Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 91

Archive 85

←

Archive 89

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

Archive 93

→

Archive 95

Category:Olympic athletes who wrestled professionally

This category has been proposed for discussion - you can vote here. McPhail (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Brimstone (wrestler)

Hey everyone, Merry Christmas. There was recently an edit war over at Brimstone (wrestler), and a subsequent sockpuppet investigation found that at least two of the major contributors to the article were the same person. One only has to look at the talk page to see how many years disruptive edits were able to go unchecked... at one point this article was apparently larger than The Undertaker and Sting (wrestler). Although the puffery has now been removed from the article, it would be nice if you folks could add this article to your watchlists to monitor for further abuse.LM2000 (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do we even keep this guy's article? he obviously wrote it himself 92.12.19.172 (talk) 12:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Well it has survived two AfDs in the past and although some of the accounts in question were used for leverage I think it would have survived anyway. I removed a prod that was placed on the article awhile ago, based on this. I do think that it passes WP:GNG requirements (more for comic book work than the wrestling career) but a case could be made that given the long term abuse, which wasn't as clear during the first two AfDs, but has always been pervasive throughout the article, the best method to deal with it is deletion... even if it is just to blow it up and start over. But I do think the article looks fine the way it is at the moment so I have no motivation to personally nominate this.LM2000 (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Upon further review, a good case could be made that this fails WP:ENT. A number of the sources left are still unreliable as the primary sources are somehow related to Brimstone in one way or another. A lot of the reliable sources left seem to be completely routine. The bulk of what is left of his wrestling career section has "citation needed" tags next to it. I still don't have motivation to nominate it for deletion myself, as the person who started the sockpuppet investigation I don't want to become too involved in this kind of thing, but if someone else takes the initiative then you have my support.LM2000 (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated for deletion. I don't recall ever seeing this article before and I've certainly never heard of Brimstone. Quite astonished by the whole business. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

third time's the charm? - might I also mention that I feel it is our responsibility to delete his Wikiquote page as well after his Wikipedia page goes? Starship.paint (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That too has faced deletion before, although I don't think sockpuppets were used to get that one... The users in the discussion seem to have been unfamiliar with professional wrestling, but they saw his gargantuan article and assumed he was notable.[1] LM2000

Once the wikipedia article is deleted, we'll just propose the wikiquote one goes too because the subject is not notable. Starship.paint (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

He has a Wikiquote page??? O_O ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Articles like this gives me hope to have my own Wiki article. Delete, Wikipedia, Wikiquotes and photos.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright I've proposed a deletion of the Wikiquote page as well here, please head over there to vote. Starship.paint (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess HHH's suggestion of photos is the next stop on the critical massacre bus tour? Just a few days ago I didn't even think that the main article was going to be deleted, it's hard to believe so much progress has been made since.LM2000 (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that one of the points brought up by Starship in the AfD was that Brimstone associated himself with people who weren't notable. Apparently RingWars2007 attempted to make an article for Brimstone's pal Mayhem... Our very own Suriel saw through the bullshit in that article and voted for it to be deleted in 2007. Good job on not being bamboozled! They also attempted to make an article for Wrestling Rescue which the Brimstone article claimed he had been a part of. I'll sort through the rest of the sockpuppets history for more puffery and/or malicious edits, but it looks like we got most of it covered by now.LM2000 (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

See, I get it right sometimes! ^_^ I think the photos would be more difficult to expunge. The Commons has a profoundly inclusionist outlook and it's damn near impossible to get anything deleted there unless it's a copyright violation. The best argument would be that the photos are "advertising or self-promotion". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

here the reason was no notable wrestler with a deleted article. However, it was keep because it was sued in some article (maybe, OVW Womens Title) If Brimstone article is deleted, will be the photos of a no notable wrestler, with a delete article and without use. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

oops. I missed the latest discussion and went ahead targeting Commons already. Suriel, surely the Mayhem article would have linked to Brimstone. You should have clicked that, huh? (lol) Starship.paint (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Jeez, you're probably right! I never thought of that. *facepalm* Ah well. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak

And it's gone. While the battle rages on on Commons, I've nominated some files for deletion here on the homefront.LM2000 (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

"Time to experience Deletion, then Déjà vu!!!" Well done guys, but it's not over yet! Starship.paint (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiQuote has been neutralized, all articles of Brimstone are down! Only pictures left... Starship.paint (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

one! two! ...three! Ring the bell... Commons and en.wiki pictures have been nuked. Brimstone is no more. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 11:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Featured article candidate: Money in the Bank (2011)

Hi guys, after WillC passed Money in the Bank (2011) to GA, I am now nominating for FA. Please feel free to leave your comments on the article at the link in the title. Anyone can weigh in to see if it fits the criteria. I especially need your help because it seems that non-WP:PW editors don't seem to like reviewing pro wrestling articles much... I nominated another article for peer review and it was totally ignored. Not to mention, MITB'11 was awesome, especially its main event. So hop on down and let's get an FA rolling. Thank you. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 11:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk archive changed to 21 days

Initially, the talk page would archive conversations older than 7 days. A few years ago, I changed it to 14 due to an obvious decrease in participation on the talk page which led to "unfinished" conversations being archived. I kinda noticed that is now occurring again. 14 days does not seem like an appropriate amount anymore. I have changed it to 21. It does sound like a lot of time to archive an old conversation, but we only have about 10-11 sections at one time in comparison to 20-30 like we used to. If there is a spike in participation and the page gets cluttered, we can change it back, but until then, I think this is the correct choice going forward. Feedback ^☎ 14:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Rumble competitors

Well, while I'm seeing the PPV, I have a question. I don't know if this wiki has some kind of Table fetish, but I think we can do better the rumble articles. i don't understand why the wrestlers are in a table about when they were confirmed. I think we can delete the ugly table and put the information in the background section as text. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

WON PWI Awards

Attention, please. Now, the PWI and WOn give their awards to Pro wrestling. However, I saw a very sad thing. The articles about the awards suffer vandalism. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro_Wrestling_Illustrated_awards&offset=&limit=500&action=history 500 editions, a lot of IPs, some of them changed the winners and runner ups. ) Both are huge articles with near 1000 names, so it's hard to find wrong winners that an IP wrote 6 months ago. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro_Wrestling_Illustrated_awards&diff=591551796&oldid=577464284 1997 feud of the year was Hart-Michaels or DDP-Savage? The first runner up 2005 feud of the year as Orton taker or Daniels Styles? I don't know, because it's hard to find sources. What do you think? I think we should improve the articles. My two ideas: delete the runner ups. Some of them are hard to source. Second, protect the articles. Both pages need one upload per year, so they are vandalism target 364 days per year. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, protection makes sense if they are frequent targets of vandalism since the lists only need to be updated once a year. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

However, I need help. Some winners and runner ups were changed, and I don't know the real winners. Ideas? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Here you go. I think they're all archived, but haven't clicked them all. It was a good site while it lasted. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope, missing a few pages. And it only goes till 2007. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I know it, but only until 2007. Also, we haven't one for the WON awards. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You could try asking Meltzer or Alvarez if they'd send them to you. They seem quite active on Twitter, too, but I don't touch that. The world must know what the worst matches of 1993 were! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This could be useful. Not "reliable", but I think it's telling us the truth. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Look at that. It's already in our article. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, It sounds like my weekend homework XD --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I definitely agree with 364-day protection (or something close to it). Nothing could reasonably change in between issues. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Problematic editor: User:Valentfred (talk)

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Valentfred, who frequently edits wrestler's bios, that may need you to weigh in if you have come into contact with this editor before. Thank you. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 02:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for weighing in guys, result was that he was indef blocked. He quickly created a sockpuppet ValentSamuel, but the admins have banned that as well. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 02:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Smark Alert

The Royal Rumble (2014) page is beset by upset fans looking for a soap box. In the less than 12 hours since the show, apparently people have been able to judge that the event was "overwhelmingly" negatively received and that it's the Worst. PPV. EVER! (Well, since 2006 allegedly) Please keep an eye on that one and any other related pages to stop upset fans from sharing their opinions. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the section as a whole because it was didn't include a single reliable source, and I feel that something like this should. However the BBC did cover the intense negative reaction, so I do think that a reception section is necessary. I'm plugging in some reliable sources into the section now and will reinstate it once it looks more presentable.LM2000 (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Also, Mick Foley critized the event. One week. Torch Insider and WON will write their opinions and we can create the section again. (Also, I think the daniel bryan chants are notable) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I have some sources about the reception http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/Torch_Feedback_17/article_75938.shtml#.UuZwNkCDNok http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/The_Specialists_34/article_75939.shtml#.UuZwPUCDNok http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/wweppvs/article_75933.shtml#.UuZwmUCDNok http://www.pwinsider.com/article/83111/wwe-legend-hates-wwes-booking-of-daniel-bryan.html?p=1 http://www.pwinsider.com/article/83113/live-royal-rumble-notes.html?p=1 http://www.pwinsider.com/article/83114/mick-foley-goes-deeper-into-his-disgust-over-the-royal-rumble.html?p=1 http://www.pwinsider.com/article/83108/complete-wwe-royal-rumble-2014-coverage.html?p=1 http://www.pwinsider.com/article/83109/vince-mcmahon-is-deaf-the-fans-call-for-bryan-at-number-19-the-rumble-gets-big-sexy-the-other-number-one-guy-in-the-rumble-and-the-first-one-out-since-vince-mcmahon-doesnt-seem-to-hear-them-the-wwe-universe-makes-their-feelings-known-during-the-wwe-title-match-full-royal-rumble-blog.html?p=1 http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/2014/01/27/21426481.html --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I liked it, overall. Certainly been worse. But yeah, the reception for an event always deserves a section. And no, fanboys can't be their own sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

WOW Peticionbuzz: http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/giveusbryan Change: https://www.change.org/petitions/world-wrestling-entertainment-listen-to-your-fans-put-daniel-bryan-in-the-wrestlemania-xxx-wwe-world-heavyweight-championship-contest YESMovement: https://www.change.org/petitions/wwe-yes-to-daniel-bryan-yesmovement# In a few days, we'll create The Bryan Danielson Incident XD --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources. In fact the crowd's reaction is reported as one of the top things on the show. I have added (and will be adding more) to the article. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have done some work :) Elaborated on crowd's reception to PPV. Added Canadian Online Explorer review and two Pro Wrestling Torch reviews. The "event" section looks easy to write and I should be getting to that in the next two days. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Need the input of you guys here. Should I remove Storm's and J.R.'s comments (veterans), and merge / elaborate Foley's social media comments with the BBC paragraph, saying Foley's comments were highlighted by the BBC and the Mirror? Storm's and J.R.'s comments are pretty indirect, they're more of regarding Bryan than the PPV? starship.paint (talk | contribs) 13:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all, great job. Far more balanced than before. Second of all, I added those Storm and JR bits, and I couldn't care less if they stayed. So I removed them. The original editors of the reception piece had gone into detail about how veterans commented on the event, but only had Mick Foley reliably sourced and I was just trying to expand on their work. Looks better without it in my opinion.LM2000 (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

On a related note someone may want to keep an eye of Mysterio's article since I recently removed a claim that he is now a heel since he was booed at the Rumble. Obviously, being booed does not automatically make a character a heel but newer users not familiar with the term may mistakenly try to re-add that.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

They should boo themselves for not watching the pre-Rumble promos. Mysterio said he'd be there, winning it like it was 2006. Imagine how loud they'd have booed if he did. But yeah, boos don't make a heel, no matter how butthurt. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, take care of CM Punk and the WWE issue. Rumors, rumors and rumors. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Do we all agree that a lengthy separate section for his departure and disagreement with WWE creative is undue, regardless of how well sourced it is?LM2000 (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, for now, I think we should include only he left RAW. About the disagreement with creative and Batista, UFC, burnout... all rumors and not notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a fact though that he was removed from upcoming house shows. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 07:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the removal from future events should be mentioned, that is notable. The fact that the official WWE Twitter account supposedly unfollowed him, not so much. STATic message me! 07:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Edited CM Punk. Should be fine now. Also want to say that due to multiple rumours speculating about exactly why Punk left WWE, we should leave it out for now, unless Punk himself gives an opinion. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 08:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hulk, I don't like your recent wording regarding Punk. "left WWE" sounds like he has parted ways with WWE, not like he went home for a while. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 02:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That's what it says in the Torch source. "Punk reportedly told Vince McMahon that he was leaving and he is now off upcoming shows." Leaving is the same thing as "walking out on", but less idiomatic. Less like betrayal. And it doesn't mean leave forever. I left the "going home" part. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The sentence is currently "reported Punk had legitimately left WWE on Monday". My concern is, when the source says "he was leaving and", what exactly was he leaving? Leaving the taping? Leaving the organization? To me, currently if the article says "Punk had legitimately left WWE", it sounds to me that he has left the organization, and therefore sounds like forever to me. I know you left in the "going home" part, but it's still confusing to me. Does anyone else have the same problem, or can propose a better phrase? starship.paint (talk | contribs) 09:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it means the promotion. Clear by the context of not showing up to SmackDown, either. Not sure why you think it means permanently. When you leave your house, don't you ever come back? When you leave the toilet seat up, are your girlfriend's peeing days over? "Leave" leaves the possibility of return, unless noted otherwise. But yeah, if you can think of a better, neutral word, go nuts. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, so you're saying, he left the promotion, but is still under contract to WWE? ._. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 11:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, physically left. It's a breach of contract, but not every breach means the contract is flushed down the toilet (you should use a shredder or fireplace, anyway). Things like this are often worked out between parties with a simple handshake full of cash (or whatever twisted arrangement they come to). There could be a lawsuit over it, but Bob Backlund might also become President. If either of those things happens, we'll know. For now, if he's on their roster list and hasn't had a future endeavour message, he's either hardly working like Homer Simpson, or working hard like Matt Hardy. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, fans asked to White House about Daniel Bryan WM Shot. http://www.pwinsider.com/ViewArticle.php?id=83247 I think this is insane and notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes we can? Definitely insane, probably noteworthy. For Bryan's page, not the Rumble's. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know now. "The petition you are trying to access has been removed from the site under our Moderation Policy because it is in violation of our Terms of Participation." Can't verify what isn't there. Also can't link to it, becaue petitions.whitehouse.gov is apparently on Wikipedia's blacklist. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I managed to rid myself of distractions just long enough to check out SCSA on Arsenio Hall last night. You know, in retrospect, I really do miss hearing *woof, woof, woof* every 30 seconds. Anyway...Arsenio asked SCSA about Punk, and specifically whether this is legit or a work. SCSA responded by bringing up his own departure from the WWE, and that he advised Punk not to leave money on the table. Hope that helps any. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive194#Professional wrestlers who are "lecherous"

Perhaps some of y'all will want to weigh in on the discussion there, on whether Dean Malenko's lecherous ways violate WP:BLP, click the link in the title. Additionally (and irrelevantly), on that very BLP Noticeboard, I'm heavily involved in another discussion regarding a certain Justin Bieber. I wouldn't mind y'all reading and commenting as well on that discussion, though I must warn you, I have posted quite a lot. Thanks. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 08:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Template proposed for deletion

I've proposed the navbox for The Shield for deletion here. McPhail (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Tag Team champions

Well, I saw this article http://www.wwe.com/inside/hall-of-wwe-tag-team-champions-photos about tag team champions (surprise, Benoit isn't). I found some names and I don't know If we should change them here. First Zack and Curt were called the Major brothers, not the Edgeheads. Second, ShoMiz is Show-Miz. Rhodes and McIntyre are The Dashing Ones. Sooo. what do you think? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. McPhail (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

In that case, we should change ShoMiz to Show-Miz (or ShowMiz) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The Major Brothers was their old name. They used it right before becoming tag team champions. As for the lack of Benoit, I'm more surprised that Rey was excluded from the list. He held the title with RVD, Eddie, Batista and Edge, but the article completely ignores all 4 teams. It also listed MNM and Miz & Morrison twice. Weird article, I would just ignore it. It excluded Cena&Otunga, The Dudley Boyz, Road Warriors 2.0, WGTT, and D X too. Feedback ^☎ 08:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No Bashams, either. I don't like the cut of its jib. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

well, the article says "photos of some memorable champions". Of course, isn't the official title history. However, it was strange to see The Major Brothers.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

They definitely weren't very major. Or brothers. The Majors, I mean. The Bashams should be in every highlight reel of everything. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

some moves?

Should we move the articles abour Cliff Compton (Domino), Jimmy Reiher, Jr. ( Deuce/Sim Snuka) or Melina Perez (Melina (wrestler))? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No, no and no. Feedback ^☎ 08:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I think they're good where they are. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm more concerned that he wants to move Cliff and Jimmy to names they have never used. Feedback ^☎ 14:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

WOw, ok. I'll be in my corner. :( --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Never used? Not following. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Pedigree just switched them, but he initially said he wanted to move Cliff to "Deuce" and Jimmy to "Domino". Feedback ^☎ 09:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah. I used to do that when they first started. Snuka looks like a Domino. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Another requested move

"Adam Birch" to "Joey Mercury" McPhail (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Another another: "Martin Ruane" to "Giant Haystacks". McPhail (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Two more: "Pac (wrestler)" to "Adrian Neville" and "Ashley Fliehr" to "Charlotte (wrestler)"--GeicoHen (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Authority article

Do we have one? I can't seem to find it. And if we don't have one, why don't we?? Feedback ^☎ 10:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

After how they have put themselves over at the expense of the roster for the past half a year, I don't really care to create an article for them. There are better things to do. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 11:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@Feedback: See The Authority (professional wrestling). STATic message me! 16:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't it linked in Authority (disambiguation)? Feedback ^☎ 01:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

In fact, why is it linked in only 5 articles? No wonder I couldn't find it. Feedback ^☎ 02:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

For a long time it was a redirect... to Triple H for whatever arbitrary reason. They had a section at The McMahon-Helmsley Faction at one point too. I didn't know it had its own article either until this thread. About time.LM2000 (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was just recently created into a decently sized article, then redirected, then restored, then redirected again, then restored. Looks like the article definitely needs linking too and just general attention and expansion (mostly with reliable third party sources). STATic message me! 03:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I only saw the most recent article referred to by STATicVapor, which in my eyes consisted exclusively of rehashing storylines. Perhaps I could look at the other versions before passing judgement. OTOH, I could also wonder why we're so hell bent on treating every last little piece of WWE-related minutiae as inherently notable when many aspects of Wikipedia's coverage of pro wrestling not related to WWE are lacking and/or in need of repair, and that a redirect is the better approach. I watched the first hour of Raw this past Monday. I think it's cute that Stephanie McMahon has created a wrestling character which openly spits in the face of her real-life critics, but yes, I would question whether it's independently notable. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm generally in fair of including stables, especially when they're central in storylines. This is certainly different from the McMahon-Helmsley Faction or The Corporate Ministry. But I absolutely agree we have bigger problems. I have professional wrestling itself on my watchlist, and I just watch it pile up. Overwhelming, I guess. But I'll improve at least one general, timeless wrestling topic before the week is through. Not sure which yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well look at the article's infobox now. Who exactly are the Authority? I'm sure you can find sources that it's HHH and Stef, but everybody else? Are there sources explictly saying the Shield and the NAO are part of the Authority? Or Vickie and Maddox?

In fact, I have found WWE.com sources. The Authority returns from vacation, and it shows HHH-Stef. I'm sure Kane did not go along with them. Also, With The Authority on vacation, Michael Cole looks to Kane for answers. Everyone else - including Kane - is affliated with the Authority, but they are not the Authority. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 02:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It would also be a good idea to remove Orton as well.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The list is getting worse. I recently removed mentions Roaddog, Gunn, as well as Brock Lesner as members of the group.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

With any type of authority angle, the authority must enlist others to destroy the people's hero. But those are just hired goons, as any heel naturally becomes when the price is right. They don't get to set around in the mountain lair, plotting Goatboy's (and the WWE Universe's) doom. They just take their cheque and go home. Kane isn't a goon, though. He's a Director. Clearly a member, with suit pants and everything. Orton's pretty damn central to everything, but he's just a bigger pawn, the way I see it (I haven't been paying much attention). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Kane has a nice title of DOO, but in reality? He's a goon, beating up Punk for the Authority. Not to mention that Stef forced him to apologize to Punk, so he's an underling as well. You see, Orton is the Authority's handpicked champion. But he's not the Authority. The Shield are the Authority's attack dogs. But they're not the Authority either. The only one arguable is Kane, but the WWE.com sources I provided above clearly states that Kane is the DOO, but not considered part of the Authority. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

PWTorch reports The Authority (Stephanie McMahon and Triple H) did not appear on the pre-taped Raw from the U.K., setting up DOO Kane, Raw GM Brad Maddox, and Smackdown GM Vickie Guerrero to bicker about booking matches throughout the show. WWE announced that The Authority will return to Raw next week. - clearly, Kane is just "a GM". starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

If you saw X-Pac walking his dog down your street, you'd think "Hey, it's X-Pac." But if a van pulled up and Chyna and Michaels popped out in their underwear, you'd say "Finally, DX has come back to (your street)!" Doesn't mean X-Pac isn't in DX, just that he's a part, not the whole. Now that Triple H and Stephanie are back, the band's back in business (featuring Kane on sax).

If he's something like a GM, of what? WWE? Raw? SmackDown? Who's side is he on? From the context of those picture captions, they didn't need to specify, because he's working for The Authority. As an employed goon, not a hireling. Also, if he's not directing operations for The Authority, who is? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind that, he's working for WWE. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Judging from the sources Starship.paint has dug up, "The Authority" just refers to HHH and Stephanie. It's not a stable, and it doesn't need a standalone article any more than we need articles for The Undertaker and Paul Bearer or Goldust and Marlena. I suggest that the page should be redirected to Triple H and protected if necessary. McPhail (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Your comparisons are very off, this is not a duo of a wrestler and manager. WP:GNG still applies and the stable clearly meets it. STATic message me! 17:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing in the article that couldn't be covered in the articles for Triple H and Stephanie McMahon. There's no need whatsoever for a standalone article. Blatant cruft. McPhail (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Cruft? The extreme amount of coverage in reliable sources that can very easily be found through a google search says otherwise. With that argument many wrestling topics could be cruft since they would only be in interest to wrestling fans. Why bloat up their articles when we can have one for a stable (I still believe there are sources out there that label Kane and Orton as members), I have not been watching recently so I have no idea where the storyline is going, but it took me not even a whole minute of google searching to tell that the stable meets WP:GNG. STATic message me! 18:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with STATic, this is a notable subject. They have been central to several major storylines since they formed the Raw after SummerSlam. I'm not sure if Kane, Orton, and the rest are official members of The Authority, but everything they've done over the past few months has been related to The Authority. Their storylines and how they relate to The Authority would be more appropriate in this article as opposed to Triple H or Stephanie McMahon.LM2000 (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The angle is certainly notable. I'd have no objection to an article dealing with the wider "corporate vs faces" storyline that kicked off last year. Having an article that describes "The Authority" as a stable is inherently misleading, though. (Our own glossary describes a stable as "A team of three or more wrestlers"). McPhail (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The difference between this and Goldust and Marlena is the sheer scope of it. There's a lot of wrestlers and storylines involved here that wouldn't be contained in articles involving the articles for the two individuals. The Undertaker and Paul Bearer is similar in that they were involved in a number of angles involving a number of wrestlers over a long period of time. The problem is that almost all of the information involving their angles is already in Brothers of Destruction, The Ministry of Darkness, and even The Corporate Ministry... and that's not even including their individual articles, so The Undertaker and Paul Bearer isn't necessary. We can debate whether its a duo or stable, that seems to be a different discussion as to whether or not the article should exist.LM2000 (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I hate it that I disappear for a few days and come back to see common sense being thrown out the window. WWE.com clearly defines EVERY SINGLE Authority member's role. There is absolutely no reason for us to exclude the wrestlers from the stable. The very thought of doing so sounds so preposterous. When 2 members of a stable are together, they're usually referred to by the stable's name. So yeah, you're going to see sources refer to Triple H & Steph as "The Authority". You'll also see sources refer to Kenny and Nicky as "Spirit Squad", Heath and Justin as "Nexus", and Road Dogg and Billy Gunn as "D-X", and so on. Sorry to be blunt, but this discussion has gotten a little out-of-hand with these silly conclusions of yours. Feedback ^☎ 19:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

See I knew there was obviously sources out there for it. Every person mentioned as being a member of the stable in that source should be also listed in the article. STATic message me! 20:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ. At its strictest definition, the Authority is only HHH and Stef, the rest are affiliated wrestlers. I will state again the sources I provided above: WWE.com states that the Authority returns from vacation on the 11/18 Raw, and the photo shows HHH-Stef. When did they go on vacation? The 11/11 Raw. Here, read SLAM!'s report for 11/11. Breaking news: The Authority is on vacation! Michael Cole says that means we don't know who is in charge tonight. So who's left to appear on Raw? Randy Orton, Kane and the Shield all appeared on that episode. Kane is the only one who didn't wrestle a match. How can the Authority go on vacation if more than half of its supposed stable members appeared on Raw? That's because, the rest are merely affiliated. That's why, the second source I originally found, which is the post-Raw interview for 11/11, states that with The Authority on vacation, Michael Cole looks to Kane for answers. If Nexus is on vacation, Heath Slater wouldn't be on Raw, right? starship.paint (talk | contribs) 08:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not only me, but PWTorch agrees. Here are the news and notes by PWTorch coming out of the Jan 20, 2014 Raw. The Authority (Triple H and Stephanie McMahon) appeared on Raw TV for the first time in 2014 to set the stage for Batista's TV return and reprimand Orton for attacking John Cena, Sr. last week on Raw. But on the 1/6 Raw, Kane, Shield and Orton have all made appearances already. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 08:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, see this Raw report by SLAM! in mid-December. Orton claims he doesn't have to listen to anybody. But The Authority is huddling behind him, and HHH says ... / ... Orton does what you'd expect and complains to The Authority about having to face Bryan. Based on common sense, "authority" refers to authority figures. Orton and the Shield are definitely not authority figures. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 08:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Talking about members, I think we should take a look on The McMahon-Helmsley Faction associated members. Too many and no sources. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, chop away. Or source away. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back, Feedback. Good catch. I stay away from that place. Too much Javascript. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Who initially named Kane the Director of Operations? A-ha! Take him away, boys. Wait, no. Leave him in. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I get that it's a shit source, but if that's the way it went, Steph's got his mask. I'm not totally sure what that means, but it's a serious commitment.

The Shield are explicitly called "hired goons" in that WWE source, so depends where you draw the line, but Orton is nothing but a "chosen representative". Choosing isn't a two-way street. It's like, when you bet on a horse and pump it full of "nutrients" while filling the others with "sand". That horse didn't sign up for this. But they have a vested, crooked interest in him. What does he get out of it? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I followed Feedback's simplistic approach, and found Kane's official bio. It's pretty clear he's part of The Authority, but he is not The Authority. But also simply, Stephanie and Triple H are not The Authority. "Kane submitted to Stephanie McMahon and the control of The Authority". It's bigger than all of them, just like any corporation. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

To me, it still makes some sense if the Authority are referring to the duo of HHH and Stef. Problem is, the article would be more suited to be regarding the "expanded" Authority, which would include Kane, Orton and the Shield. Unless, we make a note in the lead, saying, strictly speaking, the Authority refers the power couple, but they are affiliated with Kane, Orton and the Shield. The infobox would only list the power couple, because that is the true (?) definition. But, the corresponding content in the article can also be regarding Kane, Orton and the Shield? starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

True definitions don't have question marks. When there's no question about it, we can add a note. We've already a bunch of sources here saying these guys work for/are aligned with/serve The Authority. How many synonyms are needed? Every company has management and workers, never just a CEO and his luscious wife. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Consider this: anyone that has feuded with the Authority, (Bryan, Show, Rhodes brothers) has feuded with the power couple. But not everyone that has feuded with Orton or the Shield has feuded with the Authority. Cena has feuded with Orton. Has Cena feuded with the Authority? The Wyatt Family is feuding with the Shield now. Does that have anything to do with the Authority? Nope. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 12:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, but you gotta consider this: If some guy tombstoned Michelle Obama and threw her daughter into a flaming dumpster, all the underlings from the police to the media to the courts would be after that freak. But when it happens to some low-level civil servant, like a postman or soldier, does Barack ever do much but send a get well soon? Or simpler, bees and their queen. Cena can squash all the drones he wants, but if he touches her, he's getting stung.

And again, Orton isn't in The Authority. They just want him on top because he's "best for business", same as how real corporations want the right people elected. By holding him up over Bryan, they're getting heat and Bryan's getting the "common man" vote.

As for The Wyatt Family, they're just the new Ministry of Darkness. Expect CM Punk to figure into the merger, probably with a longer layoff beard. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

People, I think you are thinking too much. Sources. WWE says Orton is part of the stable as the new HHH. I think is pointless to think if he is th authority, is associated, part of, representative, the best for business... For example, the corporation, was HHH a member or was he a "wrestler who McMahon liked"? Again, Sources, WWE says clearly Orton is part of the stable. For example, Aces & Eights, Mike. People says "he is not a member", "he was attacked", "he was a one night member", "he was a prospect so the aces doesn't include in the stable", "he wasn't patched"... I don't care. We have sources which called Mike member of the Aces & Eights. I think Orton is PART of the Authority. If he is the right hand, the best for business or HHH's protegeé, it's kayfabe and storyline. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You can never think too much. WWE.com says Orton is the new HHH, but not that he's part of the stable. You're inferring that part, based on the other similarities they do have. It's not the thing to do, but if you insist, I don't care enough to revert you. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The article is called "The shocking similarities between Mr. McMahon’s Corporation and Triple H’s Authority". Orton appeared in the article, so it's pretty clear to me that he is part of the authority. I don't care if he is the representative or Triple H's boy, because the source includes Orton in the Authority. I doesn't need more to include Orton in the article. I don't watch RAW since 2009, so I read sources. I read Orton is in the stable and NAO isn't. To me, that I doesn't watch raw, it's obvious. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You gotta read the text, not just the headline. I know your English isn't the best (still way better than my Spanish), but trust me, there's nothing in there that clearly says Orton is a member. Nothing in his WWE bio, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Not to insult you HHH, but I do watch Raw, and personally, I agree with the sources I brought up. The Authority is the power couple. There might be an "invisible" larger stable including Orton, Kane and Shield, but that hasn't been named at all. I brought up two WWE.com sources, and PWTorch sources and SLAM! Wrestling sources above, if you click those, it's obvious who the Authority really are. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 06:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

WrestlingData disagrees with you on the invisible suit pants part. And with me on Orton's role. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to revert you Starship.paint, but the source cited in the article, along with the WrestlingData source look pretty clear to me. Not to mention the current consensus here disagrees with your change, so it really should not have been made. We have it limited to what is confirmed and it is limited in a way that we are not speculating or adding unsourced members (Maddox, Vickie, NAO etc.). Still not sure about Orton's listing, when he loses the title the stable might drop him and he will become face again, or they will go into overdrive to get him the title back. Until we get more confirmation on him, I do not think he should be listed. STATic message me! 07:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting this as a reliable source or evidence for anything, but it's a good analysis of the angle, leading into Elimination Chamber. Not like Batista and Triple H are trustworthy. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Restart

• Okay, STATic reverted me in the Authority article. That is fine. I just want to make note that I had not seen Hulk's wrestlingdata post when I made that edit. However, I disagree with STATic that current consensus here disagrees with your change. I don't think this is the case here. Analysing now, it's no consensus or slightly tilting my way.
• Let's look at who posted again: I feel that the Authority is the power couple, and that Kane, Orton and Shield should be taken out. 174.93.163.194 didn't disagree with me, and asked for Orton to be taken out. Hulk agrees with me, but is shakier on whether Kane should be taken out. McPhail looked at my sources and agreed with me. This is four people already. LM2000 is unsure if Kane, Orton, and the rest are official members of The Authority, so probably sitting on the fence. Feedback and STATic obviously disagree with me, you two think Kane, Orton and the Shield are members of the Authority, although STATic is shakier on Orton. HHH agrees with Feedback because of the WWE.com source. Seems like 4-1-3 to me.
• Now, I analysed the editors, now, let's go to the sources. Essentially, Feedback's camp relies on two sources. The WWE.com source "comparing the similarities between Mr. McMahon’s Corporation and Triple H’s Authority". If you read this source, you'll see Kane, Orton and the Shield mentioned à la "The Shield is the new Big Boss Man, Ken Shamrock & Test". However, it is mostly only implied at Kane, Orton and the Shield are the Authority. Orton is the "crown jewel" and a "chosen representative". Kane is "enforcing the COO’s will" "recruited to help". The Shield are "hired goons", and "employees". Honestly, the best argument here is that within that article, it is stated that "has become Triple H’s three-pronged instrument of intimidation within the ranks of The Authority". So based on this source, it is obvious that Orton, Kane and the Shield are working for the Authority, but it is never explicitly stated that Orton and Kane are the Authority. I believe this confused HHH. A case could be made for the Shield. Wrestlingdata does claim that Kane, Orton and the Shield are part of the Authority. Problem is, they outright contradict the PWTorch and Slam! Wrestling sources I brought up and will bring up again. If you were to decide on which is the more reliable source, who's going to say wrestlingdata is the more reliable source?
• On the sources I have provided, first, let's go to SLAM! Wrestling's report for the 11/11 Raw. Breaking news: The Authority is on vacation! Michael Cole says that means we don't know who is in charge tonight. Okay, so the Authority's not going to appear on Raw right? However, while Triple H and Stephanie did not appear, Randy Orton, Kane and the Shield all appeared on that episode. What does WWE.com say for the episode of Raw? It comments that with The Authority on vacation, Michael Cole looks to Kane for answers. Kane is easily ruled out as "the Authority". On the next week, the 11/18 Raw, WWE.com has some photos stating "the Authority returns from vacation" and Triple H saying "that last week without The Authority, Raw was full of chaos." So since Randy Orton, Kane and the Shield were present, it's obvious that Triple H doesn't consider them the Authority.
• Also, PWTorch firmly agrees. When the Authority name was introduced, they said: "WWE gave the heel power couple Triple H and Stephanie McMahon a working title of "The Authority." So did the Mirror. "It seems that Triple H and Stephanie McMahon are now to be known as The Authority". But, this wasn't the start of the storyline, when the name was introduced it was in October 2013. But the Authority angle, with Orton and the Shield already taking part, started in August. Fast forward to the Jan 20, 2014 Raw. Kane, Shield and Orton have previously made appearances on Raw in 2014, but PWTorch says "The Authority (Triple H and Stephanie McMahon) appeared on Raw TV for the first time in 2014". Meanwhile, Hulk also brought up that in Kane's official WWE.com bio, he was stated to have "submitted to Stephanie McMahon and the control of The Authority". starship.paint (talk | contribs) 12:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• TL;DR, Feedback and STATic please find more explicit and reliable sources to overwhelm those I have provided. Forgive me for letting you read so much. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 12:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually for The Shield's inclusion. They're goons, but they're the regular goons. Like an official army. Beast-Man, Mer-Man and Trapjawesque. Other heels The Authority uses for one-off jobs are more like those shady "security consultant" things. Kane burns those records, I assume. And no person or persons are The Authority. It's it's own (fake) legal entity. Triple H and his gorgeous wife also work for it, just in the bigger chairs, and less with their hands. Any combination of its workers can be called The Authority. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Or it could turn out to be something like Management in Carnivàle. Never should have cancelled that show. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Finally sat through the ad and watched that Kane/Cole interview. The goddamn caption under Kane's name says "Director of Operations - The Authority". Case closed. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Whoa, way to go, Hulk. You got me there. So we've got Kane and the Shield, that leaves Orton? A source for Orton would tie up the case, then all of them can go in the infobox. However, since I'm really stubborn, I'm going to ask for a compromise, that we state in the lead that in October 2012, when the Authority name was first coined, it originally referred to the power couple. This will be sourced by PWTorch and the Mirror. That will lessen confusion to viewers like me. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobody replied so I went ahead and edited the lead, didn't touch the infobox though. Main thing I want to emphasize is the origins of the Authority name. It is sourced by Torch and the Mirror. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it is beyond stupid that you removed Orton from the article, but okay. Feedback ^☎ 13:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed everyone actually. Then some were added back and now only Orton is left out. Frankly, now that Kane and the Shield have been added, I'm more open to Orton to be added back. All that is required is an explicit source, heh. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I for one would go ahead and add him. Want a Source? Eyes and Ears and three hours of Raw every Monday. Television citations are completely appropriate and the TV shows have made it very clear that all 7 of them are in the stable together. I accept that WWE.com hasn't been thorough in covering the membership, but the article I provided above seems very clear that they are meant to be a stable as the role of each member is described in detail. Feedback ^☎ 15:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Uncontroversial, right?

I've tagged The Iron Sheik and The Great Sasuke redirects for uncontroversial technical deletion, to move the articles there. Like The Ultimate Warrior, "the" is virtually always there.

But just to be safe, anybody have a problem with that? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

If so, you're too late for The Great Sasuke. That was quick. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, "Everybody stand the fuck up for Russian National Anthem or go fuck yourself." Just had to share that, but don't have Twitter. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:THE, support ideas.--WillC 10:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There are probably more like them around. Keep an eye out, people. On that note, I'm never "The Inedible Hulk". If you see that somewhere, it's someone else. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone appreciates The Inedible Hulk's initiative on fixing these articles. Thank you! starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Your tireless work on Justin Beiber is also noted and appreciated. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Teehee, good one Hulk =P He is Bad Influence. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, stand back. There's sugar coming through! You know he's trouble when the White House considers deporting him more seriously than fending off the threat of a flying goatbutt. Or maybe that's why we should call the other guys The Authority. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of WP:THE, I've recently noticed that New World Order (professional wrestling) has been moved to The New World Order (professional wrestling). How do you feel about that one, it doesn't seem right to me?リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

McPhail moved it without consensus last year. I once saw it and was going to move it, but couldn't do it automatically. We're gonna have to ask an admin to do it. Feedback ^☎ 12:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

agreed, "the" is not important for the NWO. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

"Important" or not, it's what they're called. Also, "The nWo" InedibleHulk (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

nWo Hollywood and nWo Wolfpac have no "The", though. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If this is true then this is contentious. How about the NJPW branch? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It's nWo Japan in English. No clue what "they" called it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

In context, the word "the" grammatically belongs in front of "New World Order", but I really don't think it should be capitalized and therefore be part of the title. Even those WWE articles use both the capitalized and not capitalized versions of "the".リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, they're not so consistent with the caps. But often enough, and always consistent with some "the". Leads one to assume it's part of the common name, as opposed to Evolution, Sports Entertainment Xtreme or 3MB. More like The Authority, The Three Faces of Fear or The Million Dollar Corporation. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:THE clears up this issue. If it is needed before the name than it is part of the name.--WillC 17:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There are several examples at WP:THE, where "the" is needed and almost always used before the name (Earth, White House, Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States), but it is not part of the name.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Each case has its own considerations. United States and United Kingdom are short forms of the official titles, not proper titles themselves. To preface them with a big "the" would imply otherwise. The Netherlands is a translation of Nederland, which starts with nothing due to how Dutch works. People should really quit saying "the Earth" altogether, I think. Just as weird as "the Jupiter" or "the Chicago". Fine when you're referring to dirt or grass. Not sure why the White House should be lowercase, but it overwhelmingly is in print.

From a purely aesthetic point, doesn't a capital "The" before a small "nWo" help set it apart from the rest of the text as a name, like a normal capital Would? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The move was not "without consensus". I proposed on this page last August that we adopt a standardised approach to naming articles on tag teams and stables and there was no opposition to the move.

The naming of articles on tag teams and stables should be consistent - for example, having pages titled The Mega-Maniacs and Mega Powers would both look unprofessional and makes navigation of the articles confusing. All the articles on tag teams and stables should therefore either have "The" in the title (except where this is grammatically incorrect, e.g. Degeneration X) or not. Not having "The" in front of articles would not be appropriate since (for example) The Gangstas were never referred to as simply "Gangstas". In addition, some tag teams and stables have a non-English definite article in their name - e.g. Los Guerreros - so including the definite article in the name is important to avoid ambiguity.

The naming of articles should be based on the consistent application of logical policies, not a case-by-case judgement on whether a page title "seems right". McPhail (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. We evaluate article titles on a case-by-case basis. If "The" is part of the official name, we include it (i.e. The Undertaker). If it is not part of the official name and is just used as a grammatical formality, we exclude it from the title ("the Big Show"). The NWO does not include the article in it's title. All merchandise and appearances overwhelmingly utilize "nWo" plainly. The article is only added for sentence structure when necessary. This is all explained clearly in WP:THE. I don't get how you can be so confused. Feedback ^☎ 15:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

And by the way, "no opposition" is not the same as consensus. You should know better. Literally no one in that section ever agreed or even hinted at agreeing with your idea of standardizing a bunch of articles with the word "the". Feedback ^☎ 15:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly hint at agreeing with McPhail. And I'll concede that the logo on their merchandise doesn't have a "the", but that's an artistic decision. If by "appearances" you mean wrestling appearances, the ring announcers consistently introduced them as "The nWo" for years. Rather than link 1,000 videos, just pick your favourites. For billing purposes, that carries more weight than a T-shirt design does (or we'd have Taz at 13 (wrestler)). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

WWE 2K14 is an example of official merchandise itself doing the announcing. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Feedback, this approach doesn't work since who determines what the "official" name is? It's not like a book or a CD where there is an unambiguous title. You claim that it should be "The Undertaker" rather than simply "Undertaker", but WWE.com simply uses "Undertaker". Should this page therefore be moved? McPhail (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Uses "The Undertaker" in the bio part, too. WWE.com doesn't seem to know what it knows. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

If you're seriously going to argue that The Undertaker shouldn't include the "The" then I am done here. I swiftly dealt with this nonsense 6 years ago, don't need to go through it again. Feedback ^☎ 15:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Another reference to The Major Brothers. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the page should be at "The Undertaker", but your argument was that we should use "official names" as page titles. The "official name" of Mark Calaway according to his employer is "Undertaker", not "The Undertaker". You can't have it both ways. McPhail (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I see you have a point. Reading through their website, it seems like they have abandoned the article when talking about Undertaker. If WWE has retconned his name to avoid using "The", then I guess the article should reflect it. I don't know if that makes it his "common name" though. He was known for many years as "The Undertaker". I don't think this is a double standard. Both are "official names", one just came after the other. 23:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:THE says that we should always prefer to avoid "the". I guess you've actually caused me to change my mind. Kudos. Feedback ^☎ 23:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if we're reading the same site. Just did a Google site search for the last 24 hours and found a bunch of videos. As of 14 hours ago, The Undertaker still faced Randy Orton, Kane and Sid. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't you guys get it? As Hulk pointed out, WWE.com outright contradicts themselves and mentions both "Un" and "The Un". Since that is the case, we have the ability to make a choice. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

If memory serves me right, I think I've actually flipped on this issue before all because of WWE's inconsistency. However, I vaguely remember someone pointing out a bunch of Taker DVD titles from Amazon likes and they all used "Undertaker". Feedback ^☎ 15:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

There's some inconsistency in text, but from Ted DiBiase to Howard Finkel to Lillian Garcia, he's been introduced one way since 1990. That carries the most weight, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope I didn't help get that video blocked through heatbagging. Greedy WWE Network. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Bloody hell, WWE. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Eddie Guerrero name

Am I right in thinking that Eddie Guerrero wrestled as "Eddy Guerrero" in WCW? If so, quite a few articles wrongly use "Eddie" in a pre-2000 context. McPhail (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, he wrestled as Eddy. However, I found some videos where he's called Eddie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMtQ-9LOjzs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU8zInTvjuM Mayeb WCW used both names, Eddie and Eddy. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about WCW, but definitely in ECW. WWE acknowledges this, unlike the "i" in Misterio. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

AAA, too, at least here. And EMLL. Every WCW video I look at from 95-99 uses "Eddie", though. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Major_League_Baseball_Advanced_Media

No mention of the WWE Network in the article. How come? Feedback ^☎ 18:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Why should there be? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind. Mentioned now, and I learned something. So yes, good idea to keep it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Renaming Joseph Utsler and Joseph Bruce

I've proposed renaming Joseph Utsler and Joseph Bruce to Shaggy 2 Dope and Violent J per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:STAGENAME. Your input at Talk:Joseph Utsler#Requested move would be appreciated. --BDD (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

RIP Viscera (leads to issue on article naming)

This seems like a small issue, but could somebody help me persuade WWGB that we should insert Viscera's ring names into the Deaths in 2014 list like Nelson Frazier, Jr., 43, American professional wrestler (Mabel, Viscera, Big Daddy V); heart attack. Either post on his talk page or argue here, it doesn't really matter to me. My arguments are on his talk page. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

WWGB has taken the imitative to start a discussion at Talk:Deaths in 2014 regarding this issue of wrestlers' character names. Please argue there. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Article naming for wrestlers' articles

But anyway, I want to ask WP:PW editors, really, can we stop having articles with wrestlers' real names? They're just not as recognizable. Other editors can weigh in as well. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Most of them go under their common ring names already. Frazier is an exception for reasons detailed extensively in the discussion above. As someone suggested this could be hammered out on the article talk page, and it has, even a RM in 2009. The last discussion really went in all directions (as one with knowledge of the subject would expect it to) but it fizzled out without any resolution. Perhaps we should discuss this again there while there's interest.LM2000 (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I acknowledge that most go under their common ring names already. But for the exceptions, they're still at a name which is definitely not going to be recognized compared to any of their most notable ring names.

Here are more exceptions, which Hulk and HHH found. Adam Birch, Allen Coage, Sid Eudy, Mike Jones (wrestler), Mark LoMonaco, Devon Hughes, Bill Eadie, Barry Darsow, John Tenta, Fred Ottman, Butch Miller (wrestler) and Luke Williams (wrestler). Who the heck are all these guys?

Joey Mercury, Bad News Brown, Sid Vicious/Sycho Sid, Virgil, Bubba Ray Dudley/Bully Ray, D-Von Dudley, Ax and Smash of Demolition, Earthquake, Typhoon/Shockmaster, Bushwhacker Butch and Luke. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Mike Jones and John Tenta stand out as possible moves. Although they wrestled under different names I think Virgil and Earthquake stand out. Sid, Birch, Coage, and Edie all had RMs shot down in recent months.LM2000 (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I acknowledge that RMs were shot down in recent months. But I'm just proposing that we reconsider our "strategy" of using real names at all for an article's name. Rather than the real name which maybe 5% of Birch fans can recognize, I'd go with the 50% for Joey Mercury, still more recognizable. I see it as a lesser evil. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see recognizability as a big problem. Virtually all of the time, we refer to wrestlers in articles by whichever relevant ring name, and let the redirect or pipe work its magic. Aside from Recent Deaths, I can't think of a place we'd have confusion. Even there, it wasn't so unfamiliar. Wrestling fans on Wikipedia likely use the Internet to read about wrestling, and the guy's name was mentioned often enough over the years, including on WWE.com lately, for the casual fan.

I'm still for only using a ring/stage name for a common name when it's overwhelmingly common. The Undertaker and Euronymous, Chyna and Cher, Sting (wrestler) and Sting (musician). Guys like Frazier and Birch are more like Sylvester Stallone or Rowan Atkinson. They're best known as Rocky/Rambo and Mr. Bean/Blackadder, but there's no push to move the article to either, since those names have a plurality, but not an absolute majority. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd support the proposal by Starship.paint. If 40% of people best know Frazier as Viscera, 30% best known him as Mabel, 20% best know him as Big Daddy V and 10% by other names, the best solution is to use Viscera as the page title, rather than using the birthame that virtually no-one will best know him by. Using Viscera helps 40% of people, using his birthname helps 0% of people McPhail (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Helps them learn his name. Is finding stuff more important? If so, we already help them with disambiguation pages and redirects. The article's about a lot of stuff that had nothing to do with Viscera, but 100% of it relates to Nelson Frazier. It's a bad idea, but if it's a popular one, I won't argue. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hulk, you can't use actors as examples. For television and film actors, anyone who watches the credits, which are part of the television show / film itself, will be able to know the name of the actor. (I just watched the Bean and Blackadder credits) That's so easy! In wrestling, which show actually lists the real names of the wrestlers in the credits? Are there even credits? Even if Atkinson and Stallone were wrestlers, I'd send them to Bean and Rocky, because I think those were the most notable roles. If you say help them learn his name, well, every single wrestler bio not counting the luchadors should have the real name in the lead, perhaps even as the first two / three words of the lead. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You know what's easier than waiting for rolling small print? IMDB. Very mainstream source for TV credits. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the %. 40%? 30%? Sources? We don't know the % people who knows Frazier as Viscera, Daddy or Mabel. I think it's fine if we can find a Common Name, use the legal name, because we avoid any kind of discussion. Also, for Frazier, I think Nelson Frazier, Jr. is fine. Sources call by his legal name when he died. Even LA Times and similar couldn't find a common name (for example, sources called Randall Poffo, Randy Savage and ). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The percentages were made up to illustrate the example - my point is that picking the best known ring name (even if there are several other ring names that the performer is almost as well known by) is more logical than using a birth name that no-one knows. As another example, what if there was a luchador with two well-known ring names whose birth name we didn't know? Using birth names is a poor compromise that doesn't help anyone. McPhail (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure if we take a look on WP:COMMONNAME, we'll find the solution. Maybe, a section like "too many common names" or "I can't know the common name, what should I do?". Also, I think it help us. For example, Dustin Rhodes/Goldust. We changed the name and one day later, one user proposed another change. Maybe Frazier is the same. Somebody change the article to Viscera and few days later, other user change the name to Big Daddy V. If the legal name avoid this kind of problems, fine. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

If the stats below aren't lying, people seem to be finding Nelson Frazier just fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It's impossible to tell how many have failed...? Besides, my concern was finding his page fro the Deaths in 2014 page. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

So stalemate again? :( starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Chikara yearly seasons thoughts?

A new article was recently created at Chikara Season One and it looks like the same user intends to create articles also for seasons 2-12. The article quite frankly is a mess, full of unreliable sources (including several from prowrestling.wikia) and unsourced claims, and is clearly written by a Chikara superfan with a possible WP:COI issue. I know there was talk of doing yearly WWE season articles, but what do you think of this one? Can/Should it be salvaged or maybe just put out of its misery?リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think Chikara is just too tiny to consider. It never held a pay-per-view until November 2011, so I wouldn't consider anything before that. From the article their live attendance record is 864 and High Noon sold over 1,000 iPPV buys, which seems too small for me. Any indy experts here? starship.paint (talk | contribs) 08:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Season articles are bad ideas to begin with. Too much fancruft.--WillC 12:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Part II

Hi WikiProject Professional Wrestling! I was wondering if I could request some eyes at a few articles related to Chikara (professional wrestling), specifically the articles on their seasons. Chikara Season One I don't know what the standards are for pro wrestling storylines, but these following articles are standing out as in need of improvement. The tone seems wrong to me and overly detailed. My instinct is, if we're going to treat it like a TV series, then shouldn't there just be "episode" or "match" synopses? Anyhow, you guys would know better than I. Here are the articles: Chikara Season One, Chikara Season Two, Chikara Season Three, Chikara Season Four, Chikara Season Five. Much obliged! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Most of the references cite smartmarkvideo, which doesn't actually say anything. Therefore a lot of the content is really unsourced. I think we need to kill these articles. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 06:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Wrestling#Chikara_Season_11

Someone has targeted Season 11 for deletion. This is like a hydra already. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm nuking all the smartmarkvideo references in the articles, which only show "the DVD exists!" and "these matches occured!" but no match results were stated. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I've contacted the author of the Chikara seasons article. She's new and I'm trying to help her adjust to the rules here. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone needs to look into a sockpuppet investigation on this. Alot of the editors that want it kept have similar editing habits and have all returned to normal editing all in recent days after 2 years. Pretty much each one has the majority of their recent edits all on deletion discussions.--WillC 03:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Consider it done. There's a good case for meatpuppetry if the checkuser confirms they don't match.LM2000 (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Good, nice to see I'm not the only one that sees the issue.--WillC 20:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The case is closed and four of them were blocked for sockpuppetry. Season 11 will be deleted in a few days, we should bundle the rest of the seasons together and delete them after that.LM2000 (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chikara Season One

And here's the rest of them.LM2000 (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks bot. Interesting February stats so far:

• 1 Elimination Chamber (2014) 325,507
• 2 CM Punk 324,500
• 3 Dwayne Johnson 233,724
• 4 Mick Foley 226,660
• 5 Dave Batista 176,197
• 6 John Cena 175,616
• 7 The Undertaker 173,832
• 8 WWE 149,011 6,479
• 9 WrestleMania XXX 136,955
• 10 Roman Reigns 125,962
• 11 Nelson Frazier, Jr. 123,251
• 14 Brock Lesnar 113,172
• 16 Triple H 106,368
• 18 AJ Lee 99,960
• 20 Sting (wrestler) 95,342
• 21 Jeff Hardy 89,581
• 23 Randy Orton 85,980
• 24 Daniel Bryan 85,792
• 25 André the Giant 85,388
• 26 Kane (wrestler) 84,895
• 29 Antonio Cesaro 79,943
• 84 A.J. Styles 39,083
• 102 Kelly Kelly 32,310
• 140 Dixie Carter (wrestling) 24,820
• 186 David Otunga 20,327
• 210 Maryse Ouellet 18,038
• 247 Magnus (wrestler) 16,138

Seems to me that the Reigns mega-push is working. Cesaro's stock is also going up. But what's AJ Lee doing over Daniel Bryan? Why is Bryan languishing at 24?

What's Jeff Hardy doing at 21, TNA isn't doing anything with him right? Poor Dixie can't even crack the top 100, that's how your authority storyline is working, TNA. Even more hilarious is the current TNA World Champion at 247. He can't even beat retired Divas like Kelly and Maryse, or WWE's invisible men like Otunga. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Where's Mantaur??? Stupid fans. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, there he is. #1849. Just ahead of intergender wrestling. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Poor Rosey and The Hurricane. Dead last for actual people. They should be at The Super Heroes, while we're naming stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be The Hurricane and Rosey? Rosey was the sidekick, right? You don't say Robin and Batman. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

No, the S.H.I.T. shouldn't go first. I'd call that a clear second choice. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It was moved back in 2008 with the explanation that it was more common to hear them announced Rosey first in ring intros. Whatever. Redirects are cheap.oknazevad (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Moved to The Hurricane and Rosey. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Move (professional wrestling) articles to (wrestling)

It's a long-ass word, and we use it a lot in Wikilinking. Many examples in the Professional wrestling slang category. It'd make more sense to disambig with "wrestling". Except for Pin, none of these terms are used in the amateur kind. Disambiguators shouldn't be longer than they need to be. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. The (still) Olympic sport is pretty darn prominent itself. There's a reason that our beloved spectacle is at the naturally disambiguated title of professional wrestling and the sport is at wrestling. The parenthetical diambiguators should reflect those article titles. oknazevad (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Unless there is a plan to move Wrestling to Olympic wrestling (with the current Professional wrestling article being moved to Wrestling) I don't see a reason for a change.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I'm a bit lost. Amateur wrestling's been cool for thousands of years, and we wouldn't have pro without it. Not suggesting otherwise. But Heel (wrestling) is never going to be used for that, because they're sportsmanslike. Same with Job (wrestling). Too competitive. Some of them (shoot, manager, pin) could go either way, so I wouldn't change them. Just those which only have one meaning in any kind of wrestling. Where's the harm? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh wait, yeah. Redirects. Those work, at least for editors. What's good enough for them is good enough for me! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

So you're calling it off Hulk? I was wondering about articles like The Nexus (professional wrestling) and The Shield (professional_wrestling). starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, those are in the same boat. Not really calling it off, just found a simple workaround (works for searchers, too, not sure what I was thinking above). Redirects could work for those, too, but if you want to full-out move them, I support it. The only potential crossover in stable names would be Team USA, Team Canada, etc. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Lower-tier wrestlers ranked by PWTorch

I refer to this revert by Antoshi. I found this list from PWTorch which was recently published. It ranks all the wrestlers into "Babyface Roster" and "Heel Roster", then into "Top Tier", "Second Tier" and "Lower Tier", and actually ranks all the wrestlers. I think it's pretty useful to capture this information, especially regarding the "lower tier" wrestlers / the jobbers. I added the source and such content to Curt Hawkins, In January 2014, the Professional Wrestling Torch Newsletter released a ranking of WWE's roster; Hawkins was ranked as a lower-tier heel and was the second lowest ranked heel on the roster. It shows the status of Hawkins at this stage of his career. It also helps to contribute to the section header of "lower-tier status", which seems like a good way to avoid jargon to describe this stage of a jobber's career. I'm sure HHH Pedrigree saw my edit and added similar content to JTG. However Antoshi disagrees and made the following reverts... An opinion column on 'face' and 'heel' "rankings" doesn't add much to the article. and Again, I don't see how this adds to his WWE exploits. It's not encyclopedic content. I reverted with Antoshi - this describes his current standing in WWE very well. He's the lousiest bad guy, lowest on the totem pole. Surely this is important for his career? The Torch is also reputable. Such info is not easy to come by, also adds to header of lower-tier. We don't really get sources saying "this guy jobs all the time", and this is a good substitute to reflect JTG or Hawkins' current standing in WWE. Antoshi's latest revert is I disagree. It's WP:Cruft; it has nothing to do with his specific exploits in the ring which is what his "Professional wrestling career" section should have.) So please weigh in guys, who do you agree with? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

"who do you agree with" makes this sound like a popularity contest. The point is to keep encyclopedic information on Wikipedia. I don't understand how saying "JTG was the lowest-tier heel in 2013" is encyclopedic. Like I said, it has nothing to do with his professional wrestling career's exploits, which is the section that it was under. That section is reserved for any and all happenings in matches, TV time, feuds, firings, hirings, etc. Antoshi ☏ ★ 14:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for my wording, but obviously it's not a popularity contest. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think it contributes to the article. Sometimes, the articles are boring. We only write matches and matches and matches... I miss some thing, like awards, opinions, reviews (from reliable sources, of course)... For example, articles about New generation are different. Bret Hart, for example, looks like a encyclopedic article, because his wrestling career included rankings, declarations, awards... and Sheamus looks like a list of matches. For example, Zack Ryder's article includes these opinion. ""He almost immediately lost his U.S. Title, was never afforded the opportunity to further develop his persona, was entrenched in a terrible feud with Kane and John Cena, and was the fall guy in his first WrestleMania match. Since then, he's become a jobber yet again... With a stale gimmick and no attention from Creative, Zack Ryder's 15 seconds of fame are apparently up." Pro Wrestling Torch analyst Benjamin Tucker on Ryder in 2012[75]" and "Ryder was ranked by Pro Wrestling Torch analyst Benjamin Tucker as #1 in the "Top 10 Crashing Stars of 2012". Tucker noted that Ryder was once again a jobber despite getting himself over in 2011.[75]" I think it's great. An expert gives his opinion about Ryder's career, is reliable, has a source... looks great. The articles say the wrestlers are jobbers and a reliable source made a ranking to prove it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The excess amount of insider terminology like 'heel', 'face', 'jobber', etc. are unnecessary and shouldn't be included in articles like that. The articles should be easy to read/understand for anyone that reads it, whether they're a fan of pro wrestling or not. What's more, saying things like "he was a jobber" is WP:POV, unless backed by a reliable source, and don't need to be included, especially not in their "professional wrestling career" section. Those things are fine for sections like "Legacy" or even the lead section. But yes, the wrestling career section should read like a list of matches/feuds/appearances, etc. Antoshi ☏ ★ 16:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Again this conversation? I think that inside jargon like heel, face, feud or jobber isn't difficult to understand. Also, we have a beautiful article where we explained the articles. From WP:JARGON. " Some topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them understandable to as many readers as possible. Minimize jargon, or at least explain it". We use a few terms (as far as I remember, Heel, face, feud, kayfabe, jobber, all of them used to understand an article) and we explain them in other article. Other articles like Cell (biology) or Linux where we find a lot of jargon. Sport related, Tiger Woods has jargon, like "birdie". I don't know golf, so I don't know what the hell is a Birdie. But, as an encyclopedia, we have an article to explain it. Also, an encyclopedia is a place where you can find knowledge. Knowledge isn't easy. If somebody wants to know about wrestling, he also must learn some jargon. But to eliminate the jargon because "it's hard" or "maybe a 10 years old kid doesn't know what it means" is bad (and and extremist interpretation of WP:JARGON), a fail as encyclopedia and shitty articles. If you want a list of matches, you have OWOW and Cagemacth. But this is an encyclopedia. We are more than a list of matches and appearances, we have encyclopedic articles. Seriously, this is the first Wikiproject where I see the opinion "people is fool, so we have to write as fools because fool people will understand us". Result? Articles like Bret hart or Scott hart are beautiful and articles like Zack ryder are shitty because we can't talk properly about wrestling in an encyclopedia --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The "insider" terminology that JTG is a lower-tier heel was clearly reported by the reliable source PWTorch. He was also ranked as the last heel on the whole roster, that is obvious. There is no WP:POV here, I merely re-stated what the source clearly stated. It's true, we can't say he's a jobber unless a reliable source reports it so. But in this case, the reliable source does back the content up. If you're going to disagree with the addition of my content merely because of the word "heel", I don't know what to say. It's a great reflection of JTG's career at this point in time. Which better reflects JTG's status in WWE - the content you deleted, or perhaps let's write JTG lost to Santino, Kofi, Khali, Ryder, Brodus Clay and Ted DiBiase in 2012 and 2013. Which is more informative? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Personal recommendation:If we're gonna start again the eternal discussion "Jargon, not jargon" I think we should talk with other users. Maybe, users from other WP and understand what they do with Jargon in their articles and an administrator. We talked about it some weeks ago and we never found a solution. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Your entire article is based on linking to the article. You might also want to read in WP:JARGON that linking is not an excuse. Heel, face, and jobber are easily explained and it is going out of our way to just use these terms. It is not showing wikipedia's best work. It is doing something just for the hell of it. It doesn't pass jargon, in universe, or fiction. Some terms in biology can't be easily explained and that argument is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--WillC 00:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not entirely accurate when we do explain these terms. When substituting words, some intrinsic meaning is lost. Heel -> villain is probably okay, but what about face -> hero / fan favourite? It doesn't fit that well. Well you could use "good guy" or "bad guy", but would that look unprofessional or informal? The more accurate you try to be with explanations, the more words you will need, and your explanation of the term will look too long, clunky and out of place. Try replacing face with "the guy you should cheer for" and heel with "the guy you should not support". Let's see you try to explain jobber -> frequent loser? I don't know, please try. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

i think you have a very extremist interpretation about jargon, trying to nuke every single wrestling term. When I read articles about golf, cinema, basketball, baseball... I found related terms. I mean, i dont know how will i write a good wrestling article if i cant use the correct terms and i must write only win/loss matches? Again, I think the best idea is to aks an admin. To tell us who is right.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

An admin is not necessary in disagreements over addition of content, nor do they dictate what is added or removed from an article. WP:Consensus among editors is what dictates that. Antoshi ☏ ★ 01:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Funny thing is I seem to remember several editors establishing support for the addition of faces and heels to articles, or that faces and heels not be considered as jargon. Such support actually outweighs opposition, but WP:JARGON is always cited by opponents. To me, "ring apron" is also jargon. Would non-informed readers understand a loss by "countout"? Every field has its own terminology, and the most integral terms are not considered jargon. Nobody is saying let's use every insider term in all articles, but maybe, just maybe, a few could be considered for discussion. Also, let's be honest here - the majority of people reading wrestling articles are going to be wrestling fans - not people who have no clue what wrestling is. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

"Also, let's be honest here - the majority of people reading wrestling articles are going to be wrestling fans - not people who have no clue what wrestling is." That's a terrible viewpoint to have. Wikipedia's not supposed to be slanted so that specific articles are 'catered' toward specific people — it's supposed to be an encyclopedia that everyone can easily read, access and understand. But I digress, this entire debate has been weighted on the three of us, with only one other person chiming in once. I'd rather wait for more editors to weigh in with their thoughts. Antoshi ☏ ★ 04:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

My last sentence is merely just that - my opinion on who reads wrestling articles on Wikipedia. You interpreted that I wanted to "slant" certain articles to "cater toward specific people" a la "cater toward wrestling fans". It is not my intention at all to purposely slant articles, nor for the sake of wrestling fans. Earlier in that same paragraph I stated "Nobody is saying let's use every insider term in all articles, but maybe, just maybe, a few could be considered for discussion." You didn't reply to that, or any of my other replies further up on the page. My concern is that a) by substituting the terminology you are diluting their meaning b) the terminology being discussed here is quite basic and integral to the field itself that it should not be considered as jargon. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It still needs to be explained though per jargon. Heel and face are not extremely needed since we don't even write the articles to incorporate the narrative. The bios or the PPVs mention heel turns but that is it. They don't go further like it is expected. They add nothing to the overall articles since there is no follow up. Take Orton's article. After his heel turn at SummerSlam it mentions it again and still never follows up on what that means. Oh he aligned with the authority but how is he a bad guy, what did this do to his character, etc etc etc. If it is so important than why are we arguing over whether it is more important to use it and explain it than to just explain it? The argument would be much simplier if it were shown exactly why this adds so much to the articles. We've always been able to use jargon. Ring apron is jargon, yet it is perfectly clear to the audience. We all know what a ring is, we all know what an apron is, WP:COMMONSENSE. We have had a consensus on this and to this day we still have people unfamiliar with the topic confused by terms. I myself have even cut back on going too far. The PPVs I write don't go in-depth on the maneuvers, instead they give an idea. We can talk about other articles all day, but random stubs, starts, etc don't mean much when there are plenty of WP:GA and WP:FAs out there that do what we do here.--WillC 07:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind explaining face and heel once in every article, if that is necessary to educate the audience. The first time face is mentioned, we can write "face, wrestler the audience is supposed to support". Then the next time face is mentioned in that article, we don't explain it again. So there's a maximum of two explanations one for face and one for heel. You claim that it's common sense to know what's a ring apron. So why don't you explain it? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a lot of people realize how hard the wrestling ring is near the apron, even if they realize what it is. As for the neverending debate, I'm still for explaining through Wikilinks only, but have stopped caring. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't explain ring apron because I don't use it. When do I need to use it? A tag team match? I don't even mention tags unless it is extremely important. Otherwise I say the side of the ring. The apron is only there for aesthetic purposes. It survives really no other purpose than to hide the bottom of the ring and to advertise. As for explaining once, that is good enough but I'm not sure how saying face and heel will make articles any better. Write the way you wish. I write the TNA articles the way I wish. As long as they obey the guidelines then I'm good. Again, jargon says to not rely on linking. Linking does not bypass jargon.--WillC 10:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Still, when you say that the apron is only there for aesthetic purposes, I suppose you are referring to the canvas. But, the ring apron is actually the extension of the ring beyond the ring ropes. Multiple times I have heard that the apron is the hardest part of the ring. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Semantics, but still what exactly is the point? The apron comes in rarely. In a summary it would hardly come in at all.--WillC 02:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so how about "count-out" which I mentioned earlier" Or even "pinfall"? Or "enforcer"? How many people know what's a "turnbuckle"? It's apparent to me that some terms are not treated as jargon - so why not "face" and heel? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Defining the apron is admittedly not going to come up a lot, but just so we're clear: The apron is just the curtain, what Finlay crotches you with and what Hornswoggle moves to go home. It's not the whole edge of the ring, but when you're standing on the edge of the ring, you're technically on the apron, which is tucked underneath. So the commentators aren't wrong, but the apron is soft. The "canvas" is often called the "mat", but the mat is under the canvas, over the box and beams. It's not actually made of canvas, and the ropes usually aren't rope (though they have been sisal rope in WWE the last few years), but steel cable. The turnbuckle pad is often called the turnbuckle, but that's the steel thing heels expose and ringboys tighten (not to be confused with the thing agents expose and ringboys tighten). Just for completeness, the recent steel ladders are made of carbon fiber, the steps are aluminum and the strap matches use cotton.

All in favour of including this information in every article about a ring? Nay! InedibleHulk (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

All right, that's it, the sky has fallen. We're screwed. but the ladders look like they're made of wood... starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Damn. That ladder didn't even try. Haven't had such a hard time suspending gravitational disbelief for the sake of a story since The Mega Powers toppled The Twin Towers. Of course, I refer to the Saturday Night's Main Event when Akeem's head kept hitting the turnbuckle pad after Boss Man stopped pushing it. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Terms that are important to the way wrestling works do not always have to be explained. Jargon does say that some terms will have to be used, pinfall, submission, etc will have to be used. However, Face and Heel are not one of these. They are apart of the narrative not the basic rules on the game. The basic rules is fitted in the main article and would be more like content forking to explain them in every article. Though, pinfall and submission are usually followed by victory or some type of term meaning to win. Thus, the idea is conveyed to the reader.--WillC 20:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

One of the most basic rules of pro wrestling is faces fight heels. It's pretty much the foundation. Whether a feud ends in a pinfall, submission, touching four corners, escaping the cage, capturing the flag or paddling the ass, the reason for the feud existing at all is good vs evil. Otherwise, fans don't give a shit.

The terms themselves are obviously newer than "villain" and "hero", but this isn't 1980. Even before the Internet took off, enough fans used the words. Nowadays, it's hard to find a secondary source that doesn't. If the generally clueless mainstream media can understand that much about wrestling, the mainstream audience should be fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You argument is invalid when placed up against WP:JARGON and WP:IN-U. You assume too much that the general public will get it right away without explanation. I've went through various GAs and FAs in which editors here on wikipedia still didn't understand and they had an interest in the topic, otherwise they wouldn't have read it.--WillC 17:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, the purpose of a Encyclopedia is to teach and learn. Isn't our fault if the admin. don't want to click in the article about heel, face or kayfabe to understand the word, but we give them the opportunity. In Spanish Wiki is the same, some admin. said me about the Jargon, but when I give them articles about the jargon, they agree to left the words. Again, I prefer to call an Admin, because I don't see any consensus about Jargon. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Both sides told their opinions and I understand all of you... but I don't change my mind and nobody changed his mind. We gave the same opinion we gave near 5 months ago and we still fighting about Jargon=Nuke jargon or jargon=minimized and explained jargon. The best idea is to find a neutral user who plays the judge role and give us an advice. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

We already have a consensus on this matter. In fact we have several already established consensus that haven't changed. They exist in the archives dating back from 2008 all the way up until now. It is called precedent. We also have WP:JARGON which can't be overruled by a discussion here. That guideline still stands.--WillC 19:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you're confusing guidelines and policies. Guidelines help steer discussion, policies end it. Can't overrule a guide, and a line can't stand. This one says we should minimize jargon, and avoid excessive Wikilinking to explain it. We've considered that, weighed against mitigating factors, and wound up here (wherever we are). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Look, the point is, go to any other GA or FA pro wrestling article. They don't contain anything along the lines of in-u wording such as "JTG was listed as the lowest tier heel in the company. There's an example of precedence. It's just awkward to read. Antoshi ☏ ★ 22:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Antoshi and WillC, while you keep pointing to GAs and FAs, I'd just like to point out; since I joined in May 2011, there have been zero wrestler biographies that have become new GAs or FAs. Note that Crash Holly is a rename and Tekno Team 2000 is a tag team article passed in July 2011. The landscape of the project has changed. In fact other than Tekno Team 2000, I believe that nobody can even claim to have passed a GA since then other than myself and WillC, and they are all PPVs. No doubt that WP:PW is different then and now. We should remember past consensus, but we cannot allow it to constrict us forever, because it can change.

Also, an additional argument: the fact that each PPV has a disclaimer to explain what's going on, what's the story-lines for, and then goes on to mention the equivalent to faces and heels - just shows how integral faces, heels, and feuds are to professional wrestling. It really speaks for itself. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

For WillC, I don't think we have a consensus. Consensus and minds can change and we still discussing this for one entire week. About Hulk, that's my point. I read "minimaize jargon and avoid excessive Wikilinking "However, looks like the opinion is Avoid every jargon and nuke every single wrestling word. Again, I have this same discussion in Spanish Wiki, but the Admin. agreed to use a few and essential jargon to explain wrestling. For GA and FA, I don't know. First, I have a bad experience (I nominated a PPV and it passed the nomination. I nominated other PPV and the admin. told me the style was wrong. They told me the style was wrong with a PPV as GA). Second, I saw Shawn Michaels and CM Punk. I read terms like heel, face (sometimes, also fan favorite and villain, silly words. Cena is a face wrestler, buth he doesn't look like a Fan Favourite.), turn.. some essential terms to explain proper an encyclopedic article about wrestling. The terms are linked to the explanation and I think regular no-fan people can udnerstand them (again, if they doesn't know what face means, they can click). Also, from HBK's article " Michaels lost the match, which featured both his and Ramon's belts suspended above a ladder in the ring.[32][33] This match was voted by fans as "PWI Match of the Year" by Pro Wrestling Illustrated.[6] It also received a 5-star rating from Wrestling Observer Newsletter member Dave Meltzer, one of five WWE matches to do so. Over the next few months, Michaels battled various injuries and launched the Heartbreak Hotel television talk show segment, mainly shown on WWF Superstars.[34]" Thats what I'm talking about. Explain more than a list of matches and a win/loss record. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Nothing in your statement said anything to go along with jargon. In fact everything in your argument was to violate jargon. You don't want to minimize jargon or to stop excessive wikilinking, in fact you you have been arguing to use as much jargon as possible (even when alot of it can be avoided or explained) and instead just link everything. Go look at all of the 2005 TNA PPV events, I wrote all of them and I use some wrestling terms. The terms you can't exactly avoid, but I still attempt to explain each and everyone I can. Hasn't harmed the article at all. In fact, 9 out of 12 are GAs. You bring up Punk, Cena, etc but you forget each on of those articles passed GA and FA years ago. Punk passed FA in 2007, almost a full year before we started doing PPVs in the current format or even beginning to obey these rules. There is a reason they are featured that way. In fact, I'm inclined to list Punk for FA delisting just because it fails so many policies. Take notice, this isn't the Spanish wiki, this is the English wiki. They have their own way of doing things that is not connected here and thus has no barring on the format here. Your argument has not been anything other than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and "I know what it means so everyone should." Understand negotiation, when you discuss you try to make a bargain, not go all in or nothing. This discussion has been done several times. Since 2008 this has happened well over a hundred times. The discussion has never stopped, but a consensus has been established. One that hasn't been overturned. Any agreement here is pretty much null and void since an editor can choose to ignore it when they nominate an article for GA or FA, because the idea here is to ignore jargon, in-u, and fiction entirely. These policies are integral to the GA and FA criteria and we can't force those areas to obey our ruling. We already tried, that is why we had to start writing the way we do. We didn't want to follow the policies, so we didn't get much pass the FA process. As long as you argue the "If they don't know what it is they can click." argument, then you are pretty much stating a dead point as jargon says that is not an excuse to ignore the rule. As for your argument that Cena isn't a fan favorite (I prefer the term hero), his merchandise sales say otherwise, he is obviously still very well liked.--WillC 02:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing Cena as a fan favourite? There's no doubt about his merchandise, kids buy them and they love him, nobody denies that he has a lot of support. But how can you call him a fan favourite if there's also a lot of dissent and boos? How many faces get booed as much as Cena? Even more points to shoot down "fan favourite" - Bryan after 18 seconds and Ziggler before his face turn were getting lots of cheers, that must make them fan favourites huh? But yes, Cena is a hero, he's the ultimate do-gooder, isn't he? Then let's look at "hero". There's Sheamus in 2013, when he challenged Mark Henry to a test of strength, and he kicked Henry's head off when Sheamus was about to lose. Then he proceeded to attack Damien Sandow, who beat him in a mental challenge. Or this year? Big Show, your "hero", knocked out an old man (Zeb / Dutch Mantell) without provocation. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

WHAT? I never, NEVER, talk about use every jargon as we can. I always said use the essential jargon. I always said to use essential terms, like face, heel, turn, jobber, but never thing like dusty finish, nearfall or similar hard wrestling terms. If the need 5 terms, we should use 5 terms, not 10 terms, nor 2. Yes, This is not Spanish Wiki but the fights and arguments are the same. And please, stop with Otherstuffexist, because as I told, I read every single article (basketbal, computer, films, videogames) and we are the only ones who avoid jargon (again Hero and fan favorite are shitty to me. the term in wrestling is Face. Face appears in sources, as well.). For example, Daniels vs Val Venis. Daniels was booked as the heel and Venis as the Fan favourite. However, the crown cheered Daniels and Booed Venis. Fan Favourite? (Fan Favourite and Hero look subjetive to me. If we are talking about wrestling, we should talk about face and heel, because the proper word to talk about a guy who is booked in pro wrestling as the man to hate is Heel, not villain, bad guy or similar.) Again, consensus was establised some years ago, but people changes and maybe, now we can decide a new consensus, because I saw some users think a new consensus is necessary. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's lay off "jobber" for now. That's nowhere as integral as face or heel. It could be argued that "turn" isn't jargon as well, if you use it as "turned" (instead of "turn"), anyone with a competency in English can understand "turned". Look, an accessible definition by PWTorch that we use: Babyface (n) The "good guy" or "hero." The performer whom the promoter books [dfn.] in the position of being cheered. We have been stating "hero" all this time but at the cost of missing out on the second sentence of the definition. I brought "pinfall" and "count-out" earlier, they should appear in PPV articles and I don't think we explain them, right? We just link to them. Why are they special? Because there's no good substitute word, is it? But I'm arguing that faces and heels don't have good substitute words either. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thnaks, Paint. However, I still thinking about use Face and Heel. :( My education, you know, german education in my university. "If you're writing about a matter and you need to use a term, use the proper term, not a synonym" If you don't understand me, I mean: we need to use 5 terms to talk about wrestling, but we use only 2. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I want to thank you both for your arguments for you have just proven another reason using the terms is a bad idea. We can't even agree on who is what, so how are we gonna write articles about these characters in that vain? Your PWTorch definition says the person booked to be cheered, yet, that would rule out not just Cena, but Batista, Goldberg at Mania 20, etc. The opposite that would be a person booked to be booed, which would rule out Punk at Money in the Bank 2011. These terms are integral to wrestling, but why do they have to appear in PPVs? I would understand bios since they will be used several times. However, I think we can all agree that Cena is supposed to be a hero along with Batista as they are fighting the bad guy, Orton. Pinfall and count-out I see falling within the part of jargon where we can't avoid jargon. We can't explain pin as that is utterly pointless and does not help the article. In fact, explaining the rules would be a content fork. However, we can avoid heel and face. We aren't writing articles like "At Royal Rumble, the villainous Randy Orton defended the WWE Championship against the heroic John Cena." In fact to write like this we'd have to treat the articles more like fictional stories, which people complain about now. Then they would look like TV episodes. We only ever use the terms when someone changes character randomly and most character changes are on tv not PPV. Again, I ask why are these needed? The argument I hear is preference. According to jargon, we can use these terms. That was never a problem. We just have to explain them. It would have to be "becoming a heel, a villainous character, by attacking Christian Cage and Rhino with a steel chair." However, preferring to not have to explain is not a good reason to ignore jargon since the term is avoidable. The only reasoning behind that is because of sheer annoyance and want. It is not exactly important in the current format and is not exactly used all of that much. In fact it is just ideological preference. I ask again, how are these terms extremely important to the point we'd have to use them instead of explain them like jargon states. How are these unavoidable?--WillC 23:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

We haven't to agree anything. We don't decide the meaning of a word. The words are face and heel and sources say face and heel, so if we use synonyms like fan favorite, hero, it'll be no-neutral. We write using sources and sources says heel and face and jobber, so if we decide to change words, it's our personal interpretation. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

OR, and against the advice of WP:EASTER, the way it's pipelinked. Like the "confederation" example, readers would expect it to link to villain. Highlighting the wrong words in navy blue just accentuates the dumbing-down. And by writing in past tense, it sounds like the tension was built and culminated at the same show. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

WWE is fiction, and has episodes. What kind of complaint do people have with that, and where? We never have to say "becoming heel, a villainous character". We just say "turning heel". It's unavoidable when describing a heel turn, or saying someone debuted as a face. In a PPV sense, it's good to give context as to who the "bad guy" is, especially since the disclaimer says wrestling feuds involve them. Not a matter of using them instead of explaining them. Doing both is simple. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Another problem with this disclaimer (while we're bitching about everything), is that "scripted" links to screenplay. Wrestlers may plan (and have planned) their matches, but nobody actually writes or rehearses from a script. Kevin Dunn, probably, but not the wrestlers. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk:, your tone and your aggressive edits are not helpful at all here. This is not "dumbing down" of text, it's making professional wrestling articles accessible for everyone, not just people that know the insider terms. Will has been making a very strong case here about WP:JARGON and WP:IN-U. I suggest you WP:COOL and discuss this further before you keep Royal Rumble (2014) going into a full-scale edit war. Antoshi ☏ ★ 01:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess you won't like my backhanded Talk Page compliment about consistent stupidity, then. Anyway, there's no war. Until we can agree (no time soon) on whether they should all use proper terminology or baby-talk, I won't bother with individual PPVs. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

First, not all sources say whether a character is a heel or a face and no, heel is avoidable. It is obviously avoidable since we've been doing it for 6 years. Sorry to tell you, but you are wrong. You have still yet to give a good reason to ignore jargon, in-u, fiction, etc. For a wrestling fan, I would expect that you would know that they do use scripts these days. Punk, Jericho, Undertaker, Cena, etc only the top guys work without scripts these days. In fact, according to Jim Cornette in 2000, the worst thing to hear for new wrestlers is "Call it in the ring." So, yes wrestling is scripted out of the ass, from the promos to the matches. All pre-determined. We are not gonna change an entire policy just because you don't like something. You have to give a credible, fact based argument that goes by the policy to overturn a 6 year old consensus. Your obvious actions of acting outside of the consensus show you are becoming frustrated and it is best you just let the situation drop. The terms face and heel do not make an article anymore professional. As for your confederation argument, notice how they fixed it. Notice how they fix all of them. They don't switch out the words, they don't eliminate words, instead they add the term into the already existing sentence. Thus you argument with easter is to switch it from "heroes and villains" to "heroes, faces, or villains, heels". And again, we can use the terms but you still have to explain them. You can use the terms all you want, just explain them.--WillC 10:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, maybe is time to change consensus. New users are in the project and we think this is a better way. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and they are wrong. They can be new, doesn't mean they are right. If tomorrow one said we don't want to use sources anymore, do we follow what they want? No. We go by what is the smart way of doing things. We minimize jargon and still use jargon today to go along with the MoS, specifically WP:JARGON. It isn't time to change consensus because we can't, we have the MoS to follow. Use jargon all you want, just explain the terms that can be explained. Otherwise, good luck trying to get it featured. Lethal Lockdown, Three way match, submission, pinfall, elimination, angle (word used in mainstream public as well), card, dark match, enforcer, interference, lumberjack, near-fall, fall, number-one contender, rematch clause, segment, signature move, tap out, vacant, etc are just a few terms I can think up off the top of my head and found in Glossary of professional wrestling terms. We minimize jargon yet use plenty of the terms. We use jargon still.--WillC 15:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, nobody is required to follow a guideline, and there's no apparent connection between the disclaimer (or heroes and villains) and Featured Articles. We seem to need as much "luck" either way. It's admirable that you've fought for it this long, but it's time to accept change. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, new and WRONG? Why, because did you decided it 6 years ago? Too subjective, because new users maybe think you are wrong. Dead point. Consensus is between users and, as Hulk said, it's time to accept the change. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Ex-f'n-actly WillC. We use "dark match" and "lumberjack", but did you explain them? How the hell are the two previous jargon and "enforcer" more integral to wrestling than "face" and "heel"? And when you refer to "new" users, you referring to the three of us disagreeing with you? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

How do you explain dark match or lumberjack exactly? I have attempted though. By new users I talk about ips or users who aren't familiar with the MoS or the history of the project that much. I say you are wrong mostly because you don't want to do this because you think it hurts the articles, but because you don't like it. My position is based on history and the MoS, your position is based on "I'm a wrestling fan and this is stupid." But for the sake of the project and the fact I have college going on, I have decided to propose a compromise that gives both sides what they want and I hope all of us can agree on this idea. No one loses here and the project gains.--WillC 12:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Break

Just because three of you have banded together for this, does not mean it's "accepting change." Given the scope of editors that actively edit on this project, there needs to be more voices and more opinions weighed in before a consensus is reached. Antoshi ☏ ★ 16:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

There were other voices. User:RadioKAOS, User:GaryColemanFan, User:Feedback, User:oknazevad, User:CRRaysHead90, User:Sennen goroshi, User:Croctotheface and that 174 IP were also against "heroes and villains" a while back. That's why our Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Background Manual of Style explicitly says to use "faces and heels" in the Background disclaimer. Forgot about that. So before worrying about the wider MoS, think about violating your own. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's a 2009 discussion. The reasoning after "Change is done." is worth a read. Do you have an answer yet for how adding an extra word in parentheses makes things less cluttered, Will? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

If being completely stubborn and unpleasant to work with is your idea of getting things done, kind of like what you did during the "WM29 print ads" thing, it's not working. You can keep pulling names from 2009 but those people haven't yet been here to weigh in on this discussion. I'm not stopping on this one until a consensus is reached. Until then, you can keep ranting and raving. Or, preferably, you can check your ego at the door because you are admittedly taking this way too personally. Antoshi ☏ ★ 17:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

A little stubborness and unpleasantness goes with being inedible (and it does get things done), but it's never personal. Always about people's ideas. Except with that AmericanDad guy. Maybe BlackDragon. One or two non-wrestling editors. Never with you or Will, so I don't know where you're getting that idea. Maybe try reading what I write in a different voice? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Using the WP:PW manual style is a joke. It also says PWInsider is a reliable source with no proof when it was declared here that it is not. Go back and look through the history and you'll see no consensus was made for it to be changed. The manual of style hasn't been updated in years. In fact, it is actually incorrect and is very behind on the times. Actually, we are supposed to go by the MoS since it is the style guide for all Wikipedia with editors being blocked if they don't go by it. The only way to ignore it is to use Ignore All Rules which we need a justified reason to do so. I'm actually inclined to get an outside admin with no interest in wrestling involved just so they can weigh their opinion on this of whether an unfamiliar editor understands heroes and villains or face and heel better. Just because a few editors don't like something doesn't establish a consensus. Currently there are only 4 of us in this discussion with a few commenting here and there. That doesn't establish a consensus as it has to be a clear majority, not a plutocracy. Again, to ignore jargon and the rest of the manual of style there needs to be a justified reason such as this betters the articles. How does this better the articles? Is it stupid? If you say yes, that isn't a good reason. I'm telling you again, you are on the wrong end as your rationale is losing. The MoS is a standing agreement that has to be changed by consensus, and one here changes nothing.--WillC 21:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

How can you say to look at the edit history in one sentence, and then claim it hasn't been updated for years? Can't tell whether you're talking about the PWInsider thing or the villains, but here's what consensus looked like then. There are 5 people in this discussion, 3-2, but the other 8 or so's opinions don't stop counting every time it's rehashed.

If I say it isn't stupid, is that a good reason? If so, it's not stupid to describe a subject using proper terms. But if you need an outside opinion on that, write up an RfC. No threaded rebuttals or rage, just everyone say their piece and see what's what. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Support RfC if anyone wants to start that. We can't keep bringing up the past and using it like what we're doing should be set in stone. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 04:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

WillC, you've really offended me with your "WP:PW manual style is a joke" comment. It's all because of PWInsider, is it? Thing is, either you weren't around or didn't notice when I nominated PWInsider as a reliable source raised it up right here on WT:PW just for TV/PPV results, not for rumours. What was the response? Deely supported. Suriel acknowledged that they had a dodgy rep for site safety in the past but supported in the end. GaryColemanFan said it was questionable and asked me to ask a FAC reviewer. I actually asked you, WillC, first, hoping you could point me to an actual FAC reviewer. But since you said "I don't consider PWInsider a reliable source, so can't help there." I didn't even present to you my arguments because you'd already disagreed, and you weren't an FAC reviewer anyway. So I found an FAC reviewer, Wizardman and presented to him my arguments, and he approved, so I added PWInsider to the reliable sources list for TV/PPV results. Now what I did was really a joke, right? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 04:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This should go in the previous section, but I'm curious. If I used

"heel" but explained what a heel is in JTG's article, would Antoshi still remove that particular content HHH and I added from the article? This comment and subsequent replies will probably be moved up to the previous section at a later that. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 04:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I will apologize to you paint due to my ignorance on that matter. I can admit when I am wrong regarding the conversation with Wizardman. I based my opinion off of a previous discussion held here when I was active long ago that determined it was questionable and mostly a dirtsheet since it was consistently wrong on various issues and used mostly rumors. However, I looked at your link for a discussion with me and I see none in my archive. As for the previous discussion on this matter that is claimed as the new consensus, I don't exactly see a consensus. I see a discussion that died and came to an agreement of users on one side, while the opposing side had their arguments. I doubt most would consider that a consensus. I see no clear direction for action from that idea. Consensus is not a vote, it is an in-depth discussion. Still here, we have not come to the conclusion whether heel or face is jargon that can not be avoided. If you explained heel in JTG's article, I'd be all fine with that. My entire position on this matter is to use jargon as long as it is explained. If we all agreed on having the disclaimer say "heels (villains), faces (heroes), or tweeners (less distinguishable characters)" I would completely support that idea. That is the compromise I am suggesting. It meets both sides of the argument.--WillC 12:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Compromise

"Genesis featured seven professional wrestling matches and two pre-show matches that involved different wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feuds and storylines. Wrestlers portrayed heels (villains), faces (heroes), or tweeners (less distinguishable characters) in the scripted events that built tension and culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches."

This way all sides get what they want. The jargon is in place, but it goes by jargon, in-u, fiction, etc. It doesn't dumb-down the article or is stupid. It allows all readers to understand what each term is without needing to click a link. Three jargon terms, explained in a simple way for wrestling fans and non-fans.--WillC 12:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. It still doesn't solve the problem with the JTG "heel list" thing. It doesn't do anything to expand upon his pro wrestling career section because it doesn't explain what he's done. I suppose you could answer that with "Nothing", but what's the point of saying "this guy has done nothing for this long?" It still comes off as pure WP:Cruft to me. Antoshi ☏ ★ 13:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

My opinion with bios is the usage of heel and face are necessary there because the wrestlers play the characters throughout their career and whether they are heel or face makes a difference on that character. However, I think with bios when heel and face are used the first time, they are explained. A disclaimer is needed a bit in bios as suggested by a few FAC and GA reviewers, as well as deletion reviewers, but once they are explained in their first instance than they are fine to use. But, not every single time they face a good guy or bad guy randomly does it make them a heel or face. There needs to be a limit to that. Some wrestlers switch back in forth without notice, I don't think that is very significant unless it is Lex Luger.--WillC 14:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Not a compromise in my books. I want the disclaimer gone, or at least, less wordy (per the MoS "policy", writing should be clear and concise). Now it's wordier, and introduces "tweener", which just opens a new can of OR worms. Stick to your original idea of solving this through RfC. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

No, because that idea is flat-out bad. Let's have a bunch of Jargon terms with no immediate explanation to the reader of what they mean? We're not going with the 'scorched earth' idea you want where we just completely obliterate the terms 'villain' and 'hero'/'fan favorite' for 'heel' and 'face.' You're so hell-bent on shoving these terms into the pages because you like how they look there. The point is to make it simple for the reader to comprehend. Honestly, just take the compromise idea. Like Will said, this way both sides get what they want. Antoshi ☏ ★ 00:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The idea wasn't to go with what I wanted. It was to ask outside opinions on whether to. You know, consensus. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I agree with the compromise, but tweeners are too rare to be mentioned in every PPV article. But I'm still concerned about Antoshi's stance on the content on the "lowest-ranked heel" and "lower-tier heel" belonging on JTG's page. That's why I started this whole discussion. I don't know how it's not a valuable reflection of his present career. It shows that he's going to lose to virtually everyone, given his current history. How is this not informative? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I included tweener because of people like JTG who switch back and forth between face and heel that no one knows exactly which he is. Or like the current Shield vs Wyatts. Both are heels, are there any faces, etc?--WillC 10:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

JTG's been heel within "NXT Redemption" since around May 2011 when he and his rookie Novak started to feud with William Regal. Look at his match list. He's only wrestled heels twice (once in May 2011 itself to Curt Hawkins and the other was a job to Barrett in a gauntlet match in two minutes. These two instances should be ignored if you're looking at his overall career. For Shield vs Wyatts, see this PWTorch source. Even though WWE has angled audiences to tilt slightly towards cheering the Shield by having the Wyatts back away from a fight, the source clearly states that that is only "since they are both heel teams". On that same Raw the Shield still clearly acted as heels - interfering against Henry so that Ambrose could retain his title. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The disclaimer can't be eliminated because then they aren't wrote for all audiences. Otherwise, every single sentence would have to explain the scripted circumstances. The disclaimer was a compromise to begin with so articles didn't become like December to Dismember 06 when it passed FA. Disclaimer goes by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. InedibleHulk come half way because now that we are attempting a compromise and you are not, an admin is gonna see you as attempting to own articles and not being reasonable in the matter. This is how we come to resolutions, all parties compromise. No one gets entirely what they want in these situations.--WillC 10:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I know that Hulk hasn't agreed to a compromise, but I think you and Antoshi are overreacting a little towards him. Just because he disagrees doesn't mean he's holding everyone to ransom. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think I'm acting rationally based on his response that this isn't a compromise when obviously it is, instead he wants to go further and compromise in a different way, by not compromising. Instead changing the whole issue to eliminating the disclaimer and causing a bigger issue at hand. We need to focus on the current issue at hand.--WillC 14:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The way I see it, 3 out of the 5 of us have agreed with the compromise, but we're still pending HHH's response. Getting the disclaimer removed altogether is a bit of a separate issue. Main thing is that the jargon (face and heel) can be mentioned if explained. If Hulk wants to take it one step further to remove the disclaimer, he can start an RfC, then Hulk's not holding anyone to ransom at all. If HHH endorses the compromise, then that's settled... (still waiting on Antoshi's response for the JTG content issue) But if HHH wants the PPV disclaimer to be removed too, then he and Hulk can work together to get an RfC started (though HHH's English is not his native language, so Hulk should take the lead on that). starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'mlatei'mlatei'mlate Sorry, guys. Usually, I work all weekend and I can't read discussions. Well... Maybe I think like Hulk, but the compromise sounds good. One question. When you say Heel (villain) and face (hero), you write it one time in the article, right? I mean, Its not necessary to include Heel (villain) every single time the word Heel appears in the article.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

That would be correct but most of the time they aren't really used again. That would depend if they are really needed and the editor who is writing the article preferences. As for the disclaimer being used, that is very doubtful since the disclaimer has already been approve by admins, GA reviewers, and FA reviewers as well as some from the project. Would cause more problems, since every statement would then have to be shown whether it was scripted or not, like with December to Dismember.--WillC 19:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd be willing to start the RfC if those who proposed it have reneged. But I'm not sure what I should list as Option B. Should it be using "villain" and "hero", piped to the proper terms, or Wikilinking the proper terms and having the pseudosynonyms in parentheses?

Or should it be about shitcanning the disclaimer altogether? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure an admin is even needed anymore. Of the five that have weighed in, it seems four are for the compromise. As for getting rid of the disclaimer, you can try but considering the MoS says to write articles for all audiences, the articles will still have to discuss wrestling being scripted. It depends on you, whether you want every paragraph to discuss the scripted state or just settle with one paragraph per the MoS.--WillC 03:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't about the admin, it was about gauging consensus. Anyway, I've another solution. Things are never as either/or as they seem. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hulk, currently from the discussion, only you strongly want the disclaimer to be removed. The rest of us are fine with listing "faces (heroes) and heels (villains)". Frankly, I'd take it one step further and put "faces (the characters that are supposed to be cheered, usually heroes)" because it is more accurate, not sure if you all will agree though. So if you were to start the RfC, option A would be to nuke the disclaimer. Option B will be to leave it as it is, but with "faces (heroes) and heels (villains)". starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Given that Hulk's edits are becoming more irrational and nonsensical, I think some thought should be given as to whether or not to take his opinions seriously at this point. Antoshi ☏ ★ 12:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, they have to ignore me if you delete stuff, don't they? If that's how this is going, fuck it. I'm out. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Considering the fact I removed your edit where you literally suggested "let's make an anti-establishment stable" on this project, it really makes me question how serious you are about this. Do you not understand the simple fact that this is not about you, me, Will, starship or HHH Pedigree? It's about making it simple for the reader. This is Wikipedia, not a wrestling fansite. Antoshi ☏ ★ 17:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There's simple, then there's simple. I think you could really help there. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Explaining jargon terms does not turn this project into Simple Wikipedia. Antoshi ☏ ★ 22:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Understand all of these guidelines were established by a consensus of editors over the entire organization. These policies should not be taken lightly. WP:FICTION, WP:MoS, WP:IN-U, WP:JARGON, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction are the reason things are done like they are. We have to work within these agreements.--WillC 23:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Antoshi, for both your sakes please stop interacting with Hulk. I think you're being too hostile to him. Removing a post on a project talk page is a grievous insult to me, and should only be reserved for the worst vandalism. Were you seriously threatened by a half or fully humorous post that I had ignored? There's also no need to attack his credibility, let everyone make their own judgments from Hulk's own posts.

Hulk, the way I see it, this discussion won't result in the disclaimer being removed. Only way is an RfC surveying members of WP:PW and maybe some other editors can weigh in as well. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

That may result in more problems than not. Disclaimer is removed, it will only lead to more issues with every paragraph having to use more terms to explain the scripted nature of the product. I still get those issues in GA nominations. The disclaimer goes by the above listed policies. In fact, the current disclaimer is a compromise to eliminate us not having to explain the scripted nature as much.--WillC 00:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please, WillC, there's no need to explain that any more. We've seen that enough times, either we understand or we don't. Please, save your arguments for the RfC if Hulk bothers to do it. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hulk never got a clear answer on the preferred Option B, and said "Fuck it, I'm out." Still a good idea, but not it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not the hostility I mind. Hostility and competition make for great things. We know this as wrestling fans. But the matchup has to be right. This feud here has been sandbagged and restholded to death. There's only so many times we can do the "Hulk explain guideline, Commissioner Will insist policy" spot. I won't job clean, but if a bunch of others want to run-in for a schmozz finish, a no-contest would probably be best for business here.

The sooner you put this to bed, the sooner we can get to discussing whether to consider a proposal allowing for the possibility of explaining how Irish whips don't really work. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hulk, I couldn't tell, could you clarify exactly what needs to be "put to bed"? Thank you. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This issue. However you choose to end it, it's just going in circles. Not totally serious about Irish whips, but there must be some more pressing matter. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I continue to state the policy stance because it seems some editors do not understand the point of the policy. Some like to overstate what it actually means, as such it shows that they have not become familiar with it. I don't mind to be Commissioner, as I agree with the idea there are more pressing matters. Such as the fact there is a current article nominated to be featured. We also have several articles that currently read like reviews, fancruft, or just plain non-encyclopedic. Our point here is to better the project and this continued debate for pointless reasons is gonna get us nowhere. As I've stated, the articles are meant to be for all audiences: clear, concise, and understandable. I suggest we do put this to bed and go work on the current 2014 events.--WillC 01:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have the "policy" on my watchlist. I've made some edits, and discussed others. So I'm pretty sure it's a guideline, and we're still playing knifey-spooney here. But yeah, doesn't matter. Good luck with 2014, I'll worry about the good old days. Plenty of crap there, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, this particular argument is going to end here. So, from now on, it is acceptable to use "faces (heroes) and heels (villains)" in the PPV disclaimer, and in every other pro wrestling article, the terms only need to be explained the first time, after that there is no need to explain face or heel. Wiki-link "faces" and "heels". That's that. The argument on whether the PPV disclaimer should exist at all, is a separate matter. However... starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Backfist to the Past

But, this wasn't why this section was created. It wasn't about the PPV disclaimer. We were actually originally discussing if the content In January 2014, the Professional Wrestling Torch Newsletter released a ranking of WWE's roster; JTG was ranked as a lower-tier heel and the lowest on the heel roster. should be included in JTG's page. With this content, we can also have the current section of JTG's career be "lower-tier wrestler", which isn't wrestling jargon to me. "Tier" is a word understandable to anyone competent in English. We've already heard from HHH and me, who support, and Antoshi, who disagrees. Could we hear from WillC and Hulk too? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not "Tier" that's the jargon, it is (or was, if this consensus is finalized) the "heel" part. And again, such an addition is cruft. None of the GA/FA wrestler articles have such a thing in them. Antoshi ☏ ★ 14:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any jargon problems with it, but it seems a bit too trivial and subjective. The Torch is good for facts, but this is purely opinion-based stuff. What happens if another similar source releases a similar list, with Zack Ryder at the bottom? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't actually see how the PWTorch thing is all that relevant. Sure it could be useful now but once the wrestlers are released or move onto better things, the list is rather pointless. Be kind of odd for JTG. Go from Cryme Tyme to lower-teir to (possible) US Champion. The lower-tier thing would be pointless then. More of a footnote then.--WillC 00:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Antoshi, I don't get why you have the tendency to refer to the GA/FA bios. No GA/FA biography has passed since the day I joined in May 2011. That's a long, long time on the web, and who knows how well maintained those articles are? Standards can change, from then until now.

Hulk, okay, so maybe, let's not state he's last place. Let's just state he's a lower-tier wrestler. There shouldn't be much conflict about that.

WillC, even if JTG wins the US Championship tomorrow, I seriously would advocate starting a new sub-section altogether. 2010-2014 is pretty distinct for his career, in which he won few matches and lost many, and floundered around in NXT Redemption. Winning the US Championship cannot represent his 2010-2014!

@All, to compromise, let's cut the "lowest heel on the roster" part, leaves just "lower-tier heel". Now 100% less cruft? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Because I would rather the article be treated like one that has the potential to become one of those GA/FA's instead of making it look like a fan Wiki. Hulk hit it on the nose when he said this is opinion-based stuff. The source and its contents do nothing to advance the encyclopedic content of the article - it's as simple as that. Antoshi ☏ ★ 15:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think it contributes to the article. Looks like a encyclopedic article, not a wiki fan article at all. Since 2010, JTG has been a jobber, without storylines or matches. The source explains perfectly the situation. A reliable source, a ranking created by experts in the matter, said he was the lowest heel wrestler. For example, some movies are bad and people say it (the movie had negative response) and sometimes, appeared in rankings (in 2014, the X Magazine, TV or critic ranked it #1 as the worst movie in 2013)--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd advocate that we'd just explain the lower-tier part since people are prone to changing characters at a moment notice. This way we show the point but don't have the possible conflict.--WillC 18:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Very well, something to break the stalemate would be nice. Antoshi ☏ ★ 18:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

WillC, could you elaborate on how we could explain the lower-tier part? "Lose frequently to a majority of wrestlers"? Or do you have a better explanation? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I would probably just explain the point of the list since it is PWTorch that make the criteria for the list and the point, not us.--WillC 03:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so here goes: The Pro Wrestling Torch Newsletter reviewed WWE's roster depth in January 2014, revealing their opinions on the position of each babyface (hero) or heel (villain) wrestler within WWE; JTG was ranked as a lower-tier heel and the lowest in WWE"? With the explanation, should we still trim "lowest in WWE"? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Since no one else has said anything, I'll say that yes, it looks good. But I would trim the "lowest in WWE" part because I don't see what that offers. Antoshi ☏ ★ 15:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Full year

As of today, the project now has its first full year of 12 PPV GAs. To my knowledge we don't have a full calender year of GAs yet. From the 80s to the 90s there are several GAs done, but during those years there were only about 4 or 5 events. Today the last of the 2005 TNA PPV events passed GA, making them the first set of 12 events to pass GA. I plan to create an article that will discuss the 2005 TNA events so that I can set it up for a GA topic nomination.--WillC 22:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Well done! For the record, all of the WWF events from 1993 and 1994 are GAs as well. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Congrats WillC, a very commendable achievement. In your opinion, what was TNA's best match in 2005? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 02:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@GaryColemanFan: That is true. That is what I was attempting to allude too with my statement. This being the first set of 12. I want to commend you on your work there. Very well done.--WillC 15:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Hard to say. 2005 was TNA's best year. Probably the main event of TNA Unbreakable.--WillC 15:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I've already watched the triple threat! That might be the best TNA match ever. I forgot which year it was from. Second best match? =P starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Ultimate X Challenge at DX 05. I wish they would do that match type again. Great concept.--WillC 09:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Cheers WillC, I look it up! But really a pity how TNA has overall in the long-term failed to push the exciting X Division as an alternative to WWE, they should have done that from the start instead of trying to be "WWE Lite". starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

They did, then 2007 happened.--WillC 23:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

#HijackRAW

Just so we can have some consensus should it come up on the CM Punk article, I'd like to discuss this here. As far as I see it, I do not believe that #HijackRAW personally involves Punk and therefore should not be added in any shape or form to his article. Of course there may be a swell of new/IP editors that disagree with me and insist it be added to the article, which is why I bring it up now. What say you all? Antoshi ☏ ★ 14:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, maybe we can mention it (like "after CM Punk incident, the crow chanted in Punk's favour, includin blablablah HijackRaw blahblahblah"... But I'm not sure. It's like the Fandangoing, a tear in the ocean. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel passionately one way or the other, but if it goes in it should go in as HHH describes.LM2000 (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

But this #HijackRAW incident has nothing to do with what Punk's done in his wrestling career. I don't see why it needs to be added at all, even if it's just mentioned as a fan thing. Notability isn't terribly high for it anyway. Antoshi ☏ ★ 18:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I just added the comments on his bait-and-switch appearance last night. I didn't put anything in that came from the IWC, but rather referenced directly from WWE.com on how Paul Heyman came out to Punk's music and announced that Punk wasn't at Raw. At some point, WWE had to publicly acknowledge Punk's absence--it's not like he's Barry Horowitz--plus there is precedence to explain a wrestler's unexpected absence for a star the magnitude of Punk. Jgera5 (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's true. Maybe we should use Austin incident as guide. The chants in Punk's favor maybe should be noted as part of Punk's "savatic year". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I tend to ignore things with hashtags. Carry on. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Various Afd and one name change

Well, I made some AfD and one namechange. If somebody wants to write his opinion, I'll be happy  :) Namechange:Mark Jindrak. AfD:RCW Cruiserweight Championship, RCW Heavyweight Championship RCW Tag Team Championship New Wrestling Entertainment Crossfire Wrestling‎; Jody Fleisch‎, Lisa Fury, Ivan Markov (wrestler)‎, Reno Anoaʻi‎, Derek Frazier Rockin' Rebel, Toby Klein and Robbie Mireno‎. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, what do you think about Ring Ka King? Since 2012, it has a Notability template. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd figure Ring Ka King is notable enough. TNA international project. At the least it should be merged with the TNA article over deletion.--WillC 21:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I also think RKK is notable enough for its own article.LM2000 (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

TNA aside, what else has India done in wrestling? It was huge, by their standards. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Produced Khali. He's huge. But RKK is notable. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

PPVs post-Network and NXT Arrival

Key issue here: Does NXT Arrival deserve its own page? As a fan, the show is awesome and you'd be a fool not to watch it. But with the advent of the WWE Network, we've got to start thinking: which shows still deserve their own pages? Contrary to my previous belief, the Network hasn't killed PPVs at all, WWE is still offering cable and satellite operators the option to broadcast PPVs at the old price of >$55.
For those who are not aware, NXT ceased being WWE's reality competition which was taped on the road before SmackDown and instead became WWE's developmental territory (previous examples being OVW and FCW) taped in Full Sail University in August 2012. It aired online on Hulu in the US, but was still broadcasted on television internationally. NXT Arrival was the first live episode of NXT since it became a developmental territory, and was the first ever two-hour long episode on NXT. It was certainly promoted like a PPV, with three matches (Cesaro-Zayn, Paige-Emma title match and Neville-Dallas title match) being promoted ahead of time and receiving substantial build. It was also the first ever live show that the WWE Network streamed. But it wasn't a "traditional" PPV. In that case, do you think it deserves a standalone article? WWE is definitely moving away from the traditional PPV concept, so should we too? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Not notable for its own article. It is a week by week type thing. Not a PPV, just a random broadcast seen by only a small number.--WillC 09:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with your reasons. It's as far as week-by-week as can be for NXT. Every title was defended at the event, plus there was Zayn versus Cesaro IV. It wasn't a random broadcast, it was hyped as the introduction of NXT to the wider "WWE Universe" and was also hyped as the first live show on the WWE Network. I'd also have to question where did you get the "small number" statistic from? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Build for Zayn versus Cesaro IV started on the January 22 episode of NXT (of course taped even earlier). Build for Neville versus Dallas for the NXT Championship also started on that episode, more than a month in advance. Emma has actually been #1 contender to Paige's championship since August 2013, but with Paige absent from tapings, Emma had to defend her title shot against Natalya on the January 1 NXT. Ever since NXT's Emma started appearing on Raw and SmackDown on January 13, the announcers have been hyping NXT as well, which eventually pointed to this live special. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Small number comes from that fact that there are not many at this time that have bought the Network or were even watching it when it came on. NXT is still a developmental promotion. No more popular than OVW or FCW. Its audience had to be less than a million and maybe even lower than 100,000 with promotion on Raw. It is in the same vein as DVD specials. Seen by some, enough to establish notability as a note, but not enough that it needs to have an indepth article covering the show. If we start with this show as being notable, then before long every single broadcast on the WWE Network will be seen as a hugely special event that needs an article. Soon talk shows will have articles on the network that really do nothing. This is as notable as episodes of WWE Byte This.--WillC 11:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about OVW, but you can't compare apples to oranges with FCW to NXT. FCW was only broadcasted in Florida, not even nationally. NXT was on Hulu in the US, which already outstrips FCW. But you're forgetting that since the reality competition aspect of NXT, it's been broadcasted internationally in nearly thirty countries. The audience for NXT is much, much larger. With no statistics yet, we can't be sure how many actually watched it, but every WWE Network subscriber can watch it on-demand. Am I struggling to understand what PPV buys mean? For example Money in the Bank (2011) drew 195,000 buys, the live audience was 14,815. That's nowhere near your "less than a million" number you quoted to supposedly argue against notability. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard of WWE Byte This, apparently it was WWE's "premier web show" eons ago in 2006, perhaps when they've never cared about WWE.com? WillC, I just feel that we shouldn't refer too much to the past. WWE's opened up so much to social media and online activity in recent years and WWE Network is a monumental shift, that's why I started this discussion, because WWE has decided to undergo a major change, and I feel that we should see whether we should adapt to WWE's change somehow, instead of constantly referring to the past. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it definitely deserves its own article; the way it was promoted and everything made me think it was a proper PPV. I had no idea it wasn't until I read this conversation. As mentioned above, WWE is moving away from traditional broadcast methods, so maybe we should move with the times. MisterMorton (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's hyperbole when I say that Arrival was NXT's version of WrestleMania. When was the last time we had three title matches on Raw or SmackDown, which included a main title? Not even Raw 1000 boasted that. NXT is also reverting to taped one-hour shows after this live special, which means that the next NXT is definitely not going to be another "Arrival", and there certainly doesn't seem to be more "Arrival"s in the near future. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The simple basic fact is it was not a PPV. It was an episode of NXT. It may have been a special, but it was just as much a special as Impact Wrestling: Genesis. It will come down to whether there are enough sources to article establish a noteworthy article. Otherwise, it is just a list of results. Episodes and PPVs have different options. PPVs are built by tv and are the main source of revenue. TV is to hype other events. Not all are notable.--WillC 14:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's like RAW 1000. About PPVs and TV Specials, it's a wikiproject rule: don't create articles about special TV episodes, like Impact Wrestling 500, RAW old school, SD blast to the past... however, outside the wikiproject, users'll see if the episode was covered by multiple reliable sources. Like RAW 1000, they don't care if its a PPV or a TV special or NXT will return to one hour episde taped three months ago. They'll care about sources. Honestly, I don't watch WWE nor NXT. I don't know if arival was a PPV, live episode and I can't enter in WWE Network, so I don't know how it works. But, I'll understand if users outside the project ask for an article, because it has feuds, storylines and was highly promoted. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it deserves its own article or not, but we do need to work out some criteria for whether or not such specials deserve articles. As others have said PPVs aren't what they used to be and with the WWE Network in place I suspect WWE will throw plenty of specials out there to get people to subscribe to the network and surely most of them won't be article worhty.LM2000 (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it has enough to stand on its own. Flagship event of the WWE Network, first live-to-air NXT, promoted more heavily than any other, more esteemed pre-show panel than Elimination Chamber had. It wasn't quite WrestleMania, but in the NXT context, it stood out and sources indicate this. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

WillC you made the point about revenue, but WWE's latest financial records show that from 2012-2014, PPV takes up 16% or 17% of revenue, while TV has been increasing from 27% to 31%. Of course, with the Network launch (offering $60 for six months including 6 PPVs versus 1 traditional PPV being $55 on cable), PPV revenue is only going to fall. The cable company DISH has already stopped airing WWE PPVs while another company DirectTV has openly criticized WWE for the Network, leading to WWE saying that they now only have access to 85% of households for traditional PPVs. This is why Elimination Chamber, the final wholly 'traditionally aired' PPV was called an end of an era. As such I believe we should have different standards for events pre-Network and post-Network launch.

I don't think there's any doubt on coverage. Of course, the wrestling websites like PWTorch reported NXT Arrival, but so did Slam.Canoe.Ca, Baltimore Sun, Sky Sports, Philly, the Epoch Times. I only used Google News, so some websites might have been missed out. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 00:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd have thought Dish Network had more than 15% of the PPV market. Guess it's safer to assume Comcast owns the majority of everything, ever. But yeah, pretty obvious that most anyone who'd have paid $60 for one PPV will be on the $10 each plan soon. And every day, piracy becomes more acceptable. We can't put the same weight on traditional PPVs we did before, and it seems very obvious that WWE thinks likewise. All just "content" now, from TV shows to WWE.com "exclusives" to DVD to PPV to Tweets, Touts and whatever. We're going to have to judge this content on its own qualities, rather than its reach.

Also, the Slam wrestling part of Canoe.ca is a wrestling site. They just have a more traditional news style. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

My question is what makes this event more notable than any other? All titles defended? That isn't anything new. Events like that have been happening for years. NXT only has a handful of titles anyway. Aired on the network? So did panel shows, are they notable as well? The point is, what justifies needing an in-depth explanation for this event? Did it led to something or was it just a way to get more subscribers? It really does not appear that significant. Afterall in its current state it is a list of results. No background, no event, no aftermath, no reception, etc. Just results. Is this gonna be expanded or just sit there as a list. Otherwise, it will most likely be nominated by a random editor for deletion if we can't establish a better explanation than "It appeared on the WWE Network."--WillC 02:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It could definitely use more beef. But our best explanation is better than that. It's a TV milestone, for the Network and the NXT roster. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll give you a milestone for NXT, but the Network? Not really, any broadcast is luck for them because it happened. Airing an NXT show isn't really a milestone. First broadcast by them is the milestone, after that it is just persistence. The real milestone is the first thing to air on the network. I'd say this needs to be summarized with the main article. A merger is better. It is noted but it isn't some stand-alone non-expanded article. We have enough articles that haven't been expanded.--WillC 03:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

First live stream is important, too. The Network is as much a TV channel as it is a repository. It's a big thing to be first or last, even if by luck. Check out all the articles at the insanely long-titled List of last surviving veterans of military insurgencies and wars. Not like they'd (mostly) have been particularly notable without the twist of fate. At least WWE hyped this thing concurrently. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's a milestone for the Network, it's the first live show! Anyone can play old/taped videos from their website, but to broadcast live? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll be willing to write it up. One reason I haven't is because without a consensus here first for it to stay as an article, it might be deleted any time.

More notable than any other - in terms of NXT, it was the first live (developmental) show and first two hour NXT (like how WrestleMania is longer than Raw). Previous NXT shows had usually one title match. There was a Clash of the Champions episode, but only half of them had build. In terms of WWE, when was the last time three titles were defended on a TV show including the main (world) title? When was the last time three matches on a TV show were heavily promoted beforehand, with the main build being over a month before and the long-term storylines starting from May, August and November? "Arrival" was also billed as the introduction of NXT to the world, thus they have "arrived" with this show.

Look at who was shown on-screen at the event: Mayor Theresa Jacobs, Full Sail University President Garry Jones. Triple H spoke to kick off the event, Stephanie McMahon kicked off the women's match, Shawn Michaels kicked off the ladder match. Many other veterans were shown at ringside, including Flair, Dusty, Larry Zbyszko, Steve Kiern, Pat Patterson and of course John Cena. I think Hulk pointed out the pre-show was more prestigious than Elimination Chamber's? Heyman, Nash and Bret Hart vs Henry, Rey and Miz?

WWE offered a free trial of the Network for the first seven days from its launch. NXT Arrival was the first, and only, live show to be streamed during that period. Does that not reveal its importance? It's a prelude for potential subscribers to judge whether WWE is fit to offer live streaming services online with the next big event being WrestleMania XXX itself! WWE could have used the Chamber to 'sell' the Network, but they chose NXT. Not a random episode of Main Event or Superstars either. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You are basing notability on live streaming? Well I guess it is time to make articles for those Impacts in May - September 2005, ROH Wrestling, etc. I hate to tell ya but there are several indy feds who live stream as well. From ordinary events to PPVs. What you are essentially saying is that Arrival was a giant advertisement, right? I guess you need to see this: WP:NOTADVERTISING. Again, is it notable? For the promotion yes. Thus it should be noted in the main article. Otherwise it is moreso fancruft in my opinion. If it becomes an annual show then sure, lets make an article for it. Otherwise, it is just a promotional tactic to get people to buy the network.--WillC 04:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Not the livestreaming part. It's being the first live stream on the biggest promotion's highly notable new service. Even if it was nothing but a two-hour ad (and it doesn't seem like it was), we're allowed to write about advertising. See 1984 (advertisement). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

WillC, you can argue against each point we've raised, but the thing is, a combination of all the points makes this pass IMO. We've had live Impacts, iPPVs, but these shows didn't have the other factors going for it like NXT Arrival. I will do it point-by-point below. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I know I have already lost the argument here. That doesn't matter to me, never did. The article was not going to ever be deleted anyway. I didn't see why you brought it up. The moment it was nominated, ips and new users would have opposed like with Raw 1000. The point is the main source of notability has to come from some viewpoint the show was more important than it really was. Did Smackdown cover it in-depth afterwards? WWE.com barely covers it. It has a poll about divas and a results page for the event, at the bottom of the site. There is more about Undertaker and Hogan before Arrival is mentioned. My point is the article will not be expanded. It is better to have the article merged with the promotion. That way if it needs a solo one then someone can expand it and then create it so we don't have another stub. Having an article for article sake is pointless.--WillC 10:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You probably missed it, I said above that I'll be willing to write it up. I haven't done so because I didn't (and still don't) know if it would be deleted.

SmackDown was taped before NXT Arrival happened. Yet, I acknowledge that Raw and next week's SD is likely not to cover Arrival in-depth.

I'm looking at WWE.com now. Page 1 "vertically" has six tabs including one on the NXT Divas. . but page 3 vertically has a huge picture of NXT and oh - NXT Arrival highlights, photos and more! Oh, and if you missed it you can catch a replay. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Restarting

Okay. I've posted too much. Nobody will join this discussion if there's too much to read. Let's restart this while stating the for and against points. Anyone is free to add to this. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

FOR

1) It was the first-ever live show on the WWE Network, and the only one available for watch during the first-week trial period of the Network to convince viewers to subscribe. (WWE could have used Elimination Chamber last week, but it did not?) The next "big" live show is WrestleMania XXX, so in a sense, WWE used Arrival to sell WM30.

2) The show and matches were built and promoted like a PPV. The show had three highly promoted matches: Cesaro-Zayn grudge match (part IV in the series), Paige-Emma title match and Dallas-Neville title match. These were all long-term storylines, and the builds for each match kicked in more than a month ago.

2a) Cesaro-Zayn IV's build started on the 22 January NXT, NXT Arrival was on 27 February. In terms of when the storyline first started, it was on Zayn's debut on 22 May 2013.

2b) Paige-Emma II's build was more convoluted. Long-term storyline started on 24 July 2013 when Paige defeated Emma to become the inaugural NXT Women's Champ. On 14 August, Emma became #1 contender. On 1 January 2014, Emma "retained" her title shot against Natalya, and proceeded to steamroll through every other female wrestler.

2c) Dallas-Neville II's build started on 22 January when Neville became #1 contender again. Long-term storyline started when Neville became #1 contender for the first time on 27 November 2013.

2d) WWE had Emma debut on the main roster on January 13 and hyped NXT when she was shown onscreen. NXT Arrival was also billed as the introduction of the next generation of wrestlers to the wider WWE Universe.

3) Treated like a huge deal, maybe even bigger than Elimination Chamber. For a developmental show to have HHH starting the show, Stephanie starting the women's title match and HBK starting the NXT title ladder match is a testament to how WWE viewed the show. Shown in attendance was Mayor Theresa Jacobs, Full Sail University President Garry Jones, Flair, Dusty, Larry Zbyszko, Steve Kiern, Pat Patterson and Cena. Even the pre-show panellists were more prestigious.

4) Every title within NXT was defended (the tag title match were not promoted ahead of time) - when was the last time a TV show featured that?

AGAINST

1) It's not a "traditional" PPV.

2) It's a show of WWE's "lower-league" developmental territory - see FOR 2d) above for counter

To point four: TNA, ROH, New Japan, etc defend all the titles quite regularly on one show. Hell, ROH tends to do it at every show. WWE does it at every house show. If defending all the titles make shows notable, then I guess we better make a house show series of articles. I bet finding reliable references for those will be quite difficult. But hey, they were seen by the same amount that watched arrival.--WillC 11:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Come on, there are WWE house shows (never seen by anyone other than those there live, never able to be seen again, 99% have no storyline progression other than Air Boom dropping the tag titles because Bourne got high, even if you combine the two 1 March 2014 house shows, Ambrose and the Old Age Outlaws didn't defend...) versus televised shows... really? TNA, ROH, NJPW defend all their titles on PPV? I don't doubt that (but TNA Knockouts Tag!). But on a TV show? Which one? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

TNA tends to defend all of its titles on year end shows. In history, they defended all of them on the first Impact on Spike and Fox Sports, etc. The clash of champions setforth something that all promotions do now. Not surprising at all when it is the norm.--WillC 13:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

1st Impact on Fox? No NWA World title match. 1st Spike Impact? No title matches. Year end shows... which year? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, as I said, remember RAW 1000. We are in Wikipedia and we have rules above the Project. I understand 100% about don't create articles about Specials, house shows or TV episodes. however, people outside project doesn't care about traditional PPVs, it's a major or minor promotion... they see sources. They said so in the RAW 1000, as an NXT event, recieved significant coverage from media and we have sources to create background, production and aftermatch section. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I would tend to lean against having standalone articles for events such as Arrival. Arrival was much less notable than some of the TV specials grouped at List of WWE Raw special episodes. What about a new article called List of miscellaneous WWE special episodes (or something along those lines)? McPhail (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how there can ever be another event like Arrival. A good 51% of the notability (on my scale, anyway) comes from the "first" part. Now that they've arrived, other events will need to try a different angle (return of bear wrestling, for example). I've no problem with your list idea, but there's no harm in some of those listed having articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You're basing "less notable" on the fact that it was a developmental show and watched by fewer people than on Raw? That doesn't prevent it from being a "first" milestone in the "new era" embraced by WWE with the Network.

Anyway, the list really suffers from recentism. I'm going to cut some of it, or else every guest star Raw episode will be eligible for listing based on the current list. Seriously - Christmas? New Year's? What do you feel about "Bret Hart Appreciation Night"? "Shawn Michaels Appreciation Night"? "The Rock's Birthday Bash"? "Paul Bearer tribute show"? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I've started expanding the article. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I've finished expanding the article, pending the Aftermath section which hasn't played out. Might even push for GA because why not? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

List of episodes

If we're doing a list, would it be better to merge the RAW episodes into a List of WWE special episodes? Kind of unfair to call some brands "miscellaneous", now that the accessibility has been leveled (and will continue to, as more countries get Networked). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If we are doing a list then it certainly should not be a list of results. It really should just explain the point and try to stay away from results the best we can. Otherwise it may be listcruft. We need to clarify what needs to be included. ips will start to add anything they see as notable. All the results from guest host episodes will be added by ips unless we set the article up just right.--WillC 19:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I wasn't thinking results. Main event, sure. Something like the PPVs list. A good starting criterion would be "Does it have a special title, and did it get special promotion?" Pretty much the only criteria, I guess. Not for its own article, just for making the list. Which get articles should be more case-by-case. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Photo resource

Just giving a heads-up that I do a lot of ring-side photography of matches in southern Ontario - on average, I attend roughly one card a week. I've uploaded such shots that I come across that I know will be useful on Wikipedia, which tend to be pics of wrestlers who have articles here. (E.g., last uploads I did were shots of Jay Lethal & Mickie James). I do have lots more pics, which I don't upload to Commons simply because of the sheer volume, which are posted to my Facebook account here. (Warning: LOTS of shots in the albums - something like over 28,000 going back to 2011). I am willing to upload selected shots as requested by folks to Commons - just drop me a line (either via my Talk page or email) indicating which shots you'd like uploaded to Commons. I'll upload them in full quality, as opposed to the reduced-versions that go on Facebook. Tabercil (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Er, is this how you're going to find out my RL identity? Really, thanks for your offer Tabercil, but could you make the photos viewable to the public? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The albums, and their contents, all show as being Public at my end. Tabercil (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Scrubbed around and found another link for those not logged in to FB. You'll have to login to FB to see all the pictures I think but no need for a friend request. If you're logged into FB, you can use this other link. Thanks Tabercil. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ribbon Salminen: - you've created a few indy wrestler articles so you might be interested in this (and more able to actually recognize the wrestlers). Who else is an indy mark? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hint: indy wrestlers I've shot who are on there: Jay Lethal, Johnny Gargano, Kyle O'Reilly, ACH, Davey Richards, A.J. Styles and Chris Hero. And that's just since the start of the year... <G> Tabercil (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

And thanks to a fresh show being put up on FB a few minutes ago, I can add Chavo Guerrero, Jr. to the list of those I've shot since January. (And that's not counting those in 2013 and before). Tabercil (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The curious case of NXT Wrestling

In July 2012, WWE's developmental territory was Florida Championship Wrestling. In August 2012, WWE rebranded FCW to "NXT Wrestling". All of FCW's storylines and titles were dropped. New storylines and championships for NXT were introduced. FCW's website became NXT Wrestling's website, despite using the old web address. It was obvious that NXT Wrestling was still more or less "separated" from WWE, because up to May 2013, NXT Wrestling clearly had an established list of staff: President Steve Keirn, Creative Director Dusty Rhodes, Trainers like Joey Mercury and Sara Del Rey etc.
But it changed again in June 2013! The NXT Wrestling Website was shut down, and it now redirected to WWE.com, which had a new "NXT" section on their website. I daresay there was zero mention of "NXT Wrestling" as a separate entity. Why did I start this topic? Because I believe that the current entity, WWE NXT, is not even a developmental territory any more. It's consumed within WWE, so it's now a developmental branch since June 2013.
What impact would this cause? For starters, within Template:Professional wrestling in the United States, WWE NXT would be removed as a "notable independent promotion". Instead, in major promotions where WWE resides, we'll put "WWE (with developmental branch NXT) / TNA / ROH". Note that NXT is broadcast weekly in over 30 countries. Anyone disagree? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. A few weeks ago, I told Hulk about Steve Keirn as the President of NXT, but looks like isn't a promotion, so it makes no sense a president. I think the promotion closed and now, it's a TV Program (NXT) inside WWE.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Not just TV. They tour, too. They're like the old C-show tours, except only in Florida instead of any town nobody's heard of. And more likely the town will have heard of them. Not that there's anything wrong with a Steve Gatorwolf headliner. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

As a branch, it wouldn't be a promotion or really an entity. It is a branch inside the company, a sector. Thus it isn't a major promotion, it isn't a major anything. No one is signing with NXT, they are signing with WWE and being sent to NXT.--WillC 20:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, NXT is not a major promotion. However, it's for clarification purposes that we should list them beside WWE in the template as "WWE (with developmental branch NXT)". This is because historically Florida Championship Wrestling and NXT Wrestling were separate promotions. To remove NXT totally from the template might puzzle some readers, who might try to add it back to the "independent promotion" part. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice. So... Should NXT C&A be listed as WWE NXT or inside WWE? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm still for subsectioning them, until they start to be defended on the A and B shows. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

There is still a reason to separate them. From August 2012 to June 2013, NXT Wrestling was distinct from WWE, and the titles won during that period were supposedly not WWE's. To mix both would be confusing, I think, but in the end I don't really strongly oppose. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Not really, NXT has always been owned by WWE, so defacto the titles have always been WWE property. Simple case of a subsidiary and a parent company.--WillC 10:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I might be wrong. If you see an archived version of FCW's website, it says FCW is an Official Developmental Territory of World Wrestling Entertainment. All images and information contained in this website are copyrights of Florida Championship Wrestling. But an NXT Wrestling's website (other than having WWE in the logo) says All WWE programming... copyrights are the exclusive property of WWE, Inc. and its subsidiaries. All other trademarks, logos and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. © 2012 WWE, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Are you saying FCW and NXT Wrestling are the same in this regard? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

That FCW claim had nothing to do with championships, just stuff on the website. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Outside titles "recognized" by a promotion?

On articles about promotions, how do you feel about the inclusion of a list of titles that are not owned by the promotion, but have been defended in that promotion? This came up in regards to Wrestle-1 and how their recent show had matches for the TNA World Heavyweight, X Division and World Tag Team Championships? I personally think these lists of "recognized" titles are horseshit. Looking around, the WWE article doesn't list the NWA titles as "recognized titles", nor does the ROH article list Pro Wrestling Noah's or New Japan's titles as "recognized titles". The New Japan article would get a ridiculously long list of American and Japanese independent titles, if we were to list all titles have ever been defended in the promotion. TNA seems to be the one exception to the rule as it has a list of "recognized titles", but even those titles were featured on their programming for years/months, not for a single show. There's no guarantee that the TNA titles will ever again be defended at a Wrestle-1 event and in the big picture it doesn't affect Wrestle-1 in the least, who's holding those titles in the U.S. If you just want to note what titles have been used in the promotion, then it can be done in the main text, like it is done in the Wrestle-1 article.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, the point is if the promotion owns the title. For example, NWA titles in CMLL or NWA titles in TNA 2002-2007 or WCW titles in WWE. If they own and control titles, it's fine. But titles outside the promotion, I think isn't necesary. (Also, looks like TNA is the exception, so it's a mistake) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

In the particular case of the Wrestle-1 edits, everything needed is already detailed in the paragraph above the section in dispute. This new table/section seems superfluous to me, especially considering what you've said about the likelihood of these belts being defended there again. I'm okay with exceptions like the ones HHH points out (WCW's championship section looks perfect to me), but otherwise it is indeed utter horseshit.LM2000 (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The World title has been contended twice, and the second cross-promotion show has already been announced and the titles will be defended again. That and stars from each company competing in the other company. I think they should be listed in some fashion. BlackDragon 20:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I've actually been working on a topic for all titles contested in TNA or by TNA. There are quite a few titles featured in TNA over the years. I think it is best to stay away from lists regarding this topic. It doesn't do the subject justice. It should be an actual article with sections about each title and what happened, etc. I've been wanting to create one about this subject, to cut that off of the main article.--WillC 21:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

No second cross-promotion event has been announced. They announced a second event at Kokugikan, but did not say TNA would be involved. They just teased a Masakatsu Funaki-Kurt Angle match, nothing more.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Even if a second cross-promotion event is announced, we're going to recognize the TNA titles in W-1 based on just two events? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Well technically yes, Wrestle-1 is recognizing and promoting the TNA titles being defended in the promotion now. It would make sense to note these actions.--WillC 19:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Even IF those titles are brought back, it won't be for another four months. There will be dozens of title changes between now and then that have nothing to do with W-1. Yes, it makes sense to note that the titles have been defended there and are recognized by the promotion, but this whole section just listing the current champion, previous champion etc. is ridiculous. Like it's been said, the TNA list makes more sense, since those titles were in that promotion for a long continuous stint.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. To list the titles, we must make sure the title belonging to the other promotion remains in this promotion for a long time (let's define long?) and is regularly defended. A few combined shows from two promotions can't cut it. If Sanada is joining TNA because he's the X Champ, instead of regularly defending the belt in W-1, that really can't count. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 00:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You all miss the point of the term recognized. Recognized does not mean owed, it means literally that, recognized by the promotion as existing. If the company recognizes the titles being used, then they are recognized. It is simple as that. There is no need for a criteria. This is not a extremely big issue that happens constantly. WWE haven't had outside titles defended in it for over 10 years. TNA tends to do this about once a year, have a title from another promotion appear. All we need to note is the title was defended. Outside of that is our own beliefs and opinions. The TNA Titles are recognized by Wrestle-1. The Wrestle-1 titles are not in TNA yet.--WillC 01:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's better to list the promotions in the championship articles than the other way around. But I'm not opposed to both. Fun fact: Dino Bravo was recognized as the Canadian Heavyweight Champion by the WWF, AWA and NWA. The current champ has an article, but barely, and WWE wanted no part of him. Recognition builds prestige, more than most champs do. Should be noted somewhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think Ribbon, HHH, LM2000 and I all agree: we don't care if W-1 recognizes TNA belts. For the TNA belts to be even listed in the W-1 article, we believe the TNA belts should be defended over a significant amount of time in W-1. We don't think TNA having one, or two, or three "combined" shows with W-1 qualifies the TNA belts for listing in the W-1 article.

Look at the Wrestle-1#Recognized championships article now. I don't think there is a need for such a table! Current champion / Date won / Event / Previous champion(s) - all delete. The furthest I'm willing to budge - have a Recognized championships section, but just list the championships, no need for other information like the above. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't care about listing them in the promotion articles. Just not opposed. Kind of opposed to that particular one. Shouldn't be a table, or a section. Just a sentence. "Wrestle-1's business partner, TNA Wrestling, has provided its championships (Wikilinked, maybe) for Wrestle-1 events." Then the details in another sentence, if you'd like. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no. Best off the way it is, just removing the section. "Regular tours" explains it all. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The best way to go about it is not to have a list or a table, just have a section and use prose to explain it. Lists are not always the best way to go with information like this. Either way, the relationship should be explained.--WillC 10:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, at least you accept that the status quo in the W-1 article is not acceptable. But within the prose - of course we wouldn't have to list every title defense right? If I remember correctly some Japanese companies are quite liberal with titles with other promotions. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the article Will? The relationship IS explained in detail (including when/how it started, who's come over and what titles have been defended). Isn't that enough?リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The debate here is about whether they are recognized. I have focused on that part being noted. Lets not try be some type of authority on here, we are just wikipedia. We report the facts, not make them.--WillC 14:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The debate arose all because of the W-1 article. Since the relationship and TNA titles defended on which show were already stated in the prose, I'm supporting Ribbon, LM2000 and Hulk in nuking the whole table, with HHH appearing to lean towards that as well. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't care whether the tables are there or not. Just as long as everything that needs to be noted is noted.--WillC 10:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Good to know that, because it is noted in the prose for the W-1 article. I removed the table from the article just a few hours earlier. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

At the end of the day, Wrestle-1 has no titles of it's own. A note saying TNA titles are occasionally defended at W-1 events or TNA/W-1 supershows (like it is stated in the article now) works just fine. The article in it's current form is just fine as is. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about "just fine". Crazy citation overkill. You'd think we were calling the Pope gay. But yeah, fine for this issue. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this discussion should be reopened, considering that at the recent Wrestle-1 event an X-Division #1 contender's battle royal was held, and that the winner will face Sanada at an upcoming Wrestle-1 show (on the 22nd). This, to me, shows that W-1 does in face "recognized" these championships, and may continue to do so on a semi-regular basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C583:D310:8DC3:A43F:C124:9541 (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Randy Orton is still World Heavyweight Champion

In our World title articles, we pretty much say Randy became champ at TLC and retired the title there. But Randy has been holding both titles ever since, and WWE.com states he is still World Heavyweight Champion. I think we should fix our articles to reflect that the title hasn't been officially retired. This reminds of me of the case with the Unified Tag Team Championships. The titles were merged by The Colons, but champions held both titles and got double-reigns until The Hart Dynasty officially retired the World Tag Team titles. Until Randy or someone else retired the WHC, it's title history should stay active. Feedback ^☎ 04:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

WWE.com also gets "title" and "championship" mixed up a lot. That's not so relevant, but this is. The championship is retired, so Orton doesn't hold the title. My guess is someone just forgot to change "-present", like in some of our wrestler's section headers. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right. Look at this. Apparently, Chris Jericho is still WCW Champion and Triple H is still Intercontinental Champion. The more you know. Feedback ^☎ 05:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah the WHC is retired. Dunno why Orton insists on carrying the belts around. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

tangent: Wow, exploring that championship section gives me a headache. They're apparently calling the tag team belts "championships" now even though it's always been referred to in a singular. The change is more evident here in the World Tag history, where the header is in plural, but the prose uses the singular they've always used. Should we change the Wiki articles to reflect WWE's new stance? Feedback ^☎ 05:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Makes more sense to me that the tag titles are plural, after all they are two identical belts. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

A title is the right to have people introduce you as something, like "WWE Tag Team Champions" or "His Majesty, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India."

A belt is a symbol to show people they'd better call you by your title, like a crown.

A championship is the whole shebang, like a kingdom. Great power, great responsibility, all that jazz.

The WWE Tag Team Championship needs a team, not a wrestler. The team gets the title. Each wrestler gets a representative belt, because what are they going to do? Share one, Radioactive Man style? What about Saturday? What about zero? Well, zero is plural, but champions are introduced as "one half of" the champs. But zero still isn't greater than one. That'd make false greater than true, and ruin our computers How's that link for jargon? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

waitwaitwaitup. "One half of" the tag team champions? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, there are two people in a team. When they're together, they're the champions. Apart, they're half of the champions. Neither is a champion independently of the other. But combined, they both are. All or nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't ever argue with you on that. That's been the tradition for pretty much ALL of the pro wrestling tag titles. But WWE has changed it up. Every recent reference to the tag title is in plural. A few years ago, they would have never written "Tag Team Championships", but now it's the norm. I think this needs to be acknowledged in the articles. Feedback ^☎ 15:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It's more than tradition, it's plain English, as used by the wider universe. WWE.com may be a big cheese, but their writers can't change things like that, anymore than Fox News can make Iraqi WMDs exist. Goes well beyond their scope.

If we weren't convinced by their The/the Undertaker inconsistency, check out this title match. Despite the video title, the description says "Will The Uso's successfully defend their championship for the very first time?" Also note that they think an apostrophe is the way to pluralize "Usos". Maybe "WWE Tag Team Championship's" is the truly proper way? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

If you do a site search for "The Uso's", you'll see this is a very common mistake. But, of course, they also sometimes spell it right. As they sometimes get "championship" right. Because they're confused. We're not. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The Uso's??? Okay, I'm out. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Going through the Wayback Machine, I see something happened between June 29, 2012 and August 3 (during R-Truth and Kingston's reign) that divided it. Can anyone remember what that was? What are we supposed to say that team (or those two individuals) won? That's going by the body. Their article title changed one year later, between July 29, 2013 and August 13. That was after The Shield won it/them, so maybe we can blame the Freebird Rule, somehow.

Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, we're going to need multiple, high-quality sources to change this. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

One last thing. "The World Tag Team Championship became part of the Unified Tag Team Championship at the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania. Today, the WWE Tag Team Championships is defended in WWE." So clearly, as of today, WWE.com is speaking a whole different language from us, and should be translated. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Their grammatical mistakes are definitely hilarious, but they are just that, mistakes. Changing all the tag team histories to refer to each title in plural is completely deliberate. (The "Uso's" is also deliberate. Despite how incorrect it may be, it has become popular to use an apostrophe when pluralizing proper names.) Feedback ^☎ 11:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It's also become popular 2 spell w/ numbers #WWEUniverse. Plain English works best. And how can we be sure which one is deliberate and which is an accident, when they keep using both in the same breath?

Say what you want about "their title, their rules", but they're also rewriting AWA history. Surprising nobody, even that one uses "title" and "championships". All the videos in that playlist seem the same (that is, different). They're crazy. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This is fake, but the gist is real. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

WAIT! Are you waiting? OK. There's a way we can both be right, and it's actually very simple. Championships can mean either multiple championships (in the "position of a champion" sense) or the contests to determine a champion themselves. Wrestling, boxing and MMA use a fluid "title match system" as opposed to playoffs or round robin. So if Los Matadores win (definition 1) the championships, they win (definition 2) the championship.

Make sense? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The logic we always went by on WP:PW was that there is 1 tag team championship, but there are 2 champions and 2 title belts (2 titles). So using the terms "tag team titles" and "tag team champions" is correct. But the only way they should ever use "tag team championships" is if they are referring to two distinct belts collectively. They seem to have changer their tune on that issue, but I doubt they have ever referred to a title match as "the championships". Feedback ^☎ 16:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It was a bit of a stretch, just trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. But then I thought about it, and for it to work like that, they'd also call singles championship contests "championships". And they don't. So they're just crazy, after all. Two belts, definitely. Four boots. One title. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, "title"="championship" not "title belt", though that is one area where is less than specific care is often given (such as the common aforementioned "tag titles". I still think that this sloppiness on the WWE's part (and that's all it is, as the current versions are grammatically correct and should be retained) may be. A carry over from the "Unified Tag Team Championship's'" days, when the plural was correct to refer to the combined double championship. But either way, we don't need to change anything, as our grammar is correct. oknazevad (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Even "title" and "championship" aren't quite synonyms. The title is just the honourific words. The championship is the position. It's like "job" and "job title". Can't have one without the other, though, so either works. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Wait, what is the point of this discussion? Are we really debating about pluralization? And once again I am shocked at where a discussion has led.--WillC 08:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Lost my mind a bit reading all of this. Tralalala starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Gabba gabba hey! InedibleHulk (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@oknazevad "Title" refers to the title you obtain with the belt. When someone wins the championship, they win the "title of champion". Therefore, "tag titles" is a correct term as two people will both become "tag team champions". The only thing that should never be plural is "championship", but WWE has apparently changed their own "MoS" regarding the subject, so who knows what they're thinking. Feedback ^☎ 00:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

HOF Infobox

Should Hall of Famers have a variant of the regular Infobox to emphasize their role? I have seen that baseball players have infoboxes colored after their teams, so maybe HOFs could have a gold/blue scheme for WWE HOFs and red/silver scheme for TNA HOFs. Maybe decorated with stars or something besides the name of the wrestler on top of the box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.120.161 (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Meh. They really don't have much a different role from any other retired wrestler. Just a matter of opinion whether they're "Hall of Famers". Seems a little too much weight to put on the honour. And there are a few Hall of Fames out there. The colours may get confusing, especially for guys (and Moolahs) who are in several. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Instead of color, lets add a new section where we list all hall of fames they are in.--WillC 15:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Those accomplishments are in Championships and Accomplishments. At least, they should be. I'm sure some are missing. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes they are, but the box is in the lead and the lead is meant to summarize the whole article. Having the hall of fame info in the box is also a useful thing.--WillC 22:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with saying it in the lead, with the major titles. Terry Funk's is duly noted. That'd look like a rainbow in colour, and rainbows don't really sum up the Funkster. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If anything, what we need to create is an infobox to use on pages like WWE Hall of Fame, just like you will find on Grammy Award. STATic message me! 04:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Or on Hockey Hall of Fame, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah definitely, it would make the article look better. I've always disliked when articles don't have an infobox and just have a picture sitting there. STATic message me! 17:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I've copied it over. If anyone thinks of any other parameters, borders or whatnot, go nuts. I suck at everything except text. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Wrestling event

With three (two?) WrestleMania's now having hosts (Kim Kardashian at WM24(?), The Rock at WM27, and Hulk Hogan at WM30), I would like to suggest adding a parameter to the PPV infobox to list the host. It seems relevant enough to the event to be included in the infobox. What do y'all think? CRRaysHead90 | ^#WelcomeHome 22:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

To my knowledge, WrestleMania is the only event in any company that has this. Seems rather pointless for such little demand.--WillC 22:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

In Japan, big names get retirement shows. More guests of honour than hosts. Inoki might be closer to a host for many, but these are usually named for him, so goes without saying. Same for the retirement shows. I say nay. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not about quantity, Will, it's about relevance. CRRaysHead90 | ^#WelcomeHome 23:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Really it is about quantity. Why amend the infobox for something that is relatively small. Some events end with stupid endings, should we have a sector in the box which says this? Some events feature celebrities, should we have a sector listing them? If anything we need a parameter regarding the buyrate.--WillC 03:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

No, Will, it's about relevance. It's about having the template ready to display relevant information. Quit counterpointing with fallacies. But if having the parameter is such a worry to you, you can make two or three blank parameters and only use them when needed. Blank parameters are not unheard of on WP. CRRaysHead90 | ^#WelcomeHome 18:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Those blank parameters you speak of are still used on more than three events. The only one not used at this current time is the brand parameter, and we have WWE events from 2003 to 2007 for that. Meanwhile, three guest hosts on three events. That is better suited for the prose until it becomes more important.--WillC 18:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Will, you're talking about something completely different from me. CRRaysHead90 | ^#WelcomeHome 00:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You wanted to talk about blank parameters, I discussed blank parameters. But still, you've given no good reason to create a section just for this. 3 events is not a reason to make a change that isn't really a large thing. Show me this is a normal thing amongst events instead of having a fit.--WillC 09:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No you talked about unused paramters. I said blank parameters. You know, the kind you only use when needed, the kind that are blank until you fill in the name of the parameter when using it and then add the information? CRRaysHead90 | ^#WelcomeHome 18:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

So the samething. Aaron, give a reason for this addition. You had the idea then got upset when it got shutdown.--WillC 21:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds completely irrelevant and would be a generally unused parameter. If it would not be used very frequently, no point in adding. If it is notable, it can be covered in the prose. STATic message me! 04:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian hosted WrestleMania??? Also, I found this article: List of celebrities involved with WrestleMania. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 04:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed we don't have a field for the gate. Should be right under Attendance, no? And yes, buyrate. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I say, right under Attendance, no? Even if there's no dissent, I forget how to do it myself. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Wrestling Pay-per-views

Delete or to not delete? I really see this as completely pointless and helps very little.--WillC 21:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, completely arbitarily. I like it, it's useful and doesn't do any harm. Looks good and is valuable. 3,340 Google News hits. Wikipedia is not censored, man! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm bringing this here just to get an idea of whether to nominate it for deletion, not whether to actually keep it or delete it.--WillC 23:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well. Unless you're seeing something in it aside from the broken code I do, I say speedy delete. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

And unless someone is seeing something besides what Hulk and I are seeing, then speedy is the way to go.LM2000 (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I see... broken code. speedy --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

PWInsider

Congratulations, guys. We appear in PWInsider Q&A http://www.pwinsider.com/ViewArticle.php?id=84124 A guy said "I use PWInsider as source, but the edits are deleted because PWInsider Isn't reliable". It's true? Also, who wrote to PWInsider? Step foward. (by the record, Dave says we aren't reliable too XD)--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The one chance PWInsider had to make them seem reliable they instead chose to make themselves look like children.--WillC 00:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Must be a IP or a newer user. Actually guys, since 2012 we've considered PWInsider to be as reliable as PWTorch and F4Wonline and maybe more reliable than Wrestleview, which means they're all reliable for non-controversial TV/PPV results and the like. They're all not reliable for 'dirtsheet rumours', although if the rumour is very notable like CM Punk walking out of WWE, we can still add it to articles like "the Wrestling Observer reported that CM Punk walked out of WWE".

So guys don't remove PWInsider unless it's a rumour.

I know that before I joined in 2011, PWInsider was considered not reliable because there was malware on its website? Something like that? But I think it's fine on that front now. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 00:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I really doubt it was anyone involved in the project. But dang I did not expect such a indignant, childish response, I thought they were more professional than that. STATic message me! 03:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

In this case attack wasn't the best form of defense for PWInsider. But I'm afraid members of the Wikiproject might have removed PWInsider from here? WillC at least until recently still thought it was just a dirtsheet until I pointed out an FAC reviewer OK'ed it (maybe he still does think so!) starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 04:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I've always believed that Pro Wrestling Insider was accepted during the review because the reviewer confused it with Pro Wrestling Illustrated. I don't think there has ever been sufficient explanation of what makes Pro Wrestling Insider reliable. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

In terms of longevity they've been reporting on wrestling around for 10 years now, and their chief editors Scherer and Johnson were previously writing for 1Wrestling in 1997 and the Wrestling Lariat newsletter before that in 1995. Scherer and Johnson have had experience in the business in ECW. Unlike self-published sources like Bleacher Report or certain blogs and wordpresses they have an incentive to be accurate due to their paid membership service, therefore their TV/PPV reports and other uncontroversial claims (not rumours) should be accurate? What does the Observer, Torch and Wrestleview have that PWInsider doesn't if you consider PWInsider unreliable?

Another plus point is that I believe they have more detailed coverage then SLAM!, Observer, Torch and Wrestleview. For example I was looking to add a source that Mojo Rawley (Dean Muhtadi) had signed with WWE around August 2012. I couldn't find any information in the previous sources, but I found a report by PWInsider. Previously, WWE's developmental territory FCW had a TV show that aired only in Florida. Again, PWInsider had much more reports on that show compared to the previous sources. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is about what they report, it is how they report it. We know Meltzer is there, live, or atleast has connections that help. We know how his information and history works. We know Meltzer is involved in the media and has earned a sense of credibility. I would say the same for Wade Keller and Caldwell, thus helping establish PWTorch. WrestleView has Adam Martin, who is becoming a bigger name in my opinion through various interviews and gaining more respect from what I've seen as being credible. However, PWInsider I just don't know. Who there establishes the credibility? How do they get information to report? etc.--WillC 08:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

How they report "it"? What's it? If we're talking about TV/PPV results, you'll just need to watch the shows on TV, or on the Internet, do you need to be live in person? If you were talking about Dean Muhtadi signing with WWE, PWInsider simply happened to look at Twitter in August 2012. Or are you talking about rumours here? You're saying Meltzer is live at every taping?

Additionally it's all fine to say that Meltzer, Keller, Caldwell, Martin have credibility through the media etc. but where's the evidence for that? If you show me how instead of only stating how, perhaps I can see whether PWInsider is similar in that regard. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The notable person working for/with them does not really establish reliability for them at all. I mean Justin LaBar has appeared on a nationally televised NBC show talking about wrestling, but we do not consider WrestleZone (I cannot believe I ever payed attention to that rumor capital) or BleacherReport reliable in the slightest. On the topic, PWInsider looks borderline reliable just as we have it labeled, so for non-controversal things like results, if they are well written and accurate, why not? STATic message me! 08:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Meltzer has been published. He works with Yahoo sports. He has been interviewed as a wrestling journalist in documentaries. His credibility has been established through mentions in books, such as Bret Hart: Hitman. These things have helped to make his reports reliable. He isn't there everytime but we know he has been at events live, we know he has actually watched the event, we know he has connections in the industry because we have wrestlers state this, etc. When he reports rumors he can be seen as reliable because of these connections. We can make an argument for it. However, I could go right now and purchase a domain name for a website. Grab a book about coding I could make a website just like PWInsider. I can establish an entity to work under with the secretary of state in really no time or work as a sole proprietor. Review WrestleMania and then report that AJ Styles just signed with WWE. Some people would see my review as correct and thus deem my reporting as correct. Am I reliable? I have no connection, I have no background, I have no evidence, etc. The one thing I do have is a website. That is what the issue with PWInsider is about. We have to determine what makes them special to be able to make an argument other than "They seem correct most of the time." We are talking about convincing other people. People who have no idea what PWInsider is all about.--WillC 09:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh I was not talking about Meltzer at all, anyone that has ever been on an wrestling news site knows who he is, anything with his name on it sort of stands out as reliable. STATic message me! 09:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I was replying to paint. You and I had an edit conflict.--WillC 09:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Meltzer would be the easiest to nail down as a reliable source, I don't dispute that. Well how about Keller, Caldwell and Martin then? I'd like you to explain all of them, but especially Martin. Also, your argument is skewing towards rumours again. I don't need nor want PWInsider for rumours, all I want them is for TV/PPV results and other uncontroversial stuff. Likewise they don't need to be live at the event to report such things. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Static that there' no harm in using PWinsider the way we do now (for reports and results). Scherer and Johnson seem to have pretty solid reputations are far as being reporters go. We should be cautious about adding rumors regardless of where they come from, as is evident from the recent Meltzer/CM Punk fiasco from last week.LM2000 (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

When you use a source you have to be able to deem it reliable, even for results. How can we explain they are reliable on one thing and not another? The argument that anyone can watch the show and report it does not establish its reliability. Keller has been published and PWTorch has connections in the industry. WrestleView on the otherhand has connections as well through its paid service.--WillC 20:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"Evidence plz" WillC? For PWTorch has "connections" and Wrestleview has "connections through paid service"? Keller is "published" is a secondary issue but good if you could also provide links. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

PWTorch interviews with Dixie Carter, Styles, Angle, Punk, etc etc etc. WV has had the same interviews through subscriptions.--WillC 04:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You were a bit vague there... you didn't mean WV had the exact same interviews as PWTorch right? You meant that WV has done some interviews with wrestlers, I assume. But it's weird - I'm looking at the WV website now, and there's no evidence of a paid service or subscription for WV?

If that's (having done interviews with wrestlers is your criteria, I'd just like to say that PWInsider definitely has a paid subscription service. A quick google search easily confirms that PWInsider also does interviews - though I'm not a paid member, I can't see what the actual interview is. On the first few pages of google search I have found Doug Williams, Billy Robinson, Bret Hart... Oh wait, the Bret Hart one links to a PWInsider's youtube channel. Wow, even more video interviews, Daniel Bryan, Triple H, Jeff Jarrett, Young Bucks, Sheamus, Xavier Woods? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Good. My point is to not discredit PWInsider, it is to help you try to prove it reliable. You are asking what makes others reliable, the point is showing how PWInsider is reliable. Show how it checks facts, how it gets information, etc. Show its connections. Show its credibility. You can ask me to present evidence for other sources, that doesn't do anything. Trying to argue their reliability does not make PWInsider reliable, it means we could lose sources to use if we aren't successful in showing the reliability. Focus on the matter at hand and prove PWInsider's reliability. WV VIP service is the paid subscription just for you to know. Reliability is established with credibility. Credibility is established through fact checking and a sense of professionalism. So far we know professionalism isn't the highest from the remarks by the authors. However, what about fact checking? How does PWInsider check facts, ranging from results to rumors, etc?--WillC 09:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

OK you gotta help me out a bit here. I am unsure how to prove fact checking. How would you prove that a newspaper like.. the Guardian has fact-checking? How would you prove that a wrestling source like the Observer has fact checking? I need to understand what boxes are to be ticked. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Most will have a section of their website which explains their editors backgrounds and the history of the website. Through that an argument can be made as to how they are reliable and credible.--WillC 20:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

A professionally fact-checked report is preferable (you can usually e-mail or phone for details), but keep in mind that fact-checking isn't the specialty it used to be. Instead of visiting libraries or searching microfilm archives, the typical fact-checker (especially for a high-paced site) will use the same Internet we have (and sometimes even the "best" fail miserably). So, if you run across a claim (from any source), see if another, independent source says the same thing. In the Mojo Rawley case above, this would seem to fail. If a story is attributed ("According to...", "...reports"), get to the root before comparing.

We aren't paid like editors with desks, but Wikipedia editors serve the same basic function. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, a "sense of professionalism" doesn't really mean shit. Politicians, lawyers and talking heads are usually well-dressed and punctual, but often notorious for lying. Getting an interview simply means you paid for it, doesn't imply expertise. Check out the NoKayfaben guy on YouTube. He's a dolt, but has good guests. As far as that goes, the interviewer doesn't matter. If some crazy guy off the street interviews Bret Hart, the answers matter, and it becomes a primary source. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Writers' backgrounds? Scherer - webmaster for the Extreme Championship Wrestling website until 2001. Penned the Saturday pro wrestling column at the New York Daily News for two years. Founder of "The Wrestling Lariat" in 1995. Joined 1Wrestling.com in 1997. Started PWInsider in 2004. Wrote for the now-defunct WOW and ECW magazines.

Johnson - was Extreme Championship Wrestling's official website historian and researcher on International talents... and helped with DVD / action figure / video game lines in ECW. Wrote for Wrestling Lariat, 1Wrestling and PWInsider. Consultant for Capstone Press on a series of children's books about professional wrestling. Co-hosts "The Mouthpiece Wrestling Show" - a radio show. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Mike Johnson also helps make Reddit a better place. Though he does get suckered by the Internet immediately, he makes up for it by shitting on WrestleZone. I think? Anyway, a good introduction to the guy and his site. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"I speak to people that work in all facets of every major national company, from execs to wrestlers to staffers, every day. Sometimes I call them looking to confirm something. Sometimes, they reach out to us. It all depends on the circumstance and the story.

BTW, I don't like the dirtsheet term personally. We seek out, source, doublecheck our information. We are no different to pro wrestling than the Hollywood Reporter would be to TV and film."

But is he lying about that? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It's impossible to tell if he lying just from that alone. We can't prove nor disprove. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 22:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm convinced. The overview of Scherer and Johnson that Starship.paint provided is exactly what we look for when determining the reliability of a source. Their work for the third largest professional wrestling company in the country, as well as their experience with major industry magazines and websites, indicates that they are established experts in the field of professional wrestling. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, I'd hope to get a new reliable source. It would help in expanding articles a bit more. We'll have to really see when it is used and judged by people who specialize in this sort of thing. Maybe we need to get some outside reviewers in here so we can make the ruling concrete.--WillC 05:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

These guys could give us some insight if need be.LM2000 (talk) 05:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Finally asked them. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please explain how Wrestle View is considered a "reliable" source while PWInsider is not when Wrestle View's entire setup is to re-post news and rumors from other sites including PWInsider[2]. How is one website deemed reliable if the source they got the information from is not? 99.43.175.19 (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A change to the style guide for PPV articles

WillC and I have been working on PPV articles and promoting them to GA/FA status. With his support, I'm proposing a change to the style guide for PPV articles. The style guide currently lists that any information before the Event section should be under the Background section.
Instead I propose we follow WillC's current GA/FAC Slammiversary (2008) or Slammiversary (2005). The Background section will be renamed to Production. Within Production there will be two sub-sections, Background (for announcements, venues, tickets stuff, read via the links above) and Storylines. If a PPV doesn't have anything related to its background, like Money in the Bank (2011), then the section can simply be called Storylines. Anyone disagree? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been following this style for a long time, since I my expansion of Turning Point (2008 wrestling) in 2009 I've been adapting all of the PPV GAs I've done with this format. TP went to FA in 2012 and the format was approved by Featured Articles reviewers. I feel it makes the article complete and gives them a style that seems more credible. I feel all PPVs should have a production section since it is quite important, but if they don't have one then it can be named Storylines, unless some prefer just to call it the Background until an overall production section is created. Production should encompass both the storylines and the creation of the event since that is what they both exist.--WillC 17:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Here, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Count me in too. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, looks better to me. STATic message me! 22:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be unanimous.--WillC 01:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed! oknazevad (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Great. I'll be changing the style guide, then. Feel free to chip in on that as well. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 02:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Kaisen: Outbreak

I'd like some outside voices to settle a dispute.

Ribbon Salminen and I are in disagreement on how to list the Kaisen: Outbreak event in Japan.

I contend that the show is a Wrestle-1/TNA supershow, as TNA sent 14 wrestlers, had 3 championships defended, was involved (at least somewhat) in the booking of the matches, and filmed the event for a future One Night Only PPV.

He contends it was strictly a W-1 production, as it was announced in November before TNA came into the picture.

And I countered that by saying the Keiji Mutoh (Wrestle-1's owner/star wrestler/chief bottle washer) may have had all these grand plans, but realized he needed help and reached out to TNA, and then a deal was struck.

So who's in the right here?

Vjmlhds (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Both of you are. It started as a Wrestle-1 show then became a joint show. It should be noted this way. It is overall a Wrestle-1 show, so it should be introduced as such, then transitioned into it being a joint show.--WillC 15:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The point of a talent loan lies in the "loan" part. A promotion still builds its own shit, but with the neighbour's tools. If there's some indication of a TNA booker (not familiar with the show, myself), then it's a co-promotion. Also really helps if "TNA" (or its Japanese equivalent, if it has one) is in the ads, like the WWF/SWS or WCW/New Japan shows. If no to the last two, no to co-promotion. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's a promotional poster showing that the event was promoted as a W-1/TNA supershow. Again, not doubting Mutoh had wanted to run a W-1 show in November, but at some point realized he needed some help, so he then made a deal with TNA, thus it became a W-1/TNA supershow, and now it's evident it was promoted as such. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The one on the left is the promotional poster and it doesn't have a single mention of TNA or its wrestlers nor does it have the TNA logo on it. The one on the right is a brochure (which can be bought here) hyping up the W-1 vs. TNA matches for the event. TNA gave W-1 the wrestlers, but had nothing to do with setting up the event or booking the arena or the matches.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You're reaching Ribbon. At the end of the day, there's evidence the thing was promoted as a co-op event. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Well. Present it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

1. The above brochure - indicates that Wrestle-1 had promoted the event as a joint effort between W-1 and TNA. They put TNA's titles and TNA's wrestlers front and center on the brochure making them the selling point of the show.

2. Here's Sanada's profile from TNA's website In it, TNA refers to him winning the X Division Title in a TNA/Wrestle-1 event.

To sum it up, W-1 put out promotional material hyping the show as a TNA/W-1 supershow, and TNA came right out and called it a TNA/W-1 event. Both promotions consider it as a joint effort, and since it was their show, if they consider it as such, then that should be that. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll give some weight to the second thing. None to the first. Ribbon explained that. W-1 is advertising TNA wrestlers, but not advertising a TNA show. Like when Zellers advertises a sale on Zoodles. Not necessary that Mr. Heinz plans anything. Just stocks the ark. You say it yourself. "...indicates that Wrestle-1 had promoted the event as a joint effort between W-1 and TNA. They put..." InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's a TNA source calling Kaisen: Outbreak a "huge Wrestle-1 event featuring the Impact Wrestling superstars. That's what it was; a Wrestle-1 event featuring TNA wrestlers. Just get over it.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

And then later on when TNA created Sanada's profile, they referenced it as a joint event...you can't cherry pick. TNA has gone on record as calling the show a joint event. And don't tell other editors to "get over it". User:Vjmlhds (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Then why are you cherry picking?リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of Cherry, did she not contribute to Deuce 'n Domino? But do we call it Deuce 'n Domino 'n Cherry? Did the kid who helped make Shake 'n Bake really help? Do joint events lead to food-related musings? Yes, no, sort of and maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, we call them Deuce and Domino. Not cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I fixed that. McPhail moved it without consensus in August. The talk page shows that it passed GA under it's original name and it should stay that way. Feedback ^☎ 16:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the official TNA press release promoting Kaisen: Outbreak. In it, TNA Executive VP Jon Gabruick is on record in saying that "...we are honored to partner with Mutoh and Wrestle-1 to give our fans an exceptional night of unparalleled entertainment." This clearly shows that TNA considers the event as a joint collaboration, and not merely as just sending guys out there. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• No one is denying that Wrestle-1 collaborated with Wrestle-1 for the event. It's in the lead. They collaborated in the same way TNA had previously collaborated with NJPW for the Wrestle Kingdom shows. The question is: who produced the event and how was it advertised; in essence, who "owns" the event? The press release makes no claim of ownership or co-production of the event. TNA had absolutely nothing to do with the event until their wrestlers and some backstage guys (including Gaburick) boarded a plane and landed in Tokyo for a press conference the previous day. All over the net in both advertising and results the event is billed as "(Fighting Entertainment) Wrestle-1 Kaisen: Outbreak", there's not a single one calling it "Wrestle-1/TNA Kaisen: Outbreak". This includes NTV G+, who air TNA's shows and PPVs in Japan and therefore could feasibly be seen as doing something like that. The collaboration is extensively mentioned in the article, but at the end of the day, the event was not a TNA event. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is a story from Bleacher Report talking about the show and going into some more detail about it. This indicates that the show was viewed as a TNA/W-1 co-production by what is viewed as a reputable sports website. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

1.Bleacher Report is considered an unreliable source, 2.even if it was reliable, it's not for them to decide whose show it is. Again, who produced the show and how was it advertised? It was produced by Wrestle-1/GEN Sports and advertised as "Wrestle-1 Kaisen: Outbreak". リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's go step-by-step:

• November 2013 - Wrestle-1 announces show
• January 2014 - TNA announces as part of their partnership with Wrestle-1, they would contribute talent, and have their championships defended at the show, as well as sending their production crew to film the event for a One Night Only PPV.
• March 2014 - Kaisen: Outbreak takes place
• TBA 2014 - TNA airs the show as a One Night Only PPV under the subtitle of Outbreak

The whole point of this is once TNA got involved, it no longer was just a strictly Wrestle-1 show, and became a joint affair with TNA. As it will be shown as a ONO PPV, the show (as all TNA PPVs and broadcasts) are considered TNA productions (as per the ending copyright credits at the end of TNA broadcasts). There's a lot of presumption on your part that it was all Wrestle-1 with TNA just along for the ride, and what I'm saying was that once TNA got involved, they had some skin in the game as well.

• Was it a Wrestle-1 live event...yes.
• Was it a TNA PPV...yes.
• Did the companies work together to put the show together...yes.

Both companies had skin in the game here...to nitpick over how much X did, and how much Y did is missing the point. TNA played a huge part in this show...Wrestle-1 made them the main selling point, and TNA flat out said it was a joint effort.

Vjmlhds (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. So much discussion over this. produced by Wrestle-1 in partnership with Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA) seems fine. But for Promotion: Wrestle-1/TNA how about doing this the music single way? Promotion: Wrestle-1 featuring TNA. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Then we should add "New Japan Pro Wrestling featuring Pro Wrestling Noah, All Japan Pro Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Zero1 and Total Nonstop Action Wrestling" in the Wrestle Kingdom show infoboxes too. The "featuring" part again is in the lead, but doesn't belong in the infobox as the promoter of the event. The One Night Only pay-per-view (which they BTW haven't named "Outbreak") is TNA show filmed with their own camera crew (much like the Global Impact!s of the past). Kaisen: Outbreak was a W-1 show, half of which didn't even feature a single TNA wrestler. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it's too unreasonable for an exception to be made for Outbreak. "Half 1", the W-1 exclusive half, had only 4 matches, while "Half 2", had twice the number (8 matches) and a TNA wrestler in every match. That's a very high percentage, does any January 4 Dome Show compare? With so many wrestlers from different promotions at the dome shows, can any promotion other than NJPW appear in more than 33% of the matches? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrestle Kingdom II had TNA wrestlers in six of the ten matches. TNA is very well represented in the article like it should, but doesn't belong in the infobox as the promoter. If TNA had had anything to with the production, surely Wrestle-1 would have given them joint billing for the event. But no, they just call it a Wrestle-1 event and don't even include TNA in the promotional poster in any way. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

These articles may contain graphic images.

Kind of stupid how "graphic" has come to mean "disturbing", and "may" means "does".

All I mean is we might get some pictures for Adrian Adonis and Gran Naniwa. Their looks were important to understanding them, and plenty of good pics meet the non-free content criteria. Others, too. We're underillustrated. We don't even show readers Alushe. Somebody like uploading/filling out forms? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, we can use photos for deceased people. For example here. However, I don't know about it (maybe, we can use it for Adonis and Naniwa, not KeMonito). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Go search Flickr, check licenses. You'll be surprised what you find.--WillC 03:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I have an account, so if you find something, I can ask. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Free Image Search Tool failed to find free Flickr pictures. So for non-free pictures... Is this Adonis at his most popular? one and two. Here's Gran Naniwa. Unfortunately, I haven't done a fair use image upload before. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary Redundancy revived

I'd like to revive thess two conversations from the archives. It's still so stupid and redundant that this is included in the background section. The nature of the event is already explain in the first sentence and the way pro wrestling works is pipe linked in the first sentence. There's no need for it. CRRaysHead90 | ^#OneMoreGame 14:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I definitely think it should be removed from PPVs that have already happened, but I have no opposition to them being in upcoming PPVs (particularly if we have like no other information at all – really, it can be used as filler if the article has only just been created). That said, I won't be opposed to it being removed from upcoming articles either. — Richard BB 15:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

We've also someone on the style talk page with the same annoyance. I still say it should go. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep lets axe it out, at the least in PPVs that have already happened. STATic message me! 23:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Money in the Bank featured professional wrestling matches involving different wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feuds, plots, and storylines that played out on WWE's television programs. Wrestlers portrayed fan favourites or villains as they followed a series of events that built tension and culminated in a match or a series of matches.

Pardon me, but can someone be more specific on what exactly is proposed to be axed? The first sentence, the second sentence, or both sentences? Starship.paint (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Both. CRRaysHead90 | ^#OneMoreGame 15:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Remove it. It's annoying redundancy that treats our readers like idiots. If anyone is unclear about the nature of pro wrestling as scripted spectacle, that's included in the already-linked main article. We don't need to repeat it ad nauseum every pro wrestling related article. oknazevad (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It can't be removed. It is a compromise from previous consensus. It keeps the articles within the guidelines of wikipedia. Jargon, in-universe, and several others dictate these things. This disclaimer is to explain the nature of the event instead of explaining it in every single sentence. Would you rather explain scripted in every line or just place this in the beginning and be done with it? Those are the choices to comply with the wikipedia guidelines which over-rule anything we decide here.--WillC 20:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The funny thing about guidelines is that they're just that, guidelines, not a policy. So yeah, it's not needed and it borders on demeaning. CRRaysHead90 | ^#OneMoreGame 02:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines here are policy when it comes to the MoS. It may seem demeaning to you but it is moreso professional. Look at Sacrifice (2005) which I just nominated for GA again. It is far different from what we began with at December to Dismember (2006). The policy can be tuned with. It is not as far reaching as believed. It is rather simple to work with and get a good professional product which is not a seeming insult to people but an informative topic to everyone.--WillC 06:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Going back to your previous response, it brings to my mind a question. You say that including a disclaimer prevents us from having to over explain that wrestling is scripted every line. But why does that have to be explained for pro wrestling via a disclaimer when there is no such disclaimer attached to the plot summary section of a film or play? Pro wrestling event recaps are exactly the same thing: they summarize the plot developments of a fictional work. That's what's insulting, demeaning and unnecessary about it; let's give our readers some credit that they know pro wrestling is fiction just like we already give them credit for knowing that films and plays are fiction. Please stop treating our readers like idiots; pro wrestling's scripted nature is common knowledge, not something that has to be restated every single damn article. And if the reviewers at FAR and GAR don't promote because of that, they need to be called out on it for the exact same reason. There's nothing more unprofessional than being patronizing. oknazevad (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You pretty much answered and rebutted your own question. You said people already understand and know pro wrestling is scripted, basically. Yet the FAR and GAN reviewers don't understand this. You've proven your own statement false. So yes, it shows we need to explain whether some things are real and whether somethings aren't by following certain polices such as WP:IN-U, WP:JARGON, etc. If in the current state something is not understood then obviously we aren't writing the articles for everyone but for a select few to understand. Really only the most hardcore fans know all of the terms used in the articles. Some speak for themselves, some do not. To this day I still have people reading the PPVs and they have no idea what is going on. It is not insulting the readers who already know, it just annoys them. The basic explanation is simple, all it says is these people play characters. It does not go in-depth, it gives the basic idea out there. Helps prevent from things like December to Dismember happening. It allows people the idea of what is going on. And yet films and plays do explain the actions in the film are scripted. That is done through the use of the words "plot" and "narrative." Perhaps even further with the production sections going in-depth on the writing process. It shows that these events are planned out in a way one does not notice. The way most of the background sections are wrote are not like film articles. They write like novels, telling stories, not storylines. They read like soap operas with additions of the words heel and face. These background sections are not professional but love songs to the pro wrestling fanboy. That is why the disclaimers are there, because the rest of the section is constantly written like a novel. It allows the reader to understand that the actions are scripted from the beginning.--WillC 11:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

"You said people already understand and know pro wrestling is scripted, basically. Yet the FAR and GAN reviewers don't understand this." Then I really have to question their competence. The use of jargon is a separate issue from the disclaimer paragraph. It's one thing to explain what "heel" means in passing, it's entirely different, and utterly unneeded, to over explain pro wrestling as a form every article. For a comparison, we don't explain what a train is in every article about a commuter rail system, we link the term and leave it at that. That's all that's needed. Why professional wrestling gets singled out for such treatment is a genuine question. oknazevad (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:IN-U doesn't apply here, we're not writing about it in-universe, if that's even possible with wrestling articles. And tell me, what is so complex about "heel", "face", "storyline" and "feud" that they have to be explained? That is insulting. You only need to link pro wrestling, heel and face once and the terms is explained. Or if it bugs you so much that it must be explained in line, that's simple too without having these demeaning two sentences. Simply put either "[...] he turned face (changed sides to a good guy) [...]" or "[...] the heel, or villainous, stable came down to ring side." The other two are self explanatory. There are ways to explain jargon without being demeaning or assuming they can't deduce it or look it up as well. Last, we are not writing for FAR or GAR, quit writing to impress them and worry about the ones who count...the readers. It will come as a side effect. CRRaysHead90 | ^#OneMoreGame 14:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You are arguing that we explain pro wrestling in the articles, but exactly where do we explain pro wrestling? We explain there are storylines, where do we go in-depth on this explanation?--WillC 23:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Next, your example of how to use heel and face is not professional and is obviously not a good way to write an article. Yes we have to worry about FAR and GAN, mainly due to the fact we are supposed to make the articles the best they can be and those processes are peer review. Peer review explains to us whether something really meets the standards that has been determined by several consensus over the years. This is an encyclopedia, not a fanpage. We are not writing stories here but information and to want to go out of our way to write heel and face and explain it when it is simpler to just explain them, wikilink the explanations, and leave out the words is absurd. There is entirely no point to have to make it difficult to satisfy a need. Professional wrestling has to be done this way because it chooses to act like it is real. The lines are blurred and must be shown which is the truth. And yes, IN-U works here because of the way the PPVs are written. They are written as if the events are actually real and mean something. Scripted works that are written in a way to seem like they are non-fiction. And again, WP:JARGON says to not be heavy on wikilinking. That linking is not an excuse for explaining. So basically your argument is linking is enough when there is a policy which shows you that you are wrong.--WillC 00:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I think WillC has hit the nail on the head and he has good pedigree (not this) when it comes to creating articles which are accepted by the wider Wikipedia community. The standard paragraph conforms to the general style guidelines and explains the premise simply to readers who have no knowledge of professional wrestling. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd just offer my opinion that I don't really care if it stays or is deleted. The paragraph's not very long anyway. Seeing fan favourites and villains kinda bugs me though. Starship.paint (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I took some time and considered the arguments presented by Will, but in the end, the statement is just simply insulting, redundant and unneeded. Even for a GA or FA. You don't explain how football works in each years Super Bowl article. You don't explain how baseball works in each years World Series article. It just not needed to explain the basics of wrestling to achieve a FA or GA. CRRaysHead90 | ^#OneMoreGame 02:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Main difference between those sports and pro wrestling. Those are portrayed as legitimate because they are. Pro wrestling is portrayed as legitimate because of suspension of disbelief. It is fiction meant to seem like reality. In my last GA reviews for TNA Unbreakable, Chris Candido Memorial Tag Team Tournament, and Bound for Glory (2005) the fact of wrestling being scripted was all brought up because the articles needed to be clear on what was real and what wasn't. So that shows that the articles actually don't go far enough in informing readers. I think it is best left as is before we push too far and find out we need to make it even clearer, thus more insulting in some people's minds.--WillC 06:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the comparison to football had anything to do with fake or real. Only that there's no need to explain the general topic in every sub-topic. In crocodile, there's no preamble about reptiles. In Forrest Gump, nothing about film. In 1972, no talk of the Earth's annual trip round the sun. All useful info, but all simply Wikilinked. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yet you are entirely missing the point. You are talking about things that are not trying to tell the general public it is real. None of them are trying to fool the viewer. Wrestling is trying to fool the viewer and that has to be explained because of WP:IN-U, WP:FICTION, and WP:JARGON. Movies are stories and no movie is sitting there going "Hey, you see that dude right there that got hurt, well he is actually hurt. And that dude who is dead. He won't be at the premiere because he is dead." Meanwhile this is wrestling "Hey, you see that guy that just broke his ankle. Yeah he really broke his ankle and won't be back for a while. Oh you say you saw him running on the beach with his wife and kids today. Umm that wasn't him because he is in a hospital bed in Texas....no wait in New York..yeah New York. You just heard the announcers say he is so it must be true. Oh and that guy who calls himself The Undertaker, well he really did die at Royal Rumble (1994) and we've been watching his ghost. You say his name is Mark? No no, it isn't Mark. ummm I got to go." The difference between Forest Gump and wrestling. One is not trying to say everything that happens is actually real. Thus the explanation is needed. This isn't the first conversation had on this subject. There have been somewhere around 5000 since 2008 on the matter.--WillC 07:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm certainly entirely missing this point. The Undertaker isn't written like that. If any wrestling articles are, sure, that's a problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Good, because that is what is wrong with the PPVs. Certainly the newest ones which say that Wrestler A used a chair to break Wrestler B's ankle. Then say he was sidelined for a while then came back to attack and start a heated rivalry. No where in there do they explain this was a scripted angle and that the wrestler needed time off for an entirely different injury or needed no time off at all for any reason other than to sell the storyline. Once that is included the ips take it out saying it is an insult to explain this. It isn't an insult to explain the basic fact that it is all a work.--WillC 08:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Will, the point your missing is that what your problem is can explain in line when needed, the nature of pro wrestling does not need to be explained in every PPV article. Some thing happened that's real? Mark it as legit and move on. Otherwise it's easily assumed to be part of the show. Part of what was meant to happen. There is zero need by any policy or guideline to redundantly state the nature of a sport, or sports entertainment, in every sub-event. That's why wikilinks exist, to link people to more information. CRRaysHead90 | ^#OneMoreGame 17:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That I understand. We should always be clear in distinguishing actual injuries (and other events) from the plot. But yeah, it can get weird when a paragraph jumps between in-universe and real world, especially by poorer writers. Other fiction articles don't mix them like that. We could take a hint from Forrest Gump (which, by the way, is more deceptive than WWE, which admits the acting part in every "Don't try this at home" bit) and User:Matt723star at Talk:Vince McMahon, and try...InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Aaron, obviously you haven't been reading the guidelines because the guidelines are quite clear on not relying on wikilinks. Yes it is needed to explain in everyone because they are stand alone articles. Every single PPV review I've had after expanding an article as had the difficulty of the reviewer not understanding what was legit and what wasn't. Even when it would appear obvious as part of the show. Aaron, until you actually expand an article and get it peer reviewed around here by a disconnected person will you truly see that what appears to be common sense to you, it really isn't.--WillC 11:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Will, how does those two sentences address when something specific is or isn't part of story line? But here, I'm willing to work with you. See the next section...I have a proposal. CRRaysHead90 | ^#OneMoreGame 16:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

The point of the two sentences is to explain the nature of professional wrestling, correct? Maybe we can compromise somehow between axing the two sentences and keeping them. Here's my suggestion. Axe the two sentences first of all. Next replace it with a one line sentence like {{see also}} that reads "For information on the nature of professional wrestling, see Professional wrestling." Or you cna use {{main}}, your choice. But I believe this is a compromise that explains what's needed and doesn't use those two sentences ad nauseum. CRRaysHead90 | ^#OneMoreGame 18:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Amend proposal. Reasoning: Your subject is incorrect. The point of the paragraph is to not explain pro wrestling, but the idea. The storylines are the issue. It is to give an idea to the reader that what is going on is scripted hense WP:FICTION, WP:IN-U, and WP:JARGON. We aren't trying to explain all that is of pro wrestling as that would be content forking. Instead we are trying to inform the reader that what is happening is not a legitimate sport. It is a narrative. That is why it says storylines.--WillC 01:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone one else gonna comment? CRRaysHead90 | ^#OneMoreGame 20:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Legit incident sections in wrestler bios

Bodies have been broken, careers ended in an instant, ankles slightly twisted, characters written off the show. How do the Wikiwarriors feel about a separate section for these types of things, which we could link to the story sections by footnotes? So rather than

The following night on Raw, Orton and Legacy attacked Batista and (kayfabe) broke his arm, forcing him to vacate the title. It was later revealed that Batista was suffering from a torn biceps and Legacy was given on-screen credit for his injury.

we have

The next night on Raw, Legacy attacked Batista and broke his arm, forcing him to vacate the title.

Then a footnote to "Bautista had earlier torn his biceps, and this angle was designed to write him off TV."

Just looking at Randy Orton, this approach could cut the article size drastically, making it clear and concise. (Regardless, that article could be cut in half just by grammar edits). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I find this a bit redundant. The original way is fine it just needs to be fixed. "The next night on Raw, Orton and Legacy were scripted to break Batista's arm, forcing him to vacate the title due to injury in the storyline. This was done so that Batista could take time off for a legitimate biceps injury." The writing can be clear and straight forward with practice. We avoid kayfabe but link it to scripted. Makes the world go round.--WillC 11:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we should use legit, kayfabe or booked when it's ambiguous. I mean, a relationship, an injure. Did Lesnar break Henry's arm? Better to use Kayfabe and legit in that case. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Potential Reliable Source

I would like to proposed to the project teh wrestling news site Wrestling News World (WNW) for use as a reliable source. Now seeing as this is the first time I've ever proposed such a thing, I don't know what information to provide you all to help this along. However, I personally find the site to be reliable. They correct their mistakes, never intentionally report false information. Their main writer/editor is Richard Gray who repeatedly as stated he likes to be able to confirm information before he posts, and if he can't more than likely it doesn't get posted and if it does, it comes with a disclaimer. CRRaysHead90 | ^#WelcomeHome 20:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems mostly a recycler to me, but yeah, noticed a few (seemingly) exclusive bits. I wouldn't say we should never use it, but can't recommend giving it a full blanket pass. That it has "WWE Rumors" right there in the homepage header is a bit unsettling.

What I can recommend is that we stop relying so heavily on whether a site is listed here "proven reliable". It's a good general guide, but we must take many things case-by-case. If you see something useful, do a quick Google. If you find supporting evidence, or no contradictory evidence, add it. If someone objects on a factual basis, we work it out. If nobody does, great. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

That isn't how wikipedia works. We only post information if we know it is factual, not because we think it is. We have to be able to prove it is true, not debate whether it could be.--WillC 23:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

So you know everything from anyone writing for any of the proven reliable sites is factual? That's not really a valid argument, so it's a good thing we're not debating. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you missed my point entirely. You are advocating for placing any information that any site publishes in the article. It is suspected that Sting has signed with WWE, but can any site really prove it? Can we prove it? No. Then it is just a rumor. We have verify the information and the site.--WillC 17:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Will, your argument is flawed. Over in WP:MLB we rely on sources like Ken Rosenthal to be the sources on whether something as happened or it hasn't, because we can't prove it otherwise. He is a reliable source. We don't have to prove the information, we have to prove the source reliable, that by extension proves the information. Now on occasion, things change, and he posts so, Wikipedia isn't permanent. You post the most reliable information available at the time, and if things change, you update it. And sometimes, the the fact something didn't happen when it was widely reported it would is noteworthy in itself, like pitcher Grant Balfour when he was supposed to sign with the Orioles but ultimately didn't over a physical and landed later with the Rays. CRRaysHead90 | ^#WelcomeHome 18:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You forget the point of an encylopedia is to convey knowledge, not rumors. We rely on Dave Meltzer to be correct and report that information. We expect it to be true. That is a reliable source. However, we have to verify information from all sources by proving those sites reliability. We can't just post what Wrestling News World posts because we think it is true. We have to prove the source's reliability. Now you brought up the discussion on whether it is reliable, not me. The ball is in your corner to prove its reliability.--WillC 19:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

And that was the purpose of my original post, to prompt you to give me a direction on how to prove it to you. I've never done this before. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 19:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

How it gets its information. Take it to the noticeboard. Best way to know exactly which questions need to be answered.--WillC 02:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling Illustrated magazine

Just checking, does anyone have the physical copy of the issue (or online access) where the magazine awards the 2011 Wrestler of the Year / 2011 Match of the Year etc? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read a physical PWI magazine since about 1997. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you remember my comments about PWI and WON awards? Nop, I don't know where to see the winners (magazine or online). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Authority again

I would also like to bring up (again) the issue of who the Authority is. Twice in the last week I've heard Michael Cole (on SD and Raw) claim that the Authority is only HHH and Steph, there's official video evidence on the article talk page. But WWE.com claims that Kane / Orton etc. are part of the Authority. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

WWE has the last word. Do you remember when JBL claimed to be a Grand Slam after he won the US Title? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying WWE.com has the last word? Regardless on what their lead commentator is telling the world on SD? (3:35) I have access to yet another video (for now) on the March 24 Raw where Cole says ladies and gentlemen, we heard from Stephanie McMahon, a little bit later on tonight we're going to hear from the other half of the Authority, her husband Triple H. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

yes. I think so. For example, when WOrld Wrestlinf Entertainment changed the name to WWE, an user said the company stills WOrld Wrestling Entertainment because CM Punk called it once.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think that is a good example. WWE's name change was legitimate, not a storyline event like the Authority. It's not even a total contradiction because I'm sure Punk didn't say "the company's name is World Wrestling Entertainment, not WWE", whereas Cole is outright contradicting WWE.com here. By the way, the legal name is World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was saying WWE. com, WWE or World Wrestling Entertainment Inc has the last word because the company has the creative control. Wrestlers and commentators, like Cole, can be wrong. JBL called himself a Grand Slam, but WWE didn't validate the Grand Slam status. I mean, WWE has power over Michael Cole, but Michaels Cole hasn't power over WWE. Anyway, These days i'm Naan violence, so this is my last argument XD --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Michael Cole also says wrestlers literally take others' heads off with clotheslines. He's probably the reason some editors here say "would go on to do" the thing. JBL's often correcting his historical trivia. And "Michael Cole sucks" gets over 500 Google hits (or 385,000 if you believe Google's estimate).

WWE is the authority on some things, but Cole should only be used (with caution) as a source for his own personal info. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

InedibleHulk and I formed a consensus for a project guideline 2 years ago. WP:COLEISATROLL: Ignore Michael Cole's gibberish at all costs. Feedback ^☎ 19:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice, forgot about that. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I just watched the press conference. Cole said this was Cena's 10th WrestleMania, when it is in fact his 11th. I'm telling u, Cole is a total mess. Feedback ^☎ 20:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone might have to replace me in editing BLPs

Sorry guys. It appears that my contributions to the Justin Bieber article, of all things, may soon result in a ban from all BLP articles. As I edit quite a few wrestler biographies, if you have experience on my edits on BLP articles, you may wish to voice your opinion on the discussion here. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Conciseness proposal.

In virtually every mainstream wrestler article, we have a crazy amount of sourcing. Often, there's more citation in a paragraph than text.

I think that can be alleviated greatly if we use TheHistoryOfWWE.com more. For example, look at Shawn Michaels' various feuds (2004-05). How much there isn't covered by the 2004 and 2005 pages? From thirteen sources to two. One footnote for each paragraph doesn't disrupt reading, and for editing, we don't have to see a goddamn <ref>{{cite web|first=Chris|last=Sokol|url=http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/PPVReports/2005/06/27/1106996.html|title=Batista retains with a Vengeance|accessdate=2011-02-03|date=2005-06-27|publisher=[[Canadian Online Explorer]]|work=Slam! Sports}}</ref> after every line (or so).

I think <ref>[http://www.thehistoryofwwe.com/04.htm 2004 WWE Results, from TheHistoryOfWWE.com]</ref> looks much neater.

So yeah? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

First off, that isn't how a citation is done. Second, the more sources the better in most cases. Some sources don't need to be in there because some of the information is pointless and not notable. The issue isn't too many sources, it is basic article layout.--WillC 23:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

That's how I cite things. I know it's proper to include the access date and split everything into compartments, but it's silly. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

As of right now HistoryofWWE is not even in the "reliable" tier of secondary sources in the style guide. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but try and find an error. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's something to consider: PWInsider is in the "proven reliable" list. According to Mike Johnson, TheHistoryOfWWE is "An amazing and excellent resource that I use almost daily to double check facts."

Figure that one out. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

If you recall the discussion we held earlier, PWInsider was never proven reliable nor taken to the notice board to my knowledge.--WillC 17:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I recall it going in circles with you. You're going to have define "proof" if you expect people to meet it. Until then, it is a clear and verifiable fact that it's presently listed there, and has been since January. The one before last. Apparently proven reliable by factchecking from the not yet proven.

That second part's illogical as fuck, but the first is a simple experiment. Observe, compare, conclude. That's how I propose we test sites. Compare them to the primary source (wrestling shows) and secondaries (other sites, newsletters, whatever) and look for contradictions. If you find a lot, the site is unreliable. If things consistently jive, it's reliable. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

We already have a consensus on this: WP:Reliable Source. Yes, the discussion went in circles, but because there was no solid evidence other than "I find it fine." I wasn't the only one who questioned its validity and there was a valid point made on it being confused with the PWI. You forget, this project is governed by several other things. All we determine is the style and small things related to wrestling articles. If we expand articles to FA and GA, we have to be able to show how they were verified. I still propose PWInsider going to the noticeboard. The more RS the better. We can compare sites on what they report, but us comparing 6 pieces of shit does not make one of them an apple.--WillC 02:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If you analyze them closely enough, you might find one is made of apple. Literally, I mean. Metaphorically, I got nothing.

Don't forget, we're general Wikipedians as well as wrestling geeks. We can determine all kinds of stuff. Small things, big things, whatever. As long as they're helpful things. We can make like Mo on a Mission, or a difference like Fatu. Community, yo.

But yes, we can also put things on noticeboards. No objections to a trial here, Commissioner Will. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Apparently nobody got my pings, because I have already taken PWInsider to the RS noticeboard days ago ... and pinged those who recently discussed it. Maybe I can't ping in small. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No ping here. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Just managed to get in before it was archived. That was quick. Someone might want to unarchive and spank the bot. I'm not sure how. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

erm, I did it via "ignore all rules". starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Man one, machine zero. The binary system works. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

PWInsider is not going down well on the RS/N. But @InedibleHulk: @Wrestlinglover:, even WWE.com uses PWInsider as a source quite a lot of times in 2008, including 1, 2 and 3. ROH has mentioned them too. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Ping! Off the goalpost. I think I'll sit this one out. I'm still mostly for using sources when their claims can be proven to around beyond reasonable doubt, and not using them when their claims can't. Nothing wrong with being "not yet proven". It's that third list you want to avoid. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say I am sold. I think that would be enough to establish its reliability in an FA review as top notch. Just keep them links around. That way they can always be there to show that other reliable sources have used them.--WillC 09:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

So we're going to ignore the RS/N discussion then? WillC was the only one holding out, GaryColemanFan was sold earlier. Might I add, that the most abrasive commenter there (Collect) who caused the discussion to turn more "nasty" at 15:51, 2 April 2014 , has been in a content dispute with me since January 2014 in another article. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hall or Ramon?

I have a question. WWE nominated Scott Hall to the HOF. However, he'll be inducte as Razor Ramon and the video only shows his carrer as the Bad Guy. Should we list only 4 Times IC Champion in the Notes column? Looks like WWE inducted Ramon, not Hall (rumour, Hall will be indutee with the NWO) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. WWE calls him Razor but also lists his WCW accomplishments.LM2000 (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is a stupid disconnect between WWE television programming and WWE.com. The HOF to-be-inducted video clearly refers to the character Razor Ramon, not Scott Hall; no WCW title at all is mentioned in the video but the WWF IC title is. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know we haven't ignored the accomplishments of a person because a different character was officially inducted (KVE/Texas Tornado's IC reign, Hennig/Perfect's AWA reign). We didn't ignore it because, as far as I know, WWE didn't ignore the accomplishments. I think we'll just have to wait and see if something more concrete comes out... just because something like this hasn't happened in the past doesn't mean this can't be the first precedent.LM2000 (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wait-and-see sounds sensible. How about now, we only list the IC accomplishments. When Ramon is actually inducted (less than two weeks time right?) we can watch his induction, if no post-Ramon stuff is mentioned, then we don't add the WCW accomplishments, if WCW stuff is mentioned, we add it in. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm rather shocked we're even discussing this. Hadn't realized a gimmick could be inducted instead of a person. Probably because they can't. Reading a bit too literally, some of you. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, as I said, WWE only talks about his WWE career as Razor Ramon, not as Scott Hall in AWA, WCW or WWF (2002). I mean, Hennig was inducteed as "Mr. Perfect" Curt Hennig, is strange to include only Razor Ramon. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I think by now we've realized we're better than WWE. WWE.com, anyway. They're a source, but they're not Gospel. We acknowledge plenty of things they didn't during induction packages. They didn't mention George Steele is also in the Pro Wrestling Hall, and almost certainly never called The Grand Wizard a heel. Virtually every WWE-related article contains things WWE doesn't mention. That's a good thing. This is the same thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

They induct individuals, not gimmicks. They just placed the majority of the focus on his WWE time, as is normal for anyone with a notable WWE run. I do not think Scott Hall is going to show up dressed as Ramon or introduced as Ramon, why would they? STATic message me! 01:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently the name engraved on Hall's HOF ring is his birth name and not Razor Ramon. Hopefully that ends this debate. At least until next year when Diesel (not to be confused with Diesel) goes in.LM2000 (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Great to hear, I mean they almost always focus the promo videos around a single gimmick, and WWE just thought that Ramon was his most noted gimmick. Which should have been expected. It is the little blogs that blew this out of proportion. STATic message me! 17:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Results table again

I'd like to revive my proposal from this past December, it seemed to be on it's way to passing then people just stop commenting. What does everyone think? CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 00:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Eh, it was also supported by HHH Pedrigree, LM2000, InedibleHulk and myself, the latter two who definitely do not prefer pink (I prefer purple). Only Feedback disagreed. In fact you must have brought it up because I tried to insert it into WrestleMania XXX. Here is how I did it, though it has since been reverted. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 00:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I really need people to participate this time, I hate the lack of discussion participation that normally plagues this project anymore. And maybe the purple isn't good either. Maybe something better? IDK. Oh, and I didn't bring it up because of your edit, just a coincidence. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 01:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have much further to add. Still cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Eh fine. Then ping people like so: @Wrestlinglover: could you take a look at this? I don't want red/pink or blue because they remind me of Raw and SmackDown. I'd probably be fine with purple or green or yellow. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

We have table guidelines that were determined through FLC, FAC, and various other places to consider. The FA review in Turning Point (2008 wrestling) also covers this issue. The tables need to be sorted and the bar across the top conflicts with the need for sorting.--WillC 01:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Might I add that your Turning Point tables can't be sorted, at least when I'm clicking Results, Duration etc. Is there a need for sorting... only No. is most crucial IMO. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll have to check, but I think someone changed the table in TP. I may have changed it back, idk. I wasn't the one who chose how they are done. I just did what the guidelines said in the FA review. Consult the FA review for the reasoning. The sorting comes from my FL knowledge because that is one particular thing covered in pretty much all reviews, whether they are sortable or not.--WillC 02:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

eh WillC has a point. See MOS:DTT#Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 02:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah he does, however I disagree with the MoS here. I think my proposal reads and functions better then a stretched out column. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 02:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, after reading the MoS, maybe my proposal is not the exact answer, but it's a starting point. I just know the status quo can not be kept. It's looks bad. There should not be show titles in the number column. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 02:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Aye. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The MOS has "good examples". So which one looks worse, the current iteration of the table with Pre-show in the number column, or we have two separate tables for the pre-show and the main show, which would result in two "No. / Matches / Stipulations / Time". starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright here you go, before and after. Compare. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I definitely think what we have now looks worse and the new suggestion looks better. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 03:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The separate tables seems unnecessary.--WillC 05:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't support any table that doesn't call the first match (alone) "1". I like the second, but it needs coloured headers and no double column headers. Something like UFC 162. The columns carry through. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Would anyone else care to comment? CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 18:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Frankly I see both my "before" and "after" above as having faults. The best table IMO ended up violating MOS:DTT. I like the UFC table, but firstly, we will have to create quite a few templates. Secondly, we can't really use "X def. Y" because it's not all singles matches. starship.paint "YES!" 05:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

x and y can be teams. Or y can be multiple losers. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe an idea is to just remove the dark matches from the table. They aren't even a part of the show. Best to just list them in the event section as happening prior. Two tables seem odd and the ban across the table could become an issue. UFC PPVs are vastly underexpanded and their table format hasn't really been reviewed by people really familiar with tables imo.--WillC 07:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Really think the dark matches need to be listed. The MoS really hurts our options here. I think my original proposal is still the option that makes the most sense. Shame it violates the MoS. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 21:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course they're part of the show. Just not the TV show. If we were only concerned about that, stuff like attendance, venue and gate would also be pointless. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Goodbye and Farewell

Tonight the WWE as we know it died and with its death I bid you all a Goodbye I will no longer take part in the editing of Wrestling related articles. Most of the work I did for this project was just removing vandalism or other small things, and I had fun doing it but my time here as come to end. I may pop in from time to time, but I wish you all the best of luck for the future. Goodbye for now.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 02:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

#ThankYouDcheagle InedibleHulk (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I half consider doing the same. Bryan didn't even save it.--WillC 07:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

My commiserations, Dcheagle. It was truly the end of an era, but maybe a new beginning. Thank you very much for all your contributions to the project. starship.paint "YES!" 13:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia

Hi there, I would like to invite all members of this WikiProject to head over and help build and improve the pro wrestling related articles on the Simple English Wikipedia. Many articles do not exist, and those that do are either in extreme disarray or extremely outdated (the WWE Brand Extension article is a good example.) Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 22:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No Scott Hall, but a Todd Grisham. No Terry Gordy, but Ray Gordy. No Lou Thesz, one Michael Tarver. Not saying it wouldn't be a noble job, but a huge one. Put me down for "maybe". On the bright side, none of our articles are that complicated (compared to science or history). Our leads seem to say the same as entire articles there. Is there a way (and is it Wikikosher) to link our articles to their redlinks, at least temporarily? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

As the person that worked the majority of the time solo for many years on the wrestling articles, I can tell you that some that exist, only exist because I copied and pasted the current enWP version at the time and simplified it. As for the red links, I personally would advise against that as the project's purpose to make things easier to read and linking them to the full enWP version makes that moot. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 22:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, temporarily would probably turn into forever. Still on my maybe list. Everybody should know something about Mantaur. Good work!InedibleHulk (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried to import Mantaur, but didn't have the proper papers and was turned away at port. I'll copy and paste in a bit, but not looking forward to tweaking those links. Plain text is better than nothing, I suppose. Temporarily, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays, people!

We've had our differences this year, but I think we can all agree this looks like a damn fine weekend.

The enormity of the fact that The Ultimate Warrior is about to get a live mic and talk about his career just really struck me. And Jake "You Don't Want to Play Cards with Me" Roberts! Scott "Curtain Call" Hall! Amy "My Name's not Really Lita, and I'm Actually Boning Adam" Dumas! Carlos "You Kids Probably Don't Know Me and I Won't Take Long" Colon!

Going to be crazier than WrestleMania itself. Hope everyone has a nice seat and a cold drink. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

30 minutes in, Rey Mysterio and Arn Anderson are drinking in the aisles, Danny Doring's dick has a shout-out and Rayo De Jalisco's severed head is just...sitting there. Wrestling is awesome! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Go home Hulk, you're drunk! Sorry, can't appreciate the HoF too much given that I've never watched Roberts, Warrior, Colon, Mr.T, missed most of Bearer's career and only watched one Ramon match. I think I'm up for a Lita marathon though. Anyway, here's the real deal - baring selfishness of the highest order from HHH, in less than 24 hours, Daniel Bryan is going to main event WrestleMania' and win the big one. Holy shit. starship.paint "YES!" 08:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I was drunk and home already. Anyway, you've shocked me. I didn't think wrestling fans existed who hadn't seen the Snake or Warrior. Even new ones. I have to suggest this angle. Also features a healthy dose of Bearer.

As for Bryan winning the big one, I'm sure you've seen this, but it's not kidding. Triple H eats heroes like Daniel Bryan eats alfalfa. Still, miracles do happen. Keep on chanting! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

That Warrior angle just got a whole lot creepier. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations. But like any game, the Level One boss is the easy one. No DQs in a Triple Threat! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Here we go! 21-0-1! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this you right now, Starship? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

WWE: so right, and yet so wrong. They managed to combine the rise of the next generation, the end of an era, the same old shit, and the gods of yesteryear in one PPV. starship.paint "YES!" 13:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The future holds some promise though. If I were the Authority, I would send Lesnar after Bryan. What's more sure is that Lesnar will have to put someone else over. I can only pray that it will be Cesaro and not Reigns. Bryan doesn't really need it after last night. starship.paint "YES!" 14:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Good lord, it's raining NXT wrestlers on Raw! AND CESARO VS LESNAR IS A LOCK. starship.paint "YES!" 02:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There's no way that won't be good. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Warrior's death: Going for the Main Page / Fair Use pic

Holy. At least Warrior got into the Hall of Fame and gave his speeches at the HoF and on Raw before his passing. RIP. starship.paint "YES!" 06:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

We could get a proper fair use picture of him during his heyday. I started a discussion on the talk page regarding this. starship.paint "YES!" 06:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm am trying to get Ultimate Warrior's death listed on the Main Page through Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#RD: The Ultimate Warrior. Please voice your opinion there. starship.paint "YES!" 07:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It took giving the article a bit of a makeover, but we did get it listed.LM2000 (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all. starship.paint "YES!" 02:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Holy shit. That's all I have for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)