Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 100

Spam?
I've browsed a number of wrestler bios the past few weeks and see two types of content being added. I wanted to get the opinions of the folks here as to whether they're spam. The first are sections devoted to Createspace books by the wrestler, in most cases autobiographies. The second is the same paragraph about Konstantine Kyros and his class action lawsuit, ending with the same source that appears to be from Fox Sports in Australia, copied across what appears to be dozens of articles:"In July 2016, (insert name of wrestler here) was named part of a class action lawsuit filed against WWE which alleged that wrestlers incurred traumatic brain injuries during their tenure and that the company concealed the risks of injury. The suit is litigated by attorney Konstantine Kyros, who has been involved in a number of other lawsuits against WWE."From actually reading the source, if the WWE's response that the "number of other lawsuits against WWE" were dismissed for cause is accurate, then this comes across as someone's attempt to use the mere existence of a mainstream media source to create spam to promote this dude. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ditch them both. The first are non-notable self-published works. And in some cases their claimed authorship is dubious at best. Their inclusion is purely promotional, the very definition of spam.
 * As for the second, on one hand, the filing of the lawsuit was briefly news, but I don't know if we need to mention it on every wrestler named. I'm not even sure the named wrestlers exactly know what they were signing up for. As for mentioning the lawyer who filed the suit, it seems that including his name and the fact that he's had previous lawsuits against WWE actually seems to imply that he's a serial filer of frivolous lawsuits. That's not a good look for Wikipedia. We don't need it. oknazevad (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Suing WWE is a big deal for a wrestler. Whether or not it wins them money, it should likely affect their future prospects with the company (Legend contracts, Hall of Fame inductions, front-row Raw appearances). It also indicates they believe their brains (which effectively run their entire lives and careers) were broken in WWE. This belief, substantiated or not, is substantial to said lives and careers. The lawyer's name isn't as important, but still seems a natural inclusion when discussing the suit.
 * The self-published book part is clearly against our policy on that sort of thing. No argument there. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Wanting to avoid an, admittedly lame on my part, Hiromu Takahashi edit war
Admittedly this topic is really unimportant in the scheme of things, and I'd rather not get it going forever. In simple terms theres a debate over Hiromu's Time Bomb finisher description, I know this isn't really a big deal and I shouldn't care.

The issue is that his usual listed finisher is a firemans carry into emerald flowsion, while at the same time a signature move named the Dynamite Plunger he uses at the same time is a firemans carry into an emerald flowsion. Both moves on his page are by description identical, but in practice if seen are very different.

I changed it a few months back to a firemans carry into a schwein, as thats what the move is and provided video evidence supporting this, but got reverted as the japanese sources refer to the move as a firemans carry into a modified/inverted/"wrong" emerald flowsion. The issue comes from a reliable sourcing issue in that descriptions of moves are rarely really covered in RS and showing the move is seen as OR.

Thoughts?

Here's the Time Bomb

Here's the Dynamite Plunger –– Lid(Talk) 03:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyone? –– Lid(Talk) 02:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It is WP:OR to just see a move and describe it as different (unless you are an "expert in the field"; or even if it is obviously the case). Wikipedia isn't always about commonsense, unfortunately. Nikki  ♥  311   00:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?
Hi,, following the post I made last time. I made a set of recommendations. You'll notice that they are split between new editors and experienced editors. I wonder what do you think about it?

Bobo.03 (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * If you need more people then yeah I can join. Although I will say that I am not great at writing articles, title history is what I focus on usually and making sure everything looks uniform etc but I would be happy to sign up. Browndog91 (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Browndog91, thanks for your interest! It would be great. I will let you know when we are ready to launch! In the meanwhile, do you have any suggestions regarding the editors we recommend to your project? Bobo.03 (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really mind who joins me as long as they do a good job and communicate well with other editors I am okay with whoever. Browndog91 (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

YelloChoco44 (talk) 11:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would love to work the project. However, I don't write articles, but instead I tend to work most in the "In wrestling" section for most wrestlers and wording the technical names of moves correctly, as well as being very nitpicky with grammar and punctuation. I'm very excited for this.
 * Hi, thanks for your interest in our work! We are working the system, and will let you know when it's ready! In the meanwhile, how do you like the editors we are recommending to your project? Bobo.03 (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello . The only editor whose name I'm familiar with is . I think they do well when editing. Also, why do half of these editors have so few edits?
 * Yeh, they are new editors who just joined Wikipedia not long ago (Those are their edits in the first week). We think that if we can utilize WikiProjects to help and retain those newcomers, it would be very valuable for the entire Wikipedia community. That's why we put both new editors and experienced editors on the list. What do you think? Bobo.03 (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocking
Does anyone here have the ability to block users? has been tampering with multiple wrestling related articles and is ruining the "In wrestling" sections of multiple wrestlers, including misspelling and incorrectly naming or capitalizing names of moves. YelloChoco44 (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not, but the Administrator intervention against vandalism page is for stuff like this.★Trekker (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Formatting Issue
I figured with endless Google searching for an answer that I couldn't find, this would be a good place to ask. In my sandbox, I am working on an Ethan Page article. Feel free to help if you like. He went by #AllEgo from what I been seeing in my searches. But when I try to put #AllEgo in the infobox, it wants to turn the # into a number. I tried using the include only or the no include HTML tags but it doesn't achieve the desired result. Any solutions? Thanks. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 21:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hash worked. Prefall  21:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good to know for future reference. Gave you a thanks.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm YelloChoco44 (talk). I made a few edits to your page, specifically the move list. I have a few comments on your sandbox in general. If there are any moves you don't know the technical name of, send me a link to a video. Also, I couldn't help but notice your David Finlay Jr. page. I suggest you remove you remove or move his picture of the handshake, as it looks sloppy with the in wrestling section. YelloChoco44 (talk) 06:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the edits in my sandbox. If you actually noticed while editing, the picture is not in the actual "In wrestling" section.  There is not enough career information yet for it to be where it is in the code.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarification on combined reigns list
There is a wrestler in West Coast Wrestling Connection who currently wrestles under a mask as The Grappler 3. He has also worked under the Eric Baeden. If you look at the WCWC Pacific Northwest Championship, you notice he won the title as both Eric Baden and The Grappler. If a wrestler has been a particular champion under a couple of names/gimmicks, would leave them separate in the combined reigns list or would you put them altogether? Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * together. Like Rocky Maivia/The Rock as IC champion or Christopher Daniels/Suicide as X Division champion.

Requested move

 * "Rey Misterio Sr." to "Rey Misterio". McPhail (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Project Collab
It's been a little over a year since we did our last Project Collaboration. In light of Ric Flair's recent health issues, I nominate him to be the latest collab. The time frame is two weeks. I'll be working on it...Feel free to help if you have minute. Nikki ♥  311   19:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ric's had health issues recently???!! :(★Trekker (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that I support this nomination for collaboration.★Trekker (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Depending on what source you read, he is having "tough medical issues", heart issues, is in a medically induced coma, and/or in the ICU., . Nikki  ♥  311   20:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's very sad, I hope he recovers.★Trekker (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Neville page move
Surely it's time that Neville's page should be moved from Adrian Neville to Neville (wrestler)? He's been known as Neville for the last two years, and has won the Cruiserweight title under the same ring name. Also, Cesaro and Rusev's page were moved eventually, so why can't Neville's? APM (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * He's still Adrian Neville, in-universe, just called by his surname. Not really a name change, just short form. Like how Stan Smith's boss and co-workers call him Smith. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You sure about that? Because the analogy to Rusev and Cesaro is pretty spot on. He hasn't been billed as Adrian Neville in two plus years. Even if he's occasssionally called "Adrian" by others during dialogue, that's analogous to Triple H being called "Hunter" as he still is to this day. The article is still at Triple H. oknazevad (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're still absolutely ring-named Alexander and Antonio. Scotty 2 Hotty is still Scott Taylor and Charlotte is still Charlotte Flair Naomi is still Naomi Knight. But since the other article titles have changed, I guess this one should, too. Not because it's right, but because it's normal. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I see Charlotte (wrestler) went the other way around last October. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with treating every article the same, in Charlotte and Natalya case they are from wrestling families and their last names are relevant to who they are, it also avoid unnessesary disambiguation.★Trekker (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Using full names avoids the disambiguator in every case. But yeah, "Neidhart" and "Flair" are more prestigious than "Knight", even though the Knights have far more members. Don't let me stop anyone from doing anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand what your comment is implying with the link there.★Trekker (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No implication at all. Just saying a lot of wrestlers are named Knight. A fun fact, not a point; first sentence was a point. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I would support a move. Same case as antonio cesaro and alexander rusev.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd also support a move. I get what Hulk is saying, but I'm not sure these are even their kayfabe names anymore. Natalya and Charlotte had their surnames thrown around occasionally, these guys had their names dropped shortly after developmental and were never mentioned again. Names like "Naomi Knight" end up being too obscure to use.LM2000 (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not being mentioned isn't the same as not existing. But existing in another promotion is. Neville will always be Adrian Neville and Pac will always be Benjamin Satterly, but (Adrian) Neville has never been and will never be Pac. Now do what you gotta do, and I'll never mention my certainty on the matter again. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

SAnitY
I've noticed several users reverting the correct capitalization of SAnitY to "Sanity" in match and championship listings. Unsure why this seem to be the consensus when every single official source that I have ever come across regarding this group uses the stylization SAnitY. A few examples: Youtube video of group's debut Recent Youtube video NXT TakeOver: Brooklyn III hype Takeover: Brooklyn III preview Takeover: Brooklyn III report Official merchandise store Official Facebook page Official theme song ESPN report Even a third party report from everyone's favorite, F4W

I can't find one single official source that uses the stylization "Sanity", in fact that stylization seems to be largely confined to here on Wikipedia. And if the policy is that we don't like stylizations then that's fine, but in that case we also need to change all the listings for reDRagon, #DIY, the nWo etc, which I doubt anyone wants to do. So can we please stop reverting these changes for SAnitY? Dannys-777 (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know if there is some kind of policy. I mean, We write Kenta and Noah, no KENTA and NOAH. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The guideline is WP:MOSTM. Simply put, we do not use unusual capitalizations unless they're near-universally used by independent sources (like "iPhone"), as that shows how it is used in general use, not promotional ones owned by a company, which have a self-promotional purpose. All of those sources except the last two are WWE sources, amen qre therefore considered one source torn the style for our purposes. While the ESPN and F4W sources do use the capitalization, though I will note that ESPN and WWE have a deal of sorts, so ESPN parrots WWE's styling, and that other wrestling news coverage, such as pwtorch and prowrestling.net, do not. As such, if the use in sources is mixed, we default to standard capitalization. The article is at Sanity (wrestling) for that reason. Links should likewise match that. oknazevad (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?
Hi all,

It's been a while, but hope you still remember the study about recommending new editors to WikiProjects I proposed :) Please see the previous discussion here. So now, we have our system ready, and we can start recommending editors to your project now. We have started our study in a couple of WikiProjects, and received good feedback. We'd like to engage more WikiProjects, and invite some of the project organizers in WPPW to our study. Participants will receive two batches of recommendations. If you think the recommended editors are good candidates for your project, we'd like you to invite them to the project.

Please let me know if you'd be interested in participating, add your WikiProject and username to the table on my user talk page. Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I'm YelloChoco44 (talk). I have a few questions. I have never worked on WikiProjects before, and I would like to ask how will I choose a specific project? Is there a list of them I can find? Thanks. YelloChoco44 (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a directory. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Count me in bro you can take one look at me and know then and there I'm the man for the job - 6SyXx6 —Preceding undated comment added 06:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Family articles listing all collected accomplishments
Currently all wrestling family articles list every single award and accomplishment of every member, I think this is rather overkill. I mean should every award and nomination given to The Rock really be listed in the Anoaʻi family article? I think it should be kept to accolades given to the family as a unit, such as the Von Erich family being inducted into the WWE HoF together.★Trekker (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I would also be ok with posting links to each members wikipedia article section for such things. Just not these bloated lists we have right now.★Trekker (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. It's pretty standard to list just the championships won during their time together in C&A sections on tag team articles and I'm not convinced family articles should be treated differently. It may be appropriate to mention elsewhere that The Rock, Yokozuna and Roman Reigns are former WWE Champions, but I don't think the C&A section is the place to do this.LM2000 (talk) 04:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. For example, the Anoa'i family has a huge amount of titles with rock, reigns and the usos. BTW, some user proposed a few months ago to change the Colóns article to a family article instead about the tag team --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sold on removing the whole section, but Slammy Awards and stuff like that could go. Why not just keep it at actual in-ring accomplishments (belts, Royal Rumble, King of the Ring)? GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But the problem still remains that it ends up being super bloated and unnecessary, if I want to see the Rock's accomplishments I can look at his own article. I don't see why it would make sense to remove some specific awards and remove others, keeping it to in-ring accomplishments seem random and POVy. I also don't think we need to completely remove the section, just keep it to things that the family has received together and links to each persons section.★Trekker (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

How about just leave it alone right now we have bigger fish to fry. - 6SyXx6 —Preceding undated comment added 06:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not very helpful to the discussion. I also have no idea what you believe to be more important but to me this is the most interesting discussion going on right now.★Trekker (talk) 10:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

WCW midcarders
Gonna spend the next few months working on making articles of lesser known WCW talent a little more informative. Who thinks this is a sick idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 6SyXx6 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a sick idea. See WP:PW/RS for a list of sources that may help you in your goal. Unfortunately, as we discussed at Articles for deletion/Randy Anderson, older sources are harder to find.LM2000 (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. Also, I am glad Randys page was not deleted. He was the head referee of WCW for the love of god. - 6SyXx6 14:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 6SyXx6 (talk • contribs)

Article voted for deletion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mister_Saint_Laurent

As I'm new to this I don't really know who to contact about this. MSL is not noteworthy and had less than 50 matches in his career and never performed for any large wrestling organisation. 6SyXx6 (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A good choice would be to go for a speedy deletion in this case.★Trekker (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * How do I go about organizing that? Sorry I'm useless and dont know anything haha 6SyXx6 (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's ok. There's a list of templates to use for speedy deltion criteria here. I say you should use ★Trekker (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I had the template reverted and their excuse was: "The last AFD was keep, must go back to AFD if you think it should be deleted." Super annoying. It was voted to be deleted in 2008 and somehow it wasn't deleted. 6SyXx6 (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There has been two deletions, the last one was keep. It's not "super annoying" it's the right way to do things.★Trekker (talk) 06:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

TNA and GFW categories
With the GFW Global Championship recently moved, I think that we've moved every article to their appropriate places since TNA's rebranding. One thing we never bothered to do when they first rebranded from TNA to Impact was move the categories. We currently have Category:Global Force Wrestling and Category:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. The first GFW category was created for the original GFW. I'm unfamiliar with the process to move categories and I assume most editors are since this never got updated after the TNA name was dropped early this year. I'd recommend deleting the GFW category, and all of its subcats, and moving the TNA category to that name. Most of the GFW subcats are filled with TNA articles.LM2000 (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Clearlybupdatimg the TNA categories to GFW categories is the obvious answer for those, leaving the former ones as soft redirects. But the question is about stuff that only applied to the original GFW, not the former TNA. Are they valid entries for the renamed category considering the relative lack of a significance of that promotion? Should it all be put in a subcategory Category:Global Force Wrestling (2014–2017)? Or should that be a standalone category? I lean toward the subcat option myself. oknazevad (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Since they weren't much of a promotion, most of the subcats are populated with things primary associated with other promotions; the championships subcat has only titles used during crossovers, as does the tournament cat, and the only show in Category:GFW pay-per-view events‎ is Wrestle Kingdom 9. We also could delete the subcats and use only the main Category:Global Force Wrestling (2014–2017) category for the articles pertinent to it... We could also just move everything to a "(2014–2017)" name and be done with it. Truthfully, I don't feel passionately about that, the bigger issue for me is that we've got to update the TNA category name.LM2000 (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I say go for the Category:Global Force Wrestling (2014–2017) and move all current GFW stuff to the Category:Global Force Wrestling categories.★Trekker (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. How do we move them?LM2000 (talk)
 * Generally when a category is moved it has to be replaced by hand or by some bot.★Trekker (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

HAHAHA. According to Sports Ilustrated, Anthem Media wants to sell GFW. However, Jarrett owns GFW, so Anthem media wants to sell TNA IMPACT WRESTLING. Here comes a trouble. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh no.★Trekker (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. Here is the article. In case you want to read before more moves --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Good god, what are these companies even anymore?★Trekker (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Another wrinkle to the story is that Jarrett still owns the name of Global Force Wrestling, so Anthem would be selling Impact Wrestling. Wait. What the hell is going on? I guess we'll find out in a few weeks whether they'll be dropping the GFW name altogether... or whether GFW will be dropped altogether.LM2000 (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I moved the first category to Category:Global Force Wrestling (2014–2017). I also nominated two of its underpopulated subcats (tournaments and shows) for deletion at Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 11. Please chime in there.LM2000 (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Inactive AfD
If we could get some participants over at WP:Articles for deletion/Southpaw Regional Wrestling, that'd be great. Only 1 participant has come by since August 30.  JTP (talk • contribs) 02:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Retired
Hi. As you know, Santino Marella retired on July 6, 2014. However, on August 27, 2017 he came out of retirement to have one last match. A lot of users changed his retirement date from 2014 to 2017. What do you think about that? Is one last match the official retirement date or the previous one? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We list The Ultimate Warrior as having retired in 1998, although he did have one last match in 2008. I think this is how we should do it, one night exceptions aren't really the same as "coming out of retirement".LM2000 (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, same as with Bret, he retired in 2000, those few "matches" in 2010 and 2011 aren't really more than a footnote.★Trekker (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Heenan
According to WWE, Bobby Heenan has died. Anyone want to help get his page ready for a WP:ITN nomination? Nikki ♥  311   00:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely.  JTP (talk • contribs) 01:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone made a proposal before we went to work on the article. Chime in In the news/Candidates.LM2000 (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we get a confirmation on a birth year? Some say 1944 and others say 1943. Most sources say he was 73; Toronto Sun says he was 73 but says he was born in '43.LM2000 (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The Sun's figure is not a date conflict. If his birthday was after today's date, he'd still be 43 until later this year, when he would have been 74. As for the 1944 dates, could be that sources are just assuming that 2017 - 73 = 1944. We'd need to confirm his entire birth date. oknazevad (talk) 10:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Raymond Louis Heenan was born November 1, 1944, in Chicago." So not 73, 74 or 43. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * In his Hall of Fame speech (transcribed here), he says he was 10 when attending his first show in 1954, 15 watching TV in 1959 and 17 starting work at the Armory in 1961. Statistically, these three things are each 83.3% more likely to have happened before November 1, making 1943 the safer bet. But nothing certain. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This indicates Channel 5 started showing wrestling at midnight in the fall of 1959 (still in the future tense, as of October 18), lending some credence to 1944. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As for the Armory in 1961, The Sheik worked one in Louisville, Kentucky, early in the year and one in Akron, Ohio starting in October. Since Heenan is more likely in the Akron area, he's more likely to have been chased by The Sheik shortly after his 17th birthday. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Should we really miscount the title lengths just because WWE does?
If a title is won April 1 and lost April 2 the length of the reign is 1 day. Sometimes WWE counts that as 1, sometimes as 2, sometimes as 0 days. But the start and end dates are identical, so they recognize the same title length as we do, they just have some weird math issues going on there. Should we really mess up every title history by having "Combined days" AND "Combined days recognized by WWE"? For NXT I get it. They count the airing date, not the taping date. That's different.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * We've had this discussion before. Those days add up if it happens multiple times with the same person. And, they're separated with the real days taking precedence, so how is that "messing up every title history"? -- JDC808  ♫  23:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It's confusing for people that don't know about the way WWE counts.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * How is it confusing? There's a note that says that WWE recognizes the tape delay dates. When there's just the one day discrepancies and it's not because of tape delay, there's not really much we can say other than that's what WWE recognizes, which we do. -- JDC808  ♫  02:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It is confusing because most people just look at the table, not at each reign to find the note. And they recognize the same dates as we do, they just can't count. But the point is: they recognize the SAME EXACT DATES. So why have two different columns just because they don't know hot to count?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Most people just look at the table, not each reign to find the note." There's nothing we can do about that and that's also very assumptive. We do not know why WWE sometimes has a one day difference when the dates are the same. It might be inclusive counting or it might have something to do with how Wikipedia is on UTC time. We just don't know. These championships are OWNED by WWE, thus, we also account for what they say THEIR championship reigns are. Like I said in my original post, we have already had this discussion. You were actually part of that discussion earlier this year where this all was explained. -- JDC808  ♫  19:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Fun Fact: The Catalan and Spanish Wikipedias spell Dominic DeNucci with only two of the three Is, merely because WWE.com does in its World Tag Team Championships history. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I have a question. Is not about WWE. It's about GFW. I saw the article about the TNA/Impact/GFW World title and I saw the combined reigns. It says: Combined days recognized by GFW (based on air dates). Do we have any source about this? I mean, WWE says Asuka reign is 523 days long. However, we don0t have sources about TNA, for example: Magnus reign is 210 days long. I mean, we don't know if TNA/GFW goes by the real date or they tape date. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I had raised a similar question earlier this year when this matter came about. If I remember correctly, someone said that GFW/TNA/Impact does not keep track of their title history on their website. I just took a look and cannot find a title history. The only way it would seem to find out that information is if there was an article about a champion and it said what his/her reign (and dates) were. That would require some research. -- JDC808  ♫  20:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Starrcade
Starrcade (2017) does not need to exist, correct? This is just a live event (non-televised) with a special name. Nothing Wikipedia-wise needs to happen for this except for maybe a little not on Starrcade. Just wanted to get some input on this whole situation.  JTP (talk • contribs) 21:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the event (televised or untelevised) recieved attention from the media. I don't know if would be televised like Roadblock or WWE from MSG. I think we should make like 2012 The Great America Bash: a few lines in Starrcade.
 * If it's notable then it's notable, if it's not then it's not.★Trekker (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

AAA Company name
Earlier this year, AAA's article title was changed from "Asistencia Asesoría y Administración" to "Lucha Libre AAA Worldwide". Now, the article lead simply calls it "AAA Worldwide". I made a discussion on its talk page if anyone can help clarify and correct anything regarding AAA's official name.  Sekyaw  (talk)  19:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You should talk with Ribbon Salminen and MPJ-DK. I told them I usualy see AAA, but I never saw Asistencia Asesoria y Administración. Looks like the promotion dropped the full name long time ago, just like World Wrestling Entertainment/ WWE --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It became AAA in the late 90s, Lucha Libre AAA Worldwide in 2015, not sure about just "AAA Worldwide"  MPJ  -DK 22:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Innovate Wrestling United States Tag Team Championship
NWA Smoky Mountain Wrestling is now Innovate Wrestling. I moved the NWA United States Tag Team Championship (Tennesse Version) to Innovate Wrestling United States Tag Team Championship. I made the appropriate edits to show that there was a match to crown the first champions under the Innovate Wrestling banner. My question is should a new article have been created or was I right in editing it like I did? Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 23:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It depends. If the new title keeps the previous history, same article. If the new title creates his own history, two articles. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That I don't actually know. But I've seen on Wrestling-Titles.com that they've separated the title histories.  I'll make the title histories separate.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Conclusion to the family articles question
Unless someone wants to object I would like to go ahead and remove most of the individual accomplishments from the articles. Again, I would be ok with linking to each persons section.★Trekker (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

"WWE mistakenly recognized Austin's reign as ending on October 5, 1997"
When Austin won the title from Owen and had to vacate it later, are we sure that WWE botched the title end date? Or did the vacancy announcement air on October 5 where the next Champ was crowned?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Check what the sources say. -- JDC808  ♫  19:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Old WWE titles
Is WWE's counting and our counting regarding the length of a title reign of retired titles the same? Or has just nobody updated these articles yet?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll verify these.  JTP (talk • contribs) 01:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: I did the WWE European Championship; will check out the others later.  JTP (talk • contribs) 01:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Depends on which ones you're talking about? I know some are still needing updated, but there are others that WWE's website does not have a title history for. Thanks JTP for doing the European title. -- JDC808  ♫  20:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, World Tag Team Championship (WWE) also needs to be updated. No, actually every former championships need so. Nickag 989 talk 07:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just finished WWE Cruiserweight Championship (1991–2007). I'll do some more in my free time.  JTP (talk • contribs) 01:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:John Cena

 * Requesting third opinion on edit war at John Cena. I've been popping in and out on this since yesterday and it seems no closer to a resolution.  JTP (talk • contribs) 14:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for comments at Bill Goldberg
I would like some thoughts at Talk:Bill Goldberg. Thanks for your time. Nikki ♥  311   03:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/to do
Is there any reason that our to do page is in the Wikipedia talk namespace? I was about to create a WP-style redirect for it until I realized that it is in the WT namespace. The WP page was deleted in 2013 under G6 and was never recreated. Maybe a move is in order?  JTP (talk • contribs) 01:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah that seems like a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Combined days as Champ
IC title does count the days the WWE mistakenly recognizes too, see Stone Cold Steve Austin. The table says 65 days and 93 days recognized by WWE. US title does NOT count it. Goldberg has a mistakenly recognized title reign length, but in the table it only gives one number. So what is it? Do mistakenly recognized title reign lengths get counted or not? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the headsup, got fixed in the meantime.  Nickag989 talk 20:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Why did the most PPV main events table get removed?
It was at the bottom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WWE_pay-per-view_events#2017_2 Now it is gone, only most PPV matches is left. Why?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See Talk:List of WWE pay-per-view events/Archive 2. Someone originally created a section named "Most PPV main events", but since there were no sources to keep updated with that, it was changed to "Most PPV matches", and we used the Internet Wrestling Database to update stuff.  Nickag 989 talk 20:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No sources? Wikipedia lists every PPV main event, one just has to count. I have kept it running btw so I could put in most PPV events as of No Mercy 2017.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia itself is unreliable, use third-party reliable sources from anywhere instead.  Nickag 989 talk 11:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But the PPV main events themself have sources, so just adding all the PPV main events forces us to use the same sources again?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Tthey're not on the same page, so the refs aren't available immediately to a reader of the list, making it unsourced within that article. Normally, simply adding quantities is perfectly legit per WP:CALC, but it's not considered so to make a reader go through all the different articles to verify for themselves. The profightdb.com source is a one-stop location for total PPV matches, but not main events, so it verifies the content of the current list. oknazevad (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * And counting main events is hard, by Wikipedia's new "supercard" system. Says they consist of more than one, but then just call the main event the main event and the rest featured, primary or predominant matches. Is there more than one or isn't there? Nobody can agree. But we can (probably) agree on which ones were on the PPV portion and which weren't. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Tell me about the new supercard system. Because the main event is always the last match. Should be easy to count.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about it, just noticed it exists at the Royal Rumble articles from 2004 to 2011. Sometimes there are (allegedly) "main features" of the event. Not as new as I thought, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But it clearly states that one match was the overall main event, and two were the primary matches for Raw and SmackDown. So a supercard is just a Raw+SD main event, a Raw main event and a SD main event. Doesn't change anything for us here, Raw+SD main event = THE main event.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

WCPW / Defiant
Was kind of shocked to find there wasn't a page for What Culture Pro Wrestling. WCPW is bigger than most of the indies with pages on here and probably the most popular promotion in the UK (maybe Europe). I'm going to guess someone made a page that violated the rules a long time ago, it got deleted, and no one has decided to replace it yet. Sunomi64 (talk) 05:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WCPW gains most of its publicity from its own website and YouTube channel and not from the required, secondary, reliable sources.  JTP (talk • contribs) 01:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Could we maybe use sources such as cagematch, hashtag wrestling, HuffletonPost, etc as reliable sources for this? There is a lot of mentions from F4Wonline.com; which comes up as an acceptable primary source. I feel like a well written article with these sources would be of benefit for adding. It's hard to argue that Defiant wrestling 'isn't noteworthy' 20:02, Lee Vilenski (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Didn't a bunch of the WCPW core personnel just leave the company? Rebranding, people leaving - it may be dead in a week for all we know. Does it have significant coverage from reliable secondary sources? that's the measuring stick, not "bigger than other companies that have pages".  MPJ  -DK 18:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Wrestlers' children
I've noticed that quite a few articles list the full names and dates of birth of wrestlers' children. As the children aren't public figures, I'd suggest this is excessive and it's not necessary/appropriate for the article to be publicising this info. Some articles also list the children's weight, which I'd suggest is not noteworthy. I'd therefore suggest (a) quoting only a year of birth for wrestler's children and (b) removing all birth weight info. Any thoughts are welcome. McPhail (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed with both. Talk about pointless trivia that also invades privacy. Yeesh! oknazevad (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think WP:BLPNAME applies here. Best to exclude.LM2000 (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of the children's names are already all over the internet, so I don't see a big problem with listing them for someone like Triple H. In some cases, it makes a lot of sense to name them (Aurelian Smith or Ted DiBiase, for example). In most other cases, I see no reason to list their names. Birth weight doesn't ever seem notable. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We say Giant Haystacks weighed 14 pounds, 6 ounces. He's a public figure, but that could still be a lie. Source? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that's relevant to this discussion.★Trekker (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Hulk is confusing the topic of discussion. It's about the children of wrestlers, not wrestlers as children. oknazevad (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm paying attention. Just took up Gary's suggestion to address Reby Sky's weight problem, then got stuck in Art Donovan mode ("How much does this guy weigh?") Seems Matt Hardy Jr. and Haystacks are the only wrestling babies we weigh on this website, so figured we'd just settle the whole thing while we're here. I don't care either way about names, object to non-public people's weights, prefer a source for famous fat kids, support genders and don't think we should ever mention their birth ages. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, the fun of going down the rabbit hole of following wikilinks. oknazevad (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So Haystacks was not a "wrestling baby", he is a wrestler who was huge when born and it is mentioned in his article (source not withstanding) whatever Mini-Matt's weight was is trivia in an article about his parents.  MPJ  -DK 20:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That Haystacks was huge even at birth is modestly notable considering he was famous for his size. Might be a bit trivial, but still an interesting inclusion. Matt's son, not really needed. oknazevad (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If there's no source for Baby Haystacks by Thursday, it's gone, interesting or not. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Would Wikipedia ever go by everything the WWE said?
It really bothers me a lot that wwe.com has that many title history errors. Is there a chance that Wikipedia would ever accept every error made in one of their title histories as the truth? When they say Owen Hart was IC Champ for 10 years (for whatever reason), would we accept that as the truth because WWE says so?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They say Moolah held the title uninterrupted for 28 years, but as you can see from List of WWE Women's Champions she actually dropped it a couple of times and they retconned the title history. They own their championships so they can do what they want with it but we have to present all sides.LM2000 (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not our fault that they have "errors" on their title histories. And like LM2000 said, we present both sides: what actually happened, and what WWE says (since it's their titles). What actually happened takes precedence. Also, you bring up this issue a lot. We can't fix WWE's "errors". -- JDC808  ♫  05:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I got them to fix an US title history error by tweeting the archivist. He then almost completely abandoned his account, otherwise he would have fixed a lot of other errors by now. But I will keep trying to get the biggest errors fixed.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, he might have depending on how much of an "error" it is/was. The US title one was a huge obvious error. If you're able to get them to fix errors by contacting them, be it Twitter or wherever, great. Otherwise, there's nothing else that we can do other than what we've been doing. -- JDC808  ♫  17:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sooner or later I'll get them all fixed. Stuff like the vacancy errors (superstar vacates a title, reign does NOT end until the next superstar wins it) are obvious errors too. I am always stunned by how less WWE cares about this. Give me 30 minutes and every title history would be fixed, even the minor stuff.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, i dont know why you still in wikipedia. Every time you talk is about wwe.com errors, not wikipedia. I told you one hundred times, if you want to change wwe.com, talk with them.
 * Talking to them isn't easy. Finding someone in WWE who gives a shit is almost impossible. And fixing their errors would change stuff for Wikipedia too. I don't get why nobody on Wikipedia would prefer WWE having an error-free title history section. Less stuff for us to worry about and it gives the titles more credibility.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * In theory, we're meant to largely ignore WWE in favour of independent, secondary sources. Per the rulebook, we should exclude any exceptional (contrary or just lone) claim a primary source makes. Says so here and here, plain as day.
 * But the sort of people who pursue encyclopedic knowledge about pro wrestling are the sort who have been watching it closely for long enough to be influenced by its flagrant disregard of rules and conventions. The industry (and we the periphery) is cyclical; it's either shunning the norms of pop society or breaking its own code to better fit in. Either way, we're naturally predisposed (as a group) to ignoring all rules.
 * Doomed, I tell you. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Deceased American professional wrestlers
Is there any good reason for Category:Deceased American professional wrestlers? Eventually it will include every American wrestler in existence. What's the point? McPhail (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There's one for Canadian wrestlers as well. I also do not understand why they exist.★Trekker (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've nominated for deletion. McPhail (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Sin Cara
I brought this up over a year ago, but I feel the need to talk about it again. The Sin Cara article seems unnecessary to me. Much of the info in the article about the character is represented well in both the Místico and Hunico articles. I think what is taking up most of the article is the Double Sin Cara feud, but a single feud shouldn't warrant a separate article. I have a few suggestions on what to do with the article. Taking into consideration that Hunico has portrayed the character the longest, and is arguably better known as "Sin Cara" than "Hunico", we could: Any thoughts are much appreciated.  Sekyaw  (talk)  18:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Change the Hunico article title to Sin Cara and add a hatnote that leads to the Místico article
 * Redirect Sin Cara to Hunico and add a hatnote that leads to the Místico article
 * Redirect Sin Cara to Místico and change Hunico to Sin Cara II (see La Parka and La Parka II, Místico and Místico II)
 * Redirect Sin Cara to Místico and add a hatnote that leads to the Hunico article
 * For me, Sin Cara article should be about Hunico/the second Sin Cara. He portrayed the gimmick longer and even won the NXT Tag Team Title. Místico stills as Místico, Hunico change to Sin Cara --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Move Hunico to Sin Cara, hat note on the page. Mistico can stay at Mistico and we'll be good.  MPJ  -DK 21:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Sin Cara should be a disambiguation page and Hunico could be moved to Sin Cara II, keep Místico as it is.★Trekker (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I support the move for Hunico to Sin Cara with the hatnote to Místico. JJClbsnn (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the responses. It looks like there’s enough consensus for the switch from Hunico to Sin Cara with the Místico hatnote, so I’ll get that done soon.  Sekyaw  (talk)  05:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Tag teams listed alphabetically
I saw a bunch of edits on my watchlist today in which the names of tag team members were placed in alphabetical order. For example, Team X (Member Y and Member Z) rather than Team X (Member Z and Member Y). I don't see the purpose of this. When many tag teams were introduced or discussed, it was always in a particular order. Money, Inc. was always Ted DiBiase and I.R.S., never I.R.S. and Ted DiBiase. The Smoking Gunns were always Billy and Bart. The Headshrinkers were always Samu and Fatu. Switching these around because of some arbitrary rule (which I had never seen) doesn't make sense. It also leads to results like on Survivor Series (1994): The Royal Family (Cheesy, Jerry Lawler, Queasy and Sleazy) defeated Clowns R' Us (Dink the Clown, Doink the Clown, Pink the Clown and Wink the Clown). I don't mean to discriminate, but the match was advertised as Jerry Lawler + 3 vs. Doink + 3, not 1 + Jerry Lawler + 2 vs. 1 + Doink + 2 (and not even getting into the fact that Dink, Wink, and Pink were never referred to as "the Clown"). Does anyone know where this is coming from? Looking at the talk page of the person who made the changes, it seems like that editor was told by another editor that it had to be that way. Any thoughts? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I would tend to disagree. The default should be to order lists etc alphabetically unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. "When many tag teams were introduced or discussed, it was always in a particular order" - this would need to be sourced for the individual articles. McPhail (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * .I think like McPhail. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Even worse are the the results for the triple threat matches and beyond. I mean look at the main event result for WM 20.  Nickag989 talk 17:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problems in the Triple threat matches. These are wikipedia rules. For example, at the style guide I see a fatal 4 way and the wrestlers are listed alph. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Andrade "Cien" Almas
I think that we should officially change his Wikipedia page to Andrade "Cien" Almas rather than La Sombra (wrestler). It makes no sense to have his former ring name be the title of the page rather than his current ring name. YelloChoco44 (talk) 05:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. He's best known for his success in CMLL under the La Sombra ring name, and hasn't achieved anything of note in NXT, until the partnership with Zelina Vega and subsequent feuds with Johnny Gargano and Drew McIntyre. APM (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel the same. He is best known for his time in CMLL. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

www.onlineworldofwrestling.com as a source
Is OWW a good source? I see it gets used as a source a lot, but then it says in Miz' article that his managers are The Miztourage, consisting of Bo, Axel, CESARO and SHEAMUS !? I don't think Cesaro and Sheamus are in the Miztourage, are they?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It was more prominent in Wikipedia's early days, so naturally found its way into most early articles. From there, it was a chain reaction of precedent. Used to be run by a small team, but has long since gone user-driven, 2.0-style. We've discussed retiring it here before and made some progress, but old habits die hard and take a lot of work to replace. If something's only in OWW (and pages that rely on it), it shouldn't be any good here. For uncontroversial claims, it's fine, as is any poor source. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Vince Sr. page move
Currently, the page for Vince McMahon's father is at Vince McMahon Sr. Normally, I wouldn't have a problem with this, but the senior bit implies that Vince McMahon has the exact same name as his father, which he doesn't. I suggest the page should be moved to Vincent J. McMahon. After all, it's the name he's inducted as in the WWE Hall of Fame, and the name used for the participation trophy which facilitated Shane McMahon's return last year. APM (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. In general we should steer clear of "Sr". McPhail (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * .I agree too --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The technical move has been contested (though, not sure if has seen this discussion). A formal WP:RM on the talk page may be necessary. As for the proposal itself, I agree.  Prefall  05:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah kinell, had no idea that guy has camped out in the talk page, shooting down any attempts to move it, despite obviously, being in the wrong. It had been Vincent J. McMahon for some time, and then he moved it in 2011 citing WP:COMMONNAME and the WWE HOF listing. However, he's listed on the official website as Vincent J. McMahon, so I don't what to think anymore. APM (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Pacific families
Could we possibly make articles for the Maivia and Snuka families? Right now all of them and their relatives seem to be crammed into the Anoa'i family. That seems a little inapropriate to me, every relative of a relative is not necessarily part of your family. This seems to be especially be a problem with the navboxes. Should Rocky Johnson's brother be included in the Anoa'i template because he is connected to the the Maivia's? That all sees a little much. Not all of Dwayen Johnsons cousins need to be mentioned as part of it either, seems borderline original researchy to include them. It would be easier if they had their own navbox and article.★Trekker (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Per WWE "Maivia and his family have since been considered an extended part of the Anoa'i family." Peter Maivia's family should therefore be included in the Anoa'i article. There is perhaps a case for splitting off the Snuka family. McPhail (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WWE is not remotely a reliable source whatsoever. Nevermind the fact that the Maivia family probably has people in it that have no connection to the Anoa'is. All of the Rock's damned relatives should not be considered part of the Anoa'is, this is all flimsy as hell. The Maivia's have their own in-laws in the Johnsons, such as Rocky Johnson and his brother. Again, should they also be inlcuded in the navbox they sure have more of a tangible connection that the Rock's stunt double cousin.★Trekker (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I've deleted Snuka from the Anoa'i family again. This is just something someone back in the day thought plausible and has stuck ever since. Why it didn't happen to Haku and The Barbarian instead, we may never know. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Every single Polynesian seems to have been claimed to be related in some vague undefined way. We need tangible proof that this isn't just some cultural customary stuff. I'm all for respecting other cultures and ideas but come on, not every single samoan that market themsleves as the Rock's cousin can be in the Anoa'i navbox.★Trekker (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with The Rock's cousins, so long as they're sourced and not from the Johnson side. The whole "blood brothers" or "adopted daughter" deal may seem sketchy to someone who doesn't believe in it, but it's widely known that this family does. Different sort of bullshit from the Snuka stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of this stuff almost reeks of marketing "Hey look! They're all related to The Rock!, aint that cool?".
 * If that's all there is to it, it's not cool at all. But it's not bragging if it's true. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * As far as I gather, Kaluka Maiava is Neff Maiava's grandson and Neff is Peter's cousin. Whether this makes him The Rock's nephew (as the source says) or third cousin (as it seems to me), there's no lineage to the guy who blooded into the Anoa'is. So I'll take him out, pending new information. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Is Impact Wrestling Canadian now?
Owners Anthem are based in Canada. As far as I know, Impact is now taping TV/PPV in Ottawa, Canada. There have been many recent departures, like Jim Cornette, Reno Scum, Rockstar Spud, Marshe Rockett and Bram. Also, several referees have also left. starship.paint ~  KO   02:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes JB announced yesterday. Impact is Canadian as Maple Leaf and donuts --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The name of the entity owning it, based on the article is Anthem Wrestling Exhibitions LLC. This would be a US based company, the Canadian equivalent would be called a ULC. Being as this is a LLC, it is a US based company that owns it, the parent company of that US based company might be Canadian, but how does that make them a Canadian entity? Saks Fifth Avenue for example is listed as an American company, although its owned by Hudson's Bay Company, a Canadian company. -  Galatz  Talk  16:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Rey Escorpión GAN
Months ago I nominated Rey Escorpión for GA, but recently I have not had much time to work on Wikipedia and forgot about it. Someone has given GA feedback at Talk:Rey Escorpión/GA1 but I do not have the time to work on it, if someone else is up for it could they please try to address the issues? No pressure but if I don't ask no one will even know to look.  MPJ  -DK 21:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll check them out.  JTP (talk • contribs) 22:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

WWE Raw was split without consensus
So three days ago, someone requested WWE Raw to be split, since it's over 100k size, into 'WWE Raw', 'History of WWE Raw' and 'Raw (WWE brand)', but since no one has commented yet on that suggestion, he did the split anyway two days later. However, until the final consensus is reached, I've reverted back to the revision prior.  Nickag989 talk 06:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SPLIT it is bigger than they definitely need to split size. Also per WP:BEBOLD I do not need consensus, I asked to see if anyone had any other suggestions before doing it. Also the Raw Brand and the TV show are completely separate so keeping it together makes no logical sense. -  Galatz Talk  11:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support a split, but maybe it should be decided what goes were first.★Trekker (talk) 11:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

This was what I had proposed If you take a look at the second two articles you can see exactly what I moved where. Let me know if you have any changes, I am happy to make them. -  Galatz Talk  11:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) WWE Raw - The current page as is, less the info I am proposing moving below
 * 2) History of WWE Raw - Move the detailed history leaving only a coupe paragraphs as a highlight
 * 3) Raw (WWE brand) - This would take the info from the brand related info from the history section, as well as the championship belt listing.
 * I think this seems good but I'm a little worried about how to avoid having the history and regular raw article not get edited into the same stuff eventualy.★Trekker (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the main article needs to be just high level, otherwise it gets overwhelming for anyone. Its pretty common to see across sports articles with New York Yankees and History of the New York Yankees, or New England Patriots and History of the New England Patriots. Some high level stuff will be repeated, but the details should not be. Someone looking at the main page would not always want every little detail, the hatnote of the section lets them know there is more info if they want it. -  Galatz Talk  11:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the history material is a good choice to split out. Or we could just aggressively cut out excessive detail and reduce the length that way. The article has too much that's about WWE in general instead of the show in particular, and is a little too Week-by-week at times.
 * I, however, don't think separating the show from the brand is a good idea. The first brand split lasted what, 7 years, while the current is less than a year-a-and-half old. All things considered, I just don't think the brands have any real separate notability form their namesake shows. oknazevad (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The brands themselves have the belts, not the show. They also have their own branded PPVs, and mostly on the other PPVs they fight within their own brand. Someone coming to Wikipedia who wants information on the brand has to read through everything about the show since its all commingled. If you look at Raw (WWE brand) you will see I pulled out the exact info about just the brand, and its very easy to follow (page still needs some work, but its the basis). Then if you look at History of WWE Raw, you will see I took out all the brand related info and kept it all about the show. Additionally if you look at the individual wrestler pages like Jinder Mahal it says he wrestles for the SmackDown brand, not the TV show. It doesn't make sense to say Tom Brady plays in the NFL for the Patriots, and pipe the Patriots to National Football League on television. -  Galatz Talk  18:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

If we have an article for the Raw brand, shouldn't we also have one for the SmackDown brand? That would make sense, at least to me. The only thing annoying now is going through every article and correcting the wikilinks for the show and the brand. -- JDC808  ♫  03:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support that too.★Trekker (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, my original post said I was going to do both. I plan on creating the SmackDown one tomorrow baring any objections. I already went through, updated every PPV (which the nominator has undone) and updated every wrestler. I have no problem doing the same for SmackDown once its created. -  Galatz Talk  22:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * On a side note, could any of these be nomiated for WP:DYK? There's some pretty interesting stuff that could make for a nice hook.  JTP (talk • contribs) 23:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be nice. I think any new article can be nominated.★Trekker (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The first one that comes to mind is Styles' title win outside of North America (once History of SmackDown is created), but there are probably dozens of good options between the two.  JTP (talk • contribs) 23:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I have now created the SmackDown (WWE brand) and History of WWE SmackDown pages. -  Galatz Talk  18:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Wagner Jr. GAN
In a similar vein to above, I have provided a Good article review for Dr. Wagner Jr., but as is not active on site, I wondered if anyone else would be interested in helping the article pass; my comments are on the review page: Talk:Dr. Wagner Jr./GA1. It is quite a long list, but most are just minor copy-edits. Thanks for any help with this. Harrias talk 09:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Gail Kim
Gail Kim, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why did you spam the entire wikipedia with this question? Do you think the project Ontario is interested? Also, we have a lot of FA and GA like CM Punk, Shelton Benjamin or Bobby Eaton, so doesn't look like a problem.
 * I think it's a problem is the articles are written in an "in universe" perspective. That's not how it shold be done.★Trekker (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism from sock puppets on professional wrestling articles
Today, I blocked as a CU-verified sock puppet (see list of sock puppets). I couldn't verify another rash of vandalism to similar articles from and, but it's probably related. If this starts up again, please let me know. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

ECW brand page
It appears that someone has started the ECW (WWE brand) page. Any thoughts on keeping it and splitting the current ECW (WWE) page? I think it makes sense but its a much smaller page than the Raw and SmackDown pages when I proposed it. I am happy to do the work on splitting it and updating the links if you guys think it makes sense. The way I see it, right now we have a Raw, SmackDown and NXT page for both the show and brand, it makes sense for ECW as well. -  Galatz Talk  21:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that it makes sense. It is shorter than the others, but that's not too big of a deal as it could be expanded in some areas. In regards to NXT, the brand page is currently WWE NXT while the show is WWE NXT (TV series). I feel like maybe we should do some renaming for consistency. Change "WWE NXT" to "NXT (WWE brand)" and change "WWE NXT (TV series)" to "WWE NXT". We could maybe also move "ECW (WWE)" to "WWE ECW". That would make every brand's name consistent, and every show's name consistent. -- JDC808  ♫  22:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that makes sense. The NXT change would need to be done very carefully though. You would need to move the current WWE NXT to NXT (WWE brand) and then make sure everything is updated. I would go to Special:WhatLinksHere and expect to see nothing link there. Then move the TV series to the main page. If everything redirects its not a big deal. I would do the same thing ECW updates, if it redirects its no big deal, there are currently so many redirects anyway, its not a big deal. -  Galatz Talk  22:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move for info
Vince McMahon Sr. → Vincent J. McMahon McPhail (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Most PPV matches is okay but most PPV main events is not?
I asked recently why Most PPV main events got removed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_100#Why_did_the_most_PPV_main_events_table_get_removed.3F). But then Most PPV matches gets added here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WWE_pay-per-view_events? Shouldn't that be removed for the same reasons? Or if it is fine, then there is nothing that speaks against adding Most PPV main events again, right?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, because "main event" is ambiguous, but being on the PPV is not. That said, I think both should go, as pure trivia. oknazevad (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion either both are trivia or both are ok, but it should be consistent. If we are listing the main event, stating its ambiguous would mean we should take away that column from every chart, again consistency. As for the points raised of no source that tracks it, I would say that doesn't matter. The shows listed on the page are already independently verifiable, therefore it would fall under WP:CALC which states the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection. I would say the fact that we have already verified all the main events, it is absolutely obvious and correct without an outside source tracking it. The only item that would need to be tackled is whether or not its meaningful. In my opinion, if total appearances is meaningful than total main events are as well. -  Galatz Talk  01:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Charlotte, Triple Crown winner
I was bored today, so I tried to find a source about Charlotte as a Grand Slam Champion. I didn't find it, But I found a interview published by WWE where she said she would become the first Triple Crown female champion when she arrived to SD. Now, she is the SD champion, so the prophecy is complete. Do you know what titles are elegible for the crown? She has won the NXT, Divas, Raw and SD titles. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally a Triple Crown Champion would be one that held a singles, tag and secondary championship. Seeings as there is no tag or secondary championship in the women's division, it couldn't be for this. If there was a official release from WWE saying that she was a triple crown champion, I'd allow it, but I have never seen such a thing. If a triple crown was for winning the three belts (RAW, Smackdown and NXT) belts, I think they'd need to explicitly say that, as being a multiple time heavyweight champion for the men doesn't get you the same. Otherwise, Finn Balor would be the WWE Championship away from a triple crown. Lee Vilenski(talk) 11:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It exist. ROH triple crown can be achieved by winning the World, Pure and Television. Since pro wrestling is scripted, a promotion can create his own version of a Triple Crown, excluding Tag Team titles. My point is 1) WWE published a video about Charlotte as the (maybe) first female Triple Crown winner, so it exist. Just like ROH, they published an aricle about Lethal being a potential Triple Crown winner if he win the World title.  --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of flaws in your logic. Should we also put that Jinder Mahal beat AJ Styles last week on SmackDown because the official WWE video released says he was going to beat him? Should we mentioned that SmackDown is the better brand and use a youtube link to Daniel Bryan saying its the better brand, since its an official WWE release? It seems to me that you want to include something and are trying to make the facts fit the answer, rather than looking at the facts and then drawing a conclusion. -  Galatz Talk  12:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I use the same logic as ROH tiple crown. Years before Lethal won the title, we include the definition World/TV/Pure just because ROH said so. In fact, it's the same as Michaels said "I'm the Grand Slam champion because I won 4 titles". I feel the same, Flair said she would become the first Triple crown with the SD title. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I remember seeing that video that you are referencing in regards to Charlotte saying she would become the first female Triple Crown Champion. However, WWE has not released an official statement to acknowledge this feat. Until WWE officially recognizes her as a Triple Crown Champion, and subsequently those three titles being the requirement, mention of her being a Triple Crown Champion should be left out. -- JDC808  ♫  20:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

On the pre-show, Charlotte just referred to herself as the first ever Grand Slam woman. She seems to be contradicting herself as what this made her based on the original video. I think this just emphasizes that there shouldn't be anything listed, she is making it up as she goes. -  Galatz Talk  22:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * well, she has won 4 titles. Nxt, divas, raw and smackdown.
 * I am not a moron. You clearly completely missed the point. Let me spell this out for you, since you seem to be missing the obvious points. Your argument is to include her as a triple crown winner because she said she would be the first with winning 3. Now she is saying she won 4 so she is a grand slam. By that logic wouldn't she already have been a triple crown before it? When you make stuff up and its not officially sanctioned you have holes, clearly this is one of them. -  Galatz Talk  14:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, calm down. Second, she can win the Triple Crown and the Grand Slam at the same time. Again, Shawn Michaels declared himself the first Grand Slam, so Charlotte could do it the same. She made an statment, I'm just asking for their inclusion in Wikipèdia.  --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we'd have to have WWE specifically refer to her as a triple crown champion to be able to add it to Wikipedia. Even though Shawn Micheals called himself a grand slam champion first; we couldn't put it on wikipedia citing the boast of the wrestler. I understand that it could be the WWE's way of pushing out the term into the women's division; but until the WWE officially say that she has won it; we shouldn't be adding it to the topic. Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Bullet Club Rules
So, me and User:Vjmlhds have a disagreement about the ROH World Six-Man Tag Team Championship and the so called "Bullet Club Rules". Basically, Adam Page and The Young Bucks won the title, then later invoked "Bullet Club Rules", under which Cody Rhodes, Kenny Omega and Marty Scurll have been allowed to defend the title. Vjmlhds thinks that this makes the latter three official champions, because traditionally under the Freebird Rule, this has been the case. I disagree.

Straight from ROH's official website (http://www.rohwrestling.com/news/main-event-signed-roh-elite-ft-lauderdale), when talking about The Elite (Omega and the Young Bucks) defending the title in October, ROH says "The trio defended the ROH World Six-Man Tag Team Titles, officially held by Adam Page and the Young Bucks, under “Bullet Club Rules”, allowing any three members to defend the titles". To me this shows that the situation to similar to how WWE handled the WWE Women's and WWE Divas Championships with LayCool. Both were allowed to defend the title, but only one was recognized as the official champion. Similarly, Cody, Omega and Scurll are allowed to defend the title, but they are not recognized as official champions.

The same article lists wrestlers taking part in the show. All champions have their championship listed in front of them, for example Cody is listed as "ROH World Champion Cody" etc. Page and the Bucks are listed as six-man tag team champions. Scurll is listed on the same page, but is not listed as a champion while Omega is listed only as the United States champion. This is a constant on ROH's official site. Look at any event on the site since the rule was introduced: (http://rohwrestling.com/live/events/2017/nov/19/111917-survival-fittest-night-3-oklahoma-city-ok http://rohwrestling.com/live/events/2017/nov/18/111817-survival-fittest-night-2-dallas-tx http://rohwrestling.com/live/events/2017/nov/17/111717-survival-fittest-night-1-san-antonio-tx http://rohwrestling.com/live/events/2017/nov/12/111217-ring-honor-live-lakeland-fl http://rohwrestling.com/live/events/2017/oct/20/102017-philadelphia-excellence-philadelphia-pa), only Page and the Bucks are listed as six-man champions, Cody, Omega and Scurll have never been listed as such.

To me, ROH is pretty clear in this matter. And after all, ROH is the only one who decides who is a champion and who is not. Traditionally, yes, under the Freebird Rule the wrestlers have all been recognized as champions. But for one, ROH isn't calling this the Freebird Rule and secondly, even if they were, the Freebird Rule is not defined in the U.S. constitution as being "this and only this with no exceptions allowed". ROH booked it and they get to define exactly what "Bullet Club Rules" mean. REEEEEbbon Salminen  (talk''')  19:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * All due respect, but I believe in this case Ribbon is picking nits. "Bullet Club Rules" is just a pseudonym for "Freebird Rules", and it's the exact same idea...the group holds the title, and can pick any members to defend it...this is a nearly 40 year old gimmick, that has been used a thousand times by many organizations, and this is no different than any of the others.  I don't even see where this is an issue, as at Global Wars, it was made very clear what Bullet Club was doing.  In my view, this is a nothingburger.  Vjmlhds (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I just quoted you a bit with ROH saying that Page and The Bucks hold the title and the best you can come up with it is that I'm "picking nits" and then more of this tradition bullshit. Like I said, that doesn't matter. Jesus christ. REEEEEbbon Salminen   (talk''')  23:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a tweet straight from the Young Bucks where they flat out call it the "Freebird Rule". And profanity will get you nowhere...when you go straight to swear words, it shows you have no argument. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've provided my argument above. You have nothing apart from going back to this tradition well, which again is a dead-end. ROH defines the rules of their championship, not tradition or this "Official Guidebook of the Freebird Rule" which you apparently own. REEEEEbbon Salminen   (talk''')  00:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think just like Ribbon. Bullet Club has a lot of power, even they make deals with other wrestlers to appear in ROH (Joey Ryan, Matt Hardy). ROH is their yard. However, ROH decides who is the official champion (in this case, Page and the Bucks). Any wrestler can create a "Freebird Rule", but the promotions has to recogniced it. Other sources like Cagematch and Solie's say Bucks/Page are the champions. We have seen similar cases, like Alex Shelley defending the Tag Team Title with James Storm or LayCool. However, it would be grate if ROH creates a section for the trios title history. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We need to do what the sources say. Vjmlhds may end up being proven right later on, but right now sources say Page and Bucks are the official champs and others are just standing in for them.

LM2000 (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

While I do think we're splitting hairs here, I'll stand down and concede to consensus. I have taken the liberty of reinstating Ribbon's version to all of the affected articles. Gotta pick your battles. Oh-blah-dee, oh-blah-dah, life goes on. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Raw 25th Anniversary
Should a article be created for the Raw 25th Anniversary show considering its a huge milestone just like Raw 1000? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would imagine so, but only once there is enough WP:RS to support it. I would think the correct procedure would be to first start using History of WWE Raw to include content relating to it. Once it grows enough to create its own article the relevant content can be WP:SPLIT and a summary left. -  Galatz Talk  00:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Professional_wrestling

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.&mdash; Rod talk 18:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for posting this link, I found it very helpful and I have gone through and cleared all but 1 of the ones that it showed. The one I couldn't fix is for Mr. USA (wrestler) which links to NWA Southern Heavyweight Championship. I have checked every one of the options and I cannot figure out which one is correct. Can anyone else on here help clear that one? -  Galatz Talk  19:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks.&mdash; Rod talk 19:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Done - it's the NWA Southern Heavyweight Championship (Florida version) but the article is out of date. McPhail (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I noticed one new one added today which was from a vandalism edit that I had actually already undone. This is probably a good thing to check occasionally just as a matter of good maintenance go back and check out the link. We should find somewhere to include it for easy access for people. -  Galatz Talk  19:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Referee's names
I have a suggestion: Adding the name of each referee for each match in the Matches/Results section. I think it's important to know who the referee was. What do you think?Wikitranser (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's really overkill—not even boxing or MMA articles add the referee or judges names in the results table. For what it's worth, we do already include referee names in the Event section if a reliable source mentions them (see WrestleMania XXX). That seems sufficient. Prefall  07:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is it important to know? Sounds to me like WP:TRIVIA -  Galatz Talk  14:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually quite like the idea but realistically sourcing it properly would be tough. McPhail (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that outside of some exceptional circumstances where it would require more than just a passing mention anyway, the referee for a match is pretty trivial. oknazevad (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sourcing isn't an issue since the event is the source. This issue is what does it add to the reader other than trivia? What relevance does it have? The only reason I feel it might have some basis is if you look at 2017 New England Patriots season they list the ref. Additionally if you looks at 2017 World Series you will see the umpires listed in the infobox. -  Galatz  Talk  14:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Style guide expansion
After seeing how concise WikiProject Video games' article guidelines are, I've taken a first step to cleanup and expand our style guide. The lack of depth and explicit mention of certain notable topics (e.g. the face/heel jargon debate) was a glaring issue. There are numerous "do's and don'ts" that may be known to experienced editors who frequent this project, but not to new editors or anyone on the outside looking in. Clearly we can do much better in this area to help others understand.

If anyone can review my changes for any errant details (or to simply clean up my poor writing), and help expand the guide, that would be greatly appreciated. Prefall 01:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree the MoS needs some improvement. I usually read it for question but I don't find answers. I would remove a few "wrestlers trained" (too many names). However, I oppose to this "Professional wrestling articles should not be written in-universe, which is outlined in the Manual of Style on written fiction. They should be written so that everyone can understand its content, not just professional wrestling fans. All articles should be written in past tense, excluding future events. The following guidelines should be followed in order for an article to be classified as a B-Class article, in order to be nominated and passed as a Good Article nomination, and/or as a Featured article candidate." We are discussing the topic at Gail Kim article, with some user againt and some users supporting. However, every FA and GA is written in-universe (Bobby Eaton, CM Punk, Brock Lesnar, Shelton Benjamin), so I don't think it's a problem for a FA or GA status.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear, that note was there before but I just moved it to a more appropriate position. I haven't read much of the in-universe debate on the Gail Kim page, but I think in general it is a good idea to frame these articles in an out-of-universe perspective. Of course, a good amount of content still almost needs to be written in-universe to maintain context without bogging the article down. In my opinion, as long as it is first established that the real person is portraying a fictional character in a storyline, the remaining paragraph can be written in-universe and it will be easily understood by the reader. You don't need to transition every storyline with an out-of-universe perspective, but it helps to reinforce that point with the reader every once in a while. It is also good practice to only use their ring name when referring to the character itself, and their real name when referring to any real-life happenings (unfortunately, that convenience isn't afforded with wrestlers who use their real names...). I admit, this whole thing is a very fine line to maintain and it can be difficult.
 * Also, I trimmed the "wrestlers trained" list. It should be cleaner now. Prefall  22:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If we want wrestling to be exempt from the "no in-universe" rules I would suggest it should be brought up to a higher place than just on this project talkpage. I doubt a single project has the authority to decide to ignore a pretty conrete guidline based only on their own whims. I for one do not believe that wrestling needs to be described in-universe.★Trekker (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Last names in Tag Team titles
Also, I have a question about a silly topic. Sometimes, I see brothers or "brothers" (even father and son) winning a Tag team title. However, in the Tag Team article I see 3 way to write their names. I see 2 of them in the FA List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE). The Valiant Brothers (Jimmy Valiant and Johnny Valiant) [their names include their last names] The Hardy Boyz (Matt and Jeff) (no last names) The Usos (Jey and Jimmy Uso) [Just one last name]. So, which is the right way? Personally, I prefer both wrestlers with last names.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * From all of the guidelines that I've seen, "Jey and Jimmy Uso" is the correct way—at least when used in a sentence. There may be a more specific guideline that covers this, but at MOS:SAMESURNAME they use an example with "Ronald and Nancy Raegan". Prefall  21:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with just doing one last name (like the example of "Jey and Jimmy Uso"). If you're listing both names like that, it's redundant to have both, and it's more concise to use the last name once. -- JDC808  ♫  22:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with this as well. If they have the same last name, it's pointless to use it twice.★Trekker (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Uso version still uses it twice (including the team name). Better than those damn wordy Valiants, but the Hardy way is twice as concise. Even when it's a bit complicated, like The Smoking Gunns or The Fabulous Rougeau Brothers, it's clear enough which part's the surname. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

What about teams like Cesaro and Sheamus? I've seen it written where each word is linked (the names linked separately and the "and" is linked to the team, so it is written as Cesaro and Sheamus and looks like Cesaro and Sheamus). This goes against MOS:LINKSTYLE, which says "avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link". Writing it as Cesaro and Sheamus (Cesaro and Sheamus) seems repetitive. Thoughts? Nikki ♥  311   02:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SEAOFBLUE it should be linked to the tag team. -  Galatz Talk  02:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * With that case, it doesn't really bother me if we only link the tag team name or if we link "and" to the tag team article. That last example I have never seen, and it shouldn't be done because it is repetitive. Going by MOS:LINKSTYLE and WP:SEAOFBLUE, I'd say we should just link the tag team name and if a reader wants to know about the individual wrestler, they'll find the link for them in the first sentence of the tag team article. But, if we're writing this in prose, the first instance of the tag team name should be linked to the tag team article, and afterwards when referring to an individual member of that team, link their individual name. Example: "At [PPV], Cesaro and Sheamus defeated [tag team] to retain the Raw Tag Team Championship. The following night on Raw, Cesaro faced [wrestler], and later, Sheamus faced [wrestler]." -- JDC808  ♫  02:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems like the best option, unless they go by "The Bar" from now on.  JTP (talk • contribs) 03:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I wish they would make up their mind on that. They refer to themselves as "The Bar", the commentators refer to them as that, I think other wrestlers have, but they're not officially called that. -- JDC808  ♫  04:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

In wrestling move sets
I like this part: "For signature and finishing moves, there must be one reliable source explicitly mentioning that it is a signature move of the wrestler. One reliable source merely mentioning that the wrestler performed the move is not enough." I think we need to do a better job of actually following this rule, though. The move sets are filled with original research and synthesis of sources. Nikki ♥  311   23:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I died fighting for that rule! I ain't going back on purpose, but I'll fix them where I stumble upon them and support the greater crackdown in spirit. It's all just moves, though, I fear, everyone doing everyone's moves and kicking out at two. Not just in wrestling, but all sports and entertainment. One big (modified) tornado DDT ("with theatrics") since 2008. In my day, you got hit with Jumpin' Jim's amazing patented dropkick, you didn't get up. That's why they never put him in there with Andre. Anyway, yeah! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Sub-sections
Do you have any thoughts about the subsections? I mean: WWE - Raw (2004-2007) - Storyline with The Undertaker (2007-2009) - Retirement. For example, some rules: Avoid "various storylines" when it's possible. Don't include Debut or departure. Also, about sections being too short. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you brought this up, I was going to. There shouldn't be a blacklist on "various feuds/storylines" but we should avoid it when there's an alternative. "Storyline with The Undertaker" is good if most (but not necessarily all) of the section involves Undertaker. I really hate tiny subsections; the two tiny subsections under "Second return to WWE" on Matt Hardy are a perfect example. Instead of two really short subsections, it's perfectly fine to have no subsections at all. The only exception I can think of is for NXT wrestlers, it's good to have a "WWE NXT" subsection under the main WWE section.LM2000 (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Luis Fernandez-Gil/Dario Cueto
Does anyone here watch Lucha Underground? The professional wrestling section for the actor who plays Cueto only goes up to the season 1 finale, and with LU set for season 4 next year, it's due for an update. Also, I was wondering if the Cueto stuff could be moved to its own page, like the pages for various soap opera characters? It's a big if, mind! APM (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a big fan of LU. However, a lot of wrestler doesn't have their sections updated. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand that. But isn't a bit daft that one of the main characters in this TV show doesn't have a more extensive section? Could you help me on that? APM (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would try. My English isn't perfect and I have to see again the season 2 and 3. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I shall leave it with you then. And what do you think of the other suggestion, keeping the Cueto stuff to the Luis Fernandez-Gil page or moving it to its own page? APM (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, it's a hard question. I don't know if Fernández is gonna continue his career in pro wrestling. However, I would include Cueto's history in his article, just like The Rock or Vince McMahon --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I'll have to sandbox this to see how it looks. I'll let you know if you want to contribute to it. APM (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

ICW Clean up
I've done a bit of cleaning up on the Insane Championship Wrestling article, but it's still far too bloated. I'd like to remove the vast majority of the events listing and roster sections. However, as this is a major part of the article, I'd want some consensus that this is a good idea. I'll link to this from that talk page.

What is everyone's thoughts on this re-structure. As it is, the article isn't very Wikipedia friendly and feels as though it was written by someone who was a fan of the history; but wanted to include everything. Lee Vilenski(talk) 14:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think these events tables are huge and adds nothing. Also, every year the list would become bigger and bigger. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * List of Progress Wrestling events was created back in April after getting to big for the main page, perhaps that could be an option for ICW? Same thing for the personnel section. APM (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It gets to a grey area for these smaller federations. Its easy to say we should have a PPV page, but are these shows any different than if we had a page on every Raw with the results. Does the promotion do other events or is this all inclusive? Do they do house shows that aren't included here? If the promotion does shows regularly and these are the "special events" than a page move might be warranted similar to Progress Wrestling. If this is everything we might want to consider trimming down. -  Galatz Talk  14:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They have a weekly show, ICW Friday Night Fight Club, which airs internationally.  JTP (talk • contribs) 14:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy with the move of those parts somewhere, but not sure the events are notable. The article certainly doesn't need these event listings Lee Vilenski(talk) 19:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of the events are just weekly tapings, the Fight Club thing. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done some cleaning up, and it does make the article much better. Despite being from the UK, I know reasonably little about ICW. The article to me does seem pretty too in depth about certain personnel and such; but I don't know of it's important Lee Vilenski(talk) 09:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Total Nonstop Action Wrestling/Impact Wrestling/Global Force Wrestling
I was reading the MoS and I saw: "Try and limit headings by promotion, although some alternatives are acceptable. If the text for one promotion is getting long, it can be broken up with further subheadings. Use common sense." For example, Total Nonstop Action Wrestling /Impact Wrestling / Global Force Wrestling it's too long. Using common sense. Do you think we can avoid the GFW? The promotion was called just a few months. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No reason to ever use that name in a heading, it was barely a blip in the history of the company. The headings should be what the company was called at the time of the wrestlers career there.★Trekker (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It would make sense to include it if they only wrestled for Impact when it was called GFW (which I don't even think anyone has done). But I agree it's best to just avoid it altogether and remove it from the header to shorten it.  Sekyaw  (talk)  05:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * GFW should be removed from all TNA headers. They never actually acquired GFW so the name change was basically a storyline. It would be like saying guys like Sean O'Haire and Mike Awesome were employed by The Alliance when they worked for WWF in 2001.LM2000 (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

GFW article
A recent request was made to move Global Force Wrestling (2014–2017) to Global Force Wrestling here Special:PermanentLink/814108338. The move was done as uncontested, however the admin moved it back upon my request. I cannot find a discussion where a consensus has been reached on this so correct me if I am wrong. This biggest issue right now is approximately 250 pages are points to Global Force Wrestling, that need to be fixed if we make any changes. I was wondering what most people think the Global Force Wrestling page should point to, I see three options. I feel the first option is best since it is the most likely destination people would be looking for. What does everyone else think? -  Galatz Talk  18:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep directing to Impact Wrestling as it has been since the name changed back.
 * 2) Update all links and then move Global Force Wrestling (2014–2017) to Global Force Wrestling
 * 3) Change it to a disambiguation page
 * I don't think the move was wrong, even uncontested. The name was changed to (2014-2017) because TNA was named GFW. Now, TNA is again Impact Wrestling. We should use Global Force Wrestling name for the Jarrett promotion. Option 2 --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I am not opposed to it, although I am not sure it meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC but all the links would need to be updated first. -  Galatz Talk  18:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it does, I doubt most will think of Impact when GFW will get mentioned.★Trekker (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The thing is, the name really only got exposure as part of Impact. That is to say, the Jarrett-only version was barely notable in its own right. The number of shows actually put on by old GFW on their own (as opposed to piggybacking on another indie's card) is minuscule; it may have claimed three years of existence, but it put on less than a dozen shows during that time. (Hell, if Anthem hadn't f-ed up the legal paperwork, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.) Impact is just a more notable subject than Jarrett's failed attempt to stay relevant, and the most widely known promotion to use the name, evennif they only used it for a short time. oknazevad (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just the circles that I hang in but when GFW comes up it's was definitely not the TNA version that was mentioned, it was mostly the gold and pyramid scheme stuff. Maybe making the name a disambiguation at least for now would be for the best?★Trekker (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The only problem I have with keeping "(2014–2017)" in the main GFW name and redirecting Global Force Wrestling to Impact Wrestling is that Jeff Jarrett still owns the GFW name and could possibly bring it back at some point. If that happens, we'll have to have another move discussion. I agree with oknazevad that GFW got its most exposure through TNA but they also had invasion angles where the two were treated as separate entities for a large part of their time together. With all this in mind, I think we should probably move the main GFW article.LM2000 (talk) 05:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I have gone ahead an cleaned up every old link, and no articles are currently pointing to the GFW page. Based on the above discussion it sounds like two for option 1, two for option 2 and one for option 3. I feel like based on how everyone is split that a disambiguation page makes the most sense. Let's see if anyone else chimes in within the next couple days. -  Galatz Talk  20:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, User:Galatz, you can now change that to three for option 2, as I support that option. 2602:304:CEBF:8650:756B:E8B8:4F3C:73F8 (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Based on the clear lack on consensus and the closeness of the vote, and only 1 additional vote in the past week, per my above comments I am going to turn the page back into a disambiguation page and should Jarrett's promotion start back up again we can reopen the discussion at that time. -  Galatz Talk  23:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding most PPV main events
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_100#Most_PPV_matches_is_okay_but_most_PPV_main_events_is_not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_100#Most_PPV_matches_is_okay_but_most_PPV_main_events_is_not?]

So this sounded like we should add most PPV main events. Can't answer there though cause it is archived. Should we add them?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: The link in your message was broken due to the question mark so I have fixed that for you -  Galatz Talk  20:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

World of Sport Wrestling
One year ago, ITV aired World of Sport, the reboot. Back in the day, the article was a subsection in World of Sport (UK TV series) article. However, right now it has his own article, World of Sport Wrestling, but the project looks like passed away. Since the Impact conference we hear nothing. What do you think? Should we merge the promotion article with the TV program? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Although it's technically possible for it to live, from everything I've heard it's dead. I'd recommend merging Lee Vilenski(talk) 21:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrestling categories
I am working currently on cleaning up the categories in the various WWE PPV articles, with TNA and WCW to come. As I am going through it I have noticed that there is a lot of inconsistencies between them and I contacted one editor who has added sport related categories to many of them. has previously undone some of these additions as well. Based on the comments from Hugo, I think we perhaps might want to clean up some parent categories.

For example if you look at Category:Professional wrestling in the United States you will see three parents: Category:Professional wrestling by country, Category:Wrestling in the United States, and Category:Entertainment in the United States. The Wrestling category is referring to the Olympic sport of Wrestling, not the entertainment form of professional wrestling. Should the wrestling parent be removed because this is referring to the actual sport and can be misleading to someone unfamiliar with the topic. Rolling up into entertainment is a much more logic flow of information than to flow down from a sport category.

Note the ultimate parent Category:Professional wrestling does roll into Category:Wrestling as well, so this would be a bottoms up clean up. It would leave the parent category rolling into Category:Mock combat,Category:Sports entertainment and Category:Theatrical combat.

Thoughts? -  Galatz Talk  19:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, while sports wrestling and pro wrestling are related subjects they should not be used confusingly like they seem to be now.★Trekker (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrestling accomplishments / Actors and Actresses accomplishments
Does anyone here feel being crowned a predetermined wrestling champion should be compared to winning or being nominated for a Golden Globe Awards or any acting awards. JMichael22 (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No. It's more like being given the main role on a tv series.★Trekker (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * .Yes. The pro wrestling titles are their accomplishments, even if their are given by the promoters. It's the same a group of people gives a man/woman a prize based in their performance or personal interest. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The award given away to someone by a non-proffit organisation or a jury or a voting public doesn't benefit the giver in any financially meaningful way or has any admitted bias since you're the promoters son/buddy, or because they want to do a storyline about it, or just because of convenience or necessity. They should not be treated the same, at all. Getting a champinship is the equivalent of getting a raise or having your character upgraded from a supporting role to a leading one since your boss thinks they may be able to make money off of you or because they feel they owe you one for some past thing.★Trekker (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

We are saying this because JMichaels wants to rename Edge (wrestler) to Adam Copeland because he is an actor since 2011. If anyone wants to leave their thoughts... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Holy WP:BLUDGEON Batman! -  Galatz  Talk  21:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME applies anyway in this case.★Trekker (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

User:HHH Pedrigree I'm not asking anyone to comment on the Edge talk page I'm clearly trying to see what others think instead of only two people i already heard from JMichael22 (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the Slammy Awards and ESPY Awards are closer in concept to the Golden Globes. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 23:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Getting a Lifetime Achievement award at the Oscars is comparable to being put in the Hall Of Fame. No real parallels between awards for acting and being booked to win a championship because the boss thinks you can draw money. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 23:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble understanding the question. What can we, as an encyclopedia, do to compare these awards? What should we change? In the past I have compared the process in which the booking committee selects a champion to other award processes, but I don't think we should change anything about how we write about championships here.LM2000 (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is regarding changing the name of the article due to edge being an actor now, it shouldn't be based on the awards that he has achieved, but on the perception of the world. What he is "known for" Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, I don't think this question does anything to aid OP's quest to move the Edge article.★Trekker (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Wwe123onemanbandbaby
This new editor is replacing all mentions of TNA with Impact Wrestling on wrestlers' pages, regardless of when they worked. Clearly this isn't right, and I'm not sure how to respond to this considering it's not in the style guide, but I wanted to get community input on how to deal with this.  JTP (talk • contribs) 03:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would start with just mentioning to them on their page that the name should be how it was at the time and revert the changes. If they persist you could bring it to WP:ANI -  Galatz Talk  03:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree it does not make sense to use a name that didn't exist when the person wrestled there. For Example we don't say professional wrestler Bad News Brown wrestled for the WWE since he left when the company was known as the World Wrestling Federation (WWF) and never returned after the rebranding.--67.68.21.146 (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewing
If any current new page reviewers would like to take the time to help us reduce the backlog of new pages, you can type "wrestl" (thus returning wrestler and wrestling) into the NPP browser and help review the 50 or so pages. This would be very helpful. Also (shameless NPR plug), if any editors would like to become a new page reviewer, we would love some help in reducing the backlog! One can sign up via WP:PERM here.  JTP (talk • contribs) 02:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is actually something that I would be interested in; but sadly, I haven't got suitable length of service. I'll look at this in a month or so when I reach the 90 days. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Per your request here I requested access which was just granted. I will try and take a look. -  Galatz Talk  15:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have made my way through the backlog this past week, searching for "wrestl" like you suggested. As of right now the only one one coming up is Tomer Shalom which I created so I obviously cannot mark as reviewed. If you can take a look at that one we are all caught up. -  Galatz Talk  03:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Rolling Stone 'awards'
I noticed that the Rolling Stone 'awards' as per this article are being listed as Championships and Accomplishments for the relevant wrestlers. However apart from the Wrestler of the Year, which I have no problems with being listed, it seems like most of the other categories are a joke and just the author having fun at the end of the article. Are things like "Most Overdue Yet-to-Be Title Holder of the Year", "Most Welcome Loss of Sanity of the Year", "Eeriest Entrance of the Year", "Best Posture" etc really relevant accomplishments to be listed in that section? This has been going on for a few years, in his Championships and Accomplishments Braun Strowman is listed as "Rookie of the Meh (2015)", which I think we can all agree is pretty stupid. Is it worth finding some sort of consensus on what is and is not appropriate for the Championships and Accomplishments sections and whether these types of trivial 'awards' should be included? IMO, in this specific case regarding Rolling Stone, the Wrestler of the Year, Tag Team of the Year and possibly the two runners-up should be included but the others are not relevant or appropriate encyclopedic content. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I also kinda question how stuff like the razzie awards or "worst match of the year" get included in articles. I mean it's just mocking. Stuff like this can be included in reception or legacy sections but not in a accomplishments or accolades section. I feel the same for Meltzer star ratings.★Trekker (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree (well, except for the Razzie Awards, which actually get fairly significant press, and aren't a joke per se). Most of this is pointless. Especially that Braun Strowman one. oknazevad (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I also think that listing every minor tournament win is overkill. Example: Terri Invitational Tournament in Jeff Hardy and Gold Rush Tournament and Championship Chase Tournament in Edge (wrestler). Nikki♥311 02:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

About the Rolling Stone's awards, i included because I saw the previous years in the articles. But yes, I think this awards are a joke. However, I saw worst things, like the Slammy Awards (Best Tatoo, Best Hair, Best Kiss...) If we decide to include a list of awards (WON, Rolling) we have to include every award, no just picking our favourites. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree about some of the Slammy Awards too but at least they are official WWE accolades, with Rolling Stone we just have a writer giving out a bunch of silly joke awards for fun at the end of an otherwise serious article about the magazine's wrestler of the year. Maybe with things like Rolling Stone and the Slammys we should limit it to the awards that are given out every time? Like I said, I have no problem with Rolling Stone's Wrestler of the Year being listed and even some of the mocking WON awards like 'Worst Gimmick' because they are at least consistent every year. But things like 'Best One-Night-Only Face Turn of the Year (2017)' just shouldn't be there IMO. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is against WP:NONEUTRAL. If we decide to include a list of awards, we can't select them. All or nothing, no just a list based in a criteria stablished by a Wikiuser. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Except they aren't in any legitimate way awards, they're blatant jokes.★Trekker (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the third time you said "this isn't legitimate". Can you tell us what do you consider legit? Not even the pro wrestling titles are real for you. Anycase, we usualy include magazine awards (PWI, WON, TOKYO SPORTS) and Rolling Stone is a very reliable, important magazine used in other fields like music. Even WWE published Miz winning the WOTY award. If we decide to include the Rolling Stone awards, we have to include everyone, no just a selection (btw, I think this awards are a complete joke). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, it's clearly just some joke at the end of the article. Why would I have to explain something which you should be able to understand by just reading the article? Nevermind the fact that by including disparaging and mocking "wins" it defeats the idea of "acomplishments", because failures and jokes at your expense are not acomplishments. If a person finishes last in a race and someone gives him a plastic trophy to mock him he hasn't won shit, even if the person does it every year that doesn't mean it gets credibility as an acomplishment. A real award is taken seriously and rewards something, same reason I don't think the razzies are real awards either, they're a form of mocking. Lol, and of course wrestling titles aren't real to me! They shouldn't be to anyone, because it's not a sport and it's all staged. Only "shoot" awards are real awards. Everything else is a part of the act. The "champion" gets to play the main character essentially, he's not an actual champion. As for the Miz comment, we should ignore everything that WWE does as far as advertising themselves. They would brag about one of their wrestlers getting the "most vandalised wikipedia article" if they got the chance. Almost everything they do is a work and only exists to make themselves look good, just look at something like the Warrior Award. They don't even keep track of the exact number of days a person has held a title, not even that part of their history do they take seriously or treat with respect (EVEN I think that's dumb, and as you can see I don't think too much of titles in real life).★Trekker (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should just include Rolling Stone's Wrestler of the Year then, since that is what the article is all about and the others are just listed as "Best of the Rest" without any explanation or elaboration. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes thank you, they don't treat it as important, why should we?★Trekker (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * again, no neutral. We can pick a few awards just because we dont like some of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HHH Pedrigree (talk • contribs) 17:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure what regulation you're trying to cite, WP:NONEUTRAL is a red link. If you're talking about WP:NPOV, that doesn't mean just including everything indiscriminately, it's not anything resembling a NPOV violation to not include joke awards which are clearly a joke. You've said yourself that they are a joke and I would certainly consider them to be an editorial feature rather than serious 'awards', so not sure why you're arguing for their inclusion. I've already stated that the ideal solution in this case would be to include the Wrestler of the Year but not include the 'best of the rest', even though we lose some potentially serious awards like Tag Team of the Year. That isn't NPOV, it's just the sensible thing to do especially when you look at how the article is structured. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think he's intending to cite WP:NOTNEUTRAL, but that's an essay that seems irrelevant. Either way, picking and choosing which sources to cite is central to how Wikipedia functions. Omitting these "awards" doesn't violate any policy, especially not one dealing with neutrality. It's not like these jokes are the only positive (or negative) thing listed... Argento Surfer (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no problem omitting these awards, but my complay I about a wikipedia user choosing one award and omitting the rest just because we want. For me, it's All or nothing, no just a few choosen ones. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well you should check in on a bunch of other projects, pretty much all of them have notability and credibility standards for accolades. This is not a "me" thing.★Trekker (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have come with perfectly reasonable arguments for why I have my beliefs. I don't think wikipedia essays are above common sense. I don't feel like you have addressed any of my points.★Trekker (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with just listing Wrestler of the Year from that Rolling Stone article. Maybe Tag Team of the Year, Comeback of the Year and Actual Match of the Year (why do they call it this...) as well. The problem with this idea, is we would also have to look over the Slammy Awards and arbitrarily decide on which Slammy Awards are notable, since some of them are also jokes. I also dislike how random tournaments are inserted in C&A, but this will likely be difficult to moderate. As for negative awards, I don't mind them. I think the problem with them is that the section is titled "accomplishments", which paints them in the wrong perspective.
 * On the topic of potentially useless listings, considering PWI rankings in the hundreds as accomplishments has always struck me as absurd. My personal preference would be to limit it to top 10, or an especially radical decision would be to only list No. 1 rankings, but I know that might not go over too well. Prefall  18:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how I feel about PWI, but the high numbers are not an issue that I have, considering how many pro wrestlers exist.★Trekker (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My only defense of the Slammys is that they are at least official WWE awards with nominees etc and the winners receive actual trophies, whereas in Rolling Stone's case it was literally just some journalist goofing around at the end of his article. I agree though that we could maybe look to vet the Slammys in some way because some of them are pretty stupid. Either way, does anyone have any issue with removing the Rolling Stone 'awards' apart from Wrestler of the Year? 86.3.174.49 (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove all Rolling Stone awards from C&A sections. They can be mentioned elsewhere in the article when appropriate. I agree with Nikki and HHH that the minor tournament wins don't belong in C&A sections, remove them too. Keep all Slammys, they're WWE's in-house award. In the past we discussed how we can't just list the important Slammy awards, it's not our place to pick which ones are more important. Keep the WON worst awards, they are legitimately voted on by people in the industry and as oknazevad points out, get press coverage. LM2000 (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The WON awards are probably the most legitimate awards that a wrestler can get. They have credibility due to longevity, press coverage and method of decision. I don't think they should be included in the same section as the wrestling titles, one is a shoot, the other is pretty much the definition of kayfabe. I'm ok with the Slammys being kept if we split up the section for kayfabe and shoot acomplishments. Meltzer's star rating are not part of the WON awards, they should be kept out all together from the acomplishments section, they can gladly be mentioned in a legacy or reception section since he is a respected critic, like Roger Ebert, his rating are taken seriously but not listed under "accolades" in a films article. Rolling Stone's stuff should be the same.★Trekker (talk) 08:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with removing Meltzer's star ratings from C&A—that is definitely something more fit for a Reception-type prose. As for splitting up kayfabe/non-kayfabe awards, we could make C&A a subsection of "In wrestling" and make a separate "Awards and honors" section below that. Though, where would we draw the line? Aren't Hall of Fames technically non-kayfabe? An argument can be made that the Slammys are non-kayfabe too since they're legitimately fan voted. Prefall  08:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You have good points, the problem is that I'm not sure if the Slammys have always been fan-voted, were they when they first got introduced? I think making the C&A section a subheader in the "In wrestling" section sould be a good idea, but the problem is that there are some wrestlers, like Stu Hart for example, that had won actual amatuer championships and such, what do we do in these cases?★Trekker (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with the actual C&A, including kayfabe and no kayfabe awards (like Lashley or Lesnar winning titles in MMA and pro wrestling titles). It's just Trekker personal issue about wrestling being "fake" and pro wrestling titles being "winning by no legit competition, so these titles doesn't exist", like he said in Gail Kim article. For me, fan voted awards are shitty since fans hasn't criteria, just a popular poll. About the slammys, some years are made by fan votes, other are decided by McMahon. Anycase, I think this is other discussion and the main topic (Rollins Stone awards) is closed. (since most of us said to remove the awards) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I like to look at pro wrestling from a reality perspective. Actual championships do not belong in the same section as worked ones.★Trekker (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, to note, if WWE does not have consistency for how the Slammy Awards are given out and doesn't even feel the need to have them annually, without even so much as an explanation for why it has been ignored some years, why would it be treated with credibility?★Trekker (talk) 10:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As WillC told you here, there is no problem with the C&A since many articles are FA and passed featured standard. Again, this is your personal issue against pro wrestling. However, if some users want to discuss this, I think the best idea is to start another discussion. Also, we had a discussion about the Slammy awards long time ago. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes and I don't care what he tired to tell me. The fact is that somehow the rest of Wikipedia has given in and has bent backwards to please whatever weird standards that wrestling articles seem to have. (Also reaching featured article status is not the be end of all of Wikipedia's existence. Even featured articles can be improved.) It's disingenuous for Wikipedia to portray worked titles as an actual championship. I have no negative personal issues or bias againt pro wrestling, I'm a big fan and anyone here would be able to tell, so drop that nonsense. What standard are you holding this all up to? Is it more important for articles on pro wrestlers to mimic the appearance of a martial arts fighters article or to be factual? There are articles and analysis on many fictional characters from TV or film that talk about thier actions as if they were real (in other words: "in universe") without feeling the need to point out "well really the actor did this" but Wikipeida still undertand that accept that we shouldn't treat it as real. An article about a fictional soldier should not have as a priority to mimic the article MOS of a real life soldier. A Wikipedia article on a wrestler should try to either mainly focus on the real person or the character, depending on which is more notable, not both at once and be very clear which is which, otherwise we get a lot of complications and confusion. I don't know how many times I have had to correct peoples edits to the Rick Rude article in the "personal life" section and explain that his real name was Rood and that the characters name should not be added in there.★Trekker (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Defiant Wrestling
I see that there is a new WCPW/Defiant article that's been created. Wasn't the previous versions of this deleted due to lack of notoriety? Lee Vilenski(talk) 19:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. As Woken Hardy says: "DELETE" --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's not; there's been increasing coverage of the promotion. The article can use more and better sources, but an article making a poor case for notability doesn't mean the subject is not notable. oknazevad (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll leave it for now. I get the feeling it may well be made of fancruft though. I'd like to see an article created that is well done, and fully referenced, but I've had a few goes at collecting references and they don't seem to exist. Everything is online with the company, so you are unlikely to see anything written in magazines or journals (Except possibly fighting spirit; or F4W). But, if it can be created, great. I do have an issue with the current roster section, however. Surely wrestlers would have to be signed to a contract to be considered a member of the roster, not simply someone who appears on the shows, as they would classify themselves as "free agents"? I understand that there is such an agreement with Bennett and Aries, possibly; but to say someone like Grado is on the roster is a bit of a stretch. Let me know if I'm thinking the wrong way on this. Lee Vilenski(talk) 09:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You indeed are correct in your thinking. Frankly, I think we can just remove the section, as the company operates like a lot of indies that book wrestlers on a per-appearance basis (that's book as in schedule/hire, like "booking a guest" for a talk show or "booking the band" for a wedding, not the wrestling use of the term, which is derived from the "schedule" meaning but is different). oknazevad (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought as much, I'd like to invite the creator of the page to the discussion, before making any changes, and causing an edit war, but I looked up TEAMNXT, and it looked like he's been banned? Instead I've created a link in the talk page on the article, and linked this topic, so that the conversation isn't duplicated. I hope this is the correct way to handle these things. Lee Vilenski(talk) 09:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I might need some help on this article. It's become one of the longest articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia, even longer than the one for ICW above. I'm still not entirely sure the roster section couldn't be better used in prose, but now they have championship lineage, events listings, and even specific tournaments all on the promotion article page. It will need severe splitting if everything is within notoriety. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I took a look on the article. I think the article stills no-notable. Most of their sources are from What Culture, their Youtube channel, cagematch and defiant wrestling. As the previous AfD, the promotion hasn't been covered by third party reliable sources. Articles for deletion/Defiant Wrestling --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This link has just been added as a reference: Lee Vilenski(talk) 12:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This has been an issue for a while now, the WhatCulture stuff has been created thousands of times and there are always a bunch of fake "votes" on the AFDs. Depending on if the new AFD results in a "delete" I proppose the names get salted and we keep some kind of draft where we can decide what gets included (to avoid puffery or overbloating) until we see that the promotion actually passes GNG, which I feel it will eventually if the keep going.★Trekker (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to beat a dead horse on this one, but it seems as though the AfD is being completely ignored by. The article was replaced as a stub, and now a week or so later, is as big as it was originally, now with championship articles being created. I'm currently on mobile, so I can't rollback changes (or at least I have no idea how to do it), but this needs looking at from someone with more experience than me.

Not sure I want to go down the route of a bar, but it might be the only way to keep the article from an edit war. Let me know what you think. Lee Vilenski(talk) 11:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Tag team disambiguation
I recently requested the move for The New Day (wrestling) to The New Day (professional wrestling) (please participate in the discussion too), simply for consistency in all wrestling tag team articles. But this got me thinking about the disambiguation in wrestling articles. When necessary, a single wrestler has a disambiguation of "wrestler", but a tag team or stable has "professional wrestling". Is there are reason why the word "professional" is included in only some cases?  Sekyaw  (talk)  16:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally I think having "(professional wrestler)"/"(professional wrestling)" in all cases is preferable. It doesn't lend itself to concise titles though. McPhail (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why does this particular article need a disambiguation? There's no The New Day article. But in general, we should have a disambiguation to (professional wrestler/wrestling) Lee Vilenski(talk) 17:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * IMO, "professional wrestler/wrestling" is overkill as a disambiguator. Unless there happens to be a famous amateur wrestler with that name, "wrestler" (or a tag team's case, "wrestling") is enough and is more concise. On a personal note, whenever I type out a tag team name, I hate having to second guess whether or not that article's disambiguation is "wrestling" or "professional wrestling". If they were all just "wrestling", it would be so much simpler and less annoying to type out. -- JDC808  ♫  19:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Amen. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why we can have (professional wrestler) and have (wrestler) redirect to it. There is a difference between wrestling and professional wrestling and I do not see why WP:RECOGNIZABLE or WP:ATDAB would point us to using the incorrect term in order to have a shorter term. -  Galatz Talk  14:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Like I said on the New Day discussion, Talk:Bayley_(wrestler) decided that "wrestler" was okay for single wrestlers, but Talk:Blading_(professional_wrestling) decided that "professional wrestling" needed to be the disambigulator for wrestling terms. I thought I remembered having a discussion for tag teams but I couldn't find where that discussion would have been. It's probably time to revisit that for consistency's sake. I don't see the point in having different disambigulators for teams and solo wrestlers.LM2000 (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Does this have a point in existing?
This list here: List of professional wrestlers by MMA record. Seems of dubious relevance and notability.★Trekker (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Erm, not sure. It sure needs referencing for records. List has Jack Gallagher down as having won two MMA fights, but the article doesn't seem to mention it (unless I missed it.) And what qualifies as MMA isn't listed either.
 * Edit: having checked out Gallagher's references on his article, it does indeed seem as though he has wins in MMA, but it's in small companies. If the article doesn't mention it; then why is it important enough to be included in a list? Lee Vilenski(talk) 13:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems like such an odd thing to list at all, how is the subject of any encyclopedic interest?★Trekker (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering that MMA is also known as "shoot fighting", a name which references the pro wrestling jargon term, and the prominence of athletes who have done both (such as Lesnar, Shamrock, Lashley, etc.), I can definitely see an encyclopedic purpose to having a list of pro wrestlers who have also competed in MMA, but it's an edge case at best, and this list is not the right way to do that. Firstly, it's utterly unsourced. Secondly, it's mis-titled, as it's not organized by record, and even if it were, that's not a good way to organize. It should be "list of professional wrestlers who have competed in mixed martial arts" if anything. And, as also noted, some of these bouts, even if we do source them, are one-offs with minor companies from years ago before the person committed full-time to pro wrestling, so including them is dubious at best. It really isn't needed, and would need more cleanup than it's worth investing the time into. oknazevad (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe, be can change the article. We can create an article talking about pro wrestlers who had MMA fights. We have minor bouts like Bam Bam Bigelow, but we have others like CM Punk, Shamrock, Lashley, Lesnar... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That might be a good idea, but it would need a lot of thought put into it. Finding a good title would be hard as well.★Trekker (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would love to create the article, but my English isn't that good. But I think we can find material. For example, critisim from MMA fighters. Wrestlers who found success (Lesnar, Shamrock). NJPW period where pro wrestlers become MMA Fighters (Nagata, Liger), Minoru Suzuki promotion... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it could be very interesting.★Trekker (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it soon. I feel like it should be articleified and a category. Lee Vilenski(talk) 14:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This got me thinking, there are articles such as Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars and Comparison of Marvel and DC. Maybe something like a Comparison of professional wrestling and MMA could be an article for something like this?★Trekker (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Maybe an article like that would be interesting. I'm sure we would find articles and sources. Maybe McGregor insulting pro wrestlers. Or the 4 Horsewomen vs the 4 Horsewomen. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I fear that would be a magnet for "wrestling is fake and you're stupid if you like it" BS. (While many pro wrestling fans like MMA, many MMA fans that aren't into pro wrestling are very hostile to it!) And, frankly, outside of some of the trapping of combat sports that both pro wrestling and MMA copied from boxing, they don't really have that much in common, outside of some overlap of athletic skills. Pro wrestlers who've also had success at MMA usually have had some previous amateur fighting experience, and that, more than their pro wrestling experience, is what their drawing on. oknazevad (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC) PS, I'd also like to point out that those two comparison articles are really awful articles and not something we should be emulating. They're loaded with WP:SYNTH and lack anything resembling sufficient sourcing. oknazevad (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * While your last point is true that doesn't mean that they (just like this) aren't subjects which are of note. I have a hard time seeing a good title for this type of article otherwise. What would you proposse if we tried to salvage something of this, do you think it should just be deleted or is there something to do with it? Also for your earlier point, an article being controversial isn't an issue we should take into acocunt when creating them otherwise a of stuff wouldn't have articles.★Trekker (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not sure what to do with the article. Retitle, definitely. Source, beyond a doubt. Beyond that, I'm not sure if it's needed, but see little harm in its existence. oknazevad (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See Comparison of professional wrestling and Mixed Martial Arts. I have updated it. Needs a lot of work, but I'll keep playing with it til I'm happy. Hoping the title is fine, as we had the discussion above. If anyone has any references for the article, let me know or add them. Lee Vilenski(talk) 16:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

2017 in professional wrestling
As of 2 days ago 2017 in professional wrestling looked like this. I revised the page to look as follows. In summary the changes were: These changes were reverted stating that the other version was "far superior" here. Please let me know your thoughts, thanks –  Galatz Talk  05:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up the headers per MOS:HEADER – removing links and icons
 * Removed non-notable people from the deaths section per WP:LISTBIO
 * The links were all over the place, which were fixed to the correct location (brand vs show)
 * I removed the listing of every single title match because it is just useless information and WP:TRIVIA. Title change I could see, but not every single title match. No pages on wikipedia include this level of detail, it belongs on a wikia, not here.
 * I removed the listings of notable events by promotion as this serves no purpose. We already have all this information in top and it just makes the page unbearable.
 * Definitely prefer your version. The duplication of notable events and listing of every title match is hardly necessary. Prefall  05:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm in favor of adding your version as the example for "Year overview" articles in the style guide, if others agree. Prefall  05:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think is much better. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't understand why you need a list of title matches on a page like that. However, removing title changes from the list does make it feel a little incomplete, as arguably, a title win is much bigger than most tournament wins. The rest is perfect. Lee Vilenski(talk) 13:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

What about a chart like this for little changes?

The other edits (and edit warring!) clearly go against multiple content and style guidelines. I have removed them. Also flag icons are no bueno per WP:MOSFLAG. As for title changes, that is a significant aspect of the year. Charts are a good way to handle that, I think. I like the one seen above. oknazevad (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

One other random point, especially if wants to try and work this into the SG, in 1985 in professional wrestling they also have an "awards and honors" section which is really nice and would be good to include. I think if we want an example to include, we should consider including something similar (not sure we need runner ups though), in addition to adding the title changes. Anyone have any other suggestions? –  Galatz Talk  16:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of listing awards and honors from notable publications—and I guess the promotions themselves (e.g. WWE Hall of Fame and Slammys). I'm also for title changes, but should it just be title changes or something like "championship history"? For example, CM Punk held the WWE Championship during the entirety of 2012, but his reign would not be listed if it was strictly title changes. Also, for consistent organization, the championship section should probably be listed before tournaments and accomplishments or awards and honors. Prefall  17:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Great call on HOF and Slammy's! As far the the CM Punk situation, I would say something along the lines of just showing the incoming and then under it show a note that says he held it the entire year. -  Galatz Talk  18:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you'd be covered by the "incoming champion" part. I like the table. Awards and other things would be importnant, and seems like a weird thing not to have in an 'in review' article Lee Vilenski(talk) 19:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the reverting editor's use of the phrase "more superior" robs them of any credibility. McPhail (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Based on the above comments I have added the WWF, WCW and TNA HOFs to the respective years as well as the Slammy awards. Any other improvement suggestions? -  Galatz Talk  21:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyone against a PWI 500 section, or similar? Lee Vilenski(talk) 21:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we can include just the top 10. We don't need a huge list with 500 wrestlers. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, agreed. There is already an article for the whole list. But PWI does other awards as well. Lee Vilenski(talk) 00:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think something like this 1985 in professional wrestling is great. I would just do category and winner though. -  Galatz Talk  01:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Title Histories
I thought I'd seperate this slightly, I've had a look at the 2017 in professional wrestling article, and the title histories, which look better than a full list of title matches. However, where do we draw the line with titles? Currently, there are WWE events (Whilst I'm sure this hasn't been finished), it doesn't include any championships outside of WWE. Would it make more sense just to include world titles? So, iMPACT Champion, ROH champion, NJPW champion as this isn't a 2017 in WWE article. Lee Vilenski(talk) 09:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It absolutely should include more. I think first we need to determine what is considered notable of a promotion for inclusion in events and title histories, otherwise it can get out of hand. I already had to remove some Defiant events from the pages. I would say we know for sure PPV or Supercard events from WWE, ECW, WCW/JCP, TNA/Impact, ROH, AAA, NJPW, and Noah would all qualify. Older events from promotions like WCCW would also. But if we can determine what promotions qualify for events and titles it could prevent it from getting out of control. We mentioned adding this to the style page, so perhaps the list could be included there. As for what level of titles, I am not sure we say only world. What about tag team? Then why only men, women are becoming pretty prominent too? I think it could be a slippery slope. -  Galatz Talk  15:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My big worry is that the WWE currently has World, Universal, United States, Intercontinetal, United Kingdom, Cruiserwieght as singles titles, and that's only on the main roster for men. Then, include NXT, it's a full 13 titles just for one company. I'd be against second-tier championships, such as your United States/Kingdom championship, or the Grand title in TNA from making a list like this. Women's titles appear to me to be world championships in this series. I'm very split on NXT, as well. As technically it's just a developmental place, despite appearances. If we include NXT, we'd have to go back in time and do the same for OVW, and Florida. Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Id be opposed to leaving of the IC or US titles, as they are not insignificant. Indeed, through history they were far more important than the women's titles. One thing we have discussed multiple times in the past is we cannot decide some are "real" world titles and others are not based on our personal opinions. Thirteen titles is a lot, but if we break it down by brand it's four or five each. And I do lean towards NXT not being considered major. Heck, I think we should take any mention of calling it a world title off the article on the title and from the 2017 review. The reference is a single passing mention in the WWE website, and there is no other reference to the idea anywhere on the site. oknazevad (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

John Cena
After taking a breath and stepping away, let's bring this here...

How should John Cena be listed on the Royal Rumble (2018) article?

I maintain that since Cena is listed as a Raw wrestler on the WWE.com Superstars page, that's how he should be listed here (the same criteria we use for the list of WWE personnel article).

Or, should he be listed as "unassigned" due to his free agent gimmick (even though WWE.com has him assigned to Raw)?

Vjmlhds (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is WP:PRIMARY do you have any sources that aren't? -  Galatz Talk  19:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * What better source for a dispute about a roster listing of a company than...the company's roster listing?  Think about it...WWE itself is listing John Cena under Raw.  is Meltzer or 411 a better source for this kind of stuff than straight from the horse's mouth?  Vjmlhds (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, since per WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources that is not a WP:RS. Is there any RS that lists him as Raw? -  Galatz Talk  19:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WWE's website is filled with major errors on the regular.★Trekker (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * WWE.com in and of itself is considered reliable, and isn't getting info straight from the source better than getting it 2nd hand? Remember...the issue at hand is the roster listing, and since this is WWE's roster, their word should be law, since it is their roster.  Doesn't that make the most sense? Vjmlhds (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Surely it's a reasonably moot point. Personally I'd have him down as N/A, as the idea of being on a show is pretty much purely for Kayfabe reasons. Fact checking can be done with primary sources. I think secondary sources would probably just be guessing. Maybe the best way is to just simply leave it blank? Lee Vilenski(talk) 20:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, they're not, the website gets tons of stuff about their own history wrong. The website has poor oversight.★Trekker (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * On the show itself they refer to John Cena as a free agent, what makes the show wrong and the website right? -  Galatz Talk  21:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

WWE.com says Cena is a free agent ("and, considering his free agent status, would he take on the Universal Champion or the WWE Champion if he did reign supreme?"). So... unassigned --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said at Talk:Royal Rumble (2018), on John Cena's superstar profile, he does not have a brand above his name: John Cena's profile versus Aiden English's. And ditto to the source provided by . -- JDC808  ♫  23:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Note - Due to the constant back and forth the page has been completely locked down for 2 days. We should get a resolution to this before then and make it very clear so we stop having these issues. -  Galatz Talk  22:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I just see the lock down. I was going to reduce a bit the background section. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll take the bullet here for the sake of reopening the article. I will concede the point about Cena.  Even though he IS listed on WWE.com's Raw roster (which is a fact), he is promoted as a free agent that can come and go as he pleases, so as far as the Royal Rumble goes, I'll stand down and will leave him listed as a free agent. Hopefully, this will put this to bed. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Bespoke Tournament Brackets
Sadly, Pro wrestling is different to every other sport out there. I had a look through the WWE tournaments article, and came across the Championship Chase Tournament. Whether or not this should be included is debatable, but the tournament style doesn't fit a regular bracket in any way. I was very confused how Edge defeated 8 people in a singles match, and how both he and Batista defeated no one to qualify. Does anyone have any experience making bespoke brackets, or is it super hard? Lee Vilenski(talk) 13:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Another example is WWE tournaments, and I was also wondering about the Fight for the Right Tournament, as to what to label the final, as it currently says "PIN", but Kaz won the match by taking down a briefcase in a ladder match. Lee Vilenski(talk) 13:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Those examples you gave those brackets are definitely not good to use. There are hundreds of templates that we can find here Category:Tournament bracket templates broken out by number of people. I am guessing none fit what we need and therefor we might need to just use a regular table rather than a bracket to summarize. -  Galatz Talk  14:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with that, although it would be nice if someone could point me in the direction of some journal or equivalent for creating brackets. Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

RAW Tag Team Champion Seth Rollins (***SHIELD MEMBER***)
Despite Rollins (Currently a SHIELD MEMBER) winning the RAW Tag Team Championship with Jordan (A Non Shield Member), It still counts as part of The Shield's accomplishments regardless of Jordan not being a member of The Shield, because Rollins is still a member of The Shield which is an accomplishment of THE SHIELD. 92.27.41.69 (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That isn't how it works. For instance, look at the New Age Outlaws, which doesn't show up accomplishments for Billy Gunn, who won tag team titles with Bart Gunn and Chuck Palumbo. I see you have edited this particular article a few times to push this, so I have reverted it. This one is not withstanding the Manual of Style. Lee Vilenski(talk) 16:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not really sure that is a comparable example. He is not saying that their championship reigns in between the time they broke up and were reunited should be shown. Billy Gunn I believe won with Bart before the outlaws and with Palumbo after. Is there another example where a tag team won with someone who wasn't in the group at the time? -  Galatz Talk  16:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's much more normal for someone to tag with someone else to retain a tag team championship, such as Team Pacman, where that would be included. I don't feel like when one member gets injured, and he finds a new tag partner, that they are any longer acting as a part of the stable. If Jordan was considered part of the Sheild, it would be fine. I actually thought I'd been a bit silly, and had a look at The Nexus (professional wrestling), because I remember John Cena winning the tag titles for them, but then I remembered he was actually a member at the time, so it was moot. Lee Vilenski(talk) 16:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * X-Pac (in DX at the time) and Kane (never a DX member)?LM2000 (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting, forgot about that one. I was thinking Sting and The Giant which nWo lists, but looking at the reigns page it appears they vacated it the day AFTER Sting joined the nWo, so techinically held it for 1 day with both being in the nWo. -  Galatz Talk  16:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Royal Rumble 2018
Any admins that are members of this project, the Royal Rumble (2018) article needs to be updated with results from SmackDown. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 02:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Royal Rumble (2018) isn't a protected page, so anyone can edit it. However, it does look like someone has recently updated this. Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, at the time I posted this it was. Would I have posted this request, if at the time, it wasn't?   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Name Change
I started a discussion the Ohio is For Killers/Ohio Versus Everyone talk page which you can see here. I proposed a name change for the article as haven't used The Irish Airborne in years. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

New Japan Rumble
I've done some searching and can't find any exact results with times or order of entry. All I found is the order of elimination. The results of the New Japan Rumble needs to be added as the results of past New Japan Rumbles are on their respective Wrestle Kingdom articles. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We can only really ask what is catalogued by sources.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Technically as long as its a televised event the event itself is the source, as anyone can verify it. -  Galatz Talk  12:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Does that not fall into Original Research?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No. It is not different than the plot summary of any TV, which allows it per MOS:TVPLOT. It falls within the parameters WP:PRIMARY. Anyone can go and watch the episode to verify it, so as long as its straight from the episode with no editorializing, just plain facts, its fine. -  Galatz Talk  12:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The event itself cannot be used to source times unless the commentators mention them every time someone is eliminated. Order of entry in fine, though. Nikki♥311 14:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would think times falls under WP:CALC. According to that they need to be obvious, correct and meaningful. I believe time falls into that. -  Galatz Talk  14:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know. If several people all watching together started timers when someone entered the rumble and stopped them when they were eliminated...I doubt they all would have the exact same times because people have different reaction times. That's why there are official time keepers for other sports. Nikki♥<b style="color: Purple;">311</b> 15:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There's also some disagreement on whether a wrestler enters when the timer ends or when he literally enters the ring. About entering the ring, some say standing on the apron counts, some say you need to completely cross the plane of the ropes, some say partially is enough. It's absolute chaos next to a routine calculation like 6+3, and even messy next to a standard match with helpful bells to start and stop. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have no disputes over times in Royal Rumbles, why should the New Japan Rumble be any different? There were no disputes over the New Japan Rumble last year.  Why now?   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, WWE.com includes the time of each wrestler. I don't know the New Japan Rumble, but I think WP:CALC doesn't apply here, since (as Nikki and Hulk said) can be wrong. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Diva Dirt
I started a discussion on Diva Dirt's reliability which can be seen here. It's reliability has yet to be proven. Any and all thoughts are appreciated as work towards a consensus. Thanks. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Raw 25 Years
I've started to create a Raw 25th Anniversary article as its a pretty big milestone just like WWE Raw 1000 but its currently a stub, I would be very thankful if other users would be kind enough to assist. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I changed it to a redirect, which the has now been undone. I believe this is premature as until the event occurs and/or information comes out proving notability, stating its stand alone notable is WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL -  Galatz Talk  16:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also note, you are the second one to do this, there is a much more developed original draft here -  Galatz  Talk  16:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please never make articles in this way, it doesn't even have categories. I've PRODed it.★Trekker (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Instead of making a lackluster article with next to no information, it would be best to fill the article with information and sources. This is a good way to get it deleted even though it will be recreated.  Fix it to save it from deletion.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest you place an underconstruction tag in this article if you want to contribute to the article Speedy Question Mark.--Mark Linton (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/FMW 4th Anniversary Show
I request all the admins of this portal to have a look on this discussion on the deletion of the FMW 4th Anniversary Show and relative articles. I have been in a conversation with Ifnord, who is emphasizing on deleting this specific article and relevant articles. He has placed a deletion tag and informed me of a WP:GNG policy and I have provided YouTube links to provide significant coverage in adherence to the WP:GNG policy. Kindly assist me in removing this deletion tag so this will be an encouragement for users to expand these articles and contribute further. I have not contributed yet further because there is no use of working hard and wasting one's time if an article is going to get deleted as you have done with the Funk Masters of Wrestling article, where I had worked very hard. I will edit further only after I receive a response from the admins of this portal.--Mark Linton (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Youtube in general doesn't count as "significant coverage in reliable independent sources" so it isn't adherence to WP:GNG. You need to find some legitimate news coverage. <b style="color: Teal;">Nikki</b><b style="color: Salmon;">♥</b><b style="color: Purple;">311</b> 16:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The AfD was flawed as well. He used the closing of an unrelated article to show why they should be deleted. I do agree that some outside WP:SECONDARY sources are needed to affirm notability, that it does not have now. However those sources are probably in Japanese and would be hard to find. -  Galatz Talk  18:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

moves
Somebody tell me that articles on wrestlers (like Lio Rush) are still covered by the BLP, and that those "moves" need sourcing as well. And while we're on the topic, can we agree that "finishing moves" and "signature moves" need a. better sourcing than the typical rassling blogs and b. clear indication that these are indeed relevant moves, and really signature moves? not just things that they did in one specific match? Drmies (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Typical rassling blogs" being those listed as WP:PW/RS, just FYI 86.3.174.49 (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Everything needs a source. Per our style guide (WP:PW/SG), "For signature and finishing moves, there must be one reliable source explicitly mentioning that it is a signature move of the wrestler. One reliable source merely mentioning that the wrestler performed the move is not enough." If there isn't a source that calls it a signature or finishing move, it shouldn't be listed which should eliminate moves people did in one specific match. <b style="color: Teal;">Nikki</b><b style="color: Salmon;">♥</b><b style="color: Purple;">311</b> 03:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Drmies but there's relatively few competent editors who work on pro wrestling articles and some of us can only bear to edit sporadically. In contrast, there's a collossal number of wrestling-related articles and a never-ending stream of anons and new users who are desperate to make any alterations they can think of, especially adding moves they saw on television. Much of the sourcing on our articles is atrocious anyway, with fansites like "Online World of Wrestling", "Internet Wrestling Database", "CageMatch" and second rate "newz" sites being treated as respectable sources. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 03:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Cagematch is a RS for match results, the other 'fansites' you mentioned are also acceptable for uncontroversial claims as per WP:PW/RS although I would never use them. FWIW Drmies made this post because of an edit war we had on the Lio Rush article where he repeatedly removed a lot of sourced biographical info for no reason as well as the unsourced In Wrestling section, which I have now (lazily) restored with sources. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Completely wrong. Fan sites are not acceptable for anything. WP:RS is binding, regardless of what anyone has decided to claim in WP:PW/RS. The fact that there are so many wrestling articles with godawful sources does not make the godawful sources any more legitimate. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 03:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You better take that up with whoever wrote WP:PW/RS then, which explicitly states that Cagematch is acceptable for match results.86.3.174.49 (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't need to take it up with anyone. Cagematch is self-stated to be an amateur fansite with no credible oversight. In any case, we're discussing signature moves and not match results. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 04:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You were making the point regarding sourcing in general, and Cagematch is explicitly permitted by the project in certain circumstances. I wouldn't use it even as a last resort but if you have an issue with others using it then again, you need to take that up with the project or it will continue to be used. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Cagematch seems to be used for almost every purpose except the one permitted by the project. Then again, OWW has been stated as unreliable by the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and that did nothing to halt people citing it. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 05:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact I see that has now reverted the Lio Rush article to Drmies version despite proper sourcing. I appreciate that I'm fighting an uphill battle here as an anon going against an admin, but there is no issue at all with the sourcing on the version that was reverted. Frankly I don't care if we scrap the entire moves section for good going forward because I'm not interested in that, but in this case you're also removing a lot of properly sourced, relevant biographical info for no reason, which is why I engaged in the "edit war" (which I was also templated for) 86.3.174.49 (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It wasn't properly sourced. All you did was source that he used those moves in one match....not that they were signature moves or finishing moves. In addition, the SLAM Wrestling article you cited doesn't ever say what a Rush Hour is, and it says a Dragon's Call is a frog splash not a "split-legged" frog splash. <b style="color: Teal;">Nikki</b><b style="color: Salmon;">♥</b><b style="color: Purple;">311</b> 03:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I added those sources quickly in response to Drmies removing a lot of other relevant content. As stated, I don't really care for the moves sections at all. But TBH if you're looking for sources that explicitly describe moves as 'signature' or 'finisher' moves, using those exact words, or describe named finishers in explicit detail within the body of the text then you will be struggling to find any for any wrestler, and you could probably cull the moves section for just about every single article of every wrestler. The rest of the content in the Rush article is properly sourced biographical content and I'm not sure why you removed it. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The rarely-enforced style guide notice was brought up a month ago as well. I think we can do a much better job of cleaning up the "In wrestling" section in general, which tends to be filled with a lot of fancruft. We've been lax on it for such a long period of time that practically every article is affected. As mentioned by Suriel1981 above, we're also at a natural disadvantage due to the active nature of wrestling articles and the lack of experienced users to keep the changes in check.
 * Besides the enforcement, the real question lies with what sources should be deemed acceptable for this. Certain promotions list signature/finishing moves on their website, such as WWE. Are industry-specific sites like Wrestling Observer Newsletter and Pro Wrestling Torch, which are frequently used for writeups of notable events, okay as long as they explicitly mention it as a signature move? Or just mainstream sources? How about databases that tend to have their own "signature move" sections on wrestler profiles? Personally, I'm fine with all of them except for databases, where wrestler profiles tend to have far less oversight than the rest of their site. Prefall  04:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Even the Observer and the Torch should properly be used on a case-by-case basis as they've always collected information and writeups from fans at live events. Websites/books/magazines by promotions and wrestlers' own websites should be fine, also what little coverage there is of wrestling in the mainstream media. To adhere correctly to Wikipedia's guidelines, we should probably remove 90% of the content in every "In wrestling" section of every wrestling bio. Unforunately, that would take considerable effort, even if everyone agreed to it, and anons would immediately begin to restore the movecruft anyway. Of course, there's little likelihood of the wider Wikipedia community enforcing a crackdown on WP:PW's standards - most experienced editors would rather delete their barnstars than acknowledge the legitimacy of pro-wrestling articles. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 04:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As stated, it's very unlikely that our regular sources like WON will ever explicitly reference something as a 'signature' or 'finishing' move in the body of the text, or describe the moves in accurate enough detail. For example Nikki311 took issue with the above SLAM Wrestling article because it didn't explicitly describe what a "Rush Hour" or "Dragon's Call" is, but how likely is it that we will see any reference to what those moves actually are in reliable third party sources given the nature of the content that those sources provide? They aren't going to mention that "Rush Hour" is a standing moonsault side slam in an article like the one posted. The moves sections will always be OR to a certain extent which I why I tend to avoid contributing to them. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I will agree with that you'll never find any source describing what a move is. If you think you're able to find a source that does, more power to you.  But the reality is that you won't.  You will spend countless hours looking for a source that does.  Saying it needs to be described is petty.  Just look for a source that names the move they use on a regular basis not a move they used in a one match.  All this "we need this" or "we need that" is dumb and pointless.  Continue doing it the way it has been done and stop trying to change it because you think it's the way it should be done.  It's not what you want, but what has been done due to a consensus being reached.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you can find a source that names a move (for example, Lio Rush won the match by performing his signature Rush Hour and then pinning his opponent), you can add the move name to the article...no problem. The problem is when you then describe the move without a source because it is original research. This is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. Just because it has been done incorrectly before or because you like it or other articles have it, doesn't make it right. Furthermore, consensus of a few editors in a niche area of Wikipedia cannot override core content policies for all of Wikipedia. <b style="color: Teal;">Nikki</b><b style="color: Salmon;">♥</b><b style="color: Purple;">311</b> 21:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the issue I alluded to earlier, it's going to be very difficult to ever find any reliable source that explicitly describes what a move is. For example, the sources used for The Rock's People's Elbow at no point describe it as a "Running delayed high-impact elbow drop, with theatrics, usually preceded by a spinebuster". The source used for the Rock Bottom describes it as a Uranage Slam rather than a Falling Side Slam, and is the type of unverified 'fansite' that Suriel1981 was complaining about earlier (which is the reason I didn't use that site in the Lio Rush article). I appreciate the principle of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but you could literally go through every single wrestling article and find this issue, none of the sources for John Cena's finisher use the words "Standing fireman's carry transitioned into a kneeling takeover". Either we adopt a liberal approach to this type of sourcing or we need to scrap or massively revamp the moves sections altogether. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is the type of intricate detail not needed in a Wikipedia article, and that more so belongs on a professional wrestling wikia. <b style="color: Teal;">Nikki</b><b style="color: Salmon;">♥</b><b style="color: Purple;">311</b> 22:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Nikki311, that is a valuable point, and one I've been making for a long time: thank you. The Undertaker takes up some 150k, not much less than the article on FDR. And here we have the IP explaining, ironically, that it may be difficult to find reliable sources defining "move"--and thus it is more difficult still to define "signature move". It would be silly to deny The Rock his "people's elbow" (and we all know it's a gimmick--it's his own elbow, and at the same time it's a signature move), esp. since that's easy to source . What the guidelines for article writing, esp. Good Article writing, should make clear that this kind of content needs to be sourced properly, according to Wikipedia guidelines. Instead, what we have is every fan writing up and listing every single "move" exercised by every single wrestler, unsourced or sourced at best to a blog of sorts, whether acceptably reliable or just a fan or company site, in bold blue. Those lists are, thus, both mostly unsourced and mostly trivial, as well as original research. Yes, rassling needs to be cleaned up. As for the other content, if stuff is poorly sourced it doesn't just mean that it's possibly unreliable, but more bothersome (for me, given UNDUE in a broad sense), it just clogs up these articles with one tiny result after another, not prose but an eternal listing of "at X on date Y rassler Z defeated A with a [insert move]". We find this writing in fan areas: K-pop, anime, Monster Truck, and wrestling. It's awful, and shows great zeal to wrestling, but not to encyclopedic writing. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * To illustrate how ridiculous this gets, I just ran into Bayley (wrestler) (where I blocked a vandal): apparently Bayley has 29 different signature move. 29. That is not possible. The sourcing is stuff like this--and apparently that is considered a reliable source. Well, that's fine, but read that article: it's crap, the kind of illegible stuff you get when you ask a sixth-grader who can't write to write up their spring break vacation. And, predictably, "signature move" isn't even mentioned. I just found WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide, which clearly states "Summarize the career of the wrestler, but make sure you leave it to major events and key points. Try not to include week-by-week synopsis of what that wrestler did on whatever show they appeared on." So that takes care of the IP's claim of "vandalism" when I removed what I considered to be not major. That guide is quite helpful--here's "signature moves": "For signature and finishing moves, there must be one reliable source explicitly mentioning that it is a signature move of the wrestler. One reliable source merely mentioning that the wrestler performed the move is not enough." So I'm taking that to Bayley's article. (And holy shit, that was 13k: almost 1/5 of the article.) Drmies (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * If you want to clean up the articles is fine, but check the sources. You removed Bayley to Belly Suplex even when WWE.com says it's the name of Bayley's move. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That Torch article is one of those weekly update "pad out the content library" articles. The publisher does have legitimate content as well. Just pointing out. And I agree with you that there are serious problems with a lot of content structuing on this project.★Trekker (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree with deleting all of the moves that she does though. I feel like when removing all content due to lack of sourcing, you encourage fans to simply attack with more and more badly written versions. I'm not sure why we'd remove her finisher, for example, as I'm sure we could easily find a source refering to that as her finisher (Even simply citing the TV show.).  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For me, it's like a little bit lazy to. For example, we can try to find correct sources insetad delete all of them. For example, it's gonna be pretty odd delete Undertaker's Old School because we can't find a source calling "Signature" (but, rules are rules). I made a quick research here and I think we can include some of them. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, what's lazy is listing 29 of them. You can hardly expect me to go through 29 different moves, each with one or two or more sources, to pick out which ones are verifiably "signature" moves. You found one that is? OK, great: it is the job of the editor who adds all this stuff to make sure it's done properly. So thank you, but don't go around calling me lazy. You're the editor who knows wrestling, you do it--you can do in two minutes what would take me hours. You want to be a wrestling editor? Take the guidelines seriously, and do the work. (BTW whether the WWE is reliable here remains to be seen: all over Wikipedia we require that sources be independent.) Oh, that "Bayley to belly" removal, in that caption: you clearly didn't understand my point. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * yes, its lazy be ause you deleted an entiee section without checkig the sources just because you think the sources may be wrong. A good editor would check them before delete the content. I restored the previous version and would make the job well done
 * Um, no that's exactly what I'd expect someone to do. I've agreed with you so far but just removing sources without even checking if they are correct is dumb. Your comment doesn't make sense, how is listing too much lazy?★Trekker (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously: you cannot expect an editor to go through all of this, clearly added over a long period of time by people with no concern for the guidelines. "Listing too much" isn't even the issue. It's not "too much"--it's "contrary to guidelines". If you want to go around saying "dumb"--well, I thought you were smarter than this. The unwillingness by wrestling editors to take the encyclopedia and their own guidelines seriously is the reason these articles are so bad. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I can, and I do. I go go through many more sources than that every day when I collect and archive links. I had no idea you even knew who I was so your loss of respect means nothing. Sorry if you're offended that I pointed out that someone should actually check sources I guess. I never said you were dumb, just that what you did was dumb, which it was.★Trekker (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The majority of content you removed from the Rush article was sourced biographical info about his career including his television debut, a character change and a legitimate suspension, and some other stuff that was unsourced like entrance music and nicknames which I subsequently restored and added sources for. Definitely not trivial or 'week-by-week' content. The moves section is what it is and I've already comment on that, and also agreed to remove it from the Rush article for the time being as per this discussion. For other users, can someone please restore the rest of the content that was removed from the Lio Rush article as I'm now being threatened with a block for attempting to rectify the issues there. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure one can end up blocked for asking others to do stuff for them as well.★Trekker (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah it was tongue in cheek, the content that needed to be was actually restored an hour ago. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Entrance themes and nicknames

 * By all means--let's spread knowledge around the world of nicknames and entrance music. Wikia is that way. --> Drmies (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you would very much struggle to gain a consensus on removing nicknames and entrance music from wrestling articles. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if he's advocating for the removal of nicknames and entrance themes in general, but we should certainly limit them to the most notable. So many articles I see giving extreme detail on every entrance theme ever used, including random remixes that were only used for one night, the promotions they were used in, and the date ranges they were used, despite only the song name being cited (and sometimes, no citations for those lesser-known ones at all). Just another reason we need to clean this section up. Prefall  18:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree totally with that, there's also an issue with certain nicknames and I think we should attempt to clarify what actually belongs in that section, a lot of the time we end up with people adding something a commentator or wrestler used to describe themselves but that isn't a nickname, such as Roman Reigns being "The Guy" or The Miz being "The Most Must-See Superstar". I also don't like that we have "Mr. Money in the Bank" listed as a nickname for pretty much everyone who ever won Money in the Bank. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with getting rid of "Mr. Money in the Bank"—overly generic and not character-specific. It's like listing "The King of the Ring" for every wrestler who won the tournament. As for others, I think the promotion itself should consistently acknowledge the nickname for a good period of time for it to be notable. Prefall  20:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm a total freak with the nicknames. I hate when somebody says "I'm the XX" and becomes a nickname. However, I prefer to start a new discussion to talk about nicknames. This is about moves. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Remember that time we got a guy topic banned because he couldn't stop adding nicknames that were only used once? Anything added must be notable and can't just be a one time gag.LM2000 (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. I remember that guy. I have a similar problem with John Morrison . I deleted some nicknames since look like a one-time deal. It's hard to choose between Dean Ambrose (The Iron Man of WWE) and Triple H (The Cerebal Assasin.)

I've divided the above section from the "moves" discussion so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle. Let's start small. Can we all agree that entrance themes that were used once shouldn't be listed? Triple H, for example, has 4 themes that were only used once. In addition, date ranges need to be deleted as WP:OR. For example, I highly doubt a reliable source exists that says Triple H used "Break It Down" by The DX Band during these ranges of time but on no other occasions: November 10, 1997 – April 5, 1999; June 19, 2006 – April 2007; August 24, 2009 – March 1, 2010; July 23, 2012). <b style="color: Teal;">Nikki</b><b style="color: Salmon;">♥</b><b style="color: Purple;">311</b> 05:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The Triple H example is slightly different, in that the one-time used entrance themes are just his regular theme played by a different artist. In that circumstance, it's better to read *"The Game" by Motörhead (January 8, 2001 – present) and by Drowning Pool (March 17, 2002; used only once at WrestleMania X8). You'd probably find a few sources noting Drowning Pool sang this; as it's such a notible event; but having two distinct entries for the same song in ludicrous. The idea that for instance, we should remove that he once came out to the Terminator theme should be removed, simply because it was a one time thing is silly, as it's one of the more memorable entrances he's done. I'm not sure the distinct dates are that helpful, as a general ballpark of years seems much easier to read.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

CWF Mid-Atlantic Television Championship
I have racked my brain trying to find the proper information. On Cagematch and Wrestling-Titles.com it says Donnie Dollar$ won the title on 10/7/2012 but lost the title to Trevor Lee on 9/22/2012. You can see that doesn't make any sense. I have went as far as to contact them through their website and through Facebook for clarification. If anybody knows the correct information, I would appreciate a response. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

5 Star Wrestling
Pretty certain it passes GNG, with the current tour getting loads of press Birmingham Mail, Mirror, Liverpool Echo. A current TV (Sky sports) deal with FreeSports Mirror and the "CM Punk incident" The Sun, Wrestling Inc.

I was wondering if anyone has any notes or anything that I should need to know on the promotion. I've made promotion articles in the past, but it's generally ones that I have some knowledge of.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think wrestlinginc.com is considered a reliable source.★Trekker (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, it was a cursory glance. I'll list a few more. I can't believe it wouldn't be a notible promotion. more mirror, The Star, Total Wrestling Magazine, total wrestling mag  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrestling Inc. is not a reliable source. It's listed as unreliable.  Always check the source page if you are unsure.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 21:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Redemption PPV
As part of the WP:NPP, I came across two identical articles Impact Wrestling Redemption, and Redemption (2018) by two different users for the same event within 8 minutes of each other. The Second one is the same naming convention of that of other impact PPVs. I'm not familiar with duplicates, anyone know the policy?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If there's significantly different information between the two, I'd say merge to Redemption (2018). I'll take a look at them in about an hour.  JTP (talk • contribs) 14:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * After looking it over, I wouldn't neccesarily call it a merge, but I'd copy the Feast or Fired line into Redemption (2018) (which is standard, see Destination X) and just redirect Impact Wrestling Redemption to it because of the naming convention.  JTP (talk • contribs) 14:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I just came across this AFTER cleaning them up. My apologies that I didn't notice the discussion first. I had redirected both to Impact Wrestling Redemption. As they have not held a PPV named redemption before the standard naming is not to include the name. I saw this as no different in naming than WWE Great Balls of Fire. I am happy to switch it if the consensus disagrees. -  Galatz Talk  15:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be true if it were a WWE pay per view. However, the naming convention for impact shows is generally just the event name, and the year in brackets. See impact PPVs. However, that is a hard and fast rule, as certain events have other names..  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the only other example currently of a one time TNA event is TNA Unbreakable which just has the name. All their other PPVs have had multiple years. -  Galatz Talk  15:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, I vetted for Great Balls of Fire to be changed to its current name and now I completely forgot about that rule. You were correct in keeping everything to the Impact Wrestling name.  JTP (talk • contribs) 16:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I had no idea. Seems confusing to me. Why not every every event be set up as TNA Slammiversary XV, etc?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hinestly, I've never understood why we didn't put the promotion name in all PPV titles. Yeah, they're often dropped in use, but that's along the lines of only using someone's last name instead of their full name. It would also help with WP:NATDIS on some of the one word PPV names like "Armageddon" or "Greed", or "Redemption" for that matter. oknazevad (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

On second thought should this be Impact Dedemption similar to Impact One Night Only -  Galatz Talk  14:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

"Wrestling Title Histories" by Royal Duncan
Hello,

Does anyone within the project have a copy of this book? If so, could they pass me the Puerto Rico sections trough e-mail? El Alternativo (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Most PPV main events again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_100#Most_PPV_matches_is_okay_but_most_PPV_main_events_is_not?

So this sounded like we should add most PPV main events. Can't answer there though cause it is archived. Should we add them?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please use a separate header for a new topic. Secondly, this is the fourth time you've raised this, and there is still no consensus. The lack of sourcing objections raised the first time you raised this remain in place. Yes, it's just counting, normally a routine calculation, but the figures are spread across dozens of articles, and without a single definitive source for the article where you wish to include this, it does not constitute includable information, as we cannot make users chase through dozens of articles to verify the count. The most PPV appearances does have a valid, verifiable source, which is why they can be included, but the main events does not. So, the answer is still no, and you need to drop the stick and let this go. oknazevad (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What is this valid source for most PPV appearances?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Go back and look at the first discussion you started about this. Which you took part in. You were given your answers then. Continuing to ask the same question again and again when you already have the answer is uncollaborative behavior. Please drop this topic. oknazevad (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How about choosing a site as a source that lists all the WWE PPVs? That should work?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Fun Fact: The main event of SuperBrawl 2000 was The Wall vs The Demon in the fourth match. You'd never know it by checking that article. Have to check this one. Too complicated. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It was billed as a special main event, it wasn't THE main event. And it isn't WWE so it does not even matter.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing else was billed as any sort of main event. WCW PPVs have been WWE shows for almost 17 years now. But if they don't matter, you have a point. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)