Talk:Asuka (wrestler)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 1 May 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kana (wrestler) → Asuka (wrestler) – this already redirects here since September 2015, now that she is the NXT Women's Champion, her accomplishments in WWE probably make this her common name compared to whatever she went by in the indy promotions in past years. Ranze (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kana to Asuka[edit]

I feel it's time to move the article to Asuka (wrestler). She's been under that name a year and a half now, she's the NXT women's champion (longest reigning one at that). If it's a matter of waiting till she hits the main roster I understand but her notability as Asuka is starting to grow bigger than her time as Kana. Rusted AutoParts 20:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 February 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Renamed. Timrollpickering 23:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kana (wrestler) → Asuka (wrestler) – She has been under that name a year and a half now, she is longest reigning NXT Women's Champion. Supertey (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 30 external links on Asuka (wrestler). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

asuka[edit]

Why Is Asuka Called The Empress Of Tommorow Jattra (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jattra Research, dude I am bone123 (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Championships[edit]

Has asuka only won ONE title since coming to WWE?? I am bone123 (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wife and mother[edit]

Two editors are removing a sourced excerpt from Naomi stating she’s a mother due to WP:SYNTH (which is not what SYNTH is). This is the second WWE wrestler making that decree, as Charlotte Flair in a post match interview made the exact same statement, with the added “she’s a wife”. I can’t link the YouTube interview due to it being blacklisted but the Naomi source can be linked and it is. It’s not SYNTH at all because it’s explicitly phrased as “Naomi revealed Asuka is a mother”. SYNTH is if I took that source and asserted her entire family info from that one source without it being in there. “Naomi saying she’s a mother = Asuka is married and a mother to two sons” is SYNTH. Rusted AutoParts 16:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thancranks: so you reverted it again. What exactly about that source makes it a rumour? The wording certainly doesn’t leave room for it to be interpreted as a rumour. So are Naomi and Charlotte liars then? What quantifies their remarks as being just rumours? Stop jumping to different arguments because your previous one got holes poked in them. Rusted AutoParts 16:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as she doesn't say it personally it's a rumor sorry still E just that it's right and no rumour hopes understand Thancranks (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as she doesn't say it personally it's a rumor sorry just that it's right and no rumour hopes understand Thancranks (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense whatsoever. We don’t need direct confirmation from the individual at all, just a reliable source reliably stating this is the case. The Naomi source does that. So it’s not “rumours” because Naomi doesn’t talk as if she’s predicting Asuka is a mother. She’s saying Asuka IS a mother. So the rumour argument holds no water. Rusted AutoParts 17:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may not understand it remains a rumor until it is personally announced ... I just want it not to spread rumourthat maybe it's not true and we don't need that in Wikipedia Thancranks (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s your personal opinion it’s just a rumour. The source doesn’t phrase it as a personal opinion. Reporting what the source states is not spreading rumours. Try again? Rusted AutoParts 17:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can discuss this for hours but until it is announced in person remains rumoured interview by someone else says nothing of it Thancranks (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it doesn’t actually. Naomi saying she’s a mother isn’t making it a rumour. Her saying she might be a mother would be a rumour, but she doesn’t say it that way. At this point you’re removing reliably sourced content without anything more than you saying it’s a rumour, which is just your opinion. If you can reliably source her being a mother is a rumour that’s one thing. But as of now you’re disruptively removing sourced content. Rusted AutoParts 17:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand me until 100% has been confirmed personally, that's true but also doesn't understand? That's why the resource says nothing Thancranks (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I’ve told you that it’s not a requirement for Asuka to say it herself, just that it needs to be reliably sourced which it is. We aren’t owed anything by the person. By your logic anyone who dies whenever it’s reported by someone else it’s a rumour. It’s a very wonky logic that isn’t applicable anyway. Rusted AutoParts 18:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong but if it's true then OK but we need if even then right source with the real statement of Kanako Urai ... Interview by other person is always a danger that things are twisted or misunderstood. Thancranks (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is twisted or misunderstood about one of her colleagues calling her a mother exactly? She's one of two of her colleagues to make this assertion. What would be dangerous was if this wasn't reliably source at all. This is reliably sourced, and since again it's not a requirement for a direct statement, there is no issues. Rusted AutoParts 18:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That source seems reliable to me and mentioning that Asuka is a mother based on her colleague's interview doesn't contravene WP:OR. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should publish better sources not only rush other people in interviews saying the Kanako urai is married and mother is as long as it is not personally announced it is a rumor. We should accept privacy of other people. Hope you understand thank you. Thancranks (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again we don't need direct verification. Stop calling it a rumour when one of her colleagues directly says "she is a mother" without hint of speculating. That's not what a rumour is. It's getting profoundly irritating that I have to keep saying that. Rusted AutoParts 20:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Rusted AutoParts I do not want to argue, but colleagues are Not family and again, as long as nothing has been announced in person, is a rumour of existence. don't you understand Thancranks (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not a rumour. The source is not a rumour. Stop calling it that. Naomi explicitly says “It's truly a gift. I've always been a fan of Asukas. I didn't get to know her until she came to SmackDown. I remember thinking when everything went down, "I hope we get Asuka" and then we got her. I lost it. I think she's probably my favorite woman on the roster, work wise. She's so experienced, so talented, so smart. I love everything about Asuka. And everyone loves Asuka. She's an amazing performer, worker, mother and friend. Genuinely, she is the best. I can see myself growing and learning so much with her. She's done it all and she's the toughest woman I know.” What about that statement makes it “a rumour”? This is the second WWE wrestler who knows Asuka to state this. You can’t just keep coming here and repeating yourself saying “Asuka didn’t say it so rumour”. That’s not how WP:RS works. We have a reliable source publishing an interview with her colleague saying this is the case. You aren’t going to change my mind about it being a rumour by just saying the same thing over and over again. Unless you have something new to say, I recommend stopping commenting because it’s incredibly disruptive now. Rusted AutoParts 22:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rusted Auto Parts i know this Interview But it's not proof that it's true OK Interview is no Rumour but also Not Proof so this Wikipedia Site will be Rumour Site without Proof😉 Thancranks (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rusted Auto Parts You don't want to discuss that ? just shows I'm right i dont want Change your mind i want that this Side Not to be a Rumour SiteMaybe think clearly 😉 Thancranks (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We aren’t owed direct confirmation, just a reliable source that makes the assertion. We have that. Stop, stop , stooooop with the rumour argument because I have debunked it over and over, I am very close to reporting you for being disruptive. Rusted AutoParts 22:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rusted Auto Parts OK i Stopp discussion without You about that OK I stop sorry make no sense but why would you want to report me ? Did I say something wrong Thancranks (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You’re constantly jus coming back here to repeat the same thing despite being told why it isn’t seen the way you see it. That’s considered disruptive and unproductive to the conversation. Rusted AutoParts 22:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rusted Auto Parts You repeat The Same Thing too or Not ? I Just sayng that is Not 100% Proof but OK Is your opinion I have no problem with you Thancranks (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you seeing me as repeating myself it’s because I’m desperate for you to stop using the rumour argument when I’ve told you it doesn’t work in the context youre saying it in. But you just wouldn’t stop doing it. Rusted AutoParts 22:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rusted AutoParts OK I'm sorry, if I hurt you, we don't have to argue about it or? You have said your opinion, and I have my opinion and good whether it is true or not, we maybe See this one day or not...it,s the privacy of Asuka Kanako Urai 😉 Thancranks (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If she disputes this then it’s free to be removed but as of now leave it alone. Rusted AutoParts 22:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rusted AutoParts. If she disputes it, we remove it. Otherwise no. Most of the reliable sources we use in BLP do not have interviews by the subject. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thancranks: are you operating as the IP addresses that keep removing the same information you were against? Rusted AutoParts 21:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rustetld AutoParts No idont need to hide i Said all and i have also Others Info Source Not only Wikipedia That's why for me topic done Thancranks (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree:, please see this discussion. Also look at this edit. The IP is removing reliably sourced content without any reason. Rusted AutoParts 02:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(After having declined page protection or blocking) – Rusted AutoParts, if I understand correctly, the "reliable source" are two interviewed people, not the interviewing sources. Are there any sources that state this as a fact in their own voice? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The two interviewed people are co-workers very explicitly making the identification. My understanding is that the core necessity is it being a reliable source providing the information. Newsweek and her two colleagues to me is sufficient. Rusted AutoParts 02:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rusted AutoParts, unless Newsweek states this as a fact in Newsweek's voice, we have nothing more than, say, two Twitter statements from her colleagues. The interviewer does not need to verify the validity of the statements; Newsweek is merely quoting them. We seem to be discussing whether her colleagues are reliable sources, not whether Newsweek is a reliable source. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter? Newsweek conducted an interview with Naomi directly and in that direct Newsweek interview is where Naomi makes the identification. Where are you getting Twitter from? Rusted AutoParts 02:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Twitter" is just my attempt to describe the following concern: If Newsweek publishes, unmodified, the statements and opinions of interviewed people, then the general reliability of Newsweek articles is irrelevant. The source is "two colleagues", not Newsweek. Please provide a better source than "two colleagues". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
....How exactly does that work? Where would Newsweek then get that information from? Condensing it to “it’s just two colleagues saying it” is frankly a bit unfair. Newsweek is still the one facilitating the interview. They aren’t yanking info from social media they are talking directly to someone supplying the information. How else does Newsweek get that? We cite reliable secondary sources (which is Newsweek), who convey information from a primary source (the colleague). So Newsweek is valid here. Rusted AutoParts 03:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Now that I'm discussing here, I have undone the decline at WP:RFPP, asking for an uninvolved administrator to provide a second opinion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That works by providing an article where a journalist was confident enough to present the information as fact in the voice of the newspaper, subject to editorial oversight by a reliable source that is known for its accuracy. At the moment, "yanking info from social media" is pretty much the level of reliability of the best source. Counter-question: Do we expect the interviewer to interrupt the talking person whenever something seems of questionable reliability? An interview is not an exam; an interview provides a platform for potentially unreliable, possibly incorrect statements coming directly from the quoted person.
The reliability of Newsweek itself is a red herring, but I'll address this point too: WP:RSP#Newsweek (2013-present). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn’t aware of the perception of Newsweek here. On the topic of the page protection I’d rather the request be rescinded as it’s no longer a matter of protecting the page from vandalism. Rusted AutoParts 04:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Becky Lynch has made the same statement now, in an ESPN interview. Would this work to source her being a mother? Rusted AutoParts 01:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "Becky Lynch" is a reliable published source for statements about living people, so no. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll mention again that Lynch is a coworker of Asuka and is the third coworker of Asuka to state her as a mother, this time to a reliable source like ESPN. I legitimately don’t see the hold back. Asuka doesn’t have to be the one to directly make the statement. We’ve just been needing a source that is reliable to publish. As a far as I know ESPN isn’t a poor source. Rusted AutoParts 14:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most petty thing I’ve ever read on the entire internet. There are now multiple corroborating sources across multiple publications across several months. Wikipedia articles feature tons of biographical information that feature facts (yeah, facts, not rumor and conjecture) about people that didn’t come out of their own mouth, while at the same time not featuring things people have said about themselves that are demonstrably false. Multiple people that would know have explicitly said she has a child. Nobody that would know has explicitly said she does not have a child. Rusted Autoparts, keep fighting this good fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.160.123 (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asuka is not a mom I know her and her brother and it's not true Bob sims o1 (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was said by her colleague Becky Lynch which makes it reliable. Can you post a link in which Urai said she is not a mother? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Useless Meltzer Quote[edit]

"In December 2015, Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter stated that Urai "may be the best worker in WWE, man or woman"."

This is unnecessary clutter for her intro. It is an opinion from an (at best) individual journalist. Who cares about this? 32.213.92.111 (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Languages[edit]

"In addition to her native Japanese, Urai can also speak English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, and Dutch" I think she was joking. It could be the case that she does indeed speak all those languages, at least has some basics of them, but in one of her videos eating Mexican snacks, as well as a few from other Latin American countries, she doesn't know some Spanish phrases like "Let's eat!" (¡Vamos a comer!), her phone mistranslated it and she didn't know it was wrong. The video is titled "Learn Spanish while eating Mexican snakcs" time 2:58. Again, I don't think she was being serious when she wrote that tweet. WrestlingFan25 (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have an absolute respect for Urai as a wrestler and as a person in genral, but when you watch her youtube channel, you can easily guess foreign languages are not her strong point. She was interviewed a couple of years ago by the WWE French anouncers and barely said more than "yes" and "no" (not even in French). Moreover, when she stated her language proficiency, she was actually answering to one of the French anouncers. HasamiKiriChan(U*x*U) (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will remove that part. It's just cited by a tweet that does not look like a serious/legit claim. Plus I tagged it since April 2021 and nobody has provided a better reliable source for that claim. Wario-Man talk 03:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 April 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 23:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asuka (wrestler) → Asuka (wrestler, born 1981) – Per WP:INCOMPLETEDAB. The current title is ambiguous with Asuka (wrestler, born 1998) and Lioness Asuka (a wrestler born in 1963). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I don't like WP:PDABs, but this is a case where there is a clear primary topic; one of the most accomplished women in WWE history vs. an indy wrestler whose career doesn't come close. Another possibility I've been mulling for a while would be to move Asuka (wrestler, born 1998) → Veny, as she is known in most English-language sources[1][2][3]. 162 etc. (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the vies from the 1998 one are generally more than 1 fifth[[4]] which probably isn't enough for a PDAB. Even if the 1998 one is moved to a different title its likely they are still ambiguous with this name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per 162 etc. --Mann Mann (talk) 04:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request[edit]

Under Championships & accomplishments change WWE Women's Championship to WWE Women's Championship / WWE Raw Women's Championship. 2600:1004:B0A2:173A:0:14:4715:C901 (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note "a" clarifies it. --Mann Mann (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for video games[edit]

The sources were removed in [5][6] because they seemed unnecessary. I add them here for verification.

  • WWE 2K Battleground[7]

References

  1. ^ Wilson, Ben (September 26, 2016). "WWE 2K17 roster: all 156 confirmed wrestlers profiled including DLC (Eddie Guerrero, Sycho Sid and more)". GamesRadar+. Archived from the original on May 15, 2022. Retrieved May 15, 2022.
  2. ^ Jordan, Paul (August 30, 2017). "Kevin Owens, Samoa Joe, 205 Live stars, Freebirds and more set for WWE 2K18: updated list of 125 talents set for new WWE videogame". PWInsider. Retrieved August 30, 2017.
  3. ^ Fowler, Matt (September 6, 2018). "WWE 2K19 ROSTER PT 2: NEXT 62 SUPERSTARS ANNOUNCED". IGN. Archived from the original on September 7, 2018. Retrieved September 29, 2018.
  4. ^ Gilbert, Fraser (October 21, 2019). "Who has made the WWE 2K20 roster?". PC Gamer. Retrieved April 30, 2022.
  5. ^ Wilson, Ben (January 24, 2022). "WWE 2K22 roster guide tracking every confirmed wrestler so far". GamesRadar+. Retrieved February 22, 2022.
  6. ^ Wilson, Ben (February 20, 2023). "WWE 2K23 roster reveal with every confirmed wrestler". GamesRadar+. Archived from the original on February 23, 2023. Retrieved February 23, 2023.
  7. ^ Bankhurst, Adam (August 16, 2020). "WWE 2K Battleground's Full Roster Revealed, AJ Styles and Finn Balor Confirmed for Launch". IGN. Retrieved April 2, 2021.
  8. ^ Moyse, Chris (November 5, 2019). "WWE stars Roman Reigns, Asuka, The Undertaker and Randy Savage hit up Brawlhalla". Destructoid. Retrieved April 12, 2021.
  9. ^ Denzer, TJ (July 26, 2022). "WWE Asuka, Xavier Woods, and Undertaker outfits are coming to Fall Guys". Shacknews. Retrieved August 1, 2022.

Requested move 13 October 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– Probable primary topic by usage (87% of pageviews among reasonable other candidates) and significance (three-time WWE Champion, etc.). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • These statistics are contradicted by https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Asuka where we see a pretty nice scattering of traffic, where the most popular topic is clearly shown but also seven other topics, and there is no overwhelming interest in the proposed primary topic. I think a more coherent significance argument would need to be shown to do the move (does the average English reader recognize the concept of a "WWE Champion"?). (Oppose) --Joy (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joy: Re significance, my "etc" wasn't the clearest; maybe see Asuka (wrestler) § Legacy, which might not help though if WWE has no cachet for you. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 13:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think a common japanese name should be without disambiguation. weak oppose --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No other topic with just this name is as prominent on Wikipedia. Common names like Mario and Sarah are titles of articles on specific characters/people. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 01:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those examples are not actually precedents beyond reproach, as there's been several relatively contentious discussions about the choice of a single topic for a primary topic over human names. --Joy (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No primary topic by long-term significance, especially not for those of us who don't give a damn about wrestling. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; I think the OP is missing out one rather obvious Asuka in their proposal: Asuka Langley Soryu. That page along makes it a bit too marginal to claim primacy amongst all Asukas (that said, it's actually surprising that Veny gets more flows from the disambiguation page than the Evangelion character). Sceptre (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Asuka is just known in PW universe and it is not some established ring name or professional name like Hulk Hogan, Steve Austin, or Trish Stratus. Plus she uses Kana as her professional name for her non-WWE works; e.g. her YouTube channel. --Mann Mann (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Drafted to Raw[edit]

Asuka was drafted to Raw with the rest of Damage CTRL, therefore her brand needs to be updated as it currently still displays that she is on the SmackDown roster. 2.98.56.251 (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Results do not go into effect until May 6, 2024 until then the page will not be updated until the draft goes into effect. Untamed1910 (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2024[edit]

Asuka was drafted to Raw alongside the rest of Damage CTRL in this years draft. The other Damage CTRL members had their Wikipedia pages changed to Raw. Therefore, Asuka should be changed as well. The links for the source of the WWE Draft 2024 draft change. https://www.wrestlinginc.com/1572463/every-2024-wwe-draft-pick-monday-night-raw/ https://www.wwe.com/superstars/asuka Syrian54 (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asuka_(wrestler)&oldid=1221678777"