Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 112

Premium Live Events
So with Impact reverting to TNA and their streaming service, Impact Plus, rebranding as TNA+, the company is now using the term "Premium Live Event" for their PPV and livestreaming events (video). We were previously not using this term on WWE articles to avoid parroting WWE's terminology, but it is now no longer just WWE's terminology. At what point does this become an acceptable term to use? Or are we just going to now categorize this as wrestling jargon until it's more widely used? JDC808  ♫  04:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * PLE still sounds promotional and is not a neutral/common term. Two promotions using it is not enough especially considering TNA not having necessary mainstream exposure. It needs to be used by more promotions and becoming a well-known term in media and sources. In my opinion, PLE is not an established PW term yet. --Mann Mann (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with Mann Mann. Maybe if it becomes the standard term in the industry we could make that change, but at this point it's still a WP:PROMO term. — Czello (music) 08:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I also concur with Mann Mann and Czello; while we might be biased as (I assume) long-term wrestling fans (thus we'll naturally hang on to older terms, even if they shift out of favour), I still feel that PLE is a piece of wrestling jargon that isn't even universal in wrestling, much less the rest of the world. Keep in mind that MMA and boxing still use the term "Pay-per-view"; so using "pay-per-view" is easier for most readers to understand than using a term like PLE.
 * If WWE, AEW, NJPW (English broadcasts), and TNA were all switched to using the term "PLE" long-term, I wouldn't love it but I wouldn't stand in the way of Wikipedia using it.
 * Czello is right to steer us towards Wikipedia guidelines; although I think it's more of a case of MOS:JARGON rather WP:PROMO. CeltBrowne (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with the previous arguments. If Disney promotes their Dsney+ movies as "cinematic Xperences" or something like that... still movies, it's just the way the company promotes their product. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just a theory. maybe, since TNA is under Endeavor umbrella to promote their TNA+, its an order from Endeavor to unify termonology.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @HHH Pedrigree that's a bad analogy. As for your theory, then that would likely mean that we would see UFC start using it, but that's just getting into speculation. JDC808   ♫  12:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * TNA is not under some "Endeavor umbrella". They're a separate company that just hired Endeavor Streaming as the new vendor of the backend of their streaming app. Just like as the NBA and NFL. TNA is a client, Endeavor a vendor. Nothing more. Endeavor isn't in a position to order TNA to do anything. Vendors don't order around clients. It's like people didn't actually read the press release and just jumped to conclusions like a dirtsheet. oknazevad (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mann Mann couple of comments. How does PLE sound promotional but pay-per-view does not? They mean the same thing (pay to watch) except PLE also encompasses livestreaming. As for sources, it's now officially been two years since WWE introduced the term and majority of reliable sources (if not all) switched to calling WWE's events PLEs, and I imagine that will be the case with TNA going forward. JDC808   ♫  11:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * PPV is accepted as a word   "a system for watching television in which people pay for the particular programmes that they watch:" That's what it is. An event, people paying. But "PREMIUM"... it's a company promoting their events as something more than a simple PPV, but it's just promotional branding. What makes WWE events premium while NJPW or AEW are not? Promotion. Like HBO said "it's not television, It's HBO". At the end, it was television, but the company promoted it as something else. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @HHH Pedrigree what you just described for pay-per-view is literally what premium live event means, it just extends to livestreaming as that is another form of a broadcast in which people pay to view. "Premium" means you pay. No one said AEW or NJPW events are not premium, and in fact, they are premium, they just haven't explicitly used that term (as far as I'm aware). JDC808   ♫  14:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have already explain this. Thtat's the way WWE promotes their multiplatform streaming show. Premium has that promotional connotation. Also, as pointed in the past, many sources stated that PLE is the word used by WWE (not TNA too) to promote their shows, which is WP:PROMO. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @HHH Pedrigree You can literally say the same thing about pay-per-views though. Promotions promote their big shows for pay-per-view. You're hung up on how the word "premium" sounds as opposed to what it means. Also, the key word there is "past" because TNA does now use it too. JDC808   ♫  23:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying about "premium" having connotations of "deluxe" or "upscale", but it also simply means "at an additional cost" beyond their weekly TV series, which is pretty objective. Yes, WWE coined the term because "pay per view" (which doesn't have those connotations) isn't accurate anymore as in many places they're no longer sold via traditional PPV providers, and the various versions of their streaming service allow viewing on-demand with no additional cost for multiple viewings (the events are literally not something one pays for "per view"). But just because they coined the term doesn't mean it's purely promotional of WWE to use it as it's purely descriptive. oknazevad (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I concur with Oknazevad and JDC808 here. The word “premium” has similar meanings in other industries outside of wrestling/MMA/pay-to-watch broadcasts that further prove it doesn’t have a promotional connotation. For instance, insurance premiums. You pay that price to receive those services and coverage right? The analogy applies here too. For a premium live event, you’re paying for a subscription to a live-streaming service in exchange for the ability to watch an event legally (not on a pirate broadcast). It’s just the definition of a word: you pay for a service. Now that several promotions such as WWE and TNA have live-streaming clients to broadcast their most prominent events, the language switched to premium live event instead of pay-per-view for those promotions utilizing live-streaming services out of practicality. For UFC, since they still have an additional surcharge to watch UFC events on top of the monthly ESPN+ subscription, they still refer to those events as pay-per-views. So, in my opinion, whether a promotion’s events should be referred to as pay-per-views or premium live events to me depends on whether they broadcast on a subscription live-streaming service like Peacock or via traditional pay-per-view outlets, like AEW. DrewieStewie (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @DrewieStewie just for clarification, WWE still broadcasts Raw and SmackDown's events on traditional PPV, they just don't really advertise it anymore due to the push for streaming subscriptions, and the term "Premium Live Event" doesn't exclusively mean livestreaming. It refers to events airing on pay-per-view and livestreaming (although NXT events are just livestreaming). I believe TNA will follow this model too (haven't read enough about their situation). AEW technically also does livestreaming, they just don't have their own platform and just use FITE and B/R Live. JDC808   ♫  12:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Impact Hall of Fame
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Impact Hall of Fame that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Impact World Championship
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Impact World Championship that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Informal RM – TNA/Impact X Division
Impact X Division Championship has its talk page at Talk:TNA X-Division Championship. We also have List of Impact X Division Champions, which implies in its lead that it is about the "TNA X Division Championship" (without a hyphen this time). Please can an editor with a clue about wrestling branding (i.e. not me) move these pages to their best titles? It may be wise to wait until the above formal RMs reach a conclusion. Thanks, Certes (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Hardcore Holly
Hardcore Holly has been nominated for a 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. Spinixster  (chat!)  06:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Joe Garagiola Sr.
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Joe Garagiola Sr. that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of Impact World Tag Team Champions
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of Impact World Tag Team Champions that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Stipulation inconsistencies
Just a question: is there a reason why there seems to be some inconsistencies when it comes to how we describe common stipulations in match result tables? Most of the time, we go with whatever name the promotion uses for a stipulation (e.g. Double or Nothing (2023) had a "four-way match" but Royal Rumble (2024) will have a "Fatal 4-Way") as long as it's within reason, but there are two examples I've noticed where we don't:


 * We call three-man matches in WCW "triple threats" – which is mostly a WWE-specific term – instead of "Triangle matches"; see Uncensored (1998). Contrast with Guilty as Charged (2001), where we use ECW's appellation of the "three-way dance".
 * AEW typically uses the term "trios" for AEW-branded six-man tag matches, and they have a AEW Trios Championship (someone check me on this, but compare with ROH, where they just say "six-man", mostly).

Ideally, I believe we should be consistent and use the promotion-preferred term as long as it's not unreasonable; after all, "trios match" really isn't as bad as SummerSlam (2023)'s "Slim Jim SummerSlam Battle Royale" (which I personally think is on the right line of acceptable), but I don't think we should go quite as silly as Ultimate Party 2023's "Dream Round "Let's Have Fun!!" What Will Happen!? Fun Death Match".

Thoughts? Sceptre (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I think I agree in principle that we should use the promotion's preferred term when reasonable; Referring to "Triple Threats" in WCW seems/feel anachronistic.
 * Just a minor note; an ECW Three-way Dance and a WWE Triple Threat are not the same thing; a three-way dance is an elimination match (all opponents must be pinned or submitted) whereas a WWE Triple Threat is one fall to a finish. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes and accomplishments
I believe that professional wrestling infoboxes are excessive. Professional wrestlers are analogous to actors rather than sportspeople, since they portray characters and perform predeterminedly. Things like billed height/weight/from and several ring names are more appropriate jargons in the fandom wiki, since they are legitimized mostly by the promotions, not necessarily outside sources. A general infobox, like the one used in Brad Pitt seems ideal.

For similar reasons, I think the "Championships and accomplishments" section should be sorted. Firstly, it should be made clear that the championships are performance (kayfabe) tokens, as opposed to real achievements in combat sports. Secondly, if the section is really required, it would be better to format it as paragraph over list.

In my opinion, David Arquette in World Championship Wrestling should be the gold standard. Please do check, Adam Page and Kenny Omega, an article I created based on tag team notability. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, Binary. About the weight/height, the issue ahs been discussed previously. About the C&A section, I don't see the need to be shorted. It includes their titles as a performer (I think our limit is backyard wrestling, since these are not "professional" promotions). Also, no need to clarify that pro wrestling titles are not real combat titles. About the Page and Omega article, I like it. My approach to the articles is we have to write about the performer, not about the character. Articles like The Bloodline or Judgment Day are written from a storyline perspective. It's painful to read thing like Rey Mysterio lost an eye during the eye for an eye match, but the doctors could save it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think Adam Page and Kenny Omega is notable.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Is WP:PWTAG not valid? BinaryBrainBug (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They'd still need to meet WP:GNG.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding the infobox, I can understand height/weight/billed from being seen as excessive character details. I wouldn't really miss them, however, I think ring names are important. They are not just a character detail, but an identifier of a person due to the nature of professional wrestling. Some wrestlers even have multiple ring names they are widely known for throughout their career (e.g. Mick Foley, Cactus Jack, Dude Love, Mankind). The main issue I see with ring names is that it's generally used as a laundry list of every name a wrestler has used, even the small variations, rather than just the names they are commonly known for.
 * Championships and accomplishments is the equivalent of the "Awards and nominations" section that you regularly see around Wikipedia. We've just tailored it for professional wrestling, which includes a list format rather than the table format that is generally used (see List of awards and nominations received by Leonardo DiCaprio). The only time these sections are written in prose is when they're summarized to only a few of the most notable organizations and accompanied by a link to a full article (and table) of all of their awards (see ). Regardless, just from a practical standpoint, I'm not sure how you could re-format into prose and have it be legible. I wouldn't mind seeing an attempt for the sake of argument, though.
 * I don't know how to approach your suggestion about making it clear that championships are kayfabe awards. That seems like an issue with how professional wrestling biographies are written in general, rather than that section in particular. And this project has always struggled with how to introduce wrestling as a performance and scripted event without repeatedly "talking down" to the reader. Pre  fall  21:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * PW Championships and accomplishments does not need more clarification because professional wrestling championship already clarifies them. Another point is when a person has non-PW achievements, we clarify them by using sub-sections. Examples: Bianca Belair, Ronda Rousey, John Cena, and Brock Lesnar. So PW stuff (kayfabe) =/= other accomplishments. I think the current format is fine for both readability and editing. --Mann Mann (talk) 07:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I do not support any of the changes for the same reasons stated by others who have posted before me. Although kayfabe, C&A are important to a wrestler's career, as important as championships are for competitive athletes or awards are for actors, and these are not sorted into a paragraph in those articles.  Ideally, wrestling's scripted nature is clear to the reader before they get to the C&A section, which is always towards the bottom of the page.  As Prefall points out, this is a longstanding issue with how these articles are written generally. Inserting a "WRESTLING IS STILL FAKE" disclaimer in every section is an example of "talking down" to the reader. Articles should be written so that it is always clear that the events being described are predetermined. However, I do think lengthy C&A sections should be split off into separate articles more often when length becomes an issue.  To my knowledge, Mitsuharu Misawa's championships and accomplishments is the only case of this happening.LM2000 (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The billed height/weight thing is almost always impossible to source, so should be removed IMO, but we've discussed this previously.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The most recent discussion I’m aware of is Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive328.--67.70.103.36 (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. To add to the discussion, I don't see how "billed" stuff is significant enough to be in infobox. They are obviously fictional and only time they are relevant is during ring announcement. I would argue stuff like finishing/signature moves are more important facts in comparison. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We can incredibly rarely source signature/finishing moves. And even if we do, it's fluff WP:FANCRUFT.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Alex Greenfield, WWE writer
I just created Draft:Alex Greenfield (writer). Any help would be appreciated! Thriley (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * What makes this writer notable?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * According to IMDB, he has made many other things. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * All of which were B movies either direct-to-video or tv movies. None of which are themselves notable enough for articles from what I can see. Plus IMDB doesn't establish notability per WP:IMDB. I just don't think he's notable enough for an article. oknazevad (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Royal Rumble 2024
There is a discussion about how MOS:FICTION should apply to Royal Rumble (2024) — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 09:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Discussion thread
 * Discussion thread
 * Editors are invited to join an RFC on this topic at Talk:Royal Rumble (2024) — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

MOS:THEBAND for wrestlers
Had a thought just now looking at the Usos, which is only capitalized that way in one instance in the article, that it might make sense to apply MOS:THEBAND to wrestlers, teams, and factions as well, and figured I should put the idea out here. Thoughts? QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 08:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've had the same thought about The Undertaker, personally I have mixed feelings on it.★Trekker (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * MOS:THENICKNAME: A leading "the" is not capitalized in a nickname, pseudonym, or other alias (except when the alias begins a sentence). --Mann Mann (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * MOS:THEBAND (if I'm reading it right) only talks about capitaling works, not names. This wouldn't apply to ring names anyway.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If ring name = nick name, then MOS:THENICKNAME applies (my above comment). --Mann Mann (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's primarily focused on bands which I don't believe constitute a "work" by Wikipedia's standard definition, and it does also have one example of an individual with a nickname in the Edge. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 08:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * When they say "work", they mean say an album or a song, not an act. There is an argument for a work being a show, such as The Greatest Royal Rumble, but that article isn't known with "the", so we dodge that question.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Stephanie McMahon
Stephanie McMahon has been nominated for a 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. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

In universe lead?
I feel this sentence needs to removed from WP:PW/SG per MOS:INUNIVERSE.

Unless anyone objects, I plan on removing it shortly. If there are objections, let's discuss and perhaps resolve via RFC. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Bill, you seem like a good faith editor and I very much respect that you base your additions on high-level academic sources. Your additions to the specific Professional wrestling article are well-meaning and helpful, as much of that article is in terrible condition and was in need of serious attention.
 * However, for other aspects relating to professional wrestling, I would encourage you to slow down a bit before making radical changes, particularly as Talk:Royal Rumble (2024) demonstrated that your views on how leads for professional wrestling based articles are written are highly opposed.
 * That said, I am encouraged by the fact you opted to discuss this first with the Wikiproject before altering it.
 * I am concerned that if you remove that particular sentence from the Style guide, we end up having to re-litigate what was discussed in Talk:Royal Rumble (2024). I think you should look at the commentary there, absorb the consensus and apply what was said to any further alterations you make to professional wrestling article leads.
 * Please do continue to make improvements to professional wrestling content on Wikipedia, and I hope we can continue to collaborate on PW articles going forward. Regards, CeltBrowne (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the kind words. I also look forwards to continuing to collaborate with you.
 * I didn't expect the above proposal to be an easy consensus, but I hate wikilawyering, so I figured I should at least take a local straw poll before involving the broader community. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistency
Ric Flair has one unrecognized US title reign. We made that reign grey and don't count it towards his total number of reigns, even though everybody but WWE recognizes that reign (it got left out for reason at all other than WWE forgetting to add it).

Then we have Kevin Nash awarding himself the WCW title. WCW did not recognize this, WWE does not recognize this. Yet the reign is not grey. It looks like a normal, recognized reign. Only the note says that nobody recognizes it.

I propose making Nash's reign grey, just like Flair's reign, which is way more recognized than Nash's. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Assuming no one recognizes it have you tried changing it yourself, including a source to show that it is unrecognized because unless someone objects and reverts the change I don’t see a discussion here as necessary yet.--67.70.103.36 (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would do that but it would take me a full workday to figure out how to do it properly so I am relying on someone who already knows how to do such a thing. Sorry. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The note is sufficient. oknazevad (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why? There is no consistency if we just add a note and have one reign be grey and the other not, even though both aren't recognized. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. If you don't know how, look at the wiki code of the greyed out line and copy and paste the part about the formatting to the line that should be greyed out. Double check your work with the preview before saving. That's how you learn. oknazevad (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I thought you were saying I shouldn't fix it, as the note that is already there is enough. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Replacing Current and Currently with As of
Wikipedia:Manual of Style, MOS:CURRENT, and MOS:REALTIME say that we should avoid using terms like "current" and "currently" and they should be replaced with WP:ASOF. So I propose these two common sentences for the lead section: We use year for working/signing, and year and month for the status of championship. --Mann Mann (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wrestler ABC working for promotion XYZ:
 * Option 1: ABC is signed to XYZ.
 * Option 2: ABC works for XYZ.
 * Wrestler ABC being the current champion:
 * ABC is the champion.


 * @Mann Mann one thing I find odd about MOS:CURRENT is that it says terms like "current" or "currently" can go outdated quickly, but so could "as of" when there's a change and the article doesn't get updated. WP:CURRENTLY says that an exception to using terms like "currently" would be for articles that are regularly updated, and there could be an argument made that these articles, particularly of wrestlers and championships, are regularly updated.
 * As for employment, I do agree with changing it to as of so readers know when or how long a wrestler has been with a company. JDC808   ♫  08:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We just need to update them monthly or yearly. For example, for the current champions we use year and month format. No need to mention day or counting the days of someone's reign. Plus there are not dozens of champions so we can handle it. We have enough active editors. Also, when we start using "As of" template/format, IP users would follow it (keeping articles up to date). Now, which Option sounds better? 1 or 2? Or any other suggestion (better wording/grammar)? --Mann Mann (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mann Mann I'm not quite convinced on removing currently as it pertains to championships, but as to your question for their working status, I'm more inclined to Option 1 since wrestlers are independent contractors. JDC808   ♫  11:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Was looking at a few basketball players and their lead sentence is as follows:
 * ABC is an American professional basketball player for XYZ of the National Basketball Association (NBA).
 * The ones I looked at, like LeBron James, don't mention when or how long they've played for their team in the lead sentence.
 * We could adopt a similar lead sentence for wrestlers.
 * For example:
 * Steve Borden, better known by the ring name Sting, is an American professional wrestler signed to All Elite Wrestling (AEW).
 * And for companies with brands, theirs could be:
 * Leati Joseph Anoa'i, better known by the ring name Roman Reigns, is an American professional wrestler signed to WWE on its SmackDown brand.
 * And then for wrestlers on the indies:
 * Heath Wallace Miller is an American professional wrestler on the independent circuit.
 * Now as for the "as of" in regards to when they signed or started working for a company, that can just be mentioned somewhere in the lead summary, and just say they signed with that company in month/year. That would be a case-by-case basis on how or when to mention that based on what else is mentioned in the lead summary. Someone like Logan Paul, for example, is going to be a little bit different since he's not just a wrestler. JDC808   ♫  12:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'd lean to option two. "Works for" is pretty universally understandable whereas "signed" implies the reader has some understanding of contracts etc. McPhail (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm in favour of removing "currently", if for no other reason than it's superfluous. Saying "He is signed to WWE" and "He is currently signed to WWE" both mean the same thing. — Czello (music) 09:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * As of MDY/DMY or since MDY/DMY, both will work IMO. Should avoid current/currently per MOS:REALTIME. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree – I'm in favour of agreeing to change to "as of". As @Czello said, "signed/currently signed to WWE" is interchangable as-is anyway. Thanks for inviting me to give my two cents on the matter, @Mann Mann. Mechanical Elephant (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'd go with option 2 per McPhail's reasoning.★Trekker (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * While I agree, just saying.... the main problem are IPs. I have tried to remove currently several times, but people just include it again and again. Honestly, I see it as a lost battle. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I lean towards option 2. “Works for” is easier to understand, plus we don’t always know the contract status of every single wrestler at all times. OldSkool01 (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to removing "currently" from wrestlers' articles based on Czello's reasoning. It's purely superfluous phrasing.
 * But I would strenuously object to removal from articles about championships. Unlike the OP's comments above, we do care about tracking days of a reign, and keeping those updated to the day. That's why we use automated counters on those articles and the various "list of current champions in X" articles. Note that title format; being current to the day is the whole point of those lists. While we may be living in a period where long title reigns have become something of the norm, and title changes happen most often at PPVs/PLEs/whatever we want to call them, they can still happen often enough that updating them only monthly is unacceptable. So that's a non-starter of a proposal. Guidelines can and should be set aside if they get in the way of the purpose of an article. oknazevad (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My concern is about removing "current" and "currently" from wrestlers' articles. My rationale has nothing to do with articles about championships. I was talking about the lead section of the current champion wrestlers. --Mann Mann (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I get you. Yeah, I can defiantly see removing the "currently signed to" bit. And instead of "is the current XYZ champion" we can a should phrase is as "has been the XYZ since date". That gives it a firmer, timeframe for readers and allows someone to double check if it's up to date pretty easily. oknazevad (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for employment and signing
Please vote or submit your suggestion (open a new sub-section). Format: As of (year) + option A/B --Mann Mann (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A. X is signed to ...
 * B. X works for ...


 * Support A I'm fine with B too, so my vote is 50-50. --Mann Mann (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support A. - It sounds better out of the two. WWE wrestlers are generally signed to multi-year contracts, and sign extensions. Mechanical Elephant (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It depends; for nearly all wrestlers in the WWE sphere, the promotion to which they’re contracted to and the promotion which they appear for are the same, but outside of that, it gets a little murky fast. Take, for example, Jack Perry – it's pretty clear to most wrestling fans in the know that he's still under AEW contract and is on an excursion to NJPW, but we must always consider that a promotion might be working the audience except in cases where they absolutely aren't. And then there's cases such as Nic Nemeth, where it's as of yet unsure what his "home promotion" is. Wording such as "making appearances" or "performing" are also fine. Sceptre (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion to proposal
Please see what's outlined here. JDC808  ♫  10:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You mean we don't need using "as of" at all? For example, something like this:
 * Current revision: Liv Morgan: Gionna Daddio (born June 8, 1994) is an American professional wrestler and actress. She is signed to WWE, where she performs on the Raw brand under the ring name Liv Morgan.
 * Per suggested format: Liv Morgan: Gionna Daddio (born June 8, 1994) is an American professional wrestler and actress signed to WWE, performing on the Raw brand under the ring name Liv Morgan.
 * Right? --Mann Mann (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mann Mann kinda mentioned it with Logan Paul, but yes and no. It would be a case-by-case basis. With Liv Morgan, since it's mentioned she's both a wrestler and an actress, then her being signed to WWE should be split as a second sentence (so as to not sound as if she is both a wrestler and an actress for WWE). But also, her being signed to WWE should be clarified it's for wrestling, so "as of" could be used for her. Again, a case-by-case basis, but the examples I previously gave would work for just wrestlers.
 * Gionna Daddio (born June 8, 1994) is an American professional wrestler and actress. As a wrestler, she has been signed to WWE as of [month/year], and performs on its Raw brand under the ring name Liv Morgan.
 * JDC808  ♫  02:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds OK. And I agree the wording better be based on situation/context. --Mann Mann (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for the current champions (wrestlers' articles)
Please vote or submit your suggestion (open a new sub-section).
 * A. ABC is the champion.
 * Format: As of (year and month ) + option A
 * B. ABC is the current champion.
 * Format: Keeping "current" --Mann Mann (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support A per my rationale. --Mann Mann (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support my above suggestion of "has been the XYZ Champion since date". More informative than simply stating "as of". oknazevad (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with "has been the XYZ Champion since date" CeltBrowne (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the right wording.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks fine and I'm OK with this suggested format. --Mann Mann (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I also support oknazevad's proposal.LM2000 (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Result: Removing current and currently
Consensus per Wikipedia:Manual of Style, MOS:CURRENT, MOS:REALTIME, and suggestions: --Mann Mann (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Employment and signing: Remove "currently" and it is recommended to use As of.
 * Current champions (wrestlers' articles): Remove "current" and use this format: "Wrestler ABC has been the XYZ Champion since date".

Fifita family
Hello - I have a query re: the Fifita family that I would welcome input on.

Category:Fifita professional wrestling family is about a family from Tonga that emigrated to the United States. However, one of the in-laws, Steve Fifita, is an Australian rugby union player.

Category:Fifita family is about a family of Australian rugby union players of Tongan descent.

My query is, are these two separate families that just happen to share a surname, or are they branches of the same family?

Any input welcome. McPhail (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Couple of minor points re: Infobox
Firstly, for American wrestlers, should "United States" be abbreviated in the "Billed" field? E.g. should John Cena's infobox read "Born West Newbury, Massachusetts, U.S." or "Born West Newbury, Massachusetts, United States"? I have no strong view either way.

Secondly, should "Billed from" include the country? E.g. should Bret Hart's infobox read "Billed from Calgary, Alberta, Canada" or simply "Billed from Calgary, Alberta"? I would suggest the former, for consistency with the "Born" field.

McPhail (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This might fall under MOS:INFONAT CeltBrowne (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Counting title defenses on NJPW championships
I saw "successful defenses" and "defenses" on NJPW championships. Yeah, the content is based on NJPW official stats. But it's inconsistency when articles about other promotions do not have it. Also, isn't such details some kind of fancruft? --Mann Mann (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * In prior discussions we decided to include it if and only if the promotion itself tracked the stat. Whether or not it's a useful stat I can't really say. oknazevad (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to the Fancruft aspect, but as far as verifying title defences, Cagematch.net would/could be an independent source of information for title defences. For example, this tab on the AEW Continental Championship shows what Cagematch.net records as official title defences.
 * Cagematch.net is currently listed as a limited reliable source in PW's list of sources, although it might go up a tier again if we had more discussion on this thread in Wikipedia:PW/RS CeltBrowne (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, we should only cite Cagematch when better sources are not available. --Mann Mann (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, Japan has the tradition to keep track of defenses. For example, NJPW has a section for the champion and every defense he had . Non Japanese promotion don't keep track of the defenses. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Impact One Night Only
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Impact One Night Only that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Bensci54 (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

In Your House on WWE PPV page
At the moment all In Your House pay-per-views are listed as ‘In Your House’ without reference to which one is which. While I am aware at the time they aired they were simply ‘In Your House’, doesn’t it seem logical to categorise them into ‘In Your House (2), In Your House (3)’ etc?.

Bearing in mind this is a chronological page. For viewers it’d make it a lot easier to read, especially as events took place in the same year. Same with No Mercy ‘99 (UK). I think it’s best to have the category in brackets though to indicate it isn’t the name of the PPV’s themselves but as a sequential list. Note this would only apply to PPV’s up to Ground Zero when ‘In Your House’ became a subtitle.

I also think it’d be best to move In Your House pages to ‘In Your House (3)’ for example rather than ‘In Your House 3’, akin to other PPV’s but in regard to years. Xc4TNS (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Xc4TNS first point, I agree with and I actually tried making that change but was reverted due to what you had stated in which they were simply titled "In Your House" for those first few. The second point I don't agree with. I'd lean more to putting the month and year as the disambiguation in parenthesis than the event number, but I think the current titles are fine due to the retroactive renaming. JDC808   ♫  05:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think it needs to be changed. As for the "In Your House" pages it's fine as it is, as long as it mentions the retroactive naming in the page summary. Xc4TNS (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Reposting what I wrote on the talk page of WWE PPV/Livestreaming events…
 * I disagree with this. Every PPV listed on the page bears the exact specific title name of the PPV on the day that it aired.
 * No Mercy (UK) was not the name of the PPV. It was simply No Mercy. And writing (UK) is redundant when right next to the PPV name it lists the city it was in. There was only one No Mercy event in the UK, so it’s not hard at all to decipher which one it is.
 * As for the In Your House events. Those events never have been numbered. Ever. It was only in the UK, on the Silver Vision home video releases, that they received numbers. During the build up to those shows, on TV, in WWF Magazine or online, numbers were not used. On the actual PPVs themselves, numbers are not shown anywhere. Nor as an onscreen graphic or spoken by any announcers or wrestlers. Adding numbers next to them, on this specific page in the listing, will make zero difference especially when the dates are right next to the events. This isn’t like WrestleMania or WCW’s Clash Of The Champions (at least during the early years anyway) which actually used numbers for those events. The first 6 In Your House events are also the only ones to simply use the In Your House name. Beginning with the April ‘96 event is when they started adding sub-names to the titles. Those events, even more-so, do not need numbers because they all have different sub-names. With the exception of In Your House: Beware of Dog 2, which used the number 2 on the on-screen graphics during that show and Jim Ross on commentary also spoke it. And besides all that, the individual In Your House event pages on WP have the numbers noted on them, so it’s not like you’re gonna click on an IYH event on this page and it’s gonna take you to a random IYH PPV. OldSkool01 (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand that No Mercy 99 was not literally called No Mercy UK, the point I am making though is the PPV/Livestreaming page is a large page and when events with the same name happen in the same year it's more logical to decipher one from the other. It's more logical to categorise events based on number than just date. Even if IYH 2 for example is a retroactive name it still somewhat makes sense to use numbers on a list. Hell you could even add taglines of events in small font below the main header.
 * I understand that the naming is based on name at the time of broadcasting but putting numbers in parenthesis doesn't affect that, it just makes it easier to navigate whilst also paying homage to retroactive naming. Especially helpful when different events have the same name in the same year. Deciphering one from the other and adding more info on the page is not false information, it's just adding more detail. Why is it a problem if there is more detail on a page? Xc4TNS (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Xc4TNS could even add a footnote to the first few that clarifies they were just "In Your House" with no number or subtitle JDC808   ♫  22:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Or just don’t put a number or subtitle. I don’t think that would require a note. OldSkool01 (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like a wise idea, it distincts one event from another whilst noting that they have been named retroactively. Once again, more info on a page is not a bad thing. I can understand undoing an edit if it isn’t factually correct but just being petty over making a page easier to navigate seems illogical. Xc4TNS (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If there were no dates and locations on the table then I’d say yes, you make a great point. But there are dates and locations literally right next to the titles of each PPV. That’s what distincts one from the other. How does adding a superfluous number to the title make it any easier to distinct? When you mention WrestleMania 3 to wrestling fans, they all know which event you’re talking about. They remember Hogan-Andre and Savage-Steamboat. You think anybody knows what happened at In Your House 3? They’re gonna say “Which one was that?”. And they’d ask the exact the same question if you say In Your House (September 1995). Point is, adding a number, that was never in the title to begin with, makes zero difference in distinguishing one from the other. OldSkool01 (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding In Your House 4 is still way more distinguishable than it being In Your House Oct (1995). If the names were used retroactively, as they are on the WWE network, it still makes more sense to use numbers and subtitles as on the Cagematch website. I do agree it should be clear it's a retroactive name. As long as it notes that numbers and subtitles were retroactive then why is it so bad to add? More info isn't a bad thing.
 * I think simplicity is better at times on wikipedia, but if info technically isn't wrong then why is it bad to add?. 3 people on this page already believe that adding numbers and even subtitles isn't a bad thing, as long as it's noted to be retroactive. The page is already bloated, simply listing numbers is hardly going to make the page worse.
 * I feel like adding the number and subtitle in small font below the header is a reasonable solution, or even the number with a note. Xc4TNS (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The subtitles are already there for the In Your House PPVs that actually had subtitles (from April 1996 forward). No need to add subtitles to events that never had them. It wasn’t until many years later, I believe with the creation of the 24/7 on demand service in 2004, that WWE decided to retroactively give those early IYH shows a subtitle for some reason. I look at it like this, if Wikipedia was around in the 1990s and we were updating this page monthly as those events were happening, how would we handle it? We certainly wouldn’t add non-existent subtitles that are retroactively coming many years in the future. And there would be no need to number them either because numbers were not part of the advertising at all for those shows. The only people who are familiar with those IYH ppvs having numbers, are fans in the UK who group up watching the Silver Vision VHS tapes that numbered the events after the fact. That still doesn’t make it the accurate title. The same reason we don’t go back and rename the first WrestleMania on this list as “WrestleMania 1” because that wasn’t the name of the event. It wasn’t until a year later that it retroactively became known as WrestleMania 1. Again, the individual WP pages for those first 6 IYH events have it all explained and are also numbered. So I don’t see an issue where people will get confused about which one is which. OldSkool01 (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, if we make it clear that the events were retroactively named then what is the problem? Adding more detail to an article shouldn't be an issue. I would understand if I'm straight out adding something that is false but on a chronological page I don't see why adding numbers is necessarily a problem. Likewise with adding a distinct colour to network exclusive events.
 * Removing edits because ‘it’s unnecessary’ doesn’t seem reasonable. Xc4TNS (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But you ARE adding something that is false. I feel like I’m going in circles here. Adding numbers to events that never had numbers is ridiculous. This list shows the actual title of the events as they were named on the day the events aired. Adding numbers to events adds absolutely nothing to this article, especially when the dates and locations of the events are right next to the titles. Also, as I’ve already mentioned, adding color distinction to non-branded network exclusive events is redudant and unnecessary because there is already a notes section that tells us which events are network exclusives. OldSkool01 (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And yet WrestleMania I is at that title. And since WWE have themselves added the numbers and subtitles, we're not making anything up. We'd just be using retronyms for natural disambiguation purposes. While we're talking about a list, not the individual articles, the principle carries over. oknazevad (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @OldSkool01 With all due respect, the only person who is arguing the point is you. Other commenters on here are not disagreeing with what I'm saying. I'm not making any random edits with no respect to your standpoint, hence why I took it to the talk page.
 * It doesn't even matter if events are retroactively named, the WWE still recognizes those events by their retroactive names. As long as the article mentions that the naming is retroactive there is literally no problem. It feels redundant even making this point because if I make the edit you'll just undo it and complain. Xc4TNS (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Xc4TNS The individual pages for each of those PPVs mentions the retroactive name changes in their respective articles. There is zero need to add all of that to the PPV list. It’s superfluous information that is not needed on this page. You can read all of that on their respective pages. And again, the names on this list are what they were called on the day that they aired. Retroactive name changes are for the individual articles. I can’t see anybody being confused as to which In Your House events they are when the date, location and main event are all listed right next to eachother on the same line. Adding a number will not only be an inaccurate title, but it will not make a single bit of difference to the person reading it. For example, I highly doubt someone will see “In Your House - Nashville, TN - July 23, 1995 - Diesel vs. Sid for the WWF Title in a Lumberjack match” and be like “Yeah, I’m still confused as to which once this is. If only there was a number next to it, then I’d know exactly which one it is.” That would be ridiculous. And as for me being the only one arguing this, you are the only one making these edits. Nobody else is making these edits. They’ve been listed this way for years and only you for some reason feel the need to change it. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @OldSkool01 I mean, if I had just skimmed the list and saw that entry, I wouldn't know if that was the 2nd or 4th In Your House without clicking on it. I'd only see that it was an In Your House that happened in July 1995. I would have to scroll back or click on the link to find out which it was. It's not like the annual events that happen only once a year. There were several In Your Houses per year. Later In Your Houses have a number and/or subtitle so we can distinguish them easily without clicking on them. The earlier ones don't. And the claim of him being the only one making the edits is kinda false. I tried to make these same edits in the past but you strongly objected and I didn't press the issue any further. JDC808   ♫  01:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @JDC808 “I wouldn’t know if that was the 2nd or 4th In Your House without clicking on it”. I’m still waiting for an answer as to why it is important that someone knows which number it is. If you can’t figure out which event it is by the date, location and main event, how is a number going to make any difference? I’m not being sarcastic, I’m asking a legit question. Also none of the later In Your Houses have a number, only subtitles which started with Good Friends, Better Enemies in April ‘96. Maybe I’m missing an aspect of this. Is it because fans in the UK only know them by their Silver Vision VHS release numbers? If so, that’s fine, but that still doesn’t make them accurate titles. Coliseum Video in the US didn’t use any numbers on their IYH VHS releases, so the numbers thing was never an issue here. OldSkool01 (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @OldSkool01 (my app didn't ping me that you tagged me): Not gonna repeat what others have said in response to you here, but just to say, I'm not from the UK, I'm from the US, and ever since I started working on wrestling articles, etc., I've only known them by numbers, not dates (or even years, but years don't work for these since there were multiple per year). JDC808   ♫  07:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I’ve already made adjustments on the page a few days ago. Added a note next to In Your House 2-6. Read further down this page for my reasoning. OldSkool01 (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * He feels the need to change it because it aids readers. And I agree. Especially since it also brings the list in line with how the events are titled on the WWE Network/Peacock (where the dates are omitted, but the numbers included) making it easier for a reader to find and view the event for themselves. Frankly, the "must be exactly as it was the day it was broadcast" mentality is not in line with any Wikipedia policy or guideline. While WP:COMMONNAME is an article titling guideline, the underlying principle of "make it as recognizable and easy to find for readers as possible" still holds for a list. And these events are best known now, in 2024, with numbers.  oknazevad (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Peacock is very inconsistent though. If the Peacock listings are what we’re going by, then the list needs to remove all the roman numerals from the WrestleManias, because Peacock only uses standard numbers. Peacock also includes Royal Rumble ‘88 and The Big Event in the PPV section. Which is probably why we get people on here every year adding them to the PPV list on WP because they see it that way on the Network and Peacock. Also Peacock only lists the 1995-1997 events under the In Your House section. The 1998-1999 In Your House events aren’t listed there. So Peacock/the Network shouldn’t be the standard we go by. OldSkool01 (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of sources that list the numbers as part of the title such as Cagematch, SmackDown Hotel, TRJWrestling, IMDb. In fact most sources list numbers in the In Your House title. It's not like it's purely being made up for the sake of it. Yes, I am aware the name is retroactive but in all honesty I think it doesn't matter. I think most people are more likely to remember 'In Your House 4' rather than 'In Your House (Oct 1995)'. I get that's my opinion but others on here are backing up what I'm saying. It makes logical sense to use the numbers especially on a chronological page. Is there much need to debate this more?. Xc4TNS (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m willing to compromise. Take a look at the edit I just made. I made a note where it says “Sequentially known as In Your House 2” and 3, 4, 5 and 6. The first IYH doesn’t need that note, the same way the first WrestleMania doesn’t need that note. It’s pretty self explanatory. As for the IYH events starting with Good Friends, Better Enemies, those don’t need notes either because they already have the subtitles to distinguish them. And if you wanna use the WWE Network/Peacock as an example, they don’t use numbers on any of the IYH events after 6. I think this is a fair compromise. OldSkool01 (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay fair, however I do think naming IYH 2-6 as the main title with the notes mentioning it's been retroactively named would make more sense. Falls in line with making the article easier to read. Xc4TNS (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Easier to read? So now people are gonna have trouble moving their eyes slightly to the right of the screen? Come on now. The notes make it even more clear which events they are. I feel like this is a very fair compromise. OldSkool01 (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I respect the compromise, but it technically would take up less space to just put it in parentheses. If it's in parentheses it's technically not referring to the actual events name it's just chronologically listing them whilst paying homage to the fact they were just aired as In Your House. It's up to you. To add, I do also think noting IYH 7-16 is fair as most sources online list as such as well as the names of the pages. From Ground Zero on it doesn't matter as In Your House becomes a subtitle. Xc4TNS (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn’t reply earlier. No problem with addiing the notes to IYH 7-16. That’s fine. But I still think the notes are better than the parentheses. OldSkool01 (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

If we’re being consistent, we’ll have to remove all of the WrestleMania numbers between 31 and 39 too, which have also been marketed without numbers, I believe. As far as the In Your House PPVs go… well, we utilise WP:SMALLTEXT all the time throughout Wikipedia to aid reader understanding. Something such as isn’t too unreasonable. Sceptre (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Every WrestleMania has used a number, with the exception of Manias 1 and 16. Every year WWE sells WrestleMania merchandise with that year’s number on it, whether the PPV graphic uses it or not. So they do advertise them with numbers. The In Your House events on the other hand, were never advertised and promoted with numbers. Ever, not once. As for “Season’s Beatings”, that wasn’t the name of the PPV. That was a name that was added retroactively years later for some reason. OldSkool01 (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Jason Knight (wrestler) § Birth date, birth name
Input from experienced project members would be welcome in the discussion at Talk:Jason Knight (wrestler) § Birth date, birth name. Chris Troutman ( talk )  19:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Your edit summary for adding this thread to this Project talk page stated "this is of interest to the outlaw garbage-wrestling indy mudshow fans".
 * If you're trying to genuinely encourage interest in this topic, that language isn't helpful or productive. I would hope you were saying it in jest, but we have no way of actually knowing that, particularly as there are many people online who use that negative language with complete sincerity. CeltBrowne (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As a member of the cult of Cornette, I think my depiction is accurate to the state of the wrestling involved. Perhaps you are one of those fans of that sort of wrestling.  Chris Troutman  ( talk )  01:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * you commented there, so what I posted was sucessful
 * It worked in spite of what you said, not because of it. This is Wikipedia, WP:NOTAFORUM, and posting things just to antagonise people is admonishable. CeltBrowne (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I genuinely mixed up the two. I saw "wrestler", thought "wasn't there a discussion at ... WT:MMA some time ago ...&#91;2021&#93; looks good, let's ask here." I'm thankful for copying my request to the right location, and now that I had a look at the difference between MMA and professional wrestling, I also understand why mixing these up is upsetting especially to MMA fans. I guess it's a common mistake and that makes it more annoying. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @ToBeFree, what's common about it? It says "professional wrestler."  If the subject was a mixed martial artist, it would say that.  Saying it's common is an excuse.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 15:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Removal of citations for films, television series, video games, music videos, and other similar media
According to this edit, we don't need citations for entries like video games. Also if you look at the articles of most actors and musicians, you see there are no cited sources for their filmography section; e.g. films, television series, video games, music videos, and etc. For example, see Jason Statham. I think we should follow the same pattern for WP:PW articles. Your thoughts? --Mann Mann (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Disagree in the case of WWE wrestlers. Their video games pass the notability test so edits like the one you pointed out are correct (it was done on the Alexa Bliss page as well). Smaller players like Statham on the other hand needs a second look - but there should not be a general rule like what you are appearing to suggest. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Statham is just an example. My point is if there is a specific guideline about other media, we should follow it. If they don't need citation, then there is no need to make our articles bloated with unnecessary refs. --Mann Mann (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolute nonsense that we "don't need citations"  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Who said that?! You did not get my point. See the above diff again. I said if those notable media are citation themselves and there is a guideline about it, then we don't need WP:OVERCITE. That's all. --Mann Mann (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

ROH on HonorClub vs. Ring of Honor Wrestling
ROH has renamed its Ring of Honor Wrestling TV show to ROH on HonorClub since March 2023. Reliable sources also use this new name; e.g.. So which one is preferred? Ring of Honor Wrestling or ROH on HonorClub? Does HonorClub sound promotional? --Mann Mann (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Mann Mann, ROH hasn't had a TV deal since it was purchased by Tony Khan. That's when Honor Club was relaunched just without any tiers. In March 2023.  Honor Club is like WWE Network, a subscription service.  It's still Ring of Honor Wrestling, but it's also known as ROH Honor Club TV.  It's also shortened to ROH on Honor Club, ROH Wrestling TV, and ROH TV.  If you see any of the others names in sources, it still Ring of Honor Wrestling unless ROH officially changes it to ROH Honor Club TV.  Articles have other names shows, movies, albums, etc. are known as.  Plus, it's been Ring of Honor Wrestling since the show started on HDnet in 2009.  Just leave it as is.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 15:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * So as you say, Ring of Honor Wrestling is fine for post-March 2023 ROH TV stuff. For example, see Hikaru Shida:
 * A. Shida made her Ring of Honor (ROH) debut on the March 14, 2024 episode of Ring of Honor Wrestling, where she answered ROH Women's World Champion Athena's open challenge for the title at Supercard of Honor.
 * B. Shida made her Ring of Honor (ROH) debut on the March 14, 2024 episode of ROH on HonorClub, where she answered ROH Women's World Champion Athena's open challenge for the title at Supercard of Honor.
 * A is preferred to B, right? --Mann Mann (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mann Mann, correct. You wouldn't say ROH on HDNet when they were on that network.  It was Ring of Honor Wrestling.  HDNet was just where they aired like HonorClub.  It's just where it airs.  You wouldn't say AEW Dynamite on TBS or Monday Night Raw on USA and won't say Monday Night Raw on Netflix, you wouldn't do it for Ring of Honor Wrestling.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 02:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree. The main reason why I opened this discussion was this edit using "ROH on HonorClub". Then I changed it to "Ring of Honor Wrestling". I was not sure about it. --Mann Mann (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, that is our current title for the TV series article, so it is appropriate to use. It doesn't help that the promotion, either before TK's purchase or now, makes little distinction between the promotion's and the series' names. Both the Sinclair era logos and the current logo are used for both the promotion and the series, with the Sinclair logos including "Wrestling" while the TK-era logo omits it. If anything, I'd almost say our differentiation of the article titles is not particularly well-founded and a discussion of the TV series article title is warranted. It probably should be at Ring of Honor (TV series). oknazevad (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point. In my opinion, Tony Khan's ROH is just AEW Dark/Elevation; same format and booking with a few modifications and using ROH brand. Maybe that's why there is nothing special about the current ROH and its show. --Mann Mann (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

New unrecognized reign?
Roxanne beat Lyra, but they only added the title to her profile and to the list of Champs. The official title history has Lyra as Champ. Shouldn't we therefore edit the title history and grey out Roxanne's reign as unrecognized? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait. Sometimes updates are delayed (not unusual for WWE website). It is WrestleMania season, you know. --Mann Mann (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WWE.COM also had a video on their site explicitly calling her a two time champion [] so it appears that any discrepancies with the title history page is likely a case of that page being in error since the facts appear to support this being an official reign.--67.70.101.200 (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

AEW and ROH rosters
I am conscious that our articles and templates imply a division between the AEW roster and ROH roster which doesn't seem to strictly exist in reality. Is there a case for merging these? McPhail (talk) 09:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Some wrestlers are under contract with ROH (some sources state that they signed with ROH or AEW/ROH). I agree to merge, since most of the roster is just AEW wrestlers. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * ROH is the sister promotion of AEW. It's not a division/brand of AEW. The case of ROH and AEW is similar to World Wonder Ring Stardom and New Japan Pro-Wrestling. Another point is while Tony Khan's ROH is similar to AEW Dark/Elevation, it's not something like NXT and WWE. --Mann Mann (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * But is there anyone on the AEW roster that we can definitively say is not on the ROH roster, or vice versa? McPhail (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree, both promotions are independent, but owned by the same man, Tony Khan. ROH Roster includes many AEW wrestlers. I would agree with something like AEW wrestler usually appears on Tony Khan's owned promotion Ring of Honor". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Two promotions = Two rosters. So each one of them needs its own list and template. I agree ROH roster feels like a derivation of AEW roster but it is what it is. --Mann Mann (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I think we should treat them as separate promotions with rosters that overlap. It seems to be an intentional choice by Tony Khan to have an overlap, and trying eliminate the overlap by designating wrestlers as primarily AEW/ROH would involve too much original research.  Pinguinn     🐧   06:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I think it's right to have two separate rosters, as they are ultimately two separate promotions – they just have a lot of overlap. Perhaps a notice at the top of each roster saying there is flux would be good. For example at the top of the ROH roster, something like "ROH personnel often make appearances for All Elite Wrestling, as both companies are owned by Tony Khan." — Czello (music) 11:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

WrestleMania streak as accomplishment
4 0 Wrestlemania winstreak was added to Bianca Belair in these revisions. Does it pass as accomplishment/achievement? Or if it is something notable, can we mention it in the body of article (a related section other than Championships and accomplishments)? --Mann Mann (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Definitely not and should only be considered years form now if her streak begins to be compared with a far more famous WrestleMania streak.--67.70.101.200 (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why should it not? A win streak of that much surely should count as an acomplishment? It does not have to be compared with Taker to be impressive GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * We don't even list it for the Undertaker, who owns the only notable winning streak in WrestleMania history. It's not an "accomplishment" in the traditional sense of these sections, more just a character trait. — Czello (music) 16:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * We should only add accomplishments that credible sources list as accomplishments - editors shouldn't be coming up with their own accomplishments (WP:OR). McPhail (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Forbes was talking about it as an acomplishment GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Forbes is an unreliable source per WP:PW/RS so it does not count as credible. --Mann Mann (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Shazza McKenzie (3rd nomination)
Shazza McKenzie's article has been nominated for deletion. The input of members of WikiProject Professional wrestling is appreciated in the discussion of whether or not it should be deleted. CeltBrowne (talk) 10:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the justification for the article's deletion? WaimiriMaina (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Solely based on the discussion I read, it was a problem all too common with this project's articles: piling on citations to match results and calling the article "well-sourced". I also saw participants repeatedly deferring to the project's list of reliable sources.  The community at large expressed concern years ago that those sources were never vetted by the community at large.  Additionally, many AFD discussions of late have taken specialized notability claims to task. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  19:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Awesome Kong
Awesome Kong has been nominated for a 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. Spinixster  (trout me!)  07:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

"Best known for his time..."
Hello. Since we talked about Currently in the LEAD of the articles, I wanna talk about the following sentence. "He/She is best known for his/her time..." That sentence is in every article, but maybe is a little subjective. Some users removed because we need a reliable source for that. For example, Drew Gulak "He is best known for his tenure in WWE, where he... / Gulak was previously best known for his work in Combat Zone Wrestling (CZW), where he... " Whate makes Gulak best know for his work 10 years ago with an independent promotion? Why CZW and not PWG or CHIKARA? Maybe, we should change the Lead, instead "he is best known", we can write "He worked from X to Y for WWE". HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I have two thoughts on this:
 * 1: The phrase "best known for..." seems to be used across Wikipedia/become Wikipedia lingo. For example, Colm Meaney's lead opens with:
 * Colm J. Meaney (Colm Ó Maonaigh; born 30 May 1953) is an Irish actor best known for playing Miles O'Brien in Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987–1994) and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993–1999).
 * while George Cole (actor) leads with
 * George Edward Cole, OBE (22 April 1925 – 5 August 2015) was an English actor whose career spanned 75 years. He was best known for playing Arthur Daley in the long-running ITV comedy-drama show Minder and Flash Harry in the early St Trinian's films.
 * so even if we could cut all the "best known for their time in..." phases from Pro Wrestling articles, they might just creep back in from other biographical articles.
 * 2: Although of course what someone is best known for is (partially) subjective, is it something we necessarily need to take mass action on? For example, in the case of Drew Gulak, it generally is accurate to say he's primarily known for his WWE run and secondly his CZW run. If that was inaccurate, another editor can either alter the statement or contest it on the talk page. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 2: Although of course what someone is best known for is (partially) subjective, is it something we necessarily need to take mass action on? For example, in the case of Drew Gulak, it generally is accurate to say he's primarily known for his WWE run and secondly his CZW run. If that was inaccurate, another editor can either alter the statement or contest it on the talk page. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 2: Although of course what someone is best known for is (partially) subjective, is it something we necessarily need to take mass action on? For example, in the case of Drew Gulak, it generally is accurate to say he's primarily known for his WWE run and secondly his CZW run. If that was inaccurate, another editor can either alter the statement or contest it on the talk page. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Using "best known" is fine. Actually it shows why a pro wrestler is notable or well-known. As for Gulak, you can rewrite the second paragraph and reword it in a better way. AJ Styles is another good example except that "currently" thing. --Mann Mann (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Working on Marina Shafir and it said "Shafir is arguably best known for her time in WWE..." Either she is or isn't best known for her time in WWE.  She didn't work anywhere else in wrestling prior to that.  So there is nothing to argue.  So I removed arguably.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 21:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree it's really poor wording. "Best known" Better writing just comments on the actual information and doesn't unduly state info we can't cite.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest the wording is unnecessary and should be avoided, but I wouldn't go around removing it from every article where it's uncontroversial. BoldGnome (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ivory (wrestler)
Ivory (wrestler) has been nominated for a 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. Spinixster  (trout me!)  11:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Mass deletion request on Commons
As I recall, the issue of photos from wrestling magazines on Commons has been discussed here before. I initiated a small mass DR last year targeting one uploader, which resulted in most files being deleted. Using the copyright basis provided by the closing admin, I initiated a sweeping DR this morning. As it consists of 662 files, it will have a substantial impact on this project's content. If you desire to comment, preferably WRT copyright, you may do so at c:Commons:Deletion requests/Professional wrestling magazines. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 13:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)