Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 108
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 105 | Archive 106 | Archive 107 | Archive 108 | Archive 109 | Archive 110 | → | Archive 112 |
WWE Hall of Fame
As per a discussion at my talk page. At present, the tables on the WWE Hall of Fame articles have a column for "WWE recognized accolades", however, we are only listing a summary of said accolades, not all of what WWE actually recognizes for their Hall of Fame induction. I have tried to rectify that issue, but HHH Pedrigree disagrees based on a discussion that halted 8 years ago. His argument is essentially that "I think I'm right because this is how we've done it for years." He fails to see the fallacy in his argument that I've tried to explain (saying one thing but meaning something else). So, what are your all's thoughts? Should we only list a summary of their accolades, or actually list all of the accolades that WWE recognizes, as the title of the column states? --JDC808 ♫ 11:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Well, by parts.
- 1, As far as I know, the Hall of Fame articles list only the major accomplisments of the wrestler. No just WWE, but every other Hall of Fame like the WON Hall of Fame. After several years and many users following this idea, I think there is a consensus. It's not something I invented yesterday, It's how the project has worked for several years.
- 2, I'm not right because we have done it for years. I think the approach it's right. Some wrestlers, like Kurt Angle, Edge or Shawn Michaels have won several titles in WWE, so their boxes would be huge. I think the major ones are the important for the Hall of Fame. it's just a brief summary of his career, not a copy-paste of the C&A section. Edge is a 11 times World Champion, 14 times World Tag Team Champion, Money in the Bank winner, King of the Ring winner, Royal Rumble Winner. I don't think holding the US Title for 6 days it's in the same level. For example, the JBL article mentions his reigns as WWE Champion, World Tag Team Championship, United States and Intercontinental. But doesn't mention the European and Hardcore titles.
- 3, If I remember well, we change the name to "WWE recognized accolades" to avoid titles outside the WWE corporation (WWE, WCW, ECW, AWA, some NWA). For example, including TNA titles (Sting and Angle) or AJPW titles (DiBiase). Just to include WWE recognized accolades, not every WWE recognized accolades.
- So. that's the way the project worked for several years and I think it's right, just the most notable accolades if thee wrestler has won several championships. If the problem it's the name of the column, just change it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- @HHH Pedrigree: You proved JDC808's point. You said what he said you said. You "think" it is "right" because that's the way it's always been done. Just because something has always been done a certain way doesn't make it correct or doesn't mean it can't be changed. You can't use that as an argument. Looking at the discussion on JDC808's talk page, you have no footing. You are wrong. Do you even known what "WWE recognized accolades means?" The column doesn't say "only a few WWE recognized accolades that a few editors choose to add because they think the rest are not notable enough to be added because this is how it has always been done even though no consensus was reached." You have yet to show JDC808 (whether here or on his talk page) where a consensus was reached. You can't considering there was never a consensus reached. If you can't accept that all accolades includes all the titles they have won that are recognized by WWE, you should refrain from editing the WWE Hall of Fame articles. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think this is the right approach not because it's how it's done, it's because I think the most important titles are the notable for the Hall of Fame induction, no teritary titles and minor awards. Steve Austin is included for his work in the main event of WWE, not because he won the Million Dollar Championship. Michaels it's a Hall of Famer after winning several major accolades, not the Bragging Right trophy or the WWE Tag Team Title a few month before his retirement. If the problem it's the name of the colum, change it to "notable accolades". But again, it's the way the project has worked for several years, that's how consensus is built. Consensus it's not always created by discussion, also by editing and several users edited the Hall of Fame articles in that way for years. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- In fact, the section was called "Notes", until 2014, when Vjmlhds changed to WWE recognized accolades/Notes. I assume the Notes would be deleted after that. I don't know what do you want? A conversation? As I said, that how the Hall of Fame was written before I started here. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- @HHH Pedrigree: Why are you so adamant about something being "right" when a consensus was never reached? Let's take John Bradshaw Layfield Bradshaw for example. In the original format, he is a Grand Slam Champion. That means you have had to have won the European or Hardcore Championships to become one. If you actually look, he won both. You also said "if I remember well, we change the name to "WWE recognized accolades" to avoid titles outside the WWE corporation (WWE, WCW, ECW, AWA, some NWA)." Your argument of "only the important ones" fails on every level. The revision history you linked to says "WWE recognized accolades." You can keep proving JDC808 right. Stop backing yourself into a corner and just admit you are wrong. There is no harm in that.
- In fact, the section was called "Notes", until 2014, when Vjmlhds changed to WWE recognized accolades/Notes. I assume the Notes would be deleted after that. I don't know what do you want? A conversation? As I said, that how the Hall of Fame was written before I started here. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think this is the right approach not because it's how it's done, it's because I think the most important titles are the notable for the Hall of Fame induction, no teritary titles and minor awards. Steve Austin is included for his work in the main event of WWE, not because he won the Million Dollar Championship. Michaels it's a Hall of Famer after winning several major accolades, not the Bragging Right trophy or the WWE Tag Team Title a few month before his retirement. If the problem it's the name of the colum, change it to "notable accolades". But again, it's the way the project has worked for several years, that's how consensus is built. Consensus it's not always created by discussion, also by editing and several users edited the Hall of Fame articles in that way for years. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- @HHH Pedrigree: You proved JDC808's point. You said what he said you said. You "think" it is "right" because that's the way it's always been done. Just because something has always been done a certain way doesn't make it correct or doesn't mean it can't be changed. You can't use that as an argument. Looking at the discussion on JDC808's talk page, you have no footing. You are wrong. Do you even known what "WWE recognized accolades means?" The column doesn't say "only a few WWE recognized accolades that a few editors choose to add because they think the rest are not notable enough to be added because this is how it has always been done even though no consensus was reached." You have yet to show JDC808 (whether here or on his talk page) where a consensus was reached. You can't considering there was never a consensus reached. If you can't accept that all accolades includes all the titles they have won that are recognized by WWE, you should refrain from editing the WWE Hall of Fame articles. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- You can't use the Million Dollar Championship as an example. That was a gimmick title to go along with Ted Dibiase's character. It was never officially recognized.
- Did you actually read the page on consensus? I quote: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." It is being disputed now. It doesn't say when something has to be disputed. It doesn't state time length. You obviously didn't read the revert through discussion section. Consensus is not being achieved through editing alone. So no consensus. Try again. What you are wanting to do is only add certain accolades because you deem them as unimportant. Accolades means everything that WWE recognizes not what you feel should be put in based on your point of view. Your point of view is not neutral and that's a problem. You don't pick and choose what to list and not to list. That's not how this works. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Consensus was reached several years ago by other users. Yes, there is consensus. What do you want, a discussion where every user in 2009 said "I agree"? Does JDC want to change it? Okey, but with a discussion, no with editions against the previous consensus. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Did you actually read the page on consensus? I quote: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." It is being disputed now. It doesn't say when something has to be disputed. It doesn't state time length. You obviously didn't read the revert through discussion section. Consensus is not being achieved through editing alone. So no consensus. Try again. What you are wanting to do is only add certain accolades because you deem them as unimportant. Accolades means everything that WWE recognizes not what you feel should be put in based on your point of view. Your point of view is not neutral and that's a problem. You don't pick and choose what to list and not to list. That's not how this works. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Her eis the history. In 2007, User:Scorpion0422 created an article List of members of the WWE Hall of Fame with the table. The section was called "remarks" and doesn't include titles, just a few remarkable things. Then, was changed to Notes and included titles. AGX7 changed remarks to notes. [1] But ALWAYS, the most notable titles are listed. [2] [3] --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Things are revisited all the time. You can't just sit on what happened then. Governments, companies, etc. revisit things all the time. Just because a consensus may have beenn made 20 years ago, for example, doesn't mean you are not allowed to look at it again. If you don't know how consensus works, you should leave the discussion. If you think you need to contact those people to get them to chime in now, that's pretty sad. It's about people discussing it now. It's not about WHO discussed it then. It should also be in the style guide. If the someone is a Grand Slam Champion, those titles should be noted as well. You said you can go to their article and see it. By that logic, titles are not necessary to list since you can go to the articles and see them. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 20:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- And to tag off of looking at a wrestler's respective article to see all of their accolades, as I said on my talk page, that lists everything they've done in and outside of WWE, not just what WWE recognizes for their Hall of Fame induction (as they don't recognize a majority of accomplishments that did not happen in WWE or one of the promotions they acquired). --JDC808 ♫ 22:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- @JDC808: I know they've mentioned NJPW on TV in recent years, but have they mentioned any of IWGP titles on TV. I can't remember them doing so. To your point, they've mentioned TNA when they had an episode of that show where they showed pictures to superstars and they reminiscence about stuff. The episode was AJ Styles. So they've referenced TNA before. He is afraid of change. He is a yes man follows the so-called status quo. That mentality needs to change. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 02:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- They have mentioned New Japan, and they have mentioned the IWGP Heavyweight Championship (they even recognized Kenny Omega as Heavyweight Champion and The Young Bucks as the tag champs when The New Day and The Elite had the Street Fighter tournament). But with NJPW, it's kind of hit and miss on what they recognize from there (for example, they recognize Jushin Thuner Liger's IWGP Junior Heavyweight titles, but seemingly not the others). They have only mentioned TNA like once or twice on TV, but have done it a few times on those WWE Network specials; however, WWE have yet to recognize their titles/accomplishments from TNA. --JDC808 ♫ 02:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- As I said, that's how the project wrote the article since 2009 and several users supported it. If somebody want to change it, the place is the discussion, no just editing saying "I don't like it, this is new consensus now". BTW, I think the "afraid of change" and "yes-man" comments aren't neccesary. I just think that a brief summary is enough for a Hall of Fame description, similar to an actor listing his biggest awards. Edge has 10 accomplishments, Michaels has 9 accomplishments (including the Grand Slam since he was the first), 24 if we include the Slammys (since are noted in The Bellas section). Including all titles would create a huge section full of expandable accolades. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- They have mentioned New Japan, and they have mentioned the IWGP Heavyweight Championship (they even recognized Kenny Omega as Heavyweight Champion and The Young Bucks as the tag champs when The New Day and The Elite had the Street Fighter tournament). But with NJPW, it's kind of hit and miss on what they recognize from there (for example, they recognize Jushin Thuner Liger's IWGP Junior Heavyweight titles, but seemingly not the others). They have only mentioned TNA like once or twice on TV, but have done it a few times on those WWE Network specials; however, WWE have yet to recognize their titles/accomplishments from TNA. --JDC808 ♫ 02:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- @JDC808: I know they've mentioned NJPW on TV in recent years, but have they mentioned any of IWGP titles on TV. I can't remember them doing so. To your point, they've mentioned TNA when they had an episode of that show where they showed pictures to superstars and they reminiscence about stuff. The episode was AJ Styles. So they've referenced TNA before. He is afraid of change. He is a yes man follows the so-called status quo. That mentality needs to change. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 02:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- And to tag off of looking at a wrestler's respective article to see all of their accolades, as I said on my talk page, that lists everything they've done in and outside of WWE, not just what WWE recognizes for their Hall of Fame induction (as they don't recognize a majority of accomplishments that did not happen in WWE or one of the promotions they acquired). --JDC808 ♫ 22:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- Things are revisited all the time. You can't just sit on what happened then. Governments, companies, etc. revisit things all the time. Just because a consensus may have beenn made 20 years ago, for example, doesn't mean you are not allowed to look at it again. If you don't know how consensus works, you should leave the discussion. If you think you need to contact those people to get them to chime in now, that's pretty sad. It's about people discussing it now. It's not about WHO discussed it then. It should also be in the style guide. If the someone is a Grand Slam Champion, those titles should be noted as well. You said you can go to their article and see it. By that logic, titles are not necessary to list since you can go to the articles and see them. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 20:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- I for one cannot see a reason for the column at all. I could potentially get behind a "tenure" column instead, denoting when they worked for the company, but the other information is very pick-and-choose. Regardless of the WP:ILIKEIT arguments, I don't feel it adds anything we can't simply write in prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- In fact, I have looked other Hall of Fames. Most of them don't include titles, torunaments, etc... Sports Hall of Fame doesn't include that. Television Hall of Fame doesn't include Grammys. Texas Film Hall of Fame doesn't include Academy Awards or Palme d'Or. International Boxing Hall of Fame includes the boxing record, but not titles. UFC Hall of Fame was edited by wrestling user JMichael22 [4], sure he followed the WWE Hall of Fame scheme because used the TNA Hall of Fame as base. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: A "tenure" column would not work, especially for guys who are being inducted for their careers outside of WWE. For example, this year's inductee Jushin "Thunder" Liger, who only had two matches in WWE but never actually worked for them. Sting is another one. Although he finally signed to WWE in 2014 and had three matches and various appearances over that next year, his induction was largely for his JCP and WCW career (though not TNA as WWE doesn't recognize TNA/Impact, not yet anyways).
- @HHH Pedrigree: Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean everything has to be the same. That's the way they do it, doesn't mean what we do has to be a carbon copy of them. There's also the difference in the fact that this is professional wrestling. --JDC808 ♫ 07:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think Other stuff is valid here. Pro Wrestling isn't different from combat sport and performing arts, so it's a good idea to see how other Hall of Fames are written. I don't know why pro wrestling is always the exception to the rule. Maybe, the idea is just the wrestler and the person who inducteed him. We have the prose section to write about his influence, career and accolades. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- There is no issue to see how those others do it, but again, doesn't mean it has to be the same. The reason pro-wrestling often has an exception is because it's pro-wrestling. It's not like real sports or other forms of entertainment, it's a mixture of the two (sports entertainment). Not that it can't be done in prose, but the table is more efficient to list accolades here, the prose can expand more on their influence (by the way, there are also females in wrestling). --JDC808 ♫ 09:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Pro wrestling it's a performance, sport entertainment. I don't see different from acting Hall of Fames where there is no accolades like Golden Globes or Academy Awards. Also, isn't different from boxing where people win titles. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- You're still going off of "I think" this and that as opposed to sound arguments. Again, just because other stuff exists doesn't mean everything has to be the same. They do it one way, doesn't mean we have to be forced to do it that way too. Their way is not the only way. --JDC808 ♫ 11:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Other stuff exist is valid, since every other Hall of Fame I saw doesn't include accolades. Again, pro wrestling it's always the exception just because we want. We are arguing just because one user, in 2014 and (I think) without discussion, changed the Notes title to WWE recgonized accolades. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- @HHH Pedrigree: It's already been pointed out by JDC that "other stuff" is not a valid argument here. Just because boxing, for example, is one way doesn't mean that it has to be the same for other articles. Why is that hard to understand? It also has been pointed out that you are not neutral with your arguments. You are going off "I think." Do you not know that one of pillars of Wikipedia as an editor is to remain neutral? No? You need to step back and learn how to be neutral. You are letting your feelings dictate your arguments. That needs to stop. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm neutral. As I aid, consensus was established several years ago, supported by many users. However, that's not neutral for you. Also, I made a research, how other projects handle the Hall of Fames. Also, it's no neutral. It's not different, you want to include every title just because you think is the right approach after an user, in 2014, changed "Notes" to "WWE recognized accolades". I think the opposite and, after watching other articles, support Lee's idea and delete the section. That's being neutral. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- No, you are not being neutral, you are being a yes-man, and based on your response, you do not understand what being neutral means. Your argument is still "I think this way is right because that's the way it's always been done". Also, I'm not trying to be rude in saying this, but can you please proofread your posts? It is sometimes hard to decipher what you are trying to say. --JDC808 ♫ 03:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm neutral. As I aid, consensus was established several years ago, supported by many users. However, that's not neutral for you. Also, I made a research, how other projects handle the Hall of Fames. Also, it's no neutral. It's not different, you want to include every title just because you think is the right approach after an user, in 2014, changed "Notes" to "WWE recognized accolades". I think the opposite and, after watching other articles, support Lee's idea and delete the section. That's being neutral. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- @HHH Pedrigree: It's already been pointed out by JDC that "other stuff" is not a valid argument here. Just because boxing, for example, is one way doesn't mean that it has to be the same for other articles. Why is that hard to understand? It also has been pointed out that you are not neutral with your arguments. You are going off "I think." Do you not know that one of pillars of Wikipedia as an editor is to remain neutral? No? You need to step back and learn how to be neutral. You are letting your feelings dictate your arguments. That needs to stop. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Other stuff exist is valid, since every other Hall of Fame I saw doesn't include accolades. Again, pro wrestling it's always the exception just because we want. We are arguing just because one user, in 2014 and (I think) without discussion, changed the Notes title to WWE recgonized accolades. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- You're still going off of "I think" this and that as opposed to sound arguments. Again, just because other stuff exists doesn't mean everything has to be the same. They do it one way, doesn't mean we have to be forced to do it that way too. Their way is not the only way. --JDC808 ♫ 11:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Pro wrestling it's a performance, sport entertainment. I don't see different from acting Hall of Fames where there is no accolades like Golden Globes or Academy Awards. Also, isn't different from boxing where people win titles. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- There is no issue to see how those others do it, but again, doesn't mean it has to be the same. The reason pro-wrestling often has an exception is because it's pro-wrestling. It's not like real sports or other forms of entertainment, it's a mixture of the two (sports entertainment). Not that it can't be done in prose, but the table is more efficient to list accolades here, the prose can expand more on their influence (by the way, there are also females in wrestling). --JDC808 ♫ 09:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think Other stuff is valid here. Pro Wrestling isn't different from combat sport and performing arts, so it's a good idea to see how other Hall of Fames are written. I don't know why pro wrestling is always the exception to the rule. Maybe, the idea is just the wrestler and the person who inducteed him. We have the prose section to write about his influence, career and accolades. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- In fact, I have looked other Hall of Fames. Most of them don't include titles, torunaments, etc... Sports Hall of Fame doesn't include that. Television Hall of Fame doesn't include Grammys. Texas Film Hall of Fame doesn't include Academy Awards or Palme d'Or. International Boxing Hall of Fame includes the boxing record, but not titles. UFC Hall of Fame was edited by wrestling user JMichael22 [4], sure he followed the WWE Hall of Fame scheme because used the TNA Hall of Fame as base. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't really see why the length of the career in the company wouldn't be a suitable thing to mention. Yes, people get inducted for careers away from the company, but that is actually more of a notable thing, rather than something to hide. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not saying we couldn't notate how long they worked for WWE, but to have a tenure column specifically on how long they worked for WWE wouldn't work for those guys who barely or did not work for WWE (again with Liger, that column would only say he worked two matches in WWE, so how exactly would that make his tenure with WWE a Hall of Fame worthy induction?). --JDC808 ♫ 20:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't really see why the length of the career in the company wouldn't be a suitable thing to mention. Yes, people get inducted for careers away from the company, but that is actually more of a notable thing, rather than something to hide. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- Speaking of other stuff, give Meltzer's edition some wonder. IW. (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I am way late to this discussions and I apologize for being so late, but life has been crazy playing father/teacher and getting work done with all this Coronavirus fun. I tried reading everything in this but I am sure there is stuff I missed. As far as the 8 year ago discussion, I would say that discussion is moot in entirety as it related to a much smaller section before everything was broken out by year. An advantage of breaking everything out is we now can go into more detail. I dont think we should go crazy in detail, but I see no reason not to list every WWE/WCW/ECW championship. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Galatz: It doesn't matter when you join the discussion. More input is always good. HHH Pedrigree is always saying "I think" which is not neutral. He thinks that because they are not a major title or award, it shouldn't be listed. But WWE.com lists accolades that he thinks shouldn't be listed. See the problem. Again, he is saying "I think." WWE.com puts the Hardcore Championship in John Bradshaw Layfield's Hall of Fame profile as an accolade. Plus (I've already mentioned this), JBL is a Grand Slam Champion. Either the Hardcore and European Championships, under the first format, were required to become such. He won both of those. Why would you ignore those two titles when becoming a Grand Slam is a big accomplishment? I've wondered if we should go off what WWE.com has listed. After all, that section is "WWE recogized accolades. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- Stop saying I'm not neutral because I used the sentence "I think". You are the one obsessed with including every single accolade. My comments are based on consensus and policies. I support to include key information to understand his career and why is in the Hall of Fame. JBL's profile list every title he won in the promotion, like other WWE profiles. However, the article about his induction doesn't include European and Hardcore titles nor the Slammy award because aren't key point, highlights of his career. Michaels isn't in the Hall of Fame because he won the WWE Tag team title two months before his retirement. Edge is not in the Hall of Fame because he won the United States championship. They are because their work in the main event (and Edge, because his work as tag team wrestler). You don't like the "WWE recognized"? Change back to Notes, since one user changed several years ago and nobody cared. Or we can just delete this part like many other Hall of Fame (again, no reason to be diferent from other Hall of Fame, pro wrestling isn't that special) and improve the prose section. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- That's false accusations. Every single accolade is not what we're wanting to be included, just those that WWE recognizes, which is what the column is titled (also, changing it to Notes doesn't work because that still doesn't tell readers what exactly is being listed, and no where did we say we didn't like its current name, quite the contrary). Your "I think" comments are based on what you think is right because it's how it's been done, despite the issues regarding consensus, among others, that have been pointed out to you. You are continuing your same arguments without any valid support. The prose in the Background section does need improved, but that doesn't mean this column has to be outright removed (you weren't even for deleting it until Lee mentioned the possibility). --JDC808 ♫ 16:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- I always though the Notes/WWE recognized section doesn't help that much, that's why I supported a prose section. Hogan notes doesn't explain his impact in pro wrestling and pop culture. Same for Dusty Rhodes. Same for Steve Austin. Same for Antonio Inoki. Compare Mil Máscaras Hall of Fame sentence ("Mexican luchador. Máscaras was the first masked wrestler to perform in Madison Square Garden") with his prose section in the Homenaje a Dos Leyendas (2018). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ugh. No prose section. People can click on the articles if they want more. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think we need every little thing that is included on the profile, but championships recognized makes sense to include. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ugh. No prose section. People can click on the articles if they want more. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- I always though the Notes/WWE recognized section doesn't help that much, that's why I supported a prose section. Hogan notes doesn't explain his impact in pro wrestling and pop culture. Same for Dusty Rhodes. Same for Steve Austin. Same for Antonio Inoki. Compare Mil Máscaras Hall of Fame sentence ("Mexican luchador. Máscaras was the first masked wrestler to perform in Madison Square Garden") with his prose section in the Homenaje a Dos Leyendas (2018). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- That's false accusations. Every single accolade is not what we're wanting to be included, just those that WWE recognizes, which is what the column is titled (also, changing it to Notes doesn't work because that still doesn't tell readers what exactly is being listed, and no where did we say we didn't like its current name, quite the contrary). Your "I think" comments are based on what you think is right because it's how it's been done, despite the issues regarding consensus, among others, that have been pointed out to you. You are continuing your same arguments without any valid support. The prose in the Background section does need improved, but that doesn't mean this column has to be outright removed (you weren't even for deleting it until Lee mentioned the possibility). --JDC808 ♫ 16:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- Stop saying I'm not neutral because I used the sentence "I think". You are the one obsessed with including every single accolade. My comments are based on consensus and policies. I support to include key information to understand his career and why is in the Hall of Fame. JBL's profile list every title he won in the promotion, like other WWE profiles. However, the article about his induction doesn't include European and Hardcore titles nor the Slammy award because aren't key point, highlights of his career. Michaels isn't in the Hall of Fame because he won the WWE Tag team title two months before his retirement. Edge is not in the Hall of Fame because he won the United States championship. They are because their work in the main event (and Edge, because his work as tag team wrestler). You don't like the "WWE recognized"? Change back to Notes, since one user changed several years ago and nobody cared. Or we can just delete this part like many other Hall of Fame (again, no reason to be diferent from other Hall of Fame, pro wrestling isn't that special) and improve the prose section. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Well. Looks like I'm the only one that agrees with the consensus. It's normal, most of the users left wikipedia or didn't answer. So, I think the new consensus has been stablished. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- @HHH Pedrigree: Stop saying "I think." That's not neutral. You are agreeing with what JDC808 and I said. We said to include all recognized titles and you were dead set against it. Now that Galatz said it, you agree. This would have not dragged on this long if you agreed from beginning. *Shake my head* Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Fishhead2100: Stop fucking with me, you stupid. I have spent 10 years in Wikipedia, taking part in several discussions and voting several policies just to see how people undid my editions and told me they don't like the consensus is voted. I talk the way I want. If I use I think, it's because other users complained the way I talk, since English isn't my first language, I sound to agressive. I'm sick of every disrespect you made, calling me yes-man and similar. I don't agree with you. I don't agree with JDC. I think the new idea is for the worst. Suprise, I dont agree with every decision the project made. I saw several users prefers a new consensus. Now, go fuck yourself. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Your English has come a long way, from wrong like donkey to strong like mule. Count me in for following the Old Ways. WWE's hall, WWE's accolades, then, now, forever! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Fishhead2100: Stop fucking with me, you stupid. I have spent 10 years in Wikipedia, taking part in several discussions and voting several policies just to see how people undid my editions and told me they don't like the consensus is voted. I talk the way I want. If I use I think, it's because other users complained the way I talk, since English isn't my first language, I sound to agressive. I'm sick of every disrespect you made, calling me yes-man and similar. I don't agree with you. I don't agree with JDC. I think the new idea is for the worst. Suprise, I dont agree with every decision the project made. I saw several users prefers a new consensus. Now, go fuck yourself. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Howard Finkel
Anyone want to help source this article and hopefully get it posted on Recent Deaths? GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- I can try. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- @GaryColemanFan: The page is protected and only an admin can make edits of any kind. You have to make an edit request to ask an administrator to make an edit if it is uncontroversial or supported by consensus. The cause of death needs to be removed from the infobox again. I removed it and it got put back because someone is assuming that just because he had a stroke last year, that is what he died from. The cause of death has not been revealed. It will take some time to be revealed. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think I've ever seen this happen to a RD nomination before, even to a wrestling bio. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- @GaryColemanFan: The page is protected and only an admin can make edits of any kind. You have to make an edit request to ask an administrator to make an edit if it is uncontroversial or supported by consensus. The cause of death needs to be removed from the infobox again. I removed it and it got put back because someone is assuming that just because he had a stroke last year, that is what he died from. The cause of death has not been revealed. It will take some time to be revealed. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
COVID-19 help
On COVID-19 lock down? Here is a list of things you could do to keep you from going insane. To those of us who are already insane... well no list will help there ;) MPJ-DK (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Pick an article from the Category:Stub-Class Professional wrestling articles list and improve it
- Shoot a pro wrestling mockumentary featuring your cats
- Update the championship table format for those articles listed as
Not done on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Championship watchlist - Help make Jushin Thunder Liger Good Article ready, the man is an international treasure people.
- Look at the Clean up listing, pick an article and fix whatever is wrong with it.
- Look at F4WOnline.com, they had a daily history article that can be used to source championship changes etc. there are so many articles where this would help
- See a red link? Add the article.
- Go out and get some sunlight (just kidding)
- with some rewording and additional sourcing for his early career, Liger could be done. I'll take a look later. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- I also made a list of all unreferenced pages in the scope a while back, it can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 107#Unreferenced pages in project scope. JTP (talk • contribs) 19:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Then replace "going outside" with "Source articles on JTP's page" instead ;) MPJ-DK (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
TNA Impact Special Episodes, Clash of the Champions and Battle of Los Angeles
I have worked very hard on creating the articles of special episodes of TNA's Impact Wrestling, which replaced their former pay-per-view events and were equivalents to their pay-per-views but these articles were deleted and merged because the mentioned sources were considered unreliable. I want cooperation and advice from all the admins of this project on creating articles on the special episodes of TNA equivalent to their pay-per-views such as Destination X, No Surrender, Victory Road, Turning Point, Lockdown, Hardcore Justice, Final Resolution, Sacrifice and Against All Odds, because they were not just television episodes but special major events of TNA/Impact Wrestling.
Similarly, WCW promoted Clash of the Champions supercards and I want to create separate articles for all the Clash of the Champions editions but I will initiate them only if you allow me to do so and if you assure that you are not going to delete or merge them. I do not want to waste my time and energy on a thing which will not come to fruition. PWG also promotes the "Battle of Los Angeles" supercards and tournaments annually which is their biggest enough and I believe I have enough significant sources and details regarding these events that I can create their separate articles but it will be possible only if I am assured that these articles will be retained.--Mark Linton (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Several years ago, TNA cut all his PPV just to 3 or 4. The rest of the events were relegated to TV Specials, so the project thought the results in the main article is enough. Reading the articles, it's just the usual coverage for Weekly episodes, like RAW, SmackDown, Dynamite or any other nameless impact. For example, Hardcore Justice 2014. 23 sources, but 15 are unreliable. The others are just TV reports of previous and future shows. Reading the 23 sources, Hardcore Justice is just mentioned in 4 sources: PW Mania results (unreliable) OWOW results (unreliable), SmackDown Hotel results (unreliable) Bleacher report results (unreliable). No mention of Hardcore Justice before or after the event. No notable for his own article. On the other hand, WWE RAW 1000, which was considered for deletion has 43 sources, some of them, national media like USA Today, NY Times, Los Angeles Times and Variety. It was no just a special TV show, but a highly covered show for the historic meaning. There are many examples, like 2012 SmackDown Great American Bash or 2017 Starrcade, no notable event with the results on the main article. About PWG BOLA, it's like other independent tournament (CZW Tournament of Death, CHIKARA King of Trios). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- If someone can demonstrate
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
for a show then according to WP:GNG it can have a stand alone article. That part isn't really open for debate on a project level. The biggest failing here seems to be presenting reliable sources for the shows in the cited examples that were redirected. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)- Yes. I readed several article, but most part of the sources aren't reliable. Also, most of them doesn't mention the PPV. It's just the usual weekly coverage every website makes, no significant coverage. For example, Turning Point 2016: 4 sources, 3 of them are unreliable. Just TV results. Destination X 2017, 7 sources, 4 are unreliable. Just results (also, Superluchas doesn't even call the event Destination X, just "Results GFW Impact (August 17, 2017) Sienna and Dutt retain; the employer is stripped of the title"). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- "Battle of Los Angeles" and "Clash of the Champions"? What about them?--Mark Linton (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Broken record time, read the criteria above - do you think you can meet that for BOLA or CotC? It doesn't matter what the subject it, what matters is if you can show significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- I've not seen or followed TNA/Impact since they left Spike so I won't comment on post-2015 material, but I agree with the consensus achieved in 2013 that the special episodes of Impact that share names with the PPVs are not notable enough to have separate articles. You always need to rely on reliable sources, your edits to TNA's move to Monday night's, which is a good article, did not provide any source at all.LM2000 (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Broken record time, read the criteria above - do you think you can meet that for BOLA or CotC? It doesn't matter what the subject it, what matters is if you can show significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- "Battle of Los Angeles" and "Clash of the Champions"? What about them?--Mark Linton (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. I readed several article, but most part of the sources aren't reliable. Also, most of them doesn't mention the PPV. It's just the usual weekly coverage every website makes, no significant coverage. For example, Turning Point 2016: 4 sources, 3 of them are unreliable. Just TV results. Destination X 2017, 7 sources, 4 are unreliable. Just results (also, Superluchas doesn't even call the event Destination X, just "Results GFW Impact (August 17, 2017) Sienna and Dutt retain; the employer is stripped of the title"). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- If someone can demonstrate
There were several Raw episodes I nominated for deletion a year or so ago and they were closed as keep. I don't think we can blanket say qualifies or not. I would suggest taking each article on its own and see if it meets the criteria. There was a time we said individual PPVs don't meet notability, but now they do. I dont have an issue with the articles Mark Linton as long as they establish GNG. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
Ken Anderson (wrestler), an article that the project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Not cool. First of all, own up to it. It wasn't just "nominated"--you put it up for reassessment. Second, if you don't like it, then you can WP:SOFIXIT or ask for help. Putting it up for GAR just annoys people by placing an artificial timeline on it. It's another way of saying, "Hey, this article has been at this quality level for a while, but I've suddenly decided, in the middle of a pandemic, that you all need to drop what you're doing and focus on my priority." Not cool at all. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm forcing no-one to fix the article. But, in his current state, doesn't meet the GA criteria since, at least, 2014. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- If you don't like it, then you can WP:SOFIXIT or ask for help. Putting it up for GAR just annoys people by placing an artificial timeline on it. It's another way of saying, "Hey, this article has been at this quality level for a while, but I've suddenly decided, in the middle of a pandemic, that you all need to drop what you're doing and focus on my priority." Not cool at all. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm forcing no-one to fix the article. But, in his current state, doesn't meet the GA criteria since, at least, 2014. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- You've gone about this the wrong way. I hope you learn from your mistake. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Not my mistake. he article is better now, the user who edited the article agrees the GAR was the way. If this is the result, I will open more GAR. You only complained and no edited. You are the one who told me "aks for help", but you didn't help. Complained about me opening a GAR, but you don't care about articles that don't meet the GA criteria. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Why are you so worked up about this? If a GA doesn't meet the criteria to keep its status, this is what happens. Chill out. JTP (talk • contribs) 03:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- HHH did exactly what one is supposed to do if they think a GA has declined in quality and no longer meets the criteria. The only one here wrong is you GaryColemanFan. The attitude is unneeded, and wrong. oknazevad (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Oknazevad: @NotTheFakeJTP:. I don't know why, at the end, I'm the target of everyone's attacks --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Did you forget that's the price you must pay, when you are the game and they want to play? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Oknazevad: @NotTheFakeJTP:. I don't know why, at the end, I'm the target of everyone's attacks --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- You've gone about this the wrong way. I hope you learn from your mistake. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm forcing no-one to fix the article. But, in his current state, doesn't meet the GA criteria since, at least, 2014. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- If you don't like it, then you can WP:SOFIXIT or ask for help. Putting it up for GAR just annoys people by placing an artificial timeline on it. It's another way of saying, "Hey, this article has been at this quality level for a while, but I've suddenly decided, in the middle of a pandemic, that you all need to drop what you're doing and focus on my priority." Not cool at all. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm forcing no-one to fix the article. But, in his current state, doesn't meet the GA criteria since, at least, 2014. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
There's more than one way to get an article improved. HHH has done one of them. Gary has proposed another method. They are both viable. I do not think HHH Pedrigree did anything particularly wrong. starship.paint (talk) 06:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- GaryColemanFan - this is exactly how the GA Reassement should be done - this is common practice. What's more - suggesting that it isn't and the user is causing issues borders on a personal attack. Please do not do this in future. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I am trying to share the benefit of my experience. When I was fairly new around Wikipedia, I messed up and initiated a couple of reviews without first putting in enough effort to work with the projects. I must say that my response to HHH has been pretty tame compared to what I received. I initially dug in my heels with the "upholding Wikipedia standards" line, and, while some editors expressed support for what I did, I quickly realized that I was in the wrong--not because I wanted to improve articles, but because the way I went about opening the review was perceived more as bullying and demanding that people be on my timeframe rather than a genuine attempt at collaboration. That's the same issue here. I learned my lesson. I hope HHH can learn it as well. That doesn't mean we can't work together to make articles better. It just means that this wasn't a particularly good way to try, and I hope for a different approach in the future. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Britt Baker
Hello. I aprecitate some help with the Britt Baker article. I created a small sector for her character and finishing move, but KyleJoan delete it and bring it to discussion. I aprecitate if some users talk about the section, if it's necessary or not. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion on whether the article should include a professional wrestling style and persona section can be found here. Cheers! KyleJoantalk 15:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, myself, KyleJoan, HHH Pedrigree and MPJ-DK have come to an agreement on the above discussion. Just an update. starship.paint (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Discussion on the reliability of Whatculture at the reliable sources noticeboard
There is currently a discussion at the RS/N about the reliability of Whatculture, a site often used in Wrestling related articles, given the relevance to your wikiproject, I am leaving a link here to encourage discussion, as you are more likely to be familiar with the uses of the source than most of the regulars on the noticeboard. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
NXT Championship RfC
There is an RfC at Talk:NXT Championship#Requests for comment regarding the NXT Championship's world title status.LM2000 (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Carly Colon, GA Status
Hi. I think the Carly Colon article doesn't meet the Good Article criteria. Huge parts of his career are unsourced. Also, Online World of Wrestling isn0t reliable anymore. If somebody wants to help, that will be great. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
PWI Almanac 2007 and 2008
I recently found my old stash of wrestling magazines, among them the PWI Almanac 2007 and 2008 version, covering happenings in 2006 and 2007. It has the PWI 500, stats on wrestlers, top 10 news stories, recap of the year, title histories and PPV histories up until that year. If someone is in need of a reliable source I can help provide page numbers etc. to help out. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
GA Reassessment, Carly Colón
Carly Colón, an article that the project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
All Caps
Just wanting some clarification on All Caps usage. I've read the Wiki guide but I see so much inconsistency on wrestling articles that I'm not sure what I correct.
Am I correct in thinking wrestlers, tag teams, stables, promotions, etc. that use all caps should not be shown like that. For example, Taru instead of TARU, Voodoo Murders instead of VOODOO MURDERS and Freedoms instead of FREEDOMS. The exception being anachronisms such as AJPW. 03Heat (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- The only things that should be all caps are acronyms or initialisms. So WWE, AEW, ROH, etc. but not "IMPACT" (use "Impact") as it's not an acronym. (Don't know why you call AJPW an anachronism, as it's still the common name of the company, however diminished it may be.) See MOS:TM for more info. oknazevad (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Probably autocorrect for acronym. And I agree with you. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you both. And yes, I did mean acronym. 03Heat (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- The one other exception to not capitalizing I can think of would be if each letter in the term was pronounced individually as proposed to it being treated as a word. For example Rated-RKO should use RKO since it’s pronounced as AR KAY OH not rkho.--69.157.254.64 (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- RKO is an acronym, so it is correct to write it in caps. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Probably autocorrect for acronym. And I agree with you. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Issue at Teahouse
Please see WP:Teahouse#professional_wrestlers where an editor asked about article content. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Tucker
Hi. Since people voted for change the name of Otis'article, I wanted to do the same with his partner, Tucker Knight and change it to Tucker (wrestler). I think it's the same case and even was mentioned in the discussion. However, there is another wrestler, Tucker (wrestler). Do you have any idea? Using Tucker (American wrestler) and Tucker (British wrestler) maybe? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Should Tucker (wrestler) stay as a redirect to the British wrestler or should it be retargeted to the American one.--69.157.254.64 (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Archive URLs for Slam! pages
In the articles I've looked at lately, it looks like all of the Slam! sources are no longer working. This has been one of the most important reliable sources for wrestling articles. Unfortunately, it also looks like many of the articles and biographies are excluded from the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. I have been finding some success with archive.fo. It can't replace everything, but it's a start. For example, on the Over the Edge (1999) article, I found archived versions for 6 of the 8 references. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
profightdb.com
profightdb.com is listed on WP:PW/RS as limited reliability only for match results. In edits such as [5] it is being used to say which day which matches happened for WrestleMania. I have not seen anywhere else reliable claim what happened which day. Is this reliable for this? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm, it's tricky, as realistically we should be able to say "sure, it's fine" as it's an RS. Commically it does also list: Attendance: Unknown... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is basically the bread and butter for that site...keeping track of the who, where, when, and winners of the actual matches. It doesn't deal with wrestling "news" (i.e. signings/releases), and isn't meant to. Think of it as basically a pro wrestling box score page. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- In this specific case that site is incorrect. If you look at the results, they list all the matches from night 1 (April 4th) as all being filmed on the first taping day (March 25th). And they list all the matches from night 2 (April 5th) as all being filmed on the second taping day (March 26th). That’s not what happened. Dave Meltzer reported that the matches were recorded, in no particular order, on both days and the reason they didn’t announce until the day the PPV aired which matches were going to be shown on which day, is because they were still deciding where to edit-in each match. Profight looks like they wanted to make things simple by saying “Night 1 was filmed on night 1 and night 2 was filmed on night 2.” That’s not accurate. OldSkool01 (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think like OldSkool. It's weird that, the only source that includes the exact date it's Profight. No PWInsider, Meltzer, PWTorch. Also, it's weird day 1=matches day 1. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah it seems they just did it that way to simplify everything. It’s obvious the shows weren’t taped like that because if you look at Gronk, he wore the exact same outfit on both shows. If, in theory, it was supposed to be done on 2 seperate days, he wouldn’t wear the same outfit twice. Even Stephanie at least changed her outfit the next day for those introductions she did both nights, even though most likely she taped both intros at the same time. OldSkool01 (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, I had heard as well from reliable sources that things were mixed and matches from the different nights. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's really annoying and even further makes me wish we didn't put so much emphasis on "when it really happened" over the dates that are recognized, especially considering it's all fictional anyways (no issue with saying when it really happened, just think it doesn't need the emphasis that it has right now). --JDC808 ♫ 10:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- The problem there is WWE contradicts themselves when it comes to what dates they “recognize” and what dates they don’t. Sometimes they’ll recognize the date a match is aired, as opposed to when it was taped, other times they’ll recognize the date it was taped. Then sometimes they’ll spoil their own shows by revealing what happened at a TV taping before it airs(like when Mankind won the title and many other instances). Other times they’ll change history, like on their title history pages, where they’ll now acknowledge the date a title change was taped, whereas in the past they always recognized the date it aired. SummerSlam ‘92 is another example of contradiction. On the Network they have the event listed as August 31, 1992 (the air date), but on the IC Title page they have Bulldog’s title win over Bret listed as August 29, 1992 (the date it actually happened). The reason the real dates take precedence over the air dates goes back to the idea that the live audience was always more important than the TV audience. At some point during the early 2000s they started to put more emphasis on the TV audience. It used to be you were watching a live event that was being aired on television, now today you’re watching a television show that just happens to be a live event. Another big issue with why we recognize the actual dates over the recognized dates is because WWE can’t count to save their lives. How many times do they list, for example, a 1 week title reign as 8 days when it really should be 7 days? There’s tons of cases like that. OldSkool01 (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- For example, When Velveteen Dream won the NA title 30 days before it was aired in a match with two endings. However, Wikipedia reports fact: Dream won the title 30 days before the match was aired and two endings were taped. There are several titles we don't have records, like Mexican titles, some early NWA titles, but it's fine. Just admit we don't have the whole information. Like this, we don't know if the match happened on 25 or 26, it's not a big deal --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, nothing wrong with saying we don't know. And I'm shocked (shocked!) that WWE is inconsistent with their records, or that they change them to suit the moment. It's almost like they don't particularly care.
- And why that is, I think you nailed it OldSkool01. Major American pro wrestling is less a live pseudo-sport that happens to be televised live as it is a television show that happens to have a live audience (well, except for these days because of the pandemic). In many ways it's like the old days of studio wrestling from before every week being live became common. No one really cares what order the scenes in a movie are shot unless you're involved in the production and you need to schedule shooting days. Wrestling has been moving (back) in that direction for some time any way, where only WWE (and how AEW) are actually live, and things like Matt Hardy's Deletion matches, the Taker/AJ match, and this years MITB matches, have become more common. Will it go back after the pandemic ends? Who knows.
- Which essentially is a long winded way of saying we shouldn't worry about it too much. oknazevad (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- @OldSkool01: You're missing the point on this all being fictional. Regardless if WWE "changes history", its their story to tell, because it's all fictional (that goes for all promotions); note that I'm not saying what they change can't be notated. The whole live audience argument is a moot point. We don't ever do that with other TV shows that are filmed in front of a studio audience, for example (at least not to my knowledge). --JDC808 ♫ 02:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Just because professional wrestling is “fake” doesn’t mean you can compare it to movies or sitcoms or television dramas (as much as Vince McMahon would love to fall into those categories) because professional wrestling is it’s own unique form of sports entertainment that can’t be compared to anything else. You can’t compare it to movies because movies aren’t taped in front of a live audience 52 weeks a year. And you can’t compare it to sitcoms that are taped in front of a studio audience because that studio audience is hearing the director say “Cut!” and then watching them film the same scene over and over again until they get it right. Sitcoms are also filmed months and months in advance with no presumption that what you are seeing is pretending to be real. Professional wrestling is done live, no retakes, in front of a different live audience multiple times a week. If pro wrestling was comparable to sitcoms then whenever there is a botched move in a match you would hear the ref say cut and then they’d retape it again on the spot. During sitcom tapings the actors don’t stay in character through the whole taping. In between takes they laugh and talk with the audience and tell jokes and whatnot. Wrestling doesn’t do that. Wrestlers stay in character the entire time they’re in front of the audience from the moment they step out on stage until they go back through the curtain. Also you’ll never see a movie studio say “Breaking news: during the taping of one of our scenes tonight, Kylo Ren killed Han Solo. Be sure to go to the theaters in 6 months to see it play out.” WWE on the other hand has done that countless times when there was a title change at a TV taping where they announced it on WWE.com before it aired on television. WWE can change and rewrite and retcon their history all they want. Our job is to make sure the accurate version of what happened gets told. If all Wikipedia did was parrot whatever WWE.com says then these pages will all serve no purpose. It would just be duplicates of WWE.com. People might as well just go straight to WWE.com to get their often distorted version of history. OldSkool01 (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Yes, yes you can in fact compare it to those other ones. And you overlooked the fact where I explicitly said that I was not saying to not notate changes (quite the opposite, changes should be notated, just as changes are notated in other articles about other fictional universes). Whether it was filmed in front of a live audience or not doesn't really matter, again, because it's all fictional. And your assertion that "professional wrestling is done live" is a false statement. Yes, a lot of what is shown on TV (when it's actually done live) is in fact live, but there are also things that are not done live and there are in fact reshoots, etc. What we're doing here on Wikipedia is trying to make professional wrestling "real" when it is not. You are also taking this way out of proportion on the comparison. --JDC808 ♫ 04:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Just because professional wrestling is “fake” doesn’t mean you can compare it to movies or sitcoms or television dramas (as much as Vince McMahon would love to fall into those categories) because professional wrestling is it’s own unique form of sports entertainment that can’t be compared to anything else. You can’t compare it to movies because movies aren’t taped in front of a live audience 52 weeks a year. And you can’t compare it to sitcoms that are taped in front of a studio audience because that studio audience is hearing the director say “Cut!” and then watching them film the same scene over and over again until they get it right. Sitcoms are also filmed months and months in advance with no presumption that what you are seeing is pretending to be real. Professional wrestling is done live, no retakes, in front of a different live audience multiple times a week. If pro wrestling was comparable to sitcoms then whenever there is a botched move in a match you would hear the ref say cut and then they’d retape it again on the spot. During sitcom tapings the actors don’t stay in character through the whole taping. In between takes they laugh and talk with the audience and tell jokes and whatnot. Wrestling doesn’t do that. Wrestlers stay in character the entire time they’re in front of the audience from the moment they step out on stage until they go back through the curtain. Also you’ll never see a movie studio say “Breaking news: during the taping of one of our scenes tonight, Kylo Ren killed Han Solo. Be sure to go to the theaters in 6 months to see it play out.” WWE on the other hand has done that countless times when there was a title change at a TV taping where they announced it on WWE.com before it aired on television. WWE can change and rewrite and retcon their history all they want. Our job is to make sure the accurate version of what happened gets told. If all Wikipedia did was parrot whatever WWE.com says then these pages will all serve no purpose. It would just be duplicates of WWE.com. People might as well just go straight to WWE.com to get their often distorted version of history. OldSkool01 (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- @OldSkool01: You're missing the point on this all being fictional. Regardless if WWE "changes history", its their story to tell, because it's all fictional (that goes for all promotions); note that I'm not saying what they change can't be notated. The whole live audience argument is a moot point. We don't ever do that with other TV shows that are filmed in front of a studio audience, for example (at least not to my knowledge). --JDC808 ♫ 02:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- For example, When Velveteen Dream won the NA title 30 days before it was aired in a match with two endings. However, Wikipedia reports fact: Dream won the title 30 days before the match was aired and two endings were taped. There are several titles we don't have records, like Mexican titles, some early NWA titles, but it's fine. Just admit we don't have the whole information. Like this, we don't know if the match happened on 25 or 26, it's not a big deal --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- The problem there is WWE contradicts themselves when it comes to what dates they “recognize” and what dates they don’t. Sometimes they’ll recognize the date a match is aired, as opposed to when it was taped, other times they’ll recognize the date it was taped. Then sometimes they’ll spoil their own shows by revealing what happened at a TV taping before it airs(like when Mankind won the title and many other instances). Other times they’ll change history, like on their title history pages, where they’ll now acknowledge the date a title change was taped, whereas in the past they always recognized the date it aired. SummerSlam ‘92 is another example of contradiction. On the Network they have the event listed as August 31, 1992 (the air date), but on the IC Title page they have Bulldog’s title win over Bret listed as August 29, 1992 (the date it actually happened). The reason the real dates take precedence over the air dates goes back to the idea that the live audience was always more important than the TV audience. At some point during the early 2000s they started to put more emphasis on the TV audience. It used to be you were watching a live event that was being aired on television, now today you’re watching a television show that just happens to be a live event. Another big issue with why we recognize the actual dates over the recognized dates is because WWE can’t count to save their lives. How many times do they list, for example, a 1 week title reign as 8 days when it really should be 7 days? There’s tons of cases like that. OldSkool01 (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's really annoying and even further makes me wish we didn't put so much emphasis on "when it really happened" over the dates that are recognized, especially considering it's all fictional anyways (no issue with saying when it really happened, just think it doesn't need the emphasis that it has right now). --JDC808 ♫ 10:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, I had heard as well from reliable sources that things were mixed and matches from the different nights. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah it seems they just did it that way to simplify everything. It’s obvious the shows weren’t taped like that because if you look at Gronk, he wore the exact same outfit on both shows. If, in theory, it was supposed to be done on 2 seperate days, he wouldn’t wear the same outfit twice. Even Stephanie at least changed her outfit the next day for those introductions she did both nights, even though most likely she taped both intros at the same time. OldSkool01 (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think like OldSkool. It's weird that, the only source that includes the exact date it's Profight. No PWInsider, Meltzer, PWTorch. Also, it's weird day 1=matches day 1. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- In this specific case that site is incorrect. If you look at the results, they list all the matches from night 1 (April 4th) as all being filmed on the first taping day (March 25th). And they list all the matches from night 2 (April 5th) as all being filmed on the second taping day (March 26th). That’s not what happened. Dave Meltzer reported that the matches were recorded, in no particular order, on both days and the reason they didn’t announce until the day the PPV aired which matches were going to be shown on which day, is because they were still deciding where to edit-in each match. Profight looks like they wanted to make things simple by saying “Night 1 was filmed on night 1 and night 2 was filmed on night 2.” That’s not accurate. OldSkool01 (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is basically the bread and butter for that site...keeping track of the who, where, when, and winners of the actual matches. It doesn't deal with wrestling "news" (i.e. signings/releases), and isn't meant to. Think of it as basically a pro wrestling box score page. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Not trying to make wrestling “real”, but we’re also not trying to fixate on the fictional part of it either. Just because the matches are predetermined doesn’t mean pro wrestling should be compared to all other forms of fiction. Like I said, professional wrestling is a unique form of sports entertainment that is unlike any other business in the world and should be treated as such without trying to lump it in with movies, sitcoms, dramas and whatnot. We already do acknowledge the dates that WWE recognizes, that’s why we have 2 seperate columns, one for the date a title change took place and one for the date that WWE recognizes. OldSkool01 (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Pro wrestling is fake, but title changes and matches happen in real world. The project had this conversation several times, the facts vs fiction. At the end Wikipedia likes facts more based on several policies and guidelines. Sources state that some wrestler won the match on XX, not when the match was aired. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Also, the idea for the discussion was to talk about WM dates accoring to profight.com. Reading several memebrs, I think the discussion ended, conclusion: Profight is against several other sources and isn't reliable for this kind of issues. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @OldSkool01: FYI, I was the one who started the discussion and gained the consensus to have the the WWE recognized column added mainly because of this whole fact vs. fiction whatnot because we previously did not include what WWE recognized. All we previously stated was that a match occurred on tape delay with no reference to what WWE actually recognized.
- @HHH Pedrigree: "Pro wrestling is fake, but title changes and matches happen in the real world." Really? I did not know. I thought it was all CG. My smart ass comment aside, of course they happen in the real world. How or where else would it happen? Again, going back to a my previous assertion with other TV shows, we don't apply this to them, but they too "happen in the real world." Regardless of professional wrestling's uniqueness, at the end of the day, it's a live-action fictional show. Live or not live, we are watching a fictional universe play out much the same way we do with other shows. Only difference is how it's watched and produced. Also, as to your comment of "Wikipedia likes facts." Well, here's a fact, pro-wrestling is fictional yet we are trying to present fictional aspects of it as real. --JDC808 ♫ 10:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- New Day defeated Revival In Manchester on November 8. AOP defeated Rollins on November 5. Kingston defeated The Miz on October 16, 2012 Velveteen Dream defeated Strong on January 30 . There is no fiction to say a wrestler won a title on XX, and was aired on YY, since the title change took place when happened, no when it's aired. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- You're not understanding the point, and you basically just proved me right. --JDC808 ♫ 10:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- This conversation is clearly going nowhere. We can go back and forth forever on this. We’re gonna have to agree to disagree. So let me try to get back to the original talking point. Profight is not accurate when it comes to the WrestleMania 36 taping dates. I haven’t seen any evidence to prove otherwise. OldSkool01 (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Agree. Profight isn't accurate. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Nor I, good sir. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- This conversation is clearly going nowhere. We can go back and forth forever on this. We’re gonna have to agree to disagree. So let me try to get back to the original talking point. Profight is not accurate when it comes to the WrestleMania 36 taping dates. I haven’t seen any evidence to prove otherwise. OldSkool01 (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- You're not understanding the point, and you basically just proved me right. --JDC808 ♫ 10:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- New Day defeated Revival In Manchester on November 8. AOP defeated Rollins on November 5. Kingston defeated The Miz on October 16, 2012 Velveteen Dream defeated Strong on January 30 . There is no fiction to say a wrestler won a title on XX, and was aired on YY, since the title change took place when happened, no when it's aired. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- They way I believe both at once without going mad is to assume that the crowd sees title change announcements and celebrations, but these have to officially "go down in the record book", a dusty leatherbound backstage tome, to seal the deal. Most of the time, the ceremony occurs shortly before midnight after the show, but now and then, the champs-elect are tired, going to party or are all out of signing blood, so it's postponed a few days. Total coincidence how this seems to only happen at TV tapings, that's all. But yeah, the only "serious" answer is "wrestling is insane, deal with it". InedibleHulk (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- I trust profightdb.com as one of the most reliable record of wrestling matches, it has been there a long time and reliably records match dates, venues, etc as far back as the 19th C to present day. There are very few records as reliable as this. Nothing on it has ever been proven unreliable, rather WP:PW is filled with unreliable and propaganda filled post 2010s made sources, that have questionable reliability, and has often used OR contents. I am voting profightdb.com as reliable. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
People are conflating two different terms here. Reliable means that it is written by experts, such as (to simplify the matter) a staff that has gone through an application process or someone who has otherwise proven himself or herself to be an expert. Examples include people who have been in the business for a long time and have been recognized by others in the industry as an expert. Accurate means that the thing reported actually happened as the writer says. For inclusion on Wikipedia, the source should pass the first test. Is it a reliable source? The question of accuracy is secondary. Reliable sources can report inaccurate information. Accurate sources may not pass the reliability test. Arguing about whether a source is reliable based on the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of a report shows a misunderstanding of one of Wikipedia's most important guidelines. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
New Zealand Wide Pro Wrestling
Hi, I need some opinion on an issue. New Zealand Wide Pro Wrestling has closed since the owner retired earlier this year. I made edits to the page but another user continues to revert all of my edits. I have searched and have found some evidence that the promotion is defunct. I would like some help and a consensus to be reached. Please can you do some more research and make a decision?
The promotion was operated by Martin Stirling and He Toa Sports Incorporated. The promotion has been closed since 2018 and has not held any events since then. Cagematch shows correctly that it closed in 2018[1] So does this site, [2] The website nzwpw.com and its Facebook page was closed in 2018. No more content has been posted on the promotion's Twitter page since 2018 [3] Also the contact page of the development version of the now closed NZWPW website [4] You will see it was part of He Toa Sports which is now closed. Please visit nzwpw.com in the Web Archive to see this. It shows the parent is He Toa Sports which is now closed. As reported by Maori Television, the He Toa Sports training school was closed in 2015. [5] He Toa Sports Incorporated was officially dissolved on 28 February 2020 [6] Socks 01 (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- The above review is loaded with original research just for the record. Socks is drawing lines that aren't there without more sources, such as the assertion that He Toa Sports had anything to do with NZWPW after 2009 except allowing NZWPW to use their office. Inactive = in hiatus. Inactive <> defunct. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Are we even 100% confident this is a notable promotion? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.cagematch.net/?id=8&nr=853 Cagematch - Inactive Promotion]. 21 June 2020
- ^ https://www.wrestling-titles.com/nz/nzwpw/ Cagematch - Inactive Promotion]. 21 June 2020
- ^ https://twitter.com/NZWPW NZWPW - Twitter]. 21 June 2020
- ^ https://magglecreative.wixsite.com/nzwpw/contact]. 21 June 2020
- ^ https://www.teaomaori.news/he-toa-sport-combat-school-close-doors He Toa Sport combat school to close doors. 17 February 2015
- ^ https://opencorporates.com/companies/nz/9429042643067 He Toa Sports - Open Corporates]. 19 June 2020
Great American Bash leaks
I know Wikipedia doesn't censor spoilers but out of courtesy I'm going to give you all fair warnings for spoilers for Pt 2 of Great American Bash. Stop reading here if you want to avoid spoilers.
That out of the way, you might have seen that a leak has revealed that Keith Lee will win the NXT championship on night 2 of GAB, to be broadcast on 8th July. This change has been made on several articles already, such as Lee's article, the NXT title page, and the list of NXT champions page. I have reverted these based on the fact that leaks would not be considered reliable sources: firstly, the "leak" in question is far from confirmation: it is a (grainy) photo of Lee appearing to celebrate, but holds no official statement of Lee's victory. Secondly, unconfirmed leaks would conflict with WP:RUMOUR in that this is not verifiable. Similarly we shouldn't be making changes in anticipation for his victory, as per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Finally, as per other title pages, Lee's title reign is only official when it actually becomes official (i.e., when the show is broadcast and WWE lists it on their site).
I'm posting this here on the Wikiproject page out of anticipation that we'll need to keep a close eye on these articles over the coming days as I expect edit warring to take place. — Czello 15:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, we'd wait for the date of broadcast even if reliable sources were talking about it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- No, we actually don't. If a reliable source reports results before airing, they're fair game for inclusion. The problem here is we don't really have a reliable report of the results, not that it's before the air date. oknazevad (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- In the past we've updated the articles before air dates per WP:SPOILER. It's only a WP:RUMOUR if it isn't reliably sourced, if it is then we have to go with it. I never watched Lucha Underground but it's my understanding that their fans were upset that our articles on it included results that hadn't aired yet. As far as when a reign becomes official, all title lists have separate columns for days held and days recognized. The first column would always be for the day it was taped (when applicable).
- In this case, if reliable sources haven't picked up the story then we should not run with it.LM2000 (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with LM and Oknazevad. If a reliable source reports a title change before it's aired, we include it. Pro wrestling takes place in the real world, Lee won the title on July 1, not July 8. For example, The Revival won the first NXT Tag Team title on October 22. The title victory was aired on November 11, so WWE recognized November 11. However, they defended the titles 4 times before the title match was aired. [6] Maybe, the only difference it's the lack of fans in the venue, so reliable sources can't confirm the information 100%. For me, we will know in two days, so I will wait. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- This is just another reason why I hate our practice of going by "what happened in the real world". It just muddies things up further and causes these kind of issues (like the looming issue of WrestleMania 36's title changes). As to this particular issue, it's not exactly a rumor. An employee of the company (NXT wrestler Saurav Gurjar) took a picture of the result and shared said picture. Whether or not this employee would be considered reliable is a bit pointless as there is undeniable evidence. Although Gurjar deleted the post, it has also been reported that WWE is furious with Gurjar for posting that picture and spoiling the results. --JDC808 ♫ 08:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- A reliable source has not confirmed the title change. They've commented on an apparent leak (and they even use the word "apparent"), but the leak itself is not considered reliable. Calling it "undeniable evidence" is simply wrong -- while it could well be genuine, it could also be taken out of context. In short, there is nothing confirmed about this (and it wouldn't be the first time WWE changed an event because of a leak). Simply put, this isn't official until we have actual confirmation. — Czello 09:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- So basically, your take is to wait until WWE confirms it. They obviously are not going to confirm it until it airs because they don't want to spoil their own show, especially when they're going head-to-head with AEW and want viewers to tune into their show and see the result "live". Also, how can a picture that legitimately shows Lee winning be taken out of context? The only answer would be that they filmed two endings, but that is in fact a rumor. Then there's the fact that WWE are mad over the fact that the result has been spoiled. Could they change it? Sure, but they've already taped the episode, and with this pandemic going on, they're not gonna make everyone come back just to re-tape one thing because the result got leaked. Reliable sources have reported on this, like the one I shared. --JDC808 ♫ 12:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I do believe we should wait (it's only 2 days so not exactly long). I think an image can easily be taken out of context -- it doesn't show him winning, it shows him celebrating with two belts. Perhaps there are different endings, perhaps they change it, perhaps there's a beat-down and Lee just raises one of the belts -- tbh, it doesn't really matter. Even if it did show him winning, it wouldn't matter. All that matters is that Keith Lee as NXT champion is not official, and it should not be added until there is confirmation that he is champion; otherwise we're simply assuming. Chances are he probably does win the title -- but it's unencyclopedic for us to include it as fact when we don't know that it is. And to reply to your final point -- as far as I can see, no reliable source HAS confirmed this. They're instead just talking about how there was an "apparent" leak, as I said above. — Czello 13:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- So basically, your take is to wait until WWE confirms it. They obviously are not going to confirm it until it airs because they don't want to spoil their own show, especially when they're going head-to-head with AEW and want viewers to tune into their show and see the result "live". Also, how can a picture that legitimately shows Lee winning be taken out of context? The only answer would be that they filmed two endings, but that is in fact a rumor. Then there's the fact that WWE are mad over the fact that the result has been spoiled. Could they change it? Sure, but they've already taped the episode, and with this pandemic going on, they're not gonna make everyone come back just to re-tape one thing because the result got leaked. Reliable sources have reported on this, like the one I shared. --JDC808 ♫ 12:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- A reliable source has not confirmed the title change. They've commented on an apparent leak (and they even use the word "apparent"), but the leak itself is not considered reliable. Calling it "undeniable evidence" is simply wrong -- while it could well be genuine, it could also be taken out of context. In short, there is nothing confirmed about this (and it wouldn't be the first time WWE changed an event because of a leak). Simply put, this isn't official until we have actual confirmation. — Czello 09:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- This is just another reason why I hate our practice of going by "what happened in the real world". It just muddies things up further and causes these kind of issues (like the looming issue of WrestleMania 36's title changes). As to this particular issue, it's not exactly a rumor. An employee of the company (NXT wrestler Saurav Gurjar) took a picture of the result and shared said picture. Whether or not this employee would be considered reliable is a bit pointless as there is undeniable evidence. Although Gurjar deleted the post, it has also been reported that WWE is furious with Gurjar for posting that picture and spoiling the results. --JDC808 ♫ 08:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with LM and Oknazevad. If a reliable source reports a title change before it's aired, we include it. Pro wrestling takes place in the real world, Lee won the title on July 1, not July 8. For example, The Revival won the first NXT Tag Team title on October 22. The title victory was aired on November 11, so WWE recognized November 11. However, they defended the titles 4 times before the title match was aired. [6] Maybe, the only difference it's the lack of fans in the venue, so reliable sources can't confirm the information 100%. For me, we will know in two days, so I will wait. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- No, we actually don't. If a reliable source reports results before airing, they're fair game for inclusion. The problem here is we don't really have a reliable report of the results, not that it's before the air date. oknazevad (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Two words "Dusty Finish" - may I remind people who put stock in a picture that pictures exist of Chris Jericho defeating a certain man of more than two "H"? A picture without context doesn't tell the full story. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Excellent point. This is a good reason why it would be irresponsible of us to add it at this point. — Czello 13:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- A reliable source would be someone who is an established expert publishing a match result. For example, Dave Meltzer attending a taping and reporting what happened. In a case like that, we could trust that the announced ending of the match was not reversed or changed by the end of the event. By Wikipedia standards, the results could be posted. They may turn out to be inaccurate to some extent (e.g. Shawn Michaels and Marty Jannetty won the tag team championship as The Rockers, but they are not credited as ever having held the belts because the WWF chose not to air the footage), but WP:RS is more important than a dislike or distrust of spoilers.
- A report that "some guy" was at a taping and said that X beat Y doesn't meet the criteria for reliable sources. A picture of someone holding a belt or having an arm held up in victory doesn't meet the criteria. There are countless examples of people thinking they had won only to be informed otherwise, or a second referee coming to the ring to alert the first referee to cheating, etc. (again, there are pictures of The Rockers holding the tag team championship belts).
- I wouldn't be surprised if promotions start holding decoy matches to prevent this sort of situation in the future, similar to how some television shows have recorded alternative episodes to thwart leaks, spoilers, and hackers. That would complicate the matter even more. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Add Evolve's championships to List of current champions in WWE page?
I already posted this question on the talk page, but yet to receive an answer, so I'll ask here. Since WWE officially bought Evolve, should we add Evolve's championships to the List of current champions in WWE page or wait until WWE use the Evolve brand in an official capacity?--Keith Okamoto (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- No -- WWE have purchased Evolve but they're still a separate company: they just have new owners. It's not like they're a separate brand, like NXT. — Czello 18:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Does Evolve still operating? the article says it's done. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware they're still operating, they just belong to WWE. — Czello 19:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- No, the story makes it clear that Evolve is no longer operating. The other promotions under the WWN Live banner which were not owned by Gabe, such as FIP and Shine, are supposed to eventually continue (though when I don't think even they know), but Evolve does not continue to operate. Indeed, from what was said at PW Insider, the sale apparently happened precisely because Gene was shutting down and WWE had a right of first refusal to buy the tape library and such as part of the working agreement that made Evolve the Double-A minors of WWE (beneath the Triple-A of NXT).
- As for the question at hand, I say no, don't add them. WWE may have bought the remains of Evolve, but there's zero indication that they're going to continue it as a brand or whatever. They're definitely not current WWE championships. oknazevad (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, another question. Does WWE own the Dragon Gate USA videotape? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- According to the PW Insider report, that was included in the sale. I can imagine there being issues with WWE fully using it because of licensing concerns with Dragon Gate in Japan, but that would be a separate issue to their ownership of the tape library itself. oknazevad (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Couple of things. Were FCW's titles listed when FCW was still in operation? Also, regardless of everything else that was said, if WWE doesn't list them on their website as their own current championships, neither should we here. --JDC808 ♫ 09:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- According to the PW Insider report, that was included in the sale. I can imagine there being issues with WWE fully using it because of licensing concerns with Dragon Gate in Japan, but that would be a separate issue to their ownership of the tape library itself. oknazevad (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, another question. Does WWE own the Dragon Gate USA videotape? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware they're still operating, they just belong to WWE. — Czello 19:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Does Evolve still operating? the article says it's done. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Clash of the Champions match times
I just noticed that an IP added fake match times back in December 2012. I fixed the times for one event, and I can work away at the others. If anyone wants to help, please feel free. There's no actual source given for match times, but I went with Pro Wrestling History (prowrestlinghistory.com), as it's definitely better than the fake times (one match I looked at was listed as 12 minutes when it was actually less than 3). GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Quick update: I finished this project today, so it's all consistent with the Pro Wrestling History times. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
The Reality Era(Dispute)
Hello I am in the middle of a dispute with Dilbaggg (talk · contribs) who refuses to allow me to edit sections on "The Reality Era" article as well as the History of WWE for the Reality Era as well. I have three reputable sources, TWO of which are from WWE themselves, one that states point blank that the timeframe for this era is 2014-2016. However this user is using their own personal views and opinions by going with a 2013-2016 timeframe which is incorrect. So incorrect that again, WWE themselves disagree as you will see below. Dilbaggg's source pointing to the Reality Era beginning in 2013 is a fanmade poster photo from DeviantArt that says "2013-2016". I find this absurd. If someone can please assist it would be much appreciated. Thank you.
- https://www.wwe.com/polls/what-is-your-favorite-wwe-era
- https://www.thesportster.com/wrestling/important-matches-wwe-reality-era/
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hemBUIEc1uo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.72.173 (talk • contribs)
68.196.72.173 (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Most of the sources you gave are either primary (WWE) which btw is just a poll not an article and the sportster isn't even a reliable source. The youtube video Triple H never said 2014 was the start of the reality era, he said it was ongoing, much like the pg era started in 2008 but was never acknowledged by WWE themselves until 2010 (until then only fans used the term to mock the WWE's transition "back to TV PG" which it also was before 1997, tv ratings do not determine eras), they referred to the period as the Universe Era. You can't use polls as a source and if you are going to use quotes from wrestlers, I have quotes from CM Punk coining the term reality era from 2011. There are WP:RS which cites 2011 as the beginning of The Reality Era:
- https://grantland.com/features/wwe-night-champions-preview/
- https://www.espn.com/story/_/id/7131456/cm-punk-worked-tweet-era
- http://thechairshot.com/2019/06/the-doc-says-the-wwe-decade-in-review-2011-the-rise-of-cm-punk/
- https://411mania.com/wrestling/change-the-eyes-examining-the-reality-era/
Cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Triple H's exact quotes from the video:
"Maybe I start the Reality Era" "Maybe as of right now this moment this is the beginning of the Reality Era"
And it was. And eventually years later WWE apparently labeled 2014 in general as the start of the era as seen in my first source.
And continuing on, the Sportster isn't a reliable source but grantland, thechairshot.com(a random guy saying something in a podcast?) and 411mania are? Not to mention they all supersede WWE themselves? And with regards to the the 411Mania source, they too imply that the beginning was 2014 with Triple H's statement from 3/24/14, not 2013. And you're right TV ratings don't determine era's and WWE wasn't the 'PG Era' prior to 1997 but that is completely irrelevant here besides the point as WWE has called it the PG Era multiple times - Once in that poll, and two others from WWE superstars themselves that I know of- Triple H in his "Thy Kingdom Come" documentary and Natalya on her "Table for 3" episode. I am perfectly fine with keeping your 2013 background on the Reality Era but as far as the REAL timeframe goes the official timeframe is 2014-2016. It's like other era's too. In late 1992 when WWE slowly began heading in a different direction with new stars such as Bret, Shawn and Razor but the New Generation didn't go into full swing until mid 93 or so. 68.196.72.173 (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Dilbaggg: that poll might be a primary source and it might just be a poll, but here's the thing: it's WWE's product. It being a primary source is exactly why it trumps the secondary sources; those secondary sources don't define the eras of WWE, WWE defines what constitutes their eras, and the poll shows what those are and their time frames. The secondary sources just report and discuss further and are used as a backing to validate the primary. In 10-15 years, if WWE decides to do some rewriting/retconning on what they define as these eras, then we have secondary sources to give us a broader view and what was being reported at the time. --JDC808 ♫ 04:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- WWE also cites the PG Era as the Universe Era (including their official games like WWE2K14), we do not call that period Universe Era for that, in until 2010 the term pg era was just used as a mock by the crowd. But it is still accepted to begin sine 2008. Likewise the term "Reality Era" has been coined since 2011, and WWE just accepted the term in 2014. Is their any other WWE source other than that simple poll that uses the term PG Era and states that The Reality Era begin in 2014? If so I will drop the matter and accept the change without any more objection, although I do agree what majority editors say regarding this is what counts. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I will list the Triple H 3/24/14 youtube video quotes again for you:
"Maybe I start the Reality Era"... "Maybe as of right now this moment this is the beginning of the Reality Era"
There are no other sources but there doesn't need to be any other sources as again, for the last time now, and as mentioned above, anything from WWE themselves trumps these other secondary sources. Not to mention there are several secondary sources we have seen that show 2014-2016 as well. Your own personal opinion of this is getting in the way, and believe me I can understand that sometimes. As an example I 100% feel that the ECW Championship should not count as a world championship at all but because WWE notes it as such in areas of their website, Wikipedia counts it as one and I had to accept it. With this topic though, even without the WWE source, I know as a huge WWE fan myself that the real Reality Era was in fact 2014-2016, even if there were some signs and shades of it beforehand. WWE was still very much PG Era-ish through 2013.
Side notes: Bringing up the Universe Era/PG Era discussion is irrelevant here, but regardless, WWE does not cite it as the Universe Era, officially. Visual Concepts, the makers of the WWE2K14 game, does. I'm sure they got some sort of permission from WWE to use that name for the game as it may sound better, but ultimately, PG Era has been accepted by WWE and an overwhelming majority of it's fans.
68.196.72.173 (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- 68.196.72.173 All right I am accepting your point and will revert it to the 2014-2016 timeline, confirm to my message, do you want it to be reverted that way? Dilbaggg (talk) 05:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, but I will change it on the actual Reality Era article. If you can please note this on the 'History of WWE' talk section so I can be permitted to clean that up as well that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.72.173 (talk) 12:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- 68.196.72.173 All right its done, I have reverted the article to June 2020 status, the History of WWE article now has the Reality Era timeline set from 2014-2016. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you68.196.72.173 (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I have to ask: why do we care? Seriously, a two year or so period of relative insignificance in the history of the company doesn't need to be significantly defined by their attempt (and failure) to brand it with a buzzword name (after that buzzword had already lost any broader pop culture significance, I might add). In short, we don't need to parrot WWE marketing speak every article. It fails NPOV, frankly, and gives undue weight to the company's self-promotion. oknazevad (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Completely agree. It's also not particularly notable outside of WWE's own branding. I don't think either of the articles adequately explain the significance of this period. Instead it just reads as a drawn-out bit of history. What makes this notable, in a way that isn't WP:OR? — Czello 14:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Agree. During the discussion, I felt this maybe is too into the WP:PROMOTION. I have read about the Reality Era, but not so much about the New Era, just WWE.com itself and thesportster. Also, I think the eras are defined by third party sources, not by the promotion itself. I don't see not read any difference between Reality Era and New Era. Kofi Kingston used the real life feud with Orton during his feud as WWE Champion. Daniel Bryan used real life behavior as par of the eco-warrior gimmick --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- I have edited the article a little bit. I think the article focus too much on WWE in-universe and no notable stuff. I don't see this deep coverage in previous eras, like Attitude or New Generation. We are talking about WWE during a time period, but no mention about Saudi Arabia, but Bobby Lashley return instead? No mention about All Elite Wrestling, but The Hardys returned? No mention of NXT grown and NXT UK, but The Shield reuinited in 2017? Too much focus on what happens in WWE Programming, but no in WWE as a COMPANY. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW, I've never actually heard this term before this conversation - probably not notable as stand alone. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- I have edited the article a little bit. I think the article focus too much on WWE in-universe and no notable stuff. I don't see this deep coverage in previous eras, like Attitude or New Generation. We are talking about WWE during a time period, but no mention about Saudi Arabia, but Bobby Lashley return instead? No mention about All Elite Wrestling, but The Hardys returned? No mention of NXT grown and NXT UK, but The Shield reuinited in 2017? Too much focus on what happens in WWE Programming, but no in WWE as a COMPANY. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Agree. During the discussion, I felt this maybe is too into the WP:PROMOTION. I have read about the Reality Era, but not so much about the New Era, just WWE.com itself and thesportster. Also, I think the eras are defined by third party sources, not by the promotion itself. I don't see not read any difference between Reality Era and New Era. Kofi Kingston used the real life feud with Orton during his feud as WWE Champion. Daniel Bryan used real life behavior as par of the eco-warrior gimmick --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
AfD
As it's tangentially related to the above debate, you should all know that I've nominated the standalone article for deletion as it's largely a duplication of what's on the History of WWE article. You can participate in the AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reality Era. — Czello 06:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: I support the deletion, 2014-2016 is too short time to cover for an article. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
But there is a difference and WWE does define these eras as seen below. WWE also made a big push for the "New Era" following WM32.
- https://www.wwe.com/polls/what-is-your-favorite-wwe-era — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.72.173 (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- What's the difference? Again, we're just repeating what WWE says. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, what HHH Pedrigree says. WWE can call it what they like, but that doesn't make it notable. — Czello 15:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Ribbing
Hi everybody. So, I was looking at the Glossary of professional wrestling terms talk page a couple days ago, and I saw someone suggesting an article be written on ribbing in wrestling. The comment was years old, but I thought it seemed like a good idea, so I wrote one. It's in my Sandbox if you want to read it. It turns out that there was once an article on ribbing, but User:Nikki311 changed it to a redirect to the Glossary I already linked. That was years ago, too. This is the first article I've written, so I would hope it passes AfD, but I'd like it to at least get a chance, because I think 9 words in a glossary is way less than what this could be. I left a comment about this on Nikki311's Talk Page, but haven't heard back, and it doesn't seem that she's the easiest person to get a reply from. Does anyone have any advice on what I should do? "Yes...It's Raining" 21:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- We have a practical joke article already, which is basically pranking and ribbing combined, just in modern carny talk. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- We do have practical joke, but ribs are usually specific to long trips on the road. I can't imagine there wouldn't be enough to satisfy GNG. The previous loose consensus was that the article back in 2007 was too much cruft, but if a decent article was written at Rib (professional wrestling) I wouldn't want it to be redirected. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think that has to do with wrestlling holding onto '30s grifter dope for way longer than the rest of the world, and wrestlers simply happening to do everything on (at least near) the road. Back in the day, ribs could strike anywhere goofs, capers or hijinks could. But yeah, no objections to anything, just food for thought. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi again, everyone, and thanks for your replies. So, I'm not saying what I've written is perfect, because I'm sure it's not, but I think it's certainly better than some list article. I think you guys can see what's in my Sandbox just like I can, right? I assumed everyone would go to my userpage/Sandbox and could see what I put up, but since someone mentioned linking to it, here you go! Again, I'm sure it could be improved upon greatly - and feel free to give me any honest opinions, my feelings will not be hurt! - but I think it sounds like what I've written is a pretty big step up from what was there ten years ago."Yes...It's Raining" 15:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Edited to add: After reading portions of Wikipedia:Bold 3 or 4 times, I decided that the right approach is to put it up, as I'm positive it's not a particularly offensive article, etc., and is well-sourced, etc. and, again, not a list, and let someone revert it if they think it needs to be. So that's what I'm about to do. No disrespect is meant to any of your opinions, and feel free to do what you think is appropriate, but I'm going to do what I understand to be what's recommended in these circumstances and go and replace the redirect with what I wrote. "Yes...It's Raining" 15:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- It looks like a good start. I think the biggest concern in its current form is that the sources may not be reliable sources per WP:RS. I would recommend using the search forms at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources (substituting in your search terms in the quotation marks, and using a variety of terms: rib, ribbing, prank, practical joke, jokester, etc., possibly in conjunction with specific wrestlers who were known to do these sorts of things). There should be reliable sources for these, and I think it would be possible to write a paragraph about how this sometimes includes defecation (e.g. in Jerry Lawler's crown, Alundra Blayze's bag, etc.). I don't know if popculture.com would be a reliable source, but there is an article at https://popculture.com/wwe/news/scott-hall-most-disgusting-prank-wwe-history/ that discusses this prank: In wrestling, pooping in a peer's bag is the ultimate "gotcha" and wrestlers have used this trick for decades as a backwards way to police their locker room...."Fuji was most known for the s--t rib and he passed it on to Curt who passed it on to X-Pac, and if they don't like you, they just s--t in your bag. And sometimes it would be multiple s--ts. It would be different textures and it was like I never really participate in any of that. I was aware it was happening. I never s--t in anybody's bag," explained [Scott] Hall...."I never wanted to see it because some guys would walk around and go, 'wow, look' to me and I'd go, 'no, I believe you'. Then, they'd s--t in your bag if they didn't like you and depending on how you sold it, they even did it to Madusa, Alundra Blayze. She came in with a little bit of an attitude and she got s--t ribbed. Sunny and Chris Candido, Skip and Sunny, ooh, one time on a European tour, they got s--t ribbed," Hall remembered...."And Curt would do the upper decker. He would go in your room, if he could get in your house, he'd like it even better," illustrated Hall. He would go in your hotel room and lift the back of the toilet, like the part where the flushing stuff goes, he'd s--t in there and put the lid back on and you'd be smelling it for days!" If you (or anyone) could find a reliable source for some of this information, it would help build up the article. There are also the personal attacks that are often categorized as ribs--Vince McMahon naming Mike Jones "Virgil" as a prank/attack on Dusty Rhodes, WCW naming Mike Jones "Vincent" to get back at McMahon, wrestlers in TNA forming the Voodoo Kin Mafia as a prank/attack on Vincent K. McMahon. That could make for a paragraph, and all of those name-related "ribs" could be sourced to the WrestleCrap books/site. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Awesome, I definitely agree with you that it can be expanded and improved and appreciate your suggestions on how to do so. I have to admit I'm pretty reassured that you see it as a good start, since it took some work. I'll try to build it up and see what I can find using the links you recommended at some point later on if noone else beats me to it. Thanks!"Yes...It's Raining" 17:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hello. I took a look at your article, and it is better than the crufty list that was there before. I agree with Gary that some of the sources don't seem reliable, particularly the independently published book about Owen Hart. I vaguely remember Foley discussing ribs in some of his books, so you might want to look through those if you have them available. Also, the article focuses heavily on WWE, so if you could add some examples from other companies (especially from other countries) that would also be an improvement. Nikki♥311 08:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Awesome, I definitely agree with you that it can be expanded and improved and appreciate your suggestions on how to do so. I have to admit I'm pretty reassured that you see it as a good start, since it took some work. I'll try to build it up and see what I can find using the links you recommended at some point later on if noone else beats me to it. Thanks!"Yes...It's Raining" 17:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- It looks like a good start. I think the biggest concern in its current form is that the sources may not be reliable sources per WP:RS. I would recommend using the search forms at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources (substituting in your search terms in the quotation marks, and using a variety of terms: rib, ribbing, prank, practical joke, jokester, etc., possibly in conjunction with specific wrestlers who were known to do these sorts of things). There should be reliable sources for these, and I think it would be possible to write a paragraph about how this sometimes includes defecation (e.g. in Jerry Lawler's crown, Alundra Blayze's bag, etc.). I don't know if popculture.com would be a reliable source, but there is an article at https://popculture.com/wwe/news/scott-hall-most-disgusting-prank-wwe-history/ that discusses this prank: In wrestling, pooping in a peer's bag is the ultimate "gotcha" and wrestlers have used this trick for decades as a backwards way to police their locker room...."Fuji was most known for the s--t rib and he passed it on to Curt who passed it on to X-Pac, and if they don't like you, they just s--t in your bag. And sometimes it would be multiple s--ts. It would be different textures and it was like I never really participate in any of that. I was aware it was happening. I never s--t in anybody's bag," explained [Scott] Hall...."I never wanted to see it because some guys would walk around and go, 'wow, look' to me and I'd go, 'no, I believe you'. Then, they'd s--t in your bag if they didn't like you and depending on how you sold it, they even did it to Madusa, Alundra Blayze. She came in with a little bit of an attitude and she got s--t ribbed. Sunny and Chris Candido, Skip and Sunny, ooh, one time on a European tour, they got s--t ribbed," Hall remembered...."And Curt would do the upper decker. He would go in your room, if he could get in your house, he'd like it even better," illustrated Hall. He would go in your hotel room and lift the back of the toilet, like the part where the flushing stuff goes, he'd s--t in there and put the lid back on and you'd be smelling it for days!" If you (or anyone) could find a reliable source for some of this information, it would help build up the article. There are also the personal attacks that are often categorized as ribs--Vince McMahon naming Mike Jones "Virgil" as a prank/attack on Dusty Rhodes, WCW naming Mike Jones "Vincent" to get back at McMahon, wrestlers in TNA forming the Voodoo Kin Mafia as a prank/attack on Vincent K. McMahon. That could make for a paragraph, and all of those name-related "ribs" could be sourced to the WrestleCrap books/site. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think that has to do with wrestlling holding onto '30s grifter dope for way longer than the rest of the world, and wrestlers simply happening to do everything on (at least near) the road. Back in the day, ribs could strike anywhere goofs, capers or hijinks could. But yeah, no objections to anything, just food for thought. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- We do have practical joke, but ribs are usually specific to long trips on the road. I can't imagine there wouldn't be enough to satisfy GNG. The previous loose consensus was that the article back in 2007 was too much cruft, but if a decent article was written at Rib (professional wrestling) I wouldn't want it to be redirected. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Ewrestlingnews, Yard Barker, Pro Wrestling Scoops - reliable sources?
Trying to develop a community consensus on these and a few other dubious sources. Please weigh in on the discussion here. Thanks. Dory Funk (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Level 5 vital articles
Earlier this year, we discussed swapping some of entries for Pro Wrestling vital articles. Since then, they have increased the number of slots we have to fill. That mans Giant Baba and Mildred Burke, who we discussed adding, are now there. Others like Savage, Cena, Bret Hart, Benoit and The Undertaker, who we discussed removing, are probably safe. They gave us even more slots, and those were filled by Chyna, Jerry Lawler and Stu Hart. These were not names we discussed last time this topic came up. Should their places go to others we discussed, like Mil Mascaras or Blue Demon?LM2000 (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Might I suggest Triple H or Batista? These lists will always likely be WWF centric. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- I prefer Masacaras and Demon over Triple H and Batista. These are huge icons in Mexican Lucha Libre. What about Jushin Thunder Liger? He is very relevant as one of the best cruiserweights in history. I think we should avoid WWE-centrism. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- The reason Starship.paint started the first discussion was because the original list was WWE-centric and 14 out of 25 of the current list spent a significant portion of their career in WWE. I think Blue Demon and Mil Mascaras are fine for the list, but I'd put someone like Sting on there before Triple H or Batista.LM2000 (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I prefer Masacaras and Demon over Triple H and Batista. These are huge icons in Mexican Lucha Libre. What about Jushin Thunder Liger? He is very relevant as one of the best cruiserweights in history. I think we should avoid WWE-centrism. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Mantaur! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- And for the Mexicans, Luchasaurus! There's no denying he's huge, especially compared to the best cruiserweights in history. Also far bigger than the majority of actual dinosaurs known to science, just not the popular ones. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
@LM2000, HHH Pedrigree, Lee Vilenski, and InedibleHulk: - (1) I'd put Blue Demon in over Jerry Lawler, as Blue was more prominent in his country than Lawler, and Blue is definitely above Mascaras. (2) Chyna definitely shouldn't be on there, if you want to keep having a woman there, I'd propose Manami Toyota, named by the Washington Post [7] as perhaps the greatest female wrestler of all time
. Dave Meltzer [8] concurred on Toyota, may have been the greatest woman wrestler of all-time
... one of the first generation of women stars respected by the male wrestling fans
, on a par if not superior to any male pro wrestler of the 1990s as far as athleticism and garnering a reaction from fans
. If not a woman, but keeping it WWE-centric, I'd have Rey Mysterio, arguably the greatest of all time to wear a mask
according to PWTorch, arguably the most famous masked wrestler to ever perform in modern-day professional wrestling
according to Sports Illustrated, and who is also the most influential wrestler on this generation of wrestlers (and it's not even close
), according to Meltzer. [9] Not sure about Stu Hart. To accommodate all three of the above, I'd take out Roddy Piper, who has never even won a top WWF or WCW title. starship.paint (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Isn't this based on being important/notable, rather than wrestling talent though? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: - I would think that the current rise in women's wrestling in the U.S. had its roots in Japan's joshi scene (Japan achieved parity in gender earlier than the U.S., though joshi did fade in prominence in the 21st century) Did Mildred Burke or Fabulous Moolah achieve that? How much was Chyna an influence? starship.paint (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I suggest removing Chyna, Lawler, and Benoit. Possible replacements are Blue Demon, Mil Mascaras, Triple H, The Rock. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- @GaryColemanFan: - Rock is listed on Level 5 as an actor. starship.paint (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Strange. I search for "Rock" and "Johnson" and still somehow missed him. I guess that simplifies my list. From my original comment, I would remove the three and add the other three. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Aja Kong, Kyoko Inoue and Bull Nakano would, have and typically should eat Toyota for breakfast. But yeah, she keeps fighting back regardless, good on her! Mayumi Ozaki, Jaguar Yokota and Akira Hokuto are probably a notch higher on the old vitality pole, though. Mysterio transcends WWE, I think, seems important everywhere. I don't know, this game's weird. How are Stu Hart and The Undertaker similar again? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Wait...where the hell is Shawn Michaels? What kind of Internet Wrestling Community remembers Mildred Burke, Stu Hart and Frank Gotch before the man who made initials cool for guys like HHH, Y2J, nWo and JTG? Speaking of new world order, where are Nash, Hall and Bischoff, the men who made lady wrestler millionaires an achievable pipe dream (as opposed to some bullshit Moolah fed her slaves to keep them in the van indefinitely). Even "the boys" (Al Snow, Gangrel, Brock Lesnar) probably appreciate the ratings war and guaranteed money for nothing. But yeah, Rikidozan. He's cool, if you're into that "Kintaro Oki Meets Mitsuo Momota" kind of thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- In brief voting terms Replace Savage and Piper with Diesel and Michaels. And maybe Trade Stu for Abdullah to lessen WWE taint. Least urgently, any woman we actually remember for Mildred Burke. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose all of these suggestions and all of these reasons. It's not personal. I just disagree. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- No hard feelings, I personally don't even grasp the concept of a vital article. Just figure if you don't know HBK, you won't know the Montreal Screwjob, the Curtain Call, the Barbershop Window, the Heartbreak Hotel, the Boyhood Dream, the Backlot Brawl, the Beach Blast, the Bash at the Beach, Sonny Beach, Sunny Days, Days of Thunder or Johnny Nitro! That's a lot of stuff, some of it directly affecting Hogan, Piper and Savage. Kay Noble, June Byers and Rockin' Robin, not so much. The nWo and Stampede were big in Japan though; I nominate Dynamite Kid, Masahiro Chono and The Great Muta. And also Negro Casas, El Felino and Heavy Metal (or whoever our Mexican students think was better, I don't really "get" lucha). I'm still with you on putting The Game over, Gary, 110%! Just not over Benoit. Bury Lawler. And I'm sold on Manami Toyota, Starship; she may not be the best of the '90s, but she was often in the best matches, which Chyna really wasn't ever. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- A very good point, and a good reminder of how little I should get emotionally invested in the debate. I don't really get the purpose of vital articles. Are they the ones I would point a non-wrestling fan to in order to get a sense of what professional wrestling is? Are they the ones I would suggest putting into a printed book if someone wanted a paper summary of Wikipedia? Neither of those thoughts really matter to me, so I'm not sure that I really care who ends up on the list. No matter what argument I consider (Triple H over Michaels because non-wrestling fans would have a better sense of who Triple H is, but keep Stu Hart because of his contributions as more of a "builder" despite the fact that non-wrestling fans wouldn't have a clue who he is, and many wrestling fans would only know him as Bret and Owen's dad), I can't even pretend that my logic is consistent. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Minor quibble, but Stu Hart is still quite known in and around his old territory to people who were merely aware that wrestling ran here (there were only a few channels in his day). He's even in the (online) news today. Seems Vince never got around to the "buying" part of the Stampede buyout. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- A very good point, and a good reminder of how little I should get emotionally invested in the debate. I don't really get the purpose of vital articles. Are they the ones I would point a non-wrestling fan to in order to get a sense of what professional wrestling is? Are they the ones I would suggest putting into a printed book if someone wanted a paper summary of Wikipedia? Neither of those thoughts really matter to me, so I'm not sure that I really care who ends up on the list. No matter what argument I consider (Triple H over Michaels because non-wrestling fans would have a better sense of who Triple H is, but keep Stu Hart because of his contributions as more of a "builder" despite the fact that non-wrestling fans wouldn't have a clue who he is, and many wrestling fans would only know him as Bret and Owen's dad), I can't even pretend that my logic is consistent. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- No hard feelings, I personally don't even grasp the concept of a vital article. Just figure if you don't know HBK, you won't know the Montreal Screwjob, the Curtain Call, the Barbershop Window, the Heartbreak Hotel, the Boyhood Dream, the Backlot Brawl, the Beach Blast, the Bash at the Beach, Sonny Beach, Sunny Days, Days of Thunder or Johnny Nitro! That's a lot of stuff, some of it directly affecting Hogan, Piper and Savage. Kay Noble, June Byers and Rockin' Robin, not so much. The nWo and Stampede were big in Japan though; I nominate Dynamite Kid, Masahiro Chono and The Great Muta. And also Negro Casas, El Felino and Heavy Metal (or whoever our Mexican students think was better, I don't really "get" lucha). I'm still with you on putting The Game over, Gary, 110%! Just not over Benoit. Bury Lawler. And I'm sold on Manami Toyota, Starship; she may not be the best of the '90s, but she was often in the best matches, which Chyna really wasn't ever. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose all of these suggestions and all of these reasons. It's not personal. I just disagree. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Wait a second...why are we cutting anybody? The American TV host fans have 118 very important people to adore. I'm at least renouncing my pledge to replace The Macho King in 2020 with any Fourth Horseman, brother! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Count
- IN: Blue Demon (4) - LM2000, HHH Pedrigree, starship.paint, GaryColemanFan
- IN: Mil Mascaras (3) - LM2000, HHH Pedrigree, GaryColemanFan
- IN: Triple H (3) - Lee Vilenski, GaryColemanFan, InedibleHulk
- IN: Manami Toyota (3) - starship.paint, InedibleHulk, LM2000
- IN: Rey Mysterio (2) - starship.paint, InedibleHulk
- IN: Batista (1) - Lee Vilenski
IN: Jushin Thunder Liger (1) - HHH Pedrigree
- OUT: Jerry Lawler (5) - starship.paint, GaryColemanFan, InedibleHulk, LM2000, HHH Pedrigree
- OUT: Chyna (4) - starship.paint, GaryColemanFan, LM2000, HHH Pedrigree
- OUT: Roddy Piper (2) - starship.paint, InedibleHulk
- OUT: Chris Benoit (1) - GaryColemanFan
- OUT: Mildred Burke (1) - InedibleHulk
- OUT: Stu Hart (1) - LM2000
OUT: Verne Gagne (?)
InedibleHulk - add your own name to the list where needed. I can't tell when you were serious above. @HHH Pedrigree, LM2000, and Lee Vilenski: - we need to hear from you who to remove. I'm sure we won't be removing/adding anyone with just one vote. For every person you vote to add, please vote to add one person to remove. starship.paint (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- All twelve in bold were serious, but only hopped on existing bandwagons. If anyone else likes a dark horse of mine, feel free to put us on the board. I replaced Stu with Mrs. Burke. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- I've re-added Stu because I wasn't sure if LM2000/Lee/HHH would want to remove him. starship.paint (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- And I added Verne, to even the sides. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- I've added my three votes and anti-votes. Can we have more than three? I'd again suggest Sting as a North American wrestler that hasn't been represented yet. Replace Frank Gotch with George Hackenschmidt to keep the international flavor and nobody will notice.LM2000 (talk)
- @LM2000: - we definitely can have more than three votes and anti-votes, just that they have to balance. We can change more than three wrestlers, I believe, just that we shouldn't change if only one person supports that change. Anything with three supports seems good to me? As long as the votes and anti-votes are balanced. They aren't balanced now, but we're still waiting for HHH and Lee's anti-votes. starship.paint (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well, If I have to choose 3 anti votes, they will be Chyna, and Lawler. Since Jushin isn't too popular, Can I remove my Liger vote and leave it with two anti votes, two votes? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- @HHH Pedrigree: - definitely, 2-2, 1-1, 4-4, 5-5, all fine. starship.paint (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well, If I have to choose 3 anti votes, they will be Chyna, and Lawler. Since Jushin isn't too popular, Can I remove my Liger vote and leave it with two anti votes, two votes? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- @LM2000: - we definitely can have more than three votes and anti-votes, just that they have to balance. We can change more than three wrestlers, I believe, just that we shouldn't change if only one person supports that change. Anything with three supports seems good to me? As long as the votes and anti-votes are balanced. They aren't balanced now, but we're still waiting for HHH and Lee's anti-votes. starship.paint (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- I've added my three votes and anti-votes. Can we have more than three? I'd again suggest Sting as a North American wrestler that hasn't been represented yet. Replace Frank Gotch with George Hackenschmidt to keep the international flavor and nobody will notice.LM2000 (talk)
- And I added Verne, to even the sides. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- I've re-added Stu because I wasn't sure if LM2000/Lee/HHH would want to remove him. starship.paint (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Vital articles project procedures
Hey guys, I went over to read Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5#Introduction and there are some rules for changing articles. It turns out that you'll need to vote over there as well (at least four votes to make a change). From the above, it's clear that Lawler and Chyna have the most removal votes, so I nominated them already. Blue Demon has the most add votes, so I nominated him, the rest is currently a tie, but since we nominated to remove Chyna, I have nominated Toyota, who is also female. I haven't done any other nomination because the third addition/removal is not so clear, and in any case, it wouldn't be easy to nominate someone I personally did not support. Things for us to do:
- Vote on the currently listed proposals at the Vital articles talk page
- Decide on whether to have a third removal - Piper? Stu Hart? Benoit? Burke? Shift your votes around? Or no third removal?
- After the third removal is decided, we have to coalesce behind either Triple H or Mil Mascaras. If we want both, we need a fourth removal.
- Write nominations on the third/fourth removal/additions. starship.paint (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@HHH Pedrigree, InedibleHulk, GaryColemanFan, and LM2000: starship.paint (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Don't treat them like a woman, don't treat them like a man. Just treat them if we know them as "vital" for who and what they am. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: - your two removal votes are yet to be in. starship.paint (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I'll tag GuzzyG here, who recently posted on the other page and may be unaware of this discussion.LM2000 (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion re: professional wrestling biographical articles
In light of the recent event with Sonya Deville, I would suggest that we cease using the "resides" field in professional wrestling biographical articles to avoid publicising this information. Thoughts welcome. McPhail (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- We only publish what reliable sources state. If there's not a reliable source that states this, we need to remove it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- True, but this isn’t a reliable sourcing issue. Recently a man tried to break into the wrestlers’ home in an attempt to kidnap her. I believe the suggestion is that for protection from future stalkers the infobox for profession wrestlers shouldn’t list what city they currently live in. I personally don’t see much use since I quite sure a potential stalker could easily find such info even if Wikipedia didn’t mention it and there’s no evidence they this particular stalker got any pertinent information from the Wikipedia article.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- We don't list someone's address. This isn't surpressed information. If it's public knowledge, we do no harm in mentioning it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's not the case - Wikipedia can amplify information. For example, where some editors have used copyright filings as sources - that's taking information that is technically in the public domain, but in reality very low profile, and making it much more visible. Also, per WP:BLPPRIVACY, addresses should not be included in biographical articles. Town/city names are part of the address and per the policy should not be included. McPhail (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- "Dayton, Ohio" is not a "Postal Address" which is specifically mentioned in link provided. And you are going about it wrong, ask at WP:BLPPRIVACY who probably have dealt with this question before. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with MPJ and McPhail. I understand that Wikipedia can amplify information, but Dayton, Ohio or Orlando, Florida, it's to generic and big, not the full adress. I know Angelico lives in Barcelona, but the city is huge and I not going to find him with that information. Maybe the best idea it's to talk with the people of BLPRIVACY, they will know what to do. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- I think everyone wants to avoid a Rebecca Schaeffer situation, but the home cities of celebrities are frequently reported and subject to common knowledge. In the Deville case, mainstream media have covered the story and reported her home city and we kind of have to include it in her biography. However, articles should not include their full address.LM2000 (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. The only exception I can think of would be Hart House, as the house itself is notable enough for its own article, and the specific location is widely known and discussed in reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- I think everyone wants to avoid a Rebecca Schaeffer situation, but the home cities of celebrities are frequently reported and subject to common knowledge. In the Deville case, mainstream media have covered the story and reported her home city and we kind of have to include it in her biography. However, articles should not include their full address.LM2000 (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with MPJ and McPhail. I understand that Wikipedia can amplify information, but Dayton, Ohio or Orlando, Florida, it's to generic and big, not the full adress. I know Angelico lives in Barcelona, but the city is huge and I not going to find him with that information. Maybe the best idea it's to talk with the people of BLPRIVACY, they will know what to do. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- "Dayton, Ohio" is not a "Postal Address" which is specifically mentioned in link provided. And you are going about it wrong, ask at WP:BLPPRIVACY who probably have dealt with this question before. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's not the case - Wikipedia can amplify information. For example, where some editors have used copyright filings as sources - that's taking information that is technically in the public domain, but in reality very low profile, and making it much more visible. Also, per WP:BLPPRIVACY, addresses should not be included in biographical articles. Town/city names are part of the address and per the policy should not be included. McPhail (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- We don't list someone's address. This isn't surpressed information. If it's public knowledge, we do no harm in mentioning it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- True, but this isn’t a reliable sourcing issue. Recently a man tried to break into the wrestlers’ home in an attempt to kidnap her. I believe the suggestion is that for protection from future stalkers the infobox for profession wrestlers shouldn’t list what city they currently live in. I personally don’t see much use since I quite sure a potential stalker could easily find such info even if Wikipedia didn’t mention it and there’s no evidence they this particular stalker got any pertinent information from the Wikipedia article.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Clarification
I just want to double check something so I'm not barking up the wrong tree. You guys only like stuff when it comes to factions or stables to be what is reflected on screen right? I've been battling a bunch of IP accounts who keep adding some Twitch streamers to The Dark Order because Evil Uno made them "members" as part of a charity stream. --MattBinYYC (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- @MattBinYYC: Sounds like you should request protection at WP:RPP. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- can you include in a persona section? For example, Dark Order operates as a cult. As part of the character, they include real life people after doing some stuff like... HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Steve Corino and WWC Puerto Rico Championship
I have seen two different dates for Steve Corino's debut. The one on the article which is April 6, 1994 and the one on Cagematch which is April 6, 1995. Regardless of that, he is listed as having won the WWC Puerto Rico Championship on December 2, 1992 when he defeated Miguel Pérez, Jr. in a tournament final to win the vacant title. So how could Corino win the title when he wasn't even in wrestling at that time? This needs to corrected. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 21:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- It was an unsourced addition in 2018: [10]. It is not listed in Royal Duncan and Gary Will's Wrestling Title Histories, and it is not listed on the Solie site. The Duncan/Will book says Castillo won it on Oct. 12/91, then the title was vacated when he left the promotion on Dec. 16/91. It says he was again billed as champion upon his return in 1994, but it doesn't list any other champions until El Bronco's win on Nov. 18/95 (but indicates with an ellipsis that the history may be incomplete). The Solie site shows Jake Roberts winning it some time in 1993. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- @GaryColemanFan: Wrestling-Titles.com says that Huracan Castillo Jr. defeated Hector Guerrero in a tournament final and the WWC version became vacant on December 16, 1991 when Castillo jumped to AWF. AWF, by the looks of things, had their own Puerto Rico Championship. Jake Roberts won their version of it. Not sure why Jake Roberts needs to be listed in the title history since the article is about the WWC version not the AWF version. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it!
Champion's pictures
Hello. I have one question. Do we have a policy or suggestion about pictures in championships articles? I'm saying this because, during the last months, I have seen several edition about this. I have readed our Style Guide but I can't find anything, so I was thinking to write a list with suggestions. For example, I have seen a picture of Jericho 10 years ago as WHC and Ambrose under the Shield attire as US Champ to illustrate the AEW World Championship, which I think is wrong (wrong title, wrong gimmick and picture to old). I would recomend these pictures. 1, Ideal picture, the champ with the title. 2, current picture of the champ (or when the reign took place, a picture of 2011 for a 2011 reign). 3, old picture of the champ. Suggestion, try to avoid pictures with other titles. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- I 100% agree that we should use a pic of them with the title, if one is available. I don't believe anyone would disagree with that. However, although it's not preferred, a pic showing them with another title isn't wrong, but sometimes a pic of them with another title is the most recent we have and more representative of their current character. We just need to clarify what title it is. Nothing wrong with that.
- I would suggest it this way:
- 1. Picture of wrestler with the title.
- Older design of the title is acceptable if a pic of the wrestler with the newer design is not available, but clarify which older version they're holding.
- 2. If that's not available, the most recent pic of them in their gear. Some wrestler's have had the same gear or been the same character for years, for example, John Cena, so if by chance the most recent pic we had of Cena was from 2015, that would be acceptable because he's still the same.
- Only use a pic of them with a different title if it is the only pic we have of them in their current gear, and clarify what title they're holding.
- 3. If that's not available, a pic that closely represents their current character.
- Similar to the sub-point of the last, only use a pic of them with a different title if that is all that's available in this category, and clarify what title they're holding.
- 4. If nothing above is available, then whatever pic we do have so long as it doesn't show them as a completely different character. Those red carpet-type pics that some of you like to use despite having a better pic available, those could fall into this category. --JDC808 ♫ 10:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was on the beach. About the points, I agree with most of them. However, I see no problem with the "red carpet" photos. The idea is to show the champion, if the red carpet picture shows them (clear face) I don't see the problem. I prefer a good red carpet before a bad in character photo. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Moose's TNA World Heavyweight Championship reign
Hello I'm bringing this topic forward in hopes of figuring out a solution. At Rebellion (2020), Moose declared himself the TNA World Heavyweight Champion since Tessa Blanchard couldn't defend her World Championship. Since then the title has been used on television but still hasn't been announced as an "Official" championship in Impact Wrestling and is being used as a separate belt different from Impact's World Championship. And for that reason I found that under these circumstances Moose's TNA World Heavyweight Championship reign would fall under the Category:Unsanctioned championships so for that reason I placed the category under the TNA World Heavyweight Championship page and since then User:Oknazevad has been telling me the belt is sanctioned and is official but due to the way the belt is being used on television i have been disagreeing with his statements. Hopefully a resolution can be found now. Eerie Holiday (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- You got my position backwards. I say it's not an official championship. The TNA World Championship is the Impact World Championship. It's the same championship having undergone a few name changes in 2017–2018. My point is that Moose may be carrying the old belt for that title, but belts are not championships, and Moose isn't the champion of anything. That's why I oppose including him in the list of current champions or in the title history for the Impact World Championship. oknazevad (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- The belt is being used and defended as a different title and under the definition of Unsanctioned Championships – (which are defended in matches for a promotion, but which are not officially recognized as a legitimate title by that promotion.) That is clearly how they are using the TNA World Heavyweight Championship on Impact. Moose is walking around defending a Unsanctioned title separate from the Impact World Championship. The version of the TNA World Heavyweight Championship Moose is defending is unsanctioned. Eerie Holiday (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well, there are several wrestlers who claimed they are the "real" champion (Shawn Michaels IC, JBL WWE reigns when he lost against Cena, Booker T claiming he was the TNA World champion, Samy Zayn returned with the IC title, MVP claiming he was the real USA champ). I don't know if they defended the title. About Moose, Impact uses the title (not like, for example, Zack Ryder's Internet championship) and promotes matches, even if they aren't sancionated in kayfabe. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- It's clearly being used as a separate title from the Impact World Championship. So would it be considered a unofficial unsanctioned championship or should his reign as champion be counted somewhere? This source Josh Mathews Interviews Moose - IMPACT May 19, 2020 Mathews calls out the fact that the title isn't legitimate as Moose disputes those claims, showing its a separate title from the Impact World Championship. I also feel this could pattern what WWE has done with WWE Cruiserweight Championship (1996–2007) and NXT Cruiserweight Championship. Eerie Holiday (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Eerie Holiday: You can't really do that though. WWE created an entirely new Cruiserweight Championship with a new lineage. The TNA World Heavyweight Championship is the Impact Wrestling World Heavyweight Championship. Impact didn't create a new title with a new lineage. It was just a name change. When WWWF/WWF rejoined the NWA in the '70s, they reverted back to calling the title the WWF Heavyweight Championship. They didn't create a new title and new lineage. It was just a name change. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- User:Fishhead2100 not doing anything just a little observation in likeness. Also if you've been watching Impact they are using it as its own title separate from the Impact World Championship and are currently in a storyline with the title where EC3 wants to destroy the TNA history so that the Impact history can stand alone. This was all about if the TNA World Heavyweight Championship was being used as an unofficial Championship which it is. The whole Cruiserweight comment was just saying TNA and Impact are being used as two different titles like the Cruiserweight titles they are two different titles. What Impact Wrestling is doing is acknowledging two different lineages with EC3 saying on TV Impact needs to stand alone and TNA's history needs to be erased. Eerie Holiday (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Eerie Holiday: Firstly, you ping someone you are responding to. Don't just link to their user page. Secondly, Moose isn't officially recognized on Impact Wrestling's website or broadcasts as being champion. This discussion is redundant. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 13:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Eerie Holiday: You can't really do that though. WWE created an entirely new Cruiserweight Championship with a new lineage. The TNA World Heavyweight Championship is the Impact Wrestling World Heavyweight Championship. Impact didn't create a new title with a new lineage. It was just a name change. When WWWF/WWF rejoined the NWA in the '70s, they reverted back to calling the title the WWF Heavyweight Championship. They didn't create a new title and new lineage. It was just a name change. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's clearly being used as a separate title from the Impact World Championship. So would it be considered a unofficial unsanctioned championship or should his reign as champion be counted somewhere? This source Josh Mathews Interviews Moose - IMPACT May 19, 2020 Mathews calls out the fact that the title isn't legitimate as Moose disputes those claims, showing its a separate title from the Impact World Championship. I also feel this could pattern what WWE has done with WWE Cruiserweight Championship (1996–2007) and NXT Cruiserweight Championship. Eerie Holiday (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well, there are several wrestlers who claimed they are the "real" champion (Shawn Michaels IC, JBL WWE reigns when he lost against Cena, Booker T claiming he was the TNA World champion, Samy Zayn returned with the IC title, MVP claiming he was the real USA champ). I don't know if they defended the title. About Moose, Impact uses the title (not like, for example, Zack Ryder's Internet championship) and promotes matches, even if they aren't sancionated in kayfabe. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- The belt is being used and defended as a different title and under the definition of Unsanctioned Championships – (which are defended in matches for a promotion, but which are not officially recognized as a legitimate title by that promotion.) That is clearly how they are using the TNA World Heavyweight Championship on Impact. Moose is walking around defending a Unsanctioned title separate from the Impact World Championship. The version of the TNA World Heavyweight Championship Moose is defending is unsanctioned. Eerie Holiday (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Fishhead2100: I think your missing the reasoning for this discussion. This is about weather or not is the title being used as an Unofficial Championship and unsanctioned title. Someone was saying it's official and I was saying it's unofficial also Moose IMPACT Profile literally his whole profile shows him with the TNA World Heavyweight Championship they are recognizing his use of the Championship from profile pic to videos to pretty much his whole photo gallery. Eerie Holiday (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Eerie Holiday: AEW has Brian Cage with the FTW Championship on their roster page. That doesn't make it an officially sanctioned title. It was brought back for a storyline purpose. It's like the Million Dollar Championship. That was only storyline and character based. It was never officially sanctioned. If they were sanctioning the TNA version of the World Heavyweight Championship, Moose would be listed under the champions. So no, it's not officially sanctioned. So he is not official recognized as champion. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 21:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Fishhead2100: That's exactly the same thing iv been saying it's being used as an unsanctioned championship. Someone was arguing with me saying it's official which brought me to bring the topic here and seemed like the person just have up on the discussion. Eerie Holiday (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Eerie Holiday: It was the way you were wording it. The FTW Championship is listed in the titles of AEW just with a note that isn't not officially sanctioned/recognized. That's always an option. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Fishhead2100: I actually listed it the same way as the FTW Championship a few times but it kept being removed so I just stopped fighting it. Eerie Holiday (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Eerie Holiday: Even though the Million Dollar Championship was never officially sanctioned, it is listed in the list of former championships in WWE. The storyline was that Ted Dibiase bought it himself. That's what Taz did with the FTW Championship. The TNA Championship should be listed with a note stating it's not officially sanctioned as per usual. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Jerry Brown (not Governor Moonbeam)
Noticed this while adding an entry to the recent deaths page. I'm seeing several social media posts stating that Jerry Brown died on September 15 and we're still pretending he's not notable, despite being the senior member of one of the top tag teams during an entire decade. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Date Format in References
In the CZW Wired Championship article, I had to fix the date format in the references. Since CZW is an American promotion, MDY date format (month, day, year) is always to be used. Other countries my use both MDY or DMY date format while they may use only DMY date format. Not sure if it's necessary to be put in the style guide or wherever. But we should be mindful of the country the promotion, title, people in the business are from. Even if a promotion does a show in another country, you still have use the correct date format based on the country the promotion is from. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 07:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- How do we do it with dual citizens? If someone is a British-American citizen, do we just pick the one country they were born in?★Trekker (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I disagree completely. According to Wikipedia:Citing sources, "While citations should aim to provide the information listed above, Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style. A number of citation styles exist including those described in the Wikipedia articles for Citation, APA style, ASA style, MLA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, Author-date referencing, the Vancouver system and Bluebook....Although nearly any consistent style may be used, avoid all-numeric date formats other than YYYY-MM-DD, because of the ambiguity concerning which number is the month and which the day." It also states: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. The arbitration committee ruled in 2006: 'Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.'" These make it pretty clear that we should not make large-scale changes to existing articles. I use 2020-09-19 if I'm creating a new article. As long as there is consistency within each article, there is no need for consistency between articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- What Gary said. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
New draft
I have created th draft List of championships used in WWE to cover both active and inactive titles (as well as other championships used by WWE) since there is currently no such list.★Trekker (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think that's necessary. There's the current champions list, which naturally lists currently active championships, and the former championships list. Let's not confuse the issue or make more work for ourselves with a redundant list. oknazevad (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think its redundant.★Trekker (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- I honestly dont think we need a page of just current, we can have one page for all championships, and break it out between current and former, and the current can come from the existing page. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- *Treker, what Galatz said is better. Instead of multiple articles, just have one. Oh and that Bleacher Report article is pre-2013. Before Bleacher Report was bought out, the articles were heavily user-generated. With that, Bleacher Report is limited reliability. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with Galatz. I think an article about former titles, current titles and every titles is redundant. So, maybe we can merge both (current and former) in an article about every title. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- *Treker, what Galatz said is better. Instead of multiple articles, just have one. Oh and that Bleacher Report article is pre-2013. Before Bleacher Report was bought out, the articles were heavily user-generated. With that, Bleacher Report is limited reliability. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I honestly dont think we need a page of just current, we can have one page for all championships, and break it out between current and former, and the current can come from the existing page. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think its redundant.★Trekker (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
DDT Title Defenses Tracked
I see that DDT and all the titles they recognize, the lists have defenses tracked. As we all know or should know, we only track them if the promotion does. I'm am wondering if DDT actually tracks them. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know japanesse, so I used the translator. In their events like this https://www.ddtpro.com/results/14587 the promotion noted the nª of defence, like KO-D 6 Man, "* The 41st champions managed to defend for the second time" / "The third champion manages to defend for the first time." --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- @HHH Pedrigree: As long as they are consistent in tracking the defenses, we will continue doing so as well. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- So, what's your question? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- @HHH Pedrigree: You know what the topic is regarding. Your question is redundant. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 08:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- So, what's your question? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- @HHH Pedrigree: As long as they are consistent in tracking the defenses, we will continue doing so as well. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
NXT Title
Hello. I have one question about the NXT Title, again. Recently, after a discussion, the World title label was removed from the article. I read the article and saw one sentence "It is one of WWE's top three titles, alongside the WWE Championship on Raw and the WWE Universal Championship on SmackDown ". This stencence says NXT title is more important than IC and USA (Secondary titles of the main roster/ bigger brands) and equal to World Titles (WWE and Universal). This statement needs a source. Vjmlhds give me a video when Triple H talked about Survivor Series, but 1) Falls into wp:publicity (every promotion is the best in the world, but needs a source) 2) HHH just said a NXT vs WWE vs Universal champion was pitched. 3) Drew McIntyre said, before his match against lesnar, he never won a World Tile. So, hard to say NXT Championship is one of WWE's top titles. It's NXT top title for male wrestlers, but the whole WWE, need more sources. What do you think? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- HHH Video, 28: 10 for the subject. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- How does it need more sources when it is an undebatable fact that it is the top title of NXT (and subsequently, a top title of WWE)? Nowhere in that sentence does it say that it is a world championship. It says that it is the top title of NXT, just like the WWE Championship is for Raw and the Universal is for SmackDown. The NXT brand is now one of their three main brands (and has been for a year now). You're misconstruing top title to mean world championship. --JDC808 ♫ 00:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- If we list it as being on the same level of as the WWE and Universal title, we're saying it's a world title. That's the bottom line. It may be the top title on NXT, but that doesn't make it equal to the others, because NXT is not equal to Raw or SmackDown. If we're just listing top titles on brands we might as well list the UK title as it's the top title in NXT UK. oknazevad (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, saying it is a top title does not mean we're calling it a world championship. Once again, top title does not mean world championship. Also, that's something else you're wrong about (NXT in relation to Raw and SmackDown). You've appeared to overlook what I said, and what has been agreed upon: NXT is WWE's third major brand. Doesn't matter what your personal opinion on that is. That's also why UK is not being included in this discussion, because it is not considered to be one of the major brands. --JDC808 ♫ 00:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- NXT stills a smaller brand compared to Raw and SD. Many sources still using words like main roster or call-up. Being the top title of a brand doesn't mean it's the top title of a company. Also, when the company has two world titles. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe you should go back and re-read my previous post. There's a couple of points there that address your post, and it doesn't really matter what those sources say if it goes against what WWE has said (WWE makes the decisions on that, not those sources). --JDC808 ♫ 01:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Except that's the problem. We're not here to parrot WWE's corporate line. They're not a neutral third-party source. They have a vested interest in promoting NXT. So we need to look at outside sources. oknazevad (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's their title, thus whatever they say about it is law. WWE creates and promotes a title and says its X. Why would an outside source who says Y be better in that case? That's like saying Thomas Edison has a brand new invention he calls the light bulb, while his neighbor down the street says "no, it's a thing-a-ma-doodle". Who are you gonna take more seriously, the guy who invented it, or the guy down the street? Vjmlhds (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Because what the creator says it's not always true, usually with subjetive sentences. Eric Young said "The Impact World title is the most prestigious title in the world". True or false? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- HHH Pedrigree, "Because what the creator says [is] not always true." Okay, I'm going to give you a ridiculous scenario because that's what you like to do. Scenario: AEW creates a cruiserweight championship and says that anyone 230 lbs and under can compete for it, but Jason Powell at Pro Wrestling Dot Net (a reliable source) says no, it's not a cruiserweight title because that's too heavy for a cruiserweight. Who are you going to believe? The company that created the title and designated what it was, or the "reliable source" who has a preconceived notion of what he subjectively thinks constitutes a cruiserweight title? You really need to start thinking more logically and objectively. --JDC808 ♫ 21:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm logical and objective. Is there a source to support the claim the NXT Title is one of the three most important titles in WWE with WWE and Universal titles? No, then it's a unsourced statement. Maybe, you should stop with WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- HHH Pedrigree, "Because what the creator says [is] not always true." Okay, I'm going to give you a ridiculous scenario because that's what you like to do. Scenario: AEW creates a cruiserweight championship and says that anyone 230 lbs and under can compete for it, but Jason Powell at Pro Wrestling Dot Net (a reliable source) says no, it's not a cruiserweight title because that's too heavy for a cruiserweight. Who are you going to believe? The company that created the title and designated what it was, or the "reliable source" who has a preconceived notion of what he subjectively thinks constitutes a cruiserweight title? You really need to start thinking more logically and objectively. --JDC808 ♫ 21:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Because what the creator says it's not always true, usually with subjetive sentences. Eric Young said "The Impact World title is the most prestigious title in the world". True or false? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Very unfortunate that we have to keep coming back to this year after year, especially after we had an RfC with a clear ruling. The "top title along with the real world titles" wording clearly tries to work around its result by calling it equal to a world title without calling it one. Obviously this is not okay. Call it the top title of the NXT brand and leave it at that.LM2000 (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- LM2000, it is unfortunate because this project doesn't know how to properly move forward with things. An RfC was had to not call it a world title. Okay, so we stopped calling it a world title. But, that doesn't change the fact that it is the top title of NXT, which is WWE's third major brand (backed up by WWE, independent sources, and what we have agreed upon here), thus, that makes the NXT title one of WWE's top titles. That is an undeniable, undebatable fact, no matter how hard you or HHH Pedrigree try to. --JDC808 ♫ 21:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sound like WP:SYNTH. NXT title is the main title of a brand, so it's one of the most important titles in WWE. No. NXT is WWE third brand, but it's not equal to RAW or SD. Stills very small in comparasion and importance. Several sources use the words call-up, main roster, so it's not equal to RAW or SD. At least, both WWE and Universal titles are "world titles", so there is a comparasion of equality. For example, the IWGP Jr title is the top title for Jr. in NJPW, but it's not one of the top titles in NJPW, sourced say the Heavyweight and some, Intercontinental are more important. At one point, the Cruiserweight was the top title of the brand, 205Live, but it wasn't a top title in WWE. Also, no WP:PUBLICITY. WWE said it's important, but other sources should reflect that. Every promotion has his how interest. Impact says "we are the best promotion in the world", which is not, Jay Lethal said the TV Title was more important thast ROH World title, but the World title still the top title. This statement (NXT title is a top title in WWE) needs a proper source. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- HHH Pedrigree, this is something that you have a hard time grasping and has to be told to you over and over again. It does not matter what other sources call it (main roster, callup, etc.) if they contradict what the primary source says. Those sources still call it that because that's what they still view it as. However, they're in contradiction to the primary source (WWE) who says no, NXT is not developmental anymore, etc. They're main guys now. Independent sources are there to validate the primary, not contradict it. To say NXT is not equal to Raw or SmackDown is a completely subjective statement that does not belong here on Wikipedia. Also, some of your comparisons are ridiculous. Yes, the Cruiserweight title was the top title of 205 Live, but 205 Live was or never has been a main brand like Raw, SmackDown, and now NXT. 205 Live is and always will be a specialty brand that has essentially always been a sub-brand of a main brand (it was originally a sub of Raw, now it's under NXT). Other ridiculous comparisons are providing what these individual wrestlers say about a title. No offense and pardon my French, but what they say means jackshit. --JDC808 ♫ 21:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Secondary sources also contradict primary sources. That's why secondary sources are used. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- So we use secondary sources because they contradict primary sources? That's literally what you just said. --JDC808 ♫ 22:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Independent sources "Identifying and using independent sources (also called third-party sources) helps editors build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views. Using independent sources helps protect the project from people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, personal financial benefit, and other abuses. Reliance on independent sources ensures that an article can be written from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the subject's own viewpoint" --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- HHH Pedrigree, so what happens when the viewpoint of the independent sources is wrong? It can happen and that's what you don't understand, and it's so frustratingly annoying. --JDC808 ♫ 22:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- So, your answer is "Fuck sources, we don't need it, just agree with everything WWE said". That's what you don't understand, Wikipedia has rules and you don't follow them. Is this something against me? Do you hate me so much? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- So just ignore what I said? No, I don't say "fuck sources", I only say "fuck certain sources" when they're wrong. It's funny that you say I don't follow the rules, yet you have no idea of my body of work here. I have brought several video game articles to Featured Article status and even more to Good Article status (you can't do that without following rules)—on a side note, the Video Game project here is so much more stable and under control than this project that it's a bit embarrassing. And don't make this personal. --JDC808 ♫ 23:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- So, your answer is "Fuck sources, we don't need it, just agree with everything WWE said". That's what you don't understand, Wikipedia has rules and you don't follow them. Is this something against me? Do you hate me so much? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- HHH Pedrigree, so what happens when the viewpoint of the independent sources is wrong? It can happen and that's what you don't understand, and it's so frustratingly annoying. --JDC808 ♫ 22:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- HHH Pedrigree So if your house is on fire, and you're standing in your front yard looking right at it, but your neighbor across the street says it isn't, you're gonna go along with what your neighbor said, and walk right back in to your burning house like nothing's wrong. OK. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Should I laugh with these wikipedia in real world sketches? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Independent sources "Identifying and using independent sources (also called third-party sources) helps editors build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views. Using independent sources helps protect the project from people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, personal financial benefit, and other abuses. Reliance on independent sources ensures that an article can be written from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the subject's own viewpoint" --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- So we use secondary sources because they contradict primary sources? That's literally what you just said. --JDC808 ♫ 22:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Secondary sources also contradict primary sources. That's why secondary sources are used. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- HHH Pedrigree, this is something that you have a hard time grasping and has to be told to you over and over again. It does not matter what other sources call it (main roster, callup, etc.) if they contradict what the primary source says. Those sources still call it that because that's what they still view it as. However, they're in contradiction to the primary source (WWE) who says no, NXT is not developmental anymore, etc. They're main guys now. Independent sources are there to validate the primary, not contradict it. To say NXT is not equal to Raw or SmackDown is a completely subjective statement that does not belong here on Wikipedia. Also, some of your comparisons are ridiculous. Yes, the Cruiserweight title was the top title of 205 Live, but 205 Live was or never has been a main brand like Raw, SmackDown, and now NXT. 205 Live is and always will be a specialty brand that has essentially always been a sub-brand of a main brand (it was originally a sub of Raw, now it's under NXT). Other ridiculous comparisons are providing what these individual wrestlers say about a title. No offense and pardon my French, but what they say means jackshit. --JDC808 ♫ 21:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's their title, thus whatever they say about it is law. WWE creates and promotes a title and says its X. Why would an outside source who says Y be better in that case? That's like saying Thomas Edison has a brand new invention he calls the light bulb, while his neighbor down the street says "no, it's a thing-a-ma-doodle". Who are you gonna take more seriously, the guy who invented it, or the guy down the street? Vjmlhds (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Except that's the problem. We're not here to parrot WWE's corporate line. They're not a neutral third-party source. They have a vested interest in promoting NXT. So we need to look at outside sources. oknazevad (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe you should go back and re-read my previous post. There's a couple of points there that address your post, and it doesn't really matter what those sources say if it goes against what WWE has said (WWE makes the decisions on that, not those sources). --JDC808 ♫ 01:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- If we list it as being on the same level of as the WWE and Universal title, we're saying it's a world title. That's the bottom line. It may be the top title on NXT, but that doesn't make it equal to the others, because NXT is not equal to Raw or SmackDown. If we're just listing top titles on brands we might as well list the UK title as it's the top title in NXT UK. oknazevad (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
HHH Pedrigree All I did was point out that sometimes, relying on an outside source REALLY ISN'T better than seeing what's right in front of you. If we took Wiki policy into the real world, we'd all be sitting in torched houses (ourselves burned to a crisp) because we'd want outside verification to tell us that OUR FREAKING HOUSE IS ON FIRE. Long story short, sometimes the primary source IS the best option. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- As oknazevad said, these are core Wikipedia policies. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- And that's what you're stuck on. You're so adamant that we have to follow policies to the absolute t that you don't understand when to use logic and that some things can be wrong. --JDC808 ♫ 22:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Again, core Wikipedia policies that you don't follow. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Because "common sense" is WP:SYNTH. We are not here to come to our own conclusions regarding facts. oknazevad (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I've seen religious fanatics less fervent in their beliefs than some Wiki editors are regarding policy...policy is supposed to be a guideline, not The Bible. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- HHH Pedrigree, See above about following rules, but I'll elaborate here specifically as it refers to this project. You say I don't follow rules, yet so many of the articles here (particularly WWE and AEW championship and event articles) would not be where they're at now had it not been for my editing and discussing and getting improvements made to the style guide etc. so that these articles could one day in fact become Good Articles. For basically the past 10 years, that has been my approach to editing; overall improvements to the article that could pass GA requirements, and maybe even FA. You and a couple others here should also read this: Wikipedia:You can't follow all the rules, all the time (I may not always agree with Vjmlhds on some things, but he gets it). --JDC808 ♫ 23:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- JDC808 Long story short, some editors are so beholden to following every little bit of policy minutiae to the letter, that they can't see the forest for the trees. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- HHH Pedrigree, See above about following rules, but I'll elaborate here specifically as it refers to this project. You say I don't follow rules, yet so many of the articles here (particularly WWE and AEW championship and event articles) would not be where they're at now had it not been for my editing and discussing and getting improvements made to the style guide etc. so that these articles could one day in fact become Good Articles. For basically the past 10 years, that has been my approach to editing; overall improvements to the article that could pass GA requirements, and maybe even FA. You and a couple others here should also read this: Wikipedia:You can't follow all the rules, all the time (I may not always agree with Vjmlhds on some things, but he gets it). --JDC808 ♫ 23:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I've seen religious fanatics less fervent in their beliefs than some Wiki editors are regarding policy...policy is supposed to be a guideline, not The Bible. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- And that's what you're stuck on. You're so adamant that we have to follow policies to the absolute t that you don't understand when to use logic and that some things can be wrong. --JDC808 ♫ 22:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I can't help but to imagine using Wiki logic in the real world[citation needed] -- a guy talks to his neighbor, and says "I just saw a guy getting shot in front of my house". The neighbor says "Did you call the police?" The guy then says "No, because I needed additional verification from a third party source." Vjmlhds (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- "real world"? that's an illusion - I need 5 pieces of reliable sources (to my liking) before I will even consider that the "real world" exists. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Right, because WP:V and WP:NPOV aren't core Wikipedia policies or anything. oknazevad (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- 4 guys - 1 being a Wikipedian - go to the hospital to visit their friend's wife, who just had a baby. The first 3 guys say "Aww, what a cute baby". The Wikipedian says "That is not a neutral point of view, I need to see an unbiased reference to verify if it is in fact a cute baby." Vjmlhds (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yep. Because WP:NOR is also a core policy. In the immortal words of the Rock, it doesn't matter what we think. We can't make our own conclusions, just report what others say. And we report what outside sources say, not just the WWE's company line, because they have a vested interest in promoting their brand. Why is that so hard to understand? oknazevad (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- So the company that created and promotes the title should just be completely disregarded when talking about said title. If a dog does number one on your leg and you're looking right at it, but a passerby says it's raining, then does that mean it's raining? Vjmlhds (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Reduction ad absurdum doesn't help your position. What I'm saying is that we don't give first-party sources with a vested interest the final say, because that's not NPOV. oknazevad (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- So the company that created and promotes the title should just be completely disregarded when talking about said title. If a dog does number one on your leg and you're looking right at it, but a passerby says it's raining, then does that mean it's raining? Vjmlhds (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yep. Because WP:NOR is also a core policy. In the immortal words of the Rock, it doesn't matter what we think. We can't make our own conclusions, just report what others say. And we report what outside sources say, not just the WWE's company line, because they have a vested interest in promoting their brand. Why is that so hard to understand? oknazevad (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- 4 guys - 1 being a Wikipedian - go to the hospital to visit their friend's wife, who just had a baby. The first 3 guys say "Aww, what a cute baby". The Wikipedian says "That is not a neutral point of view, I need to see an unbiased reference to verify if it is in fact a cute baby." Vjmlhds (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- So we ignore all rules and apply "logic" to state that the Universal Championship is the top title in WWE. After all it's very obvious that the Universe is bigger than the world, so we don't need sources to state that. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- And IC > North American > US after all "Two continents" > "One Continent" > "One Country" - It's all logic afterall, no need for sources to state that. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- fun fact. TNA Global title was't a world title, even if the name means World. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- And IC > North American > US after all "Two continents" > "One Continent" > "One Country" - It's all logic afterall, no need for sources to state that. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, that's just being a smartass. --JDC808 ♫ 12:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- but only when I do it naturally. I am sorry if you didn't like the logic applied against you. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Except what you're doing is complete dumbassery. And no, I'm not disagreeing with my own argument, you're taking one thing I said and trying to twist it ("oh haha, he said logic so I'mma be a smartass and take championship names and apply their names literally" – you completely failed on the whole Universal Championship bit, by the way). --JDC808 ♫ 07:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to ask you to please keep the insults down, this is not a presidential debate.MPJ-DK (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Except what you're doing is complete dumbassery. And no, I'm not disagreeing with my own argument, you're taking one thing I said and trying to twist it ("oh haha, he said logic so I'mma be a smartass and take championship names and apply their names literally" – you completely failed on the whole Universal Championship bit, by the way). --JDC808 ♫ 07:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- but only when I do it naturally. I am sorry if you didn't like the logic applied against you. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, that's just being a smartass. --JDC808 ♫ 12:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Completely agree with HHH Pedrigree and Oknazevad in this. WWE has a tendency to try to control the narrative, and so to be NPoV it's only right we base this on third party sources as per WP:IS. — Czello 13:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- WWE is totally inconsistent with this shit too, which is why we needed an RfC in the first place. If you dig deep enough into WWE.com, you'll be able to find anything to support whatever fringe opinion you're trying to push.LM2000 (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Czello, except third party sources can't go and say the opposite just because that's what they subjectively think. They can think that all they want, but we can't go and use that if it's incorrect. WWE says NXT is not developmental anymore. Despite what a third party source says, they're not the ones who decide whether or not a particular branch of a promotion is developmental. Also, "WWE has a tendency to try to control the narrative", well no shit, it's their fictional universe. --JDC808 ♫ 07:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- LM2000, there's nothing inconsistent here though. The NXT Championship is the top title of NXT and has been since it was established. NXT is now one of WWE's three main brands (and has been for the past year), thus the NXT Championship is one of WWE's top championships. There is nothing false about that. And for the umpteenth time, that RfC was about calling the NXT Championship a world championship (there was nothing there about whether or not it is a top championship). I don't know how many times that has to be said for you or anyone else who keeps bringing it up to understand that. --JDC808 ♫ 07:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
NXT is now one of WWE's three main brands
where was this established again? MPJ-DK (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)- MPJ-DK Here is an article from CBS Sports, where the writer talked about how once landing on USA Network, NXT shed the label of being a developmental brand. And here's an article from WWE.com where they refer to Raw, SD, and NXT as their "Triple Crown" brands - obviously implying they're at the same level. So WWE itself is calling it a main brand, with an outside source (CBS) backing it up. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- And have we forgotten already that this year has established that Royal Rumble winners can now challenge for NXT Championships as well as Raw/SD Titles (as evidenced by Women's Royal Rumble winner Charlotte Flair challenging NXT Women's Champion Rhea Ripley at WrestleMania 36)? And BTW...in the WWE.com article I provided above, it lists Flair as a 12-time Women's Champion, having won the Raw, SD, NXT, and Divas titles, so they consider the NXT Title an equivalent of it's counterparts on the other brands. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- AND have we already forgotten that less than 1 year ago at Survivor Series, Raw, SD, and NXT went head to head to head in a whole mess of triple threat matches as part of the "brand supremacy" gimmick...with NXT winning 4 out of 7 of those matches, thus winning the brand bragging rights - obviously trying to establish the yellow brand as a "big boy" brand like it's red and blue counterparts It's like no matter what anyone says, does, or how events unfold, once some people get an idea stuck in their head about what something is, nothing short of a baseball bat upside the head will ever change their mind about it. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- And yet when Drew was challenging for the WWE Championship this year, he stated that he'd never been a world champion before, even though he was a former NXT champ. And that was for the same WrestleMania with Charlotte challenging for the NXT Women's championship. I mean, WWE ignoring his TNA reign is to be expected, but the obvious point here is that they are not consistent. And there's historical precedent too. When Undertaker won the 2007 Royal Rumble, then-ECW champ Bobby Lashley was presented as an option for Taker to choose to face. Yet only a year later succeeding ECW champ Chavo Guerrero was in the Rumble match itself. And ECW then was just as much a third brand as NXT now. (And when ECW was ended, what replaced it? NXT.) So that's the point. WWE can't even keep their own story straight, and what they say always needs to be looked at through the lens of their purpose of promoting the company. That's why we can't take what they say as gospel. At the same time, we can't act like a dirtsheet still stuck in the "gotcha" mindset of the kayfabe era striving to "reveal the behind-the-scenes truth they don't want you to know", because pro wrestling storylines are indeed fictional and creators do have the right to control the creative direction of their stories. So that's why a neutral position is the only logical way to go. Describe the NXT title as what it is (the top title of the NXT brand), but don't parrot the promotional line that NXT is the same as the other brands when there is still clearly a step up from there to Raw and SmackDown, as seen by Keith Lee's recent move to Raw being called a "call-up" by every other source on the planet.
- Of course, I also think we spend way too much time worrying about brands, as they're artificial constructs and subject to significant fluidity on a whim (again see Keith Lee). The analogy to sports teams is fundamentally flawed. If a baseball player is signed to the Yankees, their contract is with the Yankees, while if they're signed to the Dodgers their contract is with the Dodgers. If someone is on Raw, their contract is with WWE, and if they're on SmackDown, their contract is still with WWE. It's not like they're signed to AEW or Impact. But that's just my opinion. oknazevad (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- AND have we already forgotten that less than 1 year ago at Survivor Series, Raw, SD, and NXT went head to head to head in a whole mess of triple threat matches as part of the "brand supremacy" gimmick...with NXT winning 4 out of 7 of those matches, thus winning the brand bragging rights - obviously trying to establish the yellow brand as a "big boy" brand like it's red and blue counterparts It's like no matter what anyone says, does, or how events unfold, once some people get an idea stuck in their head about what something is, nothing short of a baseball bat upside the head will ever change their mind about it. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- And have we forgotten already that this year has established that Royal Rumble winners can now challenge for NXT Championships as well as Raw/SD Titles (as evidenced by Women's Royal Rumble winner Charlotte Flair challenging NXT Women's Champion Rhea Ripley at WrestleMania 36)? And BTW...in the WWE.com article I provided above, it lists Flair as a 12-time Women's Champion, having won the Raw, SD, NXT, and Divas titles, so they consider the NXT Title an equivalent of it's counterparts on the other brands. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- MPJ-DK Here is an article from CBS Sports, where the writer talked about how once landing on USA Network, NXT shed the label of being a developmental brand. And here's an article from WWE.com where they refer to Raw, SD, and NXT as their "Triple Crown" brands - obviously implying they're at the same level. So WWE itself is calling it a main brand, with an outside source (CBS) backing it up. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Yet only a year later succeeding ECW champ Chavo Guerrero was in the Rumble match itself." Did you forget that just this year, Brock Lesnar, who was the reigning WWE Champion, was in the Royal Rumble? And it was the original reality TV version of NXT that replaced ECW, not the NXT as we know it today. While I agree that a neutral position is needed, we can't always assume they are right or go by what they say if that neutral position says something that is wrong; an example, which is semi-related: if a promotion says their top championship is a world championship, a neutral position can't go and say it's not just because they don't agree with it. --JDC808 ♫ 10:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Lesnar was defending the title (as did Reigns a few years ago). Different scenario than entering to compete for a world title shot. I agree that we can't say WWE is always wrong, but I also state that we can't always defer to them as they're too inconsistent and too prone to promotional language. PS, please take more care not to separate my comments from my signature. oknazevad (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Uh, no, you are being forgetful as Lesnar was not defending the title in this year's Royal Rumble, otherwise, Drew McIntyre would have won the title that night and not at WrestleMania. The only difference was that Heyman seemed to make it sound as if Lesnar had won, then he wouldn't have a challenger at WrestleMania and wouldn't even challenge for the Universal title and would instead just basically take the night off. --JDC808 ♫ 09:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Eddie Edwards said the Impact title is the most important title in the world. Mox said the AEW title is the most important title in the world. Okada said the IWGP title is the most important title in the world. So, every title is the most important title in the world, a primery source said so. Also, every promotion is the best in the world. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- And what was your point in listing these off? You're being ridiculous again with this. We almost never go by what individual wrestlers say on these kind of things. And regardless, saying a title is the most important versus classifying it as a world championship are two different things. We would not use the primary for the former as that is blatant self-promotion, but we would for the latter because that's just classifying what the title is. --JDC808 ♫ 09:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Lesnar was defending the title (as did Reigns a few years ago). Different scenario than entering to compete for a world title shot. I agree that we can't say WWE is always wrong, but I also state that we can't always defer to them as they're too inconsistent and too prone to promotional language. PS, please take more care not to separate my comments from my signature. oknazevad (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Yet only a year later succeeding ECW champ Chavo Guerrero was in the Rumble match itself." Did you forget that just this year, Brock Lesnar, who was the reigning WWE Champion, was in the Royal Rumble? And it was the original reality TV version of NXT that replaced ECW, not the NXT as we know it today. While I agree that a neutral position is needed, we can't always assume they are right or go by what they say if that neutral position says something that is wrong; an example, which is semi-related: if a promotion says their top championship is a world championship, a neutral position can't go and say it's not just because they don't agree with it. --JDC808 ♫ 10:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
There's too much original research going on here; conclusions are being drawn, like "Because of WWE say NXT is no longer developmental, it means the NXT title is one of their top 3". Or that WWE are "obviously implying" something, which is rubbish. That's not how we do things. Here's what it comes down to: is there a reliable source that explicitly says that the NXT title is one of their top 3 titles? If there isn't, we can't include it. — Czello 07:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Edit war
Hello everyone,
I'm seeking consensus here, otherwise I might be punished later when I bring this matter to the administrator's noticeboards.
Hope this post settles the present edit war in Hartley Jackson and The Mighty Don't Kneel, but I suspect it won't.
The thing is, Hartley Jackson recently went through an AfD that arose a lengthy of discussion.
Jammo85 had asked me for assistance in find sources to a certain fact, and I did find sources, but we are still facing opposition from another user in Hartley Jackson and The Mighty Don't Kneel (TMDK).
We would like to state "Hartley Jackson was part of The Mighty Don't Kneel in 2015 and 2016."
I have found two sources from websites of official pro wrestling events (they are archived, please give it a few minutes to load):
- https://web.archive.org/web/20170303035516/http://melbournecitywrestling.com.au/2016/06/18/hostile-takeover-2016/
- https://web.archive.org/web/20160502062934/https://wrestlerampage.wordpress.com/ which despite being wordpress, it was and still is the official website of the event
and Hartley appears on the TMDK side on both.
Also, there is also a listing of his appearances as TMDK here, which corroborates the above:
but this website is listed in one unofficial list of reliable sources as being Marginally reliable. Strictly used for match results and not other information. Takes user submissions but is reviewed by regional editors that verify all submissions before they are added to the database. The other party uses this against us, but I actually think it supports us, as we are actually only using results here. That is, we are not using the blog posts produced in cagematch (see [11]).
Auxiliary sources are:
- [12] Article from a podcast on wrestling. It mentions Hartley as being part of TMDK.
- [13] Another member of TMDK claiming that Hartley was once a member of TMDK.
- [14] Users commenting on a pro wrestling forum. They don't show any doubt that Hartley was part of TMDK.
- [15] Official "wrestling rampage" advertisement.
- [16] Another official ad from "wrestling rampage", referring to the match June 20th 2015 match shown in the Cage Match source above as being TMDK (Hartley Jackson, Jonah Rock & Marcius Pitt) defeat The Brotherhood (Chris Vice, Damian Slater & Havok). The picture here shows Hartley on the same side as Jonah Rock and Marcius Pitt.
Do you guys think these sources back the statement "Hartley Jackson was part of The Mighty Don't Kneel in 2015 and 2016", or not?
Results tables in professional wrestling events articles: "by pinfall"
The style guide currently reads "If the match ended in submission, disqualification, or countout, it should proceed the example above with: by [decision]. Do not proceed the example above for pinfall victories, as it is the default method of victory throughout professional wrestling." My view would be that we *should* include "by pinfall" where the victory was achieved by pinfall. The current approach assumes that the reader will know that pinfall is the "default" way of winning, which a casual reader may be unaware of. Why not make this clear? It's also more consistent. I don't see any downside to including the text "by pinfall" where applicable. Any thoughts welcome. McPhail (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- These tables can get a bit confusing with all the information as is. Perhaps if everyone feels it should be added, instead a footnote could be added to the bottom of the table which states "Unless otherwise noted the finish was by pinfall". - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- By that logic, why not remove the means of victory altogether and simply record the winner? If adding "by submission" does not not make a table confusing, neither will adding "by pinfall". McPhail (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think there's only so much we can hold a reader's hand. I think including "by pinfall" for fear of casual readers being confused is a bit much and unnecessary. — Czello 17:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's important to recognize that very little of the "style guide" is based on consensus, as most of it has been added by individual editors based on their personal preferences. I certainly wouldn't view it as binding. For what it's worth, there's nothing wrong with including "by pinfall". It's not intrusive, and it could be helpful. No harm + possible benefit = good idea. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. It's not like submissions are uncommon, especially for some wrestlers where a submission hold is their signature finisher, e.g. Sting, Flair (father or daughter), Angle, Shamrock, Hart, the list is endless. And it's not like a submission is not a clean finish like a DQ or no contest. If we're going to present results and match lengths in a quasi sports fashion (which is appropriate for pro wrestling's quasi sport status), we should include them all for consistency. oknazevad (talk) 09:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- @GaryColemanFan: Who says it was not by consensus? It was put together over 10 years ago and the entirety was commented on before being put up. About 4 years ago it was revamped and again a draft of shared and allowed for comments and once it was agreed upon it went live. Nothing has been added the wasn't first discussed. So please help me understand how that is based on consensus? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've got the style guide on my watchlist. It's constantly being changed by people without discussions here. It's been "cleaned up" and "clarified" beyond recognition. It's no longer worth the paper it's printed on. If you need a specific example, you need look no further than this very topic. The statement that only the other three methods of winning should be included was added on December 31, 2014. There is no discussion of the subject anywhere in the archives of either the style guide talk page or this page around that date. The further addition that pinfalls can't be mentioned was added July 25, 2020. Again, no discussion in the archives. The style guide has been weaponized by project members, who make changes without seeking consensus and then use it to chase away new editors and IPs for violating the non-existent consensus. (And that's just the tip of the iceberg--don't get me started on the "unreliable" websites that people unfamiliar with the actual meaning of WP:V have added for reasons like "reported something that turned out not to be true".) GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's important to recognize that very little of the "style guide" is based on consensus, as most of it has been added by individual editors based on their personal preferences. I certainly wouldn't view it as binding. For what it's worth, there's nothing wrong with including "by pinfall". It's not intrusive, and it could be helpful. No harm + possible benefit = good idea. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- By my count that is three editors broadly in favour of including "by pinfall" and two broadly opposed. Do any other editors have a view? McPhail (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, my two cents. I asked the same question long ago, why by DQ or submission, but no by pinfall? We can include by pinfall. several matches end by pinfall, but it's harmless. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'll admit, I always went by the assumption that if there wasn't a finish specified, it was by pinfall, but we've essentially fell into the trap that everyone (even non-wrestling fans) are going to also know that, but we can't assume that, and we have nothing on the individual pages themselves that indicates that an unspecified finish means it was by pinfall. I agree with McPhail that if we can include "by submission" or "by countout" or "match ended by referee stoppage", there really should not be any issue with "by pinfall". That in no way makes it confusing, it adds clarity to what may in fact be confusing for a casual reader with no knowledge of pro-wrestling. --JDC808 ♫ 10:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, my two cents. I asked the same question long ago, why by DQ or submission, but no by pinfall? We can include by pinfall. several matches end by pinfall, but it's harmless. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- By my count that is three editors broadly in favour of including "by pinfall" and two broadly opposed. Do any other editors have a view? McPhail (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- There seems to be a reasonable level of consensus. I will update the style guide accordingly. McPhail (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- @JDC808: If the result isn't a submission, knockout, countout, disqualification, or some non-pinfall type decision like that, it's a pinfall. So you don't need to say pinfall. If it's an Elimination Chamber match, the method of elimination is fine. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Fishhead2100: Did you read my post at all? Because it seems like you didn't. You're doing exactly what I said: assuming that a casual reader with no knowledge of pro-wrestling is going to know that the result was by pinfall if not specified. --JDC808 ♫ 15:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- @JDC808: If the result isn't a submission, knockout, countout, disqualification, or some non-pinfall type decision like that, it's a pinfall. So you don't need to say pinfall. If it's an Elimination Chamber match, the method of elimination is fine. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- There seems to be a reasonable level of consensus. I will update the style guide accordingly. McPhail (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Jerry Lawler update
The other day, I read an AFD which was closed as delete. One of the !voters remarked of the article in question, "Mostly in-universe discussion of fictive characters without any critical commentary or indication of real-world significance". This project has repeatedly failed to take heed of what the community at large thinks of its efforts. Looking over Jerry Lawler just now, I see a poster child for this. Does anyone really know what a biography is? Over and over, I read biography articles covered under this project which consist of an excessive amount of storyline trivia and treat the whole of the subject's life as an afterthought.
Just now, I read this story published by a RS. The story contains an abundance of details relevant to Lawler's life, details which have previously been published by other RS, yet have been kept out of the article for many years, for seemingly no reason other than their lack of relevance to the WWE or to storylines. Since I last read this article, someone inserted the following:
Early life
Lawler was born in Memphis, Tennessee.[5]
Yes, that's the entire section. Can you say "turd polish"? Good, I knew you could. From there, it jumps to mentioning the West Memphis outlaw mud show promoter (leaving out over twenty years of his life, including moving to Ohio and back to Memphis, graduating from high school, his early career which found him in the public eye for the first time), yet the RS I link to above avoids acknowledging that. That RS does mention Lance Russell and Jackie Fargo and Eddie Bond, just like so many other sources do. The documentation on reliable sources counsels against giving undue weight to fringe minority sources. Could it be that Slam Wrestling is a fringe minority source in this case? I realize some of you may not be equipped to handle that opinion. I also realize that some of you would be falling all over yourselves to turn this into a real article if it were an easy GA hat for you to collect. I believe the significance of the article to the project should take precedence over that sort of nonsense. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ever read the book "How to get what you want by antagonizing those you want it from"? Just curious if you really thought vitriol was the best way to get anything accomplished? MPJ-DK (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- The thing to remember is that articles on pro wrestlers are both biographies of the real people and character profiles of the fictionalized versions of themselves they play in the ring. It's one of those things that's fairly unique to pro wrestling and its intentional blurring of the line between reality and story. oknazevad (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with OKnazevad. However, I also think pro wrestler articles focus too much on in-universe stuff and, worst, presented storylines as real life events (most commonly, injuries). I'm trying to fix that on some articles. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wow! Did you really watch World Class? How interesting! GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hulk hears you. Will help later. But not soon! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
UWN Tag Team Championship
I did some updates to the UWN Tag Team Championship article. I updated the infobox, combined reigns, and the title history section to reflect the current champions since it was outdated. Now, I can't figure out why the table for the history is not showing up as correctly formatted for the current champions. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. To my admission, I don't use the table for title histories which I should. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 15:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Fixed. You forget the last }} --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- @HHH Pedrigree: I can't remember, but before submitting, I seem to recall doing that to no avail. I could be wrong. But thanks either way. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 15:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Category:PWFP has been nominated for discussion
Category:PWFP has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.
-- 67.70.32.97 (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC) There hasn't been a vote of comment since October 7. The consensus is in support renaming of the main category and moving sub-cats and articles to it. Closing the discussion is best at this point. It is unlikely anybody else will chime in the discussion. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 16:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Assistance please
I have just completed a major update of the article on Ventura Tenario, a.k.a. Chief Little Wolf. Given my level of unfamiliarity with professional wrestling archives, etc., I have reached a dead-end in relation to one matter, and was hoping that somebody can help.
On page 35 of York, Barry, "Big Chief Little Wolf: Wrestling, Radio and Folklore in Australia", Journal of Australian Studies, Vol.22, No.58, (January 1998), pp.29-37, Australian National University Research Fellow, Barry York, writes: "There is no doubt the Chief was excellent at what he did. In 1974, he was inducted into New York's Wrestling Hall of Fame. He is still regarded by wrestling fans as the master of the Indian Deathlock, a technically difficult hold to apply."
I was hoping that someone could help me to identify (a) the correct designation for "New York's Wrestling Hall of Fame", (b) the date upon which the "1974" induction took place, and (c) a reference that I could cite in support of this induction (e.g., newspaper, magazine, newsletter, press statement, etc.), rather than just citing York's article (within which York does not cite a source for his statement). Thanks Lindsay658 (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I made a quick research. However, I found nothing about the Hall of Fame. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- First of all, great work. We need more articles on older wrestlers. Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything on the hall of fame either; it's not in our List of professional wrestling halls of fame and further google searches didn't help. However, the source is impeccable, it's just old and recent sources probably just have lost track of this older HOF. I would include it in the Championships and accomplishments section as:
- New York's Wrestling Hall of Fame
- Class of 1974
- New York's Wrestling Hall of Fame
- Just make sure to source York, but that should be all you have to do. If you are reluctant to source it to York then I'm afraid we'll have to leave it out.LM2000 (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- First of all, great work. We need more articles on older wrestlers. Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything on the hall of fame either; it's not in our List of professional wrestling halls of fame and further google searches didn't help. However, the source is impeccable, it's just old and recent sources probably just have lost track of this older HOF. I would include it in the Championships and accomplishments section as:
LM2000 Thanks ever so much for your advice. I have done as you suggested. Lindsay658 (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- For what it's worth after the fact, I agree that this is the best way to source it, given the available references. A quick search of newspaper archive sites does show that there is a New York Wrestling Hall of Fame, so it seems to be a legitimate accomplishment. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Triple H, GAR
User Buidhe started a Good Article reassessment on Triple H. I will try to fix the problems, but maybe some user want to help me with other problems. HHH was nominated 13 years ago, so maybe a in -deep review is needed. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
"Superstar" Billy Graham
Looking for clarification. It to do with the naming convention of the "Superstar" Billy Graham.. Now, for the most part we don't put nicknames in the title. Danny Davis is another matter since there were two wrestlers who used Danny Davis as their ring name. Outside of certain circumstances like that, we would put wrestler in parenthesis in the article title. I checked the style guide and there is nothing saying that isn't allowed. But it is generally accepted that nicknames are not put in article titles outside of that example stated. I did look in the archives and there was a consensus to move it to what it is now. Someone made the case, such as I said about not putting nicknames in article titles. Even Steven Austin's article could be moved to Steven Austin (wrestler) if a consensus were to be reached. We wouldn't move Randy Savages article to Macho Man Randy Savage. So it was redundant to move Billy Graham to Superstar Billy Graham. The adage of leaving well enough alone in terms of the Billy Graham article prior to the move applies. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 16:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, that's just "the exception that proves the rule". Danny Davis were changed since both are wrestlers with the same name, so (wrestler) doesn't work. I remember a discussion and the consensus was to use nicknames. Same with Graham and Austin. Austin is worldwide known as Stone Cold Steve Austin and since there are 4 men names Steve Austin... it works. Same with Graham (6 people). As I see, these exceptions are made for a natural disambiguation avoiding (wrestler) and Austin and Graham are well known by the nicknames. There is no other Randy Savage. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- @HHH Pedrigree: Thanks, Captain Obvious. You repeated what I said about Danny Davis. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 13:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- There used to be, kind of, back when "Stone Cold" was still warming up, but he's covered by Billionaire Ted. Sounds like a biography, if you don't already know this trick. Or have the twist spoiled online by some crotchety huckster (it's a series of skits). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- He is rarely, if ever, referred to as Billy Graham. His common name is either Superstar Billy Graham or "Superstar" Billy Graham. This is different from "Macho Man" Randy Savage, as Savage's name could be separated. "Macho Man" was the name used by a wrestler. Randy Savage was the name used by a wrestler. Neither "Superstar" nor Billy Graham was the name used by a wrestler. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Paul Christy roamed the Western States as one Bill Graham back in '64, or so I've been told by Cagematch (Slam! told Wikipedia full-on "Billy", it seems). Beat Joe Gump more than once, in any case! But yeah, whole worlds away from this more famous federation superstar. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- 'Twasfurthermore 49 years ago tonight that Mr. Christy blew Billy Red Cloud away in the Windy City's International Amphitheatre and out of our history books to this day! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I just can't ever hear the name Paul Christy without thinking of his disastrous debut on their TNT show. "How many vacations can you go on? How many apartment buildings? How many shopping centers can you own? I've got it all. I got two out of the three." And the "what the hell is going on?" looks between Gene Okerlund and Alfred Hayes in the background make it just perfect. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Don't recall seeing that, sounds like good awful TV, thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I just can't ever hear the name Paul Christy without thinking of his disastrous debut on their TNT show. "How many vacations can you go on? How many apartment buildings? How many shopping centers can you own? I've got it all. I got two out of the three." And the "what the hell is going on?" looks between Gene Okerlund and Alfred Hayes in the background make it just perfect. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- WP:ATDAB makes it clear that parenthetical disambiguation should be used only when other alternatives aren't practical. There's been a disturbing trend throughout the encyclopedia of disregarding natural disambiguation simply to present someone's occupation or title or other claim to notability in the article title. In this case, Billy Graham is a clear primary topic, someone known the world over whose fame dates back approximately to when Wayne Coleman was born. This obviously has much to do with why he was called Superstar Billy Graham and not simply Billy Graham. Let's get away from trying to fix what isn't broken, shall we? The red links offered by Hulk demonstrates that there's still real work left to do. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- The disambiguations are practical since, as Gary said, it's most common to see Superstar Billy Graham, rather than just Billy Graham. Same for Austin. Both of them are usually named by sources with the nicknames, not like, for example Sting or Kane. We can rename The Icon Sting or Big Red Machine Kane, but sources don't call them in such way. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- @HHH Predrigree: Technically, lots of wrestlers have been called an "icon." Maybe not to the extent as Sting. But The Rock and Hulk Hogan have been called icons. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 13:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- The disambiguations are practical since, as Gary said, it's most common to see Superstar Billy Graham, rather than just Billy Graham. Same for Austin. Both of them are usually named by sources with the nicknames, not like, for example Sting or Kane. We can rename The Icon Sting or Big Red Machine Kane, but sources don't call them in such way. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Clarification of "debut" in Template:Infobox professional wrestler
A recent discussion has flagged that the definition of "debut" in Template:Infobox professional wrestler is slightly ambiguous. The definition currently reads "Date or year of professional debut". I would suggest rewording this as follows: "The date (or year if the exact date is unavailable) when the wrestler made their professional debut, i.e. wrestled their first match." Any thoughts welcome. McPhail (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- While I like your version since is more accurate, maybe the ambiguous one is for other professions related to pro wrestling. For example, Michael Cole has been working on the pro wrestling business since 1997, but his first match took place on 2008. Same for announcers, referees or managers... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- It's a fair point. How about: "The date (or year if the exact date is unavailable) when the wrestler made their professional debut, i.e. wrestled their first match. For non-wrestlers, for example announcers or managers, this should be the date/year when they made their first appearance." McPhail (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will make this change. McPhail (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- It's a fair point. How about: "The date (or year if the exact date is unavailable) when the wrestler made their professional debut, i.e. wrestled their first match. For non-wrestlers, for example announcers or managers, this should be the date/year when they made their first appearance." McPhail (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
AEW Dark
Do inconsequential AEW Dark matches fail WP:PW/BIO, which states that editors should refrain from writing in proseline ("week-by-week" format)
? KyleJoantalk 03:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. If a wrestler, like Red Velvet has several matches, we can just say "after working on Dark, Red was signed to a AEW contract". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think it depends slightly on the context. E.g. if a independent wrestler makes a one-off appearance with AEW on Dark we could give a bit more detail. If a wrestler is repeatedly wrestling on Dark, I agree this would be summarised as above. McPhail (talk) 09:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Of course, depends of the context. I was thinking on a regular basis, like SCU, Gunn Club or Red Velvet matches. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- That's the exact context I had in mind because I saw that a new editor has been including what reads like weekly results (e.g., "X defeated Y on Dark. X then defeated Z on Dark the following week.") in various articles. KyleJoantalk 10:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW, we shouldn't be updating by WP:PROSELINE like that anyway... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that we don’t need excessive details of dark matches unless something significant happens such as one wrestlers accidentally causes a major injury to another wrestler and that wrestler was out for 8 months.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW, we shouldn't be updating by WP:PROSELINE like that anyway... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- That's the exact context I had in mind because I saw that a new editor has been including what reads like weekly results (e.g., "X defeated Y on Dark. X then defeated Z on Dark the following week.") in various articles. KyleJoantalk 10:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Of course, depends of the context. I was thinking on a regular basis, like SCU, Gunn Club or Red Velvet matches. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think it depends slightly on the context. E.g. if a independent wrestler makes a one-off appearance with AEW on Dark we could give a bit more detail. If a wrestler is repeatedly wrestling on Dark, I agree this would be summarised as above. McPhail (talk) 09:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Nickname style debate
Popcornfud seems to believe wrestler nicknames and ringnames should both use a lowercase "the" and lose the quotation marks, per a guideline in the general Manual of Style. I suggested to him our style guide explicitly addressed how it works in wrestling, but I was wrong, it doesn't. I still believe there's an implicit unwritten rule, based on the decades of near-universal usage by the promotions and those who write about them. See Dwayne Johnson and Rick Martel for how wrong it looks in practice, then decide whether we should adopt this newfangled idea to the hundreds of other longstanding gimmicks on Wikipedia, or leave well enough alone. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Just notifying Popcornfud again, screwed up the first time. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- The relevant policy is MOS:NICKNAMETHE:
A leading "the" is not capitalized in a nickname, pseudonym, or other alias.
I believe this is pretty cut and dry, and this is exactly why we are supposed to have this policy, to settle debates like this. - Perhaps it would be possible for editors of wrestling pages to agree on a local exception for this policy and add it to the style guide for the professional wrestling wikiproject. I don't know if that kind of thing happens on Wikipedia. I would oppose this as it creates bigger inconsistency and I don't see why it looks any stranger for wrestlers than it does rappers, bands, or anyone else. Popcornfud (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- In wrestling, there's a greater mix of stage/ring names and nicknames than in other fields. When you call Martel the Model, it suggests he was just plain billed as "Model", like Shawn Stasiak was pure Meat. Martel's case is unlike The Rock's, whose proper character name (usually unquoted in bold) was just that, but nicknamed "The People's Champion". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
When you call Martel the Model, it suggests he was just plain billed as "Model",
- No it doesn't and I don't understand why you think this.
- Where individuals have various aliases/nicknames/ring names/etc we should treat each of them the same in terms of formatting. We certainly shouldn't invent our own styles, like using caps or quotation marks for ring names but not nicknames or whatever, and just hope that readers will understand what these different stylings are supposed to indicate. Just keep it simple. Popcornfud (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- It is simple, to people familiar with wrestling, so fundamentally weird presented otherwise. Two very distinct types of labels. Nobody here invented the format, it goes back a century or more. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- In wrestling, there's a greater mix of stage/ring names and nicknames than in other fields. When you call Martel the Model, it suggests he was just plain billed as "Model", like Shawn Stasiak was pure Meat. Martel's case is unlike The Rock's, whose proper character name (usually unquoted in bold) was just that, but nicknamed "The People's Champion". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Opposed to project-specific exceptions to general style guidelines in general. If there's a question, WT:MOSCAPS would be a good place to work it out. I'd just go with MOS:NICKNAMETHE as we do in so many other topic areas. Dicklyon (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's a tough one, as a single policy couldn't cover every situation. In that sense, I disagree with the Popcorn guy's cookie-cutter approach. Some wrestlers are referred to by a stand-alone nickname. Dwayne Johnson is The Rock. Rick Martel is The Model. Duke Droese is The Dumpster. Writing those with a lowercase "t" looks ridiculous. In text, I don't see a need for quotation marks, though. "Jerry Lawler smashed a garbage can over The Dumpster's head" works just fine. Other people are referred to by a nickname that doesn't include a "the", and this might lend itself more to the Popcorn style. For example, "Macho Man" Randy Savage might be stylized as seen in this sentence: "Ric Flair implied that he was sleeping with the Macho Man's wife". In other (rare) cases, the "t" might be lowercase in some instances but couldn't stand alone. Jake "The Snake" Roberts is the only example I can think of. I can't think of a sentence in which he could be referred to as "The Snake", but it would make sense to write something like "The Model competed against Jake the Snake in a blindfold match". For all of these, I would only use quotation marks if the name and nickname were given at the same time: Jake "The Snake" Roberts, but Jake the Snake. "The Model" Rick Martel or Rick "The Model" Martel, but The Model. Really, this is a lot like bands. Some bands' names are commonly prefaced with "The". If that's how they billed themselves, "The" should be included. If not, the "The" should be omitted or written with a lowercase "t". If we need a local exception to a rule that doesn't make sense, I support an exception. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- There's certainly an exception to our exception (so don't ignore the general rule) in forms like Andre the Giant, Abdullah the Butcher and Doink the Clown (among others). In a regular sentence, more usual to see them called by their first names. "The Dumpster" and "The Model" never stood alone in ring intros like The Rock, though; more sensible to refer to them by their ring name's surname in prose, avoiding the issue entirely. The French Angel, The Masked Superstar and The Brian Kendrick stand alone (among others). The Powers of Pain are a weird mix, Warlord and/but The Barbarian, even hardcore smarks are somewhat mistaken or unsure about them. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Opposed to an exception here. Totally agree with InedibleHulk. Most of the time we should be using surnames anyhow. Primergrey (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Surnames are good most of the time, but most characters with The ringnames don't have surnames. And even if we just drop the "The" for better flow, we still should introduce all wrestlers in any wrestling article by their proper common name, especially if the The is right there in their Wikipedia bio title. We can call The Undertaker and The Ultimate Warrior Taker and Warrior later, but never the Warrior or Mark "The Undertaker" Callous, you know? I'm not sure we totally agree, especially since I want to maintain the same exception wrestling students and teachers have had for almost twenty years here (apparently in relative obscurity, but still demonstrably real to all who'd wish to see, dammit!). Anyhow, I like the way you spell "grey", even if I'd have CamelCased it (like JeriShow). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Use lowercase "the" per MOS:NICKNAMETHE. Music follows this with MOS:THEMUSIC at The Beatles and The Who. I don't see why pro wrestling should be an exception. Agree that surname should generally be used anyways, unless the WP:COMMONNAME article title does not include a surname.—Bagumba (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Use lowercase the. This topic is not a magical exception to MOS:NICKNAMETHE, and that guideline exists specifically to address the desire to overcapitalize "the" in nicknames. It's silly that this thread even exists. If MoS says "Don't write dates in 2/8/2020 format" (and it does), there is no reason at all to start a thread asking "Can I use 2/8/2020 format when writing about US congressional elections, since lots of people who write about them in America use that format?" Argh. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Use uppercase The where applicable – Basically, I agree with InedibleHulk here, as well as GaryColemanFan. Also, while policies are for the most part mutually agreed upon guidelines to use, they are not the definitive rules. We don't have to abide by them in every single case, as they don't always work for every single case. Here is a prime example, as for some of these guys, these aren't nicknames and "The" is actually part of their ring name. --JDC808 ♫ 11:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ring names, stage names, and all other pseudonyms are also covered by that guideline (in full: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Pseudonyms, stage names, nicknames, hypocorisms, and common names). The very fact that this guideline exists to address cases of this sort means that cases of this sort are not exceptions, by definition. WP:IAR never applies for WP:ILIKEIT reasons. It applies when diverging from a rule at a specific article will objectively (not subjectively) improve the encyclopedia for readers. This does not qualify; it's just a subjective, arbitrary style preference. "Lots of sources do it" is irrelevant; if it's not done with virtually universal consistency accross sources, it's not an exception WP will make. "Most wrestling sources do it" doesn't matter; WP has its own style guide, and is not written like news (incl. wresting entertainment journalism), as a matter of clear policy. See also this ArbCom statement, also found in over a dozen other cases; wikiprojects and other groups of topically like-minded editors cannot make up their own rules against site-wide consensus found in guidelines or policies, across an entire topic or category (wikiproject scope claims do not amount of ownership of the subject). If this project is convinced that some kind of exception is important and justified, they can make a case in an RfC at WT:MOSBIO or WT:MOS to codify such an exception. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- I personally don't like the way it looks but I think we need to follow the policy. The same applies to tag teams and stables - a while back I moved everything to "The Radicalz", "The Gangstas", etc but I guess these should really be at Radicalz, Gangstas, etc? McPhail (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes; this kind of question was settled in "The Beatles vs. the Beatles" and related RfCs years ago; codified here, though it really should be in MOS:BIO probably. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Hall of Fame 2020
Hi. I have one question. Since the WWE Hall of Fame 2020 was postponed until 2021, should we change the name of the article to WWE Hall of Fame 2021? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, because it's now a 2021 event. We'll have to wait and see exactly how WWE will handle the semantics of whether or not the slated 2020 inductees will still be considered Class of 2020, or if they'll just say they're Class of 2021 (and that's if they plan to induct more members for 2021), though they did announce JBL as a Hall of Famer at Survivor Series, even though he had not yet been inducted (he was to be inducted this year). --JDC808 ♫ 06:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, then it's time to wait until WWE makes his move. I never tought about WWE including more inductees. Fun fact, JBL was presented as Hall of Famer, while Batista was presented as WWE Legend. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Why would we wait? The article here is about the event. The 2020 event is not happening as it's now merged with the 2021 event. I was saying wait and see in regard to how they handle the classes (e.g., Class of 2020 or Class of 2021 or both) instead of assuming something. The only thing we can do with that information is retain what we currently have. --JDC808 ♫ 06:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, then it's time to wait until WWE makes his move. I never tought about WWE including more inductees. Fun fact, JBL was presented as Hall of Famer, while Batista was presented as WWE Legend. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Template idea
We have the template template:Professional wrestling profiles which pulls the relevant pages from the Cagematch, Wrestlingdata, and Internet Wrestling Database databases for wrestlers. Could we do something similar for events, e.g. if the template was added to the WrestleMania X page it would link to the pages on the above websites? I have no idea how to create a template of this nature but just thought it could be an interesting idea. McPhail (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think linking to those sources would improve any PPV article. Don't they already have references that point to high-quality sources? Adding these three sources reminds me of when every page had a link to the wrestler's Online World of Wrestling profile. These sources are better, sure, but still not high-quality reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Requesting help from Sock/Vandal in The Undertaker and The Streak (wrestling)
Check the page revision history and my message on User talk:Dory Funk. I have repeatedly requested them to refrain from removing WP:RS and seek Wp:RfC, but they just continue the vandalism. i would respect the decision by senior editors at WP:PW., if they go along with this then its fine. The similar edit pattern of User:ItsKesha and User:Dory Funk on both articles is pretty suspicious. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Similar edit patterns? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha have you even checked? ItsKesha (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- ItsKesha yes, I have checked the revision history of both pages as well as the account creation time of both accounts. Still I might be wrong about the sock allegation, and I do not intend any personal attack, but removing WP:RS without consensus is clear vandalism. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Stop digging, mate. Really. ItsKesha (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- ItsKesha yes, I have checked the revision history of both pages as well as the account creation time of both accounts. Still I might be wrong about the sock allegation, and I do not intend any personal attack, but removing WP:RS without consensus is clear vandalism. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Garbage report. I removed material from The Undertaker I felt was WP:CRUFT; Dilbaggg reverted my edit (fair enough). When another user sided with me, he flew into a juvenile rage with all sorts of allegations spewing forth. ItsKesha is largely focused on soccer, something I've never even watched, let alone edited about here. Dory Funk (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- curprev 01:33, 3 December 2020 ItsKesha talk contribs 22,328 bytes −665 →December 2020: seeya undothank Tag: Manual revert
- curprev 13:28, 8 December 2020 Dory Funk talk contribs m 3,325 bytes −1,263 See ya. undothank Tag: Manual revert
see ya indeed eh socks Dory Funk, ItsKesha, now I am confused if i should take it to SPI or just go to AIV, even if I dont someone with a mop will eventually do it, seee ya indeed. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Lmao, so "see ya", one of the most commonplace internet phrases in the Western world, is evidence of "socking". Sod off. Dory Funk (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- What's there to be confused about? I mean it's so obvious we're the same account that you definitely won't be wasting anybody's time in reporting this and you definitely won't be embarrassing yourself in the process. ItsKesha (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Dory Funk, ItsKesha i don't acre if you sock, it might get caught someday, thats not my headache but if you continue the vandalism on that article I will definitely report to AIV. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
| Stop your disruptibve editing on The Undertaker deleting WP:RS contents. You only joined in 2020, you can not delete things based on personal views. Just because an individual user feels it needs to be cut and feels that it is not notable doesn't make it so, this list has been there since I first started viewing wikipedia since 2008 (though I started editing as a registered user from 2019), seek consensus before making such change, there are senior users on Wp:PW from at least 2005 who have more say tin the matter than you, it complies with WP:RS and all other guidelines and demonstrates that Taker had the highest victories at WM (considered the Superbowl of Wrestling) and the Streak has been one of the most prominent features in Wrestling history, and even after its demise Taker's highest number of victories is worth mentioning until someone surpasses this record. Seek WP:RfC and avoid deleting based on personal views. Moreover refrain from removing widely accepted Wp:RS contents which is definitely disruptive editing. Please do not start a WP:EW over it. Regards. Dilbaggg (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)" |
- The sign of somebody not caring is to send 10+ messages on the matter, threatening to report users, and digging up comments in edit summaries. You have made no attempt whatsoever to actually discuss the changes on either page, have you? However, incredulously accusing people of disruptive editing and vandalism, and accusations of sockpuppetry. ItsKesha (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- WP:BRD entitles me to do as I did. Your entire "complaint" comes down to you having a hissyfit because someone supported my removal of the content. Dory Funk (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Dory Funk, ItsKesha your edit history and account creation time is too suspicious to count you as separate users. I would respect the opinion of actual legit and older users. And do not threaten to Wp:EW, I have quated the reason why you aren't eligible to make such crucial change without seeking consensus, I have repeatedly requested you to go for Wp:RfC but you continue the disruptive edit. And I am allowed to warn you for such vandilism. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Still not attempting to discuss the changes, I see ItsKesha (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have discussed everything on my quote from Dory's talk page on the table above (the green shaded heading). As it is you who wants to make the change it is your job to request Wp:RfC and if the vote goes on your favor, no issues then Dory Funk, ItsKesha Dilbaggg (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Dory Funk, ItsKesha your edit history and account creation time is too suspicious to count you as separate users. I would respect the opinion of actual legit and older users. And do not threaten to Wp:EW, I have quated the reason why you aren't eligible to make such crucial change without seeking consensus, I have repeatedly requested you to go for Wp:RfC but you continue the disruptive edit. And I am allowed to warn you for such vandilism. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
One might think that your sockpuppetry claims are an effort to pre-empt allegations that you are also User:Gorrrillla5, the account whose additions you are going to great lengths to protect. I haven't yet made that allegation myself. Dory Funk (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
As the user Dilbag hasn't made any attempt whatsoever to even begin a discussion on whatever his bollocks complaint is, I have taken it upon myself to begin one. ItsKesha (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- I dont go typing "see ya" or removing warnings in the same manner as you Dory Funk, ItsKesha, and go ahead accuse the gorilla guy, I got no issues with that lol, I even reverted that guys changes and that guy is from 2007 a year before I even started visiting wiki. But you two created accounts around the same time, have the same edit summary and similar edit history and behavior, just picking different topics except to support one another during conflicts. But that is not my headache, just stop the vandilism, and if you ant your change you need opinions from thes senior editoirs, so file an WP:RfC. Its a long lengthy process but patience is a virtue. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- See ya, buddy. Dory Funk (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- See ya space cowboy?LM2000 (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- See ya, buddy. Dory Funk (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- I dont go typing "see ya" or removing warnings in the same manner as you Dory Funk, ItsKesha, and go ahead accuse the gorilla guy, I got no issues with that lol, I even reverted that guys changes and that guy is from 2007 a year before I even started visiting wiki. But you two created accounts around the same time, have the same edit summary and similar edit history and behavior, just picking different topics except to support one another during conflicts. But that is not my headache, just stop the vandilism, and if you ant your change you need opinions from thes senior editoirs, so file an WP:RfC. Its a long lengthy process but patience is a virtue. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
WWE Music Group discography's WP:RS blanking
Recent edits on WWE Music Group discography appears to be Wikipedia:Gaming the system by ItsKesha, removing all WP:RS, leaving a sourceless list, but as I am not attached to this article, I won't bother with it and it is upto the senior editors to decide, just letting them know if they feel like checking out, otherwise its fine. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Matter discussed here [17], we have been asked to go for WP:RSN and WP:RSNP, but since it is about not one but multiple articles and multiple sources, seeking advice. Dilbaggg (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- So you think iTunes is a credible source? (the mass removal of content was correct per WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:PROMO, by the way. But here you are, making yet more accusations against me). Do you think WWE's own website isn't a primary source for articles about WWE? ItsKesha (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- ItsKesha I explained multiple times, you ignorantly erase comments on your talk page, what can I do? I had it with having to repeat myself with your "attention seeking nature":
The message to User talk:ItsKesha,. ─ (User talk:ItsKesha,)
|
|---|
User talk:ItsKesha, um what is a wrong dude, why are you removing WP:RS from The New Era (WWE), and please do not give over linking excuse, over linking is when you use multiple (more than three sources) to reference a line, sometimes a single source is not valid enough "like when people say an event is well received, just reference to one review is not sufficient. (Also sources like post-2013 bleacher report are usable per WP:PW/RS and primary sources like wwe.com are usable as long as they are not being used for "promotional purpose", and not all usable sources needs to be part of WP:PW/RS, other WP:RS can be used as long as they are not listed unreliable in WP:PW/RS. So please stop removing WP:RS as it is sort of disruptive editing, but I will assume WP:AGF and hope you are not Wikipedia:Gaming the system which is kinda what it seems on WWE Music Group discography. Wish you well. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
|
- "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them" and "Note that primary sources make no exception to the general rules regarding sources (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR,...) before they can be used as a source in Wikipedia. That are basic requirements, not further discussed in, nor modified by, the current guideline (proposal). This guideline concentrates on how to use primary sources most appropriately in Wikipedia." (The bold writing isn't my statement, its what the guidelines are and I pasted here). Primary Sources can be used when there are no secondary sources at all. Again WP:RfC is kindly requested. The current status of the article is a sourceless article based on WP:OR which is pure violation of Wikipedia guideline, and WP:OR is a bigger issue than Wp:Primary, and if you have problem with WP:Primary it is your job to bring the secondary Wp:RS to the article instead of leaving it as contents with no source, citations, WP:V whatsoever. But you do not care as long as it fits your personal agenda do you? Regardless I am not that concerned with WWE Music Group discography, I will leave it to senior editors on WP:RSN as per ANI suggestion to see if you are Wikipedia:Gaming the system or not. But I will go on protecting The Streak (wrestling) and don't go accusing me of not explaining when you say things like "I won't bother to read" as you did on the talk page there. Dilbaggg (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Wednesday Night Wars GA nomination
Requesting help in further improving the quality of this brilliant article to make it suitable for GA nomination. It is sufficiently well sourced, neutral and well written article and a hot topic in modern day Professional Wrestling World. It has way more credibility than the short lived and less impactful and poorly sourced TNA Impact!'s move to Monday nights which still got GA nominated. The Wednesday Night Wars and the rise of AEW as the first serious competitor to WWE since WCW is perhaps the most significant thing in the modern pro wrestling world, this fact is acknowledged even in the TNA Impact!'s move to Monday nights and the original Monday Night Wars with fitting WP:V. Also this article demonstrates genuine neutrality when comparing AEW and NXT and is created based on sufficient and credible WP:RS and WP:V. So yeah I feel this article should be GA nominated. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'll have a look here sometime today, but I already see one glaring issue that plague's this project: one-sentence paragraphs in the lead. --JDC808 ♫ 18:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- The relative notability of other articles has nothing to do with if this article should be GANed. There's a lot of issues with the article, mostly the poor lede, and no real comparisons between the two promotions. It does need quite a large copyedit as well. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
List of Special Episodes
I don't intend this to be negative, or a slight on anybody who has put in effort on these articles, but I don't understand the point of articles titled "list of BLA BLA BLA special episodes". Beyond the episodes being on at a different time, or on a different day, or having a theme, or a 55 year old referee debuting, 99% of these special episodes are not remotely special. Oh, a scripted general manager was filmed spinning a wheel to make a scripted match? Fantastic. The episode was the 700th episode? So what, 700 isn't a special number!
- However: TV series have "List of TV SHOW NAME episodes" - List of The Wire episodes, List of The Shield episodes, List of Seinfeld episodes etc. But as we all know, these are TV programmes with finite life spans, and therefore finite episodes. If you had every single Raw episode in an article... that's ridiculous!
- So: we look at the fact professional sports teams have "YYYY-YY CLUB NAME season" - 2020–21 Salford City F.C. season, 2020–21 Torino F.C. season, 2020 Atlanta Falcons season, 2020–21 Detroit Pistons season etc. No matter what sport, no matter where in the world, a professional sports team is notable enough to have this kind of article. Salford City will play 54 games this season (fingers crossed). Basketball teams and hockey teams play 82 games in a regular non-playoff season. I see no reason there couldn't be a List of 1993 WWE Raw episodes, List of 2020 AEW Dynamite episodes, List of 1996 WCW Nitro episodes, etc. showing certain details of the 52/53 episodes in a calendar year. Lists of special episodes just seems too WP:OR, and any special episode should have its own Wikipedia page anyway, providing it passes WP:NOTABILITY.
- Let's take a look at how it could be done, by using this Good Article as an example - 1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season. You've got the lead, where it describes the major moments, and incoming and outgoing players (debuts of major wrestlers). You've then got the written prose for each month - not too long, not overly detailed. As long as only major storylines for each month were mentioned, and key title changes. There would be no need to mention every time Billy Gunn got his arse out or everytime the Dudleys put somebody through a table. Then you've got the match results featuring details like date, location, attendance. Add in match results in a collapsible table. Replace "transfers in/out" with something applicable to wrestling (debuts/departures). Providing its sourced correctly, this is all doable. ItsKesha (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Help with Kevin Greene
If anyone can help improve the sourcing for Kevin Greene (American football) regarding his WCW tenure, I would appreciate it. There are many wrestling-specific sources out there and I have no idea about the reliability of any of them. Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: I will take a look tomorrow. If you want, we have a list of reliable sources here --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've added some content and sources. McPhail (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
This wrestling legend passed away yesterday. I've added a couple of references, and the article looks like it's close to ready for RD--just a few more references needed. If anyone has some time, it would be great to see this posted on the main page. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- I just saw that Brodie Lee has also passed away. I can't find a mainstream source for it yet, but it looks like his article would also be very close to ready for RD. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's on RD now. TRM opined that Brodie would be worth nominating for WP:GA], if anyone wants to do it. starship.paint (exalt) 11:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Clearly this event never happened, even if there was no formal announcement of a cancellation. We have three days left in 2020 (yay!). And also clearly that any previously announced matches for this cancelled event are off (especially anything to do with Scurill in ROH, as he's no longer even listed on their roster page). So what do we do with this article? It was a marginally notable internet PPV to start with, but even if we decide to keep a separate article (instead of overhauling it for the 2021 edition, presuming that actually happens) it still needs a total rewrite as it is woefully outdated and still written as though there's a chance this event could happen in 2020. oknazevad (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- If it meets GNG, then tweak the phrasing to indicate that it was a planned pay-per-view and provide an update about Scurill's departure and why the event didn't take place. It can't lose its notability just because it didn't happen. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with Gary. The event is notable, so just change that the event was planned and "cancelled" due COVID. For example, we have AEW Blood and Guts or EMLL 52nd Anniversary Show as cancelled events. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Luchas de Apuestas
Why on earth does any American wrestler have a Luchas de Apuestas record? If this is inexplicably included for an American wrestler, why not have their Hell in a Cell history as well? Buried Alive or inferno? Why not have their history at WrestleMania or Slammiversary or Starrcade too? Their Royal Rumble record, or their history in an Elimination Chamber? Masks are huge part of Mexican wrestling, and mask removals are major parts of a lucha libre's career. But in British wrestling it's not a huge deal, nor in American wrestling, or in Japan, or Germany, or Canada. The part about "luchas de apuestas" is literally just a subsection of an article titled "Lucha Libre". Kendo Nagasaki wasn't a luchador, Kane wasn't a luchador. Kurt Angle and Edge, who had a hair versus hair match because Angle was losing his hair, weren't. Big Van Vader, who took his mask off countless times during his matches, definitely wasn't. ItsKesha (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- So? They had a Lucha de Apuestas and we include a section for a Lucha de Apuestas, not for a Hell in a Cell. I don't see why the nationality is important. Our MOS says "A record of the wrestler's Luchas de Apuestas ("betting matches"), prominent in lucha libre, is compiled in a table format. It spans the match winner (with their wager), the loser (with their wager), the location, the event, the date and a column for additional notes. Matches should only be included in this list if at least one of the competitors is risking their mask or hair." No mention of nationality, just that the wrestler risks his mask or hair --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Your examples: Nagasaki, Kane, nationality doesn't matter. Angle, the reason behind the Lucha de Apuestas isn't relevant, they had a Hair vs Hair match and Angle lost (similar, La Sombra lost the mask because he wanted to sign with WWE). Vader vs Kane had a mask vs mask match, so it's a match (mystario also lost the mask and put it on the line several times). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- The manual of style you've quoted from literally says it's prominent in lucha libre. Mexican wrestling! Of course the nationality is important, otherwise it would simply say "prominent in wrestling". And you've not explained why it's even included other than saying basically "we include it because we include it", and vice versa for any other match/situation I mentioned. ItsKesha (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Matches should only be included in this list if at least one of the competitors is risking their mask or hair" Again, no reason to exclude no-Mexican wrestlers just because the Lucha de Apuestas is more common in Mexico. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but you've not actually answered the question. Why is this thing deemed so important as to include it on all articles, regardless of cultural importance or lack thereof? ItsKesha (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Matches should only be included in this list if at least one of the competitors is risking their mask or hair" Again, no reason to exclude no-Mexican wrestlers just because the Lucha de Apuestas is more common in Mexico. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- The manual of style you've quoted from literally says it's prominent in lucha libre. Mexican wrestling! Of course the nationality is important, otherwise it would simply say "prominent in wrestling". And you've not explained why it's even included other than saying basically "we include it because we include it", and vice versa for any other match/situation I mentioned. ItsKesha (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
The consensus, based on discussions within the project, is to include LdA records. Anyone wanting to change this would need to establish a new consensus. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- So... any thoughts Gaz? ItsKesha (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Assuming you're addressing me, then yes, I think that anyone wanting to change the existing consensus would need to establish a new consensus. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- So do you have an actual opinion on the matter Gaz? ItsKesha (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Assuming you're addressing me (and, if so, I would appreciate that you don't make up nicknames for me), then I would say that, if you are wanting to change the existing consensus, you should open a discussion that puts forward your points in a calm and coherent manner. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- So that's a no then Gaz? Thanks for your time... ItsKesha (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Again, if you are addressing me, you may refer to me by my full name or by the shortened forms Gary or GCF. Your manner of addressing me comes across as condescending. Perhaps you were unaware of how your words are being received, but I trust you will avoid unwelcome nicknames now that you are aware of the situation. As for my opinion on the other matter, you are welcome to open a discussion that puts forward your points in a calm and coherent manner. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Howling at the idea that calling somebody called Gary "Gaz" is condescending. But thanks for again making no attempt whatsoever at answering the question posed. ItsKesha (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Again, if you are addressing me, you may refer to me by my full name or by the shortened forms Gary or GCF. Your manner of addressing me comes across as condescending. Perhaps you were unaware of how your words are being received, but I trust you will avoid unwelcome nicknames now that you are aware of the situation. As for my opinion on the other matter, you are welcome to open a discussion that puts forward your points in a calm and coherent manner. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- So that's a no then Gaz? Thanks for your time... ItsKesha (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Assuming you're addressing me (and, if so, I would appreciate that you don't make up nicknames for me), then I would say that, if you are wanting to change the existing consensus, you should open a discussion that puts forward your points in a calm and coherent manner. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- So do you have an actual opinion on the matter Gaz? ItsKesha (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Assuming you're addressing me, then yes, I think that anyone wanting to change the existing consensus would need to establish a new consensus. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- So... any thoughts Gaz? ItsKesha (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Would appreciate some actual input on this, rather than completely unnecessary stonewalling. Just why is this thing deemed so important as to include it on all articles, regardless of cultural importance or lack thereof? ItsKesha (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Because [18] iT rEaLlY iS tHaT sImPlE, ItsKesha. starship.paint (exalt) 11:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Star, thanks for dropping by. I assume you've also tagged in Gary Coleman for making exactly the same edit summary, three times? Do you have any thoughts on this matter, by the way? ItsKesha (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- No, I have not, and at this moment, I do not, ItsKesha. starship.paint (exalt) 12:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- The tone of your comments here are not conducive to gaining a consensus ItsKesha, be careful. As stated above, if you would like to change the MOS, you need to gain consensus. I don't really see how that is hard to conceive. It makes no sense to me to disclude this information based on nationality. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Lee. I haven't once mentioned consensus, I've not stated I'm trying to change a consensus. I'm simply asking some straightforward questions. As I've already said, masks are huge part of Mexican wrestling, and mask removals are major parts of a lucha libre's career. But in British wrestling it's not a huge deal, nor in American wrestling, or in Japan, or Germany, or Canada. Why not also have their history at WrestleMania or Slammiversary or Starrcade too? Their Royal Rumble record, or their history in an Elimination Chamber? Why is this thing deemed so important as to include it on all articles, regardless of cultural importance or lack thereof? 4. ItsKesha (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Star, thanks for dropping by. I assume you've also tagged in Gary Coleman for making exactly the same edit summary, three times? Do you have any thoughts on this matter, by the way? ItsKesha (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- shame that tone clouds the message here. It is a matter of consistency really, while not AS important outside of Mexico it's still a fairly permanent outcome (Kurt Angel's hair comes to mind) and it was the general consensus of those who participated in the discussion that it should be included. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Kane, Big Van Vader, Molly Holly, Jeff Jarrett, Chavo Guerrero, Rey Mysterio, Kevin Nash, Vince McMahon, etc, etc, etc Permanence is hardly a solid argument. "Luchas de Apuestas" isn't even notable enough to have a separate Wikipedia page, how is it of such prominence to be the sole match history detailed in this manner? ItsKesha (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- You said you aren't looking for a new consensus, but you keep answering every user even when they explained the situation. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Was there ever actually a consensus? The only discussions in the archives about the specific inclusion of it is this, where *Treker, Ribbon Salminen, starship.paint, Feedback and Mattspac all say that it should apply to Lucha wrestlers only, you disagreeing, and MPJ-DK debating what should be included as a Luchas de Apuestas. Here, where only two people seem to have an opinion on the inclusion - you and Prefall, who disagrees with the inclusion. And here, where you argue for the inclusion while both Feedback and MPJ-DK say only for lucha wrestlers. Maybe we should have discussion regarding a new consensus? ItsKesha (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- A consensus exists. I think that anyone wanting to change the existing consensus would need to establish a new consensus. You are welcome to open a discussion that puts forward your points in a calm and coherent manner. 19:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Good evening Gareth. I'm sure you wouldn't mind being gracious enough to point me in the way of this consensus, I guess I must have missed it when looking through the archives? Thanks in advance for you coöperation in the matter. Also, do you have any thoughts on the matter yet, now you've had a few days to mull it over? ItsKesha (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- It is in the MOS and has been in the various articles for so long that it's the current established standard. So your next step should be one of two things 1) try to establish a consensus to remove them for "non-Luchadors" or 2) stop talking about it. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- Good evening Gareth. I'm sure you wouldn't mind being gracious enough to point me in the way of this consensus, I guess I must have missed it when looking through the archives? Thanks in advance for you coöperation in the matter. Also, do you have any thoughts on the matter yet, now you've had a few days to mull it over? ItsKesha (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- A consensus exists. I think that anyone wanting to change the existing consensus would need to establish a new consensus. You are welcome to open a discussion that puts forward your points in a calm and coherent manner. 19:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Was there ever actually a consensus? The only discussions in the archives about the specific inclusion of it is this, where *Treker, Ribbon Salminen, starship.paint, Feedback and Mattspac all say that it should apply to Lucha wrestlers only, you disagreeing, and MPJ-DK debating what should be included as a Luchas de Apuestas. Here, where only two people seem to have an opinion on the inclusion - you and Prefall, who disagrees with the inclusion. And here, where you argue for the inclusion while both Feedback and MPJ-DK say only for lucha wrestlers. Maybe we should have discussion regarding a new consensus? ItsKesha (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- You said you aren't looking for a new consensus, but you keep answering every user even when they explained the situation. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
NXT India
NXT India, currently a redirect to NXT (WWE brand) has been nominated for deletion at RfD. Input from those familiar with the topic area would be useful - please comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 7#NXT India. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)