Talk:Professional wrestling in Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other[edit]

Penni lane and Rick X info is easily verified by checking www.eccw.com User didn't sign

Third party source is required - that is an original source. Also please provide sources for the other fact tags that you removed, and proof of notability of the wrestlers concerned. !! Justa Punk !! 07:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

This page contains a lot of material with questionable notability. It may be required to redo the page and remove the majority of Australian material if the citation tags aren't properly responded to. !! Justa Punk !! 23:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find sources to prove it! 203.26.123.147 02:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for a page that concerns professional wrestling in australia the failure to cover barely any of the local scene is rather poor. perhaps a list of local promotionsat least? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.77.69.170 (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because none of them are notable, and it would therefore amount to advertising which is against WP rules. !! Justa Punk !! 03:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TV Programming Section is Wrong, Incomplete and Misleading[edit]

I am inclined to remove anything relating to dates from this section, as there is a lot or incorrect stuff there.

Some points:

  • Why no mention of the weekly Australian shows broadcast in the 60s/70s? (There is a very brief allusion to it earlier in the article). If I remember correctly it was also sometimes shown on Channel 7's 'World of Sport' during the 70s.
  • Why no mention of the WWF programming shown during the mid-80s? (Again there's a brief allusion to it earlier in the article). It was also a regular feature on Nine's 'Wide World of Sport' program in the early 80s.
  • To the best of my knowledge neither Raw or Nitro were on Free to Air in Australia. A program I think called Superstars of Wrestling (a one hour WWF highlight type show) was on for a while on free to air in the late 90s; this was also on PayTV. I can't recall a WCW one on free-to-air, though there may have been.
  • The article suggests programming on PayTV only started in 2000. I got Optus PayTV for a very short period around 1996 and Nitro was on it then.
  • I got Austar PayTV in 1998 and both Nitro and Raw were on it then; so the section saying "WWE programming returned in 2000...on Fox Sports" is blatantly wrong (and it was still WWF in 2000 anyway).

If I had any refs I would fix it all up; atm I'll leave it, but will probably come back after I've thought about what to do. --jjron (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tv section is totally wrong. As someone who had Optus in the 90's, WCW Monday Nitro was shown on TNT now TCM, every Saturday night at 11 pm. I started watching in late 1996, so i don't if it was shown in Australia from the begining. Also the only time WCW was on free tv, was on channel 9 on Mondays at 1 am. The show was edited down to a hour and was about 6 months behind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.194.157 (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After World Championship Wrestling stopped on channel 9, the program World of Championship Wrestling came about. I've got an episode on tape from 1980. Also, is it worth mentioning that following local promotions have had TV shows? - High Risk Pro Wrestling (1999/2000) - not sure if there's a source on this but I remember it. - International Wrestling Australia (2007 or so onwards) on Foxtel's Aurora - should be able to find a reference. - Impact Pro Wrestling Australia (2008 or so onwards) on Briz31 - should be able to find a confirmation reference. - Australasian Wrestling Federation - I think, should be able to find reference if need be. - Smash X Wrestling (2010 or so) on One HD (Pretty sure I can find a reference on this) Cmdalgleish (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foxtel[edit]

is it true that the deal between WWE and Foxtel is that they have an exclusive agreement that only WWE is able to telecast and no other wrestling products (but mainevent) is that ture --124.181.81.170 (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)--124.181.81.170 (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TNA iMPACT! on Fox8[edit]

Okay, I know it's blatantly obvious that TNA is now coming to Fox8. I've seen the ads. I've read about a dozen different forum discussions regarding it. However, until somebody finds a reliable source such as Fox8 or Foxtel's site we can't put that in there. I suspect something may be on Fox8's TV guide tomorrow night as the EPG normally lasts about a week in advance. Thanks. Normy 01:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What ads? I watch Fox8 and I haven't seen a thing. !! Justa Punk !! 04:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of them aired during Total Football last night on Fox Sports. Anyway, doesn't matter, got a third party source for it. Normy 09:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promotions in Australia[edit]

Ive included links and names of CURRENT/ACTIVE promotions in Australia. Hopefully people wont tear it to shreds and delete promotions because they do not like them.

Whoever 203.38.151.209 is needs to stop deleting promotions on the fly.

No
None of the promotions are notable. At all. If you want these promotions included you must establish why they should be included consistent with WP:N and respect the rules of WP:OR and other appropriate Wikipedia rules. Promotions pages have been removed in the past for failing the notability test. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise - which is what you are doing unless you prove notability. Thank you. !! Justa Punk !! 11:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Sources[edit]

So what is there to be said for primary sources in regards to this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.248.70 (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both fail WP:RS. Linking to just results on OWW is a major fail and the other one is simply a dirtsheet that relies on unreliable forums for it's news. If the ROH PPV hasn't been shown yet you'd better wait until it is. Then you won't have so much of a problem finding a reliable source. Look at the sources for previous ROH PPV's for a guide. !! Justa Punk !! 22:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dingo[edit]

What's the point of putting Australian gimmicks here? He doesn't have an article so he's not notable and I don't think there's ever been a notable gimmick wrestler except with genuine Aussies like Heffernan and Costello. Mal Case (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Eagles/Jessie McKay[edit]

I know I did a poor job on the edit as I'm not great with Wiki code, but surely there should be mention of Madison Eagles and Jessie McKay on the page. They've done a PPV for ROH and are a pretty strong focal point of SHIMMER (Madison has been champion for over a year). Madison also ranked #1 in PWI Women's 50, the first non WWE/TNA talent to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.114.60 (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warning NOT A PPV[edit]

I added 3 references from two reliable sources (WrestlingObserver.com and WWECorporate.com) proving this show did not air on PPV anywhere in the world. The Observer source is an article from 2002. It is a live report from a fan who was there live that makes it clear that this show was not televised. Hopefully this years-long debate is finally over. OldSkool01 (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not because I was there as well and there's much wrong with the report from several angles. I have neutralised it per your talk page to recognise the issue at hand. You can not say with any confidence based on your links that it wasn't on pay per view, especially given the IP's edit summary which needs to be looked into (and I'm already trying to but finding online material is proving hard - hardcopy exists but locating that without major travel appears nigh on impossible. A south east Asian TV magazine or something similar would be ideal). Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a site where you have to prove what "is", not what "isn't". You have yet to prove at all that Global Warning was on PPV and you never will because it WASN'T. I, on the other hand, have provided very reliable sources saying that it is not a PPV. Now, until you can prove that it was, the facts stand on their own. You're own personal bias is getting in the way here. You being there live means absolutely nothing. OldSkool01 (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it it pay per view in Vietnam! Stop insisting that it wasn't when it WAS!! Leave this alone!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.135.128 (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, sign up on Wikipedia and get a proper username. That's the first thing. Second, understand proper Wikipedia protocol. When multiple references from a reliable source are named confirming it was NOT a PPV, you do not remove them. You've provided no sources at all to back up any of your claims. OldSkool01 (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IT WAS A PPV!!!! Are you calling me a liar?? What did I watch in Ho Chi Minh in August 02, chopping liver?? Your sources are wrong and you're going to stop adding them!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.135.128 (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

STOP IT!! YOUR SOURCES ARE WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! It was on PPV! I watched it myself in Vietnam and I'm right to put RIGHT info!! Got it??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.135.128 (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok. Since you watched on PPV in Ho Chi Minh, you should have no problem telling us the name of the cable/satellite company you watched it on. Not that I'm calling you a liar, I'm just saying based on research I've done, it doesn't look like Vietnam even had pay-per-view capabilities in 2002. OldSkool01 (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia has a policy against using original research. Anecdotal edit summaries aren't enough proof to include something in an article; we need reliable sources. OldSkool's version is the only verifiable version, so that one should remain. Find sources to support your claim and discuss them here, continuing to edit war could result in a block.LM2000 (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • LM, whilst I do agree with what you say in general, I disagree that the sourcing from Cage Match and Pro Fight DB are not verifiable. Reliable is another matter, but they are not unreliable like some of the other sources. On the Meltzer link - sorry but I deem that as unreliable on the grounds that it was manipulated by OldSkool, and if we need that verified by an uninvolved party then so be it. Meanwhile, there is one change that I have to make - and that is to remove "non televised" because that suggests that it wasn't televised at all, and yet it was - in November 2002 as part of the Fanatic Series. What we are querying is the live aspect. I echo OldSkool's question about what channel it was on, but I will say to OldSkool that pay TV hacking was rife at that time and it's just possible that the IP watched a hacked broadcast from another country. Indeed Foxtel in Australia was being hacked big time back then as an example. The only pay channel in the region that I can ID so far is Ten Sports in Singapore (which started in April 2002), but I can't believe it was the only one. Bottom line - this matter is not closed as I have already said and unlike the IP (at present at least) I am trying to track down sources that back up my own knowledge - which I do accept is OR by itself. Curse of Fenric (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curse of Fenric You still have not explained how I "manipulated" Dave Meltzer. I asked him to confirm whether or not Global Warning did or did not air on PPV anywhere in the world. And he answered on his website by saying "It did NOT air on PPV". There is nothing manipulative about that at all. It's cut and dry. I'm waiting for you to explain how that is manipulative. Also FoxTel is a premium service like HBO, Showtime, etc. It did not have PPV capabilities until 2010. TenSports is also a premium package of channels, meaning you pay a monthly fee as opposed to PPV where you pay for a specific show at a specific time. Big difference between pay-television(premium channels) and pay-per-view. Even with that said there was no way that Global Warning could've aired live because there was no commentary. Commentary wasn't added until Tazz and Michael Cole did the voiceovers in WWE studios days laters. As for TenSports, their WWE programming was never live until 2015. All WWE shows on TenSports aired on a delay, sometimes a few weeks later. Regardless, those channels were not PPV channels anyway, so the whole issue is moot. OldSkool01 (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emailing a person to provide information to assist you is manipulating a source. He put that note on his site because of you. That's manipulating a source. Would he have put it there if you hadn't emailed him? No. So it's what you say is not cut and dried. Now as for that nonsense about Foxtel - WWF/E PPV's (and WCW!) have been on there since the late 1990's! Foxtel itself was formed back in 1995 for goodness sake! I think you're thinking on Foxtel Box Office, which has nothing to do with pay per view in Australia. That is provided to the public by Foxtel through the Main Event channel and always has been. TenSports as far as I can tell is a single channel, not a package. You don't know that Cole and Tazz dubbed their commentary, unless they dubbed a couple of matches to wipe live Aussie references purely for the DVD six match release which would not count towards your point. I'll check out that claim about pay per view re TenSports. It actually doesn't make sense because they could easily have made arrangements with Foxtel for live PPV's at least. It's close enough between Singapore and the closest access point for Foxtel (Darwin). Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're correct about the Foxtel mixup. I was speaking of Foxtel Box Office. Now with that said, let's get back to this whole ridiculous "manipulating" thing. Manipulation means I convinced him to make a comment that would lean towards my side of the story. He could've just as easily answered by saying "Global Warning was indeed on PPV". In which case I'm sure you wouldn't be accusing me of manipulation. The bottom line is this, whether I asked him or you asked him or anyone else asked him, he still would've given the same answer. You're accusation is that he did me some kind of favor by saying it was not on PPV. I don't know Dave Meltzer. Never met him. We're not friends. And even if we were friends, he would never blatantly lie on his website just to help out a friend. He posted that comment directly on his website for the whole world to see it. That means it's a comment he stands by or else he would've never said it. He's been reporting on the wrestling business for over 40 years and he wouldn't put his reputation on the line just to help someone win a silly argument on Wikipedia. i can't believe I even have to explain this. OldSkool01 (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did he put it on his website? Because you emailed him. That's manipulation. If you don't understand that and prefer to hide behind an elaborate smoke screen to poorly disguise your excuses and avoid your guilt that's not my problem. Whether you know Meltzer or not is irrelevant. Curse of Fenric (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'An elaborate smoke screen'. What are you talking about? Wikipedia has a list of reliable wrestling sources. Why do you think that list is there? So people know who the reputable reporters are. If someone wants to get a story verified they can very easily ask one of those sources to verify the story. There's no rules against that. The problem here isn't that I asked him a question, the problem is you don't like the answer he gave. That's what it boils down to. Answer me this, if he had put on his site "Global Warning did in fact air on PPV", would you still be accusing me of manipulation? Or would you use that as your main reference to trump all the other sources in showing that it did in fact air on PPV? I think I know the answer. The only one hiding behind poor excuses is you. And if you want to take this to the admins, I'll be more than happy to go down that route. OldSkool01 (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's pretty obvious that you don't know what it means to manipulate a source. All it takes is an email, which is what you did. The fact that Meltzer put something on his site is the proof. If you didn't manipulate him, he would have done nothing - not put "Global Warning did in fact air on PPV". So no, I would not have used it if he'd said it was because even though I didn't cause the change it's still a manipulated source. The list is for use of sources that are there from the start (like my sources and your WWE source). It is not a contact point of any description and should never be used as one no matter what the result. Curse of Fenric (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't consider that manipulation. You can call it whatever you want to call it. The fact is there are no rules against getting a verification from a source. Show me where it says that I am, or anyone else is, not allowed to do that. Sites like PWInsider.com and WrestlingObserver.com have "Q&As"(either in column form or audio form) where fans can ask any questions they want about the wrestling business and the history of the wrestling business and those questions will be answered publicly. This whole thing is just semantics now. We're arguing over the definition of "manipulation". A verified source confirmed an issue that was argued on this page. He didn't have to post that on his website for the world to see. He could've just as easily e-mailed me back privately, but he decided to post it on his site. Why he decided to is irrelevant. This whole manipulation argument is just distracting from the fact that he said Global Warning did not air on PPV. Now are you saying he's a liar? He's wrong? He made it up? He has connections in the wrestling business at the highest level, plus all he would have to do is just look through his own records from 2002 to see what the facts are. OldSkool01 (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is manipulation. You weren't getting verification from a source, because Meltzer didn't have it on his website at all (you had to consult archive.org to get that fan report). So there was nothing to verify on that website. I state that you asked him to put it on the site. Any denial I will not believe. That's why it's relevant. Yes I am saying he is a liar, because Cage Match, Pro Fight DB and Tony Chimel on the night (yeah I know it's OR but it's still valid to this debate) say that it was on PPV. You can scream about reliable sources all you want. CF and PFDB are not unreliable. Sure, they're in that mid zone whereas Meltzer's site has been deemed reliable, but Meltzer has been questioned before - particularly on the issue of attendances as an example (Mania 3 springs to mind). I question him here as is my right on the evidence in front of me. Curse of Fenric (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love all of these imaginary rules you come up with. First I'm not allowed to ask a source for verification on a topic, and now I'm not allowed to use Archive.org to search for a story. Any other rules in this book I should know about? OldSkool01 (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just thought I'd throw these links up here. The first one is of the original event poster for Insurrextion from May 2002: http://www.hoffco-inc.com/wwe/ppv/ppv/img/ad-ins02.jpg. The second one is the original event poster for Global Warning: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/170433167122751943/ The third one is the event poster for Rebellion from October 2002: https://ultimatewrestlingni.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/img_7373-0.jpg. The reason I'm showing these is because these were all international WWE events from the same year. You'll notice that Insurrextion and Rebellion both mention on their posters that they're being shown on PPV(you clearly see the SKY logos). Nowhere on the Global Warning poster does it mention PPV. All WWE PPV posters always mention whether or not the event airs on PPV. OldSkool01 (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also I just checked those sites you mentioned as reliable sources. I don't see where CageMatch lists Global Warning as a PPV. Unless I'm missing something. So really all you have as evidence is ProFightDB. I've provided 2 links from WrestlingObserver.com, 2 links from WWECorporate.com, the original event poster, plus neither TheHistoryOfWWE.com nor ProWrestlingHistory.com mention Global Warning as a PPV. I'm actively searching for links to help end this issue once and for all and it seems you're just content to rely on PFDB. OldSkool01 (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is nuts. Of course if an event is shown LOCALLY on PPV it's going to show it. I never claimed that Main Event showed Global Warning. If the two UK PPV's were shown elsewhere in Europe would those providers be shown? No. Would Wrestlemania's poster show Main Event or Sky? No. You wanted to know what rule you are breaking? Bias, AKA WP:NPOV which covers by insinuation manipulating sources. You didn't look at the Cage Match link - it clearly says "Pay Per View Event" above the results in the same way Pro Fight DB does. You are obsessed with proving that Global Warning wasn't shown on PPV anywhere at all (and it was in November but that's beside the point here). Even though we have no proof we have one OR claim that it was seen in Vietnam (and I am convinced now that it was a pirate dish that picked it up as Vietnam had no pay TV in 2002 unless I missed something), and another OR claim that Tony Chimel announced it at the event as going out on PPV (that of course is mine). I never dismissed the WWE sources outright. They simply prove that there is a clash in available sourcing, hence my last edit days ago showing that clash. You threw bias into it by manipulating a reliable source (Meltzer). Why can't you see this? Oh I think I can guess and I already said it once and it's worth repeating. You're obsessed. Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh wait, you manipulated another source didn't you? You emailed Cage Match and showed them Meltzer's comment right? This is disgusting. And while I'm about it, I said this before - HistoryofWWE doesn't mention the UK PPV's either. Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So now you're accusing me of manipulating Cage Match?! Ok then. Obviously the only one obsessed here is you. I honestly couldn't care less about CageMatch or ProFight as I never go to those sites. But now you're making blatant false accusations. Because it's not possible they saw Dave's post all on their own. Because nobody in the world reads the Observer. It had to be me, right? I know who's the obsessed one. I'm only looking to make sure that the WWE Pay-Per-View chronology is accurate. Anyone trying to apply non-PPVs to the list bothers me. Also TheHistoryOfWWE.com absolutely mentions if the UK-only events were on PPV or not. You need to go back and check. Also you said "Of course if an event is shown LOCALLY on PPV it's going to show it... If the two UK PPV's were shown elsewhere in Europe would those providers be shown?" And that's my point exactly. You answered your own question. This whole debate is that you're claiming Global Warning only aired locally in Australia. So the poster WOULD show that it aired on PPV. It doesn't. The reason I showed the Insurrextion and Rebellion posters from the same year is because those shows only aired locally, like you claim Global Warning did. And as for that user who claimed to have watched it in Vietnam, I asked them to provide the name of the cable/satellite company that they watched it on(so we can get some kind of verification) and they flat out denied to name the service they watched it on. Their exact quote was "Why should I tell you what channel it was on? IT DOESN'T MATTER!!". That right there should tell you all you need to know about their claims. OldSkool01 (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • More proof of your bias. Now you're lying about me. I NEVER said the PPV aired in Australia. I always said it was south east Asia. Cage Match's change was way too quick to be a casual viewing of Wrestling Observer. I only mentioned the IP in passing, and what about Tombstoneride who you recently reverted? There are people who know through OR that it was shown. We just need the smoking gun, which the channel it was shown on would provide. It's just a matter of finding it. You just flat out refuse to admit that you and Meltzer just might be wrong. There's a grey area here and it's about time you admitted to it's existence. Curse of Fenric (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Southeast Asia? And you're basing that on what? Because you claim Tony Chimel said that at the event? You're the only person I've ever heard make that claim. I've never seen that mentioned online anywhere in the last 13 years. Think about the logic of that. The show is taking place in Melbourne, Australia, yet it's only going to air on PPV in Southeast Asia. Nowhere else. Don't you find that a little strange? That would be like WWE holding an event in Florida, but it would only air on PPV in Western Canada. Doesn't make sense. Why, of all the places in the world, would they only choose to air this one show in Southeast Asia when the show isn't even taking place in Southeast Asia? I'm sorry, but I'm going to need more than just your word on that one for me to believe it. And you mentioned TomstoneRide. They haven't provided one source. Not one. They just change the wording to say it was a PPV. No references at all. And TomstoneRide has been warned many times by many different people to stop making changes to different articles without sourcing them first. As for CageMatch changing Global Warning, why would it be too soon? Dave posted that story a week ago. From the looks of that site real briefly, they credit the Observer for a lot of their stuff. I see they even mention the star ratings that Dave gives to matches. You're seriously underestimating just how many sites get the majority of their news and references from sites like the Observer and PWInsider. When it comes down to it, the only solid piece of evidence you have is from the ProFight site. And I wouldn't be shocked if the only reason they have Global Warning listed as a PPV is from reading it on Wikipedia. As far as I see it, it's not very gray at all. The majority of reliable sources have it all black. One notable site has it white. Best of luck finding that smoking gun. OldSkool01 (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is my final word. PPV in south east Asia makes perfect sense. No PPV at the same time in Australia also makes perfect sense - it's called avoiding live against the gate for something that hadn't been there for 16 years. Not strange at all. There is a lot you don't know about this, and despite all my efforts you refuse to listen to reason. This conversation is closed. I will be editing the article WHEN I find that smoking gun. Curse of Fenric (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You ARE calling me a liar! HEY! There were two sources there already that said it was a pay per view that BACKS ME UP!! IT WAS ON PPV!! Why should I tell you what channel it was on? IT DOESN'T MATTER!! What matters is I saw it on pay per view and two sources BACK ME UP!! So the right information goes back and it'll continue to be put back until you all ACCEPT THE TRUTH!! You want original research? I'll give you Ignore All Rules! Got it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.135.128 (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are just clearly trolling now. And you should be blocked. OldSkool01 (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OH YEAH?? That's your reason for taking out wrong info? Correcting wrong info isn't trolling!! Adding wrong info IS! Troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.135.128 (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And who are you to say that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.135.128 (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be prepared to be blocked. User:OldSkool01 and User:LM2000, you two should know that I've mentioned you in the report as being involved (LM gave the warning and OldSkool started the talk here that the IP was involved in). The above manipulation issue is included but it might not be addressed. That's up to the admin who responds. Curse of Fenric (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haha to you. I'm still here and telling the truth. That can't be blocked! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.135.128 (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Professional wrestling in Australia[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Professional wrestling in Australia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Mondo":

  • From Lucha libre: Madigan, Dan (2007). "Okay... what is Lucha Libre?". Mondo Lucha Libre: the bizarre and honorable world of wild Mexican wrestling. HarperColins Publisher. pp. 29–40. ISBN 978-0-06-085583-3.
  • From Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre: Madigan, Dan (2007). "Okay... what is Lucha Libre?". Mondo Lucha A Go-Go: the bizarre & honorable world of wild Mexican wrestling. HarperColins Publisher. pp. 29–40. ISBN 978-0-06-085583-3.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warning compromise[edit]

This back-and-forth has been going on for over a decade. The bottom line is that it was not a PPV and four AfDs have decided that it's not notable enough for its own page. Whenever the main page gets deleted it gets brought back here, where it gets removed for being WP:UNDUE. However, if we were to create a WWE in Australia article I don't think it would be out of place there. We would trim a lot of WWE details here, including the large table detailing every tour they've done in the country, and move it over there.LM2000 (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a bad idea similar to WWE in Saudi Arabia. My only concern is it will leave this page pretty bare. Thats not really a bad thing though, because typically someone who comes here wants Australian wrestlers or promotions, not WWE's activities in Australia. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth a try. This way Super Show-Down can be mentioned more substantively with a focus on Buddy Murphy and The IIconics. It also leaves open things like matches on the NXT tour in late 2016 being shown on the NXT show on the WWE Network, as long as it can be sourced of course. There's enough left over on the current page from the old WCW and other tours like the modern WCW and House of Hardcore, and the mention of Australian wrestlers overseas doesn't need to be changed. As she was at Evolution I'm considering adding Toni Storm to that list. The TV section is in bad need of an update and re-write as well. Addicted4517 (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I guess. We would need a bit more detail on the house shows if there are any so that it's not unbalanced towards Global Warning. No grandiose claims like it was a "huge event" when it wasn't on pay per view! Super Show-Down should get the most coverage on it. 203.15.226.132 (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've started it as it was already there as a redirect. Need people to expand it before someone tries to restore the redirect! 203.15.226.132 (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I moved most of the stuff over there but I left the table with the tours because I didn't realize non-WWE shows were included. I wouldn't cry if someone else gets rid of it though. Obviously we need to expand WWE in Australia more, I like Addicted4517's ideas on where to go with that.LM2000 (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Super Show-Down with the link to the main article and copying the opening blurb before concentrating on Buddy Murphy's match and the IIconics match, and leaving it at that so it stays behind Global Warning as it doesn't have an article and SSD does. I'll try and source the NXT taping at Margaret Court Arena if I have time to. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would support it, I also think a WWE in Canada could be worth it considering WWE has had a special relationship with it's Canadian workers and fans through the years.★Trekker (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting fixed. Meanwhile - I've now added the NXT TV taping as I said I would, as wwe.com had the episode that was taped covered and the matches that weren't on the WWE Network were covered for by Wrestling Observer. That was easier than I thought it would be! Addicted4517 (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TMDK at WK9[edit]

Nicholls and Haste worked NJPW WK9 in 2015, which was broadcast on standard PPV in Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, United States, Canada and Mexico. How is that not an international PPV? Seems more like a bias perspective than it is internally consistent with what information is included on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:410A:6601:BDAB:AB97:3EAF:A8AD (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not worldwide. No coverage of it in Europe, other parts of Asia, South America and of course Australia and New Zealand. WWA did go to those countries. Therefore it is not added to the list. Addicted4517 (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, the wording on the section should be altered to read "worldwide" as opposed to "international". As it exists now, the section is a misleading half-truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.151.82 (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is not correct. You have misinterpreted the wording in both respects. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Future Events[edit]

I have removed future events from the events list as the page is not supposed to promote future events. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool, which is what adding those events is - unless there is already mainstream coverage local to the event (as there was for Super Showdown at the MCG). NJPW's Southern Showdown for instance is seen locally as nothing more than the same level as the WWE house show tour. They can be added after the fact as that would not be promotional but rather historical which is what Wikipedia is all about. Also I removed Lucha Underground as I couldn't find any reference to the events taking place - indeed I noted that LU is in trouble and may not be back on TV. So I doubt they toured, certainly this year. Addicted4517 (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PWA[edit]

At this point, they've had two pay-per-views on FITE, four months of weekly programming on the OVO streaming service, and have this week began taping for a nationally syndicated television show on the Nine Network. Is this Australian wrestling promotion preparing for a national TV debut now notable enough to include in the Wikipedia article on the topic of pro-wrestling in Australia, or has it not yet met the nebulous requirements of this article's gatekeepers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.176.3.71 (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you have said here reeks rather strongly of original research. Such a thing is not permitted and requires independent and reliable sourcing. Addicted4517 (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Major issues concerning this article, from an Australian wrestler[edit]

Why does this article claim that there is no local promotion in NT? Pro Wrestling Darwin, where I have personally worked several times, is just one of them. I first worked for PWD in 2013, making this article (to be generous) at least seven years out of date. Local pro-wrestling in Australia is in a boom period not seen since Barnett's WCW shut down over 40 years ago. Along with that, NJPW's two very successful tours of Australia are not so much as mentioned despite their 2019 Festival Hall show proving to be rather significant to the country's local industry. This article might as well be merged with "WWE in Australia", as that seems to be the bulk of the information listed. By what arbitrary standard has PWA or MCW been considered less than noteworthy? This article is quite literally titled "Professional wrestling in Australia" yet there exists comparatively ittle discussion of the Australia's actual pro-wrestling industry. Furthermore, any attempt to resolve this issue by adding information relevantto the local industry has been promptly removed. It gives an incorrect impression of professional wrestling as it currently exists in Australia, reflecting the mid 2000s far more than it does the year 2021. I would suggest a new section added to this article, dedicated to the modern landscape. Currently, PWA and MCW, at the very least, most certainly require mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.176.3.71 (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By your own admission you are involved in the local wrestling scene in Australia. Therefore these comments constitute a conflict of interest. PWA does not have an article and MCW's article is seriously flawed as indicated by the top hat. Therefore they do not require mention. There is no evidence of the existence of a promotion in the Northern Territory that certainly I have seen. Local information has been removed because it has failed the test of reliable sourcing. The coverage of the local scene, when compared to that of the old World Championship Wrestling, is virtually non existent with only the Melbourne incident in 2002 getting any mainstream coverage worthy of addition. Addicted4517 (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been dominated by a banned user saying things like what you are saying and who has been known of using sockpuppets. I'll trust this expert in the area to give cited information than to someone who is saying something blatantly false (you have weird standards if you put "random undated newspaper article" ahead of actual websites).118.208.187.206 (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He did not give cited information, which is part of the issue. I do not know the history of this article beyond the argument over WWE Global Warning which has been resolved so I can not comment on that. However I do agree that the sourcing of the Melbourne incident is poor. With that in mind I sought to locate either of the newspaper articles noted and I have found The Age article. I am about to add this now and in fact because of The Age article I may consider a slight re-write. Addicted4517 (talk) 09:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact in reviewing what was in the article fully I decided on a full re-write as there was enough in the article to cover enough of what was there originally while removing some rather blatant opinion and original research. Addicted4517 (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Professional_wrestling_in_Australia&oldid=1203555849"