Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 88: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:05, 2 October 2013

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

Reception/Review tables

I was reading one of the PPV reception sections and it was pretty bad reading. It just listed numbers over and over again. I know this is somewhat unavoidable given the nature of reviewing, but I wondered if we couldn't make the section better with a table like for music albums. Down the first column would be the reviewers (WON, PWTorch, The Sun, Slam! Wrestling, Baltimore Sun) and then the second column would have the reviews either in stars or out of ten. It might be too complex and overegging the pudding, but I wondered if instead of that we could maybe do a table where the matches go down the left side and the reviewers go along the top, with the review of each individual match. But as I say, that might be a bit too much. I think either of these options would hopefully force more quotations that actually evaluate and describe the matches rather than just rate them. Unfortunately I'm not very good with tables and Wikifying so I thought I'd throw out the possibility to anyone who thinks this might be a good idea and fancies having a crack at it. Also, I keep seeing the phrase "Slam! Wrestling gave the match 7 out of 10 stars." Well, maybe I'm wrong about this but as far as I can see they didn't. Slam! Wrestling doesn't rate in stars, it just rates out of ten. They don't ever say 7 stars, or *******. Stars in wrestling are rated out of five. Tony2Times (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If we take 21 (Adele album)#Critical reception as an example... we'll still need a table for each and every match? That'll be six-nine tables? Starship.paint (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't sound that way to me. One table per show, seven rows (or however many matches there were) and four columns (or however many raters). I'm no good with tables, either, but it seems like a decent idea. How many sources do we have that rate every match on every show? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

From what I know, PWTorch does *****, SLAM! rates out of 10. WON probably, but only paid members can see. 411mania while not exactly a reliable source usually has ***** ratings as well. Starship.paint (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Then yeah, I like the idea. Reliability isn't important, since we're dealing with opinions. If I give a match two stars and you give it five, we're both right. As long as the source verifies the rating, it's all good. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

@Tony, "bad reading" is a result of bad writing. Repetitiveness can and should be avoided in all articles. That's not a fault of the structure of the ppv articles, it's the fault of whoever wrote the section. My most recent ppv GA was Over the Limit (2010), and the reception section in that isn't just a list of numbers, although it obviously includes numbers. I'm curious as to which article prompted this post. Imo, inserting a table is not a substitute for having a well-written section. We have a few ppv FAs as well, and I don't recall complaints about any repetitiveness in those reception sections either. NiciVampireHeart 12:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

To clarify my stance, I'd like to see tables added to the sections, not replace all the prose. The words say a lot that stars or numbers can't alone, but it would be nice to also have the ratings in a "quick view" format. Good work on Over the Limit. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh I definitely don't want there to be no writing in the reception section. I just think if you have a table, it eliminates some of the number lists and encourages editors to quote reviewers. And in terms of the table, if doing table of matches proves to be too difficult, I still think one that contains the reviews for the shows as a whole would be a good idea. Nici, I'm sure there is a good way to do it and no doubt you are the one to do it, but I think if we make the tables a standard in each/most articles it would invite the bad writers to change their ways. Tony2Times (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Necessity of mentioning scripted on individual PPV articles

Talk:Royal_Rumble_(2013)#Background_Section brought up what I think is a valid objection. I think it is a repetitive waste of space to mention the 'scripted' aspect on every single pay-per-view article. It's also somewhat inaccurate because, even if it is reduced nowadays, some ad-libbing and on-the-ball changes DO occur. The idea of scriptedness (and all necessary elaborations on the concept) belongs in the primary article on pro wrestling, but I don't see why it needs to leak onto every single article about it.

Each article related to pro wrestling inevitably links back to the primary article if people want to read about it. Royal Rumble (2013) links to professional wrestling and Royal Rumble and WWE, for example. Both the PW/WWE articles will mention the scripted part. We distract from organization of information pertaining to the events themselves when we inject reminders like that.

I'd like to move that we restrict this information to primary articles about the topic as a whole, the companies that deal with it, and perhaps in the collective articles about ongoing PPV series (such as WrestleMania as a whole, TLC as a whole, etc), but that we keep it out of the individual pay-per-view event articles produced each year. Ranze (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Support abolishing this system. No other general topic gets this strange treatment, even the obscure and confusing ones that would benefit from a little dumbing down. This kind of disclaimer is about as insulting to the average person's intelligence as explaining what a cartoon is everywhere, in case someone was confused by Who Framed Roger Rabbit. It also really breaks up the flow of reading. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose on event articles, it needs to be clear to those that do not know wrestling that it's not a true athletic competition compared to a SuperBowl. Just like you cannot have an article on "Han Solo" without pointing out he's a fictional character. It's part of the effort to make it not "in universe". It's like 2 lines of text, not a big deal and frankly is part of the wrestling articles being something more than just fan-boys writing for other fan-boys, but making them generally applicable. MPJ -US 14:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Han Solo does not mention "fictional" in the body. Just pipelinks "universe" to Fictional universe, the way I think we should simply Wikilink Professional wrestling. I also don't think one needs to be a fanboy to know wrestling isn't a legit sport. Seems to be the one thing non-fans generally do know about wrestling. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It says he's a "character in a movie" though. Movies are pretty well known everywhere, wrestling is not as much of a common concept and needs a tiny bit more explanation. And we're stressing the "scripted" aspect, not "fake" (Angle "fake broke" his neck from fake moves?). MPJ -US 22:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Our PPV articles start with "...was a professional wrestling pay-per-view event". Same deal as mentioning "in a movie". Yes, wrestling is slightly less ubiquitous than movies in the English-speaking world, but only just. If we were having this conversation in the 1970s or even '80s, I'd completely agree we need a disclaimer. But this cat is long out of the bag. And yeah, I'm talking about "scripted", not "fake". I'd bet far more non-fans are confused about that distinction than about the difference between Taboo Tuesday and the Olympics. Yet, we have no disclaimer for this, possibly misleading ignorant readers into thinking it is as fake as a movie. All the more reason to let the Wikilink to wrestling speak for itself, in clearer detail, like we do for all other art media. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per MPJ-DK. Longstanding consensus, designed in collaboration with Featured Article reviewers, established to comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. It's actually in place to eliminate the need for longer descriptions of the nature of wrestling throughout the article. People who don't like it are free to skip it--not everything in an article needs to be a profound, previously unknown fact. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Anybody want to play tiebreaker here before MiszaBot sweeps it under the rug? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Support removal. Reads like an unneeded aside that's a bit of a non-sequitor in placement, and needlessly elaborates on the definition of "professional wrestling", which is already linked. It's not like the scripted nature of professional wrestling is somesort of big industry secret anymore; I'm going to give credit to readers as having some prior knowledge. oknazevad (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If we must keep the disclaimer, change heroes and villains to faces and heels?

These are where the Wikilinks lead, and are the proper terms in this context. Seems strange to pipelink like this, when the actual terms would work as well. Yes, they are not as familiar terms, but they are precise. If someone is momentarily confused, they'll learn a new word by clicking. We should also probably Wikilink "feud". Seems strange to have every word except the one specifically about wrestling linked.InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Or do we already have a consensus on this? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, seems like consensus was already established on that. I agree with this proposal and the feud thingy as well. Starship.paint (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed as well. No need to avoid the jargon with simplistic terms when wikilinks to articles explaining the terms explicitly exist. Again, I'm going to give some credit to our readers being able to glean meaning from context. oknazevad (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Joe McHugh

We're fast approaching the 20th anniversary of the death of Joe McHugh. To answer the inevitable "Who?", the weekly recitation of (in part so as not to tax the patience of those who have none) "The referees assigned for this hour of wrestling: Dusty Feldbaumer, Dick Woehrle, Bil-ly Ca-POO-to, and my name is JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOEEMcHugh!!!" was oftentimes the best part of old school World Wrestling Federation squash match wrestling. A lot of times, these introductions lasted longer than the matches which followed.

There appears to be enough sources out there to create an article, what does anyone say? The only thing I can't readily access is the 2nd Edition of the WWE Encyclopedia. Some of the ancient documents dredged up in response to Linda McMahon's Senate campaigns would indicate that McHugh worked these shows more due to the Pennsylvania Athletic Commission than due to the McMahons. That may provide a clue to further research. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 09:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Found a 1984 and 1991 article and two Times Union pieces. PWTorch, SLAM! and Wrestleview have nothing. Observer has this. Three passing mentions in PWInsider. Historyofwwe Starship.paint (talk) 12:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems like nobody is interested in the creation of the article but you, Radio. Starship.paint (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your last comment would aptly describe what many editors seem to view as "collaboration" (read: "If you feel strongly enough about it, we'll sit back and let you do all the work"). Despite saying that, thanks for what you did contribute. There does appear to be enough to establish notability. Perhaps I could just add the name to the requested articles graveyard and maybe someone else will take notice however many years from now. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 01:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Nelson Frazier, Jr.

I want to have a discussion here about Nelson's article title. Frankly, I find "Nelson Frazier, Jr." to be the most inappropriate title for the article among all the candidates (Mabel, Viscera, etc.). Join me there for the discussion! Feedback ^☎ 14:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

TNA PPV moves

I notice that the TNA Turning Points pages have all been moved, e.g. Turning Point (2012) to Turning Point (2012 wrestling). This was flagged as an "uncontroversial move". Personally I don't think "2012 wrestling" makes much sense - I'd propose moving the pages back to the former titles. I'd welcome any input. McPhail (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You have my full support. Starship.paint (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. No need for it, there's nothing else with the old titles to have to awkwardly disambig them like this. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Why wasn't a consensuses formed for this in the first place.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 05:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes people would rather just do something than talk about doing it. I can sort of see the point behind it; there are a three movies named Turning Point in '09 and '12, but they already have the "film" qualifier. "2011 film" sounds English, "2011 wrestling" doesn't. Even if we keep the qualifier (for some reason), "wrestling" should be "PPV". Shorter and clearer. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Mayne we can write TNA Turning point (2012). It means that is the TNA PPV, celebrated in 2012. Also, it can help with The Great American Bash (WWE and WCW)--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I like that idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any difference between WCW or WWE's Great American Bash. WWE own the lineage to WCW, it's the same event. Either that or someone needs to create a new page for the three or four WCW World Heavyweight Championship reigns that took place on WWE in 2001, as well as a new US Title article and the like. But for the TNA problem, that solves it. Tony2Times (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

ok, bad example, i only want to say that we can explain in the title also the company that held the event, like nwa, wcw and wwe great maerican bash. For example, in 2013, danny trejo starring a new film, vengance, as Vengeance (2013 film). I think that is better to change all the vengance events to WWE Vengenance (year), better than vengeance (2012), vengeance (2013 wrestling). We can put all the events alphabetical only writing WWE, TNA, WCW... Before the name, without the word wrestling.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that bit makes sense. It's a little long but it's what we do for a lot of the non-year specific articles about PPVs. Tony2Times (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

What is this?

Hello. Today, I find his template Template:WWE Legends. Sorry, but I think that it must be delete. It is a very open template. What is a WWE Legend? I don't see any sources. Does any criteria exist to be a WWE Legend? I think that it is usless and a pure invention (Brock Lesnar, Michelle McCool and Sabu as WWE Legend? Really) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a list of WWE/WCW/ECW alumni. Starship.paint (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Should certainly at least get a name change. WWE Legend (capitalized) is a trademarked term, and only applies to specific alumni who have signed a special contract. An alumni navbox wouldn't be so bad, if it weren't for the fact that there's something like 2,000 former W/WWF/E wrestlers. It'd either be missing people or too big. It also has Chris Von Erich in it, for some reason. I wouldn't mind at all if you deleted it. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Tony2Times (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Definitely a candidate for TFD. A navbox featuring WWE alumni (which this one appears to be) would be so unwieldy that it would defeat the purpose of navigational convenience. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I creat'd this template mixin' the alumni sec o' WWE.com w/ WCW Hall o' Famers and added others like Hillbilly Jim that's part o' Legends' House and Eric Bischoff and Tazz that're part o' Legends Roundtable, but didn't list the ones workin' onscreen on WWE programmin' or on Nxt administration. I'd added the WWE Hall o' Famers 2, but delete'em coz it'll be redundant a lot. We'd take that Legends sec on the personnel template out. What'd u think? AARDJ (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi AARDJ. Here is the thing. First, the alumni section on WWE.com is not stable. Entries are added and deleted on the whim of WWE. In addition, there are other, more accessible ways to organize WWE alumni than to lump the whole lot of them inside a navbox. It also runs contrary to guidelines on WP:NAVBOX, particularly "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template" and "The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article." --Jtalledo (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that it's a bad idea. We have the WWE Alumni aritcle with over 2000 wrestlers. This template shows only 30 wwe wrestlers. Also, to use wwe.com alumni its a bad idea:every month wweincludes one wrestler (last inducted, la parka) and deletes one if is signed with tna (like rvd). Also, it's used for storylines. In 2008, when the undertaker was "fired", wwe includes him in the wwe alumni.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

AARDJ remamed the template to WWE Legends. I don't see what's his point given that Tyler Reks and Tiffany are on it, to name just two. Starship.paint (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This template needs to go. It is definitely POV and serves no discernible purpose. Someone has arbitarily decided that Duke Droese, S.D. Jones, Max Moon, The Boogeyman deserve the title "legend" and that there is a reason that they need to be linked. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Given the title "WWE Legends", this might make sense if it contained those who actually are under a Legends contract. Instead, what we have here is only slightly less of a random, half-assed assortment of names than a navbox entitled "People named Didier" would be. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 01:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I just though it's a good idea. I used "legends" in its real meanin' not what it's mean to WWE. U can delete the template if u want. Ain't a problem for me. AARDJ (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

As HHH Pedrigree said, we have an article for Alumni. These people aren't "legends" in that they haven't all signed a Legends contract. Calling any of them a "legend" is a matter of opinion and there by PoV and original research. I'm going to nominate it for del now. – Richard BB 12:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

King of the Ring error

Vandal alert some fool thought it was funny to place The Rock as the 1991 King of the Ring Winner. I do not know where the error occurred but place tell me that Bret Hart was the legit winner of 1991 and 1993 King of the Ring event. Sundogs ^{Wikia UserPage} 00:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The King of the Ring article looks alright to me. I didn't notice anything on Rock's page, either. But yes, Hart won those two. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Twitter?

Do you think that we can use official twitter accounts as source? I saw today that Marty Wright (also, I think that we can change the name to The Boogeyman or similar) signed a contract with WWE because he confirmed the information in Twitter. But I don't know if it is true. I see a lot of information like that (Buff Bagwell and Honkey Tonk Man signed with TNA). But I don't read that WWE hired Boogeyman. What do you say, can we use Twitter as source or not? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why not, as long as we're reasonably sure the account is who it says it is, and the tweet actually backs the claim. Not long ago, Heath Slater tweeted something like "Encore, baby!" and that became the name of 3MB's article. That wasn't cool. Not sure I see him confirming anything here. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

I think if you include that information in the article it should only read as, "Wright confirmed via Twitter that he had signed a contract with WWE" or something similar, rather than just saying, "Wright signed a contract with WWE". – Richard BB 22:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, found it in the article. That's not a good source at all. He says he's "coming back" (actually just says "Yes" to a question). That could mean in 2020. Jumping to the conclusion that he's signed a contract already is as wrong as The Encore was. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

Suplex article

I have noticed the Suplex article has recently had a number of random sections removed with the editor claiming uncited information. I know this article has had problems with it's citations since it's inception, but just what would be considered as valid sources? The ones normally used don't detail individual move techniques or how to perform them. I've had a little scout around to try and find something but these are all I can come up with:

http://wrestling.isport.com/wrestling-guides/how-to-suplex

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts93oddwWRs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpiqr3buI5k

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/german-suplex

http://wrestling.wonderhowto.com/how-to/perform-regular-vertical-suplex-wrestling-move-316755/

http://wrestling.wonderhowto.com/how-to/do-northern-lights-suplex-pro-wrestling-move-417507/

http://wrestling.wonderhowto.com/how-to/do-butterfly-suplex-315172/

http://headlockbackdrop.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/17-exploder-suplex/

http://headlockbackdrop.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/12-tiger-suplex/

Would any of these be considered valid? and if not where does this leave the status of this article and others like it? Duffs101 (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I consider the Big, Big Book of Wrestling Moves to be something like gospel. Not sure if Wikipedia agrees. I don't think any of those sources pass the WP:RS test, sadly, except maybe the first one. They all seem to be "anyone can contribute" types of sites. TheSuicidalDragon is a cool channel, though! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll try to give the whole article a re-vamp when I get chance. Duffs101 (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Real WWE Championship.jpg is up for deletion here

I'm the original uploader and think this deletion discussion is rather silly. It's an excellent photo of the WWE Championship and has been the main picture for the past few years. Now that there is a new title, the picture is serving its purpose along with the other "past designs" in the article's infobox. I frankly think this discussion should be snowballed, but as the uploader, I feel I don't have the right to bring that up. Those who are commons users should voice their opinions there. Thank you, Feedback ^☎ 19:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen the need for it since we have this picture but that doesn't seem like a practical reason to delete the image either. Surely all of them would be deletable by that line of thinking? Tony2Times (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You do realize you just linked me to a picture of a toy, right? Mine is a picture of the real WWE Championship [or at least the one they use at house shows]. No picture of a toy is going to compare to it. Feedback ^☎ 11:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I've heard in a shoot interview that, aside from real leather, the replicas and the real belts are identical. Not sure how credible a source Justin Credible is, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

That image is now up for deletion as well by the same person who nominated the first and for the same reason. Here's the discussion. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 00:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

He nominated three others from what I can tell: here, here and here. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 00:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Explanation: The design of the belt is copyright, any photograph of the belt is a derivative work. You can't take a picture of a copyright object, work of art, etc. and licence it as free. See Commons:Derivative works. It's the same reason you can't take a picture of a Micky Mouse toy to illustrate the article on Micky Mouse (to use the same example they use). It will likely have to be reuploaded as fair use.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The same is technically true of all in-ring wrestler images (and the term "Stone Cold Steve Austin"). We could theoretically face "liability for up to three times actual damages". But yeah, should be an easy fair use claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

Aside from re-uploading everything under fair use rationale, someone could simply e-mail permission@wwe.com and ask (nicely) to use all derivative works in the limited, non-commercial way Wikipedia already does. I'll bet they'd be cool with it. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

All images on Commons must be available for any use, even commercial. That is their mandate. Unless WWE is going to allow commercial use, they will not be allowed at Commons, and I highly doubt they will. I think there is a way to move them from Commons to here (similar to the way we can copy images from here to there), they would just need a Fair Use Rationale for all articles. I would suggest asking to do that if participating in discussions. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case, WWE almost certainly will not be cool with it. ~~Can the licensing info be edited without deleting and reuploading the image?~~ I see it technically can, but is this allowed? Seems like a quick fix, if so. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

File:Wwe2013title.jpg and File:Original WWWF Championship.jpg are up for deletion as well on the grounds that they violate WP:NFCC#9.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

As a non-free image they should not be used outside of article space, and they should not be used in articles that they don't have a Fair Use Rational for, I didn't think that would be a deletion rationale however, they should just have their use restricted. By policy belts shouldn't be used in userboxes or navigation templates.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, according to WWE's official copyright policy, they reserve every right on every single picture ever taken at one of their events. Are we to remove every single live event picture from Commons? That would mean removing hundreds (or thousands) of pictures of wrestlers, titles, venues, etc. Feedback ^☎ 11:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Feedback, I really hope you have not opened up Pandora's box... hopefully WWE images are not reduced to something like this, which contains all the Pokemon pics on Commons. Starship.paint (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikilinking theme songs to CD track listings.

I've noticed the theme songs in "In Wrestling" sections are often Wikilinked to the article about the compilation CD they're on. This adds nothing to the understanding of the song, just repeats the track name and who uses it. Seems the only purpose is promotional, letting readers know where they can buy the song. Not what Wikipedia is about, is it? Or is there something I'm missing? I've unlinked a few, but am certainly not about to unlink the millions without consensus (and bot help, preferably). Thoughts? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. I think that it's promotional. Only a CD music.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone have an objection before Miszabot does her thing, or do we have a consensus here? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

So we're only talking about removing links to compilation CD's put out by WWE, TNA, etc., right?Ribbon Salminen (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Wikilinks to songs with their own articles (or even to non-compilation album articles) are fine by me, since they actually provide further information. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:42, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

Okey dokey, sounds good to me.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

WWE '14 or WWE 2K14

Since Take-Two Interactive's 2K Sports announced that they will be working on the WWE video games, different names for the next game came out with WWE 2K14 and WWE '14 being confirmed so far. Problems appeared when a user changed the WWE series into the WWE 2K series and reverted back. We need on a consensus on the name of WWE/2K Sports series. Keith Okamoto (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what the next version is called, the last two are '12 and '13. That won't change. If they have a new developer and title, it seems to me that would be the start of a new series. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:58, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

But I see now that we have all the series lumped into one article. I guess we just move "WWE" to the "formerly known as" parentheses once we have a solid source for a name change. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:12, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Here's the official website for WWE Games' 2K Sports. http://www.2ksports.com/wwe The site also has a logo that might of started all of this confusion.

That announcement makes it pretty clear (to me, anyway) that the product line is called "WWE Games" (so WWE (video game series) should be retitled) and the game is called "WWE '14" ~~(so WWE 2K14 should be retitled)~~ (Done). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:10, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

I started this discussion elsewhere because I didn't see this discussion here until now and I think you jumped the gun, Hulk, no consensus has been reached. Most reliable third party sources, including IGN, refer to the game as WWE 2K14. The publisher's logo says WWE 2K. Only once, in an announcement that could have been written before the name change if one has taken place, do they refer to the game as WWE '14, the name it had before THQ went under. It seems pretty cut and dry to me that a name change took place and the announcement wasn't updated to reflect that. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 02:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Even ESPN notes that the series got a name change. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 02:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Only ESPN is saying this, the rest are just echoing with attribution (as far as I can see). And they don't say the name has been changed, they say to "look for" a name change. A billion articles can repeat it, but it's still only one source. When it comes to titling games, the people making the game carry more weight. And they say it's called WWE '14. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:29, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

So should we also change the name of WWE Games to the WWE 2K series? Keith Okamoto (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say so, the source (and new logo) seem to support that as well. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 02:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Same as with the game name, the ~~developer~~ publisher has called it "WWE Games", never "WWE 2K" (unless you read into the logo). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

No, the publisher called it that, not the developer. And they did so in an announcement where it was mentioned once, in an announcement that was written likely before the title change. Every major reliable third party source says the name is changed. The two I mentioned before are just the tip of the iceberg. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 02:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I meant to say publisher. Speculating whether something was written before or after a title change that may or may not exist isn't going to lead anywhere. (And we don't have to speculate. This press release, speaking of "WWE '14" is dated 7 hours after the ESPN story was uploaded, as this article spells out.) If there are reliable sources out there for "WWE 2K14", independent from the ESPN story, please share. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

I did, you ignored them. But I will give you five more. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 04:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Reference 1: "2K announced that WWE 14, which will likely go under the name WWE 2K14, will be available across all major platforms and distribution channels."

Reference 2: "ESPN's report at 9 a.m. said "Coming this fall: WWE 2K14." A news release issued by Take-Two at noon said the game would be called WWE '14. This post has been amended to reflect that disparity."

Reference 3: "...reports ESPN"

Reference 4: "...aims to combine the studio’s signature gameplay with 2K’s commitment to authenticity in WWE ’14, the latest iteration of the popular, long running series."

Reference 5: "Here is the press release. Is the offical name WWE '14 or WWE 2K14?" InedibleHulk (talk) 05:20, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

Y'know, I'm done, I've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that reliable third party sources say the name of the game will be 2K14. But you refuse to concede your point because you believe the statement is a trump card, which it is not. It is the exception to the other reliable sources. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 05:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if you missed the point of the bold letters. Three of the five secondary sources you give support WWE '14. One uses the word "likely". The other is attributed to the source the other three have shown to be contradicted by a more current and official source. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:36, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

lol gaming journalism seems appropriate here. Btw, notice one source is written by a Forbes "contributor" and not "staff". Nice nitpicking InedibleHulk. « Ryūkotsusei » 05:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hulk's arguments are pretty convincing. That and reading 2K's press release. Starship.paint (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

WWE (video game series) encompasses all situations and there is no reason to deviate from that, as for anything else, Wikipedia is not a news site and it is not important to be making up the minute changes based on a few sources, we can wait until things are concrete, though even if it were WWE 2Kwhatever, it wouldn't be necessary to move the video game series page. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The point?

I am not sure I see the point of this list List of independent circuit, non-affiliated or retired professional wrestlers, basically it seems to be "Anyone not working for WWE or TNA that we can think off"? it's crufty and it is too easy to put in joke names like Seymour Butz etc. Am I the only one that feels that way? MPJ -US 00:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the link so that people don't assume that it has already been deleted. I agree with you. A catch-all list that couldn't ever hope to be comprehensive, and that doesn't add to anyone's understanding of anything. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to its contributors, but the list has to go. Starship.paint (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. All these guys are better covered in the various category listings (by nationality or place of work or whatever). Speaking of pointless, also see Lists of wrestlers. This page is in a category by the same name, which has the same lists (aside from List of professional wrestlers, ~~for some reason~~ because it's a redirect). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:11, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

photo's description

Hi. I want to say something. I saw that an user uploaded a lot of photos, like the rock in the 90s. But Isaw that the description that the user used in Wikipedia are different to today photos. Two examples

The Rock's popularity was fuelled by his charisma and speaking abilities, which led to many catchphrases and merchandising opportunities.

Miz with R-Truth (right) as Awesome Truth in November 2011.

For his entrances, Hart often wore a leather jacket with shoulder tassels (epaulets), Mylar wrap-around (originally silver, later pink) sunglasses and bright pink attire.

Cena facing off against Edge at a WWE house show.

The oldest have good descriptions, because the description helps the photo. But the news are horrible, only describes the photo very bad. Thing like "Miz in 2012" are usless. For example, an improvement.

In November 2011, Miz joined with R-Truth, forming a shot lived tag teamknown as Awesome Truth.

Edge was one of the most remarcable rivals of Cena in WWE, facing off in X PPVs.

The two useless photos for the article (cena adressing the fans and the miz in 2012) were deleted because don't help to improve the article. The other photos, I use a description that, with the photo, explain the article (before, the description only explain the photo). I mean, I think that we have to change our mind, because descptions like "Cena in 2012", "HHH in the ring", "Miz is angry" are to useless. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

NXT's Champ and Tag Champs

WWE.com's listin' the championships at http://www.wwe.com/shows/wwenxt includin' who the champs defeated when got'em. Can I list'em on the WWE's championships template as developmental titles since they are recogniz'd? AARDJ (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, they're on the NXT section of WWE's site, so they're NXT titles, not WWE. WWE owns NXT, but they're still rather distinct promotions. Like if a kid wins a hockey or spelling bee trophy, it's not the parent's, even though the parent was a huge part of winning it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

Just saying, Template:WWE personnel lists the developmental roster, so that is a case for listing the NXT titles under Template:WWE Championships...? Starship.paint (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

But NXT ain't a distinct promotion. There ain't no own wrestlers like OVW durin' its WWE develop days. It's more like a develop brand. And like Starship guy said if we list NXT wrestlers on WWE articles and templates why not the NXT champs? AARDJ (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Not distinct in the same way OVW or HWA were, no. I wasn't aware we listed the NXT guys in the WWE personnel template. It would make sense to be consistent and list the titles that way, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:37, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

So to add'em we need to have a consensus right? Agree or disagree (being bold)? AARDJ (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree Add another section below Divisional called Developmental for them. Starship.paint (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Fine by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose They do NOT list them here, which is the definitive list. so clearly the WWE doesn't consider them WWE titles, and it would be OR to list them as such. oknazevad (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

They are certainly not WWE titles. They are NXT titles, and would be listed as such, in a distinct (but not separate) section underneath the main section. Just as NXT is a distinct (but not separate) promotion under the main promotion, and is featured in a distinct (but not separate) section of WWE.com. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:05, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

agree with Hulk Starship.paint (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree here 2 add another section below Divisional call'd Developmental for'em. How many votes we need? AARDJ (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. The championships are never mentioned nor seen on WWE TV. The last and current NXT champions are on WWE TV and yet they have not even gone as far as mention the title exists. The show WWE NXT is a distinction from the main roster shows. This would be the same as add the OVW champions to TNAs page, it doesn't really make sense. Also the main article from which this template spawns from, List of current champions in WWE does not list NXT and should not because the two television products are completely different. As pointed out they are not listed here here so it is obvious they are not considered WWE titles. STATic message me! 15:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

NXT is WWE TV. Just another brand of the same company. The distinction is a work, just like Kamala's diet or The Undertaker's powers. As an independent encyclopedia, we're allowed (and encouraged) to shoot from a real world viewpoint. The titles are only limited to each brand because that's the way the show goes. McMahon is free to put his NXT title on any "WWE Superstar" he wants. TNA doesn't own OVW, though. If they want the OVW title on Impact, they need permission from Danny Davis. I imagine that once we update the template, we'll update the associated page, so that won't be a problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:30, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

Again, the titles

Can somebody help us with the deletion of the WWE Championship? The WWE Championship will be deleted and I don't know all the rules in commons about copyright. The bad news are that the Brahama Bull, the Smoking Skull, the undisputed championship were also nominated. I think that, in a few months, we'll have not any photo for wrestling. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

They just need to be re-uploaded here instead of commons with an appropriate Fair use rational.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 20:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to automatically or at least conveniently transfer any at risk photos before they are deleted on Commons? Photos may be deleted without our knowledge, then they will be lost forever if we don't even know they were deleted. We need to transfer them before deletion. Starship.paint (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

There's an edit button in the Licensing section. I imagine someone could just replace the free license with a "{{Non-free biog-pic|Real WWE Championship|image has rationale=yes}}", replacing the "biog" part with whatever relevant category. But maybe that only works for pics on Wiki, not Commons. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:16, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't work for commons as they cannot host fair use images. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. No helpful transfer process? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:52, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if a fair use will work in this case since in at least one of the deletion debates that the images would violate WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#9, which means the there is a good chance that the images will be deleted even if there was a fair use rationale.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say they have contextual signifigance (NFCC#8), at least in the articles about the championships. A belt is the sole visual representation of a championship. Useful for readers to know which belt(s) stand for which championship, so if they come across a picture or video of someone wearing/carrying the belt, they can instantly realize "Oh, he must be the WWE Champion" (or whichever champion). Not sure how NFCC#9 applies. Are we currently using these images in places other than articles? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:41, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

The undisputed title was already deleted and I managed to get it temp restored to retrieve it and the description wikicode. I've put it here for possible reuploading with a FUR. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 17:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed page move: Mark LoMonaco > Bully Ray

Comments welcome. McPhail (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Team 3D again?

Now, Bully Ray is the leader of Aces & Eights. However, I saw that the Team 3D/Dudley Boys article says that the are a tag team again. I don't think so. They are members of the same stable and yes, they will have a reunion, but I think that they aren't an active tag team. They are members of the same stable, but they have sigles ways. It's like we say "AJ Styles and Christopher Daniels was active in Forune." No, both were members of Fortune, but they don't compete as an active tag team. We can put that they are members of Aces & Eights, but no put Team 3D as an active Tag Team. Also, erase the tv and WHC titles from the section C&A. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, stablemates are different from tag team partners. If they start regularly tagging in two-on-two matches again, then we'd say that. Not before. And yes, the singles titles were won separately, and don't belong in their tag team article. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:56, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

I agree that being in the same group does not mean that they are in a tag team together. Its possible that they can be in a tag team while they are in the group (ie the New age outlaws were still a tag team when they were in DX) but we would need to see if that happens first.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, stablemates can be regular partners, too. Bradshaw and Faarooq were The Acolytes, within The Ministry of Darkness. Before they took the name, The Road Warriors were part of a wider Legion of Doom. Didn't mean to imply it's either/or, if I did. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

I was not trying to suggest that you were implying that, I was actually trying to saw that they could become a tag team as members of their current group but he should wait to see if it happens before we say that the team has reunited.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

And I wasn't hinting that you were suggesting that I was implying. But I thought someone might. I think we can both agree that we are not arguing, or misunderstanding anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:29, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Kelly, Maryse and Kharma

There's sources stating that WWE is contacting former Divas to return. Only known to still be in talks are Kelly Kelly and Maryse while WWE re-patented the name "Kharma", adding her name to the rumored list of former divas. While these are still rumors, can I add a hidden note to the List of WWE personnel page(either under Female wrestlers or Unassigned employees) stating that those names are rumored and not officially resigned with WWE? Keith Okamoto (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Those are usually used to discourage people from constantly adding/changing things by explaining why not. Doesn't seem to be happening here. Is there another reason? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:33, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to prevent the page from being vandalized before anything is concrete with Kelly, Kharma and Maryse returning. Plus, is there anyway we can protect their individual pages too? Keith Okamoto (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Understandable, but until vandalism becomes a problem, I don't see the need. We could theoretically add invisible notes for every particular thing we think someone might wrongly add, but it seems like overkill. We already have a note that says "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" everytime someone edits. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:41, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Admins have to protect pages. Currently, Amazing Kong or Kharama in the WWE is working for Resistance Pro as she is their Women's Champion. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

File Maintenance

Although this is more of a Commons issue, I think it's logical for us to talk about it here on WP:PW. I think there are way too many redundant pictures on Commons regarding pro wrestling. Let's take CM Punk for example: commons:CM Punk. Look at all these pictures. I'm thinking we should start getting rid of the ones that are useless. For example, why do we need both of these pictures: File:CM Punk IC Champion.jpg & File:CM Punk Hammond, IN 013109.jpg? One picture of him with the IC title suffices. Same thing goes for pictures like File:Edgecution.jpg and File:Edgecution's.jpg. They seem so redundant to me.

I also think we should also begin a new naming standard. If the picture is a specific representation of a wrestler with a title , we should name it "Name of Championship- Name of wrestler". Like that, we will only have ONE picture of "WWE Intercontinental Champion- CM Punk" and ONE picture of "WWE World Heavyweight Champion- Daniel Bryan". If a wrestler has multiple reigns as champion, you'll add a (2) next to it (i.e. WWE World Heavyweight Champion- Christian (2)). We need to start organizing these, because it seems like there are so many orphan images out there which are hidden to most Wikipedias because they just can't find them. Some of them have ridiculous names like the aforementioned "CM Punk Hammond, IN 013109" image.

Also, if the picture is used to represent a specific move then it is unnecessary to mention the wrestlers in the title. We need to keep these things simple like File:Edgecution.jpg, and unlike File:Punk bulldogs Del Rio 1.jpg.

What do you guys think? Do you think what I'm saying makes sense or should we just leave our wrestling pictures cluttered like they are? Feedback ^☎ 19:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

All sounds reasonable. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

I'd strongly disagree with removing pictures (unless they are very low quality). Commons is an image library - the more images there are, the more useful a resource it is. I think a more logical naming system is a great idea, though. Also, you could create subcategories, e.g. "CM Punk wrestling", "CM Punk holding championships", etc. McPhail (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

That "Hammond, IN" one seems low-quality enough to me, at least for illustrating the IC belt. Looks like Ric Flair's censored belt from '91. I suppose it's a half-decent pic of Punk, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:05, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

2 things. 1, File:Edgecution's.jpg has copyright. The photo was taken inside the ring. 2, I don't think that we need to delete photos (except no low quality, POOR quality). Look the dates, the "low quality" was upload on February, the "high quality", on June, so between February and June, we had only the "low quality". For example, File:Shelton Benjamin .jpg is the only image of Benjamin as USA Champ. If we delete due to "low quality", we delete the only photo of Benjamin as USA Champs. Also, we are talking about Commons, we can't delete a photo that use all the wikis (spanish, french, german, chinese...) maybe other wiki prefer to use the low quality photo, maybe a wiki use both photos. I don't know what's wrong, I prefer to have 20 photos of Cena as WWE Champion and choose my favorite to ilustrate the article than have one and put it in 20 articles. Also, we haven't any responsability. It's Commons, no English Wikipedia. Commons has his own users, his own rules (for example, the categories are real names, no ring names). We aren't the center of the universe, If we take a decision about Commons, it will affect all the wikis. About the names, that's not my problem. I don't car if a photo it's call WWE Champion - John Cena (3), John Cena as WWE Champ, The Champ Cena is here or Ey buddies, this is Cena, my favourite wrestler. I know that in Commons I can find a category about Cena, I choose an image, I put a name in Wikipedia and a photo appears. It works for me, without delete any photo. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Some good points for the second part. As far as the Edgecution picture, it does look pretty professional. But consumer cameras are pretty snazzy lately, and have great zooms. Hard to be sure if this is a ringside pic or taken by a front-row fan. Still the whole "derivative work" thing to it, I suppose. But yeah, that's a problem for Commons people (doing whatever Commons people do). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

HHH, I know this is a "Commons" issue, but I'm posting this under the assumption most of us are Commons users anyway. But the things on Commons do directly affect the English Wikipedia. Every Commons upload gets a "File" page here on the Wiki, and having so many random names is pretty ridiculous. I for one am guilty of disorganized naming. I have uploaded pictures of Punk that range from "CMPunk.jpg" to "CM Punk .jpg" because "CM Punk.jpg" was already taken. And if you go to "CM Punk.jpg", it's a horrible quality photo that shouldn't reasonably be used in ANY Wikipedia article due to all the alternatives out there.

I disagree entirely with deleting low quality photos if there is no free alternative. Shelton's pic needs to stay until we can find an alternative. If we ever get an alternative picture of Shelton with the US title that looks pretty darn amazing, I wouldn't see the point of keeping that low quality pic. Contrary to what HHH says above, I think that if out of 100 wackily-named pictures of Cena, 40 of them represent exactly the same thing, then 39 should be deleted. We're wasting too much space on Commons and Wikipedia with this sort of cruft. We should keep these things concise.

Another reason I believe we should do this is due to the "Derivative Works" rule. According to Commons' policy, and WWE's copyright policy, absolutely 'NO WWE picture should be posted on Commons. WWE reserves the right to every picture taken at its event as a derivative work. That's a big no-no for Commons. Maybe we can make an exception for a few necessary pictures, but what's the point of flooding Commons' file space with useless orphan images? Let's appreciate the fact no one has mass-deleted all WWE pictures from Commons and try our best to keep things neat. Feedback ^☎ 11:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Various AFDs!

I nominated List of independent circuit, non-affiliated or retired professional wrestlers for deletion a few days ago, but very few have commented on it. I also nominated both The Blondetourage and The Puerto Rican Nightmares for deletion as well. To me, these seem uncontroversial, but I have been wrong before. The one that seems most controversial is my nomination for Curt Hawkins and Tyler Reks. I say "controversial" because the team was together for a little less than a year. That being said, I don't think they accomplished much and the very little they did of note fits in their individual articles. I think we have to make a precedent that just because a team was together for a good amount of team doesn't automatically make them notable. Agree, disagree? Join the discussion. Feedback ^☎ 11:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I also nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hade Vansen, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andre Tyson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachelle Walker. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I made a list at the top so they could be easier for project members to find. Feedback ^☎ 23:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that we have a problem, specially with the tag teams. I see a lot that I think that aren't notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I bundled three of them together per WP:BUNDLE. Way too similar to avoid having the discussions in the same place. Some of the others could use some bundling too like Eli and Novak. I voted on some, but refrained from voting on others to avoid the appearance that we're ganging up on all these AFD's. I'll voice my opinions once other editors add to the discussions. Feedback ^☎ 02:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

To reduce the backlog, and entice more participation, I have bundled four discussions of four former developmental wrestlers who never made it to national television at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hade Vansen. Hopefully, we can keep the conversation in one place while setting a consensus on what to do with these sorts of articles. Any other article of similar background should also be added to the AFD. Feedback ^☎ 16:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Question Beyond WrestleMania XXX

As I noted on WrestleMania XXX, I would like to draw attention to its next event, assuming it be true, WrestleMania XXX (or WrestleMania 31) that it is not confirmed by the wrestling event promoter, (cough cough World Wrestling Entertainment cough cough), did not confirmed the WrestleMania in 2015, which is approximately 2 years in advance, while 2014's WrestleMania (WrestleMania XXX in New Orleans) is actually confirmed as of March 2013. My problem, as noted on WrestleMania XXX talk page, is that we can not assume, speculate, or make judgment without any citation or actual prove from the wrestling promoters website, in this case W.W.E.'s Corporate Website (or the official W.W.E.'s website; not sure of which since I have not followed the sport since September 2002). So my argument is to use To Be Determined on the WrestleMania XXX's article until we know one hundred percent sure it is coming true. I am not discrediting that WrestleMania XXXI (or WrestleMania 31; I know for one hundred percent one of the two will be use; see WrestleMania 29 naming issue). The actual stylist of "speculated" WrestleMania event in 2015 is unknown without any press release or actual visual effects of said event in that year. As noted on the article talk page, hindsight is 20/20 and, saying this with clear judgment, that we may not be here in 2015 or if World Wrestling Entertainment even exist in the future beyond 2013, it is assumed in good faith that W.W.E. may be here for 2014, but, hindsight is 20/20 but we cannot forecast the future that is approximately two years in advance. As noted in WrestleMania XXX's talk page, rules of Wikipedia should be followed for events that are NOT confimed by the company. If it is mentioned, then I would suggest keeping a close eye on things of future WrestleMania events to be talked about on the overall view of the event; thus on WrestleMania's talk page as mention yet not confirmed. I know the follow is not wrestling related but it does bare mentioning, that The Sims 3 Island Paradise, The Sims 3 stuff pack (#10) and The Sims 3 eleventh expansion pack are mention on its main The Sims 3 article page with citation link to The Sims 3 website, but, the later, the tenth stuff pack and the eleventh expansion pack (at this time are untitled) are not made into article pages due to mention prior to this, the two are untitled and little to no further details are announced by Electronic Arts (EA Games/MAXIS). So, someone please correct me if I'm wrong here, but, I did mention the similar issue (in another area of this site) and unsourced items should not be on the page (i.e. further installments of the event where there aren't details made public as of the time of question). Sorry for double posting but I am letting the Wiki Project leaders of Pro Wrestling know that unsourced items like this, are mentioned in the Wikipedia's Manual of Style and/or the Wikipedia's Rules for unsourced and/false information. As I noted before, not discredit that "it may happen" but as good faith and should not rely on presumption of what we think is fact. Thanks. Sundogs ^{Wikia UserPage} 23:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed the metion of wm 31 A few mins ago the issue is fixed.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 23:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Sundogs ^{Wikia UserPage} 23:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sporadic nag

Hey what's good and happening? So I'm pretty much not doing anything here anymore although I have been noticing a few things here and there that have been keeping me up to date with whatever's going on here. Anyway, yeah just noticed some dude a while back deleted every mention of notable events (WrestleMania, SummerSlam, etc.) from venue articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Intoronto1125&offset=20121221164608&target=Intoronto1125

So yeah dude's been blocked for a while now too but I was hoping you guys could help restore these notes if deemed notable to their respective articles... yeah ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Dead links in FAs and GAs

According to this very nifty tool, there are a bunch of dead references in our FA and GA articles. It should be a big priority for us to replace them because if we don't, these articles are basically full of unsourced information and could lose their GA and FA labels because of it. To those who have the time, please help in this urgent matter. If a suitable replacement isn't found easily, let's try using the Wayback Machine. Feedback ^☎ 06:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That Machine has pretty much everything we're missing, I'd guess. Definitely easier to use that first, then resort to finding the same info elsewhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:07, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

I've been proven wrong by the first one I tried. The Machine redirects to the main page, just like the link does. I miss the days when every page ended in .html. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:13, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

Vandal Watch: User talk:Nheques

This guy has been editing the WWE championship articles removing the sortable functions from the tables. I'm in the process of rollbacking most of his edits and I will be posting a notification on his talkpage. I'll update if he reverts anything so someone could get an admin to block him. Feedback ^☎ 22:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

After about 20 minutes, I think I got them all. I posted a message on his talk page. My tone might not have been the best, but WP:BITE is really hard to follow when he goes ahead and removes content from every single WWE and FCW championship page. It's not like I enjoyed reverting vandalism for 20 straight minutes. Anyway, I told him to post here if he had any questions. Let's hope he goes that route instead of disrupting the pages again. Feedback ^☎ 22:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it was his intent to vandalize the pages. When I looked at his work, he was just trying to streamline the list of reigns. I think we need to actually look for a consensus and a way to streamline and sort the reigns at the same time. Keith Okamoto (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by streamline? They look great. How more organized can they get? Feedback ^☎ 22:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

What he was doing was removing the vacated spots due to them not counting as official reigns. He was making notes to replace the removed vacant spots. Keith Okamoto (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to sacrifice the sortable function of the table for him to do that. I'm assuming he was trying to make it more like WWE's website histories, but that isn't how it's done here. In fact, common sense should have kicked in at some moment during his 1-month tirade of editing for him to realize "wait a second, there must be a reason why the tables are like this!". Feedback ^☎ 23:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess he didn't know since he appears to be new here on Wikipedia. Keith Okamoto (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this, and noted that I sort of agreed with him here. If anybody feels like reading that and weighing in on the table thing, there you go. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:38, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

Image deletion

See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:WWF_Undisputed_Championship.jpg#File:WWF_Undisputed_Championship.jpg for details.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Same issue two sections below. Discuss there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

What makes a "World Heavyweight Championship"

We need to have a clear consensus on what criteria we use for deciding if a major promotion's main championship can be considered as a World Title.

I have on numerous occasions tried to clean up the World heavyweight championship (professional wrestling) article, but it keeps getting reverted due to other editors claiming that some Japanese promotions never call their titles "World titles".

Yeah, they call them "Sekai titles". Hope that helps. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 01:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I feel this is because some people are too hung up on the actual words "World Heavyweight Championship", and not taking into account that all promotions consider their top title as THE biggest in the industry, and it shouldn't be up to one's individual taste as to whether consider it a World title.

Such factors as a promotion's history, legacy and prominence should be considered.

No promotion will ever come out and say that their top championship isn't World Championship caliber...I would just to see a clear concensus as to what we as editors can and can't count as such, and whatever the consensus is is what we'll live with.

My $0.02... promotions such as NJPW, AJPW, and NOAH in Japan should count as World Championship level due to their history in the country. Japan has a very rich tradition in puroresu, and wrestling there may even be bigger than it is here in America. The same goes for AAA and CMLL in Mexico, which has it's own rich wrestling history in lucha libre. It almost looks as if some folks want only the major American based promotions to count as World titles, and as the citation in the article says itself, that viewpoint doesn't hold a world view. Vjmlhds 01:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You'll find all the world championships (and world champions) here: User:Feedback/List of professional wrestling world heavyweight champions. Feedback ^☎ 02:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, if it's a major promotion's top title and has been defended abroad, it's a world title. It doesn't need to have the word "world" in its name, and if it does, it still needs to meet the other three criteria. But yeah, this is one of those arguments that will likely go on forever. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:20, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

What do we do about the WCWA World Heavyweight Championship? The title was originally called the "NWA American Heavyweight Championship" and was made very clear that it was a regional title and inferior to the NWA World title. However, once the company split from the NWA, it was rechristened a World title. Chris Adams who held it 4 times when it was a regional title and once as a World title was called a "5-time World Champion" by the company. They basically rewrote history and called everyone who held the title a World Champion. So do we call them World Champions? I don't know if I should include, say, Mike Von Erich, on my list of World Champions when he only held the title during its "American Heavyweight" days. I think this is a tough conundrum. Feedback ^☎ 04:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No, only those who won it after it became a world title (Fujinami won it in Japan) should be considered "World Champions". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:42, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

Or...say that I'm the "world heavyweight champion of Parma", and I travel to Don Mills to defend my title. Does that now make me a legit world champion? After all, I've defended my title internationally. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 05:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Is your Parma Wrestling Federation a major promotion? If not, it fails the first criterion. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:42, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors have absolutely no business determining what makes a title a "world title," since any decision would be simply point of view. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

We're not determining it ourselves. We are simply

...brainstorming? (I only wrote this second line, by the way)InedibleHulk (talk) 08:01, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

Going back throught the archives as to the criteria used (A - must have "World" or a synonymous word in the title; B - defended in at least 2 countries; C - considered the top title in the promotion), then some of the titles that should be in meet the criteria. The AAA and CMLL World Heavyweight titles fit all 3 criteria - they have World in the title, they've been defended outside Mexico (AAA holds events in the SW U.S., CMLL has held shows in the U.S. and in Japan), and are the top titles in the promotion. The IWGP titles fit, as the "I" in IWGP stands for International (Wrestling Grand Prix), they've been defended in the U.S. (New Japan has held shows in the U.S., and they've been defended on PPV on TNA shows), and they are the top titles in the company. Regarding AJPW, they call their tag team titles the AJPW Unified World Tag Team Championship. In NOAH, they refer to their titles as the GHC Heavyweight and GHC Tag Team Championships - the "G" standing for Global (Honored Crown) So AAA, CMLL, and IWGP meet all 3 criteria, while AJPW and NOAH meet at minimum 2. Vjmlhds 21:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

in that case, czw also enter in the definition, because it was defended in germany and japan. Also pwg, was defended in germany, france and england. One more question, by World Heavyweight Champion? I think thats better world champion. For example, WWE says that ric flair is 16 times world champion, no world heavyweight champion.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, the world titles are all at User:Feedback/List of professional wrestling world heavyweight champions. The only ones that are missing are the aforementioned WCCW title which confuses me due to its lineage as a non-World Championship, the WWC Championship that has gone like 30 times to the same guys, and both the PWG and the CZW Championship which frankly I know very little about. If anyone knows about any others who could make the list, let me know. Feedback ^☎ 03:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Other than watching occasional footage, I'm not that famililar with modern-day puroresu. "Back in the day", local "governing bodies" (IWGP, PWF) were clearly intended as subservient to the American "governing bodies" (AWA, NWA, WWF). Wrestling on television was miles ahead of its American counterpart, but their weekly television show covered a promotion which did not run a 52-weeks-per-year schedule like American promotions did. To cover breaks between tours, Inoki and Fujinami and Sayama, or Baba and Tsuruta were regularly appearing abroad, with Japanese-based titles being defended throughout Mexico and the United States. New Japan stars also appeared in Canada, due to their association with Stu Hart. Asahi TV or Nippon TV were literally throwing money at promoters for the rights to air footage from these shows. Believe it or not, there were promoters who were uninterested in the money, taking issue with featuring wrestlers on a major show who weren't being regularly featured in their booking programs. So yeah, All Japan has a long history of their titles being defended outside Japan, including components of what became the Triple Crown. OTOH, did Stampede ever call their top title a world title? After all, they ran the occasional show in Montana, which is a real-life example of my earlier comment (which was intended to be somewhat absurd; obviously, "crossing the pond" normally refers to the Atlantic Ocean, not Lake Erie). As for why "world heavyweight champion" versus "world champion"? If we are taking a world view here, there are likely world champions in other weight classes who later became heavyweight champions (obviously Fujinami, probably also Rey Misterio, though it's likely that examples proliferate throughout lucha). To have to include those also would just cloud the issue further. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 21:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why the article has a section for "Examples of other extant world championships" under "Active world championships". Is there some difference between extant and active? Why is one a list of championships and one a list of "examples" of championships, and in two different formats? The one external link lists the Mexican titles along with the American ones, but we split them. What's up? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:25, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

No rationale for the separation. I've begun merging the two lists. McPhail (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

VERY URGENT MATTER

commons:User:Stefan4 has decided to individually request the deletion of plenty of title belts on Commons, but this discussion has to take place on one page. He has nominated another one of my uploads for deletion (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Real WWE United States Championship.jpg) so I have decided to bring up the fact that instead of doing these individually so he can delete them one by one, we should be discussing a mass deletion request. If this is successful, every single one of our title belts will be deleted. So please, voice your opinions. Feedback ^☎ 17:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#FOP.3F Trophies are copyright of the sculptor and need permission to photograph in many countries. Mexico is one of the few that allow FOP on temporary displays, I think. See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:FOP for country laws. I have emailed WWE corporate for permission and possibly official images.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have emailed them as well. A couple of times. I've also left them messages. They don't ever respond because they don't care enough to give us permission or to send us a copyright claim. I would like to believe we would take down all these images if WWE ever sends us a copyright claim, but as of now, it's not like we haven't TRIED to get their attention.

Also, I'd like to point out that I uploaded a lot of these pictures on Wikipedia and they were moved to Commons by a bot. I think we should just move all WWE-related pictures to the home Wikipedia projects of their uploaders so each project can decide what to do regarding the copyrights, the derivate works dilemma and fair use rationale. Feedback ^☎ 20:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to User talk:Jimbo Wales and see if he is willing to explain it to them officially. The WWE can benefit vastly from allowing the images here. Mr. Wales may not contact them himself but he may have a friend that can or give some good advice.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, after someone deleted File:Real WWE Championship.jpg, I reuploaded it under fair use here File:WWE Championship (2010).jpg. But the original deleter has gotten a bit obsessive and It's now up for deletion here. Feedback ^☎ 18:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I had an idea last night that may fly. We could include 'protest images' in some or all of the WWE articles. A big black square with text like: "The subject of this article is being selfish, ignorant, and not helping the projects in regards to their articles." This could be a smaller version of the WMF SOPA blackout. If this project seeks consensus to protest with article images then the rest of the en:wp may agree and allow it. If a notable wrestler like Hulk Hogan were to have a protest image in his main infobox then others including the subjects themselves may take notice. There is a movement to change the FOP laws in the USA and many editors from the WMF projects are helping. A few sculptors, artists, photographers, and others have sent 'blanket licenses' through OTRS to allow images of their works here. I see no reason why the WWE can't respond to email and at least provide a license for photos of their belts.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably a violation of WP:POINT. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention that SOPA being passed would have been a much bigger issue, not just for Wikipedia but Internet as a whole that a lack of pictures of the WWE Championship belts. I think we should have them but I doubt that we would get much support if we try to associate this with SOPA.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If so, then WMF are very guilty of WP:POINT when they did the blackout. Feedback ^☎ 20:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Feedback, that's actually true - which was why I voted against the blackout. Heh. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

All good points. I think we would need a strong consensus from one WikiProject to get approval from others. A statue/art project may be the best to start it with unless this project wants to take it on. I made a lame sample image already. File:Protest info image draft.png.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Where would we go when we clicked here? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:03, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

Any rule about sticking a text link to an offsite picture where the picture would normally go? It wouldn't look as good or be as convenient, of course, and it seems like the quitter's way, but it would give readers who want to know what the belt looks like something. Just throwing it out there. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

We can't link to a site with copyvio images. That would leave the only link to the WWE site on the belt. This would also defeat the purpose of any protest. Freedom of panorama is a big issue in the USA with Wikipedia photographers at commons and other projects. It may not be as big as SOPA but any politicians seeking votes would gain more from photographers and wikipedia users than any they may lose from sculptors. With The Little Mermaid (statue) the family of the dead guy makes lots of money suing people for images of it. If we can start a protest on en:wp to change the law in the US then other countries may do it to gain votes the same way. Most politicians don't care but if they see all the fuss we may kick up it may become a bigger issue to them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, defeating the purpose of protest was what I meant by "quitter's way". If you're set on protesting, I won't get in your way, but I personally don't think it's worth the trouble. You have my moral support, though! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:00, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That is all we need to really to get consensus. I am amazed that a country like the USA that prides itself on freedom chokes on images of 3D statues etc. The sculptors wouldn't lose anything by allowing images of them. I assume they would still have legal rights regarding clones/copies of them though. 2D art photos should remain as protected because they would lose out from cheap knock-offs.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of public domain images of the belts being worn/held by wrestlers. We don't need to have a close-up studio photograph of every belt. McPhail (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

If you use them in articles where text refers to the belt then they may not qualify as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:De_minimis File:Oscar statuette.jpg could technically be deleted here for the same reasons. The rationale is 'no free replacement possible' is untrue if we can easily find an Oscar image taken with Freedom of panorama or email the Academy for permission and/or an official photo with a free licence. See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Ernest_Borgnine-oscar.jpg --Canoe1967 (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Stop the signature move madness?

I've noticed (and think I've brought it up before) a lot of "Signature Moves" are being backed by by match reports, like this. Monkey flip? Hurricanrana? The only thing these sources say is that someone once used the move (usually in recent matches), not that they're signature moves. They're also a lot of text. We should stick to profiles and such that specifically list "trademark", "signature" or "favourite" moves. If anyone feels like helping correct the problem, that'd be nice. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:20, March 30, 2013 (UTC)

Strongly support this McPhail (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hell yeah. My question is, do we have some page where I can see a section call "Signature moves"? I every bio I see finishing moves, but no signature. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Create: Unique wrestling moves? Include histories and decriptions etc?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the question, HHH. Onlineworldofwrestling, WrestlingData and Cagematch all have signature move lists in bios, if that's what you mean. Others, too, I'm sure. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:11, March 31, 2013 (UTC)

Cool. That's what I want to know. A better way to find signature moves. Thanks. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

When did Cagematch and Wrestlingdata become good sources?Ribbon Salminen (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, since when did Cagematch and Wrestlingdata become good sources? Even OWOW isn't listed as reliable. Sources like PWInsider and PWTorch are both reliable. A wrestler using the move on frequently on multiple occasions is equivalent to that of a signature move listed on a website; I was told this when I first joined up. I understand the deal with there being a lot of text, which there is, but websites like OWOW are not up-to-date where movesets are concerned whereas PWInsider, PWTorch, etc. provide weekly match reports with instances of wrestlers using these moves. A better, reliable way to find signature moves would definitely be more practical, but are there any? Rockyrock632 (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

They're in the "not yet proven" list in our MoS, but are pretty widely used here already (in German and English). Sort of de facto good sources. But yeah, this signature practice is also widespread, and that's wrong. I haven't seen anything suggest these sites aren't reliable, though. We may not know their fact-checking process, but WrestlingData/GenickBruch seems solid to me. OWW, on the other hand, is still rife with typos. These aren't so bad with words, where you can tell what they meant, but for numbers and dates, it can get pretty bad. Ivan Putski's profile, for instance, has him winning the NWA American Tag Title in 1970, from a team that won the title in 1973. And they list his partner as Ivan Putski. A little off-topic, but worth mentioning. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:03, March 31, 2013 (UTC)

As for taking 2-3 match reports saying Cena used a monkey flip, and coming to the conclusion that it makes it a signature move, that's synthesis. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:06, March 31, 2013 (UTC)

Those sites look decent, but they all list the Sharpshooter as Rock's finisher, which is inaccurate. So, what do you guys suggest we do? Do we remove all the match report references and replace them with ones like OWOW even though those sites don't contain a more detailed list of moves like the current versions of the Wikipedia articles? Rockyrock632 (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I remember The Rock finishing a few people with it, but details are fuzzy. He hasn't for a while, I think. I know you already know my answer, but I

Support using sources that explicitly refer to the move as a signature/trademark/favourite. We may never know for sure just how some sites go about fact-checking, but it beats the synthesis option. Verifiability is key, not absolute truth. Keep in mind, with option B, there'd be nothing stopping someone from adding clothesline, hiptoss, punch and Irish whip to every signature move list. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:10, March 31, 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that this is the way to go. If we use previous opinion we risk several things. First, there could be an issue of moves often being used by a wrestler but are in fact quite common, such a a suplex etc. Second, there could be a case where a wrestler uses a move they don't normally use in an important match in an attempt to catch the opponent off guard. For example, John Cena used a Hurricanrana against CM Punk it their last match, and I think its safe to say that should not count as a signature move.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

WrestleMania XX issues... Help?

I keep having a user with an IP of 41.254.5.246 who [keeps adding a section] in the WrestleMania XX article (specifically in the "Aftermath" section) that is completely unrelated to WrestleMania XX. I've warned him and reverted his edits 2 times. I'm concerned it will be a repeat offender and was wondering if some of you would also keep an eye on him and flag him if he continues the activities. Let me know what you think about his edits. Thanks! srsrox ^{BlahBlahBlah...} 14:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Will keep an eye on it. I'm not even sure what the hell he's trying to add (other than the Rock's return, obviously. I just don't know why...). – Richard BB 14:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, EXACTLY my thoughts. Very odd. Anyways, thanks. srsrox ^{BlahBlahBlah...} 13:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Possible AFD?

Does this seem notable to you? It seems like cruft to be honest. Feedback ^☎ 07:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Well played sir! McPhail (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It's one of 16 Top-Importance articles for the project. A question like this doesn't need to be asked. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

see April Fools' Day. Frietjes (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

With the way things are going around here lately, it was only natural to take a comment like this seriously. But I see what you did there (at least, I do now). GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Alex Wrights Promotion New European Championship Wrestling

As Alex Wright is one of the most Important and most influenting european Wrestlers of all time and his promotion is growing really well i did ask my self if its important enough to start a article about it. Any opinions on that? --Nakurio (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

That first part must be a joke, but if you're serious about creating the article, I think it seems like it would stand a chance, just going by a quick Googling. Gather sources before writing it, then ask yourself if they're reliable and independent, and if they really do show notability. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

k i guess i keep an eye on the progress and start the article in my sandbox and then suggest it here in the Project when i´m done.--Nakurio (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:33, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

Archiving changed to 14 days

I want to try this out unless there is some objection. A lot of threads keep getting archived without much response. The project isn't as active as yesteryears so I think changing the archiving time to 2 weeks might be better for all discussions on this page. If I'm wrong and the page gets too cluttered, we can change it back, but I think this is the right call for now. Feedback ^☎ 15:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

AFDs Update

Closed AFDs

The following AFDs have all been closed:

AFD Discussions (scrollable)	Result
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andre Tyson	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blondetourage	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Chickbusters	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davina Rose	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dude Busters	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eli Cottonwood	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gatecrashers	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hade Vansen	Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Airstrike	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Novak	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachelle Walker	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of independent circuit, non-affiliated or retired professional wrestlers	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wrestling tag teams and stables	No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lo Down	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Puerto Rican Nightmares	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarlett Bordeaux	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ShoMiz	Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tons of Funk	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Reks and Curt Hawkins (2nd nomination)	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Union (professional wrestling)	Merge
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alliance to End Hulkamania	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team McMahon	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team SmackDown	Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lena Yada (2nd nomination)	No C.

Current AFDs

Here is a list with the current AFD about wrestling. Please, comment about this. I prefer that the people of the Wikiproject say who is notable and who isn't, better than people who don't know about it and only says "he make srpot, he is notable".--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Current AFD Discussions (scrollable)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Can-Am Connection

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heath Slater and Justin Gabriel

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nighthawk

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Rusev

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brittany Beede

Thank you. Voice your opinions before a consensus is reached without your input! Feedback ^☎ 04:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, everybody should get involved. That is, if you agree with deleting them. Otherwise, you'll get argumentative responses from people who refuse to tolerate any differing opinions. It's a barrel of laughs. So, if you agree with the nominators or are looking for an argument, come on down...Gee, why aren't more people getting involved? GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Huh? You do realize what AFD is, right? "Argumentative responses" is pretty much the whole point of AFD. Feedback ^☎ 21:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Longer-term, would it be worth having articles such as List of minor professional wrestlers and List of minor tag teams for wrestlers who have a degree of notability but don't warrant their own article? This would help contain WP:CRUFT. McPhail (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but has a verifiability problem. We'd need sources showing each wrestler is "minor", not just a lack of sources showing they are "major". Don't think we'd find (m)any of those. And without setting the bar somewhere, it would turn into an indiscriminate list of every backyard and student wrestler, as well as the sort of major. Better to have the cruft in its own article, but best to just not have cruft. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:21, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

April Fools?

I noticed someone removed "fictitious" from the first IC title tournament in Rio. Surprisingly, s/he had a source saying the card had been discovered. After 33 years, someone just happened across it today, of all days. Should we take this seriously? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, just finished reading. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:26, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

Any case, can we add the tournament to the ficticious history of the title? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No, because even in the fictional WWE universe, the brackets didn't exist. But I guess we could note that WWE made a joke saying they did. Seems a bit trivial, but I don't mind trivia as much as some people. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

A few proposals

A few ideas on things we should try to fix and/or criminalize:

Mentioning where/when/how matches are announced, after the fact. I see this a lot. "On the January 1 episode of Wrestling, GM announced that Babyface would face Heel in a Stipulation Match at PPV. At PPV, Babyface defeated Heel." Does anyone really care about the match announcement, in hindsight? Or is just a lot of words?

To be clear, I think this should go for all announcements of things that have happened, not just matches. But while they're still in the future, I have no problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

Saying "episode of" I think simply "The March 17 RAW" would work. Not so wordy, one-by-one, but they add up over an article.

"episode of" should be kept. "would go on to" should not. I don't care about any of the rest. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"Episode of" isn't bad, but I think its rather worthy when used repetitively. I think it should be used once and then be inferred in the rest of the section (i.e. "On the January 1 episode of Raw, Kevin Federline pinned John Cena... On the January 8 Raw, no one remembered."). Feedback ^☎ 05:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Your version is too informal for an encyclopedia. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The Manual of Style says to avoid unnecessarily complex wording. I don't think "episode of" is so complex it's going to confuse anyone, but still slightly unnecessary. I appreciate your position, though, and I'm not trying to force anything. Just seeing what consensus looks like. You can revert this if you'd like, but it illustrates how repetitive this gets. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:29, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

Calling a PPV "The WWE's SummerSlam PPV event" SummerSlam works fine, I think.

Thoughts? Fit them under the relevant thing, please. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:35, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

Agree with all three. Feedback ^☎ 22:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I see your point, however, the wordiness is necessary for readers that aren't familiar with professional wrestling. Yes, who on this planet will actually come to wikipedia to read pro wrestling articles, but WP has to be readable to everyone. The March 17 RAW, I would ask myself what is a RAW? The announcement of matches is important in PPV articles, because it adds to the background. If its in biographies, it depends on the feud, but more than likely those can be reworded to "Babyface was booked into a match with Heel at WresleMania, upon which Heel won." Finally, where do you see the last point you mentioned in an article?? --Truco ⁵⁰³ 14:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

We'd still have a Wikilink to WWE Raw (or whatever show). And in the first mention, we could say its a TV show. But lots of these articles use "episode of" several times per paragraph. Nobody is going to forget that quickly.

I was thinking of biographies for the announcement thing. Wherever he have one sentence and reference for the announcement, the sentence and reference for the event follows. Only one is really notable. If we say Johnny Fivecount wrestled The Masked Jobber at Hog Wild, it should go without saying that the match was previously booked and promoted.

The last point is in Christian (wrestler). I removed a few I ran across while changing the "would go on to do" bullshit to "did". In other places, too, but can't recall off the top of my head. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

Every title is up for deletion at Commons... and nobody cares

Well, not EVERY title, but it certainly feels that way. Anyway, a bunch of titles are up for deletion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:WWE championship belts ever since April 1. They will probably all be deleted in the next 2-3 days. Most of the WWE championship articles will be affected as well as the WP:PW userbox. Feedback ^☎ 06:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

All the Batmobile images as well. It seems a recent court case about copies of it have declared it as 'art' and not a vehicle. I brought this up days ago on Mr.Wales' talk page and he has yet to respond. Contact from him to the WWE may get some images released under license. We may yet still put pressure on the WWE if we use an image like: File:Copyright information image.png. Click the links below in the 'other versions' section. If we put this image in the infobox of some of the belt pages with urls to official belt images then that may rattle a few chains. We would need some sort of consensus from this project and possibly the policy pump. Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't care if the titles are deleted. Images that can be replaced with alternatives aren't necessary to understanding an article. My bigger concern is the people who feel the need to delete the articles themselves. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

WTF How are these images replaceable? Feedback ^☎ 17:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure. Even if one of us could draw well, those drawings could technically be seen as infrigements on the design. Laws are a pain in the ass sometimes. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:11, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

Have an eight year old draw them and that won't violate copyright as too close to the original. That may work better than my bold yellow on black text. Readers would see that, link to the FOP article, then maybe put pressure to license some images from the WWE. I am still tempted to put the fair use Oscar image up for deletion. If we can host images of the Academy award then we should be able to host the belt images for their articles. 300px wide is normal size for fair use upload to English Wikipedia if you want to scale and upload here. The other languages can do the same. If they try to delete the fair use then tag Oscar, the Emmy, Nobel, etc. If the politicians pick up on it then they may change the FOP law in the USA and then we can host real images of 3D works. They will gain more votes from readers of Wikipedia than any lost from sculptors.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how many elections swing on issues like this. But yeah, it does seem unfair to allow the Emmy man and deny the belts and the Batmobiles. The whole deal is a bit rotten, considering we're using these for educational purposes only. I like your shitty drawing idea. Good luck with that! I don't think I have a paint program, but if I find I do, I call dibs on the WWF Junior Heavyweight. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Turns out we never had a picture of that one in the first place. I could make the Hardcore title look even worse, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

User:Penyulap is blocked here but does good graphics over at commons still. He is aware of all of these discussions and may create a sample or 10 that can be used in articles if you ask nicely. Or offer Tobasco sauce. Politicians will jump on any lame bandwagon to get 3 votes. This issue should gain far more. The present Archivist of the United States really supports us and is helping upload many of the images in his control. An email to him for thoughts may help. He probably has many statue images he would like to see here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In the past, images of people wearing or holding the belts were used, and that worked just as well. If copyright law won't allow that, a picture of a current or former champion is just fine. An image of the belt itself isn't necessary for a reader to understand the history and lineage of the title. I just don't understand why we're being asked to get up in arms to defend a copyright violation. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to defend anything. People can go on over there and clamor for the deletion of everything involved. I'm just bummed there's a lack of participation on an obviously major issue that will affect a lot of our articles including some very important ones. I for one don't consider them copyright violations though. WWE has been asked to comment on the situation plenty of times and they just frankly don't care. If they don't think it's a big deal, I don't see why we should. Feedback ^☎

The problem isn't that we're hurting WWE's revenue or image. We aren't. And they haven't said we are. Wikimedia will probably never get sued over this. But they have rules in place to ensure they can't possibly be sued. And until WWE totally gives up the rights and makes the belt designs free for anyone in the world to use, it's pretty open and shut, as far as Commons goes (but it seems to me we don't need Commons). Not that I don't care, but it's a doomed battle, according to their rules. And Coleman is right, a picture isn't terribly important to understanding the title. We do what we can, and for what we can't, there's a wider Internet we can "See Also". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

By the way, we also didn't have a WWE Hardcore title image. At least not for the past 18 months. I may still draw one, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Still not entirely sure what would be wrong with reuploading with one of these nifty boxes, if we're just using these on the English Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

If Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_March_29#File:WWE_Championship_.282010.29.jpg represents the current consensus, then we definitely should. Let's ask the Commons admins to move them over to Enwiki. A lot of them were moved from Enwiki to Commons anyway. Feedback ^☎ 02:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

We don't really need to ask. We could just download the pictures we want before they're deleted, and reupload them here. But yeah, might be easier somehow for them to do it, maybe in bulk. I really don't know much about how that place works. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:50, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

There are many issues involved here. English Wikipedia only allows fair use images if a free licence image is near impossible to obtain. An image of a sculpture violates the copyright holders rights. Free licence images of sculptures do not release rights to the sculpture; but just the rights to one image of the sculpture. If you use an image of a belt on a person in an article about the belt, then that violates their copyrights under De minimis because the belt becomes the focus of the image where normally it would focus on the wearer. Is this making sense?--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense, but not sure if it applies. Because all pictures are derivative works, it is virtually impossible to find a free picture. If we can upload a decent image of the belt design(s) of each title with "2D picture of 3D art" rationale , we don't need a picture of any person wearing it. Would we rather have a wrestler wearing it? I wouldn't. Images of wrestlers wearing belts in wrestler articles are a different story. They're cool with me, but they'd need their own rationales. Like you say, fair use doesn't extend to the belt design, just the picture. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:45, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Someone should tag File:2004 WorldSeries Trophy.jpg for deletion for the same reasons. That may wake up a few Americans and possibly get the Freedom of panorama laws changed down there. David Ferriero likes us a lot and may know the political climate on the issue, which is probably: "Will I gain 3 votes if I push it?". Should I track down his email for his thoughts? He is the first librarian in that office, I think. He probably has many images of statues his people would like to upload. He has factions on commons that are busy uploading archives now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about this tit-for-tat tagging. Someone being a bit of a dick to us is no reason we should be dicks to other, uninvolved people. Personally, I hate baseball. Boring as hell and costs what could feed a country. Emmys are the same deal, to a lesser extent. But the people at those Wikiprojects are probably decent folk who just want their articles looking nice, like us. We'd ruffle their feathers a lot more than we'd ruffle anyone in Washington. Grassroots campaigns are noble, but they're ultimately useless, most of the time. No point making enemies down here on this rung. But yeah, email whoever you think might help. I don't think you need to ask our permission. It might work. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:36, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

All the Spanish soccer trophies are up for deletion now. FOP for Spain states they need to be on permanent display outdoors. Most the images we have are indoors and the outdoor ones aren't permanent display. I just sent an email to Mr. Ferriero requesting his thoughts. --Canoe1967 (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Using that logic, can't I just nail my £10 replica belt to my outside wall and it count as being on display outdoors permanently? 151.225.139.148 (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You can if it isn't a pirated knock-off. Does the WWE sell replica belts? That would make it a permanent display of a copyrighted work that was sold by the rights holders.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

So CommonsDelinker has stolen your belt...

Fear not.

Step 1 Did someone get the pictures before they vanished? I guess that's a question, not a step, but whatever.

Step 2 Do we know who photographed the best candidates, and have they released the rights to that particular photo?

If the answer to either step is "yes", we're probably good to go. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:23, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

I have all the pictures, but I'd have to sit here for over an hour to upload them. I'm busy today, but I'll hope to find that time tomorrow. Feedback ^☎ 22:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if anyone wants to help, here you go. That's all of them, but we need to keep organized and make sure no one uploads the same one all over again. They're considered Fair Use now. So please link here to the ones you upload. Feedback ^☎ 22:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do a few later. Good idea to share the load. But remember, people, they're only Fair Use if they have a decent rationale, and meet the criteria at WP:NFCCP. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:01, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

I did the North American Heavyweight, but haven't added it to the article yet. Might be useful to look at the file for an example of how to fill rationale, if someone doesn't know. For older belts, Reggie Parks is a safe bet for creator of the original work. Info about photographer, original source and licence are all in the relevant text files. Thanks, Feedback. Saved a lot of time. Starting a subsection to list finished uploads. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

Don't be shy, people. Uploading is fun! Well, not fun fun. But there's a slight sense of accomplishment. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:54, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

Finished uploads

Urned recognition?

I figure this might be met with a bit of "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard", so figured I'd ask first. Do you guys (do we have any girls) think The Undertaker's urn deserves an article? That thing has its own sort of history. As a traditional foreign object, it's won a fair number of matches. As a stage prop, it's done some strange things. As a character, it's been kidnapped/ransomed/melted by various wrestlers. As far as wrestling props go, it's in a league of its own. Not sure of the policies on fictional objects, but I recall seeing some other similar articles on something or another. Sourcing shouldn't be a problem. Or maybe just a subsection in The Undertaker or Paul Bearer? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:33, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

Just did a quick search and it seems that there are enough reliable sources are out there. I have no idea what this article would look like, but I think it could be argued that it is notable enough. It has that longevity, was used in plenty of feuds, and did seem to develop a character of its own. In the very least it could easily be featured as a Paul Bearer subsection, especially because of how it was used in Taker's recent feud with Punk.LordMaldad2000 (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you notice what Heyman was doing when Punk kicked out of the Tombstone? That urn doesn't care who's holding it. But sometimes it does, if I remember correctly. Would be great if we could find out exactly how many urns there were, like we know the Doinks and Lassies. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

. Feedback ^☎ 22:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Duly noted. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:52, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

I have considered making this article for a long time. I think it's definitely notable enough for a separate article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You can start it if you'd like. I'm not calling dibs or anything. I'd help, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move

Johnny Curtis > Fandango (wrestler)

Vote here

McPhail (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Why somebody change the name to Fandango (entertainer) ? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure. Maybe a "wrestling is fake" point. I've asked Canoe1967 about it, in case she's not watching this page. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:39, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

I did that because Fandango (wrestler) was deleted and salted. It wouldn't let me create it. Should we have an admin move it to wrestler?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the redirect from (wrestler) and cut and pasted the entire article over. ~~Not sure if that screws something up in the Wikimachinery. If it does, feel free to revert.~~ It screws up the history, and I reverted myself. I think I've done this before with a Speedy Delete tag, but can't remember quite how. I'll look into it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:09, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

I had an admin fix it for us.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Please respond...

Someone wants to add information about the April 8 Raw. Can someone respond to this? Keith Okamoto (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Responded. Clear case of undue weight. Removed the section. Judging from the history, I'll probably be reverted soon. No problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the events of that show would be relevant for the articles about the wrestlers who won titles that night (as well as those who lost them) though I see nothing to indicate that this particular episode would be important in the overall history of the show itself.--174.93.164.125 (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

User:AmericanDad86

User:AmericanDad86 has destroyed the WWE Raw page with his constant vandalism. We need to protect and restore the page and talk with him before he completely wipe the page clean. Keith Okamoto (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sigh! Please look at the edits. What has been removed from WWE Raw is all loads of unsourced material. I have removed edits that weren't sourced/undue weight. My own personal edits that WERE well-sourced were completely removed altogether by the above editor and his wiki-friend because they were 2 small paragraphs long, accused of being too lengthy and going against the "undue weight" wiki policy by the above editor and his friend.

I simply told them that if my well-sourced and well-supported edits go for such a reason, then how can the bulk of unsourced information remain in the article? The above editor's wikifriend suggested we follow wiki policies strictly and ENCOURAGED me to trim and rid the article of unsourced information on the talk page. (Please see the Raw talk page) So what I did is per consensus on the talkpage and wikipolicy. Labeling it as vandalism, it's rude and insulting Okamoto so knock it off and stop trying to recruit people you know better than other editors to exercise article ownership. As said on the talkpage of the Raw article, if the rules only apply to my edits and not the above editor and any of his wiki-friends he's trying to get involved to execute article ownership, then I have every mind to get an administrator involved. Btw, The above user has failed to even discuss anything on the article's talkpage. Rather, he's come here and tried to get people to side with him to take over the article.AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

All this talk of friends and conspiracy isn't helping your case a bit. You have some points about the unsourced material, but they're getting lost in the bullshit. If you're genuinely interested in helping, familiarize yourself with policy, explain your "undue weight" removals and change your tone. While you can remove unsourced stuff, a "citation needed" tag, {{cn}}, would be a better place to start, if you want regular editors to take you seriously. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

Free belt pictures.

If there's anything here you'd like to use for championship articles, we have permission. There are some good ones! No worries about scaling them down to shit or filling out Free Use rationale. Just remember to attribute them to WildcatBelts.com, with a link, preferably.

I won't link to the email, for obvious reasons, but here's the gist of it: InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I've come across your belt gallery at http://www.wildcatbelts.com/wrestling-belt-gallery.php. Great work! Hadn't realized Wildcat Belts had created so many.

I was wondering if you (or whoever the appropriate person is) would mind granting limited permission to use these images in the relevant articles at http://en.wikipedia.org. They would be used only for educational, non-commercial purposes, fully attributed and linked to your site, and of great benefit to the encyclopedia.

If you could get back to me with a yes or no soon, it'd be appreciated.

Thanks

Reply:

yes, go ahead, that is fine. thanks for asking

Andrew Lazarchik

Wildcat Championship Belts

412-427-0569

www.WildcatBelts.com

Find us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/wildcatbelts Follow us on Twitter: @wildcatbelts

Bloody fantastic, well done. You would need to send the email to commons:OTRS and add Template:OTRS pending to every image you upload. That being said, this was a great score! Cheers! Feedback ^☎ 23:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

There's an option to link to an online agreement as evidence. I linked to this talk page for the Celebrity Championship Wrestling belt. Should be good, I think. If there are any doubters, Wildcat's contact info is there for confirmation. Guess I should have linked to the archived version, though, for once Miszabot does her thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

I uploaded two and both have quickly been tagged for speedy deletion. Not entirely sure why, as I have permission to use them non-freely and they meet the non-free content criteria. I contested the deletion, but might need some expert help. Might not. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:41, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

Which ones did you add? If someone tagged it, it was probably Stefan2. He's Wikipedia's very own Inspector Javert. Like I said, you need to forward that email to OTRS. Once you do, add the template to the page and tell whoever tagged it to wait until OTRS responds. Feedback ^☎ 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It was these two. And yes, Stefan2. Like I say there, I don't see why we'd need to deal with Commons for a picture exclusive to en.wiki. And if the option for linking to permission isn't valid, why does it exist (first option, no less)? Not big on sharing my name and address with strangers, especially to fix something that doesn't seem to be an actual problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

Reading a bit. Saw that OTRS permission grants are only for free licences, not limited ones. "Permission grants must specifically contain a free license grant and may not merely give permissions for Commons or Wikipedia". What we have here is an agreement to use them on only on English Wikipedia and only where relevant and educational. Mostly asked that way because I figured it would be an easier sell than a free licence. And partly (like 10%) because I'm biased toward English and Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:43, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

Not really getting a clear answer on what to do next. Seems we either ask for and get a free licence, or we go fair use, and fill out the rationale like we would for a picture we don't have permission to use. Seems a bit silly to me, but meh. Thoughts? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:41, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

One criteria to rule all them

I have seen a lot of titles articles and we say that we have only a criteria to the titles table, but I see a lot of differences between them. I think that we need, maybe in a month, to unified all the title tables under one criteria. Look the sigles titles. List of WWE Champions, WWC Puerto Rico Heavyweight Championship, IWA Undisputed World Heavyweight Championship, NWA Florida Heavyweight Championship, List of early world heavyweight champions in professional wrestling, AJPW Triple Crown Heavyweight Championship, Open the Dream Gate Championship, GHC Openweight Hardcore Championship... every title is different in one aspect (table, cells, no days of reign, vacant format, when the title change his name...) Other, the tag team titles. One time I see the Team name first List of WWE Tag Team Champions, one time I see the members name first List of CZW World Tag Team Champions. I think that we have to choose one criteria for the tables and, In a period of time, maybe 1 or 2 months, change every title's table. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I said this because, here Hulk proposed to change the table for vacancies (no green, grey colour) but I think that we can do nothing if we have near 10 tables.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Why does this matter? Does anyone really care if all tables look the same? GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Because we are an encyclopedia and we have a project with a Style guide. All the wrestlers have the same structure, imagine that now, every wrestlers follows a different style. And look, in the style guide we have a section, "List of Champions articles". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It may make sense to then update that section with two things, 1) how to indicate vacancies, 2) tag team titles - Team name first or second? That way there would be a standard we can all refer to. MPJ -US 15:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that the best idea comes from Hulk, separete the vacancies in color Grey (no green). In the tag teams, I think that is more important the tag team name, so I think that it must be first. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I like the team name first, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:34, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

It's a team title, team name first I agree. MPJ -US 01:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Great. I think that Tag team is an easy problem. Vacancies. I think that the Hulk idea is interesting: in grey and isn't part of the reigns list. One more thing (I think that we must hear the Ribbon Salimen opinion). In the CHIKARA titles, we can see, List of Defenses. Not bad, but if we put the table, I think that we have to put the table in ALL the titles with a list of defenses. Opinion? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd imagine it'd be pretty hard to list defenses on TNA/WWE titles, since those things are defended pretty much on every single house show. Promotions like Chikara and pretty much every Japanese promotion put more emphasis on defenses and don't just hold title matches just for the sake of holding one. These promotions also specifically list every defense on their websites. Also, I've usually listed members before tag team names on tag team championship articles I've created, just because of the sorting issues created by the fact that not all team's have team names. However, I have no problem switching them around if the project decides that it should be the other way around.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that the rule is that we put the number of defenses If the company has a list of defenses, am I right? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Defenses for WWE titles are numerous, yes, but WrestlingData can help. They have lists of every title match (every one on record, anyway) for all titles. For example, the 4,031 Intercontinental title matches. Not hard to count the numbers between the highly visible "TITLE CHANGE!!!" notes. Actually, we don't even need to count. Just subtract. Of course, that all depends on whether we count WrestlingData as a reliable source. I still say it is, for practical use. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

Fun Fact: With 3,901 defenses and 70 champions, the average number of defenses per IC champion is 55.7. Not saying this is a good idea, but we could differentiate the "above average" champions from the "below average", as an objective and verifiable measure of success (red/green, thumbs up/thumbs down, smiley/frowny). But the pace of stories has increased so much, I don't think it would really be that informative a stat. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

Anycase, anyone want to help me with the titles? We have a lot of titles with the incorrect table, but if everyone of us change one article per day, we can end next month. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll do a few. But I'm pretty ignorant about tables. What's the colour code for the grey we want? It should be different to the shade we use in the header, but I don't really care exactly which shade we choose. And how and where do I put it to shade a row? If you've done one yourself, share it here as an example. Also, what do we change "Days held" to? If we're counting vacancies, vacancies can't "hold" anything. "Length in days"? "Duration"? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

How about simply "Duration" instead? If someone could whip up a page with all the lists that we need to go through I can chip in, I just don't want to do double work you know? MPJ -US 22:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Some titles may not have a fully documented history, something I've had to deal with in some of the Mexican titles. One example is found in CMLL Arena Coliseo Tag Team Championship, which actually sorts etc. MPJ -US 22:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the black holes in the titles history are a pain in the ass. I support "days duration". Also, I did an example in my user page with the tna legends/tv/global championship, I only chnage the vacated section with this

|-style="background: #e3e3e3;" |colspan="9" Reason for the vacancy |-

I think thats simple and useful. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to do it like that there's no real need to change "days held", is there? Also, remember to put the day vacated in the "reason for the vacancy". I thought, we were just coloring the vacancies and didn't expect this kind of a change in format. Personally, I'm not a fan, but will go along with it if the project agrees to it.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

.Of course, Ribbon. The vacancy is a minor change, I only want to put the same table in all titles, because we have near 10 different tables in the championships that I show at the beginning. If you don't like the vacancy change, don't worry and say it, it's a minor change, but the real matter, I think, is to put the same table in all the championships. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Stefan2

Am I the only one that has noticed that this guy has been on a hell binge lately of nominating (and getting deleted) championship belt images regardless of license status? Something needs to be done to prevent this further, not to Stefan, but our images because we're quickly becoming inhibited from being able to show what championships look like. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 18:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think someone mentioned the belt pictures somewhere above. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't find it. Could you link me to it? Feedback ^☎ 07:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I get it, I didn't read above before making a thread, no need to be a smart ass.

CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 16:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've been talking to Lazarchik about a free licence for the ones Wildcat Belts made. He says he intends to release them under the ShareAlike 3.0, but hasn't sent his official consent just yet. In the meantime, the four in "So CommonsDelinker has stolen your belt..." above all seem to be fine, as fair use images. If somebody wants to help, Feedback has made it very easy with his zip file. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, April 22, 2013 (UTC)

World's Strongest Tag Something League

I'd always thought the word was "Team", but Ribbon seems to think it's "Determination" and has changed all of them (I think). As I just recently noted on my user page, I speak no Japanese. So he might be right. But there isn't a single non-Wikipedia use of "World's Strongest Tag Determination League" on Google, and it seems like "team" makes a lot more sense. He says on my talk page that the name on the official All Japan site translates this way, and it isn't his problem that English-speaking sources haven't figured this out. I say that's original research, and the translation most sources go with should trump one that no sources go with. Thoughts? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:54, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

"Team" makes sense, but in Japan the word "tag" is almost never followed by "team". Tag team championships are "tag championships", tag team matches are "tag matches" and tag team tournaments are "tag tournaments". The official name of the tournament (per All-Japan.co.jp) is 世界最強タッグ決定リーグ戦, where the word "決定" or "kettei" means determination. In other words, the tournament is used to determine the world's strongest tag team. There is definitely no "team" in the name. "Tag team" in Japanese would be "タッグチーム", where "チーム" is "team", but like I said, it's very rarely used. I was first just going to remove the word "team" from the article name and rename it "World's Strongest Tag League" as there are sources for that, but in the end just decided to go all the way. "Team" should definitely not be there, you decide whether "determination" should.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

"Tag league" works for me. It's called that by enough English sources, and I personally say "tag match" more than "tag team match". "Determination" may be correct, but it seems that nobody else on the Internet has noticed this. Verifiability, not truth, and all that. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:23, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

1998 Hell in a Cell match

I think this page should be merged with King of the Ring (1998). Yes, it's a very notable match. And if there wasn't a page for the ppv, I would agree that it needs a page. But there IS a match for the ppv, so it doesn't need one. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I agree. But should the Montreal Screwjob then be merged with Survivor Series (1997)?-LM2000 (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

No. This match involved a few individuals during one event. But the Montreal Screwjob was a complex event with consequences reaching far beyond the match and the event itself. To merge it with the Survivor Series 1997 article would completely hijack it, especially when much of the information doesn't directly relate to Survivor Series. In this case, most of the 1998 Hell in a Cell match article is simply detailing the on-screen build-up, the match itself and the aftermath (all of which would easily fit in the King of the Ring 1998 article). It's not particularily long (and neither is the one for the event), so there's no reason why it needs a branch article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for your input. I agree completely.LM2000 (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, sorry I haven't been involved in the discussion, but I've been busy with the real world lately. Thanks for the invitations, though. Jgera5 (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to apologize to Scorpion. Someone asked the same question I did on the KOTR98 talk page, I should've checked there before I wasted your time.LM2000 (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

New sports related IRC channel.

There is now an WP:IRC channel for collaboration between editors in various sports WikiProjects. It's located at #wikipedia-en-sports ^connect. Thanks Secret ^account 03:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

PPV Dark Matches Removed

Hello, I usually don't edit wrestling related articles but I've noticed that in many PPV articles the dark matches have been removed along with many other things. An IP address: 82.196.45.210 has been removing them. GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 18:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not cool. I'll take a look. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:52, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Already seems to be reverted everywhere, but I'll keep on eye on him/her. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:53, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

I've been reverting some of this guy's edits not only because of him removing dark matches, but also because of him insisting on capitalizing every word on every match type (for example "Six Man Tag Team" instead of "six man tag team", etc.), which I believe goes against MOS:CAPS. It's getting quite tiresome to be honest.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be a static IP, and has been warned. Maybe give another, more recent, final warning? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:53, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

TNA KO Tag Titles

I have a question. What happend with the KO Tag Team Titles? I mean, according to TNAWrestling, Young and ODB still as champions. But, we all know that TNA updates the roster page too late and Young hasn't the titles when he wrestled in Lockdown and OBD is a referee and she hasen't the title. Sooo, the TNA KO Tag Team title is a defunct title or isn't? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

They certainly look defunct to me. But in wrestling you never can tell when things are going to come back or be resolved randomly... Hornswoggle was revealed to be the Anon GM a year after that storyline was completely phased out. I don't think that we can do much with the article until we can find a source stating that they're defunct. Being taken off the roster page should be enough though, if that ever happens.LM2000 (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Job Titles or Accomplishments?

I've seen quite a few borderline edit wars over the years over the listing of authority figure positions (i.e. General Manager, Owner, etc) and where they are listed. Most list them under the Championships and Accomplishments section; like the Vince McMahon, Stephanie McMahon, and Theodore Long articles do. However on John Laurinaitis' article lists his various titles under Job Titles in the In Wrestling section. The styles guide does not make a mention of where to place the authority figure positions. So, once and for all, where should they go? Personally I do not think they belong in the Championships and Accomplishments section because they are neither championships nor accomplishments.-LM2000 (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

In my view, they belong in the C&A. General Manager (or similar) isn't an "actual" job, but it's a huge role. That a promotion decides someone deserves that level of prominence in TV storylines indicates they've done a promotion-worthy job. No belt along with it, but Teddy Long (for example) being bumped up to GM from manager/referee is roughly the same as The Ultimate Warrior being bumped from IC champ to WWF champ. Different fields, but both are a sign of appreciation and trust from McMahon, not "real" accomplishments (in that Long isn't actually great at managing a roster, and Hogan let Warrior win). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:47, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

I think like LM2000. It's not a championship nor a wrestling accomplishment, it's a storyline role, without power. Championship is a championship, accomplishment are awards, tournaments... but storyline, fictional jobs... sorry Hulk, but I don't see as C or A. Any case, I think that it's more accomplishment to be a real producer, real creative or real trainer. For Laurinaitis, I think that's a good option, a section with real job titles and fictional. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

What about TNA's Feast or Fired briefcases? One was recently added to Scott Steiner's article. I see that as just a number one contender's thing. Also, what about "Created WrestleMania" for Vince McMahon? Started a discussion on that talk page. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:51, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

I removed some of the Briefcase in TNA. Why? I don't see them notable. It's a #1 contender spot, but it isn't the MITB. WWE.com says a hundred times who wrestlers won the MITB, I think that TNA never said when a wrestler won a FoF briefcase (Also, the IP/User added the fired briefcase, i don't think that it is an accomplishment). Also, included that Daivari was the captain of Team International. I think that we have to put championships and awards from notable magazines and tournaments/matches (KOTR, KOTM, Rey de Reyes, MITB, RR...) In wrestling, anything can be an accomplishment: created WM (mcmahon), undefeated (taker, joe, golberg, ryback, andre the giant), never submit (taker), created MITB (Jericho)... too much thing. For the job titles, I think that is better create a section and write his backstage roles. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Everything beyond the essential accomplishments that HHH mentioned gets iffy. While Hulk's theory about Long's rise to GM being an accomplishment is a good thought, I do think that if authority positions are to be listed it needs to be universal. It's confusing to see the same thing listed in two different places on two different pages. Sometimes it isn't mentioned at all. WWE.com has GM and Commissioner positions listed as career highlights for Kurt Angle, Mick Foley, and William Regal but as I stated originally, when these things are added to articles they are usually removed, then readded later on, etc. I think these authority figure positions are obviously notable otherwise multiple users wouldn't try to add them so many times in the first place, and they wouldn't be mentioned so prevalently in their WWE bios. But because the styles guide makes no mention of where to put them good faith editors on both sides butt heads over where it goes or if it gets mentioned at all. If they are to be listed, job titles does seem to be the most logical place in my opinion.LM2000 (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

One thing. Andre's bio says that a career highlight is nearly 15 years undefeated in WWE. I still think that, better the Laurinaitis guide. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a half-truth, anyway. He lost plenty of tag matches (and a lot more battle royales than WWE wants to admit). Even if the other guy usually took the fall, it was still partly Andre's fault. Now Yukon Eric, there's a streak! 48 years undefeated anywhere, not even a DQ. Seriously though, I don't really care if or where we list job titles. As long as they're mentioned in the body, that's the important thing for me. I'm going to delete Steiner's briefcase, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:26, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

I'd list the Feast or Fired case...it is essentially TNA's version of Money in the Bank. No go on job titles. (talk) Vjmlhds 01:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What about the "fired" briefcase? I reverted someone for that recently, too. Mainly because they called it the TNA Fired Championship, though. Anyway, that's a pretty shitty "accomplishment", isn't it? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:47, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

That made me laugh pretty hard. When it comes to the "iffy" accomplishments I generally don't add them personally and I don't have the passion to revert them myself, in most cases, but I think it's pretty clear that the "Fired" Championship doesn't belong.LM2000 (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

John Cena's kayfabe job titles include SmackDown Superstar (2002-2005), Raw Superstar (2005-present). Should we included this for every wrestler? No. Job titles are neither a championship, nor an accomplishment. They have a place in the narrative of wrestling and the biographies of performers, but they are list cruft provided by editors who think that if they fill everyone's pages with lists of things it will make wrestlers, commentators and authority figures somehow more important. Tony2Times (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

We need to consider the extent to which the job title sets the character apart. SmackDown Superstar isn't notable, since at any time, there were about 50 others. There is almost always only just one GM/President/Chairman/whatever at a time, and whoever that is gets major airtime, like a champ. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

I understand that Theddy Long is famour because he is GM in three brands in WWE. But I think that this fake job titles (because he hasn't powers, he is only GM on-screen) are Highlights, no championships or accomplishment. To TNA Briefcase, I don't think that are notable. WWE remembers us 100 times that Cena won the Rumble, Edge won the MITB and Austin won the KOTR, so it's notable. But TNA never mentionated when Joe won a Briefcase, it's like Shawn Michaels won the Elimination Chamber I. TNA used the briefcase as a normal one contenders match, no as a notable accomplishment, I Think.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, we don't know where is the limit. We put General Manager, but we must put also Assistant of GM (Maddox)? Referee (Tiffany in TNA)? Leader of Evolution (Triple H)? Legal Advisor (Otunga)? Representative of The Network (Cyrus)? President of WWF (Monsoon)? Sorry, but I don't understand why we have to put President of WWF in Monsoon's Article as an acomplishment if he never was the President of WWF. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

He was every bit as "real" a president as Sgt. Slaughter "actually" beat Warrior to become a "real" champion. Both are entirely fictional, but served major story purposes. I don't think it would confuse a reader who presumably understands that wrestling is less-than-legit. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

It's an interesting argument to make, and you're right that this can be a slippery slope. I agree with HHH that kayfabe job titles are a highlight, but much like actual wrestling accomplishments we have to decide which are notable enough to mention. Your standard referee and Smackdown Superstar positions probably deserve to be highlighted as much a Beer Money Tag Team Tournament does.LM2000 (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Since we're on the subject of authority figures: last I checked, Professional wrestling authority figures is very much a case of WP:UNDUE in that only three promotions are listed. Kayfabe onscreen authority figures have a much greater history than that. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 01:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't even have to click to know which three they'd be. I may work on that later. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

So, do we have a conclussion or not? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Joe Hennig

If somebody want's to know, we are discussing the name of Joe Hennig's article. Michael McGillucutty or Curtis Axel?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Limit in C&A

I have been watching some of C&A section of wrestlers. We are discussing about if GM is a Championship or an accomplishment to put in the section. But I saw a lot of thing that I don't know if we have to put in the section. What do you thing? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Awards from magazines and web pages: I understand that PWI and WON are notable magazines and deserves to be in the C&A, but we're talking about minor magazines and webpages. Where is the limit? Mickie James won an award Wrestling Clothesline (what the hell is this?) and GLORY (?). The Colons won the Puerto Rico Wrestling Tag team of the year, but who is PR wrestling? Eve Torres won an award from Diva Dirt? It's notable? Dawn Marie won awards from Diva Dirt and Bleacher Report, same case. Every single webpage and magazine made his weekly/monthly/annual rankings and give awards, but I don't think that every one of them are notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Minor Tournaments: King of the Ring, King of the Mountain, Bound for Glory Series, Royal Rumble... these are notable matches and tournaments in wrestling, but I see a lot of minor, no notable tournaments (specially, in TNA wrestlers) Hard 10 Tournament (The Sandman), Paparazzi Series (Shelley), a lot of Numer 1 contenders tournament (Beer Money, Shelley). Some of them have nice names, but aren't notable. Triple H won a lot of Numer 1 contenders tournament, but I don't see them, because wrestling have a lot of things like that. Crimson won the Nighmare Rumble. Nice name, but it was only a match, no A MATCH. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the Road to WrestleMania in 2006 and King of the Ring in 1997, which tournaments has Triple H won? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

Awards outside wrestling I don't see it. Keibler won a lot of awards from magazines, but no one is a wrestling awards. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

As a general rule on wikipedia, fan sites don't count towards anything. Likewise, Bleacher Report is considered unreliable. So anything fitting this description should be removed. I've seen Cauliflower Alley Club, Pro Wrestling Report, and International Wrestling Institute and Museum (AKA George Tragos/Lou Thez Hall of Fame) listed (as well as other more notable actual HOFs like the Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame) and I think these are credible because they actually have ceremonies where recipients actually show up, when possible. I agree with you on all of minor tournaments though. Brock Lesnar, Mark Henry, and Tara/Victoria are examples of how to separate non-wrestling awards in the C&A section.LM2000 (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

CAC isn't quite as notable? Wow. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 01:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it is notable. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, the ones I mentioned specifically in that sentence are ones that I think should be included in C&A because they're credible unlike fansites and Bleacher Report. When I said the PWHOF was "more notable" I was referring to it being more notable than the International Wrestling Institute and Museum.LM2000 (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we should limit the awards to the more established dirtsheets and websites. For tournament wins, like titles, everything sourced is acceptable, whether it's King of the Ring or some obscure one-night thing in Austria. ~~Awards from outside of wrestling belong in the relevant subsection, not the C&A.~~ (Actually, it's good how Victoria does it, like LM2000 says). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:35, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

I dont think that every sourced torunament is acceptable. I don't know, but a lot of them aren't notable. For example, Rey won a tournament for the WWE Title. Something like WWE Championship Tournament (2012) it's stupid, because in 50 years, WWE has hosted near 1000 tournaments. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

52 tournaments, according to WrestlingData. 78 if you count the Royal Rumble as a melee tournament. I'd figure a tournament for the WWE Championship would be one of the most notable possible (It was 2011, by the way). WWF Tag Team Championship Number One Contenders Tournament (1997), not so much. I don't really care enough to argue for it on Wikipedia, but I personally count tournament wins as achievements, like belts. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:36, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

Does that figure include the apocryphal Rio de Janeiro tournaments? RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 18:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

No, but I'd still count Patterson's win as the most important that never happened. Here are the 2721 tournaments they list for all promotions, if anyone's interested. Wins are also noted in the wrestler profiles. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:01, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think so. Like weekly matches, we can put a ource in every match that Cena or Michaels had in their career, but we don't put every weekly match because aren't notable. The same, a number One contender tournament for the IC Title... I don0't think that it's notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

How about none? The most exposure PWI and WON have today is the references to them on Wikipedia. Eliminate all magazine rankings from the C&A. Feedback ^☎ 22:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about that. Newsletters and magazines have been largely killed by the Internet, but when a lot of these were awarded, they were still very alive. Even now, most news sites still recycle Observer stories, and info sites still copy the PWI lists. I'm not for having "Ranked #126 of 500 in 1999", or runners-up for the category awards, but #1 is still notable. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

Also don't think you can compare a tournament to a single match. There are about 52 matches a month in WWE. Those certainly aren't all notable. But yeah, like I said, don't really care what we do about those here. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

Dave Meltzer and WON just had a piece done about them in the New York Times just last week. He is the most respected wrestling journalist ever and anything with that weight behind it is notable. Likewise, PWI is still sold around the country and I think the awards (specifically PWI 500) are a good barometer to measure popularity over time especially because of its kayfabe nature. I think that these awards should stay because they're not all that different from the award sections on film actor articles... their work was recognized and awarded by major publications in their respective industry and I think we should acknowledge that.LM2000 (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

So that means his silly awards deserve to be in C&A sections? If Hogan says AJ Styles is his favorite wrestler, should that also go in there? This is absurd. Feedback ^☎ 01:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I hate typing out a thoughtful response to a discussion and having it deleted because of an edit conflict because someone insisted on dragging down the discussion with an irrelevant strawman argument. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

While Meltzer does do the ranking system himself, the WON awards are polls. WON conducts them. If Hogan were to write a nonkayfabe editorial about how AJ is the greatest wrestler alive then that would be encyclopedic but would not be an award so it wouldn't be relevant to the C&A section. Meltzer did say Ric Flair was the greatest wrestler ever and this is not included in Flair's C&A but is mentioned elsewhere because it is very encyclopedic but, again, is not an award.LM2000 (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The difference between Hulk Hogan's opinion and Meltzer's is one "has conceivably written more than 33 million words, nearly all of which have been in the service of analyzing an often-maligned athletic event" and has been described as "the most accomplished reporter in sports journalism". Hulk Hogan legdropped fine, but wasn't regarded as an expert in wrestling analysis. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:51, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

Even those known to support Meltzer are occasionally given to maligning him, this early-era subscriber to the Observer included. Getting a write-up in the NYT is certainly nothing to scoff at. However, what about the journalists from Tokyo Sports who have provided color commentary over the years on Japanese wrestling programs? That's network television exposure, the sort of exposure I'm sure Meltzer would give his left nut for. Oh yeah, let's not forget the sort of exposure which comes from writing about wrestling in a publication such as Tokyo Sports, compared to the sort of circulation the Observer enjoys. Just hoping we can keep things in proper perspective. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 03:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing against Japanese expert commentators. I just can't understand a word they say and even less of what they write. Even Google Translated, it's still pretty confusing. If the top guys there give similar awards, we should note those. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:18, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

No one is disputing Meltzer's credentials as a journalist. I'm disputing whether the fact he gives out awards is noteworthy as an "accomplishment". You think CM Punk or John Cena feel "accomplished" when Meltzer gives them an "award"? Please, the WON awards are just a silly pastime that Meltzer does once a year. It is not more noteworthy than WWE's Power 25. Feedback ^☎ 13:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

All forms of entertainment have their silly annual awards. Power 25 shifted every week (or month, I forget). A WON or PWI award is more like an Oscar or BAFTA. Power 25 like the MuchMusic Countdown. I'd guess Cena and Punk feel at least a bit honoured. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:18, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty much 100% positive that more people know about the Power 25 than the PWI rankings. These are low-level magazines that are viewed by a minority of wrestling fans. Including them is silly. Feedback ^☎ 05:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

People know about Power 25, but the problem is that Power 25 isn't neutral, It's a ranking that WWE create and it's promotional (If they want to put over somebody like ryback, they put #1 becuse they want it). But PWI and WOn are the most respected magazines in pro wrestling, Like Rolling Stones. TNA uploaded a video about Rosita winning the PWI Most Inspirational Wrestler award, WCW said on Nitro that Goldberg won the PWI Rookie of the Year Award, Kigs of Wrestling said in ROH that the were the Tag Team of the Year. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That's my question. The limit? I think that PWI and WON must to be in the articles, because are the most notable publications in wrestling world. It's like Rolling Stone rankings and awards. People in the magazines know about the business and are neutral. Neutral isn't subjective, because everything is subjective, the rolling stone and the academy awards, but these people aren't in a company, too much different when we are talking about WWE Weekly Top 25. my question: Eve Torres, diva dirt award for blahblah. Notable? Because if diva dirt appears in a wiki article, why not Cagematch awards? Or my blog, where I put annual awards? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Since we're sort of back on the original topic for the time being, I think we should probably axe the Diva Dirt awards. Personally I think the criteria for including non-WON or PWI awards should be that the organizations listed are run by either notable critics or people who have actually worked in the professional wrestling industry, or if an actually awards ceremony takes place. The editors for Diva Dirt appear to be fans. I'm sure they run a good site but I don't think they have the credentials to make the cut. If you start including one fansite, even if it is well run, there's no stopping austinmark316 from posting his annual awards that he hosts on his Angelfire page.LM2000 (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's good criteria. If by "awards ceremony" you mean an actual ceremony with awardees present. We're in the future now, and I can see someone claiming a podcast or chat is a ceremony, and the wrestler acknowledging it on Twitter is an acceptance speech. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:12, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

Sounds about right. Just because austinmark316 buys a webcam and upgrades his awards show from Angelfire to YouTube doesn't make him suddenly a reliable source.LM2000 (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The Shield - lead dispute

Hello WP:PW members, yes, I have returned from WikiBreak, good to be back! :) I've jumped right into a dispute regarding the lead of The Shield (professional wrestling) because I essentially rewrote it, added/removed infomation and most importantly I added explicit sources with quotes and archives to back up what I said because I felt that the other sources in the article were not as explicit. Instead, AmericanDad86 feels that the previous lead is better from the article, that I used excessive sources from my lead, so he would rather keep the previous lead which I feel has a number of unsourced (and even ridiculous: terrorist gang) statements. I would like you all to click on the link on the title, read the two leads and our arguments and hopefully, take a stand. Thank you. Starship.paint (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Nice to see you. I think that your verion is better. It explains better what is The Shield and, If you have sources, good. Also, what's wrong with the jargon? It's an encyclopedia, we talk for clever people, not for children. Adult people know what is a " first-person hand-held recorded promo" and if the people don't know, they can find it, but erase it because is "jargon" I see stupid. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your support HHH Pedrigree, could you mind posting it on that particular talk page? Thank you! Starship.paint (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Start The Wyatt Family page?

I was wondering if we should create a page for the current NXT Tag Team Champions and soon to be debuting stable known as The Wyatt Family? WWE aired their vignette on Raw this past monday and the group began in NXT Wrestling. Should there be a page for them or wait until they make a impact on the main roster? Keith Okamoto (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I prefer to wait. They can be like the dudebusters or Puerto Rican Nightmares. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. We just deleted a bunch of stables and teams for notability reasons last month. They may reach Horsemen success, or they may be the next Team Co-Bro. Impact first. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:49, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

If there are sufficient reliable sources, go ahead and create it. Some people who don't understand WP:N might nominate it for deletion because of a non-reason like the length of time the team had been around, but we can always hope that the closing administrators in deletion discussions will someday remember that the [i]actual[/i] notabililty guidelines are more important than the number of votes from people who have simply created their own criteria. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

They are notable. Bray Wyatt's stable has been active for over a year. It's the insignificant developmental tag teams and stables that should be deleted. Feedback ^☎ 22:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

If someone wants to create it, I'm not so opposed that I'll try to delete it or argue notability. Just enough to say "I'd wait" once here. I wish those three well, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:55, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

I still thinking that we have to wait. With sources like PWTorch, PWInsider or WON and 7 weekly shows, we can create any tag team, like Cena & Ryback or Cro Bro. I only see that the TV Programs are notable, no the tag teams. When the Tag team will make an impact on WWE, we should create it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, some fan out there is definitely going to create it soon (if not once they debut on Raw). The question is, are we going to try to delete that article? Starship.paint (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't try to delete any tag team ofthe project. I only create an AfD in some cases. For example, a Tag Team that was formed three years ago and somebody create the article, but hree months later, the tag team was disbanded and in 3 years nobody remember it. If a fan create the article I don't try to delete, but I don't want that, in 2017, find an article that says "Wyatt family spent one year in NXT, where they won the tag team championship. They wrestled in the main roster and, one month later, the disbanded because Brodie Lee was fired"--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally I'd rather see an individual standalone article for Erick Rowan first, if anybody can find any decent sources. Duffs101 (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but if it is easier to establish notability for the Wyatt Family than it is to establish notability for Rowan individually then the family should come first.LM2000 (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Style guide

Unsure of how many people watch WP:PW/SG, so noting this edit of mine here. Personally, I feel it's a long overdue one – Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turning Point (2008)/archive4 was in February 2012. For those interested, Turning Point (2008 wrestling) is the project's most recently promoted FA. Kindly let me know if disagreement ensues, I haven't had any WP:PW pages watchlisted in a very long time. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 09:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Courtney Rush's real name

Could some of you give your thoughts on Courtney Rush wanting her real name removed from Wikipedia? I put the real name on the article and was approached by Tabercil about removing it. Please post your thoughts here.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

HELL NO. We have rules. We have reliable sources. In Spanish wikipedia, I have a lot of problems because mexican luchadores don't want their real names in Wikipedia (special, El Hijo del Santo and Mistico. One time, El hijo del santo's lawler said to us that put the real name is against the Constitution.). But hell no, we can't write articles with sources if people appear and tell us what they want. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm...one of my primary areas of interest is biographical articles. Unfortunately, one of the impediments to writing proper biographical articles is when people, often people directly associated with or partial to the subject, throw up the BLP shield as an excuse to instead turn them into hagiographies. I had this discussion once with one of the admins whom I occasionally converse with here. It was his opinion that if properly sourced information exists, there's not necessarily any recourse on their part. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 19:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

RadioKAOS why don't you post your opinion on that particular talk page... Ribbon Salminen has provided a link... It would also help if you got straight to your point / stated your position at the start of your post. Starship.paint (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I realize that most folks today are conditioned to think in soundbites, but I don't handle that quite as well. Also, remember that I'm ancient. When someone mentions "the point", I usually think of Harry Nilsson and "Me and My Arrow". RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 19:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I like the cut of your jib. The point's always there, but comes wrapped in an interesting bonus siderant. And you've enlightened this whippersnapper more than a few times by Wikilinking your archaic pop references. Too many ancients just wing those out there, and miss by a mile. With you, it seems more educational than spiteful or out-of-touch. You're no Abe Simpson yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion alert

There has been a discussion flashing across my watchlist this morning at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Link to ProWresBlog which may be of interest to folks here (there, is that concise enough?). RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 19:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move: Claudio Castagnoli > Antonio Cesaro

You can vote here. McPhail (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I've also requested that Dixie Carter-Salinas be moved to Dixie Carter (wrestling) - you can vote here. McPhail (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thrasher (wrestler) and Mosh (wrestler)

I'd like to merge these two articles into a single article at The Headbangers. My view is that neither wrestler had a particularly significant singles career and so it would make sense to cover their careers in a single article. Please let me know if you have any thoughts on this. McPhail (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. They spent enough of their careers in singles wrestling to warrant separate articles (which could stand some expansion on their own). Things are fine as they are right now. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Mosh did have that run as Chaz and Beaver Cleavage that could be argued as notable enough for his own article. The conclusion of that angle did see the reformation of The Headbangers so that argument could go either way.LM2000 (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thrasher has had some success as a singles wrestler, too. Debatable what a WWF Hardcore and WWA (Jersey, I think) Heavyweight title are worth, but definitely separate from Mosh/Chaz. They're much more closely linked than say, Ax and Smash or the Hardys, but still enough of their own histories (as people and characters), which would seem out of place in the Headbanger article. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:01, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

NXT Wrestlers on Wikipedia

What exactly are the criteria for giving certain wrestlers on NXT their own Wikipedia article? I have one saved in my pages that I had recently brought up in a discussion that has been archived and I have been working on it when I have had the time and as resources have become available to validate the information necessary to at least create a start-class article to allow other editors to contribute and build upon what I have started. The link to the page is right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scca8704/Sam_Udell . Any recommendations and help would be greatly appreciated. Scca8704 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thing about having an article, you need notability, which would be demonstrated by multiple reliable secondary sources (list is here). Right now I'm not seeing any from your article. How to get the sources? Two things: 1) While in NXT, has he debuted on the television show, and if so has he won a match (not presented like a jobber)? Unfortunately a jobber is all that Travis Tyler is right now. It's not really notable if he's getting squashed. 2) What did he do before NXT? If he was in the independent/international circuit? If he was involved in the "bigger" independent/international shows you can find secondary sources. (See Pac (wrestler) / Sterling James Keenan / Brodie Lee) If he was in football or bodybuilding you might be able to elaborate on that too. (See Percy Watson (released I know) / Roman Reigns / Big E Langston). Looking at CageMatch and Profightdb, Tyler hasn't been on the independent scene, so you're finding no sources on that unfortunately. If you ask me, he definitely does not deserve an article now, until he is promoted from jobber status. Starship.paint (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm just making sure. The Colorado Independent Wrestling scene doesn't always have reliable websites and it doesn't give me much to go on. I do know he does have a notable amateur wrestling background but I'm still doing the research on that. Again I appreciate the feedback.Scca8704 (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

Scott Garland (wrestler) > Scotty 2 Hotty.

You can vote here. McPhail (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

WWE and NXT

Recently, NXT has become more prevalent on WWE.com. WWE NXT has reappeared as one of the shows on the Shows tab. Clicking that link leads you to see that a new article profiling Bo Dallas' win of the NXT Championship; likewise it also lists the Wyatt Family winning the NXT Tag Team Championship. Also, from the profile list of WWE Superstars, it's possible to access a list of NXT wrestlers from the "Current" menu option. More and more NXT wrestlers have their bios appearing on WWE.com, even the jobbers like Knuckles Madsen and Judas Devlin. Given all this, I would just like to query, is it time to add the various NXT championships to Template:WWE Championships? I cannot understand the discrepancy with listing the NXT wrestlers in Template:WWE personnel but not having the championships listed under a "developmental" subsection of Template:WWE Championships.
Please join the discussion at the template's talk page here instead of replying here on WT:PW. Starship.paint (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Manager (professional wrestling)

When we look at the manager article, we have what I consider "traditional" managers in Paul Bearer, Jimmy Hart and Armando Estrada, and then we have a weirdly named section "Nomenclature" which talks about valets and enforcers. Question I would like to ask is, are these valets and enforcers considered as managers as well?

Why does this matter? Because according to the style guide, in each professional wrestler's "In wrestling" section there is both a "managed by" and "managed for" list. Let me point you to the Dolph Ziggler article right now. Ziggler's managers are listed as Taryn Terrell, Big Rob, Maria, Vickie Guerrero, Kaitlyn, Jack Swagger, AJ Lee and Big E Langston. Ziggler is said to have managed Kerwin White, Vickie Guerrero, Jack Swagger and Big E Langston. Now the most obvious example of a traditional manager for Ziggler would be Guerrero, but AJ is clearly a valet and Big E (probably Big Rob as well) is clearly an enforcer. So do valets and enforcers deserve to be under this "managed by" list?

Meanwhile Ziggler is considered to have managed White, (because he was his caddy?) Vickie, (because he accompanied her to a ring for her match?) Swagger, (because they were both being managed by Vickie?) and Big E (because Big E is his enforcer and Big E was presumably having a match?) Lots of ??? here. Starship.paint (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think of "manager" as a catch-all term for "person who accompanies wrestlers to the ring and isn't a wrestler themselves". McPhail (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A bigger isdue I see is that the manager article has no sources whatsoever. That needs so work.--174.93.167.9 (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

In my eyes, a wrestling "manager" should seem more businesslike, and concerned with getting their clients up the ladder. I'd apply it to people like Mr. Fuji, Bobby Heenan or Alexandra York. Someone who mostly cheerleads at ringside (virtually any "Diva"), or stands there with crossed arms (virtually any "Superstar") isn't a manager to me.

But yeah, that's my view. Wikipedia should count Kelly Kelly and Langston as managers. The distinctions are clear to some, but not to others, and it would lead to subjective arguments about who to include in "Managed (by)" sections. As for the article itself, of course, needs sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:41, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

Kelly Kelly? Did you mean AJ? Anyway, okay, if we consider Vickie, AJ and Big E as Ziggler's managers in the broad sense of the term, then Ziggler cannot be their manager am I right? He should not be listed as the manager of Vickie or Big E or Swagger. Starship.paint (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I just used her as one example, and Langston as another. Didn't mean them as a set. I don't watch as much as I used to, but I just saw AJ last night and understand the setup. AJ's the valet, Vickie's the manager, Langston's the enforcer, Ziggler and Swagger are stablemates and Kaitlyn shouldn't be anywhere near a ring, let alone a belt. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:01, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

Vickie and Swagger have nothing to do with Ziggler anymore. Just FYI. oknazevad (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I sort of figured that, but wasn't sure. Anyway, his manager section is fixed now. We should stick to sources that explicitly call someone a manager (or similar), rather than synthesizing from single event results of someone accompanying someone to ringside. An accompanier isn't necessarilly a manager (like a move isn't always a signature move). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:44, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear, a stablemate is nothing like a manager/enforcer/valet. Dolph Ziggler or Jack Swagger count as nothing like that for any of their crew. Only "Kerwin" for "Nemeth". A caddy is like a valet, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:07, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

Moved articles

User Kennywood fan has been moving several articles from their common name to their real names without discussion. I'm not on my desktop and am having trouble moving them back.LM2000 (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Cardona redirects to Matthew Cardona (wwe). I don't know if I could make that more wrong if I tried. I think I remember the process for speedy deleting and moving back. I'll give it a shot. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:08, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

Too complicated. I just asked at the Move Request page instead. Seems to be the last of them. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

Citing sources like this.

I refer you to this edit, where the following source from WrestlingInc is added. While we don't consider WrestlingInc reliable (yet at least), we do consider the Wrestling Observer reliable, and the WrestlingInc article seems to have stemmed from the Observer. Yet, since the Observer requires paid subscription we don't actually know if the report really came from the Observer. So should we accept this as a source? Starship.paint (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd use it. That site (like many) regularly cites The Observer. If they were making shit up (in general), some Observer reader with a Twitter account (or Meltzer himself) would have called them on it by now. I think they know it wouldn't be wise to lie. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:54, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

File:Karl Pojello wrestler.jpeg

File:Karl Pojello wrestler.jpeg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing virtual time coverage of blah, blah, blah...

Would anyone have a problem with trimming these PWTorch results (like CALDWELL'S WWE RAW RESULTS 12/17: Complete "virtual-time" coverage of live Raw - The strangest show of the year concludes with the debut of a new monster heel; Ric Flair returns") to simply "CALDWELL'S WWE RAW RESULTS 12/17"?

Or to take it a bit further, would it make sense to replace <ref>{{cite web|last=Caldwell|first=James|title=CALDWELL'S WWE RAW RESULTS 10/15: Complete "virtual-time" coverage of live Raw - what was McMahon's "decision?," ten matches|url=http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/wwerawreport/article_65969.shtml#.Ub2V6Oe1F7M| work=Pro Wrestling Torch|accessdate=15 October 2012}}" with <ref>[http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/wwerawreport/article_65969.shtml "CALDWELL'S WWE RAW RESULTS 10/15", from PWTorch.com]</ref>?

These things make take up way too much space and make editing tedious, I find. You? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:41, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

I'd strongly disagree with this. Per WP:REF, all this information should be included. McPhail (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It does only say "typically", but your point is noted.

We could still trim everything after the colon, like the first example (more tagline than title), and be within that guideline. Are you also against that? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any objections to that. McPhail (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

John Cena's article is 2,550 bytes lighter, but it's kind of tedious. Do you (or someone else) know of a way a bot could help? Say, scan Wikipedia and remove everything between the colon and whatever "|" is called, wherever it sees "Caldwell's"? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:21, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

I don't really have any objections to the "untrimmed" versions, really (but I'm probably the one who added them) Starship.paint (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Diva-Dirt

I'm here to propose WP:PW to consider Diva-Dirt as a reliable sources for wrestling articles. Diva-Dirt gives articles about injurys, personal life, appearances in non wrestling shows such as Nikki Bella as a judge for Miss USA, Full length matches that Wrestleview and other wrestling news sites most of the time don't give. Wrestling sites only care about high profile matches. Baby V (talk) a.k.a Miss X-Factor

All the info you list is already generally covered by reliable sources (here is Nikki Bella from a wrestling site, and here is the press release Diva-Dirt likely read). Not sure if you mean match reviews or videos by "full length matches", but if you mean videos, there's not much we can use from them that wouldn't be synthesis. If there's something specific and useful this site has that I'm missing, let me know. But from what I see, its niche is filled. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at the diva-dirt "team", and compare it to the PWTorch's team and the PWInsider team. We don't really know who the writers are, nor their background in wrestling. In terms of longevity, compared to the other reliable sources we have currently, they're the newest at 2008. Also, from some of their articles, I get this informal vibe which is not very reassuring. See this?

However, exclusive interviews are fine. Also, seems to have focus on the indies which I'm not sure if other sources provide, another plus point is the featured reviews of DVDs.

Ultimately, Wikipedia:SOURCES states "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." - does it fulfil that? Starship.paint (talk) 07:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree on the Writers thing and this this? However, exclusive interviews and indies that other sources don't provide. I see old FCW matches that was never written about covered on Diva-Dirt until it became NXT covered on there. They cover things that hasn't been covered by other wrestling sites. Baby V (talk) a.k.a Miss X-Factor

Yeah, interviews are fine. Preferably audio or video over text (for verifiability), but text could be useable, depending on the case. That Stephanie article's facts are straight, but even if it wasn't amateurish, it's clearly cited to Lords of Pain (also unreliable), which credits the Observer (reliable). If we needed to use the info and have an online source, LoP is closer on the chain.

Match reviews are iffy. We could probably use them to say what happened in the match (if no higher site does), but not to give any value judgments. Opinions must be made by prestigious analysts. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:58, June 23, 2013 (UTC)

Seems this website is already fairly widely used for things that are clearly available from reliable sources (Raw/SmackDown results, rehashed news, etc.). I'll fix them where I can, but (luckily for the site's fans) I'm only one man, and a fairly lazy one. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:49, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

I'm a great editor that uses reliable sources for wrestling articles, I feel that Diva-Dirt has the ability to become one of the best wrestling news sites. They have good articles that most wrestling sites don't have. I agree about there match reviews in which not to give any value judgments. Opinions must be made by prestigious analysts.Baby V (talk) a.k.a Miss X-Factor

Ultimately I do not think that diva-dirt can fit under "Websites proven reliable", I just think it's not professional enough. However, it does have a niche in independent wrestling, DVD or interviews, so I propose that we include it in the next section instead, "Other websites (not yet proven)", while explicitly stating that it is to be only used for independent wrestling, DVD or interviews. Any other sections of the website should be covered by more reliable sources. How does this sound? Starship.paint (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I have to agree with you mostly. I think Diva-Dirt should only be reliable which should just cover like you said independent wrestling, DVD, interviews and personal life information for now. Hopefully it would become more professional as time comes. Baby V (talk) a.k.a Miss X-Factor

Anyone have any objections to this? Starship.paint (talk) 04:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I support Starship.paint's proposal of adding Diva-dirt to "Other websites (not yet proven)" with the note about it being only used for independents, interviews (etc.). I mean most credible sources refer back to the Observer, PWInsider, SLAM! or PWI so no need to include that many more sites in "Websites proven reliable" accept for a few exceptions. STATic message me! 04:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I support it as well. Also include TNA Xplosion. Baby V (talk) a.k.a Miss X-Factor

ProWrestling.net has Xplosion results. As does PWTorch. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:25, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

I believe Baby V's point is that Torch/Dot Net and others like PWInsider no longer do detailed reports on TNA Xplosion (at least right now or for some time already), which is true. However I have been able to find Xplosion results because as Hulk has shown, Torch/Dot Net/Insider post spoilers of Impact tapings which Xplosion precedes, which contain match results. Does it need to be more detailed than that given how irrelevant Xplosion is? Baby V, the way forward for you is to argue why we need these detailed results for Xplosion. Starship.paint (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I had no idea Xplosion was still a show. I guess if reliable sources don't have recent results, someone else would have to do. Diva-Dirt is as good a someone else as any. But if nothing notable ever happens on Xplosion, I guess it's a moot point. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:22, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

Requested move: Matt Hyson to Spike Dudley

You can vote here. McPhail (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I've also requested moves for Dave Batista to Batista (wrestler) and for Bob Holly to Hardcore Holly. McPhail (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Plus Nora Greenwald to Molly Holly. McPhail (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You know, these come up frequently enough to where I would think you could devote a project subpage to it. While we're at it, Larry Johnson (wrestler) or Sonny King? RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 02:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Sonny King makes sense. Never wrestled as Johnson or anything else for sixteen years, as far as I can see. The singer Sonny King had the name longer, but was limited geographically, so he gets the qualifier, and the wrestler gets "For the singer, see...". Or maybe it should be "see Sonny King (singer), see?" (that's basically all I know about the non-wrestling Rat Pack) InedibleHulk (talk) 02:52, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed we don't even have a Rat Pack (wrestling). Maybe for the best, I don't know. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:36, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

If anyone else cares about Sonny King, here you go. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:39, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Most of these seem like they could be moved without discussion, as they could hardly be considered controversial. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

All of the proposals other than Matt Hyson have been opposed by at least one person, and it looks as though most people don't want Dave Batista to be moved, so I think it's only fair that they're listed here. McPhail (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I listed the Sonny King one because of the possible controversy over moving it to a current disambig page. Plus, I don't know how to delete it to make room for the move, regardless of whether anyone cares about either Sonny King. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:32, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

You know, I previously noticed and then totally forgot about the dab page when I made the suggestion about Sonny King. Yes, you are delving into WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:TWODABS, so RM is appropriate. Maybe also solicit discussion from outside the project. Go back to the primary topic discussion for Ray Stevens, while you're at it.

I had another one which was bothering me, but I've temporarily forgotten. See below for two redirects which should be discussed. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 01:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd figured a move request tag automatically solicited discussion on some wider noticeboard. Probably not as well as a human could, in any case. Maybe I'll ask someone. Not sure what you mean by the Ray Stevens thing, but I fiddled with that disambig, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:43, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

May as well move the entire Holly family while we're at it. To move Mike Lockwood to Crash Holly vote here.

File:Bruno Sammartino Wrestling Pose.jpg

Is the license in this photograph accurate? If so, can we use it to upload pre-1977 promo photos (like this one) to illustrate the pages of the old school wrestlers? Several of the old time Hall of Famers have images labeled as "fair use", when pre-1977 promo shots of them are all over the web. 24.50.209.121 (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Promo photos (any advertising, really) are pretty easy to rationalize for fair use. They were given out, for free or per autograph, in large numbers. Even if we're not sure of copyright status, using a copy here hurts someone's financial opportunities even less than Bruno's "backbreaker" seemed to hurt backs. Especially if the advertised wrestler is retired or dead. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:53, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but fair use images are frequently under the siege of people that only work with licenses, even in cases where the person is dead. By modifying them to this one it can be avoided. For example, the image that I linked is 100% guaranteed to be dated 1971-73, since that is the time that he held the title. Yet, since he is still alive (reclusive, but alive) the article is completely lacking a photo. That is an article that discusses a Hall of Famer and world champion, I can't image how many of the "lesser" older wrestlers are also lacking images. 24.50.209.121 (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It only needs to be freely licenced if you're uploading it to Commons. For use on en.wikipedia, you just have to explain how it's necessary to illustrate the subject of the article and how you've considered the impact it won't have on any possible copyright owners.

But yeah, I guess the pre-'77 thing would apply to Morales just the same as Sammartino. No indication of any copyright notice, and no reason to believe it would be protected. Publicity shots are meant to be distributed. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:47, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been very active on Commons lately. From what I can gather, however, it needs to be like a publicity handout with no visible copyright marks, or if it was published in a wrestling magazine, the publication has fallen out of copyright. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 01:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

NXT Championship and List of NXT Champions

Assuming it was an obvious and uncontroversial edit, I moved the list of reigns onto NXT Championship, blanked List of NXT Champions and redirected it to the main article. The table is too short to split it off into its own article, similar to NXT Tag Team Championship. Anyway, User:Richard BB reverted my merger and cited that I needed a discussion. Does anyone oppose the edit? Feedback ^☎ 20:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I remember the old rule was that we would only split a list off once it hits 10 reigns. Is that rule still in place? Feedback ^☎ 20:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that three is too few for a standalone. The rest repeats the NXT Championship article, anyway. I don't think I was here for any ten-reign rule, but that seems a fair standard. Not opposed. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:46, June 26, 2013 (UTC)

When I say old, I mean old. I started editing at WP:PW around 2006-2007. I vaguely recall the rule, but obviously, there's a new guard at the project, so I'm officially seeking consensus for the rule to be implemented again. Feedback ^☎ 21:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I started editing wrestling articles about that time, but in a very minor way. Wasn't even aware of the Wikiproject (though I vaguely recall you from talk pages). I mysteriously vanished for a few years, gained a beard and education and returned as a fairly major heel in 2011. Then Damien Sandow stole my gimmick. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, June 26, 2013 (UTC)

A) I agree with merging; there has been 3 champions, far too few for a standalone list. B) LOL, Hulk. oknazevad (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

PS. Sandow stole Lenny Poffo's gimmick, right down to the beard. He just does it a lot better. oknazevad (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Bah! Nobody can top The Genius. He's like Nelson Muntz and Martin Prince rolled into one, with a bit of Tiger Mask thrown in. But yeah, somebody's always ripping something off in wrestling. The academic and queer gimmicks are almost as old as the farmer and Arab ones. Sandow does it well enough, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:30, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

Again, What is a World Heavyweight Championship?

I saw an article the other day. List of professional wrestling world champions I remembered the discussion about what is a WHC in the article World heavyweight championship (professional wrestling). The second article is about what is a WHC and the first, about the wrestlers who won whc, so I think that the list must to be the same. But no, I miss some titles, like the CZW, PWG or WWC. User Oknazevad said that we can't include the titles, because are small indy promotions. I don't think so, because the definition "world heavyweight championship" never talks about the size of a company. So, what do you think? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll quote myself from the discussion at that talk page:

Truth is, limiting the list here and there to the top titles of companies that have (or had) national television exposure in their respective home countries is a clear, objective way to ensure notability while maintaining neutrality. That's the problem with just putting up every minor promotion that puts "world" in their title's name; a dirtsheet's website reprinting routine coverage of the results supplied by an Indy does nothing to establish notability. It is routine coverage regurgitating non-independent sourcing.

And amongst Indys, it's very common for wrestlers to appear at different shows toting their belts, so a CZW guy showing up at card promoted by another Indy does not mean anything. And you couldn't have picked a worse example than PWG, as they don't even have a distinct belt design, simply using a generic, off-the-shelf Indy belt. These are exactly the sort of promotions that don't belong here.oknazevad (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you are confusing notability with prestige - the former is objective, the latter is subjective. If a championship isn't notable, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all - it's as simple as that. if you think the PWG World Championship (or any other title) isn't notable, please start a deletion page.

The only objective way of populating the page "World heavyweight championship (professional wrestling)" is to have a list of titles that are known as world (heavyweight) championships. Anything else is making a judgement about what constitutes a world heavyweight championship, which is blatant original research.

The article List of professional wrestling world champions is basically fan fiction.

-What is "a predominant worldwide presence"? Does the NWA World Heavyweight Championship really have one? Do the belts that are never defended outside of Mexico or Japan have one?

-"To be given a championship, is an indication of possessing above average athletic skills, charisma, popularity, drawing power, marketability, or any combination of these factors". Is it? Source?

-"the particular wrestler holding it is recognized by his respective promotion(s) as the best drawcard in their particular promotion today". Source?

If you think a belt is non-notable, please list it at WP:AFD. Don't edit the page to reflect your own opinion of what constitutes a world heavyweight championship. No editor has the authority to decree what constitutes a world heavyweight championship. McPhail (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll second McPhail's statements. Wikipedia should not be in the business of deciding which championships are prominent enough to be recognized as world championships and which should be completely discarded. As it stands now, List of professional wrestling world champions absolutely reeks of original research and clear NPOV violations.LM2000 (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia regularly discusses concepts of major or minor in sports, reflecting what reliable sources cover. That is hardly original research. It's clearly exercising legitimate editorial judgement. Unless you really are arguing that PWG is equivalent to WWE. That, more than anything, would be non-neutral, as it serves only to promote. oknazevad (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

In my editorial judgment (and as a smark), the titles listed as current World Championships are exactly as they should be. No more, no less. I was taught to be a smark from the same magazines and Internet that made us all, so if I figure those are the top titles of the most prominent promotions (regardless of the word "world"), I think it's safe to assume it's also the consensus (maybe not as much here on Wikipedia, but among "experts" in general).InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

For clarification, do you mean the list at World heavyweight championship (professional wrestling) now, or the shorter one from before McPhail reverted (while discussion is ongoing) that matches the one at List of professional wrestling world champions? oknazevad (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The second one, without the indies. I'm only using that word loosely, but hopefully it's clear which ones I mean. Don't want to argue semantics. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:20, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

I Still thinking like McPhail. Every championship that have the word World, Global, Universal... is a World Championship. We are talking about notable titles or prestigeos titles? Pro Wrestling isn't a sport, it's entertainment. We haven't an organization who decides what is a world title and the number of world titles today. The only that decides what is a world title it's the company himself (PWI doens't count, because it's a magazine without power over the promotions). I think that we should inclue indy promotions, because websites like PWInsider or PWTorch talk about them, so I think that they have a global coverage. Also, I don't know the criteria to include a champion as world champion. For example, NWA. I don't know why I can't find CZW champions (a big indy promotion, shows with near 500 assistances in arenas, defended in Europe...) but I can find NWA Champions (a small promotion that in the past was prestigeous, but today, is a tiny promotion. Even PWI says that the NWA isn't a world championship). I think that a promotion like CZW should be in the list and no NWA, but again, what's the criteria to include a promotion or a titles as WHC? Again, in the article I can read that the IGF version of the IWGP Title is a world champion. Why? IGF is a very small promotion and IGF created his own version of a world title, but It doesn't mean that it was a world title. In that case, the current tiel, the IGF championship, must be included. That means that, to say that a world title is a world title, is about the title, not the company. Other case, ECW. ECW was a very small promotion with a lot of fame and PWI only recognized as World Title since 1999. In that case, if we are talking about national tv program, The Sandman is only 1 time world champion. But Sandman is 5 time world champion, so I don't see what's difference between the early ECW and PWG or CZW. Any case, I prefer that you talk bout this, because (you know) I'm from Spain and usually, I suck when I have to talk with people and explain my point of view. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Just one thought about what you said here, after mulling it over. You said, "The only that decides what is a world title it's the company himself (PWI doesn't count, because it's a magazine without power over the promotions)." But that's quite backwards, as the independence of PWI from any one promotion is what makes them a more reliable judge of importance and significance than any self-interested promotion. That's the real problem with saying "everyone that says their title is a world title counts"; in an attempt to be neutral, we actually wind up being less neutral and become promotional. oknazevad (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope that you understand me. I said that I see to many contradictions. What is a WHC? If we are talking about promotion size, I don't understand why the ECW Champions before 1999 are WHC and the NWA Title is a WHC and the PWG or CZW titles aren't. What defines a world title? National TV Program? Size of the promotion? Travels around the world? The only thing that describes, without a doubt, if a title is a World Heavyweight Championship, are the words "World Heavyweight Championship" in the title. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

When we sort out whether championships count, we deal in sources. The second article is more of an arbitrary list dealing in original research and personal opinion. It does closely resemble the PWI criteria, but as HHH pointed out PWI no longer recognizes the NWA WHC so it doesn't even stay loyal to that one source. If we continue to recognize the post-TNA NWA reigns we may as well recognize PWG, CZW, etc. If we choose not to recognize those reigns then we may as well move the article to List of professional wrestling world championship reigns recognized by PWI or something to that effect.LM2000 (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Oknazevad, I don't think anyone would argue that "PWG is equivalent to WWE". The argument would be that they both meet a minimum threshold of notability. If any of the titles listed at world heavyweight championship (professional wrestling) aren't notable (and I'd agree that some of them may not be notable), then they should be deleted from Wikipedia. However, having an article on Wikipedia for (for example) the WXw Unified World Wrestling Championship but not listing it at world heavyweight championship (professional wrestling) is not logical.

InedibleHulk, I think the issue with talking about the "most prominent" promotions is that there are anomalies such as the NWA World Heavyweight Championship, which obviously has much less exposure now than when it appeared on WCW/TNA television.

Sure, now. But there's no doubting the historical legacy. Encyclopedias shouldn't be as concerned with the contemporary as newspapers and TV shows. The NWA belt is prestigious in the same way the Commonwealth throne is. Elizabeth II and Rob Conway aren't on Barack Obama or John Cena's level today, but Henry VIII and Ric Flair were no Buddy Rogers or William H. Harrison, either. You know? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:42, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

As HHH Pedrigree and LM2000 have said, I don't see it as our role to make decisions about which world heavyweight championships are more prestigious than others. Coming up with an arbitrary standard - e.g. only titles that appeared on national television - is original research and also biases the article towards more recent titles (given that none of the pre-1980s titles had national television exposure). McPhail (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that the problem is this phrase: "The following is a list of all recognized world champions in professional wrestling history ". Again, WHO recognizes a world title as official or real world title? It doesn't exist an organization that rules the pro wrestling. A title will be World Title when the company calls it World Title (PWG and ROH declared that the PWG and ROH Titles were World Titles when they was defended in Europe). I think that the list is a potential AfD, because we can't talk about all the world titles in the world and, of course, we can determinate what is a World Title, beacuse we haven't sources or a definition. The other article says "Examples of active world heavyweight championships" and "This is a non-exhaustive list of active professional wrestling championships currently or formerly...", no " (All) Active world heavyweight championships". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

If it includes the word "World", it's a world championship. Wikipedia editors have no place trying to establish a definition beyond that. 50.92.81.53 (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

By that logic, hot dogs and Dog the Bounty Hunter should be in List of dog breeds. Part of what makes an editor different than a keyword bot is judgment. If Jack Shit Championship Wrestling pays a few hundred bucks to have the word "World" engraved on a belt for barn shows, that's all that means. Listing it alongside something like the AJPW Triple Crown or WWE Championship just waters down the the whole concept of a world title. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. oknazevad (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

But the Jack Shit Championship Wrestling World Championship wouldn't meet notability criteria, so it wouldn't appear on Wikipedia. The other titles do. McPhail (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

For the purposes of this argument, JSCW can be replaced by FIP or CZW. That's not a knock on their quality, just their prestige level. Bigger than a barn, but not mainstream big (CZW is sort of mainstream, but in a "Won't somebody think of the children?" way, not a wrestling way). InedibleHulk (talk) 14:39, June 23, 2013 (UTC)

Again, we meet the main problem: we haven't sources. We all have in our mind the concept of a world title, but nobody can sourced it. We all know that is a title with some world like World, Universal, Global... and is the top title in a promotion. OK, thats fine and every promotion in the world say it, since WWE to Triple W, here in Spain. Since here, we haven't sources and it's our personal concept, so we can't choose the world titles. If you, Hulk, don't think that Viral, WHC in Triple W in Spain is a world champion, ok, it's your opinion. But Triple W says that he is a world champion because he won the world title of the promotion. It's not opinion, it's a fact and we can add a source. Again, without an organization that rules the world of Pro Wrestling, defines World Heavyweight Championship and writes a list with the recognized WHC now, we can't say "this is the list of all recognized WHC now".--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying. Verifiability's important on Wikipedia. We just disagree on whether a general consensus among editors is more important. Some articles here could theoretically be written completely by computer, like a form letter. But humans know things computers don't, even if we can't be so sure of how and why.

Definitely easier your way, since there will always be humans who think outside the consensus. I like the right way, but I've always been a fan of the easy way, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:49, June 23, 2013 (UTC)

In that case, I think that the discussion is over. Without a organization that recognizes what is a world title and the official world titles active and inactive, we can't make a distinction. I think that the aricle WHC shloud have indy titles, because are less prestigious, but still world titles. The list of WHC, I think that it should be delete. We can put examples of WHC, because we don't know the number of WHC in the world, but we can't put a list about some of the world champions or list of the world champions that we choose. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the second article should face an AfD. I do like the idea of having a table listing the total number of world championships per wrestler, however I think such a list will become unmanageable once every indy world title gets mentioned. But if anybody has any ideas on how to handle such a list I'd like to hear them out. If we do come to an agreement it should be included in the first article, a second article is unnecessary either way.LM2000 (talk)

Yeah, we definitely don't need two. Even if they match. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

I that case, I think that we should open a AfD for the list of champions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll answer Hulk and Oknazevad. I understand both of you. But again, the problem is that pro wrestling hasn't a council or organization that says what is a WHC and the official list. For example, List of current world boxing champions "The first of today's organizations to award a world title was the World Boxing Association". That's what I'm talking, without an organization like this, we can't talk about "official" list. Yeah, PWI helps talking about the most important titles, but PWI doesn't recognized Mexican nor Japanese titles, also NWA and ECW were recognized some years. Again, when Jimmy Snuka won the ECW title, it was the ECW Heaviweight title, no a World title, but we consider him as 2 times world champion, but we don't put Adam Cole in that list when he is the PWG World Champion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's say you're out one night and happen to go home with some obscure duchess or countess. A few years later, England is nuked, the Top 40 in the line of succession are vaporized and your friend becomes queen. From that day forward, you can brag about fucking the queen, just like Snuka can brag about holding a world championship (and getting away with murder, of course).

But let's say you go to a different bar, and head home with someone named Queen Lashonda. A few minutes later, you find a king-sized sceptre under his dress. You likely wouldn't (assuming you're straight) rank that night with the countess one, if you mention it at all. Same deal with Adam Cole.

No source for that, just the way I see it. Sometimes we have to call things how we see them, based on years of experience, whether or not we have an absolute source written in stone. PWI's a good place to start from, though. Their list establishes the general kind of title a world title is, and from there, a reasonable person might apply it to similar "foreign" titles. It's a bit against Wiki policy, but for the better good. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

Your idea of a "good place to start from" is a known biased magazine that in addition to being outdated (two months behind what is happening in wrestling) the publication itself is on life support? 99.43.175.19 (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's take boxing as an example. How many alphabet soup sanctioning bodies are there with all those "world" titles? Yet there is certainly a difference understood between the WBA or WBC or IBF and any of the myriad of less notable groups like the WBF. The WBF calls their titles world titles, but no one else in the boxing press considers it to be one. So why is wrestling different? What body declares the WBA official and not the WBF? That's not addressed by your claim. oknazevad (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Difference between wrestling and boxing is that boxing is a sport and pro wrestling is fake. Sports has organizations that put rules, recognized this kind of thing. Pro Wrestling hasn't organizations, because it's fiction and every promotion rules over his fictional universe. We can talk about real or official o recognized world champions because nobody says what is a world champion. Description "In professional wrestling, the world (heavyweight) championship - alternatively, the global, international or universal (heavyweight) championship - is the name given to certain championships by promoters. A wrestler holding a championship with this name is referred to as the world (heavyweight) champion." I don't see think like "it must be a major promotion", "a WHC must be defended around the world", no, I only read "is a championship with the word World". Again, the only that recognized a wrestler as world champion is the promotion. WWE considers Ric Flair as 16 champion and PWG considers Adam Cole as 1 time world champion. We haven't sources to this, only our interpretations about what is a WHC. You think that PWG shouldn't be included, I think that PWG shloud be included. User X thinks that ECW Championship (WWE version) isn't a world championship, User Y think that mexican titles aren't world championships. I think that the best idea is delete all the list, because is stupid. We haven't a source about what is a WHC and if we are talking to include PWG or not, is my word against your word. In the other article, we say "Examples of active world heavyweight championships", no "The following is a list of all recognized world champions in professional wrestling history as organized by most championship reigns. A championship (also called a title) in professional wrestling is a recognition promoted by professional wrestling organizations." Again, I don't read anything about minor or major promotions. I read is a recognition promoted by professional wrestling organizations. CZW is a professional wrestling promotion, has a championship with the word WORLD, recognizes Masada as his World Champion, so I don't understand why we don't include him in the list. When I read the first line, I think that promotions like WWC, PWG, CZW must appear in the article. If you'll change the description and add something like "major promotions", I'll asked a source. Again, the title " What is a World Heavyweight Championship?" and "Source?" --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Any case, does everybody agree that "list of world champions" should be delete due to we can't say what is a WHC? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. The list has strong value as a one stop place for readers to see and compare which titles wrestlers have held in their careers. And I still reject the premise that just because an Indy stamps the word "world" on their belt we have to go along with their self-promotion. oknazevad (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete both articles A concept with definition that could possibly be agreed upon in a NPOV manner just leads to drawn out arguments that don't matter. Wikipedia authors cannot create their own authoritative definition. If the article needs to stay (but the list should definitely go), it should discuss the various criteria employed by experts in attaining their own definitions, and it should not include any Wikipedia author's personal opinions or definitions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the list should be deleted. As I've said before, I do think it is a good idea, but would be unmanageable once every world championship is included. Either way, if a list is to exist it should exist on the first page, a second one is entirely unnecessary. Perhaps Gary is right that even the first article is more trouble than it is worth, we've been having the debate of what to or what not to include for a very long time now. But I personally don't mind the way that article is laid out currently. tl;dr: delete list, keep first WHC page.LM2000 (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

oknazevad, as Gary said "Wikipedia authors cannot create their own authoritative definition." You think one thing, I think the opposite, but we can choose the titles. I have to say that I also thought that the article World Heavyweight Championship should be deleted, but I think that we can find other way. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd favour deleting both and turning world heavyweight championship (professional wrestling) into a straightforward disambiguation page pointing to all of the WHC articles. Anything worth keeping from either article could be merged into History of professional wrestling articles or championship (professional wrestling). McPhail (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I can actually get behind that, so long as the disambig page is a straight list of the titles, and not a chart that needs frequent updating of who has each title currently. That would make it too much like the current article stripped of the contextual introductory text that makes it complete. oknazevad (talk) 03:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I would also support that suggestion. Either a dab page just listing the championships or a category should suffice. STATic message me! 04:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

McPhail when you say "disambiguation page pointing to all of the WHC articles"... so which are "all of the WHC articles"? Would the debate be restarted yet again regarding this? Starship.paint (talk) 04:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

As a disambiguation page, it'd include every article that a user could reasonably be expected to be searching for when visiting that page. McPhail (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that the best idea is delete the list of champions and redirect the WHC article to Championship (pro wrestling). We can write something like "In pro wrestling, the top title of the promotion is known sometimes as World (Global, universal...) (Heavyweight) Championship and blah blah blah" --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I change my mind and actually agree with HHH. Redirect to Championship (professional wrestling), the Main Championships section would just need to be worked on. As Static pointed out, a category for all world championships might not be a bad idea either.LM2000 (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

And I no longer have an opinion on the matter. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:16, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

OK right now we kinda have two proposed ways forward. McPhail's turning world heavyweight championship (professional wrestling) disambiguation page, and HHH's redirect to Championship (professional wrestling). I'd lean towards HHH's idea. The disambiguation I'd see several nitty-gritty problems (WWE Championship, PWG World Championship, WWE Intercontinental Championship, ROH World Championship) Starship.paint (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I also lean towards HHH's idea, for mainly the same reasons you specified.LM2000 (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to both being redirected (albeit merging any content worth preserving into championship (professional wrestling)). McPhail (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

There have been some who have opposed the redirect of the list of professional wrestling world champions, to voice your opinion on the matter on the page level, respond here so we can finally get some consensus and move on.LM2000 (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Redirects

Two redirects to discuss:

Brad Bradley was moved to Jay Bradley, leaving a redirect. Brad is actually a halfway common nickname for people with surnames such as Bradley, Bradshaw, etc., so there's a likelihood of other usage for the redirect. Not to tout my sandbox (there's not much to see there right now, anyway), but this guy is eventually on my list of articles needing created. Lessee, 29 years in the U.S. Army retiring as lieutenant colonel, served spanning WWII to Vietnam, Purple Heart, and eight years as a state senator on top of that? He would certainly have the wrestler beat for a primary topic. Whether THE primary topic would need to be hashed out.
Championship Wrestling redirects to WWF Championship Wrestling. "Championship Wrestling" is pretty common in promotion names, television show names, common brand names for a promotion's product, etc. There is at least one non-wrestling use I'm aware of, the Al Kooper album. BTW, I don't remember much about that album (I found it in the vinyl library when I was at the radio station), but the artwork (invoking the advertisements seen back in the days of old-school wrasslin') reminded me too much of Ball-Hog or Tugboat?. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 01:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty simple solution is to turn Brad Bradley and Championship Wrestling into disambiguation pages. Disambiguations can contain things without articles or less notable subjects that are mentioned within articles but don't have their own. Go ahead and be bold. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I scavenged through the internet looking for another notable use for Brad Bradley. I couldn't find a thing. It should stay as a redirect, but "Championship Wrestling" should be a disambiguation page. Feedback ^☎ 04:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

AFD: WWE/DSW Six Flags Park Slam

Just a heads up I have proposed WWE/DSW Six Flags Park Slam for deletion. 99.43.175.19 (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems fair. Nothing there to show this was any more important than a house show. That it has a name doesn't mean much. When WWE decided to stop in my hometown for the first and last time, the main event was a "(city redacted) Street Fight" for the WWE Championship. Only one they ever had! But that doesn't matter to the rest of the world, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:43, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Delete it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

PROD has been contested, article is now nominated for deletion. Gogen (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested moves for voting/discussion

McPhail (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Aces&8

Hi. Aces & 8 article. In former members, some people added Mike as member. He was a wrestler that Austin Aries captured and later, the stable attacked him. I don't know I we should include him as former member, because, kayfabe : he was some kind of prospect and never was patched member and blahblahblah. But 2 sources, [1] [2] call him member, because he attacked TNA Wrestlers with a mask. Somebody has procected the article, but people removes his name from the article. What do you think? Sources call him member, so... he is a member, right?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd consider him a member. It's similar to the way the Nation of Domination were accompanied to the ring by lots of extras in their early appearances - if one of them had been given a name and a storyline, they'd be a member worth naming, even if they never wrestled. McPhail (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Repeated error needs fixing

Hey, just was looking through various title history pages, and I noticed an error repeated across a great many of them that really is ticking me off. Many pages refer to former NWA members (including WCW and ECW) as "subsidiaries" of the NWA, which is called a promotion. That is just so blatantly wrong as a use of the term I want to kick whoever wrote all those articles (and they all show similar writing style, so they were at least started by the same person).

Simply put, the NWA does not, nor ever has it, owned any of its member promotions (subsidiaries are properly companies owned by a parent company), nor is it a promotion itself. This is just factually incorrect and misinforming our readers badly. (The correct structure, for those that don't know, is that the NWA is an organization with mutiple member promotions, each independently owned and operated.)

I have fixed some articles, but would appreciate some help in getting to more of them. oknazevad (talk) 07:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not right. The NWA is like the United Nations. I fixed a few more. Think that's all of them, judging by a search for "NWA" and "subsidiary". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

Found a couple more (including WWE!) by searching for the plural, but I think we got it. Thanks, blatant errors like that annoy me. oknazevad (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. This "Let's list every move we can find in a match review as a Signature Move" bullshit, especially. Yes, Scott Steiner sure was known for his knife-edge chops, kneelifts and multiple forearm clubs. Almost as memorable as Cody Rhodes' kneelift or ~~Russian legsweep~~. There must be a hundred wrestlers here with "signature" kneelifts, legdrops, bodyslams and abdominal stretches.

I fix a few, they just pop right back, with more linkspam. Probably the biggest ongoing problem we have, in my eyes. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:27, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

From my obviously extremely expert viewpoint, Rhodes doesn't do a knee lift. William Regal's Knee Trembler is a knee lift. Rhodes does a knee strike to a seated opponent à la John Morrison. But it's really a signature move haha Starship.paint (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

And in my equally (if not more equally) expert opinion, the kneelift stopped being special with Jake Roberts. Of course, opinions don't matter. Jake's is verifiably called a Trademark Move, while Rhodes' is not. His Russian legsweep is apparently cool, though. I can't remember how Cody's kneelift looks, if it even is one. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:12, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

Rhodes' knee strike (not the knee drop, he does that often too) is very similar to JoMo's. Starship.paint (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, then that's no kneelift. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

One thing which caught my attention on Dory and Terry Funk's articles is the statement that they moved from the Amarillo territory to the National Wrestling Alliance. Last I recall, Amarillo was a key part of the NWA. This appears to be reflected on List of National Wrestling Alliance territories. Then I rewatched their WWE HoF video, and noticed that the narrator says that they moved from Amarillo to the NWA. Really, we're reinventing what was and wasn't the NWA with help from the WWE's version of events, but that's nothing new. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 01:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. WWE can live in its Universe all it wants. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary of many of their stories. For now, anyway... InedibleHulk (talk) 06:26, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

If this Dory Funk Jr. story is true, his father was already fairly tight with Muchnick in 1968. Kind of funny, regardless. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:37, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

Also I'd like to point out that, OWOW seems to be using Wikipedia as a source, which is scary since we list them as marginally reliable and sometimes use them for finishers / signature moves. See their article on Mercedes KV, which lists a single move of hers (roundhouse kick) as a signature (although from what I've seen on YouTube it's a finisher). Since then she's signed for WWE under Sasha Banks in NXT, and compare OWOW's page to Wikipedia's. They've even listed the finishers unalphabetically, and the five signature moves in order. Also I can't find sources online saying Banks has a wheelbarrow bulldog, while I've never seen "to a kneeling opponent" on OWOW, only on Wikipedia. We can't cite something which is citing us. Starship.paint (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

In general I think we should avoid using lists of signature moves as references, particularly when they come from fansites like OWOW. Ideally, we should be quoting recaps from journalistic recaps (e.g. from Canoe.ca) and citing specific quotes, e.g. "Wrestler X hits his signature DDT" or "Wrestler Y attempts her customary dropkick". McPhail (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing when I was checking up on the Kazuchika Okada article a while back. The OWOW article is 100% copied from Wikipedia, the signature move "Dropkick" even has a "[2]" after it as a dead giveaway.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

In that case, we can't use OWOW as source, because they use Wikipedia. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If that is the case then, there is alot of cleanup to do in that area in many articles. The signature moves section in general is a gray area that is up to opinion. We need a way (backed up by sources) to disguise what moves should and should not be in the sections. Also just because Cole says "Vintage" after it, does not indicate its inclusion haha. STATic message me! 00:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Their Okada (and other) article's style is different than most on the site (much more text instead of pure results), so we can't assume every profile should be treated as a Wiki mirror. That said, I've always been a bit cautious with OWW. An incredible number of typos, which aren't so bad with words (we know what "wreslted" means), but can really suck for dates (April 24 or 14? 1978 or 1987?)

They also seem to use info from anyone who e-mails them. In the last couple years, it seems to have taken a page from Wikipedia (figuratively and literally) by opening up the editing to anyone who signs up. Back in the day, there was a Darren and a Kristy. Now there are all kinds. And the pages are regularly tinkered with, so the version somebody cited here years ago possibly doesn't contain the claim anymore.

As Static says, it'd be a huge job to replace them all. Better to simply doublecheck facts, and if something isn't reliably corroborated elsewhere, then we deal with it. If it seems legit, it can stay. But we should definitely ~~move~~ keep OWW to in the "not yet proven" pile in the MoS. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:09, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

See "OWW is, and always has been, a website for the fans, and by the fans." Also, the required reading for any contributor. The first rule was clearly broken in the profiles listed here, so it's not anything like a foolproof system. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

As per McPhail above, we should really establish a guideline for what is considered a signature move. While McPhail's suggestion is definitely positive, I still think it is too narrow. Not every pro wrestling reporter will list a move as "signature" or "customary". What I suggest is that if there are sources listing a wrestler doing a specific move on "X" number of occasions, then it can be considered a signature move. Originally I was thinking about X=3, but if we want to be strict we can put X=5? Starship.paint (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

actually I'd go with 4. Four sources for a move that a wrestler did should be common enough to list it as a signature. Starship.paint (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I could find five chinlocks, bodyslams, shoulderblocks, clotheslines and chops for anyone. How do we draw the line between a signature and a basic move, just going by numbers? All of those moves actually are some wrestlers' signature/finishing moves, but definitely not everybody's. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:13, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

Just the fact that they used the move in 4-5 different matches does not really make it a signature move, and it would take alot of reference digging to find all that. We could just go off the Signature moves in WWE video games, but that might not be the most verifiable way to go. STATic message me! 16:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hulk, that's true, I was about to get to the "basic move" stuff after we decided for the X=4 stuff for all the moves. There is no official line to draw for basic vs signature moves. I would guess we would have to decide, right here. Better have four references backing up a signature move, rather than now (supposedly) we could just list someone having done a move once and some would consider it a signature move. Other than the basic moves, if you see a guy doing a corner dropkick or diving headbutt four or more times (like Daniel Bryan) it's going to be a signature move, wouldn't it? Who else is doing the Northern Lights suplex four or more times than Alicia Fox? Or the rolling fireman's carry slam for Sheamus? I just view the basic moves as a secondary problem (and maybe a necessary evil if it can't be solved) For the non-basic moves, if a wrestler does it four or more times, it's going to be a signature move. Unless you have a separate proposal Hulk?Because it's not easy to find sources explicitly saying a move is a signature move. Starship.paint (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Static, about the WWE video games, finding a reliable source is one thing. How about newer wrestlers in TNA, or in NXT? Starship.paint (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It really isn't that hard to source trademark moves. WrestlingData, Cagematch and OWW all do (WrestlingData lists all the ones you did). Probably others. If the veracity of any move is questionable, then we should see if the "four sources" method backs it up. If it doesn't stand fact-checking, we remove it. Or, if there's a move not covered by those that seems like it should be, we might consider four sources.

The problems with starting the four sources way are WP:SYNTHESIS and too many refs. If you hsve blazing Internet speed, that's not a problem, but for slower connections, all that extra size slows down loading/saving. Wikipedia should be for everyone, not just those on or near the cutting edge. Part of that problem also comes from citing match announcements and match results, but that's a whole other peeve.

More synthesis problems arise when you consider a move like the legdrop or elbowsmash. These are basic enough that many wrestlers use them frequently, but then we have guys like Hulk Hogan and Mitsuharu Misawa who use them in a much more significant way. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:20, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

You do have a point with the WD/CM/OWW listing signature moves. I get that their lists should be of a higher priority than a wrestler using a move four times. My "problem" with them is that two of them are considered marginally reliable sources and none of them fall under the proven reliable first category of sources in the style guide. In fact cagematch.net seems to be off the style guide altogether, not sure why, I do remember some conflict about using them as a reliable source because they might have gotten some obscure indy results wrong. Yet as above, we should not trust OWW when they're citing us, and a limitation is that while WD/CM do list some signature moves, they usually list fewer and do miss some out. Starship.paint (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The reliability isn't too big an issue. Let's say OWW is cited for something that strikes you as odd, like Ivan Koloff's "vintage" jumping spinning piledriver. You check the four sources way and see that's actually Zangief they're talking about. Blammo! Deleted. Or you actually confirm that Koloff was sprier in his younger days.

Meanwhile, the proper five or ten are wrapped up with one or two tidy soures, instead of 20 or 40 with long-ass Caldwell titles and all the extra "cite URL" parameters. I just trimmed almost 9,000 bytes from Scott Steiner, and maybe 500 was actual (poorly sourced) info. That's a lot of bytes for a small section.

Treat them as reliable until proven otherwise, I say. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:54, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

Fine, so anyone here at WP:PW is against adding CAGEMATCH.NET to the marginally reliable sources alongside WrestlingData and OWOW? Starship.paint (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Cool by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:18, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

All fine with me. On a similar topic, has anyone any idea whats going on with some of the links to older articles from wrestleview? I've tried looking over some old refs but the articles seem to have disappeared, do they expire after a certain amount of time? Duffs101 (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not exclusive to WrestleView. Any site can (and often does) move/remove/replace content now and then. See WP:LINKROT for solutions. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:24, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. Duffs101 (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah sometime this year WrestleView restructured their website. If you want to update the links, search for the titles in google "site:wrestleview.com FCW Results – 10/24/11" TV/PPV reports probably still exist but daily news like "ROH Star joins WWE" are probably gone. Starship.paint (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Mantaur's name.

We have a bit of a problem with Mantaur and sources regarding his name (Halac/Hallick/Hallich).

Maybe chip in here? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:58, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

Actually, why isn't the article named Mantaur as the common name? See discussion there. Starship.paint (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I've requested a move at Talk:Mike Halac. McPhail (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Money in the Bank cases.

User:Black60dragon has requested discussion about whether we should call the briefcase for the World Heavyweight Championship shot the SmackDown briefcase (and likewise for RAW/WWE Championship).

I say no, since there's no brand split anymore, and Orton can cash in on any show he wants. The only distinction is which title he can challenge for. All the sources seem clear on this and I'm personally doubtless, but deciding here beats edit warring. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:02, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

MITB Briefcase for a WWE Championship/WHC Contract. I don't see Smackdown or Raw. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Its the RAW and SmackDown cases. Those can be cashed in for a WWE or World title respectively. Not making them called that. They were called the Raw and SmackDown cases. If you want to be "technical" then its the RAW All-Star MITB and then the SmackDown MITB. They are even colored red and blue to represent their respective brands. BlackDragon 23:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong and I do not know why you are pretending there is a brand split. The WHC is not the Smackdown world title and the WWE title is not the Raw world title, it is interchangeable. Only this year it was called the "All-Star" MITB and the other was the WHC MITB. A brand was not tied to either case so I do not know why you are making that up. STATic message me! 23:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The brand split is over. There is only one roster, both titles are defended on both shows. The colors of the cases are historical artifacts. They should be identified by the titles, period. oknazevad (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not sure where BlackDeagon has got this illusion that the bland split still exists from. Either way, he's been blocked for edit warring, so hopefully that's the end of the debate. — Richard BB 07:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

For 2013's MITB, WWE.com explictly says Damien Sandow won the World Heavyweight Championship Contract Money in the Bank Ladder Match. For 2012's MITB, WWE.com says John Cena won the Money in the Bank Ladder Match for a WWE Championship Contract For 2011's MITB, WWE.com says Alberto Del Rio won the Raw Money in the Bank Ladder Match. End of discussion? Starship.paint (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Add two more lines: Wrestlemania, RAW, SD, WWE Championship and WHC --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 06:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Is that necessary? Unless I'm much mistaken the Raw briefcase has only ever been for the WWE Championship, and the SD briefcase has only ever been for the WHC. Their heritage is linked: we don't need more lines, we just accept that the Raw case has been renamed the WWE Championship case. — Richard BB 07:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Technically, Raw briefcase is for the RAW world title and SD Brieface for the SD World championship. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

More lines is just splitting hairs for no real reason. Like Richard says, the whole idea behind each case didn't change when the name did. Same deal as treating the WWE Intercontinental Championship like the WWF one. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, July 24, 2013 (UTC)

X Division

Again, a war (WTF. Every single week we have one). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_TNA_X_Division_Champions&curid=841498&diff=565649383&oldid=565639383 Simple. Suicide, character portrayed by Daniels and Kazarian, won the X Division title in 2009. Mike Tenay says that Kaz and Daniels are 5 and 4 times champion, so he includes the title as Suicide. But now, Manik, the same character under other name, won the title. The wrestler under the mask is TJ Perkins, so this is his first reign. Vjmldhs says that "Wikipedia doesn't go by how many times a "character" has won a title, we go by how many times the man behind the gimmick won it". However, I think that my idea is better, because (I think) it's the first time that one character won a title twice under different wrestlers. For example, Gregory Helms won the cruiserweight title as Shane Helms, Hurricane and Gregory Helms, but all of them are the same wrestler. This case is different, we can't say that Suicide is 1 time champions and Manik is 1 time champion if they are the same character and we have an article for the character. I think that the best idea is to explain that the character is 2 times champions and the wrestlers (Kaz, Daniels and Perkins) are 3, 4 and 1 times champions.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's the bottom line. While Tenay may have slipped at some point, TNA as a company have never recognized Suicide/Manik's first title reign as belonging to anyone else, and indeed (as seen in the Manik's profile on their website here) have essentially credited the reign to Suicide/Manik/Perkins, whose name is explicitly linked to that reign. Yea, he wasn't actually in the suit at the time, but this is pretty definitive that TNA, who's title it is, considers Suicide/Manik a two time champion. oknazevad (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hu3uPHXIB8 1:40 yes, I think that Tenay uses Wikipedia as source for his job, but TNA delete the championship list --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Vj 100%. All that matters is who's behind the mask. Whether TNA admits it or not, we know for a fact that Suicide II/Manik/Perkins is in his first reign and that Suicide I was portrayed by two completely different guys. And since the character changed names between the reigns, there's really no big issue about what number to use for the reigns; four and three for Daniels and Kazarian and one for Perkins. There are also articles for other wrestling characters like Black Tiger and Tiger Mask, but we keep Tiger Mask IV's accomplishments separate from Tiger Mask I's, because he is in fact a different wrestler despite using the same character.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I put under the Suicide and Manik names who protrayed the character and the regin. But is strange to say that Manik is 1 time champion if TNA says that he is 2 times champion. Also, Suicide and Manik are the same character. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Also agree with VJ. The "fake" Psicosis had his share of belts, but they don't count toward the "real" Psicosis' tally (they each have two Mexican National Trios titles under the gimmick, though the fake one had "Extreme" on his name for one). No harm listing Suicide/Manik as a two-time champ in the character's article, but not in the title history article. It's an in-universe vs real life distinction. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:18, July 24, 2013 (UTC)

Agreeing with VJ. What would be his first of the two reigns then? Austin Aries won the title underneath the Suicide costume, then Sabin won it, vacated and now Manik won it. That would make it his first reign, why would we count Aries winning it under the Suicide mask towards Manik's reigns? If we were to count him for that reign we would have to count him for all of them, which we definitely would not. We have to keep this real life rather than in-universe. STATic message me! 22:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Not the issue; "Suicide" won the X Division title back in 2009. At the time Kazarian, who had had a previous run in TNA without the gimmick, was the regular man in the suit, but because of a banged up knee, Christopher Daniels subbed in the suit for a few weeks, including the title match. At no point has TNA ever acknowledged that either man has ever worn the suit. That's the problem, as far as they're concerned, it's the second title reign for the Suicide/Manik character. People keep mentioning "out-of-universe" and "real life". I hate to say it, the title doesn't even exist out of universe. No one actually defeats anyone else in legitimate combat sport. It's all storyline. And we really ought to represent the storyline accurately. The parentheticals, almost like footnotes, are a good way to handle it. oknazevad (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not about whether someone was actually defeated. "Real life" just means the wrestler who played the gimmick did so while that character was a champion. The WWF didn't acknowledge Rikishi was Fatu (or that The Headshrinkers were The Samoan Swat Team). In-universe, he won his first tag title with Scotty 2 Hotty, not Samu. But we list Fatu's story and tag title in Rikishi's article. We can't hold masked characters to a different standard than unmasked ones. Look at List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE). Irwin R. Schyster's first reign counts as his third because, despite the story, his real last name is Rotunda. US Express Rotunda wasn't from Washington, and didn't care whether we paid our taxes. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, July 25, 2013 (UTC) InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, July 25, 2013 (UTC)

This is the opposite case. Isn't a wrestler under various gimmicks, its a gimmick portrayed by various wrestlers. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It's the same reasoning that it's the character that matters, not the wrestler who played him. If Suicide is a two-time champ, then IRS would be a three-time champ, and Mike Rotunda (the amateur wrestling character) would be a two-time. We can't say the performer matters in some cases, and the character matters in others. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, July 25, 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with with Okazevad. Plain and simple, the Suicide/Manic character is in the middle of one reign and he has had one reign previously. It doesn't matter how many wrestlers portrayed him in the past or how many repackaging the character went, it is still the same character. In order to describe the storyline "in-universe" as accurately as possible the title histories must reflect this. Footnotes are a good idea to show who was portraying the character during that respective reign. Since they weren't actually champion during that reign, they were just portraying the character that was champion during that time, it is disingenuous to completely credit them as being the champion since TNA never even explicable credited them with those Suicide reigns.LM2000 (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I am familiar with the history of the character, I am saying "Suicide/Manik" did not have a "first" title reign. Austin Aries won it under the Suicide costume, defended it and lost it to Chris Sabin, than Manik/Suicide II won it officially for the first time. We cannot credit Aries second reign as a Suicide reign too. I would also not support adding the first Suicide reigns to Kaz/Daniels, it should be separate from the character. STATic message me! 23:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that Aries reign is comparable to Kaz/Daniels because TNA admitted that Aries was not Suicide. No such thing happened during Kaz/Daniels' reign. So, I would agree with you that we shouldn't credit Suicide with Aries reign but I disagree on Kaz/Daniels.LM2000 (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There is only one suicide/manik character, and its the same in 2009 and 2013. According to his article, he has won the x division title twice. The X division article says that manik won the title once, but the character is 2 times. My edition explains that the character is 2 times champion and Perkins, 1 time champion. Even in the real world, Suicide/Manik character won the title twice. About Aries, it's like Los Conquistadores or The Spider Lady, them won a title under a mask and later, revealed themselves. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

So do you think we should note Irwin R. Schyster's first title reign as Mike Rotunda's third (in parentheses) and IRS' first? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, July 25, 2013 (UTC)

We note it with "previously known as Mike Rotunda". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I mean in the title history article. Maybe you do, too, and are saying we should note it like that? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:29, July 25, 2013 (UTC)

I think the Suicide reigns should just say Suicide (not mention Kaz/Daniels) and the Manik reign(s) just mention Perkins. Lets ignore the fact that they ever said he was the Suicide character, because we all know he never won the title under the mask and who know if he even played the character or that is just how the decided to debut him. STATic message me! 00:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that Mike Tenay says that Kaz is Five times champion and Daniels, four times champion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That'd clearly be OR; that Manik is a continuation of the Suicide character can't just be ignored. That's silly. oknazevad (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a pretty complex one. In general, I'd support listing the title based upon the wrestler who held the title, not based on a character which transcends wrestlers (assuming we have a reliable source). Wikipedia should be fact based, and TNA's own title histories aren't definitive. As I see it, T.J. Perkins is a one-time champion, and Suicide/Manik is a character (distinct from a gimmick) used for two title reigns (one by Daniels and another by Perkins). To say (for example) that T.J. Perkins was a two-time champion would be blatantly incorrect. In terms of the title history, I think it's the wrestler who matters, not the character. However, we obviously need to acknowledge the fact that the character Suicide/Manik has had two title reigns. I'd suggest the following format:

#	Wrestler	Reign	Date	Days held	Location	Event	Notes	Ref.
38	Christopher Daniels / Frankie Kazarian (as "Suicide")	4 / 3 (1)^[3]	March 15, 2009	102	Orlando, Florida	Destination X (2009)	This was an Ultimate X match also involving Chris Sabin, Consequences Creed and Jay Lethal. During the championship reign the character of Suicide was played by both Christopher Daniels and Frankie Kazarian. This was the first reign for the character Suicide/Manik.	^[1]^[2]
60	T.J. Perkins (as "Manik")	1 (2)	July 18, 2013	4,143+	Louisville, Kentucky	Impact Wrestling	This was an Ultimate X match also involving Sonjay Dutt and Greg Marasciulo. This episode will air on tape delay on July 25, 2013. This was the second reign for the character Suicide/Manik.	^[3]

What do people think? McPhail (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I like it, though I'd probably put the Suicide/Manik name first, but that's a minor detail. oknazevad (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with oknazevad, I'd put the Suicide/Manik name first, but in all other aspects McPhail's proposal gets my support. Starship.paint (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

And I agree with oknazevad and Starship.LM2000 (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite alright. I don't care which goes first, except that Daniels should stay before Kazarian. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:03, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea, but put first the name of Suicide Manik. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll tweak the article accordingly. McPhail (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice. Also, we put both reigns under the same character in List of combined reigns? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I did think about doing that but I wasn't sure about the template... McPhail (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Although it isn't my preferred solution, it is fair in acknowledging this is TJ Perkins' first reign, while also giving a hat tip to TNA's backstroy regarding Suicide. Vjmlhds talk) 16:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Another requested move

Lane Huffman to Stevie Ray. McPhail (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe Matt Barela -> Anarquia? What do you think? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a tough one. OVW doesn't have the exposure TNA does, but he worked there much longer (under a couple of names). If he'd been some sort of star in TNA, it'd be easier, but he didn't really "make a splash". I'll go with No opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:47, July 27, 2013 (UTC)

Fergal Devitt -> Prince Devitt? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

That move makes sense to me. I've also proposed a new move: "Ray Fernandez" to "Hercules Hernandez". McPhail (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Fergal. Yeah, Prince Devitt makes sense. Hercules Hernandez, probably. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations! We've influenced Stone Cold's career.

Sort of.

Listen to him put over Kevin Nash on his podcast here. Sound familiar?

Maybe we can use the narration in Nash's article, for blind people. Beats listening to a robot tell it.

In any case, cheers to whoever wrote it! InedibleHulk (talk) 11:47, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

God, Steve. Take a breath XD. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe that's a clue that we have a run-on sentence.

But don't worry about Steve. I've listened to few of these interviews, and he almost never runs out of air or gets tongue-tied. I already sort of knew this from his wrestling promos, but when you hear him "go Broadway", it's hard to not be impressed. He's like Jim Cornette, if Cornette also had a 99.8% wet beer catching ability and a sudden finisher. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of redirects and moves...

Yukon Eric was recently deleted as "routine housekeeping", or G6. Wouldn't that actually make for a good common name RM discussion for Eric Holmback? I'm busy repairing my finances in the real world right now, so no action from me yet. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 21:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me. Is this even something we should discuss first? The page is free and aside from his early, obscure days (1946-49), he was always Yukon Eric. I'll be bold and assume the move is uncontroversial. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, August 2, 2013 (UTC)

Somewhat poor article we have here, factually. I may help it. Thanks for bringing it up. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, August 2, 2013 (UTC)

There is still a bit of mild controversy at Talk:Larry Johnson (wrestler). If anyone has an opinion on that, it would help. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:46, August 2, 2013 (UTC)

I've requested another page move: "George Gray (wrestler)" to "One Man Gang". McPhail (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Also Ferrin Barr, Jr. to Jimmy Jack Funk. McPhail (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Although a bit different from the other moves and redirects discussed here, we have an incident over at Manik (wrestling) similar to the one we had at Curtis Axel awhile back. Suicide is obviously the character's common name but the second he debuted a new moniker the page got moved without discussion, this time by User:JMichael22. LM2000 (talk) 08:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Its been moved back so that is no longer an issue.--70.49.82.207 (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that was my doing, it would have been understandable if it was the TJ Perkins article that was moved, but the Suicide (wrestling) article? That is just ridiculous. I am not even sure it is considered the same character. Clear violation of WP:COMMONNAME and I am sure other points at WP:AT. STATic message me! 19:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It very much is considered the same character. Did you even read the link I put in the section on the X-Division title? I do t necessarily agree with the move back. This is like when a sports franchise announces a name change; there's no good reason to ignore a widely announced and reported name change just because old sources use the old name. It's important to keep the encyclopedia updated; it's one of the main advantages of the online wiki format compared to a print encyclopedia. oknazevad (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Better Suicide. A character, his common name is Suicide, I think.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No I did not, it was probably only the second time I had ever been on the page. But if a wrestler/sports team/musician/rapper/band changes their name, does not mean the article must be immediately moved to the new name. In 99% of cases we must have a waiting period to decide which name is the WP:COMMONNAME. Do not forget Suicide was a X-Division champion, on TV for months and the focus of a decent selling video game, while Manik has been around for what less than a month? The only thing he has done so far is be generic, and get handed the X-Division title. Down the line Manik might become the common name, but as of right now it is definitely not the common name of the character. (WP:RECENTISM) Even if WWE changed their name right now, the article would still be WWE. STATic message me! 22:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It's important to note somewhere in the article, specifically the lede, that the article's subject goes by many names but the title of the article should be its most recognizable name. Static has gone into detail and given numerous examples on why Suicide is a more recognizable name than Manic.LM2000 (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete FCW / NXT championship templates?

Are templates for WWE's developmental territories, FCW and NXT, really needed? I don't really think they are 'prestigious' enough. I'm referring to.... Template:FCW Divas Championship, Template:Queen of FCW, Template:NXT Championship. We don't have any templates for OVW (previously WWE and now TNA's farm team) Starship.paint (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Minor titles, few entries, seems a pretty straight forward case of WP:NENAN; the list of respective champs is each title's article. oknazevad (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, nominated all three of them at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 6, please voice your opinion there! Starship.paint (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

WWE NXT, NXT Wrestling and History of WWE NXT

I'm at a loss here. In my opinion, "NXT Wrestling" is not the same territory as FCW. The article states that it's the same, but the venue changed, the titles were dumped, all storylines were halted, and the show debuted introducing the characters as if they appeared for the first time. To me, it's a completely different show. Furthermore, it seems like it's a completely different show than what "NXT, the reality competition" used to be as well.

I'm thinking we should restructure these articles into:

Florida Championship Wrestling, focusing on WWE's old developmental territory that was ran by Steve Keirn from 2007-2012.
WWE NXT, the television show that ran from 2010-2012.
NXT Wrestling, WWE's new developmental territory at Full Sail University which broadcasts under the name "WWE NXT" in select markets and on Hulu Plus. Although it shares the other TV show's name, we would keep most of its information under this article to avoid confusion.

Now this process would be a little tricky, so what we'll have to do is:

The article that is currently named "NXT Wrestling" should be moved to "Florida Championship Wrestling" and be stripped of all information regarding the new territory.

The article that is currently named "WWE NXT" should be moved to "NXT Wrestling" and be filled with the information that was removed from article 1.
The article that is currently named "History of WWE NXT" should be moved to "WWE NXT" and be stripped of the information regarding the newer version of the television show. We can instead have a small section that links to the above article.

After doing these changes, I think these articles would begin to make more sense while also removing the small bits of content forking that are affecting this topic. What do you guys think? Feedback ^☎ 19:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It sounds good. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:03, June 26, 2013 (UTC)

I like it too. Looking back at the article histories, it seems the "History" article was so named as an attempt to present the developmental territory's current webcasts as a continuation of the reality-type series. It really isn't. oknazevad (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Update

I reestablished the Florida Championship Wrestling article officially recognizing that the promotion was disbanded in 2012. The article encompasses the promotion's history throughout it's 5 years and it also includes a list of alumni that are currently featured in WWE programming.
The WWE NXT article has been reworked. It focuses now on the NXT Wrestling "promotion" that WWE is running down in Florida. I've requested the article be renamed "NXT Wrestling" at WP:RM citing the consensus reached here. Hopefully, they'll get around to it soon.
I have yet to rework the History of WWE NXT article. I've requested it be moved to WWE NXT once the above move is finalized. After that, I'll start working on moving most of the broadcast and episode information into the article.
It seems obvious that this new version of "WWE NXT" has no link to the previous version. Therefore, I'm treating them as two distinct homonymous television shows (similar to Knight Rider (1982 TV series) and Knight Rider (2008 TV series)). The first incarnation will be located at "WWE NXT" while the second incarnation will be located at "NXT Wrestling".
I know it's a small distinction, but it seems rather misleading for us to continue classifying WWE's developmental program as a "promotion". They are obviously no longer using promotions to farm their talent. They instead are creating their own training facility and using Full Sail University as a venue to air their WWE-branded television show. If we can reach a consensus on this, we can start editing the article to reflect exactly what NXT Wrestling is.

That's all for now. Please voice any concerns, oppositions or ideas below. Thanks, Feedback ^☎ 21:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd call it a promotion. They put on shows, advertise, people buy tickets and watch. Sort of like how colleges have radio stations, kitchens and IT departments. They're still legit, even if they're for training. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, June 26, 2013 (UTC)

But if you use that criteria, Smackdown and Raw would each be promotions as well. I think all three brands are on the same boat. Of course, the difference is that NXT has a specific roster, but during the brand extension days, we didn't call each brand a "promotion". WWE is the promotion, the three of them are just different shows. At least, that's how I view it. Feedback ^☎ 02:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I viewed Raw and SmackDown as two promotions while they were split. Different rosters, different tours, different management, different image, different TV deals. Same company behind them, of course. WWE is the promoter, not the promotion. Sort of like how Kraft Dinner and Kraft peanut butter are different food products. Not a huge deal to me, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:47, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

The problem with treating NXT as just another WWE show is it ignores that there is far more to the promotion (which is what Triple H, who oversees it as Exec VP of talent, has called it in interviews) than just the once-monthly TV tapings at Full Sail. They run house shows throughout Central Florida almost every weekend, in much the same fashion as FCW did. Unlike Raw and Smackdown during the brand split, which were only autonomous on TV screens, NXT has a much greater autonomy in its day-to-day operations. It is true that it is less autonomous than FCW (and DSW or OVW before that); indeed part of the change from FCW to NXT was in part to get better oversight over the developmental program. But there's more to NXT as a promotion than just the TV tapings.oknazevad (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, much has happened on this topic since the last time I came to this page. It's kinda hard for me to digest, but here are my thoughts: I strongly support the merging of "WWE NXT" and "History of WWE NXT" into a single article which talks about the five seasons of NXT.

Also, I'd like to point out that the "NXT Wrestling" website has ceased to exist and now points to the "http://www.wwe.com/shows/wwenxt" page. While previously "NXT Wrestling" was obviously separate, now the distinction is much more blurred. Even "NXT Live" events are shown on the WWE page at "http://www.wwe.com/events/all/wwenxt". It appears that the "WWE NXT" television show is more important than "NXT Wrestling" right now. Starship.paint (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well this whole NXT-business is confusing. After further researching, it seems that you're right the name "NXT Wrestling" has been phased out. Right now it seems that WWE NXT is the name of (1) the developmental system, (2) the show that features the developmental system and (3) the old reality-competition show. Right now, (1) and (2) are the topics of NXT Wrestling while, (3) is the main topic of WWE NXT. However, now I'm thinking we should just rename them WWE NXT and WWE NXT (2010 TV series). What other solution is there? Feedback ^☎ 23:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Problem is that we don't know if NXT is in "transition" or has completed the change. Should we wait for a week or a month? We'd be losing valuable momentum, though. Starship.paint (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with waiting for consensus, but deciding to wait for WWE to clear up the situation would be a disservice to all the readers who want to know about NXT. I don't want them to be reading false information. Another possible solution would be dividing the topic into four articles: (1) FCW, (2) NXT TV Show V.1, (3) NXT TV Show V.2, and (4) the NXT developmental system. The last one can stay in construction for about a month, but we should keep the others up to date. What do you think? Feedback ^☎ 05:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I think there only needs to be three articles. 1) FCW 2) WWE NXT (Season 1-5) 3) <one article for the developmental territory> Starship.paint (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

HHH? Hulk? oknazevad? Any updated comments given that as it seems, NXT Wrestling is no more and it appears to be only WWE NXT now? Would you support the three article proposal in my above post, with only one article for the developmental territory combining NXT TV Show V2 and the NXT developmental system? Starship.paint (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm going to get more administrators involved because everyone did a controversial move without any sort of vote. We voted several times to keep the articles the way they are and suddenly you guys again changed them all, this time without some sort of a vote. We need this to be done properly because this is way too controversial to just move without vote.

Also why the heck do we have 2 "WWE NXT"s? It's the same show with its program direction changed half-way through. That's completely inaccurate for an encyclopedia and I have no idea where you guys get that from. I require sources on the fact they're 2 completely separate shows.

My point is this: The accuracy of these articles are now being challenged due to controversial moves done against Wikipedia's system by selected individuals here. Either change it back or vote. The guidelines are there for a reason. Honestly, this frustrates me that we FINALLY have a good system that we voted on and someone just comes in and ruins it all. srsrox ^{BlahBlahBlah...} 20:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

"Selected individuals"... from the Pro Wrestling WikiProject? The move was proposed by FeedBack, and supported by HHH Pedrigree, InedibleHulk and oknazevad. That's four yes "votes" with zero opposition, and if I saw FeedBack's proposal in time, I would have supported it too, making it potentially five votes from June 25 to July 11, two weeks for six people to voice their opposition to overturn the "vote". Keep in note Srsrox, that the last time there was a vote, WWEJobber and Nomelck, who supported you, were actually later proven to be the same person using two accounts and both accounts have been banned. Starship.paint (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a mess seriously. We have two "WWE NXT" shows on Wikipedia. This is inaccurate! WWE NXT is the same show with a different direction. Where are your sources for suggesting it's two different shows entirely? No doubt, I will challenge this. srsrox ^{BlahBlahBlah...} 20:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I just caught wind of this conversation. On Wikipedia, we do not decide consensus by votes. "Votes" don't matter, only arguments do. I made an argument above about how the system wasn't working. I suggested a solution on how to organize the articles and it was accepted without opposition by various members. Ever since I edited the archive code, old discussions are kept on WT:PW for 14 days after the last comment which was plenty of time for someone to oppose it. You are always welcome to suggest improvements and to challenge current consensus, but to belittle our consensus because we didn't "vote" is quite frankly inappropriate. Feedback ^☎ 20:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Srsrox what do you mean "we have two "WWE NXT" shows on Wikipedia"? Right now we have two articles, 1) WWE NXT - this article focuses on the five seasons / 2) NXT Wrestling - this on the developmental territory Starship.paint (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

We have WWE NXT and NXT Wrestling#WWE NXT. That is very confusing because of the how the WWE NXT's page is arranged. It's almost like the page is organized like the show lasted until 2012, but then there are random mentions of it going on as part of NXT Wrestling today. Another words, its organization is horrible. I actually like the look of the section on NXT Wrestling's page, but it has the feel that that section has all the info on it (especially when it has the logo/Infobox there and not on the main page). Common organization practices don't have a section that includes an Infobox unless it contains all info of the section. That's just confusing. Having both a large section on NXT Wrestling and a HUGE page on WWE NXT is just confusing. "History of WWE NXT" just made a lot more sense.

My suggestion is to keep the WWE NXT section on NXT Wrestling's page and rename WWE NXT page to History of WWE NXT.

One more thing Feedback ^☎, while it isn't technically wrong to move pages without discussing, it certainly is courteous, ESPECIALLY when there has been discussions about them already and are controversial. That's respecting other people's times and efforts. It would be much more courteous to request/discuss about the move first. I for one felt my opinion did not matter nor does it matter now. srsrox ^{BlahBlahBlah...} 18:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

We discussed it. You're literally posting in the section where this discussion took place. Our consensus was unopposed for 2-3 weeks. It's been a month since the consensus was achieved and the moves were made. Your lack of participation in this consensus doesn't make it less valuable. Feedback ^☎ 21:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The proper way (as opposed to legal) would have been to discuss this topic in the article's talk pages OR at least note SOMETHING on the talk pages that the pages were in discussion of being moved. I've been on Wikipedia for the whole last month and had no way of knowing this was happening. A note on the talk pages would have made sense to let other editors know that the page was being discussed. This could have been handled better, I guess is my point. But I digress.

No way to know this was happening? I do agree the changes were implemented pretty hastily after gaining a consensus, but if you were watching the talk pages, you would have figured that out on your own. If you didn't bother to read the articles to find out about the changes, why would posting on the talk page make any difference? You're just making things up to stir up trouble. Feedback ^☎ 00:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Going back to the topic, please note what I said about the two WWE NXT sections. Tell me what you think. srsrox ^{BlahBlahBlah...} 16:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"History of WWE NXT" is misrepresentative. The article does not reflect the history of the brand like History of WWE. It's pretty much a season-by-season account of what occurred on the show. The standard would be for that information to be included in the TV series' main article or split up in "season" articles. I am not against renaming these articles "WWE NXT (2012 TV series)" and "WWE NXT (2010 TV series)". Or perhaps, WWE NXT and WWE NXT (2010-2012). But then again, I brought up the idea above, and others didn't seem to agree. I'm fine with the current consensus, but you can go ahead and try and change others' minds. Feedback ^☎ 00:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I want as few articles as possible -> one article for season 1-5, one article for developmental. If you want to rename the current WWE NXT article, I would prefer WWE NXT (2010-2012) over History of WWE NXT. Anyway as time passes on, it seems like NXT Wrestling has definitely been "consumed" by WWE. Anyone's thoughts? Starship.paint (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Feedback ^☎, I don't know where you're getting your sources from, but there isn't two "WWE NXT"s. It is only one show that had a change in direction. If we make it into two different shows, we are not being accurate at all. It a very simple solution to just merge the section with the article if we must have one article and have a small blurb on NXT Wrestling's page.

Second point, honestly, I hate the sheer length of WWE NXT's page (I don't think its notability equals to the long length of the article), but for some reason, people want it to be a rather large article. I think that the article needs to be summarized a lot better than it currently is. It's like it's WWE's/Wrestling's Wikia page length or something. Way too much detail... srsrox ^{BlahBlahBlah...} 19:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. The article is too long. I find the elimination tables rather silly, but it seems to be the standard for all reality competition series on Wikipedia. As for every version of WWE NXT all being one show, that's just wrong. WWE's newest developmental territory is called "WWE NXT" and is homonymous to their old reality-competition series, but they share no link. I think the main issue right now should be that NXT Wrestling is not named correctly. We need to form a consensus on how to rename both articles. Feedback ^☎ 19:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing "just wrong" about WWE NXT being the same show, because it was, even if you don't agree to it. It was a show the changed its direction, but never was considered by WWE a different show. Even WWE uploaded past "WWE NXT" episodes as part of the list of current WWE NXT shows, so it's clear it's considered the same show. Almost all websites will list WWE NXT starting in 2010 by way of simple Google search.

You DO Have a great point in the name "NXT Wrestling". After looking it up, it seems clear that "WWE NXT" is the promotion's name, Not "NXT Wrestling". I agree on that 100%.

So on that note, I also push to rename "NXT Wrestling" -> "WWE NXT (promotion)" and "WWE NXT" -> "WWE NXT (show)" or something along the lines of that. And yes, we NEED to shorten the length of the show's article. Just too much. We CAN make the table automatically collapse. I'll look into that if you guys are fine with that. srsrox ^{BlahBlahBlah...} 13:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

All of this is rather confusing, but there is no way I could say that the "WWE NXT developmental territory" has anything to do with the "WWE NXT reality-competition series". They are nothing alike. The only reason they share the "NXT" name is because WWE needed to take into consideration their international contracts for "WWE NXT". They would have made it much easier for us if the developmental territory and the television show had different names. But they decided to confuse us further by strapping the NXT name on everything.

How about we rename NXT Wrestling to WWE NXT, and the current WWE NXT article to WWE NXT (TV series). We can have a hatnote at WWE NXT that directs the reader to the TV series. Feedback ^☎ 18:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

NXT Wrestling to WWE NXT seems fine. But, the current WWE NXT article to WWE NXT (TV series), I strongly disagree. (2010-2012) is fine, or (Season 1-5), but I think that (TV series) is not clear enough. Starship.paint (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Srsrox feels that the "WWE NXT" that WWE currently broadcasts is the same show as the old one. I disagree, but if that reflects popular opinion, then we should move all broadcast information of the show into WWE NXT (TV series). There would then be no confusion. In his support, TV.com treats it as the same TV show. Then again, I think the people at TV.com must be just as confused as we are. Feedback ^☎ 03:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

My problem is with the wording "TV series". I don't see how the current NXT is not a TV series, given that it is, after all, broadcasted internationally, just not in the US? [4] As I said, let's go with (2010-2012) or (Season 1-5). Starship.paint (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me be clear: When you say "same show as the old one", that is close to what I mean. I mean that it is the same uninterrupted TV series, yet a completely different direction half-way thru. To suggest it ended in 2012 would not be accurate. It's like I said, WWE has treated it as continual, so we should too. "(Season 1-5)", however, indicates a continual tv series, so I'd agree to that. But again, I think we need to prove that the promotion's name is "NXT Wrestling".

When it comes down to it guys, it is not important what are opinion is more than what the facts are. I love the name "NXT Wrestling", but is that was it's called? I don't mind treating it as two separate shows, but were they EVER listed as different shows? We can have opinions all day, but we need to back things up with proof and facts. srsrox ^{BlahBlahBlah...} 13:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Just commenting, the show didn't end in 2012, but the seasonal aspect did. NXT Wrestling did exist until June 2013 when the website was shut down. It was the re-branded FCW from August 2012. But now, it looks like NXT Wrestling has merged into WWE, therefore there is no more official name, just the supposedly "WWE NXT" branch. Starship.paint (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't have to treat them like two different shows. We can have one article for the developmental promotion at WWE NXT and another one for the show at WWE NXT (TV series). We can make the distinction of the two versions of the show on the latter article. I think this is the best "happy medium" we will be able to achieve. Feedback ^☎ 04:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I like your idea! Heck, I'll vote on it now. Support. srsrox ^{BlahBlahBlah...} 20:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope. As I pointed out above, I strongly disagree with the wording "TV series", there might be confusion as the current aspect of NXT is also broadcasted internationally on television. Let's go with WWE NXT (Season 1-5). Starship.paint (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You didn't seem to understand what I said at all. The latter article will include the latest and current TV season. It would be about every incarnation of the series, not just the original one. Feedback ^☎ 00:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I get what you mean now, but I'm just not 100% comfortable because the current incarnation really does not appear to be in a seasonal format. It's like Raw / SD, long-running with no end in sight. Starship.paint (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. That's why I propose the article should refer to the new version as a reboot. We'll then have a "Main article" tag linking the reader to the NXT territory more information on the wrestling promotion behind the show. Feedback ^☎ 22:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Reboot, fine I guess. Just note that, while NXT Wrestling was definitely a developmental territory... in June 2013, the NXT Wrestling website has been shut down and all NXT info was moved to WWE's main website while ~~FCW/NXT President Steve Keirn left WWE~~, there's no evidence that NXT is a developmental territory any more. It certainly seems to be an WWE's internal developmental system, as opposed to FCW/NXT Wrestling which had a larger degree of separation from WWE. Starship.paint (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Eh hold on, I based the "Keirn left" statement on PWInsider's June 29 report on "Steve Keirn is not making the move to Winter Park, FL." A later report by PWInsider's main writer on July 12 said that he saw Keirn in the flesh training developmental talents during a visit to WWE's new performance center. Starship.paint (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Leave it to WWE to confuse all. *sigh* srsrox ^{BlahBlahBlah...} 19:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Feedback and srsrox, I will no longer oppose WWE NXT -> WWE NXT (television series) and NXT Wrestling -> WWE NXT Starship.paint (talk) 07:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a consensus to me! I will move the page, but I just started Med School, so I will have about 1/278916 free time on my hands, so I will need others to focus on the rest of the implementation. Feedback ^☎ 23:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, and good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

I may be busy, but lemme know what I can do to help. :) srsrox ^{BlahBlahBlah...} 05:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

TNA Specials

Since January, TNA has only 4 PPVs, Genesis, Lockdown, Slammiversary and BFG. However, Destination X and Hardcore Justice have returned as Special editions of Impact Wrestling. User:Black60Dragon add them to the article List of TNA pay-per-view events due to the previous status of PPV. I don't think so, because now aren't PPVs and the article talks about PPVs, no TV specials. Second, he modified the Template:TNAPPV, including the 2013 editions of HJ and DX. Dragon, LM2000 and me talk about them in the talk page, but is hard. The other example, Template:WWEPPV, have some problems. It's a navbox about PPVs, so we include PPVs. For example, it doesn't include the King of the Ring event pre and post PPV, only 1993-2002. However, it includes the 2012 edition of Great American Bash, a Smackdown special. What do you think?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If its not shown of pay-per-view, it's by definition not a PPV, and therefore doesn't belong on either list or template.

That said, the significance of PPV is really in that they are special supercards, which predate PPV as a distribution paradigm. Strictly speaking, the first Wrestlemania was more intended as a closed circuit television broadcast; PPV was a new and still very experimental thing at the time, and WM1's limited availability on it was more a throw in. As such, there may be something to be said for mentioning them in a footnote like fashion. oknazevad (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

That may be true, from a fan perspective. But, from a business standpoint, a single PPV is far more significant than a single TV supercard (even if Andre the Giant returned and beat Cena). That said, all the TV combined made $57 million for WWE last year, compared to $46 million through PPV. Irrelevant to the truth that a free show can't be called a pay-per-view, of course. Just a "fun fact". InedibleHulk (talk) 09:31, August 9, 2013 (UTC)

I think that we definitely should indicate that the events stopped being shown on PPV by listing 2012 as the last year. The WWEPPV lists The Great American Bash/The Bash lasting until 2009, despite linking the 2012 Smackdown show, so in the least I think we should continue to differentiate between the free TV and PPV shows this way. I'm more open as to whether or not we should actually link the events in the navbox though.

There's a question on the Destination X (2013) article, asking if these Impact specials (Hardcore Justice (2013) too probably) are worthy of their own articles, separate from the main Destination X (and Hardcore Justice) article(s). Much like the Great American Bash Smackdown, I think they deserve a section on the main articles but the current separate articles are unnecessary.LM2000 (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

2012 SmackDown Great American Bash, 2013 Destination X and Hardcore Justice are all the same, just a "special episode" of a weekly television show, not pay-per-view. They certainly do not deserve their own articles, and they can be mentioned in the main Destination X article for example. Where in Template:WWEPPV does the 2012 Bash get mentioned actually? I don't see it being listed. Starship.paint (talk) 07:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

If you're on a WWE Great American Bash article, you should see 2012 listed with 2004-2009 in the navbox, however the WWEPPV template itself says the PPV only lasted from 2004-2009.

I also just want to note that Black60Dragon, who was the only one fighting for this position over at TNAPPV and created both of the aforementioned articles, has been banned for a month.LM2000 (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a relief. Though I'm not against the articles he created. Not really for them, but they are somewhat special events. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:33, August 9, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah okay, I'm looking at that article. I propose instead of 2012' we put 2012 SmackDown television episode to distinguish. By the way, what's the point of all the "2004 [edit source | editbeta] Main article: The Great American Bash (2004)" on that article? Starship.paint (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Starship, we should differentiate between actual PPVs and free TV, so the 2012 SmackDown television episode is essential. As far as the separate articles go, "special" free TV episodes almost never get their own articles, including the Smackdown GAB show which this is most comparable to. Is anybody totally opposed to redirecting? As to HHH's original question, I'm still not sure whether they should be linked in the navbox either way.LM2000 (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Made the changes to WWE The Great American Bash. Go ahead and redirect Destination X (2013) and Hardcore Justice (2013) Starship.paint (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, both are now redirects. Keep an eye out though, although Black60Dragon is gone someone else may oppose. If that happens we'll have to have this same discussion on the individual articles.LM2000 (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I did the 2013 Impact Wrestling episode shtick. Starship.paint (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice. Now, should we include GAB 2012 in the navbox? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

As oknazevad pointed out, there are possible exceptions to include special supercards, such as the first Wrestlemania and the first Royal Rumble. I don't think these cases are like that, because these shows were just special episodes of Smackdown/Impact, rather than being their own show. I don't think it belongs on the template. It seems that the only person that did is now banned.LM2000 (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed The Big Event, as far as PPV goes (and half its weight in overcitation). Is this one of those exceptions? If so, feel free to unfix it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

When they called it The Big Event they weren't kidding. But Slam explicitly says it was not a PPV, and unlike Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania it never became part of their PPV lineup. I'm not entirely if there is a template where it would fit but either way I don't think it works in the PPV template.LM2000 (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

TNA One Night Only. Canon?

Not long ago, I had a discussion/edit war about the 2013 TNA World Cup. I've no doubts about the points I argued it on, but it got me a thinking about an entirely different point, which may be more controversial.

From my understanding, these One Night Only shows are called that because they exist outside the "real" universe, like a Treehouse of Horror Simpsons episode (or whatever comic book example you'd prefer). So, if true, should any 2013 World Cup winners have this listed in their C&A, even after the show airs? Or will it be all just a dream? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:48, August 9, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a viewer of TNA, so I could be misinterpreting the point, but I'd say yes, they should still be. Even if the One Night Only shows aren't part of the story arcs or things like that, they still won the matches, and those victories would be recorded. For example, I expect you'd be able to find those accomplishments in Wrestlingdata.com. — Richard BB 12:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

They don't have it on Daniels' page. That may be only because it hasn't aired yet, though. They list his 2004 X Cup win, and 2004 and 2008 teammates. They also list the taping results. They do list James Storm's Jokers Wild tournament win (another One Night Only show). So I guess these count for them. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:24, August 9, 2013 (UTC)

I think they should be included - canon isn't really the issue here. TNA's bios and title histories aren't a definitive source for things like this, since they will naturally overlook/amend history as they see fit (just like every other promotion). I'd compare the "One Night Only" accolades to something like the Kuwaiti Cup Tournament - something that happened, but wasn't greatly emphasised by the company since it was aimed at a very specific market rather than the mainstream audience. McPhail (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between "not emphasized" and "not canon", isn't there? These PPVs are marketed globally, but the promotion seems to treat them as, well, one night only. I don't think TNA should be the definitive source for real things (names, injuries, outside history, etc.), but why shouldn't they be the ultimate authority on titles and other story things? They're the creators. Not really arguing, just curious. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:55, August 9, 2013 (UTC)

Storylines, etc, are open to interpretation, but the "One Night Only" events undeniably happened, whether or not TNA choose to acknowledge them. There have been cases in the past of promotions trying to "rewrite history", e.g. WWE omitting the pre-Shane Douglas ECW World Champions or the pre-Taka WWF Light Heavyweight Champions from its official histories, so the promotions can't necessarily be trusted to provide accurate title histories, etc. McPhail (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

True, but that's because pro wrestling, like any form of serialized fictional storytelling, is subject to retcons. oknazevad (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I was trying to remember that word. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:15, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

I think we've all been duped. WWE supposedly changed their name, but not according to this. Feedback ^☎ 23:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

After an extensive search on their corporate website, WWE seems to avoid using "World Wrestling Entertainment" in most of the prose, but they include it at the top of the header in their press releases. http://corporate.wwe.com/documents/Q32012EarningsPressRelease11.01.12FINAL_000.pdf http://corporate.wwe.com/documents/WWESecondQuarterResults_002.pdf http://corporate.wwe.com/documents/4Q12PressReleaseFinal_000.pdf This is confusing. Did they actually drop the name or did they just start downplaying it? Feedback ^☎ 00:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That first link 404s for me, but there's no dupe. Just confusing the trade name with the legal name. Legal name is World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. Trade name is WWE. Here on Wikipedia, we use trade names (what they are doing business as) for companies. Microsoft, not Microsoft Corporation, for instance. Here in Ontario, all corporations are legally called "(six-digit number) Ontario Inc.".InedibleHulk (talk) 18:48, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

A standardised approach to naming tag team articles

I think it would be useful to give a bit of thought to how we name articles in Category:Professional wrestling teams and stables. There is a lot of variance in how disambiguation is applied to articles. For example, we have articles titled New Breed (ECW), New World Order (professional wrestling), MNM (wrestling) and NWA (wrestling stable). I'd suggest standardising these. I'd favour using (professional wrestling), but it'd be good to hear what people think.

There's also a bit of inconsistency in how we use definite articles in article titles - i.e. The Fabulous Freebirds versus Faces of Fear. I'm planning on standardising these so they all use "The" where appropriate. Again, any thoughts are welcome. McPhail (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much all of the articles already use (professional wrestling). "NWA (wrestling stable)" can't use it, since "NWA (professional wrestling)" should link to National Wrestling Alliance and "New Breed (ECW)" can't use it since there's also "New Breed (tag team)". MNM should absolutely be moved.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this input. On a related note, for consistency, should we be using "(professional wrestler)" rather than "(wrestler)", e.g. "Kane (professional wrestler)"? McPhail (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Definitely prefer (wrestler) and (wrestling). "Professional" is a long word, and likely won't ever be needed to distinguish from an amateur wrestler or topic with the same name. Also definitely support putting "The" on the proper nouns. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:25, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is a bit of a conflict between Pinfall, redirecting to Pin (professional wrestling), and Pin (wrestling), redirecting to Pin (amateur wrestling). But can't be much else, can there? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:50, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

Also prefer just (wrestler) and (wrestling), pinfall can be made an expection. Starship.paint (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Any objection to The Three Faces of Fear? Numbers under 13 are generally spelled in English, and Google results for "3 faces of fear" (minus "wiki") don't match the quality of "three faces of fear" sources. And then there's this, clear as day. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:09, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

I didn't wait for objections, since that last source is so clear and official. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:20, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

Seems like something needs to be changed here

Today I stumbled upon the WWE 2K page, and I do not think I am the only one just a little confused by the title. Considering 85% of the article is about WWF Smackdown/Smackdown vs. Raw, why is the article title the name of the most recent series, that has yet to even release a game. In my opinion either the title needs to reflect the overall WP:COMMONNAME of the history of games, or better split it into different articles one for the WWF Smackdown/Smackdown vs Raw games and another for the new 2K series. WWE '12 and WWE '13 could be thrown into either, but their really needs to be a distinction between the series'. WWE 2K might not be significant enough for its own article yet, but in that case there would be a section on it on the page still. I mean it is not like we have WWE Day of Reckoning and the old WrestleMania games thrown into the same article. If this is just the case of a new title and it should not be considered a new series, then the article title should still not be "WWE 2K" as that is generally not what the article is about. We should use a common name for the series not the name for an upcoming game that has yet to be released. STATic message me! 05:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. For twelve years the series had SmackDown in the title, during the last five of those years Raw was added. In the next two years it was simply WWE and only this year will 2K be used. Based on the fact that WWE 2K at this point is only being used for one of the fifteen games in the series I see no reason that WWE 2K should be the title of the Series page.--70.49.82.207 (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure here. Obviously, there were plenty more games not named "2K". But that's also the obvious current rename. When World Wrestling Entertainment became WWE, didn't we immediately change that article (and many others), despite the eight years of the former name? Seems fair to hold a WWE game series to the same standard as WWE itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:18, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

There is a big difference though, lets say World Wrestling Entertainment was changed to "United Wrestling League" or something completely different, then I am sure the article would not be immediately moved. But WWE was already a well known name of the company, many times being referred to as just WWE rather than World Wrestling Entertainment on and off for a few years before that. So an immediate change would be appropriate. It would be quickly mentioned in the lead that the series is now covered by 2K under the "WWE 2K" banner, but the article title should indicate what is discussed throughout the article rather than just follow the current name of the series. I am not even sure we should consider the WWE 2K series the same as the original Smackdown/Smackdown vs. Raw series. It was one thing when they changed it to WWE because the brand split was over, but this is a complete rebranding in the same way it is different from WWE Day of Reckoning and WWE Raw. STATic message me! 18:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The names may be quite different, but there's an unbroken lineage between the the THQ perennials and the 2K. Bought out in (basically) the same way the WCW Cruiserweight Championship was. No strong opinion on which name we should use, but it's still essentially the same series. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, August 21, 2013 (UTC)

deletion discussion

AWF Australasian Championship is up for deletion. I am curious if there are any established policies for notabilities of championships. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Not long ago there was another title, the PWWA Championship, up for deletion. It was similar to the AWF Australasian Championship because both of the championships belonged to organizations that did not even have their own articles, and the result of the PWWA title was delete.LM2000 (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Another move request

"Warrior (wrestler)" to "Ultimate Warrior". McPhail (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "Warrior (wrestler)" to "Ultimate Warrior". McPhail (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys, I proposed "Kaitlyn (wrestler)" to 'Kaitlyn" Starship.paint (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Style guide inquiry

The PW Style Guide indicates a preference towards this colour for use as the background colour for table headers. This choice appears to be an arbitrary choice introduced in 2006. Similar practices are allowed by MOS:TABLE guidelines which state this is appropriate to "create a semantic distinction" but this colour choice does appear to be nothing other than a personal preference for a shade of grey that is a few shade darker than the default one. There is at least no immediate association to professional wrestling. I am proposing the removal of this stylisation for a "consistent appearance between articles" (across all of Wikipedia) suggested by the MOS guidelines. --SocietyBox (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Support default color choice. Starship.paint (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Wrestlers' intro

Hi. User:Vjmlhds and me have a little discussion. He says that the wrestlers's introduction only includes national Titles. For example, he delete the FIP and PWG World titles from Daniel Bryan's introduction, because "aren't national promotions and people never hear about that". He says that most Wrestling fans only know about WWE or national promotions, like ROH or TNA and NJPW an NOAH. I don't think so. We are an encyclopedia, so we are talking about wrestlers carrer, not about what people know. He says that we can say it in the body, but are notable titles of notable indy promotions and we have entire sections for the companies. I think that Cesaro had success in the indy circuit, why Can't we include in the intro that he won the PWG World title and CHIKARA, CZW and JCW tag team titles? Are notable titles in their career and the promotions are covered by notable media, like PWTorch and PWInsider. Of course, I'm talking about notable titles, not every single indy titles that somebody won. For example, "He was previously known for his work on the independent circuit under his former ring name Jon Moxley before signing with WWE." I think that's better "before signing with WWE, he was previously known for his work on the independent circuit under his former ring name Jon Moxley in promotions like FIP and CZW, where he won the CZW and FIP World titles. So... opinions? I saw the style guide, but I saw nothing about this.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The question here seems again to be "what constitutes a 'notable Indy'?" Same issue we had with the former list of world titles. Personally, I'd be wary of relying on PWTorch and the like, to determine which Indies are important, as they have a habit of just posting results sent in to them by someone connected to the promotion. So having the results on those sites does nothing to make them inherently more prominent, just smarter at marketing. I'm also concerned with giving undue weight to minor promotions for a guy whose been in a major national promotion for years when it's work in the major promotion that makes the person most famous. Cesaro may have been Chikara tag champ, but outside of the specialist community, that's not what he's known for. oknazevad (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand as "notable" promotions that usually apears in wrestling media, like PWTorch and PWInsider. I don't read anywhere that only the national titles appear in the intro. The intro is a section where we put the key parts of their carrer, national and independent. Cesaro had a huge success as KOW and SMH, but say "he won the ROH World Tag team Championship"... I think that silly, delete them only because are indy titles, when it was key point in their indy career. It an introduction for their career, no national career. We are an encyclopedia and we are talking for everybody, smart wrestling fans, WWE fans and no wrestling fans. One (strange) example, Peter Jackson, he did huge movies and indy movies. Look the introduction, he did 1, best known (hobbit, TLOTR), 2, other notable films 3, indy movies. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Indy titles are fine with me, as long as the reign was something significant. Either a top title in the promotion, or a long reign or multiple reigns with a lesser title. I'm not fond of the way it often is now, where we list every WCW/WWE/TNA title, regardless. Castagnoli's PWG title is far more important than any of John Cena's tag titles, or Bradshaw's European. There's a general bias toward the big leagues, but those are just part of the story. If sources indicate a title reign was significant, that's all that matters. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:31, August 18, 2013 (UTC)

I'm also okay with Indy titles, granted we don't give them the undue weight Oknazevad has mentioned. In the case of Daniel Bryan Danielson I think the lede was fine the way it was mentioning some of the important indy titles he has won because of his prolific run on the indy circuit, which even WWE has brought up enough times to even make it WWE canon. Writing out every title every wrestler has ever won is a bit too much for ledes though, as HHH pointed out we don't write out the entire filmography of an actor or director, though we don't just list their most notable films either. We just have to find the right balance and the right perspective. I don't think Bryan Danielson's 160 day PWG reign and John Cena's unforgettable >1 day tag reigns with David Otunga/Miz are comparable but given Bryan's indy legacy I would say that that reign belongs in the lede. Does the tag reigns deserve a mention in Cena's lede? More debatable.20:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

We have to consider the titles in the context of the career, not the world in general. To The Ultimate Warrior, the NWE Heavyweight Championship is a blip, overshadowed by the WWF Championship. But in Romeo Roselli's case, it's a big deal. Likewise, Cena's tag reigns weren't nearly as significant as Billy Gunn's or either Dudley's.

Leads are meant to summarize, not exhaustively list things we repeat in the C&A. If someone new asked why Hulk Hogan is notable, in a nutshell, would anyone honestly bring up the tag reign on SmackDown with Edge? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, August 18, 2013 (UTC)

Hulk I get your point about Cena and Hogan not needing to list their tag reigns, but how do we come up with an official guideline? This surely has to be on a case-by-case basis? Starship.paint (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it needs to be a case by case basis. Not all indy reigns are equal. For example there would be a big difference between hypothetical wrestler A who held an indy title for 5 days and wrestler B who had the longest reign in the promotion's history.--70.49.82.207 (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, case-by-case. Sometimes human editors are needed to make decisions. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:41, August 19, 2013 (UTC)

Hulk and IP are both right. I'm not sure if we can create an official guideline based on how long a reign may be, how much exposure the reign must have had, the organizations, etc. We need to look at everything on a case by case basis. WP:LEAD says "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects" but "important aspects" varies wrestler to wrestler. I think we can all agree that Bradshaw's 8 day European Championship run was not an "important aspect" of his life, where as that same title was the only single's title DDP held in WWF and was the last championship he ever won.

Hulk shared that video of Steve Austin reading Kevin Nash's lead and he was out of breath and needed a drink by the time he finished... I don't think there's anything wrong with Nash's lead, the guy had a long and prosperous career, but some of these leads go on forever and I feel like Austin did after I get through with them! I applaud User:Vjmlhds for removing some of the fat on a number of these articles. Daniel Bryan's lead in particular went on forever and it does look amazing compared to before. But I think the title's HHH mentioned belong in the lead too. We just don't need to go on and on about it.LM2000 (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The reason I did what I did was over the fear that editors would want to include every little 2-bit indy title that a guy has ever won in the lead. Listing Bryan and Cesaro's WWE/ROH titles in the lead is like giving the reader a taste before digging in to the meat of the article. It's like the appetizer before the entree. You don't give someone a large pizza as an app before the main meal of steak and potatoes. Now whatever the consensus winds up being, I'll abide by it, but I just wanted to let it be known where I was coming from. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

One other bit of business...while Cena's tag title runs have been fairly insignificant in and of themselves, they do deserve a quick mention in the lead as they contributed to Cena's overall WWE career of winning 20 total championships in the company (13 of them being World titles). Vjmlhds (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Anything wrong with just saying he won 20 titles (and 13 world)? If someone is interested in which titles those are, we have a clearly marked Championships and Accomplishments section. Going back your pizza, the ad for a twenty-topping pie would likely not list them all, but they'd still be there when a consumer starts eating/reading. I've fixed Cena and Nash's articles, but don't want to do too many until we're (more) certain. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:41, August 19, 2013 (UTC)

I understand it. I don't include every single title that Christopher Daniels has won. But if an indy title is relevant for the wrestler career, indy or national, I think that we should include it. Bryan had succes as indy circuit and national wrestler, but I don't see the logic to include only one part of his career in the intro. We can make very good intros, like Peter Jackson. He is best know for LOTR and The Hobbit, he also did King Kong and his first cult film is Bad Taste. We can talk about his carrer in WWE, ROH and other indy promotions (not every single promotion, use common sense), but delete the titles because "people don't know about PWG and FIP"...--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine then, I do agree that each lead deserves a case-by-case analysis. Daniel Bryan's lead looks great now by the way. But several, if not all of the Diva's leads are too long IMO, they shouldn't be listing FCW, Tamina Snuka's lead lists her aligning with JTG on NXT which went nowhere, ~~Alicia Fox's lead lists her aligning with Zack Ryder which went nowhere as well,~~ Kaitlyn's lead lists her "team" with AJ called "the Chickbusters" (never labelled as that on TV), ~~AJ Lee's lead lists her winning Kiss of the Year.~~ Natalya's one lists her managing the Great Khali. Just ridiculous and I don't think I will be able to fix all of them. Starship.paint (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't we include a bit about Total Divas in some of the divas intros? For example, Total Divas is a more notable point in Natalya's career than mentoring The Chickbusters (which I believe was the third into this borderline group was mentioned in), yet you can probably guess which one was mentioned and which one was not.LM2000 (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

LM2000 why don't you explain to us how Total Divas is notable? Starship.paint (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It's given some of the divas more exposure than they've had before, especially The Funkadactyls. Natalya's career is in a renaissance after over a year in fluctuating limbo and following The Great Khali and Hornswoggle around because the show has put focus on her and was incorporated into a storyline with The Bellas.LM2000 (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

While I do agree that Total Divas seems especially important to the Funkadactyls (and the Bellas seem like main characters as well), the translation to other WWE programming (for Nattie as an example) is pretty much as you said "give them a storyline" and not really much more. Of course, it's nowhere near the heights that AJ reached as "everybody feuding over a world title"'s crazy girlfriend in 2012 (which I mentioned in her lead). I'm wondering about how much mainstream exposure Total Divas is receiving. Hilariously enough, Total Divas has a larger viewership than TNA Impact.TD vs TNA Starship.paint (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Also I'd like to propose a general guideline (break it if you see fit) as to what valet stuff should be mentioned in a Diva's lead. If she's a long-term valet (more than a year maybe?) or a champion's valet, then it can be considered. Actually, same can go for managers. For example Ricardo was a long-term manager of Del Rio who won both the WHC and WWE Championship under his management. Similarly Rosa Mendes managed Primo & Epico to a tag reign. Starship.paint (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC

I like that guideline quite a bit, and I support it. I trimmed up Kaityln's intro quite a bit, but an IP has thwarted me at every turn. I've reverted their edits a few times, but I'm not going to edit war over it. If someone else wants to either trim up the current intro to edit out unnecessary details (it currently mentioned Chickbusters, a feud with Vickie Guerrero, and being the only female to win NXT... even though it was the only female season...) or just revert back to the edits I made I'd appreciate it. It's just unnecessarily bloated, as Starship mentioned earlier, the way it stands right now.LM2000 (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Right, I'll help you on that. Frankly, I also consider the "developmental / FCW" stuff excess (just trim to signed with WWE?), and also the nickname? Kaitlyn's "Hybrid Diva" and AJ's "Geek Goddess"? I'm not sure if those nicknames deserve to be in the lead... can someone enlighten me if those nicknames have actually been mentioned on WWE programming? CM Punk's called the Voice of the Voiceless / Best in the World, Daniel Bryan's called goat-face, Ryback is Big Hungry... but AJ? Kaitlyn? It's the same as their Chickbusters name - apparently not important enough to be mentioned on TV? Starship.paint (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed the "hybrid diva" bit, I agree it wasn't useful. I also agree that we shouldn't go on and on about developmental stuff. I'm not entirely sure where we draw the line though... I guess that also varies on a case-by-case basis. Is it really worth noting John Cena's OVW tag reign with Rico, for example?LM2000 (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, LM2000. Why do we keep mentioning "was sent to developmental...Ohio Valley Wrestling / Florida Championship Wrestling / NXT Wrestling" in leads? Instead of In 2001, Cena signed a contract with the World Wrestling Federation (WWF) and was sent to Ohio Valley Wrestling (OVW) where he held the OVW Heavyweight Championship and the OVW Southern Tag Team Championship (with Rico Constantino)., I would change it to "In 2001, Cena signed a developmental contract with the World Wrestling Federation (WWF). In 2002, he debuted on the main roster." I'd also put that section before "In WWE, Cena has won 20 championships in total". Also, winning a developmental championship isn't notable enough for the lead for 90% of the time IMO, because it just means that they are ready for a call up to the main roster. The exception is only if... inaugural champion like Seth Rollins first NXT Champion / first FCW 15 Champion, or having the most reigns or longest reign. What do you think? Starship.paint (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The question here seems again to be "what constitutes a 'notable Indy'?" -- If it has it's own Wikipedia article, it's notable by default.

Feedback ^☎ 06:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't confuse being notable enough to have a Wikipedia article (which is covered by the rather generous WP:GNG) with being significant to a given wrestler's career. That is the matter under discussion, and is far more a matter of editorial judgement. oknazevad (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that is easy. Use common sense. If we read an article, we can imagine what is the key points. The WHC and WWE Championships are key points in Bryan's career, but ROH, PWG and Fip Titles are too, so both titles, national and indys, can appear in the introduction to create a good introduction. Look Peter Jacson, it's obvious that LOTR and The Hobbit are his most known works and when he appeares in a TV show, he is presented as LOTR director, no King Kong or Bad Taste director, but we don't delete them because we are an encliclopedia.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Update

Okay, as per my "Exactly, LM2000. Why do we"... post above, I am trimming some leads to remove excess stuff like "went to FCW, won FCW Heavyweight Championship". See Ted DiBiase Jr before and after. Also John Cena. Starship.paint (talk) 06:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

A rant

Forigive me for being blunt, but I have some things I'd like to say to the project (such as remains), and I'm in no mood to mince my words.

1) If you will insist on moving so many bloody articles, the least you could do is clean up after them.

a) There is a listas parameter on the talk pages of any BLP, as part of Template:WikiProject Biography. Please update. Some of us use talk page categories for maintenance and tracking and it's a pain in the ass when they're listed properly. It's really not hard - it's the exact same as the DEFAULTSORT in the actual article, and I've lost track of how many I've had to update recently.

b) Please move the talk page with the article. If for some reason the talk page won't move, use Template:Db-move so the article and the talk page match. Again, I've had to fix several of these recently.

2) Several edits like this have been on my watchlist in the past few days, and I was wondering why, only to find out that a small amount of people dislike it. Seriously people, wordiness is not the problem, it's merely a symptom of the problem: excessive detail and week-to-week.

Example: this edit to a GA. Does that "fix" anything with the article? Does read a whole lot better now? I certainly don't think so. Three "episode of" and four "pay-per-view"s are removed. Oh my god, the article's so much better now.</sarcasm>

The problem isn't that the phrases "episode of" or "pay-per-view" are used. The problem is that they're used in every damn sentence, because pretty much every article now lists weekly results. "On the date Raw, he beat x. On the date SmackDown, he attacked y. Then at SummerSlam he defeated x." does not in any way read better then "On the date episode of Raw, he beat x. On the date episode of SmackDown, he attacked y. Then at SummerSlam he defeated x." Quite frankly, I think it's bullshit to say so. Removing two words from a sentence doesn't eliminate any problems from the article in any way.

The other reason those phrases are used so much is poor writing. There's no variety, no flow to so damn many articles now. I use "pay-per-view" for a few sentences in my writing to mix it up and reduce the repetitiveness. I don't mind some being removed if there are too many, but all of them? This new, non-publicised agreement among a few editors means that, in my opinion, a lot more variety will be removed from articles. Consider Shelly Martinez now. Before LM2000's "improvements", the wording was roughly half and half between "at X" and using "pay-per-view". Now, every instance of a pay-per-view reads "at X". Repetitive. Boring. Bad writing.

3) Is there a reason the long-standing convention to remove future events is no longer followed? When I first joined the project in 2007, future events (e.g. X will Y at ___) were reverted on sight as WP:CRYSTAL violations. Was there a discussion changing this I missed?

I apologise for being long winded, and if some of you are offended or upset, then I apologise, but I felt some things needed to be said and sugarcoating never helped anybody. NiciVampireHeart 05:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, previously everything was "1.", I changed it to 1) and 2) and 3). Regarding 2), let's separate the "good writing and variety" stuff from the "excessive week-by-week". I did read Shelly Martinez, and I don't think removing the "episode of"s hurt the article's "good writing and variety", or anything else. On having half "At Lockdown" and half "At the December to Dismember pay-per-view"... yeah, there's a little variety, yes, but then if we apply that to the "episode of" then why don't we have 1/3 "On the May 1 Raw", 1/3 "On the May 3 episode of NXT" and 1/3 "On the May 5 edition of SmackDown"... no repetitiveness then? Meanwhile week by week results are a whole different issue. Of course removing the "episodes of" would not have an effect on week by week results. Regarding 3), is that the work of IPs or more experienced editors? As a side-note, if you consider those of us here as "a few editors" in the bigger picture, perhaps we should work on publicising more this WikiProject (and talk page) to the rest of the editors working on wrestling articles. Starship.paint (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

There are of course other ways of wording it, several in fact; that was more or less my one of points. Suggesting that all instances of "episode of" or "pay-per-view" need to be removed from articles, which is what has been happening, is ridiculous. Variety is the spice of life. It shouldn't be all one way or the other, but a mix.

I should note that TV shows are not divided into "editions", but episodes, so your third suggestion doesn't work. That was brought up at an FAC and other places years ago IIRC.

I should clarify. What I meant by a few editors was you, InedibleHulk, and LM2000 had a discussion on the use of "episode of" and began making sweeping wholesale changes that were not an overall improvement in my opinion. One form of repetitiveness was swapped for another.

My other point (one of several) was that although week-by-week and good writing are obviously not synonymous, they are inter-related. Good writing avoids week-by-week, which will cut down on the reptitiveness of certain phrases and render this entire discussion moot.

Imagine all articles were like Shelly Martinez, and you were removing a grand total of seven instances of the phrases on each article. Would you really find said phrases so irritating, so "unnecessary" as per the edit summaries? I think not. NiciVampireHeart 07:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I've moved a few articles without any of the maintenance. I hadn't realized it was a problem, but now that I do, I'll get on that.

On the wordiness, not guilty. Wikipedia uses plain, concise English. It's cool to mix things up and get flowery in a storybook, but this is an encyclopedia. When a fact is buried in backwards structures and extra words, we're less efficient at delivering knowledge. Some people read "aloud" in their heads, and for them, it's not just another word, but extra time. One poor sentence alone isn't terrible, but together, WP:TLDR starts up.

And yes, the week-by-week shit is the underlying cause of the "episode of" syndrome and the walls of text. I have no objection to curing the disease, but also no ambition. In the meantime, best to treat the symptoms till a surgeon shows up. Sorry if I gave the impression of thinking my edits were fixing anything huge. I'll try to explicitly mark more as "minor".

Future plans should be noted, I think. Doesn't take a crystal ball to say "Kane is expected/scheduled/booked to face The Rat King at No Mercy", rather than "Kane will face The Rat King". I just changed one of those today. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:18, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

And I can't forgive you for being blunt, because I already accepted your "long winded" apology. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:21, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

Let me start by apologizing for perhaps jumping the gun. That said, I'm not sure how "blank occurred on 5/12 Raw" is just as bad as "blank occurred on the 5/12 episode of Raw". The date must be mentioned regardless "episode of" is negotiable but doesn't bring anything to the table, except perhaps a slice of variety. This conversation really seriously started when discussing the Rosa Mendes article, where "episode of" was tediously mentioned dozens of times... just to give an example. As far as mentioning "the pay-per-view", that is entirely unnecessary in most cases. Of course Supercards are PPVs in almost all cases (except perhaps the new TNA lineup). What good does it do to mention such a thing? While "episode of" can occur several times a paragraph, "pay-per-view" occurs far more rarely so I don't think that even brings enough variety to the table to suit it for inclusion. Perhaps we can draw this down the middle and include "episode of" once every few lines, include just the date on others, and perhaps some other phrases thrown in for the sake of variety? The problems both sides seem to have with the "5/12 episode of Raw" and "the 5/12 Raw" seem to be repetitiveness, after all. Well, so long as we balance out WP:TL;DR as Hulk pointed out.LM2000 (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm cool with "episode of" in the first mention, just in case someone needs the extra initial hint that Raw is a TV show (italics, Wikilinks and cable ratings aside). Maybe again, halfway through a long article. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:38, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

And I don't mind repetition as much as lengthy repetition, but we could also "get crazy" and sometimes put the setting after the action, like "Kane chokeslammed The Rat King to Hell on the February 14 Raw." InedibleHulk (talk) 08:42, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

It would be good if NiciVampireHeart could provide some form of a proposal on what to do with the "episode of" instead of just criticizing the change, because I don't think installing all of the "episode of" back is a good idea. How do we achieve variety?

Regarding future events, if there was a previous consensus not to list future events I don't think I will push for overturning it. Starship.paint (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of, is that the setup and the payoff would have to be written different from the way they are now. For example: " At 5/19 Kane challenged Undetaker to a match at Unforgiven. Kane chokeslamed him off of the stage on the next episode of Raw. At the pay-per-view Kane defeated Undertaker." Unfortunately many articles read like this "Kane challenged Undertaker on the 5/19 episode of Raw. On the 5/26 episode of Raw Kane Chokeslammed Undertaker off the stage. At the Unforgiven pay-per-view Kane defeated Undertaker." See where tl;dr comes in? It would take a considerable amount of time to actually rewrite these articles with "variety". Removing "episode of" and "at the ___ pay-per-view" is the next best thing.LM2000 (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: A desire for brevity would be better served by removing most of the week-by-week, and distilling the articles down to summary style, not by removing two particular phrases because you dislike them. As for "flowery", I'm not asking for "flowery". I'm asking for good, engaging prose that is interesting and easy to read. That is not outside the scope of an encyclopedia: WP:WIAFA point 1a.

@Starship.paint: What do you want, a list of examples? Fine, read Shelly Martinez again. As I already stated, there were only three instances of "episode of" in that article, because I wrote the article in a summary style not a "This week, she defeated x. On Raw, she lost to y." style. The problem with this of course, that it requires rewriting the article to avoid such usage, and the consensus in this discussion seems to be that that is too hard, too much work, and nobody wants to do it.
@LM2000: The "next best thing"? Please, let's be realistic here. It's sheer fucking laziness on your part. This is further enforced by your edits to Shelly Martinez and Kevin Thorn. Point out the week-by-week in them please. Point out the usage of "episode of" in every second sentence a la Rose Mendes. You can't because it didn't exist. Applying a poorly-conceived blanket standard like this on the grounds that it's just easier than writing a decent article fails drastically when you are confronted with a decent article. Every little helps. Spend the time you were planning on spending on removing these phrases by rewriting just one of these articles instead. That's useful. These edits are not.
@All three of you: By all means treat the symptoms of the problem, but be aware that treating the symptoms completely ignores the underlying problem; and that in it's self is a problem. Yes, I do realise that re-writing the articles to a decent standard is time-consuming and laborious. I've written enough GAs to know that. Once an article is at a decent standard however, it is easier to maintain it as such. Check new edits involving recent events against the summary-style paragraphs above. If it doesn't fit: remove it, rewrite it. Quality maintained. Every now and again, go through the article with a fine-tooth comb. If a match on Raw or whatever is mentioned but didn't lead to anything noteworthy, kill it. Quality maintained. The issue here is that you can't maintain quality if you don't have it in the first place. NiciVampireHeart 18:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I was a bit hyperbolic when describing the "episode of" on Rosa Mendes' article but unfortunately it was only a slight exaggeration, as you can see here [5]. My edits here were clearly productive. They correspond with the aforementioned WP:TL;DR as well as WP:WIAFA point 4. The quality of this article undeniably improved after this clean-up. On the other side of the coin.. I'm glad you enjoyed my edits to Shelley Martinez, those edits seem to be quite dear to your heart. I think that what we ultimately have to come to agreement on is just how often these phrases should be used, if ever. I tend to agree with Hulk that they only need to be mentioned perhaps once. I'll gladly revert those edits depending on how this discussion goes. Frankly even if we are to rewrite some parts, whether it be to be flowery or just plain more engaging, I don't think it is necessary to beat this horse dead. "5/19 Raw" is the same thing as "the 5/19 episode of Raw" and clearly is more succinct, whether it only occurs 4 times or too many to count. "Episode of" in a different order, like the example in my previous post, is fine by me though. If articles are to be rewritten, which I think we are all in agreement that they should be, this is something that we need to figure out right now. This is an important distinction to make, and must be settled, because at the moment Nici is saying I went too far with articles such as Thorne and Martinez while I didn't go far enough with Rosa Mendes.LM2000 (talk) 02:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify what I mean... I would prefer "On 5/19 Raw x happened. On the next episode of Raw y happened" as opposed to using "episode of" frequently in the context in which I removed it from the articles that I did.LM2000 (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You do realise what you prefer ("On 5/19 Raw x happened. On the next episode of Raw y happened") is the definition of week-by-week right LM2000? I do understand what you mean though, there needs to be less "episode of". I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing your methods for attainging less of it. As for the improvement of Rosa Mendes, your diff I don't consider to be an improvement. This edit of yours is an improvement, as you actually remove week-by-week and summarise. This is what you need to do to improve articles, not just remove a certain phrase. If you feel like continuing to improve Mendes, I'd start my replacing some of those unreliable sources (there's lordsofpain, wrestlezone, wrestlinginc, pwmania, diva-dirt, prowrestlingwiki, and more...) and continue to summarise. To be honest though, Mendes needs to be taken apart with a flamethrower and re-done. As do most other articles. As to your other point, having a hard and fast rule on how often a phrase gets used is quite frankly ridiculous. Common sense is needed here, not a bright-line rule. NiciVampireHeart 06:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The thought that I'm getting from reading NiciVampireHeart's comments is that there is not much need to remove the "episodes of" from the older wrestling bios (not involving current WWE/TNA wrestlers) because of there is not much week-by-week stating "episode of" in there in the first place, so articles like Martinez and Kevin Thorn wouldn't need such removals... but poorly maintained articles like Rosa Mendes do. I did point out earlier in the "hahaha" discussion that for the divas articles, I would remove the week-by-week info before the excessive words... Unfortunately, as we all know, removing week-by-week and replacing unreliable sources with reliable sources is tedious, and I have no ambition to do so with wrestlers such as Jinder Mahal, Layla El and Heath Slater. I'm sure we all don't have the time nor the mental power needed for such a task. This year I already wiped all the unreliable -wrestlingattitude- sources from Wikipedia, they must have spread to more than a hundred articles. I can't bring myself to do more. Starship.paint (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that removing "episode of" makes it sound too "fanboy" for an encyclopedia. You might not say "episode of" if you're talking to friends, but taking it out makes it sound too informal, in my opinion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not getting that informal vibe, sorry. Starship.paint (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

But I think we do have a way forward to prevent future additions week-by-week and unreliable sources. We need to scout the current articles, to see who's been adding the week-by-week and the unreliable sources, and we need to educate them. A possible solution would be to bring them here so that they can receive info on the standard procedures, ask questions and have their queries answered. This will increase our manpower and hopefully, with enough people we can tackle the week-by-week problem. Starship.paint (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I also don't see the "fanboy" connection. Maybe if we said "Raw #284" or "Hardcore TV S03E12", I would. Don't general audiences use the same calendar as us, and read the same EPG?

As for teaching a bunch of kids on the Internet the finer points of writing, strongly oppose. If you're into that kind of thing, all the power to you, but I'd need money. Rather we just lead by example, and a Wikilink to our MoS in the edit summary of reverts. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:08, September 1, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I reverted myself on Martinez and Ferig as those were the most contentious and although this discussion has gone in a lot of directions I don't get a sense that a total ban on "episode of" in that context is likely to happen and because it was used infrequently there isn't any reason to take a flamethrower to it.

Just to clear up my example... while the example is indeed an example of week-to-week, what I meant was that having two "episode of"s in the same paragraph is poor writing. Take my edits to Rosa Mendes for example, before my series of edits it read like this:"On the November 19 episode of Raw, Mendes entered a feud with Hornswoggle after being pranked by Hornswoggle with a bouquet of flowers ... On the December 6 episode of WWE Superstars, Mendes attacked Hornswoggle with a bouquet of flowers as a measure of revenge for the previous month on 'Raw but was in turn assaulted by Natalya." It currently reads as "On the November 19 Raw, Mendes was pranked by Hornswoggle with a bouquet of flowers which she attempted to use to attack him with on the December 6 WWE Superstars but was assaulted by Natalya." While we agree that the latter is definitely an improvement, do any of you believe that it would read better if "episode of" appeared before Raw and Superstars or is that part fine as is?LM2000 (talk)

I think we could generally do without the "WWE", too. Just Superstars, like just Raw. And specifically to this article, what does "pranked with a bouquet" even mean? Was there a snake in there? Itching powder? Why does any of it matter, anyway?

And yeah, the week-by-week stuff in this article is worse than I'd assumed. I may give it a major edit soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

It's now 13,735 bytes less full of it. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

hahaha

On April 29 episode of Raw, after a confrontation with AJ Lee, Dolph Ziggler, and Big E Langston backstage, Kaitlyn was given a hat as a gift from a secret admirer,[125] and a bouquet of roses along with a pair of black and red gloves on the May 3 episode of SmackDown.[126] On the May 6 episode of Raw, Kaitlyn received Simpsons toys from her favorite episode as a gift from her secret admirer.[127] At the Extreme Rules pay-per-view, Kaitlyn would get into a brawl with AJ Lee once again after Lee called her a pig.[128]
On the April 29 episode of Raw, Cameron accompied Naomi to the ring where she was defeated by Brie Bella following "Twin Magic" but then Cameron complained with the referee disqualified The Bella Twins despite not seeing the switch. In retaliation, The Bella Twins focused on attacking Cameron for costing them the win.[18]
Tamina would then begin an on-screen relationship with JTG, becoming his valet. She accompanied him on the November 9 episode of NXT Redemption in a losing effort against old partner Jimmy Uso, who was also accompanied by Jey Uso.[26]
On the December 6 episode of WWE Superstars, Mendes attacked Hornswoggle with a bouquet of flowers as a measure of revenge for the previous month on 'Raw but was in turn assaulted by Natalya.[1][86] The following night of SmackDown, Mendes accompanied Primo and Epico in a losing effort to The Great Khali and Hornswoggle. During the match, she fell over Hornswoggle then was assaulted again by Natalya.[87]

The state of our articles on female WWE wrestlers clearly reflect the state of the division... Starship.paint (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Might I also point out that the deleted "The Chickbusters" article has been revived as The Chickbusters (professional wrestling). Starship.paint (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it is because, just like when we watch wrestling, on Wikipedia we do not really care about the divas at all haha. And The Chickbusters (professional wrestling) is now up for speedy deletion. STATic message me! 15:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Fucking "would" again. "Tamina began an on-screen relationship". It happened. In the past. Not conditional upon anything.

Fucking "episode of". "On the December 6 Superstars..." Italics mean it's an episode.

Fucking "the Extreme Rules pay-per-view". Just Wikipipe the damn title.

Most importantly, fucking general wordiness is killing all of our "divisions", not just the women's. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, August 23, 2013 (UTC)

And yes, such trivial details in an encyclopedia are bad, too. But not profanely bad. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

We agreed on removing the "episode of" stuff? Now that you mention it, it seems like a good idea. Starship.paint (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

A peeve I have is when people write "retired American professional wrestler" rather than "American retired professional wrestler". They're retired from being a wrestler, not from being an American... McPhail (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't bug me. "American" is an adjective here, not a noun. "Professional wrestler" is the noun. But it's also good the other way, so I see no reason you shouldn't change it, if you want. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, both are correct. However, convention (at least according to British Council) states nationality should be put at the end, immediately before the noun. --SocietyBox (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"retired professional American wrestler?" Feedback ^☎ 19:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No, "professional wrestler" is a noun, altogether. Started out with "professional" as an adjective, probably, but the distinction has evolved into a standalone term of its own. Sort of like black box. It's entirely possible to have a white black box (the ones in planes are usually bright orange). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:09, September 4, 2013 (UTC)

I just went through The Rosa Mendez article and removed every "episode of". I feel like I blanked the page. That phrase was used every other sentence. Your expletives were warranted, Hulk.LM2000 (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks better, thanks. I got a few "woulds" and other things. Thought of doing more, but a little overwhelming. Every bit helps, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:00, August 27, 2013 (UTC)

Actually, for the divas articles, I would remove the week-by-week info before the excessive words... Starship.paint (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a lot of crap. Wherever anyone would like to start is the right place. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, August 27, 2013 (UTC)

We've got quite a bit of work to do. Seems that someone found it insightful to mention every interaction Rosa had with Hornswoggle on episodes of Saturday Morning Slam. Some of these articles read like that hilarious list of Wrestling Observer Newsletter quotes that found its way around the internet awhile back.LM2000 (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what list that is, but hilarious sounds good. I'll take a look. Speaking of the Internet, Hornswoggle and Rosa, this exists. Our Alberto del Rio could be worse. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

Request for article reassessment

Hi, I'd like to request an informed reassessment of the professional wrestling article, see Talk:Professional wrestling#Article class. (I tried the link at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Assessment but it didn't work.)

I'm not suggesting the downgrade to be insulting, but rather to highlight the serious work that this top-significance article deserves. I've made a very small start but as it's not my main area of interest or expertise, I need help.

Or if the WikiProject prefers to keep the current C class grading, that's fine too. Andrewa (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't watch wrestling

But I came across something that may be of interest to you guys. Arizona Wildcats volleyball player Penina Snuka - http://www.arizonawildcats.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=208656679&DB_OEM_ID=30700 They mentioned during the volleyball match that she has relatives (including her father and grandfather, and her uncle is The Rock) who wrestled for the WWF, so I got curious and googled. Came to the Jimmy Snuka Wikipedia article, and it says Snuka is just a stage name? Then why would his granddaughter be using it? I didn't say any link on the Jimmy Snuka article about his family but it says on Penina's page that her father is also named Jimmy, so I tried Jimmy Snuka, Jr. and that brought me to the article Jimmy Reiher, Jr. But Penina's page says her father's name is Jimmy Snuka, not Jimmy Reiher, so it's got to be more than just a stage name. I really don't think the NCAA and Arizona would list her as Snuka just because that's her father and grandfather's stage names.

But maybe I'm wrong. I just thought I'd bring it to your attention. 173.160.130.14 (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting - thanks for bringing it to light. From looking into it briefly, it seems as though Jimmy Reiher, Jr. and his family have adopted the surname "Snuka" in place of "Reiher". Whether or not this involved a legal name change, I don't know. McPhail (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Could also be that the Wildcats page is wrong. It says The Rock is her uncle, but I can't see anything about a sister of his named Heka. Deuce (Snuka/Reiher Jr.) almost certainly isn't Rock's brother, or that would be common knowledge. There's a fair bit of confusion on the Internet about how The Rock and Superfly tie in to the Anoa'i family, so it might stem from that. Or maybe it's totally accurate. Not sure.

There is precedent for stage names becoming more, though. The Ultimate Warrior's kids' legal surname is Warrior. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:42, September 15, 2013 (UTC)

Cross armbar and crucifix armbar the same thing?

Quoting the professional wrestling holds page:
"Cross armbar: Also known as cross armbreaker. The wrestler sits on either side of an opponent who is lying either prone or supine on the mat, with the wrestler's legs scissoring one of the opponent's arms. The wrestler then grabs hold of the wrist of that arm and pulls it upwards, causing hyperextension of the shoulder and elbow.

Crucifix armbar: The wrestler holds an opponent's arm with his arms, pulling the arm across his chest. He is situated perpendicular to and behind the opponent. The wrestler then holds the other arm with his legs, stretching the shoulders back in a crucifying position and hyperextending the arm."

Now, to me these two seem to describe two totally different moves. The first one is the standard armbar often seen in MMA and used by for example Alberto Del Rio. The second describes a move, where the attacking wrestler has the opponent in a crucifix position, i.e. he is behind the opponent, locking both arms (hence the name "crucifix"). Two different moves, right? Well, there's this User:173.171.118.119, who for some reason disagrees and claims they're the same move and has gone as far as changing all cross armbars/cross armbreakers to crucifix armbars, which I believe is wrong. He even changed Del Rio's (and A.J. Styles) finisher from [[Professional wrestling holds#Flying cross armbar]] (which perfectly describes the move) to [[Armlock#Flying armbar|Flying]] [[Professional wrestling holds#Crucifix armbar|crucifix armbar]]. I've undone them all and tried to explain the difference on his talk page (I'll admit I'm not the most polite person when coming face-to-face with idiocy), but he's adamant that he's right. The same guy also has a strange fetish about removing hyphens from move names (for example, "belly-to-belly" and "belly-to-back"), but that's a minor issue for now (though it bugs the fuck out of me). Am I completely out to lunch on this thing and if not, how can we stop him? リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No, not out to lunch. Different moves, as the holds page makes clear. Just involving a word which can be a synonym in another context. Stopping dynamic IPs can be a pain in the ass, but a static one is as simple as a registered user. Revert, discuss, potentially revert again, warn, revert again, ask for block. I haven't looked at his contributions yet, I'll help with the reverting if I can. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:06, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

Looks clean, good job. But I sort of rushed because I forgot I'm missing Bellator. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely a static IP, this guy's been bugging me for months, but since some of his edits are just fine (adding sources and stuff), I've tolerated it up until now with a revert every now and then, but there's always been this issue of him seemingly thinking that he knows better than the source. If a WWE source calls a move "Dudebuster DDT", he'll change it to "Dude Buster DDT" just because (WWE is wrong?). I've had to revert just this example several times. And there are dozens more like it out there.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope, I was wrong. He's also edited at least under IP's 173.171.47.125 and 173.171.121.247 (easily identified with the "minor edit" and "added supplemental links" tags). Fuck.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

"Minor edit" definitely rings a bell. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:46, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

Since it looks like the armbar issue is gonna stay as it is, you might as well throw in the juji-gatame into the professional wrestling holds section just to make the redundancy come full circle. Ribbon, as I told you before you decided to litter my talk page with rude, unnecessary and pretentious insults, both terms are interchangeable (as is the Judo term juji-gatame) when it comes to that particular armbar. The only proof you've shown to me was one picture of an armbar from the crucifix position and one of a choke from the crucifix position while playing both off as armbars despite clearly being to the contrary. What's even more sad is that both pictures are from different articles altogether on this very same site. When it comes to the Dude Buster / Dudebuster mention, I did that for the sake of consistency of spelling due to the stable having a space in the name while the move itself doesn't. Either the stable's format of the name is right or the move's format is, so which is it? And as for the hyphens, reliable sources online either do or don't use hyphens. If you're really that adamant about using hyphens as you feel it's needed, feel free to so long as you do it for every single article. 173.171.118.119 (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not playing off the crucifix position as an armbar, I'm just showing the position crucifix armbar is applied from. If that attacking guy let go of the guy's neck and grabbed the opponent's left arm, that would be a crucifix armbar and it looks nothing like cross armbar. In cross armbar, the other arm is free to flap around, in crucifix armbar it's locked between the legs (=crucifix position). And of course you should have hyphens in "belly-to-belly", it's a completely different term without them. "Belly to belly suplex" would be a suplex from one belly to another like John Cena suplexing Ryback from Daniel Bryan's belly to Big Show's belly (ridiculous), while "belly-to-belly" implies that the bellies are connected when the move is performed.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 05:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

And yet contrary to what you just said, there's even a "Did You Mean?"-styled redirect in the crucifix position's article that reads For a technique known as crucifix' armlock, see Juji-gatame. Note the part I bolded, which leads me back to my original point of the crucifix, cross and juji-gatame terms all being perfectly interchangable when describing that particular armbar. And the hyphens aren't an absolute necessity like you proclaim they are, considering several articles from reputable sources like PWTorch and Online World or Wrestling either do or don't use them in particular moves that involve belly to belly, belly to back, etc. positions. Lastly, good job on actually explaining your point to me like a civilized human being for once around instead of being constantly pretentious and rude. 173.171.118.119 (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Just because the For a technique known as crucifix armlock, see Juji-gatame. thingy exists doesn't mean it's 100% accurate. This video shows the crucifix armbar demonstrated by a certain expert called Marcelo Garcia. Starship.paint (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Then why is it even there to begin with if it's not 100% accurate? And the video you posted is titled Crucifix Armbar from Back. If the crucifix armbar was only applied from the back, then why did the uploader even bother throwing in "from Back" into the title, especially since it's being demonstrated by an expert of the hold? 173.171.118.119 (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

A crucifix armbar can be locked on from side control or mount, as well. This video is about how to get it from the back, which is why it's titled like that. Assuming it means a crucifix must come from the back is as faulty as assuming a flying cross armbar means all those must be flying. As for the accuracy thing, this is Wikipedia, a work in constant progress. You'll come across errors now and then. Hyphens look right in "belly-to-belly" to me, but that's more a matter of style. The factual difference between cross and crucifix armbars is black-and-white. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:09, September 14, 2013 (UTC)

Well in regards to the variations of setting up what's basically the same armbar, I still don't see what the problem is terminology-wise. But if the interchangeable terms still doesn't fly with you, why not remove the crucifix armbar and cross armbar sections in the pro wrestling holds page and put them collectively under a juji-gatame section in the same page? It's status as a Japanese term shouldn't be a problem, since there's likes of the kesagiri chop, the enzuigiri and to a lesser extent the gamengiri (aka jumping high kick) and the abisegiri (aka rolling wheel kick). And I can see where you're coming from in regards to hyphen usage. 173.171.118.119 (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Then why is it even there to begin with if it's not 100% accurate? - that's because anyone can edit Wikipedia (erroneously), and that redirect did not provide any source to back it up. Wikipedia is all about verifiability - and that comes with sources. On here, anything without sources is original research, which will be automatically trumped by the source I provided. Here we have black belts showing the cross armbar, and it looks nothing like the crucifix armbar shown by Marcelo Garcia. You keep claiming that it's basically the same armbar - so where are your sources? Your claim regarding "from the back" -> it's the setup for the armbar, from the back. The final product is the same - still a crucifix armbar. Starship.paint (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

InedibleHulk already told me about the Did You Know?-styled bit regarding the juji-gatame. And the armbar is the same: A straight armbar / juji-gatame, albeit applied from a different position (and that can be applied from other positions as well like InedibleHulk mentioned) as shown here: A black belt applying a crucifix armbar. This again brings me back to my suggestion of getting rid of the crucifix armbar and cross armbar sections on the pro wrestling holds page and placing their collective description under a juji-gatame section on that page. 173.171.118.119 (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

But there is no collective description. In a crucifix, the attacker's legs wrap and extend the victim's far arm. In a cross/jujigatame, the legs go across the chest and neck, and the near arm is bent with the hands and hips. This is regardless of the initial position from which either move is applied. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:43, September 16, 2013 (UTC)

And yet the lock is effectively the same in either position or application: A straight armbar. I don't have any problems in creating the the aforementioned juji-gatame section for the wrestling holds page (and I'll even work on developing the section myself or with Ribbon if he's up to it). If that doesn't fit your bill, then the only other suggestion that comes to mind is removing the cross armbar and flying cross armbar sections from the wrestling holds page (due to them being redundant due to both being covered already in their respective pages) and instead use the juji-gatame page in its place (while also tending to pages that use the cross armbar / flying cross armbar and redirecting them to the juji-gatame). 173.171.118.119 (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you also suggest that we remove all versions of piledriver (flip, Gotch, double underhook, etc.), since the end result in all of them is the same; someone getting dropped on their head from a belly-to-back position? The current version works just fine. It's clear in definining what's a cross armbar and what's a crucifix armbar, there's no big confusion here; you're the only one who can't seem to comprehend that these are two completely different moves.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There's that vintage Ribbon pretentiousness. If you actually read my entire comment, I provided two options to resolve the matter. Since you're obviously not keen on the first, there's always the second: Remove the cross armbar and flying cross armbar sections from the wrestling holds page and remedy the wrestling pages that use those holds (ex. Del Rio, Styles, etc.) by instead using the juji-gatame and flying armbar pages instead. 173.171.118.119 (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A closer analogy is the triangle choke. When it's done with the arms instead of the legs, it's still functionally the same move. But there's a very subtle distinction between the limbs which most people notice, so it is commonly called an "arm triangle choke". It would be correct (but not recommended on Wikipedia) to use a vague term like "armbar" or "joint lock" for whatever-gatames, but both can't be classed as the same specific thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:41, September 17, 2013 (UTC)

Definitely oppose first option, but much more neutral to the second (which doesn't touch the crucifix armbar at all right?), if so neither support nor oppose. Starship.paint (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The second option will indeed leave the crucifix armbar section intact on the wrestling holds page while removing the flying cross armbar and cross armbar sections from that page due to both holds already being covered in the armlock#flying armbar and juji-gatame pages, respectively. And if given the green light, I'll see to it that wrestler pages involving them are remedied accordingly. 173.171.118.119 (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

^ Sokol, Chris (2009-03-16). "The TNA Destination X disaster". SLAM! Sports: Wrestling. Canadian Online Explorer. Retrieved 2009-06-15. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Caldwell, James (2009-03-21). "TNA News: "Suicide" character expected to have lengthy X Division Title run, details on how TNA brought the character to TV". Pro Wrestling Torch. Retrieved 2010-05-17.
^ Vandrisse, Trent (2013-07-18). "Impact spoilers from Louisville". Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Retrieved 2013-07-19. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

[SlamDX09-1] Sokol, Chris (2009-03-16). "The TNA Destination X disaster". SLAM! Sports: Wrestling. Canadian Online Explorer. Retrieved 2009-06-15. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[2] Caldwell, James (2009-03-21). "TNA News: "Suicide" character expected to have lengthy X Division Title run, details on how TNA brought the character to TV". Pro Wrestling Torch. Retrieved 2010-05-17.

[3] Vandrisse, Trent (2013-07-18). "Impact spoilers from Louisville". Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Retrieved 2013-07-19. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 1,608: / Line 1,608: @@
 :There is precedent for stage names becoming more, though. [[The Ultimate Warrior]]'s kids' legal surname is Warrior. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 19:42, [[September 15]], [[2013]] (UTC)
+== Cross armbar and crucifix armbar the same thing? ==
+Quoting the [[professional wrestling holds]] page:<br />
+"Cross armbar:
+Also known as cross armbreaker. The wrestler '''sits on either side of an opponent''' who is lying either prone or supine on the mat, with the wrestler's legs scissoring one of the opponent's arms. The wrestler then grabs hold of the wrist of that arm and pulls it upwards, causing hyperextension of the shoulder and elbow.
+Crucifix armbar:
+The wrestler holds an opponent's arm with his arms, pulling the arm across his chest. He is situated perpendicular to and '''behind''' the opponent. The wrestler then holds the other arm with his legs, stretching the shoulders back in a crucifying position and hyperextending the arm."
+Now, to me these two seem to describe two totally different moves. The first one is the standard armbar often seen in MMA and used by for example Alberto Del Rio. The second describes a move, where the attacking wrestler has the opponent in a [[crucifix position]], i.e. he is behind the opponent, locking both arms (hence the name "crucifix"). Two different moves, right? Well, there's this [[:User:173.171.118.119]], who for some reason disagrees and claims they're the same move and has gone as far as changing all cross armbars/cross armbreakers to crucifix armbars, which I believe is wrong. He even changed Del Rio's (and A.J. Styles) finisher from <nowiki>[[Professional wrestling holds#Flying cross armbar]]</nowiki> (which perfectly describes the move) to <nowiki>[[Armlock#Flying armbar|Flying]] [[Professional wrestling holds#Crucifix armbar|crucifix armbar]]</nowiki>. I've undone them all and tried to explain the difference on his talk page (I'll admit I'm not the most polite person when coming face-to-face with idiocy), but he's adamant that he's right. The same guy also has a strange fetish about removing hyphens from move names (for example, "belly-to-belly" and "belly-to-back"), but that's a minor issue for now (though it bugs the fuck out of me). Am I completely out to lunch on this thing and if not, how can we stop him? [[User:Ribbon Salminen|リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)]] ([[User talk:Ribbon Salminen|talk]]) 00:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
+:No, not out to lunch. Different moves, as the holds page makes clear. Just involving a word which can be a synonym in another context. Stopping dynamic IPs can be a pain in the ass, but a static one is as simple as a registered user. Revert, discuss, potentially revert again, warn, revert again, ask for block. I haven't looked at his contributions yet, I'll help with the reverting if I can. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 01:06, [[September 14]], [[2013]] (UTC)
+:Looks clean, good job. But I sort of rushed because I forgot I'm missing Bellator. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 01:10, [[September 14]], [[2013]] (UTC)
+::It's definitely a static IP, this guy's been bugging me for months, but since some of his edits are just fine (adding sources and stuff), I've tolerated it up until now with a revert every now and then, but there's always been this issue of him seemingly thinking that he knows better than the source. If a WWE source calls a move "Dudebuster DDT", he'll change it to "Dude Buster DDT" just because (WWE is wrong?). I've had to revert just this example several times. And there are dozens more like it out there.[[User:Ribbon Salminen|リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)]] ([[User talk:Ribbon Salminen|talk]]) 01:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
+::Nope, I was wrong. He's also edited at least under IP's 173.171.47.125 and 173.171.121.247 (easily identified with the "minor edit" and "added supplemental links" tags). Fuck.[[User:Ribbon Salminen|リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)]] ([[User talk:Ribbon Salminen|talk]]) 01:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
+:::"Minor edit" definitely rings a bell. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 06:46, [[September 14]], [[2013]] (UTC)
+Since it looks like the armbar issue is gonna stay as it is, you might as well throw in the juji-gatame into the professional wrestling holds section just to make the redundancy come full circle. Ribbon, as I told you before you decided to litter my talk page with rude, unnecessary and pretentious insults, both terms are interchangeable (as is the Judo term juji-gatame) when it comes to that particular armbar. The only proof you've shown to me was one picture of an armbar from the crucifix position and one of a choke from the crucifix position while playing both off as armbars despite clearly being to the contrary. What's even more sad is that both pictures are from different articles altogether on this very same site. When it comes to the Dude Buster / Dudebuster mention, I did that for the sake of consistency of spelling due to the stable having a space in the name while the move itself doesn't. Either the stable's format of the name is right or the move's format is, so which is it? And as for the hyphens, reliable sources online either do or don't use hyphens. If you're really that adamant about using hyphens as you feel it's needed, feel free to so long as you do it for every single article. [[Special:Contributions/173.171.118.119|173.171.118.119]] ([[User talk:173.171.118.119|talk]]) 02:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
+:I'm not playing off the crucifix position as an armbar, I'm just showing the position crucifix armbar is applied from. If that attacking guy let go of the guy's neck and grabbed the opponent's left arm, that would be a crucifix armbar and it looks nothing like cross armbar. In cross armbar, the other arm is free to flap around, in crucifix armbar it's locked between the legs (=crucifix position). And of course you should have hyphens in "belly-to-belly", it's a completely different term without them. "Belly to belly suplex" would be a suplex from one belly to another like John Cena suplexing Ryback from Daniel Bryan's belly to Big Show's belly (ridiculous), while "belly-to-belly" implies that the bellies are connected when the move is performed.[[User:Ribbon Salminen|リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)]] ([[User talk:Ribbon Salminen|talk]]) 05:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
+::And yet contrary to what you just said, there's even a "Did You Mean?"-styled redirect in the crucifix position's article that reads ''For a technique known as '''crucifix'''' armlock, see Juji-gatame''. Note the part I bolded, which leads me back to my original point of the crucifix, cross and juji-gatame terms all being perfectly interchangable when describing that particular armbar. And the hyphens aren't an absolute necessity like you proclaim they are, considering several articles from reputable sources like PWTorch and Online World or Wrestling either do or don't use them in particular moves that involve belly to belly, belly to back, etc. positions. Lastly, good job on actually explaining your point to me like a civilized human being for once around instead of being constantly pretentious and rude. [[Special:Contributions/173.171.118.119|173.171.118.119]] ([[User talk:173.171.118.119|talk]]) 09:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
+:::Just because the ''For a technique known as crucifix armlock, see Juji-gatame.'' thingy exists doesn't mean it's 100% accurate. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tro4jq3oeqQ This video shows the crucifix armbar demonstrated by [[Marcelo Garcia (grappler)|a certain expert called Marcelo Garcia]].] [[User:Starship.paint|Starship.paint]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]]) 11:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
+::::Then why is it even there to begin with if it's not 100% accurate? And the video you posted is titled Crucifix Armbar from '''Back.''' If the crucifix armbar was only applied from the back, then why did the uploader even bother throwing in "from Back" into the title, especially since it's being demonstrated by an expert of the hold? [[Special:Contributions/173.171.118.119|173.171.118.119]] ([[User talk:173.171.118.119|talk]]) 17:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
+:::::A crucifix armbar can be locked on from side control or mount, as well. This video is about how to get it from the back, which is why it's titled like that. Assuming it means a crucifix ''must'' come from the back is as faulty as assuming a flying cross armbar means all those must be flying. As for the accuracy thing, this is Wikipedia, a work in constant progress. You'll come across errors now and then. Hyphens look right in "belly-to-belly" to me, but that's more a matter of style. The factual difference between cross and crucifix armbars is black-and-white. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 23:09, [[September 14]], [[2013]] (UTC)
+::::::Well in regards to the variations of setting up what's basically the same armbar, I still don't see what the problem is terminology-wise. But if the interchangeable terms still doesn't fly with you, why not remove the crucifix armbar and cross armbar sections in the pro wrestling holds page and put them collectively under a juji-gatame section in the same page? It's status as a Japanese term shouldn't be a problem, since there's likes of the kesagiri chop, the enzuigiri and to a lesser extent the gamengiri (aka jumping high kick) and the abisegiri (aka rolling wheel kick). And I can see where you're coming from in regards to hyphen usage. [[Special:Contributions/173.171.118.119|173.171.118.119]] ([[User talk:173.171.118.119|talk]]) 03:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
+:::::::''Then why is it even there to begin with if it's not 100% accurate?'' - that's because anyone can edit Wikipedia (erroneously), and that redirect did not provide any source to back it up. Wikipedia is all about verifiability - and that comes with sources. On here, anything without sources is [[Wikipedia:Original_research|original research]], which will be automatically trumped by the source I provided. Here we have black belts [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4aV9W8yRqs showing] the [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WF52wwQT0oM cross armbar], and it looks nothing like the crucifix armbar shown by Marcelo Garcia. You keep claiming that it's ''basically the same armbar'' - so where are your sources? Your claim regarding "from the back" -> it's the setup for the armbar, from the back. The final product is the same - still a crucifix armbar. [[User:Starship.paint|Starship.paint]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]]) 10:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
+::::::::InedibleHulk already told me about the Did You Know?-styled bit regarding the juji-gatame. And the armbar is the same: A straight armbar / juji-gatame, albeit applied from a different position (and that can be applied from other positions as well like InedibleHulk mentioned) as shown here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGhienzuMKA A black belt applying a crucifix armbar]. This again brings me back to my suggestion of getting rid of the crucifix armbar and cross armbar sections on the pro wrestling holds page and placing their collective description under a juji-gatame section on that page. [[Special:Contributions/173.171.118.119|173.171.118.119]] ([[User talk:173.171.118.119|talk]]) 19:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
+:::::::::But there is no collective description. In a crucifix, the attacker's legs wrap and extend the victim's far arm. In a cross/jujigatame, the legs go across the chest and neck, and the near arm is bent with the hands and hips. This is regardless of the initial position from which either move is applied. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 17:43, [[September 16]], [[2013]] (UTC)
+::::::::::And yet the lock is effectively the same in either position or application: A straight armbar. I don't have any problems in creating the the aforementioned juji-gatame section for the wrestling holds page (and I'll even work on developing the section myself or with Ribbon if he's up to it). If that doesn't fit your bill, then the only other suggestion that comes to mind is removing the cross armbar and flying cross armbar sections from the wrestling holds page (due to them being redundant due to both being covered already in their respective pages) and instead use the juji-gatame page in its place (while also tending to pages that use the cross armbar / flying cross armbar and redirecting them to the juji-gatame). [[Special:Contributions/173.171.118.119|173.171.118.119]] ([[User talk:173.171.118.119|talk]]) 23:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
+:::::::::::Do you also suggest that we remove all versions of [[Piledriver (professional wrestling)|piledriver]] (flip, Gotch, double underhook, etc.), since the end result in all of them is the same; someone getting dropped on their head from a belly-to-back position? The current version works just fine. It's clear in definining what's a cross armbar and what's a crucifix armbar, there's no big confusion here; you're the only one who can't seem to comprehend that these are two completely different moves.[[User:Ribbon Salminen|リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)]] ([[User talk:Ribbon Salminen|talk]]) 00:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
+::::::::::::There's that vintage Ribbon pretentiousness. If you actually read my entire comment, I provided two options to resolve the matter. Since you're obviously not keen on the first, there's always the second: Remove the cross armbar and flying cross armbar sections from the wrestling holds page and remedy the wrestling pages that use those holds (ex. Del Rio, Styles, etc.) by instead using the juji-gatame and flying armbar pages instead. [[Special:Contributions/173.171.118.119|173.171.118.119]] ([[User talk:173.171.118.119|talk]]) 03:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
+:::::::::::A closer analogy is the [[triangle choke]]. When it's done with the arms instead of the legs, it's still functionally the same move. But there's a '''very subtle''' distinction between the limbs which most people notice, so it is commonly called an "[[arm triangle choke]]". It would be correct (but not recommended on Wikipedia) to use a vague term like "armbar" or "joint lock" for whatever-gatames, but both can't be classed as the same specific thing. [[User:InedibleHulk|InedibleHulk]] [[User_Talk:InedibleHulk|(talk)]] 01:41, [[September 17]], [[2013]] (UTC)
+::::::::::::Definitely oppose first option, but much more neutral to the second (which doesn't touch the crucifix armbar at all right?), if so neither support nor oppose. [[User:Starship.paint|Starship.paint]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]]) 07:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
+:::::::::::::The second option will indeed leave the crucifix armbar section intact on the wrestling holds page while removing the flying cross armbar and cross armbar sections from that page due to both holds already being covered in the armlock#flying armbar and juji-gatame pages, respectively. And if given the green light, I'll see to it that wrestler pages involving them are remedied accordingly. [[Special:Contributions/173.171.118.119|173.171.118.119]] ([[User talk:173.171.118.119|talk]]) 17:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)