because (as I've quite plainly said at least twice now) both you and him demand we meet your criteria or we have our edits removed. Interesting you showed up on the discussion about NZWPW being closed and his disruptive editing preventing up to date and accurate information, by the way. Almost seems like you're following me around which violates Wikipedia policy too. He can ask for sources all he wants. It isn't his article. As I've asked which also keeps getting ignored: are we supposed to throw out sourcing any time any information at all is entered into the article, because there are a lot of things in there without references. Addicted demanded references for Lady Frost and Masha Slamovich's real names in spite of no-one else having their real names sourced. "Seeing it as gatekeeping" means it's against Wikipedia policy and once again you're showing your own WP:OWN tendencies by telling me my opinion is less valid than yours. SkylerLovefist (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:OWN is not asking other users to follow basic rules. More like everything you don't like it's WP:OWN (my editions are WP:OWN, asking you to read policies is WP:OWN...) Also, the NZWPW discussion, you asked for more opinion, so it wasn't closed. At the moment, no sources, no info. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

In fact, I see a own behavior from you you are the one who want to keep including information without source HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

"No you" isn't an argument and nor is ignoring your own behaviour. Self-appointed infallibility doesn't make you infallible. Nor is pretending you're not following users around which is also a common negative behaviour. SkylerLovefist (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

HHH is right. No source, no inclusion - it's as simple as that. And saying "there are other unreferenced items, therefore we can add more" is obviously poor logic. — Czello 11:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

No he isn't, and I like how you took a small portion of what I said out of context.

I like how nobody is addressing a bulk of what I'm saying. Almost like there's no actual counter argument and it's a whole lot of ignoring WP:OWN behaviour. SkylerLovefist (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: & @Czello: - Thank you. I was on the verge of reporting these two for disruptive editing, but your intervention in support of my edit has made that unnecessary. Further, thank you for making the argument against WP:OWN for me and for it for them. SkylerLovefist's reply here demonstrates that he doesn't understand the rule and doesn't want to because he has a personal beef with me. HHH Pedrigree has already seen this on another talk page. It brings into question as to whether or not he really wants to collaborate, or just put what he wants with taking responsibility for it under WP rules. The latter present a strong case for WP:NOTHERE. I have had this page on my watchlist for more than 12 months now so the acusation that I am following users around carries no weight at all. Addicted4517 (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

"Reporting these two for disruptive editing." Translation: Doing exactly what I'm saying you're doing. All you do is run around undoing everyone else's edits. That's the definition of WP:OWN. Look at Buddy Murphy's article. There was that utterly pointless edit war which happened because you kept misusing Wiki Policies to claim the man telling us what his new name was was somehow incorrect information. You're not willing to work with others, you want people to do things your way and have the final say, which by its definition is WP:OWN. SkylerLovefist (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

We can get into arguments about who's WP:OWNing what, but ultimately the only thing that matters is if we have a source that states Impact recognises these titles. Until one is provided, I think we're just going in circles here. — Czello 07:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

As it sits now it's 3-2 against including the smaller indy titles, so I can live with leaving them out - that's what discussions are for. However, I do believe Addicted does have a bit of a "holier than thou" attitude, and it rubs people the wrong way. Not trying to make things personal, just saying you can make your point without talking down to people (may not be intentional, but it's how it comes off). No issues with HHH or Czello - they made their arguments and left them at that, so they're fine. But Addicted does need to come down off the high horse, and I can see Skyler's issue there (truthfully 5 or 6 years ago I probably would have after Addicted harder than Skyler is now, but age and real life have made me more diplomatic, and realize not every hill is worth dying on). Vjmlhds (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

VJ does have a point about it being 3 vs 2, and it would be hypocritical of me to play the consensus card and then ignore it. SkylerLovefist (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Shogun and The Other Gutcheck Winners...

So what's the story with Shogun and the two dudes who won the last Gutcheck? Keep 'em off the roster until they officially debut on TV full-time? Shogun is slowly being dripfed into TV appearances with the second IPWF special, a BTE appearance and the Reverse Battle Royal at Slammiversary, whereas the other two guys have signed contracts but aren't on TV yet.

Leave 'em off so we don't have any "k, so what's happening with this guy...?" Situations with Bhupinder? SkylerLovefist (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

What good sourcing looks like

On the subject of the NEVER Openweight Championship being recognised by Impact, we currently require a better source. Presently all that exists is a photograph of Anderson with the title in an Impact ring. This fails both WP:V and WP:OR. Remember, when one looks at this (undated) image, the only thing the image says is "Karl Anderson is wearing the championship". This is not the same as "Impact recognises this title". Note, according to WP:V:

A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research.

Furthermore, WP:OR states:

Any passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. References must be cited in context and on topic.

The current sourcing does not meet this standard, as there is no explicit statement being made. Instead we are being asked to draw a conclusion from this image - a passing editor would not be able to verify the claim. There is a reason why Wikipedia asks for access dates when adding a citation, for example. A passing editor will see Anderson with the title with zero additional context: this isn't good enough. Again, the key word here is explicit, which I don't think anyone can reasonably argue is demonstrated by this image.

Note, I am not interesting in removing the title at this juncture - I don't watch Impact, so whether they recognise it is actually irrelevant to me. However, there must be a minimum standard for what a source looks like, and presently this isn't good enough - and it's by no means worthy of an encyclopedia.

A potential temporary solution I've considered is replacing the image with a timestamp of when it is acknowledged by commentary (users have indicated that this happens during the show). This is by no means a good method, but it is more verifiable for readers than what exists currently. I would still like to see something explicit, but for the time being it would be an improvement. If any of the users contesting removal of the current source are able to provide a timestamp and the episode number/date of Impact on which it happens, we could use this as a compromise. — Czello 07:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I would agree to include the title. Usually, we include titles if wrestlers appear with them on TV and shows and Anderson appeared with the title (the promotion wouldn't agree to show a title they don't recognize). Also, Impact is in a relationship with NJPW (Ace and Chris are part of the Bullet Club, NJPW wrestlers appear on Impact and viceversa) and previously Jay White was recognized as the NEVER Champion [5]. HOWEVER, a picture is not a reliable source, do not include it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree, thank you. — Czello 08:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

HHHPedrigree, this conflict started because you and Addicted4517 undid myself and VJ's edits to the page to begin with, and I don't understand why Addicted is not getting reamed given he undid VJ's original edit which set this off to start with.

The compromise would be fine if Slammiversary weren't a PPV and their weekly show weren't hidden behind a subscriber wall. Addicted4517 has pulled the "social media videos don't count' card on other pages so while it's good in theory, it's not so good in practice.

In addition, we have a note at the top of the page saying Impact is in a partnership with New Japan, indicating they recognise NJPW championships.

So in essence, this entire conflict has been started and sustained over someone making an unhelpful edit to start with and someone else co-signing his unhelpful edit, and now the source VJ originally included just to placate the two is now being called "OR" even though the belt, holder and company are included in the photo.

Oh, and notifying me of this chat before reporting me for "edit warring" would have been nice, thanks. SkylerLovefist (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The shows being paywalled don't affect their ability to be used as sources (unless you're saying we're unable to get the timestamps themselves - hopefully one of us has a subscription or has purchased the event).

We can stop the finger pointing of who did what - this thread is intended to find a better source than what we've had before, so let's stay on topic. It appears we're all in agreement the title itself should stay, it's just the reference that's an issue. — Czello 09:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Czello: - I can tell you that finger pointing is a part of Skyler Lovefist's DNA. He has been doing this to me for some time - and I have almost had enough of it. His latest effort on my talk page is the last straw. Just making the point. I'm all for finding a reliable source. That's the reason I removed the edit to begin with - the picture is not a reliable source and until we have a reliable source for all of it (including Impact recognising New Japan titles) it needs to stay off. Addicted4517 (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Bottom line, if we're all good with the title remaining on the list, then that's all that really matters - everything else is just nitpicking about minutiae. Me, Skyler and HHH agree the title should stay, Czello is agreeably neutral, and it's only Addicted that says no. BTW, I predicted this exact outcome on Addicted's talk page should the issue come to discussion (now if I could only be so accurate on picking lottery numbers). Czello and HHH are fine, they have issues, we hash them out, that's how this works. Addicted though needs to get off the high horse, because you really do come off as having a self righteous attitude towards this whole pop stand, and I can see how it would ruffle some feathers. Vjmlhds (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

No the bottom line is that any claim should have a source to go with it. It would not be a good idea to appear arrogant over this, as that has got Skyler Lovefist a seven day holiday. I'm not on a high horse. You are, Vjmlhds, and you have ruffled feathers way more than I have. I would be taking Skyler Lovefist's holiday as something of a warning to you. The real bottom line is that we need a source to show that there is an arrangement right at this moment between Impact and New Japan. I haven't found one yet, but even without it if one can find a source to confirm Impact recognising just the NEVER Openweight title that would do. It's sensible surely? Addicted4517 (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Frist things, first - that "warning" you gave me regarding Skyler's block sounds an awful lot like a threat...I don't take kindly to threats. Second, all I did was tell you that if this came to discussion, consensus would likely agree with me, and that's what happened...it was 3 to keep, 1 neutral, and 1 against. That isn't being arrogant, just being around here long enough to know how to read tea leaves. Third, being on a high horse means thinking you're above everyone else and talking down to them - never claimed to above anyone nor do I talk down to people - when I said that about you, it was because that's how you come across to me - that you know better than everyone else how this place works, and you need to "school" us poor plebians. And finally, here's an interview with Impact Executive VP Scott D'Amore directly addressing the Impact/NJPW partnership. To quote D'Amore verbatim - "Look, that New Japan relationship, I mean it's no secret [it] was so badly destroyed in the TNA years and we've spent years, literally since Anthem Sports took over, trying to rebuild that relationship and it's been a long, hard battle. Obviously, The Good Brothers coming in helped melt the coldness and the ice on that relationship and I think so far it's been a good relationship," That is straight from an Impact top man's mouth - can't get more direct than that. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

If you think I was threatened you that is extraordinarily paranoid. I was merely advising you to be careful not to follow Skyler Lovefist's path. And I issued that advice on the basis of you potentially following his lead (and look where that got him). Wikipedia only works in consensus in some circumstances and this is not one of those instances. When it comes to source v no source, source wins every time. It's a WP rule. Consensus can't over rule rules on an article. If you want consensus to over rule rules that is something to suggest to WP administrators, and I think I can read the tea leaves better to know what will happen with that. What I said about paranoia also goes to your assumption of my "arrogance", which again comes from hanging around Skyler Lovefist. It's a biased perception that won't help you when it comes to dealing with any user going forward, so you would well advised to stop doing that. Finally - the source you gave is more than 12 months old, and the site it came from is listed on the Pro Wrestling source list as unreliable. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Skyler got blocked for a 3R violation, as he was doing bang-bang-bang tit-for-tat reverts - the very definition of edit warring...doesn't apply to me, as I never got there. You're calling me paranoid because you think I'm "hanging around" Skyler too much - this is what I mean about you talking down to people...you're basically saying I need someone in my ear to tell me how to think, and that I can't come to my own conclusions....come on. Consensus certainly CAN overrule any guidelines (that is what they are, not rules - words mean things) on a topic-by-topic basis...that's why we have discussions. Sounds to me like sour grapes about the discussion not going your way more than anything. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

VJ, a reminder. Concensus can NOT override Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia:Consensus "Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." That means, there is no consensus if it's against wikipedia policies and guidelines, people can't get consensus to include unsourced material. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. [] Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. " --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please, we don't need to be taking potshots with each comment. Shall we stick to finding a source for the Impact-NJPW arrangement? — Czello 07:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. HHH Pedrigree pretty much ended the matter anyway. Addicted4517 (talk) 09:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It can't get much clearer than this - this is Impact Wrestling's press release announcing NJPW returning to AXS TV. And again quoting Scott D'Amore directly - “IMPACT and New Japan have played a key role in that, forging a strong inter-promotional relationship that resulted in some unforgettable moments for wrestling enthusiasts around the world. There is a great deal of support and synergy between the two companies, and we could not be more proud to have them back on AXS TV as they prepare to celebrate an incredible milestone in NJPW history. We are excited to continue to build on our growing relationship with NJPW, and look forward to seeing what new opportunities arise from this partnership in the future.” Can we PLEASE put this to bed now? Vjmlhds (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

forging a strong inter-promotional relationship seems conclusive. I'd probably prefer an independent source if I was nitpicking, but I don't think it matters. Anyone have any objections to this? Would especially like to hear from @Addicted4517. — Czello 14:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Not only do I not have an objection I have gone ahead and fixed that before even commenting here. In this instance a primary source is perfect - it is a business arrangement after all and far from controversial. I would have been just as happy with a New Japan official announcement. That's all we needed. A reliable written source. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

In which case I think we're all satisfied. Thanks @Vjmlhds and @Addicted4517 — Czello 07:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Partnerships.

Because once again we're back to frustrating stubbornness, let's discuss commonsense, shall we? NWA talent appears on Impact all the time, AAW is having a title match on Emergence. If that doesn't indicate companies working together, I don't know what does. This is just getting silly at this point. SkylerLovefist (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

no. Find a source confirming the relationship. That's how Wikipedia works--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because somehow an article which tells us that a title match from a non-Impact promotion is being defended on an Impact show after Eric Young, an Impact wrestler is not a sign of a partnership with Impact. Kinda interesting how myself and VJ always seemingly have to justify ourselves to people who aren't familiar with the product and don't seem to understand commonsense. It's beginning to venture into disruptive editing at this point. SkylerLovefist (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

again, you are including unsourced info based on assumptions. If there is no source stating that both promotions have a partnership, it's unsourced. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

And if you actually watch the TV product, they had Eric Young show up and announce the match at an AAW show. So, y'know. Something you would do with a partner promotion. It always amazes me how you seem to expect people to justify themselves to you. SkylerLovefist (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, no source about the partnership. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I included a source which clearly states the the AAW Title will be defended at Emergence - an Impact Wrestling show. If promotion X is having a title match on promotion Y's show, then it should be clear they are working together, otherwise the match doesn't happen. It's almost like unless we have Moses with the stone tablets on top of Mt. Saini making a bold proclamation, then it just isn't good enough for some people. It really should be just universally understood that Promotion X having a title match on Promotion Y's show = a working agreement/partnership/talent share/however you want to phrase it...WP:Common Sense. This way we don't have to do this each and every time something like this comes up...it really does come off as nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking to show off one's Wikipedia street cred. Vjmlhds (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

And as insurance I added Eric Young's visit to AAW, which was posted on AAW's website, where he announced the match. So that's 2 sources which should make it clear that Impact and AAW are doing business together. Vjmlhds (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Just as an aside, here is AAW's website roster...look who happens to be on it - Ace Austin and Josh Alexander, who just happen to wrestle for Impact along with working for AAW on the side (and Austin even has an AAW title as a cherry on top). Just saying. Vjmlhds (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

And as far as the NWA goes, the same applies. Mickie James, Taya Valkyrie, Brian Myers, Matt Cardona, the OGK amomg others work for both companies, and Nick Aldis has appeared twice on Impact shows in the past 8 or so months. It's obvious what that means. As I say, this is beginning to venture into disruptive editing territory. SkylerLovefist (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Nope. No mention of a partnership. As we said with the njpw, the source must say clearly there is a partnership not making assumptions based. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, I'm a little bit tired of both of you making the same mistakes over and over. I'm pretty clear. If you want to say that there is a parnership between AAW and Impact, the source must say clearly that, just like Addicted said with the NJPW parnership. Everything you said was based on assumtions. Source 1 mentions the AAW title is gonna be defender, ok. But no mention of a parnership, so you can't use it. The Second it's the same. You are making WP:SYNTH, (source says AAW wrestler is gonna appear on Impact, that means there is a parnership), which is forbidden. until you find a reliable source, the info is unsourced and it's WP:OR, so it's gonna be removed. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You asked why other users are always removing your content. That's simple, you are always making the same mistakes, which are, usually, WP:OR and WP:SYNT. You take a source and use it to fit your mind. There is no source about AAW and Impact having a parnership. Maybe it's a one-time deal, maybe not, but the info must be sourced. Every Impact wrestler works for several independent promotions. Alexander has worked for 21 promotions these years. You asked for commonsense, but you are always asking for commonsense. Which is the exception, you are always making it the rule, which is the way to include WP:OR. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:Commonsense and WP:OWN are also guidelines. You seem to be on the understanding other users must meet your standards and get your approval otherwise you revert our edits. And it's almost always you working against other users on this particular article. Both companies are promoting each other. They're indicated by the sources. And again, we have a discussion where you're outvoted and you're insisting we must have your approval for our edits and sources. It's WP:OWN by definition, and it's disruptive editing. SkylerLovefist (talk) 10:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

"Same mistakes." Or, HHHPedrigree, I know it's not something you tend to do, but perhaps you .ight try considering *you* are the one who is wrong. The sources VJ list indicates what we are stating is correct. Meanwhile you refuse to use WP:Commonsense and keep editing to your own ego rather than for the good of the article. THAT is getting tiring, particularly when the guy gatekeeping has stated outright that he isn't familiar with the product he keeps gatekeeping for. SkylerLovefist (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not wrong. Sources doesn't mention a partnership, so you can't say there is a partnership. Now, you can start complaining again about wp:own or whatever you want. Despite you block,looks like you learned nothing HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

 Note: I've started a thread at the WikiProject to determine consensus for these sorts of issues moving forward. The discussion can be found here. — Czello 15:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Bandido and Rey Horus

So, we've got Bandido and Rey Horus appearing at Emergence and then booked for the TV Tapings the next night. Obviously I'd like to wait on whether Rey Horus has signed, but given Bandido mentioned signing with Impact and he's now appearing for Impact, would that count as a confirmation? Or shall we wait to see if they show up at whatever tapings they have afterward? SkylerLovefist (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's just be cool and let things play out. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

A consultant is not a member of the executive

Twice now I have removed the note about this consultant Impact apparently have. I haven't removed it because it has been source by Twitter. I have removed it because a consultant is not a part of the company's executive. Now if it is the case that this is an executive position we need more than the Twitter source to prove it. As it stands right now it isn't an executive position and therefore has no place on the list. Addicted4517 (talk) 06:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

His bio says he works for Impact. Read the source before undoing the edit. That's why it's there. SkylerLovefist (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

While I agree that Twitter works for some thing, as Addicted said he is not an exective, so the section is wrong. Also, his Twitter bio says just "Las Vegas via Philadelphia. Marketing. Music. Hockey. People. Places. Things. Logitix/Vegas Guy -@impactwrestling Former #ECW -@WWE- @Cirque", nothing about he is working as marketing consusltant (unless there is a tweet I missed, but the section is wrong since he is not an executive). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

He's not a wrestler, an on-air personality or a producer. Thus why VJ moved him into "corporate staff." "@Impactwrestling" is clearly his current place of employment given his bio also says he previously worked in ECW, WWE and Cirque De Solei or however it's spelt.

This constant playing coy just to gatekeep is growing really, really tiresome. It's pretty damn obvious what he's saying in his bio. SkylerLovefist (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The section is wrong and the "marketing consultant" is WP:OR. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Lou by trade is a marketing guy. It's apparent he does some work for Impact, hence the inclusion in his bio. Now whether it's full time or as a side job, that I don't know (personally, I lean towards side job with all the other stuff he has going on). At the end of the day, I see no reason not to include him, as he does do some work for Impact. Vjmlhds (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Besides, how is stating what the guy does for a living "OR? "He's a consultant, not an employee is OR because that's entirely speculation versus what Lou's Twitter bio says. SkylerLovefist (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." The Twitter bio doesn't mention Marketing consultant, while Yahoo mentions he worked as "Vice President of Marketing, Sales, and Public Relations" for Cirque and "Director of Marketing" with WWE. But no mention of his position with Impact. So, that's WP:SYNTH, subection of WP:OR. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

So, in other words, not what I'm doing. The fact is, he works for Impact per his bio. It's not difficult to find information, particularly when it's included in the source itself, rather than constantly undoing other people's work. SkylerLovefist (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

That's exactly what you are doing. Source doesn't mention any kind of job position, so it's WP:OR. Also, as Addicted said, there is no source for him beign an executive, so no reason to include in the executive subsection. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

But do you have a source saying he's a marketing consultant? — Czello 19:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Are me and VJ the only ones bothering to read his bio? SkylerLovefist (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The bio just says "marketing", which could mean any number of things. "Marketing consultant" is more specific, and I can't see it sourced. — Czello 20:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention that we should probably have something clearer or more specific saying he's doing marketing at Impact. It might sound obvious, but given that much of his career was spent doing marketing I can see why he has it in his bio - but it's not explicit enough for us to say that's what he's doing at Impact. — Czello 20:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I think I came up with a way to give everyone a little something. Always better to find a way to make something work than to throw the baby out with the bath water.Vjmlhds (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

But what if we want to throw the baby? SkylerLovefist (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Best not to...hard to get a grip when the diaper is full. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I can tell. It tends to make them less helpful too. SkylerLovefist (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

So, about those partnerships...

It's pretty apparent AEW and Impact have a partnership at this point, innit? The Machineguns were on Dynamite, Kazarian has spent more time on Impact and Impact specials and PPV than he has on any AEW programming lately... Seems open and shut to me. Especially based on me ol' favourite, WP:COMMONSENSE. Thoughts? SkylerLovefist (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

If AEW and Impact were truly working together, they would be cross promoting shows, having titles being defended on the other's programming, and all the bells and whistles. In this case, Kaz and the Guns are just doing some side work, with the blessing of their main bosses. AEW and Impact are on friendly terms, but it isn't a full bore partnership. The partnership they had before was a marriage of necessity during the pandemic era to help keep each other afloat until things got back to normal. There is a difference between what was going on then, and what is happening today. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I dunno, would you define that as any different to what Impact has with New Japan? SkylerLovefist (talk) 04:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is a bit different because Impact plugs NJPW programming on AXS, had all the hoopla about having a full time partnership, and their guys bring their NJPW belts with them on-air (if they have them). Kaz/Guns are more about guys having side gigs in places their main bosses are cool with. This is a sleeping dog I'd let lie, because I don't need the WP:HIGHHORSE brigade to get the vapors and start their usual spiel. Gotta pick your battles, and this ain't one of them. Vjmlhds (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fair. It's why I figured I'd ask instead of just making the edit because I'd rather not go down the same old road with the same old people who seem mysteriously absent from the article when it's time to *add* to the article. SkylerLovefist (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

All good...really isn't enough "there" there in this particular case to justify making a change, and it doesn't take much for the brigade to start their routine. Just saving us BOTH a headache. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair call, my dude. I'll leave it as is. SkylerLovefist (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Referees

I have removed the section because none of them are notable primarily - along with the erstwhile vexxed issue of using Twitter as a source. We really need to clamp down on this because in it's present form it really violates WP:TRIVIA and is really only information that will be relevant to a limited audience. If you disagree - discuss. Please don't try to start an edit war as before. We should be above that by now. Addicted4517 (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Why do I have the feeling I've seen this movie before? We've gone through this before, addressing WP:Twitter, and the like. Please don't go wiping out whole sections of an article without discussing it first...the whole WP:BRD thingy and all that. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm with VJ. WP: Twitter is a thing which exists which we've discussed before. Twitter "not being a valid source" only seems to be a recurring problem with one person. Leave the refs alone, and please don't ever pull that again without discussing it if you feel the urge to do so. Referees are just as important to the product as everyone else. Not only is it unhelpful editing, it's incredibly disrespectful to the zebras who also work hard. (which a lot of people don't appreciate. It's a hard job.) SkylerLovefist (talk) 08:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

And for further reference just in case we don't want to look up WP:Twitter: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities."

Now, maybe it's just me, but if say, Darrick Moore which is where this argument has happened before says "I work for Impact" on Twitter, and he happens to appear on Impact Wrestling's weekly TV Show, I'm *pretty sure* that as a logically thinking person, I'm going to realise that means Darrick Moore does, in fact work for Impact.

As a sidenote, what's with the constant removals? Pitch in and help us add things to the article some time. It's fun. You should try it sometime. You'll like it. SkylerLovefist (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Why should I add anything if it can't be sourced?

Let's make this clear - the general rule of lists is that the content must be notable. The wrestlers - no problem. Other staff - it becomes a problem without proper sourcing to show a person is notable. Twitter doesn't go to notability of the person, and the fact that the person doesn't have a WP article doesn't help. This is an encyclopedia. It is not a directory as the referee list is given it's lack of notability. And then there's the rules about trivial content (as in material that is only of interest to a particular group and of no value otherwise - pretty sure I may have the wrong rule reference there but I can't be bothered searching for it for now). Who cares if any of them work for Impact? Why don't we add the timekeeper or the cameramen if that's the case? What about the ring crew as well? Do you two see the problem now?

Let's see what others have to say about this. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

It is sourced. My point is, all of your contributions to this website are removing other people's edits. And how are they not notable? They're in TV every week. They're also in the ring every week. We include Dave Penzer, the ring announcer. By your logic, no-one who works backstage is "notable." Referees are called "the third person in the ring" for a reason. Oh yeah, and uh, kinda hard to have a wrestling match without a referee. The reason you don't ha e cameramen or a ring crew is because they're not must-haves in wrestling. I shouldn't have to explain this to another wrestling fan. SkylerLovefist (talk) 08:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree that referees are notable to be included I the list. Also agree that better sources are needed. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Could you expand on the first part please, @HHH Pedrigree:? How are they notable? This question is for discussion only just for the record. To the second part I'll deal with that now. Addicted4517 (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Did you not read my part about "you can't have a match without a referee?" It's not "how are they notable," it's "how aren't they," given you're the one who wants to remove a large part of the article on a whim. Look dude, there's no harm in gracefully taking the L. Those "better sources needed" tags are *completely* unnecessary since yet again, WP:Twitter is a thing. This is beginning to feel like the same old song and dance again. @Czello:, you're normally pretty good at finding a compromise if people aren't gracefully conceding. Your take, please? SkylerLovefist (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the tag. I agree refs should be included, but on the subject of how good the sources are: verified twitter accounts are fine per WP:TWITTER, but non-verified ones should be replaced with better sources. I've partially reverted your last edit to include the "better sources needed" tag on Allison Leigh, as she's the only one who's not verified, but given that it's almost certainly her legitimate account she shouldn't be deleted from the article. If we can replace it with a better source, though, we should. — Czello 08:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

To add onto this, I can see a few sources which cite her to Impact, but none that we consider reliable on WP:PW/RS. I'll keep looking. — Czello 08:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated. It would be a lot easier if Impact had a refs section on their website, but ueah. I feel like if there were no sources *at all* we'd have a problem. They're not great, but they are a source for the time being. SkylerLovefist (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Referees are notable because they are an integral part of wrestling overall...can't have a match without one (though I'd bet if you asked Bret Hart circa November 1997, he'd wish you could). But seriously, they are on-air personalities that are important to keeping the trains moving - can't have a wrestling show without wrestling matches, and you can't have a wrestling match without a referee. Not that complicated. This whole episode just seems like picking a fight for the sake of picking a fight, because that's just what some people do. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It's ventured into disruptive editing territory, honestly.SkylerLovefist (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

That, with a side order of WP:Point - taking a flame thrower to a whole section to rehash a settled dispute from 3 months ago just to make a point. I guess some people just want to watch the world (or in this case the article) burn. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

And what's that one thing I keep bringing up which rhymes with "W3:Cone?" Ah, I can't remember. Either way, issue resolved, I think. Best to move on. SkylerLovefist (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I will not tolerate any more personal attacks from either of you, thank you. This issue had nothing to do with any previous one. I'm not satisfied with Czello's solution but I will let it go - despite too much weight being given to WP:TWITTER as a source for notability, especially on verified accounts which have been devalued by the way by Musk wanting payment for them. I fully expect this situation to raise it's head in the future so this can not be considered as resolved, but rather shelved. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that Musk's payment system for verification has ended and only lasted about a week, so I think verification is still a good metric to go with. — Czello 23:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually it's not, but as I said I'll let it go. We need better sources. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

"Personal attacks." Accurate criticism isn't a personal attack, and the entire purpose of Wikipedia isn't to make a guy with a chronic case of WP:OWN happy. Consensus has come up with a solution to try and make everyone happy, the end. SkylerLovefist (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Last word after my break. It was not accurate criticism. But I can't get you to understand that, because you hold a personal opinion above the facts - so I won't bother. The person with the WP:OWN mentality isn't me. If you respond to this you'll prove me right. Let it go for good. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Mm, that's not how WP:OWN works either. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy before further editing so you don't provide inappropriate edits which can be considered non-productive. This can lead to warnings and potential blocks in the future. Policies such as WP:OWN, WP:POINT and WP:PERSONAL are useful to read up on and help to make the Wikipedia experience an easier and far more productive one. Any further questions, please feel free to refer to Wikipedia policies in future. Thank you, and enjoy editing her on Wikipedia. SkylerLovefist (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• SltudZBV 200x200.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Referencing Impact's Roster Page.

OK, so this one is kind of dumb and also an odd choice which I'll bring up here so everyone knows: Impact is no longer using impactwrestling.com/wrestlers as their roster page. They're using impactwrestling.com/roster. So from now on, please refrain from using the former for sourcing. SkylerLovefist (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Already made the change under External Links on the article (did it a couple of days ago). Vjmlhds (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Legend, cheers. I put this here for some of the other regulars who may not be aware of the switch as well, plus this way there (in theory) can't be any room for arguments. SkylerLovefist (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I guess they had a change of heart, because Impact has reset their roster page to what it was before (impactwrestling.com/wrestlers) I have made the appropriate change under External Links. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Can we consider James Mitchell part of the roster at this point?

He's not a regular weekly and he's not on the roster page, BUT he does show up every so often to further Rosemary's storylines, brought in the Hex a couple of months ago, was referenced by Crazzy Steve last night, will be showing up on future episodes and is basically a recurring character. SkylerLovefist (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Let's see where this Undead Realm stuff goes...not saying no, but just give it a minute so we can get a lay of the land. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 2 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Addicted4517 (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

---

List of Impact Wrestling personnel → List of TNA Wrestling personnel – New name for the company, and the promotion's website has already made the change itself Vjmlhds (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support — Czello ^(music) 19:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Wait until January 13, or at least until the Impact Wrestling RM has concluded. 162 etc. (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• As pointed on the Impact Wrestling article, change to List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling personnel. That's the full name of the company. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support- Why wouldn't you move it? The company is Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, thus the employees are Total Nonstop Action Wrestling Personnel. Doesn't take a brain surgeon. 2407:7000:9154:D600:4996:8DCD:6AF:C3DD (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Should wait until Impact Wrestling RM is closed Bensci54 (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support - The office has already changed to TNA as of January 1. The public face at Hard to Kill is actually irrelevant. The change should be done now, and I would do it myself but as we apparently have an objection note in the relisting for reasons unknown ("RM is closed"?) I'll just support it only. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  It won't let us move the article because the name "List of TNA Wrestling personnel" is used as the redirect to "List of Impact Wrestling personnel". I know because I tried moving the article myself awhile back and got the same thing. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Support/Comment - The name should be as simple as possible, so I support a move to List of TNA personnel. Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0 (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Support Company rename has happened. The TV series, website, everything has resumed the TNA name. No reason not to move it just because their first live event under the new old name hasn't happened yet. oknazevad (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Today is January 13...no more excuses, let's get the show on the road already. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Manually mnoved - The RM was WAY too slow in happening. So I did it myself. Addicted4517 (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Roster page of official website

It appears that the roster page of the new TNA website doesn't have individual profiles which mucks up the sourcing somewhat. I know that I have criticised the use of Twitter as a source in the past, but in these circumstances (and the rules do allow for it) the official Twitter account will have to do. It would of course be better to use independent reliable sources and if one can find one use that instead. Hopefully the roster page does get filled out with individual profiles eventually. Addicted4517 (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It's the same thing on the AEW website - they have a roster page, but no individual bios. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

What is TNA's relationship with WWE?

Does TNA have a partnership with WWE? The TNA Knockouts Champion (Jordynne Grace) is challenging WWE's NXT Women's Champion ( Roxanne Perez) at this year's NXT Battleground for the NXT Women's Championship (If Grace were to win would she appear on both WWE's and TNA's List of Personnel?) - 2A02:C7C:53C1:E00:30FE:582:98CE:E08B (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Full on partnership - no. Grace is doing side work and has TNA's blessing, but it isn't a full bore partnership where the companies are working hand-in-hand. For the sake of comparison, this isn't like AEW and NJPW working hand in hand and co-promoting shows together. Now if eventually WWE and TNA get there, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it, but for now, all this is, is Jordynne making a one-off for Battleground. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not correct. Sports Illustrated notified of the arrangement and made no mention of it being a one off at all. Claiming it is one is original research and requires back up. Until we have that back up the information should stay. There is a good chance TNA wrestlers could show up in the battle royal on NXT coming up. Hopefully that fixes this up. The IP is also right about removing sources. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Vindication - Joe Hendry and Frankie Kazarian have shown up for the battle royal. Addicted4517 (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

You were right, I was wrong. Que sara sara. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

undefined footnote

Hello Vjmlhds! In this edit, you added a footnote that depends on a citation named "NJPW KOPW". But no such citation is defined here, and the article now produces a referencing error. Are you able to provide this citation so the error can be corrected? -- mikeblas (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I saw what happened, it was a "fat fingers" error on my part regarding some punctuation. We should be all good now. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)