Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 90

Requested move for discussion
Daniel Hollie to Danny Basham. McPhail (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi guys, I proposed "Kaitlyn (wrestler)" to 'Kaitlyn" Starship.paint (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Also Eric Tuttle to Towel Boy. McPhail (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * And Sean Morley to Val Venis. McPhail (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * And there is Ryback (wrestler) to Ryback.  STATic  message me!  23:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * And one I am sure everyone is going to add an opinion on; A move request that affects all the SummerSlam articles.  STATic  message me!  05:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, we have Ed Farhat and Joseph Cabibbo. Both have wrestled as The Sheik. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We've also got a few move requests (not proposed by me). They include:
 * Matt Bloom to Tensai
 * Danielle Moinet to Summer Rae
 * Mistico to Sin Cara
 * Ron Killings to R-Truth
 * Dutch Mantel to Zeb Coulter.LM2000 (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why did somebody move Nick Dinsmore to Eugene (wrestler) and Brodie Lee to Luke Harper? Nobody informed us about the name change and nobody voted. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Technically, the proposals made them unanimous 1-0 landslides. It's like how I once conquered Nova Scotia by quietly declaring it mine, then walking in unopposed. As of today, my monarchy still hasn't been officially abolished there. But yeah, now that you've objected and moved them back, it's all tied up again. The system works! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, like Emperor Norton. I moved both of them to their original names. I think that we have to vote, a 1-0 isn't fair, because nobody voted. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If no one voted then it is considered uncontroversial, and moved. You cannot just overturn a RM, because you do not like the result because you did not get a chance to vote. Since silence is consensus, they would need either a move review or another RM. I completely agree that they should have been posted here to notify the project though.  STATic  message me!  15:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, i don't know the rule. But a requested move for discussion without discussion hasn't sense. I proposed Harper to Brodie Lee again. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We also have Lisa Moretti to Ivory (wrestler) and Ariane Andrew to Cameron (wrestler).LM2000 (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * GeicoHen opened multiple discussions. Carly Colón, René Goguen, Mark Copani, Ray Gordy, Kasey James, Brian Adams (wrestler), Matt Anoaʻi, Ronnie Arneill, Barry Buchanan, Mark Canterbury, William Calhoun. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What about Joseph Cabibbo? I think that the name should be The Sheik, but we have The Original and The Iron. Does somebody know a rule about people with the same name in the same discipline? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Going by John Smith, seems the thing to do is separate them by nationality. But these are both Americans. I think I've seen a (born 19XX) somewhere, but can't remember where. Maybe work "original" in there, somehow, for Farhat. Or maybe just leave them as is. We don't have articles on them yet, but who knows when we might need to make room for another "The Sheik". InedibleHulk (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In football they often use birth year (Tommy Taylor (disambiguation)) but I don't think this would work well with a wrestling nickname. It's not ideal but I think the best option is to leave as it is and let the disambiguation page sort it out. Duffs101 (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In John Smith, I see John Smith (Medal of Honor, b. 1826) John Smith (Medal of Honor, b. 1831) (1831–?) and John Smith (Medal of Honor, 1880). Maybe, we can do this: The Original Sheik, The Iron Sheik, The Sheik (wrestler, 1974) and The Sheik (wrestler) to the disambiguation page. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've also requested Robert Kellum to The Maestro (wrestler). McPhail (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a few new proposals. Kevin Fertig, Tonga Fifita, Angela Fong, Shoichi Funaki, Jean Gagné, Claude Giroux (wrestler), Chavo Guerrero, Jr., Tony Halme, Harry Del Rios, Jon Heidenreich, Gene Snitsky, John Hill (wrestler), Maven Huffman. --GeicoHen (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem like "a few" to me... that's a total swamp! Starship.paint (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that took a while. Sometimes I wish I had fewer opinions or something more important to do. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * New rounf: Talk:Brian Jossie ‎, Talk:Andres Labrakis, Talk:Michel Lamarche, Talk:Brian Lawler and Talk:Rodney Leinhardt. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There was also a missed discussion at Talk:Glenn Gilbertti to move his article to Disco Inferno (wrestler).--64.229.165.126 (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also someone formatted the Brian Jossie move incorrectly so can someone please fix it? I would do so myself but I don't know how.--64.229.165.126 (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * One more request from me: "Jamie Dundee" to "J.C. Ice". McPhail (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Bold, revert, discuss. No need for a drawn-out discussion for each move. Just move them. There is no policy, guideline, or even essay that says that everything done on Wikipedia needs a consensus first. If people disagree with the name change, feel free to move it back and then discuss. Having dozens of discussions is just ridiculous. If something needs administrator help, ask an administrator. If they say it needs a consensus, start a discussion. Otherwise, if you think it will be a tremendous asset to Wikipedia to have a page located under a different title, just move it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good idea. If some rookie user changes every article, we have to work more. I prefer discuss this controversial changes instead revert 20 name changes. If you don't want to discuss in AfD or namechanges, good. But I think that is a good idea. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) How many of these are even remotely controversial? (2) How many "rookies" check in on this project's talk page before doing anything? (3) While it may be your preference, that doesn't mean that you can revert moves done by other members simply because they hadn't been discussed here first. (4) Lengthy discussions for every move actually creates a lot more work than the occasional revert. (5) If a "rookie" moves a lot of pages to new locations that aren't in keeping with naming guidelines, you discuss the guideline with that editor. You don't mandate that everyone on Wikipedia has to go through this project first. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to participate, good for you. But is nothing wrong about the discussions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I participated in every one of those. If I didn't want to, I wouldn't have. Just saying, if we did it Coleman's way, it'd be nice to hear from the mover, rather than to just come across Josip Peruzovic (professional Bolshevik) someday. Like how you found Eugene and Luke Harper. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * At the very least, an editor who makes a bold move should make a note of it in a section like this. I don't have every wrestling article watchlisted (or even close) and same goes for most of us, I think. Not opposing is simpler than supporting, but it only makes sense if we're aware of the move. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hulk, it seems to me that HHH's last comment was directed to GaryColemanFan... Starship.paint (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, clearer now, rearranged. Struck my comment. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah. You made a edit conflict and I put my comment under yours. I know that now, are near 30 discussions, I don't know every wrestler and it can be boring, but I prefer discuss before find thing like Phantasio (wrestler) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You can prefer it, and you can recommend it. You just can't demand it, because there's no Wikipedia policy or guideline that requires it. That also means that you can't use "didn't discuss with the wikiproject first" as a reason to revert. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Where did I demand any discussion? I never said that. I only reverted Harper and Dinsmore becuase nobody discusses. It was a move discussion without discussion and the user never told us about it. If nobody answer, I think that the best idea is to use more time, no close the discussion without opinions. Tomorrow, I will propose change The Undertaker to Mark Undertaker. Nobody see it and the article is moved. The change is wrong, obvious, and I should be reverted. I think that the discussion is over, because nobody will see the other point of view. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no obligation to inform the Wikiproject. Some articles are going to get moved. That's the way Wikipedia works. You don't own articles, and the Wikiproject doesn't own articles. Anyone can edit it and make edits (including moves) that they feel are helpful. If a new article name just isn't right, it will get caught and moved back. Moved back because it's not the common name, mind you; not because the Wikiproject didn't give its stamp of approval. For something like the Eugene move, a move was proposed on the article talk page. While it is nice to inform the relevant Wikiprojects, it is not required. An administrator (who, it is safe to assume, is familiar with policies and guidelines) decided that the lack of objection meant that the move was controversial. At that point, reverting without discussion is clearly inappropriate. Your strawman arguments hold absolutely no weight, as they are chosen to be deliberately absurd. You can declare the discussion over, but you will have to go forward with the understanding that Wikipedia policies and guidelines hold more weight than an editor sticking his fingers in his ears and asserting that his personal preferences will always prevail. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Or maybe, you have to learn that we are a community. We are a project and we have a Style Guide. I know how Wikipedia works, I'm here since 2007. I know that we have rules and politics. You say that if an user changes an article, we can moved back with other discussion, but I prefer talk about it before the first controversial discussion. I never obligated nobody to "first talk with us, we are God" or "you have to open discussions first" (he did all the discussions because he wanted), I said that "hey, if you want to propose near 30 name changes, is a good idea to inform us, so we can talk about it and, as users, decided the best way, because as Wikiproject members, Maybe, we know how to handle with this problems". That's the point of a Wikiproject, " better organize information in articles related to professional wrestling." I don't own the articles, but I know the rules that the Project wrote before and I follow them. Also, I apologized to Hulk due my changes and proposed Harper again. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

And here's some more to add to the swamp that you folks probably haven't heard about yet:
 * Marty Wright to The Boogeyman (wrestler)
 * Richard Young (wrestler) to Ricky Ortiz
 * Max Taogaga to Sivi Afi
 * Peter Stilsbury to Outback Jack (wrestler)
 * Ernie Roth to The Grand Wizard of Wrestling
 * Maryse Ouellet to Maryse
 * Jose Alvardo Nieves to Brazo de Plata
 * Eric Perez to Eric Escobar
 * Takeo Otsuka to Mens Teioh
 * Kris Pavone to Caylen Croft
 * And one more Kurrgan to Robert Maillet -LM2000 (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox professional wrestler
Regarding this template, could anyone technically skilled help...? Judging by my sandbox and Daniel Bryan's article, |real_height and |real_weight are not working. Starship.paint (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The real height and real weight fields were removed from the template a while back. I don't think they should be re-added since (a) it's extremely challenging to locate verifiable data for these fields (b) the real/billed heights and weights tend to be fairly close and (c) it's needlessly confusing to quote two heights and weights. McPhail (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Then the real h/w should be removed from the template. Actually my point was that WWE billed Bryan at 6 feet / 200+ pounds, when live on television WWE Raw he actually called himself (I think Stef also called him) 5 feet 8, also in a recent interview with Bryan they called him 5 feet 8 and about 180+ pounds. So we should not add all this and just feature what WWE.com posted on Bryan? Starship.paint (talk) 07:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll attempt to remove them from the template. If a height or weight is quoted on WWE programming, I'd say that's still a billed height/weight - in this case, you could change the height/weight fields to a range (see Achim Albrecht for an example). McPhail (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

One article about documentary
The article, Bret "Hit Man" Hart: The Best There Is, the Best There Was, the Best There Ever Will Be, is a mess. I hope someone here proves its own notability and improves the quality. --George Ho (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

unnecessary redundancy
Years later this continues to bug me. Everyone knows it well, it's the standard lines in ever PPV article. Reads:


 * "[PPV name here] will feature professional wrestling matches that will involve wrestlers from pre-existing feuds, plots, and storylines that play out on [WWE/TNA]'s primary television program(s), [Raw and SmackDown/Impact]. Wrestlers will portray villains or heroes as they follow a series of events that build tension and culminate in a wrestling match or series of matches."

When will we finally come to the conclusion this line isn't needed in every PPV article? The point of a PPV article is to talk about the event in question, not explain how wrestling works. If you really want to explain that so bad, link the article on professional wrestling and be done with it.

I again move that we finally drop this redundancy from our PPV articles. There's no need for it and only serves as unnecessary filler.  CRRays Head90  | Get Some! 23:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Anyone?  CRRays Head90  | Get Some! 01:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well... I think that we can use ""[PPV name here] will feature professional wrestling matches that will involve wrestlers from pre-existing feuds, plots, and storylines" I think that is usefull to explain that is a fictional entertainment. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's a little much, but I've always been partial to something like "The event featured seven matches, which resulted from scripted storylines and had results predetermined by the WWF." Villains and Heroes was shot down in a somewhat recent vote on this page in favor of heels and faces. "feuds, plots, and storylines" is just three ways of saying virtually the same thing. Just "storylines" covers all three. Introducing the television programs at the start seems a little unnecessary as well. Other than that, I think it's fine to include in every pay-per-view article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with HHH Pedigree, I'm not a huge fan of it, but it seems reasonable.  CRRays Head90  | Get Some! 19:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've always found this paragraph ridiculous, and still do. It would be less so with Coleman's suggestions. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, it is ridiculous and doesn't really add to the article other than to scream in our faces information everybody already knows. It's unnecessary and stinks up the damn articles, and should be removed. It's redundant and doesn't add anything of worth to the article. Event-related articles aren't there to explain how wrestling works and we don't need to be screaming "HEY GUYS THERE'S STORYLINES!!!!!!" in every single article. I agree that we should drop it. Yazman (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So, does anyone else have any comments?  CRRays Head90  | #OneMoreGame 21:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Mean Street Posse article proposal
Looking at the articles of the three Mean Street Posse members (Joey Abs, Pete Gas, Rodney (wrestler), there's a lot of crossover). None of the three really had any significant appearances beyond their stint in the WWF as MSP members. I propose merging the three individual articles into the stable article at The Mean Street Posse. This would avoid unnecessary duplication and mean maintenance was only required on a single article rather than on four articles. Any thoughts? McPhail (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Also, they retired after the stable disbanded. No Indy appearences. One thing, I watch a DVD (about Foley or the Attitude, I think). The match against Patterson and Brisco had the highest rating in WWE History until Foley-Rock segment. Also, both legends say that they were too dangerous, because they didn't have training. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * All three easily meet the notability threshold, so merging their articles is not a good idea. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move(s) for discussion
The other one is far too bloated and has run its course so I'll post further updates here.LM2000 (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * George "Two Ton" Harris to George Harris (wrestler)
 * Dustin Rhodes to Goldust

Diva Search 2013?
According to Eva Marie's article, she signed with the WWE because she won the Diva Search 2013. His official website says that she is the winner of 2013 Diva Search. It's this true? I don't know about a 2013 Diva Search edition and the article about the contest ended in 2007. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I found this, they describe WWE "holding a 'Diva Search' style training camp in Los Angeles". I have no idea if this is the same thing Eva Marie's webpage is talking about, but it's all I could find.LM2000 (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * According to this interview on WWE.com, Eva Marie went to a "Divas search" in September 2013 and was subsequently "picked for developmental". She attended a Diva Search-branded casting call and was signed to a developmental contract on the basis of her performance. McPhail (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice. I think that Marie invented it. Thanks :) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

ECW Alumni
I am currently compiling ECW information from all over internet. There are a ton of sites and a few with 90% of the info. I am combining everything into one massive spreadsheet with Top 10s, Won/Loss Records, All time roster, etc etc. I will then do my best to update all ECW related Wiki stuff. I have already started on the ECW Alumni page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njjeff73 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I think that you should use the table of others alumnis. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't like the sound of top 10s and won/loss records. Hopefully, you won't go all fancrufty on the articles.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If you'd like, WrestlingData already has something like your spreadsheet sounds here. Can sort by most wins, losses, draws, matches or best differential. Also can specify by month, year or decade (Johnny Grunge ruled in October 1995). More detail there than Wikipedia should give general audiences, but interesting for fans. And possibly helpful for Wiki. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But remember, the official tables of WWE Alumni and Total Nonstop Action Wrestling alumni. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 02:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course. I wasn't suggesting Njjeff73 use these extra parameters as new columns, or that we include records. Just that WD may help with his compilation of information, which may then help him update Wiki, according to existing standards. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The Corporation
One question. Does somebody name the stable of HHH, Stephanie and the others? Usually, I hear that people call them The Corporation (a new formation). Also, here says that Shield are the representatives of "The Authority". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 02:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "The Authority" is the official name for the stable. It's also mentioned here. They haven't played the name much on TV, so fans are calling them "The Corporation", "McMahon-Helmsley Faction", etc. Feed  back  ☎ 01:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

""
The usage of is under discussion, see talk:Curtis Hughes -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Categories
While helping to populate the categories for Canadian wrestlers, two things came up:


 * The category name Category:Professional wrestlers by Canadian province or territory. Are there really that many wrestlers from Nunavut? (Are there any?)  Are there enough wrestlers to reasonably populate a single category for all the territories?  If not, the "or territory" may in itself constitute overcategorization and should be dropped.
 * While we can all recognize the rich wrestling heritage of the Calgary wrestling scene, if this is supposed to be a sub-categorization by province, Category:Professional wrestlers from Calgary is in error as Calgary obviously isn't a province. It borders on overcategorization to make an exception for separate province/city categorization in this case. (Gee, I spoke too soon.  Since I last paid attention, Category:Professional wrestlers from Alberta was created.)
 * Or, how about even combining the Maritimes into a single category? It doesn't appear as though any single provincial category is going to grow that terribly large.

On this same subject, it seems to me that we're revisiting the previously-deleted category for Monday Night Raw venues with Category:Professional wrestling venues and subcategories, in that the inclusion criteria is perhaps a bit too arbitrary. There's another can of worms with this categorization, in that I see arena articles which give undue weight as "tenants" to sports teams which in some cases folded within weeks or months, yet fail to mention wrestling promotions which ran a regular schedule in said arena for decades. If wrestling is mentioned at all, it's more like a list of PPV or similar events by WCW/WWF/E/etc. RadioKAOS –&#32; Talk to me, Billy  05:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I created the categories at Category:Professional wrestlers by Canadian province or territory. The naming of the category reflects the title of the category Category:Sportspeople by Canadian province or territory and sport. The phrase "province or territory" is currently used for all Canadian sportspeople categories - I don't think it's logical to change the naming convention just for professional wrestlers. I originally created the "Professional wrestlers from Calgary" category by mistake but I think it makes sense to have sub-categories for major wrestling cities such as NYC, Philadelphia, Calgary, Toronto, etc. McPhail (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly; remember categories are usually part of multiple larger tree structures. In this case, the provincial/territorial categories are standard across many sports, and many other professions. No need to change them just because some of them are small.
 * As for the arenas, yeah, sometimes wrestling seems to get short shrift. But conversely, it is way too easy for the articles to become overloaded with lists of routine TV tapings or house shows, which really are not individually notable enough to mention. PPVs and other major cards are distinct, and usually significant to some extent or another. A mention, briefly, that a particular territory used a certain arena as their regular home for major cards may be worthwhile, but don't over state the importance of routine shows. oknazevad (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * We should really decide a criteria for the venues category. Either by frequency (at least six shows a year, maybe?) or TV connections (Impact from The Impact Zone, Maple Leaf Wrestling from Maple Leaf Gardens, MSG, Tokyo Dome, so on). As it is, any venue at all which has hosted two events could conceivably be "known for" wrestling. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Iv been trying to figure this out for a long time Kaz (Frankie Kazarian) and Eric Young at the time he was known as super Eric won the TNA World Tag Team Titles but were stripped of the titles after Eric young refused to tell his true identity to Jim Cornette here is the video of that situation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igYgxQ8ZfSo also http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/bios/f/frankie-kazarian/ Kazarian's Online world of wrestling profile shows he and Young won the titles stating this (TNA Tag Team titles w/Eric Young defeating A.J Styles and Tomko and LAX [Immediately Stripped] (April 17, 2008) Iv talked to many people and they have said the reign is official now about Kazarian's TNA Profile they changed it many times first it said he was a three-time world tag team champion then said he was a multi-time tag team champion now it says he is a two-time so I am not sure about it but every other real wrestling website with title history's states Kaz and Eric Young/Super Eric won the titles but were stripped of the titles later the same night I am really trying to figure this out because regardless of all the proof Iv been giving to HHH Pedrigree he shows me a website with the TNA Title history's that aren't even up to date and only goes by what Kazarian's profile says when they are both not up to date I would like to hear more from other people regarding this situation thank you very much JMichael22 (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

TNA Tag Team titles
Hi. Michales22 and me need your help. The article about TNA World Tag Team Championship says that Eric Young and Kaz have the record for the shortest reign. However, we have a problem. Here you have the official (and dead) TNA Titles history (until 2010) TNA official history doesn't recogniced Kaz and Eric as champions. As you can see, it says that "AJ Styles and Tomko were stripped from the titles after a controversial loss" It never says that Kaz and Young were champions, because after Styles and Tomko reign, the title was vacated. We can find muliple sources about the match, but TNA website doesn't recognized them as champions. JMichael give me sources about the history of the title where Kaz and Young are champions (http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/titles/tna/worldtagteam/, http://www.wrestling-titles.com/us/tna/tna-t.html , http://www.cagematch.net/?id=5&nr=558 ,http://www.angelfire.com/on2/wrestlingtitles/NWATNAtag.html and http://www.solie.org/titlehistories/wttnaction.html) However, the title belongs to TNA and I think that TNA has the last word. Like Jericho defeating HHH for the WWE Title or RVD Defeating Taker for the WWE Title. Also, TNA hasn't a title history and Kaz and Eric profiles say "multi time Tag team Champion", them don't say the partners or the number of reigns. Also, TNA merged NWA Tag Team and TNA Tag team reigns. What do you think? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, sorry. I think that TNA has changed the Kaz profile http://www.impactwrestling.com/roster/Wrestler-Roster/item/1566-kazarian it says "two time world tag team champion" (and five time x division champion, if somebody wants to talk about suicide character). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "However, the title belongs to TNA and I think that TNA has the last word" - I'd strongly disagree with this. Impartial third party sources are preferable. McPhail (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Independent sources are best for some wrestler things (real names, histories, personal life). But I'd consider fiction like titles, angles and character names up to the author, and fine to primary source, per WP:PASI. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we still having troubles. Some idea? TNA website never lister Kaz & Eric as champions. The title list said that AJ and Tomko were stripped. Also, Kaz profile says that he is Two times champion, no three times. I think that Hulk, this is TNA titles, so only TNA can write an official (fictional) title history (like WWE Roster, only WWE says who is in the main roster). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If Kaz's profile says he is a 2-time champ, and we can get reliable secondary sources that cover him winning the belt, then it should be listed... perhaps with an asterisk. Generally I'd agree with the company's official title history regardless, but in this case I don't think the company even agrees with itself if it was listed in one place but not the other. LM2000 (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually let me recant some of that. I thought Kaz only won the titles once with Daniels, so TNA calling him a 2-time champ would mean the only possible combination would be 1-Daniels, 1-Eric.  So, I'm just totally wrong there.  Sorry.  But still, there's only so much you can take the official title histories.  If we strictly followed official title histories we wouldn't have Antonio Inoki in WWE's title history, we wouldn't list RVD as a European Champion, and plenty of the disputed NWA reigns wouldn't be listed either.  If JMichael22 is right that Kaz's profile hasn't been updated since his most recent run with the title then my original stance still stand in its entirety.  If reliable sources can be brought up to show that it happened then that's something too.  Or maybe we could list it with an asterisk.LM2000 (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nop. Kaz won the title twice with Daniels. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The TNA profile for Kazarian isn't up to date at all JMichael22 (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Every wrestling site already provides the title reign TNA's website doesn't go into full detail regarding wrestlers title history I feel in this case we should go by other websites that show the proof of the title reign JMichael22 (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe the other sources are wrong. TNA give us a Title list with the champions and Kaz/Eric don't appear. WWE doesn't recognized RVD as WWE Champion when he defeated Taker, nor Jericho when he defeated HHH. Also, WWE doesn't recognized The Rockers as WWF Tag Team Champions. Same case. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

We're talking about TNA not WWE the company's do it differently and look at Sacrifice (2008) read the Storyline section it explains the whole situation Kaz and Eric Young won the TNA World Tag Team Championships and were stripped of the titles immediately after winning them that is what happened they won the titles then lost the titles Tomko And AJ Styles never beat Young and Kaz in anyway JMichael22 (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you know that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source? I can change it immediately. We have to reliable primary sources. 1, TNA listed Kaz as Two Time champions, not 3. 2, TNA said in the title list that Styles and Tomko were stripped from the titles and doesn't list Kaz/Young as champions. Again, we don't need a source about when Kaz/Eric won the match, when Cornette vacated the title. We need a reliable source about TNA recognizing Kaz and Eric as champions (a tilte list, a profile...)   --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Are solie.org and OWOW reliable enough for this kind of thing? If so, I think they should be in the list with a "†".  Chances are, this reign wasn't recognized by TNA, but it does appear to be recognized by some sources.  We can acknowledge this while still making it clear that TNA may not have considered it legitimate.  I checked those other reigns that you mentioned and these sources do not include them in their titles histories, but they do include this one.LM2000 (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, the sortest reign belongs to Angle and Sting, because Eric / Kaz weren't champions, doesn't?
 * Point blank TNA had the match it was an official match view the video I posted it proves that fact, now for HHH Pedrigree to continue to argue this fact for his reason because of the TNA website that's really your only source of argument you haven't proved anything other then that I provided the actual video evidence I provided a list of Websites listing the TNA World Tag Team Championship History I provide Kazarian's OWOW Profile every Pro wrestling website has the Correct up to date History for the Tag team titles TNA's website doesn't have a title history page so in that case we look for other sources that show TNA's title history's and Iv shown them The reign they had was Official the video I showed came from the Official TNA Impact Wrestling YouTube channel HHH claims Tomko and Styles got stripped when in the video Cornette clearly states Young and Kaz are stripped of the titles their reign as champions was an Offical reign their shouldn't be a reason against that because everything shows that they were the champions and once again here is the video listen to the words that are being said http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igYgxQ8ZfSo you wanted the Official TNA information and this video is from the offical TNA Impact Wrestling YouTube Channel JMichael22 (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Man, it's simple. This is wrestling, the promotions can say "the match wasn't official". "video evidence"? Again, video doesn't say anything about the reign was recognized. "TNA Titles history" It doesn't matter. When TNA dropped down the title history (at 2010) the title never appeared and NOW, Kazarian profile listed him as Tw time, not three times. OWOW is a secondary source (also, OWOW says that Drew Mcintyre is a Two times IC Champion and Kofi is 5 times IC Champion.). Again, the video isn't clear, never says about Kaz/Young as official champions. The official title list and Kaz profile are clear. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's try again. Like a five years old child. Pro wrestling is fake, a scripted, fictional entertainent. Wrestlers won matches and titles, BUT sometimes, promotions doesn't recognized title changes, despite the wrestler won an official match. For example, Chris Jericho, on April 19, 2000, defeated HHH for the WWE Championship. We have sources about the match, the title change, BUT next week, decision was reversed. The title returned to HHH, WWE Title history and Jericho profile doesn't show the title change, sooo Jericho wasn't champion (at 2000, later he won the title, but he is one time WWE champion, not Two times). Other example. When Drew McIntyre were stripped from the IC Title, Teddy Long hosted a tournament. Kofi Kingston won the tournament, but McMahon returnes the title to Drew, despite Kofi won the tournament. Again, WW.com doesn't list the title change. How Wikipedia works: We use sources. For Pro wrestling, we can use reliable Primary sources (TNA website) and secondary (OWOW). TNA Titles belongs to TNA, so only TNA decides the official reigns. We take a look to Kaz profile and it says "Kaz is two time Tag Team champion". We take a look to the (now defunct) title history section. It says that "AJ Styels & Tomko. Next reign, vacant, Styles and Tomko were stripped from the titles due a controversy against Kaz & Eric". Not my word, TNA Word). Now, the video never says TNA recognized Kaz and Eric as champion. The end. We have to official and clear sources about Kaz and Eric weren't champions against a video released by TNA about a segment that never mention if TNA recognized Kaz & Eric as champions (as I say, also I can prove Jericho defeating HHH, but isn't official because WWE doesn't recognized the title change). really, somebody can help us? One of us is wrong and I want to end with this (I like the LM2000 idea. In that case, we should do the same at IC and WWE titles). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

New TNA World Tag Team Information and proof

 * TNA recognizes them as Champions who ever did the TNA wrestlers profiles got the information directly from this website WIKIPEDIA and I have the proof on Kazarian's TNA profile it says this (In 2007, Kazarian won the Fight for the Right Tournament. He also reigned as X Division King of the Mountain in 2008 and 2009.) which is not true if TNA payed any attention to their wrestling company they would of known that in 2009 Suicide won the X Division King of the Mountion Kazarian play'd the character of Suicide and TNA recognizes Suicide as the winner also. Kazarian as Kazarian or Kaz or Frankie Kazarian is a four time TNA X Division Champion not five the fifth title he won as Suicide so that clearly show Kazarian's TNA Profile isn't correct it also states (He’s a two-time TNA World Tag Team Champion and a five-time X Division Champion.) the Exact same way it says on his WIKIPEDIA profile which means at the time of them making his profile they copied it the way it was written on the WIKIPEDIA so if someone changed him being a Tag Team Champion from three-times to two-times that's what the website copied because in reality Kaz and Eric Young/Super Eric won the TNA World Tag Team Championships that is my proof the profile isn't up to date JMichael22 (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is Frankie Kazarian's TNA Profile from 2011 http://web.archive.org/web/20120301132937/http://www.impactwrestling.com/roster/Wrestler-Roster/item/1566-Kazarian it sates he is a former World Tag Team Champion and it says that before he and Daniels won the Titles together which means that is his reign with Eric Young and here is what Iv been saying from September 2013, this is Kazarian's TNA profile http://web.archive.org/web/20130914120845/http://www.impactwrestling.com/roster/Wrestler-Roster/item/1566-Kazarian it's states he is a three-time TNA World Tag Team Champion so there you go JMichael22 (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Also on Eric Youngs TNA Profile it states (These ego boosts earned Young numerous TNA World Tag Team Championships and the prized TNA X Division Championship.) numerous means more then one because Young has won the tag team titles exactly two-times with Kaz and as a member of the Band with Kevin Nash and Scott Hall JMichael22 (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Now we're talking. That's enough for me.  In the very least this is exactly like RVD's Euro reign... it is recognized in some WWE sources but not in others.  We recognize that reign, albeit we describe the sources that list it and sources that don't.  We should definitely put it in the list at this point.  I'll restate my original statements which I recanted "I don't think the company even agrees with itself if it was listed in one place but not the other."LM2000 (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * User:LM2000 do you believe it is officially okay to add the title reign now since Iv provided all of the correct information needed to make a final decision? JMichael22 (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I prefer to wait until more user give us their opinion. TNA sources... it's hard. I'm 50-50. Maybe, somebody from Wikipedia should write an e-mail asking this (for exaple, Vladimir Kozlov said about his birthday year) if they use Wikipedia for the profiles (also, we can ask for a title history) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I Really don't see any need to continue to fight this topic Iv worked hard to prove this Championship reign Iv given lists of TNA World Tag Team Title history's that are correctly up to date Iv given video evidence Iv provided the the profile information everything shows they won the titles I understand stand if you want more time to discuss but it seems to me the Reign should count JMichael22 (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Does anybody oppose the table going in like this? I might switch the wording, because I typed it up in a huff, but it certainly looks better than it does now in my opinion. AJ and Tomko did not in any sense retain the titles as it currently reads, Jim Cornette clearly says they lost the titles (and that everyone saw them lose them), so it is currently just as erroneous as before.LM2000 (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe, the best way. However, I think that "currently recognizes it on Eric Youn profile". TNA says multi TNA Tag team Championship and TNA includes also NWA tag team championships (for example, Storm is 11 Times TNA Tag Team Champion) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh shit, you're right about that. That will have to be changed.LM2000 (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

TNA's profile for James Storm is incorrect because it states this (Storm considers himself the IMPACT WRESTLING Beer Drinking Champion, which explains why he’s such an effective brawler. As part of Beer Money, Inc., the most dominant tag team in IMPACT WRESTLING history, he managed to capture the TNA World Tag Team Championship 11 times alongside former partner “The IT Factor” Bobby Roode.) it says he won them 11 times alongside with Bobby Roode and that isn't true at all he won 4 with Roode and 6 with Chris Harris 1 with Christopher Daniels and 1 with Gunner which makes him a 12 time World Tag Team Champion TNA hasn't updated any of there wrestlers profiles so in regards to Kazarian the same goes for his profile at the moment it states the incorrect number of TNA World Tag Team Championships with two when it should originally be three and Eric Young like they said on IMPACT many time Young's a former 4 time World Tag Team Champion two times with Bobby Roode 1 time with Kevin Nash and Scott Hall under the freebird rule and once with Kaz as Super Eric/Eric Young JMichael22 (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

LM2000 but that looks perfect because regardless the reign happened it took place Young and Kaz were the champions I would agree to put it as is JMichael22 (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I know it. The point is that TNA says multi times TNA XXX Champion, includes NWA reigns, so it's hard to see the things clearly with "multi times". LM2000, if you send a message, you have to say that we are too sad with the wrestlers profile XD. Please, two paragraphs for Styles? Yoshi Tatsu has a better profile in WWE. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to sum up my points there:
 * Kurt Angle's first reign is recognized by his August 2008 profile  but not in the 2010 history, that reign didn't start until Slammiversary.  His first reign would have occurred with the NWA belt but the NWA title history (now dead) did not include him in their list.  The number of world title reigns that TNA has attributed to Angle before means they include either both the NWA and the first TNA as separate reigns (both reigns would have came from that Slammiversary win) or just one of them and his gold metal or amateur awards or something.
 * I don't think Creed's Team Pacman reign counts. His profile from August 2008 doesn't list him as a champ and he didn't win with Lethal until December 2008..
 * Emailing TNA might be a good idea, but only to see if they recognize it now. Still there is the question of whether or not TNA ever recognized it, which I doubt they would admit either way.  Even if they don't recognize it now, they may have in the past, and if that's the case we should include it in the list just like we include List of WWE United States Champions reigns that WWE doesn't recognize and List of NWA World Heavyweight Champions reigns that weren't technically official.LM2000 (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Angle also won the IWGP Heavyweight Championship (IGF version), so when TNA says "Angle is X time world champion" I ask myself "Does TNA count IWGP title". Anyway, a good idea is to send an email (other user, please. I haven't a good English level) to TNA, askign for a complete title list story to improve the articles without controversy. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

HHH Pedrigree I don't think you fully understand TNA and it's Championships because Kurt Angle never won the NWA World Heavyweight Championship the last NWA World Heavyweight Champion in TNA was Christian Cage he was the Champion when NWA and TNA split up second Creed's reign with Team Pacman does count because he joined Team Pacman at Bound For Glory 2007 as part of the Free bird rule and Yes TNA counts The IWGP Championships it counts the IWGP World Tag Team, IWGP Junior Heavyweight Tag Team and IWGP Heavyweight Belts that's why they had TNA wrestlers compete for them, also TNA counts Kurt Angle's World Championships from WWE, TNA and IWGP because he won the IWGP Championship while he was working for TNA. I myself am all about TNA so when it comes to the title history's I'm well aware of who were Champions and who weren't JMichael22 (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand how TNA works and how Wikipedia works. We need sources, you can't say"yes, Creed counts", because sources (2008 profile and TNA Title history) say that Creed was a substitute, not champion (for example, Alex Shelley substituted once Boby Rood as TNA Champion). Second, I know that NWA and TNA splitted. But again, take a look on TNA title history. First angle's reign started on June 17, but Wikipedia says that it is Angle's second reign. Contreversy. And TNA only says Multi time World champion. TNA title history says one thing and the profile don't help us. I think that you don't udnerstand me. When I talk, I use sources. When I say "Styles and Tomko were stripped" I say it because TNA title history said it, not me. When I say "I don't know about first Angle's reign" it's because Wikipedia says "his first reign was in May 15", but TNA say "his first reign was in June" --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Please HHH Pedrigree do some research about Kurt Angle in TNA and Championship situations in TNA before you start assuming that the Title history's are wrong, Angle never ever won the NWA Title he won his first TNA title against Christian Cage and Sting because the title was brand new JMichael22 (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, read my words. i NEVER said that Angle won the NWA title. I said that TNA Title history said one thing and Wikipedia says other. It's a fact. Angle's 2008 profile says 2 times world heavyweight champion. My question is: it means 2 time TNA World Heavyweight champion (counting may and june) or 1 time TNA Champion (june, according to 2010 Ttitle history) and 1 time IWGP Champion? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Like I said before if Someone on wikipedia changes something who ever does the TNA profiles will copy it and if you wanna see Kurt Angles Titles go to KurtAngleBrand.com I was just on there he has all his major title history on there except Tag Team Titles JMichael22 (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, we can't use TNA as source if they are using Wikipedia to write the profiles. Now, Creed. Sources never talk about Freebird rule (wrestleview says substituted Slam says nember, not Freebird rule prowrestlinghistory says substituted, not freebird rule) and his 2008 profile said that he wasn't champion.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay then the only other source I believe have the right and good information are Online World of Wrestling, Cagematch.net and Solie.org it has the offical Title Histories for a lot of Major wrestling company's JMichael22 (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Solie, OWOW and Cagematch say Creed has only one reign. But in Wikipedia we don't work like that "only good and right information". First, we use the company source and later, OWOW, Cagematch, solie (maybe, Cagematch, Solie and OWOW are wrong. For example, Solie says that Super Eric is Taz o.o). We use many sources to have a lot of points of view. We use TNA Defunct title history section because TNA created and, until 2010, it was TNA point of view. Kurt Angle says that he is 5 time TNA World champion, but TNA says the same? The title history doesn't recognized the May 2007 reign and now, TNA says "multi time World champion". Another example, Ric Flair. WWE, PWI and TNA say he is 16 time world champion, but other sources say he is 21 times world champion. Right and correct information? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Let's break this down.
 * Kurt was likely never recognized as NWA Champion by anybody, we're just determining how TNA gets the number of world titles for Kurt that it does.
 * Kurt is, however, recognized as the holder of the IGF version of IWGP Championship, as he was recognized as such in TNA, IGF, and went on to have a unification match with Shinsuke Nakamura with the extant IWGP Championship. So, that was a championship recognized by a few organizations at least and us wikipedians have no place in determining whether or not world titles are legitimate... as we had this discussion several times before.
 * Kurt Angle's personal webpage isn't WP:RS. You can use it for his article to source anything about his personal life, but using it as a reference for third party business (which includes title wins) isn't okay.
 * OWOW, Cagematch, Solie, etc. aren't always accurate either.
 * There's no basis to suggest that Creed was ever an official champion with Team Pacman.
 * Saying that TNA gets its information from wikipedia is pretty much speculation. I agree with what HHH said when this discussion began, "the title belongs to TNA and I think that TNA has the last word".  But what if they're changing things as they go along, as the wikipedia information changes?  Anyway because we're just speculating that TNA is using us as a source it's too early to say that we can't use them as a source.. if we can't use them then what source can we use to reference TNA titles?
 * So, as long as nobody has objections, I'll put Kaz and Super Eric's run in the title history. I'll leave it close to how I showed earlier (minus Eric's profile).  We've got sources from TNA that consider it a genuine reign and others that don't and we've got sources noting AJ/Tomko's loss.  Regardless, the way it is now has errors anyway.  At least this way we cover all sides of the argument.LM2000 (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

i agree to add the title reign JMichael22 (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

By Submission, by DQ...by pinfall?
In the PPV tables, we say when a match ended by submission, by dq... in that case, we should include by pinfall, isn't it? Like Singles match, tag team match... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure we're only supposed to include disqualifications and countouts, no submissions or pinfalls.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Bound for Glory (2013) and WWE Battleground. Del Rio and Magnus victories were by submission --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean that we necessarily have to include it. However, I'd say that even if we do, we definitely shouldn't include "by pinfall". Almost all matches end by pinfall, so it'd be redundant to say so. —  Richard  BB  12:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah. But also, almost all matches are singles match. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed this, but it seems weird to leave it out. Sure, it's a common ending, but it's also a simple fact. Better to be accurate than assume readers will know blank means pinfall. Even worse if we also exclude submissions, because then they have to guess which it was (if they're even aware it could mean either.)


 * Specifying singles or tag team match is unnecessary, though. It should be obvious to even the most ignorant reader that a match between Wrestler A and B is one-on-one, and A & B vs C & D isn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Does it really matter whether a match ended in a pinfall or submission? Adding all this unnecessary BS to the results tables will soon lead to people adding what moves were used to finish the match to "be more accurate". リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's how it's done in MMA results here. Aside from the obvious difference, it's the closest thing to pro wrestling. Winner, loser, method and time is fundamental to a result in either. BS is more like "had Punk been disqualified he would have lost the championship" or "had Triple H lost, he would have had to retire". Best to stick to what did happen. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The MMA results also list the "move" that was used to finish the fight (knee, punch, choke, suplex, etc.). These are two TOTALLY different worlds (with different style guides for a reason) and can't be compared to one another. In MMA it makes sense to include all this info since the fights are legit, in pro wrestling it doesn't make a lick of difference what move John Cena used to "win" a match or whether Randy Orton acted like he was knocked out or submitted to "lose" the match. In the very rare cases it does, it can be included in the main text of the article along with outside interferences, who pinned who in a six-man tag match and other stuff like that.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I dunno. I think there's a huge storyline difference between winning with a distracted rollup (or low blow) and hitting a clean finisher (or three on a chair). All the "You Tapped Out" chants we hear suggest it still matters to some. Which of The Undertaker's WM victims were Tombstoned?


 * If you look at it as two guys doing choreography for a paycheque, of course method doesn't matter, but then neither does who won, or what title was (not really) contested. I say TheHistoryOfWWE has the detail/conciseness balance worked out perfectly in their first sentences.


 * Anything aside from the finish should be in the body only, though. Just my opinion, I'm fine with yours. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Current sport and Template:Current sport-related
Just a friendly notification that these two template now support Pro Wrestling as an image. Just add |sport=Prowrestling to the template when appropriate.  CRRays Head90  | #OneMoreGame 02:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, well I added it but it doesn't seem to be working so if someone with better template experience than I could fix it so it does work, that would be awesome. Thanks.  CRRays Head90  | #OneMoreGame

Multli-event PPV articles
Articles such as Fall Brawl and Hardcore Justice which cover multiple events currently do not use tables to show the results. Every once in awhile someone goes through articles like this and changes them to tables. I don't think this works because it covers the page with nothing but tables, as there are table infoboxes to the right and tables linking the events at the top... Is there any previous consensus on how to go about these articles? Also, why do some have half-tabled and half not, like November to Remember? I just reverted an edit to The Great American Bash that did this.LM2000 (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

RMs
Just like to point out that there is now a, requested move to move Goldust back to Dustin Rhodes.  STATic  message me!  17:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Yearly WWE seasons
Why don't we make yearly articles for WWE's seasons like this? The WWE has roster changes so frequently that it is impossible to keep List of WWE personnel's quality and structure consistent. But if we could make articles about WWE's yearly programming, we would be able to actually create STABLE articles that reflect WWE's content. We have very disorganized and clustered WWE alumni articles, as well as the ever-changing WWE Roster articles and current champions articles. If every single sports team can have articles about every single thing that happened in their season, surely we could have summarized articles about WWE's yearly efforts. We can include their whole roster of that year, their PPV lineup, their Hall of Fame class and key milestones that they achieved. We can have a summary of their biggest events of the year as well as some ratings information and any notable information that got WWE on the news.

I know this is a big suggestion. I'm arguing for the creation of at least 35 articles as well as a new one every year. However, I think it would be a tremendous encyclopedic addition to the project and, if done right, could have grand organizational benefits. Plus, we could merge the List of WWE personnel article into the ongoing 2013 WWE season article. Currently, every edit we've ever made before 2013 was probably removed. That way, once 2013 is done, we can actually maintain a stable article that reflects all of our efforts. Thoughts? Feed back  ☎ 03:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That actually sounds like a great idea Feedback, we just need to get a good consensus on how this is going to work. If we have a yearly article for every sports team and for music genres, there is no reason we shouldn't for the WWE. I am not sure how we could accurately create them for some of the past years, but definitely for this year and every year forward we should have an article for this, it is a very encyclopedic idea too. What would it necessarily be titled though? Is the term "season" used to describe the time from Wrestlemania, to Wrestlemania widely in reliable sources? Or would it better just to do a 2013 in WWE, 2014 in WWE etc. etc.?  STATic  message me!  03:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My two fold concern with the idea is a) What Static said about do we use calendar years, or from Wrestlemania to Wrestlmania, and b) that the WWE (and TNA for that matter) don't have an off season to provide a clean break like major sports leagues. Not that these are insurmountable. But they do require discussion. oknazevad (talk) 09:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good idea that could prove a valuable resource. The articles would need to cover the behind-the-scenes aspects of WWE as well as things like roster changes (e.g. the article on 1999 would cover the IPO and the article on 1993 would cover the federal indictment). I'd strongly support using calendar years rather than "WrestleMania to WrestleMania"; the latter is too much of an artificial construct. McPhail (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WrestleManias move around and we'll end up having some articles around 48 weeks while others are 54 weeks. Plus, who knows, WrestleMania could possibly take place in May in a few years. It's best to have a solid foundation on the scope of these articles and I think the Gregorian calendar year works best. Feed  back  ☎ 21:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And we'd be screwed for 1984. No mention of Hulk Hogan winning the title. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Part of me has a problem with it. Wrestling is non-stop, no seasons or off-seasons. But fine with a 1992 in professional wrestling, like the other 1992 in Topics. Not big on making it exclusively WWE. Seems a little too narrow a focus, and would probably encourage filling quieter years with less notable things ("Al Snow ends his losing streak"). It'd also lead to eventual similar articles for even quieter promotions. Best to keep them together. So, naturally, I'd go with calendar years instead of WrestleMania cycles. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If people want to create other articles for other companies, let them do it. We will judge them with WP:N/WP:FORK accordingly. A general professional wrestling article will probably skew to WWE anyway. I think it's better if we focus the scope from the get-go. The Yankees have 1992 New York Yankees season, but they are also part of 1992 Major League Baseball season and 1992 in baseball. If you want to make a 1992 in professional wrestling article, we could definitely split them off into 1992 WWF, WCW, NWA, NJPW and AAA if we wanted to. But baby steps... Let's see first how these WWE articles go and then expand the scope if they work. Feed  back  ☎ 00:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, baby steps work. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was gonna comment that I'd prefer "WrestleMania to WrestleMania", but as I thought about it,Royal Rumble is really where the "season" starts for WWE and then you have to include the build up. So why not from right after the December PPV to the following December PPV? That's practically what defines WWE's year TBH. It could still be titled "2013 in WWE" for example but it would begin right after the December 2012 PPV, again, as an example.  CRRays Head90  | #OneMoreGame 07:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Works for recent years, but we'd run into consistency problems before 1995, when Survivor Series ended the PPV year in November. If we decide to go by whichever the last calendar PPV was, 1986 would end in April and 1984 wouldn't even begin. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If we decide on not using calendar years, it might be viewed as a random cutoff point, which people can argue to death about once the articles are created. The worst thing would be to see edit wars for people changing articles to reflect starting from WrestleMania, instead of starting from the day after WrestleMania. I think it's best if we just use calendar years. Plus, ending the article on a WM will probably force the next article to recap that WrestleMania just to explain the events that proceed it. It's best if we start the 2007 article with John Cena vs. Kevin Federline and end it with Ric Flair defeating Triple H for his Rumble spot. Feed  back  ☎ 02:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as a professional wrestling season, so you're treading into WP:SYNTH territory if you go that route. "year in professional wrestling" is the way to go if you do this, imnsho. 00:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My main concern? Look at how 1980s professional wrestling boom is yet another commercial for the WWE and their peculiar view of history.  While a number of significant territories were failing or had already failed by this point, many others besides the WWF were doing just fine.  Michael Hayes and Junkyard Dog arguably drew more people to the Superdome than did Bruno Sammartino and Larry Zbyszko to Shea Stadium that same month.  During the height of the Von Erich-Freebird feud, World Class could go to a high school gym out in the middle of nowhere, 100 miles from Dallas or Fort Worth, and turn away 5,000 people.  Many other regional promotions were doing similar business.  This was when Hulk Hogan was just some guy who had a bit part in a Rocky film.  Looking at that, I can see years-based articles as further pushing the POV I'm seeing from that one article. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  18:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Issue regarding name change
I've noticed that the article Primo & Epico was recently changed to Los Matadores since that is their current name. The problem is that they appear to have had more significance under their old name than the curremt one, at least to this point. I think a change back is in order.--70.49.81.26 (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I was kinda thinking the same thing, Primo & Epico is obviously the team's WP:COMMONNAME and the page should be moved back.  STATic  message me!  05:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I requested for a revert here. Starship.paint (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Section headers in wrestler articles
I'm looking around at the WWE wrestler articles and honestly, looking at the section headers, I'm seeing too many "various storylines" / "various feuds" / "various championships" / "singles competition... and alliance with...", I mean, come on, every wrestler goes through various storylines and feuds. With the death of the brand split, we no longer can easily separate a wrestler's career into "Raw (2001-2003)" "SmackDown (2004-2006)" "ECW (2006-2009)". So now we have... So, I am proposing that in the interests of being more descriptive, we allow certain "jargon" into headers. Such as, I think I might have raised it here before... "face turn" or "heel turn". The often quoted argument against face/heel turns in headers is when we are pointed to the direction of Kane or Big Show and we think "whoa if we had a separate section for every single face or heel turn we would double or triple the amount of sections in the article!" While that might be true, the same does not apply for every other wrestler on the roster. I believe that many wrestlers in the current roster have not done anything of note in some part of their career except turn heel or face because they have not been able to win championships! I am not proposing we add face/heel turns to every wrestler's article, nope, I only believe we should add them to articles where the wrestler has not done anything more of note. Look at the current WWE roster - articles which I believe would be suited alphabetically for a "face turn" header" Alex Riley, Big E Langston, Cody Rhodes, Dolph Ziggler, Ezekiel Jackson, Justin Gabriel, Randy Orton (debatable?), Sheamus, Tyson Kidd, for tag teams the Usos and the Prime Time Players. For "heel turn" Randy Orton (?), R-Truth (?), Ryback and Michael Cole. Also on the other hand, but not so much for the case of Justin Gabriel, we have... the jobbers, aforementioned Hawkins, JTG, Yoshi Tatsu, maybe all of 3MB, Zack Ryder oh and Aksana? They don't do much at all except job, job, job so why can't we actually list them as "Jobber (2010-present)", which would be more appropriate instead of saying "singles competition". For some time some people (myself included) have added "lower-card status" as a header, (alluding to the below the midcard, but undercard status definitely sounds weird when even the WHC can be literally undercard - see WrestleMania XXVII and WrestleMania XXVIII? but I am not sure if lower-card is even a valid term). Also while we are here, how about solving Kofi Kingston's headers? I (half jokingly) propose mm yeah please voice your opinions thank you! Starship.paint (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Miz
 * 3.2.1 Tough Enough and training (2004–06)
 * 3.2.2 Debut and teaming with John Morrison (2006–09)
 * 3.2.3 Championship reigns and ShoMiz (2009–10)
 * 3.2.4 WWE Champion and Awesome Truth (2010-11)
 * 3.2.5 Various storylines (2011-12)
 * 3.2.6 Intercontinental Championship reigns and pursuits (2012–13)
 * 3.2.7 Various feuds (2013–present)
 * R-Truth
 * 1.5.1 SmackDown (2008–2010)
 * 1.5.2 Raw and United States Champion (2010–2011)
 * 1.5.3 The Awesome Truth (2011)
 * 1.5.4 Tag Team Champion and singles competition (2012–present)
 * Curt Hawkins
 * 1.2.1 Developmental territories (2006–2007)
 * 1.2.2 La Familia; Tag Team Champion (2007-2009)
 * 1.2.3 Florida Championship Wrestling (2009–2010)
 * 1.2.4 The Gatecrashers (2010)
 * 1.2.5 Teaming with Tyler Reks; Singles competition (2011– Present)
 * JTG
 * 1.3.1 Teaming and feuding with Shad (2008–2010)
 * 1.3.2 Singles competition and NXT (2010–present)
 * Kofi Kingston
 * 2.2.1 Developmental territories (2006–2007)
 * 2.2.2 ECW (2007–2008)
 * 2.2.3 Championship reigns (2008–2009)
 * 2.2.4 Feud with Randy Orton (2009)
 * 2.2.5 Intercontinental and United States Champion (2010–2011)
 * 2.2.6 WWE Tag Team Championship reigns (2011–2012)
 * 2.2.7 Regaining singles championships (2012–present)
 * Kofi Kingston
 * 2.2.1 Developmental territories (2006–2007)
 * 2.2.2 Debut; ECW (2007–2008)
 * 2.2.3 MIDCARD TITLES (2008–2009)
 * 2.2.4 Feud with Randy Orton (2009)
 * 2.2.5 BACK TO MIDCARD TITLES (2010–present)
 * My pet peeve is the usage of "Debut and..." and "...and departure", both of which I think are completely unnecessary. It goes without saying that the start of the section in question marks the wrestler's debut in the promotion and the end his departure from the promotion.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right. But isn't our problem, it is WWE problem. Now, a lot of wrestlers haven't a storyline, complex storylines or long term feuds. For example, Undertaker-Kane feud, The Corporation (long storyline) and The Rhodes against the Authority. Now, R-Truth had feuds with Damien Sandow, Fandango and Axel in the last 5 months. I agree, a lot of headers are lazy: various feuds, wwe intercontinental championship, tag team championship, injury, return... maybe, we should use more "jargon". Heel turn, face turn... some wrestler have mid card status. Also, debut and departure are unnecessary. Also, remember. Header is the key part of the career. I mean, Kane had Feud with The Undertaker, WWF Champion. Wrong. WWF Champion is included inside the Undertaker feud, no point to include in the header. For example, I prefer (R-Truth) Teaming with Kofi Kingston instead Teaming with Kingston, Tag Team Championship. Or Hawkins: La Familia, Tag Team Champion. The Tag team reign is included in La Familia. One more point, according to style guide, the header has a 5 words max. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, so far, there hasn't been any dissent to the proposal. For "debut / departure", are there any exceptional cases regarding significant debuts or departures? Departures would tend to be more low-key, but debuts? I was thinking of Nexus, but their page put "Formation". Oh well.Starship.paint (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm all for whatever describes the most notable parts of the section, most accurately. If a turn directly leads to a clear shift in storyline direction/placement (Tatanka selling out, Austin joining The Alliance, Triple H's quad injury return), it's what I'd call a true turn (think 180 degrees), and notable. If (as is often the case lately), a guy simply starts wrestling heels, with the exact same style, presentation, response and card position he had wrestling faces, it can be mentioned in the body, but is more of a "play of the week" than "turning point" per se, so no new chapter/section.


 * Same with debuts and departures. Everyone starts and ends somewhere, somehow. But not everyone has a Y2J countdown clock or gives RAW viewers a "Rude Awakening", live on Nitro. Not everyone has a full-blown retirement match or career-ending injury. Those whose did stand out should stand out here, but the first or last sentence alone works for the rest.


 * Where we have "Various" sections, full of one-sentence miscellany only chronologically connected, we have to ask whether anything there is important (if so, there's your header), or if we just feel obliged to fill space because sources are available. Compare the size of CM Punk's 2013 (so far) to Bob Backlund's first seven years. Hell, compare Jack Swagger's 2013 (so far), with Junk Yard Dog's entire career. Whether the recent ones are too long, or the older ones are too short, we've clearly got a big problem with at least one type. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For HHH's proposal, well, yes the style guide stresses 5 words per header, and I understand the rationale because long headers are unsightly. But will it be enough in today's context of "miscellany only chronologically connected"? Looking at what Hulk brought up, within CM Punk's latest section, there are clearly two feuds, one against Taker and one against Heyman. Would you rather have it as the lame "Various feuds" or "Feuds with Undertaker and Heyman", or even combine the latest section with the previous one to become "WWE Champion; storyline with Paul Heyman", or hell, let's go with the gimmick and label everything from 2011 as "Best in the World".
 * Hulk mentioned Swagger too, but Swagger's headers are very appropriately titled IMO (after I remove a "debut") there is Developmental territories (2006–2008) / ECW Champion (2008–2009) / World Heavyweight Champion / Alliance with Vickie Guerrero / The Real Americans (2013–present). Regarding the large amount of text, do note that Swagger's ultra-patriot character generated mainstream media controversy which equalled a large chunk of text.
 * But back to what HHH mentioned, I'm not sure if we should remove the championships from the headers. The examples HHH mentioned were Kane and R-Truth, and I am not sure if they were the best examples to bring up. Kane has won the WWF Championship only once, so in terms of his whole career, the WWF Championship win should be significant enough to be included inside the header even though it was some part of the Undertaker's brother storyline, such that the header would be "the Undertaker's brother, WWF Champion" but not just "WWF Champion". For R-Truth, he's won the tag titles exactly once as well (and he's only won one other championship in WWE) therefore it should warrant mention in the header as well. In fact, for R-Truth, I wouldn't mention the team with Kofi, it wasn't much of a storyline, just an out-of-nowhere team, so I'd go with just "Tag Team Champion". Starship.paint (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the header explains the section. For example, Undertaker's brother, WWF Champion, it's fine, but the entire section is about the storyline with Taker, only one line talking about the reign. About Various XX, it's a lost battle. R-truth had 4 feuds last months. We can't start a section for Feud with Fandango, feud with curtis axel, feud with... One more thing, about promotions. When do we start a section for an indy promotion? I allway thought about size. A few lines isn't enough for a section. For example, Trent Barretta has an entire section for two matches in TNA. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Trent, the rationale is that TNA isn't an indy promotion, but a national promotion, which is why it (unfortunately?) deserves its own section. Anyone would like to overturn that? An alternative proposal is that instead of having "Independent circuit and Japan" and "Total Nonstop Action Wrestling" we could have "Other American exploits" and "International exploits" Starship.paint (talk) 07:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I'm talking about this. We spend one entire section to one line. I thought Independenct circuit is a miscellanea, we include his work without contract or a few appearances. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "About Various XX, it's a lost battle." - not all the time. Regarding R-Truth, it's quite obvious to me. His feuds with Miz / Cesaro / Axel are not significant when put against against his winning of his second (and so far last) title in WWE, the tag belts. Even his teaming with Kingston is secondary to the belts. That brings me to my point about Kane's WWF Championship reign deserving of being in the header. I do not disagree that the win and reign were two sentences and one week in that four-year section. But look at the bigger picture: that was Kane's only world championship from when he was in WWF in 1995 all the way to 2007, twelve long years. It's climbing the mountain, and after that, he didn't win 10+ world championships like Cena, so that makes each of his 3 world title reigns more significant, however short they may be. Starship.paint (talk) 07:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Categories redux
I did have more comments on the categorization efforts going on right now, but I'll save those for later. In the meantime, I nominated Category:Wrestling promoters for deletion or possible renaming, which has thus far lacked discussion, even from CFD regulars. Since I originally posted it on a weekend, it may have escaped the notice of those who spend their work week doing this instead of work...I'M KIDDING. Anyway, you can find the discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 4. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I did comment on this. Can anyone else help out as the status quo is not desirable. Starship.paint (talk) 07:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

New requested move
"Ricky Steamboat, Jr." to "Richie Steamboat". McPhail (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me tell you something, Green Jean. Moveamania is running wild, brother.  Now, I want all of you little Movesters out there to say your prayers and take your roids vitamins. Go ahead and cram that needle deep up your asscheek, jack.  Don't stop until you're really big and have a deep gravely voice, just like me, because you haven't had a good bowel movement in years.  Where's my music, Green Jean?  Oh, there it is..."I am a real Republican, fight for the rights of Ron Reagan".
 * Seriously, considering that Chico Santana once wrestled as "Richard Blood", is there a dab page covering this? I haven't bothered to look yet.  While I'm at it, is Billy Graham (wrestler) really preferable to Superstar Billy Graham, or is there an issue I'm overlooking? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  14:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There's a general tendency to avoid using nicknames in page titles (I'm not sure off-hand whether it's a formal policy or not). In any case, I think "Superstar" Billy Graham is the most logical page title. McPhail (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm for leaving out nicknames, though I also don't know if that's a set rule. Doesn't feel right, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I gave it some thought after posting, in the wake of all the hoopla over the 95th birthday of Reverend Billy Graham. There's likely millions of people around the world who view that Billy Graham as a superstar, deserved or not.  There's also a tie-in, since Billy Graham the wrestler was given that name because he had previously been a preacher. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  21:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder if Mike Davis (running back)'s parents hoped he'd become a succesful maniac instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * During the George Harris (wrestler) move discussion we talked a little bit about the use of quotation marks in article names. WP:STAGENAME and WP:TITLEFORMAT don't explicitly prohibit them, but I can see how one would assume nicknames are frowned upon.  Needless to say we still have Steve Austin's article name was Stone Cold Steve Austin so perhaps in that same fashion we could just drop the quotation marks and move Billy Graham's page to Superstar Billy Graham?LM2000 (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I will support Superstar Billy Graham. Starship.paint (talk) 07:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me and I like the SCSA analogy. I've requested a move here. McPhail (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * New Requested Move ongoing: Consequences Creed to Xavier Woods, see Talk:Consequences Creed.  STATic  message me!  20:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Maurice Vachon
I'm trying to get the Maurice Vachon page posted as a RD in the ITN section (please DO NOT comment on the nomination, I can handle it) and a number of users have commented on the lack of sources. I don't have a lot of spare time, so would someone mind sprucing up the page a bit? Thanks, Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  00:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll do the title history. Won't help establish notability, but it's some sort of spruce.


 * I'll check out the Recent Death chat, but no, probably won't hop in. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping out. I don't mind comments if you're adding to the argument, but I don't want a bunch of WP:PW users hopping in and muddying things up. Unless something drastic happens, it appears that Vachon will be included in the RD ticker, which is good. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  04:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The Ultimate Guide to WWE
Is this book "canon" to WWE? The book traces the WHC's lineage recognizing a different timeline than the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. On page 125 it lists:


 * "Nature Boy" Buddy Rogers
 * Gene Kiniski
 * Lou THz
 * Bobo Brazil
 * Carlos Colón
 * Dory Funk
 * Terry Funk
 * Jack Brisco
 * Harley Race
 * Karry Von Erick
 * Lex Luger
 * The Great Muta
 * Ricky "The Dragon" Steamboat
 * Pedro Morales
 * Stan Stasiak

Of note here is that both Brazil and Colón are still not recognized by the NWA, but (at least in this book) WWE is recognizing their reigns in a deviation from the "official" source. I think that if this book is canon to WWE this should be mentioned in the "historical lineage" of World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) and also their biographies. About Pedro Morales, he was never NWA Champion, he held the WWE Championship. That would mean that the WHC recognizes the WWE title's lineage retroactively, which would make incomplete, there should be a "shares heritage" along "splinter title". That or it is recognizing a "ghost reign" for Morales, which should then be noted in his biography.

Also curious is the part of the intro (title The Oldest Prize in Wrestling: The World Heavyweight Championship) which says: "During its long history, the World Heavyweight Championship has been held by icons like "The American Dream" Dusty Rhodes, the Funk brothers, Jack Brisco, Kerry Von Erich, Ron Simmons (the first African American champion), Bret Hart, The Rock, Triple H, John Cena, and Undertaker. '''It is the only title to headline both WrestleMania (WWE's biggest event) and Starrcade (NWA/WCW's biggest event)."

This book is retroactively recognizing all of these wrestlers as WHCs, in contradiction to their former stance that the title was not a continuitiation of WCW's title (it even lists Simmon's reign to the WHC's credit!). Old School WWC Fan (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Curiously, the book also mentions the title as a separate entity from the WWE title "until WWE bought WCW in 2001", which makes the inclusion of Morales more puzzling. Old School WWC Fan (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I miss when title list used to be simple... :( Now, we discuss about X-Pac WCW Tag Team reign, somebody decided kurt Angle is 3 times tna tag team champion... Anyway, the NWA title includes his reigns as not recognized. The title belongs to NWA so I think NWA decides his title history. About Pedro, WWE.com doesn't list him as NWA Champion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

People are inventing the titles histories
No, really. This piss me off. A few years before, the titles lists were some simple. Now, looks like every user create his own version of the title. A copule of weeks before, we have a discussion about Kaz and Eric Young as TNA Tag champions, because no source recognized them as champions, but magic is in the air and now, they are champions. Now, Hulk Hogan is NWA World champion, Kurt Angle is 3 times TNA world tag team champion (without source), X-Pac is WCW Tag team champion (sources call him substitute, not recognized champion, but voilá, a photo appears and looks like a reliable source.) Now, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_WCW_World_Tag_Team_Champions&diff=584249597&oldid=584218168 I added Judy Bagwell as WCW Tag Team champion (because WWE says so) and now, voliá, buff bagwell is 6 times tag team champion, when other sources like cagematch or owow call him 5 times. Seriously, what is this? It's pure chaos, the titles lists change every month. Unofficial reigns, dubious reigns, contradictory sources... somebody can explain this? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hulk Hogan NWA
Hogan never won the title, officially. However, he is listed as champion because after a controversial match, he was names "new champion".--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There is nothing on Hogan's article saying he was NWA World Champion. He did win a couple of smaller NWA regional titles early in his career, but never the World title.  Vjmlhds (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you mean AWA title?LM2000 (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I mean NWA World title. "Terry "The Hulk" Boulder pinned NWA World Champion Harley Race to win the NWA World Championship, but the decision was voided when Terry was discovered to have thrown Race over the top rope during the match. Normally this would simply be looked at as a "Dusty finish" and ignored but video footage from the following night has surfaced in which Boulder's win is recognized - albeit briefly. This title change is not currently recognized by the NWA." After 16th reign. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Removed. Just because someone has an old video tape of the match does not change the truth of the Dusty finish and that Hogan never was given full recognition as NWA champion. Not was he ever given recognition as AWA champion; in all cases the decision was immediately reversed, and Hogan's first world title was the WWF in 1984. oknazevad (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Creed two times tna tag champion
Creed wrestled as substitute for Adam Pacman Jones as TNA Tag Team Champion. However, no source calls him champion. TNA profile listed only one reign as champion, with Jay lethal. Also, sources of the event never mentioned a freebird rule.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, all articles have removed any mention of Creed being Freebirded into the TNA Tag Team titles. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We talked a little bit about this one a few weeks ago. There are no sources calling him a champion, so we have no reason to list him.  Remove anything which calls him a 2-time champion.LM2000 (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

X Pac WCW Tag Team Champion
Same case. WWE is pretty fuc***g clear. X Pac isn't a former wcw tag team champion. His profile doesn't include his reigns as tag champion, titles histories mention him as substitute, not champion. But he appeare in a wwe article about the freebird rule. However, except the wwe article, I don't read about a recognized reign.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * On this one, WWE considers one of the Outsiders' reigns as Syxx (as he was known at the time) having been Freebirded in. As WWE owns the history of the WCW Tag Team Championship, if they want to retroactively give Syxx credit for a "Freebirded" reign (which looks like what happened), then their word is law, since it's their title. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Kurt Angle, 3 times TNA Tag Team champion
Angle won the title from Samoa Joe. Later, Sting won a match to be Angle's partner. TNA consider it as an extension from Angle's reign (tna titles history never mention two separate rigns). Now, Angle is 3 times champion. Source?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Angle is only a 2-time champion. He won the titles by himself, and Sting later won a match to win the other share.  But it's all considered 1 reign.  He later won the belts with AJ Styles, and there's his 2nd reign.  His article has been edited accordingly Vjmlhds (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

WCW Rick Steiner, Kenny Kaos, Buff Bagwell and Judy Bagwell
Steiner won a match with Bagwell. However, Bagwell attack steiner and Steiner choose Kenny to be his partner. Now, WWE says Judy Bagwell was also a champion http://www.wwe.com/classics/the-most-absurd-champions-ever/page-3 By extension, user Vjmlhds decides Buff Bagwell was also a champion. emmm, help? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't decide Buff Bagwell was a champion, WWE did. They credit Steiner and Buff as having won the titles, and because Buff turned on Steiner, Steiner was allowed to pick a new championship partner.  Again, since they own the titles and it's history, if they choose to tweak said history, their word is law since it's their belt. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a complicated mess of an issue, but the source Vjmlhds supplied does say that "Buff Bagwell won the WCW Tag Team Championship at Halloween Havoc 1998" and also seems to recognize Judy Bagwell as a champion as well.LM2000 (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice. Thanks both of you for your help. I mean, I know about wikipedia, it changes, but I think we should be very careful. One week, X wrestler is 4 times champion. Next week, he is 5 times champion... it's not serious. Also, I think people doesn't know differences between unofficial/not recognized champion and "decision reverted". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The main thing regarding Syxx and Buff, is that WWE is now giving them credit for WCW Tag Team Title reigns they may not have previously been credited with before. The common denominator in all this is that WWE owns the WCW Tag Team Championship and it's history. So if they want to go back and give guys credit for reigns that maybe previously weren't recognized, they're well within their right to it, and their word is law because it's their belt. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michaella Vicente
Hello wrestling fans. The above article is about to be deleted as a stale draft unless someone decides that it's a notable topic and improves it. I know nothing about wrestling, so I am passing the buck here. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a fake article, it takes bits and pieces from Eve Torres and Mickie James for an article about a wrestler that doesn't exist.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - This was noticed by two people, and now the article has been deleted. 19:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

WrestleMania 32
Ok so all the websites have talked about it: WrestleMania 32 confirmed for AT&T Stadium in 2016. All their reports go back to this article at NBC Bay Area. The lone line mentioning it is this: "Dallas will host the following WrestleMania in 2016, a source confirmed." As it's an NBC article, albeit a local affiliate, I added it to the main WrestleMania article to the list of venues and dates. However since then I have been reverted saying it needs to be confirmed by WWE or a anonymous source isn't good enough. I believe it is, but I will leave it up to the project to decide. <b style="font-family:sans-serif;text-shadow:2px 2px 2px #9eceee;color:#fd0;"> CRRays Head90  | #OneMoreGame</b> 21:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Initially I intended to remove this because it wasn't a WWE.com source; in highsight, I'm not sure if that's an actual rule. However, I'm currently unhappy with this source as it simply says "a source confirmed." To me, that does not pass WP:RS and sounds too similar to rumour. I'll leave it up to the wisdom of the Wikiproject to decide if my concerns have merit or if this is indeed an acceptable source. —  Richard  BB  22:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if "a source" is solid (and there's absolutely no journalistic rule saying some guy on the bus can't be "a source"), there's more than one venue in Dallas. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

WWE SmackDown
This article has too many details. Can you skim down details? --George Ho (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What details? Recurring segments, on air authorities...? Also, talking about ultradetailed articles, can somebody take a look on Mark Henry's article? Is huge, the intro, the power lifter career, the power lifter c&a... huge.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed typo for you. As for details, there is renewal contract, and the fact that the show ran in different networks would make renewal contracts unnecessary, unless networks no longer renewed the show. George Ho (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move for discussion
Scott Hall was recently moved to Scott Hall (wrestler) and a discussion about the move is currently ongoing here.LM2000 (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Use statistics guys, it's hard to argue against the numbers. Starship.paint (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Page move: WWE Championship → WWE World Heavyweight Championship
As you know, the WWE Championship and the World Heavyweight Championship were unified this past Sunday at TLC. WWE retired the World Heavyweight Championship and renamed the WWE Championship to the WWE World Heavyweight Championship to reflect the unification. All information on the WWE Championship article has been updated to reflect this save for the title of the article. tagged the redirect at WWE World Heavyweight Championship for CSD G6 speedy deletion as it was an obvious, non-controversial clean-up/move to reflect what the title was called on WWE TV, on WWE.com and countless reliable wrestling news sites. However, many people would not leave the tag alone, determined to create an article in place of the redirect for a title that already has an article. One even moved the WWE Championship article to the incorrect title of "WWE World Championship". As such, the administrators see the move as controversial and will not delete the redirect or move the WWE Championship article over the redirect without consensus. Thanks for your time. <b style="font-family:sans-serif;text-shadow:2px 2px 2px #9eceee;color:#fd0;"> CRRays Head90  | #OneMoreGame</b> 19:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support with every fibre of my being. This is as uncontroversial as they come, but unfortunately a few IPs and new users acting a bit too rashly have made it look like there's a dispute. I understand that they were only trying to help by trying to use the correct name, but now we've unfortunately come to a move request here. Every citation supports the fact that "WWE World Heavyweight Championship" is now the prime title in the company, so let's pass this quickly so that we can get on with our lives. —  Richard  BB  19:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and thanks to CRRaysHead90 for taking the initiative and starting this discussion. —  Richard  BB  19:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - I was the one to revert the change to "WWE World Championship". I did so for two reasons, 1. I don't think that's an accurate title to begin with, 2. It seemed that a discussion like this should have taken place for such a bold move since some people seem to find controversy in all of this.  I moved it back to WWE Championship for purely procedural reasons.LM2000 (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support I actually didn't know that. Craziness. But about damn time! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Get 'er done.  Vjmlhds (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per others; the title has been renamed, and the article should reflect that. Not really controversial, just housekeeping. oknazevad (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, since the WWE website suggests that the new belt retains the lineage of the WWF Championship . McPhail (talk)

Move
It's a little stupid, but I prefer to be sure. I don't know much about 70's puroresu. Shohei Baba --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The wXw title articles I have made
Hi there, I have made an article a few months ago about wXw Unified World Heavyweight Championship, wXw World Wrestling Tag Team Championship and wXw Shotgun Championship and all of them come up as WXw and it looks wierd so will you please change all three of them to capital WXW because I am unable to change it. And the wXw World Wrestling Tag Team Championship has the word 'wrestling' in it, the reason I added wrestling because there is another article with the same name WXW World Tag Team Championship and its from another organisation and the word wrestling I added is unofficial and now I regret it so will you please be kind and rename it to "WXW World Tag Team Championship (wrestling)" - Haxz.999


 * Wait, do you want it as WXW or wXw? —  Richard  BB  23:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure how to start an article with a small letter, but iPad proves it's possible. That would be preferable here, since that's how it's styled. Might want to also move the heavyweight title to wXw Unified World Heavyweight Championship (no redirect). Apparently the name since May 2010. The tag title looks like it has a free spot in the redlink. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Feed back  ☎ 00:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I took care of the capitalization issue in the title articles. In the future, to make the first letter of an article appear lowercase, since it is impossible to move it or create it at the location due to the Wikimedia software, just use Template: Lowercase.  STATic  message me!  01:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I tried moving the tag title to WXW World Tag Team Championship. Despite the redlink, I get the error message saying there's an article there. No clue. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

On the "wXw World Wrestling Tag Team Championship" will you please take the "Wrestling" out and put the "wrestling" in the end with brackets it will go like this wXw World Tag Team Championship (wrestling) because the title I made is not the official title name and there is another title with the same name from a different company.

The wXw Shotgun Championship has gone back to the old problem again will you please fix that?


 * Got it. But having (wrestling) on the back of the tag title isn't the way to go. I've asked for technical help to set things straight. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Now I need technical help on asking for technical help. I'm putting the article titles in verbatim, no brackets, and getting "Must create before requesting that it be moved to : ." Bah humbug! Anybody else want a try? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I see the gremlin now. We've got a WXw World Tag Team Championship. That needs to be speedy deleted. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Would Requested moves be of help, Hulk? Starship.paint (talk) 11:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's where I got that error message. So it might help someone, but not me. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Money in the Bank (2011) and Extreme Rules (2012)
Just to inform, after extensive work on the two PPV articles (ER12 is already a good article), I've nominated MITB11 for GA and hopefully FA later. For ER12, I'm sending it for peer review before pushing for featured article status. Thought it would be a good tribute to two excellent PPVs. Feel free to comment / review / improve the articles, thank you! Starship.paint (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't been around in a good long while and I have alot of expirence with the PPV formatting. I've decided to come back for a while and work on some more TNA ones that I had in production. Hit me up when you can and I'll help you out. I can see a couple of issues off the bat.-- Will C  11:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Section headers in wrestler articles (redux)
At the suggestion of Starship.paint, after an edit I made, I'm going to reopen this discussion archived here.

Going by MOS:JARGON (Minimize jargon, or at least explain it... Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do.) I think it's clear that "insider" terms like (heel, babyface, etc.) should be avoided where possible in articles and certainly in headers. If a concise header description is difficult then the timeframe covered in the section can be used as a title, as with Mike Tyson. Articles on soap opera characters (like J.R. Ewing) or film characters (like Darth Vader) don't mention them "turning evil" or "turning good" but rather focus on the storylines, similarly Randy Savage becoming a fan favourite at WM7 deserves a mention but in the context of the storyline itself. Above all, the articles should be comprehensible to a reader who has no previous experience of watching pro wrestling.

Manual Of Style aside, I personally dislike use of "face" and "heel" because both are used so frequently in the lazy, mindless edits of the IP Fanboy Brigade who frequently insert both terms, heedless of accuracy, in a bid to make their mark on "teh intrenetz lawl" (or whatever they call it these days). If I had a beer for every time I've seen an IP editor add "thus turning heel" to an article then I'd be playing 22 with Jake Roberts... ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 15:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. "Technical language: Some topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them understandable to as many readers as possible. Minimize jargon, or at least explain it" i think that out articles aren't "technical" and we "explain" the jargon in the article Heel (professional wrestling). The articles about wrestling aren't full of complex terms, we usually said turn, heel, jobber... a few, very simple and we explain them. I think that some articles like Linux are harder to read due jargon. Header... we agree that is the most significant part of the period. For example, a feud (feud with James Storm), a title (WWE Intercontinental Champion), nothing notable (various alliances, various storylines), a tag team (Bad Influence)... If the heel turn is notable to Brodus Clay career, go ahead. But I think that we can write things like "mid card status", "feud with X"... for example, Lars Von Trier, a header is Dogme 95..., what is Dogme 95? I don't know.... but I can follow the link and learn about Dogme 95. Again, wrestling has jargon and we use a few words. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A bit jargony, but the concept of faces and heels is as fundamental to pro wrestling as bits, kernels and drivers are to computing, and unlike the more obscure (Dusty finish, hope spot, potato), are naturally common terms in wrestler articles. Alternative terms like "villain" or "fan favourite" exist, but aren't more common in this context, so won't do. It'd just sound dumbed-down, like if we called a slapshot or home run something else.


 * But there's always an alternative to mentioning a turn in a header, since turns only exist as part of a larger angle. So no problem with that.


 * Lazy, mindless edits are never good. If an IP (or anyone) jumps to conclusions about a face attacking another, or a heel being cheered, that's just plain original research. Not really to do with this specific issue. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with InedibleHulk. We should explain the more commons terms, not dumb it down. <b style="font-family:sans-serif;text-shadow:2px 2px 2px #9eceee;color:#fd0;"> CRRays Head90  | #OneMoreGame</b> 18:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the status of "face" and "heel" as jargon should be reconsidered given that, as mentioned above, how common and fundamental they are overall to professional wrestling. But, let's re-focus on section headers here. Darth Vader's section headers is easily be separated into... movie I, movie II, animation, literature, video games. J.R. Ewing's section headers don't seem very good to me... first sub-section header is missing, death and funeral should be merged, Season 3 seems out of place, and if you think about it as a whole it would have been better off being Season 1 / Season 2 / Season 3. We can't do this for professional wrestlers, unfortunately. The Mike Tyson way of not having a description at all seems out of place to me and I would definitely prefer "face turn" there if, it was appropriate to the wrestler (he did nothing more important than turn). It's just not useful to have - no description, or a description that is too generic like "various feuds", "various storylines" or "singles competition".\
 * The Miz's (2012-present) could be easily summarized as "Face turn, Intercontinental Champion"
 * Ryback's current section seems too long already, after the removal of week-by-week info, a "heel turn" header seems ripe.
 * Take a look at JTG and Curt Hawkins. Do you think the current section header of "Singles competition and NXT (2010-present)" is more appropriate, or how about "Jobber" or "Lower-card status"? Starship.paint (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed a bit of the shit Suriel is concerned about from The Miz. Apparent reverse heel turns, and seemingly cemented tweeners. But that article's still a scary place. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * well, as I said, isn't our fault. Before, wwf created lomg term feud, like kane taker, the corporation or ddp christian. Now, wwe doesn't. If r-truth has 10 feuds in 2 months....various storylines. If curt hawkins hasn't a storyline in 2 years... Low card status. Anycase, what do you think about a very radical idea: no header. We use it in spanish wikipedia and it's easy. 1998-1999, no more. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The point of avoiding jargon goes back several years to where this project had difficulty trying to get Featured Articles. The main reason was because people who were unfamiliar with the topic but interested nonetheless were having difficulty figuring out even the basic terms like heel and face. When we used them and then explained them it made it wordy and was still difficult for people to understand. That is the point of the jargon guideline, to make it simple for people to understand. You have the think of it outside of the box. If you were reading an article about business or moreso just economics and saw the terms perfect competition, oligopoly, or even just plain monopoly then you may understand one of the three. That one being monopoly based on personal experience (though most do not actually know what a monopoly really is) but the other two may confuse you. These are basic terms though, pretty much the equivalent of heel and face. To professional wrestling fans, heel and face may seem completely obvious, but they aren't as clear as you would expect. When you go to read about a certain subject, do you want to read about that one subject or 20 subjects? That is why most of the terms are rather explained simply in a different manner than included and then explained (thus making it too wordy). It is to keep it professional. One of the basic guidelines in professional writing is to think about your audience. The audience may be mostly pro wrestling fans, but not all fans are hardcore fans who know everything about it. Even my father who has watched wrestling since the 70s has no idea what the terms heel and face even mean. As for the headers, keep the headers simple. If a wrestler is changing character, then just use various storylines or something.-- Will C  12:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * first, merry christman. Well, i understad your point. A lot of people dont know the jargon, but as i saidthe jargon isnt complicated. I read the article linux and i understand nothing, the article has a very complex jargon. Heel, face, jobber... We use simple jargon explaines in other articles. We dont use dusty finish, nearfall... I think is wrestling has a jargon, as encyclopedia, we must to use it.I thinkthat is the different between a nice article and a well writed article--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We do use the jargon currently though and always have, we just have to explain it. The best way though is to just leave it out and get right to the point. Saying someone turned heel and then explaining what heel means afterwards is pointless when the only thing achieved by it is a good feeling and satisfaction of using an in-universe word. For a wrestling fan it may make things simpler but that isn't who the jargon guideline is meant for, it is meant for a different audience.-- Will C  13:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's a mistake. We don't use jargon to have a good feeling or satisfaction, it's about precision. Everything has jargon: music, films, soccer, wrestling, Linux. The idea of Wikipedia is to teach. If somebody doesn't know what is "heel" or "turn" (2 simple words)... whats' wrong to teach him? For example, Pacman Jones: "Adam Bernard "Pac Man" Jones (born September 30, 1983) is an American football cornerback for the Cincinnati Bengals of the National Football League. He was drafted in the first round with the sixth-overall pick in the 2005 NFL Draft by the Tennessee Titans. He played college football at West Virginia." Well.. I don't know what is a cornerback nor what is a draft. 2 opsions: ask to change cornerback to "he is a member of the defensive backfield" or leave the correct and proper word for the subject (right now, american football) and link the word to an article. For example, with these example, I learned about cornerback. Mozart: "He composed over 600 works, many acknowledged as pinnacles of symphonic, concertante, chamber, operatic, and choral music." What's the difference between these kind of music? I have articles to learn. If Hulk Hogan was heel in WC (and sources call him heel), Why should we use other word? Heel means "pro wrestler who plays the role of the bad guy in pro wrestling". It's the perfect word and can't be substitute by villainous, bad guy or similar. I think the articles will have more value if we use the correct words and jargon. Again, we use a few word and we have articles likes Linux where you must known about computers to understand them. If somebody says "the article is good because you use a lot of jargon". Well.. It's not my fault, it's reader fault because he doesn't know and, in Wikipedia, I think people come to learn. About headers, what do you think about my idea? Years, no headers. For example, WWE: 2010-2012: we are gonna talk about his career in WWE between 2010 and 2012. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well a couple of reasons and the main one being jargon. Comparing heel and cornerback is odd for various reasons, one we are talking about characters and not positions. A cornerback is much more known than the term heel. You miss the point, we can use these terms but we must explain them. I use these jargon terms at times, but they are explained to give clarity. Enough that the reader does not need to have to check 20 other articles to stay on track with just one. Using just the jargon terms without explaining them is not thinking about the audience. It is thinking as only the writer. Again if you were reading an article, do you want to read that article or several? This is the issue, remaining clear and concise. Heel and face may be straight terms but they are hardly simple terms in the grand scheme. They for one give no meaning unless you are a pro wrestling fan. They may seem like character types but they aren't distinguished easily. Really the term heel is not the perfect term to explain someone being the bad gay, essentially bad guy would be the correct phrase if you wanted to push that idea. Though I'm not a fan of the villainous or fan favorite stuff, I see the point to them. Disclaimers so that it isn't worse. The explanations used to be much much worse. They are rather simple now.-- Will C  20:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I want to read an article, for example, Linux. But if I don't understand due to jargon, I don't see the reason to avoid jargon. Here in Europe, American Football isn't common (remember, people for Europe are viewers, also) So we don't know about cornerbacks or position. If I want to learn about Mozart, Linux, Hulk Hogan or Pacman Jones and I don't understand the articles, the solution is read other articles where I can learn more. For example, music. Do you know difference between Black metal, death metal, doom metal, glam metal and gothic metal? If I read an article about it and I find these terms... If I want to understand it, I have to learn, the main point of Wikipedia. Yeah, I know that everybody (fanboys, hardcore fans, no fans of wrestling) can read wikipedia, but I think we can't put them in the same bag under the line "everybody is stupid", I prefer to think "everybody can learn". Most important, sources usually say heel, face and other words like CALDWELL'S WWE RAW RESULTS 7/30: Complete "virtual-time" coverage of live Raw #1,000 - Punk explains heel turn, #1 contender match main event, Orton returns, Summerslam hype. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, we're lost in space. Headers. What do you think about my idea? Right now, some wreslters (mid carters) have 4 years as "various storylines" or "X champion" --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree to an extent. I see a reason to use jargon but we have to follow the guidelines. As for the sections, time to be more creative. Even heel turn or face turn does not explain sections enough. Find the main point besides the changes in character. Usually a championship chase, a certain feud, a championship reign, a return, an injury, etc. There are several things to mention besides face or heel.-- Will C  23:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you HHH for your good examples of necessary jargon brought up above, a convincing argument indeed. Frankly, I do believe that anyone who actually reads the Face (professional wrestling) and Heel (professional wrestling) articles will quickly understand that they mean "good guy" and the "bad guy", it's not that hard is it? Unfortunately "good guy" and "bad guy" seem a bit informal or amateurish. I'm sure that if the header mentions a face turn, the body also will, so the description is just a Wikilink away.
 * Anyway HHH, for your suggestion that we remove the headers altogether... you previously brought up that WWF did have long-term feuds that we could easily give headers to. In fact, the Raw / SmackDown / ECW brand split in WWE was quite appropriate for section headers as well. I believe it's since the death of the brand split in August 2011 that we come up with problems in the section headers. As such I am not sure if it's appropriate for headers before 2011. Perhaps other people could weigh in?
 * WillC, just like to check whether you've been keeping up with current WWE. From what I've watched, there are a lot of feuds within a year for a single wrestler or wrestlers floating around in the mid-card doing seemingly nothing of note that not one thing stands out in their current section header. Look at Chris Jericho's 2013, or Christian (wrestler), CM Punk, Mark Henry, Rey Mysterio, Sheamus and the Miz. "Various feuds" is lame... because every wrestler has various feuds, likewise "singles competition" because the majority of wrestlers are doing that. How about "Not much success (2012-present)" for Ezekiel Jackson, Justin Gabriel, Alicia Fox, Tamina Snuka and Aksana (wrestler)? Also, Kofi Kingston has been floating around winning all the midcard championships except for 2009. About injuries, there comes a problem with wrestlers like Mark Henry who have been injured many, many times. Starship.paint (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Jargon isn't about linking, it is about not using it. Linking does not stop the Jargon guideline from taking effect. I haven't watched wrestling in over a year but it really takes 5 minutes to catch up, since the same thing has been going on the entire time. These wrestlers having nothing going on isn't really something surprising. In fact most of the stuff in these articles is not even notworthy to their career. Random weekly matches or a random PPV match isn't really the most important overall. It takes creativity on the editor's part. Take Jericho, looking at his 2012-2013 section it is mostly just a feud with Ziggler. That can be one section by itself. Now his departure and feud with Fandango can be added. Simply by saying "Rivalry with Ziggler; Departure" that is rather simple with no mention of heel or face which that section isn't even really about. ThinkBlue and I are the ones who wrote Christian and took it to GA so I know the issues with his article. Alot of stuff has been included in his WWE section and it needs a good copyedit. But really the majority of his time has been about ECW, WHC, and injury after injury. That is pretty simple. Various feuds may be lame but sometimes that may be all that can be done in the current state of the articles. Expansion and copyediting need to be performed on several of these articles to get them to where they won't just be "various feuds."-- Will C  06:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Frankly, the examples in my previous post from Jericho to Kingston weren't to justify face / heel turns. They were just for me to bitch that "various feuds" is too generic. I'm not proposing that every wrestler article must list every face / heel turn in the header, nope. If it is appropriate for them to replace "various feuds" or "singles competition" then I'd support it. I'd just like it for the option to be on the table. Brodus Clay is a relevant example for this. He was a heel in 2011 but turned face in 2012, but there's no need to list his face turn in the header because he developed a distinct character in 2012 called the Funkasaurus which went into the header. But now in 2013, he's turned heel again. It's a clear distinction from the Funkasaurus so it should deserve its own section. He hasn't challenged for any championships yet, he's feuded with three people (Xavier Woods / R-Truth / Tensai) mostly at the same time so it's too long to include all three in the header, but if you want my honest opinion the storyline from November 2013 has all been about Clay turning heel, and thus the header should be, instead of a half-hearted nickname like the Main Event Playa.
 * Also, regarding Jericho's 2012-2013, Jericho feuded with Ziggler for barely more than a month - July 16 - August 20, (after that they met sometimes and were treated as old rivals but it was not Jericho's main feud) while he feuded with Fandango for two months - March 19 - May 19. I don't think either of the feuds deserve to be mentioned at the expense of the other. Yet, is it possible that could we mentioned both feuds, but if we were to keep the headers short only the last name of the wrestlers (or the first name, if that was the common name, for example with AJ Lee)? Then you'll have "feud with Ziggler and Fandango". Starship.paint (talk) 08:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Results table
Last night, I changed the format of the table on TLC's article a little bit to try to improve it, I was reverted thrice. Now I'd like to formally propose it for a consensus. I'd like to take the label of where a match happen out of the match number field and put in it's own row separating the matches. Like this:

I think this can make the table easier to read, especially for the days when Heat preceded a PPV and there were multiple pre-show matches. Thanks for your time. <b style="font-family:sans-serif;text-shadow:2px 2px 2px #9eceee;color:#fd0;"> CRRays Head90  | #OneMoreGame</b> 12:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well. I think it's nice. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I also think this works quite well.LM2000 (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The only difference is the giant pink bar which I don't see any value in. Feed  back  ☎ 01:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I did mention that it was only a little change. However, the value in it is making the table easier to read and not stretching the columns. Take Fully Loaded (2000) as an example. Here's how the table looks now.

Notice the number row is expanded to accommodate the multiple instances of " Sunday Night Heat "? The change I'm proposing fixes that and makes the table look better and function better. Why do we have words in the Number section? here's how it looks with my proposed change. The color can be changed to suit the event or we can choose a set color.

IDK, it just seems like it'd be a no brainer to me. <b style="font-family:sans-serif;text-shadow:2px 2px 2px #9eceee;color:#fd0;"> CRRays Head90  | #OneMoreGame</b> 13:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * New way looks good. I like the colour-coding events idea. I miss when they did it for ring ropes and sets. But if not, anything except pink for standard. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * One nitpick, actually. I think 4 should be followed by 5, not a new 1. Same event, different transmission. The article's mainly about the general event. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Anyone else care to comment? <b style="font-family:sans-serif;text-shadow:2px 2px 2px #9eceee;color:#fd0;"> CRRays Head90  | #OneMoreGame</b> 15:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the bar is completely useless and only adds more unnecessary size to the articles. This is one of the instances where simpler is better. Feed  back  ☎ 18:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, simpler is sometimes better. I disagree however, what you want in this instance is simpler. I also disagree that it adds unnecessary size to the articles. And lastly, I disagree that it's completely useless. <b style="font-family:sans-serif;text-shadow:2px 2px 2px #9eceee;color:#fd0;"> CRRays Head90  | #OneMoreGame</b> 20:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've viewed these tables hundreds of times and never once thought it was confusing. Don't fix what ain't broken. Feed  back  ☎ 07:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed before, either. But now that I have, I can't unnotice and pretend "Dark" and "Sunday Night Heat" are numbers. They happened, they should be counted. But we should also say where they aired, and the bar's the cleanest way. The MMA guys have a nice setup. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * II don't like pink too, so how about this shade of purple? I changed the above table. Because Raw + SmackDown = purple, haha Starship.paint (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone care to comment...? Starship.paint (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

All the news that's fit to print.
Found this cool collection of wrestling articles from "serious" papers. It's a blog format, but everything's cited and verbatim. I think it makes a great resource and should go in our Websites Proven Reliable. Yay? Nay? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ooooh, cool. I wouldn't cite it directly (as it is a blog), but to use it to find an article that the original can itself be cited is not a bad thing. oknazevad (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I meant it as a starting point for research. There's a lot of interesting stuff here, but many editors may not know they want to know about people and events never mentioned on colour TV. Not sure how many newbs check our style page, but a nudge in a different direction may help broaden horizons.


 * Did you know Mike Romano fooled a judge into thinking wrestling was legit dangerous, a decade before the fake sport killed him? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I added it to the style guide under "Other websites (not yet proven)", could someone take a look at the entry? Starship.paint (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Retitle TNA Women's Knockout Championship?
A Google site search on ImpactWrestling.com and general web/news searches all indicate it's called the TNA Knockouts Championship. I brought this up on the talk page, nobody agreed or disagreed. Figure it's mostly a lack of eyes, so what do you folks think? This would also affect List of TNA Women's Knockout Champions and a template or two. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. TNA website calls it Knockout Championship. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And I also agree. I always thought something was odd about that name but I always took it for granted that the sources indicated that that was the actual name.LM2000 (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That is the nickname of the title for shorthand. They've been calling it that during every name it has went under, going back to Bound for Glory (2007) when it was created. It isn't really the official name unless they finally decided to take a stance on it finally and stick with one.-- Will C  18:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * During the first months of its existance up until mid-2008 they went back and forward between "TNA Women's Knockout Championship", "TNA Knockouts Championship" and "TNA Knockout Championship", but I don't think they've used the "TNA Women's Knockout Championship" name since then. I remember thinking about pursuing this move years ago, but gave up because it was giving me a headache and I just didn't care enough. I'm also sure it was NOT called "TNA Women's World Championship" at Bound for Glory (2007). It may have been called that on the TNA website prior to the event, but not at the event. That source is just wrong and it's pretty easy to verify. It's all really frustrating.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * TNA also calls TNA X Division Title "X Division championship of the world". However, roster page ODB "IMPACT WRESTLING Career Highlights: Knockouts Champion (4x), Knockouts Tag Team Champion (with Eric Young)", Rayne " Madison has won the Knockout Championship and the Knockout Tag Team Championship", Sky "IMPACT WRESTLING Career Highlights: Knockouts Champion (2x), Knockouts Tag Team Champion", Kim "IMPACT WRESTLING Career Highlights: First and longest reigning Knockouts Champion, Knockouts Champion (2x), Knockouts Tag Team Champion" --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, none of the sources in the article call it the TNA Women's Knockout Championship. Two Wrestleview sources from 2007 refer to it simply as "the Women's Championship" though.  A video from Taylor Wilde's 2008 title win has Jeremy Borash referring to it as the "TNA Women's Knockout Championship", so it could have been called that at one time.  But a video of Madison Rayne's 2012 win has Christy Hemme calling her simply the new "Knockouts Champion".  I'm not sure if if "Women's" was shoehorned in there randomly sometimes, or if it was the official title and is just omitted sometimes.  If Hulk's right, and we can't find a recent source calling it by the article's current title then I'm still down for changes.  Maybe dropping the "Women's" was one of the many changes from the Bischoff and Hogan era (or possibly before that as Ribbon claims).LM2000 (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All I can say is I'm the editor who expanded the article and got it to GA. When I did that I found several articles that mentioned it as the TNA Women's World Championship and the TNA Women's Knockout Championship. From what I can remember, it had the first name from BFG to Against All Odds 08. Then it became the TNA Women's Knockout Championship somewhere around then. More proof of the Women's addition is the fact it is on the plate of the actual belt. Look at the photo. As for the name now, since 2008 TNA has switched back and forth between women's champion, knockout champion, the combination, etc.-- Will C  19:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I just went back and checked out several TNA PPV's and Impacts from 2007 and 2008. Not one of them uses the name "TNA Women's World Championship", "TNA Women's Knockout Championship" is the most commonly used name (it's the one used in the "vs. screens"), but there are also several times its called "TNA Knockout Championship". During Taylor Wilde's reign, the vs. screens were changed to say "TNA Knockouts Championship".リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's TNA's official YouTube channel, filtered to the relevant words. Uses "Knockouts Championship" (note the plural) in each almost each description and in the videos themselves. Since there's no copyright problem, this link (or any video in it) can be a reliable primary source. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There's a "TNA Women's Knockout Champion" here. From 2008, though, and seems to be the only one. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It all depends if "Women's" was dropped in 2008. Even if "Women's" was used consistently from 2007 to 2008, that's two years versus 2009-2013 five years. It's time for a change then if this is a the case. From my few watches of TNA from 2010 I don't recall the "Women's" at all. Starship.paint (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Reliable source
Hi. I want to ask if can you approve Solowrestling as a reliable source. SW is a very good spanish website, like mexican Superluchas (also, some people think SW it's better because SL creates rumors). They usually take news from other websites, but sometimes, they write their own news. Also, SW traduces interviews (for example, the Austin Podcast). I think it's too similar to Superluchas. What do you say? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How does it get its information? Who is connected to it? What sites use it as a source? What sites does it use as a source? Trying to get a site declared reliable is a alot harder than it looks.-- Will C  21:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want, I can send him a message to answer our question. As far as I know, they are a group of people staff of the website. they published a magazine in 2008, had a podcast (they won an award) and I think they had an internal source in TNA (I hear a few times). However, the used other sources, like PWTorch or the Insider (like superluchas) but also, the write the comments of interviews (for example, WEE!: Bully Ray interview Daniel Bryan interview to  Grantland:  Edge interview, Talk is Jericho podcast ).   --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To establish reliability we must know how the site determine what information to publish, how they check their facts, etc. Things that show the site is legit and not some dirtsheet. Methods people expect news sources to take in reporting material.-- Will C  07:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New year
Feliz año nuevo. :) I'm now in 2014, Happy new year to everybody (even the people who I argue with) Drink carefully. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What's so good about 2014? Nothing to scream about, not even the return of some part-timers. :( Just joking. Happy New Year! :D Starship.paint (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Stevie Ray's real name
I noticed Wrestla1967 changed Stevie Ray's real name to "Lash Rushay Huffman" (from Lane Steven Huffman). He used a reference which is no longer online (not even at archive.org) and claimed Booker T's autobiography backed it up. Does anyone have Booker T's book, and if so can they confirm this? I'm suspicious about this as Wrestla1967's talkpage history shows a number of (removed) comments from editors concerned with his renaming habits. A Google search only turned up "Lash Rushay Huffman" in sites which mirror or rip-off material from us. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 20:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll bet Wrestla1967 isn't even his real name. I don't have Booker's book, but in the absence of something better, WrestlingData and ProFightDB both call him Lane Steven, and I also can't find anything somewhat reliable for Lash Rushay. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, excluding "is an American" got me this from ProWrestling.net. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's dated 2013 so they probably got their info from us (the change was made in August 2012). I've discovered that Wrestla1967 once tried to change "Brian Knobbs" to "Brian Knobs" because... well... (warning: here be bullshit) but thankfully an editor named InedibleHulk cleaned up that foolishness! ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 23:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought that name rang a bell. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not ask Wrestla1967 to take a picture of Booker T's book, and then a picture of the correct page that mentions the name, then upload it online? Starship.paint (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A good idea, still waiting for you to do it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yearly WWE seasons
Okay, so User:Feedback brang up a good idea here about creating yearly articles for the WWE. Most participators in the discussion responded positively to the idea, with a question of whether to do yearly articles for pro wrestling in general or just the WWE. With the new year upon us, I assume it would be easier to start from the beginning and not in the middle or end of the year. Is anyone willing to start this in a sandbox, so we can work together to create the first article of this type for us. That way for every future year we will have a template to go off already. The two most important questions being, how are we gonna format the page, and what are we going to include in it.  STATic  message me!  07:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I could see that turning into a giant mess. I mean a literal giant mess. That would be the page with the most weekly results and random trivia. I love the idea don't get me wrong, but really how could that ever be made? It would have to be a WWE article only, because business could be included. It could be about how the business did and who won which titles. What PPVs were held. What shows debuted. Major occurrences. But once one is made, TNA will have one for each year with random pointless stuff. ROH will get one. PWG will get one. Just like when the champion templates were made, everything will get out of hand quickly. If this is to be done it would have to be a project effort. One would have to be made in a project subpage and worked on by the community before every being officially created as to give a standard for future articles.-- Will C  09:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, please do January to December. Secondly, all I envision is a mess until someone clearly defines the scope. But I don't think that's a reason to stop you from going ahead... in a sandbox, for at least until WrestleMania passes, to prove that the article is of a certain standrd. Thirdly, if you want to do pro wrestling in general, are you seriously going to include every promotion? From WWE's developmental system NXT, to Dragon Gate, to CMLL, to CZW? Or would you only include the promotions with television shows? Does NJPW run TV shows? I don't know. Starship.paint (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Does NJPW run TV shows? Does the Pope shit in the woods?  Is a bear Catholic?  Seriously, NJPW was on network TV in Japan for decades (no idea of their current status), with a show that was decades ahead of both Raw and Impact (except that it was usually one hour, so it focused on matches rather than silly interviews and sketches). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  15:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * View the previous discussion that I linked, many of these questions were answered/discussed there. Obvious if we were not going to do just WWE, we would only include major promotions WWE/TNA/ROH and maybe AAA/NJPW or other major indie promotions such as Dragon Gate... maybe. It would probably best to just start with WWE so we can get used to it. Try to be more optimistic guys, you are making this seem harder then it really will be. See pages like 2013 New York Yankees season or 2013 in American music for an idea of formatting the page would have. The major points of the article would be PPVs (state the main event(s), attendance, major occurrences of it), any major events of the year, major debuts, retirements, superstars leaving the company, any deaths of current or major former WWE wrestlers. User: Wrestlinglover when you talk about it being in a project subpage and being worked on by the project, that is exactly what I want, and what would be the best. And obviously we would be doing January to December, I was just creating a summary of the previous discussion.  STATic  message me!  18:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a difference than wrestling and baseball. Baseball has a league, wrestling is no such league. The main issue this will have is it will be unstable and will always be the target of vandalism and week by week.-- Will C  01:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you are trying to say in you first point, obviously the companies do not play games against eachother but events happen on a yearly bases in the same way. Also saying we should not create a page due to being a target of vandalism is crazy, might as well not have an article for Sexual intercourse or Barack Obama then. Of course whoever decides to be involved with this would be watchlisting and we would easily be able to catch any vandalism or week by week content, and there is always WP:RFPP if it gets too crazy.  STATic  message me!  03:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it'd be best to start with any year besides 2014. For week-by-week and vandal target reasons, and because we only have four days (or five, if you're "foreign"). We haven't even had a Raw yet, let alone something notable. As far as prototypes go, it'd be like handing a focus group a seatbelt buckle and asking how they like the car.


 * If I had to pick one to start, it'd be 1985. But it doesn't really matter, so long as it's complete. Then, once we see how it looks and goes, 2014 can be joined in progress.


 * And yes, New Japan is still on TV Asahi. And apparently moving into Singapore (in English!). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait, what's this news? How did I not come across this? Well I don't know anyone who watches New Japan in Singapore... not even me! Starship.paint (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * How relevant would be an article for a year that occurred 30 years ago? Obviously that was basically the year WWE became the juggernaut it is today, but how many people are going to be looking that up, and how much information can be found online in this day and age to create a decent article? If we want to do a test article might as well do 2013 in WWE as it will be still fresh on all our minds and still a searchable topic of interest. That way we could have our format down and then by the time Elimination Chamber or Wrestlemania rolls around, there will be enough to move the article to namespace.  STATic  message me!  03:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I nominate 2001.-- Will C  03:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll second that. But as for 1985, it isn't exactly 1885 (when Absamania ran slightly wild). Plenty of info (even clear video) exists, and the dawning of WrestleMania alone is reason enough for a newer fan to wonder about it. You could probably write a huge chunk of the article from this alone (certainly by using it as a starting point for Google queries). But yeah, same goes for this one or that. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * May as well link 1985 in heavy metal music, just in case anyone needs something to listen to. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 2001 sounds like a good idea too, a lot of stuff sure happened that year. Oh and nice links, definitely would be a good starting point.  STATic  message me!  05:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Despite the name, it's also a great resource for TNA, ROH, SMW, JCP/WCW and ECW. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I chose 2001 mainly since death of ECW and WCW, Invasion, etc. Could make a 2001 in wrestling and WWE in 2001 articles and see which is the better idea.-- Will C  08:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Adam Booker
Hello wrestling fans! This old abandoned Afc submission is about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable wrestler, and should the article be saved from deletion? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a copy of RJ Brewer with a new name on top.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good catch! I guess it can go, then. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

WWE Network
Just a heads up, due to this you might want to watch out for vandals and unsourced info. <b style="font-family:sans-serif;text-shadow:2px 2px 2px #9eceee;color:#fd0;"> CRRays Head90  | #OneMoreGame</b> 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I cleaned out the WWE Network article, which was a poorly sourced disaster. It's still not great, but I suppose it will look completely different tomorrow anyway since what we suspected has been confirmed.LM2000 (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * LEGEND HOUSE!!! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Top 10 Most Controversial Topics on Wikipedia
I noticed that MIT Technology Review have listed one of our pages, List of WWE personnel, as the fourth most controversial topic on Wikipedia (link) although they sadly got the article title wrong ("List of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. employees" is a redlink). The article was linked to in the current issue of The Wikipedia Signpost. So yeah, not even Jesus provokes as many reverts as WWE! I think Vince would like that. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 13:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hulk likes it. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Especially the Top 100 list. We've made 96 other real conflicts comparatively more peaceful than fake fighting. Kumbaya! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, only 95.... because John Cena just had to make an appearance on this list as well... Starship.paint (talk) 12:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It just had to be Cena.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

New requested move for discussion
"Dean Peters" to "Brady Boone". McPhail (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also Booker T (wrestler) → Booker T and Booker T → Booker T (disambiguation) Starship.paint (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

After Brimstone, the follow-up? Maestro and more...
Given the outstanding support and participation of WP:PW members in removing the "promotional" article Brimstone from Wikipedia and WikiQuote... I was wondering if you all would like to continue to target similar articles. Of course, none are as bad to the degree of Brimstone, (EDIT: Ric Drasin might be) but they do require cleanup. Our project has a Cleanup List, and I would like to direct you to a few articles, namely...
 * has autobiographical issues
 * The Maestro (wrestler)


 * has major contributions close to the subject / conflict of interest
 * Dru Onyx
 * Deven Michaels
 * Jon Cutler (wrestler)
 * NWF Kids Pro Wrestling: The Untold Story
 * Ric Drasin
 * Ulf Herman

We could work on Maestro and then down. Up for it, guys? Starship.paint (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * has a promotional tone - third priority though.
 * I must thank those on the Freakin' Awesome Network who pointed out Maestro, Onyx, Drasin and Herman. Starship.paint (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Amazing that these things could go on for so long. Maestro is a good place to start because he's probably the most notable, and his is a recent case.  The article faced an AfD a few months after Stro himself admitted to editing the thing.  I'm sure one or two of those will end up in an AfD sooner or later, but Maestro will be kept regardless so let's start there.  The weirdest thing about Stro's article is that his most notable section is also the shortest, excluding his early career.


 * Also, The Nighthawk was deleted and was suspected of being a COI case. However, his uploads to Commons are still up.  Not sure if those should go too.LM2000 (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of the photos are useful as they demonstrate professional wrestling holds. The rest can be deleted. Starship.paint (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This was the last edit made before a user named Strozilla started making edits. Something tells me Maestro had his hand in the article before that. This is probably what the article looked liked like before the autobiography took shape. Should we take the RealDealBillMcNeal route and level everything recent that isn't unsourced? I've found 411mania, onlineworldofwrestling, and personal Stro webpages for some of the recent stuff but I don't think we're going to dig up anything more reliable than that. Most of his recent career can be summed in a few sentences anyway. Right now he has more of catalog listing every match rather than an encyclopedia page.LM2000 (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We could probably nuke the "Return to the Indys" section and the Filmography section first. Starship.paint (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Everything recent that isn't unsourced? Nah. But I'm for what you probably meant. Finding sources for the (possibly) notable stuff, too. But that stays in the article history for reference, not the article. Delete it for now.


 * Also, we shouldn't totally discount the guy as a source. Primary sources can be used, just "with caution". So, if he's not puffing himself up or offering something a secondary contradicts, he could be useful on the Talk Page. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. We have no reason to suspect Maestro to be dishonest to the degree of Brimstone, so sites like that could be used to some degree.LM2000 (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

5 deletion
Hi. One year later, I remember to made some deletions. Four of them were discussed one year ago. However, result was keep because we made a multiple deletion and the articles weren't similar between them. Articles for deletion/Hade Vansen (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/Steven Slocum (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/Devin Driscoll (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/Scotty O (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/Seth Skyfire‎ They are similar (please, don't put them together): wrestler who spent some time in OVW or FCW and made nothing in WWE or other notable promotion.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Can somebody give his opinion in the AdF? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Another requested move
Sid Vicious (wrestler) to Sid Eudy. McPhail (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Mike Dalton (wrestler)
There is an ongoing move discussion; comment while it lasts. --George Ho (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, move of Talk:Britani Knight to Paige hasn't been closed, you can weigh in on that. I'd like to point Suriel to the new evidence I posted regarding Fighting With My Family. Starship.paint (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Another move request for this article has been made. --George Ho (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point. We discussed and we couldn't find a common name. 7 days later, you opened another discussion. Whats the point? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Heads up
An old friend has returned and has recreated the Destination X (2013) article long after everyone thought that discussion was over.LM2000 (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This reminds me. Someone merge WWE Raw 1000 with WWE Raw. That page is content forking.-- Will C  06:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Feedback was kind enough to nominate that for deletion.LM2000 (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)