Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 145

• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals (persistent)
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous

Village pump (policy) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

---

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197

Meta: Consultation on the creation of a separate user group for editing sitewide CSS/JS

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

 – --Pipetricker (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

• meta:Creation of separate user group for editing sitewide CSS/JS

(I posted this here after removing it from Cent (the link wasn't to the discussion), but have now reinserted it there pointing to the Meta talk page. There's also a discussion on WP:Village pump (technical).) --Pipetricker (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - the specific link to the short discussion on technical is at LINK. The non-meta discussion should presumably focus on which admins get the right Nosebagbear (talk)

  Not everyone is proposing this be limited to admins. It's a technical thing, and could be available to those competent to do the work and vetted with a trust level, like WP:Template editor and WP:Page mover.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• There certainly is a discussion at Meta, it's just on the talk page: meta:Talk:Creation of separate user group for editing sitewide CSS/JS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

  You're right; perhaps I should've just changed the link to point to that talk page rather than removing it from Cent. --Pipetricker (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• From the way the discussion is going, there will be a few local policy decisions to be made:
  • Should local bureaucrats be allowed to add/remove the interfaceadmin group? (Likely answer here is yes)
  • Should this group be restricted to sysops only? (This will be a lively debate)
  • What process should be used to grant this permission? (May be a global requirement for an RfA; given the nature of the access an RfA-type process would be preferable)

-- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll briefly repeat what I said over at the Meta talk page: template-editor is actually far more dangerous than this. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. JS editing has caused serious security breaches including some five admin accounts and one steward account, granting OS-level access to a random troll. JS has been used in the past month to cause massive vandalism to Meta (I personally reverted some of the 40,000 edits made within minutes). CSS has been used to disrupt viewing an entire wiki and make it more difficult to revert the vandalism. These are powerful permissions that can do more than anything in the admin toolset, and are finally being moved to a more appropriate place compared with their potential for harm. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

My personal opinions:

• Sure, local 'crats here should be able to grant/remove it.
• I see no reason to formally restrict this to sysops only, the same as we don't currently require 'crats or checkusers to also be sysops. It'll probably naturally work out that way anyway for the most part.
• As for the process for granting it, my take would be:
  • In general, a community discussion along the format of RfA. The goal should be to evaluate both the candidate's trustworthiness and their technical skill.
  • The permission should be removed from anyone who hasn't used it in some reasonable period of time, e.g. 3 months, maybe less.
  • Re-adding the group after resignation or removal-for-nonuse should follow the "cloud" model that's currently used for requesting re-sysop at WP:BN.
  • Anyone who has made good use of this ability while it was part of the sysop package can request "re"-adding per the previous bullet. 'Crats may want to exercise their power to require a new RfX more strongly here depending on the details of the past use, and of course a new RfX should be required if the 'crats wouldn't re-sysop the person.

Anomie⚔ 16:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Someone with this permission could insert malicious javascript to hijack admin accounts to perform admin actions on their behalf. Therefore I agree with you that any non-admins granted this right would need to go through an RfX process. I'm not quite as sure about requiring an RfX for existing admins who request it, since they already have the community's trust. Under your proposal, would a new admin candidate have to go through a second RfX to get this userright, or could they request it as part of their RfA and be vetted for both at the same time? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd hope it could mean be one less thing to consider in a normal RfA. Passing a "normal" RfA would speak to the candidate's trustworthiness, yes, but not to their technical skills with JS and CSS which are necessary for someone wanting the new group.

I'm not sure on allowing a combined RfA for both rights versus requiring separate discussions; the former is fewer separate discussions people have to have, while the latter allows each discussion to focus on the issues unique to each group instead of things getting muddled by mixing them. Anomie⚔ 15:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

My opinions:

• Crats should be able to add/remove this. They're the ones who are trusted with the advanced technical tasks (bots) and advanced permissions (sysops).
• A pseudo-RfX process would be required. Community comment is mandatory. The candidates must have the level of trust of an admin. Their understanding of consensus and technical skills must be beyond reproach. A full-blown RfA is not needed, and a lighter process is sufficient.
• The bit should be removed for inactivity (3 months is fine), and on request. The "cloud" model for readding is fine.
• There's no reason to restrict this to sysops only, and I can see plausible cases where I'd support adding this permission without adding sysop. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• It's pretty easy to just do a !vote like for admins on meta: for example. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Throw in some rough guidelines like WP:TPEGRANT and it should be a smooth process. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Unpublished material

What's the current policies on unpublished material. At Superman we are citing material that was submitted in evidence such as Jerry Siegel's unpublished memoir. This memoir has been uploaded to dropbox and scribd by the user who added the material. To me it seems in breach of the verifiability chain; I have no way of verifying that what the user has uploaded is actually Jerry Siegel's unpublished memoir. The user does state it is held behind a paywall at Pacer.gov. Are these reliable sources? Hiding T 16:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hiding: If you are citing it, the citation should be to the material at Pacer, not a dropbox upload. However, you would still be citing a WP:primary source, which comes with some caveats. If the information is notable enough for inclusions, you should be able to find a seondary reliable source that discusses it (in this case, just cite the Larry Tye book). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Citations in the lead

Discussion at WP:MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Do "sister cities" belong in top-level articles about cities?

It seems like a huge number of articles about cities end with a list of sister cities, and I'm feeling skeptical about the practice. For some (Chandler, Arizona) we have more or less incidental links, and there is very little to say. For others (Chicago) we have extensive sections with dozens of little flag icons, but is this material as important to include there as, say, Maxwell Street (mentioned only in the name of a food), or Boystown, which gets one line? (indeed, following that latter link it appears even Boystown, Chicago redirects in a way that tends to minimize the demographic implications and cultural attractions associated with the term)

Now I want to be clear - such material is often cited, almost certainly true, and therefore should have a place in Wikipedia. However, that place should be somewhere that it is relevant, and the question I want to raise is whether it is relevant to a city as a whole. This is much the same question as comes up with "international reactions" to mass shootings and other popular culture events. My initial feeling is that the connection here is weaker, because with a mass shooting you have one massacre and one set of international reactions; but with a city you have a vast number of ongoing events, and only a handful of nominal events about sisterhood. We do have articles like List of sister cities in Europe, which to me seem like the place where these things belong.

Opinions? Wnt (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I assume you're suggesting that we (1) create and build List of sister cities in Africa, List of sister cities in Asia, List of sister cities in Australia, List of sister cities in North America, and List of sister cities in South America (are there any sister cities in Antarctica?), (2) replace the content at Chicago#Sister cities with {{Main|List of sister cities in North America#Chicago}}, and (3) repeat 2 for every other sistered city on the planet. Is that correct?
Have you considered the magnitude of such a project? Would it be worth the massive amount of editor time required? Or would it be just reorganizing information with insufficient cost-benefit justification? I think the WP:WIP pile is already far too large, and I'm leaning toward the latter. My opinion might change if (1) there were a consensus that it would significantly improve the encyclopedia, AND (2) one or more editors would commit to getting the job done within, say, two months. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

We have List of twin towns and sister cities in North America, List of sister cities in the United States, and Category:Lists of sister cities in the United States with many state lists, but nothing for Chicago or Illinois (except the odd List of sister cities of Springfield, Illinois which is shorter than Springfield, Illinois#Sister cities). PrimeHunter (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Then at a minimum we would have to agree on conversion from the existing uncoordinated hodgepodge to some coherent and consistent structure, so as to at least give the appearance that this project's left hand knows what its right hand is doing. And still within a reasonable time frame. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Wnt's question implies a false dilemma. You can have Chicago's sister cities in the article, and also have more information about Maxwell Street and Boystown. The most relevant article to list sister cities of Chicago is in the article about Chicago. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I'll refrain from excessive editorializing on "sister cities", but suffice it to say that I think the concept is stupid and a waste of space to discuss here in the exhaustive detail that is present. However, as there is no shortage of space here, I can't make a good argument to remove them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• I tend to agree it's non-encyclopedic information; this stuff actually changes all the time, and is primarily for the entertainment and [something, I'm not sure what the word is] of residents, and for tourism promotion. It doesn't actually tell us anything informative about the cities. Festooning these lists with flag icons, even if we keep the lists, is against MOS:ICONS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe that sister-cities is WP:TRIVIA (though I assume some are interesting enough to warrant proper inclusion). That they are trivia is easily established by seeing that such lists are almost always just that: a list of cities with nothing else to say about it. (In that regard, Chicago's piece is better than most). Wnt's point may technically be a "false dilemma" because size is no restriction, but burdening the article with trivial crap is hardly a plus for the encyclopedia. Maintaining a list of deep-dish pizzerias in Chicago would be just as verifiable and more useful than the list of sister cities (and, frankly, do more to tell you about the place). Matt Deres (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Just on Chicago alone in the last month, you have international political meetings, medical initiatives and agreements, connecting with sister cities. So yes, they can tell about a city in the world, and no, it's not trivial. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

And yet for some reason you haven't added that stuff to the article - why not? My guess is that it's because many, many, many significant things happen in Chicago all the time and the stuff you listed was, in the long run, not that big a deal. So the mayor of Birmingham visited - so what? So did the mayor of San Juan and London - are those visits less worthy of inclusion because San Juan and London aren't sister cities? Matt Deres (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Your question is bizarre. You don't add everything to an article section, the article already covers it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

My purpose was to point out that the actions ascribed to sister-city status are no less trivial than the notion of sister-cities themselves. You don't want to add those links to the article (rightly) because even though they may technically be notable in the WP sense, they have no business in an article about the city as a whole. So it is with the list itself. It's just meaningless political glad-handing. Matt Deres (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

So, your purpose is to restate your evidence free feelings by making bizarre questions with bizarre assumptions, thus when faced with evidence all you can do is re-state your evidence free feelings. We will have to disagree. Cities are body politics. But when you write about crime in a city, you do not put everything in that section, and when you write about city architecture, you don't put everything in that section, and when you write about city food you don't put everything in that section. And when you write about cross-cultural, cross-international, international organizations and agreements of cities, it does not mean you do not cover it. Just because you don't like the city's choice of politics, or their chioce cross-cultural relationships, or their international economics is no reason. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Even if you take a city article with type of section, which sure can be improved, of which you have expressed your stronger dislike, Mineral Point, Wisconsin. In reading the rest of the article, you know exactly why it was important for that city to have a sister city agreement with a city in Cornwall, why you see multiple Cornish flags and signs about their Cornish sister city in that small town in the middle of America, and it's not because it's not important to them. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'll add my name to those who feel that sister cities are cringe-worthy and should be removed altogether except in cases where the relationship is significant to history. Zero^talk 11:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Frequently it is relevant to the city as a whole. There's usually some reason why two cities are paired. For example:
  • Minneapolis and Bosaso: Minneapolis in known for having a massive Somali community, so it makes sense that it is paired with a major city in Somalia.
  • Pittsburgh, Sheffield, Donetsk: Cities of Steel

Those are the kind of things that get cities paired. Interestingly, that means you can learn something about one city by looking at its sisters. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mr. Guye: This is a fair point. However, the article for Minneapolis just presents a list of 12 sister cities, of which one in Somalia is actually pretty recent. It says elsewhere in the text that Minneapolis has a large Somali community. Such a place might be a fair spot to mention in passing that Minneapolis has a sister city on this basis, linking perhaps to a sister cities sub-article that lists all the sister cities of cities in the U.S. or something. I don't think the section as it is is really so useful. Wnt (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep sister cities information, as can be useful as Mr Guye explains, no valid reason for removal, just a time-sink, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Medical advice

It concerns me that articles such as Sildenafil contain medical information, that may easily be construed as medical advice, and that is potentially randomly selected, or given random weight within the article, and with no clear way for the reader to verify that the balance of information provided has been assessed by a medical professional. 86.191.155.51 (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has thousands of medical articles that have their own medical references guideline that dictates what information is considered reliable. However, Wikipedia makes no claim, and no warranty, as to the accuracy of any of our information. If you are seeking medical advice please ask a qualified medical professional. Don't use Wikipedia. Our general disclaimers that are linked at the footer of every page says as much. --Majora (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you are somewhat missing the point. I understand that information in Wikipedia is potentially inaccurate or unbalanced, and I have no intention at all of using it for medical advice. What I am saying is that, disclaimers notwithstanding, articles such as this appear to offer medical advice. 86.191.155.51 (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I fully understand. What policy change are you looking for here? If people want to use Wikipedia for their medical issues there really isn't anything we can do to stop them. Those are the same people that self diagnose themselves with cancer via WebMD. We don't put disclaimers on articles and all we can do is continue to provide well sourced medical articles that follow our specific guideline on medical references which is more strict than normal referencing to begin with. What "appears" to be medical advice to you appears to me to be a well sourced article. --Majora (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

If you believe that there is medical advice in the article, then please either edit to remove the advice (this can often be done via copyediting to retain "factual information" but remove "advice") or leave a note with a specific example of problematic content at WT:PHARM, where you will find editors who are more familiar with this specific problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Lists of products by a company

I received a question on my talk page from someone soliciting feedback on a draft of a list of Honeywell products. I started to respond by saying that, in so many words, per WP:NOT we don't typically have lists of every product a company makes. But then I started to doubt what I was writing. I've certainly seen lists about some major companies like Google and Apple, and I know there's been a tendency of documenting all sorts of minutiae of personal computer models, cameras, etc. So I came across Category:Products by company. There are some there, but far more can be found by searching "list of products" -- we have an awful lot of them. Has anyone come across inclusion criteria and/or standards for notability such that they don't violate WP:NOT? Surely most companies would not merit a full listing of their products on Wikipedia. An example like Google makes sense because they have many individually notable products. Something like IBM or Kodak may make sense because their product lines are so important to the history of a medium. But Logitech? Lexmark? Razer? Dyson? ...oh dear... Axe body spray? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Certainly some companies should have such a list. Certainly many more companies should not. Where to draw the line is a tough judgement call that the community should make. My spitballed standard would be that all products in the list must be bluelinked, and there must still be enough links for a substantial and interesting list article. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Case by case. We could arrive at a valid standalone list of products either by indexing articles we have on individually notable products, or by a WP:SPLIT from the parent article even where the individual products do not merit their own articles. In the latter case, like with any split, it's a editorial question of what is the proper degree of detail for our coverage of the parent brand, company, or product line/type. List of iOS devices should be a no brainer on either score. As for List of Axe products, I don't know why that level of detail would be appropriate (and it looks like a lot of OR), but I also don't know anything about the brand outside of commercials. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog and Postdlf: I'd invite you to see my response to the user on my talk page here, and add to it if you think I got it wrong or overcomplicated it: User_talk:Rhododendrites#Creating_a_new_list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Libelous allegations permanently enshrined

Is there any procedure for dealing with libelous assertions seemingly permanently saved in a closed AfD discussion? Michael Hardy (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Courtesy blanking, perhaps? Anomie⚔ 23:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You can also try Wikipedia:Oversight. MarnetteD|Talk 23:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to end conflicting date formats within the same citation

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see WT:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#End "date-forking" into different styles for publication and access/archive in same cite
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Petition and fundraiser sites as references

I have started a discussion at WT:RS#Petition and fundraiser sites to clarify the problematic usage of such sites as references on Wikipedia. Any feedback welcome. GermanJoe (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Interface administrators

I have started a discussion about the new interface administrator user group at WP:VPM#RFC: Interface administrators and transition. Please take a moment to review and/or comment. --Izno (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• As I commented there, it isn't a great RfC, and I think we'd really benefit from a clear proposal with specific language rather than musings. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Unlinked wiki acronyms create esoteric speak that excludes newcomers in discussion pages - let's be more welcoming and considerate

The constant use of unlinked wiki acronyms (AP2, ANI/AE, PAGs, OP...) create a big barrier to participating in Wikipedia deliberations.

I am very thankful to those considerate wikipedians that do link the acronyms they use to the corresponding wiki policies, guidelines, essays, etc. And when they do, I have the patience and interest to go check them out.

Take for example the above thread Not a democracy?. I knew or was able to figure out ArbCom, UNDUE, WMF. But other acronyms that were key to the discussion (AP2, ANI/AE, PAGs, OP...) I could not figure them and in consequence I was excluded from the deliberations.

I think this practice effectively runs contrary to the value of inclusive participation championed by Wikipedia. I understand that not linking the acronyms is most likely not motivated by any animosity, and simply the participants in the Village Pump deliberations assume that their peers are also very knowledgeable, and it is just convenient to the writer to save time in not linking their text. This continued practice becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: only expert wikipedians will participate if it is made so hard for others to join. This may be tempting to "Safeguard" the core of Wikipedia, by reserving participation to the most committed and devoted wikipedians of all that have achieved a mastery of the inner working and lingo. However, again, I think that the driving values point in a differenet direction: to be welcoming to newcomers (especially those with an honest desire to contribute and do so with good faith and civility) and foster their participation, for the sake of the present and future viability of the project.

While the front-end of Wikipedia is designed to make knowledge understandable and accessible to all, it is somewhat ironic that in the back-end of wikipedia the reverse happens, with a complex web of norms, guidelines, noticeboards, project pages, etc, etc. And unlike some other new editors and pundits that get exasperated with what could feel like a byzantine system, I for the most part understand that such an ambitious and overarching project necessitates of a robust set of norms and user areas in the backend to make it work (although I think we should always strive to make it better, more streamlined, more user-friendly).

However, this complexity is unnecessarily exacerbated when Wikipedians like myself who wish to transition from (eight years of) "mere" article editing, to participating in the design and future of the wikipedia framework itself, when attempting to chime into these deliberations I actually often can't because of the frustrating unlinked acronyms being thrown around. This behavior entrenches a sense that this is an exclusive club of esoteric speak.

Although WP:BITE (see what I did there?)("treat newcomers with kindness and patience") (and also maybe WP:EQ) do not explicitly address this matter, I think in spirit they do. Maybe it is time that there or in some other policy this become more clearly addressed: editors are encouraged to contribute to Talk Pages, Community discussions and the like, with the assumption that not all have a proficient understanding of all rules and the corresponding acronyms that represent them. So help the non-proficient wikipedians (the vast majority, I suspect) by having the kindness to link to any wiki acronym being used. Thank you for your consideration. (talk) user:Al83tito 18:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

al83tito - I agree with you that it would be nice for these sorts of topics to be wikilinkrd, however, I'm not sure what the policy you are suggesting to put forward is. I'd say quite a lot of users do in fact link to the guideline that they are referring too, whereas sometimes when talking, someone may ignore the link, especially if it's linked above. I'm not really sure how we would go around changing that. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lee Vilenski. Thank you for your response. Yes, when a acronym has been mentioned & linked previously in a discussion thread, it is reasonable to not link it again, just like when editing articles (MOS:REPEATLINK). Taking again the example of the discussion above Not a democracy?, there acronyms properly linked, like WP:NOTNEWS, and that is why I also acknowledge that happening and thanking the editors that do do that. On the other hand, another example of mine was mistaken and in fact that it was wiki-linked (WP:UNDUE).

However, there are still plenty of acronyms in various threads that are not. Some may be so frequently used (by some), that maybe a larger groups thinks it is ok not to link them (WMF, RfC, AfD, POV, NPOV...). However, even then, it is very hard for newcomers to figure it out, and I still think that the etiquette should be that when mentioned for the first time in a thread they they should be linked. Moreover, I am somewhat relieved that you as well as DexDor below, empathize with my plight. DexDor says that even him does not know what AP2 means! Argh! So adding a line about this in either WP:TALK as DexDor suggests or WP:EQ could address (on paper) the problem. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 19:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should, as a community always link to these guidelines, but I don't see how any guideline could really help this happen. If I saw someone using a guideline, that hadn't been wikilinked in the discussion before, that I didn't know, I'd simply ask the user to clarify. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree in part - e.g. WP:TALK should say something about trying to avoid unnecessary/unexplained use of jargon. I've many thousands of edits, but have no idea what, for example, AP2 is (WP:AP2 is a redlink and it's not explained at WP:ABBREV). Wp-specific jargon is often mixed with non-wp-specific jargon (e.g. "OP" in the discussion referred to probably means "original post" - and not WP:OP). DexDor ^(talk) 19:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Al83tito, DexDor – AP2 is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 and particularly the discretionary sanctions authorised in response to that case. You'll sometimes see warnings about those on talk pages for political articles editors are sometimes topic banned from editing articles "related to post-1932 American politics, broadly construed" (or similar wording). Your point is well-taken. It took me some searching to understand what "AP2" meant, and I wouldn't have found it without the partial explanation given later in the 'not a democracy' thread. Mortee (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Never make a policy that will be Ignored. Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• I do not think the MOSREPEATLINK ought to apply to discussion boards. "Once once on the board" is unreasonable when a board contain dozens of pages of archives and manu hundreds of discussions. . A more reasonable rule would be that it ought to be at least wikilinked the first time in a discussion. An even better rule is that it be wikilinked and spelled out the first time it appears in a particular discussion, especially if the discussion is extensive. I see no reason why this would be ignored, since it couldalmost certainly be done by bot. DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree; just linking repeat acronyms once per discussion is the right amount of linking. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 15:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• This is Village pump (policy). What policy are you asking for? Natureium (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Proposal: within WP:TPG#YES include the following. I would suggest placing that under "Be welcoming to newcomers" bullet point:

Link abbreviations: Few editors may be familiar with all the Wikipedia abbreviations and other acronyms used in discussions. To be inclusive to all wikipedians, include a link to each acronym when first used in each discussion thread.

Of course, I would be thankful for others' ideas for refining the language, placement, etc. Please suggest. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 16:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Al83tito, thanks for pointing out abbreviations that were missing from Wikipedia abbreviations. I've added the ones you mentioned, plus a few more.
I'm pretty confident that no one was intentionally "safeguarding" or otherwise excluding anyone from the discussions. We tend to have a radically open approach to participation, even by first time IP editors. I certainly agree with linking potentially unfamiliar terms or abbreviations, and I try to liberally do so myself. However I think it would be difficult to expect casual discussions to rigorously follow a guideline on it. I think advice encouraging such links would be more appropriate. Alsee (talk) 11:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

To be more concrete, I'd merely insert the word "please" to your text: ...To be inclusive to all wikipedians, please include a link to each acronym when first used in each discussion thread. Alsee (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• I've BOLDly added[1] this as advice, in Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practices_for_all_talk_pages_used_for_collaboration. Let's see if anyone edits or reverts it. If not, we're done :) Alsee (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• We have such a policy with regard to deletion discussions: To avoid confusing newcomers, the reasons given for deletion should avoid Wikipedia-specific acronyms., but sadly it is routinely ignored. I think the best we can do is to call this it when out is seen. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC on access-dates and verifiability

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Help talk:Citation Style 1#Permit access-date in absence of a URL

Gist: The |access-date= parameter in citation templates indicates the last date at which someone checked whether the cited source actually verifies the claim(s) to which it is attached as a reference. Presently, if the citation does not have a |url= parameter, not only is the display of the date suppressed, it is categorized as an error that people should remove. The RfC asks whether this is the appropriate course of action.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The |access-date= parameter in citation templates indicates the last date at which someone checked whether the cited source actually verifies the claim(s) to which it is attached as a reference. is incorrect. As I noted in my comment, the accessdate has stood for the date the URL is checked since 2009. Please don't repeat plain falsehoods, especially in ostensible invitations, after you have been corrected. --Izno (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Then this is not an access date parameter but a url access parameter except for the case of websites which all have URLs. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

A citation had a date in it in non-standard format which resulted in the creation of a red error message. I corrected the date, and also changed the access date to the date I looked at and verified the URL. An administrator (Graham87) reverted to reinstate the accessdate, which of course restored the error message. He then spotted the problem and removed the non-standard date to another field, which suppressed the error message. However, he kept the access date as it was. 86.131.233.223 (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Izno: According to the template docs, the parameter represents The full date when the content pointed to by url was last verified to support the text in the article (emphasis mine). Either that’s been altered or your correction was incorrect. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 06:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

SMC's RFC is about whether a URL is required at all and was the concerning part. One can hash on whether the URL was checked for validity or whether it was checked solely for accessibility if one wants. --Izno (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Fictional works level-of-detail varies drastically by medium

I’ve noticed that in (self-contained) articles about TV series, we often list a bunch of information about each epiosde, sometimes including rather thorough plot summaries; but we do not do the same for comic issues/volumes. We even have standalone episode-list articles, with no analog for print. It’s particularly noticeable in anime/manga articles where—regardless of which format came first—we break down the anime episode by episode, but only discuss the associated manga in broad strokes. Is one particuarly encouraged or the other particularly discouraged for some reason? Or is it just a matter of editorial bias? Is this imbalance a problem that should be addressed? —67.14.236.193 (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

With respect to print vs. other media, it tends to represent the interest of the editing community. It could be rationalized by saying that for material published currently episode by episode, there is a need for information during the initial release--and also so people viewing it later can read it by episode as they watch it. It could also be rationalized on the basis there are rather few editors here competent to summarize an entire complicated plot in an appropriate manner--most attempts tend to give either too much detail or too little. There is a middle way--see War and Peace , though I'd suggest a little more detail --perhaps twice the current length.

With respect to anime/manga,I have zero knowledge. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@DGG: Slightly off-topic rant, but I strongly disagree about information being needed during the initial release, per WP:Recentism and WP:NODEADLINE. If the information isn’t going to be needed years after it’s off the air, it’s not needed in an encyclopedia (though it may be perfectly suited for a fan-centric project like a Wikia). For instance, List of Gunsmoke television episodes has single sentence summaries, while currently airing shows (which are no more important than Gunsmoke was) have horribly bloated article-length summaries. If we don’t need that much detail about episodes from a show that ran for twenty years, we probably don’t need that much detail about episodes of TV shows. And regardless of all that, the plot of a book or other source material should be treated as at least as important as that of any adaptations, shouldn’t it? —67.14.236.193 (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

are you not aware of how people actually write and use WP? Whatever our intentions, we are more than an encyclopedia. What we include is determined not by just what is written as rules, but by the interest of our contributors and the interpretation of our rules is by those who care enough to comment. We make our own rules, and can change them both implicitly or explicitly. We will have content with much more detail on Gunsmoke, and we will when people here want to write it , and defend it if challenged.

Some of the things that interest many WPedians do not interest me at all, but silly as I think some of those interests, it does not bother me that they are in the encyclopedia, even in detail--if it also includes what does interest me, in as much reasonable detail as people will do it. It would, additionally, help to have some degree of consistency within each subject area, so people know what to expect. And I think this could be done best by focussing on real-world importance, not extent of sourcing, as a measure of inclusion DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I've never understood the "Wikia argument". Why is information not important to someone, an automatic qualifier for "going to Wikia"? How I view the difference is - if it's notable and sourced (and someone wants to take on the job of adding it) then it has a place here. Regarding the original issue - I agree that TV articles have more information and each time I read a comic-centric article I wish that they had more editors to help get those articles up to the same level. I've never been able to get a complete narrative from those comic articles I read, just a very general outline. --Gonnym (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Re Wikia, it’s not as if Wikia’s a dumping ground for trivial or unimportant information (though some Wikias…). It’s that Wikipedia is intended to be a general encyclopedia, whereas Wikia explicitly caters to fandoms. Both are great and needed for different reasons, and both have their place. But a fan resource reflects its fanbase, regardless of how important or influential or obscure the subject was or wasn’t; ideally, an encyclopedia does just the opposite, reflecting the lasting real-world impact of the subject regardless of how numerous or passionate its fans are or not at the time. I know the real world isn’t an ideal one, but we still shouldn’t lose sight of that ideal. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

MOS:TVPLOT applies equally to Gunsmoke and Breaking Bad or any other TV series. List of Gunsmoke television episodes is not a good example because it is a list; I wouldn't expect any more than single sentence summaries in a list. Manga would be covered under MOS:BOOKPLOT, I think. As has already been said, if you think a plot section is underdeveloped, you are welcome to improve the article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jacknstock: When I looked up Gunsmoke, I was actually expecting to find at least per-season articles with rather more involved summaries. The main article strikes me as an ideal article, aside from a shortage of plot discussion. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• What all of the above comments miss so far (particularly this one: "currently airing shows (which are no more important than Gunsmoke was) have horribly bloated article-length summaries") is that there are many reliable sources and notable critics who write about individual episodes of current TV series. This trend started within the past two decades or so and really exploded with online media. So apart from those like the original Star Trek, about which there are hordes of print volumes written about every detail of the show, we would not expect individual episodes from decades-old TV series to have in-depth coverage to the same extent as certain recent TV series, such as Breaking Bad, Mad Men, etc, for which it is easy to demonstrate that all episodes of those particular series are individually notable. I also do not think individual comics issues are covered to the same extent as TV episodes, but if the sources are there then write the articles, instead of complaining about what topics other people want to write about. postdlf (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Another distinction is that so many current TV series are serial, building on plots and themes over the course of a season or series, while older TV series were typically episodic, with self-contained stories of the week. That not only makes more detailed summary of individual episodes more relevant for recent series, but also is part of the reason why contemporary critics are spending more time writing about each episode than they used to. postdlf (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Ban "Talk page bans"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Users who ban others from their talk page often do so in an attempt to avoid receiving legitimate warnings, or as a way to unilaterally sanction another editor for "harassment" without community consensus that harassment has actually taken place. Would folks support the idea of changing WP:NOBAN and WP:OWNTALK to prohibit "talk page bans" and require editors seeking such a ban to go through the appropriate noticeboard? I'd like to gauge the level of support and get input from others before opening an RfC or formal discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 18:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support: If User A does not want to interact with User B on "User talk:A", then User A shouldn't be allowed to interact with User B anywhere else. Really, there should either be full, two-sided interaction bans, or complete freedom of interaction. Unilateral talk page bans should indeed be repealed. If User B really is spamming User A without cause, User A shouldn't have any trouble a) starting an ANI to have User B blocked, or b) getting community consensus for a talkpage ban. pbp 18:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: it helps diffuse conflict and dampen disruption, regardless of who is right or wrong. If someone needs legitimate warning ask an uninvolved administrator to intervene. If it's reached the point the person is banning you, the best thing it step away and let others look into it because there is no way the other party will consider it legitimate warning coming from an involved party. -- GreenC 20:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:OWNTALK users are allowed a fair amount of freedom in handling their own talk pages. That should and does include their ability to simply tell someone not to post on their page any more. No bureaucracy, no need for some kind of formal process, simply "stay off my page". This is not a "sanction" against the other person, it does not imply any kind of wrongdoing, it is not recorded against the other person anywhere. It simply says User A would prefer not to hear any more from User B. It's not enforceable. If User B doesn't have the courtesy to comply with that simple request and continues to post on User A's page, THEN User A can call in the troops and try to get some kind of formal process installed if justified. --MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Unnecessary. (ec) If User:A asks User:B to stop posting on User:A's talk page, and User:B complies (either through an explicit acknowledgement and agreement, or by just not posting on User:A's talk page) then the matter is resolved without needing additional pot-stirring and bureaucracy. WP:NOBAN already explicitly supersedes such requests for the purpose of delivering administratively-required notices; the various noticeboards already tend to be very unimpressed by attempts to evade accountability through spurious talk page "bans". (Indeed, noticeboards tend to read a proclivity for unilateral 'bans' as something of a red flag.)
  Over the last fourteen or so years, I don't think I've banned anyone from my talk page, but I'm not absolutely certain. There are a handful of people where I have told them that continuing to post to my talk page is likely to be unproductive, and that they need to take their issues to a noticeboard or article talk page – or just accept that they're on the wrong side of consensus – rather than wasting my time. Essentially, their inability to let something go shouldn't require me to waste time with a noticeboard filing. I can understand why an editor might impose a 'ban' under such circumstances, and insisting on a time-consuming and unpleasant formal process would be a nuisance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I hate these, and think they go against the spirit of talkpages, but as noted by the above editors, they're a shortcut to avoid WP:BURO and save some editors' sanity. It won't diffuse any acrimony, but if doing so can stop it and save the project another trip to elongated dispute resolution, I'm all for it. It's certainly abused now and again and probably encourages a sense of ownership over talkpages, but that's a fine price to pay. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Ehhh... I've seen enough cases where they're necessary that I can't say that we should get rid of them. I have seen at least one user throw them around all willy nilly whenever they were made the least bit uncomfortable by legitimate criticism, though, so maybe a review process might be in order. Like, still able to go ban someone just by saying "don't come back here," but then have a standardized "double or nothing" review process that will either revoke or expand the ban (revoking it if the ban was in bad-faith, expanding it if the review request was in bad-faith). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Although I am somewhat wary of the term, an editor's own talk page can be considered their "safe space". Having an editor who rubs them the wrong way coming by to constantly take little pokes is going to quickly cause a lot of aggravation ("I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!") needlessly. A simple "go away and stay away" should be enough, considering WP:CIVIL is still a thing here. Content issues can be discussed on article talk pages and behavior issues can go to appropriate noticeboards (the banning user gives up the right to complain they weren't approached first on their talk page before being hauled to ANI). And trying to use banning as a weapon against an uninvolved admin acting in an admin capacity never works out well. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN:, how you do address the hypothetical I posed? pbp 22:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose None of use has a tattoo that says "Please feel free to troll me" AFAIK these bans do not (and have never) include(d) the posting of legitimate warnings so this is unnecessary. MarnetteD|Talk 21:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "None of us has a tattoo..."? –dlthewave ☎ 16:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose MelanieN and others have covered this well. .If a simple request to keep off your talk page (and fundamentally that's all a talk page ban is) solves the problem of an editor who does not get the point of you saying that your talk page is not the correct venue for the discussion, or that the discussion has run its course and you won't respond further, or of you having hatted the discussion, or even archived it or deleted it, why would we want to have to go to ANI to accomplish the same thing? ANI is not the right place to deal with such problems until it becomes something that actually requires admin action. If a request stops it from getting to that point then so much the better.. And as MarnetteD says, I don't consider such requests to cover legitimate warnings. Meters (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I feel a base assumption of a lot of the "oppose" votes is that talk page bans are only implemented when users are only interacting in talkspace. What happens when two editors are interacting in other spaces: if User A interacts with User B in mainspace or Wikipedia-space, is it kosher for User A to ban User B from his page? pbp 22:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Purplebackpack89: If this is the hypothetical you were asking me about above, the talk page ban needs some justification. For a real example, a new editor doesn't get their way on the article's talk page and starts to disrupt. Various warnings are placed on their talk page resulting in the newbie banning everyone who left a warning from their talk page. If I see this situation then I will step in and say no, Wikipedia is a collaborative environment and you can't stop other editors from raising concerns about your behavior on your talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Unneeded Just because you cannot notify a person of something, doesn't mean no one can. Talk page bans are considered applied to a single person; anyone that bans all of Wikipedia from using their talk page is themselves not long for this place, in my experience. If someone tells you not to bother them on their talk page don't. If you would need to notify them of something, ask someone else to do it. Problem solved. --Jayron32 16:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Related question

What about telling someone "don't ping me", "stop pinging me"? Is that also covered by User A's ability to control their own space? I have seen such warnings escalate into angry confrontations when User B continued to ping User A. But I don't think I have ever seen Wikipedia address this particular kind of "stay away" request and I wonder what people think about it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

People have been blocked for excessive thanking and ANI occasionally includes admin warnings to participants to stop pinging a target. It is possible for a target to mute a particular person but that should not relied on IMHO. Instead, requests to not post on talk, not ping or not thank should be respected with obvious exceptions such as required notices. Obviously post/ping/thank can be misused as tools for poking opponents and that should not be tolerated. Johnuniq (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Now in your preferences, you can set people never to receive notifications from. Such users should be notified about this newer functionality. (See Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo "Muted users".) --Izno (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

While I have never banned an editor from my talk page, I have asked editors to stop pinging me. Because after the twelfth ping from a blocked editor demanding to know why they haven't been unblocked... The pings have always stopped. If they don't, I guess I'll be using the new preference functionality. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, there are lots of ways to use Wikipedia's ping, 'thank', and other tools to harass or be otherwise obnoxious and antisocial.

(A few months ago I ran across a report at AN where User Alice and User Bob had a mutual interaction ban. Alice and Bob shared an interest in a particular topic area, but seemed to be avoiding engagement with each other until Alice violated the terms of her interaction ban by thanking Bob for one of his edits. In the ensuing discussion, it came out that thanking Bob had been a mis-click. At the time, Bob had been in a low-level edit war with a third user, Charlie; Alice had actually intended to thank Charlie for repeated reverts of Bob. (Got that?) Using the 'thank' tool as a way to covertly encourage reverts in circumvention of an i-ban almost certainly isn't an application the devs had in mind...but here we are.)

Getting back specifically to the issue of pings and the notifications blacklist, I would say that we should be very reluctant to rely on or encourage blacklisting as a solution for managing interactions involving non-blocked/banned editors. Because blacklisted pings fail silently (neither the sender nor anyone else is notified that the ping hasn't...pinged), they can lead to a situation where it looks like a particular editor has been notified of a discussion but declined to participate. I can see this happening both inadvertently and as a deliberate bad-faith strategy to exclude or delay participation by an opponent.

The onus, therefore, remains on the editors doing the excessive pinging to moderate their conduct. Saying "just blacklist them" is a flawed solution, and I'm not sure that editors (including admins) touting it as a sufficient response to excessive pinging have fully recognized the potential pitfalls. TenOfAllTrades(talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What to do about user pages for unroutable and public DNS IP addresses?

Wikipedia allows any IP to have a user page and a talk page, including IPs that are unroutable IP addresses, reserved IP addresses, and public DNS servers.

Because of this, these pages often have text on them indicating the nature of the IP address so that editors don't confuse them with IP addresses that are associated with editors who have not registered a username.

Examples include User:192.168.0.1, User:127.0.0.1, and User:1.1.1.1.

Related are such pages as User:example and User:Place holder.

For various reasons, it often happens that notifications are sent to user talk pages for users who do not exist.[2][3]

It is sometimes desirable to notify the person who misplaced the notification so that he can go back and notify the actual user he meant to notify in the first place. Because of this, the talk pages for these unroutable IP addresses and test usernames often redirect to User talk:example so that we can deal with all of the misplaced notifications in one place.

Recently 89.75.68.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been tagging these pages for speedy deletion.[4][5]

In my considered opinion, having these userpages be blank pages is inferior to having text on them that explains what they are and how they differ from the usual IP user. Also, in my considered opinion, having all of the misplaced notifications in one central location is superior to having them on talk pages that nobody will ever read.

I propose a minor modification to WP:U2 so that these sorts of pages go to AfD instead of being deleted out of hand. Right now an administrator following U2 could delete User:example or User:192.0.2.16. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the U2 modification because this is policy creep; a caveat that WP:COMMONSENSE applies is good enough. Preventing these pages from being created in the future is as simple as creating an edit filter. -FASTILY 21:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Example (talk · contribs) and Place holder (talk · contribs) are registered accounts; the latter even has edits. Either way, I think Fastily is right in that admin discretion and WP:COMMONSENSE apply, and there's no need for MfD for these pages. ansh666 21:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Policy creep and creates more work for AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC).
• Oppose as the user who has been speedying these. These particular addresses are no better than others, why should you redirect some of them and not all; I have edited the user pages to direct admins to User:192.0.2.16 instead, and you are now proposing deleting it in a WP:POINTy way. I have also created Template:Private IP (paralleling Template:WMF IP) for use on talk pages of private addresses which have edited (which includes User:127.0.0.1), which is more useful than redirecting them to a random example page. � (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as an active AfD user - this generates a lot of work for non-controversial situations. Having an avalanche of SNOW closes (the likely effect) generally indicates that something doesn't belong in AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Individual Wikinews articles

Recently there was a successful RfC to treat links to Wikinews as external links. Is it useful to link to individual Wikinews articles at all? I can see linking to categories or portals in Wikinews from the related topics or portals in Wikipedia being somewhat useful (and, of course, necessitated by the implementation of Wikidata-based sister project links), but generally articles about events are more comprehensive than the Wikinews article about the event, and articles which mention an event in passing might not be helped by linking to the article since the link now has to be at the bottom of the page. (I've nominated {{Wikinewshas/Film}} for deletion, since right now it's only used in Film and seems to be superfluous. Also a few others because they're unused and/or not recent.) Jc86035 (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

"Rule" versus "Occupation" in articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict

Why is it that we find in Wikipedia articles that deal with Arab villages in the West Bank that almost always whenever there is a sub-section entitled "Jordanian era" it mentions the village as being under "Jordanian rule" (rather than "occupation"), even though annexation of the West Bank by Jordan was widely considered as illegal and void by the international community, as we see here (Benvenisti, Eyal (2012). The International Law of Occupation. Oxford University Press. p. 204.), and as mentioned explicitly in Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. On the other hand, when the same articles mention Israel's hold of the West Bank in the sub-section entitled "Post-1967", the village is always referred to as being under "Israeli occupation." If both were considered "illegal" under international law, then why the distinction? Is there a double standard? If it was termed "occupation" while Israel held the country, it should also be termed "occupation" while Jordan held the country. If it was termed "rule" in the case of Jordan, it should also be termed "rule" in the case of Israel. After all, fair is fair. For clear examples of this discriminatory POV editing practice with respect to Israel and Jordan under these two sub-sections, see the following articles: Jab'a, Khirbet Beit Zakariyyah, Husan, Battir, Nahalin, Beit Fajjar, Beit Ummar, Tuqu', Nablus, Beitin, As-Sawiya, Beit Iba, al-Khader, Burin, Nablus, Jenin, al-Eizariya, etc., etc., etc. In the abovenamed articles, and others like them, am I permitted to use "such-and-such a place (in the West Bank) has been under Israeli rule since 1967?" This would strike a more neutral tone, in my view.Davidbena (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but did Jordan invade the West Bank prior to its period of rule? "Occupation" is the standard term used in the aftermath of war or invasion, and not in other cases. Newimpartial (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was under British mandate before 1948 and was captured during the war (as can be seen in the lead here Jordan).--Gonnym (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

If the language of the Jordan article is based on the language of the reliable sources, perhaps "annexation" is the correct term? Jordan did invade Israel, but I am unconvinced that the West Bank was occupied. Newimpartial (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Jordan did not invade Israel, as the entire land was to be divided under the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Arab nations, including Jordan invaded and captured parts of the land (which were supposed to be either Jewish, Palestinian or International), which they then held at the end of the war. What Davidbena meant is that this annexation of the West Bank by Jordan was considered as illegal by the international community in a similar situation to how Israel's occupation is. So even if from a point of view from the Jordanian side it was a legal annexation, from the local population side, they were occupied by a foreign power (even if still an Arab nation). --Gonnym (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

If Reliable Sources describe the period of Jordanian rule as "Occupation", then WP must do the same. But FALSEBALANCE and it's ilk are contrary to WP policy. Newimpartial (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm with the above. We use the terminology that a preponderance of neutral, reliable sources themselves use. That's what WP:NPOV means. I have no idea what word that is, but in the case of a dispute, we don't invent some metric by which to decide which word to use, we instead refer to the sources themselves and reflect their usage. --Jayron32 18:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

An addendum regarding the history of Jordanian annexation: as part of the annexation process, Jordan extended full citizenship and rights to all residents of the West Bank territory. Additionally, there was no significant anti-Jordanian movement (armed or otherwise), within the West Bank during the years that Jordan controlled the territory--there would eventually be the Black September movement and the Jordanian Civil War, but these would occur after Jordan ceded control of the West Bank to Israel and largely were related to Jordan's handling of Palestinian refugees and citizens following the 1967 War and Jordan's ceding of the territory. By contrast, Israel did not annex any of the West Bank other than East Jerusalem, has not conferred citizenship for Palestinian residents of the West Bank,and has placed administration of the West Bank directly under its military (and later the Ministry of Defense), and has historically claimed that it did not intend its control of the entirety of the West Bank to be permanent (the entire premise of the Oslo peace talks was built on this). In fact, the Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that the situation in the West Bank is one of "belligerent occupation", in agreement with the International Court of Justice (although it disputes the status of East Jerusalem). While Israel has since walked back some of this two-state rhetoric, it has yet to announce an official policy of annexation and continues to administer military rule for Palestinian residents of the West Bank. Additionally, Israel's presence in the West Bank has faced widespread resistance from the local population both in the form of civil protests and armed insurgencies. I am not writing this to pass moral judgment on one side or the other, but simply to demonstrate that there are non-trivial differences between Jordan and Israel's administration of the West Bank such that unless you have reliable sources arguing that a double standard exists, it is misleading to claim that using one term for one regime and another for the other is a double standard.Rosguill (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

If the matter boils down to reflecting the opinion of "reliable sources," be apprised that the reliable sources available often dispute each other. For example, former Chief Justice of the Israeli Supreme Court, Meir Shamgar, wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (as of the 1970s, when autonomy had not yet been given to Gaza), since the Convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign." Israeli diplomat, Dore Gold, has stated that the language of "occupation" has allowed Palestinian spokesmen to obfuscate this history. By repeatedly pointing to "occupation," they manage to reverse the causality of the conflict, especially in front of Western audiences. Thus, the current territorial dispute is allegedly the result of an Israeli decision "to occupy," rather than a result of a war imposed on Israel by a coalition of Arab states in 1967. Moreover, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention "cannot be viewed as prohibiting the voluntary return of individuals to the towns and villages from which they, or their ancestors, had been ousted" from living, e.g., in Gush Etzion, Jerusalem, or Hebron before 1948.

When the UN intervened in 1947 and suggested a partition of Palestine (divided between Jews and Arabs) as defined in UNGA 181, even that was only a proposal, and not binding. Even so, while the Israelis had agreed to such a proposal at the outset, the Palestinian Arabs did not agree to it, and in May of 1948 (with the help of Jordan and Egypt) tried to gain control of as much territory in Palestine as possible by the dint of war. Suddenly, the territory of the country was largely expanded by war to Israel's advantage, and to the chagrin of its Arab population. The outcome of the war, therefore, ended up determining the border, and which border became officially recognized as such under the 1949 Armistice Agreements, until they too were dissolved in the 1967 Six Day War. The Six-Day war, in effect, saw the restoration of the pre-1948 border of Palestine/Israel, just as it stretched from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Moreover, Jews living in Palestine before 1948 were actually called "Palestinians," and many of them (such as Moshe Dayan, Uzi Narkiss and Yitzhak Rabin) took part in the country's restoration of its old borders in 1967 (though now they were called Israelis). How can a country then be "occupied" when it was also their country to begin with? It makes no sense to me.

References

-- Davidbena (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The question is not regarding the legal status of some plot of land. It is about what words are used to describe that plot of land. Attempting to extrapolate the verbiage from some external rationale is about three steps removed from how we need to do this. If you string out enough reasons, anyone can justify anything. That gets us nowhere. Instead, we find the verbiage used by the preponderance of reliable sources. Of course, there is not expected to be unanimity among the thousands of such sources, but looking for any clear trends in the words they use is what we need to do. Finding some legal decision by some body at some time has no bearing on the question here. --Jayron32 19:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Even in cases where Wikipedia relies upon the preponderance of "reliable sources," that too would depend on which country you are from. For example, the word "West Bank" is very rarely used by Israelis, and when they do use it, it is almost always only in a technical sense when talking to foreigners or westerners outside of Israel. Why? Because they see the country as being entirely one, excluding Gaza. Besides, the word "West Bank" was not used until Jordan conquered parts of British Mandate Palestine in 1948. Before then, it was all one country. As for the word "occupation," I think that it goes without saying that Israelis do NOT use this word to describe their hold or rule of the country in its several parts. The security situation has dictated what Israel must do to ensure public safety. With that said, is there a place here to mention the lesser known view (i.e. that of Israel's) per WP:WEIGHT?Davidbena (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps something can be done here to bring a more neutral outlook, as we've found done elsewhere with respect to Jewish settlements in the West Bank. See text here.Davidbena (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Why? Because they see the country as being entirely one, excluding Gaza - that's not entirely true. Some see it as entirely one, others do not see Judea and Samaria as part of the country and do indeed see it as occupied territory. --Gonnym (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The argument regarding reliable sources based on country doesn't hold water, as the informal consensus of Israeli citizens is not a reliable source. Sources are not limited to the country they are published in: we should seek to replicate the terminology used by the international community of scholarly publications unless you can demonstrate that this scholarly consensus is itself biased by external factors (and no, simple disagreement between the scholarly consensus and the informal Israeli consensus is not evidence of bias). Moreover, the comments about Israel's security situation are irrelevant to this discussion: scholarly analysis of the geopolitical situation in Palestine/Israel already takes it into account.Rosguill (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, here I should have said "the majority see the country as being entirely one." I might add here that, as an Israeli, I have NEVER heard even a leftist Israeli speak of the West Bank as the West Bank, but they say either "Samaria" (Shomron) or "Gush Etzion."Davidbena (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Rosguill, you said: "we should seek to replicate the terminology used by the international community of scholarly publications unless you can demonstrate that this scholarly consensus is itself biased by external factors." I think that we're beginning to do that. First, if you re-read the paragraph that begins: "If the matter boils down to reflecting, etc.," it clarifies certain matters about "sovereignty." Now, couple that with the world-view that Israel is untitled to its hold of the so-called "West Bank," which is based on the 1947 UN proposal to partition the country, and which, in turn, had followed the suggestions of the British ten years before. Considering the history of violence between Jews and Arabs in Palestine prior to 1948, Britain decided in 1937 to divide Palestine between the Jews and Arabs, as we learn in "The Survey of Palestine under the British Mandate: 1920 - 1948," published by the British Mandate government printing office in Jerusalem in 1946, p. 166:

"The commission, under Lord Peel, was appointed on 7 August 1936 to investigate the cause for the outbreak of the Arab rebellion and the way the Articles of the Mandate were being implemented. Between November 1936 and January 1937 the commission studied the situation in the country, and in June 1937 published its recommendation to abolish the Mandate and to divide the country between Arabs and Jews."

The UN also took the same position in 1947, as we all know, and this has remained the general position of the international community, although unjustly. It has reached the point where Israel is now viewed as an "occupier" of lands traditionally held by itself. This can be mended by allowing editors to state that "the majority of Israelis dispute the notion of occupation, on grounds of its presence in the country before 1948." -- Davidbena (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

There is more to scholarly consensus than the Peel commission and UN resolutions from more than 20 years before the relevant period of Israeli history. If nothing else, you're ignoring more recent UN resolutions that explicitly rule on the status of the West Bank (not to mention Israeli Supreme Court rulings, International Court of Justice rulings, and an abundance of scholarly articles published by a wide variety of academic presses). Moreover, Wikipedia (and its reliable sources) do refer to a portion of Jordanian rule as "occupation". If you read through Jordanian annexation of the West Bank or West Bank#History, you'll see that existing articles refer to the initial conquest and military administration of the West Bank by Jordan as an "occupation", and then following annexation in 1950 it becomes "Jordanian rule". As Israel has not yet formally annexed the West Bank, referring to the region's status as "occupation" is entirely appropriate.Rosguill (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Even when Israel does formerly annex a region (such as the Golan Heights in 1981), it is still viewed as "illegal." So that means that annexation is not a cure in itself. Moreover, some will call Israel's hold of the West Bank de facto annexation, as opposed to de jure annexation, and this is because Israel does not wish to cause a public backlash. As for the "status of the West Bank," it can all be traced back to hostilities in 1948. Anyway, enough has been said here. If there's a will, there's a way. I suppose that Israel will just have to stand its own ground, with God's help. Be well.

References

--Davidbena (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

When Jordan occupied the West Bank in 1948, it did exactly what Israel did the same time to places outside the intended area of the Jewish state according to the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine: they both gobbled up as much land as they could of the intended Arab state (which, as a consequence, never came into being). So while Jordan took the West Bank, Israel took the whole of Galilee, including towns like Nazareth, Sepphoris, Majd al-Krum, Kafr Bir'im and Shefa-'Amr. After the war the West had no problems accepting the new borders for Israel, (including all of the above towns). Jordan did not have such international goodwill; only 3 countries officially accepted the West Bank as part of Jordan, (though unofficially it was also accepted by eg. the US, Israel and the East Block countries. Most opposition came from other Arab countries.) In 1950, Jordan annexed the whole of the West Bank ie, the citizens of the West Bank were given full Jordanian citizen rights. Hence the article about the Jordanian era (that is, 1948–1967) is called the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. See this discussion.

Ever since the 1967 Six-Day War, after which Israel occupies the West Bank (and occupation is the unanimous view of the international community)...some (mainly Israeli) writes have pushed for the view that the Jordanian era to be called "Jordanian occupation". Alternatively, (like Davidbena here), that both should be called "rule". This to imply that the Israeli post 1967 occupation is not much different from the Jordanian era.

This is a huge lie. Israel, (unlike Jordan), has never annexed the West Bank. The Palestinians living there are living under what more and more people are calling apartheid. If an Israeli settler throws a stone ...nothing happen. If a Palestinian does the very same, they can get (and do get) up to several years in jail. Or Ahed Tamimi getting 8 months in jail...while a Israeli settler women filmed doing exactly the same in Hebron was never even arrested. Needless to say, the Palestinians on the West Bank have no right to vote in the Israeli elections, and generally no right to visit Israel inside the 1948 borders.

It is not a double standard to call different types of rule by different names! Huldra (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Huldra, my disputant, welcome! You and I might find some solace in this conversation, as we both have a "chip" on our shoulders. As for what you called "places outside the intended area of the Jewish state according to the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine," and where "they both gobbled up as much land as they could of the intended Arab state," yes, that is correct. But the proposals for the "intended Arab State" were never binding. The Arabs truly vied with Israel over the control of territory by means of war, while the Jordanian Arab Legion had decided to concentrate its forces in Bethlehem and in Hebron in order to save that district for its Arab inhabitants, and to prevent territorial gains for Israel. The question is, "Why divide the country in the first place?" Jews and Arabs lived there, and could continue to live there, if there wasn't instigation for hatred and war. Remember, the local Arab population was given an opportunity to have a country governed by themselves (based on the 1947 UN Partition Plan), but that they refused to have it, hoping instead to gain as much as they could take through war.

References

-- Davidbena (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

As for accusation of an "apartheid" system, I strongly refuse to accept that determination. Although I'm not sure how much this will be of help to our readers here, I'll repeat what I have written to you before about apartheid in earlier communications, namely, "even the Arabs do not want to pray in our synagogues, since they have their own mosques. They even have their own language and schools, and they're completely happy with that. You see, they do not wish to be like us, nor do we wish to be like them. With that said, we still work together and share the same country. However, seeing that many of them profess to be Israel's enemies, Israel does not permit them to take the helm of government. Still, they have local municipalities of their own, where they take part in local elections under the Palestinian Authority. Israeli law accords them with due protection and justice under the law."Davidbena (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Jordan did annex the West Bank, however it was not recognized by the vast majority of the world, with the exception of the British being the only major recognition, the rest considered it an occupation. Israel has not annexed Gaza, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) or the Golan. The Jerusalem Law applied the laws of Israel to all of Jerusalem, and declared all of it the capital which cannot be divided. Although it sounds like annexation, it was not intended to be, the intended was to state that Israel could not give it away for peace, like they did with Egypt and the Sinai. This means that should Israel recognizes all of it will be eventually part of Israel, but did not annex it. The Golan Heights Law solely applies the laws of Israel to the Golan and in no way shape or form could it be described as annexation.

Due to Jordan's annexation not being recognized is one of the main reason why the West Bank is considered occupied territory. Under international law land captured on an offensive is occupied but in a defensive could be annexed. Since Jordan was an occupying power to the land Israel captured it cannot be considered land eligible for annexation, because they did not get it defending against the recognized land ruler. This is the main reason why the term should be used consistently, since Israel inherited Jordan's status. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 00:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Davidbena, the situation you describe sounds almost identical to the former Apartheid regime in South Africa, except that it is "justified" in terms of religion/language rather than race/culture. The actual institutional arrangements you describe seem quite strikingly similar. Newimpartial (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, my friend, I guess you'll have to live here to know what I'm talking about. I live in an Israeli moshav, but there are Arabs who work with me in the same institution from Surif, Nahalin, Kharas, Beit Hanina and Kafr Qasim. They are NOT oppressed. They are happy, and travel freely in their motor vehicles back and forth from work. Yes, they have Israeli permits to do so. In the late 1970s, I made frequent trips to Gaza to visit a student who studied in Jerusalem at St George's School in Jerusalem (on Nablus Road). Now he and his family live in the United States. I can assure you that they were happy in the 1970s, before they left Gaza for the States (before the Hamas came to power). Today, for the most part, Arabs are integrated into Israeli society, and they make-up a considerable work-force in Israel. I daily see Arab workers in my village from the nearby villages. Those Arabs who do feel disenfranchised are those who live in areas of the country prone to violence. Otherwise, all is well.Davidbena (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

How is that supposed to be the employment of workers from the former "homelands" in South Africa? Because it sounds the same. And many white South Africans would tell similar stories of their "happy" black or coloured workers. Pardon my skepticism. Newimpartial (talk)

Since when is it bad to be employed by another? They do this willingly. Since this is a diversion from the Village Pump inquiry about Wikipedia's policy with respect to the word "occupation," I will desist from speaking about things irrelevant to that discussion. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Israel's human rights abuses are abundantly well documented. It's pretty rich claiming that "all is well" while ongoing protests are met with live-fire ammunition, killing over a hundred and injuring tens of thousands, with clearly identifiable medics and journalists among the dead, and while villages are slated for demolition with the blessing of the government, to give two examples. But yes, while Israel's treatment of Palestinians is arguably relevant to its status as an "occupier", we have veered from the original terms of the proposal and thus this is no longer a productive discussion with respect to the original topic.Rosguill (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Here, the discussion is not about Gaza (where full-autonomy has been given to them since 2005), but about Israel and the so-called "West Bank," where there are literally scores of Jewish townships. Whenever an Arab moves to settle in another place of the country, he is not derogatorily called an "Arab settler," but whenever Jews move from one place in the country to take-up residence in another part of their ancestral homeland, they are derogatorily called "Jewish settlers." Do you see the difference? No one suggests that conditions are perfect in Israel, but we ought to remember that hammering-in the word "occupation" to Arab school-children will only increase their resentment towards Israel. I would hope that we, as editors here, are not part of the problem. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS... it merely chronicles what reliable sources say about a topic. Terms such as "occupation" and "settler" may well be problematic, but they are the terms that are used in the real world... by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. It is laudable that you want to change this, but Wikipedia is not the venue to effect that change. Blueboar (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I hear you. Can I cordially ask someone here to close this thread? Before doing so, however, I have one question. Do you think that it will be appropriate for me to submit some of the above points to the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard for discussion, in an attempt to reach a more neutral point of view in articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict?Davidbena (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Occupation, annexation and rule can all be either legal or illegal. Since Israel has not formally annexed the West Bank, it would be POV to call it annexation. But these discussions require original research when we should just follow what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The_Simpsons_(season_30)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, with the User:JE98 we have a "edit war": about The_Simpsons_ (season_30). Do you think we have an article about the 30th season? Article or redict? P.S. The page ‪The Simpsons (season 30)‬ has been reviewed by User:JTtheOG‬

Patriccck (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

You can vote until August 9th 23:59.

Votes

Article --Patriccck (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• This discussion is in the wrong location, you should be having the discussion at the article talk page. Please have it there and not here. If you need to attract more people to it, please use WP:RFC. This noticeboard is not the correct venue. --Jayron32 14:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding Template:Localtime to place articles

I think articles about places should include this template as it lets the reader know the local time of the place. There's already coordinates on may articles and I think this would be a good idea to have as well. Knowing the time of a place is many cases is more important then know the coordinates for many readers. If the template needs to be altered I have nothing against that. —  BrandonXLF   ^{(t@lk) (ping back)} 00:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

This sounds like a non-starter. Per the template's doc: "Most Wikipedia pages display a cached version of the page to reduce server load, so the template will only display the current time as of when the page was last parsed." Yeah, someone could purge the page cache, but do we want that happening all the time? Is the potential confusion over this worth it? I think probably not. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

We don't typically worry about performance, but use of this template in the mainspace would be asking for some worry. --Izno (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: If the outcome of this is to not put it on articles can someone put the template up for deletion as I many not be able to come back to the pump. —  BrandonXLF   ^{(t@lk) (ping back)} 22:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is not the tz database. More generally, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. To the extent that local timekeeping practices are encyclopedic, they are already adequately covered in Category:Time by country. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 15:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - listing it's time zone is plenty. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• I support the general idea in principle. However, per the responses above I can see that the caching system makes it unviable at this time.

If in the future these technical limitations are no more, then I think it could be a small neat addition, possibly introduced as an enhancement at the side of the time zone.

I dont understand the opposition above based on the argument that wikipedia is not a travel guide. Time zones are already a standard part of the infobox, right? Showing the time is just presenting the almost the same information in a different format, and in some ways one that is more understandable by readers. And making information understandable is a major guiding principle of wikipedia. So I understand the caching technical limitation, but not the other argument. Thanks.(talk) user:Al83tito 16:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Also support in principle. Showing the current time enhances the user's understanding of the time zone a place is in by relating it to the user's own time zone. Of course the caching problems are definitely relevant. CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Should the "In wrestling" section be removed from professional wrestling articles?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

• Summary:--There is a very strong policy-weighed consensus in Y favor of the proposal.
• Details:--
  • Firstly, I agree with a participant that a lot many arguments on the side of opposition seem to border on variations of WP:ILIKEIT, "lots of people find this useful", and "it was here for 10 years so it shouldn't be removed" and that has not changed throughout the course of discussion.
    • None conform to our currently-accepted-policies and accordingly, they have been assigned a very less weightage.
    • Furthermore, in light of the mentions in various off-wiki forums, SPAs have been dealt with in an equivalent manner, shall their arguments are not derived from our policies.
  • Many have argued that these section(s) have essentially turned into cruft-magnets, attracting truck-loads of content without any emphasis on our core tenet that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and goes contrary to our policies of assigning due weight et al. That any well-crafted criterion of inclusion (gauging the notability of a move, whether it is a signature move or not etc. ) is practically absent compounds the problems.
    • I do not see any good rebuttal as to the veracity of this point.Many regulars have conceded that most of the stuff contained in these sections, are indeed violative of the aforesaid policies.
  • Notwithstanding that, another salient argument has been raised on those moves, theme songs et al, which might be very less in number but notable and hence, suffer from the execution of these policies.
    • As some have noted, the proposal explicitly mentions in favor of its notable content being contextualized in prose when appropriate.I will also note that whilst the definition and ambit of notable looks to be much-disputed in the context (as an automatic corollary of scarcity of independent source(s) mentioning these stuff:-)), this quite-excellently cover(s) up the issue.A succinct summary of the sourcing-issue(s) may be read over the contents of this edit and I am not convinced that ground-situation is any better.....,
    • As to the debates surrounding 'prose vs a bullet' , (for the content that is salvageable), a head-count and a extremely well-written argument leads to the call.
  • A very good analysis, as described over this thread sheds further light into the amount of difficulties, as to sourcing and the current mess.

On a miscellaneous note......
If you are writing a wall of text and/or something with colorful mentions of oligarchists, massacres, speak the honest to God truth, if your attack me for speaking the truth! Learn some common sense, people! and what not, be pretty sure that a majority of closer(s) will not even bother to go through the remaining contents of your post.So, spare your and our time(s)...........

• Signed by ∯WBG^converse 14:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC) at 14:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

---

The "In wrestling" section has been a standard part of professional wrestling biographies for over a decade. It covers mostly character information in a bulleted list format. On May 24, 2018, an editor raised an issue with the section's vague heading to WikiProject Professional wrestling (see WT:PW#In wrestling). The next day, renaming the heading to "Professional wrestling highlights" and adjusting "Championships and accomplishments" into a subsection beneath it was proposed. On June 3, it was considered to have reached consensus after the 5 participants agreed unanimously. In the weeks that followed, a few editors disapproved of the new heading, as well as "Championships and accomplishments" being turned into a subsection. On June 24, clarification of which heading to go forward with was requested, where an additional option to remove the section entirely was proposed. On June 28, the discussion was closed after 10 editors participated, with an "overwhelming consensus" to remove the section but rework any content deemed significant into prose, potentially into a "Professional wrestling persona" section (see WT:PW#Trying to gain clarity (closed)). The changes were immediately enacted into hundreds of articles, causing news of the changes to be spread onto online professional wrestling communities. Many new editors voiced frustration over the removal, with some reverting the changes.

Below is the style recommendations for this section, taken from WikiProject Professional wrestling prior to its removal:

"In wrestling" recommendations per WP:PW/SG

An overview of notable character information is compiled in a bulleted list format. This initial section should be limited to finishing moves, signature moves, managers (and/or wrestlers managed), nicknames, entrance themes, and wrestlers trained. Any taunts, gestures, or other descriptions are better suited for the article prose. Example of highlights list Finishing moves Moonsault Western Lariat (Lariat) Signature moves Dropkick, sometimes from the top rope Multiple suplex variations Belly-to-belly Northern Lights Tiger Orange Crush (Vertical suplex powerbomb) Shining wizard Managers Miss Elizabeth Paul Heyman Nicknames "Best in the World" "The Legend Killer" Entrance themes "Cult of Personality" by Living Colour "Here to Show the World" by Jim Johnston featuring Downstait Wrestlers trained Bret Hart Brian Pillman Chris Jericho Christian Davey Boy Smith Edge Jake Roberts Jim Neidhart Lance Storm Mark Henry Natalya Neidhart Owen Hart Roddy Piper Steve Blackman Tyson Kidd All items should be sorted alphabetically. An exception is with entrance themes, which can be sorted chronologically if date ranges are sourced. For signature and finishing moves, there must be one reliable source explicitly mentioning that it is a signature move of the wrestler. One reliable source merely mentioning that the wrestler performed the move is not enough. A specially named move should be italicized, with the regular name following in parentheses and wiki-linked. {{Cite episode}} should not be used for citing moves as commentators often call moves wrong or do not give full technical names, leading to speculation. Track names in entrance themes should not be wiki-linked to articles about the compilation albums on which they are sold, unless the article contains further information on the track itself (not just name, number, and wrestler who used it).

This proposal seeks to remove the "In wrestling" section, with the possibility of any of its content that is deemed significant to be contextualized in prose. Much of the information contained within this section would be lost. The content most likely to be reworked is certain Finishing moves, Nicknames and Wrestlers trained. As it stands, Managers are already expected to be covered in prose, primarily in the "Professional wrestling career" section. If necessary, reworked content can be placed within the existing "Professional wrestling persona" section (see WP:PW/SG#Professional wrestling persona).

Below are diffs from various articles, showing before the section's removal, after the removal, and some with content reworked to prose:

• Daniel Bryan — Before / After / Reworked content
• Máscara Dorada — Before / After / Reworked content
• A.J. Styles — Before / After

Proposal: Should we adopt a default approach of omitting the bulleted list "In wrestling" section, in favor of its notable content being contextualized in prose when appropriate? Prefall 14:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes To reiterate my comments from the original discussion, this has long been the most problematic section in professional wrestling biographies, even more so than "career". It is a magnet for cruft, with a majority of edits coming from new or inexperienced users. It has devolved into a database of items ever associated with the wrestler, often poorly sourced at best or outright original research at worst. Even when "properly" maintained, the content itself is mostly trivial, adding very little to the understanding of the subject. Any significant material from this section can be framed more effectively in prose, alongside any additional character or performance information. Prefall 14:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Looking at the examples you included, the page is much more encyclopedic. List a number of moves which someone has done has no value. The way it was reworked to explain the basis behind it and put it into context is a much more encyclopedia appropriate way to discuss the identical information. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Absolutely. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• No Content should be condensed and trimmed to essential moves, a bare minimum of Finishing Moves. I believe theme music section should remain untouched, as there is no real alternative to it. Other sections like Nicknames and Managers aren't that essential. The "In Wrestling" section (I'm not attached to that name) can be bloated, but should not be outright removed. It should be improved.206.45.59.254 (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• No. Fixing what was not broken. Restore each page to it's previous incarnation and figure out a new format that works for everyone, not just the neckbeards from WP:PW. Endlessdan (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Could we please try to be civil here Endlessdan? Would this discussion fall under "professional wrestling broadly construed"? If so we should probably mention that Pro Wrestling as a topc is under General Sanctions so no one is surprised.  MPJ-DK  20:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes The old format had several issues. Now, I think it's better and follows Wikipolicys. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• No The 'In Wrestling' section should be at worst condensed. I would suggest removing 'Signature moves', 'Nicknames' and 'Managers'. The 'In wrestling' section is generally informative and missed on pages it has been removed from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.113.12 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• No A wrestler's moveset is not "trivial information". Some wrestlers like Daniel Bryan and AJ Styles used to have an unnecessarily long "In wrestling" section, but that can be fixed by limiting the moves to finishing moves and notable signature moves, and removing "nicknames", "managers", "wrestlers managed" and "wrestlers trained" from the section. Removing it altogether rather than fixing it is lazy. Most of the time the wrestler's moves will not be mentioned in the articles, or be mentioned in awkward sentences like "Asuka uses a crossface chickenwing with bodyscissors as a finisher and calls it the "Asuka Lock"", that break the natural flow of the text, and essentially, is just an overcomplicated way of doing exactly the same thing that the bulleted list was doing. Very few wrestler's gimmicks are connected to their finishing and signature moves strongly enough for it to be worked in a prose, and in these particular cases, it can be worked in the prose while also keeping the "In wrestling" section. We should fix what was wrong with the section, not lazily remove it. BLXCKPXGX (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

So, where is the limit? What makes a signature move notable? Why Nicknames, managers should be deleted? Just because you say so? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

What makes a finishing move more notable than signature moves? Because they end a match? How is is that more significant? Just because you say so? 67.244.146.250 (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

BLXCKPXGX Said we should limit the section to finishing moves and notable signature moves. My question, what is the diferent between a notable signature and a no-notable signature? That's one of the many problems the section has. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Using Triple H as an example, the Pedigree, the spinebuster and the high knee are notable moves. The running clothesline and the abdominal stretch are not. The Tombstone, chokeslam, Last Ride, Old School, etc. are notable Undertaker moves, the Fujiwara armbar and the bearhug are not. And I suggested removing "nicknames", "managers", "wrestlers managed" and "wrestlers trained" to trim down the section, not that I want it, but many are saying the lists were full of trivial information, so leaving only the essential, and what's hard to work in the prose (theme songs) could be the solution. BLXCKPXGX (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

That's your point of view, your own criteria. For example, you say "Abdominal stretch isn't notable", I say "Abdominal stretch is notable". We need a criteria for all of them. If a move is signature, we need a source saying "this move is signature". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the spinebuster is a notable Triple H signature move while the abdominal stretch isn't. What criteria am I using? I'll be honest, I don't know, I just know that one is an iconic part of his arsenal and the other isn't. But if we're working it in the prose, wouldn't we have the exact same issue? The user below said: "if, say, John Cena's theme song entrance theme is notable, we'll note it, of course, but in the proper section under "Professional wrestling career", or, "Music", or wherever." What's the criteria used to mention "My Time is Now" but not "Slam Smack" in the text? Or are we just mentioning everything? Which, again, is just an overcomplicated way of doing exactly the same thing that the bulleted list was doing. BLXCKPXGX (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

If it's a "I just know" situation, then you must keep in mind WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:ILIKEIT. oknazevad (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, do so: per Galatz, we don't need long lists of information that serve no real purpose; per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:IINFO, if, say, John Cena's theme song entrance theme is notable, we'll note it, of course, but in the proper section under "Professional wrestling career", or, "Music", or wherever. HHH Pedrigree, in the discussion below, also laconically summarizes my beliefs regarding policy and the "In wrestling" list. To close, I'd like to quote WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." I believe the "In wrestling" list-sections most certainly fall under that distinction.
  Addendum: perhaps the revival of the Pro Wrestling Wikia might be better for pro-wrestling fans? —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Javert2113 - The Pro Wrestling Wikia never went away, and is still updated... Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Strike above word "revival", replace with "continued updating". —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 15:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I used to update a bit on there. I'm sure the wikia would love aditional editors. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

That is not true, Lee. that is way outdated! I looked there but guess what? It is wrong! For example, that [still] lists Bianca Belair’s theme as "We Do It Better" (WWE; 2017-present) & Lacey Evans’ theme as "Bad Girl Good Boy" by Kimberly Korn (NXT; October 20, 2016 – present) but before it was taken down Wikipedia said that Bianca Belair’s current theme is really “Watch Me Shine” by CFO$ & Lacey Evans’ is “Like a Lady” by Nancy Rowland….those songs, which, by the way, are not on WiKia are, in fact, on iTunes. So how can you deny the actuary of that? That is just an example which proves that Wikia is not updated regularly.OnlyRealSpike (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, Admittedly I'm not involved with this project but the section comes across as very problematic to properly source, as well as arguments of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Additionally, the section doesn't come across as particularly 'encyclopedic', but that last one is just my opinion. ToastButterToast (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• No. If it attracts cruft, the solution is to remove the cruft. If some of it is the result of original research or synthesis, then (a) try to find a reliable source for it, and, if that doesn't work, then (b) remove it. Isn't that how everything on Wikipedia works? Taking a look at Bret Hart's article, 32 moves were listed (2 finishers, and 30 signature moves). I think the list could easily be trimmed to six--Finisher: Sharpshooter; Signature: Second rope elbow drop, Russian legsweep, Sidewalk slam; With Jim Neidhart: Hart Attack. I totally agree that almost all of the rest are moves he used, sometimes consistently, but that very few of the others are important for an understanding of the character. If we can source these six, we've got something worthwhile and in keeping with policy. However, there's no need to delete an entire section from thousands of articles because some have become bloated. In many cases, this has led to a "policy based" deletion of sourced information where no problem ever existed. As for the other sections, I can't speak much about Entrance Themes, since I've never cared much. I think it would be better for people who are more invested in the topic to consider the importance, although I will say that I am concerned to see so many people pushing for elimination because "it's just not important". There's really no way to measure that, and Wikipedia is full of information and articles that are important only to a select group. I'm never going to read about Finnish equestrians, but I would assume that Wikipedia has a bunch of information. Just because I won't read it doesn't mean it's "just not important", though. I'm also not particularly concerned about the "Nicknames" subsection. Some of it seems valuable, while others were used a handful or times, in a single interview, mentioned once on Twitter, etc., and obviously have no place. To use that to justify removing "The Rocket" or "The King of Harts" from Owen Hart's article is obviously an overreaction, although these may work just fine in the prose. The other subsections involved, however, are ones that I find particularly useful (and I know that there has been a lot of negative reaction to the claim of being "useful" lately, with people pointing to an essay about arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. There's nothing binding in that, however, and there is no need for paranoia about people finding the content useful--there have been a lot of disparaging comments about "fanboys", but it's important to note that (a) wrestling fans aren't less important or worthy of respect because they choose to watch a television show that they are aware is not real, and (b) not everybody who reads or edits the articles is an obsessed teenage boy. I'm certainly not a teenager, and I don't watch wrestling. I do, however, have multiple academic publications about professional wrestling. While doing this research, I have made much use of the "Managers" and "Wrestlers Managed" subsections. This has provided a valuable quick glance at a wrestler's career that can then be delved into with reliable sources to discover valuable information that is not necessarily covered in the article. Rewriting these sections as prose would make them difficult to navigate and would often provide choppy, list-like sentences. Certainly, for managers, it's essential to an understanding of the character to have a clear (and well-sourced) list of the wrestlers they have managed. And, on both sides, I would say it is important to keep it under control by leaving out one-time appearances. For example, on the Jake Roberts article, it listed Alice Cooper as a manager. Because this was a one-time deal done to publicize an event, it would fit much better into the prose when discussing Roberts's appearance at WrestleMania III. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• No. Well, here's my two cents. Which I already gave in the Pro Wrestling Talk Page, so I guess I'm up to four cents? Everyone appears to have jumped the gun, deleting the section before assessing what separates data they consider unimportant from that which is, and I'd like to remind everyone WP:NODEADLINE. No editor appears to dispute that wrestling moves possess encyclopedic significance; currently finishing moves are to be added in prose in recognition of their relevance to the wrestler. However, what quality lends a wrestling move significance remains unanswered within the style-guide or discussion. What specific guideline a signature move as a piece of information violates within WP:NOTEVERYTHING, which a finishing move to be included in the 'Wrestling Persona' sections does not violate has not been adequately identified. Finishing moves are important, but the quality making them more important than a signature remains vague. These distinctions appear arbitrary. Arguments abound that the sections themselves sections tend to contain OR, poor sourcing stemming from frequent fan edits, that a signature is pure WP:FANCRUFT, or that removing it grants a more encyclopedic aesthetic. And each of those may be true. But those are individual violations to be removed on a case-by-case basis; their existence does not demonstrate why all information attempting to be included is not material an encyclopedia should provide. Someone using original research to include a wrestler's frequent use of a piledriver should be removed, it's original research. But whether a piledriver is pertinent information for a wikipedia article is an entirely different question, and one that has not been answered. Discussion of the value or significance of content does not appear to have driven the removal conversation; no rationale has been solidly agreed upon regarding why a move might or might not be important information. Worse, the wider use of the Wrestling Persona alternative opens up up identical WP:FANCRUFT and Original Research concerns the 'In Wrestling' section was deleted for, but this too appears to be ignored. 67.244.146.250 (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)— 67.244.146.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Yes Remove - over the last 10 years this has failed miserabily - crufty, trivia, edit warring over a move is a "leg lariat" or "a kick", false information inserted, Original Research etc. It's a mess and there is no way anyone can persuade me that a wrestler has 25 signature moves. Nicknames were a mess, too - someone was called a "toolbag" one week and it's an official nickname on Wikipedia and so on - it is the single most abused and edit warred over section.  MPJ-DK  20:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Why don't we fix it then? Removing it rather than fixing it is lazy. No, no wrestler has 25 signature moves. There is no reason for the Fujiwara armbar to be listed as a signature move of The Undertaker for example. Limit the moves to finishing moves and notable signature moves, and remove "nicknames", "managers", "wrestlers managed" and "wrestlers trained" from the section. Just remove all that's trivial, there is no need to gut the entire section. BLXCKPXGX (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a part of the clean-up effort here and their perspectives may vary, but the problem I see there is that there is no empirical, WP:WEIGHT-based way of deciding what content is important or note-worthy, which means the fields become a constant source of attraction for subjectivized tinkering; no consistent approach can be applied and the section remains a perpetual site of either edit warring or entrenched debate, since the content added is always the product of fan metrics (which are highly variable between these devoted fans), rather than something pulled from reliable sources (which is disallowed as a matter of policy anyway, and further reason to avoid an approach that encourages it). Snow ^{let's rap} 22:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Some editors have been trying to fix it for 10 years, with reverts and IPs and fans adding stuff, no good guideline for inclusion etc. It's not like some people haven't tried. MPJ-DK  22:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes (edit conflict) This section was horribly trivial for ten years. There were no criterion for inclusion, resulting in users adding movees or nicknames that were used once (see this article on WWE.com, where AJ Styles is called the "Georgia Pitbull" for the first and only time, resulting in it being added to his nicknames). Nearly every single technical name for moves were WP:OR. It was overly crufty and broken to the point of no return. The main counterarguments I'm seeing are WP:ILIKEIT, "lots of people find this useful", and "it was here for 10 years so it shouldn't be removed." Prose for the notable moves is a much better alternative. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, Support - This seems like a reasonable approach and the one which is most broadly consistent with a number of guidelines and MoS recommendations (WP:WEIGHT and WP:PROSE most prominently). Furthermore, the topic matter of pro wrestling has been put under general sanctions now, so without some broad community consensus backing them up, WP:HERE editors working on clean-up in this area would find their efforts slowed to a crawl by SPAs and socks jumping around abusing multiple accounts, flaunting the sanctions while regular good-faith editors obeying the rules would not be able to violate 1RR restrictions. The clean-up brigades therefore have a reasonable request in wanting to establish clear guidelines for what type of formatting is generally expected for these articles. They at first attempted to create this guidance at WP:PW but they were informed that WP:Advice pages prohibits that. So they thereafter diligently constructed this proposal and brought it here for wide community vetting and hopefully approval. Given that I think their approach is the option which is most consistent with actual policies and MoS guidance, I can support it, even though I am generally very wary of default approaches.

And on that last topic, it is worth noting that the proposal does frame this as a default approach; WP:LOCALCONSENSUS would still apply on any article and a discussion on a talk page for a given pro wrestler's article could still adopt another approach. What a support consensus in this discussion would mean would be a simple shifting of the burden; the clean-up crews could begin shifting the content towards a WP:PROSE approach and be able to point to this discussion if asked to make a prima facie case for consensus; local editors would then be able to propose rebutall arguments on the talk page, but the burden would be upon them to establish a clear consensus for an exception. That seems like a very reasonable way to balance the local and community consensus issues here and allow the needed clean-up to take place. Wikipedia is not the place for all possible content and I have become convinced by the editors undertaking the clean-up here that this is a necesary first step to pairing down the articles in question and making our coverage more consistent with our general encyclopedic standards. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes/Remove These sections seem to be fancruft. From a policy perspective it is likely most of the material is WP:UNDUE from the point of view of an encyclopedia. In fact all of the 'in-universe' stuff needs to go except for those events/elements which break out into the universe of real-world reliable sources. Jbh ^Talk 21:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• No/Reinstate Partly I agree that the Signature move list was way too long and unsourced. However I believe that the Entrance music and especially the Finisher sections/lists are fairly easy to implement and properly source. Entrance musics are easy to source with VODS, as are Finishers. Finishers by definitions are moves that quite frequently finish that respectives matches. Not one or two offs, frequently. For example: Sami Zayn's Blue Thunder Bomb is pretty much his signature move but doesn't finish matches: Should probably not be included. His Helluva Kick does finish his matches on the regular and should be included. So in summary: Remove the Signature Move section, keep the Entrance Theme and Finisher sections. I have no opinion about the Manager section one way or another. DrJackl (talk 22:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)— DrJackl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• NO I already gave enough suggestion directed to people want to rollback this change, so It appears "the small group" have jumped the gun, deleting the section before allowing proper outreach to many users to help improve. 10+ years this section been alive. This change should never been jump into removal or else we wont have this.

Returns this good section the only option to end this rockus. Colton Meltzer (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• NO It’s a handy resource for people who may, for whatever reason, need a quick and easy answer to a question about any number of pieces of information and there’s not a suitable second best place to go online looking for it. In my opinion, removing this would be along the same lines as cutting track listings from albums or trying to work the name of each song into the article about the album. Part of the point of an encyclopedia is to be able to quickly dig up an easy answer to something and abundance of cruft or not, this section largely provides that. Evalas618 23:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• NO For some then championship section is much longer then their moves, music, etc. Why remove that but keep the long championship listings? I for 1 want to see someone's moves & want to look up their music & some have won every single championship in every company they have been in! Who needs all that? I think their moves & music is more important then their endless championships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE0:8550:81DD:D18E:1485:114A (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)— 2602:306:CCE0:8550:81DD:D18E:1485:114A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• No - I've been mostly retired for numerous years now, both as a user and an admin, but on this matter would like to give my opinion. Years ago, many many years ago, the question was asked over spoilers for pro wrestling over whether it was an entertainment program or a sport (as in did an event transpire when it occurred in front of a crowd, or when iot was broadcast on television). Wrestling is a carny business, its stupid and illogical and amazing, and part of the story is in the moves and the abilities of the competitors. To catch this in pose, over decades of a career, is impossible especially as times change and without the text reading like a grade schooler trying to pad the word count. This is because the stories in the matches aren't limited to a single move, it's a number of them that build to a particular style. Some things are generic yes, but some things are not and knowing these and what they are is part of the knowledge base for wrestling. Could the In wrestling sections be cleaned up? Undoubtedly yes, but the accusations of cruft and that of diminishing value is as blinded by wall gardening as the inclusionist accusations are. Not everything fits into a narrow box of "is trivial" or "is not trivial" nor can making things have a sweeping removal ever be done without uproar occurring, and to then pass off the uproar as fly-by-nighter-johnny-come-latelys is to ignore the readers of wikipedia at their own peril. Wikipedia is a force for good, but sweeping changes made by 8 people is inevitably going to cause a problem, and its not like these 8 were arbitrators. If things need to change they have to change, but what has happened here was clearly wrong and to much "us vs them" rather than actually looking at why these sections existed without one side reducing it to WP:USEFUL and the other WP:CRUFT. They have their place, they are important, and all-or-nothing is not the way we do things. At least not when I was here. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Wasn't going to comment originally, just let everyone have their say but I've seen a couple of additional comments and I just wanted to address something. To Lid and those expressing their opinion "per Lid" 2600:6C63:647F:DA77:0:85BF:75CB:B9E9 - great speech, very passionate. Just a couple of things, 1) the "remove the section" believes have stated more than just "it's cruft" - in fact, they have stated many guideline/principle reasons why they feel that information should not be presented in a bulleted list. You yourself did not, in fact, give any guidelines either but did explain that moves are important to a wrestler (as a lifelong wrestling nut I agree) and that the "changes over time" are hard to capture in prose form. I would also like to address the commons misconception that anyone who's for deleting the "in wrestling" section just want that stuff deleted, it's been said over and over again that our suggestion is that if it can be verified by reliable sources it should be written in the actual prose, nowhere has it been said to eliminate anything that passes that guideline. So "Per Lid" commenters are agreeing with the statement "it's hard to write it in prose form". Just so that the "Per Lid" commenters realize that.  MPJ-DK  23:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, remove Professional wrestling articles are now under strict sanctions because the broader editing community was fed up with the constant bickering and edit warring, and the inclusion of large amounts of unsourced trivia and "in universe" content in those articles. I have been very impressed and gratified at the work that many pro wrestling editors are doing to clean things up. I agree completely with Snow Rise that going back to the old ways now would severely interfere with this essential cleanup campaign. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Besides the maintenance issues.. look, even if you could guarantee these would be properly maintained, this type of list is still the definition of cruft. Minutia that is only of interest to the hardcore fan, that does not actually give any additional insight on the subject of the article in a broader sense. --SubSeven (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, remove. A trivia magnet bullet list with no clear inclusion criteria is possibly the worst way to present information about a character's persona. I've seen numerous complaints at the WT:PW discussions that it is needed for video games' "create a wrestler" feature. That is totally not what Wikipedia is for! Pro wrestler biographies have a weird double job of being both a biography of the performer and an article about the character. But it is WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Nor is it WP:IINFO. These sections just don't work well. Prose is a better format, and allows for context, which serves the Wikipedia purpose of being a general interest encyclopedia better. oknazevad (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Nuke from orbit, destroy entire section immediately, and on the off chance anything worthwhile is lost, it's worth it because it might attract CRUFT!!!! seems like a poor choice. Whatever the ultimate consensus is, I would submit that this option is by far the worst. There's no WP:DEADLINE and no need to WP:BITE new editors. Deltopia (talk) 01:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• I don't get the "Deadline" argument - if a consensus is reached to remove them, who cares if some people go through and remove them quickly or make a five-year plan to hunt them all down? That's just a stall tactic by those who do not like the consensus - if consensus is to allow it I could use "deadline" to stall any work on readding the content? Sorry I was not going to comment in general, but this does not make any sense to me. And if we remain WP:CIVIL no newbies would get bitten, that's not WP:AGF my good chap.  MPJ-DK  02:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• I haven't seen much in the way of articulated policy or guideline-based reasoning for removal of this content, besides one reference to WP:OR. WP:NOT here and there, but those references are a stretch. Does someone want to lay it out? Conversely, I also see little on the keeping editors. Is there a reason we should keep the content, grounded in policy/guideline? --Izno (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - These sections invariably attracted cruft and WP:OR. This is what Roman Reigns' section looked like. The moves list is a very typical example; sources almost never actually describe "Signature moves" so the solution has been to provide multiple sources which show the wrestler used the move a couple of times. This is a blatant case of WP:SYN. Theme songs are also rarely notable enough to get mentioned in WP:RS, so the solution has been to link to iTunes. A good rule of thumb is that if RS don't mention it, then it's not worth keeping around. Everything worth keeping should already be in the prose or could easily be worked into it and anything lost had no place in the encyclopedia to begin with. I recently brought Bobby Heenan to GA status and was surprised to see that almost everything in his "In wrestling" section (every nickname and all but a few of his less notable pairings) was already in the prose! The section was simply superfluous! LM2000 (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• No - While the section could use cleaning up, I disagree with outright removal. The information is valuable and useful, and the list format is the most efficient method of digesting the information. Removal of the section may follow the letter of the law, but I feel it ignores the spirit of it. Removal of the section may follow some arbitrary rules of conduct, but I feel it goes against the idea of what Wikipedia is. I'm disappointed with the decision to remove a valuable section that I use on many occasions. I feel that if Wikipedia is no longer interested in providing knowledge to the masses, I am no longer interested in supporting Wikipedia. 122.106.169.214 (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• No - To generally summarize what I posted on the talk page, I feel that the prose compromise is insufficient and needlessly complicates what is a section with use and that has encyclopedic information in it (nicknames of a wrestler, important moves, theme music and wrestlers trained come to mind as well as falling under this category in my view). Prose runs the risk of becoming convoluted in nature and removes the intended resourcefulness of its own self. A prose page for all wrestlers will be hard to do and become more difficult to parse through for information. The length of move-sets has long been a problem and I also believe, despite supporting the keeping of the 'In Wrestling' section, it should be managed at a level and/or trimmed down, but provided information for key moves to a wrestler and additional encyclopedic information is well-cited and reliably-cited, I see no reason to move this sort of information into a prose block. It removes convenience for user and editor and I don't see a reason to do that and remove a chunk of information that I would consider to be worthy of inclusion on this web encyclopedia. In conclusion, I believe sweeping removal (or at the very least dramatic change) of long-standing content that has merit for being in these articles in the first-place is not the way to go about this matter. NotAdamKovic (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• No with condition - These lists do often turn to WP:FANCRUFT about which wrestling moves are notable and which are not. Some of them even have concerns about whether the wrestler actually did the move, because they did a variation of it or something like that. However, with stringent enforcement of Reliable sources, adhering to standard procedures when material is challenged, and Wikipedia's policy on WP:DUE weight, these moves do have relevance within the realm of wrestling. A wrestler may be well known for doing a certain move as part of their cliche or personality. If they are well known for doing such, we should be able to find sources to that effect. We also need to enforce the No original research policy if this is kept. I'm overall in favor of keeping them if these Wikipedia policies can be enforced on these articles. Tutelary (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but wouldn't this information be best placed in prose? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Moves that are significant to the wrestler's identity, with good sourcing, should be added to the prose, not put into a list. --SubSeven (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - There is no definition of what a signature move is, and there is no official guide that describes what the technical moves are. Therefore all move lists are WP:OR or a violation of WP:SYNTH. Finishing moves are important to the characters, but prose can help provide context that a bullet list lacks. Managers can also be listed in prose with context such as dates and promotions, which provides more info than a straight bullet list. Entrance themes are important to "some" characters, and that too can be included better in prose with an explanation of "why" it is important to that character. The majority of the information in the "In wrestling" sections was impossible to source, so trimming the lists down to what can be properly sourced would result in some very short lists. I don't see how a short context-less list is any more accessible than prose. Nikki♥311 09:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. People who want to have an in-universe article should use the wrestling wikia. This information is not encyclopedic. Natureium (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
• No - While some wrestlers may have long lists of moves, to argue that finishing moves are irrelevant to a wrestler is ignorant. A finishing move, and by extension signature moves, are keys to a wrestler's in-ring performance. This is even more apparent with historical industry changing moves, whether it's now common moves that used to be big moves in previous eras, like the German Suplex or the Brainbuster, to something like the Orange Crush, Burning Hammer, or Emerald Flowsion. I think the scope of this argument has been focused to "Roman Reigns' list has an armdrag on it" (or whatever) and isn't taking into consideration the effect this would have when talking about wrestlers in the context of wrestling history. You can't have an article about Ric Flair without the Figure 4 Leglock. Should these lists be concise, cited, and logical? Sure. But they should not be removed as a whole. Bonevoyage (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC) — Bonevoyage (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As we said one hundred times, if a move is notable and important, we can put in a career or wrestling style section. Lou Thesz includes the creation of the powerbomb in the introduction. Same as Fujinami Dragon suplex and Dragon sleeper. Try to find a source and include Flair's finisher in the article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

-Sorry I didn't realize only new opinions were allowed in this discussion area. Bonevoyage (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

He didn't disregard your opinion. We have always maintained that if something is significant to the performer and can be reliably sourced, such as Flair's figure four leglock, then it can be included regardless of this section's removal. This proposal itself even mentions that certain finishing moves are likely to be retained. Flair's article may not have been updated to include that detail yet, but you can WP:FIXIT yourself, if you'd like. Prefall 21:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Like someone's theme music isn't "significant to the performer"? I think it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE0:8550:418D:E52E:5D61:A083 (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - Like mentioned before, some content can be added to the prose, not put into a list (like finishing moves, managers, "some" entrance themes), but stuff like the signature moves has no clear definition and the nicknames bit is a huge clutter. Really disappointed with the section, even from a long-time pro wrestling fan. 2A02:2F0D:D00:C00:463:23AB:1E16:D947 (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)— 2A02:2F0D:D00:C00:463:23AB:1E16:D947 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Yes - If such content is based on reliably-sourced in-depth coverage, then there should be material for more than a bullet point list. If it is not based on reliably-sourced in-depth coverage, then it doesn't need to be included. The effort that would be put into stopping clean up on this general site should instead be used to fix and maintain specialist sites like the wrestling Wikia. I don't see why we should apologize for making people read actual prose with more than four words per line instead of lists that are utterly meaningless to non-fans. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• No, but change the name The debate was originally about whether the In Wrestling section should be renamed to something else, since many felt the subheading was very vague and didn't accurately represent what the section was about. As far as I'm concerned, the idea of deleting the whole section wasn't brought up until few days before the consensus vote. The vote lasted a couple of days and was closed after an "overwhelming consensus". I feel like the decision was made in a WP:RUSH and as can be seen by the amount of discussion it has led to since then, there are a lot of people who oppose the change. I wholeheartedly agree that the section should be renamed to something else. "Professional wrestling highlights" and "professional wrestling details" were two of the suggestions for the new name. Removing the whole section, however, is not the answer. When it comes to working the contents of In Wrestling into the prose, I'd say that would affect readability, and sometimes a simple list is a better option. It's stated in WP:TRIVIA that "a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information", and I would say that's the case here. Professional wrestling is a combination of theatre and sports, and the finishing moves or entrance theme musics of wrestlers are just as important as championships and other accomplishments. None of this information is trivial in context of wrestling. Another cause of concern amongst the most active WikiProject members seems to be that the section gets edited a lot by people who believe every single move ever done by a certain wrestler should be included in the article. It's unfortunate that this happens, but I don't think WP:SUSCEPTIBLE is a good reason to remove the whole section just like that. Many of the professional wrestling promotions' websites, including World Wrestling Entertainment and New Japan Pro Wrestling, do have a plethora of articles and wrestler profiles listing their finishing moves and entrance music. Those websites can and should be used as sources, and the list of moves can be limited to their signature moves. Not every single punch and kick needs to be listed. All in all, I believe this consensus relies too much on Wikipedia's imperfect policies and guidelines. Sometimes accessibility and informativity should be put ahead of those guidelines (WP:RAP). In my personal opinion, the decision should be reverted, the section should be brought back and the WikiProject should focus on renaming the section and clarifying what moves, nicknames and themes should be included on the list. Kanavarras (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

You say “Many of the professional wrestling promotions' websites, including World Wrestling Entertainment and New Japan Pro Wrestling, do have a plethora of articles and wrestler profiles listing their finishing moves and entrance music. Those websites can and should be used as sources, and the list of moves can be limited to their signature moves.” but that just is not true. Where, exactly does WWE list superstar theme music? The fact of the matter is you can’t say because they don’t! Wikipedia was the “only reliable” place that ever did!~~The Greatest— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:cce0:8550:d424:64a0:7b5c:a6e5 (talk) 08:14, 12 July 2018‎ (UTC)

First of all, no need for the hostility. If Wikipedia is the "only reliable source", then it isn't a reliable source at all, since Wikipedia relies on other sources for its information. However, WWE actually has a record label named WWE Music Group. They compose and release most of the wrestlers' music by themselves, and those releases can be found on Amazon and iTunes. They also have a VERIFIED YouTube channel. All the music on artists' album pages (here's an example with Britney Spears) use similar sources, so that shouldn't be a problem. Kanavarras (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If Wikipedia is the only place that listed them, that's a very good indication that it's not a notable concept and shouldn't be included in the articles. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Where else is? The only other place that had/has it is way outdated & is missing current/new content! Content that was, in fact, on Wikipedia before it was taken down! So if Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source then where, exactly, is? That right here makes it the **most** reliable source! What part of that is so hard for you to understand? If it can’t be found on Wikipedia when where **can** it be found? Furthermore, it has been on Wikipedia for 10+ years so why take it way now? That makes no logical sense whatsoever!~~ The Greatest— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:cce0:8550:d424:64a0:7b5c:a6e5 (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2018‎ (UTC)

Firstly you are violating Wikipedia:SIGLINK by not properly signing your posts. Second, everything on Wikipedia must be independently verifiable, see WP:V. If the only place you can find this information is on Wikipedia, then its not verifiable, and therefore should not be kept on wikipedia, regardless of the outcome of this discussion. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I am signing my posts (now). Don’t you see “~~The Greatest”? I may not be signing them the “official” way or how you want them signed but I am signing them the way I am going to with the was I have been treated! If you have a problem with that then tough crap….“~~The Greatest— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:cce0:8550:d424:64a0:7b5c:a6e5 (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2018‎ (UTC)

If you wish to contribute to this discussion, Wikipedia has certain requirements for signing posts, and for what the signatures must contain. Sign your posts by using four tildes (~~~~). If you want "The Greatest" to show up as your name, you should register an account with that name first by going to Special:CreateAccount. It literally only takes a few seconds, as all you have to do it enter your desired username, your desired password, and enter the CAPTCHA text. You don't even have to provide an email address. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• No, unless a policy is put in place to replace the section with prose on each relevant page before deleting the information outright I am okay with the section being removed in favour of a "wrestling style" prose section, or something of the sort, but I feel like the sections were basically deleted based on the opinion of a few people with very little way for the general public to even know the debate was happening without digging into a sub-page deep in the editor's side of Wikipedia, a place which not many people generally end up, which has resulted in the information just ceasing to exist. No-one deleting it is making any effort to replace it with a more appropriate format, they're just deleting information outright, which is the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:CC03:AC00:8947:847:85E3:DD23 (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC) — 2001:8003:CC03:AC00:8947:847:85E3:DD23 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Well, there was a consensus for it's removal, so it was removed. Then there was a conversation over it's removal, and now we are here. The information is not lost, as it will always appear on the history tab; and can be turned into a real section. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• No per Lid. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

NEUTRAL; no longer have an opinion either way GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support - The above procedure would be simply moving a list of what is usually meaningless cruft into prose (The "Professional Wrestling Persona".) Most of these article are filled with examples of WP:FANCRUFT for every move that the BLP has ever done is "sourced" with a reviewer stating that the move was used. Personally, I'm against meaningless information like this being included in an article. The arguement against the removal of this information are generally based on WP:ILIKEIT, or a confusion on what wikipedia is. Important information should be easy enough to turn into prose. Some pieces of information, such as Jeff Hardy creating his own theme song in TNA, or Petey Williams inventing the "canadian destroyer is information that could very easily be changed into prose. Information on who a person has been managed by (Even if sourced) is irrelevent, unless they were a long term manager, in which case, this should be in this section, or more likely the career section. Information on moves used is no more notable than a list of ways that Lionel Messi attacks during a football match. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Less so, if you ask me since a) Messi's approach to the ball has actual impact upon his game, and b) the number of ways in which he can approach the ball can be summed up as a relatively closed class of options due to competitive constraints, whereas a pro wrestler's moves a) are completely arbitrary and chosen for theatrical effect, and therefor b) are a completely open class of ever-shifting and potentially infinite options that will invariably add up to mammoth proportions. There's also the rather critical policy matter that Messi's techniques are the subject of substantial WP:WEIGHT of coverage in WP:reliable sources, discussed in encyclopedic context, whereas "finishers" or whathaveyou are not a substantial part of what WP:reliable sources have to say about professional wrestlers and are simply added at the whim of whichever fan would happen to be editing the "In wrestling" section that day. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree. But I was using the simile pretty arbitrarily. In fact, WP:FOOTY has a "playing style" or "Style of play" for this type of entry, which is what the "Professional wrestling Persona" section would be similar too. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• No per Lid and others. (Summoned by bot) This information is clearly of great interest to many people, based on comments here of those who don't want to see it disappear. If these topics have WP:WEIGHT in RS reporting on wrestlers, then Wikipedia should present that information in some format. Also, if these sections attract "cruft" from new editors, surely that is an opportunity for us to welcome new content-creators in a non-bitey way. HouseOfChange (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think WP:ITSUSEFUL / WP:ITSINTERESTING works here. It's one of the reasons why professional wrestling articles have been swamped in immense WP:INUNIVERSE detail for such a long period of time. This is also not a simple matter of weight given by reliable sources. When it comes to wrestlers in popular promotions, such as WWE, practically every performance in their career will be covered ten times over in routine coverage from reliable sources. This can range from hundreds to thousands of matches, all with detailed writeups of each move performed during them. One of the major issues with this section is trying to discern which of this information is actually worth noting. This also does not delve into the WP:SYNTH / WP:OR issues with many of the moves performed (as discussed in the section below). To cite the Daniel Bryan and A.J. Styles examples from the proposal, they show just how excessive and problematic this section can become. Prefall 09:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• No Just try again to source it properly, exactly like we attempt (and often fail at) with prose. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, anything encyclopedic should be included in well-sourced prose. I agree with Prefall's first post and the one above mine. Doug Weller talk 13:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• No, but condense and source the content. This is not WrestleCruftPedia. See MPJ-DK's excellent post at the top of the #Example of the "Keep" vote with strict WP:V verification. subection, below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• comment - Anyone who says "keep" should provide their input on when something is notable enough to include - signature moves, nicknames , managers and theme music has gotten very crufty and trivial over the years. If we keep the section we need a good, CLEAR guideline for everyone so that it is easier to maintain.  MPJ-DK  19:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

When a reliable source notes a move is a certain wrestler's finisher, that move is notable and suitable under Finishers (with a bullet and citation). Same deal with managers and the Manager section, signatures and the Signature section, all the way down. No synthetic local excuses like "If four sources call it a move a wrestler does, it's a signature move" or "Accompanying someone to ringside makes you their manager" or "If your finisher looks like something a New Japan guy did on a tape you watched, that means he trained you."

Just plain and transparent verifiability, the sort that's currently sorely lacking in wordier cruft like "In the ring, Monsoon dominated opponents with vicious chops, the dreaded Manchurian Splash, and his signature move, the Airplane Spin". Fortunately, nobody bothered to rename and delete his In Wrestling section, so even complete rubes can still easily and quickly see the simple truths those long-winded lies are roughly based on. Would you keep the unsourced format for matching the style of what you think people want, or delete the sourced list for merely resembling the type of place that's fooled you before? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• NO The old In Wrestling section should've been left as it was, and should be reinstated. Condensing the information is one thing, but to remove it completely was a ridiculous decision. I've used that section as a reference for years when reviewing information about wrestler's current and past entrance themes and move sets. It was both informative and fun to skim over every now and then; especially when a wrestler debuted a new theme, as this was sometimes the quickest and easiest place to find the name of the song or artist. As for trying to work the information into the prose, this seems like an equally ridiculous amount of work to people who will now have to go through and try to eloquently write that information into the prose in an effective way, as well as to anyone who came to these articles specifically to find that information; they'll now have to skim through paragraphs and paragraphs of information for something that they could once skip straight to. Reverting it to how it was is much easier on everyone.--MignightDaybreak (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)— MignightDaybreak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Yes. Things like signature moves might not be the extreme point of trivia, but they're not hugely far. Bulleted lists can be a good idea in some situations, but that's only when the relevance of those items is obvious, e.g. the article about a geographic subdivision (like a U.S. county) ought to have a list of its towns, because nothing really needs to be conveyed about the towns aside from their existence there, and virtually everyone knows something about local government in their country and will understand why the towns are mentioned. However, tons of us are agnostic about professional wrestling; we may wonder why "European uppercut" and "Cobra clutch to a facedown opponent" will matter and why those moves are listed when others aren't: are other moves less significant, or are they not signature moves, or does this character have no other moves at all, and what's a signature move anyway? If you're reading Beaver County, Pennsylvania and you see that Aliquippa is a city in the county, you don't need to be told anything about Aliquippa or city to understand its inclusion, but non-wrestling readers will need explanations that a simple list can't give. And finally, when converting stuff into prose, be sure to use reliable sources. I see that the Daniel Bryan article lost sources like [6], YouTube, [7], and [8]; those are primary sources, as they're either raw numbers (Cagematch) or reports derived from the event itself, not secondary sources that are distilled from the primaries. None of these is written by scholars in the field, which for professional wrestling would be something like film studies or media studies. If you can get solid, reviewed sources of this sort, by all means provide a prose section covering these aspects of the wrestler's career. Nyttend (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Dave Meltzer, Bryan Alvarez and Wade Keller are among the closest things wrestling has to noted scholars. That's not to say it always trickles down to their whole staff, but PWTorch and F4Wonline are still generally top dogs on the topic, something like Sports Illustrated or Vanity Fair are to their niches. Setting the bar higher than that would kill off almost all wrestling articles and seriously starve what's left. If they're good enough for our featured article, they should be good enough for other things one doesn't learn at Dartmouth. That said, they were used improperly in synthesis at Daniel Bryan's list (and others); can't hold that against them. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• No - The "In wrestling" section was incredibly useful. I looked up wrestler's finishers on Wikipedia on a monthly basis. When you want to know a wrestler's current or former finishing moves, a bulleted list in a dedicated section is much easier to use than trying to find it in prose. Prose can easily miss information. Using the above example of Daniel Bryan's reworked page, the added prose talks only about his submission finishers; there is not a single mention of his running knee finisher, which he uses frequently. Even if you disagree with my stance that the information is better presented in a bulleted list, having the information presented in a bulleted list is infinitely better than having the information missing. If the "In wrestling" section must be removed, then a mass removal without replacing the information is absolutely not the way to do it. The Bludgeon Brothers have finishing moves called "The Bludgeoning" and "The Reckoning". If someone wants to know what each of those moves are, that information is no longer available on Wikipedia, because it was simply deleted without re-adding it as prose. The removal of the "In wrestling" section is both the wrong thing to do and the wrong way to do it. --Curseofgnome (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Curseofgnome - This isn't a conversation on how to remove the information. If there is missing notable information (Such as Bryans running knee lift), that can be sourced, you can simply add it (See WP:SODOIT.) However, it does need to be sourced. The issues with some of the move names, is that they can't be reliably sourced. They break WP:SYNTH, which is a big pillar of wikipedia, by adding two references, one that says they use a finisher (by name), and then another by the move itself (common name). However, this is incredibly bad. If a "professional wrestling persona" section was created for the Bludgeon Brothers, then those moves could be added, if the moves are sourced. I should mention, most of these articles are WP:BLP articles, and any information that is poorly sourced should really be removed, regardless of the consensus here. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, but cull signature move sections. One of the reasons I left Wikipedia is because I became exasperated with blanket solutions to groups of issues that required individual solutions, and the tendency to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater that came along with those blanket solutions. And in this case, the issues with the 'signature moves' subsection are taking over the discussion and editors are trying to apply overly-drastic solutions to all pro wrestling articles. The signature moves sections are mostly a train wreck with little hope of fixing them - for example on the Gran Metallik article, for most of his signature moves that were sourced, the source merely said that he used them in a match, not that they were signature moves. And there's very little chance of finding a reliable source that claims a move as a wrestler's signature move for most wrestlers. Yet if signature moves are deleted wholesale, that leaves no room for things like Bret Hart's Russian legsweep and middle rope elbow drop (which could be sourced because they're part of his 5 Moves Of Doom), or The Rock's spinebuster (as the setup to to the People's Elbow). The prose sections are nice when possible, but they won't be possible for any but the most prominent wrestlers of all time. (And I'm making my first edit since 2013 because I found out about this through a thread on Gamefaqs). (And I sincerely encourage all these motivated, disappointed editors who liked the signature move sections to roll up your sleeves and start moving the material over to the pro wrestling wiki). McJEFF ^(talk) 00:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Bit funny how even with more than 30 moves, Wikipedia still managed to overlook a full half of the two in this source. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It should be noted that wrestlingdata is not a reliable source for moves, only for uncontroversial claims, see WP:PW/RS. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Nowhere on that page does it note anything about moves. Just says use with caution, mainly for uncontroversial claim. If it's giving attendance as an example, and we know attendance figures are often disputed betweeen promoters and reporters (some more often than others), we can deduce that Gran Metalik's moves are even less controversial. Cases may arise where one source disputes another's claim about whether or not a wrestler used a move, but I can't remember ever seeing that happen. Regarding conflicting information about this man's clothesline, we'll cross that bridge if we come to it. The general controversy here is simply among regular people and pertains only to the inclusion of moves on Wikipedia; it does not carry over to claims about the moves themselves. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

One of the solutions for this, is a prose version of the section, where clearly notable information could be written into the "persona" section. If a move is very easily sourced, and is clearly notable, then it can be mentioned here. The main issue with the section is that the information is baseless, and rather irrelevent to the WP:BLP for the article. What's the point of saying what moves the person uses, if it isn't expanded on? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes; Wikipedia does not need to include all the information that exists. There are no similar lists for other types of performance artists, and anything like this for other performers would be deleted as fancruft. (Imagine allowing things like lists of best high notes at live performances for every singer in popular music…) Just because there are secondary sources for this particular sort of trivia does not mean we need to have standardized sections for this trivia. Jc86035 (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• If this were in a video game article, it would removed per WP:VGSCOPE. --Izno (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• No Absolutely not there's quite a few people who came to find this place to complain about the sudden information loss caused and I've talked to a few outside of here who are absolutely disappointed. It was a guide that gave you a quick and dirty rundown for casual viewers. Granted it was sloppy and could have been formatted better, but it was a very useful guide to learn about what a wrestler does really quickly. You could gain so much insight into their style in a couple seconds and what that wrestler is looking to do. A lot of people are upset and I'm included in this. Seriously, you get an understanding of 'oh he's got a DDT so when he goes for the front headlock he's looking for that and I should get on my feet when it's cinched in. Long story short: You don't just rip useful things out because they are ugly. Find a better way to present it if you must, but to know the cornerstone of a wrestler's moveset without mulling through a long article (which may not mention it) is important. Klichka (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't designed to provide this type of information to fans. See What Wikipedia is not. It's not because it's ugly, it's due to the fact this type of information is WP:FANCRUFT, excessive information that doesn't help the reader learn about the subject. Simply denoting that they were once managed by Jimmy Hart, or that they do a brainbuster finisher doesn't help the reader learn about the WP:BLP involved. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I have to object to your assessment. The finisher tells me exactly what they are shooting for, what kind of setup to look for when I watch the wrestler for the first time. Also, some wrestlers are defined by their moves. Jake The Snake is defined by that DDT, he innovated it, in a few seconds I can learn that the pinfall after a DDT means something without having watched him. I can learn a hint that Hulk Hogan had an altered moveset in Japan. Quite a bit of wrestling psychology has been based on the idea of two wrestlers trying to get their finisher in. For quite a few people you're kind of talking about what they are about. Klichka (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Read the Roberts article, the lead "he was known for ... his invention and use of the DDT finishing move". The info you're missing is in the first part of the article. If not, you can create a pro wrestling persona section and include it, like I did with Vader o Lesnar. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes I started this so feel I should comment here. My original request at the wikiproject was not to have it deleted, I was just looking for a solution to a problem that I saw as an outsider. Deleting the section is a valid solution to that problem, as would have been renaming, and I was pleasantly surprised to see the wikiproject take my concerns seriously. I think some of the No !voters above are missing the point of this discussion. It is not to blanket remove the information from wikipedia, it is to remove the information that is not (or poorly) sourced or not notable in the context of a biography. The rest will be incorporated into the prose regarding their career. Sure there may be a bit of disagreement on what is notable or even what constitutes poorly sourced, but that is what talk pages are for. This is normal editing practise and always improves the encyclopaedia. I feel this has been a positive step for a wikiproject and area that has been much maligned recently. AIRcorn (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, I would suggest that you have missed the point of the discussion. I don't know that anybody is pushing for keeping all of the information. I think the moves should be trimmed--drastically, in some cases. One of the big objections is to the prose format, in which information is much harder to find, not to mention the fact that the wholesale removal of the content from thousands of articles would mean that a prose section would need to be written for thousands of articles. The section functions well now, and the biggest arguments being used against it are cruft and verifiability. However, when the solution to remove the cruft and source the content is discussed, that's still not good enough, for some reason. It's absolutely baffling--I have written for dozens of actual encyclopedias, yet Wikipedia is the only place I've written for in which editors are concerned that the content might be considered useful or easy to read. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. The section tends to lean towards trivia and is quickly cluttered with signature moves which hold no major importance, significant finishers and signatures can be incorporated into the new (better referenced) "Wrestling persona and style" section. Greyjoy ^talk 06:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• STRONG NO. I joined Wikipedia and instantly associated myself with the WikiProject Professional wrestling, during the climax of the Yes! Movement, a period where professional wrestling had a high reputation, and this was halfway into this decade long precedent for the highly inclusive and useful "in wrestling" section. However, a mere four years later, a group of deletionist/exclusionist Wikipedians who hold bureaucratic, asinine control of a WikiProject that tens of thousands of fans, if not even more rely on for useful information, including the "in wrestling" section, had a very oligarchic discussion selling out to their deletionist/exclusionist policies and choosing to remove the section and alienate the thousands upon thousands of fans who relied on it for CAWs, understanding a performer's wrestling style, knowing who managed who, what music he came out to, and so forth. I spent all last night reading all about it and what people have said, and this is what I have to say about it. This was a poorly thought out move made by selfish Wikipedians who only care about their deletionist/exclusionist views and obstructing free knowledge, at the expense of the greater good who read articles for information like these. I just don't see why the use of inclusionism would hurt in this case. An example of inclusionist thought supporting the "in wrestling" section is a quote from site founder and fellow inclusionist Jimmy Wales, who stated "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Many people come to Wikipedia for this information because of the site's high reputation, easy access, and visibility. It would be much harder to find this information on another site because this site is more clean and visible than another. If the information is benefiting many people and its exclusion is hurting many people, whats the point of excluding this information. Trivial and fancruft? Sure. Does that make it excessive and unnecessary? In this case, hell no! In some deletion reviews, despite a vast majority saying delete, sometimes a redirect vote or two opposed to the majority will result in a inclusionist redirect due to there being "plausible target" for one. I feel that keeping the "in wrestling" section, despite its deletionest-regime policy issues, has "plausible target" for the hundreds of thousands of fans who relied on this information in the articles who are now alienated and outraged because of a few deletionist's bureaucratic, authoritative decision that disregarded the needs of the readers. Putting it in prose will exclude lots of information and make knowledge that was once easy and helpful become hard and impossible to come by. And do not come at me with this "fancruft" and "ilikeit" policies, because I am sure as hell not selling out to these deletionist/exclusionists who are going against what Wikipedia stands for and killing it's heart and soul. The only reason this happened anyway is because of the backstage deletionist policies of Wikipedia. I cannot assume good faith about these oligarchists because they only care for their views and not the people's, and they've pretty much caused a situation similar to those like the beating of Rodney King and the 1992 Los Angeles Riots, the 1770 Boston Massacre, the Ferguson Shooting of Michael Brown, the Death of Freddie Gray resulting in the 2015 Baltimore Riots, the Shooting of Trayvon Martin, the Death of Eric Garner, the protests and outcry regarding Donald Trump and his policies, and so forth, except that this involved the "murder" (deletion) of a section titled "In wrestling", and the Internet Wrestling Community is providing harsh backlash to the decision, yet the deletionists ruling over it don't give a fuck and only care about their needs opposed to others. And no, I'm not being uncivil, I'm just passionately delivering my and many other's opinion regarding this matter. I appreciate all of you taking the time to read over this. Please consider it. That is my speech, titled "A Modest Wrestling Information Proposal'. DrewieStewie (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• DrewieStewie so first of all it is disheartening to read such an uncivil response, especially one that paints a group of people who are all regular editors of professional wrestling articles - you know those articles that really help you understand a wrestler to know that Some NXT guy is using CFO$ "Insert name here" theme. Your hostility undermines your point and surprises me that the removal of entrance themes etc. draws such a vitriolic response from readers. On the other hand it does seem to draw a lot of readers to actually edit Wikipedia for the first time, maybe it'll draw them to actually edit in the future. Also Trivial and fancruft? Sure - that is a large part of the "delete" view right there, both of which are discouraged on Wikipedia. The "keep" contingency seems to think that Wikipedia is just this bucket that anyone can fill with any and all information, like a hippie society there are no rules, just a free for all. That's not what Wikipedia is, that's not what "Jimbo" or anyone else who've helped build Wikipedia are saying.  MPJ-DK  10:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• DrewieStewie's comments above may be the most disgraceful that I've seen in all my time here on the encyclopedia. I'd consider taking this to WP:ANI but I think there are enough admins on here to handle it if they choose to. Please remember that general sanction now apply for pro wrestling. We can disagree on whether or not it's best to reshuffle bullet-points into the prose but you cannot compare the other side to racists and murderers. Good grief!LM2000 (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• - Wow. That was quite the scary comparison. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• Rambling peer-reviewed text and poorly-sourced bullet lists have both long been staples of the racist murderer camp. Some want every petty detail of their crimes shouted from the rooftops, others want everything swept under the rug. Some are left-wing hippies, some are right-wing prudes. The only common grounds (unsurprisingly) are racism and murder. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Drewie, since you have presumed to speak the mind of the venerable community elder Jimbo Wales on this matter, I will do him the courtesy of a ping--which is more useful to our purposes here than a link to his article (believe it or not, we know who he is). I understand that you have mentioned below that you authored that message in a heated state, but while you have admitted that some of the tone of your message was ill-considered, I must respectfully suggest that perhaps you need to consider how solid your reasoning is as well, as with that Jimbo-based line of commentary. Because I'm not aware that he has ever self-identified as an "inclusionist"--boy am I tired of that dichotomy, regardless--and parroting his most famous quote, the mantra of the project, doesn't really prove (or even suggest) where he falls on spectrum of editors on such matters. We all believe in the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and we all accept that it should touch on the many disparate avenues of human experience, inquiry, and endeavour. But it is just as manifest and widely accepted a principle that the encyclopedia is not all things that all people want it to be, nor can our coverage of a given topic be all inclusive of everything every editor wishes it to be. That's just clearly an infeasible approach. So the community has developed a rather detailed framework for deciding what should come in and in what format, with the caveat that individual circumstances often require further nuancing. Keeping fidelity with those policies does not make an editor an "inclusionist", nor a "deletionist", but rather just someone who has faith in the idea that our collective pragmatic wisdom is better than the sum of its parts and, absent really compelling reason for varying the approach of policy (that is, community consensus) in an instant case, we ought to opt for consistency in following said consensus. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'm afraid my comment will probably not shed much useful light on anything, but here goes. :-) I think that lots of things should be in Wikipedia, and some things should not. I'm neither an "inclusionist" nor a "deletionist" by nature. I like to call myself an "eventualist" which means that if we get something wrong today, we'll probably get it right eventually. But what I do think is that we are far more likely to get it right sooner rather than later if we all pause to listen to each other, if we actually "try on" the other person's "shoes" so to speak, before we get too heated. For many of the most difficult questions of inclusion or deletion of any particular thing, there are plausible arguments on both sides, and we have to weigh up the balance thoughtfully. We won't always agree, but when we pause to realize that those who weigh things differently are probably not being horrible people, we're more likely to be wise on our own weighing. Separately, Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem is a fun read, whenever someone wants to cite me as an authority for anything other than "Please everyone relax a notch or two, and let's be kind to each other and have fun."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

MPJ-DK, LM2000, and Lee Vilenski, I sincerely apologize for coming off as overly harsh right there. I was in an extremely bad mood over something in my private life that isn’t appropriate to share on here, and while I’m still a little upset, I’ve regained my composure. I’m also apologising for my harsh attacks and overly political comparisons. But anyway, a much nicer and not so controversial way to put it: while it is trivial and cruft, I feel it is relevant and reasonable to enough people to not be “fill-up bucket” type information either. That’s the basic jist of it, no politics included. It’s safe to keep everything I said up there, as I’m not gonna try to hide or deny and be honest about what I said. But I do want to make clear more than anything, I apologize for my extremely uncivil, pissed off response. That totally isn’t me. :) DrewieStewie (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Don’t apologize at all! Every single thing you said it true! They don’t like that the truth is coming out & they have nothing to hide behind! All they got to do to “fix” it is bring the “In Wrestling” section back & this would all be over! They know it but they refuse to accept the truth!OnlyRealSpike (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

OnlyRealSpike I mean, I totally agree. I agree with what you said too below. I just didn't want to cause any more trouble and put my account at risk though. I stand by many of the stuff I said, but I feel retrospectively that doing stuff such as comparing these otherwise innocent humans outside of this problem to grim real life events was just simply a step too far and inexcusable on my part. You feel me?— Preceding unsigned comment added by DrewieStewie (talk • contribs) 09:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Harsh, yes, but it was needed to get their attention. They want to compare apples to oranges & you just brought real-live to it & it makes them mad. You called them out & got under their skin. But I am sick & tired of them saying 1 thing (calling this a “discussion”) but they already did what they are “talking about” doing! They got the cart before the horse & that is ass backwards! If you knew how I had been treated from the start (before I registered & was just my IP address)….got called “trivial” & “insignificant”, got blocked for a week & just got back I couldn’t care less if they like what I say….don’t hold back, I speak the truth & they despise me for it! This whole thing is nothing but a scam & it pisses me off!OnlyRealSpike (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we're getting dangerously close to Godwin's law territory here. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Ahecht - Godwin's law may only be half of this. I feel like we may be near to dividing by zero Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

To paraphrase one legendary wrestling announcer, this place has literally gone bananas!LM2000 (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

What is IP (as in "IP address"? A separate point: i never noticed that there was a page of Wikipedia abbreviations even though I have been editing for years: access to and information about the mechanics of Wikipedia editing is very hard to come by in many cases. The Village Pump is the best part, since PEOPLE instead of text that is hard to find provide information. 107.134.78.59 (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Internet Protocol, the format of messages on the Internet. An IP address is the number which is found by translating a name such as en.wiki.x.io. When you edit the system needs to record who has edited, and if you are not logged in it uses the address of your computer, in your case 107.134.78.59 which is trivial to trace to Glenview. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• No Yes, but replace with the "professional wrestling persona" section. Some information naturally lends itself to being displayed in list form rather than prose. "Finishing moves" are a staple feature of biographies on wrestlers - try finding a wrestler's biography that doesn't mention them. And, as this discussion illustrates, this information is clearly of interest to a significant subset of readers. Issues around sourcing and presentation are not a valid rationale for purging the information altogether. McPhail (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

For any neural networks or staunchly literal humans trying to follow along at home, an abundance of information in a particular set of resources is not a valid rationale for aiming to isolate and utilize less-informative resources in this unending pursuit of knowledge. You will just run into a loop that way. What my rhetorical friend here is "trying to say" ("as they say") is: Try finding a wrestler's biography that does mention them (them being the moves). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

And for the smaller minority of wrestling/true crime fans who also happen to read too far into things, don't let my esteemed colleague's adoption of The Zodiac's signature fool you: The man behind the murders has long since been murdered and the man of a thousand names has't terrorized a New York subway station with deadly laughing powder in years. McPhail has voted my way on certain issues, so I won't stand for potential rabib mobs attacking him for giving his position a second thought! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• I believe notable moves and managers of the wrestlers should be added in prowse as opposed to having it in a section called In Wrestling or Wrestling Persona. For example, it's notable that Paul Heyman managed Brock Lesnar while its not as notable that Coach managed Mr Perfect. Same thing with the moves, notable moves that should be in prowse are Hulk Hogan's leg drop or Shawn Michael's sweet chin music. A rarely used rope suplex used by Crush for example would should not be included in prowse. If they insist on the In Wrestling or Wrestling persona sections then a fair compromise would be to add the In wrestling or Wrestling Persona info to the infobox. I don't know if that was brought up but it should be. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

JC7V7DC5768 - I think you've misunderstood. Prose is the concept of written text, so we are proposing to move notable information from the list, and move it into a well sourced, well written section called "Professional wrestling persona." other things, as you've discussed above that isn't notable to be removed.

Hi Lee, thank you for your reply. I am 100 percent for removing the In Wrestling/Wrestling Persona section and adding the notable info from that list to the article in Prose. The infobox idea was just a last resort idea just in case this village pump decided to keep the In Wrestling/Wrestling Persona sections. I would prefer ,as it stands to go the prose route.JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think many people however, would be particularly for putting this type of information in the infobox. To me, that seems even more crufty than having a section for it.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. Fancruft. Time to get some consistency and Wikipedia standards acknowledged, and if the information can't be found anywhere else, then it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• No. Per Lid. The primary course of storytelling in wrestling is what's done in the ring and what's performed in the ring is made up of moves. Moves are extremely important to the wrestler and should be displayed in a bulleted list as done previously. 2600:6C63:647F:DA77:0:85BF:75CB:B9E9 (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC) — 2600:6C63:647F:DA77:0:85BF:75CB:B9E9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Yes, absolutely. The argument made above, that "if it attracts cruft, the solution is to remove the cruft" is mistaken; the section doesn't 'involve' cruft, it is cruft. I don't wonder that ten years of efforts to clean up that type of material have been doomed, and I believe they always will be. Inappropriate in an encyclopedia. Bishonen | talk 08:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC).

Wrestling discussion

I do NOT like that the “In Wrestling” section listing “Fishing Holds”, “Signature Holds” & “Theme Music” has been removed! I am trying to look up some wrestler theme songs & that has always been my go-to for looking it up but that is impossible to do when they have been removed! Where else can that be found? NOWHERE AT ALL! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE0:8550:81DD:D18E:1485:114A (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry, but that's not what Wikipedia is for, to be your go-to source for information deemed trivial (and usually poorly verified) by Wikipedia editors. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• I don't understand how this information is "trivial". Wikipedia should absolutely be your "go-to source", why would you want to send users elsewhere by making this vital information pertaining to a wrestler's character much harder to find? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.197.130 (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you should read WP:NOT, that should answer your questions. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Worth noting that /r/SquaredCircle on Reddit and possibly other professional wrestling communities are now aware of this discussion. Prefall 18:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yup, sorry to keep dragging this out for you guys. We value the information a lot though, and see a lot of encyclopedic value in it. 67.244.146.250 (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

That's alright; I for one appreciate that the original comment of that Reddit thread does make an effort to contextualize matters and encourage involvement here to conform to our local rules. Predictably, a fair number of people participating there are instead encouraging or demonstrating proclivity towards more disruptive attitudes and tactics, but if they arrive here looking to effectuate that approach, they will find we have significant mechanisms in place to put onerous, uncivil, tendentious, or generally disruptive participants outside of the discussion entirely. I do think that it is likely that the closer of this discussion will take into account that a lot of opposing !votes come from WP:SPA's and factor that into their analysis of the consensus, but so long as SquaredCircle's community members come here to share their opinions in a cogent, civil, and principled manner, they are welcome and will be heard out. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You guys kept saying people coming from other sources because they were told to. I ultimately disagree, as i see it the majority came here on their own will, because they saw this important information of Encyclopedia section "IN wresting" missing,so they found own way to this discussion/vote/security. Colton Meltzer (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I find that somewhat improbable, given how byzantine Wikipedia projectspace is for a newcomer and the fact that at least four of the above accounts that I've checked were registered immediately after the SquaredCircle call to arms. But it doesn't really matter: everyone is welcome to comment here, provided they follow the rules, treat others civilly, keep comments focused on the matter at hand, and at least make an attempt to understand how community consensus works on this project. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

As I saw in the previous discussion, the In wrestling section has some policies against it. Finishing moves, sources don't include the technical description of the move, so it's OR. Signature moves it's clearly OR since it's hard to find a source saying "signature move". At the end, we made SYNTH (he uses the move X times, it's signature) Nicknames, people includes every YouTube video or promo as nickname (I removed severals and I find again in the article some days later). Entrance themes, for me it's pure trivial. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Soumds like there has to be Wikia-wikis about this stuff somewhere? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The Pro Wrestling Wikia could work, though it is poorly upkept and a majority of it is copied from here. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Entrance themes are part of the character portrayed by the wrestler. Further, change in entrance music also signifies major changes in the character being portrayed. Similarly to articles about musicals or other theatric performances, the music is certainly not trivial (e.g., Cats_(musical)). Secondly, the finishing moves are also part of the character being portrayed. Again, if a character omits or adds certain moves which in general finish a match, these changes indicate change in the character being portrayed. Furthermore, one important part of storytelling is whether the wrestler innovated the finisher, and if another wrestler adopted this finisher from their trainer. If anything, there should be more information regarding the finishers pertaining to the evolution of the character, in particular if they are the innovator, or whether the move was passed on from someone else. All these details are historically significant not only for individual characters, but for the wrestling performance as a whole. In general, it is my opinion that articles about wrestlers should not be treated as articles about athletes, but rather as articles about fictional characters. JackKasket (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• So here is my counter, if it's so important would a list actually help inform the reader of any of this? I don't see where a list convey the "historical significance" that you mention.  MPJ-DK  03:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• I would argue that a timeline would be the optimal representation, similar to Carcass_(band)#Band_members. However, maintaining this would be a nightmare, in which case the second best option would be Current/Past lists. Basically, treat this information similarly to other performance arts.JackKasket (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• How is someone's theme music & move set any different then the number of championships someone has held? For many of of them, their championship listings (in every single promotion they have been in) is much longer then the theme songs they've had & moves they've done. So why take out (all of the) the theme songs & moves but keep (all of) the championships? If you keep the championship reigns they you should also keep the theme music & move set....that just makes logical sense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE0:8550:418D:E52E:5D61:A083 (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Championships and awards typically receive far more coverage in reliable sources and are generally more notable to the subject. Entrance themes rarely receive any coverage, which is why most of their inclusions is supported by an iTunes Store link or a database entry (which does not establish notability). Sidenote, signature moves is not intended to be a "move set"—a common misconception and one of the reasons it is better left omitted. Prefall 13:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Let me ask this: say,, if, for example, someone wanted to have (or has) wrestler theme songs on iTunes. Now, let’s say they want to list them in chronological order (starting with Seth Rollins’ 1st theme & ending with his current theme, etc. with other wrestlers). The same holds true with TV programming (Raw, SmackDown, NXT, etc.) or PPVs & so on. Where would people find them, if not on the wrestler pages where they’ve been? You can find the TV programming opening theme. But where is that on the wrestler pages? Please don’t tell me on the “WWE Music Group discography” page because that is only a listing of when the songs were released on iTunes & only those that were released by WWE’s musical department, not if a Kid Rock song is used, etc. Is that not reason enough to keep it? Is that not a historical reference of the character’s development? Why is it not an issue to list the TV show themes but it’s a problem to list the wrestler themes? Someone may want to know what theme song(s) A.J. Styles used when he was in TNA & not just his championships! As for awards/accomplishments, who cares how may times he has been Pro Wrestling Illustrated or Wrestling Observer Newsletter’s Wrestler of the year or in match of the year or how many times he’s won a “WWE Slammy”. Furthermore, a Slammy is not really an award par-say but a gimmicky thing. What about Booker T (or anyone else, for that matter) being listed with a “Hall of Fame” award where there isn’t really a hall of fame? That, too, is a gimmicky thing but it’s still listed? So how are championships & accomplishments really any different then theme music & moves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE0:8550:418D:E52E:5D61:A083 (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument...if you want to start a discussion to remove than section go ahead, but that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does! It has EVERYTHING to do with it! It is ABOUT a segment the content THAT IS BEING removed as opposes to contest that is being kept! That makes it VERY relevant to the matter at hand! Furthermore, let me also draw your attention to parts of the very article: “these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes”, “legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought or consideration” & “it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged” which is exactly what you have done! Therefore, I do make a very valid point! Man, I hate when I’m right…. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE0:8550:418D:E52E:5D61:A083 (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate discussion as much as the next guy, but can we at least keep it civil? Snarky comments like "Man, I hate when I'm right" irritate others and are downright rude. Thanks. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

When Prefall made a overhaul, i agreed with the changes (except for "In Wresting") as stated on previous posts discussion with reasons. This right here, almost like "Donald Trump wins the 2016 President Election fairly" Where this In Wresting section was removed fairly anger many many people. Colton Meltzer (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not trying to be snarky - I am being sarcastic, there’s a difference. You my thing me saying “Man, I hate when I'm right” is snarky, but I think being told my comments/opinions “is not a valid argument” is snarky. I quoted an article - apparently intended to discredit my comments/opinions - that clearly states not to do what was done to me. How, exactly is THAT not being snarky? You want to talk about being “civil”, since when was it a crime to make a sarcastic remark when I am being insulted? Isn’t THAT “downright rude”? If I am going to be attacked I am going to fight back so please don’t accuse me of being “snarky” but let others be rude to me & insist on how “wrong” I am - just because someone does not agree with me does not give them the right! I make very valid points, rather or not you or anyone else like them or not! I stand by every single word I said - theme music should NOT be removed & nonsense like Match/Superstar of the Year it kept! You may call this “snarky” but I don’t care….prove me wrong (the entire statement, not just what should/shouldn't be removed)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE0:8550:418D:E52E:5D61:A083 (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Championships are gimmicks too. Slammy Awards also have numerous categories that have been legitimately fan voted. Anyway, the difference is that these items typically receive far more coverage than much of the content contained within the "In wrestling" section. But if you think other items should be removed too, a separate discussion can be created.

Most entrance themes are simply not significant to the performer and thus do not receive much coverage outside of a retailer listing or "listen now" link. A catalog of entrance themes being WP:USEFUL is not the greatest argument. WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information comes to mind. Now, if a theme is actually significant to their persona and has received notable coverage, it can still be written into prose. A couple examples is Steve Austin's "glass shattering" soundbyte ([9][10][11]), or Triple H's use of Motörhead and friendship with frontman Lemmy ([12][13][14]). Prefall 22:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I reiterate my previous point: “what if someone wanted to have (or has) wrestler theme songs on iTunes. Now, let’s say they want to list them in chronological order (starting with Seth Rollins’ 1st theme & ending with his current theme, etc. with other wrestlers). The same holds true with TV programming (Raw, SmackDown, NXT, etc.) or PPVs & so on. Where would people find them, if not on the wrestler pages where they’ve been? You can find the TV programming opening theme. But where is that on the wrestler pages? Please don’t tell me on the ‘WWE Music Group discography’ page because that is only a listing of when the songs were released on iTunes & only those that were released by WWE’s musical department, not if a Kid Rock song is used, etc.” I think that is that not reason enough to keep it! Like I had asked before, “Why is it not an issue to list the TV show themes but it’s a problem to list the wrestler themes? Someone may want to know what theme song(s) A.J. Styles used when he was in TNA & not just his championships!” Therefore, I beg the question: if someone can’t look up somebody’s theme on Wikipedia anymore, then where EXACTLY can they? From what I have seen, NOWHERE WHATSOEVER! Wikipedia is the ONLY PLACE that someone has EVER been able to locate that information! Taking that away is completely unacceptable!

Then they can go on the wrestling Wikia. I'll reiterate the point that Wikipedia only summarizes stuff that other reliable sources have published, so the fact that it doesn't exist elsewhere is a perfect argument against including it here (see also WP:ITSUSEFUL). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I don’t care how “insignificant” you think theme music is or how “significant” you think championships are! Have you ever thought that theme music MIGHT VERY WELL be significant to people that WANTS to know that stuff? Bet where do you expect them to go to get that information? Just because it isn’t significant to you does not give you the right to dictate that it can’t be to someone else! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE0:8550:418D:E52E:5D61:A083 (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I beg the question: if someone can’t look up somebody’s theme on Wikipedia anymore, then where EXACTLY can they? Some have recommended that this content would be much better suited for a fan Wikia, such as the Pro Wrestling Wikia. This extends beyond entrance themes too—for a lot of detailed information that is not hosted here. Prefall 23:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

That is WAY OUTDATED! I saw the posting you are talking about & I already looked there but guess what? It is WRONG! For example , there are SEVERAL that I have seen that are NOT accurate! That [still] lists Bianca Belair’s theme as "We Do It Better" (WWE; 2017-present) & Lacey Evans’ theme as "Bad Girl Good Boy" by Kimberly Korn (NXT; October 20, 2016 – present) but before it was taken down Wikipedia said that Bianca Belair’s current theme is REALLY “Watch Me Shine” by CFO$ & Lacey Evans’ is “Like a Lady” by Nancy Rowland! That is JUST A SMALL EXAMPLE of MANY which right there in itself PROVES that you have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what you are talking about regarding that site! I did not pull that out of my butt so clearly you can’t even get your facts straight! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE0:8550:418D:E52E:5D61:A083 (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Then go fix that specialist site instead of mucking up this general one. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, your behavior including SHOUTING IN ALL-CAPS is uncivil bordering on disruptive. Please stop.--WaltCip (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Because I am not a “specialist”….but apparently you think you are if your attack me for speaking the truth! Learn some common sense, people! Oh, that’s right, I forgot….common sense ain’t too common anymore - people are stuck on stupid….

Maybe I gotta use all caps to make a point because clearly nobody is smart enough to understand what is clear as day right in front of their faces….it’s enough to make me sick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE0:8550:418D:E52E:5D61:A083 (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, not withstanding my defense of your questionable all caps habit below, the actual content of your comments is getting increasingly incivil; I would like to direct you to WP:CIV which you will want to read before commenting further here. Civility is one of our five pillar policies in this work space and you will find we take it very seriously. Not only are the liberal "you are so stupid" comments pretty much guaranteeing that anything you have to say about the content is being discounted whole-cloth, but you are very likely to find yourself banned from further participation if you keep it up. We have a low tolerance here for people who bring "more heat than light" to content discussions and the community just recently decided to put the topic area of professional wrestling under WP:general sanctions, because you are not the only visitor from a wrestling community who has shown a refusal to avoid speaking abusively to other contributors here. General sanctions being in effect means that the fuse you light with unkind terminology is shorter than normal and will lead to a block quite quickly if you can't show the self-control necessary to discuss matters without resorting to insults and other WP:personal attacks.

That addressed, I think you should know that when Ian references "specialist" Wikias, he was not talking about platforms that require any more technical knowledge than Wikipedia does, nor expert knowledge of pro wrestling. Wikia is like Wikipedia (created by some of the same people in fact): it is open source and mostly community run. Everything that has ever been added to Wikipedia regarding pro wrestling could be replicated there. What we mean when we say "specialist" is that Wikipedia was never intended to be a wharehouse for all possible information on a given topic. Our objective here is not to preserve every bit of human knowledge on any given topic, but rather to provide an encyclopedic summary of encyclopedic topics. Let me elucidate with an example: let's say you like to play video games. Would you come to Wikipedia to find out how to play a given game? No, you'd come to Wikipedia to learn about the release date or critical reception or development history of the game, but you'd go to a Wikia to learn how to navigate the water level without putting your foot through the TV.

That is what others are talking about here when they suggest Wikia as a place where you could relocate this information, if you were so inclined. And if you aren't willing to pitch in to preserve this content that you feel is so important, then perhaps its not really that important--and demanding we cater to your needs is a tad bit of an entitled way to look at this situation? I knew very little about the technical side of this project when I started editing on Wikipedia, but I kept at it and I'm proud of the content I have created and maintained for the benefit of this with an interest in the topics I can help make available. It doesn't happen over night, but only you can decide if it is worth the effort. Meanwhile, we have bigger fish to fry with regard to maintaining our articles than "Oh, all caps guy liked that The Impalanator once entered to ring to Fat Bottom Girls and ended a match in 1998 with a triple-suplex. Guess we have to rethink this whole thing." That is perhaps appropriate for a Wikia index, but not useful summary information for an encyclopedia article.

When I was reviewing that SquaredCircle page, I noticed that the group had something like 356 thousand subscribers--twelve thousand were online WHILE I WAS READING IT. (See, a little emphasis in moderation goes a lot farther). If just one in a hundred of those subscribers has some Wiki-editing experience and/or a little bit of patience and time to give to a community project (rather than wasting it yelling "idiot" at us here), then that is 3,560 editors for your new project! Do you know how much work that number of editors can get done in short order? In all of the physiology and cognitive science articles I work on, I bet there are fifty total regular editors that I would recognize as reliable editors working in those same areas, if that. Maybe we're not the ideal targets on which to spend your considerable energy and motivation to maintain this informations somewhere in an organized and centralized manner? Snow ^{let's rap} 04:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as how the consensus was achieved to remove the "In wrestling" -section altogether? On one hand, editors are arguing that the information is mostly/all trivial, which I disagree with. On the other hand, editors are focusing on the difficulty of maintaining that section and cruft that it attracts (as opposed to the content being trivial). These two reasons seem contradictory in the sense that I do not see any evidence of a consensus being achieved that would justify the sudden removal of the section from all articles. JackKasket (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The consensus in question does not yet exist; that is the purpose of the present thread. It may be that you will find some more information about the original thinking behind these reforms at WP:PW, where the original discussion took place. However, because that space is a WP:WikiProject the editors who originally responsible for promoting this change in approach where told that they would have to host a larger discussion before this could become a default approach for all wrestling articles. This is because we have a policy here (WP:Advice pages) which prohibits WikiProjects from unilaterally deciding on changes to be applied over a large number of articles without broader community input/vetting (many years ago we had some WikiProjects which tried to create default rules for every article they felt was in their purview and it got to be quite disruptive). However, if a consensus approach arises out of this discussion, it will be considered a valid default approach for all wrestling articles; variations will still be allowed, but editors will have to meet a much higher burden of proof / win an explicit WP:LOCALCONSENSUS discussion on individual articles in order to ignore this default rule, and that will be very difficult. And because WP:General sanctions will be in effect on those articles, admins will be able to sanction those who disruptively ignore the consensus established here. In effect, this discussion will have almost (but not quite) the effect of a WP:GUIDELINE. If this is all a bit confusing and byzantine-seeming, trust me that you are not alone in that. This is a case of what I would call "advanced" (or at least intermediate) policy work; I would expect that even some very experienced editors might be confused about how this whole thing unfolded and what the impact of this discussion is; if I have failed to explain the matter in a way that makes sense, let me know and I will attempt to clarify.

I agree that there do seem to be multiple competing theories as to why the "In wrestling" section should be traded in for a conventional prose section (as indeed there are multiple theories asserted by those who see value in it, although not all of them very well based in our policies). In addition to the arguments you note above, there is also a feeling amongst some respondents here that WP:PROSE is controlling; in general, we expect content on the encyclopedia to be written in full prose that allows for contextualizing information, where possible. There are also WP:V arguments regarding removing the content, but I am not won over by those; there are many cases with regard to entertainment media where we allow the subject to be its own self-verifying source (plot summaries, for example, usually do not need to be verified by an independent source). However, there are legitimate WP:WEIGHT concerns. Personally I do not see why the WP:TRIVIA and WP:CRUFT-attraction arguments are mutually exclusive, so you'll have to further clarify for me why you do. I also think both the WP:PROSE and WP:WEIGHT arguments raise valid concerns. However, even if some of these different concerns were in conflict with one-another, they could still all point us in the same general direction (imagine you have three legislators in an assembly; one wants to lower the speed limit in municipal areas for safety reasons, another because of the wear on infrastructure, and the third because they want to curb greenhouse gases; they don't all have to have the same motivation in order to stand on the floor and advocate for a change, and the circumstances are similar here). The WP:CLOSER of this discussion (which in this case will probably have to be an admin) will have to find a way to interpret a general consensus from the disparate opinions provided here, weighing all of the opinions, trying to find common ground amongst them, and considering them in light of previous community consensus and already established policies and guidelines. In doing so, the relative numbers of editors supporting one approach or another will be considered, but they will not be strictly determinative of the outcome; the closer can reject a statistically more numerous perspective if they find there is good reason (for example, if the outcome would conflict with a policy that has even more community support), although that is a very rare outcome. The discussion could also be resolved "no consensus", which would be a very bad outcome in this case, as it would leave everybody hanging in limbo and locked in dispute over the appropriate format of these articles even as they come under general sanctions--a recipe for disruption and rapid-fire sanctions.

I hope there is more clarity in this reply than overwhelming bureaucratic project-speak. Again, if I can do anything to make matters clearer, please say as much here or on my talk page. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you! I'll have a gander on the surrounding discussions as well. JackKasket (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ehh, I'm sure you and I are not the only ones who would rather they didn't do it, but there is absolutely nothing anywhere in policy or community consensus that says it is incivil or per se disruptive to use all caps, and I wouldn't hold your breath on that ever changing, because flexibility in expression is a value that has a lot of currency in this community, for good and ill. WP:TPG does (wisely) recommend avoiding all caps as "good practice", but there's no requirement.

Personally, I've always found strong reactions to all caps to be puzzling. It is often analogized to shouting because it was often used that way stylistically in written dialogue (not so much literature as often as comic pages and such), but that doesn't mean it actually has the effect of shouting. There are reasons shouting is often considered obnoxious in many contexts; at it's loudest it can actually physically hurt your ears and even at lower volumes it has a physiological stressing effect on people. But neither of those things is true for all caps; in order for it to have an effect upon another person, it has to be mediated through a recipients psychological filter. Meaning it only causes an elevated state of arousal from with participation by the recipient; as opposed to actual shouting, which causes this response rather instinctively regardless of a strong interpretive outlook on the part of the recipient.

Anyway, returning the behavioural policies, I don't think it is fair to describe the all caps habit itself, as regards any firm community consensus, as "uncivil bordering on disruptive". Obnoxious and self-defeating seems accurate though! I would say that it's more the content of what the IP is saying that is getting closer and closer to uncivil, not the way they are saying it. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, so I suppose you are going to say I was never attacked? I am not allowed to fight back & defend myself when **I** am attacked 1st? Take a look at all the insults & rude comments thrown my way **before** I ever said anything! As I’ve said before to someone else - get your facts straight!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:cce0:8550:d424:64a0:7b5c:a6e5 (talk) 09:11, 12 July 2018‎ (UTC)

Just because people don’t like what I say or how I say it doesn’t make it any less true….I speak the honest to God truth - always have, always will!~~ The Greatest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE0:8550:D424:64A0:7B5C:A6E5 (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Man, I'm on your side of the argument but you're being illogical, stubborn and toxic. Please. Jcw91 (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Where did anyone actually say anything about you as a person? Quote something. Presenting logical arguments that you happen to dislike, pointing out problems with your attitude and behavior, and pointing out problems with your arguments are not the same as actually attacking you. Users have repeatedly asked you to behave in a civil and mature manner and if the next response I see from your IP range is anything but that, I'm going on ahead and blocking. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Did I say “as a person”? No, I am being attacked by my comment & opinions! Do you really think it is acceptable to say someone’s comment/opinions are “is not a valid argument” (Galatz - 15:52, 11 July 2018), are “snarky” & “are downright rude” (JTP - 19:56, 11 July 2018) “are simply not significant” & “is not the greatest argument” (Prefall - 22:48, 11 July 2018) & therefore don’t matter? What if I find those to be rude personal attacks? Is that “acceptable” & “civil”? No, that is not! Yet I am going to be accused of it? That is laughable to me! If people aren’t going to be “civil” & respectful with me why would/should I be “civil” & respectful with them?

Am I over reacting? Perhaps but I am going to defends myself regardless of if anyone likes it or not! Don’t blame me when I did not “fire the 1st blow” so to speak - I am just firing fire with fire, that does not make me the bad guy that everyone is making me out to be just because they don’t agree with my stance! You say “Presenting logical arguments that you happen to dislike, pointing out problems with your attitude and behavior, and pointing out problems with your arguments are not the same as actually attacking you. Users have repeatedly asked you to behave in a civil and mature manner and if the next response I see from your IP range is anything but that, I'm going on ahead and blocking.” but that is not true when that is exactly what is happening! Why would I “behave in a civil and mature manner” when I am not getting the same? If you are going to block me for standing up for myself that tells me how you treat people & find it acceptable but that’s neither here nor there - I don’t tolerate being bulled yet that is exactly how I have been treated!2602:306:CCE0:8550:D424:64A0:7B5C:A6E5 (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)The Greatest

Please read WP:Civility#Dealing with incivility, where it says that if you believe someone else is making uncivil comments, you should not make them in retaliation. I'm afraid your "fighting fire with fire" mentality is not the best way to go. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks are, by definition, about you as a person. They're not simply about your chosen behavior or about how (un)reasonable your arguments are, which are what everyone has been commenting on. You do not get to behave in an uncivil manner, then use WP:NPA as a shield when anyone points out problems with your chosen behavior. You don't get to use WP:CIVIL as a weapon to force others to agree with you. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I find it interesting that nobody who opposes this change has bothered to come up with a policy-based counter-proposal or bothered to show that it is possible to properly source an "In wrestling" section (maybe in a sandbox, for example) without any original research, using reliable sources, and not using WP:SYNTH of sources. You can't just say that it's possible, you have to prove that it is and your argument will have more weight. Nikki♥311 06:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason to downplay the opposing side despite disagreeing with them. Plenty of people here and on WikiProject's talk page have pointed out how that would be possible. World Wrestling Entertainment has its own record label slash music department named WWE Music Group, which releases their custom-tailored themes (so majority of WWE's themes) on multiple platoforms, including Amazon, iTunes and their own verified YouTube channel. Those platforms are used as valid and reliable sources on other music-related Wikipedia pages, such as articles about artists' discography. They would for sure be good enough sources on wrestler pages as well. It's a bit more problematic on other promotions, but New Japan Pro Wrestling, for example, lists the names of their wrestlers' entrance themes on their website. When it comes to finishing moves, WWE has a huge amount of articles referring to a wrestler's finishing move, NJPW and many other promotions list those moves in the wrestler bios. Managers and nicknames are a more difficult beast to tackle, but I'd say they have no place in Wikipedia, unlike finishing moves and theme musics. Kanavarras (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

My argument is mostly about finishing and signature moves. I'll pick Brock Lesnar as an example, because he is the first person listed on WWE.com. His WWE profile [15] lists the F5 and Kimora Lock as his signature moves (not even as finishers like his Wikipedia profile did prior to the section removal [16]). And nowhere does it describe the technical move name of F5 as "fireman's carry facebuster". Same with New Japan. Kenny Omega's New Japan profile [17] lists his finishing moves as Katayoku no Tenshi, V trigger, and Croyt’s wrath...again with no technical move description. Therefore those can't be used to source the moves unless you only list the move name without the description included. If even the promotions themselves only list a handful of moves considered "finishing" or "signature", how is listing them in a bullet list any more accessible than written in prose with more context? Nikki♥311 07:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand the concern with WP:SYNTH. However, that's only a problem when combining two sources could lead to a misinterpretation of why those two sources are connected. If WWE's own website lists F5 as Brock Lesnar's finishing move and the same website has a video of Brock Lesnar doing a fireman's carry facebuster named F5, it's pretty clear to all users that the two sources are referring to the same move. As stated in WP:NOTSYNTH, it is only a guideline and not a rigid policy, and in this case I wouldn't say combining the two sources is original research. Besides, you would be facing this same problem regardless of whether the moves are mentioned in prose or in a bullet list. In this case bullet list would be better than prose simply because of its easier readability and accessibility, the same way championships and accomplishments are a list instead of a wall of text. Kanavarras (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is actually a massively important policy page that represents one of the oldest, strongest and most unviersally supported points of community consensus on this project. It is in fact as rigid as they come with regard to constraints on content on this encyclopedia. Respectfully, you can't have been on the project long if you don't know this, so I'd like to recommend to you and your visiting compatriots here not to be too bold in your policy pontifications until you have greater familiarity with said policies and how they operate in practice. I say this because I've seen a substantial number of "it's 'just' a guideline" comments already in this thread. Guidelines are actually policy and they have substantially secure operation to the circumstances they describe. They have to be vetted by the WP:PROPOSAL process, meaning they only come about if they represent substantially community consensus on the default approach for a given situation (contrast this with WP:ESSAYS which are optional opinions closer in importance to what you seem to think a WP:guideline is. While we do have an WP:Ignore all rules principle that allows us to contemplate exceptions to any policy, you will find that we don't exercise it very much or without very substantial cause, and the burden is upon the parties wishing to ignore those principles to make a compelling argument for why it should be done in that instance. In 999 out of 1,000 situations, the guideline is gonna control (and with regard to WP:SYNTH or anything that has to do with WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, think closer to 9,999 out 10,000).

Also you actually turned WP:NOTSYNTH completely on its head when you said that it urges that WP:SYNTH can be considered as optional; the supplement says no such thing and, in fact, the opposite is the case, as WP:NOTSYNTH actually just provides extra guidance in how to apply the policy in particular situations. It augments, rahter than contradicts, the policy; this is why the first two sections of the explanatory supplement are "WP:SYNTH is not useless" and "WP:SYNTH is not unnecesary". That said, the point is moot, because, per my comments below, there is a better explanation with regard to sourcing which explains why this information could come in, if WP:V was the only issue with the "In Wrestling" section. Unfortunately, WP:V is just the beginning of the story, and there are much bigger hurdles which actually do preclude the section. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not neglecting the whole WP:SYNTH guideline, I am simply questioning the validity of that argument in this context. Why would combining the two sources (the name of a wrestler's finisher on a wrestling promotion's website, and a video of the wrestler doing a move with the same name) be original research? If no such connections could ever be made, most information in Wikipedia would be classified as WP:SYNTH. Even if combining multiple sources is a problem, it shouldn't affect the whole In Wrestling section. The entrance music, for one, can be verified with just one source and definitely should be included in wrestler articles. I'd say it's comparable to articles about movies where the movie's soundtrack is simply in a list form instead of being worked into the prose or excluded completely. Kanavarras (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Because the video doesn't say "it's a fireman's carry facebuster". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with HHH on this, because I think you are speculating about a scenario when the move is explicitly named in the video. Nevertheless, there may be issues with regard to whether or not the video is a WP:reliable source. However, I do not see why you would need the video in any event: if the other source names the move as the "finisher" and is an RS, it would suffice in itself, so there is no need to even attempt to combine the sources, whether it would involve WP:SYNTH or not. (On the other hand, if both sources are needed to reach a conclusion and one is not RS, then you have both a SYNTH and a WP:V issue). However, notice my comments below; I believe meeting WP:V is actually a relatively easy thing to accomplish for most of the content likely to appear in such lists. It still doesn't make it appropriate encyclopedic content under our other content policies (see WP:ONUS). Snow ^{let's rap} 10:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

As we said, it's hard to find videos where the finisher is named and includes the technical description. There is some examples, like Shawn Michaels (Sweet Chin Music Superkick) or James Storm (Last Call Superkick). But it's hard to find a video about HHH (The pedigree, double underhook facebuster). I have an example; long time ago I created the article Kahagas. I have these sources [18][19][20] where I see his finisher is named "Osaka Street Cutter". however, I can't find the technical description. It's a stunner, a jumping cutter, springboard cutter? I can find some video in YouTube, but it's gonna be my personal descrption of the move. The name is sourced, of course, but not the technical move. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Issues with "technical" nomenclature not withstanding, I actually think that the WP:V argument is by far the weakest for omitting this section. The fact of the matter is, we do have a perfectly valid source for verifying that each individual move or piece of music was utilized in a particular airing of a particular event: the recorded event itself. We routinely permit that media may be its own source for verifying its own content; indeed, in any given day we have many tens of thousands of edits across thousands of articles that do this. Plot synopses (of every form of video entertainment media in existence) never use independent sources, nor do statements describing the events in reality TV shows. And pro wrestling is just a weird amalgamation of reality tv and scripted television fiction. It's perfectly reasonable to use the shows themselves as the source in this respect, and I haven't seen any principled reason put forward to explain why we would deviate from this wholly accepted practice that is so ubiquitous that (despite having seen hundreds of disputes over what should go into a synopsis) so long as the event is a plain facially accurate interpretation of what happens on screen, I've never once seen anybody challenge any form of "in-universe" description of a show on the basis of sourcing--not once. So this is not really a WP:V issue, it's an WP:ONUS issue:

"While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article...The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

It's not that the information can't be satisfactorily verified; though there may be occasions where that happens (as with the situation you describe where particular descriptive terms are hard to verify, even if the fact that the thing they describe can be verified), mostly verification will be easy to achieve. However, WP:V is just the beginning of the analysis for whether we include a given piece of information and its the following steps where the argument for retaining the "In wrestling" section breaks down. For one, information must have an encyclopedic context, not just be a random assortment of information piled unceasingly on top of itself in unending waves of added fancruft until you have 120k compost heap of indiscriminate information. This touches upon multiple important policies, including WP:WEIGHT, WP:TRIVIA, WP:WWIN, WP:PROSE, and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, to name just a few. I could write two paragraphs for each of those policies explaining why the "In wrestling" section presents problems of inevitable violations with regard to each. But the common nucleus of those concerns is that we are here to create an encyclopedic summary of article topics, a general narrative which could be used by the completely uninformed reader to achieve a basic understanding of the topic; NOT a complete warehouse of all minutia that can be collected with regard to said topic so that hardcore aficionados can have it all at their fingertips (and stored here as opposed to a more appropriate platform) even though it degrades the quality and consistency of our ability to achieve encyclopedic aims. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the above is the biggest argument that is being forgotten here. Just because something is verifiable, doesn't make it encylopedic. Lists have their place, but have very little bounding in a WP:BLP. Most of these articles have some sort of list on them (Filmographies, discographies, etc), and the articles DO have a need for a list of accomplishments/championships. However, these should also be mentioned in prose! These are usually for information that needs to be an exhaustive list (Which entrance music and moves aren't), and are mentioned in the career sections on BLPs. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "we do have a perfectly valid source for verifying that each individual move or piece of music was utilized in a particular airing of a particular event: the recorded event itself." That isn't the case with professional wrestling moves. There is no official guide that describes or defines the technical moves, so I may describe a move one way and someone else may describe it another way...which is where a lot of the edit-warring on these sections actually occurs. We could use the recorded event to source the wrestlers' names for the moves (such as the name F5), but as for what he is actually doing (the technical name) when he is performing that move cannot be sourced with the event itself. Nikki♥311 13:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a useful observation: thanks for that. I had been operating under the assumption that there was at least a little uniformity in how moves are labelled and/or that the announcers for the matches tend to describe said moves as they occur, as in athletic wrestling and other contact sports. If that is not the case, then my WP:V argument is weaker than I presumed and there is yet more reason to omit the section. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

There is uniformity in technical descriptions. There are articles right here on wikipedia with the information Professional_wrestling_moves with sources ranging from WWE articles, interviews, to books, to long-used glossaries from deathvalleydriver.com. It does get a little tricky with named moves, where the same technical move might have several names (e.g. the Tiger Driver) depending on who is doing it or the announcer calling it or the promotion it's being used in. Since media is a reliable source, I'm wondering how create-a-wrestler sections of video games might be fit into that. I dunno, I just wanted to chime in and point out there is uniformity in technical terms, otherwise wrestling schools and trainers would have a very hard time. Bonevoyage (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

For some of the more basic moves but certainly not all. I remember an edit war over whether a move was a "wheel kick" or a "heel kick", or as pointed out above "stunner", "jumping cutter", or "springboard cutter". Some of the moves are very similar and even different sources deemed reliable call them different things. Nikki♥311 13:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

This is going to take a while so bear with me....

I will whole heartedly admit that I came here with a grudge. But in fairness please let me explain. When I discovered the “In Wrestling” section missing - when I was looking for something….a wrestler’s theme song, no less - why did I have to go to the Wikipedia:Teahouse (after having to search for it) & ask “I am looking at WWE wrestler pages & there use to be an ‘In Wrestling’ section that listed ‘Finishing Holds’, ‘Signature Holds’ & ‘Theme Music’ but all of that is nowhere to be found anymore. Why has it been removed? I am trying to look up some wrestler theme songs & that was my go-to for looking it up but that is impossible to do when they have been removed.” & was directed here when I was told “You need …. where there is a discussion going on about that very thing.” & that is the only way I would have ever known about it? Why is it that I have seen things on Wikipedia about asking for financial donations to keep it up & running but I never saw anything at all about any type of discussion whatsoever about content changes? If Wikipedia is going to ask the general-public-at-large for financial assistance on the site shouldn’t the same general-public-at-large also therefore have a say about what content is removed? Especially if it had been on the site for over the past 10+ years? Much less it being next to impossible to find & having to go searching for it like I had to? Then, as soon as I make a comment it is immediately shut down & “deemed trivial”, “pure trivial”,“ not a valid argument”,“ simply not significant” & “not the greatest argument”? I beg to differ, Drmies, HHH Pedrigree, Galatz & Prefall! I think the lengths I had to go through to even get here & the treatment I have gotten like I’m nothing but a 2nd, 3rd, ect. thought & that my opinion doesn’t matter at all gives me cause for having an attitude from the start. That is as close to an apology as I am getting….but I’ll be waiting for an apology from Drmies, HHH Pedrigree, Galatz & Prefall for treating me like a nobody!

With that being said, I have a very specific direct question for Drmies, HHH Pedrigree, Galatz & Prefall: who made you all kings (or queens) of the universe to dictate what is or isn’t “trivial” or “significant” at your own sole discretion? I call you 4 out because you sure seem to give yourself that right based on my comment/opinion alone! A right which you do not have! Just because “it’s just not important” to you doesn’t mean it isn’t to somebody else! Who do you to think you have the sole power to determine what you consider important (or unimportant) & push that on everybody else? You have no right to make that call! Do you know how self-centered, narrow-minded & egotistical that makes you?

Now, from my understanding of what I had read, the top section of this thread it says The ‘In wrestling’ section has been a standard part of professional wrestling biographies for over a decade. It covers mostly character information in a bulleted list format.” & I agree with that but it goes on to say that “On May 24, 2018, an editor raised an issue with the section's vague heading to WikiProject Professional wrestling. The next day, renaming the heading to ‘Professional wrestling highlights’ and adjusting ‘Championships and accomplishments’ into a subsection beneath it was proposed. On June 3, it was considered to have reached consensus after the 5 participants agreed unanimously. In the weeks that followed, a few editors disapproved of the new heading, as well as ‘Championships and accomplishments’ being turned into a subsection. On June 24, clarification of which heading to go forward with was requested, where an additional option to remove the section entirely was proposed. On June 28, the discussion was closed after 10 editors participated, with an ‘overwhelming consensus’ to remove the section but rework any content deemed significant into prose, potentially into a ‘Professional wrestling persona’ section. The changes were immediately enacted into hundreds of articles, causing news of the changes to be spread onto online professional wrestling communities. Many new editors voiced frustration over the removal, with some reverting the changes. but what I have a problem with is out of everyone that edits or reads Wikipedia how can ONLY 5 people - out of hundreds of thousands - “agree unanimously” on a change or ONLY 10 people - again, out of hundreds of thousands - make an “overwhelming consensus” to remove an entire section of content? Why then, is it that “many [new] editors voiced frustration over the removal” but the general public doesn’t get any say whatsoever? That very select small group jumped the gun completely deleting the section without allowing any input whatsoever from people that used the information. Then the “recommendations” says that “this proposal seeks to remove the ‘In wrestling’ section”….key word being SEEKS….goes on to say “Much of the information contained within this section would be lost.”….key word being LOST….& adding that “The content most likely to be reworked is certain Finishing moves, Nicknames and Wrestlers trained. As it stands, Managers are already expected to be covered in prose, primarily in the ‘Professional wrestling career’ section. If necessary, reworked content can be placed within the existing ‘Professional wrestling persona’ section.” but that still excludes important content & Prefall’s PROPOSAL is “Should we adopt a default approach of omitting the bulleted list ‘In wrestling’ section, in favor of its notable content being contextualized in prose when appropriate?” but who, exactly, is the end-all be-all that makes that call? Snow says that “The consensus in question does not yet exist; that is the purpose of the present thread.” but if the consensus does not exist yet then why, exactly, is it that the content is ALREADY gone? Being that this is such a huge topic of debate, why, then, did I (& I’m assuming many others) have such a hard time finding out about it? If such a drastic change is made to the “In Wrestling” section then would someone PLEASE explain to me why this whole discussion was brought up AFTER already taking the content down & not BEFORE doing so being that it clearly stated that it SEEKS to make the changes although they have already been done PRIOR TO this discussion? Whoever made the decision to completely remove the “In Wrestling” section out-right was out of line & should never have done it! Why would anybody financially support a website that does that? If Wikipedia is no longer going to provide knowledge content then I am NO LONGER going to be supporting Wikipedia at all if that is how things are done around here!

I would like to thank & make reference to Lid & offer this quote “Not everything fits into a narrow box of ‘is trivial’ or ‘is not trivial’ nor can making things have a sweeping removal ever be done without uproar occurring, and to then pass off the uproar as fly-by-nighter-johnny-come-latelys is to ignore the readers of wikipedia at their own peril. Wikipedia is a force for good, but sweeping changes made by 8 people is inevitably going to cause a problem, and its not like these 8 were arbitrators. If things need to change they have to change, but what has happened here was clearly wrong and to much ‘us vs them’ rather than actually looking at why these sections existed without one side reducing it to WP:USEFUL and the other WP:CRUFT. They have their place, they are important, and all-or-nothing is not the way we do things.” - truer words have never been spoken & that is my exact point - that was just said much better.

I have seen stated that verified but I don’t agree. I am not going to name names but I have known someone from church, middle school & high school that is now an actress. There is a Wikipedia page for her & there is stuff on her Wikipedia page that I know is not verified so clamming that everything on Wikipedia has to be verified does not hold water. I also know a current WWE superstar from their time on the independent circuit with data that is not verified so please don’t tell me that every single thing on Wikipedia has to be verified when that just is not true! If every single thing on Wikipedia really “has” to be verified then, why, exactly, shouldn’t Wikipedia be the [only] reliable go-to source. Why would you want to make people fend for themselves & send them elsewhere by making suck vital information - pertaining to a wrestler’s character - that much harder to find? But it is not really at all (anymore), is it? Too much valuable content is (now) missing because of a few self-centered, narrow-minded people! Wikipedia’s tag line is “The free encyclopedia”. Why is that? Isn’t an encyclopedia where you go to get information? Isn’t the point of an encyclopedia to be able to quickly dig up an easy answer to something? Yet you are taking information AWAY & not providing it?

Nikki had asked why nobody who opposes this change hasn’t bothered to come up with a solution but JackKasket had. Did you not see “I would argue that a timeline would be the optimal representation, similar to Carcass_(band)#Band_members. However, maintaining this would be a nightmare, in which case the second best option would be Current/Past lists. Basically, treat this information similarly to other performance arts.”? How is that not “policy-based”? I am going to attempt other ways.

With all of that being said, I completely agree that the “In Wrestling” section needs to be cleaned up & possibly renamed. However, it should not be completely removed like it already has been! Several of the so-called “signature moves” need to go (for example, a drop kick, clothesline or knee drop are not signature moves) & only keep the main moves that are commonly used & that would clean up a lot right there alone. I also don’t understand way “awards” from magazines (Pro Wrestling Illustrated, Wrestling Observer Newsletter….Rolling Stone [really?]) need to be listed under accomplishments. I know I am going to catch crap for this but I am a firm believer that a wrestler’s theme music IS a part of their professional wrestling persona & therefore SHOULD indeed be KEPT despite those clamming that it is nothing but “trivial” & “unimportant”. Case in point: if you take the time to read “Music in professional wrestling” under “Usage as part of a gimmick” it clearly states that “Entrance themes are often tailored to the gimmick of the wrestler they are written or selected for.”. How does that right there not make it an important part of their persona? That right there makes it valuable information that should be included. My thing about theme music is this: if you can have a championship section & list every single promotion someone has been in, every single championship that person has won in that promotion & how many times they have won each championship why would it be so hard to list the theme music they have used? What is so hard about that? Furthermore, people keep saying that anything that is “important” can be “put into prose” but entrance themes, moves (signature or finisher) & managers can NOT be in prose! Do you really expect someone to have to read paragraph after paragraph just to find a small bit of text? That is simply ridiculous! That kind of stuff MUST be in a bulleted list! The facts speak for themselves - the out-right complete removal of the section is, was & forever will be totally unjustified - it should be retrieved & brought back promptly!

In closing, it is my form opinion that this has never been a “survey” or “discussion” as it is made to appear - this is nothing more than a group of self-centered narrow-minded bigots forming a dictatorship & shoving their views down everybody’s throat. The way I have been treating for opposing that - being “deemed trivial” & “simply not significant” - proves it!

I’m going to let you quiver in your own self pitty....OnlyRealSpike (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• A wrestler's entrance music could be included, assuming it can be sourced. A good example is Randy Savage, whose entrance music was such an important and memorable part of his persona that it is mentioned in the lead. If you go back to previous edits where it was listed and find a good reference, or can find a reliable source for it elsewhere, it seems to me you could add it back. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• OnlyRealSpike - quick comments 1) you are given the opportunity to comment now, can we please focus on the topic and not any perceived "incivility"? Your argument loses some of it's punch though by using terms such as bigots, what are people supposed to be biggoted against? 2) If this is the only place it's found - then it should not be here, we should not have content without reliable sources. Also - for 95% or more the theme music really doesn't make that much of a difference - if you're not in WWE/Impact you probably don't have a custom theme and are you telling me that someone in NXT being given "Random CFO$ theme #4" helps you in any way? Not trying to be dismissive, I am genuinely trying to figure out why you believe it's "critical to understanding a wrestler"? Does your knowledge of Sami Callihan's indy career in any way improved by knowing that he has come out to 9 different songs on the independent circuit? Not what he's done, worked with, achieved, won etc. but what music happen to be playing as he walks to the ring and afterwards if he wins the match? I'm just trying to understand the context of your comment.  MPJ-DK  03:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

If it is not here - like it has always been for over 10 years - where exactly WOULD it be? Don’t you want people to COME to Wikipedia to find information? Yet it is not provided anymore? That is bullcrap! If I want a wrestler’s theme on my iTunes how do I find out what it’s called? I have always come to Wikipedia to find out! You & everyone else calling it “trivial” & “not relevant” DOES IN FACT make “dismissive” so you saying its not is 2-faced!OnlyRealSpike (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

That's quite literally the point. If something isn't sourcable from reliable sources, it has no place on Wikipedia. That's how the website works. If you can't find it elsewhere, we can't rely on it being accurate information. Please read the guideline on reliable sourcing. Please be civil, and discuss the policies.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

OnlyRealSpike - Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Would you let me inform you of a few pieces of information regarding discussions on the encyclopedia. First, all conversations should be WP:CIVIL. Please don't call anyone a Bigot, or liken volunteers to a dictatorship. Secondly, all talks on wikipedia should be based on wikipedia policies. Could you provide us with some policy based arguments, please? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

So you want me to lie? Every single thing I said is the honest to God truth! The way I have been treated proves it! So who are you to tell me I’m wrong?OnlyRealSpike (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you've confused an opinion and truth. You cannot attack people on Wikipedia, there are Procedures in place to stop such things Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

You stated Who do you to think you have the sole power to determine what you consider important (or unimportant) & push that on everybody else? You have no right to make that call! - Which isn't true. Wikipedia has literally thousands of guidelines around what information is viable, which types are allowed, and how this should be formatted. For instance, the argument is that this information is deemed to be WP:FANCRUFT, which is excessive information that is only subject specific. It is not that information is unimportant per se, but simply that it has no place on a general encylopedia. There's also some extra information on the article about what Wikipedia is not. It simply isn't a warehouse for all information about a subject. There's also a lot of information that cannot be reliable known as true (See reliable sources). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encylopedia, correct? Where do you go to get information? An encyclopedia! Wow, what a concept….until the information isn’t there! Then it is completely useless! Welcome to Wikipedia….OnlyRealSpike (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

There is another arguement about information being really poorly defined. What is a signature move? We can't guess, we need a reliable source to state this... But you'll find very few reliable sources ever state this. (And some list all moves as signature.) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

How are there not any reliable sources? Furthermore, what did I say about my friends (the actress & WWE superstar)? What about stuff on their pages that aren’t verifiably sourced? So don’t talk to me about stuff being “poorly defined”!OnlyRealSpike (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's policy on Verification. Wikipedia is a work in progress, but simply because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, doesn't make a policy have to fit this. There is information that is not well sourced on wikipedia, but in these cases, we should be tagging them with or otherwise. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Your last argument regarding entrance themes is a good, and perhaps you have misunderstood. The argument here isn't to simply remove all information, but to move it into written prose. Notable entrance themes should be moved to this section. However, there are wrestlers that have used tens of themes over the years, and most aren't notable. (For instance, Raven comes out to The Offspring's Keep 'Em Separated on the indies... But is this vital, notable information? It isn't. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Don’t keep giving me this prose crap! Like I had clearly stated: “Furthermore, people keep saying that anything that is ‘important’ can be ‘put into prose’ but entrance themes, moves (signature or finisher) & managers can NOT be in prose! Do you really expect someone to have to read paragraph after paragraph just to find a small bit of text? That is simply ridiculous! That kind of stuff MUST be in a bulleted list!” so what part of that do you not understand? That kind of stuff can not be hidden in the middle of a (set of) paragraph(s) making it next to impossible to find! Before I could just go right down to it but now only “some” of it “could” be like looking for a needle in a haystack! That, in itself, is completely unacceptable! How, exactly, is THAT “misunderstood”?OnlyRealSpike (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure they can. We've already discussed how this information is mostly WP:TRIVIA or WP:FANCRUFT, which should be limited on wikipedia (see the policies linked.) A layout style is usually resorted to how the information flows, not how it's seen. On Wikipedia, we do guess as to how people read the information, we simply lay it out as to how it reads. A list of all entrance music that someone has ever used,even if reliably sourced, is excessive. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Like I had asked before, what if someone wants to put wrestler’s theme music on their iTunes? Where would they go to bet the names of the songs? I had already come here! Where the h-e-double-hockey-sticks do you expect me to go now? Up your butt?OnlyRealSpike (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Then they can go on the wrestling Wikia. I'll reiterate the point that Wikipedia only summarizes stuff that other reliable sources have published, so the fact that it doesn't exist elsewhere is a perfect argument against including it here (see also WP:ITSUSEFUL). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• OnlyRealSpike - I guess I will have to ask again. Can you please tell me how knowing that Sami Callihan has used at least 7 different songs on the indy circuit makes you understand the career or character? Can you please explain to me how reading "Watch Me Shine" listed for Bianca Belair makes you any more aware of her? So far your only argument has been "well what if I want to go to iTunes and find the theme" - at the risk of sounding dismissive here, but that's not really an encylopedic reason. So I want to not be dismissive, I want to understand why this has gotten under your skin, I would love for you to elaborate how listing theme songs for 99% of the wrestlers makes a differnce to you beyond the whole "iTunes" comment. Geniuinly curious.  MPJ-DK  21:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Well I guess I won't get an answer from OnlyRealSpike since he was just indef'ed for uncivil behavior. I guess I'll never know then.  MPJ-DK  21:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I am unsure whether someone else has already made this point, but distinguishing what is and isn't a signature move is fairly easy, especially for those who wrestle on the main roster of WWE. WWE wrestlers work a repetitive style where their signature moves are made very obvious. To make it even easier, moves for the most part in WWE are unique to the wrestlers. I believe the exceptions to this are Finn Balor's and Seth Rollins' slingblades and I guess Roman Reigns' and Bobby Lashley's spears. This formatting alone should help simplify any perceived chaos in a "in wrestling" section. 2600:6C63:647F:DA77:0:85BF:75CB:B9E9 (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, plenty of other people have suggested using WP:OR to source it, but thats still against WP policy. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 03:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Example of the "Keep" vote with strict WP:V verification

• So taking the feedback of people who vote "keep" and their approach on handling content I have worked on the Sin Cara article, an IP reverted the removal and I did not want to just wholesale remove it since it's being discussed here. So I did an analysis of sources and content. After which I have removed anything that was not found explicitly stated in a reliable source, so it went from this long list to this much shorter list. I figured that instead of a theoretical discussion we should have an actual example of how this would look. There is nothing stating that a "wrestling persona and style" section has to be included, which means that this is the sections and content based on the original style guide that's been in place for over 10 years. I just want people to know what that actually means. This is a WP:BLP and under general sanction, keep that in mind as well.  MPJ-DK  04:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

MPJ-DK - The "Incognito Especial" wouldn't be acceptable by WP:SYNTH. And all moves are sourced by an offline source. I am willing to promote WP:GOODFAITH on this article, but if we can literally only source wrestling moves from printed text, there is very little hope for the other thousands of articles out there.

The entrance music issue is different, as arguably, this is notable, as the wrestlers themselves have the music made for them (Original music). However, I'm not sure I would be ok with articles simply referencing iTunes store for this purpose. I think I could be convinced there is a place for any original music created for the talent - But this could once again, simply be written in prose, if the music was notable enough. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

One of my biggest concerns with sourcing itunes or the youtube video, or anything else is it doesn't really say much about it. Randy Orton had a live version of his music done at WrestleMania one year, it was a different version than before (was it the same artist? was it not? do we have a source that proves either argument which could be questioned). Would a link to them singing the music at WrestleMania tell us anything about it? In prose however it could be discussed and a clearer picture could be painted, with proper sourcing. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I've added his manager, citing WrestlingData. Eight "trademark moves" (clearly synonymous with "signature") ripe for the picking in there, if someone can show which mask fits which move. Or how exactly the Olympic Slam is "modified". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

And you passed the test! Congratulations, you're now ready to weed even the slightest bit of dubiousness from any and all new and improved sections. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Is wrestlingdata really reliable for this type of sourcing? I thought it could only be used for really basic information Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This is really basic information. That's why it's on the introductory Profile page. The more complex stuff is in the other tabs. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't make the source anymore reliable. It's clearly unproven. If we were to use the site like this, we'd have to make sure it was reliable for this type of information. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

You could...watch one of their matches? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see conversation above as to why this isn't verifiable. What someone might call a facebuster, might be referred to by another as a DDT. This has never been an acceptable way of sourcing. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I was looking for a source about Lesnar's F5, a fiherman carry facebuster. But suddenly, I found one source calling "spinning facebuster". So... that's the problem. Also, I was looking a video for Kahagas' Osaka Cutter, but I found nothing. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I always thought it was a Death Valley Driver Facebuster... Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

A Death Valley Driver is basically a sideways brainbuster, and like all brainbusters and piledrivers, bumping facefirst is quite likely fatal. Lesnar's rough, but not that rough. It's a facebuster from a fireman's carry with a spin, so either of Pedrigree's descriptions works well enough. Anyway, this same mild confusion would affect a reader in prose as much as in a list, so a moot point here.

I took Only in death's suggestion above to mean you could watch matches on YouTube to test whether a source is reliable. If it passes inspection, use that reliable source to verify info on Wikipedia. Not cite the info directly to the matches, which is a terrible idea for a few reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources are either reliable, not reliable or untested. We can't quote unreliable sources simply because one piece of information is correct. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

WrestlingData is "not yet proven", not deemed unreliable, so we can use it with caution rather than not at all. If "use with caution" doesn't mean testing specific data against the primary sources for validation and making a reasonable effort to rule out contradiction from other secondary sources, I can't guess what it could mean. Can you? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Closure

Sooo... Should someone attempt to close this? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest with the atmosphere and the size of the conversation, this would most likely have to be an admin closure. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

^{They're probably deciding which finishing move to use during the close. - X201 (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)}

X201 - Should probably be old fashioned, and go over with the leg drop, brother. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, its been over 2 weeks and I do not expect leaving this open any longer will bring any additional points of views. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 11:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Anyone? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Galatz, Lee Vilenski, X201, and Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I've posted a request for closure at WP:AN/RFC. If you weren't aware, note that RfCs are typically supposed to run for 30 days; and there is a fair amount of backlog over there. Jc86035 (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

HAH! I was just looking at that page, trying to figure it out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks! I didnt know that page existed. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

- I didn't know it existed, it wouldn't necessarily be pertinent to close before the 30 days, if that's what the policy is. We don't want another conversation because it was closed too soon. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• I agree, this one has to be by the book since the first one was more "by the comic book" ;)  MPJ-DK  11:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The 30 days has now passed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.