Talk:Ring of Honor

FIP World Heavyweight Championship/Top Of The Class Trophy
The title is no longer recognized by ROH, as evidenced on their Roster page. The title has not been defended at an ROH show since October 25, 2008. Similarly, the ToTCT is no longer recognized as an accomplishment according to their roster page, and Rhett Titus has not even appeared with it, let alone defend it, since October 25, 2008. This was also the last day Gabe Sapolsky was booker, which would explain why both titles have been phased out of use in Ring of Honor. Linknumbers (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are making assumptions based on no actual reference. This is a violation of WP:OR. There must be a source that states these two accomplishments are no longer recognized.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 02:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Here you go. http://www.rohwrestling.com/titlehistory/

In fact, have another! http://www.rohwrestling.com/multimedia/roster.aspx Nowhere are the previous titles acknowledged under accomplishments, when they used to be back when Gabe was booking. Linknumbers (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are using what is referred to as WP:SYNTH. You are putting together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. None of the sources you posted specifically state that the two recognitions have been dropped. Unless there is an actual source that states specifically that the two recognitions have been dropped, then this will constitute Original Research per Wikipedia policy. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 19:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It is the 3rd largest professional company in the United States.
This line in the opening paragraph is missing the word 'wrestling' after professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.196.242 (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Whenever you see an error like that on Wikipedia you can usually go ahead and fix it yourself. Hanxu9 (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

NWA World Championship
Do you think that ROH is going to try to unify the ROH Championship and the NWA Championship since a ROH contracted wrestler is the current NWA Champion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.51.161 (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.63.39 (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

ROH events
Could you please bring back the page containing the list of every ROH event from the beginning to now, the one on the ROH website has spoilers on it, bring back the spoiler free wikipedia one

Code of honor?
What is the code of honor?
 * 1. Shake hands before & after. 2. Keep the playing field level. 3. Respect the officials. It used to be much longer, but was de-emphasized in 2004 after the booker began to feel that it outlived its usefulness.

Ring Of Hamburgers?
How come I can't change it? 70.134.237.172 04:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Where and how to see it?
THis information contains no information on where to or how to see Ring Of Honor matches. Is it televised, streamed online, only able to be seen live...?

Information on how to see ROH was posted, however it was deleted because it was "not notable". ROH puts some matches online, as well as show recaps. Some shows are shown on television in Canada and the UK. To see the full show you have to buy the dvds which are sold through their website. .PepsiPlunge 13:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

well i know you can watch it on TWC (channel 427 on sky) in the uk, not sure about anywhere else

Er, shouldnt something about the PPV and PPV deal be written on the page, its a pretty big deal for the promotion is it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.67.72 (talk) 23:14, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the last paragraph in the "History" section: "On May 2, 2007, Ring of Honor announced that is had signed a PPV and VOD deal with G-Funk Sports & Entertainment to bring ROH into homes with iN DEMAND Networks, TVN, and the DISH Network.". Nenog 03:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone messed stuff up
Somebody look at the bottom at current champions, someone please fix this.

I fixed it, so no need to worry about it. Ultra123 00:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Roderick Strong
I noticed that for the current top 5 rankings, Roderick Strong is number 2. However, he's also listed in the 'just missed out' section. I'm not an avid ROH fan, so someone else should work out why that is!


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

move. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 13:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Why the capital "O"?
Looks a little strange, and more pages link to "Ring of Honor" than "Ring Of Honor" Tromboneguy0186 05:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Ring Of Honor → Ring of Honor – This is the correct spelling, as per http://www.rohwrestling.com/. McPhail 20:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * Support FleetfootMike 11:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


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

WWE buying Ring of Honor?
I just read a mention of a rumor about WWE buying RoH on the page. I have honestly never even heard of this. Where exactly did this rumor start?
 * WHo knows? It ain't gonna happen soon though.

Event articles
It only just occurred to me that ROH has no articles based on their events. Based on how many there are and the promotions' lack of continuing names like WWE or TNA I can see why. I'm thinking about starting them up as I have thr reults but I don't know how to organise them. Should I go by year and have every event from that year compiled into one article or just do the major events (Final Battle, Glory By Honor etc.) with their own article and leave the rest alone? Normy 11:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, given (though at times slow in updating), I really don't know how useful it would be. Then again, you could say the same for the title histories pages. Just be WP:BOLD and see what happens ;) Tromboneguy0186 07:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Summaries are available (in an admittedly bad format and style) on the ROH wikia if anyone is still interested in doing this. Tory88 (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

ROH'S Best matches...
This is a bit of a P.O.V section, isn't it? ROH's best matches is more of a debate of opinion rather than a cold hard fact. For example, I consider Spanky v Gibson from last years anniversary show in the 10 best matches I've ever seen and the best one I've seen from ROH but many people would disagree with me. Normy 04:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Code of Honor section
Can someone more familiar with RoH add a section about the Code of Honor, what it involves, why it was started, when it was deemphasized, things like that? The article mentions it but doesn't go into any kind of detail. Bdve 01:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll do that right now. Tromboneguy0186 07:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Please look it over and tweak as necessary. Tromboneguy0186 08:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Bdve 04:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Include Survival of the Fittest winner in current champions?
Sorta like how the most recent Royal Rumble and Money in the Bank winners are listed on the WWE article. Go or no go? Tromboneguy0186 07:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I like 12.41.14.138 16:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Feinstein
The Feinstein scandal should be mentioned, to gloss over it is pretty stupid.

History?
Where's the history section? WWE has one, TNA has one, hell, even CHIKARA Pro has one. Where's Ring of Honor's History section?PunkCabana 19:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

is it needed?
The part talking about WWE. I do not think they need the stuff written in the.

Show Names?
No discussion of the annual show-names? (Death Before Dishonor, Do or Die, -Anniversary, etc.) ? Rypcord 13:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

1) The annual shows are mentioned in the opening paragraph. 2) "Do or Die" is a tryout show not a regular show. Nenog 23:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What about Death Before Dishonor, etc, etc. (I know there is others, I just can't think of them). And yes, I know that DoD's are try-outs, but they are still pretty annual shows. Rypcord 20:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the fourth sentence of the article: "Annual shows include the Anniversary Show(s), Death Before Dishonor, Survival of the Fittest, Glory by Honor, and Final Battle (the last show of the calendar year)". Also, Do or Die is not much of an annual show since it is sporadically held, the last one being on August 8, 2005.Nenog 20:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe they should be made into pages? Similar to WWE Backlash being a page, etc., they would be ROH Do or Die or ROH Anniversary Show, ROH Death Before Dishonor, ROH Glory by Honor, etc. And then each page would follow the same basic guidelines that the WWE PPV shows follow. Rypcord 20:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It’s been done a couple of times, and every time it was deleted because it was "not notable". Nenog 20:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it not notable with their being 3-4+ events for each of these? Thats more than many of the WWE shows. Just make sure to include date/place/attendence/correct results/infobox that everyone of the WWF/E, WCW, and ECW PPVs had. Rypcord 20:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Popular arguments include "It's only a show for an independent promotion" and "If its not on pay-per-view, then its not important".Nenog 20:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of the CZW shows have pages, and based on its TV deal and former PPV deal, ROH is certainly more notable than CZWKnower of the Episodes (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, just state that it is still important and still encyclopedic worthy. Thus the point of the wiki, to document, to be an encyclopedia. Rypcord 20:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Popular responses to those arguments include "We don't have results for WWE or TNA houseshows, and all these are are houseshows", "Its just an independent promotion" and "Billy Bob's Wrasslin Show that draws an annual crowd of 17 people doesn't have results posted, so why should this one". Nenog 20:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's very much different in the case of Ring of Honor, as every show these days has meaning, they aren't just house shows or live events, they are legit events, each one has something of a storyline that ties in from event to event, I don't understand why if the results of every event are documented that someone can't make a page on here without it getting deleted. TonyFreakinAlmeida 17:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure there are also ECW events profiled on here that were never on TV or Pay per view, why haven't they been deleted? Maybe due to the fact that they're sourced?  It's a cop out to me, every ROH events' results are documented on the ROHWrestling web site itself.  These are noteworthy and sourced, there is no reason why they shouldn't be listed. TonyFreakinAlmeida 17:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Steve Corino
Pardon my French, but bull shit was he ever head trainer at the school. Punk was the first, and when he left for WWE, Aries took over. When Aries signed with TNA, he handed the keys off to Danielson (this is even shown at the beginning of the "100th Show" DVD). Unless this fairly significant news had eluded me somehow (and if it has, by all means give a source) Corino was never head trainer of the ROH wrestling school. He may have been a guest trainer, sure, but so has a laundry list of different wrestlers. Nosleep1234 10:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, he wasn't, ROH does have guest trainers come in however, Raven has done it, and probably Corino. TonyFreakinAlmeida 17:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rohnewlogo.jpg
Image:Rohnewlogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review
Just from a brief look, the introduction isn't properly cited. I'm gong to put the GA review on hold until it is. GreenJoe 20:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Review from What is a good article?: 1. It is well written - Pass. a) Pass b) Pass

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Pass a) Introduction needs to be cited. As well the history and code sections need to be cited. - Put on hold to fix. b) Pass c) Put on hold to fix.

3. It is broad in its coverage. - Pass a) Pass b) Pass

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. - Pass

5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. - Pass

6. Images need to be added. Put on hold to fix.

GreenJoe 20:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur this article need serious sourcing for it to be considered a "good source", not a reference every 25 statements or so MPJ-DK 17:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've failed the article because the required changes weren't made. GreenJoe 16:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Images are not actually required for GA, you know (they are for FA), merely encouraged. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is the Live Journal community listed as an external link?
Wouldn't it make more sense to list the official ROH website, rohwrestling.com? I tried to make this change myself but I see it was changed back. While the Live Journal page says it's "official," I am fairly certain it is run by fans and has no official affiliation with the actual company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.52.178 (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason ROHwrestling.com is not listed at the bottom is because it is already listed in the infobox at the top of the page. Nenog 19:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Previous tag champs
Per ROH's title history page, Austin Aries is considered a substitute in a title defense (just as Homicide once was when AJ Styles & Amazing Red were the tag champs), and not a 2-time champion. The Briscoe Brothers are the most recent tag champs. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The column next to the current champions
What is it to be for? The person(s) the current champions defeated to win the belts? The previous champions? The state of the title prior to the current champions holding it? There seems to be no consistency. When Davey Richards and Rocky Romero won the tag team championship in an Ultimate Endurance match, someone didn't want the other teams listed, and just the previous champions, so I changed the column header to "previous champion(s)." Now that the Age of the Fall won the championship in a tournament final, it's not the previous champions listed (the Briscoe Brothers), but the fact that the championship was vacant. I don't understand this. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

ECW Went Out Of Business in 1999?
"In April 1999, professional wrestling video distribution company RF Video was in need of a new promotion to lead its video sales after Extreme Championship Wrestling (its best seller) went out of business."

That quote is misleading. Some readers not familiar with ROH or ECW may think ECW went out of business in 1999. But in fact it went out of business in 2001. If this is going to be noted, the year should be correct and this information cited. Mr. C.C. (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone changed the date. It use to say 2001.--DanteAgusta (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Extreme Championship Wrestling was liquified under the state of New York on April 16th, 2001. SubzeroWrestling (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

SHIMMER Tag Belts
If the SHIMMER Championship is recognised on RoH then surely the SHIMMER Tag Team Championship is too? Or do we have to wait till its defended at one of the shows before it can be included? Tony2Times (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason the SHIMMER Championship is "recognized" is because it is defended in ROH, and because both Sara Del Rey and MsChif have had regular spots on the roster while being champion. Since winning the SHIMMER Tag Team Championship, Ashley Lane has appeared on one show (as a replacement for MsChif), while Nevaeh never wrestled for them. Nenog (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

when it broadcasts...???
hi guys i am from greece and i would like to state a question about roh.in fact i wanna start watching roh but when does it have their weekly's shows?and when the ppvs? and what hours(optional)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.205.148 (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * First: wikipedia is not a forum. Second: ROH's show is only avaliable on HDNet. I'm not sure if that is an international channel, I believe it is US only. Thirdly: ROH no longer hosts PPV events. Best to just buy one of their DVDs on their site.-- Will C  23:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Internet PPV
Just something I thought I should mention, ROH has announced that Final Battle 2009 will be broadcast as a Live internet exclusive PPV. How should this be mentioned in the article? Source here: http://www.rohwrestling.com/news/article.aspx?id=3086 Linknumbers (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What makes ROH a national brand
especially now that they don't have a TV deal. Their touring schedule?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite
"As of 2011, due to its television show and presence on PPV, most wrestling fans regard ROH as the third most prominent professional wrestling promotion in the United States (behind WWE and TNA)."

I think this sentence does not present a neutral point of view, specifically with the use of "most wrestling fans." Maybe something along the lines of "Due to their multinational television airings and Pay-Per-View presence, Ring of Honor has asserted itself as one of the prominent national promotions in the United States."? Any thoughts? HidyHoTim (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. ^^that's actually very well written.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 05:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

ROH's updated logo
Ring of Honor has revealed a new, updated logo. Can anyone update the logo on the page?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Uncited assertion
The article says, "ROH is considered the third most prominent professional wrestling promotion in the United States (behind WWE and TNA)."

My queston is whether this is still true. TNA has languished lately, and ROH has really been gaining ground. Daniel Brian and CM Punk both came to the WWE from ROH. So, while ROH is kind of like the "minor leagues" for the WWE, TNA has sort of become a dumping ground for wrestlers who leave the WWE. Hanxu9 (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A national cable television deal vs syndication on a handful of local stations? No contest. Even with the soft ratings, vastly more people watch TNA than ROH on a regular basis. oknazevad (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ring of Honor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120418223628/http://www.rohwrestling.com/news/Article.aspx?id=3224 to http://ROHwrestling.com/news/Article.aspx?id=3224

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent Events; COVID
I've revamped the article to remove any unreferenced entries and to include recent events since January 2020.Thecleanerand (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Current Champions
Wouldn't it make sense for the current champions thing to be on the main page, instead of linking to a now deleted article? (I would put it in myself but it seems it was recently deleted from the ROH article) OmniusM (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Blatant Fanboyism
"But as time went on and the industry saw the creation and subsequent rise of All Elite Wrestling (AEW), ROH would be seen as a smaller promotion in comparison to WWE and AEW's large financial backings and U.S. television deals, thus causing ROH's popularity to decrease" There is nothing neutral about this phrase, at all. It's like a YouTuber doing a generic "rise and fall" video. Unless you're actually quoting the cited sources, this language has no place on Wikipedia at all.Thecleanerand (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The text is sourced. I don't see any fanboyism to say "the populatiry to decrease". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, it's sourced in the article itself. Source 52 " In the last few weeks, the buzz within the company is that they are working" Source 53 "still hard to shake the feeling that ROH is in a rough place right now. " Source 55 " It’s just fucking sad, like the overall decline in ROH business, status, and quality in 2019." Sources 54 and 56 talks about less attendance and buyrates. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The text isn't the problem, it's the TONE! Besides that, Source 52 isn't even a news article, it's a Q&A; and Source 53 is a review, which is opinionated and bias by default. Thecleanerand (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering the point of the passage is to describe the opinions of critics and reviewers, including a review is kinda necessary. The tone is fine. oknazevad (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Tone is perfectly neutral. I don't see the problem with the "ROH popularity decreased" if it's sourced. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)