Talk:The Streak (professional wrestling)

Scripted
- I think it warrants mention somewhere in the lead that professional wrestling and thus the Streak is scripted, instead of being a legitimate winning streak. starship .paint ~   ¡ Olé !  04:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Took this on a while back. Should have mentioned here. DoubleYouSeaDoubleYou (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Lfc Information technology + (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on The Streak (wrestling). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www1.skysports.com/other-sports/news/14204/8597792/wrestlemania-skysportscom-looks-at-the-undertakers-show-of-shows-victims
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.f4wonline.com/component/content/article/29462-jimmy-snuka-interview-talks-undertaker
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.f4wonline.com/component/content/article/8939-dan-wahlers-talks-undertaker-vs-shawn-michaels
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.f4wonline.com/component/content/article/20116/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www1.skysports.com/other-sports/news/13043/9530307/wwe-hell-in-a-cell-triple-h-says-undertaker-clash-at-wrestlemania-28-was-one-of-his-best
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.f4wonline.com/daily-updates/tuesday-update-randy-orton-injured-new-wwe-network-show-john-cena-199996

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Legacy
Should there be a legacy section?--2A02:C7D:BF3C:3900:B132:D8D2:E156:4B3 (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And what would be included in this section? -  Galatz Talk  12:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting
I have removed a lot of back-and-forth bickering by two editors accusing each other of evading blocks. This is not the place for such a discussion. If it doesn't stop, rangeblocks will be the next step. I take it both of you are well aware of the appropriate venue for investigations of sockpuppetry. Huon (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've started a sockpuppet investigation at Sockpuppet investigations/Akash3141. Page protection should knock out most of it, though if the edit warring continues on this talk page we'll have to protect that too.LM2000 (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Since the edit warring has returned I got the page protected, hopefully this helps. -  Galatz Talk  16:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What constitutes "the streak"
Is it: a) just the 21 victories, or b) the 21 victories and also the losses? Discuss ItsKesha (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Nobody said losses are streak, the offending section "Match statistics" lists all his matches and the section below "The Streak" is about the streak itself. Simple English knowledge can help know the difference I respectfully politely hope. Also the "match statistics" section mentions the sreak only lasted from 1990-2014, the rest are the post streak matches not part of the streak but just shown on the overall WM match statistics, while the rest of the article,m particularly "the Streak" section is about the streak. Also if you want to change go for WP:RfC ItsKesha Dilbaggg (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The article title is "The Streak". Dictionary.com defines a "streak" as "an uninterrupted series". Thus, statistics on extraneous, post-WM29 matches should not be included in this article. Dory Funk (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Matches that occurred after the end of the streak are not matches which are part of the streak. The entire purpose of the article. There is also clearly a section about the end of the streak and what happened afterwards. ItsKesha (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Who on Earth said the matches that occurred after the streak are part of the streak? Is this trolling? If you understand English you know the difference between the overall "Match statistics" and "The Streak" sections of the article. It is noted on the match statistics section that the streak ended in 2014 and is mentioned everywhere in the article. match statistics is just a list of overall matches, and it clearly states the Strek ended in 2014. The section after it "The Streak" is the main section about the streak. Just because you feel based on personal opinion that this should not be included, doesn't mean it shouldn't. Please SEEK WP:RfC. I am not the one who wrote it this way nor haved I ever edited "this article" before today, but I will only accept the changes if senior editors agree. And nowhere is the overall match statistics section saying that the Streak didn't end after 2014, rather it says it did. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are post-WM29 stats in the article, then? You're literally agreeing that they don't relate to the subject, which is an undefeated streak (remember, "an uninterrupted series") from 1991–2013. The later matches are adequately covered in their own section, without tending toward WP:UNDUE. Dory Funk (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What if they are in the article? Its not like they are claiming to be part of the streak. The sections of the overall WrestleMania match statistics and The Streak are separate sections. Without those matches, what is the use of the overall match record section? It will be a copypaste. The match record section is just used to show a record of all UT matches at WM distinguishing the streak era and the post streak era, which would not have been necessary if UT didnt wrestle at WM after the streak ended but he did so the distinction needs to be made. The section below it "the Streak" just focuses on the streak after the distinction between the streak and post streak era has been made. See the Mike Tyson article, it records all his boxing matches even after his first loss to James Douglas. Regardless I am repeatedly telling you Dory Funk just file an WP:RfC, as this is the way the article has been even after the Streak's end in 2014, if the majority of editors agree and the vote goes on your favor, I have no reason to oppose. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "What if they are in the article?" They're not part of the Streak (that "uninterrupted series" we talked about). It's crufty, undue, indulgent clutter.
 * Mike Tyson's article records post-Douglas matches? That could be because the article is about Mike Tyson, not his undefeated streak. Dory Funk (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Dory Funk There is no policy that prevents a list of his overall match statistics distinguishing his streak and post streak matches, and without that distinction the table itself is useless and the next section "the Streak" which just states his streak matches will be a copy-paste of the same thing in a different manner. The "match statistics" section's purpose is to distinguish the streak and the post streak era, while "The Streak" section discusses only the streak. There is no cruft in that, its just stating Wp:RS universally notable fact. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not some arbitrary article of Undertaker's matches at WrestleMania, as you'll notice there isn't one for any other wrestler. That wouldn't be at all noteworthy, probably not even for Shawn Michaels being "Mr WrestleMania". This is, however, an article about matches of the Undetaker's undefeated streak at WrestleMania, as explained by both the title of the article and within the lede, which summarises why this subject is notable, with multiple references demonstrating as to why this is notable. There are then subsections regarding match statistics/details of the streak, written prose about each match of the streak (such as storyline and major moments in the match), and a section detailing the end of the streak and the subsequent aftermath. I just don't see any reason behind your argument. ItsKesha (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ItsKesha It doesn't matter what you see or not, its not my problem if you fail to understand, the purpose of the match statistics section is to list all his WM matches and distinguish the streak era and the post streak era, the next section "the Streak" elaborately discusses only his Streak matches. The match summary serves the purpose of making the distinction of the Streak and Post Streak era and without the post streak section the match summary and the streak section would be just a copy-paste of each other in a different format, and it is notable to distinguish the streak era and the post streak era as Taker did continue to wrestle after WM 30 which is what the match statistics section does. The section after that "the Streak" details the streak after the distinction is made. Anyway I have told you many times WP:RfC and lets see what the senior editors does, removing Wp:RS based on your personal views without asking consensus is clear WP:Vandal. Anyway i am going to be a bit busy with other things now, i hope you do not go breaking the guidelines (which I have to fix if you do when i get back). I don't see why you are scared of WP:RfC which I politely asked you to do a million times. Anyway "see ya" for now, and it will be delightful when I get back I see a WP:RfC. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Your first sentence is wrong and you haven't even read my comment which explains clearly why. I'm not wasting my time reading the rest. ItsKesha (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ItsKesha  If you are not going to bother to read, then do not waste genuine editors time with your misguided personal views, and it seems like you do not understand English much anyway, you have repeatedly asked the same question and I have given the same logical explanation. And I have discussed by "suspicions" on: [] a suspicious link between two 2020 accounts ItsKesha, Dory Funk. I repeat for the last time: removing Wp:RS based on your personal views without asking consensus is clear WP:Vandal, so please seek Wp:RfC from senior editors of WP:PW to reach a consensus. Its a lengthy process, but as they say: patience is a virtue and is necessary for the protection of the articles. Once again, hope to see a clean RfC when I get back, k. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a personal view that matches that occurred after the end of the streak are not matches which are part of the streak. That's a statement of fact. And I'm still waiting for you to report myself and Dory. I've already told you to report us. You definitely won't be wasting anybody's time in reporting this and you definitely won't be embarrassing yourself in the process. And while you're at it, go to RFC, stop expecting everybody to do your work for you. And if you're going to argue about WP:RS, I'd suggest getting a better source than one that literally says "one year after his Streak was broken" when arguing such matches should be included in a table of matches detailing statistics of this streak. ItsKesha (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are the one trying to change an edit pattern dating back to 2014, so your job to go for Wp:RfC and removing Wp:RS contents based on your personal views is WP:Vandal. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The edit history of the article suggests you are actually completely wrong. The match statistics section has been basically the same since the article creation in 2014. ItsKesha (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope the article was created in 2014, in 2015 Wyatt match got added, in 2016 Shane match got added and so on, the match statistics section serves the purpose of distinguishing the Streak matches from the non Streak matches, after which the Streak matches are discussed in "The Streak" section, and the match statistics section points out the exact match when the Streak ended which is crucial and should not be removed just absed on new 2020 users opinion. And you have been repeatedly urged to seek consensus, and as you are the one wanting the change it is always the responsibility of the one wanting the change to start WP:RfC and let the senior user votes decide, but instead of doing that just blindly go blanking the section which is clear WP:Vandal. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you show me those edits you're describing, please? ItsKesha (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * lists it all, despite not seeking consensus you again blanked the section in the middle of this discussion and I had to revert it back to the last reliable version again, it shows your lack of patience and disrespect for Wikipedia policy. Note that wikipedia does not revolve around your personal view and people don't go blindly blanking stuffs despite warnings and I at least expected some common sense from starting a WP:RfC and even said if the vote from senior editors go on your favor no issue, but you do not do that but just go blindly vandalizing removing WP:RS contents and blanking sections. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've asked you for the specific edits you describe, I know where the edit history is. Please provide the links to the actual edits which you say exist, so I can check them out myself. Thanks. ItsKesha (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ItsKesha do it yourself, its all there in the history, and if AIV does get turned down no problem either I will continue to protect the article until you actually ask for a consensus rather than removing WP:RS and vandalizing the article. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * lol ItsKesha (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dilbert, if you want a reason why matches that occurred after the finish of the streak should not be included in the table, please see this explanation. ItsKesha (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC) '''Explained multiple times that the overall match statistics section and the streak section are separate, the overall match statistic section clearly says on the table heading that the Streak ended in 2014, but he didnt retire with it, it shows the overall match record and distinguishes the streak era and post streak era, while the streak section describes the streak only. The sections are separate and nothing prevents the match statistics table listing overall matches to distinguish the streak era and the non streak era, and they should NEVER be erased based on your personal views''' You are showing a football article, i also gave example of Mike Tyson article that his match record after his defeat by James Douglas are still recorded. But above you said "you won't bother reading what i wrote" and accuse me of not explaining? I promised to be civil and won't call anyone a troll, but read EVERYTHING what i wrote upto now and then talk, and I repeatedly requested you to ask WP:RfC from senior editors, you being a 2020 joinee and wanting to change the format of the article dating back to 2014, I have every right to question it and as you are the one wanting to change it is your responsibility to start a Wp:RfC and wait for voting by senior users to decide, or your personal agenda driven change will NOT be accepted. Either read what i wrote or stop WP:HARASS and wasting my time saying I don't explain pleae. Give all my comments on this talk page a firm read before commenting next time, or I won't bother having to repeat myself and explain again and again. I am human and I have patience level Dilbaggg (talk) 08:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I did get a request for comment, and now a total of four people have said matches that take place after the end of an unbeaten run shouldn't be included in the table detailing an unbeaten run. Your argument is Mike Tyson, who doesn't have an article detailing his unbeaten streak? ItsKesha (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Where i your RfC? Shows it instead of lying. Do you even know how to make one? Where are the four users you talk about? And nowhere does the table claim to be about the unbeatable run, the table heading says that ended in 2014 and separates the unbeatable run and the post unbeatable run, and then the next section "The Streak" details the unbeatable run. I will give an example of an ongoing Wp:RfC, clcik and check:, I hope you understand how now. Goodluck. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is the article as it was in July 2015, December 2015, December 2016, April 2017, November 2017, April 2018, October 2018, June 2019, November 2019, April 2020, November 2020. As you have said, if somebody wants to change an article as it was dating back so long, they should begin an RFC. I have already asked for opinions of editors regarding how to deal with sports unbeaten runs within articles, and they have said the same as myself and Dory. That's four people who agree that an unbeaten run should detail only the matches within that unbeaten run. In 24 hours I will be reverting your edit, and you will be reported if you change it back. ItsKesha (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You didn't RfC this matter and an RfC about an entirely different article is going to be used to judge the article here? Each article have their own separate RfC. However since you provided revision histories of odr edits I will check them out, if the odler versions support your claims I myself will revert back to them. Good job on that part. And dot do report threats, this is a warn, a violation of WP:HARASS, but if you want go report on AIV now, I have 0 problem, I am 100% sure it will get turned down as I haven't violated any guidelines. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , ..Please understand, the next one of you that reverts on this article without a clear consensus to proceed will be blocked for edit warring. If another editor reverts I will restore the status ante, warn that editor and fully protect the article.  From what I see here more editors will be needed to establish consensus.  Both of you should consider posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling to solicit more input.  Please be aware of Canvassing when posting your request.  Another way forward would be Requests for comment.  You should consult other. more experienced editors before launching an RfC so that the outcome would be more likely to establish consensus.  Tide  rolls  13:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Is four people, plus the entire history of the article, not a clear consensus then? ItsKesha (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be judging consensus with the train wreck that is this thread. It appears moot now, so happy editing.  Tide  rolls  13:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I'd presumed you would have been judging consensus based on four different people having the same opinion with with one sole objector. ItsKesha (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Tide rolls Sir now that he has provided older edit summaries I have agreed with his part, I reverted back to the 6th April 2020 version (similar to his version, which is sort of undoing my own edit), I did it before checking your message, I won't rever again, I am sorry if I broke the Wp:EW rule I will undo my own edit if needed. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The edit warring policy had already been broken. I was trying to find a way to keep from blocking the two of you.  Self reverting is normally a way to avoid edit warring sanctions so your edit will not incur action on my part.  Tide  rolls  13:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Tide rolls Thank you for your help in the mediation process, if he showed this is how the version was I would have agreed long ago, but instead, he kept claiming about other people from a different topics reaching consensus which is completely unrelated to this topic and kept changing it back to his version without reaching any consensus despite my repeated requests for him to seek RfC. I hope ItsKesha understands not to use RfC and discussion of four editors about a completely different and unrelated topic to claim about reaching a consensus here. Anyway, all is well now I hope. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stop lying and smearing me. ItsKesha (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@User:Tide rolls, by status ante you mean the vision of the article that ItsKesha is advocating for? Dilbaggg is the one pushing a new, controversial edit. This "train wreck" is now "moot"? So Dilbaggg gets his way by inanely ranting, confusing the talkspace and smearing his opponents into submission? Pathetic. Dory Funk (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It would appear that rants are the order of the day.  Tide  rolls  13:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)