Template talk:Infobox professional wrestler

Image size
Some infobox images on wrestlers' pages, for example Rey Mysterio, Torrie Wilson, and Eddie Guerrero are far too small. You can't change this in the individuals infoboxes, so can somebody edit the template so this isn't the case? I don't know how to. HamishMacBeth 20:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The info box
I think the info box should include the name of the wrestler's theme song.--Hornetman16 20:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I second that. 83.233.58.34 00:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No it definitely shouldn't. ↪Lakes (Talk) 11:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Resides
I've removed the "resides" field from the template because it fails WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:BIO. It's never sourced and could just be completely made up. I asked a while back on WP:PW and whilst nobody really supported it, nobody objected. BertieBasset 00:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:PW has recently agreed to include countries in the infobox. In the case of wrestlers like Glen Jacobs and Shannon Spruill who were born outwith their current country of resides, the field is necessary to avoid confusion. Moreover, anything on Wikipedia is potentially "completely made up"; this is not a compelling rationale. McPhail 01:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you need compelling rationale, you could read the bit where it fails WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:BIO. To say it is necessary for the reason you give doesn't make sense, who would really assume that despite appearing weekly on American television, Jacobs still resides in Spain? BertieBasset 11:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of American/Canadian/Mexican wrestlers who regularly cross the border and wrestle in Canada/Mexico/America. WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:BIO could potentially be used to remove any field from the infobox. The field is optional, so it doesn't have to been included, but it makes sense to retain the option. McPhail 14:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Championships
I would like to add a "Current Championships" section to the bottom of the template. I just figured I would ask opinions here first. Obviously this section would only include championship belt(s) which are currently held by that wrestler.
 * eg. Chavo Guerrero - ECW Championship


 * eg. Kia Stevens - TNA Women's Championship and NWA World Women's Championship

This list would not get too big, wrestlers usually wont hold multiple belts at once for very long. --Skyhawker666 (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest bringing this up at WP:PW, where more people will see the discussion.  TJ   Spyke   00:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Skyhawker666's change was wrapped in a conditional, so it would only be seen in any article that actually used it (i.e. it would not "effect hundreds of articles".) So what's the big deal?  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The section would be either added or updated when the title changes hands. Thanks for your approval Andrwsc, however I appreciate the link to WP:PW I will bring it up there as well. Thankyou --Skyhawker666 (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible parameters
It would seem that "manager(s)" would be a good optional parameter to add to this infobox, along with "nickname(s)". Also, something similar to how Infobox actor approaches awards listing, there could be a championships parameter. This would cut down on the compulsion to use lists within the articles. Just suggestions, though. Chickenmonkey (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

POV?
I think using John Cena as an example breaches Point of view. What do we do? --Kaizer13 (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Spouse?
Would a spouse section in the infobox be of interest? This would allow easy reference to relationshps such as Chris Benoit and Nancy Sullivan, Tommy Dreamer and Beulah McGillicutty, Triple H and Stephanie McMahon, Brock Lesnar and Rena Mero, etc. Poker Flunky (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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. 

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

template:infobox Wrestler → template:infobox wrestler — - Uncontroversial move to lowercase for ease of use (and removal of the inexplicable move protection in the process). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose and close this request asap. All templates are required to use capital letters (blame the software). Please take a look at other templates. Flamarande (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the request to eliminate any confusion. It is the W of "wrestler" I'm talking about, not the T of "template". See also infobox football biography, infobox baseball biography. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Any objections?  Zoo Fari  14:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Date of birth
The doc now advises use of birth date and age, which requires a full date. However, as per WP:DOB the exact birth date should normally not be included in articles about living people unless it is widely published already, or has clearly been published with the approval of the person. Many editors seem to be automaically following this documetation and inserting full dates of birth where they should not. I have now included a warning about this and a suggestion to use birth year and age in the doc. DES (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

New parameter
Should cause of death be included? It's included in most other infoboxes. Just a thought.  Cra sh  Underride  12:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It most definitely should UniNoUta (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Years Active parameter needs to be added
Suggesting an addition of the Years Active parameter for wrestlers/announcers who passed while still under contract to an organization. The only option to indicate an end to a career is Retired but I don’t think that label fits in that situation. C.M. Andersen 20:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dachad01 (talk • contribs)
 * Seems like a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. If we do that might want to get rid of debut and retired, and just have years active. A lot of wrestlers have passed away while they were still wrestling, so retired would be incorrect in those cases. This way if they didn't wrestle for a few years that can be shown there too. StaticVapor message me!   18:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Finishing Moves
Could someone please put the Finishing Move as a Parameter into the Infobox? MkIc (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Finisher was removed in 2007 as unimportant clutter. Hoof Hearted (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Two proposed revisions to Template:Infobox professional wrestler
I believe that the current infobox for "professional wrestler" is inadequate. I propose two possible revisions to the infobox. The first revision would include a "Promotion" parameter, and the second revision that implements multiple changes: a "Promotion" parameter, a "Stable" parameter, and a "Tag Team(s)" parameter

Proposed revision 1
I believe this change is the most necessary change. This is why I have singled out this change in proposing it in a separate infobox. I think it is necessary to state what professional wrestling promotion(s) the individual belongs to. This is as necessary as stating what team an American football player or soccer player belongs to, yet this information is absent in the current infobox for wrestlers. For these dates, just the year value can be used.

The proposed change would appear as follows:



The promotion parameter would only be filled if the wrestler worked a significant amount in the promotion. For example, Daniel Bryan has worked for at least 31 promotions, which would get unwieldy in the infobox. To solve this, the promotion parameter should be filled only if the individual wrestled X amount of matches and/or was in the promotion for X years (ie at least 20-30 matches and/or an active participant in the promotion for 2-3 years), or if their work in the promotion is considered otherwise significant. For instance, Steve Austin's work in ECW, however short, would be considered important. For Daniel Bryan, the promotion parameter could mention his most significant work -- Memphis Championship Wrestling (WWE), NJPW, ROH, NOAH, WWE -- and then a hyperlink to a full list of promotions Daniel Bryan has worked for can be placed at the end of the list (obviously another section "Promotions" or something similar would have to be created). The promotions would be listed in order of major debut date under the promotion.

Here are examples of the usage of the new parameter:

Daniel Bryan  ROH (2002-2009) NJPW (2002-2004) NOAH (2006-2009) WWE (2002, 2003, 2009-2010, 2010-present) (Full list)
 * promotion  =MCW (WWE) (2000-2001)

Eddie Guerrero  AAA (1993-1995) NJPW (1992-1996, 1998, 2002) ECW (1995) World Championship Wrestling (1989, 1991, 1995-2000) WWF/WWE (2000-2001, 2002-2005 (his death) ) (Full list)
 * promotion  =EMLL/CMLL (1986-1992)

Steve Austin  ECW (1995) WWF/WWE (1995-2003)
 * promotion  =WCW (1991-1995)

If the list of all promotions is short, perhaps all promotions can be included in the parameter. This is up for debate; this could muddle the information.

 WCWA (1990) WCW (1991-1995) NJPW (1992, 1995) ECW (1995) WWF/WWE (1995-2003)
 * promotion  =USWA (1990)

Proposed revision 2
There are two other parameters I believe could be added to the infobox, along with the necessary "Promotion" parameter. These parameters are "Stable" and "Tag Team(s)". All three are exemplified here in this second larger proposed revision.

The proposed change would appear as follows:



Many times tag teams are extremely vital to an individual wrestler's career. Their participation in an established tag team could be what they are mainly known for, such as Road Warrior Animal and Road Warrior Hawk. Tag teams that fall under the parameter would only be named, notable tag teams; one-off tag teams or temporary inner-faction team-ups would not qualify.

Stables, on the other hand, aside from being important story elements, are absolutely central to a wrestler's character in some places such as modern-day New Japan Pro Wrestling. Like the Promotion parameter, tag teams and stables would be listed in order of when the individual debuted their major involvement in the tag team or stable.

An example of the usage of the Tag Team parameter for Road Warrior Hawk:


 * tag_team   =The Road Warriors (1983-2003 (his death) )

An example of the usage of the Tag Team parameter for Shawn Michaels:


 * tag_team   =The Midnight Rockers/The Rockers (1985-1992)

An example of the usage of the Stable parameter for Kazuchika Okada:


 * stable     =CHAOS (2012-present)

An example of the usage of the Stable parameter for Triple H:

 Evolution (2003-2005, 2007, 2014) Holidayruin (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * stable     =D-Generation X (1997-1999, 2006-2007, 2009-2010)


 * Promotions, I absolutely agree with. Tag teams/stables, depends on factors such as success, championships, longetivity, and prominence. DrewieStewie (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I now think a better name for the parameter "Tag Team(s)" would be "Notable Tag Team(s)". If the tag team has a separate Wikipedia page (or should have a page) and a distinct name, then it should qualify. Otherwise, it doesn't qualify for the parameter.
 * Regarding stables, I think pretty much any stable is relatively important. Being part of a group that qualifies as a stable is usually a prominent part of a wrestler's entire identity for that time. In New Japan, they're absolutely vital to a wrestler's identity -- not just modern-day NJPW but also Riki Choshu's Ishin Gundan and NWO Japan. Not mentioning them in that case would be a disservice, I think. Perhaps the same rule of thumb can be used as tag teams, that they need a Wikipedia page? Stables are generally pretty well-covered on Wikipedia anyways. Holidayruin (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , some tag teams can be not notable enough for a standalone page but could be notable for the template. DrewieStewie (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with that assessment, I am sure there are cases where that applies. My only concern is that subjective ideas of notoriety could cause editing conflicts. Could you name some case(s) where this happens? Holidayruin (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Personally I am not keen on either of these. The majority of wrestlers with articles on Wikipedia worked for so many different promotions that their careers can't be classified this way. E.g. look at Buddy Landel's career and try fitting that into an Infobox. Tag teams and stables sit more comfortably in the prose, in my opinion. McPhail (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern. This categorization could get murky in the pre-WWF/WCW territory era, as guys went everywhere. I suggested this change because I believe most wrestlers belong to one company for a very long time, and I think it is useful to single out their most prominent work. The rest of their non-prominent work can then be filed under something like a "Various (XXXX-XXXX)" label, and/or link to a separate "Promotions" section in the article which contains the full list of promotion under as mentioned above.
 * Landel belonged to the NWA for most of his career. The same database can show that Landel's most prominent work was in NWA, Mid-South/UWF, Mid-Atlantic, Smoky Mountain, WCW, USWA, CWA, Gulf Athletic Club, and All Japan (using the aforementioned 20-match threshold, which can be adjusted according to consensus).
 * The Promotions parameter for Buddy Landel can look like this if the Promotions section in the article is not yet created:

 UWF (1986) AJPW (1988) USWA (1989, 1992-1995) WCW (1990-1991, 1997) SMW (1992, 1994-1995) Various (1991-2010)
 * promotion  =NWA (1981-1990)
 * Mid-South (1981-1985)
 * Mid-Atlantic (1981-1986)
 * CWA (1982-1988)
 * Gulf Athletic Club/GAC (1982-1985)
 * Various
 * (Writing this out also made me realize that it might be a good idea to put promotions that were in the NWA under the NWA banner, in a list. So here, Mid-South, Mid-Atlantic, CWA, Gulf Athletic, Various would be a bulleted list under the main NWA (1981-1990) entry. Also Mid-South is listed separate from UWF.).
 * If the Promotions section in the article is created for Buddy Landel, then you can add to the end of the Promotions parameter:

 (Full list)
 * Holidayruin (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * An added aside, I think it's likely that most of the "messiest" cases where individuals worked for a lot of promotions fall into two categories: indie stars in the 2000s and 2010s who have had free range contracts, or wrestlers in the transitional era in the 80s from the territory age to the cable/consolidation age. Buddy Landel's work fits in right in that latter category, where the territories were faltering and therefore unstable work, and there were also many other competitors that tried to go national (UWF, USWA) before all talent really got consolidated into only WWF, WCW, and ECW. Landel also has the misfortune of not being a very prominent draw, which meant a guy like him would go any place that would take him. Performers who worked entirely before the 80s consolidation period, such as during the heyday of the NWA, mostly had loyalties to a single promotion. Most performers who worked entirely after the 80s consolidation period also could only have loyalties to a single promotion: WWF/WWE, WCW, or ECW (except indie wrestlers). There's an argument to be made that showing the brunt of the complexities of working during their time period/setting enhances the reader's understanding of wrestling history and the wrestler themselves. Holidayruin (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Wrestlers did not work for the NWA; they worked for various companies that were associated with the NWA. This is a vast amount of information that simply doesn't need to be compressed into the infobox. McPhail (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I personally disagree. Regarding the NWA, while wrestlers did not work "for" the NWA, they worked "under" the NWA name, using NWA iconography and NWA championships. I believe putting all NWA promotions under a single banner is accurate and useful. However if a wrestler worked for a single NWA promotion in their entire career, maybe then a list doesn't have to be used. For instance, Rikidozan's time in Mid-Pacific Promotions might be shown as "Mid-Pacific (NWA) (1952)". Regarding all the information in Landel's infobox, I do believe it is necessary to state. UWF and USWA were genuine possible contenders in a national market even though they quickly flamed out. Landel's work in AJPW showed that he did some significant amount of work in Japan, as many wrestlers in the 80s did. Landel's work in WCW showed that he came back to the former Jim Crockett Promotions but ultimately had to leave early. This accurately conveys Landel's career summary. The only exception is his work in Smoky Mountain, a small promotion which might be considered insignificant in a broader sense except its role as a developmental territory. Holidayruin (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about how to address performers' time within WWE NXT and other WWE developmental promotions within the Promotion parameter. Perhaps it's a good idea to address developmental promotions in a bulleted list underneath the main promotion name? For instance, the WWE portion of Paige would appear as:

 WWE (2011-2018)     (or 2011-present) if we count the continued employment and not her wrestling appearances
 * FCW (2011-2012)
 * NXT (2012-2014)
 * This poses the further question of whether to include the WWE "brands" Smackdown, Raw, and WWE ECW in the Promotions parameter. I vote against doing so. Holidayruin (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Just look at the example of football (soccer) players and the infobox; it doesn't matter how many clubs they played for - Sebastián Abreu was at 30 clubs, Jefferson Louis has played for over 40 clubs. You can mention a "developmental" career prior to their professional career, and you can differentiate which brand a wrestler was featured on similarly to when a football player moves on loan to another team. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Indeed, mentioning every promotion a wrestler has worked for could be useful. An example of this would be the second of the Steve Austin examples I provided. However many times wrestlers do only one appearance for an indie promotion for example, and this could muddle the intended immediacy of the infobox. This is why I proposed the 20-30 match per mentioned promotion threshold, and then advocated creating a separate section within the article entitled "Promotions" that lists data relevant to their appearances in every promotion they appeared in.
 * As for brands, I am against it because I believe that a "brand" is different in spirit from a developmental promotion or a promotion within the former NWA. To me it is less significant than the other examples where a list would be used. Still, I can certainly see an argument for it, as many WWE fans and observers look at Wikipedia to get information on the history of the WWE. Here is an example of the promotion parameter for AJ Styles, with the WWE brand information included. Brand information is from this site and other info is from Cagematch again. Note that I have used a nested list (list within list) for this example in WWE. I should mention that AJ Styles has worked for at least 124(!) promotions, which would be quite unwieldy in an infobox.

 TNA (2002-2014) ROH (2002-2004, 2005-2006, 2014-2016) IWA Mid-South (2002-2004, 2007) IWC (2002-2007, 2009, 2014) PWG (2003-2006) NJPW (2014-2016) WWE (2016-present)
 * promotion  =NWA/NWA Wildside (2000-2006)
 * Main roster
 * Unified WWE brand (Jan 2016-July 2016)
 * SmackDown (July 2016-Apr 2019, May 2020-Oct 2020)
 * Raw (Apr 2019-May 2020, Oct 2020-present)
 * I also pose this question: would Styles' 4 matches in WCW and 6 matches in Revolution Pro Wrestling be considered significant enough to put in the infobox? If so why, compared to other promotions? What objective factor determines that? Should we keep a list of promotions always considered "Significant"?
 * Holidayruin (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion in infobox. I think the last comment shows why this is not a good idea. Unlike, say, in baseball, where a player can be on only one team at a time, it is not uncommon in pro wrestling for a wrestler to have overlapping appearances for multiple promotions, some major, some less so, and for stints of varying lengths. Trying to summarize and present that as a neat little list for an infobox would be a kludge, as it lacks all refinement of small details. In other words, there's no way for such a list to have the amount of text necessary to properly show the situation; it needs to be in prose, that is, the article body. An actor's filmography is not in their infobox, and a pro wrestler's career is much more like an actor's than a ball player's in this aspect. oknazevad (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * To counter the example given about actors: take a look at the infoboxes for notable directors, such as Abbas Kiarostami, Andrei Tarkovsky, and Federico Fellini. These directors have a section called "Notable work" which gives a quick summation of their most important work as directors (sometimes the "Known for" parameter serves the same purpose, such as with Taika Waititi and Jafar Panahi). The "Promotions" parameter is meant to do something similar; as stated in the examples above, they are not meant to give all of the work of a wrestler but simply their most notable work. Putting a "Promotions" parameter also encourages the further creation of a "Promotions" section in the article which would list all of their work, which would contribute to the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia. A notable exception who does not use the "Notable works" parameter for film directors in the conventional way is Steven Spielberg, who has so many notable works that the parameter "Works" just links to Steven Spielberg filmography.


 * Bearing in mind WP:OR, what sources will you use to determine what work by a wrestler was "most notable"? McPhail (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I have previously stated that a good threshold for notability would be at least 30 matches in a promotion to be put in the parameter. I also suggested a possible list of promotions always considered notable if appearances pass a certain threshold, so that something like AJ Styles' 6 REVPRO matches might count, although I am open to not doing this as well.


 * Why 30 matches? This seems very arbitrary/broad brush. By this rationale, none of Goldberg's appearances with WWE since 2004 have been "notable". McPhail (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes 30 matches was an arbitrary choice, it could be any threshold. I feel there needs to be a limit somewhere when arbitrating disputes so I proposed either 20 or 30. But regarding your concern about Goldberg, this goes into the "possible list of promotions always considered notable": WWE would be on that list, so even if Goldberg did do a few appearances, the threshold would not exist or be much lower for a promotion "always considered notable". Also, the threshold is a running total; notice I have included Daniel Bryan's 2002 and 2003 appearances in his parameter (the chronology of promotions listed would be in order of first notable time, however).Holidayruin (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The main idea behind the Promotion parameter is to show where a wrestler's main allegiances were throughout specific periods of a career, whether they be to one promotion (as is often the case) or scattered. I think this is useful encyclopedia knowledge to have immediately accessible. I think that having the reader look around for information where the wrestler worked is an unnecessary barrier to their wholistic understanding of the individual wrestler, and by extension the reader's progress in understanding wrestling as a whole. Your mention of Jushin Thunder Liger is a good opportunity to define the criterion even further. Holidayruin (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * As to the comment on overlapping time at promotions: I believe this is actually relatively uncommon, unless the wrestler was a big draw that worked a lot of promotions in the chaotic 80s or the wrestler was an indie wrestler in the 2000s-mid10s with a free contract. Outside of those two types of exceptions, most wrestlers worked mostly for one company at a time. This is useful information to convey through the intended immediacy of the infobox. Generally an American wrestler worked essentially only for NWA, WWF/WWE, WCW, ECW, AEW for long periods. If the wrestler was Japanese or Mexican they definitely only worked for one promotion at a time. (I am not counting one-off cross-promotion appearances done while a wrestler really still belonged to another promotion) Holidayruin (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * This is not the case. Even an NJPW mainstay like Jushin Liger worked for dozens of different promotions in overlapping periods. As noted, wrestlers did not work for "NWA" any more than a football player works for the NFL. McPhail (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * In the case of Liger, I would count all non-NJPW appearances to be under the "one-off cross-promotion appearances" (one-off being not a numerical but rhetorical term). If you look at his match statistics by promotion, his number of appearances for the promotion he appears in second most, EMLL/CMLL (103), doesn't even scratch the surface compared to his 1st most, NJPW (3765).
 * You asked earlier what work by a wrestler was "most notable". While Liger has 5 promotions other than NJPW that pass the 30-match threshold (CMLL, Stampede, NOAH, WCW, ROH), all these appearance were done for the sake of NJPW and because of his loyalty to NJPW. In those appearances he shows up as "an NJPW guy". In the alternative case of Daniel Bryan, for instance, his NOAH matches are notable because he signed on not as a ROH wrestler, but as an legitimate independent contractor. This is not true for Liger. For this reason, in Liger's case, I think it would be appropriate to put the following:

 (Full list)
 * promotion  =NJPW (1984-2020)
 * Holidayruin (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources for this information? How are you going to establish in which cases wrestlers were or were not under contract? McPhail (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * NJPW had cross-promotion partnerships with CMLL for a very long time, which goes explain Liger's appearances there, and WCW during the early to mid-90s, which goes explain Liger's appearances there. NJPW often loans its talent to help competitor promotions NOAH and AJPW (another example would be when they loaned Tanahashi to AJPW to push Suwama), which goes to explain Liger's appearances there. In ROH, Liger was always treated as "the foreign legend coming from Japan" rather than an at-home talent like Low Ki or Danielson, which I think fits the bill. Also footage was often loaned from NJPW to promote his appearances in ROH. I am not sure about Stampede.
 * But it is perhaps an imprecise science. Who's to say that Life, and Nothing More... is not a notable work of Abbas Kiarostami? Ultimately the parameter is trying to represent what is generally understood about the wrestler. In Liger's case, it is that he was a NJPW mainstay, and that his NJPW work is by far the single most representative aspect of his entire career. Holidayruin (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ultimately that's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and frankly it's the sort of non-objective thing we need less of on Wikipedia, not more. It's pretty clear that there's no consensus for adding these. It's a good faith proposal, but it just doesn't work without engaging in non-objective notability calls. That's the same reason we don't classify some titles as "true world titles". Deciding which promotions are major and which are borderline is too messy. oknazevad (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about precedence, but it's not the crux of the argument. Determining is not even that subjective, I was only talking about instances like Liger's case when I said that. Cases where their work for one company really is their major work; there it is one promotion mentioned for cleanliness' sake. It can generally be well-determined what is notable work and what is not. Holidayruin (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * oppose I don't see how any of this is helpful. What is being suggested is use wikipedia's voice to convey what they are most notable for, which is almost exactly the opposite of what we aspire to in prose. This is very crufty. If it is very important that someone represented a brand or promotion, then it should be in prose, but most subjects it's hardly a big deal. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Presenting chronology in a digestible way is the kind of immediacy the infobox was made for. What promotion a wrestler worked for is very important to their career, even entirely shaping it.Holidayruin (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The issue is that this information largely doesn't lend itself to being presented that way and the rules you are inventing around how it is presented are not clear/transparent to casual readers. McPhail (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about this, and it has occurred to me that the section titles in any given wrestler's Wikipedia page give the year chronologies that I advocated for in the infobox. Honestly, this is probably enough when it comes to describing their careers through promotions. The only thing I advocate for in this regard now is changing broader section titles to include years where it is not included; for instance in Roman Reigns changing the section title "World Wrestling Entertainment/WWE" to "World Wrestling Entertainment/WWE (2010–present)" for presentation immediacy in the Contents box. Holidayruin (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding "Partner" parameter
Please add the parameter "Partner" after "Spouse". This can be used to include notable long-term unmarried relationships in articles. McPhail (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please can you demonstrate consensus for this change? Should partner and spouse be mutually exclusive? Could the label be changed to Spouse/partner or is a separate row required? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * the requested change is based on Template:Infobox person, which is the master template for biography articles. Template:Infobox person has "Spouse" and "Partner" as separate parameters. This change will bring biographical articles on professional wrestlers in line with biographical articles generally - there's no real reason to capture information on partners for everyone with a biographical article bar wrestlers. McPhail (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. While I see no issue with adding this extra parameter, Martin raises some good points that should be discussed. Just because infobox person has the two parameters on different lines doesn't mean this template must follow suit. Basically, I'd like to see opinions on whether it should be an either/or situation; i.e. both on one row or different rows. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding "Partner" parameter (redux)
Please add the parameter "Partner" after "Spouse", with "Partner" Wikilinked to the article Intimate relationship. This can be used to include notable long-term unmarried relationships in articles. As requested I have raised this at the Professional Wrestling WikiProject and there is support for adding the field. McPhail (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added the field to the sandbox version &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. would you mind updating the documentation? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * - done, thank you. McPhail (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of "Residence" parameter
Please can the parameter "residence" be removed from this template. This was discussed here. The rationale is that (1) this is consistent with Template:Infobox_person fromm which this parameter has been removed (2) this information is inherently very difficult to reliably source (3) the inclusion of this information may given rise to privacy/security issues in certain cases. McPhail (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hijack, but can the editor also add the "partner" parameter to the unknown parameter check? This part of the process was overlooked months ago, so articles using it are incorrectly listed in Category:Pages using infobox professional wrestler with unknown parameters. Pre  fall  10:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * All ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 11:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * thank you. McPhail (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * my pleasure!  Paine  16:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)