Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 94

Battle royals in C & A
The upcoming New Japan Rumble got me thinking, what is the one thing that makes some battle royals (Royal Rumble) worthy of a mention in "Championships and accomplishments"? This New Japan Rumble may have a spiffy name, but actually it's just a pre-show match with all the undercard geeks (+Super Strong Machine), where the winner gets nothing. All Japan also has this annual battle royal that they hold at the first event of the year and I see people have added those to wrestler articles. Again, these are random battle royals where the winners don't get a title shot or anything. How about the André the Giant battle royal? What separates a battle royal that shouldn't be listed from one that should? リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How about we ban all battle royals first, then work on the exceptions? Royal Rumble is the first and foremost candidate, due to earning a WrestleMania match and almost always headlining a PPV. Was the AJPW battle royal the main event and did it have any consequences? Since the Andre royal failed on these two points, I'd not include it. Battle royal wins for title captures are covered as championship wins anyway. Random Raw and SmackDown battle royals for #1 contender-ship aren't held on PPV. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  06:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Certain territories (the AWA and the California territories come to mind immediately) held annual battle royales, which were major events for those promotions. Unless you're strictly fixated on the recent or present, surely you've heard of the Cow Palace battle royale that Roy Shire promoted every January.  When put into proper historical perspective, it was just as important as the Royal Rumble. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  07:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm for listing regularly promoted tournament wins (elimination, round robin or melee). Even without a belt, trophy or title shot, being the best of a large group is a bigger deal (story-wise) than beating one or two guys. We can't hold WWE's Rumble and KOTR to a different standard. If they just happen on a TV show, "randomly", without any tradition or buildup, not notable. Something like the WWF Battle Royal at the Albert Hall is a bit of both. I lean toward crediting the Bulldog. Has an article, after all. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

IWGP
A couple of issues have come to my attention. The IWGP titles have been moved to separate lists while leaving the main article as FLs. One, this was pointless as the main articles were to the height they could go, second the lists are now in worse shape than they were to begin with at C quality. I propose merging all of the articles as a better alternative than downgrading 4 FLs, 3 of which I myself helped to get to FL.-- Will C  01:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but I think we have a rule about titles with more than X champions (6, I think), they have the list in a different article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually there is no rule about that. The list is only to be created when there is enough content to sustain two pages, the title and the list. During expansion I found there just wasn't enough material to do this for these titles. Also, the limit is there has to be 10 reigns on the title before it can be considered for splitting per discussions at FLC.-- Will C  06:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Royal Rumble participants entry date discussion
You may wish to participated in a discussion I started here. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  05:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

New photo source
Just giving folks a heads-up that I've started a new Facebook fan page for my wrestling photography, which can be found here. All shots are publicly viewable, and I've captioned who the wrestlers are in the shots (where known). All shots are copyrighted on FB, but I am more than willing to upload shots to Commons in high rez if asked. Tabercil (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Okay, first batch up: More in a bit. Tabercil (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC) And the balance: Have fun! Tabercil (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - thank you very much! Requesting these photos of Steen Steen superkick  Adam Cole straightjacket German  Taiji Ishimori  Seated superkick  DVD? Unsure  Powerbomb  Diving elbow drop  Enzuigiri  Luchador mask  Veda Scott  Spear  Belly-to-back suplex  x2 clothesline  Phew! That's a lot already! Gonna stop. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  05:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh... and I've a backlog of about a dozen which I'm trying to work through as well. In that backlog? Michael Elgin, Ricochet, Chris Sabin, Matt Sydor (fka Evan Bourne) and Robbie E among others. I'll get those up ones ASAP. Tabercil (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Adam Cole straightjacket german suplex.jpg
 * Jay Lethal enzuigiri.jpg
 * Kevin Steen at ROH May 2013.jpg
 * Kevin Steen superkick.jpg
 * Kevin Steen superkick.jpg
 * Mark Briscoe powerbomb.jpg
 * Randy Reigns clothesline.jpg
 * Ishimori DVD.jpg
 * Taiji Ishimori at ROH 2013.jpg
 * Taiji Ishimori superkick.jpg
 * Mark Briscoe flying elbow.jpg
 * Pepper Parks double spear.jpg
 * Veda Scott at Smash 2014.jpg
 * VCW Luchadore in mask.jpg
 * - you are awesome, bro. Thanks! Also, it's Matt Sydal Phew, all inserted starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  05:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm... didn't know that we had an article for Veda Scott in a sandbox. I'll add a few shots of her at work. (And speaking of sandbox - is Leah von Dutch now at a point where she can be considered notable?) Tabercil (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - Von Dutch has had literally a couple of matches in ROH and Shimmer. She's had little success in SHINE too. Won two not very notable titles. If you're an indy wrestler, you've got to have success, but she doesn't have that. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  07:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What I thought - thanks. Tabercil (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

New star
I wanted to make sure I got all the heavy hitters' attention so they could give their $0.02.

After some tinkering, I think I finally found the winning design to replace the current WP:PW star:

I figure if you're gonna give an award for work on pro wrestling articles, may as well do it right and use a belt.

I want to run it by the brass first before we replace the old star.

What do y'all think?

Vjmlhds (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be so fickle,, but I see the star you proposed as Option A. How about an Option B with a giant black W with yellow background in the centre, and half-stars at the sides? Parodying the WWE Championship. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  02:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The ping didn't work, but the star looks alright. I've never been called "the brass" before. I feel like I should be wearing suspenders. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * OK...how's this? Vjmlhds (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , yeah. I like Option B and didn't get the ping either. This is replacing the barnstar, is it? starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  05:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's OK with the regulars...I didn't want to unilaterally change it unless I got some blessings. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I like it, but what about just using a gold version of the Wikipedia globe as the center plate with the stars as side plates, and all trace of the original belt blacked out? Just a thought. oknazevad (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I smell what you're cooking, but Starship's suggestion of the big W in the middle as a hat tip/nod to the WWE World Title belt kinda makes sense. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Then we should probably use that belt design as the base, not the current one. I guess my biggest problem is the amount of real belt showing around the outside. That doesn't look good to me at all. oknazevad (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I tweaked option B...whatcha think? Vjmlhds (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I have InedibleHulk, Starship.paint, Oknazevad, and McPhail (via his talk page) all in support of my new design for the new WP:PW star. And credit where credit's due, I incorporated suggestions from Starship (the big "W" in the center), and Oknazevad (the Wiki globe) into the design.  So if no one objects in the next 12 hours, I'm going to replace the WP:PW star with my new design, because I feel the star should be gussied up a bit, and as I stated before - if you're gonna do a pro wrestling involved Wiki star, may as well go whole hog and make it a championship belt.  Vjmlhds (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I like it! oknazevad (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The stars are unequal in Option B >_> Also, any part of the belt not covered should be blacked out. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  08:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Ryback
Hello. I noticed that on the article about Ryback it has been introduced a "criticism" section. This is very unusual as no other articles dealing with wrestling has or has ever had in more than 10 years such a section. Moreover it contains some unnotable pieces of information and POV opinions. It seems to have been written by a user who really don't like the wrestler. By the way "criticism" sections are discouraged on Wikipedia. I suggested for these reasons its removal. The encyclopedic pieces of information to be kept can be transferred elsewhere in the article. We are discussing about it on Talk:Ryback. I would gladly appreciate your interventions, as few people has expressed their opinion on the matter. The section has been slighltly improved, but still it has no place on Wikipedia to me. So I would like to know your opinion. :) Thanks, Andrea 93.36.138.182 (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It's gone - doesn't really fit in with WP:NPOV standards. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See if you can reach that consensus then. Phieuxghazzieh (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK...remove section - violates WP:NPOV. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact is that there's an abundance of criticism of this wrestler; this isn't a section of fringe viewpoints. Renamed section to "reception", softened the more negative wording and introduced a few favourable views. Phieuxghazzieh (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Three people have told you that they think the section should be removed. You can't simply change its name to "reception" and thinks the problem is resolved. Andrea93.36.138.182 (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You've been on a relentless crusade to get this section removed for a while now. Ease up and let others talk. In no way did I "simply change its name"; your bias and agenda is now glaring (if it wasn't before). Phieuxghazzieh (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just looked through all of your edits, on the various IPs you've used. You are indeed a single-purpose user whose agenda is to push the section out of the Ryback article. It also strikes me how quickly you come around to respond to Ryback-related edits and talk page comments, as if monitoring the article from a watchlist within a registered user account, then logging out to make comment on it via IP. So, who are you really? Phieuxghazzieh (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from personal attacks. What you wrote doesn't even makes sense within your "reasonament": don't be so self-defending. Thanks, Andrea93.36.128.234 (talk) 10:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha, spare me the passive-aggressive garbage. You're on extremely shaky ground and your editing habits would raise the concern of any experienced admin. Tread very carefully. Phieuxghazzieh (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I ask you to reconsider your language towards me. I’m discussing here to better the quality of the article about “ryback” and you aren’t entitled to question me about this. In fact, everyone can edit on Wikipedia, as long as their edits aren’t disruptive. You can image whatever imaginary conspiracies you want, still you can’t accuse me of one single disruptive edit. Moreover, because I never make a single edit on the article, having limited myself to discuss about it. I’m proposing things I consider may help bettering the article and I’m entitled to. We are even reaching a compromise, so this kind of talking at this point is really useless: if you didn’t understand, I didn’t want to remove everything you have inserted, I wanted to rephrase and summarize it and insert it in the main article. So ease up. You can disagree and you are entitled to such a thing. Still, you can’t defame or insult other people, only because they disagree with you. And you can’t pretend you can do it only because I am not a registered user: the same rules applies to people using IPs and accounts. Moreover, because it would take one minute to me to register and so I don’t really see why I should be treated differently by you. So, defining “garbage” other people’s edits, calling them “socks” without any common sense, saying they are engaging in “a relentless crusade” and that they got an “agenda” are really offensive things and are clearly personal attacks. It is forbidden to do them. And, as I was saying, they doesn’t really makes sense. You clearly don’t know what a Dynamic IP address is: every cheap web connection gives you a dynamic IP, it’s not like you choose to change your IP. That’s why my IP change and that’s why what you say doesn’t really makes sense. In fact, as my IP always changes, you really can’t say “I just looked through all of your edits” only by looking at one single article, not knowing the others I’ve edited on with different IPs. So, you calling me a single-purpose user is ridiculous. By the way, do you really believe that one person need a “watchlist” to check a single article? Really? You are the unexperienced one if you even think that editing unlogged makes you a sockpuppet or that it is forbidden for a registered user to use a watchlist. Don’t even try to menace me by talking about admins: maybe, if you continue talking about me and not about the article, I should be the one reporting you for what you have written about me. So, now, let’s talk about the article and stop talk about me, thanks. I don’t want to quarrel anymore. Andrea93.36.128.234 (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Won't get through all that. More grade A garbage, surely. Phieuxghazzieh (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the section is NPOV. We said "Ryback recieved bad critics from some sources", not "Ryback is the worst wrestler ever". We're talking about how some reliable sources seen him. In fact, the section includes Chris Jericho as the other point of view (Ryback as a good, not-dangerous wrestler). Also, some articles have "special" secions. For exapmple, Bryan and Punk have "Gimmick". Some wrestlers have "legacy". Also, some films incluse special sections when they have many criticism (I mean, A LOT of critcism). I think the section is fine, we said he received bad critics from reliable sources. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether to post this here or at Talk:Ryback but since I'm on this page right now I'll post it here. I think that enough has been done by Phieuxghazzieh in the past few hours to reach NPOV.  I'm no longer against keeping the section.LM2000 (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * With "removing the section" I meant, as I hope it was clear, to rephrase and summarize the information in the section and to move it into the article. Personally i still think every piece of information should be transferred in the main body of the article, but if you disagree, it's ok with me. In any case, I've made a proposal on how to better adjust the section . Andrea 93.36.128.234 (talk) 10:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think having a dedicated section for criticism is WP:UNDUE, particularly given that other controversial wrestlers (Triple H, New Jack, Shawn Michaels, etc) don't have similar sections in their articles. McPhail (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that we don't need a separate section. Even the highly polarizing John Cena does not have that type of section and I highly doubt that the criticism of Ryback surpassed that. Also, the essay WP:CRIT recommends placing criticism in the body of the article not its own section. Finally sections titled reception are more common is articles such as Video games or films, not people--67.68.161.176 (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not just a person. It's reception regarding the gimmick, and Reeves's performance within it. Phieuxghazzieh (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I still don't think that would apply since this is not a purely fiction character such as a film or cartoon etc. I don't see this as being like a Darth Vader or Samus Aran when the real people behind them are completely separate from the character. Even if that was not the case I have seen no reason why this is being treated differently than multiple other wrestlers who have been seen as controversial over the years such as John Cena and Tripple H where the criticism has been included in the body of the article not a dedicated section. Just to make sure that there is no confusion, no one is saying that there ca't be criticism in the article just that they don't think it needs to be in one section dedicated to it.--67.68.161.176 (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly, we should have a reception/criticism section for John Cena, at least. The criticism with Cena is his failure of any character evolution in the past few years, miraculous recoveries and overall failure to take opponents seriously. It's a series of events, not any single event, like Ryback's botching of Shell Shocked on Tensai, or Ryback giving Ziggler a concussion, or Ryback throwing Punk through a table. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  04:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hogan, too. And Nash. Russo, sure. That other Vince, definitely. Some guys attract a lot of heat. Wikipedia should reflect that heat, evenly, if we don't want relatively minor flashes like Ryback's to unduly stand out. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a difference though with reflecting the heat in the article and doing so by placing everything in one section called criticism.--67.68.161.176 (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Who else writes about this sort of stuff but critics? "Reception" is fine short form for "Critical reception", but the OP didn't seem to like that, either. We can't call it "Heat", can we? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Reception starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  12:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not that "I don't like it", it's that I think, as Wikipedia policies suggest, that we should insert these sort of information in the main body of the article. Otherwise, this kind of section, whatever you will call them, will became the pretext for haters to insert everything negative they can find about a wrestler. That's why "criticism section" should generally be avoided on Wikipedia. Do you want to say Ryback botched his finisher on October 2012? Very well, say it in the "biography" section in a chronological order. However, I made a proposal on Ryback's Talk. Andrea93.36.116.93 (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That could work for that incident and other specific ones. But I don't see how to fit the general stuff in without breaking the flow. The largest chunk of a wrestler bio is an in-universe look at the character's journey. We can't just stop telling the story to illustrate how the outside world sees the performer. Different topics for different sections. A reception section also invites people to add positive criticism, if they can find it. If the negative outweighs the positive in the non-Wiki world, it should here. The truth isn't always pleasant. We don't want it twisted by haters, but don't want it sugarcoated by lovers, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The most important part to any section like this is that it stays within WP:NPOV...there are ways to mention other people's praise/criticism without it coming off as a condemnation/love letter. As long as it stays impartial, we're good. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You think you can tell us what to do? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox image removal
Just a heads up, but there has been an increase recently people either outright removing official poster images or replacing them with fan made posters. Night of Champions (2014) has been an especially hot target. I know this because I've been getting the notices that these official fair use posters are in danger of being deleted. So please, just keep a look out.  CRRays Head90  | #RaysUp 19:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's happened again with Night of Champions (2014). Please keep an eye out.  CRRays Head90  | #RaysUp 02:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection was declined for Night of Champions (2014).  CRRays Head90  | #RaysUp 19:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it the same person who's changing the posters each time? If so, I'd say you might have an argument that what he's doing is vandalism. Y'know, people do get blocked for repeat vandalism... Tabercil (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move
"Nancy Benoit" →to "Woman (wrestling)" McPhail (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate categories
We have Category:Professional wrestling events and Category:Professional wrestling shows - they essentially duplicate one another. McPhail (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears that transclusion of Infobox Wrestling event in PPV and other event articles causes the article to populate Category:Professional wrestling events, which is not mentioned in the template's documentation. You could disable that and nominate the category for deletion as redundant to the other, fully-diffused category. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  22:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Career Survivor Series
Does this qualify for a WP:A10 speedy deletion, or is there anything here worth salvaging? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nuke it.  CRRays Head90  | #RaysUp 04:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Royal Rumble precidents
I believe we should change our policy on how we assess eliminations in Royal Rumbles.

For example in the 2015 Royal Rumble after Alexander Rusev was eliminated 28th we reach an impasse of options:
 * 1) this is no longer a 30-man rumble, it is now a 29-man Rumble which Reigns wins
 * 2) this remains a 30-man rumble but Curtis Axel is somehow considered eliminated even though he never went over the rope
 * 3) this remains a 30-man rumble which Axel WON because Reigns eliminated himself 29th when he stepped over the rope

Where is the rule that says if a guy doesn't make it into the ring that he is eliminated? Where is this printed? Where is it sourced?

It is brought to my attention that this relates to a similar incident in 2004 which bears weight on the discussion.

In the 2004 Royal Rumble draw 13 was Spike Dudley, who was attacked by Kane and not eliminated.

Here's the issue: a "draw" is not an "entrant". You need to enter the match via your draw to enter, to be counted as a man in the match.

So my stance on the 2004 Rumble is the same. Either Benoit won a 29-man match, or Spike Dudley won a 30-man match. Ranze (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - let's settle 2015 first. I looked at WWE.com and they contradicted themselves again. First they said The Wyatt Family reunion turned awkward when Erick Rowan, who hadn’t qualified for the Rumble, attacked No. 6 entrant Curtis Axel and stole his spot in the match. Rowan tangled with his former comrades only to be dismissed from the match alongside Harper by The Eater of Worlds. (link) Then in the results table they said 6 Curtis Axel* Attacked by Erick Rowan* (link) Oh well. If I had to pick from your three options I'd go with 2. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  05:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This situation I think prompts consideration of this aberration on the Rumble page as a whole. I'm going to create a section for it. I think there was a 2002 situation with Maven and Jericho, that makes three. Ranze (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Option 2. Axel was eliminated from a 30-man match. There is no rule book, so the rule isn't printed. WWE runs the show, and they can make up the rules as they go (or bend the rules, or break them altogether). Wikipedia can't invalidate Shawn Michaels's win at WrestleMania XII because there was no prior notice about an overtime rule for the Iron Man Match. We're certainly not going to name Bastion Booger the winner of the 1994 Royal Rumble, although he's the only wrestler that didn't go over the top rope. We're not going to change the outcome of the 1995 Royal Rumble because of the after-the-fact addition of the "actually, one foot is fine, but the wrestler is eliminated if both feet touch the floor" rule. We're not going to make Bret Hart the winner of the 1997 Royal Rumble, even though Steve Austin's was eliminated in a way that is as close to a "written rule" as it gets. WWE can do what it wants, and our role is to report it in a way that reflects the sources. No need for discussion here, there, or anywhere. WWE creates controversy by playing with the rules. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - please don't split up the discussions on different pages. Let this be the main discussion page, and link to here from the Royal Rumble talk pages. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  05:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * They sure do. Everytime I see a tag team pin counted while the illegal man is in the ring (or on top of his partner), an angel dies. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Dusty Wolfe doesn't have an article.
Just putting it out there. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Slam Wrestling starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  12:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Also this, if we have any PWInsider Elites in the house. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

WWE Fast Lane → WWE Fastlane
You are invited to participate in a move discussion here.  CRRays Head90  | #RaysUp 04:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ... and please also go through WikiProject Deletion sorting/Wrestling - starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  12:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

List of professional wrestling World Title reigns by length
I saw a speedy request for this as G4 without any previous discussion Icould find; checking the history, I see some undiscussed page moves. Possibly this is a copyvio, but it needs checking by someone who understands the subject, and, if it is a valid article, probably semi-protection  DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It was changed into a redirect in June 2013 following a consensus discussion here (as was world heavyweight championship (professional wrestling)). It was agreed that to call, in Wikipedia's voice, some titles as world titles and omit others was non-NPOV and OR.
 * What happened today was an anon who didn't accept the consensus back then (see the edit history) decided to revert again despite the stable redirect. The version be reverted too had been tagged as speedy. Not a new situation, more just vandalism. It's been redirected again, this time to a more appropriate target. oknazevad (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The table is confused, anyway. There's a total length field, but the promotion-by-promotion part (the biggest part) was in number of reigns. Good riddance to it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Sheesh, he'll have that belt a dozen times before he's through." – Dave Meltzer on Ric Flair, ca. 1984/5 RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  04:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My brother said roughly the same about Cena in 2003. He'd only been a casual fan since the early '90s, but he called it after seeing a couple of the rap promos. I acted like he was joking, but that made him insist. As far as I remember, the only other thing he was ever that serious about was that Crush should fight Repo Man. He even wrote a letter to the WWF. That happened, too, despite him not even knowing that Repo was Smash. Just seemed like the best match, he said. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

WrestleMania 31
Somewhat related to the previous thread. This article wound up on my watchlist early on, and it's been interesting hilarious to watch. Here you have an event which hasn't happened yet, so the article has thus far served almost exclusively as a dumping ground for whatever random cruft people scavenge off of the web, which subsequently leads to edit warring. Over and over and fucking over again. How this article was rated as Mid-importance, while Wrestling from Marigold, which was a watershed event in the history of the business, was rated around the same time (and I believe by the same editor) as Low-importance completely mystifies me (of course, that's a whole other issue in and of itself – New World Order (professional wrestling) is rated Top-importance, but Lou Thesz isn't? C'mon already!). Anyway, the aftermath of the Royal Rumble has led to even more cruft, vandalism and piss-poor writing. Looks like the article was semi-protected, for the sixth time in nine months, but that protection expires in a day or two. I'd recommend WP:TNT, but really don't have the inclination to do it myself. The edit which described Roman Reigns as "John Cena 2.0" was uproarious, though. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 09:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Roman Reigns: looking at that article, I spot two issues.


 * The article uses two infoboxes, which are independent of each other. On my phone, everything displays just fine.  On my laptop, however, the second (football player) infobox appears to be causing a significant amount of white space between #Football career and #Professional wrestling career.  I fooled around with it a little, but couldn't really figure out how to fix it.
 * Also on the football infobox, I assume that the number directly below his name is supposed to be his player number, and that the number listed there now is vandalism (it looks more like a prisoner number than a player number). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 10:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - as you are the resident old-timer, please, go right ahead promote the importance of any deserving article before the Attitude Era. You have the knowledge, I don't. I also don't see anything wrong with Reigns' page, other than the source saying his number is 99, not 96 as the article says. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  12:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding Reigns' article and his jersey number: I edited the article after KAOS' post here. Went back through the revisions and the number was vandalized 5 months ago, and somehow no one noticed. His main number was 96 (as pictured, and included in his Georgia Tech profile), but is not mentioned in prose. The 99 that actually is mentioned was only used in five games when he played for the Edmonton Eskimos. Prefall  13:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - nevertheless, 99 should be the number, because those five games with the Eskimo were those he played on the football "main roster" in the CFL instead of "developmental" in Georgia Tech. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  14:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

WrestleMania 32
Now is there any reason for this to even exist? I remember we had a thread awhile back about when to create articles for future events. This one will take place over a year from now... there might be a hint of WP:CRYSTAL to assume that it will happen in the first place. Can't we just redirect this to the WrestleMania article until we have something substantive to add? It's already become something of a dumping place for speculation.LM2000 (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * now that you raise it ... unless another Rock vs Cena (one year ahead announcement) event occurs, there shouldn't be any info on WM32 until the 2016 Royal Rumble concludes. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  02:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No secondary sources in it to establish notability, fair game for deletion. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of redirecting it. I assume somebody will undo that but we can deal with that when it happens.LM2000 (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I decided to add that the "thirty-second event will take place in 2016", at the lead of WrestleMania. Thus, I'll revert to before it was redirected. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just too bad that the version you keep re-adding doesn't add anything of substance that can't be found on the main WrestleMania article, TheMeaningOfBlah. The only thing that we know about the event is that it will take place in Texas.  That's not enough for a stand-alone article.LM2000 (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We know the date, too. But yeah. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We also know that it will feature professional wrestling matches that involve wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feuds, plots, and storylines that play out on WWE television. Wrestlers will portray heroes or villains as they follow a series of events that build tension and culminate in a wrestling match or series of matches. Still not enough for an article though.LM2000 (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure we even know that. Just going by the (relatively) old WrestleMania, is Reigns really portraying a hero? Is Lesnar really a villain? Was there much tension built this year, or did everyone and their mother hear about the main event (and the likely result) months before the Rumble? Are we sure the odd angle doesn't lead to a "face-to-face confrontation" or "grown jobbers settling their differences in the ring backstage" instead of a wrestling match? At least HowStuffWorks can assure us that's how stuff works. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fun Sad Fact: Searching for "WWE ring" on ShopZone just finds these. I had to call the actual ring a "playset" just to find the next best thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read that "real life" Reigns is portraying "kayfabe" Rollins. Supported by management, handed opportunities without deserving it, and so on. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  11:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The whole thing's beyond any sort of sense, real or kayfabe. Hearing Triple H and Austin talk about how it doesn't make sense on the exact same channel where they're showing the show they're selling is like breaking the fifth wall, whatever that is. But I guess since February's free, they're not selling anything, so it makes sense to not try too hard at making sense. And there goes the sixth wall.
 * But after Fastlane, there's still hope that something sensible will happen. A good old-fashioned "When my ribs heal, I'll see you in the cage!" Like Bundy vs Hogan or Weidman vs Belfort. But even "bad rib" doesn't mean the same thing to fans anymore, and there may be no coming back from the one they pulled on Luther. I mean, Roman. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd already forgotten Lesnar had "at least a broken rib" from the table spot at the Rumble. So yeah, by Bundy logic, Rollins should be fighting for the belt. Who else has ever broken one of Lesnar's bones, even if it barely hurt? Rollins is the most legit threat they have. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Back to the original post of this thread, we have always created WrestleMania articles when they are announced and they have always set as stubs until their build starts. It's the same way the Super Bowl articles are handled, it's the same way World Series articles are handled. I don't agree with redirecting. It's not a WP:CRYSTAL vio, because the event is announced and barring an unforseen circumstance (that would thus make the article notable anyway) it will happen on the announced date. I move for restoring the article per precedent throughout the wiki, not just PW.  CRRays Head90  | #RaysUp 21:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no 2015 World Series and Super Bowl 50 has a bunch of secondary sources indicating notability. WrestleMania 32 has been announced and will probably happen in Texas, but is that notable, not just true? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's notable. The secondary sources exist if people will look for them.  CRRays Head90  | #RaysUp 22:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, please explain this to me, because I'm confused. In the past we have gone to bat to defend a WrestleMania article that's a while out and in a similar state from deletion. What has changed?  CRRays Head90  | #RaysUp 22:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The times. And we at least had The Wrestling Times. People who want the article should look for secondary sources. I figured they were out there, but if nobody's using them, the article isn't good enough yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know when the tradition of starting these articles years ahead of time started... this was useful for the time when Rock and Cena announced their match a year ahead of time, but otherwise we just have a stub sitting there for a year waiting for people to dump their speculation until something is actually announced. Everything about WM32 that is verified by a reliable source is already in the main WrestleMania article, so a merge is most useful until some build actually happens.LM2000 (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, there's stuff to be said about the economic impact on the city, WWE, the Joneses and the bidding war in what CR found. Anything explaining why this matters, beyond the "wrestling show has wrestling" template. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The bidding war is relevant to the subject but shouldn't take up more than a sentence on the main WM article. Things like possibly breaking WMIII's attendance record are speculation and WP:CRYSTAL.  I still stand by my original statements that the entire article has hints of WP:CRYSTAL.  Just because a PPV is announced doesn't make it notable, WCW announced The Big Bang before they went under and that does not have an article.LM2000 (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the WMIII stuff is speculation, however it's stuff speculated by the reliable sources, including the primary source. It's a common subject and should be listed. And are you seriously comparing a B-level PPV of a doomed company to wrestling's Super Bowl? WP:CRYSTAL permits future items if they are sources reliably, and we have the sources to satisfy that exception. Oh and to answer your question, LM, the tradition of starting WM articles a year in advanced and leaving them as stubs until build starts has existed since before I arrived at WP, and that was in 2006.  CRRays Head90  | #RaysUp 00:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If the speculation is added then we've got to explicitly say that it is speculation and that it is coming from a specific source. Much like with Big Bang, if something were to happen in the next few months that would render WM32 impossible to happen then it would be the incident itself that is notable, not the PPV which never even came close to happening.  If something were to happen between now and WM31 then the event would still be notable because there has been an incredible amount of build towards that event.  Since WM31 hasn't even happened yet, I can't imagine why WM32, which will take place well over a year from now, would be notable if this bizarre scenario were to actually happen.  Can't we at least wait until WM31 happens before we worry about this article?LM2000 (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * UFC 151 didn't happen. Still has an article. WrestleMania would be the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Any PPV with as much build as UFC 151 had should have an article.LM2000 (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

In one of the topic pools, an editor, perhaps somewhat humorously, suggested 2023 Cricket World Cup. Well, lo and behold, that link isn't red, correct? I don't think we could do much to top that, unless the Walkers, Canes and Wheelchairs match between Hulk Hogan and either Ric Flair or Sting is actually going to happen, say at WM40. Of course, it would have to be paired with either Rhonda Shear or Herb from Burger King being named that year's celebrity inductee into the HoF. Ahem, anyway. As this project has Future-Class enabled, ostensibly this means that the project has a handle on properly covering future events. Unfortunately, Wikipedia in general is too focused on aping the "what's trending" approach found everywhere else on the web, often at the expense of the bigger picture. To clarify/reiterate, my issue with the WM31 article was one of having an article for the sake of an article which didn't exactly have a whole lot to say. As a result, you wind up with a magnet for cruft and/or vandalism for months and months on end. Multiply this times the number of future events being covered every year, add in the propensity of people to make clueless contributions, if even in good faith, and it should be pretty easy to figure out the constant headaches involved. As for The Big Bang not having an article, we also lack articles covering events such as Blassie-Tolos at the L.A. Coliseum in 1971, Race-Graham at the Orange Bowl in 1978, any of the AWA shows at Comiskey Park/Soldier Field, any of the Superdome shows promoted by McGuirk and/or Watts, etc. etc., even though these were the WrestleManias of their day. Of course, I'm regurgitating previous arguments there. Since I brought that up, however: I don't believe anyone ever seriously addressed Hulk's concern about Raw 1000 having its own article while the first The Main Event does not. 33 million people watched that episode of The Main Event, versus 6 million for Raw 1000. It's part of a slippery slope that I don't believe many Wikipedians have a grasp of, namely the notion that we're content to artificially give undue weight to something based solely on existence versus non-existence of content, when that existence versus non-existence often boils down to factors such as the initiative of individual editors or the ease of finding sources rather than factors such as importance or significance of the subject. No articles on Larry Chene, Moose Cholak or Cowboy Bob Ellis? Those guys put asses in seats by the thousands on a nightly basis for years and years Compare this to many of the modern-day indy wrestlers I keep seeing being trumpeted on Wikipedia as "notable", guys who typically wrestle 4 or 5 dates per month in front of 50 or 100 people apiece, who only get any real exposure by doing tours for NJPW or NOAH. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  04:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think all of this is one of the great failures of the WWE Network. On the Stone Cold podcast from a few days ago, Triple H hyped up Buddy Rogers and told fans to search him up on the Network... the only search result for Rogers is an appearance on Tuesday Night Titans.  WWE produces god only knows how much content about the Attitude Era while they are sitting on so much classic content that hasn't seen the light of day in decades.  There's a direct correlation between New World Order (professional wrestling) being rated higher than Lou Thesz and WWE's focus on telling the current audience how awesome everything was in the 90s.  It also hurts present day programming when they have the veterans return to go over current stars, but that's another story.  As it turns out we do have an article for the Graham-Race event (Superbowl of Wrestling) but it's clustered into an article with another event.  Lack of WP:RS (which must actually exist in old newspapers and books) and lack of interested editors play a role in other classic events being overlooked in favor of more recent events (some of which have yet to take place).LM2000 (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * On the plus side, if they made the older stuff from their vault available, they'd be more aggresive about taking it down from YouTube. A fair bit of Buddy there. The quality might be a bit better from them, but still...$9.99 doesn't grow on trees. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have decided to revert it once again as no secondary coverage to the article is not considered a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The crystal ball doesn't matter. By not showing notability, it falls short of the general notability guideline. Regardless of what notable stuff could be in the article, as it stands, it's no different than the MWNYCWF advertising the annual MWNYCWF Barnyard Bumble through its website.
 * What sets WrestleMania apart from your standard wrestling event? I know, you know, a lot of people know, but someone who hadn't heard of WrestleMania till they heard it was coming to Texas and Googled it doesn't know shit from reading the current article. Wikipedia is for explaining things, not assuming everyone knows them. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I thoroughly satisfied the GNG guideline in my original reply in which I provided reliable secondary sources. I have restored the article, I suggest any further action go through AfD.  CRRays Head90  | #RaysUp 03:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a tag explaining how the sources need to be used in the article, not presented on a talk page. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible RS addition? - prowrestling.net
has campaigned for this before, and I'm going to take this up to vouch for prowrestling.net (Dot Net) as a reliable source for professional wrestling.

It is headed by Jason Powell who was previously from Pro Wrestling Torch (a reliable source) and was an editor of the Fantasy Football Weekly national magazine. He has interviewed various figures including Dusty Rhodes, Konnan, Jimmy Hart, Les Thatcher, DDP and Gabe Sapolsky. A list of staff can be found at. Dot Net is an affliate of Pro Wrestling Torch. It also has a paid VIP service which increases the incentive for accurate reporting.

Per WP:RS guidelines, fact-checking is present (evidenced by publication of corrections) including. Also, editorial oversight is present (see various Editor's Note) including     Earlier this month, it was not one of the many dirt-sheets which reported the "Kalisto is going to be a gay hairdresser" claim all based on a post from Reddit.

prowrestling.net (Powell) is takes part in conference calls held by Triple H     alongside other reliable sources we consider like Bill Apter of Pro Wrestling Illustrated, Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer and Mike Johnson of PWInsider. The website (and Powell) have been cited or quoted by Associated Press, The Miami Herald , The Epoch Times , The Tampa Tribune , the Philadelphia Media Network , TV Guide , Technology Tell , International Business Times , the New England Sports Network , The Christian Post and The Huffington Post 

I welcome all comments on my proposal. Thanks. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  07:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree - It seems legit enough to me. Duffs101 (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree - They aren't simply an aggregator like most dirtsheets, their original content (which seems to be reasonably fact-checked with solid oversight) has been picked up by other reliable sources.LM2000 (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree - This case is put together well. I believe the most solid points are (1) the editor being an experienced expert in the subject matter and employed by a reliable source for many years, (2) an established staff, (3) citations in other reliable sources--the Miami Herald mention certainly portrays him as a reliable source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Abstain Carry on. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

ROH Anniversary Shows
Don't you guys think that ROH Anniversary Shows (9th-13th) should have the letters "ROH" in their titles (as in "ROH 9th Anniversary Show")? The current "Xth Anniversary Show" without the letters is super generic and for example, just in professional wrestling we also have articles for CMLL's anniversary shows, which all have the letters CMLL/EMLL in front of their titles. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) #GG (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Suport to include ROH --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, as the titles without "ROH" are so generic as to be inherently ambiguous. Adding "ROH" to the title, which is probably common anyway, is a clear case of smart natural disambiguation. oknazevad (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yep. More promotions have anniversary shows than don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Roman Reigns: Reliably sourced criticism / quote warranted?
Roman Reigns, who "WWE has been grooming to be its future flagship star", has been garnering much more criticism lately. Some criticism was published in reliable sources for pro-wrestling, the Observer (Meltzer himself!) and the Torch (assistant editor Caldwell), so it was reported in Wikipedia. has removed pretty much all criticism of Reigns from the article - per this edit. He also removed a quote about Reigns talking (just before the Rumble) about his current situation in WWE, saying that as a whole, the criticism (and the quote??) violates WP:IMPARTIAL. What do you guys think? As per WP:BLP, Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  00:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The tone's about as distinterested as I find Reigns uninteresting, but I think the box could be a little more conservative and responsible. Just the shape of it is recklessly progressive, and stands out even more because the rest of the section is in-universe. One second we're reading about a character, the next we're reading what the slightly more real guy has to say about his own character. I get that WWE has gone sideways about things like this, and maybe we should reflect the "reality" of this "era", but there's probably a smoother way to ease that in. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That's just about the quote, by the way. I have an opinion on the criticism, too, but holding on to it. For now, at least. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - simple solution: A'noai in an (out of character) interview prior to the Royal Rumble, on WWE getting behind  his Reigns character . I would also like to venture that the quote is all the more relevant due to Reigns being booed despite being endorsed by the Rock at the Royal Rumble. Plus him nearly winning "Most Overrated" by the Observer Awards show that a significant portion of fans are against him. There's nothing wrong with us reflecting this reality. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  03:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's important wrestling history, even if it's recent. Just needs to be in the right place. Whether you call the section "Criticism", "Reception", "Character", "Backstage" or whatever, I just don't think it works in Career. And yes, the word "career" evokes things like getting famous and making dough, but we know how it goes in wrestler articles. All about kicking ass, winning titles and getting stabbed in the back by Big Show. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Fun Fastlane Fact: Daniel Bryan holds a professional record of 73-15-1 over Reigns. He is, by far, Reigns' least favourite opponent. In older news, Raymond Rougeau and Wayne Munn weighed in at a total combined age of 180 years today. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I always think is a good idea to include wrestler's reception. I think Reigns reception is notable enough to talk about him. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a wrestling review website. Sourced or not, reports from the likes of Meltzer are still just one man's opinion and don't represent encyclopedic content. And publishing critique of Reigns' performance sets a dangerous precedent, not only for 'review' style articles and critiques becoming the norm but also for users manipulating wrestler articles based on their personal preference for that wrestler, which is clearly not what Wikipedia is about. The article mentions how Reigns was booed at the Rumble, which is relevant historical content, but other reviews or 'smark' critiques of his performance do not belong there, regardless of whether you personally like the wrestler and agree with the critique or not. Dannys-777 (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a film review website, but we include film reception sourced by experts. I see the same idea. Experts (film reviewers or wrestling journalist) review a performance (movies or matches). Other films or actors have criticism sections, like Michael Bay, Nicolas Cage or M. Night Shyamalan --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The New York Times has published that Meltzer was labelled "the most accomplished reporter in sports journalism". From a fictional standpoint, pro-wrestling is like films - and Dave Meltzer wrestling's equivalent to film reviewer Roger Ebert. I'm afraid sometimes, one man's opinion is encyclopedic content - when that man is an expert in the field. Also, when you are in the entertainment business, reviews will come. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  02:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying Meltzer's credibility, the fact is that wrestling reviews such as his are posted where they are relevant, on PPV or other event articles as critiques of those events. Unless we're going to start publishing Meltzer's opinion on every wrestler that exists and adding running critiques of every televised segment, then these type of reviews don't belong in a wrestler article. There's perhaps a case for a 'critical appraisal' section or something similar, but even then I think that's unnecessary and would just invite further WP:IMPARTIAL violations, especially as in this case the desire to post criticism seems to be purely because you don't like the wrestler in question and not because of any historical validity or relevance. Dannys-777 (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear - if we are going to publish critics opinions, we have got to start somewhere with one article. There is no way to simultaneously insert all these sections into all wrestler articles at once. And we did start - not with Reigns, but with Ryback. My opinion of Reigns is irrelevant - only the critics' opinions are. I do my best to post relevant content - either a critic commenting on Reigns or words from Reigns himself. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  08:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I think this is dangerous territory and just invites posting criticism of wrestlers that we don't like. The comparison with films is only somewhat relevant, since they produce individual bodies of work that can be cited whereas wrestling, after all, is sports entertainment and thus is much more of an ongoing process. It's unlikely you would see a criticism section relating to the performances of a sports player, for example, although such criticism clearly exists by reputable journalists and sources. Either way, the criticism should definitely be contained within its own section and not interspersed within a wrestler's career as it was in Reigns' case. Dannys-777 (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - it's funny - both of us see sports entertainment in different ways - you focus on sports, but I focus on entertainment. Here's a quote from Triple H which reveals which word WWE focuses on " we're not boxing... It's about characters and their relationship. That's a storyline. We are more like the Rocky movie than we are like a sport. The storylines are what's important. " And even so, some sports players also get criticized. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  09:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - Not necessarily, I just think pro wrestling is a unique form of entertainment and should be treated as such. The 'persona and reception' section on the Reigns article is fine anyway and addresses the criticism in a fair and balanced way. Dannys-777 (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Talking about controversy, what do you think about Batista controversy? I'm talking about the smackdown and AJ Styles interviews, I don't see them notable.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard anything about Batista since last year's Road to WrestleMania. I might look into this and get back to you. Speaking of history repeating itself, it's time for another Fun Fastlane Fact!
 * In the first wrestling event held at the FedExForum, 13 days after it opened, a unready star named Reigns, with Angle starpower (and grease) rubbed all over him, lost the main event to a superior technical wrestler and a legitimate attraction. The last wrestling event held at the FedExForum was the 1113th Raw, starring the two better Shield guys.
 * Seems the mood is about to change. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Guardian article post-Benoit
Chanced upon article. Maybe some info is fit for Wikipedia. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  08:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Slammy Award formatting
made this edit to the Slammy Award formatting at the Roman Reigns article and I'm on board with it. It abolishes the "Slammy Award for..." redundancy and is generally easier on the eyes.

Is anyone opposed to making this change? If not, should it just be applied to articles with multiple Slammy Awards, or all of them for consistency? Prefall 11:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this up. I don't think this change is needed for wrestlers who won only one award, but there can't be too many of these? starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  12:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I imagine they're few and far between. The old style probably works best for them, just making sure we're clear on how to approach both cases. Prefall  00:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Liking the conciseness. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * With no opposition after two days, it seems okay to proceed. Prefall  10:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Love it - I've been a busy little beaver getting as many articles as I can up to speed.  My own little personal touch - listing the total amount of Slammys multi-time winners have racked up. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * BTW - I feel a Superstar, Diva, or Tag Team of the Year Slammy is worth mentioning in an article's lead...anything else, no. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

When listing the number, I feel like we should keep it consistent with how the other championships and awards are listed (per WP:PW/SG). From the AJ Lee article, instead of...


 * Three Slammy Awards
 * Two-time Diva of the Year (2012, 2014)
 * Kiss of the Year (2012) — with John Cena

It would be:


 * Slammy Award (3 times)
 * Diva of the Year (2012, 2014)
 * Kiss of the Year (2012) — with John Cena

It looks a bit out of place otherwise. Prefall 21:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I can dig that. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox professional wrestler
I've added a new field to "Template:Infobox professional wrestler", alma_mater. This can be used to show universities/colleges attended by the wrestler. Happy for this to be reverted if people feel it's unnecessary. McPhail (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem! starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  00:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I've got a quick question about the infobox. There's one user who is trying to change Edge's name to Adam "Edge" Copeland on Beth Phoenix. Should Edge even be listed as a spouse of Phoenix despite them not being married? It does specify that he's a boyfriend rather than a husband. If this is not proper than perhaps we should add a "Partner" field so that it can be listed elsewhere.LM2000 (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Edge is the WP:COMMONNAME. Boyfriend is not a spouse ... but adding a partner field has its own problems ... every rumoured wrestler romance in the main infobox? starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  03:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Who wants to track down Scott Steiner's 20,000+? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a "Parnter" field for the general person infobox, John Cena has one that lists Nikki Bella. I'm sure there's some sort of criteria which prevents this field from becoming a tabloid read-out of everybody they've ever dated but I'm not entirely sure how that works.  This field could be useful for wrestlers who had long-term relationships that never ended in official marriage.LM2000 (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay go ahead starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  08:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

History of WWE
Aside from the 61 on this article, one thing that bewilders me is the Accomplishments, Records and Statistics section that only lists the youngest champions, and no not just who was the youngest of all time, for some reason it has the 4 youngest tag team champions. This information can be found on each titles Wikipedia page so the need to duplicate the information seems senseless. MB1972 (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed that a while ago, and thought it was very weird. But I did nothing. All for filling it, but deleting it till then. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the ten youngest wrestlers in WWE history to be a champion. How is that bewildering?
 * Just seems so out of place in an article that is about the history of WWE, "oh so jeff hardy was 21 when he won his first tag team title", it all comes from a article on wwe.com about Paige being the youngest divas champion, its about as notable as vince's shoe size MB1972 (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's out of place and duplicate info. The whole Accomplishments, Records and Statistics can go. But, why not add the WWE.com source to the various championship articles for youngest champs? starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  12:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the thing to do. Glad to see the eyesore gone. My eyes really are less sore. Thanks, MB. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)#
 * Thank you, just doing what I can to help. MB1972 (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Duplicated from what? How is the 10 youngest wrestlers in the history of the company to hold a championship not notable? RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * for example World Tag Team Championship (WWE) -> Statistics -> Youngest Champion. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  01:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move
Jon Hugger → Johnny the Bull.LM2000 (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Poster captions: how many wrestlers is too many to list individually?
I'd like to hear from you guys, do you think 9 is too many wrestlers to list individually within a poster caption like at WMXXX? Has there been a previous consensus on the number? Of course, naming the wrestlers is helpful for readers rather than just saying "various WWE wrestlers". I'd like to propose 9 as the limit; 1-9 we list the wrestlers, 10 and above we use "various WWE wrestlers". starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  11:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I prefer 1-5. 6 wrestlers are too much. Also, posters usually include one or two wrestlers. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm OK with up to six. Covers three feature singles or a six-man tag. When we have ensembles like this one, "various wrestlers" or something works best. With nine, nobody (or their match) is prominent, so nobody should be prominently noted. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * / - for your reference, WrestleMania 25 has too many, 23 / 30 has nine, 24 / 27 / 31 has seven, 15 has six, 12 / 26 has five. Would you both consider seven? starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  01:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm iffy on seven, but I'd settle for it, six being my preference. Anything past seven is bound to be a mess.LM2000 (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If I was running this site, seven would be out of the question. Large and odd. Not memorable. If I ran WWE, they'd all have two. But I already have six major gripes with the typical wrestler article, so caring about this anymore will put me over the edge. Whatever turns your cranks, gentlemen! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - if you agree to six, I will too. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  04:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Six. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Six it is, will implement upon archiving. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  03:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding users to move lists
How would people feel about adding users to moves in the various move list articles? I think this would be useful in terms of linking these articles back to the wrestler pages. I've given an example of what I mean below:

Lifting double underhook facebuster
This facebuster is performed when a wrestler bends an opponent forward, placing the opponent's head between the wrestler's legs (a standing head scissors), and hooks each of the opponent's arms behind his/her back. The wrestler then pulls back on the opponent's arms lifting him/her up so that the opponent is held upside down facing in the same direction as the wrestler, as if the performer was going for a double underhook piledriver, the wrestler then falls forward planting the opponent's body into the mat face-first. A sitout variation of this move exists.

Used by: Triple H (The Pedigree); Stevie Ray (The Slapjack); Nova (Deep Impact); Sick Boy (The Cure)

McPhail (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought we already did that. But no, it seems we don't (or stopped). Seems useful, but I can see it inviting edit wars. Weak support. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I was confusing us with DeathValleyDriver's "Big, Big Book of Wrestling Moves", which seems to have vanished from the Internet. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * use Archive.org - starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  04:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't really looking for it, but yeah, that's the one. Could make a good External Link for our lists. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to try and find the conversation in the archives, but if I'm remembering correctly....for the majority of moves, it was agreed that adding users would result in example cruft. If we limited the number of users, there would be edit wars over who to include. An exception would be including the person who invented the move, because it adds some history and context to its entry. Nikki  ♥  311   20:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources on Chris Whaley aka "The Saint"
I was recently contacted in the IRC help channel by Chris Whaley, a former professional wrestler who according to the Sudbury Star wrestled the Undertaker, using the gimmick of "The Saint". He's now a Baptist pastor and author of a book with autobiographical aspects, titled The Masked Saint, that is being (or has been) made into a movie of the same title. Sources beyond the Sudbury Star include Slam and the Baptist Standard. On their own those sources are a little thin for an article about Whaley. Where could one look for sources written during Whaley's wrestling career? Huon (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Try google tool with reliable wrestling sources built in. See WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources for a list of reliable wrestling sources.LM2000 (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * i got this one for ya to go through it is a search of Googles Newspaper archive, I see a few things that could help source the article as well.  MPJ  -US  21:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - the sources are no longer in the style guide. I have edited LM2000's post for the updated link to sources and the updated search tool, which searches more websites now. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  01:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching my error.LM2000 (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

In the news/Candidates
Please comment -> whether he deserves a "blurb" (full sentence on In the News on Wiki front page) or "RD" (just the name under recent deaths on the Wiki front page) or nothing at all. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  01:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexander Rusev
There have been a number of attempts to unilaterally move this page to Rusev (wrestler) - personally agree with the move but it is contrary to the outcome of the vote held last year and the editor on question has declined to make a new move request. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks. McPhail (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Signature move sourcing
We never really had a proper conclusion to the past discussions about signature moves. See one, two and three. However, there was consensus that it is not acceptable to use just one match report (from F4WOnline, Canoe.ca, PWTorch, PWInsider, Dot Net, Wrestleview etc) saying that a wrestler merely performed the move - as proof that the pumphandle suplex is a signature move, because signature moves are done frequently. One use does not make a signature move. The problem with match reports is that 99% of the time, they will only say a wrestler performed a move - Sasha yells at Becky but is given a pumphandle suplex by Lynch, and only 1% of the time they will say explicitly say it is a signature of the wrestler - Nagata caught HASHI in his signature arm bar.

has previously suggested we use websites with wrestler's biographical articles stating their signature moves (Online World of Wrestling, Wrestlingdata, CageMatch) This presents some problems - firstly, all three are largely fan-run with user-submitted content, therefore, they are not in the top tier of pro-wrestling reliable sources, whereas the sites providing match reports are in the top tier of reliable sources. OWOW has even cited Wikipedia before. Secondly, bio websites are not comprehensive. I think I can find over 15 match reports of Sami Zayn using the Blue Thunder Bomb. We've even got a picture of him performing the move. But there's no mention of that move in Wrestlingdata, CageMatch or OWOW.

So here's my proposal that didn't really gain consensus the last time around. We continue to use bio articles, but alternatively, we can also use four or five match reports to prove that the move is not a one-off use. However, common moves like headlock, Irish whip and punch will typically not be included in the signature move list, as one can easily find four instances of every single wrestler doing that move. This will only apply to wrestlers wrestling in shows frequently covered by match reports (essentially American companies like WWE (and NXT), TNA, ROH, Lucha Underground). There are much fewer match reports from the American independents or Japan or Mexico or the UK so those wrestlers are exempt. Please voice your support or oppose. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  00:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd support this. This is what I've attempted to do with the Raven article, adding quotes from match transcripts, including a few that specifically refer to Raven's "signature" moves. McPhail (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks McPhail. I forgot to mention - the WWE part of Sami Zayn signature moves follows the "four reports" rule. As does Roman Reigns (for those with less than four, WWE.com identified as part of his "arsenal" = signature move). I think Luke Harper article is also maintained by Ribbon Salminen to fit the "four reports" rule. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  01:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I also Support this.LM2000 (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as above. But it's gonna take a lot of work, a quick scout of the main roster showed only Barrett, Cesaro, Sandow, Ambrose, Harper and Rusev are the only ones who come close to fulfilling the criteria. Where do we start? Duffs101 (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We start anywhere. This requires a lot of work so I actually don't expect anyone to do everything for every WWE, TNA, ROH and Lucha Underground wrestler. I just hope you'll do it for your favorite wrestlers. Now, what I'm really aiming to do is that if you come across a page which lists a move which you don't think is a signature move (John Morrison once did a springboard 450 plancha) then you are free to remove it. But leave a note on the talk page or at least an edit summary so that other editors will notice. But we shouldn't be blanket-deleting all signature moves from all wrestlers' pages. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  23:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I remember having this conversation. Vaguely, anyway. I think I bargained away my ability to argue against the four sources thing, so carry on. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I would support this, but i think 3 match report sources would be enough, in my opinion, with the exception with a move that doesn't appear in many reports (1-2) for whatever reason it may be (like the name being to technical; example: over-the-shoulder back-to-belly piledriver onto the knee), but we know for a fact that it's a wrestler's signature move. PRwrestlinganalyst (talk) 1:43, February 28, 2015 (UTC)
 * - even if the technical name of the move is not reported, another name of the move is reported - (White Noise / Kryptonite Krunch / Air Raid Crash / Schwein). Who does the White Noise onto the knee anyway? Okada, Owens? Someone from WWE/TNA/ROH/LU? Tell me who and I'll try to prove that it can be done with four sources. I definitely don't like lowering the bar (Zack Ryder did a double underhook powerbomb twice or thrice when he was in ECW) starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  23:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Should we forbid usage of bio articles due to WP:RS?

 * I think the stricter the better on these lists. The bio articles should not be used. They are not reliable and even using them for "just" move lists sets a dangerous precedent. While I think it might seem like commonsense, I think it is also important to make it clear that the sources should be from four or five different matches...five reports from five different websites for one or two matches is not sufficient. Nikki  ♥  311   00:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, definitely different matches. Generally I don't use bio articles at all, I see it as a remnant of when OWOW was more reliable in the past than now. If I were targeting GA/FA for an article, I wouldn't use the bio articles. What do you others think? starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  02:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Where is it defined what a signature move even is? The comment "Ryder used ``move X`` 3 times" is hopefully an example of what NOT to include. Let us say "arm drag" as an example, according to the 4 report rule that move is basically a signature move of the entire wrestling scene in Mexico! Holy weeping Ricky Steamboat that is misguided. I see a lot of "punch" and "kick" moves listed under signature moves for anyone in WWE or TNA. Maybe everyone else has a clear, unified definition of "signature move" and I do not since I do not interact with this project, if so please carry on with discussing sources. Otherwise your cart is in front of your horse.  MPJ  -US 22:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * A signature move is a move which is often performed by a wrestler which does not win matches, otherwise it is a finisher. Ryder's Tiger Bomb is not supposed to be included because it was not done often enough. 'Often' means many references but to not violate WP:OVERCITE we should keep it down to four.


 * Now, there are 'basic' moves which many wrestlers perform frequently, like Mexicans do arm drags and everyone doing a vertical suplex. Basically, we are relying on editorial discretion to not include these basic moves. Rob Van Dam does a clothesline or Bryan does an elbow as a thoroughly regular move, that should not be included. But even sometimes, a basic move can be a signature move. Ryback's Meathook clothesline, Adam Rose's Slice clothesline, Barrett's Bull Hammer elbow or Kane's uppercut which he even does on diving opponents. A WWE wrestler doing an arm drag would be significant (Steamboat) starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  00:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I still think they're the best ones to use, per WP:V. A secondary source which outright says something is a signature prevents us from having to do our own synthesis. Relying on editorial discretion means different standards for different editors on different articles. 21st century wrestlers will tend to have more alleged signature moves, because they have more detailed reports and more TV matches. A guy could have a signature move by doing it four times in two weeks. Wouldn't matter if those were the only two weeks in a twenty-year career or if few people saw it.


 * It's reasonable to think someone thinking of Daniel Bryan will think of his flying headbutt, airplane spin and corner dropkick. It is ridiculous to pretend he's notable for the thirty-six moves we list. Hulk Hogan had a big boot, atomic drop and bodyslam. Not a fucking Tiger spin, superplex or "multiple punches". Virtually every wrestling article on Wikipedia gets it absolutely wrong here. Horowitz' is alright. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - it's WP:V vs WP:RS here, unless a match report happens to say that the move is a signature move, then we get the best of both worlds. But you picked the wrong wrestler in Daniel Bryan because he has an astounding moveset. Without reading the article, I can additionally list: roundhouse kicks to the chest then head of a kneeling opponent; backflip off the corner into a flying forearm smash; surfboard stretch; missile front dropkick; small package; drop toe hold into the corner then kicking the rope; belly-to-back superplex; super frankensteiner; half-hatch suplex; suicide dive; flying knee from the apron; European uppercut; guillotine choke; leg lariat; single leg Boston crab; roundhouse to a standing opponent . But airplane spin? Bryan doesn't do that often - I think Danielson did, or have you been playing WWE Immortals? starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  01:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, wrestlers have a variety of wrestling moves. Without them, mstches would suck. Collar and elbow tie up, and time limit draw. But not all moves are created equal. Some get bigger pops, and become part of the package.
 * Steamboat isn't known for his armdrag because he did it four times. It's because he did it well, and the commentators put it over as a part of his gameplan, for years. When someone does it now, commentators still put him over with a "shades of Ricky Steamboat".
 * Nobody says "shades of Daniel Bryan" for a small package or tope. Never will. But if someone spins a dude like this again, they should. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"Common moves"
Who thinks this idea sucks? We start a third tier section called "common moves" (or something). For this section, we do it Starship style, and include anything someone didn't do just once. We keep the signature section for moves acknowledged as signature/trademark/favourite/synonym.

When they're all mixed together, the real ones get watered down and nobody new can tell which are which. It's just alphabetical order. I looked at Road Warrior Hawk and saw "dragon sleeper" before "fist drop". If you can remember where Hawk ever used a dragon sleeper, without peeking, you're the kind of person who doesn't need to learn about Hawk from Wikipedia. For everyone else, it's misleading. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually thought about this some time before, but thought people would reject it. I think it would look better organized separating "signature moves" from "regular moves". PRwrestlinganalyst (talk) 1:38, March 6, 2015 (UTC)
 * - how about we do a pilot experiment? You select two current WWE wrestlers' pages, then we do up the sections in this manner - you do one, and I'll do the other. Without using the bio websites. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  04:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would I not use the bio websites? I already said they're best for signatures. As Robb Stark said to Jaime Lannister, if we do it your way, you'll win.
 * How about we have a schism? You and your bannermen rule the south and all its spring chickens, and we who follow the old ways take the north, and raise the dead and dying. We can go to war over those in the middle, like Samoa Joe (who is currently known for his German suplex). Deal? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK fine, you go ahead with your bio websites. I don't get the north/south thing - does it have anything to do with being American, because I'm not? So, it's Joe?
 * Hulk, Joe's OWOW page lists 16 "favourite moves". Are you sure all of them count as "signature/trademark/favourite/synonym"? Also, how if a regular muscle buster is a finisher, how is an avalanche muscle buster not a finisher? Is there a difference between "Choke Sleeper" and "Choke Sleeper Clutch"? The "Joejigatamae" / "Joejigatame" - 56 / 14 Google results - none reliable. "Stiff strikes"? I'm sorry I just can't take OWW seriously! starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  11:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Me neither. Cagematch and WrestlingData are more my cup of tea. I'm pretty sure OWW copies Wikipedia now. Any move that shows up in at least two of those three should be solid. Anyone at just one should have another reference explicitly vouching for it.
 * The north/south thing was referring to NXT being in Florida, and the Civic Center being in the Northeast. New territory vs old. Also, new guys start at the bottom, then move up the imaginary line with time. Maybe a bit to do with Adonis and Murdoch, but you don't have to be American to play. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's time to bin OWW to unreliable. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  01:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding a common moves section will just make the lists longer and more out of control. From the example above, "if you can remember where Hawk ever used a dragon sleeper"...if he didn't use it that much to the point where it isn't easily identifiable to him, than it shouldn't be listed at all...not listed in a separate list.  Nikki  ♥  311   08:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - how you propose we verify whether he didn't use it that much to the point where it isn't easily identifiable to him or if he did? starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  10:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - That is what we need to figure out. I just don't think adding a list of common moves is the answer. We'd run into more of the same problem. What makes a move common rather than a signature? How do we prove it? Nikki  ♥  311   21:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * One thing to look for is the crowd popping for the setup alone. Lots of people kick people in the head, but when Orton's about to, he gets punt eyes. If you're slumped in the corner against Joe, the crowd anticipates a facewash. If it's Rikishi, a stinkface. Austin, mudhole stomping. Van Dam, here comes the chair. Many others, silence. Maybe we'll see the old "pick him up by tussling his hair and Irish whip to the other corner", maybe not.
 * A lot of guys nowadays have extremely blatant signals. When you see something like Mysterio "dialing it up", that's definitely a signature move. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - by this method, wrestlers who aren't over (particularly many women on the main roster) would have zero signature moves. Some moves also don't require setup - Orton's dropkick or snap scoop powerslam, for example. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  01:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not an exact science, so not the only thing to look for. But it helps. Maybe the powerslam just isn't a signature move. But he does almost always duck a clothesline first. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Longer, sure. But more controlled, just by virtue of organizing. The current state of the articles strongly suggests people want to add the common moves, and do, regardless of the rules, which they might not be aware of. If they come to add a vertical suplex or chokehold, seeing two sections may persuade them to choose the appropriate one. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I get your point about IPs adding moves anyway, but I'm not sure if IPs can tell the difference between the sections. How about moves which get names? Are they automatically signature moves? starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  01:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably. Why no bullet on this point? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * - I don't think we're really getting anywhere :( starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  11:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably not. I think we all agree that completely unsourced stuff can go, though. Let's try that. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

More input
/ /  /  as writers of FA/GA pro-wrestling articles, could we perhaps hear from you about this whole issue of sourcing signature moves above? Should we tolerate Wrestlingdata, CageMatch and OWOW for sourcing of these? Should we separate commonly used moves from signature moves? Should match reports listing four different instances of a move being used warrant it being a signature move or a commonly used move? starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  03:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Chimimg in here. I don't like the proposal at all. To say a move that's named in four different match reports for four different matches is a "signature move" without anyone specifically calling it a "signature move" (or some synonymous term like "trademark move") is WP:OR. So no, it should not be listed based purely on that. If it's called a signature in reliable sources, or given a special name (which does happen for things other than finishers), then it's clearly a signature, but for us to deem something a signature by our own conclusions based on putting together separate match reports that don't call them signatures is WP:SYNTH. It's unacceptable. Sorry. oknazevad (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - I appreciate your opinion, and would like to hear further - would you consider WrestlingData or CageMatch or OWOW as reliable sources? Without these, we would have to stick to match reports, which rarely mention moves as signature moves. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  13:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't know the sites well enough to judge, really. If they are somewhat user-generated, I'd be skeptical. Honestly, I think this is one of those things where if we just said "to heck with it" and dropped the lists because of lack of consistently reliable sourcing, I'd be okay with it. They are a bit crufty, though I also understand the nature of such moves as character-establishing. I just really don't like the idea of the synth readily apparent in the picking of four sources . It's almost the textbook definition of original research by synthesis and should be rejected. oknazevad (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Oknazevad. I've written or co-written 40+ Good Articles, and I've run into this problem many times. As I said above, WrestlingData, CageMatch, and OWOW are not acceptable as sources by most reviewers....and they really shouldn't be accepted by any reviewer. The original research argument is also valid. Nikki  ♥  311   20:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never liked these sections to begin with; they strike me as fancruft magnets. I think I've tended to leave them out when creating articles, and they would be added later. At times, I would include them (particularly finishing moves) when the reliable sources made it obvious. I agree with the synthesis concerns. I don't have a lot to add to this discussion, but I think a somewhat flexible limit would make sense (about 3-5 seems plenty for most wrestlers; people like Bret Hart or Shawn Michaels would probably have more). If the list is kept to a reasonable length, we might be able to rely on common sense rather than sourcing (but source reliably where possible), since sources are required for information that is likely to be challenged. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. The discussion is clearly moving towards a certain direction here ... just waiting for hopefully at least two more of the pinged to weigh in? Bump. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  07:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

So, and  - we're implementing a new rule, reliable sources must mention that the move is a signature, being merely a part of a moveset is not enough. The exception is named moves which automatically count as signatures if they are not finishers. So any editor may challenge and remove signature moves which fail to have sources mentioning them as such. OWOW/CageMatch/Wrestlingdata are out. We good? starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  12:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't need a rule, we just need to use common sense and to avoid original research. And what we really need to avoid is cruft.
 * To that end, what I really think we should do is nuke the sections. Period. Cruft magnets with poor sourcing and silly arguments. Too much effort hunting out sources for a chart of trivia about fictional events. There's making the article more complete, and then there's filling it with meaningless trivia. They don't improve the encyclopedia at all, and are a waste of time. oknazevad (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - nuking all signature moves would be the easy, no doubt. But I'm really not convinced that it is the right solution. Steamboat's article wouldn't have the arm drag. Austin's article wouldn't have stomping a mudhole in the corner. Cena's article wouldn't have the Five Knuckle Shuffle. Cesaro's article wouldn't have the Cesaro Swing. Lesnar/Benoit/Angle's articles wouldn't have the German suplex. I don't see this as trivia, I think it's pretty valuable information. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  02:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Technical issue needing fixed?
Most of the contents of Talk:History of professional wrestling in the United States are actually discussions pertaining to parent article History of professional wrestling. My first thought would be that a cut-and-paste or other improper page move occurred, but I haven't dug that deep to know for sure. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 13:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - it was moved in '08 starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  23:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Oldest champions
I don't understand the parameter oldest champion in the Template:Infobox pro wrestling championship. It says "The oldest person to win the title followed by their age at the time of the title win." However, I don't think so. Maybe "The oldest person to win the title followed by their age at the time of the title lose", because the wrestler becames older every day. For example, the CHIKARA Grand Champion. Icarus won the title when he was 31, so he is the oldest champion. But Icarus became 32, It doesn't make any sense to include 31 Icarus as the oldest champion, when he is 32. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess this is because the infobox line reads "Oldest winner" rather than "Oldest champion". I'm not saying this is right, but that probably explains the instructions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think is COMMONSENSE to list the oldest champion, not the oldest winner. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with HHH. I see two options going forward. Oldest at time of victory or oldest at time of loss? starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  22:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I may be a little confussed on what's being discussed soi apologize in advance. Oldest winner is the one that has been covered by media and the one people keep track off. That said, I do see your point, but i think it should stay the way it is (oldest winner) as it is easier to keep track off and is the one that is reported. By changing the format, we are not being truthful to the company's history, as they report the oldest winner at the time they won the championship, not the time they lost it. For example, let's say x wrestler won a title when he was 40, and lost it when he was 43. Later, another wrestler wins the same title when he was 42 and lost it before he turned 43. Why should the first wrestler get the recognition of being oldest champion? The company will recognize the second wrestler as the oldest champion, not the first, because he won it at an older age, so why would we change the history and basically lie? I don't know if I might've mixed up what you guys said because I don't know if you're talking about recognizing the oldest winner but reporting his age at the time he lost it, or recognizing the oldest loser of a title. PRwrestlinganalyst (talk) 5:32 March 29, 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a lie. The 43 years old champion is older than the 42 years old champion. That's the truth, no matter what a company says (rememebr how many times WWE changed his own story). I think the parameter should include the oldest champion at the time he lost the championship. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oldest winner makes more sense to me. Like PRwrestlinganalyst stated, that's how I see wrestling media report oldest champions. Just recently in Japan, Yuji Nagata stated he wanted to become the oldest IWGP Heavyweight Champion and the current record was announced as 49 years and 10 months (the day Tenryu won it) and not 49 years and 11 months (the day he lost it). リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) #GG (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no lie if we explicitly say Oldest at time of title victory starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  02:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Champions images
Hi folks, it's been a while since I've left a message here. An issue that pops up almost every time there's a title change is the display image of champion lists. Long established WP:PW precedent (dating back to 2007) was to show an image of a champion with the belt, no matter who the champion is. There have been various discussions affirming this, but unfortunately I've been unable to track them down. Sadly, some users are unable to wrap their mind around having an image of the non-current champion as the lead image, as can be seen at List of WWE World Heavyweight Champions.

My argument is that it's a list of champions, so we're not bound to showing the current champ. It's good the show what the title looks like, and an image of a champion in ring with the belt is far preferable to an image of the current champ in civilian clothes. It's also recentism. I think an image of the current titleholder could easily be displayed further down the page, but let's save the lead for a shot of the title. -- Scorpion 0422  16:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No. The WWE World Heavyweight Championship article is about the belt itself, with a pic of the belt in the infobox.  The List of WWE World Heavyweight Champions article is about the men who have held the belt.  If we get a pic with Rollins with the belt, I'll be the first to put it up there, but it's more important to show the champ than the belt in this particular article.  Vjmlhds (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your post doesn't actually explain why it has to be Rollins. You say the article is "about the men who have held the belt" and indeed it is. Lesnar (and it doesn't have to be Lesnar, it could be anyone, as long as the championship is in the picture) has held the belt, and there's a picture. Why do we need to show the champion precisely? Why is it that important? If we were talking about a List of Stanley Cup champions, one would want either the Cup or someone holding the cup as the lead image, not a shot of the L.A. Kings. If one was talking about a list of MLB MVPs, one would expect an image of the actual award, and not one of the most recent winners. And a quick look at those pages confirms this.
 * A note for those unaware. This user and myself have been involved in some rather nasty arguments as of late. When I first made the change to the title article he was uninvolved, but he soon came out of nowhere. To Vjmlhds, please keep the nastiness and threats of blocking out of this discussion. Keep this objective because I'd like to get a number of opinions, and if this comes down to a spat between us we won't get those opinions. -- Scorpion 0422  18:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we get some opinions on this issue? What should the lead of the various lists be, an image of any champion with the belt, or an image of the current champ? -- Scorpion 0422  18:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I've been under the same impression as Vjmlhds, that the main championship articles are focused on the title's history and its design, whereas the List of Champions are more slated towards the holders of the title. To me it made the most sense to highlight the current champion at an immediate glance. I can understand the consensus, which came about long before my time, but honestly it hasn't been enforced since I've started editing. I'm not too concerned with fighting it though. I'll leave it to you guys. Prefall 21:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's partially why I'm trying to establish a new consensus. I think a lot of the editors involved in the previous discussion are no longer very active and things like that tend to be overlooked. I didn't even know it was no longer enforced, it was something I noticed when I was looking over the page and I'd assumed an IP had made the change without knowing what the norm was. -- Scorpion 0422  00:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Problem solved...show 'em both. Have the belt, but also acknowledge the current champ (of course if we have a pic of the current champ with the belt, it makes everyone's life easier).  Why does it have to be either/or...we can have our cake and et it too. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * OK...pic with belt at the top, pics of champ of significance (most reigns and/or longest reigning) and current champ at the bottom.  If there's a pic of the current champ w/ the belt, it automatically goes on top. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the top of the article can only fit two pictures. So Top 1) Most recent pic of "champ + belt" / Top 2) Most recent champ. At the Combined reigns sections, there's more space, so Bottom 1) Most combined days / Bottom 2) Most reigns / Bottom 3) Longest single reign starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  00:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Grand slam (again)
One more time. WWE.com publisher an article about wrestlers who won all titles in the company. The article says "Only six Superstars have captured the WWE World Heavyweight, Intercontinental, United States and WWE Tag Team Championships. Check out who accomplished this rare feat, WWE’s new “Grand Slam.”" Here is the source. Do you think this is enought to change the Grand Slam Championship definition? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. It is the only current Grand Slam, except for some guys who've been around for over a decade. (It also still fits with the old one, effectively saying the US title is an acceptable substitute for the European title in the original definition. Frankly I've always had a problem with the whole "we know this is acceptable because of this obscure mention in one article" thing that we've done before. It treads too close to WP:SYNTH for my tastes.) Regardless of any of those such conclusions, this makes it absolutely clear that the WWE considers that particular combo a valid Grand Slam. And so therefore we must as well, as to not based on some other objection would be to definitively introduce original research and our own opinions without cause. oknazevad (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - we should update to the new definition, BUT, if the old definition was sourced to WWE.com, I think we should keep and retain that one as well, keeping the records of the old Grand Slam winners until WM31 in March 2015, but not keep further records. WWE.com made it very clear that this was WWE’s new "Grand Slam", so their old Grand Slam must have been valid previously. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  07:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying the old definition is invalid. I don't think anyone is. I think this just confirms that the WWE/IC/US/Tag combination is a Grand Slam, which some have argued against before (see the talk page of the article).
 * Also, just wanted to make sure that my view on the sourcing was known, as some of the sources are a bit obscure, and questionable, even if they came from wwe.com, as this is a much clearer statement of what constitutes the modern Grand Slam than some of the "they said this once so clearly they accept this combination" sorts of near-SYNTH that exists on that page. It's never sat well with me. oknazevad (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - ref 8 in that article: JBL becomes the tenth Grand Slam Champion in WWE history - so it does point to nine other champions before him, which the article does show (doesn't say which nine though). There's apparently also refs for HBK / Kane / Angle / HHH. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  08:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That tells us that they consider JBL a Grand Slam Champion. It does not tell us which titles they consider part of his slam, nor whether that combination is universally applicable. Sure it's pretty easy to figure out the titles based on JBL's career history, and to not have the same apply to others with the same combo would be plain dumb, but it's still a little more us drawing conclusions than I'd like. oknazevad (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WWE remembers us over and over HBK is the first Grand Slam because he won the WWE, IC, Tag Team and European titles. Later, other sources include the Hardcore, Tag Team and WHC as valid substitutes. JBL in the 10th wrestler to win the Grand Slam, so the article is fine.HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've thought that the US title counted towards the grand slam for some time now, there were plenty of sources in the past that more or less said so but they were never quite concrete. This is about as concrete as it gets so it's time we recognize it.  I also agree that we'll have to differentiate between the versions of the Grand Slam, we've already done that with the various combinations and brand designations so that shouldn't be an issue now.LM2000 (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's just make life easy - A Slam is a Slam, regardless of how you get there. WWE/I-C/Tag are the constants, and we have valid sources that verify that the WHC is an acceptable substitute for the WWE Title, and that the European, Hardcore, and U.S. Titles are all acceptable for the 4th spot. No need to overly convolute things. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WWE doesn't say they accept the US as a substitute. WWE says a new Grand Slam Champion is the wrestler who won all current male titles in WWE, that means:WWE WHC, Tag Teag, IC and US. They doesn't include other combination (not WHC or World Tag Team) For example, they doesn't include Bret Hart (World Tag Team). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not feeling the whole "new definition" thing entirely, nor the separate chart with some of the same wrestlers listed again. Seems needlessly complicated and duplicative. oknazevad (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think both tables are necessary. The New definition doesn't include the WHC and the Word Tag Team titles. If we include the new version in the old table, we can create confusion (For example, Chris Benoit, Dolph Ziggler, Bret Hart)... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with HHH, it may be a little confusing having the two separate sections but cramming everything into one table would probably be even more confusing. That first table is convoluted enough as it is.LM2000 (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm talking in some forums. People are realy happy because Ziggler and Cena are Grand Slam Champions (???). Two tables. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that only US Championships won in WWE seem to count, even if it was the WCW version won during invasion (as with Angle and Edge). Editors at Edge (wrestler) have been trying to change his C&A section to say that he won the WWE version.  If anybody could help me out over there I would appreciate it.LM2000 (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * During the Invasion, it was still officially called the "WCW U.S. Championship" because it was Alliance property. It got unified with the I-C title at Survivor Series '01, and when it was reactivated in 2003, it was under the WWE banner. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The WP:OR and WP:SYN stuff needs to stop though. There should be one reference for every one wrestler who has won a Grand Slam. Where's Christian / Booker / Jeff Hardy's, for example, in the old format? New format is fine because WWE listed all six Grand Slam achievers. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  07:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We need to cut the Current WWE wrestlers who are one title away for Grand Slam status: WP:OR stuff too, especially if it's regarding the "original format" like Taker and Goldust. In fact, I believe we should discontinue further additions to the "original format" now that the new format is in place. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  00:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Triple Crown nonsense
In 2012 WWE.com published a clear definition of Triple Crown. It appears that WP:OR has struck again, because WWE.com doesn't consider Mysterio/Christian and some others champions. Bryan would not qualify either because he didn't win the World Tag. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  14:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This article was discussed in 2012. The result was WWE established the Criteria in other previous article (when mysterio won the tiple crown, they create a Triple Crown Club, including Mysterio). Also, a ESPN article --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - in this case primary source (WWE.com) is most important., I found out that YOU~! are to blame. If only you used the Wayback Machine when you originally added the source. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  00:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. What's my fault? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The current link broke. I got angry. Sorry. I should be calmer. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  01:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. Just curious. A little rage is healthy. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

WrestleMania poster edit war brewing?
A user (TheMeaningOfBlah), who retired from Wikipedia last week, uploaded different posters for several WrestleManias (including, , , and , and probably a few more recent ones) last month. These have since been reverted back to the previous posters, and another(?) user (TheTMOBGaming2) has reverted the reverts. Do people care enough to form a consensus on which versions to keep? GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * How would I know which are the official versions? Convince me. But the old versions should be restored during the dispute. It's up to adder to get new consensus starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  12:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So a user takes a courtesy vanishing, has his user page deleted, and his account renamed to some random string of characters, then less than a week later appears again using a user name obviously derived from the prior one (TMOB=TheMeaningOfBlah) and resumes making the same edits? Something hinckey going on here. oknazevad (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hinckey indeed, I had no idea TMOB had chosen to disappear, they were active seemingly without incident right up until they chose to be vanished. Either way, the original posters should probably be used until a new consensus can emerge.  I especially am against the new WM V poster, that is hideous beyond words.LM2000 (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I like the old ones for V and VI (more prominent time and place info, sharper), but the new VII and IX are better, for including the main event players, not just Hart and a cartoon Hogan. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's just make life easy.
With all the sources we have been able to cobble up, let's just make life easy regarding the WWE Triple Crown and Grand Slam:

Triple Crown =


 * 1) WWE or World Heavyweight Championship
 * 2) Intercontinental Championship
 * 3) WWE or World Tag Team Championship

Grand Slam =


 * Triple Crown + either a European, Hardcore, or U.S. Championship

Now in their article about the new Slam, WWE only used Eddie Guerrero's U.S. Title he won in WWE in 2003, not his 1997 WCW reign - that shows they're only counting reigns in WWE as far as the TC/GS is concerned.

So under those parameters, Steve Austin and Ric Flair do not get a Slam, as their U.S. Titles were won in WCW.

However Bret Hart would get a Slam, as he does have one U.S. Title under the WWE banner (2010).

Chris Benoit gets a Slam with a WHC/IC/US/Tag combo

Dolph Ziggler gets a Slam with a WHC/IC/US/World Tag combo (he was "Freebirded" into the Tag Team Titles as part of the Spirit Squad).

Let's get a consensus here before we do any changes.

Vjmlhds (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's simple. Grand Slam (Old). WWE or WHC +IC +WWE Tag Team or World Tag Team + Eu or Hardcore. Grand Slam (new). WWE.com explains it pretty easy. 4 active titles=WWE+IC+US+WWE Tag Team. No Less, no More. No combination between WHC + US or World Tag Team + US. WWE doesn't include austin or Flair, so they aren't Grand Slam Champions. Hart didn't won the Tag Team title. Benoit didn't won the WWE title. Ziggler didn't won the Tag Team title. Again, the new Grand Slam is only the four active titles. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm making my life easy by not getting into this one. May the best side win! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think HHH is right, I haven't seen anything to prove that the US title is simply a replacement for the Euro/Hardcore title, rather it seems that this is a new format with an entirely separate set of rules. Benoit and Ziggler don't count because the World title and World tag titles don't count (I don't even know if Spirit Squad Ziggler counts as Ziggler to begin with, but that's another argument I don't want to get into).  The WCW US championship counts if it was won during Invasion, otherwise not.LM2000 (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Even though I'm the one who proposed including everything, I'm not married to the idea...just wanted to throw it out there. If everybody's down with the original Slam and the modern Slam being their own separate entities, then I'm OK with that as well. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think they are two distinct accolades and it is important to distinguish between them. The source even refers to "WWE's new Grand Slam" (emphasis mine). McPhail (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Category for retired pro wrestlers
Could we have something like Category:Retired pro wrestlers for pro wrestlers who have not been active in the ring for a certain period of time but who are still alive? Like Edge for example? I don't know if we do this for various careers but I think it would be cool. Ranze (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea, but retirement isn't quite so easy to define with wrestlers, as it is with the slightly more on-the-level sports. Reunion indy shows are so common now, it's hard to keep treating them as "one night" or "special" return matches. For every dead '80s wrestler, there's a another stuck in the grey zone. "Semi-retired", we say.
 * Bobby Eaton (or even El Mongol) can still conceivably whoop any young lion, in this weird game. Not so odd to imagine Edge crawling back into an armory in a few years, after his TV vampire looks turn to dust, and half-assing it the same for a few thousand bucks. That's tempting, and there's no ladder to climb, like a broken-necked boxer would need.
 * So, in a nutshell, we don't know who's retired. We think we do, but we're marks. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * But yeah, if we used a certain period of time, we could do the math for sure. What time were you thinking? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking four years, in case you wanted to know. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

PPV buyrate conversion
This badly needs to be overhauled throughout the project. The PPV pages are all converting buyrate percentages (which we can find easily for all of the PPVs until giving the number of buys became) to the actual total buys (which are more difficult to find) all using the same a conversion rate, which is wildly inaccurate for a huge swath of PPVs from when the PPV universe was much smaller. There needs to be a change to only using the buyrate percentages for the older shows unless you can find a source contemporary to the PPV (most likely TV trade magazines like Broadcasting/Broadcasting and Cable, Electronic Media, etc. or the primary wrestling trade newsletters like Wrestling Observer and Pro Wrestling Torch). Until then, most of the PPV articles will have incorrect total buy info. --Bix (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - could you list a few of the offending pages? starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  03:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Categorizing ring announcers
Please discuss at Talk:List of WWE personnel starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  06:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Split List of WWE NXT special episodes
suggested this above and I think we should look in to it with it looking like a significant update to how the PPV infobox is used is coming. I think if the sources can support it, it's time to split off the "special episodes" of NXT in to their own articles. Does any one agree and/or know if the sources will support this?  True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 21:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WWE.com, PWInsider.com and WrestlingObserver.com all have detailed results of the shows in their archives. So sourcing shouldn't be a problem. OldSkool01 (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - I am firmly opposed to this. Be pragmatic and practical. We don't have enough good editors to properly write PPV articles. You know what the results will be? Extreme Rules (2014) - 17 references. Payback (2014) and Battleground (2014) - overly detailed Event sections and underwritten Aftermath sections. And even fewer people will watch NXT instead of the WWE PPVs, so naturally fewer people will edit those articles. The articles will turn out to be crap. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  03:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * At the very least something needs to be written on the list article so an infobox can be used.  True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 03:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Darn. That's a problem I had not anticipated. All the more reason to leave out NXT events from the "timeline". I'll like to additionally point out that many more people in the United States itself watch an episode of Raw (3.8 million for a May 2015 episode) than if all WWE Network subscribers internationally were to watch an NXT live special (1.3+ million in March 2015) starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  08:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You can still use an info box on that page, just use the lastevent2/nextevent2 parameter by itself, it will string the NXT specific shows together if nothing else. MPJ  -US 08:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no point in stringing only the NXT specials together; they're in chronological order already. Plus, I checked, an infobox squeezes the table together, looks ugly. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  09:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Color me surprised that non-PPVs King of the Ring (2006) / King of the Ring (2008) / King of the Ring (2010) / King of the Ring (2015) exist as individual articles. '''2010 has zero sources. 2015 has two sources.''' Honestly, I would prefer them to be like the New Japan Cup or King of Gate articles, just throw the tournament brackets into the main King of the Ring article. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  09:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Look at the way the Starrcade page is set up. Not every Starrcade has it's own page(which is bizarre to me), yet they still have an infobox next to each event to make the chronology list work. If you don't think each NXT special deserves their own page then follow the Starrcade precedent and do it that way. OldSkool01 (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a workable idea. I'll look into it. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  12:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ideally, we should have an article for every Starrcade, the reason we do not is WP:RECENTISM. Certainly if these events were to happen today things would be different.  I wouldn't mind if the non-PPV KOTR articles were merged and I oppose splitting the NXT specials.  I'm okay with the infoboxes though, we already use them on non-PPVs like the TNA Impact specials such as Destination X.LM2000 (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * THe non-PPV King of the Ring events each have sufficient notability on their own and should not be merged. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless they were at house shows. Sometimes I wonder if those ever really happened at all. Anyway, I'm mainly here to shake my fist at the lack of Starrcade coverage. You can't see it, but I am! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You forgot to tell the kids to get off you lawn. Kids get off Hulk's lawn!! The Starrcade thing gets me too, or AWA Rage in the cage getting no love either. I guess i was in school becore it got old... how the he k did that happen? And kids these days with their snappy chats and whatever else is cool. *hikez up pants and staggers out of the room*. MPJ  -US 23:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought Snapchat was for sending nudes? Is that why you were pulling up your pants? starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  02:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

ECW Arena listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for ECW Arena to be moved to 2300 Arena. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Pac (wrestler) listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Pac (wrestler) to be moved. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Elimination Chamber (2015) a PPV or not?
Seeing as this is obviously going to be a disputed topic already, let's nip this thing in the bud. Is the 2015 version of Elimination Chamber considered a PPV? JBL referred to it as such after the announcement. ("Two pay-per-views in May!") I added it to all the PPV templates ( and ) and edited the chronology parameters on the infoboxes for Payback (2015) and Money in the Bank (2015) to add it. But this was all undone by. So are we considering this apart of the PPV chronology of the WWE considering its WWE Network exclusivity? <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 20:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not a pay-per-view by the definition of what "pay-per-view" is. As long as shows continue to air on traditional cable and satellite pay-per-view channels then those shows will be considered pay-per-views. Elimination Chamber 2015 is only airing on the WWE Network, not cable or satellite, therefore it should not be classified as a pay-per-view, regardless of what WWE says. It falls into the same category as the NXT TakeOver specials and last week's King Of The Ring 2015 special. Elimination Chamber 2015 should absolutely be included in the Elimination Chamber chronology of events, but it should not be included in the WWE pay-per-view chronology of events. Similar to Royal Rumble 1988. It's included in the Royal Rumble chronology, but not the pay-per-view chronology. I feel a new wiki page called "List Of WWE Network Live Events" should be created and that's where shows like King Of The Ring 2015 and Elimination Chamber 2015 would fit in. It's obvious there will be many more Network-only live special events in the future. It's important to differentiate live special events  that are available on traditional pay-per-view from live special events that are only available on the Network.OldSkool01 (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing is, is that the term has evolved to not only include actual PPVs but also the company's supercards. This event will most likely (and yes, I realize this is OR, but I'm making a point) be promoted and built just like Payback is now. What are we going to do if/when WWE switches all their supercards to WWE Network only? Cable and Satellite companies are already bugging out about this, some have even stopped showing WWE PPVs (see Dish Network). This isn't like 1988 when WWE did it as a one-off TV special, it's an actual supercard. And it's not like King of the Ring 2015 either, which was also a special event, not a supercard. The point is, is that pro wrestling's definition of "pay-per-view" (especially in relation to the national organizations) has evolved to include two definitions:


 * An event broadcast on pay-per-view. (traditional)
 * A supercard in which the company build towards on weekly television.


 * Maybe it's time the wiki evolves with it. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 22:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess I have not been paying attention but is that not the purpose of the "liveevent" parameter on our event info boxes? A major event, but not PPV right?  MPJ  -US 22:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I honestly didn't know that parameter existed. Although, that still doesn't settle how it's going to be listed in terms of the PPV templates and the succeeding/preceding event parameters on Payback (2015) and Money in the Bank (2015). <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True  CRaysball  | #RaysUp 22:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. This and NJPW World are honestly new forms of broadcasting shows, not PPV yet not "regular" TV either, so perhaps they need a new definition?  MPJ  -US 00:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * NJPW, however, still broadcasts their bigger events also on regular PPV in Japan. I've used the liveevent parameter on the non-PPV shows (like The New Beginning in Sendai) and just listed the previous and next events of any kind in the succeeding/preceding event parameters. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)   (talk)  00:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with what Ribbon did. If we had to coin a name for it, maybe something along the lines of "Network live special". We'd have to look out to see if reliable sources use a similar term. But that would include NXT specials as well, yet another spanner in the mix. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  00:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have done similar with CMLL and AAA events, PPV when they're actually on PPV otherwise "live shows" and stringing the chronology together, I think it's more important to have chronology than anything else, it's more important that Elimination Chamber comes after Payback and less important the "type:.  MPJ  -US 01:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So for Template:Infobox wrestling event we should scrap PPV chronology and replace with Event chronology? I'm not a tech whiz though... starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  01:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe "Supercard chronology" would be better? <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 03:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Elimination Chamber 2015 may be built up as a supercard, but so was Saturday Night's Main Event back in the day. The best way to handle this is what I already proposed. Create a new page specifically for WWE Network Live Special Events. Include Chamber 2015, King Of The Ring 2015, all of the NXT TakeOver shows and any live special events that will surely happen in the future from here on out. The Pay-Per-View chronology should only include actual shows that are broadcast on PPV channels. WWE Network is not a PPV channel. And when the day comes that WWE is no longer on traditional cable/satellite PPV then that chronology will end and the WWE Network Live Special Events chronology will still be in play. I really don't think this is that complicated of an issue. OldSkool01 (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I've already explained, it is that complicated. Elimination Chamber is more on par with Payback than NXT, King of the Ring '15 or SNME. The only difference is where they're broadcast, that's the discussion at hand. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 04:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It really isn't that complicated. You're making it out to be more than it is. It's really simple. There's a reason pay-per-view shows are called "pay-per-view". Because they air on specific channels that are meant for the individual purchase of specific shows. Elimination Chamber is NOT airing on any pay-per-view channels. Regardless of what WWE calls it on TV during the build-up, it is NOT a pay-per-view. So that topic should no longer be an issue. What you're referring to when you say "on par" with Payback, is what do we call these big "pay-per-view caliber" shows if they're not called pay-per-views? And I already explained it twice how to solve that issue, categorize them as "WWE Network Live Special Events". It really is that simple. OldSkool01 (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not the discussion, the discussion is if the PPV-caliber shows that aren't aired on PPV services like iNDemand should be listed with traditional PPVs from now on. And if so, and it seems like the discussion is heading that way right now, how to do it. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 05:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's how you do it. Every PPV(for lack of a better term) has the PPV chronology in the infobox on the top right. Also in the infobox is the chronology of that specific event. So for example, Elimination Chamber 2015 should absolutely be included in the Elimination Chamber chronology. No question. However, It should not be included in the WWE PPV chronology. I used Royal Rumble 1988 earlier as the perfect example of this. It is included in the Royal Rumble chronology, but it is not included in the PPV chronology. And Rumble 88 should be the precedent. It was a 3 hour Sunday night show that was hyped for several weeks, but it aired on USA Network, not PPV. What I would do is create a new chronology called "WWE Network Live Special Events". Regardless of how much hype went into these shows, they should be included in the WWE Network Live Special Events chronology. The NXT TakeOver shows, King Of The Ring 2015 and Elimination Chamber 2015 all fit into this category. Shows on the Network that are weekly(Main Event, Superstars, etc.) would not fit into this category. But special live shows like the ones I already mentioned would fit into this category. OldSkool01 (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if there's too much focus on medium, not content, in the above discussion. OldSkool101, other than delivery avenue, what is the substantive difference as an event between Elimination Chamber and Payback? WWE certainly seems top be considering them equivalent.

And, really, considering the relative cost differential, (like 40 bucks difference), do you think that maybe the WWE feels they can do a second major event in a month precisely because they know that most people now watch "PPVs" (using the term loosely) because most people who watch them now do so on the Network? It's not like the Network is free TV; this isn't SNME or the '88 Rumble where anyone can just turn on the channel and watch. One still must pay for it. It's just a different distribution channel a lot cheaper (let's call a spade a spade and get straight to the reason for watching them on the Network!) oknazevad (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We seem to have this discussion every few months and with the business slowly moving away from PPVs I don't see that changing anytime soon. I agree that we should have a new "WWE Network Live Special Events" category for events like this that do not air on PPV  (events that air on both PPV and the network may also fall under this category).  I don't think this belongs in the PPV navbox, same with events like WWE Global Warning, The Big Event, that Smackdown The Great American Bash from years ago, and the Impact specials like Destination X and Hardcore Justice; it's simply erroneous to list any of these things as PPVs.LM2000 (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course the focus is going to be on the medium. This whole conversation is about the medium. They're called pay-per-views for a reason. Royal Rumble 1988 wasn't "free". You still had to pay for cable, which in the 80's most of the general public still did not have cable. WWE Network is like HBO or Showtime. You pay extra for a channel. Pay-per-view is when you pay specifically for a certain single show at a specific certain time. With the WWE Network you're not paying $9.99 just for the Elimination Chamber, you're paying $9.99 for a whole month, including every show that's on the channel. I've already suggested a solution several times for how to move forward with this issue. OldSkool01 (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me try this one more time. The only difference between Payback and Elimination Chamber this year is one medium is not broadcasting the latter. They're both on WWE Network, they're both the same tier of event - Supercards. And it's different than any show that took place before the WWE Network's conception. I think Starship had the best solution - rename the parameter to include WWE Network-only "PPVs". <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 22:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That one medium that's not broadcasting Elimination Chamber is the medium that an entire chronology is named after. So if the idea you're suggesting is to rename the PPV chronology into something along the lines of "Supercard Chronology" or "Mega Event Chronology" or something similar, you run into the problem of now having to decide which shows exactly fall into the "Supercard" category. Does that include The Big Event, Royal Rumble 1988, Wrestlefest '88, all of the early 90's UK tv specials, Global Warning, the NXT TakeOver specials, Saturday Night's Main Event, the Showdown At Shea shows, and dozens of others? Renaming the PPV chronology will only lead to more debates, like the one we're having now, about which shows should be included and which ones shouldn't. I still suggest we create a new chronology called "WWE Network-only Live Special Events" and include that chronology in the infobox. It seems the real issue here is people are looking for any way to include Elimination Chamber into the existing PPV chronology when it absolutely doesn't belong. Wikipedia is supposed to be an accurate, factual database that seperates fact from fiction. WWE having their commentators calling Elimination Chamber 2015 a PPV does not mean that it is one. Years from now when WWE is no longer on any traditional PPV channels, fans should be able to see a list of which events were actually on PPV and which ones weren't without having to muddy it up with other events that weren't on PPV. It would be the same as having a list of WWE events that aired on closed circuit TV and then modifying that list to also include events that aired on PPV. It's important to not lose sight of what the term "pay-per-view" means. Now with all of that said, if you want to create a seperate chronology list of all major WWE events, then that's an option too, but not at the expense of changing the PPV chronology list. It would have to be an entirely seperate chronology list so as to not confuse people as to which ones were and were not on PPV. If you decide to go down that route then you can include all of the questionable shows that I mentioned earlier. OldSkool01 (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem that you're failing to understand is that WWE considers it part of their PPV chronology. In reality, it doesn't have to be renamed at all, because it's a PPV that happens to only be available on the WWE Network. This goes back to my original response to you, the term has evolved in relation to Pro Wrestling. It doesn't not mean just shows aired on PPV anymore, it also is a synonym for "supercard". <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 23:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason I'm failling to understand that is because it's not something that should be understood. The term "pay-per-view" has not evolved at all. When the WWE Network first started they had their commentators call the shows "special events" and not "pay-per-views". They wanted to distancr themselves from the PPV medium. After a few months they went back to calling their shows pay-per-views again because A)They were still being broadcast on PPV channels, and B)They wanted fans to know that they could buy a show that's airing on PPV(for $55) for only $9.99. When the day comes that they're officially off of PPV altogether then they'll most likely go back to calling them special events since they already established that term last year. The idea that the term pay-per-view has "evolved" is silly. As I've mentioned several times already WWE can call it a PPV all they want. Doesn't mean that it is one. That's why Wikipedia is here. To seperate fact from fiction. OldSkool01 (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * IMO, you're not helping that by not acknowledging WWE defining their own chronology. The medium is irrelevant in the end, what matters in the end is that WWE considers it the second such event in May and that's why we have to go by, or it's OR. So no, the term evolving is not silly, because that is what has happened. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 00:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So basically whatever WWE says it is, it is. That's what this all comes down to? In that case then hundreds of Wikipedia pages need to be changed because almost all of them talk about what actually "is" as opposed to what WWE says it is. There's nothing wrong with mentioning that WWE refers to Elimination Chamber 2015 as a pay-per-view on the actual Elimination Chamber 2015 page as long as it's also noted that it never aired on any actual PPV channels. That's fine. Including it on a list of shows that actually did air on PPV channels is factually inaccurate. But in the end, if Wikipedia is going to go by "whatever WWE says is gospel" then this debate is pretty much over unfortunately. OldSkool01 (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not factually incorrect though for reasons I've now explained four times. And please don't use a condescending tone with me. What WWE says is not gospel, it is however the primary source for things pertaining to WWE. In this case, they have called it a PPV and thus part of the WWE PPV chronology. To treat it any differently is OR. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 00:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It IS factually incorrect. Name one other show in history that WWE considered a "pay-per-view" that never actually aired on a traditional ppv channel. There are none. This is the first time this has ever happened. This is only something that has been an issue for the last 2 days. That's why saying that the term pay-per-view has evolved is getting a little ahead of ourselves. It's only been 2 days since WWE announced the Chamber. 2 days is way too soon to say that the term has evolved. OldSkool01 (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What a terribly long discussion I've missed. Sorry TrueCRaysball, but I'm leaning towards agreeing with OldSkool01. Pay-per-view is a specific term in the field of television. WWE does not get to define it. Floyd Mayweather, Jr. vs. Manny Pacquiao was a pay-per-view event. We need a reliable source saying the WWE Network is "pay-per-view". Nobody paid to watch the Chamber, by itself. They paid to watch a month of the Network. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  12:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically, to hell with what the source says. The fact is Starship, the source calls the event a PPV. But fine, the parameter's label needs to be adjusted and there needs to be another nice long discussion of what the new label encompasses because the fact remains the show is on the same tier as Payback and Money in the Bank and should be listed with it. We all know WWE's PPV model is evolving and as a result the way we document it here on Wikipedia needs to evolve with it to keep it in perspective. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 21:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter opened up this week's newsletter talking about the Chamber and said this "The company came up with the last-minute idea of adding what they are calling a PPV show, but which is really a live network special, The Elimination Chamber show, on 5/31, from Corpus Christi. ... It's likely the talent isn’t going to be paid like it’s a PPV, because this will be a network exclusive. They may upgrade the production costs from a regular house show, but a lot of the PPV costs aren’t there because it’s streaming and not being sent via satellite." And now we have a reliable source clarifying the situation.OldSkool01 (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Still stand by the latter half of my last comment. This will likely grow now that WWE has an outlet that bends to its will. And it doesn't mean the event is any less important just because it's not on traditional PPV. So yes, we need to evolve the parameter (or add a new one that takes over on WWE PPVs after the launch of the WWE Network last year) and discuss what it takes to qualify to be apart of that chronology. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 22:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Re-read what I've been writing the last couple of days. I've made suggestions on how to move forward with Network Specials that other people have agreed with. "WWE Network Live Special Events" as a new chronology. It runs concurrent with the PPV chronology in the infobox. OldSkool01 (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me get a clarification from you, OldSkool. Would it also include PPVs (Payback -> NXT TakeOver: Unstoppable -> Elimination Chamber -> Money in the Bank) or would it simply stick to WWE Network exclusive special events (NXT TakeOver: Unstoppable -> Elimination Chamber -> TBA)? And if it is the former, like I'm hoping you mean, then I'm of the opinion that it should be listed above the PPV Chronology seeing it's the main platform WWE pushes for these events anymore, hardly ever mention tradition PPV.(Example Here) <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 03:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't like the idea of mixing NXT events. It's developmental, after all, with (mostly) separate rosters and "universes". If it were up to me, I'd scrap "PPV chronology" altogether, replace it with "Special event chronology", which includes all PPVs, as well as the Chamber, and perhaps KoTR (undecided). The NXT live specials don't have individual articles anyway, Arrival was an exception to the rule because it was the first live Network event. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  06:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm in complete agreement with you, Starship. As I said, WWE's PPV model evolved and is no longer hinged on traditional PPV. It's hinged on the Network. Although, "Special Event chronology" seems a bit too generic to fit right. Maybe "WWE Network (Special) Event chronology" like I have already in the example? <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 07:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ideally I would start the "WWE Network Live Special Events" chronology with NXT Arrival on February 27, 2014 and then move on to WrestleMania XXX-> Extreme Rules 2014 and so on. And that chronology would also include KOTR 15 and Chamber 15. I don't think completely replacing the PPV chronology should even be an option because you then run into the problem I mentioned a couple of days ago of now having to decipher which shows belong on a "Supercard/Special event" chronology". Does that include The Big Event, Wrestlefest '88, the UK tv specials from the early 90's, etc? I would just simply add another chronology tab on top of the already existing PPV chronology tab beginning with the launch of the WWE Network in February 2014. I do think the NXT TakeOver shows should absolutely be included in the "WWE Network Live Special Events" chronology because those shows get pluggrd on Raw and SmackDown and they've also been plugged on the regular PPV's in the past as well. NXT is no longer as much a developmental territory as it is as much a second brand. Triple H has made that clear in his last couple of conference calls. Also the NXT specials usually feature appearances from the wrestlers on the main roster. If the TakeOver shows don't have their own individual Wiki pages, then they should. I don't see how you could have a Network chronology and not include them. OldSkool01 (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree about starting it with NXT Takeover. As for the PPV chronology continuing concurrently with the WWE Network chronology, if you name the new chronology the name I suggested (WWE Network Event chronology) your problem with the '80s, 90s, and '00s specials is solved without need for discussion, because they obviously didn't air on the WWE Network because it didn't exist yet, and thus he old fashioned PPV chronology is no longer needed post-WWE Network launch. The only question in that scenario is how to document in the infobox the transition to the WWE Network. Because the PPV chronology doesn't end per se, it just transitions to the WWE Network being the primary platform. As such, I see two options to that, both of which I have laid out here. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True  CRaysball  | #RaysUp 08:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Option B. You nailed it perfectly. The "WWE Network Events" chronology goes above the "Pay-Per-View" chronology. And when WWE is officially no longer on traditional ppv(which will obviously happen one day), then that chronology will end and the Network Events chronology will continue. My vote is 100% with option B. If we go in that direction then this long debate will finally be resolved in my opinion. Any other thoughts? OldSkool01 (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify so there's no confusion in implementation, you realize that it doesn't matter which option is chosen, the PPV chronology pramaters would be phases out in relation to WWE events and the "WWE Network Event chronology" would take it's place. Option B is, apparently, the option you !vote to do the transition. This does not keep the PPV chronology parameter running concurrently past WrestleMania XXX. As said, WrestleMania XXX would be used as the transition. You understand this, correct? <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 10:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's correct. My mistake on the confusion about the ppv chronology continuing past Mania XXX. So to clear up what I meant, Mania XXX would be the bridge connecting the old PPV chronology to the new Network chronology. The way you have it set up in option B works for me. And then starting with Extreme Rules 2014 the ppv chronology would be gone and the network chronology would continue. I think we're finally on the same page.OldSkool01 (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't be bothered to argue too much. If you two agree, I'll go with the flow. But, I must highlight that just before WM30, there was NXT Arrival. That was the first ever Network special. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  12:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Starship, if you look at the way TrueCRaysball set up the chronology in option B, he has it where NXT Arrival is still the first show listed in the Network Special chronology. It works out perfectly. I forgot to mention, with all that said, this is just for the chronologies in the infobox that we're talking about. Going forward, the Wiki page titled "List Of WWE Pay-Per-View Events" will still be continuing to list shows that air on traditional PPV only. No Network shows. I think a new page titled "List Of WWE Network Specials" should also be created in the same format that the "List Of WWE Pay-Per-Views" page is in. What are your guys' thoughts on that?OldSkool01 (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Where did y'all post "Option A" and "Option B"? starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  12:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Right here. OldSkool01 (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, OldSkool, I'm of the mind that the current list article should be renamed and continued, but your suggestion doesn't bother me. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 21:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing is, what do you rename the current List Of WWE PPVs? It can't be called List Of WWE Network Specials because that would eliminate every show prior to February 2014. And if you call it List Of WWE Supercards/Supershows/Special Events then you run into the same problem I mentioned yesterday about having to decide which shows belong on the list and which ones don't. More headaches and more debates. I think it's simpler to just have 2 seperate lists with links to one another. It's cut and dry and less confusing. OldSkool01 (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. I still think we should use the same article, but to save time and more debate, I'll just let it be for now. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 21:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

If there are no objections to the above decision, I will start implementation this evening around 5:00pm ET in the USA. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 10:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The changes are implemented within the infobox, the only thing left to do is create List of WWE Network events (which I think should do), and to finish the discussion in the subheader below. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True  CRaysball  | #RaysUp 23:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm removing NXT events from the infoboxes. They are a different chronology and absolutely shouldn't be listed as preceding/following WWE events. To be honest, I feel that the infobox changes as a whole were unnecessary as WWE still has an annual calendar of 12 PPV shows, there's no reason additional main-roster content such as Elimination Chamber cannot be included simply by modifying the following and preceding event infoboxes to 'WWE Network Events' rather than changing every single event infobox to a more misleading nomer. Dannys-777 (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dannys-777, you might want to read this entire thread before just jumping in and making changes. This topic has been deeply debated the last 5 days and a lot of thought has gone into these necessary changes. OldSkool01 (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OldSkool01 I read it, and all I saw was a vague consensus regarding NXT shows, in fact as far as I can tell you were the only person who liked the idea of them being included in the main roster infoboxes. IMO it's completely ridiculous to even consider putting them there. The purpose of the infoboxes is to catalog the major WWE events, people aren't going to look at them and expect or want to see NXT shows, including them there is misleading and nonsensical and defeats the purpose of those sections of the infoboxes. NXT is a separate promotion that, while clearly linked, is kept distinct from WWE with only minor cross-promotion. I can understand including the NXT shows in an article listing of Network specials for completeness, but including them in the main roster chronology within the infoboxes in the same way as legitimate pay-per-views is, like I said, nonsensical. They are a different thing entirely. Dannys-777 (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly you misread then. Because the chronology has changed. The chronology is now a list of ALL WWE Network Events, not just WWE pay-per-view events. Leaving NXT out of that chronology would not make any sense. If someone wants to go through every Network event in order then they wouldn't be seeing all of them without the NXT shows there. WWE plugs those shows on Raw and Smackdown and main roster wrestlers do occasionally work those shows, just like NXT wrestlers occasionally work Raw and Smackdown to plug those shows. Again, this is no longer a chronology of strictly WWE pay-per-views. It's all of the live Network specials including shows like King Of The Ring and Elimination Chamber that aren't on PPV. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I liked the inclusion too. As for the rest of your comment, it's all ignoring one thing: they're still part of the event chronology for the WWE Network. It's incomplete without them. This is the definition the discussion came to over the past 7 or so days there was no opposition posed to the idea until you after consensus took hold and was implemented. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 20:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also this talk about how NXT is a seperate brand, so it shouldn't be included is ridiculous. Does that mean we go back and eliminate the ECW ppv's from the chronology because they were a different brand? What about when Raw and Smackdown had brand-only ppv's? Do we split those chronologies also? That would be silly. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case we need a separate part of the infobox for WWE-specific shows, similar to the one in the article for WrestleMania XXX. I've always seen the purpose of the infobox as being not just an arbitrary list of PPV events but a chronology of WWE shows, effectively the next in the series. The likes of Elimination Chamber would fit into that as they are part of the same series (they feature the same wrestlers, storylines,championships, arenas etc) whereas NXT shows are a completely different series. The comparison to ECW is not valid as NXT is a developmental brand, including the NXT shows would be more akin to including Florida Championship Wrestling or Ohio Valley Wrestling shows in past WWE infoboxes. As far as the infobox being a list of Network events, does that really serve any logical purpose? People can access an article for that information, but it would be far more informative and relevant for the infoboxes to contain the chronology of major WWE events and not just an arbitrary list of shows that were broadcast by WWE. NXT TakeOver: Unstoppable clearly does not follow on from Payback (2015) in any way and has nothing to do with Payback, so why should it be included in the Payback article as the succeeding event? Dannys-777 (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that the infoboxes previously provided a pretty accurate and accessible method of cataloging shows, and we shouldn't lose that for the sake of arbitrary changes regarding the classification of 'pay-per-views' or 'live events'. Dannys-777 (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

But we haven't lost that. WWE has evolved their supercard model, as such we have evolved how it's documented, it's now more accurate. As it's put in Draft:List of WWE Network events, "[...]the company's PPV business was drastically changed with the launch of the WWE Network [...]. While most of the WWE events still air in many parts of the world on traditional PPV channels, WWE's focus has shifted away from delivering their events on pay-per-view channels. Their main focus now is delivering all of the events on the WWE Network, including some that are exclusively on the Network." NXT is part of those events. In any event, I think we're done here. The consensus formed includes NXT in the chronology as implemented. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 21:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out again that NXT is no longer a devlopmental brand. Triple H himself has said it many times during his conference calls before each NXT special that they've outgrown developmental and are now a seperate brand. OldSkool01 (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * NXT is not WWE though. You're missing the point. It's a completely distinct entity. Yes, the events are broadcast on the WWE Network, but that's the only similarity. The NXT events are clearly not the same as the likes of WrestleMania, Payback or Elimination Chamber and clearly do not follow on from them in any way. Take out the fact that they're both broadcast on the Network and they have as much in common as ROH and NJPW shows, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that we include ROH in the NJPW infobox chronology. I understand that the WWE supercard model has evolved and the term pay-per-view is outdated, but that doesn't mean we need to mix NXT events in with WWE infoboxes when they have no logical place there and operate with completely different chronologies. And yes, by doing that we do lose the main roster WWE chronology that the infoboxes previously contained. OldSkool01, NXT is a developmental brand by every single definition. Dannys-777 (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Yes, the events are broadcast on the WWE Network, but that's the only similarity" You just killed your own argument with that sentence. It's the main criterion to be included, the other being a live wrestling event that's heavily promoted. And they're both owned by WWE. We see your point, but your point is wrong and goes against what this discussion decided. So please, drop the stick. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 22:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A compromise would be to include an additional section for PPV chronology in the infobox of relevant articles (similar to the one in the infobox for WrestleMania XXX), which would reflect the developments regarding the Network and broadcasting of live events etc while maintaining the traditional main roster PPV chronology that has always existed. I'll add this in if nobody has any issues. Someone challenging your POV is clearly not flogging a horse BTW, this is an issue that fundamentally affects the PPV (or 'live event') pages going forwards and is worthy of discussion. Dannys-777 (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Except you suggestion was already discussed and opposed and the agree upon compromise was already implemented. Yes, you are flogging a dead horse. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 23:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Who was it opposed by? What is the problem with having the Network chronology and the traditional PPV chronology in the infoboxes? Dannys-777 (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * One, it makes the infobox too long, it's supposed to be a summary. Two, the agreed upon consensus is that WWE's event model has changed and that it's no longer hinged on PPV but rather the WWE Network and we should exchange the PPV chronology for the new WWE Network live event chronology. It's all right here in the discussion. No one opposed the new changes until you after the consensus was put in to use. And don't ignore said consensus and do as you please anyway, or I will see you blocked for disruptive editing. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 23:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The 'agreed upon consensus' is being debated now. Both the pay-per-view model and the Network model are currently relevant as WWE still runs an annual fixed cycle of 12 PPV shows in addition to the occasional ad-hoc Network exclusives such as Elimination Chamber (2015). The infoboxes as they currently are don't reflect this, the PPV chronology that has always existed is lost in favor of a comparatively non-sequitur list of events. Both chronologies have merit, the infoboxes provide the ability to include both and the argument that "it's too long" is quite frankly a feeble excuse. Apart from spite I see no reason that both cannot be included. Dannys-777 (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * For the final time, because it was found to be not only extend the infobox to idiotic levels, but it was also redundant when all things are considered. You don't have to like the consensus (I don't like the consensus that has the paragraph explaining pro wrestling in every PPV article), but you do have to abide by it. All PPVs are listed, their status as a PPV is mentioned in the prose. The PPV model still happens (and the list at List of WWE pay-per-view events still exists and is/will be updated), but it is not WWE's focus on which their operation is centered around any longer. The logic is that they are WWE's heavily promoted events that air on the WWE Network. Give the discussion a rest, your compromise is already there. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True  CRaysball  | #RaysUp 00:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My argument is simply that NXT events do not belong in the WWE chronology. They belong in a list of Network specials, but not in the chronology of WWE events. Including them within the infoboxes creates a fundamental change from what was previously a chronological list of WWE main roster events. And in my opinion, that's a negative and illogical change which sees arbitrary information replacing relevant content. I understand that it's now a Network rather than PPV chronology and I welcome that but we don't need to limit ourselves to such rigid categories, rather than a blanket list of Network specials we should be looking at something that is consistent with the old model within the infoboxes (ie. a list of main roster PPV or PPV-equivalent events). In other words, the chronology displayed within the infobox should be that of the major WWE main roster shows, which would keep in line with what (in practice) it always has been. I won't challenge it further but don't be surprised if this continues to be an issue. Dannys-777 (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

After seeing it in practice for 2 days, I'm ok with removing NXT from the new chronology, it seems to mess up the flow of navigating. However, I remain opposed to re-adding the PPV chronology to run concurrent with the new WWEN Chronology. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 07:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Man, you could have said that before I revamped List of WWE NXT special episodes. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  07:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Let's not lose sight of what the Network chronology is. It's not a "Main Roster Storyline Chronology". It's a WWE "Network Events" chronology. And NXT TakeOver are absolutely Network Events. To say they don't belong makes no sense at all. NXT is a seperate brand, just like Raw, Smackdown and ECW were seperate brands. Did the ECW One Night Stand shows follow the storylines left off from Judgment Day? No. They were pretty much standalone shows. Same thing with the Raw and Smackdown brand-only ppv's. If you watched a Raw-only PPV and then the next month watched a Smackdown-only PPV, there was almost no crossover storylines or crossover roster at all. Especially in the early years. NXT is no different. NXT shows have been getting plugged on both Raw and Smackdown. Especially last night's Raw. And they also get plugged on regular PPVs. The NXT Champion is wrestling John Cena at Elimination Chamber! If you're going to remove the NXT shows from the Network chronology then you'll have to make seperate chronologies for the Raw, Smackdown and ECW brand-only PPVs because they don't "flow" either. OldSkool01 (talk) 09:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my main argument was that it messed up the flow of navigating main roster shows, which was always what I saw as the main purpose of the infoboxes. I don't want a second PPV list to be there either, that was just a (pretty poor) compromise. OldSkool01, don't be fooled by Triple H's self-promotion, NXT is a developmental show. The nature of the show is totally different from the brand split era, those shows were equivalent main roster PPVs, NXT is not, it's a minor league. I don't think a blanket list of "Network Events" is anywhere near as useful or relevant to display as a list of main roster shows, which is traditionally what the infoboxes have always displayed. Starship.paint, why have you removed the results tables from the list of NXT shows? Dannys-777 (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dannys-777 Did you listen to Triple H's conference call this morning? He again made it clear that NXT has evolved past developmental, to the point that they're planning on running NXT shows worldwide, 3 days a week, with two seperate touring groups, like WWE does now. The NXT Champion is wrestling the top star in the company at Elimination Chamber. A "developmental" guy doesn't do that. This is similar to ECW in 2006. If you think ECW was treated similarly to Raw and Smackdown or was looked at as an equal, you're mistaken. WWE started doing ECW house shows at arenas smaller than what NXT is doing now. And those ECW house shows bombed. WWE gave up on doing them after only a couple of months. NXT is doing much better than those ECW shows and is much more successful. How does ECW One Night Stand 2005 flow smoothly? You go from a Smackdown PPV in May 2005 to an ECW PPV in June to a Raw show after that, almost no storyline progression at all between those shows. Very little crossover at all. Its like watching 3 completely different companies. My point is NXT is just as much a Network Event as any other WWE event. If you eliminate NXT from the Network Event chronology then you have to eliminate, or at least create a new chronology, for Raw, Smackdown and ECW ppv's. OldSkool01 (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think people have misinterpreted what Triple H is saying. NXT is a 'brand' in that it has name value in its own right, but it's not a brand. NXT matches don't take place at WrestleMania or SummerSlam, NXT wrestlers don't (apart from one-off 'surprise' entrants) participate in the Royal Rumble, the Rumble winner can't choose to challenge for the NXT Championship. There is no draft, there is no back-and-forth movement of wrestlers between the shows outside of what would be expected of a normal developmental territory. It's understandable that Triple H would want to boost the profile of NXT but it's still very much a developmental show, just a relatively popular and high-profile one. With that in mind it doesn't make sense to have the NXT shows listed in the main roster infoboxes. Even if you reject the 'developmental' aspect, the relationship between WWE and NXT would be more akin to the relationship between ROH and NJPW than the brand extension era. The fact that Elimination Chamber is being broadcast on the Network and not on PPV doesn't mean we need to fundamentally change the nature of the information displayed in the infoboxes. It's perfectly acceptable IMO for the infoboxes to reflect the fact that there are two separate chronologies that are both broadcast on the WWE Network. Dannys-777 (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW I fully understand your point about the brand extension era chronologies and agree to an extent, the difference would be that the brand extension shows were all main roster by nature (even if ECW was considerably less successful and popular). Dannys-777 (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We can go back and forth all day like we're playing ping pong, but the gist of this whole conversation is that the chronology that's in play is called "WWE Network Events". It doesn't matter if they flow smoothly or storylines dont progress from one show to another. Your argument isn't so much that NXT special events don't belong on the Network chronology, it's the "Network Chronology" name that needs to be changed. You want a chronology that connects all the "main roster" shows. Here is the problem with that, and I thought we already solved this problem last week, what do you call the chronology then? You can't call it "Pay-Per-View chronology" because then shows like King Of The Ring 2015 and Elimination Chamber 2015 can't be included. Those are not airing on PPV so they would incorrectly be classified as PPVs. You also can't call it "Supercard/Supershow/Special Event" chronology because then you would have a dozen more arguments about what exactly constitutes a "special event". Does that include The Big Event, Royal Rumble 88, Wrestlefest 88, the early 90's UK shows, Saturday Night's Main Event, etc. etc. etc. We came to the compromise that the best solution is to call it "WWE Network Events Chronology", but by doing that it would have to include the NXT TakeOver events because they absolutely fit the criteria for a Network Event. And the way TrueCRays connected the old PPV chronology to the new Network chronology by using Mania 30 as the bridge was the perfect solution to this situation. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't necessarily need to include the NXT events just because they are broadcast on the Network. Imagine if other 'Network events' (such as Hall of Fame ceremonies, Austin podcasts etc) had individual articles, would they be included too? I think it's a fair assumption that "Network Events" in the infoboxes could refer specifically to the main roster WWE PPV/supercard model, and not to additional shows of a different nature. I'd certainly favor something with a slightly ambiguous name over than something that inherently changes the nature (and IMO decreases the quality) of the information in the infoboxes. The current solution is fine IMO if we take the assumption that "Network Events" in the context of the infoboxes refers specifically to WWE main roster arena shows. Dannys-777 (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't mean to start this shit again. All I'm saying is I'm switching to neutral in the stance on the NXT shows being included. However, I still tend to lean towards including them, per OldSkool01. Quite frankly, I'm just burnt out on this discussion and, again, as OldSkool said, I thought we had settled this. Ugh. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 20:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Hall Of Fame and Austin podcasts don't feature any live wrestling matches in a ring. Completely different. And it's not like ROH & NJPW at all. Completely different companies with completely different owners that occasionally work together. I'm not going to say much more because I really don't know what else there is to say. OldSkool01 (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So then "WWE Network Events" needs to be changed to "WWE Network Events which feature live wrestling in a ring". Do you see where I'm going with this? And yes, in practice the relationship is almost identical, mostly isolated rosters and storylines with some cross-promotion. The fact that WWE owns both the main roster and NXT doesn't mean they are the same thing. Again, there's no logical reason for them to be in the same chronology apart from the relatively inane purpose of listing "Network Events". Can't we just use common sense here and make it so that the infoboxes simply contain a list of major WWE main roster Network Events, which realistically is what they always have done? We don't need to introduce a major change of policy just because WWE changed the terminology used to describe their shows. Dannys-777 (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - the infoboxes were squeezing the tables, that's why I changed the tables to bullet points. I'd say that NXT is really not distinct from WWE any more, unlike FCW or OVW previously. Anyway, we're wasting too many words and effort here. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  01:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dannys-777, it's real simple, if you think the NXT shows don't seem to fit while going through the chronology then just skip right to the next show. It's one click of the mouse. Take's maybe a half second. OldSkool01 (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. It's not about my personal convenience, it's about maintaining the quality of the articles. Including the NXT shows messes up the navigation, messes up the NXT events page, changes the nature of what the infoboxes display, provides misleading information and the only argument for it seems to be "they have to be there" which no, they don't. I'll let it go if the consensus is against me but this is a change that is fundamentally wrong and can easily be rectified just by removing the NXT events and allowing for the assumption that "WWE Network Events" in the main roster infoboxes refers to main roster events, as it always has done. Dannys-777 (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes have never been about "main roster events". It's about "WWE events", and NXT is clearly something WWE is spotlighting as its own product now. NXT airs weekly on the WWE Network, FCW never did. NXT wrestlers train in the WWE Performance Center, FCW wrestlers never did. All information about NXT is now found on WWE.com, but FCW had their own webpage. NXT Takeovers are promoted on Raw, the NXT Championship has appeared on Raw, and an NXT event was held at WrestleMania Axxess. FCW and OVW didn't have supercards either. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  06:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It depends if you think NXT is a "WWE event". WWE is both a corporation and a wrestling promotion - NXT easily could (and in my opinion should) be considered as a separate promotion that is also owned by WWE. It's like if WWE bought out TNA and continued to run it exactly as it is now, they would technically both be "WWE events" but I don't think we'd even consider putting TNA shows in the WWE event chronology. Dannys-777 (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ugh. When you watch NXT shows, the WWE logo is on all of the Title belts, the turnbuckle pads, the apron, the entrance stage, the graphics, it opens up with the "Then, Now, Forever" intro like every other WWE show. IT'S WWE!! OldSkool01 (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Michael Cole repeatedly described Owens' match at Elimination Chamber as his "WWE debut". At this stage there's no justification at all for the NXT specials being listed as part of the chronology. WWE.com has a list of "WWE Events" which includes only the main roster shows. That's what we should be looking to emulate on Wikipedia, not some baseless (and now apparently misguided) consensus. Hover over the 'Shows' tab at the top and you'll see the list of events which should be included in the chronology. Dannys-777 (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh boy, are we back on this again? The category that was decided for the chronology is List Of WWE Network Events. It's not List Of Main Roster-Only Events. Any live arena event that airs on the Network goes in the chronology. End of story. Especially now that NXT is more intertwined on Raw and Smackdown than ever before. Kevin Owens has signed a full time main roster deal with WWE. That means someone from the main roster is the NXT Champion and he'll be defending that belt on Smackdown this week. Things are changing rapidly as far as the way WWE is presenting their business. There will be more Network-only live events in the future and NXT is evolving by the day. It's better that we're ahead of the curve than behind it. A year or two from now this argument will seem even more ridiculous. OldSkool01 (talk) 06:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's be ahead of the curve, yes. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  07:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought the point was to be ON the curve rather than ahead of or behind it :) Dannys-777 (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I want to mention, just so it's clear with everyone, that Elimination Chamber 2015 will remain on the List Of WWE Pay-Per-View Events page until the List Of WWE Network Events page is cleared to go public. Once the Network page is up, Chamber 2015 should be removed from the PPVs page and transfered to the Network page. I'm sure everyone will have no problem agreeing with that. OldSkool01 (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that WWE proved that it was airing on traditional PPV in many countries, ^this comment is null and void. OldSkool01 (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Final details to sort
In order to make the upcoming changes easier, I have created several new categories. They are:


 * Category:WWE Network
 * Category:WWE Network shows
 * Category:WWE Network events
 * Category:2014 WWE Network events
 * Category:2015 WWE Network events
 * Category:2016 WWE Network events

I'm putting this here so people know about this when they go to create new articles that fall in these categories.

Now that said, we still need to discuss the handling of the year PPV templates (i.e.: ). How are we handling the transition to the new documentation with them? <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 21:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the best way to handle the year PPV tamplates would be to keep all of the templates from 1985-2013 listed as Pay-Per-View events. No changes need to be made. 2014 and on should be called "WWE Network Events". Only the Rumble and Chamber at the beginning of 2014 were PPV-only so maybe find a way to put some kind of asterik next to those two saying *PPV-only. Other than that we should be good to go. OldSkool01 (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I just completed the "List Of WWE Network Events" page and submitted it to be accepted. I pretty much used the exact format of the "List Of WWE Pay-Per-Views" page, just changed some of the wording around to fit the Network. It's not perfect and could probably use a few tweaks here and there, like adding additional sources and whatnot, but for the most part it's pretty much completed. Here is a link to what it looks like. OldSkool01 (talk)05:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per your suggestion,, I have updated the coding for the navbox to accommodate the changes. It can be seen here. Without any objections, I'll put it in to place Wednesday. In the meantime, code cleanup on the changes should be made on the code's subpage in my sandbox here. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 09:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, Elimination Chamber 2015 will be on PPV after all. WWE.com shows which countries it will be available on. In the United States it is only on WWE Network, not PPV. But a lot of other countries, includng Canada, are airing it on traditional PPV. So this should be considered a PPV. It would've been nice if WWE announced this 2 weeks ago. Would've saved us a lot of time not having to debate this. Here is the WWE.com link: http://www.wwe.com/shows/howtowatch/unitedstatesofamerica OldSkool01 (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we debated it, it gave our WWE articles a much needed update in how we document them post-WWE Network launch. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 02:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. The change is definitely for the better. OldSkool01 (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Completely disagree once again, as I mentioned a long time ago now the PPV model is still relevant and still forms the core of WWE's annual programming schedule, and given this latest development there wasn't really any need for the change at all. Also, apart from everything else the NXT Specials page is now much less user-friendly because of the additional infoboxes forcing the results tables to be removed. Dannys-777 (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well,, feel free to find the sources to expand the sections in to their own articles, as suggested below, and the table will be restored. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 13:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And I'm warning again, starting individual articles for NXT Takeovers is like opening Pandora's box to shitty articles. Like King of the Ring (2015), with two sources. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  14:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I believe there are likely enough sources out there to build decent NXT articles. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 23:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * oh, there are. I'm not denying that. The problem isn't the sources, the problem is, no regular Wikipedia editor is going to use those sources well to write a decent article. It will be redlinks and IPs writing those articles, and they're not very good at it. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  02:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would love to. Problem is, I'm not a content builder. I can add a small amount, edit template, copyedit, etc. But, I can't build an entire article. I just never know where to start. Take my sandbox for example, I've been trying to build an article about the Tampa Bay Rays on-going stadium dispute for year or so now, and can't get it going. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 03:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I'm not blaming you or anyone else for how they edit. We all help in our own ways. We've just got to be realistic on these kinds of issues, and not assume that articles will write themselves. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  05:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I figured out a way to keep the infoboxes on the NXT special episodes page as well as bring back the results table without it looking like everything is all crunched together. I'm going to start work on it in a few hours. If you guys don't like the way it turns out, let me know. OldSkool01 (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I updated all of the events on the NXT special episodes page and restored the results table without them being squeezed together with the infobox. What do you guys think of this change?OldSkool01 (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can build out the actual written paragraphs a bit so there's not that big blank white space, I think it will be perfect. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 12:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the commentators, ring announcers and pre-show panelists to each event. Not much, but it looks a little better. OldSkool01 (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed you deleted the ring announcers and pre-show panelists that I added and in the process you squeezed the results tables again on some of the shows. Why is that?OldSkool01 (talk) 06:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know too. <span style="font-family:Oswald, sans-serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #69b3e7;color:#fd0;"> True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 23:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * - simple. The information was unsourced. Per WP:V, you need a source for everything you write on Wikipedia. Get a source from WP:PW/RS. The sources usually don't write who the ring announcer is, unlike for commentators. So I removed WP:OR. This is a key tenet of Wikipedia. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  02:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, but the broadcasts themselves are the sources, much like the plot summaries and cast lists for films and TV shows need no other sources than the works themselves. I support their reinsertion. oknazevad (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * oknazevad brings up a good point. There are tons of movies that don't have any sources on their wikipedia pages when it comes to 'cast' and 'plot summaries'. With that said, finding sources for the pre-show panelists is really simple. I'll fix that in the morning. The ring announcers are a little tougher to source, however the main WWE NXT page has a list of the show's history of ring announcers and there are no sources at all there.OldSkool01 (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to reiterate/clarify. It's not that they're unsourced, it's that the subject of the article (film, TV show, etc) itself is the source, and no other source is needed. If one wishes to verify facts about plot, casts, or production staff, one can do such without needing to do anything other than watching the film itself, including the credits. (Thematic interpretation, and outside production information not actually included in the film itself needs sources.)
 * Pro wrestling PPVs (including their pre-shows) are TV shows, and anyone can verify the wrestlers, announcers, panelists and results just by watching the show. (And no, (the generic) you personally having access to the recording is not needed for it to be considered verifiable, just that someone has access, which is anyone with WWE Network, actually.)
 * Sometimes I think we over-reference these things, when the shows themselves are really the only source we need for stating what actually appears on screen. It doesn't hurt to have a secondary source, but it's not necessary for verifying basic facts of a show's contents. oknazevad (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Without a source, it's harder to detect vandalism. If someone swapped Eden and JoJo around, I probably wouldn't notice, and definitely wouldn't be able to remember or double-check. starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  07:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I re-added the pre-show panelists with sources and fixed the results table.OldSkool01 (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Verne Gagne reportedly passes away
That's according to Mean Gene Okerlund. . I was thinking that we could feature him on WP:ITN, but the article needs to be cleaned up. I'm quite busy at the moment and don't know anything about Gagne anyway. - your thoughts? starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  03:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Credentials from books: (University of Minnesota Hall of Fame (1992), the Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame (2004), the WWE Hall of Fame (2006), the George Tragos/Lou Thesz Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame (inaugural class, 1999), and the Minnesota Museum of Broadcasting Hall of Fame (2007). The Cauliflower Alley club gave Gagne the Lou Thesz Award in 2006 - The Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame: Heroes and Icons. #11 on the 50 Greatest Professional Wrestlers of All Time. One of the Minnesota 150: The People, Places, and Things that Shape Our State.
 * Credentials from websites - "Without Verne Gagne, pro wrestling wouldn't be the multi-million dollar industry that it is today". - Canoe.ca "Verne Gagne, one of the top wrestlers/promoters in wrestling history" - Torch "one of the biggest names and most influential players in the history of the pro wrestling business" ... "the babyface star of the Dumont Network at a time when the mainstream popularity of pro wrestling was the highest it ever was in the U.S" - Observer
 * Meltzer called him "one of the biggest names and most influential players in the history of the pro wrestling business" in his obituary. Worth a shot at an ITN blurb.LM2000 (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, so now I'm in RadioKAOS' demographic, am I? Damn presumptive kids. But yeah, I half-knew him, in a TV way. Undoubtedly one of the biggest names in the game. I'm not really big on building articles, but can chip at the wordiness a bit, if needed. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You may have let on that you're "old enough". Ahem, anyway.  I'll try to offer more insights tomorrow, as my experiences include working for a short-lived AWA local promoter, who went on to greater infamy with another short-lived promotion.  I'm probably one of the few who remembers Gagne's first visit here, which was mainly to go fishing, and the accident to his eye which ensued.  Unfortunately, it's yet again that time to get off the computer and get out the door and go do something else.  The Star Tribune posted a story to their website only within the past half hour or so (see here).  It's not all that extensive, but it appears it's being "updated".  I would assume that there's going to be plenty of other coverage to come, not only from the Twin Cities media but beyond as well. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  05:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post has a short piece. Mainly just cobbled from other places, but still...we're in (W)WWF territory now. Will Turner be next? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - I didn't nominate Gagne, but somebody else already did at In_the_news/Candidates starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  00:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And as I've discovered there, Billionaire Ted already owns Bleacher Report, who are far more aware of Gagne than CNN appears to be. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)