Talk:New Era (WWE)

Original research
Dilbert, please read this and then either revert your edit or find some sources which correlate with the prose within the article. Source two of the article makes no mention of any crowd reaction for Roman Reigns. Source three makes no mention of any of the mentioned people becoming "top stars". Almost none of the other text within the section is sourced. Ergo, this is original research, and I tagged it accordingly. Source five makes no mention of any of the mentioned match stipulations. Source seven is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Source nine makes no mention of an "influx" of NXT wrestlers and makes no mention of a "bloated roster". Source 10 and source 11 make no mention of this being a notable occurrence. Source 12 and source 13 make no mention of this being a notable occurrence. Source 14 and source 15 make no mention of this being a notable occurrence. Source 16 and source 17 make no mention of the pandemic, or the situation of having a crowd. Thanks. ItsKesha (talk) 13:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * no original research here, every line seems sourced, yes only the first section "Initiation and the Rise of Roman Reigns" had some WP:OR, I fixed it, but the rest everything is WP:RS compliant, tell me which part of the "The Second Brand Extension" is unsourced? Do you mean that no second brand split begun in July 19, 2016? PWTORCH is a universally accepted WP:PW/RS which states it did, so no original research there. The other notable occurrence section all the entries are sourced. The Women's Evolution continues, I will express my thank to you for removing the OR parts and making it WP:RS compliant, it no longer is WP:OR. So please do not add improper OR tags to perfectly RS sections, add only to part that might be OR, not every section. In no way the second brand split is original research!. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I now know for a fact you haven't actually read the sources, have you? I've not disputed whether a source is reliable or not, in fact I've literally explained to you everything wrong with the sources used. You haven't read any of what I've wrote, and you clearly haven't made any effort to read any of the sources. ItsKesha (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Notable events
Hello. About my edits, the Notable events are unsourced. I mean, the events happened and have sourced, but none of the sources state that the event is a notable event of the era. In fact, looks like the events were picked by users with no sources stating that is a notable events. For example, the War Games is just a report of the event, but doesn't mention is a notable events for the New Era. It's noted that Kingston won the World Title, but it can be included events like McIntyre (first wrestler from UK), Nakamura (first Japanese wrestler to win a Rumble). Or Rick Steiner, who made his return to WWE since the 90's. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree completely. This article (and Reality Era) suffers from issues of WP:OR, as some editors seem to want to pick arbitrarily what they personally consider notable. Part of the issue is that almost none of the sources mention "New Era", which means declaring what's notable within the context of the supposed era is difficult at best. — Czello 14:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

BLP violation?
Probably not-- sourced and the allegations had an impact on his job. Y'all both way past three reverts. I've (serendepitously) protected the version w/o the challenged material, so y'all can discuss at WP:BLPN or WP:ANI without edit warring and get the matter settled, 'cause I'm sure you can find better uses for your time than reverting back and forth ad maseum. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The allegations etc are apparently sourced. That is a necessary criteria for inclusion of WP:BLP-related material. It is however not a sufficient one. Not while the content concerned is dumped into an article with no context. The article made no prior mention of McMahon whatsoever, and does absolutely nothing to establish that the alleged events had anything to do with the supposed 'era' this article is concocted around. The material has evidently been included, as WP:OR, by contributors wishing to construct a narrative concerning the termination of a supposed 'era'. There is no exception to WP:BLP for fanfiction... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * For what it’s worth, as someone who knows very little about the WWE in terms of this stuff, it would make sense to me for McMahon leaving after 40 years in charge to be the “End of an era”. FrederalBacon (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * That is of course possible, though we'd need sources that say so explicitly. And I'd have to suggest that the 'era' they were noting the end of would be a 40-year one, not one that allegedly started in 2016 when WWE's marketing team used a common phrase to promote their staged 'bouts'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Well therein lies the real problem here: The treating of WWE marketing materials and the show they put on like it’s fact and not just a really elaborate soap opera. FrederalBacon (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the only reason it's being included in this article at all is because WWE used the phrase "New Era" once in 2016 and everything that's come afterwards has de facto been included as part of this "era". It's WP:OR, it's in-universe fancruft, it's marketing buzzwords, it needs to go. — Czello 13:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I would of course agree that fancruft needs to go, but I would still submit that 7 and 8 reverts in 45 minutes respectively is not the way to handle it. Especially considering the fact that the content is sourced, and to the uninvolved editor, it really doesn’t look like a BLP vio outright. Maybe just AfD the whole thing? FrederalBacon (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The BLP issue to me is a symptom of the larger issue of the article's existence. I did AfD it 19 months ago, the result was no consensus. You're welcome to try again - my proposal on the WikiProject demonstrates a more recent support for deletion or merging. — Czello 13:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Czello Regarding the importance of the existence of this article, it was hghlivhted by this sensible comment on afd page:

Quote ** [*Keep - Term is used in multiple reliable secondary sources. A quick search found: WrestleView, a book from Simon & Schuster, ESPN, The Post and Courier, CBS, NBC, Sports Illustrated, Philly Voice, CBS (again), a CBS affiliate, Fox Sports, Pro Wrestling Torch, and Figure Four/Wrestling Observer. Please perform WP:BEFORE search before nominating articles covered in so many reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Plus The Boston Globe 12/29/16 (John Cena: "I'm sick of this New Era B.S. It ain't the New Era. It's the My Time Is Now Era."), The Montgomery Advertiser 7/21/16 ("WWE Begins New Era with some Unexpected Victories"), The Montgomery Advertiser 5/29/16 ("This bold move will have major ramifications for all of WWE and exemplify the New Era..."). GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)] End Quote.


 * @-- Deepfriedokra and FrederalBacon  Vince McMahon retiring after 40 years is a significant event in WWE and pro wrestling history. WWWF was established by Vince's father in 1963, Vince took over in 1980s and in 1999 he made WWE a publically tradable corporation and in 2022 after 40 years he retired and his daughter Stephanie McMahon and son in law Triple H took leadership. All amjor WP:RS have highlighted its significance and stated this as the begining of the next era, that is the Post Vince McMahon Era, from July 22, 2022 onwards, here are just seven of many examples:, , , , , , , , . Not only has @AndyTheGrump but has made WP:Civil and WP:NPA breaking attacks on me on edit summary:  and . I don not mind these attacks but the BLP violation allegation is false, and this is a significant event with huge coverage, it marks the end of 40 years regime change, aand has been cited by numerous WP:RS as the start of the next era and is highly WP:Notable. This was in no way a BLP violation. Anyway you guys are experienced admins and know better than me, i will leave it to you, i am taking a bit time off from Wikipedia anyway. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You do understand that Deepfriedokra tossing a gold lock on the article was just about the least severe action that could have been taken here, right?
 * Also, those links, all nine of them: Which one of them links it to the New Era described in this article, ending? None of them. They mention a new era, sure, but not a single one of them mentions this era as ending and a new one beginning. Where is the connection to the "New Era" referenced in the article? FrederalBacon (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * FrederalBacon All seven sources states the start of another era, yes they do not refer to this 2016 to 2022 era which I used GaryColeman Fan's quote to source, but my seven sources discuss the begining of a new era, like the ESPN one for e.g. explicitely states "its the dawning of a new era". I apologise for EW but the BLP violation accusation Deepfriedokra himself said is not true and also the personal attacks on the edit summary, I linkd. Either ways I won't deny me and Andy did EW I sincerely apologised for the EW, I am deeply sorry, but I did not violate BLP and the seven surces are just few of many Wp:RS that states the retirement of Vnce with Steph and HHH taking charge of the WWE initiated the next era. They do not mention this era, maybe this era should be merged with Reality Era which ahs far more Wp:RS to the period 2014 to 2022 as suggested here, but all together the retirement of Vince McMahon as per all major sources initiated a new era on July 22, 2022 so that point is highly significant. Like I said I leave it to you guys to decide, best wishes, my final commnet here, regards Dilbaggg (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you're conflating "New era for WWE as a company" and "New era for WWE entertainment marketing". McMahon not in charge is certainly the former, it is probably not the latter. This article is about the storylines that have been taking in terms of how they are weaving their narrative in-universe. But the retirement of McMahon doesn't mean that the era described in this article is done, and the fact that none of the sources mention this era would indicate that its inclusion here is WP:SYNTH. The inference you are taking is that because the articles mention a new era starting, that this era must be ending, but the articles don't explicitly say that. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * WWE did not celebrate Vince's retirement, its no way marketing, all the sources used are external and they all stated that it marks the next era. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Can I request you make shorter replies? You often copy and paste the same block of text (usually they don't address the point in question - no one said Vince leaving is marketing) and it makes these threads more difficult to read with inconsistent indents. — Czello 14:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Once again, Dilbaggg misses the point completely. There are no sources stating that the supposed 'New Era' this article purports to be describing ended with McMahon's resignation. Sources stating that a 'new era' has begun are quite obviously doing nothing but use a common phrase with its usual intent. Claiming otherwise is nothing but WP:OR. Which is unsurprising since this whole fanfiction narrative is concocted around WP:OR, along with an utterly dishonest misrepresentation of scripted performance as 'sport'. Why Wikipedia continues to host this sort of vacuous fancruft at all is beyond me, but as long as it is here, I'll do my damnest to ensure WP:BLP policy is complied with - which means ensuring that made-up-shit promotional fantasy articles aren't concocted around off-topic negative material about living individuals thrown in to provide an imaginary ending to an imaginary 'era'.

Competence is required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Why Wikipedia continues to host this sort of vacuous fancruft at all is beyond me - We are Wikipedia. If you want to make a formal proposal to cut down on this kind of thing, you have my support. — Czello 15:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * A formal proposal shouldn't be necessary. What is required is enforced compliance with existing policies: WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:OR etc, etc, etc... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Then be bold and cull the article when it's unprotected (or others, like Reality Era). They need annihilating, frankly. — Czello 16:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sadly, 'being bold' doesn't work. Not while fancrufters and marketeers have their own Wikiproject to organise through. As for the 'Reality Era' article, I took a brief look at that and almost considered nominating it for speedy deletion as a hoax. It purports to be describing sporting events that clearly never occurred: such events instead being scripted slapstick performance art. Describing this as 'Reality' has to be satire, surely... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Meh, I kinda look at it like a plot summary for a season of TV. If it was made clear it was all "in universe" writing, maybe something like Seth Rollins would attack stablemates Dean Ambrose and Roman Reigns with a steel chair, wouldn't make me cringe with the BLP implications. Or maybe a way to take it out of in universe writing. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:PLOT has to be one of the most frequently-ignored guidelines on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It starts with treating WWE wrestlers like actors, not athletes. Sure, they are extremely physical, some of the stuff they do is legitimately dangerous, and they have to keep good physical shape most of the time. But they are, for all intents and purposes, still people playing characters. The fact that Seth Rollins, Dean Ambrose, and Roman Reigns, aren't their real names, should even lend itself to this interpretation. Last time I checked, if you had a bunch of people playing a character, with fake names (sure, some use their real names, but not many) doing scripted actions, with scripted dialogue, doing stunts and fighting each other, that isn't a sport, that's a scripted drama, just staged live in front of people every week.
 * I have nothing against professional wrestling, objectively, for what they are, the WWE is pretty darn good at what they do, what they are being an entertainment company of course. But I would agree there needs to be a better disconnect between the reality we have to write wikipedia in, and the reality that is created to entertain. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added an 'in-universe' cleanup template to the 'Reality Era' article, and would do the same here were the article not locked. Whether doing either will actually achieve anything substantive though remains to be seen. I get the distinct impression that there are a number of contributors on wrestling topics that wish to perpetuate this fiction on Wikipedia - either because it is in the industry's interest to do so, or because they'd rather kid themselves that their favourite form of entertainment is objectively real. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the issue at the heart of this dispute, whether or not the real life (semi-forced? I really don't know much about it) retirement of McMahon has anything to do with the in-universe storyline they have going for entertainment seems settled. There is no clear relation between the two established by reliable sources, and mentioning the former on an article about the latter shouldn't happen.
 * The overarching problem with the way the entertainment is presented on wiki seems like a larger dispute that would probably need to take place elsewhere. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the apparently intentional confusion between actuality and fiction in this article is a key aspect of why I consider the material here relating to McMahon to be problematic. The whole thing seems to be built around cherry-picking and WP:OR though, and we need to make it clear that rectifying the confusion while otherwise keeping the content won't deal with the WP:BLP issue. McMahon's resignation etc was brought into the article to create narrative, and as such simply doesn't belong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You know, I was looking around today, and found this page. Look at As a professional wrestling championship, the championship is not won not by actual competition, but by a scripted ending to a match determined by the bookers and match makers. Now compare that to the complete lack of distinction between reality and fiction on WWE Championship. There is not a single mention on there about it being not a real title that people actually compete for. So maybe, it's not even an issue with wrestling in general, more of coverage of the WWE? Or American based promotions? It's interesting, to me at least. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's an issue with what's popular. WWE, AEW, Impact, maybe even NJPW. These are the areas that will have the most unencyclopedic content. UWA is a company that died 27 years ago and so doesn't get nearly as much attention from poor editing. — Czello 08:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I find the most recent comment helpful, as it contains something concrete and specific. There's a lot of condescension on Wikipedia from people who look down upon professional wrestling articles, as shown in some of the above comments from Andy. A lot of editors take the position of "The scripted television shows I watch are far superior to the scripted television shows you watch, so you have no place here". Yes, there is some blurring of fact and fiction. Feedback on how to improve this helps a lot more than blanket criticism of articles and editors. Many articles include disclaimers about the scripted nature of professional wrestling. Quite often, these are deleted by other editors because "everyone knows that already". It's not easy to maintain a good balance between spoon-feeding the reader and maintaining readability, and I would say that the current state of many articles is better than it was around 2008, when the pendulum swung far the other way to produce sentences that were something like "X, a fictional character played by Y, was instructed in the script to pretend to perform a move referred to as Z, in which X began by taking A, a fictional character played by B, and..." Specific to the Vince McMahon situation, it can be particularly difficult to write about--he is the real-life owner of the company who essentially plays a fictional character who is the owner of the company. As such, the disappearance is obviously noteworthy, as his on-screen role was significant in shaping the product. Therefore, his real-life legal problems are significant to an understanding of the transition in programming that is taking place. Now, I think the project is open to feedback, particularly from otherwise-uninvolved editors about how to maintain out-of-universe writing. Should performers' real names be listed in parentheses after their stage names? Is there an unobtrusive but effective disclaimer that can be worked organically into the beginning of an article like this one? GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As for the "era"s, I continue to believe that they are individually notable, as shown by the reliable sources. The articles could use some work, but there is definite WP:POTENTIAL for each. I don't believe that continually name-dropping the era in programming is necessary. The tendency to divide the company's history into eras makes sense, given the constant promotion of the "New Generation" era that led into what was known worldwide as the "Attitude Era". This led to retroactively naming the years prior to the New Generation as the "Golden Era" due to the company's popularity. More recent eras have been named either by the company itself or by fans and writers, but each has signaled a new direction for the company. This does not mean that editors should be dumping every notable event from each era into the respective articles, as careful consideration should be given to what the defining moments are (in terms of publicity/notoriety as well as differentiating from surrounding eras). Further, I think it's worth noting that wrestling isn't the only sport (yes, I used the word--that discussion is completely separate) in which fans observe the concept of "eras". For example, baseball can be divided into the Dead Ball Era, Live Ball Era, Integration Era, Expansion Era, Free Agency Era, and Steroid Era. Each of these era is individually notable and could certainly have its own article, consisting of well-sourced information about the transitions in the game and notable events that helped define each era. The purpose of this comparison is simply to show that the idea isn't unique to wrestling as more "real" sports commonly observe the same structure. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As for the "era"s, I continue to believe that they are individually notable, as shown by the reliable sources. Really? How many sources do you count in this article which use the phrase "New Era"? Because I can only count a single one. The fact that they used an in-universe term once in 2016 and we've spun it off into an article and said "yep, X winning the title is part of the New Era" isn't just fancruft, it's fan fiction. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 08:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've said so multiple times. I gave a list of multiple reliable sources that used the term. Your arguments don't make sense to me. You don't want to use a term because it's created by the company, but you dismiss other sources because they are from performers and writers using the term, which doesn't comply with your "it's not notable unless the company keeps using it" criterion, which is at odds with your previous statement. Circular reasoning can only ever lead to a circle. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you present any sources which say the "New Era" exists from 2016 up until 2022? Or do your sources just say it was used in 2016 and never mentioned since? — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 21:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have to. In order to assert the notability of the "New Era", I need to show multiple secondary sources providing a reasonable amount of coverage of a "New Era". That has been done, time and time again. A firm end date is not required by WP:N. If WWE promoted it, and the phrasing was repeated in articles and interviews, it became notable. Notability is not temporary. If mention of the era faded away, say so in the article. If the end date is unclear, say so in the article. If that means that the McMahon scandal isn't relevant to this article, remove it. If a new "era" begins as a result of the fallout, information about McMahon's affair should be re-added. I don't know why it's such a novel idea to just say what happened. This also might mean trimming a bit more from the article. How much? I don't know. I don't watch wrestling, so I can't say when the most recent mention of the New Era has been without digging through the multiple sources that have been provided. Certainly, it spans at least as far as the "favourite era" poll on the WWE page, for which the earliest archive date is February 23, 2017. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And this is the problem - it hasn't been mentioned since 2016. It simply being mentioned doesn't inherently make it notable. Ultimately the only reason it is in any sources was because one week in 2016 WWE said "this is the New Era", and that's it. That doesn't establish why it's notable - compared to, say, Attitude Era which discusses why the period has significance. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 08:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Per multiple policies, "blurring of fact and fiction" while discussing living individuals is utterly unacceptable, full stop. It isn't open to negotiation. If wrestling fans don't like that, that is their problem, not ours. If they don't like articles that fail to lie to them about their staged pseudo-sport, that is their problem, not ours. We don't lie to placate flat-Earthers. We don't lie to placate anti-vaxers. And we shouldn't be lying to placate the wrestling entertainment industry and its fans. If as is claimed, McMahon's real-life problems were reflected in his role playing, and we have credible sources which state this directly (no WP:OR), then maybe a discussion of such things belongs in Wikipedia - reported, per sources cited, as real-life events affecting his role playing. With a clear explanation of context. Beyond that, such events, properly sourced, belong in McMahon's biography. Under no circumstances to they belong in a Google-mined concoction about an 'era' based around the WWE's own plotlines, thrown in at the end to conclude a fictitious narrative. Even ignoring the WP:BLP aspects, this 'blurring' violates core policies, and simply isn't acceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't even know where to start, but it's getting increasingly difficult to assume good faith with your rants. Comparing wrestling fans (or people who write about wrestling in general, as I don't watch it) to flat earthers or anti-vaxxers is downright offensive and a violation of WP:NPA. Nobody is writing about professional wrestling to "lie" to readers in order to convince them that it is real, any more than people who write about any scripted television show. I refuse to believe that even you think that's what happening here, and if you truly do believe that is the case, I would encourage you to take a long, long break from Wikipedia. Now, if you had read my reply above with a mind even slightly open to a productive discussion, you would have seen that I'm asking for real feedback. Find a professional wrestling article that you don't like. I would suggest that it's best not to start with one of the "era" articles, as you're clearly quite emotionally involved. Read the article. Make notes about your in-universe concerns. Give some serious consideration about how it could be rephrased (not just nuked altogether) in order to be more aligned with the core policies you mention. People who write about professional wrestling would like to have articles that comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's not "negotiation" that I'm looking for. It's feedback from uninvolved editors that accomplishes this goal while avoiding the clunky 2008-era (yikes, that word again) phrasing that made articles virtually unreadable. Let's work together, but we can't do it if you just stick to condescending rants that seem to assume that there's even a single person involved who believes that professional wrestling is real. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Read and ignored. Wikipedia is not a webhosting site for 'pretend it's real' fancruft, and if people want to write such dreck, they should do it somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @AndyTheGrump Wikipedia nevver discourages fictional or in universe plots, like eg Star Wars, whats wrong with wrestling? And mentioning that a onwer retired after 40 years of service and his daughter and son in law became the new owners, a significan change in leadership and all Wp:RS declaring this as a start of the next era is in no way a BLP violation, so stop with your false accusation against PW contributers! As suggested by admin on top of this iscussion, this ain't BLP violation, instead of falsely accusing PW editors take it to BLPN and lets see where it goes, Aand stop your uncivil personal attacks. Anyway i have a busy life but if I ever get free again I will help teach you proper Wikipedia policies. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ROFL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Dilbaggg, it is worth pointing out that the discussion above actually seems to have came to the conclusion that the McMahon information has absolutely nothing to do with this article, and shouldn’t be included. I would also caution everyone involved that this is becoming very uncivil, and would remind everyone to reel it in a bit. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Respectfully Sir @FrederalBacon, where is the BLP violation? its ok to falsely accuse editors of BLP violations just because they don't like the inclusion? I am a human like Andy too, I have feelings. Garycoleman and I both have the same points, Czello and Andy have the same points, so its 2 vs 2, you yourself agreed abouve retirement of the ownet after 40 years is a significant cnahge. Anyway I said before it may be my final comment here, but after GaryColemanFan's comment gave me hope, but if its already decided then our opinion have no value here, delete this article or whatever, I do not care anymore, best wishes to you. Dilbaggg (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I never said it was a BLP violation, that's Andy's thing, I get where he's coming from, I just don't think that's the right line to take here. It's WP:SYNTH at best, WP:OR at worst. Up above, you didn't provide a link established by reliable sources between this era ending and McMahon's retirement. You are attaching information to this page when not a single article you linked mentions this era, at all. That's my issue, and that's why it can't go in. You can't force the information about McMahon's retirement into this era as the "End" if it's not what the sources say. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I will help teach you proper Wikipedia policies This is what they call irony. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 21:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not the word I was thinking of... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTHERE. If you have no interest in a rational and civil discussion, it's best that you see yourself out. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Your attempt to assert control over the subject matter duly noted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering all your comments here are nothing but accusations of bad faith by other editors, I'd walk away if I were you. No one is trying to use Wikipedia to lie to people about the scripted nature of pro wrestling. So stow it. And if you don't, I'd love to see you defend your obvious personal attacks at ANI. oknazevad (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You appear not to have read Dilbaggg's recent comments below. I suggest you do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Break for wider discussion regarding fiction vs real life
So, I understand and agree with GaryColemanFan's concern up above regarding how pro wrestling pages looked before. If we were summarizing a plot for a TV show, we wouldn't include what are essentially stage instruction in them. It is understood that a plot summary for a TV show or movie contains descriptions of scripted motions. To do so for the WWE is to overly exaggerate the fact that it is scripted, which isn't neutral.

The issue is; WWE has to be treated like fiction on-wiki. As I said above, it doesn't look like it is currently being treated as such. There is no acknowledgement on the WWE Championship article that it is not a real championship that people actually compete for. It even has statistics on things like "Shortest Reign" and "Oldest Champion" as if these are legitimate facts about it that should be notable. They're not. This is the problem. If you want to present pro wrestling in a way that is valuable to a project like Wikipedia (because remember, Wikipedia is not just a collection of information for the sake of information collection, you need to make sure the information is verifiable. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, so putting fictitious information next to factual information with no way to tell it's fictitious is not something we can do here. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @FrederalBacon This seems to be an entirely different topic. Wrestling is a hybrid of sports with plot element. Wrestlers put their body on the line in pre determined matches to entertain us. Owen Hart actually died. Wrestlers gets injured. Wrestling is like action movies with wrestlers doing their own stunt, but they work hard and earn the things, and even get injured. See this historic match, the guy Mankind/Mick Foley in 1999 had legitimate concusions and his daughter who was xin attendence was reported to be crying watching her dad brutalized:, see how brutal, the blood was real, it comes from them blading each other, so its really insulting them entertaining us to not call their achievements real achievements. Title changes are notable and the WWE Championship dates back to 1963, 59 years of history as of 2022, the results may be pre determined but they performed risking their bodies and the title changes thus involve real sports element, and youngest champion, oldest champion, longest reign, shortest reign, record number of wins are all notable. John Cena is the most famous wrestler ever and the most liked US athlete in Facebook history globally, a record 13 times WWE Champion, he is more famous than any NBA, MLB, MLS, NFL, UFC, etc players: , the famous movie star Dawyne Johnson, made his name famous by being a wrestler, The Rock first, if it wasn't for Rock's WWF achievements he would never be famous today. So much histoy, so much accomplishments, and wrestlers actually risking their lives in sporting stunts, yes the title changes are all notable. Wrestling is a hybrid, a fixed sport with storyline but the matches, the moves they do , the injuries they have and their achievements (like no of title wins) are all notable. Please do not dismiss their achievements. WWE may have match fixing legitimized but the sports moves are all real thus all the title change statistics are important, notable and should be accepted as has been the case since the creation of WP:PW[ on Wikipedia. So many Wp:RS acknowledges the notability of the WWE Championship statistics. This therad should be moved to WWE Championship article as its a completely differemnt discussion. Anyway thats all I will say on this new discussion, I hope more Wp:PW members are invited to discuss this thing such as @User:Galatz, @User:StarTrekker, @User:Vjmlhds, User:Mt.FijiBoiz, @User:HHH Pedrigree, User:The Optimistic One, @User:GaryColemanFan, @User:LM2000, @User:Fylindfotberserk, User:InedibleHulk, @User:JDC808 and many others. This is my point on this new discussion, the WWE Champion is very historic and vevery single title change are notable and acknowledged by reputed Wp:RS and news media all over the world, even if match fixing is there the competition is there and are brutal and even resulted in deaths, so please respect the WWE Championship article. I wish no change to the current state of the WWE Championship and List of WWE Champions is made they are all historically reliabally notable. This is a totally different discussion from the above and this is my last comment on this new discussion. peace. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Relevant link: Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, and in particular the MoS content on 'in-universe' writing. An in-universe perspective describes the narrative (or a fictional element of the narrative, such as characters, places, groups, and lore) from the vantage of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis. Many fan wikis and fan websites (see below) take this approach, but it should not be used for Wikipedia articles. An in-universe perspective can be misleading to the reader, who may have trouble differentiating between fact and fiction within the article. Furthermore, articles with an in-universe perspective are more likely to include unverifiable original research due to reliance on the primary source. Most importantly, in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to what we do not want Wikipedia to be. And further to this, it has to be self-evident that 'in-universe' writing incorporating real-world events into the fictional perspective for the purposes of completing a narrative is going to be against 'community consensus', even if it doesn't violate WP:OR or WP:BLP. That isn't just contrary to the MoS, it is contrary to elementary encyclopaedic principles. It is, unequivocally, bad writing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @FrederalBacon except for perhaps any children reading these articles, the vast majority of readers know that professional wrestling is scripted and that the results are predetermined (just like how they know that most other television shows and movies are). We don't need to insult readers' intelligence and mention that on every professional wrestling page (we don't do that on TV show/movie articles). Since WWE Championship has been singled out, the links to professional wrestling and professional wrestling championship describe that pro-wrestling is scripted/predetermined, and those terms in the first sentence of the WWE Championship article tells the reader "it's not real" without explicitly stating it. Those statistics though are facts, despite the predetermined nature of the business. John Cena may not have held a "real championship", but he did in fact hold the WWE Championship 13 times, which is verifiable, regardless if it was scripted for him to "win" it 13 times. JDC808   ♫  00:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The phrase currently defended on the Raw brand division, existing in the article clearly indicates it is written in universe, since, as you pointed out above, most people know that there is no actual "defending" of the title. It is also worth pointing out that about a third of the sources on that page are tweets, a couple of unreliable sources per WP:RSP, and a couple generally unreliable sources per the same. It actually appears that most of the valid cites in that article are primary cites, IE, the WWE website with match records.
 * All of this is a problem. If the PW project on here doesn't see that, then it's time for a larger community to become involved in this project, because an article that is supposed to be about the sports top championship that is mostly supported by tweets and primary sources is not a good article. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Pro wrestling articles being written in the in-universe style has been a longstanding issue. I don't think this is the place to discuss this because many of us within the project don't think this article should even exist for that very reason. That said, I find the complaints here to be completely ridiculous. is absolutely correct that only children need to be beaten over the head with the fact that wrestling is predetermined. We should cover wrestling in the same matter that reliable sources cover it. And how do they cover it?
 * I remember reading a CNN article about Roman Reigns' leukemia diagnosis years ago and people in the comment section were outraged that they referred to the WWE Universal Championship as a "championship". Indeed, check out Harley Race's obituary in The New York Times. They mention various things throughout his career, from winning championships to slamming Andre the Giant, without ever mentioning that he was involved in a "fake" industry. Although The Washington Post briefly mentions a script-breaking moment during a match with Buddy Rogers, they actually get into the statistical significance of Bruno Sammartino's reigns in his obituary. The BBC lists The Undertaker's accomplishments much like the lede of his article.
 * This isn't the first time we've had this discussion, it comes up about once a year. In 2016, I started an RfC to find a consensus on what kind of disclaimer regarding the scripted nature of wrestling was needed (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 98). I invited members of other projects to chime in and the consensus actually resulted in the disclaimer being shortened for basically the same reasons that JDC808 is repeating in this thread. Two years later, the wikiproject came under the microscope of the wider wikipedia community and general sanctions got placed on the project.
 * While we must crack down on rampant fanboyism, I think it's absurd to suggest that we should take a more conservative approach to writing articles on wrestling than the BBC, New Times Times and Washington Post.LM2000 (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with LM and Gary. The wrestling articles have several problems, like too many in-universe (the infamous "John Cena was stabbed by another wrestler). As Gary said, it's more productive to take an article and give a proposition about how to write, not to delete all of them. Also, as LM said, all sources (not just pro wrestling sources, but all media as you can see above) write about pro wrestling in that way. Another mention, Britannica mentions that The Rock "captured world championships" and John Cena won championships and competed in the RAW/SmackDown division --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that I'm not advocating for deletion, but on improving sourcing, and fixing the in-universe writing. And regardless of what sources say, to say that the championship is contested IS in-universe, because, as pointed out above, outside of the WWE/pro-wrestling universe, I don't think you're going to find many people who would describe what happens inside the ring as a contest.
 * But honestly, a big part of this is the fact that there is a significant blurring of reality and fiction done by the brand itself. Talent often play highly exaggerated or fictitious versions of themselves, meaning differentiating between The Rock winning the championship and Dwayne Johnson winning championships difficult, because there is a difference. I think of PW a lot like other shows about fictional sports teams, like Friday Night Lights. It would be incorrect to claim that a championship won by a fictious team inside of a fictitious world was attributed to the actor portraying the character, which is essentially what happens in the pro wrestling articles now. And I don't think even many in the PW project here would disagree that they are playing a character, even if it is an exaggerated or altered version of themselves. But I'm not sure how to fix that given the fact that the blurring of reality and fiction is built into the brand. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's up to us to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We can wish that articles about wrestling shows be written in the same way that fictional TV dramas are written but we have to follow the lead of reliable sources. If The New York Times says Harley Race "won" a world title, we cannot make up new terminology just because we're scared that people will think he won the championship in the same fashion that Rocky Marciano won his.LM2000 (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not about writing great wrongs. This is about the fact that the current state of the pro-wrestling articles are in-universe, which we can not do here. Other editors above have made note of the issues, and they are significant. I don't see any movement being made, considering the pushback here. I would hope to work with you guys to take these articles out of in-universe writing, but it appears that the project seems set to emphatically defend in-universe writing, so I think there may be wider, much larger, discussion needed here. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The wider Wikipedia community has been involved before, check out Wikipedia Signpost/2018-07-31/Opinion. There are indeed widespread in-universe issues that need to be resolved and I think the best way to address those is to follow the mainstream sources as closely as possible. Going too far in the other direction would also be undesirable (and not policy-compliant).LM2000 (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So the defense of the in-universe writing is by using reliable sources? I would ask you read my comment here where I noted the absolutely atrocious sourcing for the article that is supposed to be about your sport's top championship. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no excuse for in-universe narrative. All articles should resemble neutrally-written articles from reliably sources. I'm sure most people would agree that the sources provided in this thread would meet that threshold. Articles with issues should be tagged accordingly. Your complaints in the WWE Championship thread are valid.LM2000 (talk) 04:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to make something clear: It's not a complaint. It's a concern. I'm not complaining about the current state of the project, I'm concerned because these topics are clearly of great import to a wide audience (pro wrestling draws fans from all walks of life, something other forms of entertainment struggle with), and it actually makes me sad that the article about the top championship is sourced so poorly. I want to help without disrupting, hence why I asked on talk over there before doing anything, but no one has replied, so I've just been waiting. As explained to Dilbaggg, at the same time as encouraging them to not stop engaging after their above stated intent to do so, I don't have any vitriol for PW, or the project. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a sect of editors who do have contempt for this subject and its editors but I did not think that you were one of them. Just to be clear, I think most of us agree on the main points, we just have a disagreement about some minor verbiage. Obviously, articles should never be written in kayfabe. Ideally, an article of high-importance should be of WP:GA or WP:FA quality, but this project has the same struggles in reaching those goals that the rest of the encyclopedia does.LM2000 (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree with all of your points. Also, despite my hope that I didn't appear to be one of those that would oppose PW, and your assumption of good faith (which I sincerely appreciate), I wanted to make it clear, since we all know people's views on PW can be extremely negative...see the above topic this one was broken off of.
 * I think I'm gonna take this to the project talk, so don't feel obligated to respond to this here, but since I know there is a lot of niche coverage of PW, I'm wondering where the go to for news is for the project. I'm also wondering if there tends to be an unintentional preference for sources that are written more in universe.
 * Either way, thank you for engaging, I look forward to engaging with the project further. I think we agree there is something that can be done, now let's just figure out what that something is. FrederalBacon (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ditto the above comments by LM2000z While I agree that better sources could be used, that word “defended” itself isn’t so much of a problem. It just expresses which promotion the title is a part of and which division within that company it is assigned to as of present time. It’s all jargon of the industry, it’s familiar terminology. Sure, it’s scripted, but the work required to be even considered for a role in holding that championship is by no means insignificant. Even though it’s scripted, it still holds ground in reality as the promotion is deciding who is defending what title, where, and who against, and holding the match in real locations in front of real people, as opposed to a fantasy world in front of characters where most other fictions are set. DrewieStewie (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Outdenting because this is getting hard to follow. FrederalBacon raises a concern about the use of primary sources for a championship article. The project tries to present both the company narrative as well as reality in discussing the lineage of a championship. (Hear me out.) Wrestling promotions play games with their numbers and dates in order to present a fictional and promotable narrative. I don't doubt that for a second. A championship may be "won" (I'll put that in quotation marks as a concession the first time I use it to dissuade anyone of the notion that I believe that championships are legitimately won in an athletic competition, although I still firmly believe that it is an accomplishment because the title indicates that the wrestler has developed their character and/or narrative and/or fan base to the point that that are being made the public face of the for-profit company) at an arena on a Wednesday, but the television footage may not air until Saturday. The company may state that the championship was won on Saturday. This becomes part of the company's official, recorded history, even though it's not true. In earlier years, a wrestler may go on a working tour of a foreign country to defend their championship. To please the local crowd, they may lose the championship to a local wrestler. Before returning to the United States, they may win the championship back, as the title change was only ever perceived as a promotional opportunity to increase ticket sales. The title changes may not be announced to audiences in the United States. This can create a narrative of a long, unbroken championship reign despite the fact that it isn't true. While these official company (read: sometimes deliberately incorrect) numbers are presented on Wikipedia, editors have taken efforts to indicate the truth alongside them. This isn't blurring fact and fiction or presenting an in-universe account. This is intentionally taking it out of universe to indicate to the reader that the company narrative with which they might be familiar is not factual. In order to present the company's official history, it is often essential to use their recorded timeline for the dates. This is why primary sources are often used. It is not to deceive readers, either intentionally or through insufficient attention to the manual of style. It is to state that there are two sets of numbers and to provide a source for one of them, all while clearly indicating the unbiased reality next to it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Just a note, if you were willing, I think moving this comment to the WWE championship talk would be more beneficial, given that it specifically addresses a couple of the points I raised there in detail, and while my original attempt to raise wider discussion was well intentioned, ultimately, my dumbass has us talking about the WWE championship on this talk. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

This article is fancruft
Not a single entry in this article such as the 2nd brand spilt, Bianca's win, or even the Thunderdome era hjas any mention of this so called "new" Era (2016-Disputed) in it, this was jus a WP:Promo in 2016 for that years Payback (2016) and has never been used ever again. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm so confused. You were emphatically defending the article, and its current state, just a couple of weeks ago. However, I mostly agree with you that it is fancruft, and could be rolled into the appropriate spaces in the articles regarding this history of the WWE, at least the stuff supported by reliable sources. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * On the Wikiproject I've proposed that we simply be bold and merge it into History of WWE, as there now appears to be no substantial defense of this article. If I don't encounter any pushback, I'll do the merge shortly. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 16:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That would seem appropriate, in a much as there is any content which isn't WP:SYN concocting an 'Era' out of passing phrases, and in as much as it can be written in such a way as to avoid giving the impression it is describing a competitive sport. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed the (malformed) PROD template, since the article has already been the subject of an AfD (see Proposed deletion: PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for pages PRODed before or previously discussed at AfD or FfD. As for FrederalBacon's confusion, I'd echo it. Perhaps Dilbaggg could explain what exactly led to this change of mind? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)