Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 105

Archive 100

←

Archive 103

Archive 104

Archive 105

Archive 106

Archive 107

→

Archive 110

Focus of the month

So above it was suggested that we pick a topic of improvement for a specific month and try to drum up some support and work from other Wikipedians as well as regular members of this project. If you are all for the idea we should try and define a topic for February. Any support and topic suggestions?? MPJ-DK (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we could focus on a portion of the cleanup listing? JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

So picking a section or perhaps a subsection from this list: (number in parenthesis indicates how many entries each section has) MPJ-DK (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like Neutrality. Few articles and looks easy. I don't know how many people are in, but looks fine for a first time. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Clarity

• Clarification needed (4)
• Context needed (1)
• Rewrite needed (2)
• Vague or ambiguous time (6)

• Content

• Cleanup needed (6)
• Expansion needed (53)
• Introduction cleanup (3)
• Merge needed (5)
• Notability unclear (77)
• Plot summary needs attention (3)
• Potentially dated statements (15)
• Prose needed (1)
• Too long (2)
• Update needed (28)

• General

• Template call duplicate arguments (1)

• Links

• Dead external links {{dead link}} (512)
• Orphaned (3)
• Wikilinks needed (1)

• Neutrality

• Conflict of interest (3)
• Disputed statements (1)
• Fact and fiction differentiation (1)
• Limited geographic scope (1)
• NPOV disputes (2)
• Original research (14)
• Promotional tone (7)
• Weasel-worded phrases (11)

• References

• Accuracy disputes or self-published (2)
• Archiveurl citation error (3)
• BLP articles lacking sources (193)
• CS1 errors: dates (3)
• CS1 errors: invisible characters (5)
• Citation lacking title (17)
• Citation with bare URL (13)
• Cites no sources (83)
• Cites unreliable sources (323)
• Factual verification needed (6)
• Failed verification (9)
• Has general references but lacks inline footnotes (49)
• Page number citations needed (2)
• Reference errors (20)
• URL error (3)
• Unsourced passages need footnotes {{citation needed}} (488)
• Unsourced passages need footnotes {{refimprove}} (418)
• Personal preference Cites no sources (83) as one to tackle. We should be able to source all or delete those where we cannot find reliable sources. It'd be awesome if this was down to a small number after a month. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I would say either no sources or BLP with sources needing improvement would be a good starting point. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. We should probably tackle sourcing before we move on to content. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you both. WP:PW/Sources will come handy for those of you not familiar. ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm ready to help out where needed. ItChEE40 (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Professional wrestling notability

I know we had this conversation before about creating a unique PW notability but it seems to have died. I have it bookmarked as having been at User:MPJ-DK/Notability (professional wrestling) but that appears to be dead. Does anyone have a copy of it and want to work on trying to finalize? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it's very much necessary. Wrestling articles are getting inconsistent. I suggest do go even beyond notability and discuss on which content should be covered. IMO indie wrestling should be given much lesser weight than the bigger promotions. I find a lot of indie careers of bios either with unreliable sources or none at all. Notability guideline should draw the line between wrestler's in the small and large indie wrestling and large promotions. The same also goes with events and others like Unexpected John Cena (like why doesn't RKO outta nowhere exist?). ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I find pages like Persona and reception of Roman Reigns just ridiculous. Sure its a topic, but a couple paragraphs should be all you need on his page. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I find that Roman Reigns page should be generalized to detail 'smark' wrestling fan behavior in general, not just towards Roman Reigns. ItChEE40 (talk) 08:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I would rather have one article featuring both marks, smarks, anti-smirks, Dave Meltzer, different promoter's ideologies and the whole wrestling business as a whole in different cultures. Basically "Professional wrestling and cultural reception". ImmortalWizard(chat) 09:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should be stubifying articles, simply because the topics don't have that degree of WP:WEIGHT. The notability thing is something I pushed for a while ago, but we never dealt with it. An article on crowd reactions at wrestling events would probably be a good one, as there would be tonnes of sources that mention this phenomenon.

As for the RKO thing, there's a grand total of one line [1] in Randy's main article. Seems like a really good article to create.

My biggest issue with notability, is that we currently only go on what WP:GNG says. That means all bar the best referees and announcers are not notable, despite being on TV literally every week, and just as recognisable as the performers. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

When I saw the Uunexpected John Cena, I had the same question... why not a RKO Outta Nowhere? It was a very famous meme. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

We're kinda obligated to follow GNG still even if we make our own rules, we can't make rules up to ensure that referees get articles, even if they're important to wrestling and well known to a lot of people.★Trekker (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The Roman Reigns persona page has survived numerous move and deletion discussions. Clearly people decided it was notable enough to warrant inclusion here on Wikipedia. It is here to stay. DrewieStewie (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@DrewieStewie: oh yeah Vince created multiple wiki accounts to push Roman down our throats. (jk). ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

"UNIT" column on NJPW roster page

Hi, all. I feel like on NJPW's roster page, signifying which unit (faction) a wrestler is in would help some readers, and make understanding easier for a casual audience. I propose a new column in the Heavyweight and Junior Heavyweight lists to detail which unit a wrestler is listed as being apart of (as of NJPW’s website, as there can be disputes).

These pages are kept relatively in kayfabe but in Japan they usually go beyond that, with wrestlers usually only travelling with members of their own stable. They're also usually listed underneath the name of a wrestler on-screen, and are prominent in websites almost as much as WWE's brands. I feel as though this could help someone new to the product as well, as it's a key thing you need to learn to understand NJPW.

It could look like:

Ring name	Real name	UNIT	Notes
Tanga Loa	Tevita Fifita	Bullet Club	NEVER Openweight 6-Man Tag Team Champion
Tetsuya Naito	Tetsuya Naito	Los Ingobernables de Japon	IWGP Intercontinental Champion
Toa Henare	Aaron Henry	Main unit
Togi Makabe	Shinya Makabe	Great Bash Heel (He would probably be listed as just a Main Unit member as GBH has no non-kayfabe ties.

Feel free to dismiss it, but discuss civilly. ItChEE40 (talk) 08:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't like these articles in the first place - for reference, the article is at List of New Japan Pro-Wrestling personnel. To me, it's weird that a roster of people who work for a company is notable, (or at least of it's own article).

however, it should be noted, we shouldn't keep articles in kayfabe regardless. They need to be written from a real-world perspective. The sourcing of that particular article is a bit weird as well, as we seem to be citing Twitter a lot. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I definitely see what you mean there, the article itself has no real notoriety, and is probably only used by wrestling nerds like me. Keeping every article in kayfabe is obviously a bit difficult when you're trying to present wrestlers and their careers in a real-world perspective, but that's another discussion.

The article's sourcing is almost non-existent, and yeah tends to use a lot of twitter. ItChEE40 (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't keep articles in kayfabe: that's the point, though. We could list a team, and say that they belong to a team, but we should specifically state that it isn't real. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Except it is real, they really are a part of that group. It's astounding how often pro-wrestling articles are routinely subjected to these bad-faith interpretations of things. The stable's actions may be kayfabe, but the members of the stable are not, no more than they are kayfabe members of a roster. Under some people's interpretations, since wrestling is scripted entertainment, then none of these wrestlers actually compete for these companies, since they are all actors. 64.222.174.146 (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Care to explain that statement? Is or is it not a storyline that Jay White is a leader of the bullet club? Are you saying that members of Chaos decided to get together on their own? They are not "kayfabe" members of the roster, they have a contract and work for NJPW, they are however kayfabe members of Suzuki-Gun because NJPW bookers decided so. So please do tell where the "bad faith interpretation is"? MPJ-DK (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Not entirely sure why he’s on about, but I can sort of see what he means. No WWE wrestler is actually signed to Raw, but they are listed as so on that page. They don’t include tag teams/stables, but I consider them a lot more than that. To Japanese wrestling, they are tested almost like a sports team/boxing gym type thing. They are more than just a few guys booked together to win Tag Team titles or carry different divisions. ItChEE40 (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

So, if we were to state that, could we include it? ItChEE40 (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, for promotions where the units are so important (japanese, maybe mexican), we can include a footnote. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

"In XXX promotion, wrestlers are part of /are distributed in fictional units called stables. The tanble includes their alligments2 or something like that. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

That sounds good, I might use that if this is implemented. ItChEE40 (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, I have no problem with this articles. They are a pain in the ass, but it's like a TV Series cast, the players of a sports team or a list of fictional characters for a book/movie/manga/videogame. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, the sports club squad articles is a poor one, as they are usually commented on by secondary sources. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Sports Team Roster pages are so poorly done, and they’re so easy to do, too. Wrestling rosters would easily be harder due to things like the misconceptions of kayfabe, misinformation on contracts and booking swerves. We do a kick-ass job compared to the sports crew. ItChEE40 (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• I still say delete them all along with the euphemism "signed to" and "Losing effort" for a match where it's not the effort that determines the outcome. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  At least the WWE Personel article features non primary sources... I'm not a fan of the rest of these. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think it's a good debate, but the focus of the discussion is including units in the roster. Can we talk about it and, other they, about the roster itself? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Working on this page’s sources will be a future debate, don’t worry about that. ItChEE40 (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I say add them to all or none, stables and teams can go in notes, why not. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Above I noted my view on units opposed to tag teams/stables. You’re free to disagree with it but I think that WWE-style tag teams/stables aren’t as noteworthy on the page. I would add them if allowed, though. ItChEE40 (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

So is "Unit" a different thing than a stable? is there a definition of when it's a "unit" and when it is a "stable"? I am confused. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Impact wrestling roster

Hi again, guys. I have another problem. A few months ago, I saw two users reverting themselfs in the Impact roster article. Their problem was two wrestlers, one said he was with the promotion, the other said he wasn't. So, I tried to help and use the rules: sourcing. However, every few days, user:Damolisher revert my editions. Impact Wrestling uses a lot of outside talent just for one ocasion and, since the rosters are for wrestlers who are signed with the promotion or stay regularly with the promotion, I delete wrestler who are unsourced. I tried to explain the user how wikipedia works and show him several policies and why his edits are wrong. For example, one week ago I deleted Bram, Crimson, Crazy Steve and Jax Dane. His answer was "I'd wager money they'll air a vignette for Steve on Impact this week" "Crazzy Steve is a former talent appearing on an episode of Impact who won a match and has posted things which indicate he is back with the company." I explained that sources don't support Steve's return to Impact, just he worked one night like Raven, Kikutaro... and this is SYNTH and assumptions and we need a source about them signing a contract or they will work regulartly with Impact. Now, he has said if someone can block me for my unconstructive edits. Can somebody help me? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, looks he has a personal problem with me when I said I don't follow Impact Wrestling. I said so because it gives me a General View of the article, like "use sources, not assumptions". For example, PWInsider reported Trevor Lee left Impact, so I deleted him. A few hurs ago, Lee said he was under contract until December. However, the user said my edit was based in an assumption, but his edits are based on facts. When I show him the policies, his reaction is the same of a Reddit user, a "fuck the rules" attitude. "don't have the foggiest as to what the hell "WP BLEH BLEH" is." " stop quoting jargon at me. " "As his been explained to this obstructive bureaucrat constantly" --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: Wikipedia is too lenient with these users. There must be consistent sanctions and limitations. I have suggested ideas on the village pump. ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Requesting update on style guide

WP:PW/MOS#Professional wrestling career should have more guidelines. Examples of how to avoid proseline should be showed. Better writing guidelines should be added with examples of how to summarize properly. This is one of the most important sections of this project. ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Date aired vs Date occured

List of Ring of Honor pay-per-view events and List of NWA/WCW closed-circuit events and pay-per-view events list everything by the date of the event, not the date it airs. List of WWE Network events has it by the date it airs. They should be consistent. I believe actual date is more consistent with how things are typically treated. Air dates are typically listed as secondary, rather than primary. Any other thoughts? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 21:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the same. Actual date, since every other aspect is by actual date.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

For the WWE Network events, this wasn't a problem until May 2017, as every event on that page was live up until May 2017's UK Championship Special. Due to the list being about WWE Network special event airings, I personally believe for every pre-taped event on that list, the airdate should list first, followed by the taped date in parentheses [For example, the May 2017 UK Championship Special would list as this: May 19 (taped May 7)]. What does everybody think about this? Just a suggestion here. :) DrewieStewie (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@DrewieStewie: I guess but the question is, is it events that air on the network, or network events that happened to occur in real life as well. Right now it is set up as the network takes priority over real world events. For example, on Starrcade it show Styles vs Joe as main event, even though Starrcade (2018) has Seth vs Dean. That kind of makes it confusing. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 21:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Starrcade is a special case. While it’s one of the only four pre-taped events on the list, it’s the only one that didn’t air the last match as the main event (No Mercy 2016 is different and separate from this as that aired live and is more clear). I feel the best way to handle the Starrcade main event is to keep Styles-Joe as the main event and treat Rollins-Ambrose like a Smackdown taping before it went live (that is, treat Dean vs. Seth as a post-main event dark match rather than a main event, since that’s how the WWE appears to be treating it). Cheers DrewieStewie (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Anyone else have any thoughts? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Date occurred is fact, date aired is kayfabe, fact over kayfabe on Wikipedia. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

GA Review of Dean Ambrose

Unfortunately User:ImmortalWizard went and got himself blocked and no unblock in sight. The reason I am posting here about it is that he nominated Dean Ambrose for "Good Article" and I am in the middle of providing a review of said article. But without IW around I am wondering if someone else wants to take over making improvements, or if I should just wrap up the GA review for now and fail it. Anyone interested in picking this up? MPJ-DK (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I've got some free time. I can take it on. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Halftime Heat

Should Halftime Heat have it's own article or should it be left in the WWE Heat article. I prefer the latter, any ideas? --HC⁷ 19:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@HC7: Please include a link to the discussion you previously started at Talk:WWE_Heat#Halftime_Heat rather than forking off multiple conversations. That makes having any sort of flow impossible. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Project Focus of the Month

This is just a friendly reminder that February has begun, so, per the discussion here, we are looking to tackle any and all sourcing issues, particularly BLPs lacking sources and other articles that cite no sources. These can be found at our cleanup listing. Perhaps someone could replace the general sanctions banner at the top of the page to spread the word? JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I knocked a couple pages off the list. Need to log off now though for religious reasons, will try and work on more over the weekend or next week. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 21:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I see we have gotten the number of pages without any references down, but its still at 64 [2]. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

GA Review of Dean Ambrose

Unfortunately User:ImmortalWizard went and got himself blocked and no unblock in sight. The reason I am posting here about it is that he nominated Dean Ambrose for "Good Article" and I am in the middle of providing a review of said article. But without IW around I am wondering if someone else wants to take over making improvements, or if I should just wrap up the GA review for now and fail it. Anyone interested in picking this up? MPJ-DK (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I've got some free time. I can take it on. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of User:ImmortalWizard, his block is now over and he’s free to edit again. Hopefully he finishes his business with this GA Review of Dean Ambrose. Welcome back buddy! DrewieStewie (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

Just noticed this, lets get some comments here: Talk: Chris Hero#Requested move 5 February 2019. STATic message me! 00:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads up, this will end soon and we haven't really gotten any comments. StaticVapor message me! 23:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Nominations

All, I started a few nominations that could use a bit more attention. If you all have a minute if you could please take a look I would appreciate:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ring Rust Radio
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_7#Category:Professional_wrestling_rosters
• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_6#Template:Raw_vs._Impact_ratings
• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_6#Template:Monday_Night_Wars_ratings
• Talk:Halftime_Heat_(2019)#Merger_proposal

Thanks - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 00:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to also mention Talk:WWE_UK_Performance_Center#Merger_proposal

Gold Dust Trio

As part of our clean up project I came across the article Gold Dust Trio. The entire thing is unsourced and written as if its copied from somewhere but I cannot find it elsewhere so who knows. The person who wrote it in 2007 (which is barely changed [3] from the current version) has been blocked permanently since not long after creating and based on their block log they have been blocked before for copyright violations [4]. Does anyone know more about this that they could help clean up the page? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I was thinking a random stable with Goldust. As Gandalf said " i have no memory of this place trio" --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

"One does not simply create a page and leave it like that". THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 00:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Project Focus Update - two weeks to go

Here are the statistics for our Project Focus of the Month thus far:

Week	Focused	% Change	Total	% Change
1	1610	—	1867	—
2	1605	-0.31%	1866	-0.05%
3	1629	1.47%	1887	1.11%

I am going on a short Wikibreak, but I am hoping that we get all of the help we can! JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox Wrestling event

I was just wondering if anyone had an answer as to why we include sponsor on Template:Infobox Wrestling event. In my opinion unless its an issue, like WM34 when sponsors threatened to pull out over the naming of the women's battle royal, there is no reason to include this information at all. Besides for no reason to include at all, is it really important enough to include in the infobox? This seems like a pretty meaningless inclusion. No other event that I could find includes this. Does anyone really care that Castrol GTX sponsored Royal Rumble (2009)? I propose we exclude the sponsor from all events (and delete the parameter from the infobox), unless there is a notable reason to include. Thoughts? -

Similarly what are the thoughts on Tagline and Theme Song being included? Neither one really has an significance to the event. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with theme song and sponsor being removed. Completely unnecessary and not very encyclopedic. I feel like tagline can be important in certain situations such as Wrestlemania 28. StaticVapor message me! 05:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• I definitely see no reason to keep sponsors in the infobox. If the sponsor was actually significant (think the actual Cracker Barrel in the Joey Janella–Hangman Page match at All In), then that can be mentioned in the text (so long as it's sourced). I'm also leaning in the same direction with theme songs and tag lines: if they're significant, they can be included in the text, but they aren't such key details that they need to be in the infobox. oknazevad (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Main Page

Hi all, I don't know if it's already been mentioned, but No Way Out (2004) is todays featured article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw it getting a number of edits by IPs and was surprised by it. Makes sense - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

== Fun (Miscellaneous) ==

When and how did you get into wrestling? Write down your favorite wrestler, match, event moment etc. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Page move

Greetings, I have requested page move at Talk:Justin Gabriel#Requested move 16 February 2019. Feel free to leave your opinions. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

AFD

Please review the following, Thanks! THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hype Bros
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The League of Nations (professional wrestling) (2nd nomination)

We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Article alerts, you don't need to post everything you nominate here. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Article for James Drake

I have created (well technically I turned it from a redirect into an article) a start-class article for current NXT UK Tag Team Champion James Drake. Feel free to improve on it (in fact please do), this was intended as a starting building block developed just enough to be added in as an article. I just wanted to put an opening product out. It obviously needs more information, which I'm requesting help on. But for now, I feel pretty proud that I've created my first Wikipedia article from the ground up :) DrewieStewie (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Pedro Morales

I was surprised to see the Pedro Morales article is in such great shape. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#RD:_Pedro_Morales to get it listed on the main page.LM2000 (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it was closed. From looking at the article, it's filled with week-to-week minutiae, including a lot of jobber matches. Even if it's written out in prose, it's still WP:NOTSTATS. I would have had reason to oppose it based on that. The Trujillo source also needs {{Harv}} or similar template as there's no need to repeat the full citation every time when it's the exact same source. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

WCW/New Japan Supershow

In the early 90s there were three WCW/New Japan Supershows. In 1991 we had WCW/New Japan Supershow I, per WCW in 1992 we had WCW/New Japan Supershow II and 1993 we had WCW/New Japan Supershow III. The issue is that the 1992 and 1993 ones were called Super Warriors in Tokyo Dome and Fantastic Story in Tokyo Dome according to NJPW. There is no reason to have two pages for the same event. Therefore I propose:

• WCW/New Japan Supershow II merge with Super Warriors in Tokyo Dome
• WCW/New Japan Supershow III merge with Fantastic Story in Tokyo Dome

The reason I am coming here rather than just merging is I have a couple of logistical questions I was hoping you guys could help with before I do.

1. Which pages should survive? The WCW name or the NJPW name?
2. How do we treat Dark matches? For example, the WCW page currently lists on WCW/New Japan Supershow II the matches that didnt air in the US as dark matches, but they did air in Japan, so are they dark? I would assume not, and we can just clarify in text that they weren't.

Any objections? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Not sure about the first question, but for the second one, a clarification would be enough and it isn't that difficult for a table. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

1. WP:COMMONNAME Should cover the shows. If there isn't one, I think we should go with where it was held. If it's Japan, go with the NJPW one.

2. Totally agree. Prose is plenty for this. Just put a note next to dark match. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Separate The Usos

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.

---

I think it is high time that both Jimmy and Jey should have their own pages. Even the Bella Twins are separated. Or are they treated the same as Wright brothers? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Nothing has really changed since it was discussed 9 months ago Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_101#The_Usos. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The Bellas had notable singles runs, the Usos have not. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I wish they do. But why don't we create both of them as real people and The Usos as a tag team. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It goes based on WP:Notability. Are they any more notable by themselves than the unit as in totality. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 21:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This is such a gray area. At what time does a BLP and a tag team article crossover. It's usually the other way around, with us putting off creating tag team articles, as they are not inherently notable. However, in this case, the people in the tag team are so closely related to the tag team, and haven't done anything of note individually. However, finding this point is quite contentious. The only argument for me, is if you completely removed their tag team run, could you make an article that passed WP:GNG? In this case, even singles runs for both guys are because the other is not on the show, or injured, etc. The bellas are completely different, as they had singles runs each, and are very notable people in their own right. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yup. Only the injuries and Jimmy's storyline with Mandy Rose and Naomi separates. Not worth for separating. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Just like The Jacksons. If we saparate The Usos, we will have 3 articles with the same content, maybe 2% different, but their career is't the same. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the Hardys are a great example to think about. Wikipedia was not around when they first started up, but chances are they would have only had one article. Eventually they were in different promotions at the same time, and had very notable singles careers. Too soon to know what will happen with Usos careers. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Most recently, The Briscoes. They have one title until Jay won the World Title. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I highly doubt Usos will ever win a world title. But I am down for that. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

They wouldn't need to win a world title. They would just need a prolonged singles run. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:09, 20 February 2019 (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.

FAR

I have nominated CM Punk for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

No offence intended, but you don't have to start a new talk section on every article you nominate. There is an article alerts page for that. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

FAR is crucial and the instructions highly recommends WikiProject notification. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Protocol is generally to try to address some of the concerns yourself, then contact the relevant project(s) and major contributors about your concerns, not to skip straight to FAR. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Drafts in project scope

If anyone is looking to do anything soon, we have eleven drafts in our project's scope:

• Draft:Austin Theory (tagged June 27, 2018) - Article exists Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Draft:Australian Wrestling Alliance (tagged April 26, 2018) - Not sure if notable Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Draft:Campeonato Nacional de Lucha Libre (tagged September 13, 2017) - Not sure on the sources (they are spanish), but seems pretty notable Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Draft:Cyrus Parker (tagged June 21, 2018) - Don't think is notable Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Draft:Joey Janela (tagged June 27, 2018) - Article exists Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Draft:Kay Lee Ray (tagged January 15, 2019) - Promtoed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Draft:Mariachi Loco (tagged December 16, 2018) - Could be notable - Sourcing doesn't sell it to me Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Draft:NCW Cruiserweight Championship (tagged November 16, 2018) - Promotion is borderline notable. Title history certainly isn't Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Draft:NCW X-Treme Championship (tagged November 16, 2018) - Promotion is borderline notable. Title history certainly isn't - Seems like a vanity item Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Draft:POST Wrestling (tagged January 11, 2018) - WP:NPOV violation Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Draft:Swords of Essex (tagged July 16, 2018) - not enough sourcing Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Joey Janela and Austin Theory are  Done
• Sources for Swords of Essex [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]

Also while we are on the topic Martin Kirby (wrestler), PCW Ultra, European Wrestling Promotion, Jungle Boy (wrestler), Marko Stunt, Jimmy Yuta, Kotto Brazil, Rich Bocchini, Zachary Wentz, Dave Mastiff and Trey Miguel are probably worthy of articles, some of them more than others. StaticVapor message me! 05:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I just went ahead and promoted Kay Lee Ray, as clearly notable. The Swords of Essex has always been a three-man group, in comparrison to what the draft says. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Considering Draft:Joey Janela and Joey Janela are pretty much identical, should we speedy delete the draft? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I've reviewed all of the above in my eyes, but feel free to make your own minds up. Looking at the two championship articles, I'm also not sure the main article for Northern Championship Wrestling is notable, or should at least have cleanup Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Removing nicknames

A user is going around making edits like this and this. Is this proper? Did the same thing to many articles like Jake Roberts and Greg Valentine. StaticVapor message me! 16:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Revert them all. Nicknames are absolutely part of ring names. In fact, that's where ring names originate. Just because parts of the full ring name are set off in quote marks, or are sometimes omitted, does not make them any less part of the ring name. oknazevad (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Question - Does that mean we should allow names like "The New" Daniel Bryan, "The Phenomenal" AJ Styles, "The Game" Triple H or "The Man" Becky Lynch? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Not if they're pure marketing nicknames. It's not something that can be automatically categorized; editorial judgement is needed. Someone like Jerry Lawler, where "The King" is so widely used and has been for decades, should be listed as an alternate name (despite the outright hostility and edit warring I've just been dealing with), or even used as the article title, like "Stone Cold" Steve Austin (yes, the full ring name does actually contain the quote marks). Something like "The New" Daniel Bryan, where it's just part of a current, ongoing angle should not as WP:RECENTISM. Stuff like AJ Stules being known as "The Phenomenal (One)" is different, in that it's not presented as part of their names, in contrast to John "Bradshaw" Layfield, where it is. oknazevad (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright, seems reasonable. Editorial judgement is perfectly put and this is something I believe won't be that difficult to determine. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with all of this. If their common name is by far something such as Jerry "The King" Lawler or Greg "The Hammer" Valentine we should state them as such. Honestly I feel like some of these articles, like the two I just mentioned should have that as their article title. StaticVapor message me! 23:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Oknazevad That's what I was thinking. Watched many matches in which wrestlers' "nicknames" are mentioned during announcement and commentary. Actually I've heard "Macho Man", "The Hitman", "Million Dollar Man" more times than just "Randy Savage", "Bret Hart", "Ted Dibiase". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• User: JuniorDoan if you would like to comment on this, this is the place. StaticVapor message me! 23:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Ideas to enhance quality of wrestling biographies

I have been scanning through a few number of wrestlers' pages. Unfortunately, I was disappointed with the quality of most of them. The lead concentrates too much too much on their championship wins. Championship wins, while they are really important, there are other valuable stuff worth mentioning. I will be coming up with other articles also to enhance quality. Let me know your opinions. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

It was said to remove no notable, weekly stuff and less in-universe. i tried in some articles like The Usos and Kofi Kingston. Also, it's not necessary to include every contendership, every royal rumble /andre memorial appearance or every multi-men match (MITB, Survivor Series...). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

About the in universe, I think we should reflect better it's fiction. For example, I removed something from nexus: "The Nexus was defeated by Team WWE, featuring a returning Bryan (who joined Team WWE as a surprise member after The Nexus had injured Khali on the August 2, 2010 edition of Raw)." So.... it was 10 years ago, but Khali injury was legit or kayfabe? After Vader passed away, I saw his Wiki article. I don't know if his injuries were real or fiction. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

WrestleMania early reception

Hi. I know WM is in a few weeks, but I was reading some websites and PWInsider [12] and SI [13] critized Lynch's storyline, around The Authority like Daniel Bryan. Do you think I can create a reception section with this sources? Like "Lynch's storyline was critized for including The Authority like the storyline Daniel Bryan had at WM..." --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

You could but I think it's quite early to do that. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 09:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Could that be more appropriate for the background section? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I would say no. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

If you want to get a reception section going that honestly seems fine. Considering how significant this time of year is it is going to be criticized. We can always have follow up if things change and the programs get positive remarks. StaticVapor message me! 07:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing professional wrestling

So I had this conversation with Galatz regarding when it's OK to have unsourced material of pro wrestling TV shows. They pointed out WP:PRIMARY and compared it other TV/movie plots. While this is understandable, I would like to know your opinions and clarification. The problem I have with this is say the show Raw is not the main subject of a BLP or a pay-per-view event. It's not like we are just talking about X beat Y and describing the show, both in BLP and event articles, a certain storyline is built on that TV show. It is known that whenever a primary source is interpreted, a secondary source is obviously required. I think sourceless material could exist at the very least in the Event section of say WWE Evolution, not the Production (Background and Storylines), since they were technically not part of the event and are literally secondary information. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's not exactly what Galatz has said. All information should ideally be sourced; however things such as plots - read stories for Pro wrestling - could be sourced from the source material. The guidelines pretty much say that information that can be easily verified by the source material doesn't need a secondary source (however, if it exists, do it anyway). Direct quotes are different, as is analysis. Is "storylines" really supposed to be a subsection of "production"? I thought it was supposed to be under "background"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems fine. But I think biographies should always have citation even if it's something that occurred in a TV show. Example, in Brock Lesnar's aricle: "Lesnar attacked Rollins on the following episode of Raw"; it must not be unsourced. If you compare it a movie plot, say Batman v Superman (2016), in the plot it is not required to cite for things like (SPOILER ALERT!) superman dies. But if ever is is mentioned on Henry Cavill's page that "He performed on BvS and (SPOILERS) where, superman dies." (bare with me, I know it is not something worth mentioning there but I just used it to compare with pro wrestler, where their careers and notability depends on the plot, literally). THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

If you say in an article "On the February 25, 2019 episode of Raw, Roman Reigns gave an update on his battle with Leukemia", my point is that you in line gave a source. You said which episode of Raw is occurred on, and it can be verified. Sure its great if you reference a third party that someone can view exactly what was said without going to the WWE Network and pulling it up to verify, but its technically ok without it. Now if the article instead said "During Roman's first appearance back he gave an update on his battle with Leukemia" then it needs a source, you did not give a date or the show it occurred on. The difference is slight but there is a difference in the verifiability.

Similarly if you look at Halloween Havoc (1997) you will see there is no in-line citation for the event section. That is an example that is very similar to Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice where you will see the entire plot section has no in-line citations (although there are some notes to clarify certain things). Just like how the movie is the source for the plot section, the PPV is the source for the event section.

There are a lot of grey areas with this also, because if something is legit vs kayfabe it may need a source to clarify that. For example, on the WWE Crown Jewel article, right now about Reigns it says {[tq|On the October 22 episode of Raw, however, Reigns relinquished the title after announcing that his leukemia, which had been in remission since late 2008, had legitimately relapsed}} which is all verifiable by the October 22 episode. On the other hand, if it said it was a legitimate battle (as opposed to kayfabe), than that is not supported by the show and therefore needs a reference. Its very grey, but basically the kayfabe world is just like a movie, and real life stuff is more like what happens with an actor during filming. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

When it comes to Raw and SmackDown, it's basically just a t.v. show so I feel like we can source it as such. As long as there is no WP:OR regarding storylines, heel turns or injuries and such. StaticVapor message me! 21:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember when it turned out Gargano attacked Black, people kept adding "in essence turning heel" or something like that. Something like that I agree needs a source from something Secondary. But to just simply say he is the attacker, the show can be the PRIMARY source. Against a reference cant hurt, but as long as its very straight forward its ok without it. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 21:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep, Galatz made an excellent evaluation. The line between reality and kayfabe is quite tricky in pro wrestling. Sythesis of information is inevitable and we have to look at it and detect with caution. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Method of Elimination

I think the Method of Elimination columns should be completely removed from Elimination Chamber match tables since it ads nothing to the readers. If it exists, than the match results table should include all the wrestlers' finishing maneuver through which they finished the match. The finishes could be elaborated in the event match description instead. It is not a big deal of a change in this community and would not take much of our time, since there are a relatively few number of Chamber matches. Once approved, I would gladly remove the column from each table. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I think that whole table is a bit irrelevant. The only information it gleems is who entered when, and how they were eliminated. These are rarely notable, and can be put in prose if required. I say get rid of the whole table. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

A note below the table that states the order of eliminations, like most battle royals (except the Royal Rumble), would be enough. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I should also include championship scramble matches, such as at Unforgiven (2008) to this. They have the same format, and whilst someone being interim champion is relevant, how they won the title isn't. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

There's also an argument about the hardcore championship matches in the same vein, such as at WrestleMania 2000. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I strongly disagree. I think the tables are of great interest to the readers (myself included) and shows how the match progressed and it makes it more clear to the readers. One thing it does that isn’t appropriate to put in prose but is appropriate in the table is that it shows the times of the respective eliminations. I am just not convinced that it needs to go and I can’t see how including this hurts. It’s relevant info, it gives something to read, it’s not crufty, trivial, or irrelevant. Plus, December to Dismember (2006) and SummerSlam (2003) have the table yet they’re still considered featured articles anyway. Plus, Elimination Chamber (2010) and Unforgiven (2008) (in that case the Scramble) have the tables and it’s still considered a good article. That’s just my view though. I see the point of including it. DrewieStewie (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I get your point, but do you think the method of elimination (i.e. the move before finish) worth mentioning? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, yes. It states in a clear, sourced, and organized manner how they got out, considering that eliminations happen in a variety of ways, unlike the rumble (unless special conditions like Curtis Axel and Erick Rowan in 2015), and who/what was responsible. It's been the standard for a long time, and isn't broken or subject to manipulation. The elimination method portion of the table basically summarizes the prose in a table format adjacent to the order, participants, and times. It has plausible cause to stay in my opinion and doesn't hurt. DrewieStewie (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

We include the eliminated by in Survivor Series matches as well. To me it should follow the same thing as the match table. It can show pinfall, submission, count-out, disqualification. But to show the move that eliminated them is not needed. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 22:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I think leaving what finisher eliminated them is wise, not just for my above reasons, but out of simplicity, long time standard and precedent, and for being specific, clear, visible, and informative (and if we're including Survivor Series, 6 of those events are good articles, and they all still have finishers in method of elimination. Likely same with many other events that include elimination tag matches. I see its purpose and don't believe it hurts to include. If somebody was curious on how they were eliminated, it's right there. This especially proves true during times when the event just happened and the event section isn't written yet, or in other articles where it was never written (such as Survivor Series (1990). Same with iron man match scores, the scoring methods with finishers are relevant in my eyes. DrewieStewie (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Those are the same arguments that were used to keep the "In wrestling" section, but that got removed because its was WP:CRUFT and WP:TRIVIA. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 23:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

This is completely different from that though. Unlike that, this is proven to not be cruft or trivial. It's clearly sourced and its showing the natural progression of the match in table format. Although I strongly disagreed with the removal of that said section (I'm surprised nobody compared it to WWE going from TV-14 to PG until now haha), the reasons were legitimate. That was poorly sourced and crufty and trivial. The finishing methods here, meanwhile is very well sourced and organized and to an encyclopedia standard for notability and inclusion, and in my eyes the tables as is passes WP:GNG. DrewieStewie (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not it was sources was not really the biggest issue with that section, although it was one. Plenty of info could have been kept in it that way, but it was deemed inappropriate to. What happened leading to their pin sounds like something that should be included in prose, not in the table. A table's purpose is to give information in a quick easy to follow format, that prose does not lend itself to. Adding in the move is just fluff. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 23:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

To me it really isn't fluff, its more of a brief, easy summary (that passes GNG as mentioned above since its relevant to the act of the pinfall/submission/interference leading to the elimination) of the prose to directly answer a question in a different section. I think this is wise and something to encourage here on Wikipedia. DrewieStewie (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Galatz brings up a good point (one that I was going to make. Damn you for being so quick) - The argument here is incredibly similar to our "in wrestling" debate. That section could arguable have been sources (or bits of it), but that doesn't mean it belongs. The other issues here are namely: 1- Trivia - isn't this just trivial information? 2- WP:ILIKEIT - Are we really keeping these because they are historically there? The arguments above are simply that because they are in GA's and FA's, we should retain. However, FAs simply require them to fit the MOS of the wikiproject. That doesn't mean they get a free pass. 3- WP:FANCRUFT - Specifically the method of elimination is very crufty. Are these matches that confusing that they can't be explained in text? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@DrewieStewie: Here is an example. Right now the table on Elimination_Chamber_(2014) looks like this

Eliminated	Wrestler	Entered	Eliminated by	Method of elimination	Time
1	Sheamus	2	Christian	Pinned after a body splash from the top of a chamber pod	26:03
2	Christian	4	Daniel Bryan	Pinned after a running knee	27:12
3	Cesaro	1	John Cena	Submitted to the STF	30:10
4	John Cena	5	Randy Orton	Pinned after a Sister Abigail from Bray Wyatt	32:38
5	Daniel Bryan	3	Randy Orton	Pinned after an RKO	37:30
Winner	Randy Orton (c)	6	Winner	Winner	37:30

In my opinion it should look like this:

Eliminated	Wrestler	Entered	Eliminated by	Method of elimination	Time
1	Sheamus	2	Christian	Pinfall	26:03
2	Christian	4	Daniel Bryan	Pinfall	27:12
3	Cesaro	1	John Cena	Submission	30:10
4	John Cena	5	Randy Orton	Pinfall	32:38
5	Daniel Bryan	3	Randy Orton	Pinfall	37:30
Winner	Randy Orton (c)	6	Winner	Winner	37:30

It looks very similar, but we just show the method of their elimination. The move before it is not needed, in line with the results table. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Even though nobody has specifically countered my GNG argument that I used as a qualifier for the table, I give up and concede the lost argument. I’m honestly a little tired of being the only inclusionist that argues for the interest of the readers on this project and seeing things differently from the other users, there’s no way it seems like my side of the argument will ever win a consensus here, I honestly feel like an isolated radical and minority compared to everybody else here but I won’t give up my core beliefs since I’m entitled to them. But still I respect you all enough to concede here. I just ask for one compromise though. How about the finishers only be included on the table when the event section is yet to be written when the event just happened? Same thing with numerous articles (such as some early survivor series cards and WrestleMania 12) where the event section remains unwritten and the finishers info is nowhere else on the page. Does that at least sound fair and reasonable to you? DrewieStewie (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

DrewieStewie just for reference, WP:GNG has nothing to do with the content of an article, or MOS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

DrewieStewie, I would suggest you not to take arguments of others too personally. Wikipedia ideally doesn't follow majority rule. If your arguments are valid enough and are supported by general policies and guidelines, a compromise would surely be made. As for "interest of the readers", while it seems like a noble act, this is not the best website for that (it works totally on Wikia. I am pretty sure you are not the only "inclusionist" here, to use this term for this kind of discussions is quite naive. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You right. Sometimes I just get frustrated and express it. I just gotta chill. It’s sometimess just frustrating when I feel I’m right and reasonable but there’s no real policy or guidelines out there to help my case such as now. At least I’m keeping my cool and not making any outburst claims like “IW shoulda never been unblocked since he wouldn’t have been able to suggest this”. But I’d much rather be civil and nice, as the pillar says. Anyways, about the discussion at hand. Is my compromise suggestion at least reasonable when above mentioned circumstances make it necessary, even if only short term temporary? DrewieStewie (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Drewie, I suggest you have a little look at WP:IQUIT, and how wikipedia looks a these things - I would also look at WP:BURNOUT, despite it being about admins, all editors have the same feelings. Nothing on wikipedia should be "temporary"; and there isn't a policy or guideline, because you are suggesting to keep/change the Manual of style. There's also an essay on Wikipedia:Wikipedia can wait which is a good read. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Just for clarification and update, this conversation did not end up to just "keep all" or "delete all". I initiated by saying that there is no point on keeping the Method of Elimination column and it "should be completely removed". On the other hand, Lee Vilenski pointed out the whole elimination table is "a bit irrelevant" and the notable stuff (such as entering and elimination numbers) should be written in prose. Galatz then brought a very good point (which I am starting to agree with) that Method of Elimination should be about whether it was pinfall or submission, not the their finishing maneuvers. However, DrewieStewie suggested that the finishing moves should be written whenever the event section is empty and "the finishers info is nowhere else on the page".

I strongly oppose DrewStewie's suggestion. Let's take any other pay-per-view/event which does not have any Elimination Chamber, Champions Scramble or any sort of those matches. Assume the event is relatively new, and therefore the event section is empty, but the results table is accurately given with which wrestler won and match time. There ares till many things missing from the article one could argue. Those could be the finishing moves through which the match ended, if it's a no disqualification match, the interfering wrestler used his/her finishing move and helped someone to win (e.g. Bray Wyatt with a sister abigail to Dean Ambrose and Seth Rollins pins). Now you could also say that those information could be included in the results table, but that is too complex and not required. That is why, it shouldn't be an issue if the Elimination Chamber table does not have the close finishes mentioned.

Between Lee Vilenski and Galatz, I am neutral and sort of in between, although I lean more towards the latter. I would urge other members to chime in here too and aim to reach for consensus. If none is reached, I might ask for a third party opinion to have a fresher and general point of view. Thanks. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

My 2¢: a method of elimination kept to a simple "pinfall" or "submission" is fine. Any more than that is too detailed. Wikipedia articles should not devolve into play-by-play recaps. Too much of the prose has already become like that in PPV article, to be honest. oknazevad (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, Galatz, DrewieStewie and Oknazevad, so the closure is to keep the column with only pinfall/submission/other and remove finishing moves? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

If I can chip in, I'd say keep the table simple, and if anyone wants to add the finishes they can do so in the usually above event section. It's where other matches have their finishes noted anyway. ItChEE40 (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

What the hell, why not. To address my other concern, perhaps maybe we could tackle down older major wrestling PPVs without event sections and add them. Perhaps that could get started in a new section. DrewieStewie (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I think that would be a good thing to add. I had proposed that at one point as a monthly initiative. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful Galatz. I’ll be very happy to help out with that. Monthly initiative and/or project focus of the month can help out greatly with that should it be decided as that but if not that’s okay we can still work on that anyways :) DrewieStewie (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

COI report and potentially sock puppet

As STATicVapor pointed here, a user was blocked for promoting ITNWWE. However, (Redacted) has created Vips 17 and they are promoting themselves such as here. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 10:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

If they are a sock, (or highly likely sock) - just report them as such. It seems unlikely any editor on the wikiproject can do much to stop a sock - but there are official channels - See WP:SPI Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see if there is a case for SPI. You should not say who you think is behind the account; that is a guess on your part and even if you knew for sure, Wikipedia does not allow us to connect a Wikipedia account with its real-life author. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes I am certainly guessing. Apologies for stating their name, but I felt the need to do that to support the self-publishment accusation. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@STATicVapor and ImmortalWizard: What was the account that was blocked? I can't investigate if the new account is a sock, if I don't know what the previous account was! -- MelanieN (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. I see that STATicVapor has reported the new account at AIV, so let's see what happens with that before looking into the sock idea. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

They've been blocked as a promotion-only account. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Geez. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@ImmortalWizard and MelanieN: Sorry for not being clearer in my original post about this. The user in question was User talk:ITNWWE. StaticVapor message me! 22:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

PPVs without events

Anyone have a list of articles needing this added or are we stuck randomly going through show articles, hunting and pecking for articles? MPJ-DK (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm going through all of the WWE PPVs now. I'll post a finished list here when I'm done. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Here are WCW ones

Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 21:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I proposed a merge at Talk:List of WWE pay-per-view events that could use some more comments, it would be appreciated if some more people would chime in. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Can we try this discussion again?

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&oldid=860871682#Opinion:_WWE_is_NOT_the_authoritative_source_on_anything_but_WWE_title_reigns

WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

What exactly is your proposal? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Ditto to Lee Vilenski's comment, and there's no need, it would just be beating a dead horse. --JDC808 ♫ 20:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Wrestlemania IV

Hi everyone, feel free to let me know if this is considered WP:CANVASSING, however I'm looking for a new reviewer for my GA nomination of Wrestlemania IV.

If anyone fancies doing the review (the original reviewer never left a review), I'd appreciate it, even if it's a fail. I'm more than willing to review an article in return (QPQ). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

PPV storylines

Hi. Reading the WM and Fastlane articles, as always, the storyline section gained my atention. Did we agree how many storylines put in the section? I readed FA, like December to Dismember or GAB 2005. DtD 2006 only includes two storylines and GAB, three. Fastlane includes a storyline for every match, but som of them are too short, like Asuka-Many, Usos-McMiz, Revival-NXT-Roode and Gable, Rey-Andrade or New Day-Naka Rusev. This storylines are very short, only two or three lines. However, I can't find any policy or rule in our Style Guide. For me, this storylines aren't notable, they are just "the match was announced" without anything behind. What do you think?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I think there is something in the MOS, but I'm not sure I agree. The main storylines should have more WP:WEIGHT, however, in my eyes, not mentioning that characters have a storyline before their match fails being broad in content for GAs. I'm sure someone will know more. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's easy to fall into a false balance. If the only buildup to a match really is that it was announced that's all we need to include. We don't need to make it larger so it doesn't look small compared to the other matches that have had more buildup and are more significant. Not every match is equally important, and we don't need to pad the article to try to make it seem like they are. Like this weekend's New Day/Rusev match, which Xavier Woods, one of the actual participants, apparently learned about when WWE announced the match on social media (Talk about a lack of buildup!) is clearly not as important as the WWE title match. oknazevad (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

This is always a big issue. If you look at WrestleMania 34 its full of stuff that is not needed. Looking at the Styles/Nakamura could be changed as follows:

From At the Royal Rumble, SmackDown's Shinsuke Nakamura won the men's Royal Rumble match, earning a world championship match of his choosing at WrestleMania. Nakamura chose WWE Champion AJ Styles. At Fastlane, Styles retained the WWE Championship in a six-pack challenge, confirming the Styles-Nakamura match at WrestleMania. On the post-Fastlane episode of SmackDown, Styles and Nakamura expressed respect for each other, but Nakamura promised to deliver a Kinshasa to Styles at WrestleMania and become WWE Champion, and teased a Kinshasa on Styles after saving him from an attack the following week.Styles warned Nakamura to not take him lightly and mentioned their previous encounter in New Japan. Styles then teased a Phenomenal Forearm on Nakamura after the two had won a tag team match on the April 3 episode.

To At the Royal Rumble, SmackDown's Shinsuke Nakamura won the men's Royal Rumble match, earning a world championship match of his choosing at WrestleMania. Nakamura chose WWE Champion AJ Styles.

All of that week to week stuff adds nothing to the storyline. Why mention Fastlane, he also defended it at countless house shows, should we list each of those? Lines like "Nakamura expressed respect for each other" are completely useless.

The Universal Championship match mentions that Brock won the belt a year earlier by beating Goldberg, what does that have to do with this match? We just need to know who is the champion not everything about their history.

The same thing happens across every event. There is no need to say At the Royal Rumble, The Miz and Shane McMahon defeated The Bar (Cesaro and Sheamus) to win the SmackDown Tag Team Championship on Elimination Chamber (2019). The Bar had nothing to do with the match, we just need to know who was champion going in, not why. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"All of that week to week stuff adds nothing to the storyline". That week-to-week stuff is the storyline. Not saying it can't be trimmed, but to only say he won one match to have another match is at best, the skeleton of the storyline. 99% of house shows are non-canon, so of course we're not gonna mention all of those title defenses. The history is what builds the storyline and makes it appealing to read. --JDC808 ♫ 20:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Something like when Becky won the rumble and all the changes to the match, yes needs more (even if there wasn't a history with Becky/Charlotte recently). To say the Becky was suspended sure, to say after that she attacked HHH and Stephanie, no. To say she got her knee checked and the suspension was lifted, yes. To say she needed to apologize, no. To say Vince re-suspended her and replaced her with Charlotte, yes. All of the ones that are no do not advance story lines, but the yes ones do advance it. See the difference?

AJ/Nakamura had no WWE history to tell, so yes it should be that short. The storyline section is not meant to be a short summary of WWE at that moment in time, which is what it has turned in to. It is very clear that per WP:INDISCRIMINATE merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details.

To say how Shane and Miz won the titles is completely meaningless to the match with the Usos. For Elimination Chamber At the Royal Rumble, The Miz and Shane McMahon defeated The Bar (Cesaro and Sheamus) to win the SmackDown Tag Team Championship. On the following episode of SmackDown, The Usos (Jey Uso and Jimmy Uso) defeated The Bar, The New Day (represented by Big E and Kofi Kingston), and Heavy Machinery (Otis Dozovic and Tucker Knight) in a four-corners tag team elimination match to earn a championship match at Elimination Chamber. Could be written as On the January 29 episode of SmackDown, The Usos (Jey Uso and Jimmy Uso) defeated The Bar, The New Day (represented by Big E and Kofi Kingston), and Heavy Machinery (Otis Dozovic and Tucker Knight) in a four-corners tag team elimination match to earn a SmackDown Tag Team Championship match at Elimination Chamber against The Miz and Shane McMahon. Much more simplified. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh and JDC808 it is not up to you to decide house shows do not count. Sure not much often happens on them, but stuff does. To state none in between matter is WP:OR. AJ Styles defeated Kevin Owens for the US Championship on a house show about a year and a half ago. Sure that might be the last time it happens for a while, but it happens. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Which is why I said 99% percent are non-canon, not 100%. --JDC808 ♫ 21:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@JDC808: You completely missed the point. They happened but you are choosing to ignore them. Unless a match has direct correlation to the storyline it should not be discussed. For Fastlane, yes include when Bayley and Shasha beat Tamina/Jax since that is their opponent (granted it should say last eliminating them, no need for every team the way it is now). If you look at the SmackDown women's match however it just starts with the Asuka/Mandy stuff, no mention of Asuke vs Becky at RR, because it doesn't matter who she last defended it against. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 21:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"They happened but you are choosing to ignore them." Don't be ignorant here. The only time house shows are canon is if a title change actually happens. Anything else is treated as if it never happened storyline-wise. You know this, so don't try to pull that "they happened" crap on me. Re:Asuka. The last PPV before Fastlane was Elimination Chamber, and Asuka didn't have a match there, so there was no need to go back further as there was nothing significant about the reign to that point (I also wrote that match description mind you, and the RR match is actually mentioned by way of the description for Becky Lynch's match at Fastlane). P.S. Jax/Tamina weren't the last eliminated in the Chamber match, and it does make sense to mention The Bar for the SD tag title match as right after, they had a match to try and get a rematch for the title. --JDC808 ♫ 06:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@JDC808: You are mixing up Kayfabe and facts. Just because WWE ignores house shows, that has no place on Wikipedia where we go based on facts. But either way you "it happened on the last PPV rule" is clearly something you just made up and has no basis in how things should be reported. If it is not directly tied to the storyline, it should not be mentioned, whether it happened 3 weeks before or 3 months before.

You are right about Jax/Tamina, I miswrote, but the point remains, you can mention they were included and thats it. No need to list all the other teams.

Read what I quoted above, it mentioned The Bar, which is meaningless and adds nothing to the storyline. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, 90% of house shows are trial matches for the next payperview. But, these sections shouldn't be a weekly updated list, but a summary of all important points. If every match has a build up, it should all be included. More WP:WEIGHT for the more important matches. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of template under discussion

There is an ongoing deletion discussion for the template {{WWE personnel}}. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Should Loser Leaves Town Matches count as Apuestas Matches?

I see that apuestas matches are becoming the general term around here for hair and mask matches. No issues with that and I totally support them being tracked here. However, I think that Loser Leaves Town Matches should also count as apuestas matches. They are not title matches or tournaments, so they cannot fall under those categories. They are not hair or mask matches, despite in kayfabe being just as important. The wrestlers are putting something on the line, so it is an apuesta aka bet, however, since Mexico has a different wrestling set-up without territories, they did not have such matches, so they've never really fallen under there. I think LLT matches are relevant and definitely noteworthy and in territories such as Memphis, they would be worth tracking. What are your thoughts?— Preceding unsigned comment added by KatoKungLee (talk • contribs)

No. They are super common matches. Jerry Lawler has had around 1000. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Hair and Mask matches are super common matches. Villano 3 had close to 200 total on his own. Super Muneco had over 100 and Estrella Blanca had 200. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatoKungLee (talk • contribs) 15:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

In a previous discussion, we agreed luchas de apuestas is just if mask and hair are on the line. Anything can be a lucha de apuestas if there's something on the line (leaves the town, a championship, a title shot, kiss my foot, wash my car...). However, sources consider lucha de apuestas if mask and hair are on the line. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@KatoKungLee: Do you have a source that says career matches are? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You have to understand why LLT matches were created in the first place. The US was really the only country with a territory style system, where you could leave a place and still have other places to work. Japanese companies always toured the whole country as did Puerto Rican companies and European companies. Mexico did have some areas that had their own little scenes, but it was never on a scale of the US. I'm not even sure if Mexico had any career vs career matches until Triplemanía I and I'm not actually sure if they ever had a LLT match, hence why it wouldn't be considered an apuesta. Mexico also had a ban on wrestling on TV from the 50's up until about '89-'90 and along with CMLL owning many of the arenas, it was a different situation.--KatoKungLee (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It is all about what the sources say, we cannot just vote to add something, that is Original Research. No source, no add - we have sources for the Luchas de Apuestas definition. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Why would you remove the theme music from the templates?

Are you guys retarded? Why does this website actively go out of its way to remove useful information? Video game soundtracks, movelists and now PPV theme music. Might as well just make all the pro wrestling pages blank while you're at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.101.126.133 (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

GA review issues

Hi all, could someone take a look at Talk:WrestleMania IV/GA2 (The original one was never completed either), regarding a conversation between myself and User:RadioKAOS. Should I remove this from the GAN list, start a new page, or otherwise? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd actually recommend seeking some sort of warning against RadioKAOS. He has spent years complaining about how other editors spend their time editing but I seldom actually see him take action to fix the things that he has issues with. In this case, he vented his frustrations with one article using another article's GA template. He actually began his complaints with "Not reviewing despite what the template says..." This is patently disruptive. And it's so repetitive. Every time I see his name come up on the watchlist I know exactly what kind of comments he has made before I open the page. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.LM2000 (talk) 09:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I feel comfortable doing so myself. I'd like to work through any issues with the article, but it's a little difficult with how this has come across. I did mention the WP:POINT issue, and that the issues raised aren't that important (or, can easily be fixed.) What I don't want, is for a second review of this article to be quick failed/dragged on after 8 months without a review simply because of a beef. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd take it to WP:ANI but I'm busy and will be for foreseeable future. It may be best to just close the GA and try again later.LM2000 (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I can start the review tonight, and if there is any obstructions from a non-reviewer I have no probelm ANI'ing it. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't have time for ANI either. What's going on here is called gaming process in the interests of hat collecting in lieu of anything remotely having to do with improving the quality of the encyclopedia. Closing Talk:WrestleMania IV/GA2 and starting anew with Talk:WrestleMania IV/GA3 is not only precisely an example of gaming process, but also an attempt to whitewash the legitimate concerns I raised about the quality of sourcing present in the article. Take a look at some of the GAs under this project and see how they amount to blatant exercises in cherry-picking sources and putting lipstick on a pig in order to get there. Do you really need me to provide more examples? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You know what? I'm going to provide examples, whether you like it or not. I already mentioned Bobby Heenan, in which two of the project's participants all of a sudden showed up to a long-dormant GA page, decided consensus amongst themselves and rushed the thing through without regard for long-standing problems or any second opinions, just like what is being attempted in the case of the WMIV article. Details of some of the problems with the Heenan article can be found at the above GA2 page. I've seen those Commons files uploaded by Coffee Engineer added to many project articles recently, despite concerns that many of them may not actually be in the public domain. I added some recently to Jos Leduc, also a GA. Let's examine that article. It's full of match results and the like (WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:ROUTINE), yet contains no mention of Leduc cutting his arm with an axe on live television during a promo. The impact of this incident has been brought up numerous times in recent years (or 30+ years after it occurred), including multiple times by WWE. Instead of mentioning a defining moment in Leduc's career, we instead have match results and a lot of Canadian POV courtesy of Slam Wrestling. The pinnacle of the latter is a rather extraordinary piece of trivia: "After his death, the revelation that he and Paul LeDuc were not related caused a minor scandal on talk shows in Quebec." Uh, really? Let me guess, the last "minor scandal on talk shows" must have been when the release of "O.P.P." sparked furious debate over why anyone would write a rap song about the Ontario Provincial Police. No wonder South Park has gotten so much mileage out of portraying Canadians as backwards. While not a GA, another example is Roddy Piper, a B-class article with over 180 citations. Many of those citations are to blogs, tabloid sources and other dubious sources, including too many sources which repeat the same story about his death without adding unique insight (at least I didn't see among those citations his obituary in The New York Times, which did nothing but regurgitate Twitter comments). There is not a single citation to Rowdy, the book started by Piper and finished by his children after his death. This is important in that the book showed much evidence of fact checking with regard to the numerous embellishments Piper made over the years about his life and career, especially the details of his debut match against Larry Hennig, something which has been specifically disputed in that article's talk page and revision history. I'll repeat what I said in GA2: fact checking is at the very heart of determining what makes a reliable source, not "Why, it came from this website, so therefore...".

If you really want to drag this through ANI, let me remind you of something. In case you forgot the discussion surrounding the big RFC last summer, one of the things mentioned concerned the fact that this project has declared on its own what constitutes a reliable source without vetting by the community at large, with one editor describing the project as a "walled garden" in their RFC !vote. Think very carefully if you really want to risk going there, as it could very well affect a sizable swath of the project's content just as wholesale removal of the "In wrestling" section did. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Closing GA2 is totally appropriate since you did not start an actual review like you are supposed to instead you just vented against "great injustices", which means that the nomination would just sit there, and sit, and sit as it looks like you were doing the review. Calling it "Gaming the system" is the ultimate act of not-AGF, and the fact that you cannot see that your GA2 actions were inappropriate is a sad indication of how entitled you feel about this. I don't give a shit about the Heenan GA, it is not a factor in my' review of the article. So rant, rave, do whatever - but stay civil and within the guidelines, if you even comment on the GA review, I am not putting up with it being derailed by someone who looks like they have an ax to grind and has no sense of proportions. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

And threats really should be beneath each and every editor, but apparently you are happy to make threats if you do not get your way. As one of the people who engineered the removal of the "In wrestling" section I'm not afraid to call a spade and spade and take a good look at quality. You may or may not have good points, but the message is lost in your delivery and frankly I would prefer to not interact with you unless I am forced to in the GA review. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

"Closing GA2 is totally appropriate since you did not start an actual review like you are supposed to...". Try WP:BEBOLD, WP:IAR and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, for starters. I took on extra work for four days about a week ago. When I had time to go through my watchlist, I found evidence at both DYK and ITN/C of editors being rewarded for pushing weak and even pathetic sources. So does this mean that such practices have now become the norm on the encyclopedia and I should let you have your way with such a blatant hat-collecting exercise? You seem to be avoiding those points in favor of throwing out platitudes, or for that matter throwing out anything which avoids matters of article quality as opposed to this concoted fake notion of "article quality" being pushed. I could have made this a lot easier by linking to another page to describe what's going on here, but as you can see from the redlink, there is no such page as Wikipedia:Sausage factory. As for threats, what threats? The "threats" I'm referring to were those made prior to the RFC by members of the community at large and specifically those involved with WP:RSN that sources claimed by this project as reliable really aren't that reliable, which in the minds of some editors incuded every single wrestling-centric source in existence. Yes, that would absolutely affect many of those hat-collecting exercises. And considering all the trips you've made to ITN/C over the years with articles on obscure luchadores containing intricate amounts of detail backed by obscure sources questioned by editors outside the project, this would absoultely affect you, too. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Quoting the normal alphabet soups that people quote to support their claim of "I can do what I want". Since this article has never been a DYK or ITN/C that is not relevant. And you seem to think that I'd just let shit slide because it has happened elsewhere for other articles? since you made no points about WM IV there is nothing that I "need" to address here. Article and source quality for this article will be dealt with in he review, As for what threats? = then you imply that if you get called to ANI for your behavior that basically "PW Sources will suffer" is a nice piece of irony and shows a lack of self-awareness. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• I actually agree a lot with what RadioKAOS regarding content and sources. We shouldn't dismiss those issues just because of their actions. Neither am I here to judge nor do I know if their GA actions are justified. However, my point is some of the concerns RadioKAOS brought in seems reasonable to me. I would like them to point those here in this discussion page or talk pages rather than GA reviews. If anything, to me GANs are about AFG and healthy conversation between nominator and reviewer. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 08:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It simply isn't the platform for those sorts of issues. They aren't well formatted either. It seems like they have an issue with the GA process in general, rather than actually working on fixing issues in articles. How exactly are editors being "rewarded"? Anyone who links to WP:IAR in some sort of psydo-guideline to push forward their agenda has nothing I want to do with. In short, the issues here are that you have used a platform that is supposed to judge an articles' quality, and used it as a generalized incoherent rant about all that ails you. If you either started up a topic on this page with your issues, I'd be a lot more open, or alternatively, pushed a proper review of this article that incorporated any issues you have with it, to which I could have responded in a justified manor. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with a source and content discussion here in general. If that is what is needed do that, but using a GAN to try and backdoor in changes is not the way to do it. A factual. Calm, constructive discussion on the topic is fine. I suggest RadioKaos does that as a constructiveboutlet of their frustration with the current status. Thst isn't what has happened yet. Maybe start now and state problem, symptoms and constructive measurs to improve instead of vague threats of "Well if this goes to ANI pw articles will suffer". It is obvious you are passionate about this, which is great. Focus that passion into a constructive direction and something positive may actually come from it. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• "If we always do what we always do, we always get the results we have always gotten", just saying. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm late for an appointment so don't have time to continue this right this minute. To touch upon something I referred to in this thread, it appears that CoffeeEngineer is being dragged through some Commons equivalent of ANI over those files and is now nominating many if not all of them for deletion. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Cody Rhodes

There is a community reassessment for Cody Rhodes at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Cody Rhodes/1. It could use some input from knowledgeable editors. AIRcorn (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Batista and John Cena

Recently a user has removed a lot of content from John Cena and Dave Bautista, citing it as trivial. It would be great if someone could go through it and make sure nothing significant has been removed. I noticed there is practically nothing in Cenas bio from 2002–2005, which is not okay. I am just trying to make sure I was not the only one seeing this happen and there is consensus for these content removals. StaticVapor message me! 02:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Cena as the Doctor of Thuganomics is far from trivial. I believe these large "trimmings" need consensus. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Probably best to ping the user in question, when discussing removal of content (per WP:BRD) ImmortalWizard Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

No need, I was asking if anyone could go through it and see if anything important was removed, obviously important stuff was removed. I just read the Batista article, there was no mention of Deacon Batista at all and barely any mention of Leviathan. His entire career from 2000 to 2005 was only two or three paragraphs and that is ridiculous. StaticVapor message me! 16:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

For now, I don't feel the need to explain my actions in full details. If anyone feels like I have excluded some notable feuds, feel free to add them back. Other than that, I tried to compress the info as much as possible. Professional wrestling articles are complicated, or at least made complicated by the community. I chose to edit Bautista and Cena over other wrestling BLPs for a reason (again, I don't want to explain explicitly for now. It seems like many of the wrestling BLPs contradicts the projects own guide. The guide I believe is derived from Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). It says there: "Articles on fiction are expected to follow existing content policies and guidelines, particularly Wikipedia is not simply plot summaries. Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than "in-universe" details.". That's the best I could quote for now. Essentially, in my eyes a lot wrestling biographies fails to separate fictional content and real life aspect. Although it isn't entirely true, for many of the general audience, Bautista plays Batista the same way as he plays Drax. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• ANI threat?, guess I have to leave it like this then. I left a few comments at John Cena's talk page. If people are unwilling to have consensus then I am free to revert. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• STATicVapor contradicting BRD themselves. Let that be judged. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

You removed 35,000 bytes of content from Dave Bautista and you do not feel a need to explain your actions? That is ridiculous. StaticVapor message me! 16:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I did initiate my explanation. The amount (number) of content does not matter. I did all of them manually while you were the one who reverted in one go. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

What's controversial is you reverting just because it's a lot of content, without explanation regarding the quality of it. THE NEW hImmortalWizard(chat) 16:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

And what's worse is you reverted other users' contributions as well, not only mine. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I restored just about every constructive change outside of the professional wrestling career section. StaticVapor message me! 17:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Oversight

Hello. I have requested and been granted suppression of 7 revisions on this page dated February 27 by an oversighter over a real life name that has now been redacted that was linked to a Wikipedia as a potential sockpuppet. This was suppressed as outing and harassment and defamation are against Wikipedia policy. Thanks for understanding. DrewieStewie (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Event, chronology in event info boxes

Looking at the way we use the pro wrestling event info box I feel like we're over complicating something. The info box has the option to include an "event chronology" (ex. links to previous SummerSlam and next SummerSlam) the "lastevent2" and "nextevent2" parameters. Right now the "last" and "next" even shows the full name of the article. Which means that currently we repeat the show name three times in very close proximity, making the info box more cluttered than it needs to be in my opinion and to some extend we are talking down to our readers and their ability to put information together.

Lethal Leap Year (1982)
Promotion	Southpaw Regional Wrestling
Lethal Leap Year chronology
← Previous Lethal Leap Year (1978) Next → Lethal Leap Year (1986)

Lethal Leap Year (1982)
Promotion	Southpaw Regional Wrestling
Lethal Leap Year chronology
← Previous 1978 Next → 1986

So nothing illustrates a point like examples. so I see three types of show names where we can simplify (info box examples to your right)

First up - events that are called the same but just has the year behind it to distinguish between them

Event title (year)

• Lethal Leap Year (1978)
• Lethal Leap Year (1982)
• Lethal Leap Year (1986)
• Lethal Leap Year (1987) (nevermind)

Second example clearly shows that the event is called "Lethal Leapyear" and that the last event was in 1978 and the next one was in 1986 without having to see "Lethal Leapyear" all over the place.

Swamp Slam: Doing it for Dewey
Promotion	Southpaw Regional Wrestling
Swamp Slam chronology
← Previous Swamp Slam: Chadd2Badd'a'Mania Next → Swamp Slam: Going out of Business

Simplified

Swamp Slam: Doing it for Dewey
Promotion	Southpaw Regional Wrestling
Swamp Slam chronology
← Previous Chadd2Badd'a'Mania Next → Going out of Business

First example is pretty straight forward, but then some promotions throw us a curveball by having slightly different names for their events - example: NXT TakeOver or WWF's "In Your House" once they dropped the numbering scheme. Once again I think we can simplify this for everyone.

Consider the following supercard event held by our good friends at SRW, where every ticket comes with a free autograph from their local Ric Flair-lookaline ;)

• Swamp Slam: Chadd2Badd'a'Mania
• Swamp Slam: Doing it for Dewey
• Swamp Slam: Going out of Business

The focus is on the part that's different and have the "Show chronology" line fill in the rest, but it's still clear what the previous and the next event iis

Shopping Mall Mayhem XXI
Promotion	Southpaw Regional Wrestling
Shopping Mall Mayhem chronology
← Previous Shopping Mall Mayhem XX Next → Shopping Mall Mayhem XXII

Simplified version

Shopping Mall Mayhem XXI
Promotion	Southpaw Regional Wrestling
Shopping Mall Mayhem chronology
← Previous XX Next → XXII

Next I hear "Well what about Roman numerals"?? Your WrestleManias, your Clash of Champions etc.?

We go down south once more, covering their recurring events at the local closed down Tobacco Woods Mall, featuring the best of the rest and the rest of the best.

• Shopping Mall Mayhem XX
• Shopping Mall Mayhem XXI
• Shopping Mall Mayhem XXII

Treating the roman numeral the same way we would the year indicator.

• I propose that we update our MOS for events to simplify the reader experience, but I would like to get input from you guys and gals to make sure this change does not meet with resistance. So comments? Ideas?? objections?? MPJ-DK (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I am fine either way as long as we are consistent. Next event by the promotion should always be the full name no matter what. So on WrestleMania_2 for example, the next event will show as WrestleMania III in either scenario, however the WrestleMania section I am fine with either WrestleMania III or just III. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I take issue with this. Lethal Leap Year never happened. They forgot to check the calendar! Seriously though, I'm also fine with this as long as it's consistent. --JDC808 ♫ 06:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:WWE for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on tag team notability

Recently, I AFDed The Hype Bros which didn't result in anything. I was wondering we should come up with a threshold for single pages of tag teams? I think this is crucial, not only for knowing which ones to keep/delete, but also to be able to create new ones like The Boss 'n' Hug Connection, Nia Jax and Tamina, Awesome Truth, 3MB, Heath Slater and Rhyno, Miz and Mizdow and so on. This came to my attention when I saw the existence of Vince's Devils. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

We started working on a PW specific notability guideline at one point but not sure what happened to it, but I think its worth finalizing. I think it was saved on MPJ-DK's sandbox - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. This needs clarification. Actually, a no consensus result is probably the right result in this case. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe it was at User:MPJ-DK/Notability (professional wrestling). This should definitely be a priority. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. We should have one for tag teams, singles wrestlers, promotions, etc. It is all going to overall go by the WP: GNG, but we can have other criteria that would indicate notability. I know some sports articles, all they have to do is play one game in the major leagues and then they are notable. Obviously we probably should not make it that easy, but championships or tenure with major promotions could indicate notability with our own criteria. StaticVapor message me! 21:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

THere you go, undeleted so that you guys don't have to start from scratch. I am happy to host this while you work through this, or put in it draft space - your call. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The wrestling section needs different notability rules than the rest of the site for a few reasons:

- Wrestling has always gotten little coverage. Not because people didn't care but because places didn't want to cover it due to it being fake.

- Wrestling up until 1980 was regional. This limited how much coverage there was, while the NFL, MLB and other sports didn't have that issue. Coverage is not a good way to determine notability. The Apter mags were also biased towards the Northeast since they were from the Northeast, while places like Continental didn't want Apter reporters there since they were only running Alabama.

- Places like Japan and Mexico still have a very undeveloped internet. One is due to poverty and the other due to people preferring to use their phones. The chances of either of those situations changing anytime soon is low, so even if results were listed in newspapers and stuff, it's going to be a long time, if ever before they get online. The language barrier also makes it very hard for people like myself to find information.

- There's little footage prior to 1980. Not because people weren't watching wrestling, they definitely were. But the VCR wasn't invented yet and due to the other reasons I listed above, it got less coverage.

- Many people have compiled regional results. However, they don't have official websites/publications so therefore they don't meet notability guidelines for sources and it can't be used. So someone like a Matt Farmer who has done a lot of work would have to type up the results then send them to a source like Dave Meltzer to be posted for it to be recognized, which probably won't happen.

KatoKungLee (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Note - WP:GNG still applies, cannot set the bar lower than that. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• As as the most prolific editor of Mexican articles and a total non-speaker of Spanish I can say that he language barrier also makes it very hard for people like myself to find information. has not been a barrier, nor should it be a reason to lower the notabiliy criteria. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on current notability draft

Thank you MPJ-DK for restoring. Here are some thoughts I have right now based on where things currently are.

1. The nutshell says A professional wrestler is presumed to be notable if the person has worked for a major professional wrestling promotion on a regular basis or won a significant championship (bolding added by me) however I do not see where this championship is listed, except for groups. How long do they need to hold the championship, since someone like Nicolas held a championship but I do not believe should have his own page. Perhaps holding for over 100 days for individuals as well? 3 months seems to be a rarity in reigns these days.
2. User:MPJ-DK/Notability_(professional_wrestling)#Professional_wrestlers asks the note of how long they appear full time to be notable. I would say 6 months should suffice. WP:NBASE only requires you to play one game for an MLB team to be notable, so I think this is more than reasonable.
3. User:MPJ-DK/Notability_(professional_wrestling)#Post_territory_days_(1990s-present) I propose we add NXT UK to NXT or clarify and state any developmental brand, to make it apply once additional NXTs open. In addition we have the note about what makes them notable. I would say we include holding a belt for the 90 days I mentioned above, or appeared on 2 network specials. Street Profits have been on many weekly episodes but consistently keep getting deleted, so I think this criteria makes sense.
4. I am not very familiar with the European wrestling scene so not sure I can add anything to that discussion, but I am sure someone here is more familiar. Similarly I notice no Canadian promotions on the list, are there none that should qualify?

• Treker I believe you typically edit the Canadian ones and could perhaps answer more on this, and I feel like you might be from Europe, right?

1. User:MPJ-DK/Notability_(professional_wrestling)#Professional_wrestling_officials_etc. is a bit confusing to me. Are we saying they need to meet the same criteria as the wrestlers? What exactly makes a referee notable? What about a ring announcer? Do they just need to meet GNG?
2. User:MPJ-DK/Notability_(professional_wrestling)#Groups I believe criteria for a group to be notable it must be over 1 year. There consistent are teams thrown together for some purpose but they quickly die. 1 year does make it pretty substantial. For example, Owen Hart and Yokozuna were together for almost 6 months, and held the championship twice for a total of 175 days. Based on my suggestions, they do not meet the criteria for length as a team but do for length of a reign, does everyone agree they are notable?
3. In User:MPJ-DK/Notability_(professional_wrestling)#Events,_tournaments I think we need to clarify what criteria a supercard needs to meet to be considered. This is part of what often led to the debate on WWE_Global_Warning. It was an event, held in a stadium of over 50,000 people, and was released on VHS/DVD. Based on the criteria here, I do not know how many of the pre pay-per-view events like Showdown at Shea meet the criteria and Global Warning doesn't.
4. For User:MPJ-DK/Notability_(professional_wrestling)#Matches,_rivalries_and_incidents I suggest we include Fingerpoke of Doom and/or Mass Transit incident (professional wrestling) to the list. It makes it less WWE focused and shows incidents in addition to just matches.
5. When referencing reliable sources we should probably also include a link to WP:PW/RS for reference, although not all inclusive, it gives a good starting point.

I will try and do a more detailed read later, but thats my current thoughts. Anyone else? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for pining me Galatz. Yes I am indeed from Europe, Sweden to be exact, but the most wrestling I'm familiar with is British/Irish and Canadian. I would say personally that I feel that if a Canadian wrestler has hold a title from Stampede Wrestling they really should be assumed to be notable. Even just working in Stampede should most likely grant you enough coverage for notability in most cases. I would also say that coverage from SLAM! Wrestling is a great indicator that a wrestler was noteworthy. British wrestling is a little harder, hopefully someone from the erea can shime in more.★Trekker (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

One other though I forgot to mention. In terms of when to break out a a championship article, I think we need to look at WP:SPLIT. I believe unless it is over 50-60k range, there is no reason to break out. I am just not sure if this belongs here or in style guide (which already says to break out the list if it has 10 entries) but it cannot hurt to mention them in both, as long as they are worded consistently. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• With my limited knowledge, I support the 1 year group notability suggested by Galatz. Rivalries are quite tricky. Since we have pages like The Undertaker vs. Mankind, it wouldn't be a problem to have others like The Rock vs. John Cena, Cena vs. Orton, The Undertaker vs. Brock Lesnar, Steve Austin vs. Vince McMahon and Bret Hart vs. Shawn Michaels (although easily mergeable to Montreal Screwjob). At some point it could be just too much. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Having articles for fueds/rivalries seems very dificult, the The Undertaker vs. Mankind article is only about the specific match, not the whole ordeal. That makes much more sense to me.★Trekker (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    • There is a Sport Rivalry criteria out there which just says it should meet WP:GNG. With very few exceptions, rivalries would just be a FORK, just based on the nature of PW rivalries vs sports which can go on for decades. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I will look through the above in more detail later - however, I think there is a case that some more rivalries do meet GNG. Potentially Austin Vs McMahon, Hogan/Andre, heck, I expect there's tonnes of sources on the Orton/Cena rivalry. It should be noted that they could be created, but they'd have to be of high quality to be anything other than a fork. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts on some of your points:

1 - 100 Days of holding a title is too much. The majority of wrestlers would not meet this criteria, especially since a lot title histories are incomplete.

2 - If one day is good enough for any of the sports leagues, one match should be enough for wrestling as well. But there's discrimination towards wrestling and it's fans and the non-fan editors wouldn't allow it. May have to come down to holding x titles, wrestling for x years or something else for the territory days.

4 - We are sadly going to see almost no European wrestling articles on here ever for anyone before the mid-80's. The only people who could ever meet the criteria were super stars like Jackie Pallo, Big Daddy or people who had long careers in the US. Even tons of WOS wrestlers who had pretty good careers there will be eaten alive by the non-wrestling editors on here. Sourcing on that is next to impossible, since only we really only have WOS tapes and every other site will end up deemed a "personal site" due to the lack of footage. I see similar fates for Canadian wrestlers who never bothered in the US. Had Vince not bought Stampede, it wouldn't have gotten the coverage it got here. Larry Kasaboski ran a Canadian promotion for 30 years and I'd be surprised if even Dave Meltzer knew who he was, since he was regional and no footage exists. But obviously, he was doing something right.

5 - Refs would have to be super specific situations, mostly revolving around people who mainstayed in one promotion for decades or wrestled in matches. Announcers would probably meet similar fates.

As we talked about elsewhere in the thread, wrestling was all local prior to WWF in 1986 and since it wasn't in a national league like other sports, what happened in the middle of Canada wasn't really important to the people in Memphis. And since every territory minus Memphis was dead by 1992 and didn't keep their footage, we really only have various kayfabe mags and whatever newspapers may have covered, but someone would have to look through those and either write their own book or get Dave to publish them. I do have some fan newsletters sitting around from the 70's which would be sources and were the 70's kayfabe version of the Wrestling Observer, but the non-wrestling fan editors would never allow them. KatoKungLee (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Man, all your points are so true and sad. I wish there was a way to solve this somehow.★Trekker (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• KatoKungLee names? Maybe someone else knows of sources. i have a book on Cnafians, maybe there is something there. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I have tons of old magazines from the 90s if anyone needs something specific from those I can try and check too - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    • User:Galatz and MPJ-DK, MPJ - I didn't understand your question. I also have tons of old programs(I have all kinds of programs from 90's Japanese companies but I do not know how to cite them), and a huge collection of mags from the 60's-80's along with fan newsletters. I don't even know how we could go about sourcing fan newsletters though because they were regional and the people involved are long gone, but they had all kinds of results that I've never seen elsewhere since there was only maybe one national wrestling magazine in the 60's.
      • There is a format for citing them. Check out Template:Cite magazine - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 01:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

American promotions

I moved the page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Notability where I imagine it will ultimately live. I tagged it as under construction and not yet ready. I also set up some redirects to it so we can short hand refer to it once finalized. Unfortunately WP:PWN and WP:NPW are both already taken. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I made all of the changes mentioned above that seemed to have no objection, either raised by me or others. I also made a few other changes to formatting/wording. Please feel free to review and revert any you disagree with. Anything I believe is still open I have underlined to make it easier to find for anyone who doesnt have time to do a detailed review. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@STATicVapor: Thanks for adding to the list of promotions. It brought a couple thoughts in my head. First, for MLW we should specify that their original run does not qualify, only their relaunch with the BeIN contract. Similarly does wrestling for Impact still make someone notable? I would be ok saying TNA from May 2004 (move off PPV shows) until March 2017 (change from TNA to Impact). At this point I believe being signed to AEW does not make someone notable since they have not put on a show. I suggest we table them until later. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

No problem! I momentarily forgot that they had that original run 2002-2004. We might also have to specify for Ring of Honor, that it would have to be after 2007 (first PPV) or 2009 (first TV deal). However, if they were drawing close to 1000+ to their shows before then, I would support a earlier date. On Impact, I agree on there possibly being a cut off. When they got kicked off Spike, through all the GFW problems they were struggling to give away free tickets. Now, they have turned their business around recently, so I think we should consider 10/2018 or 1/2019 as a new start date for notability. StaticVapor message me! 21:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Question - if Impact Wrestling (after the name change) does not make someone notable Galatz, how would MLW qualify? They are both currently on networks with limited viewership - I don't know the difference between the "BeIN" network and wherever IW is at right now? An option to determine the criteria is to rank all current US promotions from "most notable" to "least" and figure out where the cut off line is. And be sure that we have an appropriate line drawn for where just working for the company for x period of time makes you presumably notable. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Its a tricky question without really a great answer. TNA during its hay-days had over a million views a week and were covered by a lot of sources. Ever since the name change their ratings have plummeted and you really do not see them being covered by major sources much at all. According to Dave Meltzer their ratings right now are about 10,000 per week with another 10,000 on Twitch, so about 20,000 people are watching it. MLW Fushion has roughly 3 times that many views on YouTube plus whatever they get on TV (no clue what that number is). Based on personal experience I just see MLW covered more now than TNA. Its not an exact science but thats why I said what I did. I welcome other opinions though - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 01:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

BeIN has larger reach than Pursuit Channel. BeIN is on the level of El Rey Network (Lucha Underground) and AXS TV (NJPW and Women of Wrestling in America). Outside of television deals we should take the amount of people they draw to their shows into consideration. As well as how much they are covered in reliable sources. I'll do a little detailing here. This is going to be tricky, because all these promotions had their high and low points.StaticVapor message me! 02:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Top tier

WWE 1990–2019, followed by WCW 1990-2001 is probably top tier (less time needed there to satisfy the criteria). After that it would be TNA during their time on national television on major stations (Fox Sports Net and Spike) so that would be 2004–2014. TNA drew less and had lower viewership than WCW, but we're a solid number two behind WWE from 2004/5–2014.

Number two

Following that is where it is not clear as day. ROH only had a network deals (2007–2011 and 2015) and even then, HDNet and Destination America have about the same reach as Pop TV (showed Impact after Spike deal) and BeIN Sports (MLW). Now ROH runs in syndication only in certain markets on FOX or CBS (the non-cable free channels), so viewership data is not available. ROH was the number three promotion for many years and then coinciding with the fall of TNA/Impact, they became the second largest promotion. This is sourced in the Ring of Honor article. They draw about 2000 to a record 6000 for their big shows, with the touring shows doing around 1000. My question is when does the notability start for them? 2015–2019 is probably the highest profile time in their existence, but they were well known as the number 3 promotion from 2005–201x.

After that...

Three is where is gets fishy Impact has a wide international reach, so even though they are not as big in US now, I do not think we need to do the cut-off on them. See List of Impact Wrestling programming for international deals. Then there is MLW (2018-2019). They are the only other promotion with a national deal if you don't count NJPW and Lucha Underground. They fight for third with Impact due to higher attendances. Impact draws about 1000-1500 for PPVs now, usually a lot less than that for television tapings. However, this is a very recent thing where business is picking up for them. While since mid 2018 MLW has been drawing 1000-2100 for their monthly supercards/television tapings.

Above the indies

So all four currently have a significant precense as American promotions. Impact and MLW slightly less than ROH. After that would be Lucha Underground, Women of Wrestling and Ring Warriors due to their television deals. All three of those are not year round promotions though. All three are kind of television shows, rather then full-time promotions. National Wrestling Alliance (late 2018-2019) is the only other one besides (WWE, ROH, MLW, Impact) that comes close to 1000 for their supercards in 2018–2019. While LU, WOW and Ring Warriors do their television tapings in small buildings.

Retrospect

Somewhere in there is where Extreme Championship Wrestling lies. Very notable, but they didn't draw huge crowds and were only seen through tape trading for most of their existence. Only 1999–2001 they were on a major network, but in a awful time slot. StaticVapor message me! 02:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Also we should try to do subsections everytime we talk about a different part of the notability essay. It was hard to find a place to jump into the conversation when I first saw this lol. StaticVapor message me! 02:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

ECW is very hard for me to judge. I discovered them late night NY TV probably in 94/95 time frame and used to wait up until 3am (I think that was when it ended) every Saturday night/Sunday morning to watch. So when they invaded Raw in 1997 I had no idea others didn't know about them. But based on how those old days are still discussed and talked about I think the small reach in the early days shouldn't exclude them from being considered a top tier during those times. At the least if WCW/WWF are tied for #1, ECW is a stand alone #2.

This may be based on my preference of websites/podcasts so others may have different views but here is how I see current products reviewed.

1. WWE is a clear #1.
2. ROH and MLW seem to be #2 in coverage, ROH most likely has many more viewers, but their coverage in RS seems to match MLW. AEW probably surpasses them in coverage but they have never put on a show, so being signed by them does not help with notability. NJPW is in this same category, but they are a Japanese promotion that has a US TV deal.
3. Impact and Lucha Underground get some coverage, but only when something big happens. On a week to week basis they don't appear much. NWA is probably in the same category as here, but they only have 1 full time wrestler signed, and they work with others to put on their shows, so not sure just being signed with them helps at all with notability at this points.
4. Other than their TV deals I cannot say I have heard anyone ever mention Women of Wrestling or Ring Warriors.

Again this is my own experience, so if anyone disagrees feel free to jump in. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 11:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

It's hard to categorically slot promotions from different eras, as the media landscape is entirely different. ECW worked in an entirely different time period than modern promotions, where the number of available outlets, both in digital cable channels and in internet streaming has made a promotion far more available that ECW ever was back in the 90s. (Not to mention DVRs making something like the Monday Night Wars impossible to truly replicate.)

Plus, the fact is whether or not a promotion does have a TV show actually has nothing to do with notability. Notability is about third-party coverage of something. AEW is definitely notable despite not even having a show yet, because so much has been written about it.

Impact, for all it's regression is still written about enough to be undoubtedly notable. It's just now at what I call "national indy" level – that is promotions that do tour outside a small region, but only in smaller buildings, and have pre-taped television shows that air on semi-obscure channels. Impact, MLW and, arguably, ROH fall into that category, though ROH is fairly big nowadays (though the Elite leaving has definitely hurt them). Those promotions are somewhat difficult to categorize, as they're more notable to fans than the general audience, but specialist coverage does tend to cover them more fully, so there's sufficient coverage to meet the GNG likely.

But also remember that standard results reporting falls under the "routine coverage" aspect of the GNG. Just as a capsule paragraph on last night's games in the sports section of the local newspaper doesn't establish notability as it is a standard part of the paper (and probably just taken from a wire service), a Wrestling website, even one like PW Torch or Meltzer, just listing the results of an indy card does not establish notability for that card, as they routinely list those (and many of them are reader-submitted, so likely don't qualify as reliable, anyway). oknazevad (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand your AEW point, but my only issue with that is our criteria we have been building deals with appearing on a regular basis for a company, not just being signed by them. If they have yet to put on a show, they can't meet the criteria spelled out right now. Unless you are proposing over-hauling that, adding AEW to the list wont help them fulfill the criteria. It more so falls into the exception criteria that needs to meet GNG. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 12:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes I agree on ECW, the amount of coverage it has received since it's closure is staggering. User:Galatz you hit the nail on the head when it comes to current amount of coverage in reliable sources. WWE–ROH–MLW–Impact–LU–etc. Also AEW is clearly gonna slot itself above Ring of Honor really soon, they have already sold out 1 (technically 2) 10,000+ arenas. So it wouldn't be very long before AEW ends up on our list, but now now. It seems like it would be this way.
1) is WWE and WCW.
2) is TNA (2004–2014) and ECW (1994–2001), maybe ROH (2015–2018) due to the popularity peak with The Elite.
3) Then ROH (undetermined year range) and MLW (2018–2019), Impact (2014–2019) and maybe Lucha Underground (but they are technically AAA right?). As for after that maybe being a long term champion or spending many years in WOW, NWA, or even the big indies such as Combat Zone Wrestling, Evolve Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Guerilla and the formerly popular Chikara and Dragon Gate USA would be a fourth tier. These promotions are covered pretty significantly in reliable sources (especially PWG, Evolve and CZW). StaticVapor message me! 01:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Nwa territories

User:Galatz - I do not agree with only 3 of the NWA territories being marked as notable. You really can't have a rule on notability for territories unless they only existed for a few months because they were all restricted to various regions and the regions were not fair. The WWWF had 3 of the top media markets in the country while people like Ron Wright were doing great business in the hills of Tenessee, where they didn't even have TV, yet alone anything else. Places like Omaha and Columbus were arguably the top territory at various parts in time. And some outlaw promotions like Gunkel's Georgia are really important to the story of territory wrestling yet would also not fit. Just because we don't have great information online about these places or videos doesn't mean they weren't noteable. Places like Florida aren't on the list, yet if it wasn't for Florida, JCP and Dusty would have never been what they ended up being. Please Please Pleaseeeee do not do this. KatoKungLee (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Territory days are not my specialty. I have watched from the time I was 3, but I know much more from 1992 on, so I left that as it was - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 01:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Needs a happy medium of more than those 3, but less than the 50ish territories listed at List of National Wrestling Alliance territories. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• I am not sure what is listed now, but there were a lot of significant promotions such as World Class Championship Wrestling and United States Wrestling Association. Defining a list of most notable is going to be hard with no internet at the time. However, how many notable wrestlers from that age are we going to run into that did not have (even small) stints in WWF, JCP, or AWA. StaticVapor message me! 03:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Europe

The notability draft currently lists two European promotions (Joint Promotions and World of Sport). I should mention that this is a bit confusing as Joint promotions ran events including the World of Sport shows on ITV in the 70s. The WOS listed is the article for the 2018 reboot.

I would ask if the reboot could be added in the post 1990 list. Someone like Justin Sysum is probably due facto notable anyway for his body of work (he also played Hawkeye on Disney tours) but I would suggest anyone doing significant things on this show would be notable.

Otherwise, the only other places I could think of to be notable would be potentially FWA, PCW, ICW (Scotland) or PROGRESS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

RESLO and CWA Austria in its various forms also definitely had TV through the 90's. KatoKungLee (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Any ideas what networks? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that about WOS, if no one else was "WOS" except Joint Promotions then we can take them off. I do not know anything much of European promotions pre-2010 to give much an opinion. I do know top promotions right now are Progress, Revolution Pro Wrestling and Insane Championship Wrestling, but those would be in the same tier as (ROH/MLW/Impact 2014–2019) not WWE/WCW or TNA/ECW. User:Lee Vilenski if FWA and PCW draw as much fans as those promotions I don't have a problem including them. I just always see Progress and RevPro covered in reliable sources, with some mentions of ICW. There easily could be stuff I have missed though. StaticVapor message me! 02:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

FWA would probably be the more notable promotion - https://www.cagematch.net/?id=8&nr=38&page=4 but - due to being the only big company in the UK at that time (outside of all star, but that's for a different reason.) Not sure appearing there loads is a good indicator of notability of a wrestler themselves though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Lee Vilenski - If you go on youtube, they have some footage with CWA being on Eurosport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatoKungLee (talk • contribs) 15:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we could source to that. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I do remember seeing them on EuroSport along wih British wrestling (Finlay, Johny Saint etc.). CWA had europe wide coverage. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Open Items

Here is a listing of all the items currently underlined which means we need additional discussion on. This by no way means these are the only items still open to discussions, just ones we still definitely need to discuss. I will try break each into its own bullet and sign individually to make conversations easiest to follow. I ask others to follow the same so we can keep each thought easy to follow. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Length of service

• How long do they need to wrestle with on of the promotions to qualify as notable. We have heard anywhere from 1 match to 1 year.
  • My thoughts is consistently over 1 year. 1 match (similar to WP:NBASE) is definitely too short because many jobbers would have qualified. Random people from squash matches are not notable. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
    • One year as a regular performer seems like a suitible length for included promotions. However, when was the last time an individual didn't meet GNG when they were signed to wrestle on TV for the WWE? I'd say most WWE performers are notable if they are signed up to a contract to wrestle, and have made a full debut. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
      • This is more than just WWE though. At this point making the main roster is very different than in 1990, or in the territory days - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
    • 1 year as a wrestler overall or for appearing in a promotion?KatoKungLee (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
      • With the specific promotion. One year on the indies is not notable if followed by one match in the WWE. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
        • One year in a major promotion. I would say 6 months should even be good for (WWE/WCW/ECW/Peak TNA). StaticVapor message me! 02:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Championship lineage length

• How long to hold a belt
  • My thought is cumulative reigns of 6 months. Its rare for individuals to hold a belt without meeting the 1 year criteria, but someone like Nicolas is definitely not notable, but did hold a title. This more so comes into play with whether or not tag teams are notable. I think a 6 month reign is good for this and shows significance of the team. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Six months seems too long to me. If you look at say the TNA X-Division title, [14], there's been 40 champions (as of writing), but only 14 of them have a combined reign of over 6 months. I'd shorten this all the way down to 1 month (to detract any one-note match championship winners). Tag teams are no different. They should have a unique tag team gimmick (name, etc), otherwise it's pointless. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Looking at List of WWE Raw Tag Team Champions knocking it down to 1 month, I believe the following teams do not have a page but meet that criteria: Eddie Guerrero and Tajiri, Rikishi and Scotty 2 Hotty, Charlie Haas and Rico, Billy Kidman and Paul London, Kenzo Suzuki and René Duprée, Rey Mysterio and Rob Van Dam, Eddie Guerrero and Rey Mysterio, Matt Hardy and Montel Vontavious Porter, Cody Rhodes and Drew McIntyre, Santino Marella and Vladimir Kozlov, Big Show and Kane, Evan Bourne and Kofi Kingston, Kofi Kingston and R-Truth, Cesaro and Tyson Kidd, Jason Jordan and Seth Rollins, etc. Are this teams all notable? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • 6 months is too long, especially in the territory days. Most WWE and WCW champs wouldn't even qualify under this -List of WWE Champions and List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions. It's even worse with like Memphis - AWA Southern Heavyweight ChampionshipKatoKungLee (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I get the point, perhaps we do 1 month for individual and longer for teams? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I did say they needed tag gimmicks Just having teams made up of two guys hold the belt isn't a team. Something like Air Boom would not neccesarily be silly for notability. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
        • That just becomes kind of up to a person's individual opinion. For example, what about Owen Hart and Yokozuna. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
          • 1 month for singles, 3 months for tag teams. StaticVapor message me! 02:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

NXT Length

• What is significant for NXT
  • My comment is to include they appear on 2 Network Specials. Those are usually reserved for their notable performers, and if they are included twice, I think thats a good sing of notability. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm ok with this. 2 seems like the sweet spot. I'd make the argument that outside PPVs (Such as TNA's below) should work similarly. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
      • People like Kona Reeves, Riddick Moss and Otis Dozovic would not meet this criteria despite being in the promotion for over a year. TV Appearances would be much better, especially since NXT Takeover's traditionally only have 4-6 matches due to time constraints.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Its not the only criteria and not meeting it doesn't mean it gets deleted. There are several jobbers who have had 4 matches on NXT TV but are not notable. Angelo Dawkins and Montez Ford have been deleted countless times but have has probably dozens of matches. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
          • 2 network specials sounds good. Would this also include Worlds Collide, Mae Young Classic and Cruiserweight classic? I think it should, all three recieved significant coverage during and after their events. We honestly should give more weight to time spent on NXT television, it is broadcast on tv in a lot of countries outside of the US. StaticVapor message me! 03:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Secondary promotions?

• When do we include TNA/Impact
  • During the asylum years I would not say they are notable, so starting with their move to cable TV. As for today I would again say they are not significantly covered, and my opinion it should be cut off once they went through the rename to Impact then GFW then back to Impact. If not at that point, then end of 2018 when they went off Pop should definitely be. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Might well depend again on length of service. Someone like Elix Skipper is clearly notable, even if he had never stepped foot in WCW. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Yeah this is why I suggested tiers. If I had to choose though it would be 2004–2014. Maybe two or three years service for 2002–2004 and 2014–present. StaticVapor message me! 03:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Thing to remember with TNA/Impact is that those first couple of years at the Asylum may not have had traditional television, but they did get a fair amount of coverage in sources like Meltzer and the PWTorch, in large part because they were the best funded of the post-WCW/ECW startups and has the highest profile founders in the Jarretts. It's profile may not have matched what it later became, but I wouldn't dismiss that as non-notable. oknazevad (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Do we include MLW
  • I say their coverage is substantial since they relaunched, that since MLW Fusion debuted, if they meet the time mentioned above they are good to include. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Agreed here. 2018–present. StaticVapor message me! 03:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• Do we include AEW
  • My thoughts are currently no. Right now they have not even had 1 show and do not have a TV show. I think this should be tabled for a later date on when to include, but chances are it eventually will be. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Arguably, they haven't been around long enough for this to be a thing. They couldn't also meet any of the criteria above anyway (length of service). There's also no proof that it will work the way it is stated. No from me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
      • No AEW yet. Once they reveal their television deal, we could add them. It would still have to be a year of service though. Just to state this for the record now, we should consider their start date of notability in this situation as May 25, 2019. This is considering none of their talents would have worked a match for the promotion until then. StaticVapor message me! 03:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Do we include Ring Warrior, Women of Wrestling or Luncha Underground.
  • Although all 3 have a national TV deal, I do not believe it is a notable deal, and the shows do not get enough coverage to be notable. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Maybe Lucha Underground. StaticVapor message me! 03:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Outside of USA/Japan

• Canada/Europe who to include? Include more NWA territories? Include CWC?
  • I do not know enough here, so I am leaving this to others. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I've already commented on the UK, with World of Sport (reboot), and associated titles being the only thing to add. I'd also like someone to look into FWA, and see if they meet guidelines. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Always remember that everything pre-1985 or so was local. Titanes en el ring was huge, but would never make the cut with the guidelines. Dara Singh in India was drawing 100,000 fans at times and places like Greece, Korea, France and Spain drew big crowds for wrestling for decades, just finding information on it is difficult.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
        • WOS, Progress, ICW and RevPro for Europe modern era. Unfamiliar with past eras in this area. Not familiar with Canada outside of Stampede. Only other major NWA territory I can think of off the top of my head would be Mid-South Wrestling. StaticVapor message me! 07:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

General Comments

• I've added some handy-dandy titles to the above (in case this goes crazy, and it's impossible to keep track of conversations.) Feel free to rename/revert if not suitible. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on a Wrestlemania Weekend Page?

I was thinking about this. I don't know if we could get it to pass, but Wrestlemania Weekend is definitely a wrestling event and is something worth keeping track of. It's been around now since 2005 and it's definitely notable. Seems like it would be worth a page. Thoughts?KatoKungLee (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

What about "WWE Universe" as it's own page then? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I definitely agree that Wrestlemania weekend is a notable topic. As long as significant coverage is presented from reliable sources (which I know there is), then an article would be sustainable. StaticVapor message me! 06:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you are suggesting. We have the WrestleMania Axxess article, any additional info should be in the main Wrestlemania article. Perhaps if this got long, you could do a split. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: I think he means all the non-WWE events. TNA, ROH, etc... - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

If they were notable events, they would have their own pages, surely. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Notable =/= has Wikipedia article. Especially in this day and age when no Wikipedia articles get created. Anyways I am talking about the general hoopla around WrestleMania weekend from every promotion. It wouldn't be easy though, the article would have to be written right. StaticVapor message me! 02:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I was about to say, isn't there WrestleMania Axxess for that, but if this is referring to everything going on, and not just WWE, then maybe. --JDC808 ♫ 04:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems too broad to me. All that ties these events together are that they take place on that weekend. Basically we'd have to be looking at events that aren't notable in of themselves, but are as a group. But I don't think actual weekends could be considered notable.

On this point, there's also no authority denoting which events qualify to be part of this. Are all events that take place on these dates relevant? Just ones from notable promotions? Or, just ones sanctioned by the WWE? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

That would be where GNG comes in. If reliable sources state that events are parts of WrestleMania Weekend, they are part of WrestleMania Weekend. We shouldn't overthink this. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

To include or not to include

There is an edit war going on at Dave Bautista in his wrestling career. My edits seems to have triggered a couple of editors. This has become a larger issue than I expected, that is of this WikiProject. Now, I am eager to really wait. I would provide all my arguments whenever I get enough time. I want to take away any judgements of mine and my opposing editors' actions. Instead, I want this discussion to solely concentrate on content relevancy. It appears to require a strong consensus, an possible third party involvement, depending on how far it goes. I advocate this complicated changes.

For now, I would like others to compare this version of Bautista with the current version. Try to identify the flaws and advantages of each. Leave your comments below, as many as possible. I will try to response whenever I get time, and will bring up my arguments in great detail. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

In your version of the article there was practically no information of his career from 2000–2005 since you removed it all. There was also practically no mention of his previous gimmiacks. Leviathan was regulated to two sentences and Deacon Batista was not mentioned at all. You clearly did not have much care for what you were removing. StaticVapor message me! 17:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure how much coverage we need but his role as the Deacon need to at least be mentioned especially since that is how he first came into the company.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I have a new job, so I can't spent too much time in Wikipedia. About this, I think we should remove some content. For example, articles like The Shield or The Usos or Seth Rollins are huge since we include every feud with a lot of detail. However, we can't delete so much content.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. However, it is not clear which ones are to be removed or less detailed. That's the main aspect of this discussion. And yes I regret some of the content I removed, but not all. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

When I remove content, I think in key points. For example, no matches for title shots, few royal rumbles if the wrestler didn't win... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I try to do the same. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I've long been an advocate for trimming wrestler career sections but I don't think Batista is a good example of one that needs it. It looks fine to me.LM2000 (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I chose Bautista to show parallels to his movie career.

Consider this: "As 2005 began, Triple H realized the possibility of Batista becoming a threat to his World Heavyweight Championship. Triple H suggested that he not enter the Royal Rumble, claiming that it would be selfish of him to do so, and to simply focus on Triple H retaining the title. Batista entered anyway and went on to win the Rumble earning the right to participate in the main event of WrestleMania 21 against the World Champion of his choice.[42] In an attempt to persuade Batista to challenge WWE Champion John "Bradshaw" Layfield and challenger John Cena in a triple-threat match rather than him, Triple H concocted a scheme to have Batista run over in a limousine resembling the one used by Layfield. Initially, Dave did not want help from Evolution and wanted to confront JBL by himself. Triple H insisted that Evolution stick together and accompanied Dave anyway, saving him from the oncoming vehicle.[43] Batista became aware of the plot while sneakily eavesdropping on fellow Evolution members and signed a contract guaranteeing him a match with the World Heavyweight Champion Triple H at WrestleMania 21, thus leaving Evolution and officially turning into a fan favorite. Batista initially pretended that he would sign with SmackDown!, giving Triple H and Flair the "thumbs up", but turned it into a "thumbs down" before attacking the pair. He emphasized his departure by powerbombing Triple H through the table used for the contract signing.[44] " being changed to "In January 2005, Batista won the Royal Rumble, which gave him a world championship match opportunity of his choice at WrestleMania 21.[38] Despite initially choosing the WWE Championship,[39] Batista turned on Triple H and challenged him for the World Heavyweight Championship match at WrestleMania while leaving Evolution and turning fan favorite.[40] Batista won the World Heavyweight Championship from Triple H on April 3 in the main event of WrestleMania 21.[4][41]" I think that was a valid and necessary trim.

You have to reduce the fictional aspect and concentrate more on the real world aspect. You don't include "Bautista played this role in the movie, where the character did this and that."

Now, was all my trimming perfect? No. I shouldn't have removed the Deacon Batista. But I tried to compress as much as possible like the example I showed above. It's just reverting my whole edits were wrong. It is also wrong to say I practically removed everything between 2001-2005. Yes, I did remove some less notable feuds, which I could have been careful with. It also hurts the prose to include stuff like Y attacked X, they started a feud, X defended the title successfully. After that, Z attacked X, X then defeated Z successfully. Instead, I tried to change to X successfully defended the title against Y,Z and various others throughout the year.

Phrases like "Batista made his return on October 20 episode of Raw, interfering in a match between Goldberg and Shawn Michaels and "shattering" Goldberg's ankle with a chair. After the interference, Evolution came out, and Triple H rewarded Batista with $100,000" irritates me a lot. I want to keep this fictional stuff away, as supported in WP:Notability (fiction). I instead made it really reasonable in order to make sense to all types of audience: "He made his return in October and continued to work with Evolution.[30][31]".

I hope you guys understand my intentions. These are all best for both wrestling articles and Wikipedia. People in this community hate wrestling articles for stuff like John Cena is so long and equally emphasized than more notable people like Martin Luther King Jr. The too many fictional character mention on weekly basis is in fact bad for the encyclopedia. For the most part, I believe my edits were good. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

So what are your takes on this? I can volunteer on making a supplementary PW content guide. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that notability guidelines require us to condense everything into short sentences that are basically meaningless. I like the trimming to the 2005 Royal Rumble that you give above. I don't like the trimming of the October 20 piece. For the October 20 piece, I think you trimmed too much, and a compromise could be found that includes an attack on Goldberg and possibly getting paid by Triple H--trying to keep the "fictional stuff" away doesn't make sense in scripted entertainment. Sure, it doesn't matter which specific episode, or who Goldberg was wrestling, or the play-by-play of Evolution coming out.

It's important to realize that what "the community" likes or dislikes should never be the point. Many members of "the community" think professional wrestling is stupid and would be unworthy of inclusion regardless of what the articles look like. You'll never please everyone. Heck, even the Martin Luther King, Jr., article doesn't please everyone. I did a ton of work sourcing it, and it then failed a GAN because King "deserves better" than sources accessed through Google Books.

I would oppose the project putting forward any more guides. Do a bit of trimming to articles, sure, but this project has a habit of taking that way too far (see also: a blanket policy of removing the moves sections from all articles, even when the information was well-sourced). GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:PW Focus

This month, we don't have a focus as we have for the last two. However, as this is the busiest time of the year for wrestling, I would suggest that as a team, we attempt to focus on the WrestleMania 35 article (and the corresponding articles, such as the WWE Hall of Fame). This article will likely be a big target for vandalism, or poor prose, so we should look to update and work well together. The article is also a good candidate for WP:ITN, so needs to be stable for inclusion on the mainpage. Let me know if anyone has any other proposals, or suggestions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Why not the new members of the HOF? I mean, DX, Honky Tonk, Wilson, Hart Foundation and Beefcake. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see why not. Certainly do copy edit and cleanup Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Unit column on NJPW personnel page

Hello

A few months ago, I discussed the possibility of adding a 'unit' column to the NJPW Roster page. Among some not knowing the difference between NJPW units and stables, I was told that it could work if I gave a summary of what they meant in the opening paragraph. Well, I'm ready to implement it and I just wanted to know your thoughts before doing so.

• If you need a brief explanation on what the importance of NJPW units are, then I'll tell you this:
  The units in NJPW are treated with the same amount of importance as WWE's brands, if not more so. It is what the entire show is booked around and the wrestlers travel and eat in those groups. What unit they're apart of is always announced pre-match and is plastered all over their wrestler profiles. I feel like for something so crucial to the NJPW experience, it needs to be recognized for anyone new to the product.

Let me know what you think. ItChEE40 (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not up to us to decide what is important. What do the sources say? (I'm completely unfamiliar, enlighten me.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

There are quite a number of sources providing information for new fans on the units. I’m sure as someone who (assuming) is used to the American-based style of wrestling, it will be quite a new experience. I’ll leave the sources here:
YouTube vid; Wrestlepressive blog; Beginner’s guide to NJPW; Hairy Wrestling Fan; The Lion Marks; WWE fan’s guide to NJPW. I hope you enjoy, ItChEE40 (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, the units system is very important in Japan. In the NJPW roster, they include the unit under the profile of the wrestler (https://www.njpw1972.com/profile/1427). Dragon Gate and All Japan are also ordered under the units system (https://www.gaora.co.jp/dragongate/data/prfl/index.html) (http://www.all-japan.co.jp/%E9%81%B8%E6%89%8B%E4%B8%80%E8%A6%A7) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that this is notable enough to include. StaticVapor message me! 22:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you everybody, have just added it now. ItChEE40 (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Trimming WM 35 storylines

Hi. As every WM, we have problems with the storylines. I always think the storyline section is huge and over detailed. Like the last year, I have a problem with User:JDC808. I think he includes a lot of detail, he thinks I remove a lot and information is lost. The PW:SG says the storyline section has to include no more than "The storylines section should contain details on at least three rivalries and contain no more than 1,000 words." My version (https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=WrestleMania_35&diff=prev&oldid=891009440) includes 1.900 words and his version (https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=WrestleMania_35&diff=next&oldid=891009440) includes 2.500. I try to include just key points that changes the match, not promos, brawls or tag team matches. For example, the match between Rollins and Lesnar doesn't change if the match with Benajmin and the last brawl is removed. Also, the match between Miz and McMahon doesn't change if the Sanity match is removed, this is just middle points, not key points. The main event is full of Key Point, since the match changes with every one of them. Also, I hate the "On the XXX edition. On the XXX edition"... I think we can avoid it, like changing "Flair won the title. On the XXX edition of XXX Steph announced that the match becomes a Winner Takes All" to "Flair won the title, becoming the match in a Winner Takes All". So, what do you think? What section do you think is better? Which apporach is the best? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

WrestleMania always has more matches than any other event, which is why it's always huge in comparison to others. I have tried to keep the details down in comparison to what has happened with previous years, but still maintain the actual story being told. And to note, Sanity was never mentioned in either version. (Maybe you were getting confused by the falls count anywhere bit since the match Miz had with Sanity was also falls count anywhere? The falls count anywhere mention here is Miz challenging Shane to make their WrestleMania match falls count anywhere.) It is annoying to read "On the [date] episode of [episode title]" or a variant of it, and attempts have been made to vary up that language, but we do need some points of reference of when things happened. And use this version for comparison between the two versions compared by HHHPedrigree. --JDC808 ♫ 03:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Just because a match happened doesn't mean it needs detail in the storyline section. A match that has almost no build and took place only on the pre-show, for example, would not hurt the article not to include. If you look at pretty much every GA on an event, you will see they focus on the main storylines and ignore the smaller matches. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 01:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

That's my point. Other FA don't include every match, just the most important. For example, Revival vs Edgeheads, Usos match doesn't have a storyline besides "a match was announced" and aren't that important.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I've started, and I'll try and work my way through it. The article needs a CE in general. Sorry if it takes me a while however. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

If I may chime in: I agree with HHH Pedigree that the storylines sections tend to bloat, especially for such a huge event like Wrestlemania. OTOH, JDC has a point that since Wrestlemania is such a huge event (and especially this year) he have to give it some leeway. IMO the 1000 word limit might suffice for other events but it is impossible for WM. 1500 words is more like it (that is what I have striven for) and maybe the styleguide should reflect that.

Anyway, while it is understandable that detailed events and dates [as dates of reference] are included while an article is gradually written, after the event, when he can look back and see what turned to be relevant and what was just a detour and what is complete fluff, the section needs trimming, summarizing and sometimes deleting of entire parts. Looking back, we can sum up developments over several weeks in a sentence or two. Then, we do no longer need dates of reference all the time, especially not for previous PPVs. Least of all do we need that two-step narration; something is scheduled in week 1 and then it happens in week 2 (often with the stipulation being mentioned twice) - this misstep can already be avoided while the article is growing.

However, I am opposed to a removal of matches in the event section and, except for extreme cases (like the Revival match this year) in the storyline section. Of course, if there is nothing to say, we should not feel obliged to write anything. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

pwmania

Can anyone note http://www.pwmania.com/ on WP:PW/RS ? Their news and informations seem to be factual, accurate, up to date and reliable and they have been ai it for over a decade now. I think sources from them should be noted as reliable. Dilbaggg (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd recommend taking this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources. PWMania is currently listed as unreliable because one of their authors published fake news on the site in the past. If you can prove that they've changed since then then it can be moved to the reliable section.LM2000 (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, understood. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Victory via cage escape.

I'm not sure if I missed any discussion of this, but in the past I noticed that for WWE steel cage matches, if a victor was declared via cage escape, it was noted as "[wrestler A] defeated [wrestler B] by escaping the cage". Now, I noticed that it is no longer on a few articles. Is this intentional or not? Since a cage escape is not a pinfall, and usually in the results table if theres no description like submission, countout, DQ, or cage escape, it is assumed to have ended via pinfall, which in these cases it hasn't. Thank you. DrewieStewie (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Any examples? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I noticed it for No Way Out (2005) and Extreme Rules (2014). Might try a more broad search attempt soon though. Wanted to check in here though so I dont add disallowed information and also because nothing was mentioned in the MOS over this. As further clarification, these descriptions don't apply to matches like Punjabi Prison matches (since thats the only method of victory for the stipulation). DrewieStewie (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it should, just like it does it WWE Greatest Royal Rumble. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done I went through just about, if not every WWE results table, and found that all but 5 (No Way Out (2012), Extreme Rules (2017), Greatest Royal Rumble (as mentioned above by Galatz), Extreme Rules (2018), and Starrcade (2018) events with a steel cage ending in an escape victory did not mention that finish in the results column. I have added "by escaping the cage" on every WWE results table with a steel cage match ending in escape in just about, if not every results table. Worked the whole day to do that, and it paid off. Accordingly, I'll add it into the MOS too. Cheers. DrewieStewie (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

IPW:UK World Championship and British Championship

There are some inconsistencies with the British Championship that RevPro promotes. I've been doing some research and the RevPro website has the IPW:UK Heavyweight/World Championship history dating back to 2005. You can see it here. That is not correct. The British Championship came about in 2009 when the IPW:UK Heavyweight Championship and the All-England Championship were unified to create the Undisputed British Heavyweight Championship. Prior to the titles being unifed, that title history is IPW:UK Heavyweight Championship history. That should not be in the British Heavyweight Championship list. The history on the RevPro site and the list on here doesn't list the All-England title history. Having that in the list wouldn't make sense. So the IPW:UK World Heavyweight Championship shouldn't be any different.

If you look on the IPW:UK website, Wrestling-Titles.com, and Cagematch; you see that people listed as IPW:UK Heavyweight Champion after 2009 when the British Heavyweight Championship was created and before the split. Once RevPro was founded in August 2012, the IPW:UK and RevPro split in September 2012. Sha Samuels continued to be recognized as the IPW:UK Heavyweight Champion and the British Heavyweight Champion by RevPro. That means Dave Mastiff and Leroy Kincaide were also recognized as IPW:UK Heavyweight Champions even though the British Heavyweight Championship was born out of said unification. The unification seems pointless since they were both recognized as both IPW:UK Heavyweight and British Heavyweight Champions.

I want to make changes to the British Championship list. The only title history that should be on there is from 2009 onward. I would go ahead and do it, but someone will revert it. I can see that happening. That is why I decided to come here first and made this post. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 12:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this the All-England Championship and RPW British Heavyweight Championship articles Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: That wasn't obvious? But yes. If nobody is going to object, I will go ahead make those changes and start a new article for IPW:UK World Championship. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Separate articles, OvE

I was thinking something. Recently, Sawyer Fulton joined Ohio Versus Everything. So, OvE is a stable, with the Crist Brothers and Callihan. However, the article is 90% about the tag team of The Crists. Do you think we should keep Irish Airborne (or other name) and Ohio Versus Everything as two separate articles? Like The Addiction and So Cal Uncensored. One is the tag team, the other is a stable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Inclined to agree on the two separate articles, but unsure on what to call the one relating to the Crist Brothers. They weren't referred to as that, it was mostly as the Irish Airborne and then later, Ohio is 4 Killers. But given that the brothers are still an active tag team, it doesn't feel right to have the article under a former name. Perhaps "Dave and Jake Crist" would suffice? APM (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • It could also just be Ohio Versus Everything (tag team) or something like that. But is this really different than The Hart Foundation. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I know the Crist brothers had a problem with the name before changing to OvE. I don't know, maybe it's necessary to change the article. The previous section it's too focused on the crist brothers career and their lives. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: Dave and Jake should have their own article while oVe should have their own article as they are now a stable. Sure it started out as a tag team, but changing to fit the stable would be a disservice to the article as it is on the Crists. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Return of serial vandal

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/142.113.215.142 This person repeatedly puts non-sense on the same few wrestler pages and numerous articles for wrestling music albums. Maxwell7985 (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

@Maxwell7985: Do you have any previous IPs or accounts or Sockpuppet investigations page you can link me to? I gave this IP a final warning so if you see them again they can be reported to WP:AIV. StaticVapor message me! 20:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Sponsors

Hi, thanks for letting me know that the PPV sponsors don't appear in the infoboxes anymore. Why is this? I have noticed the same for theme songs also? --TheVaughano (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 105#Infobox Wrestling event is likely the best conversation to note. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Is it time we finally make the Criticism of WWE article?

This is a topic that has been covered a lot recently, and it's something this project has been toying with for a while in the past. Maybe we should try to make it happen now.★Trekker (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd expand the 'Legal disputes and controversies' section to include this sort of stuff, and then do a WP:SPLIT. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I definitely agree it needs a WP:SPLIT. By doing Legal disputes and controversies together, contracts and wellness program could easily be tied in together in the new page. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Criticism on it's own is quite biased. This way is totally WP:NPOV. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Their contracts and wellness policy have both been heavily criticized and caused legal issues. Steroid scandal, John Oliver piece, etc - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

No it's not. It's a very common format for articles, see: Criticism of Wikipedia, Criticism of Google, Criticism of marriage, Criticism of The Walt Disney Company, Criticism of Muhammad and Criticism of Akira Kurosawa for a few examples. There are tons more.★Trekker (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

If there's several sources and similar articles, maybe it's a good article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I've supported the creation of this article in the past. It seems like it's time. We could probably have a separate article for the 1990s steroid and sex scandals too.LM2000 (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I think that case is very much notale in its own right also.★Trekker (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, in that case, who's gonna make the first step?

Unless someone else gets to it first I will be starting it this week.★Trekker (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The Beautiful People

Recently, ROH hired Angelina Love and Velvet Sky, creating The Allure with Mandy Rose. The stable is very similar to The Beautiful People, even sources support it. However, should we talk about The Allure in The Beautiful People article? I remember a discussion about The Band (TNA's nWo) would be included in NWO article. Some people said it's similar to Balor Club-Bullet Club, similar concept, even similar members, but different stables, so different articles. What do you think? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I think they can be included in the same article, until (if) they become notable for their own article. A separate section and infobox would be the proper way to do it though. StaticVapor message me! 04:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This is something that can be done with Ohio Versus Everything (oVe as a stable, not just the Crist brothers) and The Addiction (professional wrestling) (SoCal Uncensored) as well. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Sky Pirates

There is a draft at Draft:Sky Pirates (professional wrestling) which I find concerning. I don't follow WWE's extensive social media output so someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this.

The Sky Pirates were Io and Kairi in NXT, Kairi and Asuka's team on Smackdown doesn't appear to have a name as yet. As Asuka and Io haven't teamed in WWE their prior history as two-thirds of Triple Tails (which was Askuka, Io and Mio Sharai) which makes up the overwhelming majority of the draft isn't relevant to a potential article about the Sky Pirates. Don't get me started on the largely made-up alternate names for the Sky Pirates that appear in the infobox.

What are the thoughts of others about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moab12 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

This page is in draft for a reason. Looking at it, it was pieced together from information on the individual articles and thats why many references are broken. There is no way this article as is would ever be put into a live article. I don't know much about their time prior to WWE, but feel free to fix it to be set up correctly. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Well my thought was that since the Sky Pirates are Io and Kairi and since they only teamed together in WWE for about 5 minutes there's probably no need for an article. However since as I say I don't follow WWE's social media I wanted to make sure that I was correct in my assumption that Asuka and Kairi's team haven't been called the Sky Pirates? Moab12 (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

No they have not been. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

They have been officially named Kabuki Warriors so at the very least the title of the drag needs to be changed.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

"Resides" field in Infobox professional wrestler

I suggest we remove the "Resides" field from "Infobox professional wrestler". There are a few reasons for this:

• This information can be difficult to source reliably.
• This information may change at any time and is difficult to keep up to date.
• As we also have the birthplace and billed from fields (the latter of which may have a few entries), the Infobox can contain a large number of locations which is potentially confusing.
• In the case of wrestlers who live in small towns etc, publicising what may not be widely known information via Wikipedia could cause privacy issues.

I don't see that the "resides" field adds much value (or at least not enough to outweigh the above drawbacks) so would suggest we remove it. Any thoughts? McPhail (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I saw other articles; Sport, music and cinema. Michael Jordan, Ringo Starr, Kate Perry, Aaron Sorkin, and Emma Stone haven't a residence in their infobox, all of them FA. Maybe it's true, recently lives in Barcelona, but it doesn't make the difference. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The proper place to bring this up would be Template talk: Infobox person. Not sure how these points only apply to wrestlers. StaticVapor message me! 04:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is a professional wrestling specific version of Template:Infobox person. If that has it, I see no reason why we wouldn't include it here too. The WP:BLP issues are there if its unsourced, but its no different than anything else on wikipedia, if its properly sourced, I do not see an issue with including it. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 11:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox professional wrestler uses far fewer fields than Template:Infobox person. For example, Template:Infobox professional wrestler does not include the "net_worth" or "citizenship" fields. Only fields from Template:Infobox person that are relevant to professional wrestlers need to be included in Template:Infobox professional wrestler. McPhail (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Your point apply to all people, so it should be removed from all BLPs or from none. "Net_worth" or "citizenship" can also be used in Template:Infobox professional wrestler, anything on infobox person can be used with Template:Infobox professional wrestler. StaticVapor message me! 03:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Group vs stable vs alliance

There seems to be an inconsistency between when those three terms are used. Most seem to use stable, but there are plenty of pages that have the other two. Is there any reason why we do one over the other? Our infoboxes all say stable, so it seems inconsistent to have the lead not. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Which pages use the other two terms? I've always thought "stable" was the official term. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Depends where the terms are used, I suppose. If it's just in prose, it's fine. If it's literally the lede sentence, if should be consistent. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I prefer stable or faction over anything else. StaticVapor message me! 03:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Stable, faction and alliance can all be slightly different things, even if the waters have been muddled in recent years. "Group" is super broad.★Trekker (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem - I don't watch the product anymore, but it's worth mentioning. Sometimes it's a fan thing. If the promotion denotes it, it's fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Arenas in project scope

Should arenas be in the project scope? I noticed TD Garden on one of our listings, which has hosted eight pay-per-views, but I fail to see why some arenas are in our scope in some aren't. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I would say no, unless its an arena like some in Mexico are (I think), that are exclusively used for wrestling. Or the Impact Zone type of an arena. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 12:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Very few should be included, just because someone rented it to do a show it should not be included, a couple of places are synonymous with wrestling, ECW Arena, Dallas Sportatorium, Tokyo Dome - and others are build/owned by wrestling promotions - Arena Mexio, Arena Coliseo, Arena Naucalpan. But it shpuld be a very short list IMO. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with the last two comments. StaticVapor message me! 22:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, arenas that are just venues for hire aren't really any more within this project's scope. It's not the same as a regular tenant. TD Garden would be in scope for the ice hockey and NBA wikiprojects because its the home of the Bruins and Celtics, but it's not really particular to pro wrestling. Heck, I wouldn't even list the Tokyo Dome. That's first and foremost a baseball stadium, home of the Yomiuri Giants, that just happens to host a single wrestling event because it's the largest venue in the city. It's not really synonymous with wrestling outside of foreign wrestling fans for whom Wrestle Kingdom is the only thing that takes place there they watch. oknazevad (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

So maybe the "regular tenant" is the criteria? Bingo Hall, Sportatorium, the three Mexican arenas fit that - MSG or Tokyo Dome do not, I'm okay with that. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I dont think all arenas should qualify for project scope, but arenas known for their strong connections to wrestling should be within scope, like Allstate Arena in Rosemont, IL, Madison Sauare Garden, Staples and Barclays Center (annual summerslam tenants), Impact Zone, Hammerstein Ballroom/Manhattan Center, ECW Arena, Tokyo Dome, amongst others. If the venue is important to wrestling history/certain events and has strong historical importance to wrestling for notible reasons listed above, it should be in project scope. DrewieStewie (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Uniform event list format for all professional wrestling promotions

Can the event listings for all professional wrestling promotions use a uniform format? Currently, they're arbitrarily mixed up for no discernible reason

WWE, NJPW, WCW, and Impact use the following format:

Year

Date	Event	Venue	Location	Main Event
Date (without year)	Event Name	Venue name	Location Name	Example main event

WWE also has an added decade header before each decade's set of years (understandable, given that they're the only promotion that spans more than two decades of PPV events).

Ring of Honor uses a slightly different format of the above, with an additional column for PPV number at the beginning. Also, Ring of Honor uses the phrases (taped) and (aired) instead of the more commonly used "Air date" (with the tape date being implied as the other date listed).

NXT and now All Elite Wrestling cut the year header from above the event list and just add the year to the date column. NXT and AEW also have their venue and location columns transposed.

I'm not a Wiki editor myself but I think this would help unify the formats and establish something useful going forward.

Here are my thoughts

• Events should be listed all in one table, with a year until they reach 15 events
• Once they reach 15 events it should be broken into years, without the year in the table
• If events span over 4 different decades, decade headers should be added
• Total number of events should not be included (i.e. remove from ROH)
• The word taped should not be used, it will be implied by the aired inclusion. Similar to a info it should be the air date and the next line in the following format: {{small|Aired MMMM, DD, YYYY}}

When we reach an agreement it should be in the style guide for future reference. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

24/7 championship updating

Hey there. So with the 24/7 championship, we are presented with a problem of convenience. That would be constantly updating the reigns. Should we propose something like "dont change the reigns until the show is over, given that reigns can change within a split second"? Especially for aritcles listing pictures for champions such as "List of WWE personnel" and "List of current champions in WWE". Don't get me started with expanding the reigns table. The quick reign changes can trigger amssive edit conflicts on a scale larger than ongoing ppv results and regular title changes. But with a championship constantly changing hands from that rule, should we refrain from updating the list until the show is over? This wouldn't necessarily be a rule, just a personal guideline/advice of thumb that editors can choose to follow out of convenience. This problem didn't exist with the hardcore championship, because Wikipedia both didn't exist and once it existed, it hadn't adequately expanded to this subject matter yet before it was retired. Thanks for the input. DrewieStewie (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

We shouldn't be updating match results in real time regardless. Two reasons, 1 - it's Original research. 2 - we already have a generalised feeling that in-event live updates are bad. I know there is more, but I'm most familiar with WP:LIVEUPDATES. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't necessarily have a problem with this suggestion, though it would be great if we could have perma-protection on that article to keep random IPs from trying to constantly update it. This article will be very much prone to that and I feel like it could pass to have a perma-protection due to its unique case. --JDC808 ♫ 07:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@JDC808: That would be very smart. @Lee Vilenski: As for ppv results, I may be wrong, but I recall reading on a thread awhile back on tjis talk page that it can't be OR since we can consider the event itself a source, even if it may cost $9.99 a month to access. DrewieStewie (talk)|

It is not Original Resarch to recap a show, that's just misguided, it's a sourcing problem though. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

And did you actually read LIVEUPDATE closely? The current consensus is to not add visible match or frame scores to an article until the match is completed - in wrestling terms until a match is over, not the whole show. Best example would be a 2-out-of-3 falls match updated after each fall, or a Rumble match updated with each entry/elimination. Once the title is won it is actually not against the "liveupdate". As long as the editing is 1) Competent and 2) sourced, there is no guideline reason to not update it. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

For some reason WWE fans on wikipedia seem to think updating wikipedia is a race. There isn't in theory an issue with updating it as we go, but the rush makes it just fill up time lines because it is updated sloppily and then 10 people come through and edit. I will no longer be on Wikipedia during a live show due to this style of editing. Without locking a page this rule would never be followed, even if we all agree it makes sense, unfortunately. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Galatz: Ditto to that, my friend. I've been following that personal rule ever since I joined wikipedia, only once in a blue moon did I update reigns or live show results. It's too messy to follow that. We should probably still request semi-protection for ongoing shows amd championships (including pages like brands, WWE, and personnel), though. DrewieStewie (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I tend not to update during live shows (Royal Rumbles are edit conflict hell) but I had a feeling the 24/7 Championship page would get ripped to shreds by IPs, so I immediately requested semi-protection and took an hour to patch everything up. I understand not editing during shows, but if anyone sees a messy pattern of edits during a PPV, a simple request at WP:RFPP goes a long way. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Just wait until the. changes are taped and not live, fighting over "actual time vs. Kayfabe time ". Fun times ahead. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't forget about future potential house show title changes in the same vein as with the hardcore championship. DrewieStewie (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Whenever I request page protection, I always add that I want it for an extended period due to general sanctions. For events, I always request a week or so after the event. They often will follow that request, especially for events. I think the 24/7 title is going to be a disaster. I have a feeling this is going to be a twitter/youtube title change. The Hardcore title changed hands in an airport if I remember correctly, I think that will happen again, but on Twitter rather than waiting until Raw. I can just picture the arguments already "They posted it on Wednesday but the airport was clearly Newark Airport, which they would have flown into on Tuesday, so we need it to be Tuesday, not Wednesday when they posted it." - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh and didn't someone have a formula they used to change championship tables to the new format? Because the other 24/7 belt Ironman Heavymetalweight Championship needs to definitely be automated to convert. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, indeed. It'll be similar to the Ironman Heavymetalweight Championship, which as you might remember, changed hands in a dream. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it was an AWB thing. No idea how we did it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm very glad I prompted discussion about this here, this is clearly a championship with many possible hypothetical scenarios that we need to discuss so that we're very well prepared for it. Galatz made yet another excellent evaluation regarding this, WWE could have many unimaginable scenarios for this belt, like social media title changes, or even Axxess, or even potentially (planted) fans claiming the belt. We need to figure out courses of action to take, with all these new-age problems that didnt exist with the hardcore championship. DrewieStewie (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Couple of questions:

1. If Adam Cole wins the NXT Championship at TakeOver XXV, will he become an NXT Triple Crown Champion, if his brief run as NXT Tag Team Championship is recognised? Just to clarify, WWE somehow does not recognise Adam Cole’s brief run as one-half of the NXT Tag Team Champions with Kyle O’Reilly, when Cole replaced Bobby Fish after Fish got injured, before Roderick Strong joined and replaced Cole.

2. Dan Lawrence is listed as an AAW Triple Crown Champion, but the date of his AAW Heritage Championship win says ‘Unknown’. Should he be removed completely from the list? Drummoe (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

answering n2. No. He won the title, but the date is unknown. but he stills a former Champion.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

As for #1 I think it should be included as a footnote, if WWE does not recognize. He was at one point recognized, but they removed it. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 12:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Quick question - does WWE actually recognise an NXT triple crown? If they haven't mentioned it, this is moot. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

some states consider him as wcw triple crown champion. (just kidding, wwe calls him the first nxt triple crown Champion seeral times) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, yes. That too. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

They do; they’ve mentioned Johnny Gargano as the first on a number of occasions. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone else chime in here Talk:Triple_Crown_(professional_wrestling)#Is_someone_going_to_add_the_WWE_Women_section? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Upcoming events

I have never watched MMA, but I stumbled across an article which happened to be in Category:Scheduled mixed martial arts events. It made me wonder why they have articles for basically every announced UFC event. For PW we wait until there is 1 match announced or it is the next pay-per-view. For those who don't edit current articles, we created WrestleMania 35 as soon as the Royal Rumble ended, since it meant there were 2 matches announced. WWE Stomping Grounds is one month from today, we have a name, city, and venue but no matches; since it is not the next PPV it has no article. WrestleMania 36 has been announced for several months now. What makes UFC on ESPN+ 23 which airs 7 months from now notable enough for an article, when only the date has been announced, no city or venue. What makes our standards different than theirs? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Article only needs to meet GNG. IMO, as soon as an event is announced, it probably meets that. Sports articles generally do the bigger events a year in advance when the date and location is announced. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Notable matches

There are always matches that have their own stand alone notability. Typically we include details about these matches at their events, but sometimes there are notable matches that are not at notable events. I just created Bret Hart vs. Tom Magee and Last Battle of Atlanta since both of those are extremely big matches, that have been discussed for over 30 years. Does anyone have any other matches they think should have their own page? I am happy to help work on them. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Bret Hart vs Stone Cold (WrestleMania 13), Hogan vs Andre (WrestleMania III), Cena vs CM Punk (Money in the Bank 2011), Undertaker vs Mankind (Hell in a Cell match). Those are only WWE examples though and not including more recent matches. StaticVapor message me! 23:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The Undertaker vs. Mankind already exists. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title have some sort of disambiguation? There's been multiple matches between the two. Pinguinn 🐧 06:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

That is a very good point. I'd point to articles in other projects (such as sports) that have articles on singular matches. For instance, my football team Yeovil Town FC have a couple matches that are notable, they are either listed by score (as the score is unique) and date such as Yeovil Town 2–1 Sunderland (1949) or the competition that they were held in (usually for finals) such as 2013 League One play-off Final. In this case, I think matches should have the most notable part as a disambig, unless they have literally only wrestled once. For instance, the Mankind match would be The Undertaker vs Mankind (Hell in a Cell match), or The Undertaker vs Mankind (King of The Ring). Whilst there is no article (and never will be) that is more of a WP:COMMONNAME than this match, the article isn't talking of a fued, it's of one specific match. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Niiiiccceee. Never knew that, always glad to see notable topics having articles. StaticVapor message me! 08:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I like to use these as WP:SPLIT. We should expand pay-per-view events (if it appeared on PPV), and then push the match out as it's own article. Something like Ric Flair vs Shawn Michaels (wrestlemania 24) would potentially be a suitible match to have a split like this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah...thats kind of what I was saying in the first post that they typically are housed in the PPV article itself. The Magee match was never aired until 33 years later, so it definitely doesn't have a spot it belongs to other than stand alone. Same with Last Battle of Atlanta, unless there was a GCW at Omni article for all their events there (which based on the volume there probably could be) it really needs to live on its own. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 11:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. It's quite rare that this is the case, however. I can only think of a handful of matches like this - Halftime heat with Foley and Rock is also a possibility. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

What about something like the Von Erich/ Freebirds feud? That is certainly notable enough and actually spanned YEARS as well? Just a suggestion if someone is looking for interesting article topics. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Fueds would be something different, but I do like the idea of having more of them. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I actually think thats a good point, we have no professional wrestling rivalry articles. McMahon vs Austin, Flair vs Steamboat, Flair vs Sting. Those type of articles would certainly be notable. The Brothers of Destruction could be added to a rivalries category as well since that goes into huge detail about their rivalry first. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I put together André the Giant–Hulk Hogan rivalry. Anyone have any thoughts on improvements? No sure if there is a good infobox to use for it. Also I know there was a number of matches that they teamed on in the mid-80s. Anyone who has info on that, it would be great to add too. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

We'd need to create a bespoke infobox. However {{Infobox football derby}} exists, and might give a good idea of some style/parameters... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

List of sports rivalries is a good read - might provide some good ideas Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Order of Grand Slam (professional wrestling) article

There's a discussion at Talk:Grand Slam (professional wrestling) regarding the order of the lists that can use broad input. Please comment there. oknazevad (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

AEW redirect discussion

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.

---

In light of the notices on the wikiprojects of aviation and military history, this is a notification of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 27#AEW on whether AEW should target Airborne early warning and control (the current redirect) or All Elite Wrestling (the proposed redirect). starship.paint (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2019 (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.

Street profits

In light of their NXT tag team championship win and inclusion in WWE 2K19, can we have an admin un-delete the article and allow us to expand the article? DrewieStewie (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Go to WP:UNDELETE. I already requested Montez Ford's draftification. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Honestly there should be no notability concerns now, they have met GNG for quite a few months now. I would suggest anyone that wants to create the article use WP:UNDELETE like JTP said, that way whoever wants to write it will not have to start from scratch. StaticVapor message me! 07:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The request got denied. I may bring the conversation over here depending on the further response over there. DrewieStewie (talk) 07:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)