Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 107

Kickoff Show
On none of the PPV pages so we actually show the pre-show being called the "Kickoff show". has recently changes this on many pages. What is everyone's opinion, is this jargon/marketing term or the name of a show? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  20:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It was four pages, but I guess that's "many". It's the name of the show. Simple as that. On WWE's YouTube channel and the WWE Network, it's not listed as "SummerSlam pre-show", it's listed as "SummerSlam Kickoff". I've actually wondered why we've never really used the name on other pages. -- JDC808  ♫  20:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * On those same pages they refer to wrestlers as Superstars and fans as The WWE Universe. So what does that have to do with anything? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  20:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You're mixing things up. Kickoff is the official name of the pre-show unlike the in-universe terminology that you mentioned. It's also how a cable network would list it, and many sources use the term (just put in "SummerSlam Kickoff" into Google). -- JDC808  ♫  20:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked at one edit that concerned a title change on the WrestleMania 29 pre-show. I then clicked on the WrestleMania 29 article to see how the pre-show was referred to there. "Kickoff" doesn't even appear once and we refer to the "pre-show" throughout the article so I'm doubtful that's the official name of the show. I've glanced at a few more of the events in question here and this is a reoccurring theme. Very slopping editing and jargon to boot.LM2000 (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's one example, but for at least the past few years, it has been called the Kickoff show in its official naming for PPVs. It's just like with AEW, the pre-show for their pay-per-views have officially been called the "Buy In". -- JDC808  ♫  04:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't pay close enough attention anymore to know if this is a separate thing, like WWF Free For All or the bits of the pre-show that aired on Sunday Night Heat back in the day, but if WWE Kickoff Show is a real thing and recognized by cable providers as a separate TV show then it should have its own article and needs to be reflected in PPV articles. If WWE is just using marketing terms then we should not be playing along. We certainly shouldn't be changing historical references to "Kickoff" before they were calling their pre-shows that. is a frequent PPV page editor and may want to chime in here.LM2000 (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ”Kickoff” is indeed the official name of the PPV pre-shows. Just like “Countdown”, “Sunday Night Slam”, “Free For All”, “Sunday Night Heat” and “Pre-show” used to be the names of the PPV pre-shows. So I have no problem using the “Kickoff” name in the results. However, just to note, to the best of my knowrledge, the Kickoff name was first used at Over The Limit 2013. Not before that. Also the NXT TakeOver pre-shows are not named “Kickoff”. Those are simply titled “TakeOver: Pre-show”. “Kickoff” is only used for WWE events, not NXT. OldSkool01 (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The only time you pre-show on the main roster is before they started using kickoff.  Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you repeat/clarify what you were trying to say? -- JDC808  ♫  20:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Mildred Burke, NWA Women's Champion
Hi. I'm not an expert in NWA history. However, at NWA Powerrr, Mildred Burke it was refered as the first NWA Women's Champion. However, in the champions list, Burke reign is "unrecognized". Also, the source (wrestling-titles) says NWA recognized her as champion between 1950 and 1953. Then, can somebody tell me why the reign is unrecognized? Can I change it? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe they recognize her now? -- JDC808  ♫  20:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * .It's possible, like Ray González. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

AEW logos
I just noticed today that both the All Elite Wrestling and All Elite Wrestling: Dynamite articles aren't using official logos, they're using made up "simplified" versions created by a random DeviantArt user. I fixed the main AEW page only for another user to revert it; I've since reverted it back but I expect they're going to edit it again. How should I/we move forward here? Not entirely sure how to handle this but I think it's obvious we should just be using official logos. Lazer-kitty (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is a relatively simple logo, one that consists solely of text and simple geometric shapes, so likely doesn't meet the threshold of originality for copyright anyway (trademark is different). So there is zero reason to use an inaccurate user-created logo. Especially when said user has made multiple changes to the file already, indicating that they're making changes that they think look good, not that makes it more accurate to the actual logo. We really should not misrepresent the logo. oknazevad (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * He just reverted my change, as expected, this time with another white background version that he JUST uploaded. And from a look at his talk page he pulled this same stunt back in January. Lazer-kitty (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I remember. The black-background version is the logo. He claims he has OCD and therefore prefers "clean" versions (and clean edit histories). That doesn't matter. His issues don't determine facts and accurate depictions. oknazevad (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The most recent logo he uploaded does appear to come from an actual AEW press release, but that's irrelevant IMO, the black background version is by far the more common and is the one we should be using. Be careful with the reverts btw, I stopped touching the AEW page as I didn't want to get dinged for 3RR. Lazer-kitty (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Black or white background doesn't really matter too much, though I do agree that black background is more used and therefore more significant. My last revert there was largely because there was no source info given on the file page. That's there now, so it's ok. The Dsviant LArt version should just be deleted. oknazevad (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * He is seriously back at it? Jesh "Obsessive" is about right. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I really do not think it is acceptable that the article is using the white background version the logo taken from a scanned press release instead of the black background logo used everywhere else just because one obsessive editor has a thing about white background. The All Elite Wrestling: Dynamite article remains a problem because that logo is almost entirely fabricated. He actually edited out the textures on the letters and added a gradient, for some reason. Should I just take this to the administrators? I truly do not know how to handle this. Lazer-kitty (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither file should be used here. The official one (used on the webpage of the organisation is usually a good indication) should be uploaded to commons. I don't think you could copyright this image. Might be a good idea to ping the when talking about someone... Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 12:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please discuss here before making further logo changes. Lazer-kitty (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've given up trying to improve the article because apparently doing so means I'm "obsessed", anyway the logo I used was sourced from a official AEW press release so it wasn't incorrect and if we are going by the same logic I can say that you guys are obsessed with the logo that you keep reverting to. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that's not "the same logic" because the black background logo is the one AEW uses everywhere except press releases. It is the most common logo by far therefore it is the one we should use here. I'm not saying you're obsessed with a particular logo, I'm saying you're obsessed with white background logos because you have a known history of doing the exact same thing on this very page. You're not trying to improve the page, you're desperately trying to suit your own personal preferences.
 * If you've "given up" then I'm not sure why you literally just inserted your logo yet again. Lazer-kitty (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I did that before posting on here...and I'm only editing with good faith. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is this the second time this exact same situation has happened? How many more editors are going to have to fight with you over this? Are you going to pop up nine months from now with yet another obscure version of the AEW logo that just so happens to be rendered on white? There is a lesson to be learned here and it's clear to me that you have not learned it. Lazer-kitty (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Obscure" logo... what are you even on about now you're pretty much reaching? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You're so obsessed with white background logos that you went and found a version that's only used on their press releases and nowhere else. That's what I mean by "obscure." You need to learn from this experience because the way you edit and the way you interact with other editors is not acceptable. This isn't the first time you've done this, and you've been sanctioned by the admins before specifically for the way you edit on wrestling articles, so I don't have high hopes. Lazer-kitty (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Again with throwing "obsessed" around, I won't touch wrestling articles in the future if this is the attitude I get from other users. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

NXT and 205 Live
With the Cruiserweight Championship now apart of NXT and the uncertain future of 205 Live, I was thinking of moving the 205 Live roster on List of WWE personnel into the NXT roster. I know that Triple H said that 205 Live is under the NXT "umbrella", but with all of the uncertainty with the brand and show continuing as last week's episode of 205 was cancelled before SmackDown even aired on Fox that night. That being said, some of the 205 Live roster (Oney, Humberto, Angel and Isaiah) have mostly appeared on or signed to the NXT roster. With Drew Gulak defending his title on NXT tomorrow night against Lio Rush(as I'm typing this), I think it's clear 205 Live has become an extension of NXT and only fitting to move the roster to NXT.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm on the fence with it. I think it's basically like NXT UK, which itself is an extension of NXT. If WWE 205 Live ends up getting full on canceled, then yeah, of course move them. -- JDC808  ♫  04:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No source has said its dissolved, so no it shouldnt be -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  17:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

WWE's drafts
This is something I've always wondered about. Using the 2019 draft as an example, why do we title it as "2019 WWE draft" and not "2019 WWE Draft" (with "draft" capitalized)? The official name is WWE Draft, so why do we not capitalize it? -- JDC808  ♫  20:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I suspect you are right. It is a title. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A decision was made to remove the capitalization around 2014. See a previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 98. Pre  fall  20:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks more like the discussion stopped rather than a real decision being made. Perhaps we should revisit this and come to a real decision. -- JDC808  ♫  21:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the capitalization had been changed two years before that discussion. I'm not sure if there was an actual consensus reached beforehand, or if they just went ahead and changed it while citing MOS. Personally, I have no preference one way or another. Pre  fall  21:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 2019 NFL Draft, 2019 NBA draft, 2019 Major League Baseball draft, 2019 NHL Entry Draft. We appear to be inconsistent across wikipedia, unless I am missing something. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  15:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The reason for the icinsistency is because there's a group of editors that seek to decapitalize proper noun language because they cannot distinguish between a proper noun and the descriptive phrase that it was named for. For example, the NFL Draft is an annual event, and has a proper noun as a name. But a given year's event is an NFL draft, that is a draft held by the NFL. The term "NFL draft" there is a descriptive phrase, a common noun. Distinguishing the two can be difficult without some sort of indication that one is the proper name. You know, like capital letters. As everyone who has ever learned English learns in kindergarten. Why they can't seem to understand the difference is beyond me. It's hardly just event like that that they incorrectly push to decapitalize, either. They seem to think just doing a google book search is sufficient to prove their point, but all it does is prove that they don't understand stuff understood by kindergarteners. oknazevad (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Professional wrestling for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Professional wrestling is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Professional wrestling until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page.

Previous discussion is at above. Certes (talk) 08:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Redirect clean up
There are a few redirects which currently are pointing to a section that is non-existing. I wanted everyone opinions if these redirects should be nominated for deletion or changed.


 * Lion's Den Match
 * Lion's Den match
 * Lions Den Match


 * Double Jeopardy match


 * Move match
 * Moves match


 * Blindfold match


 * Hardcore Submission Match

Also right now ThunderCage match, Thundercage match, Thunderdome match all point to Hell in a Cell. Thundercage and Thunderdome cage match however direct to Professional wrestling match types. These should probably be consistent. Any thoughts on which is better? The following pages link to Professional_wrestling_match_types
 * Ultimate Endurance Match
 * Hair match
 * Hair versus hair match
 * Hair vs Hair match
 * Hair vs. Hair match
 * Hair vs. mask match
 * Hair vs. Title match
 * Mask match
 * Mask vs. mask match
 * Title vs. Career match

The following pages link to Lucha_libre
 * Caballera vs. Mascara Match
 * Lucha de Apuesta
 * Lucha de Apuestas
 * Lucha de apuestas
 * Luchas de Apuestas
 * Mask versus mask match
 * Mask vs. Hair match
 * Mask vs. Mask match
 * Title vs. Mask match

These are all so similar they should be pointing to the same place, which one is better? In addition the match type page has the "Luchas_de_apuestas" while the Lucha libre page has Luchas_de_Apuestas. Should the "a" be capital or lowercase, because this is pretty inconsistent. Thanks -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  18:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone have any thoughts on this? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Eddie Guerrero Grand Slam
I’ve recently had an editing conflict with regarding the Grand Slam page. Under Eddie Guerrero’s original Grand Slam table, the Hardcore title has always been listed as ‘N/A (Deceased)’. A few days ago, Drewie changed ‘Deceased’ to ‘Title defunct’, and we’ve changed it back and forth a few times, with me changing it to ‘deceased’, and Drewie changing it to ‘title defunct’. Drewie says that the championship was retired before Eddie had passed away, so it should be on ‘title defunct’. I’ve said that it should stay on ‘deceased’ because since Eddie died, it is now 100% impossible for him to win the championship, even if it ever comes back. I thought I’d leave it up to the experts to figure out what it should be on. Cheers. Drummoe (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it. Thanks for initiating discussion Drummoe. Opinions are welcome below. Further explanations and arguments for our respective rationales can be found in the edit history's summaries for Grand Slam. DrewieStewie (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It should be N/A (deceased), I believe the order it goes by is deceased, title defunct then retired. Browndog91 (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is that saying theres a possibility the title could be revived is considered WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL and that we shouldn't be presumptous and do that unless it actually is revived. Therefore, title defunct before deceased if in that chronology. DrewieStewie (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of that, the reason Eddie can never win the title is he's dead. That's what the real hurdle is. We should list that. oknazevad (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, but until its revived (unlikely), theres nothing to be won by nobody. Thats a bigger hurdle. If it was active, then eddie being deceased is a hurdle, but others can still win it. But nobody can because its defunct. DrewieStewie (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do we even have the distinction? Can we not add a note to the columns to say why there are items that are NA? Saying "deceased" feels quite impertinant in a table like this. Surely "inactive" would be the same? Might be better to actually have a note for the wrestler that explains that they can no longer win the title because they died on dd.mm.yyyy, so we could also do the same with those that are no longer with the company, etc. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A column for ‘N/A’ already exists in the legends table. It says that N/A ‘indicates future reigns are no longer possible’. I assume that’s what you mean by adding a column. As for adding notes, it’s probably not needed at the moment, because as of now only one Grand Slam Champion has passed away (Eddie) and two don’t work for the company anymore (Jericho and Ambrose). While it is a good idea, right now it might not be needed.

Drummoe (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well this matter also includes the triple crown page, I don't see a reason to change how it is now I don't think WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL applies here. Browndog91 (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I dont understand why we are listed either one. The point is to list the titles they won, not the reason they didn't win specific titles. We should simply have a dash in those fields that they did not win. N/A is misleading. The common meaning of N/A is non-applicable. It is applicable they just didn't win it. The other meaning, not-available is also incorrect. It should simply list what they won and leave the other fields empty. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  14:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you disagree, please comment here. Blank or a "-" shows that they didn't win it. The point is not to show people why they didn't win, but what they did win. -  Galatz גאליץ  שיחה Talk  19:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

If we leave it blank, it will cause confusion as its makes it appear that the title that the wrestler didn't get or that the wrestler that is retired/deceased is still active. I'm fine with the "-" and still have the "(retired/deceased/inactive)" listing on there so non-wrestling readers don't get confused.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I like that idea. Drummoe (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

This discussion’s getting lost in the shuffle, so I just need to confirm that we’re OK with replacing ‘N/A’ with ‘-’ and keeping the ‘deceased/title defunct/retired’. Additionally, because this is the reason why this discussion was made, should the Hardcore title for Eddie be listed as title defunct or deceased? Judging by the discussion I’m thinking it should stay on deceased. Once everyone’s agreed on them, I’ll go make the changes. Cheers. Drummoe (talk) 05:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a listing of titles won which make up the criteria. Including what they did not win and why they didn't is WP:OR. Why not just put they didn't win due to booking decisions? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  18:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Well like Keith Okamoto said, it‘s so non-wrestling fans don’t get confused. And if it’s somehow OR, then how come it’s being brought up now? If it’s left blank, then it’ll be assumed it’s still possible for the wrestler to win the title. Drummoe (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that is not Wikipedia's job. Saying you want to include it because its helpful so people don't get confused, its a perfect example of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.
 * Is it true, sure; is it useful, perhaps. Is it a summary of accepted knowledge regarding the subject, nope. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

If that’s the case, then will just a simple ‘-’ be acceptable? Drummoe (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I see no issue with something like that in a cell -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

World Heavyweight Diagram
Today, I was in Reddit and saw a post. It talked about the diagram we use for the several WHC and the evolution. However... I don't know, it's strage, witha bit of OR. On aMarch 14, Oknazevad changed the diagram (he deleted the TNA and ECW titles), but next day, the creator included the titles again. My question is about the ECW AND Universal titles. I understand the WWF and WCW, as well as the TNA. But the ECW has no relationship with the NWA World title, it was a regional title promoted to world title, but has no relationship with the NWA title. Only "ECW partialy control", but has no direct relationship. Then, the Universal title is listed as a Splinter title, but is not. The Universal title was created from zero, without relationship with the WWE Championship. What do you think?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Didn't look into the ECW Championship history as much, but I agree on the Universal Championship. It's not a splinter title. It was created from zero, like you said. -- JDC808  ♫  02:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * When Shane Douglas threw down the NWA title in favor of the ECW title, did that make ECW a splinter title? Unless some source with serious credibility claims so, it should be removed. The Universal Championship has no claim at all.LM2000 (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * In the case of the ECW title, it's a case of stealing the claim to the lineage. Shane Douglas was recognized, if only briefly, as the NWA champion, and he, and ECW, claimed that made him a world champion, though they also said it was the ECW title that was the real continuation. As for the Universal title, it was a splinter in that the brand recognized the WWE title, but they withdrew that recognition and instead recognized the winner of the tournament (Balor) as champion instead. Much as the WHC was created when Raw under Bischoff withdrew recognition of the WWE title in the first brad split.
 * Also, I didn't revert to remove the TNA title, which likewise claims descent from the NWA title feom when the two organizations went their separate ways (TNA continuing to recognize Christian as world champ for his scheduled title defense against Angle when the NWA withdrew recognition earlier that day, then using the Dusty finish to that match as an excuse to establish a separate title definitively.) indid remj e the GFW title, as it had no lineage in commmn until it was unified with the Impact title, and was never a significant title.
 * But it most importantly, it's all fiction anyway, and we shouldn't get too hung up on the details. There's really no concerns with "credibility" because there's no real, unscripted events to report. oknazevad (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I would say the Universal title was the same situation as the WHC. With that one, the Undisputed Championship was defended on both brands, and then Lesnar signed to exclusively appear on SmackDown, thus Bischoff was forced to create the WHC. With the Universal, Ambrose was drafted to SmackDown, and then won the triple threat (which was scheduled before the draft took place) to keep the title on SmackDown, which Ambrose had been drafted to (the WWE Championship at this time wasn't defended on both brands like the Undisputed Championship was, they knew ahead of time that the WWE title would be exclusive to one of the brands). The WWE have also actually said that the WHC was split off from the Undisputed Championship. They haven't said that the Universal was split off from the WWE Championship. -- JDC808  ♫  03:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it's any different. In both cases the Raw brand lost access to the WWE Championship and introduced a new title to serve as their top title. The details of how they lost that access have no bearing on that basic fact. WWE has also been very vague about the WHC's origins in term of splitting off and whether or not it was actually a revival of the WCW title, calling it both a new title (as seen in its official title history) and a re-separation (as seen when they've shown former NWA and WCW champs as past holders) depending on the immediate needs of the moment. But again, the overall situation was so similar that if one is a splinter title then the other is as well. PS, please don't insert replies in the middle of others' posts. It separates their comments from their signatures making it difficult of others to figure out who said what. oknazevad (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Regardless of vagueness, they have at least to some extent acknowledged the WHC being a splinter of the Undisputed title. That is not the case with the Universal. They are going about it as being a completely new title (and not split off from the WWE Championship). -- JDC808  ♫  06:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * When the WHC was introduced, the headline on wwe.com was literally "a new world title". Over time, as it began to benefit them, they slowly embraced the idea that it was a de-unified ex-WCW (and NWA before that) title. Now they can't claim that for the Universal title, but that it was created by withdrawing Raw's recognition of the WWE Championship as the top title for Raw remains the same fundamental circumstances as the creation/reintroduction of the WHC.oknazevad (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

While we're on this topic, is there a reason the AWA World Championship is not listed in the graph? It is listed on the page. 2601:195:100:D283:849B:F2D8:62AE:B2F2 (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe because it wasn't that major of a world championship? Not sure. That'd be a question for whoever created this graph. -- JDC808  ♫  03:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It was a major title by any definition. The AWA title was the other world title for thirty years, and was actually older than the now-WWE title. It certainly was more important than the ECW title ever actually was during its day. (The ECW title, and the promotion as a whole, tends to be looked at retroactively as bigger than it actually was in its time.) To leave it off strikes me as something of WP:RECENTISM, for lack of a better term, just because it's now been gone for almost as long as it was around. The problem is its origins and claims to world title lineage are messy, with it essentially consolidating a couple of disputed claims to the historic lineal championship. That said, the title formally began in 1960 as a dispute from the NWA title and was abandoned in 1990 when the AWA shit down, and so should be added to the diagram with that info. oknazevad (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * My two cents - ECW is out, so is WCW International (just used the belt and made up a goober name for it). AWA really should be in there I agree. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I will give my 2 (or several) cents.
 * A split title is when some promotion claimed a NWA champion didn't lost the title and proclaimed their champion. Buddy Rogers with the WWF, Ric Flair with the WCW HW and O'Connor with the AWA.
 * The ECW title was created years before the Douglas incident. It started as a minor title, since Eastern Championship Wrestling was part of the NWA. When Douglas won the NWA title he was the ECW champion, but he never said "claimed that made him a world champion, though they also said it was the ECW title that was the real continuation." He said, literaly "I declare myself, The Franchise, as the new ECW Heavyweight Champion of the world! " (the whole promo is in his article) He never stealed the linegae, it's just a wrestler who said the ECW was a World Title, just like PWG and ROH did at the time. Anycase, the ECW is not a splited title from the NWA, nor stealed the lineage. There is no claim as ECW is a slipt title from NWA.
 * About the Universal, it's just like JDC808 said. WWE splited brands, but no titles. The Universal was a consequence, but it's not a split title of the WWE Championship, has zero relationship. It different from Steph saying RAW doesn't recognized Ambrose as the new champion and they gave the Universal title to Rollins, the real champion, for example.
 * The WCW International, it's true. WCW created a new brand, WCW International, but has no relationship with the WCW HW. Just used the Big Gold belt, but a belt is not a championship.
 * TNA/Impact... well, sounds like a split title. TNA used the NWA title and the TNA is a direct continuation of the NWA lineage, like Rogers and O'Connor.
 * So, for me. Universal and ECW are out, has no direct relationship with their titles. Include AWA, since it's a similar case to WWF and WCW. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And I say leave them in because Douglasms claim to world title status is largely dependent on being the NWA champion and then saying that he didn't care about the organization.
 * More importantly I say leave them in because any chart of major world titles in American pro wrestling that doesn't include the ECW and WWE Universal titles is just plain incomplete and getting caught up in fictional details is pointless and pedantic. Hell, if almost throw on the ROH and AEW titles just because they are significant titles in the overall industry, even if they weren't splintered but created ex novo. oknazevad (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Douglas never claimed that. Never said the ECW title became a world title because he won the NWA title. Just kiss my ass, the ECW is a World title, I don't care about NWA. The lineage of the ECW isn't related with the NWA. And, as MPJ said, it's not a list of major world titles, is about lineage from the original World title. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But it is not a chart of major world titles, it's about the supposed "Lineage" that various titles claim to have. So those titles do not belong MPJ-DK (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Linking the NWA and the TNA/IW titles together as "lineage" is a case of OR in my opinion. Here is what happened
 * NWA strips case of the title, break up with TNA
 * Christian defends some "World Title" against Angle, not branded at all and not the NWA one because it had already officially been stated he was no longer the champion
 * Next show the title he won was branded "TNA"
 * This is not "Kurt Angle won the NWA title" - the NWA, the only ones who can state who IS the NWA champion already said "Cage is not the champion any more". This does not in any way indicate linage. Do we have instances of Impact Wrestling stating specifically that they recognize any NWA champion as being the "TNA" or "IW" champion? If not this is not supported by facts. Are they saying Jeff Jarrett was a multiple time TNA World Champion? In the case of both the AWA and WWE the actual match was for the NWA championship, but promoters disagreed on the outcome and split off afterwards. Here the split was prior to any match. It's like saying that it was a "mutual agreement" to split up after being served divorce papers out of the blue, not actually rooted in facts. And to claim ECW lineage? Douglas said "this is a piece of shit" basically, do you think they wanted to claim lineage from that? never. This is a mess and I'm not sure it's worth even trying to keep it, but if should be slashed to exclude OR. If it was an article and not an image it'd be tagged with "OR", "dubious" and "citation needed" tags up and down. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right, the TNA title is not a splited title. Also, I agree the image is full of OR and dubius. Having this discussion isn't a good sign. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I even question the WCW World title as "Splinter" as well. Honestly this is a mess. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a splintered title because two different authorities which recognized Christian as champion simultaneously ceased to to such, with one withdrawing recognition and the other maintaining it. ThGs how titles have always splintered.
 * As for the WCW title, I'm just going to point out that WCW had full legal rights to call all pre-1991 NWA Champions as former WCW champions, a right they were granted as part of the settlement struck during their withdrawal from the NWA in 1993. The same settlement that obligated the NWA to use the domed globe belt design.
 * What it comes down to is that if this chart is just supposed to show lineal claims to the original world heavyweight championships through disputes and unifications, then the WWE title shouldn't even be on here (they don't really claim it as continuing the original lineage, what with the tournament in Rio and all). And the AWA title should be. But that's not what it shows. It shows the major world titles and how they relate to each other. That the ROH and AEW (and maybe also the MLW) titles are not descended can easily be shown in the graphic by including them without prior connection. oknazevad (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd say the WCW World title is definitely a splinter title as well. It split off when Ric Flair was recognized as both NWA and WCW World champion. And while we're talking about diagrams, should one be made for the Women's World Championship? Similar to the men's World title, it had several splinter titles: the NWA World Women's Championship, the WWWA World Single Championship, and the original WWE Women's Championship (though that one was more split off from the NWA title). Only 3 from what I can find, though I suppose since it was unified with the WWE Women's Championship, the WWE Divas Championship could be added, although it isn't a splinter title. 2601:195:100:D283:C8ED:2A38:1D13:C664 (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If he held both at the same time it's not "splintering" the NWA title, it's WCW also giving him the WCW title in addition to, not two different companies both claiming the "true" title. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * See what I said above about the TNA title. If two groups simultaneously recognize a champion and then one group withdraws that recognition then they have splintered the title because one continues to recognize that champion and the other does not. oknazevad (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That one is a weird one because Flair was not considered a double champion. He was the NWA Champion, then WCW started calling him the WCW Champion, but he only held the Big Gold Belt. The Big Gold Belt was essentially simultaneously the NWA title and the WCW title. -- JDC808  ♫  02:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

So it turns out there are two diagrams for lineage of the World titles. This one appears on the WWE title page, and the WWE World Heavyweight title page. This one seems completely arbitrary, as the only differences are the inclusion of the ROH and AEW World Championships. But, as noted by the graph itself, they do not have any lineage to the original 1905 World title, so there is no need to leave them in. 2601:195:100:D283:3DC6:77EE:FDC9:37A (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But this diagram easily lets unfamiliar readers know that there is no such lineage. I think it serves readers to include them. oknazevad (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmm then we need to add about 2,400 other titles that do not have lineage. If they are unfamiliar the diagram is even more confusing. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But how many of those have national TV deals? That is the criteria we have for including them in the national section of Template:Professional wrestling in the United States. I think it's a reasonable criteria for inclusion on this chart. Which is why I'd actually not only keep the ROH and AEW titles, but add MLW as well. oknazevad (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So throw in CMLL, AAA, NJPW and how about any company with national TV deals in other countries? It's not USA-pedia after all, do let's make it a big ol' mess of a diagram. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What's the point of include titles without lineage just to show they haven't lineage? As MPJ said, there is several titles without lineage. Also, the diagram is for titles with common lineage, no to show every title with TV deal. It's pretty simple, AEW and ROH titles don't meet the criteria for the diagram. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way, why has no one pinged, who created both versions of the template? oknazevad (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I created both diagrams. The original diagram was created by User:Richard BB. J4lambert (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC) WWE_world_title_lineage.jpeg

I like the original linege. It has no OR or SYNTH. Just Original, NWA, WWE and WCW. As we said, ECW and UNIVERSAL are not. WCW and TNA are very strange. But, I think that we should find sources, not just argue between us. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is an artcle from PWInisder about it. According to this AWA: "They formed the AWA and named Pat O'Connor, who by that point was the NWA World Champion, as the first AWA World Champion", " unlike the years of split World Title lineages we saw in the case of the AWA". WWF: " the northeastern territory wasted no time in splitting off to form their own company called the World Wide Wrestling Federation, and naming Buddy Rogers the first champion " wcw: "when Flair was defeated by Tatsumi Fujinami in Japan that March, the NWA recognized Fujinami as their new champion while WCW chose to ignore the match and continue to recognize Flair as the WCW World Champion. " ecw: " Douglas threw down the NWA belt, declared himself the Extreme World Champion, and ECW immediately terminated their relationship with the NWA." " existing companies springboarding to greater fame (ECW)," TNA: "they chose not to renew the deal and created their own titles instead". So, according to the article: AWA, WWF, WCW yes, ECW TNA, no.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So therefore the TNA and ECW titles must be replaced with the AWA titles if the image does not want to be deleted. J4lambert (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think so. Also, the Universal, since it's not a split version of the WWE Title. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with the above comments about ECW. The ECW World Heavyweight Championship traces its origin back to the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. Shortly after Douglas's victory, it was superseded by the ECW title, but that doesn't mean that the link to the NWA belt should be ignored. Douglas became ECW World Heavyweight Champion by virtue of having won the NWA World Heavyweight Championship so it's definitely a splinter title. The retro-retroactive "ECW was never anything big, anyway" comments show a misunderstanding of American wrestling in the 1990s, as even PWI eventually recognized it as a world championship. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing my position. I agree the ECW title belongs as a splinter of the NWA title, but I'm also the one that says that people now retoractively see ECW as bigger than it was during the actual time period. The WWF and WCW were household names. ECW was much more niche. That's all I mean. oknazevad (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, there was so much above, I seem to have been confused. Thank you for clarifying. In that case, I agree with you about the splinter title. I disagree with you about ECW. It had a following like no other promotion had seen (or has seen since). ECW news was a highlight of all of the Apter magazines, and people far from Philadelphia traded or purchased tapes just to get a glimpse of what was going on. I lived over 2400 miles from Philadelphia, and I had friends who would call the ECW hotline daily for results, news, and rumors. Without ECW, lucha libre and cruiserweight wrestling may never have broken into the USA during the 90s. Aside from the Apter magazines' recognition of a third world title, the constant raiding of talent by WCW and the cross-company promotion with WCW also point to the organization's huge presence and impact. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * While no one can deny that ECW wound up having a major impact on the industry, that impact was outsized compared to its actual draw at the time. Its attendance and TV audiences were never really that large, and it didn't really have the mainstream presence of the WWF and WCW. Its fan base was, if you'll pardon the pun, mostly hardcore wrestling fans, the type that would go out of their way to tape trade and call 900-number hotlines (or use the nascent web) to find out results. (And I frankly don't care about the Apter mags recognizing a title. That's always been meaningless and arbitrary.) The point being that ECW was a niche product, though it was at a time where that niche was as large as it's ever been. oknazevad (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * However, the title started as a NWA regional title in 1992. It's hard to say it's a spliter title since it was his own title since 1992.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It depends on your definition of "the title", "it", and "started". Are we talking about the pre-Douglas heavyweight championship, or the post-Douglas world championship that gained its status in part due to the temporary unification with the NWA World Championship and then became its own splintered stand-alone title? GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm talking the title as a whole, like the WWWF Heavyweight title and the WWE Title, or the PWG Championship and the PWG World Championship. The title started as the NWA Eastern Championship Wrestling championship in 1992 . When Doulas won the NWA title in1 994, it was not a unification match, just ECW decided to leave NWA and siad "our title is a world title", but it was not because he won the NWA and ECW title at the same time. it was just the ECW saying "it's a world title now", just like ROH or PWG. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A better description might be that the ECW title stole world title status from the NWA title. Though the WCW title had already done that, and that's from a legal standpoint, too (the aforementioned 1993 settlement). There's this odd thing that it's always presumed the NWA title has permanent world title status, but really, there's been periods where it's been irrelevant in the larger scene, hardly can be claimed to be held by the best wrestler in the world (however that's defined), where it's been vacant for long periods, and where there's been significant breaks in the lineage. Then again, almost all world titles have major vacancies and lineage breaks in their history. I think this highlights the fact that the concept of lineage plain doesn't exist in pro wrestling, and maybe the chart should just be deleted outright. oknazevad (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

As the creator of the original diagram my primary source was this documentary, but that didn't include WCW. I added that just from the known history of those two titles. —  Richard  BB  21:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice. It's nice to see at least, a source about the diagram. :) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

HHH Perigee posted on my page recommending I update the original image -- I've decided it'll probably be better if I recreate it entirely from scratch. I'm hoping to have recreated it in the next week. —  Richard  BB  16:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think is better to update his diagram with WWE Title (new name) and AWA title. As MPJ said, the diagram it's a mess and full of OR. However, his diagram has one source (the DVD) and the AWA is sourced by PWinsider. Just remove dubious titles, like TNA and ECW and it would be fine by me. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's fine with me, as long as it keeps the TNA and ECW titles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the ECW and Impact titles should be kept. PS, regarding the ECW title, the official history at wwe.com (which is the official history) begins with Shane Douglas's declaration. Officially, Douglas didn't elevate the old NWA Eastern title to world title status, even if the same belt was initially used. He declared the creation of a new title, using his briefly held status as NWA World Heavyweight Champion to make the claim to be world champion. oknazevad (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep ECW? How in the blue F is that logical? ECW gave the NWA the big old finger, but claim "lineage" to it? bullshit. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Dude, chill. It's all fiction. oknazevad (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And using a primary source by WWE as the reason to include TNA etc.? MPJ-DK (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, its fiction. Primary sources are fine for fiction. There is no "this is what really happened" in pro wrestling. That dirt sheet mentality should not permeate out articles. When discussing events depicted on television, we really need to treat it more like the plot summary of a television show. Because that's exactly what it is, regardless of whether the booking philosophy is "the wrestling supports the (melo)dramatic storyline" or "the storyline establishes the reason behind the wrestling exhibition". oknazevad (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not fiction. THA NWA was a goberment body, fact. One wrestler is the world champion, fact. One territory, like AWA, left NWA and claims the former NWA champion still the champion, fact. It doesn't happen with Shane Douglas, since he was the ECW champion before and after the 1994 tournament, just made a declaration, but didn't stole the world title status. In fact, I remember Howard Bordy saying ECW would do it anyway, just decided to do i during the tournament to more exposure. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. You keep trying to redirect the conversation to your strawman argument. The Eastern Championship Wrestling Heavyweight Championship wasn't a world championship. Nobody claimed it was. The title that was split off from the NWA World Heavyweight Championship was the Extreme Championship Wrestling World Heavyweight Championship. The belt that matters in this discussion is Douglas's world championship, which didn't become a world championship until he won the NWA title tournament. The credibility of the NWA title enabled Douglas to declare his belt to be a world championship. This forms a splinter title, as the temporary union of the two titles created two separate world championships. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Do youhave a reliable source to state that? Otherwise it's your interpretation of ECW giving the NWA the bird, yet claiming lineage - it's not a logical conclusion drawn by anyone who actually saw it happen or read wrestling news at the time that this happened (which I did, no magazine coverage at the time ever hinted at your conclusion on this.) MPJ-DK (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said, I prefer to keep out the TNA and ECW titles until we find a reliable source calling them split titles. WWF, WCW and AWA are sourced, but TNA and EECW aren't. So, until we find a RS, it's OR, so best to keep out of the diagram. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

TNA/Impact in notability criteria
So when the notability criteria was drawn up not too long ago, it was decided that the notability of a wrestler who wrestled for TNA/Impact is only presumed for between the dates of May 2004 (when Impact premiered on the old Fox Sports Net) to December 2018 (when it moved to Pursuit, a channel with poor carriage and little recognition). I'd like to revisit that.

Firstly, the end date is mistaken. There has been no appreciable drop off in coverage of the promotion, and indeed much of that coverage has been about the promotion's return to stability and strength culminating in their new AXS TV deal. So at the least, I think the end date should be removed. Yeah, it's no WWE or even hyped as AEW, but they actually have a national TV deal (unlike ROH) so it's prominent enough to presume notability for its wrestlers, because people who work there already have worked they're way up through the indies and likely recieved some coverage form independent sources.

Now, as for the start date, I'm not so sure that the so called "Asylum years" of the weekly PPVs should be discounted either, as there was quite a bit of coverage of them back in the day. But that's something I see less need to change. Either way, though, I think this needs some discussion. oknazevad (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability is established based on in depth non-routine coverage. Although the promotion has received a lot of attention for the move I don't see any RS covering anyone outside of WWE/AEW, and keep in mind that notability is not inherited. As far as I have seen there is nothing being written about anyone in Impact/ROH/MLW in a while. Anyone else have thoughts? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  14:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Meltzer issues again
Yet another user is trying to insert a whole section on Dave Meltzer's comments about Peyton Rouce, when it originally happened both me and agreed that WP:NOTNEWS applied and not notable for inclusion, I have removed it several times now and the editor refuses to take it to the talkpage. Could someone else speak to them?★Trekker (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * They violated 3RR, a report to WP:ANEW should suffice.  JTP (talk • contribs) 00:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * They have made a request at Editor assistance, I'm not sure what will come of that exactly.★Trekker (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So TWO editors agreed on something is hardly consensus and I can see why some would disagree on adding it into the article, especially if their argument is that looks like a deliberate exclusion of anything negative on Meltzer. At this point a discussion should have been had, not just a revert, revert cycle. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Two experienced editors who know Wikipedia guidlines is well enough. I told this user several times to take it to the talkpage, they did not, I then made this discussion, so not sure what I've done wrong. And no, it "seeming like it's deliberate exclusion" being an ok reason is complete nonsense, by that logic I have even better reasoning, the fact that Meltzers article is contantly under attack by people adding nonsense and weasely negative language.★Trekker (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well in one very experienced user's opinion I disagree, and honestly I think anyone that cites "experience" as part of their argument have already lost the argument. The fact the fact OTHER editors add nonsense is also not a reason to remove something that is not nonsense but sourced to a very reliable source. I am surprise that being as "Experienced" as you claim you don't know the difference and would continue to dig the hole. In my experience this unfortunately where the discussion has run its course - without anything being achieved, just some people set in their way repeatedly claiming they are right. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks like both sides were involved in an edit war. Neither side opened any dialog on the talk page. The only user talk page edits have been template warnings and a brief message deflecting responsibility for initiating a discussion. Looks like blocks would be warranted on both sides. And, on a side note, a private agreement between two editors is most definitely not a substitute for consensus. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There is already a section about this topic on Metlzers talkpage, I told this editor over and over to comment there, they did not. They continued to re-add the content which is inapropriate for Wikipedia, so I gave them warnings, I did not go to and demand they be blocked, then I came to this page and I informed them on my talkpage that they could reply here. Again, what more exactly is it that anyone wants me to do? Magic him to understand that his content falls under NOTNEWS and UNDUE?★Trekker (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A good case could be made for some of this material to be included but the editor in question has been blocked for harassment so I'm not sure these edits were made in good faith. WP:BRD was not followed here. Regardless, I tend to hold the same position that I did when this episode went down last year. Nothing really came of the story and I still think it's WP:NOTNEWS and doesn't deserve a mention.LM2000 (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The previous discussion is almost 10 months old, aside from a mention of the Polish Wikipedia. That's not an honest effort to discuss from either side. The block for harassment was obviously warranted (I would have expected longer than 31 hours, in fact) but the tag-team 3RR violation puts Treker and LM2000 in the wrong as well. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the Royce thing isn't notable at all. Is not about 0 negative things for Meltzer. But today, everything has on-line backlash. He just said Ryce looks heavier than during NXT, she responds, nothing more. Several years ago, Gregory Helms said AAA Mega Title is ugly, AAA responded, but I don't see it in the articles. Neither that time Batista said Bayley has a nice butt and people critziced him. Should we include also Scorssese and Coppola's coments about MCU? (well, maybe in a section about MCU critics, but not their articles). That's the same, a little, no notable thing without cosequences. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Cullen328 said "Meltzer has been a professional wrestling journalist for 36 years and it is fair to assume that he has said other things in bad taste. Wrestling revels in bad taste. This seems like a pretty trivial incident in the context of such a lengthy career, so I am oppose to adding it." I think is a good Point. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like someone just doesn't like Meltzer. Meh, the incident wasn't that large at all. Lasted only a few days at most. No one else really cared. Will C  15:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Professional wrestling show episodes
At NWA Power recently added a list of episodes. Historically we have included results in shows that mimic professional wrestling but are really TV show based, like Lucha Underground, but shows like Raw and SmackDown never included it. What is everyone's thought on this? Should we have a page with results for all 1,400 episodes of Raw? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  14:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have the same question. It's similar with WOS. I think, since are TV Shows, it's normal. But it would be a huge list of episodes with Impact, ROH, RAW, SmackDown... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If people think it should be included, I would think we should have the page broken out by year (so about 50 results per page), and it should use the standard Wikipedia formatting, similar to Lucha Underground (season 2), not a new format that Power uses. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  15:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need the results of every episode included on Wikipedia. It just seems excessive to include every single one. Imagine we did that for Raw, SmackDown, Nitro, Thunder, Impact etc? Including it for Power just because it's new is WP:RECENTISM at best, cruft at worst. oknazevad (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * In thinking about it, I don't see why not. These are TV shows, and every other TV show does it (just look at The Simpsons and its 30+ seasons). I would agree with Galatz on doing them by year (or season, though year would probably be easier). -- JDC808  ♫  21:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Formatting-wise I'd prefer more of a table ala List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) and less like the more detailed The Simpsons (season 20). MPJ-DK (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that first is just an overview of the first 20 seasons (and doesn't really say anything about the particular seasons). The second is of one season specifically, and is how practically all shows I've seen here have done it for their respective seasons. -- JDC808  ♫  03:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, every single comment is 100% factually correct - so in other words List of WWE Raw episodes and WWE Raw (2019) would be legitimate options? Or let's say List of IWRG shows in 2019 in addition to IWRG 23rd Anniversary Show, IWRG Zona de Ejecucion, Guerra de Dinastías, El Protector, Máscara vs. Cabellera, etc. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying in your first reply. It had sounded as if you wanted it to be done like the first example instead of the second, but your second reply seems to be okay with doing both examples (an overview article, and then an article for each year/season)? -- JDC808  ♫  05:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I prefer the first option, the list option personally. I simply presented an example of how it is currently done - another example would be List of Major League Wrestling events that is the overall list, with significant shows having their own stand alone articles such as Battle Riot or MLW Saturday Night SuperFight. So a list and if any individual episode warrants a stand alone article then that could be linked from the list. And yes it'd be a shit ton of work to do a "List of Raw shows in 2011", I am not suggesting we force anyone to write those, just that if someone wants to work on those we'd not simply label them as crufty, AFD them or remove the content just because not every single wrestling show has this.MPJ-DK (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, can somebody tell me by the list is just focused on matches? Matches are important, but also segments. Like debuts, returns, tributes, (Eddie, Owen, Benoit) promos (Rock's life), segments (Edge and Lita sex celebration) that are important. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:TVPLOT individual episodes should not have more than 200 words in the plot section. I believe this would be the criteria you are referring to. If we do this, I think we should limit episode summary to 100 words in prose and a list of matches. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  14:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about NWA Powerrr and WOS Wrestling, there is only matches, but no segments. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Was, not "is". It was removed from Powerrr before anything beyond the basics was added. But future is more important than past,so what would the preferred appoach be? I don't have a preference I just don't feel like having territorial revert tiffs over it. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you want to put together a draft MOS of how you like everything should look? That way there is no back and forth and we can all make sure we are on the same page? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  18:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In regards to the prose limits, perhaps still have the Plot summary box that TV episodes have, and then a separate box that only lists the matches? Or, only list the major plot points with their associated matches (if there were matches with them), then at the end of the summary, probably a break between, list the other matches that occurred in prose form (e.g., "Also on the show, X defeated Y, tag team X defeated tag team Y by count out, Z defeated A by disqualification, etc."). -- JDC808  ♫  21:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is what is currently in Lucha Underground (Lucha_Underground_(season_2)), it sounds like you want something similar. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hadn't seen that, but I'd be okay with that format (as it already exists). -- JDC808  ♫  04:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

- Just putting it out there, the match results imbeded into the plot summary looks dreadful. Can we not explain important matches in prose, such as we would for actual TV shows? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We could do anything. But the question is what is the best way to communicate that information. Prose often has a way of getting out of control and harder to limit. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 
 * A simple prose limit should be plenty to be honest. I think my point was that quite often, the match results aren't the most important thing on a show, so having a list of results seems a bit much. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've never thought episode lists were that great of an idea. It isn't like a series. Come on, wrestling has a tendency to drop stuff regularly and make no sense. I feel the PPVs cover that enough. At best a section of special episodes. Will C  15:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Xavier Woods
New discussion between Vjmlhds  and I. Is Xavier Woods Tag Team Champion? A few days ago, New Day won the titles. VJ includes Woods since New Day always used the freebird rule. However, there is no indication this time is used. In WWE.com, there is only a picture of Big E and Kofi. Also, in his profile, Woods hasn't the title pic, unlike Kofi. There is only one source, a Twitter video where Woods says he is also champion, but Woods has no power. It doesn't matter the video if WWE doesn't make it official. It woulnd't suprise me if WWE includes an injuried wrestler as champion, but right now, there is no official WWE source. So, what do you think? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * We went through this last time with Kofi. WWE.com had E and Woods listed as tag champions, but they still counted it for Kofi as well (this was when Kofi still held the WWE Title)  Long story short, all of New Days tag team title reigns are Freebird reigns, and unless WWE specifically says otherwise, that should be the default position.  It's actually OR on our part to say any New Day reign ISN'T a Freebird reign when every single one up to now has been.  So unless WWE comes right out and says Woods doesn't count, then the proper thing is to proceed with this reign as the usual New Day reign where all 3 are champions.  This is only their 7th reign with a WWE Tag Team Title - not like this is a new phenomenon or anything. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work like that. If just two members appears as champions and Woods hasn't the title pic, it's necessary to have a source about Woods being champion, since there is no source (just a video, but not WWE making official). We can't source thing that aren't. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, it does work like that. When something is an established practice, we adhere to that until something clear says we shouldn't.  Christmas is always December 25. We should always assume it will be that way unless something undeniably says it will be cancelled.  Same idea here.  All of New Day's reigns are Freebird, and unless somebody clearly and unambiguously says no, then business should proceed as usual.  Again, we went through this last time with Kofi. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's WP:SYNTH. That said, because of Woods's Twitter video I'm inclined to leave it for now, but only because he is making the claim and there's been nothing to dispute that. Not because of prior uses of the Freebird rule. During their last reign when Kofi was WWE Champion there was no indication that it counted for Kofi either. Kofi never participated in a defense of the title during that reign, all defenses were Woods and Big E. Chances are Woods will not participate in any defenses during this reign because of how long the injury is supposed to keep him out, either. It really does bring to question whether the Freebird rule automatically applies to the whole reign or just to defenses during the reign. (And, as a side note, I'll guess we may get a chance to see if AEW allows it in the near future with the AEW tag titles held by SCU. So far they've only recognized Frankie Kazarian and Scorpio Sky as champs, not Christopher Daniels.) oknazevad (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, Woods is just a worker. He has no power over that decission. Just like Booker T claiming he is the TNA World Champion. Or like Charlotte saying she is the first Grand Slam Champion, but WWE didn't backup her.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Side note, AEW has confirmed that they are not using the Freebird Rule for SCU. -- JDC808  ♫  00:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Should we not be trying to use WP:SECONDARY sources for this? What do other organisations/press/cagematch etc say on the matter? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources for titles: Cagematch just lists Kofi and Big E. Other sources (PWTorch, PWInsider, Superluchas) doesn't say anything about Woods as champion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * So injured when they won the title, probably injured when they lose it - yet there is a discussion? .... okay then. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are trying to compare apples to oranges. In the Kofi situation there was a WWE.com video and ESPN article that listed Kofi. You have provided nothing for Woods. In addition Woods was listed but with a footnote saying some places considered him and others did not, something you are not doing here. So no, he should not be listed. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  14:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I set things up to where I basically split the difference - I acknowledged Woods' claim, but without giving him blanket full credit. This way there's acknowledgment that the water is a bit muddy. Life can't always be black and white...sometimes there's some grey. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No you didnt, you added Woods to the actual list, he should not be anywhere. Just because someone says it about themselves doesn't make it true. If I tweet that I am the new member of The New Day will you add that to Wikipedia? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Please stop with this one man jihad of carpet bombing articles. No consensus has been reached one way or the other, so until then, the compromise version is the best way to go. Acknowledges the claim without giving him full credit. P.S. I'd actually like to see you in New Day...I think it would be a hoot.Vjmlhds (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest, if there is no consensus shouldn't what has been shown on TV or listed on WWE.com be what is listed? the official sources in this case. This riduculous discussion has reached a level of dumbness seldom seen - "is a guy who is injured part of the tag team championship that they will probably lose before he's recovered from his injury". - Anti-barnstars all around. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So you think a compromise is reached by you unilaterally deciding what works for everyone? I would like to remind you that the WP:BURDEN is on you. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  22:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD is in effect here. There isn't a "split the difference" option. We haven't found secondary sourcing that says he holds the title - so he doesn't. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Has the E said he holds the title? No? Then no reign. Yes? Then reign. Simple as that. Will C  11:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That's the only answer. oknazevad (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed x2. Pre  fall  12:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you want me to bring this to ANI again? Seriously, I have zero doubt that if you keep this up you will be blocked for a 12th time. There is a clear consensus here against you including it. WP:BURDEN is extremely clear that its on you to prove it, which you have failed to do. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  12:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you look closely, when you reverted my last edit on the WWE personnel page - I didn't even have Woods listed as champion, but you were in such a hurry to revert me to make a point, you erased the note about him being inactive and injured. You like throwing around ANI threats, but if you look before you leap when making carpet bomb edits, you'd realize I didn't have Woods as champion.  You need to chill before making boasts and threats. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Says the man who reverted all sort of other correct edits in his change. You should not have removed Jason Jordan. You should not have force piped links. I stand behind my revert. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  15:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Jason Jordan is not an active wrestler any more...he's a producer (yeah, yeah...his WWE.com bio says Raw...so does David Otunga's...you gonna put him back there too?) I didn't even notice the pipe links stuff (nor would most Wiki editors to be honest...only super-duper strict sticklers notice things like that when you get right down to it).  At this point, you're reverting me just to have a urinating contest.  Reflects more on you than it does me. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are responsible for every edit you make on wikipedia. When you click to revert (as you did many times here) you will see that you are affecting more than just one thing. If you fail to pay attention to what you are doing, thats on you. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  15:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's a cut and paste of what I said in the article's talk page: Looking at wwe.com, Kofi and Big E's profiles both have the title under their names, but Woods doesn't. There's nothing to indicate all 3 are being considered champs at this point. Which is to say, I don't agree with Xavier being listed as a champion IanPCP (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

André's WWE title reign
Hi. I have a doubt. One year ago, I saw an Ask 411, where the writer says Andre's WWF Title reign wasn't recognized (WWF didn't promoted him as former champion, some magazines neither...) So, can somebody told me if that's true? In that case, do you think it's necesary a note in his title reign? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Without knowing exactly which official publications didn't list Andre, then no. It's a trivial detail at best, and conflicts with what we know at worst. Doesn't need to be there. oknazevad (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we would need to know where they used to not recognize him. He is currently in the WWE.com listing -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  16:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

NXT Alumni
Well, everyone knows NXT is the 3th brand. Jordan Myles left WWE so, there is my question. Do you think we should include NXT wrestlers in the WWE Alumni article. We don't include develoment wrestlers, like OVW or FCW, since the article would be huge. But since NXT is a 3th brand... what do you think? And NXT UK? And PC recruits who never make it to NXT? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd absolutely be in support of that. Maybe not PC recruits if they never make TV, but if they are contracted and appear on TV, they should be included. DrewieStewie (talk) 07:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, as their 3rd brand, yeah, don't see why not (even though Myles blew his whole situation way out of proportion). Not sure about the PC recruits though. Don't believe WWE even acknowledge them as "alumni" if they leave before they ever make it to TV. -- JDC808  ♫  07:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Bobby Roode and Chad Gable
Bobby Roode and Chad Gable is created by me. Feel free to review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImmortalWizard (talk • contribs) 10:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure they meet our criteria for a standalone article. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

John Cena
John Cena, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Bash at the Beach 2020
All Elite Wrestling has confirmed that they will be a hosting a special event under the Bash at the Beach name in January 2020, so I'm guessing it won't be grouped with the past Bash events due to it not being a WCW/WWE owned property? Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That kind of depends a bit. Is that not a trademarked name? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WWE clearly didn't reapply for the trademarks and AEW has seemed to snatch them up. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case, I don't really see how it's any different from the ones that the WWE ran, which are in the same chronology -something like how we handle Starrcade Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WWE let a ton of WCW trademarks expire many years ago. In this instance they all expired in 2004/2005 time frame   . In March 2019 Cody Runnels applied for and was granted the trademark . In my opinion AEW Bash at the Beach would not be part of the WCW/WWE chronology like Starrcade or The Great American Bash. Chronology by its nature must logically flow from one to the other. When WWE bought WCW, the chronology continues. There have been 5 different American Football Leagues in the US, and just because they share a name, it doesnt mean they share a history. To me an unrelated promotion causes and unrelated history and therefore has an unrelated page. -  Galatz גאליץ  שיחה Talk  17:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be amazed if we didn't at least mention it at Bash at the Beach... Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Mentioned vs including at are very different. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  18:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There will probably be a reference to it in the article itself or just a redirect to the correct article at the top. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I would say to move the WCW to WCW Bash at the Beach and have Bash at the Beach be a disambig page. But thats a separate discussion -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  18:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * what about war games? mlw used the concept, maybe its a similar scenario.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That is done similar to what I mentioned above. WarGames match lists WCW and NXT events together, MLW is lumped into the "spin-off" section at the bottom. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  19:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Not same series. Can't be the same cause they weren't the same company. Will C  00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Starrcade and The Great American Bash were events with the same name used by multiple companies and are grouped together. It's only one special episode of Dynamite titled Bash at the Beach, not sure it warrants one separate article when it can be put together in a specified section with the current article. Originalchampion (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * but in those examples one company acquired the other. Starrcade also went from JCP to WCW for the same reason. This is more like saying the Rena Mero article needs to be combined with the car company since they both share the name Sable. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  11:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. StarrCade and GAB have a chronological order, since promotions buyed the names and concepts. A spin off section it's fine by me. Like War Games, MLW had his version but isn't related with the "official" WCW/WWE chronology. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

WWE's recycling of the GAB and Starrcade names does not really place their events into a chronology with the JCP/WCW versions because they weren't in continuous use. It was 17 years before they reused the Starrcade name for a glorified house show. Yeah, WWE owns the tape library containing the old events, but they are not really the same entity. oknazevad (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

We must remember that Bash at the Beach and The Great American Bash/The Bash are two separate events/chronologies. That being said, while WWE used The Great American Bash/The Bash name and still owns it, they never acted upon the Bash at the Beach trademark and let it expire, and AEW is picking it up. It was Dusty Rhodes who came up with the name and gave permission to WCW to trademark the name, and now that it has expired, Cody Rhodes/AEW, by virtue of Cody being Dusty, the name's creator's son, has a legitimate claim for that trademark. Therefore, by the Runnels family creation and maintaining of the Bash at the Beach trademark, AEW is continuing the chronology of Bash at the Beach, and so they are in the same chronology as WCW's Bash at the Beach. That's my opinion. DrewieStewie (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Litterally ALL they have in common is 1) the name and 2) It is related to wrestling (not even the same type of event) - by that logic Stigma (wrestler) and Stigma (luchador) are also related and should be on the same page too. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * you're really reaching there because that is a stretch to say it's a continuation just because of the family connection. -- JDC808  ♫  07:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Just make a new page. Call it AEW Bash at the Beach. Mention the history with WCW and WWE. Mention the Rhodes family stuff. Done. Can't be the same chronology. Will C  18:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the same. New article, AEW Bash on the Beach and a note in the WCW article. AEW doesn't own the right for previous events, unlike WWE --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Update to Tessa Blanchard?
I was viewing the article recently and didn’t see anything about her current angle that has her up for a world title shot. Not sure your standards so I didn’t want to edit it myself. 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:16 (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just edit. If there are any issues in what you added, it'll be fixed or removed. -- JDC808  ♫  22:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Sports reviewing ideas
I've floated some ideas in the hope of increasing participation for FAC reviews of sports related articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports if anyone is interested in the idea or has a better one. Kosack (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

OVW Television Championship
The OVW Television Championship has been deactivated thus I have updated the article as such. In its place is the RUSH Championship. It is akin to the X Division Championship. November 19, 2019 was the air date of OVW TV #1058. I can't find the exact date episode was taped. But looking at the the last title change, it is listed by air date. Is that standard for tapings? Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 02:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * https://ovwmania.blogspot.com/2019/11/ovw-tv-1058-rush-to-christmas-chaos.html This is the results for episode 1058 and all title changes are done by the date the event took place on not by air date as is standard across all title pages. Browndog91 (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a blog and you failed to prove how it is reliable. Plus blogs are not to be used as a source.  I was not asking for results as you can clearly see.  But let's ignore that.  You failed to bring forth the date episode #1058 was taped.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It says November 19th was the date it was taped it aired a few days later.Browndog91 (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So they air on Saturdays? Episode #1058 was uploaded to YouTube on November 23rd.  Is that the correct air date?   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Trying to find air date apparently it airs Tuesday 8pm and then again on Saturday https://www.titantvguide.com/?siteid=50705 this is the tv guide for the channel it is on.Browndog91 (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

NXT World championship
Today, I readed the NXT Title article. Here, I see how it's considered a World title like the Universal and WWE Titles. However, I think, one year ago, we discussed and decided it's not a world championship due to lack of sources. The only source is when McIntyre won the title and was mentioned as a world title, but since then, WWE never called a world title or their champion, world champions and isn't supported by third-party sources. I know that NXT is the third main brand, but it can be a main brand and the main title, a no-world title (like ECW). I think one source isn't enough for such claim. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * At the same time though, it was WWE who claimed it was a world title in that Mcintyre source. Unless they say otherwise, its still considered a world title, as no sources since then have discounted that status. (ECW Championship is considered a world title too). DrewieStewie (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there a source by WWE calling it a "World championship"? Have WWE called it a "World championship" on air? If no to either, then it isn't a world title. It has always been this simple. Will C  18:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It was called just once, when Drew McIntyre won the title. "Fulfilling a prophecy first laid out by WWE Chairman Mr. McMahon years earlier, Drew McIntyre captured a world championship in a WWE ring when he defeated Bobby Roode to claim the NXT Title at TakeOver: Brooklyn III." I think the first discussion ended as NXT no-world title since is just one source and it was never mentioned again. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I supported calling it a world title when this source came out but that was two years ago. The fact that further sources didn't start calling it a world title after this is alarming and if this is still the only source we can use to cite this then we should not be labeling it a world title.LM2000 (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The Drew article was for WWE to save face after failing with him years ago and to try to make him mean more. It was a one off. Though I wouldn't be surprised with recent events if they don't start calling it a world title soon. Will C  21:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That first linked discussion, which I started and occurred after the one you have linked second, was more in favor of the recognition. And the ECW Championship is/was a world title even when it was on the ECW brand. This is really just gonna repeat the same things that were said then. -- JDC808  ♫  03:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, its the other way around, because of that one source from WWE, it is only not a world title if they say it isnt. It is until they say otherwise. Not it isn't until they say it again. DrewieStewie (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It was said one time in the 7 year history of the title and it was two years ago - signs point to WWE not considering it a world title, probably never did intentionally made that comment but that's a guess. What we do know is that it's not been even alluded to in two years. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Though Tommasa Ciampa several times said he was the NXT world champion all over his social medias, yet WWE never stopped him. There's even a WWE.com interview with him where "NXT World Champion" is quoted. -- JDC808  ♫  07:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That is like saying because Paul Heyman called Brock the "Universal Heavyweight Champion" that we need to change everything to call it that because WWE didnt stop Heyman from calling it that. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  14:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What you just said actually supports my argument because the Universal Championship is a world heavyweight championship, which is acknowledged in its article. And like what DrewieStewie said, this isn't about the name, its about its status. -- JDC808  ♫  21:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Galatz, that is not an accurate statement because NXT's world title claim is more bold and difference making than the name of a title. Were judging a world title claim, not a championship's name. DrewieStewie (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A wrestler is going to talk a big game about their championship, so I'm not impressed with this line of argument. Taz introduced the ECW FTW Heavyweight Championship and put it over a real world title, more important than the ECW World Heavyweight Championship. It was even defended in its place at some shows. But we don't even recognize it as a sanctioned ECW championship, let alone a world title.LM2000 (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Same for the Evolve title. McIntyre called Evolve World title, but the promotion didn't change the name. Also, TNA Global Title is not a World Title even with the word Global. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Difference here though is that WWE themselves have stated that it's a world title. ECW nor Evolve did that with those titles. Just for another to throw in there: Adam Cole: "NXT Champion of the world". -- JDC808  ♫  21:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, he is the NXT Champion OF THE WORLD. But what else should he be the Champion of? Lio Rush is also the Cruiserweight Champion OF THE WORLD. Every title that is not just about a specific region is a title OF THE WORLD, just not automatically what we refer to as a world title.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's false. The United States Championship is not the United States Championship of the world. Nor is the Intercontinental Championship, etc. Edit: Overlooked about the regional bit you mentioned, but still false. -- JDC808  ♫  22:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd recommend starting an RfC if consensus is not gained. It doesn't look like we'll find unanimous agreement here.LM2000 (talk) 06:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This really should be a no-brainer. The company has in fact called it a world championship. Regardless of how long it's been since that one source, the fact of the matter is it's been called a world championship by the company who owns the title. It is not for us to decide if we think it should be categorized as one if the company has called it as such. Also, straight from the WWE Shop: Customize your NXT World Heavyweight Championship Replica Title Belt with these Official WWE Side Plates! Those are for Tommaso Ciampa, but it also says that for Johnny Gargano's, The Undisputed Era's, and Velveteen Dream's. And in the media call for WarGames - Fightful: "I'm curious was there ever a conversation to have Adam Cole involved in a triple threat [at Survivor Series] with Raw and SmackDown's world champions Brock and Bray?" Triple H: "Yeah you know those conversations early in the process took place" (quoted from 28:16). -- JDC808  ♫  11:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears that more and more primary WWE sources and examples have been coming to light to prove that it is indeed a world championship. Looks like there is more and more evidence to prove it and little to disprove it. In my eyes, case closed. DrewieStewie (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it's a case-closed scenario. The only time we've seen the NXT Title referred to as a "world" title was written in a WWE.com article for McIntyre over 2 years ago and on WWEShop.com. It's well known that the people who write the articles for WWE.com are very bad with continuity. A lot of times the left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing. Not once on television, where it matters the most, has the NXT Title ever been referred to as a world championship. However, with that said, now that NXT was a part of Survivor Series, I say we wait until the build for the Royal Rumble begins next month and let's see if NXT guys and girls will be part of the 30 man/woman Rumble matches. If they are, and if the NXT Title and the NXT Women's Title are eligible to be chosen by the Rumble winners for a WrestleMania match, then that to me ends this conversation. If the NXT Title is truly on the same level playing field as the WWE Title and the Universal Title, then the Royal Rumble will let us know. If the NXT Title will be an option for the winner, then it's a world title. If it's not, then that also ends this conversation. OldSkool01 (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Jay Lethal
As we know, Jay Lethal won the ROH Tag Titles with Jonathan Gresham at Final Battle a couple nights ago. Fightful.com wrote that Lethal is now a Grand Slam Champion, even though the ROH Grand Slam, as of now, consists of the World, World Tag, World Six-Man Tag and World Television titles. He hasn’t won the Six Man Tag titles, but has won the Pure Championship, which only contributes to the Triple Crown. I’ve noticed that HHH Pedigree has added Lethal to the list of ROH Grand Slam winners, adding the Pure Championship to the table, and using the Fightful.com source. As far as I know, ROH themselves haven’t announced Lethal as a Grand Slam Champion, so should Lethal be in the table of ROH Grand Slam Champions despite that, or is the Fightful source viable enough? Drummoe (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * also, the comentators called him Grand Slam champion after his --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Alright seems fair enough Drummoe (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We're gonna need a source saying the commentators say this. We need a source from the company other than saying it happened.-- Will C  04:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Does it fit into / "Cite Episode"? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I dont see why it shouldn't, you guys are all good. DrewieStewie (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cite EP has always been one of those good faith type sources. No one can really check it. I used it when TNA made their grand slam for a bit. Eventually I got an actual source and a Youtube video about it from TNA. It can work but it is iffy. Open to challenges.-- Will C  12:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

OVW Grand Slam
Recently I have been watching OVW TV episodes on YouTube, Amon (previously known as Reverend Stuart Miles) is a triple crown champion and recently won the OVW Anarchy Championship. First Amon himself proclaimed he was a Grand Slam champion in a promo then on episode 1061, one of the commentators call him a Grand Slam champion. Is this enough to make an OVW Grand Slam? It would consist of the OVW Heavyweight Championship, OVW Southern Tag Team Championship, OVW Television Championship and the OVW Anarchy Championship but note the Television title has been deactivated making all future Grand slam champions to be former Television champions. It is unknown if the new OVW Rush Division title is included in the Triple Crown or Grand Slam. What does everyone think? Browndog91 (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * to be perfectly honest, I think we need quite the overhaul on our current Grand Slam article. The bit on "regional" promotions is a bit silly - pretty much any promotion that has more than three championships has a sense of a "grand slam". We could include tens of promotions that have a similar concept, I would prefer them all to be mentioned in prose, rather than a table that is a little irrelevant with one entry. The current system seems more in line with an article like list of Grand Slam champions, rather than the article on the concept of Grand Slams.


 * I would recommend adding a sentence or two on the OVW article, and the BLP regarding his status and leave it as such. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 13:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no problem in regional promotions. the article is about the grand slam in pro wrestling and the promotions are notable. about OVW, I think its necedary one more reliable --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Final match = Main event?
Is there actually a written policy anywhere on Wikipedia that states that the final match of a show is the main event? Personally I think it's ridiculous and insulting to suggest that, just because it went on last, the comedy bout between Paul E. Dangerously and Arn Anderson vs Missy Hyatt & Rick Steiner was the main event of the 1991 Great American Bash rather than the Luger/Windham world title match. 165.225.81.100 (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thats always been the consensus that the main event match is the final match. What you are saying is that based on your own WP:POV something else should be. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  18:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you point to where this consensus was agreed? 2.28.124.12 (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * On WP:PW/PPVG it says "The main event is the final match, but sometimes can include more than one match if other bouts were heavily advertised. " 165.225.81.100 (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The one instance I can definitively agree on the final match not being the main event was No Mercy (2016) when the day of, WWE decided to have the scheduled main event open the show due to the presidential debate that same night. Randy Orton vs. Bray Wyatt was the final match, but it was not the main event nor was ever promoted as such. So, in the vast majority of cases, the final match is the main event, but there are some rare exceptions (just like there can be exceptions to Wikipedia guidelines/policies). -- JDC808  ♫  22:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * - what would your opinion be on Missy & Rick Steiner vs Arn & Paul E at GAB '91 as another example of such a rare exception?
 * I can see no evidence other than its final match status that it was ever a higher attraction than the match for the vacant WCW title. 2.28.124.12 (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't really say much without knowing anything about that event or those matches. Just going by your description in your original post, I'd possibly agree, but I'd need to know more about the build up and advertising for the event/matches. 86.128.7.144 (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * AWA and WCCW shows often did not feature the most promoted match of the night as the last match. Btw. going by that rule the "Main event" of a lot of shows is the dark match. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a common trick used by bookers when structuring a card - if there's a piece of really bad news for the fans such as a heel world title win (in the case of GAB '91 a babyface going heel in his moment of first world title win glory), put the headline match midway through the show and end on something lightweight and inconsequential but with a definite babyface-friendly ending like slimy announcer Paul E getting beaten up and having his phone placed on his prone beaten body. Survivor Series '91 would be another good example - Undertaker's win over Hogan was put on third of five with the night ending in a victory for the Legion of Doom where they got to beat up Irwin R Schyster.2.28.124.12 (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I feel the same. It's strange that one source says X match is the main event but Wikipedia says something different. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The listing of Missy & Rick Steiner vs Arn & Paul E as the main event of GAB '91 is an extreme example of where the policy falls down.  There are other less outrageous examples that I've come across on Wikipedia.  (Dusty vs Tully as main event of GAB '85, Bret vs Davey as main event of SS '92).  Hopefully there will be more people and enough momentum for a rethink of this policy. 165.225.81.100 (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In case you want to read The main event is the primary match that a show is built and primarily promoted around. Usually, that match does appear last on the card, but not always. Somewhere along the line, some wrestling fans (and even wrestlers) have gotten very confused and decided that the word “main” means “last,” when in reality the word “main” means and has always meant “primary in size or importance,” as stated in the Oxford English Dictionary. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well exactly. There are some frankly crazy nominations for main event on the table on the Saturday Night's Main Event page table such as Beefcake & Valentine over jobbers Poffo & Garea on SNME2 (over a Hogan/Volkoff flag match and Studd & Bunday vs Andre & Atlas) the Steamboat/Fuji "kung fu challenge" on SNME3 (over Hogan & Andre vs Studd & Bundy and an IC title match) and in the case on SNME5 probably the least important match on the show, JYD vs Adonis (below the Hogan/Muraco match that set up WM2, the T/Orton boxing match that set up Piper/T and a tag title match.  Even Bundy's squash of Steve Gatorwold was of more importance than JYD/Adonis as it hyped up Bundy for WM2 and was his reason for being around to interfere in Hogan/Muraco.)  And don't even get me started on Kamala squashing Poffo in 1:44 being top of the bill at SNME7
 * But anyway, where do we go if we want to more formally challenge this "consensus" about last match = main event? 2.26.165.105 (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. If one source says X match is the Main event, we can't say Y match is the main event just because its the last match.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well that's very fine of you, but what to do about someone like, if we want to challenge kneejerk-reverting of any suggestion of any match other than the final match as the main event? 86.128.7.144 (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

PPV taglines and when it is valid to put them
I ran into a small dispute (which had begun before I got involved) at the WWE Stomping Grounds article. User is deleting the tagline "Time to kick ass and take names", which can be seen on the poster. The aforementioned user removed it initially because it doesn't state that it is the tagline, and that there may be multiple posters with different or no taglines uploaded here. Then, I put the tagline again, as it can be read at the WWE.com article about the PPV, and also heard emphatically in this promotional video for the event. He removed it again, now his reason being that they are still not specifying that THAT is the tagline.

So, before having this disagreement grow and become an edit war, I want to reach a consensus with the community. Do the people at WWE (and other companies) need to be so specific with us to the point of having to tell us that the phrase they are using emphatically for this PPV is, indeed, the tagline for such event? If that's the case, I still found articles by WhatCulture and Black Squirrel Radio  that do specify it, but I prefer to await confirmation from the community to put them as valid references, given that they are not official WWE websites, so they won't be removed as well.

-AndSalx95 (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * If it's on the poster and they advertise that tagline, then it's a tagline. Doesn't necessarily mean it's the only tagline, but it is at least a tagline for the event. Simple as that. Galatz gets way too picky on these things to the point of ridiculousness if it's not specific enough for him. -- JDC808  ♫  03:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, definitely a tagline to me. DrewieStewie (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely to you based on what? Sounds to me like you are drawing a conclusion that if its on the poster its the tagline, and thats WP:OR. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  14:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a tagline. It's also exceedingly trivial. Do we really need to put a tag line entry in the infobox? I don't think so. They are so rarely notable that they should just be omitted. If on the rare occasion that they are notable, which would require discussion (not just passing mention) in third party sources, then we can include them in the article body. But they're really to trivial to include by default in the infobox. oknazevad (talk) 07:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I proposed removing them completely a few months ago but we didn't gain a consensus. The tagline is so meaningless I don't see why it is in the infobox the begin with. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  14:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like that you're trying to come at this from another angle then, if the parameter cannot be removed you'll see to it that the tag lines get removed instead. Even if that is not your intention that is exactly what it looks like, not a good look. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * tagline: a catchphrase or slogan, especially as used in advertising, or the punchline of a joke. according to google. They used this multiple times to advertise an event. Either we should get rid of the infobox (which I don't really care too much for) and add this to the prose, or we accept this in the infobox. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, unsourced information regardless of my feelings should not be on Wikipedia. Any pages that have it and have it sourced its not a problem. The issue is with unsourced information. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  19:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * - well except the fact that it is on the poster, so it is a "catchphrase used in advertising" and thus is sourced to the poster itself, and your removal is only by your interpretation that it's "not sourced". MPJ-DK (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to restate that I had also provided sources from WWE.com which are still not enough for Galatz to be taken as valid references since they do not explicitly specify that it is the PPV tagline. Again, let's take a look to the WhatCulture and BSR links so we can deem them as appropriate sources. -AndSalx95 (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I felt surprised to see the theme song entry removed before the tagline one. I'm not discussing its relevance, but given the context of this discussion, WWE does emphasize that a song will be the theme song for a PPV, which would fit more into the criteria used by Galatz. Now, about the tagline entry being removed, I agree. -AndSalx95 (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

If it's on the poster, it's a tagline by definition. This doesn't mean that it was used exclusively, nor does it mean it was used consistently to promote the event. I just looked through a handful of articles for events that I watched, and more than half included taglines that I don't remember seeing or hearing leading up to the event. However, I can't argue that they are taglines. They're on the poster, which means that they were used to advertise the events. I suppose I just never saw the posters. Incidentally, how would these posters have been used? At the venue? Around the city hosting the event? Around large cities to promote the purchase of the pay-per-view? Under what circumstances would a person see such a poster on a wall? GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * One of the places I've seen those posters were in wrestling magazines I used to collect in the 1990s. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * basically all the above and what MPJ-DK said, and also the internet. -- JDC808  ♫  03:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Thanks. (Maybe I'm showing my age when I say that the internet wasn't a thing when I last watched wrestling.) GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If home video was around when you still gave a hoot, you probably saw them at a rental place before, but surrounded by so many other ads your brain simply couldn't be bothered to wake your eyes up. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Taglines are on posters. If a phrase is on a poster, it's a tagline. After 28 PPVs I've never had an issue with the tagline needing a source. Not at GAN. Not at FAC.-- Will C  11:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

How long
must a company be inactive before the article reflects this? I am asking for a friend who's a prince of felines as well as a Dark eight sided one. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For TV shows I believe typically if no new season is announced the show is considered over after 1 year -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That was kinda the timeframe I had in mind too when I noticed how long ago the last epsode aired. TV shows is a good guideline to apply to it, but I welcome other opions. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * good for me. I made the same for WOS, but the show came back (i think it was a rare case). most of the LU cast left the show, event the creator Joseph signed with --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Seperate page for IWGP Heavyweight Championship reigns
Been thinking about this for a while. I think that there should be a separate page for IWGP Heavyweight Championship title reigns. This would be more in line with other contemporary world championships as well as NJPW's other titles (e.g. Intercontinental, Tag Team, NEVER Openweight etc.) The same goes for the IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship, which also has its title history cojoined to the same page for some unclear reason. I don't understand why not. Both titles have plenty of history and lineage, and both have had enough reigns to justify such a move, it’s not like it’s a brand new title with little history like the WWE Universal Championship or the IWGP United States Championship. I've already brought this up on the IWGP world title talk page, but I thought I'd also bring it up here for a consensus. Any thoughts on this? Ducktech89 (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2020, (UTC)
 * I actually kinda have an issue in our practice of doing this. Our current guideline is that once there are 10+ reigns for a title, then a separate list article is made for the reigns; however, that sometimes leaves the championship article to be nothing but a few paragraphs (including the lead). I think the reigns should be split out only if the championship article has enough information to support itself as its own article. It should be noted, however, that the IWGP Heavyweight Championship is not an article, but in fact a list and is perfectly fine as is. It doesn't need its reigns split out. If you do split it, it would lose its status as a Featured List. Furthermore, if we were to disregard the fact that it is a list article and not a regular article, splitting the reigns out would reduce the page to basically Start Class level. -- JDC808  ♫  13:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the pages rating should not be a reason not to split. A featured list nomination could be done for the new list. The 10+ reigns probably should come with some other criteria too, like the page that is left should not be below 15,000 bytes. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The ratings essentially dictate how much content is on the page (as well as its quality). Pointing out that the IWGP title would basically become a Start Class (meaning it has some content, but it's largely lacking) was to highlight my point of championship articles becoming a bit bare when the reigns are split. I agree on further criteria, but I would say instead of a bytes limit, I would use the page ratings as the determining factor (i.e., there needs to be enough content for the page to at least be a C-Class without the reigns table). -- JDC808  ♫  14:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It literally is already a FL and would need to be split just so we could get another FL? What is this nonsense. The article is at the best quality it can be at right now. No one is going to expand the title to GA. What logic is this?--WillC 15:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * On top of that, both sets of tag titles were FLs in the main article and random users came around and thought they needed to be split without knowing they were already at their top quality per peer review. Now we have 4 articles that are basic standard articles and none that have been peer reviewed. It is that regressive thinking that hurts this project. The only reason the WWE articles are split was this project was very WWE-centric and editors wanted there to be as many WWE articles as possible without thinking. Every single WWE FL would fail a nomination now.--WillC 15:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I don't like splitting off the list on any article. I think it's very rare that people would just be searching for information on the title belt itself. It basically amounts to a page you have to scroll through and click through in order to get to the list of reigns, which is what almost everybody would want in the first place. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In response to the IWGP Heavyweight Championship being "the best quality it can be right now" (since it's an FL), from a quick read I did earlier, it actually needs some work. I'm not sure it would pass an FL review if it were to go through one right now (then again, FL is a little more lax than FA). -- JDC808  ♫  16:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but there are some articles where a split is needed. For example, the WWE Championship, which is a decently hefty article without the reigns table, and if the reigns table were still there, it would be too large of an article (though an argument could be made that a "collapse" function could be utilized on the table). -- JDC808  ♫  16:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree it isn't the best it is currently. Separating it into a whole new list doesn't make that any better or solve the problem. If anything it makes it worse. The issue currently is by doing so would definitely mean it wouldn't remain an FL. The tag title lists wouldn't exist but I ignored the notifications they were under review. I even told them to just delist one of them because I just didn't want to deal with it. The heavyweight title wasn't done by me. The others were by me. Really depressing to see my hardwork just brought down for no logical reason other than it looks neat.--WillC 16:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Interesting points. I agree that the article would be quite sparse without the list of reigns. I wasn't really thinking about the consequences of separating the list from the page, more just how it would fit in with other similar pages. Its also hard to justify doing such a big move like this due to the fact that it may lose its FL status, which is just insulting to the people who worked hard on it. I’ll leave this for now, thanks for the opinions. Ducktech89 (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * A lot of the splits that were done left a really poor or tiny main article, ex. WCW World Television Championship, which I fail to see the point of. It's not just a matter of the list being long - if the split basically leaves a near-stub like article behind then what is the pont? I see several instances where the FL can actually be moved to be the main article, have the Info box applied and hey-presto it's still a list, retains the FL but we don't have some half assed article hanging around. I did a lot of CMLL title list spliting, but the main articles were never neglected for the sake of splitting out the list. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That example is exactly why I have an issue with our current guideline. It just makes no sense to have the main article left like that after the split. -- JDC808  ♫  18:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel this with the PWG and CZW titles I did years ago. I shouldn't have split them off because now there isn't enough material for the main articles to matter or become anything. I actually got the main TNA titles lifted to GA after they were split off. Can't do that for all the articles.--Will<b style="color: Blue;">C</b> 18:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that this is ever necessary. Even the WWE Championship article seems mostly pointless to me. There's a huge section about belt designs, but I still maintain that I'm more likely to want to see who held the title, or for how long, than to look into who had a purple strap for the belt or how many plates were on the belt at a given time. For a project that was adamant that Bret Hart using the Sharpshooter or Hulk Hogan using a leg drop should be removed as trivial from the wrestler articles, there's a lot of stuff in these championship articles that serves little to no purpose other than filler to justify a split. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there is alot of things that happen in articles that don't serve a purpose but have just been done and we think that is how it should be. In reality, it was just someone did it and no one questioned it at the time. We all just kind of went along with it to our own detriment. We don't have to do those things. They can be altered at will.--<b style="color: Red">Will</b><b style="color: Blue;">C</b> 20:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The thing is though, and this is a Wikipedia-wide policy, if an article becomes too large, it should be split off where appropriate. There are some championship articles where that has been the case, but not all should have been (like the aforementioned WCW World Television Championship). Also, you can't be one-sided on this. There are readers who are in fact interested in the history and other aspects of the championship (like the design, which is often a major point of discussion), not just who held it. If we only put who held it and nothing else, we would not be doing our job as an encyclopedia. -- JDC808  ♫  06:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What policy is this? Because I've gone to FL with a separate list and was told to merge it with the main article because the main article was shite.--<b style="color: Red">Will</b><b style="color: Blue;">C</b> 15:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * THe "10 item and split" thi hing is not a policy - WP:FORK is, which would include the practice of splitting something unnecessarily for whatever reason. If there is a guideline it should be about article size not number of entries on the list. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * the "10 item and split" referenced by MPJ-DK is only a thing for our project: "When a championship reaches ten or more reigns, the list of reign history can be split off into its own article" (other projects might have something similar in their respective style guides). In regard to the Wikipedia-wide policy I was referring to on splitting: Splitting. That FL you are referring to was probably a case where a split was not necessary or shouldn't have been done. -- JDC808  ♫  16:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Almost none of them are needed to be done. The main article doesn't have enough content. There are few I'd see that would be fine as a standalone article. World titles sure, at least American. WCW, WWE, TNA, ROH, and ECW would all work as stand alone. The IC and X Division belts would work. Some female titles. Overall, not all need separate articles. Many of which I did.--<b style="color: Red">Will</b><b style="color: Blue;">C</b> 16:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Triple H bio
Triple H sat down with the website Loudwire and they evaluated the validity of our article about him. Here's the video. This project can do with it what they will. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | <sup style="color:#041e42;">#RaysUp  04:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly that wasn't bad, I was wondering if there were some major F ups. But if you break it down, the biggest discrepancies were
 * 1) Someone OR'ed a gym name, claim was never actually sourced
 * 2) The claim about Owen was sourced to IMDB - Which is a major no no, we should never cite something like that to IMDB.
 * 3) The jump was not sourced, even tagged as needed a citation, so Wikipedias said up front "This is a little dubious"
 * 4) The DX name origin is not in the article as far as I can tell? maybe it was at some point but edited out, probably due to lack of sources
 * Lessons learned - reliable sources make all the difference in the world MPJ-DK (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC notification
There is an RfC regarding the Kenny Omega article, specifically its lead section, in case anyone is interested in responding. The discussion can be found here. Thanks! KyleJoan talk 10:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Article for finishing moves
There's been a discussion recently on whether or not finishing moves should be included in the infobox for certain wrestlers, which you can see above. Expanding on this, should a page explaining what a finishing move is be made? The only definition of what a finishing move is at the moment is a quick and relatively ill-defined mention on the Glossary of professional wrestling terms page. If such a page was to be made, it should explicitly define what a finisher is, its differences to a signature and some notable examples or a brief history. Although most wrestling fans will likely already know what a finishing move is, pointed out that it may not be 100% clear to "non wrestling fans" what a finisher is and how it’s distinct from a signature. Perhaps a page will reduce some confusion? DTH 89 (<i style="font-family: Courier New;"> sexy talk page </i>) 6:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know if we need a separate article, or just to improve the glossary entry. It just doesn't strike me as a topic that requires a whole separate article. oknazevad (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

ANI related to this project
There is an ANI related to this project located here. Feel free to give input.★Trekker (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, don't. If any more wrestling fans show up at ANI to continue bickering, I'm going to start topic banning you guys. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I have commented, but realistically, the item has devolved into handbags at dawn rather than a conversation over behaviour. I would suggest either re-opening at this talk page, or getting together some diffs showing good evidence for a ban or similar. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 18:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently the IP was blocked after a checkuser check - so probably some sort of block evation. Seems to be the end of the actual dispute, but the article bias remains, and frankly I have no need for the headache that goes with that. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Finishing moves in the infobox
Hi. I think I saw the discussion a few months ago, but we didn't go anywhere. The return of the finishing moves to the articles. Somebody proposed to include into the infobox and I think it's a good Idea.

The section In wrestling was removed for various reasons. Hard to find sources for signature moves, WP:SYNTH, a lot of vandalism... however, the finisher are a very important part of the pro wrestling narrative. Also, it's very easy to find sources, there is always a source about the finishing moves. I think we can keep the wrestling style and persona and include a new parameter into the infobox. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Wrestling Style and Persona section is an awful idea. The In Wrestling section should be brought back. It's incredibly difficult to justify adding finishing moves to infoboxes because they can be sourced when the project pushed to remove the In Wrestling section altogether because it was "impossible" to source (even though some were fully sourced). Ultimately, infobox information isn't the answer. The answer is reversing a decision that made no sense other than to spite some Reddit users. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Or... and hear me out now before the pitch forks and *rabble*rabble*rable* of various people... something that's not quite the old way, but perhaps addresses some of the problems without reintroducing issues that section had? Something of a middle ground? The biggest pain was not so much the finishers (although what constitutes a "finisher") but the even vaguer "signature moves" and the "in 99% of the cases totally trivial" entrance music. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As several people complained (Wiki Admin and Wikiproject users) the section was hard to keep, hard to source and a resolution was made. I think the wrestling style and persona is helpfull, like Gran Metalik or Andrade Cien Almas. Going back isn't the solution, I think. I think the finishing moves (an important thing and easy to source) in the infobox is a good idea. If MPJ had another one, I listen.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I remember, the main issues with the In wrestling section was "hard to source". The signature moves section, for example. We have sources for finishing moves, but it's near impossible to find a source which list a wrestler "signature moves". At the time, we just include every move a wrestler made or, if he performed 5 times (5 sources) became signature (WP:SYNTH). MPJ made this example with Sin Cara if we find the proper sources After. For example, his enzuigiri. It's sources just with two matches where he performed the move, but isn't called a "signature move". Same with  nicknames, people included everything with a " " or every time somebody called himself "I am the XX", became a nickname (Rollins' Captain Morga, Ambrose's Iron Man of the WWE). If somebody have an idea ow to fix this problems, I'm open. Here is the original discussion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the infobox solution. Although finishers are important to a wrestler's persona because it's literally their big move, if the wrestler in question isn't notable enough to warrant a "professional wrestling persona" section, then their finisher isn't such vital information. It's not like people are aching to know what finisher Gypsy Joe or Salvatore Sincere used. If someone wants to know what a certain wrestler used, then they can watch their matches on YouTube, or look at Accelerator or something. The "in wrestling" section was also very arbitrary because anyone could add a move that a wrestler had used like once or twice and call it a signature, like HHH Pedigree pointed out. Those sort of piddling inclusions might constitute WP:OR. The professional wrestling persona section is the only sensible solution I see at least. If a wrestler's finishing move ties into their character or is a notable part of their gimmick, then it should go in a professional wrestling persona section. No need to slap unneeded parameters on to stuff. Ducktech89 (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I think a "modified" version of the old In wrestling section could be the solution. I agree that, sometimes, the signature moves part was way overcrowded, adding regular/non significant moves to the section, i.e. shoot kick, hammerlock, scoop slam, knife edge chop (this one probably only being acceptable for Ric Flair); examples of articles that suffered from this could've been Daniel Bryan, CM Punk, and Kenta Kobashi's pages. I think only the more notable signatures should be added. Wikipedia used to be the go-to place to look for this type of information on wrestlers, and I feel it's lost a lot since eliminating the section completely, to the point that I've found myself going to other sites to try to find this type of information. I don't think adding it to the infobox is the solution, as it's already pretty crowded and it would honestly look a little awkward. Nevertheless, I think the In wrestling should make a return, but we should do a better job at monitoring and deciding what could actually be added to the signature move area. For now, I think we should restore, at the very least, the finishing moves section as it was, and add the signature moves section, but opening the discussion for those pages whose signature moves just seem to be a library of professional wrestling moves. PRwrestlinganalyst (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia is not supposed to be the go to site for trivia like that. Nor is it here to provide a how to for create-a-wrestler features in video games. It's a general interest encyclopedia, not a fan wiki. Add in the difficulty of maintaining the section, and I'm glad it's gone. Anything significant can and should be covered in prose. oknazevad (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What's trivial about crucial and relevant information on a wrestler's career? All eliminating this section did was drive people who used Wikipedia as a reliable source for this type of information away into other sites, which is a disservice to Wikipedia as a whole. Shouldn't having the most complete source of information for every type of person who uses Wikipedia be the point of Wikipedia in the first place? A lot of people literally came just for this section alone, looking what type of move exactly a Burning Hammer is, what types of moves did Edge use during his career, what nicknames did X or Y wrestler have, what's the name of their entrance music, etc. It's all extremely relevant information that was organized in a way that's easy to find for those looking for that information, and putting it in prose has never been the solution; over a year from removing this section, and nobody has found a way to include it in prose in a relevant and non-idiotic way. "John Cena's finishing move used to be called FU, but changed it to AA because Vince wanted to make more money from children. The AA is a kneeling fireman's carry takeover, but during Cena's earlier days, he used more of a death valley driver variant because he actually wanted to make his finishes believable". Oh yeah, prose is the way to go, huh? In all seriousness though, that's why I'm proposing for a more organized In wrestling section, talking about signature moves, to just leave it for actual important moves that define a wrestlers move set, and not include that one time Kevin Owens used an Argentine rack neckbreaker slam on Cena as a signature move in 2016. PRwrestlinganalyst (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the finishing moves are a relevant part of the pro wrestling narrative. As PR says, a modified version of In wrestling would be hepful. However, I like the prose idea more than a list. Cena section, for me, it's more encyclopedic than Cena - FU /Attitude Adjustment (Fireman carry ) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A prose idea, as a pointed out, is just awkward, and doesn't flow as the "In wrestling" section used to. Doing it in a form that used to be, a list, just seems like a better choice, keeping things organized and easy to find for every person that uses Wikipedia, and without unnecessary blah blah throughout the article. Nevertheless, I do believe we need to establish certain parameters for the Signature moves part, as it was basically what spearheaded, no pun intended, to the eliminating of the "In wrestling" section as a whole. We need to be the most complete, organized, and relevant source of information for every single type of user of Wikipedia, and I believe adding "In wrestling" back is a way to head in that direction, professional wrestling-wise. PRwrestlinganalyst (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see the "In wrestling" section coming back in any form, it was rejected overwhelmingly by the wider Wikipedia community. You'd have to overturn that consensus at Village pump (policy). I could be wrong, but I think I first suggested including finishers in the infobox as an alternative to the section so that we wouldn't keep having the same discussions about it. I don't really support the proposal personally though, I think it works fine in the prose.LM2000 (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think prose makes it awkward, silly, and just overall looks dumb; besides, it makes it WAY harder than it has to be for people looking specifically for this type of information. The infobox proposal I think would bring more problems than solutions. A modified In wrestling section, specifically the Signature moves sub-section would honestly be the best solution. It would also bring back a lot of people that used/relied on Wikipedia for this type of information, instead just struggling to retain not only these readers, but editors who also enjoyed working on this section. To me, we have to see it beyond the whole "the signature move area was a mess, so we're just gonna delete it all" dilemma, instead, we should work to improve it and bring more people to Wikipedia, and be the most complete source for all types of wrestling information, not just hand the ball to the competitors. PRwrestlinganalyst (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia shouldn't be the most complete source for this type of information. That's what fan wikis are for. That's the point. oknazevad (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So, your point is to have less people use Wikipedia... is that it? Because that's all this change has truly done. With all things wrestling, Wikipedia used to be the go-to source for this type of information; now, it's lost its value and handed all those readers and editors to the competition. At the end of the day, is it really that important to have an encyclopedia done a certain way, if nobody is reading it? Driving people away from Wikipedia should never be the goal. When it comes to fan wikis, have you ever actually seen one though? Those things are not kept up to date, and not many editors dedicate actual time into improving those articles, and that's the whole point of trying to bring back this section here on Wikipedia, as we would actually work to improve it and bring in more people to read and participate on this site. PRwrestlinganalyst (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

- . I think you have completely misunderstood what wikipedia is. "Wikipedia used to be the go-to source for this type of information" - probably. Does that mean it is suitable information? No. Your points are simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedia is not a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of information. We had a full scale WP:RFC on the issue, and wikipedia at large showed this information is WP:FANCRUFT. Would a reader like this information - maybe. Doesn't mean we should publish it.

A good example would be a video game. Would a walkthrough of the game be interesting to some readers? Possibly - is this encylopedic information - no. Any information about a WP:BLP can be added in prose. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * About that, I think the finishing moves in the infobox is a good point. People want an easy, quick place to look for the finishing, the infobox is a nice palce. Also, we include in the prose section for mor detailed information. For example, Taker. Infobox, finishing moves: Tombstone, Last Ride, Hells Gate. Prose section: Taker uses a tombstone blablabla, also a gogoplata, named "Hell's Gate" blabla. As Lee said, Wikipedia is not the place for everything. For example, I love Bleach, Dragon Ball and Pokemon, but articles in Wikipedia and Fans Wikias are different. I want to know about Pikachu's influence and how he was created, Wikipedia. I want to train my new Pikachu, Wikia. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Prose is awkward and clunky. Hiding the information in amongst a bunch of jargon isn't user friendly. Frankly, I haven't yet heard a valid reason to delete the information. It may attract other editors? Hardly a reason to delete sourced information. If the problem is the additions, deal with the additions. It's too much work to patrol? That just sounds lazy. If patrolling it is such a priority, do it. If not, delete the unsourced or poorly sourced information on sight, Apparently people had the time to go through thousands of articles to delete the information in the first place, though. A simple bullet list is clean and easy to read. Arguments about "unencyclopedicness" are irrelevant, because there is no one definition of "encyclopedic." Plenty of specialized encyclopedias will use bullet lists, or other alternatives to prose, for some sections. Removing important information about what a wrestler actually does in the ring make Wikipedia weaker and more ridiculous. We don't do that about any other topic on Wikipedia--"In Super Mario Bros., Mario is a character who ends up at the far right. How he gets there, and what he encounters along the way, is not important. Far right. That's all you need to know." I get that there's an insecure desire in some project members who want Wikipedia as a whole to accept the project, and who feel that making rash changes in the appearance of articles is the way to get there. Here's the thing: Wrestling articles will never get there. They'll always be looked down upon by Wikipedia. And that's okay. There's no need to take the letter of the law, spin it out of control until it has no semblance to the spirit of the law, ask Wikipedia to like us if we make this change, defend wrestling throughout the discussion, come to an illogical consensus, and make thousands of articles worse. But I digress. Sourced information has a place in the article (no, we can't stop people from using it to create characters on video games, but that's not (1) our job, (2) important, or (3) supported by any guideline or policy. Even if Reddit users like it, a list is the easiest way to convey the information. And seriously, looking through the project's style guide, the information is says can be included is much more trivial (and crufty, to borrow a word from an essay, often cited by people who ignore the fact that (1) it's being cited for the wrong purpose, and (2) it's just an essay, which carries to weight). Seriously, taunts? Even in a bullet list, that would be ridiculous. Let's take a look at the situation with common sense. What do wrestlers do? They wrestle. Is it important how they do it? Of course it is. Case closed. Let's bring back the section, but let's keep the lists trimmed and sourced. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * if you wish for such a thing, you would need to get a new RfC with a replacement outcome. Bare in mind the last consensus was based on this information only having WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS policy based arguments. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My argument is based on WP:V. If it's significant and verifiable information, it should be included. Your side was entirely WP:CRUFTMAGNET and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Information on wikipedia needs to be verifiable. Something being varifiable doesn't mean it should be on wikipedia. :/ Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * True, but you deliberately ignored the other parts of the sentence, which was that the moves are significant. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The signature moves are really hard to include. As several people said, the list were full of SYNTH and OR. Most of the sources never call the move "signature move". In the original discussion, user Nyttend said,: "However, tons of us are agnostic about professional wrestling; we may wonder why "European uppercut" and "Cobra clutch to a facedown opponent" will matter and why those moves are listed when others aren't: are other moves less significant, or are they not signature moves, or does this character have no other moves at all, and what's a signature move anyway? If you're reading Beaver County, Pennsylvania and you see that Aliquippa is a city in the county, you don't need to be told anything about Aliquippa or city to understand its inclusion, but non-wrestling readers will need explanations that a simple list can't give." Most of the sources just mention he wrestler perfoming the move, but doesn't call it "signature". As the user said, I usually see Kenny Omega performin chops in his matches, but I don't see it in the list. The no-wrestling user would ask about what is and what isn't a signature move, who decides what moves are in and what are out. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a ridiculous argument. You're bringing an argument in favor of indiscriminate lists? Every list on Wikipedia has people deciding what makes the cut, and what doesn't. Wrestling is not unique, and such an argument reinforces my belief that the project goes out of its way to make editing extra difficult because of a sense of inferiority. How about this? Provide a link to a definition of "Signature Move". Problem solved. And you also ignore the fact that the stupid "Persona" prose section has exactly the same problem. How would a "non wrestling-reader" know why some moves are included in the prose but others aren't? Wouldn't this also lead them to believe that the wrestler only uses moves that are included in the prose? Or is this just another red herring? GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Since I've been saying from the start, the section is not only relevant and important to a wrestler's article, but it's also critical. I believe the section should be brought back, and we should work to trim the signature moves section to actual moves these wrestlers are known for, i.e. John Cena's Five Knuckle Shuffle should definitely be included, but that one time he did a frog splash shouldn't. Signature moves are exactly that, moves that wrestlers are commonly associated with. When it comes to the argument about what actually is a finishing move, I just can't believe we're actually debating it. In all seriousness, we should start the process of bringing this section back, trying to establish guidelines for the Signature moves subsection. PRwrestlinganalyst (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The concept GaryColemanFan and PRwrestlinganalyst promotes sounds much more feasible, informative, and complaint to policy to me, and therefore I think it can work. I agree with their statements. A trimmed down "in wrestling" section would be vital to the understanding of a wrestler and if done correctly and relevantly would be easy to source and explain. It would be enough but not excessive like the old incarnation. The information is important to understanding a wrestlers style, which differs wrestling from other forms of sport or entertainment due to the vastly different wrestling styles that are slightly too complex for prose compared to other sport or entertainment forms. It's necessary, just like how unlike other weapons in video games, the Portal gun from Portal is vital to understanding the concept of the game. DrewieStewie (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a context-less bullet list can do a better job of describing the complexities of a wrestler's in-ring style than a descriptive prose passage would. oknazevad (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A style and persona section would summarize and explain a gimmick/style, the "in wrestling" section would provide specific examples of their style in an organized, briefly listed format. DrewieStewie (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * but why then have both? The above asks that we consider the portal gun, which is fair enough, we would talk about such a thing in prose. Does that mean we should then have a bulleted list later on that comments on where the gun can be used, or similarly on a FPS that is a list of guns used in the game? This would just be overkill, right? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is where we separate from the portal gun point. In other words, this is where game information and wrestling information separate. For games, the genre, synopsis, development, summarized gameplay mechanics (with a few being explained in greater detail if relevant enough to understanding it), the reception, and in some cases possibly legacy would suffice. But for weestlers, the moves identify a wrestler, its their identity. Its not subject to the same cliches and over generalization video game weapons and collectibles are. For wrestling, the specific examples of moves are important to understanding a wrestler (and professional wrestling as a whole) better. Same with themes and managers, and trainings. Its overkill in the video game example you provided, but not for the wrestling moves, so long as its specific on relevant important moves and not overgeneralized by overspecific examples of common moves. It would elaborate more, but not over excessively, on their professional wrestling style. For those reasons, we see it as more reasonable and plausible on professional wrestler articles. DrewieStewie (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * but I disagree with this. Especially in a bulleted list. In the article, we should mention if there are any particular moves that are important, but we have a prose section for this. I don't see how a list that say Randy Orton does a cutter and a backbreaker is more helpful than just saying that. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's more helpful because people could actually read it, instead of often-clunky prose in a rambling section that, according to the style guide, would be bloated with a bunch of trivia like signature taunts. It's more helpful because people are actually likely to create and source these lists, as opposed to the project's typical stance of "We deleted the sourced information, so if you want it back in the article, you have to dig it up again and put it into paragraph form." It's not reasonable to expect people to add prose sections to thousands of articles to compensate for a knee-jerk reaction that the project made to pwn the redditors. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I apprecitat eif you use a more civil tone. You barely edit the articles and no answer many of the problems pointed by users of the project and outside the project. You only answer is "bring in back", when there is several problems without answers and expect other users deal with them. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is where Wikipedians disagree on this subject: User friendly, informative, and easy to understand vs perfecting an encyclopedia in their eyes of what it should be regardless of others opinions, in this case believing this information isnt suitable and making it more for serious readers and presenting it in more academic form. Its just what it is. DrewieStewie (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The old "In wrestling" section is way more organized, and as DrewieStewie said, way more user friendly, and that should be the point of Wikipedia, having people actually find the things that they want to find and considering Wikipedia useful. Not only that, but actually using Wikipedia. As I said before, pushing readers away from Wikipedia should never be the goal, because what does it matter to have this look like a hard copy encyclopedia if nobody's gonna read it? Prose is just awkward and disorganized and hard to find if that's what you're actually looking for in an article. Reading those articles who currently have this section, it just looks bad and awkward. Something that hasn't been mentioned is that we used to get users who were photographers that enjoyed adding pictures of wrestlers' different moves, and we basically just excluded them from Wikipedia as a whole. To me, it seems all removing the In wrestling section did was cause more problems than before, leading wrestling articles to take a major downfall and lose regular editors and readers, for the sake of laziness and not organizing the project in a way were we could trim the Signature moves subsection in order to solve the original problem. I think we should bring the In wrestling section back, and work to improve it. PRwrestlinganalyst (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User friendly for who? People who doesn't know pro wrestling, this list means nothing, just a bunch of terms they doesn't know. I love pro wrestling and used a lot, but I don't get an idea about the wrestling style of a unknown wrestler, like Kazushi Miyamoto, just reading a list of moves. Gran Metalik's section teach us how he wrestles, his style and moves he performs. One of the greatest, Giant Baba, his wrestling section doens't explain his style of wrestling, just a list of moves which people outside wrestling doesn't understand.  --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Prose is always superior to bullet lists. It provides context in a way a bullet list cannot. oknazevad (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A list of moves that can't be understood? You seem to forget that they are all wikilinked so that people can understand them when necessary. And prose isn't superior is many cases, particularly when it's poorly written. There's nothing to prevent someone from adding some prose about a wrestler's style to the Career section, but burying the moves in prose (which, of course, will never get written in many cases, as it's much more time consuming to write than a bullet list) makes no sense--and yes, I've heard the argument from your side numerous times that "Wikipedia doesn't have to be useful," but I wonder if any of you have ever stepped back to think about your own words. Basically, you're pushing for a hard-to-write and hard-to-read section with a series of "moving goalpost" arguments, all of which have been refuted multiple times. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood the comment, knowing that someone does a suplex does not help you understand their wrestling style - a list doesn't help you with that. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I understood perfectly well. To respond to your example: (1) a simple suplex wouldn't be included unless there is a reliable source saying it's a signature move, so it probably wouldn't make the list, (2) if it's particularly significant, such as with the Steiner Brothers, a list of suplexes in the move list would actually do a great job of showing their wrestling style--in the WWF, their style could easily be summed up with: Scott: Frankensteiner (wikilinked), Rick: Bulldog (wikilinked), Both: Suplex X, Suplex Y, and Suplex Z (each wikilinked), (3) if there's something that isn't conveyed in the move list, a fraction of a sentence in the Career section could explain things just fine--and a lot better than bulky paragraphs of prose describing a wrestler's "background information, personality traits, inspirations, finishing moves, taunts, gestures, chants, outfits, etc.", much of which is trivia that serves only to hide important information that could be conveyed most effectively in an easy-to-read list. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Previously it would be included if someone popped on 3-5 sources showing they used the move in several matches, so we had plenty of those all over the place, especially for anyone who'd ever worked televised WWE matches. Since we only have the "original" list and the current prose, I'd say the old way of listing "signature" moves was not very helpful and just cluttered up with, thus not an "easy to read list" - but sure a theoretical future list where that was better controlled it could be okay (or the same junk that the list was before). MPJ-DK (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The suplex example it's different. For example, Steiner and Lesnar, for example, use a lot of suplex, it's part of his style. A very suplex-focused wrestling. Steiner had listed seven suplex variations, while Lesnar six. I don't know a wrestler, for example, Hiroshi Tanahashi and I see he has five. So, it's Tanahashi style similar to Steiner and Lesnar's, focused in suplex? Or it's Lesnar style similar to Tanahashi's? Both have similar number of suplex, but their styles are very different. It's not that simple like "read the moves. Do you understand the moves? If not, read every single article. Then, you will understand a wrestler. it's a setion hard to find sources, no-user friendly to no-wrestling fans and without context. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh? GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * He's saying that just having a list of moves without context tells a reader unfamiliar with the wrestler nothing about their actual wrestling style. He's absolutely right. oknazevad (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I wish everyone who wants to change this good luck with the Wiki-wide RFC that lies before you to hopefully build a consensus to change things. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Bobby Kay
He passed away yesterday. I haven't been able to find an article yet to establish notability for his death, but the article is a fully referenced GA. If someone finds a suitable article, he could be nominated at Recent Deaths. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: It passed with flying colours. Hooray! But despite the newfound public awareness, Leo Burke was narrowly beaten out by Edge as good old #21. Apparently, at the last moment it was decided California and Canada both needed a feel-good moment, so surf Jesus swooped in and saved the day. Good call, in hindsight, but I hope WWE don't pull the plug on Burke's rumoured WrestleMania match with The Legend Killer. Maybe turn it into a Triple Threat, though; Burke and Edge have their own long-simmering unfinished business, and at least a dozen surviving members of the Jack Tunney Universe vaguely still recall something to that effect. Anyway, supposed Los Angeles legend Bobby Fulton has come down with a fairly serious case of Dr. Death disease, as Bobby Heenan did not so long ago. His article's in a relatively sorry way and he's asked for unsympathetic prayers online, so the Christian thing to do might be to polish it up real nice while he can still read it, instead of rushing in at once after The Fantastics suddenly trend worldwide for a cup of coffee, yeah? I mean "Christian thing" in both senses; without Tommy Rogers, there would be no Unprettier. And without Fulton, Rogers would have been saddled with Jannetty, instead of Michaels carrying him through the barbershop window. No barbershop window, no ladder match. No ladders, no TLC. No TLC, no TLC 2. No TLC 2, no Ladder of Love match from No Surrender 2008, so no global economic crisis, no Trump and no chance in hell for The Rock to grab the briefcase in 2024. In some ways, Bobby Fulton is objectively more important to the history of Canadian wrestling than Sakurada, Johnson, Kay, Ayala and Gillespie combined. He's no Bobby Dupree, Bobby Hart or Bobby Dusek, but in fairness, who are? The important thing (for now) is Lance Storm, Chris Jericho and P.J. Walker are currently "it", but Rocky Mountain Pro Wrestling still has no Wikipedia article. And Paul Diamond still isn't in the Hall of Fame. So if anyone's looking for work, there you have it, folks. Reporting from the junction of Holly Woods and Toronto, this is Bob Hulkster reminding you to spay or neuter your pets! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, Carlos Rocha might deserve a posthumous article, as the only legit Portuguese wrestler a McMahon ever booked. Even got a crack at the world champ. Even the just incredible Aldo Montoya can't boast that. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Royal Rumble alternative names
Myself and Solitude6nv5 are in a conflict about wrestlers’ previous names being listed in tables in the Royal Rumble match page. They are claiming that it’s “too messy” and “aren’t listed anywhere else”, as well as their current and most famous character being listed last being considered “dumb”. I’ve stated that it should be listed because they’ve entered Rumbles under whatever previous gimmick they were, using Kane as an example. It would make no sense to say that Kane entered the 1996 Royal Rumble and eliminated Rikishi. That did happen, but they were known as Isaac Yanken, DDS and Fatu back then. Basically, if they made an appearance as a different character(s) and/or scored eliminations as said character(s), that character should be listed under the respective tables. If not, then they shouldn’t be. Gonna have to leave it up to the experts. Drummoe (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep the names. People doesn't always known every wrestler ringname. As you said, Glenn Jacobs wrestled in the 96 rumble as Isaac, not as Kane. it's the same with the titles. Maybe you know Rikishi previously wrestled as Fatu, but not everyone else. IWGP Jr. Title, do you know Minoru Tanaka it's also Heat. OVW Tag Team, do you know Sucio also wrestled as Christopher Silvio, Ali Akbar as Mohammed Ali Vaez or Cousin Otter as Mr. Black? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * that's ridiculous. How is this different from someone legitimately changing their name? We can't be recentist, we should call things by what they were at the time, the same way we do for countries and organisations. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 16:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , is correct.  You don't put someone's entry in what they are best known as.  John Tenta was best known as Earthquake, but was in the Oddities as Golga.  He was in the 1999 Royal Rumble as Golga, therefore you don't list him as Earthquake.  That's not correct.  Another is JBL.  He was in the 1998 Royal Rumble as Blacjack Bradshaw.  Just because JBL was best known John Bradshaw Layfield, you wouldn't list him as John Bradshaw Layfield.  If they were listed by another name and not what they are best or most recently known as, you don't change it because people may not know who they are.  That's not how it works.  Everybody who has been in a Royal Rumble has an article.  You can easily go their article and read it.  You read encyclopedias for stuff you don't know.  You do the same with Wikipedia.  It's not rocket science.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 20:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The discussion is about general records, not individual Rumbles. For example, "Most Rumble appearances". Glen Jacobs is listed as Isaac/Diesel/Kane since he make appearanced under three gimmicks, not just Kane. Same for Rikishi, he is listed as Fatu/The Sultan/Rikishi since he wrestled under three names. Of course, if we talk about the 1996 Rumble, Jacobs would be listed as Isaac. But for overall records, include all names. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just puttin' in out there...why haven't you guys tried to resolve something on the article talk page? You're having an argument in edit summaries in the midst of an edit war. Coming here and telling other people to come take your side just seems like WP:CANVASsing. This is not being approached properly. If you guys keep it up, you'll both end up blocked. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Tecnically, he never enter in the Canvassing territory. He just ask for more opinions and explained both sides. He never said to join him, just gave our 2 cents. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * canvassing would only apply if he linked a separate thread elsewhere, and asked people to reply there. It doesn't apply to an initial discussion, such as here. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 18:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I stand by my original post while understanding the point you're making. I continue to believe that "This person said X, but this is why he is wrong, so come and help me stop him" is canvassing. The bigger issue, however, is that this should never have been the initial discussion. WP:BRD doesn't stand for Bold, Revert, Revert Reversion, Revert Reverted Reversion of Reversion. Basically, the project is a place to ask for input once you've already tried to discuss a concern, not a place to go because you're tired of edit warring. With that said, now would be a decent time to discuss the issue, preferably on the article talk page (but here could work as well). GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

For individual rumbles, use the ring name he/she came out to. For individual records, use the most frequently used ring name, or the most recent one if both ring names have been used the same number of times. Simple as that. DrewieStewie (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Featured article review CM Punk
I have nominated CM Punk for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Advice on first articles?
Hi. WP:GUILD suggested I let this Wikiproject know about two articles I've submitted to Articles for creation. They are based on some drafts I was toying with at Sandbox awhile back. I was hoping to get some feedback from experienced Wikipedians to see if they were worth submitting to AFC.


 * Draft:Superstars of Wrestling (Canadian TV series) - an internationally syndicated show that aired in Canada and the U.S. from 1975 to 1984 (and precursor for WWF Superstars of Wrestling). I'm not sure what the "standard" pro wrestling tv article on Wikipedia is supposed to look like so I borrowed bits and pieces from various articles.
 * Draft:List of professional wrestling attendance records - a pretty straightforward list based on List of WWE attendance records.

Thanks for your time. 173.162.220.17 (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I do like the list of attendance records. I see no reason to have one just for WWE. Perhaps we should move the WWE one and add the other promotions? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Survivor Series
Should being a sole Survivor in a Survivor Series elimination match be listed in the ‘Championships & accomplishments’ section? Drummoe (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. It's not a title, award or tournament. Also, isn't listed in WWE profiles --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's also not much of an accomplishment (in-universe). Just means buddy couldn't save any partners when they needed it most. If even one weak link goes down in a real tag title match, those who didn't break it up with a heroic sneak attack to a downed opponent go home just as empty-handed. Basically playing on Easy Mode in November, and the winners should be thankful we even call them that. The name of the game is "teams of five strive to survive", after all, not "every man for him or herself". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No. DrewieStewie (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * if RS called it that, then maybe. Realistically, it's not much of an accolade Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * WWE themselves does not recognize it as any noteworthy achievement (other than being trivially mentioned by commentators during the ppv when the match involves a sole survivor from a previous event) Dilbaggg (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Unreferenced pages in project scope
Please consider adding some references to these pages in the project scope.  JTP (talk • contribs) 16:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

All data since July 1, 2015 (the first date used by WMF Labs' Pageviews Analysis)

Multiple tag teams winning a tag title under the same stable name listed in the combined reigns section.
Hello I was wondering if their has been any consensus about different wrestlers winning tag team titles under the same tag team/stable name being represented in the combined reigns table? Examples would include Undisputed Era and The New Day where different combinations have won tag teams title but all reigns are combined as shown here.

I was wondering would this be standard over all combined tables for example, four people in one stable wrestler A and B win tag teams titles, then Wrestler C and D win the same titles do both reigns go together as shown above or are they separate? If you have a look at List of Impact World Tag Team Champions, you notice that The Latin American Xchange (Ortiz and Santana) and The Latin American Xchange (Hernandez and Homicide) are separate and not combined like example above. I have had a look in the style guide and there isn't anything on this so any opinions would be appreciated. Thanks. Browndog91 (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I remember back when the issue of The Undisputed Era came about and having multiple reigns with different members. I remember suggesting we needed to find a different way to acknowledge the multiple reigns in this combined reigns table though with different people as it was awkward looking to have the stable listed two or three times when it's the stable as a whole that is credited for the total number of reigns (this is going by WWE's official title history; I don't know how other promotions treat it). Someone thereafter changed it to what it is now, which IMO works and was a sensible solution (though I reformatted it with the "1st reign, 2nd reign" etc). There was no consensus per se as there was never a discussion. It was implemented and no one appeared to disagree with it to have a discussion. -- JDC808  ♫  06:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As JDC said, no consensus because there was no dicussion. Just one problem, somebody changed and, to be honest, I think this version works. UE and New Day have a very particular history, so this works. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * if it becomes super bogged down, use a efn note. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 13:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That had been there before this change and it didn't look great, and honestly seemed to make it more confusing with the whole explanation on Adam Cole being recognized, and then not, and then again, and then Roderick Strong becoming recognized when he joined. -- JDC808  ♫  22:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * When in doubt go with the facts. And what are the facts here? Technically 3 different versions of New Day has won the championship since it's 3 different combinations. So it would be the following:
 * That is factual, we are not trying to push something together that is technically not right - question - Are the different versions of the Midnight Express counted as the same? No they are grouped by team - Randy Rose/Dennis Condrey is not grouped in with Bobby Eaton/Stan Lane etc. it's an encylopedia, focus on facts. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * What are the facts? It's professional wrestling and it's all scripted. And going by the scripted nature, it is a fact that WWE recognize that Undisputed Era as a whole are 3-time NXT tag champs and New Day as a whole are 5-time SmackDown tag champs (again, if you read my first post, I said this is going by what WWE recognizes, and was unsure how other promotions treat it). -- JDC808  ♫  22:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an encylopedia, we should not just swallow what WWE is trying to feed us raw - the table above does state that New Day has held the championship 5 times, facts - in 3 different configurations, again fact. But when you try to bow down to kayfabe you end up in an unencylopedic, unfactual corner of the internet. Wikipedia, not WWEapedia. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is an encyclopedia, but that doesn't give us the right to change someone else's narrative for their fictional story (not including if they themselves go and change something that was previously established). -- JDC808  ♫  23:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well if that's where your head is at, no amount of talking is going to change it, so I am not even going to try. Back to my hole for six more months. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * JDC808 is right. You really gotta get over the idea that there's a "real event" that WWE is lying to us about. It's fiction. There's no real event, no "actual winner". It's subject to retcon. That is the actual facts, and not keeping that in mind is when you actually get worked. oknazevad (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's fiction, but it happens in the real world. So yes, it's real and there are facts. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. No actual athletic competition occurs, an no one actually wins anything. There's no "real result" that needs to be affirmed against the producers. No "technically correct", no "actual facts", no "they're lying to us and trying to change history!!1!1" nonsense. That dirt sheet mentality has to be dropped for us to really objectively cover the industry. The performers are real people, but they're playing fictional characters (unless you really think Windham Rotundo is a dangerously mentally ill man with a split personality).
 * They're presenting a fictional story, and we need to recognize that and accept that. Yes that may mean they retroactively change things, or there may be inconsistencies, but that's the same thing with any long-running serialized fiction, like comic books or soap operas. Kayfabe is dead. Reporting what the promoter recognizes is not getting swallowed by that, it's actually the only way not to be worked by it. oknazevad (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fictional story that happens in the real world. That's the point of Wikipedia, not a whole IN-Universe WWE pedia. Patt Patterson never won a tournament to win the Intercontinental Championship, for example. Hulk Hogan wasn't the first wrestler to slam Andre. We include facts and a note whatever WWE want to say (or WWE version and the real fact, Like Hogan was promoted as the first wrestler to slam Andre even if several other did it before). That's why several admins are against pro wrestling articles, since are written In Universe. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree we should note the out-of-universe production. But we can't go around saying "they're lying", which is exactly the tone MPJ-DK took above. That's just as bad. oknazevad (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with MPJ-DK. The current version is not really depicting the facts. We wouldn't group all of the nWo championships together, so why this? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  14:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that's because New Day and UE used the freebird rule, so it's more complex that the NWO, Bullet club or something. UE's 1st reigns it's very unusual, but MPJ version of New Day also works for me. Another option is Demolition's WWF Tag Team Reign, a note " During Demolition's third reign, Crush was added to the team, and the three of them defended the titles under the Freebird Rule for approximately 90 days". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I dont really see the freebird rule coming into play. Reigns where it was in play I think should be listed separately from those where it is. Just like how different members of the same group are listed separately. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  15:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Freebird rule is a large part of it, and again, as I've said, how WWE recognize it. How other promotions recognize it, I do not know, and could be different. As to Galatz's latter comment of individual members being listed separately, are you referring to the table below the teams one that is only for individuals? -- JDC808  ♫  22:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My point of the Freebird rule being meaningless is that those reigns have different recognition than the others. Combining them together just because sometimes its freebird and sometimes its not doesn't make sense to do just because there was a Freebird rule, does that make more sense? Sorry if that point was not clear before. I am not sure which comment I made, made you think I was referring to the individuals table, but it be clear I think it should look the way MPJ-DK listed them. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  12:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Notability update
Since we built the notability table, AEW has launched and NXT has changed. I propose adding AEW to the list of promotion that establish notability. I suggest adjusting NXT to state prior to October 2. NXT UK would remain unchanged. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  17:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also, a small note about Dark? There are several wrestlers who work at Dark. (at least, until Dark became a TV Show. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The Undertaker
User:Telekinetics seems to have made a lot of disruptive edits to the article The Undertaker by removing information that were there a decade before he joined and is also removing sourced contents with false acquisition of them being unreliable sources. As per PW/RS bleacher report has reliability but he is claiming it is unreliable to cover his disruptive editing. He is also violating WP:OR and adding contents based on his original research. I requested him to discuss on the project page but he does not comply. He doesn't understand wikipedia policy either and is onn the verge of breaking the three revert rule doing WP:EW. He also removed his talk page warning. I really do not want to take this to ANI. Is there any other way his disruptive editing can bnne stopped? I request a decision be taken by senior editors of pro wrestling project. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice try. User:Dilbaggg is repeatedly rolling The Undertaker article back 5½ months, undoing the work of myriad users, and restoring established misinformation (year of debut, identity of trainer, "WWE" rather than "WWF") as well as numerous sources that are not permitted per WP:PW/RS. Undertaker says he did not debut in 1984 and was trained by Buzz Sawyer rather than Don Jardine (I provided WP:PW/RS sources to back up Taker's assertions), so glaring misinformation being "there a decade" doesn't mean jack. Telekinetics (talk) 15:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not reverted everyone's work, I only removed your edits and added back all information like the Super ShowDown encounter that were added by other editors. The only things I removed was the disruptive editing by you. Also you are no one to change established information that have been there for over a decade. To make such major change you should use the project page to get approval by senior editors. And more so you have not cited sources considered reliable under PW/RS and most of your additions are original research. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As for Bleacher Report, I removed one piece and left another, as only that site's post-2012 articles are reliable per WP:PW/RS. Undertaker himself has discredited the biographical information you want restored to the article. The only person being "disruptive" is your good self.


 * How exactly are Undertaker's assertions about his career (backed up by WP:PW/RS sources) my "original research"? I'll wait. Telekinetics (talk) 15:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Addition: The user's so called reliable source is from "wikipedia". He actually cited wikipedia as a source after editing those articles. Does he not even know wikipedia cannot be used as a source ? Just check the user's so called reliable sources. Also his claim of Undertaker saying himself that he did not begin wrestling in 1984 does not fall under any sources considered under PW/RS. Just check the contents added by him. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A desperate attempt at manipulating users, being overly assertive while hoping they might not scrutinise your nonsense. The Undertaker's statement was on a WWE.com interview, which is reliable per WP:PW/RS. Where exactly is Wikipedia used as a source? Telekinetics (talk) 15:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Then cite the real source from wwe.com instead of using wikipedia article of WWE Home Video as a source. Cite the direct link of the interview. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The Undertaker's statement about not debuting in 1984 was on the Broken Skull Sessions, streamable via WWE.com. On the DVD This is My Yard, the Undertaker directly states that he began training in 1986.


 * "Using wikipedia article of WWE Home Video as a source"? Seriously, these are the lengths you're going to go to, to try manipulating observers of this discussion? "WWE Home Video" is linked within the publisher field, as it's supposed to be. As I thought, you're simply lying again. Telekinetics (talk) 15:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I really do not trust your edits over information that has been established for over a decade. Regardless I do not want to get involved in WP:EW and I will just leave it to senior editors. Thats the last I say about this. But mind you countless time I told you not to call editors troll just because you have disagreement. If you violate WP:Civility one more time I will report you. Enough on this. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't have to trust anything of mine. I'm simply adding what Undertaker, and WP:PW/RS sources, have said on the matter. Peace. Telekinetics (talk) 16:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Eric Bischoff page
Hello guys, I have just joined this project and am hoping to do my bit. I am a big WWE fan and was going through pages that needed fixing/edits/additions etc. Coming across Eric Bischoff's page I found some text that is directly copied from the web. This includes websites such as sootoday.com and wrestling-world.com. My question is, how do I check whether the article on Wiki was created first or the source on the web. And how could I contribute towards this? Thanks. Any help would be highly appreciate.NotJuggerNot (talk) 22:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

OVW Title Histories
Does anyone have access to a reliable source for OVW title histories (2005-2006)? These are needed for the CM Punk article to replace the wwfoldschool.com reference (currrently #38, I believe) in order to help it maintain FA status. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I made a quick research. Can you use or  ? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we not just cite to cagematch? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is the archived version of OVW oficial website. I think it's the most reliable source. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * wrestling-titles.com MPJ-DK (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I just use the archived official website. Wrestling-titles is a fan site. A well done one, yes, but it's not really suitable as a source. oknazevad (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Order of names in tag teams
How do we organize the names in tag teams? Alphabetically? What the company recognizes the team as? When looking at article titles and the championship history lists, it doesn't often seem to match up. Take John Morrison and The Miz: Another good example is Paul London and Brian Kendrick. Alphabetically, BK comes before PL, and WWE officially lists them as "BK and PL" in their history. But the article title is "PL and BK"?  Sekyaw  (talk)  18:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If we're supposed to order the names alphabetically, should it be "JM and Miz" because J in John comes before M in Miz, or should it be "Miz and JM" because I comes before O (MIz / MOrrison)?
 * If we go by what WWE recognizes them as, it can be hard to tell. The official SmackDown tag title history lists them as "Miz and JM", but the Raw tag title history lists them as "JM and Miz".


 * I suspect the WWE doesn't keep this sort of thing consistent. I suspect so long as it is internally consistent, we'd be fine. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup I agree, it's a matter of picking a format, agreeing to it and sticking to it. My suggestion is alphabetically - by last name if it's a proper name. So John Morrison sorts by "Morrison" and of course other normal sorting rules such as "The Miz" sorting by "Miz". MPJ-DK (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I always thought we order the names by name (John before Miz, Brian before Paul), no by last name. I don't know if "The" counts. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So why does "John Morrison" sort by "Morrison, John" both the article and in singles title tables? Why would it not go by the general sorting rules for real names? MPJ-DK (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't really care about it. I have no personal preference if the name is The Miz and John Morrison or John Morrison and The Miz. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that promotions tend to be very consistent about the order of partners when referring to, or announcing, tag teams. I think it sounds ridiculous to use anything other than how they are (or were) billed: Rick and Scott Steiner, Billy and Bart Gunn, Samu and Fatu, Dr. Tom Prichard and Jimmy Del Ray. I think this is best demonstrated with Survivor Series matches--the 1994 team of Cheesy, Jerry Lawler, Queasy, and Sleazy makes me shake my head every time I see it. Wikipedia guidelines just don't work in every situation, and they will never convince me to start saying Jerry & Tom or Garth & Wayne. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Alphabetically unless their official listing says otherwise (in a lot of cases, the official listing is alphabetical, but not always). In this case, the SmackDown Tag Team Championship title history has them as The Miz and John Morrison. That is how we should list them for that championship. -- JDC808  ♫  03:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So for championship history articles, we should list them as how they are listed in the official history. Understandable. But what about the tag team articles themselves? Should the names always be alphabetical order by last name? Because there are many current articles that don’t follow that. Ex: Morrison and Miz, London and Kendrick, Gallows and Anderson.  Sekyaw  (talk)  00:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would go by a similar rule, alphabetical unless their official listing says otherwise or if the non-alphabetical listing is used more frequently than the alphabetical listing. If there's not an official team name and both listings of names (alphabetical and non-alphabetical) are used about the same frequency, go alphabetical and have a redirect that is the other way. If the non-alphabetical listing is used more frequently (like with Gallows and Anderson), do it that way and have a redirect that's alphabetical. -- JDC808  ♫  01:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

A notification to Wikipedia wresting editors
So recently a ANI report was for a disruptive user, but for some reason a individual named Phil Bridger and Phil colleagues joined to inappropriately joke about mma, pro wresting, and video games Wikipedia community not able to resolve issues normally through talk page and WP:Con. Are you fucking kidding me? I want to let you guys know. What you think about the deliberate absurd behavior? Regice2020 (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * archive link Andy Dingley (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Lame and not worth my time. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I've never understood why we allow people to just simply call out parts of the community just in general. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have only just seen this post, because you were talking about me behind my back by not informing me of this discussion. I simply asked the question of why we see so many posts about mixed martial arts and professional wrestling at WP:ANI, but none about traditional East Asian martial arts and boxing, although I admit that I made a mistake in my first post my saying "martial arts" rather than specifying which martial arts. I thought it would just be seen as what it was - a hope that things could be done better - rather than something that would attract ridiculous accusations of unconscious racism. That is simply a fact, whose explanation could improve our performance in these areas. I'm afraid that the main reason I can see is that you are active in the former areas but not the latter. For the record I didn't joke about anything and said nothing about video games. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also add that you are just as much a colleague of mine as any other editor who commented in that section. All of my communications are transparent and on Wikipedia talk pages - I don't use back-channels like email or IRC to only communicate with a select group. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Carly Colon
Hi. Can somevody help me with the article of Carly Colon. An user, Old School WWC Fan included a lot of content of his workd during the last years. However, I removed for several reasons. 1, the content is unsourced. 2, the content isn't notable, since he includes every promotion he worked, most of them don't have even an article. 3, it's poorly written. For example "The 2015 tour of American independents featured Midwest All Pro Wrestling (South Dakota), Magnum Pro Wrestling (Nebraska), Crash Tested Wrestling (Illinois), Vanguard Championship Wrestling (Virginia), CCW, WrestleMerica (Georgia), WrestleSport Heavyweight Championship (Oregon), Upstate Pro Wrestling (New York), Pennsylvania Premiere Wrestling, Maximum Assault Wrestling (Ohio)..." It's not in prose like the other articles, just a like of promotions from Cagematch, most of the promotions aren't notable and the content is unsourced. He insist he is working in the article, but I don't see how working for Ipstate Pro Wrestling, Maximum Assault Wrestling and others are even relevant for the article. Can somebady help? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can somebody help and mediate bewteen us, please? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Might things have gone better if you hadn't led things off by calling the other user's versions "the laziest", "unreadable", and "the worst". Between this and the edit warring, I'm not seeing a good faith effort to work things out from either editor. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw a huge part going against several policies, so I removed it. i tried to include it, but 99% of the promotions aren't notable. There is not even reports, so I can't include his work in promotions like Upstate Pro Wrestling, WrestleSport Heavywegith or similar. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Focus of the Month
First time checking in awhile as there is conflicting information which is another topic for discussion. I see on the main page that the Focus of the Month for October still up five months later. It's not necessarily a matter of why, but a matter of it should be taken down. If nobody objects, I will or somebody else should take it down. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 20:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. Looks like the idea didn't work. In my case, I feel more confortable with small editions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Done and done.  Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it!

Conflicting information on Stampede Wrestling International Wrestling Tag Team Championships
On the article for Jason Anderson, it says he was Blackheart Destruction and was Stampede Wrestling International Tag Team Champion with Blackheart Apocalypse (Gangrel). Doing some searching, Cagematch has Gangrel being listed as previously being Blackheart Destruction not Blackheart Apocalypse. When you click on the titles tab, it doesn't list Gangrel as being a Stampede Wrestling International Tag Team Champion.  The man who was well known for being Tom Nash was Blackheart Apocalype according to Cagematch.. It does list Nash as International Tag Team Champion.. But the Blackheart Destruction that is listed as his tag team partner as the other half of the International Tag Team Champions is Anderson.

In the tag teams and stables portion of Gangrel's Cagematch profile does list him as teaming with Nash as the Blackhearts. It lists them teaming together from 1989-1994 and Stampede Wrestling is listed as one of the promotions which is correct. As you can see in the titles section of Gangrel's profile, it does show him being tag team champions with Nash in a couple other promotions as the Blackhearts just not in Stampede Wrestling.

But as you can clearly see on the International Tag Team Championship history on Cagematch, it goes to both Nash and Anderson's profiles. I get that because of there may have been two Blackheart Destructions that it can be confusing. But here is part of an interview where Gangrel talks about Stampede Wrestling. He says something about the International Tag Team Championships, but doesn't actually say they were put on them. He also doesn't say which Blackheart he was.

A little clarification would be helpful so I can correct the appropriate articles. Sources would be good too. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe, Anderson didn't wrestled as Blackheart. There is any source about that? Gangrel confirmed he wrestled as Blackheart  . Maybe it's just an error from Cagematch, sometimes it happens --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , the sources mention Tom Nash and Gangrel as being the Blackhearts in Stampede Wrestling, but not which Blackheart they were. That's the issue at hand.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 03:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you ask him? I think Wikipedia did it sometimes. Like Vladimir Kozlov birth date --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is reliable "Heath and Nash competed under masks as “Destruction” and “Apocalypse” respectively" --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

GFW NEX*GEN Championship
In the cruiserweight article, it lists the GFW NEX*GEN Championship. It was never designated specifically for cruiserweights. Considering Cody was the last champion and is not a cruiserweight, it is not a cruiserweight based championship. It should be removed from the list. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrestlingdata.com
How reliable is the website wrestingdata.com considered to be when it comes to WP:BLPs about professional wrestlers? Someone claiming to be a family member of Bryan Clark recently made this change to the article. A citation to wrestling.com is given for the current article content, but I'm not reliable that website is considered. Another IP claimimg to be Clark himself has also recently been trying to remove certain content from the article, but this IP did not try to change Clark's place of birth. That doesn't automatically make wrestingdata.com a RS, but it's bit odd that Clark himself wouldn't try to something as basic as "place of birth" if it was incorrect. Anyway, perhaps some members from this WikiProject can take a look at the article and try and figure out if the changes being attempted by these two IPs are worth further discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We have Wrestling Data down as an unproven website (WP:PW/RS). Even if everything was deemed reliable, I wouldn't trust it for things like personal details, similar to how we treat cage match.net. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that bit of info . Do you or anyone else have any suggestions on what to do about the information in the infobox related to Clark's birthplace then? Just remove it completely since the source cited doesn't appear to be "unproven"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:DOB and Manual of Style/Biography is the policy in question. With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it. In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, although links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted. See § Avoid misuse of primary sources regarding the misuse of primary sources to obtain personal information about subjects.


 * In an ideal world, we would remove all unsourced information in a BLP (and, potentially all articles). However, in practice this doesn't work. If there are no sources regarding the DOB/POB, it should probably be removed. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

This should be on the sources talk page. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * . Thanks for that suggestion. I didn't realize there was a separate page for discussing sources. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)