Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 102

List of wrestling tag teams and stables
Is this page really necessary? It's completely unsourced, and pretty crufty in my opinion. The categories that currently stand do enough justice, do they not?  JTP (talk • contribs) 15:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's also overly large and unwieldy, and a pain to maintain. Yeah, that's an aspect of the business that's likely better served by the category system instead of a list article. oknazevad (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is supposed to be a list of every notible tag team and stable of all time? That's ridiculous. Maybe if it was simply list of notable tag teams that we had articles on it would be ok, but a lot of those on the list aren't created because they aren't notable as a tag. It needs sourcing too, and I think the categories are enough anyway. The complete lack of sourcing isn't helping. I'd really want to purge it.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree...I think it serves no purpose. Its completely subjective because how many times do they need to tag together to be considered for inclusion? -  Galatz Talk  16:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll also support its deletion. Categories are much more suitable for this. Pre  fall  09:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been nominated for deletion, see Articles for deletion/List of wrestling tag teams and stables (2nd nomination).  JTP (talk • contribs) 16:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Since it's finally hot and sunny around these parts, I've had less and less desire to hang around here averting disasters such as this. I just love this description of a list which was around 75K before deletion as "overly large", while encyclopedia entries exist which are four and five times that size and concerns about their size have largely fallen on deaf ears. Are you trying to claim that we should tailor our content to the sort of non-existent attention spans found these days? Even worse, this smacks of yet another attempt on the part of some editors to show that they're more interested in trying to define what's notable when merely reflecting what's notable would suffice just fine. It wouldn't be so bad if the project didn't put so much weight on news sources, whose job it is to sell headlines, not to reflect the breadth of the topic. Looking at the AFD, this is evident in spades in the examples given by Lee Vilenski. I seem to remember an AFD a while back on Red Shoes Unno, whoever that is, while I've seen no evidence whatsoever that we're attempting to acknowledge the far, far more notable Red Shoes Dugan. Likewise, Lee mentions Rhyno and Heath Slater, a flash in the pan from a few years ago from what I can tell. How about tag teams such as Harley Race and Larry Hennig, Black Gordman and Goliath or André the Giant and Dusty Rhodes? The latter made only a few appearances together on key supershows, yet still accomplished more than Rhyno and Slater except for getting mentioned on the web within the past X number of years. All the redlinks I saw at the beginning of the list are emblematic of the problem of relying so much upon news sites pushing news and current events as sources, not emblematic of non-notability. Even worse still, there are a slew of navboxen related to holders of various championships, including tag team championships, which are lacking in links. Last I checked, the purpose of a navbox was to contain links and allow for navigation between articles, hence the name "NAVIGATION box". I've seen any number of navboxen consisting primarily of non-linked entries. That suggests that they were created solely to "pretty up" articles. Those should have been considered for deletion long before this list. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure you read the AfD correctly, but as you brought up my name, I'll explain. The article contained a list of "all notable tag teams and stables", however, it also included teams such as Rhyno & Slater, which I specifically stated were not notable. That was literally the point I was making. As for the rest of the text above, I have no idea what you are getting at.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Roster pages
This question relates to basically every single roster page except the WWE one. Everyone but WWE have "freelancers" work their shows, heck some promotions don't actually have "contracted" wrestlers, but per appearance deals etc. What is the guideline for when a person should be on the roster page? I'm not sure when someone warrants inclusion. I will give you an example Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre roster, right now L.A. Park, El Hijo de L.A. Park and Rey Fénix are all independent wrestlers who've made a deal to work both for CMLL and elsewhere - when should they be included in the roster list? Rey Fénix is listed even though he has actually wrestled for them yet. And if Rey Fénix works one match for CMLL in 2 months when should he be listed? Do we have any guideline for roster pages outside of the WWE one? Because "signed" is not a term that makes sense for any promotion that also have freelancers work for them. I'd love to have some sort of guidance on this.  MPJ  -DK 22:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, usually WWE has the power to make iron contracts and don't use freelancers. We have seen some exceptions, like Jericho and Mysterio. In Japan looks like very common, like Minoru Suzuki. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Some companies (Most notably ROH and TNA) have a primary workers agreement. In that, they are contracted to those companies, but can work as freelancers outside of dates they are working for their main company. It's all of a bit ridiculous, as even WWE have these types of contracts now (Think Pete Dunne). I'm not a fan of the roster pages regardless.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Cody is All In
I have a question (well, a problem). Some users includes in the All In article Cody as Cody Rhodes. However, we all know WWE owns the Cody Rhodes name and he can't promote himself as Cody, so I revert their editions. Some sources calls him Cody Rhodes, but is a common practice in every source I read since it's his common name. Other sources, like Fightfull or the WON call him Cody. So, do you have any solution? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This source refers to him as Cody saying he was formerly Rhodes . From what I can tell the sources go back and forth. His twitter name is Cody Rhodes though, so anything on twitter promoting it shows it as Rhodes. -  Galatz Talk  17:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Fightfull never calls him Rhodes, just Cody. As I said, his common name is Cody Rhodes and a lot of sources call him in that way, same as other wrestlers (like, Jack Swagger or Bobby Lashley when TNA cut his name just to Lashley). His twitter means nothing, Tommaso Ciampa is BLACKHEART, or CM Punk Twitter is Coach. Again, Cody hasn't the right of the name, I see pointless to promote him under a ringname he can't use. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So the article is "Cody Rhodes" because that's the common name, the name he's best known under, but it's not the name he is currently' using, thus should not be the one used. Is he billed as "Cody Rhodes" in ROH? NJPW? Anywhere he competes? Yes on twitter they use "@CodyRhodes" because that's his twitter handle and thus links to him, but any official promotional material does not call him that. To me it would be the same as saying that Bob Backlund was the "WWE World Heavyweight Champion", revisionist history, not fact. We should deal in facts.  MPJ  -DK 22:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, The New York Times does call him "Cody Rhodes", as seen here. He also has used it in WCPW (now Defiant Wrestling) in the UK. It's well known that he doesn't use it only because WWE were being petty. Plus there's the WP:NATDIS aspect of it. That said, the All In article should pipe to the name actually used in the promotion of the event, which is "The American Nightmare Cody". Or just "Cody" if we don't want to use the nickname-like portion. oknazevad (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Does WP:COMMONNAME not overwrite current name? Isn't this the same as Emma (wrestler), who doesn't use that name anymore, but the common name is still the one they are most famous for?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Common name is for the article title, which is different than what we refer to them as for an event. It should be listed as what he is officially billed for, for the individual event. -  Galatz Talk  14:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Several AfD
Hi. I opened some AfD discussions. All of them are WWE develoment wrestlers who had just a few matches, I don't think they are notable enough for an article, they just had a few matches in live events and NXT, but no notable storylines, feuds... WikiProject Deletion sorting/Wrestling HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The established practice is to inform people of the discussions, but listing your reasons here could be seen as canvassing. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The afd discussions still open, in case somebody wants to include his opinion.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Results section in SG
Right now is claiming that the results section does not apply before the event because the section is titled Matches. See Talk:Money_in_the_Bank_(2018) Can we please get consensus to clarify that this section applies to both? -  Galatz Talk  13:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused on how this came up again. I thought it was solved last time. Quote taken directly from the style guide (which has specifically been noted since February 2009):
 * "The no. column represents the order in which the matches took place. If the article is about a future event, the order should be based on the order in which they were announced."
 * Straightforward. Pre  fall  15:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. He is just claiming that since it says its the results section, it doesnt apply to a matches section. Its the worst argument ever, but we should probably clarify it. -  Galatz Talk  16:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Galatz. I am still here. Thanks for the kind words. - unsigned comment by KingOfTheRing
 * Okay, I've clarified some details regarding the Results section (Direct link — diff). Let me know what you think. Pre  fall  18:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Professional wrestling in ... content discussion
So I've been giving it some thought as to what we should aim for to include in an article about professional wrestling in "Country" and I've looked at all the articles we have on it (US, UK, Puerto Rico, Australia, NZ, Israel, "Mexico", "Japan" - Canada does not count except for what not to do.) and I suggest that all article should at a minimum have the following sections:


 * History
 * Beginning (xxxx-xxxx)
 * etc. (xxxx-xxxx)


 * "Country" style
 * Wrestling promotions
 * Major promotions
 * Independent circuit
 * Foreign tours
 * Defunct promotions

Any other suggestions? Comments? likes or dislikes?? Other options I considered was "Television history" (hard to find consistent sources), "wrestlers from XXX known outside XXX" (which for Japan, UK, Mexico would be unwieldy and crufty) but felt like those may make sense if you have the info etc.  MPJ  -DK 01:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think certain things like foreign promotion tours add something to certain articles. For example, Israel and Australia have them and it adds something because its rare or minimal. The WWE goes to the UK yearly and Canada multiple times a year (I think). Do we draw a line somewhere, or do we include it no matter what? To come up with a list of foreign promotions that have worked in the US could be endless. -  Galatz Talk  01:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There are lists for independent promotions in Canada and United States. It lists both active and defunct promotions.  So not sure if that's what you were wanting to do with that part.  08:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, you'd have a for that part, and have an overview for the country. Makes total sense to me. I'd say that they should really be some information on particularly notable wrestlers, championships or achievements. For example, Sheamus being the first United Kingdom WWE Heavyweight Champion is quite important. Or, some countries have a national championship (Or, like in the UK, a lot of national championships), that could potentially have their own section.  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 11:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I would argue that for the bigger markets, there could be enough material for separate articles convering the independent circuits. But, they need prose instead of being bullet lists. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

205Live
Hi. There is some discussion about 205Live. Is 205Live a sub-division of RAW or is his own brand? We have some problems Here --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I specially visited here to remove such unasusual arguements regarding 205 Live and RAW excepting this where I'm leaving you message here. I added Responsible tagging of Article being Confusing. Mattspac already clarified and said correct that 205 Live is sub-division of RAW. Reason of removal is This Which I was intended to remove at all. If I ever get attack or any bans of blocks for unasusual I'll Create my another Wikipedia Account and do the thing for Which I got previously blocked 2 times as per block templates at my talk page of last year. If you think I'm doing wrong by removing Discussion or gonna do such thing that results blocks or bans, I would like to recommend you to Request Protection again. At the announcement of Survivor Series 2017, It was clearly announced that Every RAW Champions will face their SD Live Counterparts excepting Cruiserweights for NOT HAVING THEIR SMACKDOWN COUNTERPARTS. CK (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please keep all discussion at the one page. This was intended as a neutral notification, nor a second discussion. oknazevad (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Before 205 Live, they used to appear on RAW. The 25th Anniversary was the last time they appeared as far as I can remember.  I've seen the cruiserweights still listed as part of RAW.  The last time any of the cruiserweights appeared on a regular secondary pay-per-view in any capacity whether pre-show or main card was Great Balls of Fire which is going on a year ago.  That was a RAW event.  It's like they only get pay-per-view time on is on major pay-per-view events even if it is pre-shows.  Regardless, unless we have consensus to change it or you can find it mentioned somewhere that are no long apart of RAW, it's best to just leave it as is.  I'm not opposed to changing it, it's just how things need to be handled.  I can't find anything saying they are no longer apart of RAW.  Take that for what you will.  As well, before they got their own general manager, it was Kurt Angle who was the general manager overseeing the cruiserweights and 205 Live.  You could make argument that 205 Live getting their own general manager could be seen as becoming their own stand alone brand.  But I digress.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 21:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I did many arguements at Personnels talk page, I deleted discussions and messages of IP user, I made that IP User quiet by applying spurious block template to his talk page, I closed discussion, I reported to administrator, I received warning messages by User:Oknazevad, see my talkpage, see my contributions, see my discussions at article's talkpage with full of arguements and authenticated IP messages.I try to do as same as I read what you said Regardless, unless we have consensus to change it or you can find it mentioned somewhere that are no long apart of RAW, it's best to just leave it as is. I'm not opposed to changing it which is right by your opinion. It's better to not to argue IanPCP, Vjmlhds, Galatz and 32.213.92.177. All Cruiserweight BLP has received recent changes from RAW to 205 Live and removal of RAW referances today. I don't mean to create any sockpuppet as I already have 2 blocked socks and myself got blocked last year for 2 weeks(blocked 2 days before New Year). Article was protected for 3 days when arguements initiated. HHH and Mattspac cites me and my edit. IanPCP Whom I believe he might be authentic editor and accurately edit article but he also found out one culprit and starter of argumentation. Being politely, neither wwe.com has made any update nor WWE itself made such announcement. Fishhead, your opinion might works. Great work. CK (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * {{{Ping|Broken nutshell}} If you're deleting other editor's comments on a talk other than your own, you might want to stop. That can get you into trouble.  Threatening people can also get you in trouble.  Yes, there are rules about non-admin closure, but it's not up to you to close discussions if there isn't a consensus.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Chris Jericho - WWE Contract
The following quote is the second sentence of the lead section. "'He is also currently competing in WWE as a signed talent, where he makes sporadic appearances on a part-time basis on both the Raw and SmackDown brands.'"

He mentioned in an interview as recently as April which you can see here, he says he is on a per appearance "one and done" type deals when he appears in the WWE. At the 7:38 mark he says he is not contracted. I know removing or modifying it would have people up in arms. It needs to be corrected. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 08:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Infact the line BEST KNOWN FOR TENURE refers to those who completely leaves WWE. if a person list himself as WWE person but retired or part timing and being a member there but competing in other promotions then the line CURRENTLY SIGNED TO WWE still to be used. CK (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But he isn't signed. Signed would mean he has a contract which he doesn't.  Checking the article, it has been changed.  Now I can't even find the sentence I quoted and I even went through the history.    Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 16:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I just changed a live one which said roughly the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done This Worked. CK (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's good. He isn't signed at the present and the wording reflects that.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

WWE Network Events
Right now List of WWE Network events is organized by air date. But if you look at List of NWA/WCW closed-circuit events and pay-per-view events, List of ECW supercards and pay-per-view events, List of Ring of Honor pay-per-view events, etc. its all organized by taped date. I see no reason why this one should be set up differently.

Also I changed the total event count to count UK championship tournament as 1 event, just because its over 2 days it doesn't make it multiple. ROH page also counts multi-day ones as 1. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  15:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Lucha Libre
This page needs to reflect that lucha libre is a term used throughout most (if not all) of Latin America in reference to a number of styles, not all of which meet the style/rules/traditions of the Mexican variant. Days ago, I proposed branching it into a "Lucha libre in..." series, which was to begin by renaming the entry for Professional wrestling in Puerto Rico (to "Lucha libre in Puerto Rico") and the current entry to "Lucha libre in Mexico". In addition, I had envisioned more entries for Argentina, Dominican Republic, Colombia, Panama, Ecuador and Chile, being somewhat familiar with the scene of these countries.

However, fellow editor Lee Vilenski proposed creating a "Professional Wrestling in..." article for Mexico and turning "Lucha Libre" into a hub with a "worldwide bearing". This seems like a sensible proposal that does not include renaming other pieces, and which could be complemented by creating similar pieces for the other countries that were previously mentioned. Before proceeding with any changes, I want feedback, and expect to collaborate with any consensus solution as long as it solves the ethnocentrism of the current entry. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is used as Professional wrestling in Mexico which is incorrect and misleading, I agree. Just like how Puroresu is a style, not professional wrestling in Japan, although they are basically used interchangeably around WP. -  Galatz  Talk  18:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that "Lucha Libre" is not synonymous with "Pro wrestling in Mexico" and that that is 99% of what the Lucha Libre article talks about. I think an article on "in Mexico" would be great, it would focus more on timeline, events, federations etc. and less on the "what is lucha libre" aspects of what's in the current article. I'd be happy to contribute to a Professional wrestling in Mexico article. I wish I could make "Non-Mexican" contributions to the Lucha Libre article but that's outside my area of expertise, although I can do my part to turn it into a less "Mexico-centric" article.  MPJ  -DK 01:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the "Professional Wrestling in..." articles are really poor. Professional wrestling in Canada being the worst offender. I'd like to see something for this, as there are lots of countries missing, and the ones that are there are poorly looked after. No idea why no Professional Wrestling in Germany article exists, for example.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, the Canada article makes no sense. There has been so much history of Canada there and there is no mention of any of it. -  Galatz Talk  13:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Canada article is just a list, not a complete list, of Canadian wrestlers who wrestled overseas. It seems redundant to have such a list.  I am willing to help fix the article if others are willing as well.  Being as I am from Canada, I can add information where necessary.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 16:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, exactly. A non-complete list is completely pointless. The article needs to be created similarly to the Professional wrestling in New Zealand article or Professional wrestling in the United States. Realistically, all of these articles need a good look at, as the NZ one isn't even really up to it's GA status anymore.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless if the New Zealand article isn't good article status anymore, it is at least something you can use a gauge to how articles should be in this particular scope. If we used draft space or even a sandbox to write the Canada article, before moving it over, that would be beneficial.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this would be a good opportunity to define a standard for these kinds of articles? A "suggested sections" list or "this is denfinitly NOT what the article should be" (looking at the Canadian one that's a big old example of what NOT to do.) Might make it easier to get some progress around some of these national level articles?  MPJ  -DK 16:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. That would be a good! I'd also argue we should make some of the more blatent articles that are missing as stub/starts. Might be a job for when we've got some spare time.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A very Good point. Mexico is needed, Canada needs to be rewritten, what Else is totally missing or low Quality?  MPJ  -DK 18:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Theres tonnes of wrestling everywhere, but the most glaring omission is Germany. But places like Portugal and Switzerland have history with wrestling. I'm sure there could be enough information for quite a few places to have an overview.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The UK piece has a nice amount of prose, but issues with the use of footnotes. I can help by gathering sources in Spanish, which besides Latin America may also be useful for Europe. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Vader (wrestler)
If anyone wasn't aware, Vader has died. Anyone want to work getting his article ready for an In The News nom? Nikki♥311 21:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The article needs a severe amount of work (Just in general.) Here's some notes:
 * Referencing Style - Should be consistent, some use of cite web, but some use of short
 * I've updated the article to show his death date (That someone had removed)
 * We could potentially remove the extra sources tag. There is plenty of sources for his life.
 * Do we usually have the football section above the career section? It seems like something that should be below the professional wrestling career section.
 * Filmography section should potentially include at least a sentence to show he's was an actor.
 * The video games section requires sourcing, as it's the connection to Big Bear is unfounded.

 Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought there would be a death tag on the page. The recent death tag isn't totally correct since the article isn't being heavily edited and the cause of death will hopefully be sourced when proper sourcing becomes available.  Regardless, a tag should be put up.  I just don't know which one is best.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the football section usually does go first (examples: Bill Goldberg and Roman Reigns) because generally, it was first chronologically. In Brock Lesnar's article it is farther down because he pursued that career after having worked as a professional wrestler. That said, I don't really have an opinion on the matter so whatever everyone else agrees on is fine with me. Nikki♥311 23:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Changes to wrestling articles
All, there is a discussion going on at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents that could potentially affect all professional wrestling articles. -  Galatz Talk  00:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC) - Does that not seem like a lot though? Personally, when I signed up for an account on Wikipedia, it was due to in part, updating articles, with quite a few articles being in the pro wrestling category. I could understand maybe simply the autoconfirmed process being a good place for this, as it would limit annonymous edit wars, so at least people would be liable for edits. However, if you come to wikipedia specifically for work on Pro Wrestling; we would potentially push away help due to a prejudice that they may be a poor editor. I'm not sure many good editors would stick around for a full month to help with the project. I'm against turning away good editors. WP:ANI should be enough to deal with the childish editors.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Their attitude sucks, but on the other hand they are not wrong about a lot of edits. And really need tondirect everyone to this: Administrators%27_noticeboard MPJ  -DK 05:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Jeez, I've taken a bit of a break recently and didn't realize how many people we've lost from this project. I didn't even realize Treker got blocked. Never had issues with Nickag989 either. Toughening sanctions in an attempt to crack down on the many content-related issues this project deals with will almost certainly backfire, these guys were always against that but were brought down by being uncivil in the process. Guys, always try to keep cool! We can't lose any more good editors.LM2000 (talk) 06:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand what causes people to lose that much patience with such minor issues. Use the system, don't go all crazy. With that being said, I tried to read the discussions, but my knowledge of general sanctions are nil. What is the suggestion here? I'm against punishing real editors. A quicker response method to personal attacks would be ok with me, however.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is why I would be in favor of requiring extended confirmed users only being able to edit. They would have to be on wikipedia for 30 days and have 500 edits. We would only be getting experienced editors who understand how things work. It would cut down on a lot of issues. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  12:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Is that particularly necessary though? I know there is a lot of editors that don't feel the need to be confrontational even if they are inexperienced.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There shouldn't be confrontation regardless of situation. But there is a ton of socks and IP edits that create a ton of issues for those in this project. Requiring 30/500 helped fix tons of issues in Israel related topics. I can tell you first hand from editing a lot there it worked. We just get too many people vandalizing articles or good faith edits that need to be reverted. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I get that, 500 edits is a lot, more so than the 30 days. I have seen socks edit their talk page to build up the edits needed, which gets them blocked immediately. Any protection is better than none. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  15:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I really understand the problems we face (If people are going to sign up to wikipedia to be disruptive, they'll simply find another topic to be disruptive in if they can't. However, if we are to have something along these lines, I think we shouldn't be too hasty in pushing away potential editors.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I know that we shouldn't push away potential editors. But what about those who are not familiar with wrestling that want to edit?  That could turn problematic.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you aren't familiar with wrestling, why are you editing professional wrestling articles, though?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , any editor can work on any article for any reason, as long as they comply with our policies and guidelines. Subject specific knowledge is not required because we summarize published sources rather than relying on personal knowledge. I have made major revisions to many articles where I knew far less about the topic than I do about professional wrestling. You do not need to be a topic expert to see that a given article has glaring problems and set out to fix it. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  17:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

FYI this was just closed as authorize -  Galatz גאליץ  שיחה Talk  01:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC) So, it passed. Our general sanctions page is at General sanctions/Professional wrestling. I'm not totally familiar with the process here but I think we report offenders to Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement after they've been warned, correct?LM2000 (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not 100% sure. My only experience really deals with WP:ARBPIA3, which is much more extreme. There we allow all pages to automatically have indefinite extended confirmed, so any time I see a page with even 1 issue I go to WP:RPP and have it locked down. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  02:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I consulted an admin who said we still need to report violations to WP:ANI or directly to an admin. It's unfortunate that AN/I still needs to be involved, most discussions there quickly dissolve into clusterfucks.LM2000 (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the proposal at all. I feel like a lot of non-professional wrestling editors, and admins have voted in favor of this sanction, but I don't feel like it's well explained. This seems like a tool for administrators to topic ban users, but only if they see the offense.


 * I think I'm simply asking how this will effect me, as I'm not familiar with much to do with administators (Other than the occasional vote, or what I've read.)  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Discussion there is closed now, with a consensus to impose the edit warring sanctions, but GOD are some of the people on that thread really smug about not liking wrestling.DoveArcher (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This basically gives admins the ability to levy sanctions on users or pages to curb bad behavior. I don't see this affecting very much to be honest, a lot of the discussion was out of scope and addressed unrelated problems with our articles and disdain for the topic in general. I see List of WWE personnel getting 1RR restrictions and some of the usual suspects getting topic banned but that's about it. I'd recommend taking any behavior complains to a single admin rather than AN/I. Comments from the peanut gallery quickly derail those threads.LM2000 (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Would it maybe make sense to have a list of admins within the project (Or ones that would be willing to learn a little about the nuances of pro wrestling articles)? I feel like quite a few admins (Specifically the ones being so incredibly smug about how they'd like to get rid of the project all together) wouldn't really understand the particular issues we face. I also have issues that I know some admins, but without specifically going onto someone's userpage, it's not always the easiest to know if they do indeed have the admin rights.

It's always better to make something where potential disruptive editing, or bullying would be more instructive; so any editor could bring these charges to the correct place, without having to read tonnes of guidelines (I read the whole sanctions article, and I was still none the wiser as to what the proposal really was).  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Like I said most of my experience with GS deals with Israel related articles. There articles just get locked down when we have problems, an we have WP:1RR restrictions, which this does not. has written on my talk page that he is an admin that plans to enforce these sanctions. Perhaps it would be best of he could chime in here and let us know exactly what the admins expect from us, and the best way we can go about helping improve this. Since events get vandalized consistently, especially in the 30 days before and after it, can we get all events locked down automatically without waiting for it to get vandalized first? Or when Big Cass got released the page was instantly vandalized and then locked, do we need to wait for this to happen to lock articles? I would be ok with everything in professional wrestling permanently requiring at least auto-confirmed but thats a different story.
 * Unfortunately most of the vandalism occurs from IP addresses, and how do these restrictions get imposed on these anonymous users? If the get banned they will just come back the next day with a new IP address. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  11:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You have always been very helpful I know when I have needed help with vandalism, SOCKS, etc. Would you mind chiming in here on the way we can best help improve wikipedia with these sanctions? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  15:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I will respond at greater length later but I want to give a preliminary response now. The discussion at the Administrator's Noticeboard showed that the wider editing community has grave concerns about a wide range of editor misbehavior in the pro wrestling topic area. The consensus is that the problems are serious enough that administrators are being given a heightened level of authority to deal promptly and firmly with disruptive behavior in this topic area. Articles will not be semi-protected before vandalism takes place but promptly when it begins. Take such requests to WP:RFPP and report vandals to WP:AIV. This is routine. However, this discussion so far is not dealing with the elephant in the room: Kayfabe. Generalist editors are disgusted and angered by the massive amount of in-universe content in countless pro-wrestling articles. That violates the Manual of Style and our well-established policies and guidelines. There is deep opposition to presenting pro wrestling as an actual athletic completion and an insistence that all pro wrestling articles accurately reflect the fact that these are scripted fictional events. This is simply not negotiable and all pro wrestling articles must be written to reflect these facts. Articles must not be dominated by lengthy, detailed plot summaries written from an in-universe perspective. MOS:PLOT is the relevant section in the Manual of Style, and Plot-only description of fictional works is an essay that also reflects widespread editing norms. So, the challenge to every established pro wrestling editor is to cut way, way, way back on the kayfabe content throughout the entire group of articles in this topic area. Editors who persist in adding this excessive in-universe content to the encyclopedia will be warned, and then blocked if they persist. The blocks will be indefinite if warnings and short blocks are not effective.


 * The specific article that was discussed at AN is Israeli Wrestling League, and the response of several uninvolved editors to this article was justifiable rage. This article is about 90% in-universe kayfabe, and this type of article must be chopped with a machete. So, read that article and ask yourself whether or not you are prepared to clean up these messes. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and not a gushing fansite, and editors who persist in trying to turn it into one will be blocked to prevent disruption. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  22:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarifications, I was myself not sure exactly it meant to be under "General sanctions" even after reading the guidelines repeatedly, so this has been very helpful. I don't disagree that there is a lot of crap going on in wrestling articles, especially by IPs and fanatics on anything WWE related, hell those articles can be so toxic that I personally try to stay away from them as much as possible. I'm curious if this GS will address uncivil, negative and hostile comments from some editors? I do hope it will, it would be a breath of fresh air to not have to deal with some of the negativity and uncivility presented in the linked discussions. I'm not sure who had the "justifiable rage"?? those saying it was "crap" or those saying it was not? (sorry if I am dense) I personally think "justifiable" and "rage" is an oxymoron and not in the spirit of Wikipedia.  MPJ  -DK 00:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , when large numbers of articles are crammed full of kayfabe, then that is utterly unacceptable and justifies a feeling of rage among editors who are committed to a neutral encyclopedia. Wrestling editors who produce high quality encyclopedic content in full compliance with the Manual of Style, and our policies and guidelines, have nothing to fear from these new sanctions. Those who cram kayfabe into the encyclopedia should be very afraid. They must either change their ways or go away to edit wrestling fansites instead. Otherwise, they will be blocked. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Getting strict on kayfabe is great, but that is still a very vague instruction. had a great point on the sanctions proposal which went completely unnoticed—kayfabe is going to mean different things to different people. Is saying someone "won" a championship or "was defeated" in a match considered kayfabe? Specifics like this, along with the level of detail used in articles, need to be established through a RfC or something.  Pre  fall  15:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , those judgments must be made by developing a deep understanding our core content policies like Verifiability, No original research and the Neutral point of view, combined with guidance from the Manual of Style's instructions about how to describe works of fiction, and also guided by good old fashioned editorial judgment. Reporting about who won and lost scripted matches is acceptable, as long as the event is notable and article has a crystal clear disclaimer stating that it is a scripted fictional performance. Plot summaries should be a relatively brief part of a well-referenced article written from a real-world perspective. The in-universe perspective is not acceptable, and is far too common in this topic area. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  17:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * justifies a feeling of rage among editors who are committed to a neutral encyclopedia - On this, we will have to agree to disagree, I understand the rage, but I don't think it's acceptable for any Wikipedian to be uncivil. But instead of lingering on something I cannot change I will instead move on and try to influence some positive changes for the pro wrestling articles so that they don't induce as much rage in the future. As the president, founder, only member and grand Poobah of The "No Drama Professional Wrestling Society" (NDPWS) I am fully onboard with more quality less drama.  MPJ  -DK  01:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not think that I have been uncivil in this conversation,, and if you perceive otherwise, please let me know with specifics. I saw a basic misunderstanding at the AN discussion. Uninvolved editors expressed grave concern about the quality of a large percentage of articles in the pro wrestling topic area. Some of the pro wrestling editors responded that they did not like being attacked for enjoying pro wrestling. In fact, generalist editors do not care at all what other editors enjoy. They care only about the quality of the articles produced by editors who enjoy pro wrestling. If, by working together, we can improve the general quality of that group of articles, then the conflict will fade quite naturally. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - No, no not you - sorry if I even implied that, you've been courteous and helpful. I was referring to those showing "justificable rage" at pro wrestling. I am all about the quality myself and hope that this is the kick in the keister to help improve quality overall.  MPJ  -DK 02:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding, was away for the weekend. Some of my concerns with this is by the very nature, every event will focus on the events themselves. I think the biography articles themselves are the worst offenders as they should focus on the people not the kayfabe, but our IP editors love adding every little detail. Unfortunately due to this I do not follow many individuals because the sheer volume of edits would fill up my watchlist too quickly. As for the events, lets take for example WrestleMania 33. I previously tagged the storylines section as being too detailed, which really needs to be cut down. WP:PW/PPVG recommends this section being no more than 1,000 words, but its currently almost 4 times thats. Any work I have put in previous articles in trying to trim these section back get reverted, so I've given up. I even brought the issue to talk and people tried telling me it shouldn't apply to WrestleMania, see Talk:WrestleMania_34. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think you are trying to say that WrestleMania 33 or whichever year is not notable, just that there is too much kayfabe in it. Even if all the fluff garbage was removed from the article, you would still have a build up section (called storylines, which does have the disclaimer), event section, and aftermath section. By the events very nature this is part of what makes the event notable, and will therefore contain a lot of in universe information. Ronda Rousey for example made her debut this year at WrestleMania 34 for which she got tons of main stream press, including Sports Center on ESPN, which covered the storylines she was involved in. The fact that she debuted is not kayfabe, but the stories she was involved in were. Therefore outside of just saying she debuted there is only so much you could discuss outside of the in-universe talk. Where do you draw the line? Even the reception section will have a certain in-universe feel because their review is of things that happened during the scripted matches, so their review isn't kayfabe, but what they are discussing is. Also in terms of when to go to WP:RPP what qualifies as enough vandalism? In the past it seems like I usually need to prove 3-4 example in a 24 hour period to qualify. When I look at WWE Super Show-Down I see a couple over the course of a few days, would this be enough or should we wait until it gets worse? Also this event isn't taking place for a few months, would an admin lock this down until after the event airs, because the build up is normally when the vandalism occurs. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  21:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC) Also there is discussion above about removing a section that is filled with CRUFTy information. Everyone seems to be in favor of it, but if we do, we all know the IPs will be reverting it like crazy because its their favorite section to update with every tiny little detail. What could we do to prevent these edit wars, since we obviously dont want to go to RPP with thousands of articles. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  21:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It will take consistency and enforcement of rules. With the sanctions in place we would have an easier time striking these down and if we have to protect articles from unregistered users then that's what needs to be done - just because it's hard doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.  MPJ  -DK 22:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

CURRENTMONTH in Championship articles
Take a look at the discussion here Wikipedia talk:As of for a discussion that could impact our articles. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  17:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Too many subheadings
I know we've discussed this here before, but if we could gain consensus and update the SG accordingly it would be good. If you look at Tucker Knight, Bianca Belair, or Taynara Conti, its a little ridiculous that we have 3 levels of headings to get to 2 paragraphs. We should have no subheadings under "Professional wrestling career" under there is enough to warrant it. Velveteen Dream for example should have 2 subheadings but no need for any under WWE. MOS:BODY saying the purpose of subheading is for readability, the example above, the subheadings do not increase readability. Any proposals on how we word this or any other thoughts? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  02:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I don’t really see any problems with the way their moves/nicknames/themes are set up. I say keep them the way they are. Drummoe (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - That was not what this conversation was about. Just remove them, they are built by WP:CRYSTALBALL, especting in the future, that they will require lots of sections.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh man you have hit on a point of irritation with me (perhaps the next big topic we deal with). Velveteen Dream should have the PW level 2 headline and a WWE sub headline, "early career" is just unnessary it is implied that "it happened before WWE", i wish we did not have any level 3 headlines right under a level 2 without content between it. Just bugs me personally and I wish we could simplify this instead of slicing pw career into 20 wafer thing slices with headlines. (20 is a number pulled out of the air, none of these examples actually had 20).  MPJ  -DK 14:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I just went through the performance center/NXT roster and removed tons of subheadings. Some performance center people had 3 levels of headings for the 1 sentence that says they signed a developmental deal. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  14:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Disappearance of "In Wrestling" section
This was the primary reason I visited wrestlers' Wikipedia pages; now, it is completely gone. Why? This was valuable and useful information, all organized in an aesthetically pleasing and easy-to-read format. Can we please restore these? If the problem was with people wrestlers' entire movesets, why not just eliminate that one section? You could keep their finishing move (or if it changed throughout their career; i.e., have the Tombstone Piledriver, Last Ride, and Hell's Gate for Undertaker, but no other moves), and then eliminate everything else. Can we please do this? Wrestler pages have lost much of their utility for me now. CinnamonCinder (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * check out the several sections above this one. (talk page stalker) <b style="color:#008caf">Crash</b><b style="color:#6000c6">Under</b><b style="color:#6000c6">ride</b> 15:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You can still look at an old revision in the meantime. They're (currently) easy to find in the edit history, because they're the one before the one with huge red letters. Not that clicking two extra times is fun, of course, but it beats leaving without learning what you came for. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Helps to remember this went down in June 2018, in case it's permanent. You want stuff, look backward. You don't like stuff, look straight ahead. Everyone wins, with a little extra work. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

My take
I'm a former admin here so I thought I would chime in. I fought to close the gender gap here now I am willing to close the wresting gap here. In short I plan on protecting the regular Wikipedia users from the abuse of wrestling fanboy editors like I protected women from sexist male editors (like the Gianos of the site). Cullen is right, the abuse regular wikipedians get from wrestling fanboys is almost as bad as the abuse that all Wikipedia editors get from Giano on a daily basis. Maybe Giano is a wrestling fan?? My first act as a member of this project is to topic ban Giano and Eric Corbett from all wrestling topics, just in case the take their abuse here. Secondly, I plan on recruiting reddit wrestling fans to be at home Wikipedian in residences. I have more ideas but i am getting started. BTW WP:IAR that TonyBaloney spouts out. Kevin Gסrman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.37.100.124 (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretending to be an admin (As an IP) is quite a serious thing to do, have you any proof of your adminship? Also, "recruiting editors", in any way is known as WP:CANVASSING, which is a really serious issue as well. Also, I have no idea who any of those people are.  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 06:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Cullen's the guy who pinged you last week about those unfamiliar with wrestling being welcome to try and fix glaring problems. Of course, what's glaringly obvious to the untrained eye isn't always going to make a lot of sense to a wrestling fan (boy or girl). But anything's understandable, with a bit of practice, patience and compromise. Tony Marino was a seven-time champ in BTW who ignored all sorts of rules (including the one against promoting yourself as The Caped Crusader), and that's no baloney! Probably not what 176 was getting at, but that doesn't make it totally useless information, just obscured and awkwardly presented. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This IP editor is a troll trying to stir up trouble by using the name of a former administrator who died. Please deny attention to this troll. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  17:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Minor NXT pages
We have a constant issue of minor NXT performers having pages created and then deleted. There are several that are border line notable that have a page. Perhaps we need to do something like New York Yankees minor league players where we can keep a mini page for these people. In the event they become more notable we can move it to and expand it. If they get released their section gets deleted, no harm done, no AfD to worry about. Any thoughts? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  15:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting, so something about the line of List of WWE developmental wrestlers? Wouldn't an entrant on the list still have to meet WP:GNG to be included in an actual section? I'm not sure how it works for lists like this.  MPJ  -DK 01:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So here is what I found for stand alone lists like the one proposed A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met: The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. So I am not sure adding them to a list would technically get around the GNG, it may just hide them more as it'd be entries on a list not a new article that gets patrolled.  MPJ  -DK 21:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe you are referring to WP:LISTBIO which includes a list of notable XYZ somewhere. I think this is something slightly different, because if all of the baseball players were independently notable, they would all have their own pages. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  18:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Wrestler finishing moves
Did you all get hacked or something? Removing a wrestler's moveset is probably the stupidest move y'all can make. What's the deal? --Evil Yugi (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there, quick reminder to be WP:CIVIL at all times on Wikipedia, it really helps people actually be receptive to whatever point you are trying to make. As for what "the deal" is, read and relevant sub sections. it's all covered in great detail - but TL;DR recap, the consensus was that the "in wrestling" section is crufty and trivial and not in line with current Wikipedia guidelines and thus should be removed.  MPJ  -DK  01:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I gotta say, I've been watching those removals go by, and it's like free cocktails--you couldn't believe it would be happening. Those finishing moves, that is indeed nothing but trivia, and typically unverified. "Evil Yugi", I trust you will be respecting consensus. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * And just how can anyone learn more about a wrestler without a listing of their moveset? Just watching doesn't help. --Evil Yugi (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The moves a wrestler does is quite literally a miniscule part of them. The Wider wikipedia consensus is that the article should cover the subject, not the character.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well you could watch the matches or read the Wikipedia article itself which tells you more about a wrestler than the mere fact that "this guy knows how to do a suplex".  MPJ  -DK  10:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty silly to have other articles like Professional wrestling throws and Professional wrestling attacks when there's no longer sections of the articles showing which wrestlers made use of those maneuvers. Might as well just delete those articles too while they're at it.2601:601:CA80:5F7A:6072:9AE7:5663:3955 (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not like they would never be written about in prose. And information for a finisher, as has been stated several times, can be written in prose.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a falacy, an article on Wikipedia does not rely on OTHER articles to justify their existence. Is an article on a Ford Fiesta irrelevant without an article on "people who drive a Ford Fiesta"?  MPJ  -DK 10:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. Here is an argument as to why they should not be removed. Other than watching the wrestling, how can it be proved that in the Professional wrestling throws page, John Cena uses the fireman’s carry takoever, which he calls the Attitude Adjustment (formerly the FU), when it’s not even listed on his own article? This goes for every other article affected from this horrific change. There is no point having the lists of wrestling holds/strikes/throws/aerial techniques/double-team maneuvers pages that have the name of a wrestler who uses a specific move and calls it a different name, only for it to be absent in said wrestlers’ own pages. If those pages remain, then the lists of each wrestlers’ movelist, as well as their nicknames and entrance themes. The few people who are trying to represent this whole community and think that this decision is the best, it simply isn’t. You can’t just remove it because it’s ‘messy’ (it’s quite neatly set out the way it was if you ask me). Hundreds, maybe thousands of others rely on Wikipedia to look up their signature moves or nicknames or the name of their entrance themes and when they used it. Removing it is just going to result in a mass exodus of fans to stop looking up all of their favourite wrestlers’ Wikipedia pages. So what if it’s ‘trivial’. Doesn’t mean it’s irrelevent and it’s pointless information. Because it’s not pointless. This is what makes up each wrestler, and what they are known for. If you’re going to ignore this are still think you’re right and the hundreds or thousands of other against you are wrong, then so be it. Like The Kip said in the original thread, you’re only digging yourselves a deeper and deeper hole, and it’s will result in Wikipedia becoming less and less relevant to other wrestling fans. Drummoe (talk) 05:57, 30 June, 2018 (UTC)
 * The AA/FU is mentioned on John Cena, there's even a link to Professional wrestling throws. If finishing maneuvers are sourced and notable, then they should be mentioned (and linked, when applicable) in the prose.LM2000 (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That is rather irrelevent. If it's notable that a wrestler uses a Death Valley Driver, then it can be added in prose. John Cena, for example, could easily have a section written about his use of a fireman carry throw, and how it's name changed. Perfect. Do we really need to know he uses a DDT as a signature move? Why are people looking up on Wikipedia that Cena was once managed by Kenny Bolin? Completely irrelevent. This is exactly what a pro wrestling wiki (Which exists, and I've edited before), is for, but not the main wikipedia site. Wikipedia's stance, is that articles should cover products, events and people in a maner that explains who they are, and how they are notable in the context of the whole world, without using jargon.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I guess this is the latest angle on the section? Starting with "hey put it back I need it for my CAWs" to implying it's killing people's fandom because they don't have a place to look this up? to "Well don't do it now, you can take years to do this intead" so they stall for time to now this "hey you cannot have an article about the moves unless other articles list the finisher." At this point I am going to try and just bow out of this discussion unless there are actual policy/guideline related arguments brought up. Oh and naturally I'd be happy to participate in a future WP:RFC on the matter if there is actual action taken to try and change what is now the status quo.  MPJ  -DK 10:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Wrestling moves are unimportant. Period. --Tarage (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * By far one of the most useful aspects of wrestler's profiles is being able to see at a glance not only what moves they regularly use, but what name they call said move. I'd imagine it's a first stop for commentators before calling a wrestler's match for the first time. Some wrestlers get real tetchy when their move isn't called by the right name. So instead of an easy to reference list, move names can be buried in a wall of text! Perfect! Well done guys. Time well spent. Some wrestlers have so many moves uniquely named, there's no way one would remember all of them, and good luck fitting twenty move names in a prose paragraph! This just makes it so much harder for people to learn more about wrestling and wrestling moves. Grizzexploder (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a policy-based argument. <b style="color: Teal;">Nikki</b><b style="color: Salmon;">♥</b><b style="color: Purple;">311</b> 20:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * For me, it's like any character of Dragon Ball, Bleach or something. The articles don't include the moves and attack of the characters, are focused on the history, reception... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * What is pro-wrestling without wrestling moves, nicknames, managers, etc? Removing the wrestling moves, managers, nicknames, themes, etc takes a large chunk of information about wrestlers gimmicks/personas and in which style they wrestle. What about certain wrestlers who have innovated wrestling moves? Sure people like Liger will have their name next to the move in wrestling moves lists but what about other less known wrestlers who've innovated moves that are not in wrestling moves lists?HC7 (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As mentioned before and what it currently says in the Style Guide is that information about wrestling style, moves innovated, gimmicks, etc can be incorporated into a "Professional wrestling persona" section provided it is reliably sourced and neutral. It will be a prose section that includes more context than a bullet list. <b style="color: Teal;">Nikki</b><b style="color: Salmon;">♥</b><b style="color: Purple;">311</b> 21:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

New "List of" pages
Shouldn’t the SmackDown Women’s, SmackDown Tag Team and NXT Women’s Championship have their own list of Champions pages by now? The Raw Women’s Championship does and it’s pretty similar lineage wise to the SmackDown Women’s. Ron234 (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Our style guide recommends waiting until there are 10 or more reigns before creating a "List of Champions" article. See WP:PW/SG. Pre  fall  21:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh didn’t notice that. But the NXT Women’s Championship should have a combined days section atleast. Ron234 (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The combined reigns table is added once there are reigns to combine. As of now, there are no multi-time champions, so the information would be exactly the same. Pre  fall  21:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Fair point. Ron234 (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Make article on History of WWE semi protected
There is almost always some repetitive vandalism, disruptive edits and un-sourced changes to the article on History of WWE by "unregistered users". I think the current version is all right and well accepted. This is a vital article as WWE is the leading wrestling promotion in the world and this covers it history very accurately. I know this is not the place to make the request, but I just hope to point out the urgency for it here and think it would be better if a senior member made the request to make the article semi protected. Thank you. Marked Man 808 (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The IP address v2600:8805:d500:6820:e81d:b127:4db3:6ede once again vandalized the article, see edit history for yourselves. No wonder why wrestling articles are getting so much recent criticism if this is allowed to go on without intervention. Marked Man 808 (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Request this at WP:RFPP instead.  JTP (talk • contribs) 01:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested, thanks for your response. Marked Man 808 (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

New idea for a potential consensus
Instead of abandoning the inclusion of wrestler moves in Wikipedia pages we should instead have a section on wrestler pages called "Wrestling persona and style" here we talk about their character as well as their finishing and signature moves. I've already seen this done well in the case of the Andrade Cien Almas page. I think this is a good way to include multiple things under a header that is easy to understand even for a non wrestling fan. Young Babymeat (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No. --Tarage (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * On a real note, I personally really like the idea of that. It gives the inclusion of finishers in prose alongside its significance with their character. mentioned the same section for Máscara Dorada in another discussion. I'd like to see what we can do with that.  Sekyaw   (talk)  07:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is pretty much the consensus already. See WP:PW/SG. Pre  fall  07:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * indeed, this was no new idea, and already the proposed ideal  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been editing here for years and the past few days have been the most active this place have ever been. A lot of hysteria was caused by the removals but if people had read the discussion it would alleviate the tension here. A well-sourced biography of the performer is what we're looking for. That can't be achieved though bullet-pointed lists, but a few things from that list might be able to be incorporated into the biography. That has already happened in some cases.LM2000 (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Now see, this is one I can get behind. My only problem, the loss of the entrance themes information. It's not that important, but for someone like me, who has collected entrance themes since WWF Full Metal, it sucks. lol. (talk page stalker) <b style="color:#008caf">Crash</b><b style="color:#6000c6">Under</b><b style="color:#6000c6">ride</b> 11:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok I’ve had a bash at Daniel Bryan, hope this is more in style with what people are looking for. Throughout my 10+ years of Wikipedia I have only ever been a very casual editor, helping out here and there, I am hardly an expert and have purposefully stayed away from any politics behind the scenes. Regardless of what people think of this whole situation; weather it is classed as trivia or non-encyclopaedic – A lot of work went into it by a lot of people over many years, and I’ve found this almost celebratory attitude about this mass deletion to be quite disheartening, and honestly what little passion I had left for the topic has pretty much gone. I am all for the Professional Wrestling Persona section, but this has now become a monumental task, made much harder by the deletion of many valid references. A task I feel won’t be taken up by many, but hey maybe that was the plan all along. Duffs101 (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I like it. (talk page stalker) <b style="color:#008caf">Crash</b><b style="color:#6000c6">Under</b><b style="color:#6000c6">ride</b> 15:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I like this idea. This is probably the next best thing we can have and allows a more detailed overlook. HC7 (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Project Keep Your Section


Hello, i came back here to demand the ending of this "In Wresting" protest from many many wikiapedia users. Best Option to bring the "In Wresting" section, because it been here for a decade. Make necessary adjustments to the "In Wresting" if needed. Thanks. Colton Meltzer (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We had two discussions few days ago. Since then, I never see a good argument except I Like it, My CAWS or something like that. These months I tried to keep track of In wrestling sections and are very hard to deal with. As other user said, full of trivial information, unsourced things, listcruft... as I said, it's like Dragon Ball characters, I see their history, but no their attacks. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Your only argument is that it's been around for a decade. If that's all you have, then there's no point in fighting, because that's not valid. We ask that you respect consensus.  JTP (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Project Kys focuses on bring back "In Wresting" Section wresting pages - Working around Encyclopedia Guidelines
 * Allowing Wikipedia users editing in moves in Wikipedia Wrestler Page as long there sources from any sort (no fake sites) with the use of WP:COMMONSENSE
 * Disallow Wikipedia users from editing in moves that they only used few times or just to mimic his opponent with the use of WP:COMMONSENSE
 * Can be confirm by users as long they saw, with the use of WP:COMMONSENSE and workaround with WP:VERIFY
 * Keep Championship and Achievements Section away from In Wresting Section. Use WP:ORGANIZE

Best option to bring back this decade-old section, because it bring big successful contribution to the wresting pages.Colton Meltzer (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The consensus was stablished a few days ago. Some suers gave an alternative, a Wrestling persona and Style to include the notable things. You're proposing to come back to the previous section and, after 10 years, I think it's a faliure. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

10 years and must bring back this wresting moves/entrance music section. The kys project will focuses on bring back this section with some changes. No more mini consensus and to end disruptive edits. Rollback this change is a must. Colton Meltzer (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The idea that something is successful simply because it's been around for a long time is a complete fallacy. The above is completely rediculous, as it suggests you want to actually LAX the procedures of fancruft. You are promoting the ideas of using non-reliable sources, and Original Research for your own ends.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this place has never cared about sources, it's all been pointless gatekeeping for years upon years. Moves have had incorrect names and descriptions consistently since the site began keeping pages for wrestlers, and when corrected the mods would revert it back even when the source cited was the wrestler themself tweeting wht their move was called. The politics of this place has always been insane and it's why I gave up on editing anything almost 10 years ago. But removing this section gives me literally no reason to *ever* come here again because 95% of the reason anyone visits these pages is to either find out what a move or entrance theme is called. Congratulations, you've finally and successfully closed the loop on the wrestling wiki circle-jerk. Miikro (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As someone who has produced multiple Good Articles, Featured Articles and Featured Lists it I can totally disagree about "not caring about sources". Also can we please be WP:CIVIL in our conversations please? Also you don't even present an argumente for why, only a demand, tell us WHY you think it should be brought back in policy terms. "Common sense" is not an argument, that would just lead to the same issues as before - especiall when you suggest that "Common Sense" circumvents "Verify".  MPJ  -DK  18:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , there are many reasons for this. The first, is that Twitter (or any social network, YouTube, etc), is generally considered an unreliable source. It always throws up a red flag to me when someone makes a claim using these sources. They do have some cases when they can be used (see WP:TWITTER), but this is generally still frowned upon over actual reliable sources. The other issue is these sources are WP:PRIMARY. These issues generally refer to WP:Notability, but can also mean the information they are sourcing.
 * It's also not your place to say why "95%" of people view this content. That is irrelevant to the information being presented (And also rather POV.) Personally, I'd check an article for championships they have held, or information on where they were born rather than what music they come out too...
 * Also, there are no "mods" on Wikipedia (I'm assuming this is short for moderators.) There are system admins, Bureaucrats, regular users and IP editors (And a few bespoke user rights.) However, in a conversation, none of these classes are deemed "better" than others (Outside of IP editors, who aren't allowed to vote in administrator elections, and similar.) So, it's not moderators reverting edits. Even if it was an administrator, they don't have special rights to be prejudicial, we all have to obey WP:3RR, and WP:CIVIL.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup of kayfabe in articles/ tag
As above, a few people have mentioned the wider degree of kayfabe being written as fact in pro wrestling articles. Whilst we can all see an article, and find this information, removing kayfabe/rewording can be a little bit difficult. Could we potentially create a tag for this on articles, and then have these articles appear on a hidden category (Similar to Category: Video game cleanup or Category:Video game articles needing infoboxes), and have these appear on our pages somewhere. Perhaps Category: Pro Wrestling articles written in Kayfabe, or similar.

I'd be willing to go through these categories as I do with the other examples for the Video Games WikiProject.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've created a user template User:Lee Vilenski/Kayfabe, as for a trial. This could potentially let us tag articles specifically for Kayfabe removal, and can be used on a section of an article, or the whole article. The wording may need some work, however.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've created a user template User:Lee Vilenski/Kayfabe, as for a trial. This could potentially let us tag articles specifically for Kayfabe removal, and can be used on a section of an article, or the whole article. The wording may need some work, however.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The tag (see Template:In-universe) already exists. The tag generates a list here on the Cleanup Listing for the project. Your way might be easier, though, and would update more often. The Cleanup Listing only updates every Tuesday. <b style="color: Teal;">Nikki</b><b style="color: Salmon;">♥</b><b style="color: Purple;">311</b> 14:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The in-universe tag is ok, but it's much more of a Wikipedia in general tag. If Kayfabe in PW articles is such a problem, we should have something bespoke. I also like having clean-up categories specific to the Project; as you know any article you find will be a pro wrestling article, rather than say - an anime.


 * I also think a greater focus on sharing these links within the project would be a good idea, as the current cleanup is quite difficult (As oposed to say the Video games WP, which shows cleanup articles on the tag on talk pages. Here, we have to find the To Do list, which doesn't promote the cleanup in the same way. (Personally, I like seeing 0s in columns, so I'd do cleanup on categories to get the numbers down).  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the example you created. We should come up with documentation on where to use it, such as events vs biographies. Also we should probably have a section one, because I am guessing most articles in their career section thats the issue rather than the article in its entirety. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  15:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I like, and agree on dokumentation on where to use it and especially WHEN, or those who "rage" against Pro wrestling articles Will carpe bomb everything, and far from everything deservrs this Although quite a bit does.  MPJ  -DK 16:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, like it should specify that a level Kayfabe is expected in Storylines, Event and Aftermath sections of events and therefore should not be tagged, however the all events must contain a storylines section with a disclaimer that its predetermined. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  16:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - the above example already has a section built in, simply type in |section, and it'll change the wording.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

- I've created something for a documentation User:Lee Vilenski/Kayfabe/doc, which could do with some work.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Uh, why remove that? doing so will make people think Jason Jordan is ACTUALLY Kurt Angle's son. Unless you make a Kurt Angle character page and a Kurt Angle real page that's stupid. Pro wrestling is unique in that they're in character all the time and the info is on the real person's page because there's no page about their character so putting "Angle's son is Jason Jordan" and not mentioning it's kayfabe is stupid. That's just deceiving people.Muur (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Why remove what? The tag is use for articles that keep Kayfabe - so in your example if the article stated that Jason Jordan is Kurt Angle's son like it was a fact and not a storyline. If it is that "stupid" as you put it someone can tag it, which makes it easier for others to come along and fix it.  MPJ  -DK  21:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason that kayfabe is capitalized in each instance? In its article, it is only capitalized at the start of a sentence.  JTP (talk • contribs) 17:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, just my poor grammar. I'll change this.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Removal of wrestler's moves
The discussion and removal of wrestler's moves from their wikipedia pages not only is hasty, but also disastrous. The discussion was closed very quickly with relatively few editors offering their opinion on a DECADE LONG PRECEDENT, that has been in place for a VERY long time. It makes absolutely no sense to remove it. To make such a big change affecting virtually every wrestling/wrestler article on Wikipedia seems egregious and baffling to me. A majority of wrestling fans primarily go on a wrestler's page to look at a person's moveset/moves, and judging by the backlash of other editors on this talk page, it confirms my assertions. Also, with the removal of such a significant section of a wrestler's article, there has to be a solution to the problem. Instead, there has been NO solution offered by any editor who contributed to the removal of the moves section on wrestler's pages, simply removal of the content. VietPride10 (talk) 04:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There was a solution offered. A "Professional wrestling persona" section that discusses significant moves, character traits, nicknames, gimmicks, etc in a prose section with context. The movesets of the majority of wrestlers was composed of original research or WP:SYNT of sources. Information can be incorporated into the new section if it is properly sourced and neutral. Anyone who wants a list of a wrestler's moves has plenty of other places on the internet to find it. Cagematch, Pro Wrestling Wiki, and OWW all have movesets. Also, all the people complaining here have not offered one policy based reason to keep the information. All I'm hearing is WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:ILIKEIT. Its hard to take that argument seriously. Does anyone want to make a real case about why that information should stay, how to improve it, and how to properly source it? <b style="color: Teal;">Nikki</b><b style="color: Salmon;">♥</b><b style="color: Purple;">311</b> 04:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem with the other noted resources is that cagematch, OWW (and also wrestling database) all have *extremely* brief movesets; and Pro Wrestling Wikia itself is primarly sourced from Wikipedia. The vast amount of research on movesets across Wikipedia over the last decade has been removed, and we shouldn't have to sort through archives and reassemble it elsewhere. Sure, movesets can be included to an extent in prose but how does one feature the Blue Thunder Bomb or Okada's tombstone piledriver (rather significant moves) in prose? "Sami Zayn uses the Blue Thunder Bomb as a nearfall move"? I have a feeling that wouldn't be enjoyed. As I've mentioned prior in this talk page, I feel like the problem here (and across Wikipedia, and the internet...) is that people think more about giant lists of abstract policies and guidelines instead of people, and how users / fans use pages and what information they feel they need. The section was fine, it just needed to be cleaned up, possibly with some restrictions / conditions (ie. List could include finishing moves + Wrestler has named move AND/OR uses it to a defined degree that is considered regular AND this move does not appear in (reference of extremely frequently used moves) User Talk:jcw91 5:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If the sources don't exist, it shouldn't be on wikipedia. Cagematch isn't considered a reliable source for some information, specifically things like height and weight), as you can "suggest an update", and they usually accept almost any source. Things like results seem to be pretty reliable though.


 * Wikipedia, believe it or not, is NOT somewhere for fans to dump information they want to read; primarily it's designed as an encylopedia, for anyone to find a topic, and learn about the subject. If you'd like to oppose the removal/change/proposal, it's definately worth putting an arguement together that doesn't simply fail WP:ITSUSEFUL, or WP:ILIKEIT. Wikipedia has tonnes of guidelines, and if it was shown that this information being presented as a list with boundaries fitted with these guidelines, I'd put an alternate proposal forward.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should bring it back but only have moves, nicknames, etc that can be referenced. No more unreferenced items in the section. Is there anyway that that could possibly work?? HC7 (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As we explained, to mantain this section is too hard. At the end, people always includes moves. I deleted many unsourced moves and few days later, are back. Some problems: we can't source a list of "signature moves". Yes, we have sources about a wrestler performing the move, but no it's a signature move. So, we have to make WP:SYN. That's it, 5 sources means signature move. Wrong. Nicknames, people us every promo to include hundred of nicknames. AJ Styles was called "Georgia Pitbull" once, it's sourced, but it's an irrelevant nickname (or worst, John Cena calling Rollins "Captain Morgan" and Captain Morgan becomes a nickname). Managers, people includes every wrestler who accompained another. For example, John Morrison being manager of The Miz. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Especially with the signature moves....using 5 sources to "source" or "prove" that a move is a signature move is not correct. It just means that move was used 5 times unless the source specifically calls it a "signature move". Plus, the sources very rarely (if ever) listed out the full and correct technical name of the moves. Nicknames is also a problem. What constitutes a nickname? How many times does a person need to be called something for it to be a true nickname? In what context does someone need to be called something for it to be a nickname? There was a problem for a long time of people confusing nicknames and ring names. <b style="color: Teal;">Nikki</b><b style="color: Salmon;">♥</b><b style="color: Purple;">311</b> 20:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Quote from me on my idea of what restrictions could be: List could include finishing moves + Wrestler has named move AND/OR uses it to a defined degree that is considered regular AND this move does not appear in (reference of extremely frequently used moves) User Talk:jcw91 4:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

- Difficult to police/source. How is this bulleted list any worse than having an overview of the character, and their most important features, written as prose?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sourcing's only difficult if a claim is untrue or non-notable, and policing's only difficult if you leave the doors open for unregistered users. Most people who want to use Wikipedia to teach true and notable info shouldn't find registering difficult. Others may find continually registering new accounts after being topic-banned difficult, but that's the point. Many "good" entertainment articles are semi-protected from drive-by riff-raff and contain easy-to-scan lists of proper knowledge about stuff which seems pointless to people who don't care. Others, like List of cloned animals in the Jurassic Park series, seem to exist just fine without excluding anyone. As long as we somehow agree to share only plainly verifiable facts, the lists are only better because they're quicker (to read and write). InedibleHulk (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The above article is quite an obvious case of listcruft. I disagree we need to topic-protect PW articles, it goes against what wikipedia is.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We definitely don't need to, it just makes policing much easier. A blanket topic lock is indeed a bit draconian. Maybe start unlocked by default, and only protect those where bad IP edits outnumber good ones in a month? Ban registered users after three verifiability strikes? Reward newbs who do follow simple rules with thanks (via the Thank button or personally)? Firm, but kind, that's all I propose. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Kinda like saying 'why do we have infoboxes?' Because sometimes all you need in the moment *is* the trivia for reference purposes. There is no blanket ban on trivia, only a soft recommendation to avoid as a general rule of thumb - but as is clear from WP:PRINCIPLE the recommendations are only that and there are times where they are wrong. Indeed, all the trivia guidelines and essays note that sometimes the list is superior for collecting information, and WP:TRIVIA is clear that it itself ".. does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose." (Imagine trying to do that to the championship reigns section? I think the sheer awfulness of even envisioning that speaks for itself.) Yes, trivia lists are absolutely prone to effortless and thoroughly unnecessary drive-by expansion, but is that not the job of project editors to police and enforce rather than going WP:BATHWATER on an entire section at the cost of readability and user experience? Yes, it needs regular intensive maintenance to prevent spurious expansion. That's WP:SURMOUNTABLE with tools, is it not? Yes, it is in every respect an uphill battle, but WP:SUSCEPTIBLE is not itself a sufficient excuse for annihilating a section of useful information because dealing with it is frustrating. It should be abundantly clear at this point that there is a reasonably large cohort of casual users who reference these things for quick familiarity - anecdotally I can say I personally checked them on occasion with regards to wrestlers who have a habit of using old finishers from other promotions I'm not familiar with as callbacks - and that the net result makes for a worse article by common use standards. It's not an easy burden to undertake and I'm sympathetic to the issues to a point, but this is far from an ideal solution, and I worry that the open hostility from the outside and built up frustration from editing tedium on the inside is keeping people from looking at this situation in a productive fashion. 2601:641:200:7E30:C4E8:498:4562:F703 (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

To give my two cents, I believe that while some information (for example, very extensive signature move lists) can be unnecessary and often uncited) things like finishing maneuvers for wrestlers would not fall under FANCRUFT as they provide additional context for a wrestler as it is often an integral part of the character, and is in turn encyclopedic knowledge. I think this has the potential of alienating the casual user and messing with a decade-long precedent which I am well-aware is not a legitimate reason for re-establishment, but I do think deserves some thought in the decision-making process. I appreciate the prose suggestion but I feel it may be too long and unneeded for smaller wrestlers and too difficult to establish on a wide-spread basis, and is also insufficient at providing what the previous "In Wrestling" section did as a reference point for information about a wrestler. My solution: I personally believe that, as suggested at some point, a section titled 'Professional Wrestling Information' with "signature" maneuvers (i.e., primary moves that the wrestler uses as one to finish a match) that are named as well as nicknames that have been used for the wrestler to be placed under that heading. I understand that this is continuing to discuss an issue that likely won't get changed, but I do believe that, a, the prose method suggested is clunky and insufficient to serve as an efficient reference point for users, b, information such as "signature" moves and nicknames is encyclopedic, and, c, (perhaps most importantly for some) can be citing effectively. A great example of this is Zack Sabre Jr. who has citations to events where moves were given names on commentary as well as links to his Twitter page where he has given moves names. This is information that I would consider important to a performer's character and encyclopedic in nature. To finally conclude, I am sure many users are sick of this discussion, but I truly believe that there is some noteworthy information within the deleted section and I do hope that I have brought up some fair points for consideration. NotAdamKovic (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I clicked on Zack Sabre Jr.'s profile and randomly picked a "sourced" wrestling move. The move Orienteering with Napalm Death (Over-the-shoulder single leg Boston crab / calf slicer combination) is "sourced" with a link to a tweet which says "I just took Hiroshi Tanahashi Orienteering with Napalm Death". Nowhere in that tweet does it say anything about an over-the-shoulder single leg Boston crab / calf slicer combination, and nowhere does it say the move is a finisher or a signature move. And you (and I'm using the word you as a generalization) can't just say that "he uses that move all the time" or "it has a name so it must be a signature move" because that is original research...an expert in the field or reliable source must specifically call it that. Also, unless the commentators said specifically that the move being performed was an an over-the-shoulder single leg Boston crab / calf slicer combination and called it the Orienteering with Napalm Death, then it also doesn't count. We as editors cannot make the jump from seeing the move being performed to giving it a technical name and to pairing it with the move's name given on commentary because it is original research. <b style="color: Teal;">Nikki</b><b style="color: Salmon;">♥</b><b style="color: Purple;">311</b> 05:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The most amusing part of this reply is that you seem to be implying that wrestling commentators are reliable sources of wrestling move information 😂 User:jcw91 —Preceding undated comment added 05:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're replying to Nikki's comment, I think you misunderstood. There's a citation in the article referring to commentary on a specific event. Nikki's comment was in response to that.
 * In regards to the Zack Sabre Jr. article, its "In wrestling" section is in very poor shape. Lots of WP:SYNTH / WP:OR. Pre  fall  05:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * NotAdamKovic mentioned using commentators as sources, and I was trying to explain why they shouldn't be. <b style="color: Teal;">Nikki</b><b style="color: Salmon;">♥</b><b style="color: Purple;">311</b> 06:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been clear for a while that we should not cite the commentary, as the moves called are very often wrong, and is deemed unreliable to this end.
 * Actually, there is no official "moves authority", unlike in martial arts, where a type of move is denoted officially by a company. So, you could say that a move was a fireman's carry backbreaker, and I could call it a modified death valley driver backbreaker, and both be right. That's a good reason why only the most important moves (such as finishers) should be sourced, and it should be done in prose to show who refers to the move in this way, how the move is done, and when the wrestler used it.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I do want to say that I agree with you that the most important moves (like finishers) should absolutely be cited, I do feel that there should be a section at the bottom of the page. I think prose works, but if you can give well-cited names and information in prose, why not simplify it and gives a brief description of move names and nicknames at the end of the article? I think that helps the reader and helps all who edit as it allows a point of reference to include moves that gain "official" names.


 * Some previous commenters are misconstruing my point. While not very reliable at calling moves by official names, they generally call signature moves by their names, for example, Triple H's signature move isn't called on commentary as, "And Triple H hits his double underhook facebuster!" but rather "And Triple H hits the Pedigree!" That I would consider to be a reliable source of information for the move's name and I think that we should all be able to agree on that as that is how many moves, especially in the WWE/on NXT, get their official names.


 * Final point of my comment, but the move you cited is actually given as one of his finishes here: https://www.njpw1972.com/profile/953, so it's on good account of being a finishing move as cited by New Japan themselves by that name as well. Also, while this varies case-to-case, I also would not say the case of this move is original research. Quote from the page for original research states: "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". Sabre is a reliable source of his own move's title, he gives the name of the opponent and, as a result of the Tweet's date, a date of when this move may have occurred, and his referenced move is listed under his New Japan profile as a "finishing hold". This can be counter-referenced by watching the given match and seeing the finishing hold be used to ensure proper usage, but this last step borders on original research. I think these are all sources that directly support the material without the naming of the move directly by any commentary team without original research or jumping to conclusions being done. NotAdamKovic (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "...can be counter-referenced by watching the given match and seeing the finishing hold be used to ensure proper usage..." - That is practically the definition of original research. Only an expert in the field can make that jump. The New Japan profile only gives the wrestler's name of the move, but never describes what it is, so it still isn't properly sourced. Everything else you said goes against synthesis of sources. Quote: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." <b style="color: Teal;">Nikki</b><b style="color: Salmon;">♥</b><b style="color: Purple;">311</b> 21:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I fear my original point may have gotten lost in this discussion about Sabre Jr.'s profile. The 'In Wrestling' section is generally used for quick reference and including them in a 'Pro Wrestling Persona' sort of section which will cover far more than just important moves defeats the functionality of keeping them self-contained in a section that, like 'In Wrestling' was, essentially served that purpose. I understand I may be in the minority here but I do believe that a majority of casual users or readers of the site appreciate this function and you can argue that is not a reason to keep at least a trimmed down version of it, but if I were to look up a professional wrestler's name in a hypothetical encyclopedia I would expect to find a list of important moves in a concise manner. It was not perfect and often far too long, that I wholeheartedly agree with, but it did serve a purpose. I've said just about all I can about this matter. I respect the already-concluded decision but feel that it can continue to be improved upon. NotAdamKovic (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling notability criteria?
During the various discussions on General Sanctions for professional wrestling the topic of a "wrestling notability criteria" was brought up, sort of our version of Notability (sports). A sort of guideline for when it would be appropriate to create a wrestling related article - be it a biography of a wrestler, a tag team or stable article, a stand-alone show or championship article. Would it help deal with crufty, fanish articles or articles on a team that's teamed up randomly twice and instantly has an article created under 4 different names? This would be a supplement to the General Notability Guideline and could never lessen what is outlined in the GNG. it would help cut down on articles written for every single person signed to a development contract but hasn't done anything yet, championship articles for a promotion where the promotion is not notable etc. Would it help to define one? If people are in favor I'd be happy to help form a consensus for various types of articles.  MPJ  -DK 01:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I definitely think it could help. I wrote something up a couple months ago. Don't have time to check the archives right now though. I am sure it needs work, was just a first draft -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  21:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See previous conversation here,, . Although, as above, I doubt it would be suitible as coming under WP:Notability (sports), but more likely WP:ENTERTAINER.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I took some inspiration from the previous attempt and my own ideas to whip up a draft at User:MPJ-DK/Notability (professional wrestling), just putting some of my thoughts down and items that still need to be hammered out. This would not go under "Notability Sports" nor "WP:ENTERTAINER" IMO but be a full blown Notability (professional wrestling) article, since it's neither clearly sports nor entertainment.
 * Looks awesome, thanks for the hard work!
 * A few comments: I would remove any mention of sports, like the sport specific criteria set forth below or this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures. Any reason why ECW and ROH were removed? I would also say to use the full names, like World Championship Wrestling instead of WCW. I will go through it in more detail later. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  19:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I miss some promotions, like DDT, dragon Gate, IWRG, Joshi promotions (Sendai, STARDOM), many female independent promotions (shimmer, shine, wsu), independent promotions (CZW, pwg) or Puerto Rican (WWC, WWL). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we should see promotions like Pro Wrestling ZERO1, Stardom and Sendai Girls in Jaoan listed in the WRESTLING NOTABILITY ESSAY p, all have a solid, long and extensve reputable history.
 * The bones of the text came from the sports notability, I missed a couple of places but got it all now. And you are right ECW and ROH needs to be on there. I just used the short hand while I was drafting, it'll be long version with links as i work through it. I am the biggest IWRG nerd there is on Wikipedia, but I don't think it's big enough to warrant being on the Mexico list. I tried to pick the biggest ones to say "if you worked for those you're probably notable" where as if you worked primarily for CZW you'd be measured against the GNG only.  MPJ  -DK 20:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I do agree with WWC though.  MPJ  -DK 20:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * POpped in the full names/links and a few more. I personally disagree that listing DDT, DragonGate, IWRG, CWZ, PWG and WWL going under "top level promotions", but I would encourage everyone to voice their opinion on this. For Yoshi/Female promotions I am at a loss - I would not be a good judge on what'd be considered "top level" promotions in Japan/US so here I'd definitely like community guidance?  MPJ  -DK 20:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The above posted draft page is a proposal for discussion, anything and everything on the page is open for discussion and input  MPJ  -DK 20:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, any thoughts on the NXT UK Brand? As it's new, no one could establish "consistent appearances", but potentially for the future.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, whilst there isn't much information on Wikipedia, the Joint Promotions (Or World of Sport) in the UK, was a huge deal, and should really be better shown on Wikipedia. A lot of wrestlers became house-hold names (In the UK - to this day), such as Big Daddy, Giant Haystacks and Kendo Nagasaki. A lot of the issues arise around the lack of remaining press information from the federation, but they had a show on ITV for 20 years (And inspired a reboot in 2016 that was not successful). I'd argue that quite a few of these wrestlers are inheritably notable for this, despite the lack of sources (This was the 60s-80s). I have been meaning for a while to expand these articles, but simply haven't had time, but it's worth investigating to see if this is a top level promotion (No other company in Europe has ever been as high, except perhaps All Star Wrestling, but they run 300 shows a year with thousands of wrestlers).  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability for referees/managers etc. should be similar to that of the wrestlers. Most referees never get any press coverage (Because that's pretty much the job), but are actually on TV longer than the wrestlers.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I would agree with Joint Promotions and the original World of Sports should be added. As for referees, i disagree 100% just being a referee for ROH is not enough, even if it was 10 years they would have to meet GNG. Managers I do agree that they should have the same guideline as wrestlers.  MPJ  -DK 12:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Joint Promotions and the original world of Sport are one and the same, as World Of Sport was the Television show, rather than the name of the company. Referee's generally get very little coverage at all. For instance see List_of_WWE_personnel, there are some main brand referees that have had articles deleted because they fail WP:GNG; despite clearly being in the public eye.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, I recently watched the 2012 BBC documentary When Wrestling Was Golden: Grapples, Grunts and Grannies, which I would highly recommend. According to that documentary, the high point of British wrestling was actually the Mick McManus vs. Jackie Pallo feud.  They stated that their 1962 match at Wembley Town Hall drew 22 million viewers.  As far as the scale of a single country is concerned, the only matches which compare to that are Rikidōzan's matches with Lou Thesz and Freddie Blassie.  As the documentary wore on, they claimed that wrestling became too concerned with gimmicks, calling some downright ridiculous (Catweazle) and some a little too controversial to the point that they potentially jeopardized the television deal (Adrian Street, the Carribean Sunshine Boys).  Speaking of the latter, Johnny Kincaid was one of the subjects interviewed at length.  He found it hilarious that they billed him as hailing from Barbados when everyone knew he was really from Battersea.  Anyway, despite Max Crabtree being another subject interviewed at length, they portrayed Big Daddy as a last-gasp attempt after wrestling had basically jumped the shark, and that his 1981 match with Haystacks at Wembley Arena basically exposed the business on account of being such a farce.  They also showed a variety of clips demonstrating that McManus was the real household name among wrestlers. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  00:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Professional Wrestling Highlights
If it’s not broken, don’t fix it. Getting rid of the moves sub-heading was unnecessary and inconvenient and having it written in prose is a terrible idea, the bullet points are much more concise. SirJohnChegg (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * However, it was broken. That was the issue we face. Specifically the signature moved section. Instead of a list of important moves, it was literally a list of moves that the person did (say, a chop and a suplex), with them sourced by some YouTube video clip, or the WWE article on the 10 ten moves by John Cena. I don't see how anyone can make the argument that the information was so important to the article, if they can't turn it into a section on it's own. IMO, if you can't write about how something is important, it isn't important enough for inclusion  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 07:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

For example, Chris Jericho briefly used the “Meltdown” as a finisher from 2001-2002, which not a lot of fans know, briefly mentioning it as a notable part of his moveset is far more convienient than it being lost in a Persona page. To be honest, all of the editors are just agreeing amongst themselves and not listening to the average user, most of whom are against this change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirJohnChegg (talk • contribs) 06:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If it was only briefly used, then it likely shouldn't be mentioned at all. Pre  fall  06:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You might be thinking of this page of suggestions rather than something that actually happened. Used a "Millenium Melt Down" in someone's hypothetical future, but a Lionsault for the rest of us. Or maybe that was meant to be the Walls of Jericho, but whatever it was, it wasn't meant to be. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The meltdown was the full nelson facebuster that he briefly used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcw91 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

You’re being needlessly stubborn about this useful section and you’re shutting down every opposing argument to keep what should have never been removed. Having a discussion with people who hold the same opinions as you and then declaring it as the general consensus, even though the majority of users are against it, doesn’t help anyone. This persona sub heading is a terrible idea and all moves and entrance themes will be lost within a wall of text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirJohnChegg (talk • contribs) 10:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're talking to me (or both of us), I'm on your side regarding the section. It is useful and prose is harder to parse than points are. It shouldn't have disappeared, but it did. Maybe it'll come back. Anything undone can be redone here. But things like the Meltdown and John Maloof will always be removed. They didn't happen, few students are aware of the myth and no reliable sources bother reporting on their non-existences.
 * That makes them even faker than The Ultimate Warrior's first death (which we cover fairly enough), and more like telling people Rufus R. Jones is Jon Jones' dad. Or that P.N. News came out to "Fuck Tha Police" for a bit in late '91, before Jazzy Jeff sued WCW. It's just lying for lying's sake, even if it is honestly related to something I truly heard somewhere. It doesn't help this case, or any; just makes needless argument and further inevitable walls of text.
 * And if someone does find these lies (in the walls or in the lists), they're not guaranteed to factcheck them or "get the joke". They're probably not even likely to, if they're under 25. They're just going to leave with a skewed view of someone or another. And that doesn't help anyone. Especially those like Chris Jericho, who's both a living person and rich enough to sue. "Whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, it should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Just tell the truth and people will believe you're right, sooner or later. It's a weird system, but it generally works. "Trust me." InedibleHulk (talk) 07:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Wrestler themes
So seeing as I missed the entire discussion because of my inactivity, I wanna ask for some clarification. I see that the project has decided to remove the "In wrestling" section. So what is to come of the wrestler themes on these articles? I know it's an argument to avoid, but it was pretty useful information that's not really seen elsewhere on the internet. (And not that it matters at this point, but I would have opposed the section's removal. But I digress.) <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | <sup style="color:#041e42;">#RaysUp  14:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is not really seen anywhere else on the internet is exactly why we shouldn't include it. It's trivial (very few wrestler themes are actually notable) and full of unsourced claims. If a wrestler's theme is actually notable it should be mentioned in the "pro wrestling persona" section. Some examples I could think of that might be worth noting: CM Pubk's switch to "Cult of Personality" as part of the Summer of Punk; Motörhead performing Triple H's "The Game" (and "King of Kings"), as that sparked a real word friendship between HHH and Lemmy that lead to HHH giving a eulogy at Lemmy's memorial service; that Cena performs his own theme; or that Hogan hijacked "Real American". Mentions of established pieces being used (Flair w/ "Also Spracht Zarathustra", Savage w/ "Pomp and Circumstance", Bryan w/ "Flight of the Valkyries") are probably also worth mentioning. oknazevad (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact, I always thought the themes were the most no-notable thing of the section. As we said, if something is notable, we can include in the article or style/persona section. I'm trying with some legend, if somebody wants to help me, it would be welcome. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, a random theme done by Jim Johnson is useless info to include in an encyclopedia. Undertaker using American Badass, because it basically became his persona is a different story... -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  01:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is an example, from Taker: "he abandoned the somber mortician-themed attires, his funeral dirge ring music, allusions to the supernatural, and the accompanying morbid theatrics. In place of this, he took on a biker identity, riding to the ring on a motorcycle, and wearing sunglasses and bandanas to the ring. His entrance music was replaced with popular rock songs of the time, like Limp Bizkit's "Rollin' (Air Raid Vehicle)" and Kid Rock's "American Bad Ass"" We can also include he started to use the Last Ride as finisher instead the Tombstone. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * If the theme is actually significant and not just a "the WWE assigned him theme X" then it should be in the prose.  MPJ  -DK 01:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Royal Rumble & Survivor Series information
Now that the entrance musics and signature moves have been removed and are being worked into the prose, I took a look at some of the other articles related to wrestling. One thing that especially caught my eye was the information of all eliminations in Royal Rumbles and Survivor Series matches, for example in here. It includes a list of all eliminations, elimination orders, the amount of elimination, brands and the time they lasted in the match. In Survivor Series matches the move used to eliminate the wrestler is also listed, without any sources.

Isn't all this equally trivial information that doesn't need to be there? Results -section obviously should be included in PPV articles, and it has good sources, but the Entrances and Eliminations section is just one huge table of pointless information without any sources. Why does a non-fan reading the article need it? All the actually relevant events of those matches are already mentioned in the prose in Event section. Cowposer (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The order of entrances and eliminations is the relevant information for a Royal Rumble match; at the least we would list all the participants, just as we lost the participants for any other match, so might as well list them in order of entrance. It may be pretty dry statistics, sure, but it's part of a full article, not just a list of statistics, so WP:NOTSTATS is accounted for. oknazevad (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Still needs a source. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The amount of sources that use this information (specifically WWE bringing up who got the quickest elimination, or most eliminations), makes this slightly different. I'd also argue that match results like this should be treated differently. I don't see why it makes any difference if it's sorted by elimination or by entrance, as it's a sortable table.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Why would a non fan care about results at all? That's an awful argument. Jcw91 (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe the results themselves fall into the same criteria as MOS:TVPLOT, where the event themselves count as the source. A finisher is open ended and therefore cannot be self sourced. But to say X eliminated Y, anyone can reasonably pull up the event and verify the information. Just because it requires a subscription to WWE network, or purchasing of a DVD does not exclude it from being able to be self sourced, per WP:PAYWALL -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Kiss My Ass Club members?
Sourcing's no problem, but this prestigious guest list has been deemed unsuitably trivial. The prose still says HBK was in tight, and a photo suggests Hornswoggle came close, but that doesn't seem like much of a club. Maybe it's for the best, maybe it isn't, I don't know what I think anymore. But the issue shouldn't get lost in the shuffle of everything else burning down around us lately. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally, I agree that the members list is extortionate... But I think we are better at waiting to a resolution of what we have got going on.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It was a silly thing with no lasting importance, I see no need for it. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

How Could This Possibly Help New Fans?
Removing of movesets makes no logical sense. While their signature moves aren't their entire story, the moves do represent a part of their gimmicks and persona. I'm not sure why a small group of individuals felt they should unilaterally make such a decision, then claim a 'consensus.'

Was their really any complaints regarding the section? Did the group of 'admins' making this decision consider how the decision would hurt new fans who want to learn more? Why wasn't something decided on to reference the moves before deleting the section from every Wikipedia profile?

Wrestling journalists, fans, and those who are simply curious used the sections as a reminder or to learn new information about a given wrestler or tag team. They should be replaced immediately as the decision wasn't well thoughout, goes against the purpose of Wikipedia (to inform), and does nothing to help the function nor purpose of wrestlers pages. SmoothWrestling (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder the day some user brings good reasons, not I Like it or something. Looks like people don't read the multiple issues the section had, like LISTCRUFT, Original Research, SYNTH... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) Remove the cruft. (2) Include only verifiable content. (3) Include only verifiable content. Problem solved. If people are adding nicknames that were only used once, that doesn't mean that you have to remove the Sharpshooter as Bret Hart's finisher. Some of the content would be hopelessly buried in prose--it's ridiculous to think that prose could be anywhere near as useful as bullet lists for a lot of this information, like the wrestlers managed by Freddie Blassie, Ernie Roth, Skandor Akbar, etc. The problems with these lists were the lack of sources, not the bullet points. This project is quick to tell people to WP:SOFIXIT, but when problems of poorly sourced lists come up, the solution is somehow to nuke everything. The project is also quick to tell people that this is based on policy, but it clearly isn't. There's no policy banning bullet points. They are used frequently. A long paragraph explaining the cast of a movie doesn't work nearly as well as a bullet list, so a bullet list is used. A paragraph about notable people from a town would be clunky, so a bullet list is used. I've read a lot of complaints about people not citing policies, and simply stating that the removal of information is harmful, but there are no policies cited to require this massive shift from consensus. This is reminiscent of 2008, when a group of editors decided that, because some Wikipedians don't like wrestling, the project should force itself to over-enforce policies to create sentences reminiscent of "Bret Hart, the performer who portrayed the role of Bret Hart, a supposedly professional athlete in the scripted pseudo-sport of professional wrestling, held the feet of his storyline opponent, stepped over one of the storyline opponent's legs, crossed the other one on the other side of his knee, pretended to storyline force the opponent to roll over, and then feigned an application of pressure to the storyline opponent's back, leading to the storyline opponent conceding defeat, as had been previously decided by a group of executives who owned the company, thus allowing him to retain his position as Intercontinental champion, a title that was assigned by the aforementioned executives rather than actually won in an athletic competition, which professional wrestling is not." It seems like we would benefit from considering the essay WP:BATHWATER: "Content removal can be used to weed out problematic areas, and other adjustments and improvements can sometimes be made, including the addition of new information and corresponding reliable sources. This may take a lot of work, but Wikipedia wasn't built in a day." GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you're getting the bullet point issue from. Both CM Punk and Daniel Bryan make use of bullet points. The main characters in those bulleted cast lists you mentioned are also expected to be accompanied by a character summary, with the lesser members covered below in normal paragraphs.
 * The main issues are that, not only is this list contextless, but most of its content is trivial. The significant content that remains, as well as any additional character information, are still better framed in prose. The only benefit to this section is accessibility for fans, but I don't believe that should be our concern. Pre  fall  23:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What context would be necessary for a list of wrestlers managed? Let's take Skandor Akbar's article. The first sentence states that he was a professional wrestling manager. There is a subsection titled "Manager". The list was titled "Wrestlers managed". That was plenty of context. The list of wrestlers managed by a professional wrestling manager is hardly trivial. It's actually essential to an understanding of the character. This is what the article used to look like. Obviously, a lot of referencing work to be done, but certainly no reason for removal. There is absolutely no way you could possibly believe that the list would be better in prose. Making things accessible for fans isn't actually a bad thing, but you also need to understand that not everybody who accesses these articles is a fan. I tried watching three episodes of "ECW" in 2007, but, aside from that, I haven't watched wrestling in over two decades. Wikipedia can also be a good jumping-off point for researchers; it can give quick access to information that can then be verified with reliable sources. However, tossing 65 names into a large prose section would make it unnecessarily accessible. Removing content from thousands of articles was a poor decision, and this constant repetition of, "It doesn't matter if dozens of people hate the new format, because 6 of us held a vote that lasted for 3 days, so that consensus overrides everyone's concerns" is ridiculous. The change obviously doesn't work, and it's just plain overkill to nuke these sections on thousands of articles because you couldn't just remove the cruft and source the valuable information. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, the biggest problem is that the majority of information in "in wrestling" isn't source-able...describing the moves is original research. Lists of people managed is a different story. Because Akbar's managed such a long list of people, I'd be willing to make an exception for him and people with a similarly lengthy amount of people managed and keep a "Wrestler's managed" list. Unlike moves, that shouldn't be too hard to source. However, I really don't see how a bullet list is any more accessible than a few sentences for the vast majority of people who have only managed a handful of people. <b style="color: Teal;">Nikki</b><b style="color: Salmon;">♥</b><b style="color: Purple;">311</b> 01:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would think that for actual managers a separate "wrestlers managed" section would be appropriate, especially if the bullet list is A) sourced and B) perhaps had additional information on say how long, where etc. For Bobby Heenan it could list "Haku (1987-1992) WWF, WWF World Tag Team Championship" or something along those lines, adding a little more information/context to the list.  MPJ  -DK 01:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)`
 * Note, my suggestion is that this would be for articles on Managers - not listing John Morrison as the Miz's manager because he accompanied him to the ring etc.  MPJ  -DK 01:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In theory shouldnt all that information already been in their career section? My concern is this list will get way out of hand quickly. My concern is this list will become "Natalya accompanied Jax to the ring on July 2, 2018, and served as her manager for that one match" -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  01:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is why that section should not appear in Natalya's article, unless there is a reliable source actually calling her a manager then the "Wrestlers managed" section does not belong there.  MPJ  -DK 01:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Aye, piece of cake. Same for trainers. And wrestlers who used these managers. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * At the risk of sounding repetetive, in the prose of course. Lets not overcomplicate this.  MPJ  -DK 09:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, the above is fine. Although, do we need to know the thousands of people Slick managed? is it particularly notable that a manager once managed Owen Hart? Not everything is notable. If there is a list of a lot of people someone has managed, that's fine to be in a consise way, but I'd also expect some information about the character, and some prose to explain the list. I think sometimes, people want to copy the "Filmography" section to these types of articles, simply because they like lists. Credits and moves are two seperate things.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't all of this be better served by a Category: People managed by Slick -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Couldn't hurt. In the meantime, I've knocked it down from "thousands" to a sourced 13. Seems Shotgun Yan was a CAW come to life in "the real world", and the bit about Slick handling a (very real) Bulldog Dick may have been a pun. No clue where the Zeus connection came from; Ken Johnson looks nothing like Kurt Fuller. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Infobox spouse
I notice that in Beth Phoenix's infobox the spouse is listed as Edge rather than Adam Copeland. The wrestling infobox is split into two sections real life and storyline. Since the spouse is real life rather than storyline would it make more sense to have Adam Copeland as the spouse in the article about Beth Phoenix? Another point I would like to make is that wrestlers regularly change their ring name so using the real name would create more stability. This affects loads of articles. I checked the style guide but there is no clear guidelines about the spouse. Mobile mundo (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Should be the person's real name. This is clearly kayfabe.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The only thing to note is that our article on Adam Copeland is at Edge (wrestler) per WP:COMMONNAME. In some ways we've long accepted that, at least when it comes to the common name guideline, the character name may be the most desirable title. It's a funny thing about pro wrestling that characters are rarely recast, even if performers use different character names over the years of their career. And its one of our difficulty we have in covering it; our articles are both the biography of the performer and articles on their various characters. Just part of the blurring of lines that is part and parcel of the form. oknazevad (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but she isn't married to the character. COMMONNAME also applies in retrospective. If Edge wrestled again, in say Ring of Honor, and changed his name, our article on him would stay under the same name. However, you would write in prose him by his new gimmick. The same thing happens with musicians. For instance, Frances Tomelty states that she is married to Gordon "Sting" Sumner; which is perhaps how we should manage these things.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say that applies to other family related info. After all we don't list Mike Enos and Wayne Bloom as brothers despite playing the Beverly Brothers on TV. Real names, real relationships only in that section please.  MPJ  -DK 15:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree. Easy enough to pipe entries. Though I can see that using the article name for recognizability, thereby aiding readers' navigation, might have use as well. oknazevad (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it should say Edge, not Adam Copeland, the standard across wikipedia is to use their page name, not real name. For example, Pamela Anderson shows Tommy Lee and Kid Rock, not their real names. Sean Penn and Guy Ritchie were married to Madonna with no last name given. Ryan Phillippe is listed as Reese Witherspoon not her legal name. The list goes on and on. For as long as consensus stays that his page is Edge, not Adam Copeland, he should be married to Beth Phoenix, and her to Edge. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  16:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Aye, wrestlers are famous people, too. Their stages just have ropes. No more double standards. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC on the "In wrestling" section
Please see WP:VPP. Pre  fall  14:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, for those looking to start "yet another section" on this, go to the link above and voice your opinion there instead,the only place it will make a difference now.  MPJ  -DK 20:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

WWE vs WWE NXT
Currently in the C&A section there are two separate sections for anyone who had something on the main roster vs. NXT. Is there a reason for this? We don't break out any other brand, so why this one? The SG says promotions are listed alphabetically, and NXT is not a promotion. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  02:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is all WWE to me, not sure Why it would be separate?  MPJ  -DK 02:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It was discussed months ago. The result, two different sections. I remember something like Coca Cola and Fanta... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 
 * Thanks so much for the history. I see that was almost 3 years ago. I think NXT has really changed in the last 3 years and is much more so billed as a third brand. We clearly are not going to have a NXT UK, and based on what HHH has said, additional brands coming. I propose all WWE titles whether while not branded, or from the Raw, SmackDown, ECW, NXT or NXT UK be included in WWE. FCW should remain separate. Thoughts? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  14:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. It's promoted as part of the WWE banner. That's enough for me.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree as well, it's all 100% WWE after all.  MPJ  -DK 01:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not that I disagree, but why not count FCW if we count NXT?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * FCW was treated as a completely different entity. There was no cross promotion and FCW championships werent listed on WWE.com. Right now the NXT and Raw championships are listed and treated no different than Raw and SmackDown ones. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  17:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Wrestlers trained
Recently, the Project came to consensus to remove the Professional Wrestling Highlights section of articles. However, there was one part of it that I deemed noteworthy. There was the Wrestlers Trained section of that section, when applicable. How should we still note wrestlers the wrestler trained on articles? DrewieStewie of RaiderNation 02:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, that conversation is still ongoing, if you look a couple threads above.


 * Unless the person is a notable trainer, this is trivial. Most of the time people are trained in schools, and even if they learn a lot from someone, they weren't trained by them. If they are a notable trainer, I'd suggest a section in the "professional wrestling persona" for their managing.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It can be incorporated into the body of the article or in a separate section if they are a prominent enough trainer. I thought of three examples right away. Ricky Knight has a few sentences under his "World Association of Wrestling" section that lists some of the notable people trained and about his wrestling school. Stu Hart has a designated "As a trainer" section that not only lists some of the notable trainees but goes into great detail about his school and training style. The Fabulous Moolah has a "Training and promoting" section similar to Hart's. <b style="color: Teal;">Nikki</b><b style="color: Salmon;">♥</b><b style="color: Purple;">311</b> 10:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Does it really count if it's a training school? I'd mention that they taught in the school, and potentially any notable alumni, but not specifically that they taught them  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think its a case-by-case issue. It depends on if they are the primary trainer or one of many. <b style="color: Teal;">Nikki</b><b style="color: Salmon;">♥</b><b style="color: Purple;">311</b> 11:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say Stu Hart's dungeon where he was there with everyone if very different than saying Matt Bloom trained them since they went to the WWE Performance Center. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  12:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Money in the Bank theme song
The "Money in the Bank" theme song seems to be the official theme song for all the PPVs, since 2011, since they no longer list them per year on iTunes and they seem to be calling it just Money in the Bank (Official Theme Song). The Money in the Bank (2018) article should be updated to reflect that since it was used as the theme for the PPV and can be verified via WWE Network. Ron234 (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * By saying you are taking the WP:PRIMARY source, the event, and taking the itunes link, and together drawing the conclusion that this is the information is WP:SYNTH. You need one source that says everything -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Usually on the WWE events, the commentators mention on air what the theme song is for the event. Did this not happen?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It was used throughout the PPV. I don’t think they would mention Jim Jonston anymore since he left the company. But it was the theme for this event. Ron234 (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because they played it throughout, that doesn't make it an official theme song. Like Lee said they always say "Thanks to .... for the official theme song......." which if they didnt do, what makes it the official one? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  15:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Well the only source available is the iTunes one, which stopped adding years to the photo on there since I believe 2015, but yeah that’s it. I don’t believe that would mention Jim Johnston anymore since they released him, so it could be that they are using the theme but don’t wanna give any publicity to Johnston. But to your point the only source of this is the iTunes link calling it the official theme song and that they played it during the event. Would that not be sufficient? Ron234 (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be WP:OR, or at least speculation. However, is this something that is really controversial? Information shouldn't be removed simply because it can't be sourced - WP:COMMONSENSE, especially when the song can be verified pretty easily.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but just because they play the song, it doesn't mean its the official theme song. They play music behind promos because it fits, but that doesn't make it the official theme song. If they dont mention it during the event as the theme song, and itunes doesn't include it as the theme song, then what makes it the theme song over just a song they played? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * On iTunes it hasn’t mentioned the year since 2016 and both the 2016 and 2017 events had it as the theme song. Plus on iTunes it’s called Money in the Bank (Official Theme Song) which makes it the theme for Money in the Bank. Also it was used throughout the event as opposed to just a promo package or promotional package. I personally believe it should be included in the Money in the Bank (2018) page because even though there isn’t a source directly calling it the "official" theme song, it really has been the since 2011 and was played throughout 2018. Ron234 (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

- sadly, this is simply speculation. We go on what sources say on Wikipedia.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I found a source for the 2016 theme, which I added. They do not list for 2017 or 2018 though. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  16:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

NXT TakeOver
TakeOver should be removed from the List of WWE network events' themed wwe network events sub heading. They are essentially non gimmick nxt events comparable to main roster events like payback or backlash. The exception being TakeOver: WarGames which should be mentioned. Ron234 (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Does anyone have any issues with this? Ron234 (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

WrestleMania posters
I posted some time ago to inform that some WrestleMania posters are incorrect but no action was taken. The posters for WM V, X8 and especially 2000 are not the ones used by WWE in their WrestleMania poster article on wwe.com. I believe that they should be updated. Ron234 (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean this: ? What were you expecting, WP:SODOIT  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So you would rather edit them all to the ones the WWF logo was edited out of? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, there is no way the WM 2000 is the one actually used at the time, it's a retcon and thus should not be used. Not sure about the others, they could also have been changed afterwards. I've never seen the one for X8 anywhere else but on WWE.com and I watched the show on PPV.  MPJ  -DK 01:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Titles and defenses
Hi. According to the SG, we include in the titles the number of defences if the promotion keeps track of them. I had an idea. A number is kind of plain, what do you think about including the name of the rivals? Maybe something hidden, like the infoboxes. Okada, 11 defenses. Click and the list of the challengers appears. What do you think? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Far more trivial than some of the information the project has recently declared too trivial for inclusion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a list of defenses in a championship history can be trivial, it's complementing the article. The number is in the table, we can include the names, well sourced. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * How many promotions track that sort of thing? I expect if only some champions get this nifty feature, some editors are going to want it for their favourite champions, too. With or without solid secondary sourcing, and possibly with confusion about whether disqualification losses count as defenses or whether house shows are canon. But if you can swear it'll be fine, I'll believe you. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. It's a common practice in Japan. For example, the NJPW, you can see the list of IWGP champions with their defenses. Same for the GHC Heavyweight Title.  and the Triple Crown Heavyweight Title  (I used the google translater from Japanese)  About america, CHIKARA kept track of title defenses in the past but I can't see it right now.  PWG also does  and ROH did it in the past  --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this is a good question. Personally, I don't think a list of people defended against is particularly helpful. Seems a little in depth. We currently track the length of the reign, and if the promotion also does, the amount of defences. However, there are lots of references that would list all title defenses (Such as cagematch), so would we not be able to fill this number in for all titles per WP:CALC?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Please Restore Important Information
Hello, I'm here to voice my anger at the recent vandalism done to individual wrestler pages. For years, I've used Wikipedia whenever I need to find out important information on an individual wrestler. Whether that be their entrance music history, signature and finishing moves, nicknames, managers, tag team partners, etc. However recently, all that important information has been deleted, in a truly baffling decision.

The whole point of Wikipedia is to provide information. Removing information goes against the whole point of Wikipedia's existence. In the past if I heard entrance music, wanted to listen to a clean version, and didn't know what it was called, I'd look up that wrestler's Wikipedia page, see the track's name, and then search for it. Now, I can't do that anymore. If I wanted to update a superstar's moveset on the recent 2K game, but didn't know the technical name for a move and the move is only listed under it's technical name in the game, I'd look that wrestler's finisher on their Wikipedia page. I can't do that anymore. If I wanted to know a wrestler's nickname history so I could write it into a promo, I'd look up their Wikipedia page. I can't do that anymore. If I wanted to know the entrance music history of a wrestler, I'd look up their Wikipedia page. I can't do that anymore. The vast majority of times that I've used Wikipedia for wrestling information, it's been to look up information on the "In Wrestling" section.

The point is, a small group of people have decided to limit other readers, and I cannot understand how this is allowed. It's clear that the users removing information are not wrestling fans, because if they were then they'd know how vital this information is to wrestling fans. And considering that the vast majority of readers looking up wrestling pages are wrestling fans, it makes no sense to try to drive them away from a previously useful source of information. Come on, these are wrestling pages. You need important wrestling information on there.

At current time, there is no adequate alternative. There is a pro wrestling wiki, but it's clunky, cluttered, and it's presentation is nowhere near as clean as Wikipedia. Wikipedia used to be the perfect source, but now that's been taken away.

Until the people editing these pages see sense, Wikipedia is now utterly useless to me when it comes to needing wrestling information. So well done, congratulate yourselves on driving frequent users (aka the people these articles should be targeted to) away. There is clearly a large amount of people upset by this change, much greater than the "majority" who made this decision. So I can only hope that this decision will be reversed, and important information restored.

- A very disgruntled reader 80.2.40.117 (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Decision was not made by a "majority vote" but by consensus around various Wikipedia guidelines. Please see more or less every single section above for more details.  MPJ  -DK 00:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read WP:NOT because you seem to be mistaken as to what the point of wikipedia is -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  01:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "The whole point of Wikipedia is to provide information." -- yes--well-verified and relevant information. I'm glad this "finishing move" tripe, which was impossible to define and the source properly, is gone. Now, if wrestling editors would take the next step and trim down the narrative sections, where every single scripted match is recounted, that would be great. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well at some point this "in wrestling" discussion will hopefully die down and we can move on to other style and content improvement initiatives.  MPJ  -DK 01:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry man, but it's not gonna die down. The "in wrestling section" was such a commonly used resource that it's inevitable someone will discover it's removal and voice their complaints every day. I've moved on to finding new ways to compile that info (stay tuned, disgruntled readers) but it's not going to stop any time soon. Jcw91 (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well one of two things Will happen - someone does more than complain to form a New policy based consensus or 2) People keep complaining ... so far option 2 is winning by ten miles. With each New complain section it becomes more and more background noise, at which point Wikipedians interested in Quality improvements and policies will move on.  MPJ  -DK 15:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If anyone was interested in creating a counter-proposal based on Wikipedia policy, that would be fine. We simply haven't seen it.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course we have. Quite a few have proposed restoring the section, but only with verifiable information from reliable sources. If someone adds something else, another should delete it. It's not rocket science (it's not even as complicated as powering a light bulb through a potato). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That is how it was supposed to have worked before too, that is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Yet it was crufty, cluttered and ridiculous at times. A serious proposal would need a little more detail - try to build a consensus on the content, what's in, what's out - how do you source that something is a "signature move"? or an official nickname? and so on, that's what a proposal to generate a new consensus needs to address.  MPJ  -DK 01:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried to create a section for Kurt Angle. I sead his style includes several suplex and submissions. One of them, the Rear Naked choke. However, the source doesn't sya that choke is a signature move or angle uses it regilarity. Just says "now by Angle, with a rear naked choke...". That's the problem with signature moves, sources doens't say are signature moves. For example, I saw Son Goku using the Destruction Disk. Imagine a section "DB attack", I put the Disk under Goku profile. Same problem, the source doesn't say the disk is a signature attack of Goku, but is sourced and included. If some move is notable (like Kame Hame, Genkidama / Tombstone, Last Ride) it's fine in prose. Same with nicknames, every time somebody says "I'm the man", the man becomes a nickname. WWE called once AJ Styles the Georgia Pitbull and become a nickname.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If a source doesn't call a move a signature (or clear synonym like "trademark"), simply don't add it to a list of signature moves. If no sources exist for a nickname, don't add it under Nicknames. If no sources say John Cena is dead, don't say John Cena is dead. If you see someone else breaking this exceptionally simple rule, revert them. If you don't want to revert them, let someone who still cares do it. Exact same deal as in prose (which I'm fine with keeping and improving), just easier to quickly find and read. I can't offer any details beyond "follow basic Wikipedia policy" and shouldn't have to. As for building consensus, just look back to how it was before a few editors said fuck it or look straight ahead at all these readers who say don't fuck it.
 * Getting flustered by an opponent to the point of taking an intentional countout just makes us look like the classic cowardly heels and lets the disruptive vandals (or uninformed overeager newbs) take the disappointing win as the babyfaces. That's some WCW-level shortsighted hotshotting that pops Talk Page views and gets the crowd rumbling, but quickly leads to a future where people remember prowrestling.wikia.com as "the legit one". That's not even to say we're at "war" with Wikia, but a lack of clear and present competition is no good reason to make our content less appealing to mainstream audiences. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah that was tried for 10 years, failed spectacularly by creating fanish, crufty lists. You can say it all you want, but there are 10 years of fail. Removing that content is not a "count out" since the fanish, crufty section is gone.  MPJ  -DK 03:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You can't blame the system for the way some players abused it, and for how some others overlooked that. Maybe this disruption has gotten the point across to everyone to use it properly or lose it forever. Only way to tell is rebooting. Just copy and paste the old list, but cut the cruft. If we can find the energy to delete all of it however many hundreds of times, we can find the energy to restore just the bits of it we were too lazy to separate from the chaff in the first place. And yes, protecting frequent targets from IPs and brand new accounts would help immensely, even if it angers the spirit of Wikipedia. You think that spirit likes unsourced craplists any more than you and mostly everyone else do? We'd be doing him a favour. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A real-world example of how easy it can be to source a list: Click undo on this revision, highlight "Roman Reigns", press backspace, click "Publish changes". I almost did it myself, but remembered the time I was blocked for an even stupider reason. Damn you, chilling effect! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

- The issue is that most of this information, even if we sourced is irrelevent to the subject. The link above has 16 wrestlers that he's trained. Could this seriously not be written as prose? "After leaving the WWF, he began training wrestlers at his Wild Samoan Training Facility, along with Sika. Afa Anoa'i is a successful trainer, and is credited for training wrestler's such as Batista, Havok and Roman Reigns. Having a list afterwards, or a category for Category:Wrestler's trained by Afa Anoa'i would do the trick. Having things written in prose naturally pushes people from adding a source that denotes every move the wrestler does, and it looks better. Noting that he uses a headbutt as a signature move is a bit irrelevent, but if we could mention why this is important - Most Samoans use headbutts, that would be beneficial information.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not at all irrelevant. The guy runs a reputable wrestling school. Many notable wrestlers have careers because he taught them how. You could say the same in text and it would be just as relevant (presuming we mean to include all students instead of an arbitrary three), but look how many extra words you just used (including "Roman Reigns", which I just finished telling you was the only unsourced one). That burns time and effort on the editing end and hampers the reader with more to parse through. Perhaps there are others like you who enjoy learning the long way, but there are certainly many who don't. We could do it both ways, where we think it might help.
 * Prose is fine for what it is, but to think it deters people from outright lying (or misinterpreting a source) is to kid yourself. Reliability of Wikipedia wouldn't be an article if that were close to true. The far more effective and common way to dissuade people from adding sources which don't back claims is advising them with invisible notes. Then reverting them. Then warning, blocking and finally banning them. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what the general sanctions we are now ruled over by is for. The issue is Wikipedia as a whole looks down on our content for how it looks, and how it deals with in-universe information.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know who this "Wikipedia as a whole" is, but if "they're" looking down on "us" because we let unverified garbage in, they're right to and I welcome their help. Ff they have useful skills, permissions and/or knowledge. Some people are amazing at things because they didn't watch thousands of hours of wrestling.
 * But like in the offline world, a lot are just out to make wrestling seem fake, stupid or gay because they "don't know how you can like that stuff" and want strange personal validation. They'll say it's to "prevent confusion" even after you assure them the cat left the bag in the 1930s. They're poison to this Wikiproject, and they'll make you one of them if they can and haven't already.
 * I think the vastest majority of Wikipedia isn't concerned with wrestling or fact-checking at all, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey guys: you can easily verify a wrestler's move set by watching their wrestling matches. The source is the wrestling matches.

Ditto for themes, and much the other "unverifiable" information that you cited.

If you don't understand this extremely simple concept, you shouldn't be editing the wrestling section.

Put the lists back.

Neighbormania (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you read the policys we gave, you will understand why isn't that simple. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * you shouldn't be editing the wrestling section so can we take the fact that you have not edited the wrestling section yourself as some sort of admission? Btw. Belligerence gets you nowhere.  MPJ  -DK 19:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Split proposal
See Talk:WWE tournaments.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 13:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Persona and reception of Roman Reigns
Why does this need to be an article? There is no other wrestler with such an article. I am not seeing the need for it. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it!
 * It’s a controversial push. It’s been covered by a lot of mainstream outlets and wrestling sites. I think the article is fine considering the controversy surrounding his push to the top and the reception to it. It’s kinda one of a kind, thanks to the circumstances surrounding his push. Ron234 (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the article is fine. It was part of the Roman Reign article, but was splited since it was too big. We had a conversation about it, even a merger proposal. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There's clearly enough information and sourcing for a stand alone.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As I've already said, the project puts too much weight on news websites as reliable sources, so therefore coverage is going to be weighted towards current events and headlines. The pushes given to Martin Karadagian and Shirley Crabtree killed off healthy professional wrestling scenes in entire nations, but I suppose that's not as important as a few fanboy journalists getting butthurt over WWE's television ratings dropping off slightly.  It's not about proper perspective, see, it's about blindly following the sources.  That's why I haven't yet commented on that RFC over at the Village Pump, as it's a waste of time. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  22:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Kaos, different people edit different things, current events attract the most attention, but all it takes is one good editor to cover Karadagian or Crabtree's disasters. Be the specialist that hand crafts cake and let others be Little Debbie's.  MPJ  -DK 22:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Page moves en masse
The project may wish to know that as I type this, is moving a slew of articles from "List of (professional wrestling promotion) alumni" to "List of former (professional wrestling promotion) personnel" and adjusting links accordingly. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  22:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * First, thanks for not notifying me of this discussion, or directly contacting me first on my talk page. Second, yes, I did. The most edited/popular language used on naming articles have been "personnel" (e.g List of WWE personnel, List of Impact Wrestling personnel, List of New Japan Pro-Wrestling personnel) and other articles in the same category either used the language "employees", "roster", "alumni", etc. or didn't even have "list of" in the title of the article. I have standardized it so that lists of current personnel and former personnel are matching now. Alumni usually refers to academia and not former employers, and since the project already agreed "personnel" was the appropriate term for the combination of wrestlers, announcers, managers, etc. that is what was used. — Moe   Epsilon  22:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Consistency is important, thank you Moe for taking the time and effort to get this streamlined, it is not glamorous work but necessary.  MPJ  -DK 00:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a big deal. It was a bigger part of List of professional wrestling rosters and it's category I was trying to fix. I'll probably be going through lists of all promotions to see what I can add on to it. Some personnel lists are out of date, unreferenced or in general not worthy of inclusion, but I figured I'd start with making it consistent so we could look at it easier. — Moe   Epsilon  00:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is where the lists should be. I agree most roster pages are completely non-noteworthy.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The B-Team
There's been an ongoing AfD for The B-Team (professional wrestling). Please participate if you can. Thanks.  Sekyaw  (talk)  04:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * - There's quite a big issue surrounding notability for tag teams. Our current guidelines don't go into much detail about it. A lot of the votes in this AfD are regarding the fact that either the team has been tagging for around a year, or that because they are tag team champions, that either makes them notable de facto, or not notable.


 * There have been many conversations about establishing some sort of WP:NSPORTS criteria for the project, that would solve these issues, but as of right now, the only notability criteria for these articles is general WP:GNG. However, with a group of people, there is always an argument that the tag team isn't independently notable of the members, who already have an article.


 * Personally, I believe the duo are notable, but they currently don't satisfy GNG. Even as champions, it's hardly WP:LASTING. I feel like articles like this bring up the concept of having a better guideline for PW articles in general for notability, as the tag team probably should be notable for being a champion of the world; but we currently don't have those guidelines in place. There's also an argument that most of the press for the team will be WP:ROUTINE.


 * The routine argument makes little sense to me, as it's usually used to dismiss references that would promote the subject, as being common articles. However, simply because a source puts information out adnauseum shouldn't mean they are less welcome. We wouldn't call an IGN source weaker simply because they review almost every game release. The Routine argument is fine for things like match results from every house show, however.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI technically its under WP:ENT per the note on WP:NSPORTS -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  14:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have made that clear. However, the issue is the lack of notability guidelines for Wrestling stables/teams, managers etc.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, we have a bigger problem. WWE lame booking. For example, even if Axel and Dallas performed togheter for over one year, their role have been random tag team matches, squashes and maybe, a title opportunity. It's different if they would have feuds, defined characters and sources talk about them. I removed a lot of no-notable matches. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on the rationale to keep in there, a Nicolas and Braun and Nicolas article would need to be created and kept -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  17:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you know Beth Phoenix and Natalya worked as a team for over 2 years? But I don't think they are notable enough. On the other hand, Y2AJ was a short-lived tag team with a lot of attention (BTW, i'm not saying to create a Y2AJ article).  --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Maybe we need to take another stab at completing and getting consensus on this suggestion User:MPJ-DK/Notability (professional wrestling), may cut down on the discussions? Since the "in wrestling" discussion has been moved from here to the Village Pump we could try to focus on this? I think it would help greatly.  MPJ  -DK 17:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is that a general guideline probably can't work for every tag team or stable. You can try to define it by saying they have to have held a championship or tagged for a certain time, but it isn't that cut and dry. Like mentioned above, even if a team has tagged together consistently for a set amount of time, are they really notable if it was only as jobbers and in dark matches and they didn't have any notable storylines? And 100 days as champions is just an arbitrary amount of time. That's not even 4 months. Any what if they aren't even really a tag team but two singles wrestlers randomly put together for 100 days to hold the titles (like WWE loves to do)? <b style="color: Teal;">Nikki</b><b style="color: Salmon;">♥</b><b style="color: Purple;">311</b> 23:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * All sub-notability pages are intended to help guide a person in figuring it out, but do not trump GNG. Even if a person meets the criteria in WP:NBASE, I have still seen them be deleted because they did not meet GNG. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. However, that doesn't mean we can't come up with a guideline for inclusion for tag teams, and similar. There's a huge gray area, as these articles can be sourced with a lot of information; as the individual members are notable. It's hard to know where the limit is without a guideline in place.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be noted, this article was deleted.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Moving PW tournament pages
I have started a discussion at Talk:WWE tournaments that everyone might be interested in. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Bholu Brothers and associated articles

 * Bholu Brothers, Bholu Pahalwan and Aslam Pahalwan

These articles are very problematic and terribly written (" And today when the Bholu Brothers have long since departed from this world, we cannot talk about the Pakistani wrestling without recalling these Wrestling Greats, who spent their lives for wrestling" is just one of the fawning sentences). First of all the initial version of Bholu Brothers is a copy and paste from here, and despite some cleanup attempts since the article is still in an embarrassing state. The only reason I have not tagged it as a copyright violation is because of this source currently being used in the article. While the source is actually another copy of the original article and therefore a circular reference and of no use whatsoever, it does link the article's author Farid Azam with the username faridzenger1 who is presumably that created the article here.

There are some sources such as this which appear reliable, but some quick investigations proves them to be utterly worthless. The Bholu Pahalwan and Bholu Brothers both contain information about a supposed 1967 match. The "Henry Perry" text was originally added to the Bholu Pahalwan article in March 2007 by Faridzenger, but he was renamed to "Henri Pierlot (Les Thornton)" in the original version of the Bholu Brothers article in September 20009. I can find no record of a wrestler called Henry Perry (Les Thornton of course does exist), and no record of a show at Empire Pool (now known as Wembley Arena) in 1967, and there would be some record of a show of that size.
 * Bholu Brothers - In May 1967 he defeated the Anglo French champion, Henri Pierlot (Les Thornton) for the World title in London
 * Bholu Pahalwan - And Finally in May 1967, Bholu Pahalwan competed in a world championship event sponsored by the Eastern Promotions Limited in UK and defeated the Anglo-French heavyweight Champion, Henry Perry for the World Heavyweight Title in Empire Pool, Wembley Stadium, London, England

Now back to the tribune.com.pk article, this states "In 1967, he offered 5,000 British pounds to anyone in the world who could beat him and that same year won the World Heavyweight Title fight against Anglo-French heavyweight champion Henry Perry in London". Henry Perry doesn't appear in the oocities article (where he's Henri Pierlot) or anywhere else I looked, apart from our article on Bholu Pahalwan. So if we were to use that as a source we're back to circular referencing, since it's clear they got that information, and presumably everything else, from our article.

All these articles were created by Faridzenger who is apparently also the author of the oocities article, this creates clear problems with referencing. Due to information of unknown accuracy from our existing articles contaminating what might have been reliable sources I do not believe there are any reliable sources from which these articles can be rewritten. Since WP:AFD is not for cleanup I would prefer to gain some consensus as to what course of action should be taken. I can see two possible solutions.


 * First is to stub the articles, and if anyone wishes to expand them using uncontaminated reliable sources they are welcome to try. Obviously notes regarding sourcing problems will be left on the articles talk pages
 * Second is to nominate the articles for deletion, either in their current condition or after deleting all unsourced information to show how little can actually be reliably sourced.

Thoughts from anyone else? 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:B41C:B90D:756E:CBEC (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A copyvio test on the articles doesn't exactly scream violation. The issue is notability, and not reliable sourcing. None of these are WP:BLP, so any unsourced/unreliably content should be tagged as such (And therefor not simply remove into a stub). Personally, I'd be up for a merge discussion for all of these articles (As with the AfD of Goga Pehalawan earlier this week), as they don't seem notable on their own, but potentially as a group.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Stubify, at the least. These articles are beyond terrible. Like, they don't even make it clear if these were guys were amateur wrestling champions or professional wrestlers. I colannot recap ever seeing worse articles in my entire almost decade and a half on Wikipedia. It does appear these guys may have been genuinely notable, so I wouldn't AFD them, but the current state are completely unacceptable. oknazevad (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Analysis of current sources used in articles
There are currently two sources on Bholu Brothers. There are currently three sources on Bholu Pahalwan. There are currently two sources on Aslam Pahalwan. 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:B41C:B90D:756E:CBEC (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * http://bholubrothers.piczo.com/post/4560/?cr=7 is currently dead, but the archived version shows it's simply the original version of our article so useless.
 * https://www.dawn.com/news/1095495 is useful, but doesn't source much. It doesn't even source the sentence it was added to!
 * http://www.dostpakistan.pk/bholu-pehalwan-the-mighty-wrestler-of-50s/ is a blog and unreliable
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20061003140418/http://www.sports.gov.pk/html/pride_of_performance_wrestling.htm is reliable, but only sources each brother winning an award in a particular year
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20091026235502/http://geocities.com/goodfaith747/rustam_e_zaman/ is an unreliable geocities site
 * http://www.dostpakistan.pk/history-of-zubair-aslam-aka-jhara-pehalwan/ is another page on the unreliable blog mentioned above
 * https://www.wrestlingdata.com/index.php?befehl=bios&wrestler=14666 sources basic info such as date of birth, family members, height/weight
 * There's an argument about WP:SODOIT, here. If there are reliable sources, please do source the articles correctly.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there are reliable sources, that's the problem. Once you discount the blogs, copies of our article, other self-published sources and articles which take information from Wikipedia you're basically left with the Dawn source used on Bholu Brothers. 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:B41C:B90D:756E:CBEC (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A quick google search found a few things. express tribune, another dawn.com reference, mention in this book called "El Bandito - The Autobiography of Orig Williams", Book source, mention in the independent newspaper, etc. So, the sources exist for an article to be made.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've already dealt with express tribune in my first post. It repeats the "Anglo-French heavyweight champion Henry Perry in London" error from one of our articles, showing it's taking its information from Wikipedia. So therefore useless. As for the rest:
 * "Another dawn reference" is dealing with the apparent new generation of the Bholu family, since it's referring to shows in 2013. So largely useless for sourcing anything in the articles we're talking about. It can obviously source a couple of new sentences.
 * "El Bandito - The Autobiography of Orig Williams" is largely dealing with his interactions with Akram Bholu. While it would certainly source that the Bholus are a prominent wrestling family in Pakistan (which I've never disputed, I'm only disputing the lack of reliable sources to write an article from), all it really seems to source apart from that is that they wrestled some shows in England.
 * "Book source" says "Dara Singh was a champion equal to all the Bholu brothers", I really don't see what use that is.
 * "mention in the independent newspaper" is as you say a mention, reading "The highlight of his career was when he wrestled the legendary Bholu Brothers in Pakistan, men who were treated like gods but who accepted him as their equal". Redundant to the Orig Williams source
 * So from all those we have they wrestled Orig Williams in Pakistan, and they toured England, and there's a couple of family members still wrestling. Sum total of probably half a dozen sourced sentences? 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:B41C:B90D:756E:CBEC (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Championship articles
There is a discussion here brought by, about how to describe the difference between actually winning a championship in sports vs professional wrestling. in a good faith effort to get an article promoted to Featured List added the term "booked to win" for several articles.

This wording choice is problematic to me for several reasons. Firstly its WP:OR because we never know if things were changed at the last minutes without a WP:RS telling us that it was the plan all along. Secondly, to me, it implies they were booked to win it, but plans changed. For example if you read here you will see the old method it appears it did not go as planned, while the second one it clear that it did. In that same example the same "was booked to" term was also used to describe a request to change plans, it cannot mean something that did and something that did not happen, but in the same section. A another example implied that there was never a booked plan to have anyone else win it more than once, but how do we know what plans were, someone could have been booked to but plans changed.

Therefore, perhaps the correct answer is to include a line in all championship articles, something along the line of what we have for events. An example would be:

The championship's holder is a result of scripted storylines and had results typically predetermined by (promotion).

Thoughts? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  16:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Look at the championship articles that are FL or GA now, for the ones I got GA/FL I had to deal with that too for those, but did not get excessively "this is predetermined!!" Over and over.  MPJ  -DK 16:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * From Britannica, Verne Gagne "he booked himself against the sport’s top villains to win the heavyweight championship 10 times" Uses the word booked as well as win. George Hackenschmidt   "he was defeated, he won" I don't see "Booked to win". Dara Singh  "becoming champion" Ultimate Warrior  "emerged victorious (against Hogan)" No booked. The Rock  "captured, captured, captured".  --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes sense since Gagne as a promoter was in a position to book himself, so he could easily have done that. Its like Lawyer in Memphis. Very different than Flair -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  17:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is the thing,, using "unsourced" as a reason to remove "win" to "booked" is misleading. We have sources that state that wtestling is generally pre-determined, we have sources stating that someone "won" a championship but I doubt you have a source that states "Luger was booked to win", so your reason is invalid. I dealt with it by stating up front that it was scripted, then used "won" subsequently because that terminology is supported by sources. And just because an FA was passed doesn't mean the article could not be adjusted if done right.  MPJ  -DK  17:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * When I removed information as being "unsourced" it had nothing to do with this wording, it was a result of paragraphs of prose being added with new information and no source to back it up--and material like that is, indeed, unsourced. Two different issues. G RAPPLE   X  17:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone has any issues with you removing unsourced material, Grapple, just as I trust you have no issues with such material being restored where the sources can be found, just as I don't have any issues with you re-removing the content in the one instance where the source proved unsatisfactory (until such time as a better source can be found for the simple point of the Big Gold Belt returning to use as the WCW World title belt after the unification match, while the 1991-1994 belt was decomissioned.) But since your edit summary only mentioned "unsourced" material, one would have to assume that that was why you reverted all the "was booked to win" references back into the article.  And since it's the "was booked to win" formulation that people like myself and Galatz disagree with, that is why we are making a fuss about it, especially when I found examples on another championship article you had been editing.2.28.124.67 (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's my point (in case you're answering to me). Sources use words like "win, lost", no "booked". Maybe we find something (Reigns was booked to win the title at WM, but plans changed twice). Even Britannica uses these word. The only article I found Booked is the Gagne one. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * On another note, does the word "booked" not fail WP:JARGON, and thus be avoided in general use?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. Plainly speaking, sources use "win", so we should must as well. A "win" in pro wrestling means something different because it's predetermined, but the convention that there is a winner of a match is established and avoiding it in some wrongheaded attempt to be neutral and out-of-universe is itself POV-pushing. oknazevad (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No. WP:JARGON refers to technical terms that make the article too difficult to understand. A simple wikilink clarifies the term "booked", so there is no need to avoid it. I would look to other sports for guidance in making this sort of determination--Randy Johnson was the first baseball player that came to mind. Looking through the lead of his article, many jargon-y terms are used, including Cy Young Award, no-hitter, perfect game, fastball, slider, earn run average, winning percentage, complete game, Triple Crown, strikeouts per nine innings pitched, and hit batsmen. All of these are wikilinked. With that as a comparison, I see no problem with using a fairly simple term like "booked". GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What about the fact that we do not know what the booking is. To say they were booked to win, means that it was pre-planned. If one person got injured and so they decided at the last second to have someone else win, they were not booked to win, but they did. To say they were booked, without a source, is WP:OR. Brock Lesnar beat Reigns at WM, we all know that, its not disputed, its verifiable. We do not know if he was booked to win, or if the negative crowd reaction caused an audible to be called and they changed their mind during the match. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  03:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)