Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 92

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 85 ← Archive 90 Archive 91 Archive 92 Archive 93 Archive 94 Archive 95

NXT titles listed in WWE.com

Go to WWE.com, mouse over the Superstars tab. To your right, under Championship History, the three NXT titles are listed below WWE Tag Team Championships. The history of winners for each championship is linked. However, I forgot what changes are in order. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Something about a template? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Would it be Template: WWE Championships by any chance? STATic message me! 20:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
It's possible. But I remember something about Template:CMLLShows, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Eh? The NXT championships are already there. But what is the André the Giant Memorial Trophy doing there, and when is it going to be taken down? Or was it combining WWE and NXT championships in individual wrestler bios Championships and Accomplishments? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Not sure. But I am sure Big Show's winning that trophy. Any opposition to ignoring the crystal ball ban? Slightly more seriously, I think this battle royal might be the new thing, instead of the traditional non-named lower-card battle royal. Something about the way they stress "first ever".InedibleHulk (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Honestly it's quite stupid to have a yearly battle royal since it's so close to the Royal Rumble. Big Show would be a favourite if it weren't for the fact that WWE themselves has touted him as the victor. At first I thought it might be Rusev but they haven't even promoted him being in it yet. Sheamus is the last realistic pick other than the two above. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes WWE is painfully obvious about stuff and then just goes ahead with it. Rey Mysterio/Randy Orton wins the Royal Rumble. Or Triple H wins the belt again. Or Daniel Bryan was in the building after all. Or Hulk Hogan closes the show posing (possibly an obsolete example).
Anyway, they've had battle royals at quite a few WrestleManias lately, and it doesn't seem to hurt the Rumble. Usually just jobber melees. Used to be dark and pre-show, but now that everything's on the Network, no harm in giving their "moment" a little name value. Maybe not. Speaking of maybe, Mark Henry seems a likely dark horse (no offense). Something of a giant, and he wasn't in that Piper's Pit scramble. Could have been intentionally hiding him, and letting Big Show get his shine now. Sort of like how Bryan got to "win" on Raw. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, I forgot about Lesnar's personal punching bag. Well the battle royal's no longer on the pre-show. Did you know Yoshi Tatsu won WM26's dark battle royal? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I did. Andre, Bad News Brown, The Legion of Doom, Test and D'Lo, Hardcore Holly, The Iron Sheik, Booker T, Viscera, Kane, Santina Marella and The Great Khali also had their moments. Is Tatsu more gigantic than Marella? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Incoming WP:FORUM violation:: I disagree that Big Show is the only realistic pick. If the winner is going to walk around with the trophy, that's gonna be a really cocky thing to do. I think a heel wins, and will feud with Big Show for Extreme Rules. I would pick Miz if I didn't know any better. ([i.imgflip.com/7whnl.gif Considering Triple H isn't a big fan of his]). Feedback ☎ 20:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, if anyone's walking around with it, sucks to be them. That thing looks hefty. Christian or Gabriel wouldn't stand a chance with it. Maybe best if the runner-up tantrum smashes it, like Bret Hart did. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Heh. We were all wrong, and all the better for it, but it wasn't our fault the winner not only wasn't advertised but actually pulled double duty. The trophy did get smashed though! starship.paint "YES!" 05:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

WrestleMania 31

In light of this, I have a question that may need discussion. How far out from the next WrestleMania do we create the article? I mean, WM31 is confirmed, announced. It can have reliable sources and thus won't violate WP:CRYSTAL like Static said in his edit summary. However, how soon is too soon? CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 05:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, my edit was more in tune of WP:TOOSOON, rather then WP:CRYSTAL. I mean really, who is going to be constantly looking up an event that will not be promoted for at least six months? That single sentence or two can be covered in the redirect, rather then have a stand-alone article that serves no purpose other than a place holder. STATic message me! 06:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Does a topic need to be constantly looked up to warrant an article? Chocolate-covered coffee bean has fewer than 1500 views in the last month, and is pretty tiny. De Witte (restaurant)? 75. I don't see the harm, especially considering it will grow. Too soon is an article about Ghostbusters 3. If someone wants to know the little bit we currently know about WrestleMania 31, they should find it in the same place Google sends them for everything. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
It's an extremely easy guideline to follow if we unlock the next WM once the current WM is passed. Or, we could tag it to SummerSlam or the Rumble. starship.paint "YES!" 13:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I say we should at least wait till SummerSlam, that is very reasonable. Hulk, I think you are looking at it too much like a fan. STATic message me! 19:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Fan, shman. I'd say the same thing for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, Super Bowl LII or the 2028 Summer Olympics. Any stub that's certain to grow should be considered in the wider picture, not just the present. Keeping Wikipedia timeless. But yeah, being a fan is why I'm here in the first place. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

So are we gonna make the article now and leave it sitting for 12 months? CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 18:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well the article is already made, but if we have consensus to redirect it (until a certain point) and we enforce it, then we can do that. What is your opinion on it CRRaysHead90? STATic message me! 19:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
In the "Scheduled events" category, there are over 200 others sitting around. Some have much longer to go than 12 months. Our own would only sit for about nine months. Plenty of info around Rumble time. Not extremely important to have an article now, but we're also not lacking space for it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
My opinion as someone who is not a member of WP:Wrestling, but watches the page for some reason. Note I am not particularly a fan, although I was when I was younger, so I consider my opinion pretty objective.
  1. The event is going to happen
  2. The event will have a Wikipedia article written about it
  3. There is sourced information available
Given these three factors, I don't see a reason not to publish the information we have. At worst we should have the information listed in WrestleMania (as it is but not sourced) with a redirect to the section, but I don't see why we shouldn't have an article if one is going to be created.--kelapstick(bainuu) 22:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Also note I moved the page to WrestleMania XXXI as was requested. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
So far, WWE.com is amazingly consistent in their styling. "31". We'll have plenty of time for that, though. Their logo only looks like a play button. Lame. Here it is, if someone wants to put it in the infobox. From a forum, but a WWE forum. Fair use, and matches the press conference one, so no question of authenticity. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If WM31 doesn't happen, the topic will probably be even MORE NOTABLE. I'd say we could start WrestleMania 32 article as well following the same principle. Feedback ☎ 06:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure it will or happen, and no matter what it will be notable. I just saw it as unnecessary to leave a stand-alone article there for months, with no likely update. A sentence or two in the redirect page would suffice, but if the consensus is to keep it, I do not feel to strong on the issue anyways. STATic message me! 16:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, here's my current opinion. Scrap my earlier proposal. Once the date and venue of WrestleMania is announced and can be sourced, it deserves its own article. Simple. No announcement, no article. starship.paint "YES!" 02:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You missed my point 3 Feedback, yes we know 32 will happen (in all likelihood) but if we have no source, what information can you write about it? --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
NBC Bay Area report confirms WrestleMania 31-32 locations Feedback ☎ 03:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Clearly, we should infer Lance Von Erich is joining his "family" (and dingo) in the HoF. Because the only other Arlington option is The Angel of Death. Not cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

PWI Comeback of the Year Award

Hey! I was planning to promote Cody Rhodes and Goldust to good article status since I have expanded the article greatly for weeks. But there is a slight problem, I cannot find a source for the PWI Comeback of the Year Award for Goldust, without it I may violate original research. Can someone help me? Plus it will be great if someone here will do the review, even more if I had to do QPQ if someone is willing. Thanks! FairyTailRocks 11:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't find them neither. The awards are bullshit, because I only read the awards in forums. For example, PWI inspirational Wrestler... daniel bryan or Darren Young? About Goldust, i only found this [1] [2] but both are useless. I don't have any aidea, since 20111 its hard to find the awards--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
One crazy thought corssed my mind. Does PWI award wrestlers? For example, Cagematch says since 2011, PWI doesn't give any award.Also, I can't find the 2012 list, only [3] [4] [5] forums. I'll delete all the awards until we'll have reliable sources. Closest thing, a video where Magnus accepted an award (again, I can't find other source about the Magnus' award) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
That article has alot of issues. It is too in universe. "vengeful Rhodes brothers gatecrashed"? These articles are about the teams, not the teams in the this drama. It should tell the basic idea, not try to make the actions seem legitimate. Plus several instances of bad prose, such as an overuse of passive voice.--WillC 18:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
And wordiness. I might help with that later. As for the Comeback award, I don't know if it's legit. But in my humble opinion, this guy's improvement is amazing. Watched him since the start, and he's aging backwards. Can't think of a similar situation. Good job, Goldie! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I copied that phrase from Cody Rhodes article, as your wish I changed it to "the Rhodes Brothers ambushed The Shield" which says on [6]. Also, I will try to copyedit this to another user. Anyways, I heard there is a journal where they announce PWI awards every year, I dunno if this is true. FairyTailRocks 00:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

PWI rankings and awards are completely useless and irrelevant. For years I've been saying that they should be removed. We've made progress, as I remember when the articles used to list *every single PWI ranking they ever had*. But I still think that the encyclopedic thing to do is to remove all of that stupid dirtsheet nonsense. Feedback ☎ 06:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, we could start a new consensus to remove all PWI Awards a wrestler achieved, since the other 2013 awards are hard to find. FairyTailRocks 00:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know about that. PWI and The Observer have long been the leaders in wrestling journalism and analysis. "Dirtsheet" is a slightly misleading term. Seems a drastic reaction. Best to simply not write what we can't source. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I've sourced the awards for '13 FairyTailRocks, hopefully that'll give you a leg up on that article's promotion. I also took care to clean up the discrepancies in this year's results and cited accordingly on those wrestlers' pages. Best of luck~! Papacha (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I used to write for FanvsFan and gave out my own personal Feedy Awards. Should I include those too? They are just as relevant as Dave Meltzer's silly awards. It's hilarious how you call them "leaders in wrestling Journalism" as if that was some sort of accomplishment worthy of recognition. They specialize in backstage gossip and silly speculation. That's it. Just yesterday I read a Meltzer article about Undertaker. "Perhaps", "Maybe", "Apparently", "Might as well"... That's our leader in wrestling journalism speaking. Do not confuse a long-time wrestling fan who likes to gossip with an actual journalist. They have no fact-checking process, they have no backing in the larger news industry, they don't even have that large a following outside of the very select few of people who would pay for news about backstage wrestling gossip. I get that here we're all wrestling fans, but we have to stop with the delusions of grandeur here. The personal awards of these so-called "wrestling journalists" aren't worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. Feedback ☎ 17:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
There's a small difference between your old site's recognition and Meltzer's. When he uses words like "maybe" that express uncertainty, that's a good sign. The sites that state rumours as facts (usually recyclers) are the ones we should ignore. Also, asking for money is a sign of professionalism. You may remember it as the way all newspapers once worked. As for fact-checking, see the link for more about Meltzer's first-hand connections. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Fairy Tail. I prefer to have an internet website, but it's ok. About the awards, it's other discussion. i think, less important than the PWI and WON awards are the Slammy Awards. I think we can have nice articles without HHH's best hair or Taker best tatoo. However, WON and PWI are important magazines and reliable sources. Also, we know the difference between PWI/WON (magazines which awards are mencioned in TV shows) and websites like SoloWrestling, Cagematch, Divadirt and Superluchas. All of them have awards, but aren't notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
It was some mighty fine hair. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
If WWE acknowledged these awards, I would grant them a higher level of notability, but they never have. Which TV show are you talking about? And yeah IE, it's a very "small difference" indeed. Nothing said about Dave Meltzer can't be said of Ryan Clark, Justin LaBar or any other of these "journalists" I just had to google to look up their names. Ryan once told me in his chatbox that Alex Shelly called him to give him some dirt. Roddy Piper tweeted Ryan publicly and told him he had some dirt to spill. Justin is supposedly tight with Kevin Nash and Mark Madden writes for his site. Does any of this matter?? The fact that NYTimes wrote an article saying that Dave gets calls from wrestlers is not really relevant. He is no different than any other of the hundreds of wrestling-fan-wannabe-journalists out there. Feedback ☎ 03:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess the Slammys are less important than Meltzer's awards. They only became notable because the WWE is awarding them to wrestlers live, like Bryan winning the "Beard of the Year" which is out of topic from wrestling. I think Meltzer only uses his opinion to award wrestlers plus I didn't see any kind of recognition to Magnus being awarded. FairyTailRocks 06:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The writers award Slammys the same way the writers award titles, tournament wins, battle royal wins, and other staged accomplishments. If you can list a staged accomplishment such as "1-time divas champion" in the accomplishment section, then why not the Diva of the Year Slammy? The distinction you're making is completely subjective to your own opinion as a wrestling fan. We're all title marks in some way or another, but to the casual reader of this encyclopedia, being Diva's Champion and Diva of the Year practically has no difference. If anything, Diva of the Year sounds like a bigger deal than winning any title for a short period of time. Feedback ☎ 16:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you say Ryan Clark has worked for over 40 years? Can you say Justin Labar publishes an annual list of awards? There is no third example, but if there was, could you say they have a Wikipedia article? If your third example is Wade Keller, can you say he was once called "the most accomplished reporter in sports journalism" by another highly accomplished reporter? Which writer decides The Slammys? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Vince McMahon decides the Slammys because it's well-reported that he has final say in everything that happens on-screen. He decides who is champion, who wins which match, who gets a chocolate briefcase and who gets a shiny trophy. Every time you edit an article and add "WWE World Champion" or "Slammy for Superstar of the Year", the accomplishment you're actually adding to his bio is the fact that Vince McMahon sees potential in this particular individual. In contrast, every time you write "WON Wrestler of the Year', you're just saying Dave Meltzer has a hard-on for that particular wrestler. Now Vince McMahon's billion-dollar-corporation runs on his particular opinions. Every accomplishment he gives out is carefully examined and recognized worldwide. His "imaginary brass rings" matter a lot. But Dave Meltzer's? What effect does his list of winners have on the world of pro wrestling? What impact does it have at all other than useless trivia for really obscure diehard wrestling fans to talk about? Very few people are talking about how Cena was WON's Superstar of the Year. The only people who care are the types of people that WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT were made for. Feedback ☎ 16:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
i think its fancruft if the websites are fansites, but pwi and won are reliable sources (no matter your personal opinion about meltzer). Pwi awards are mentioned in tv, like rosita most inspirational, kings of wrestling tag team of the year or goldberg rookie of the year. Also, other sports are the same. Michael jordan, for example, he won awards in the nba and also, you can read other rankings and awards from magazines and newspapers. Those awards are given by reliable sources and important newsletters, which are wroten by journalist and people who know more about wrestlestling than the regular fan. Its different when i said "i think nicholas cage is a good actor" and roger ebert says "i think nicholas cage is a incredible actor". Ebert personal opinion? Yes, but eberts was a man who knew what he was talking about. -HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
But Roger Ebert's opinion isn't going to be listed among Nicolas Cage's acting awards. You just can't compare the two. One is a subjective opinion from an important guy, and another is an actual accomplishment. WWE titles = accomplishment. PWI Rankings and awards = subjective opinions. WWE's Power25 is more notable than all of that PWI silliness. Feedback ☎ 23:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Are subjetive opinions by people who knows how wrestling works. PWI Weekly is subjective too and no neutral (WWE talking about his own wrestlers). Again, Magazines and newspapers are written by people with knowledge and formation about wrestling. Yes, subjective opinions. The Academy Awards are pure subjetive opinion (best movie, best actor...) but are notable. (even when the "experts" said they didn't watch animation films and awarded Frozen or they awarded 12 years... because it was about black people) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hard-on or not, an independent expert observer's award is more objective and meaningful than McMahon's Slammy. More of a real accomplishment to be honoured for one's skills in general pro wrestling than to be given something as an attempt at a push or to kickstart a short feud. There's a conflict of interest there. The award goes to whatever is best for business, not plain best. There's a reason it sounds like Emmy. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Victory Road (2004)

I am currently having an issue at the above article. The times listed in said article are sourced through Pro Wrestling History which was deemed okay for small things like match times and attendance. User:Pawac keeps changing the times citing the dvd but the dvd does not list the times. So de facto he got the times by watching them and timing them himself/herself, thus WP:OR. Instead of edit warring I figured I'd bring it here so the whole project can help sort it out.--WillC 18:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't really remember if I was around when Pro Wrestling History was confirmed as OK for match times or attendance, but I do see that the style guide says so. It's simple to me. If Pawac can find a more reliable source from the "Websites proven reliable" part that states the match times, all power to him. But if he can't even find a source from the "Other websites (not yet proven)"... then he's not doing this the right way. starship.paint "YES!" 03:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
TP FA review cleared it if I recall correctly. I wrote the article for GA and PWH was the only match times besides ones listed in PWTorch reviews. I plan to update VR eventually though. All of the match times have been changed so they aren't sourced now by anything.--WillC 03:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Let's leave it for other WP:PW members to comment before going back to the article. I removed an Inside Pulse source from the article, which has not been determined reliable. starship.paint "YES!"
Always better to have some source than no source, at least on Wikipedia. Trusting some people to not lie about some things is all well and good in the real world, but, per WP:DTA, Pawac is just as likely to suddenly kick us in the stomach and stun us as he is to help. No offense, Pawac. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
That's DTA, motherfucker! Or DTA, Mother Hubbard! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Speaking of unreliable sources, I'm going to add any source that runs ewrestlingnews: Rumored WWE Extreme Rules Matches Revealed to the unreliable list. Compare it to what the Torch said. Hopefully this doesn't bite me in the ass when it turns out that the Observer or PWInsider was reporting this. LOL. starship.paint "YES!" 03:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm currently purging ewrestlingnews from various articles. Would you believe that the very first source in WWE is was ewrestlingnews? No more! starship.paint "YES!" 06:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Paige setting records

I'm involved in a bit of a content dispute at Paige (wrestler). The following info is reliably sourced and I think it should be in the article but Miss X-Factor thinks otherwise. 1. This directly resulted in Paige becoming the youngest WWE Divas Champion in history at age 21 2. and the first WWE wrestler, male or female, born in the 1990s to win a championship on the main roster. 3. As Paige also held the NXT Womens Championship at the time, she is the only female double champion in WWE history. Sources: Indepedent and EDP. Could I get your opinions? starship.paint "YES!" 01:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The night she won it I shortened it down quite a bit because all of her achievements went on for the longest run-on sentence I've ever seen on wikipedia. I don't think that being the first 90s wrestler to win a title is worth mentioning in the first place. At some point we cross the line into arbitrary trivia. I don't mind the other stuff being mentioned, but if it is it needs to be written in a tidy manner.LM2000 (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I too am not sure if the 90s bit is that important. Nor about the double champion bit; she is after all the only NXT women's champion ever, so the title didn't have much to say about itself, and NXT titles are not main roster titles anywho. The youngest ever champion bit is more notable and worthy of inclusion, though, as we routinely include records like that (c.f. Orton and Lesnar). oknazevad (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The double champion bit is mentioned in the intro, which I don't mind since we have to recognize her as the reigning champion of both titles. I don't think it belongs in the paragraph in question though.LM2000 (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Youngest, sure. Double champ, probably (the NXT belt does inherit notability, off-Wiki). 90s, nope. They'll all have been born in the '90s soon. Things like that only work for oldest people, and even then, centuries are cooler than decades. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Madison Eagles

Dear wrestling fans: This old Afc draft will soon be deleted. Is this a notable wrestler, and should the article be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I might have heard of her but I can't really remember. But, a #1 PWI ranking is certainly impressive. She would probably qualify for "major success in minor promotions". She most probably is notable.
Upon further thought I don't see why we shouldn't publish the draft. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 04:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I added a couple of more recent references. I don't know anything about professional wrestling, though - can someone here check to see if there are some references that are too closely connected or not reliable which should be removed before the draft is published? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Seems pretty good. But the LethalWow bio redirects to the home page, and Diva-Dirt isn't a magazine. Not sure it's notable enough that being one of its "Women of the Year" counts for much. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
One thing to note is that the an article about this person was deleted by a consensus less than a month ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Eagles (4th nomination). A good question is, is this version different than that version was because if not it would likely be deleted again?--70.49.72.34 (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
(actually it was a year ago...) —Anne Delong (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, although I had already noticed it. I asked an admin to check the old version and he agreed that this one was substantially different. I removed the LethalWow and the "Woman of the Year" claim and added a newspaper article. Because I'm not familiar with professional wrestling organizations, I may have accidentally added (or failed to remove) sources that are not independent, and I hope if that's the case someone here will adjust accordingly. The article is at Madison Eagles (professional wrestler) now. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your effort, Anne. Can I check when the article will be able to be moved to "Madison Eagles"? Lastly, I'd just like to also point out that every other SHIMMER champion has an article to themselves. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 02:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I have noticed that the article was moved to Madison Eagles (professional wrestler), however there is no article about anyone else named Madison Eagles so It should be moved. I can't do it myself so can someone please do so?--70.49.72.34 (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Patience, let's wait for Anne to give her reasons before we do anything. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
So many promotional articles were made about this person that the title is "salted" (create protected). We could apply to have it unsalted, but there is a chance that the article may be deleted again, so maybe we should wait a while and see if it "sticks" this time. Anyone searching for the name will still find it because of the autocomplete in the search engine. I've done the best I can with the article, but if anyone knows of more independent sources, especially about what she has been doing during the past year, please contribute them. If you want to see the history of the article you can look HERE. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
We should at least wait until we WP:PW members have improved the article, then move it. @Ribbon Salminen: would you be able to contribute? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 04:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I added a little something to the article. If it gets nominated again, I'll work on it some more as I feel pretty strongly that she's notable enough for an article, but has been unfairly frowned upon by the community because of the original AfD years ago. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, someone has added a lot of references to her profile, which is not independent, making the article look unreliable. It's been nominated for deletion again, not for that reason, but because the nominator feels that the article is no better than it was before and doesn't pass notability. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
It's possible to contest the speedy deletion, but perhaps someone more familiar with wrestling articles may want to do it. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The speedy deletion has been denied, and the article moved to Madison Eagles. It could still be taken to Afd, but if so you will have a chance to have your say about it. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

New AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Eagles (5th nomination) - you may wish to comment. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it seems that the article is here to stay at Madison Eagles. So long, wrestling fans... —Anne Delong (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
@Anne Delong: - no really, thank you - if you had never brought this up the article would not have made it. If you need help somewhere else in Wikipedia, take it that I owe you one; just don't ask me to look for printed sources though. starship.paint "YES!" 14:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I do have this little list of other articles I'm trying to rescue... —Anne Delong (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Oops. Missed your message. I'll take a look after handling WrestleMania XXX / NXT Arrival and see if there's any I'm more familiar with. starship.paint "YES!" 03:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Championship reign length

Can someone explain to me why we list title reigns from the moment their won, to the moment their lost, regardless if the promotion recognizes the same? If you're confused let me explain what I mean. The easiest example of this Christian's first WHC reign. He won it on May 1st, 2011 and lost it two days later at the SmackDown taping on May 3rd. This is what we list, however, WWE recognizes him as the champion until the air date on May 6th, making it a reign of 5 days. Why don't we go by when the company recognizes the loss of title? (Note: I'm not talking about unrecognized reigns, I'm talking about tape delay title changes.) CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 01:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm always for using airdates for storyline things. That's how they were intended, regardless of spoilers. The movie smarks know when Planet of the Apes was shot, but still set it in the far future. Roughly the same deal here. Christian only filmed the loss scene on Tuesday. It's why The Rockers weren't champs. Simply got cut from the finished product. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
WWE has been way too inconsistent about this issue. When Edge cashed in MitB, they made a big deal about how he won the title less than 24 hours after winning the briefcase. They also announced Khali's win the same way. Due to WWE being so contradictory about how to acknowledge their taping dates, we have no choice but to just continue using the actual date. (P.S. Another issue is that Smackdown airs on Thursdays in many international markets. It's kinda silly to count Christian's reign as 5 days when Australians saw him lose the title 4 days later.)Feedback ☎ 06:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
But we all know it what the US audience sees and when they see it is what "matters". Point being, inconsistent or not, I think we need to go by WWE.com on when the title reigns start and end when it comes to tape delay title changes. It makes the most sense as that is the titles official history. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 08:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think so. First, a title change is a fact. The fact is that Swagger won the WHC title a few days before the title change was aired. He was champion and had the title two days more. For example, Lethal and Creed won the TNA Tag Team title one month before it was aired. They were champions for a month, defended the titles at house shows. Or Sanada and the BroMans, three of them won titles and their victories, today, aren't aired. This is Wikipedia, no the WWE Wikipedia, we use facts and sources, not the WWE vision. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
How about listing both? In the table, we list both real no. with the (taped no.) in one column. For example, Christian is 2 (5). If the title change did not air on a taped show then no need for the (_). starship.paint "YES!" 12:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it's a bad idea. Too much number. Also, as far as I know, SD is aired on Thursday in Australia, so the SD results will have 3 numbers. I think a note it's enough --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd leave it to the rest of you to decide. I don't really feel very strongly on this either way. starship.paint "YES!" 12:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

We already do that we list the date the episode aired in the notes. We report facts, not belief. WWE wants you to believe Smackdown is live when it is not. The truth is how long someone actually held the title and the truth is some have held it for a day or 2 when in the belief they held it for a week. Only one is true.--WillC 13:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, in the physical real world they were the champion(s) from the second they won it. The coverage in the notes is enough in my opinion. We should be listing the time they were holder of the championships, not the WWE TV picture of it.STATic message me! 16:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Basically what see here is blatant disregard for the titles actual history. You want the date they won it at the taping listed, even though the previous champion is still recognized on WWE.com until the title change airs in the US. As Hulk said, it's roughly no different than a movie, the title loss is only filmed on Tuesday, it's not official until it airs in US markets. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 18:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
But that's just it; NPOV and out-of-universe requirements mean we state the date the match actually occurred. That's pretty straight forward. oknazevad (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I really don't understand how either of those policies apply here. We're talking about the dates at which a promotion recognizes someone as their champion. Not some storyline. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 18:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's storyline. According to TNA, Lethal and Creed won the title on 2009, however, the FACT is the team won the title on 2008. Lethal and Creed held the titles one month, it's a fact. Storyline, TNA says the held the title 2 days. But we use facts, no storylines. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
What you're failing to understand though is that they're both fact. The date the changed happened is fact, the date it was recognized is fact as well, not storyline. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 19:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
A fact is indisputable. The "recognized date" varies from place to place so it can't be considered a "fact". Feedback ☎ 19:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The recognition is what makes it official fact. Like how the US President doesn't become President as soon as the votes are counted, the champ isn't champ as soon as the shoulders are counted. Used to be (not sure about now that the wait time is shorter and kayfabe is dead), an ex-champ would defend the belt at house shows for a month or more, till the change aired. But I don't care enough to really argue. Discount this, officially. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The company recognizes the reign on the day it happens as well. They don't change the site but they recognize that it changed hands at the tapings. They recognize in the fact that they create the graphic and update the history prior to it actually happening so that the moment it happens they change over everything. So yes, the company officially recognizes the title change on the same day we have it noted. Does the whole world see it? No. But they recognize it in front of an arena of fans. The website is an afterthought.--WillC 18:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That literally makes zero sense, Will. That's not recognition. Or at least not the public recognition that matters. By that logic dark match main events are canon. It's not official until the company publicly recognizes it to the full general public, not just those in attendance. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 18:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Kayfabe Memories

Is this website considered reliable? Because it has a TON of material ([7]) from the WWC-NWA era that could be incorporated into several articles. Take for example the results of an early 1980s Carlos Colón-Harley Race feud that is not mentioned in either of their pages. El Alternativo (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure. The regional sections are written by "regular people", without oversight. But personally, I love that site and use it for my own learning. Regardless of how we define the whole site's reliability, it undoubtedly contains particular reliable info. If you'd like to use it for Race or Colon's articles, try to exercise due diligence in finding contradictory/corraboratory evidence. It will be useful if someone decides to challenge the claim on the site's reliability distinction alone. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering about the site in general. The articles appear to have been written by Manuel González, who I consider a reliable source. He has worked for the Wrestling Observer and contributed to several notable websites, including Puerto Rico Wrestling and Solie's. His work has even been discussed in the mainstream media. I just don't want to process a dozen articles for the content to be removed because "the website is not reliable". El Alternativo (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Given the variety of authors, it'd be hard to define the entire site (for good or bad). What applies to González won't apply to John Edwards, Cole Meade, Andrew Calvert or the rest. I think the best and worst it can hope for in a blanket appraisal is "not yet proven; use with caution". "Caution" would be Googling any apparent exceptional claim, and being prepared to argue. Not that there will be arguments, but best to be prepared. All depends on the claim, the person who challenges it and probably the time of day/month/year. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

NWA World Tag Team Championship

The Capitol version of the NWA World Tag Team Championship, held in WWE by Miguel Pérez and Antonino Rocca, does not have a page. Yet for some reason, the WWWF United States Tag Team Championship does. Why? 24.42.55.61 (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The WWWF was hotter than Capitol, and in a time of VCRs that's about it. The more exposure, the better a chance at the article. If there's enough about Capitol's title, feel free to make it. Often, a simple Gary Will title history seems to suffice. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much all I can see (or have ever heard) of the title boils down to what you said in your first sentence. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
So? The tandem did headline 28 of 34 cards at Madison Square Garden between 1957 & 1960 while defending them. Back then, there was no WWE World Heavyweight Championship and that makes these titles the most "exposed" during that time. That, and the fact that they are the first World Tag Team Championship ever sanctioned by WWE makes them notable. 24.42.55.61 (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The Million Dollar Championship is not even a "real" title and it has a page. Yet these belts are not even listed in the List of former championships in WWE, which is just plain wrong. 24.42.55.61 (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Here's a video of Perez' belt, 50 years later. I don't speak Spanish, but there could be some info. Like I said, if you think there's enough for an article, feel free. It's just that most of us weren't at MSG in the late 50s, so can't help much. Even if they were relatively famous in New York, that's still obscure. I know Perez and Rocca were the last champs, and never defeated. Do you know who they beat? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Eh, after recently editing the Ultimate Warrior and Jackie Fargo... I think I have used up my quota for editing yesteryear wrestlers... maybe for the next month >_> starship.paint "YES!" 03:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of Fargos and NWA Tag belts from the fifties, we're also missing Don. Fun fact: The Fargos vs Perez and Rocca drew 20,125 people and over $60,000 to the Garden on March 30, 1957, a record at the time. Good work, Starship! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course I know that, I just sourced that in the article. LOL. starship.paint "YES!" 03:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Funny that you mention Stevens and Fargo, because it was against them that Pérez and Rocca won the titles on March 30, 1957. 24.42.55.61 (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Weird how things come together like that, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Stevens? starship.paint "YES!" 03:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Don Stevens? Fargos' tag partner. 24.42.55.61 (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
All the sources I read today say "Don Fargo". starship.paint "YES!" 03:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
He used both. but back in 1957 he was still known as "Don Stevens". 24.42.55.61 (talk) 03:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
He was a lot of Dons. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
24 -> try adding that book source to the Jackie Fargo article. I'm almost done with editing for today. starship.paint "YES!" 03:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

And I believe that Guinness once recognized them as holding the "longest tag team reign", but for whatever reason their webpage is not working. 24.42.55.61 (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It sure isn't. Odd. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Either way, AFAIK the closet thing to the eight-year reign that Pérez-Rocca had with these belts was the NWA run of the The Skullkrushers. 24.42.55.61 (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Fun Facts: Skull Murphy opened that big MSG show, losing to Chief Big Heart. And Karl Von Hess fought Dick the Bruiser. Seven years later, around the time Bruno Sammartino turned the Latino cruiser crowds into Italian heavyweight crowds, Skull Von Krush was born (and Giorgio Morandi died). He was a good mix of power and speed, that guy. Doesn't get enough credit.
And yes, that's an impressive reign, if true. WrestlingData notes The Skullkrushers' run (just heard of them, by the way), but nothing for these belts. Guinness is still down. I hope they're alright. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It was actually only five years, the titles would have been dropped when the WWE/NWA affiliation ended instead of receiving a name change like the WWWF United States Tag Team Championship. However, it is easy to understand why the US Tag Titles gained more fame than the World Tag Titles. Pérez-Rocca never lost a match in WWE and being undefeated champions was their gimmick, making the World Tag Titles a plot device. Since the US Tag Titles actually changed hands, they gathered more attention. It is interesting to note that WWE's Antonino Rocca biography incorrectly lists them as the first US Tag Champions, but Pérez-Rocca never actually wrestled for those titles. 24.42.55.61 (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Still fairly impressive, but like you say, the title was more an exclusive gimmick than it was in, say, Demolition's day. Sort of like DiBiase's two-and-a-half year "reign" as Million Dollar champ. Not sure how WWE.com came to that conclusion on Rocca, but our US Tag history seems correct. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Guinness' site is back up. Yay! But the only thing they seem to have about pro wrestling is the longest match. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Or no, there are a few more for "wrestling" without the "pro(fessional)". Don't see our boys, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

According to the above video, Perez says he and Rocca won the title on March 28th, 1957 and beat The Graham Brothers, not Fargo and Stevens. Feedback ☎ 09:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This book calls that feud the "defining war of their Tag Team career", but doesn't mention any World tag belts. Just US. And that Eddie Graham was paid a turkey for his first match. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, what can I tell ya? That's what he says in the video. Feedback ☎ 02:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe you. Believe him, too. That belt came from somewhere. Just gets overlooked, for some reason. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

WM Photos

A flickr user offered me WM Photos. Which do you want? https://www.flickr.com/photos/122801678@N03 also, eh said "If you want me to put a (or more) photo for you to use on my main account, just give me the name(s)." --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Here are a few standout pictures for me:
Holy crap Miguel Discart has even more than the below. Demi-god.
.*** means absolutely essential for the WrestleMania XXX article.
.** means important for the individual's article starship.paint "YES!" 04:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

We apparently also have another 407 WM photos to choose from. Papacha forwarded me this link. Prefall has added some of those photos to Commons already. starship.paint "YES!" 03:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Soooo, will do I ask for the photos? Both of them have similar pics. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The answer to that is... "YES! YES! YES!" All the photos I asked for were not adequately covered by the ohhsnap_me source. starship.paint "YES!" 23:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Can I request this one of Alexander Rusev and this one of Rusev and Lana? Thanks. McPhail (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

On Monday, it begins my vacations (you know, Holy Week) so I'll have no-internet. I'll left a message to the user in Flickr with the photos. If we'll change the licence, you can upload the photos. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks HHH. Have a good rest! starship.paint "YES!" 12:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, time to sleep and one week of reast. I send the message. Take a look some day and upload them. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Second batch (for next week)
thanks! starship.paint "YES!" 02:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, F*ck XD Paint, you had 3 days XD. Ok, I'll send him a message. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

WWE alumni

Why are the alumni divided into alphabetically into different articles?? It just seems like such an arbitrary way to divide them. It makes searching for a particular wrestler a huge headache. Why not do it chronologically like most other lists are?? We can have one for the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and 2000's. Either that, or we could have an article for currently unaffiliated alumni, deceased alumni, retired alumni, etc. Feedback ☎ 23:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I forgot we even had those. Chronological would be better. Reasonable readers trying to remember the guy they saw back in the day will obviously remember which "day" that was quicker than what's-his-name's name. Can't think of any reason someone would need to read alphabetically. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Not into the deceased/retired/unaffiliated bit. With time, they all go there, and the list becomes another hodgepodge. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Chronological seems like the way to go. Any objections? Feedback ☎ 22:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Chronological does seem to be more reader friendly for those who may not be as obsessive as us. My only concern is by what date to categorize. Debut? It'd make sense, but what about a wrestler that's better known in a subsequent decade, like someone who debuted late in a decade but didn't become particularly notable until the ensuing years, or who became most famous under a different gimmick some years into their WWF/WWE career (like Kane)? That's why alphabetical, which is completely objective, does work. That said, sortable tables, anyone? oknazevad (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
If a wrestler was on the roster in more than one decade, then he can be listed on more than one list. I don't see why that would be a problem. Feedback ☎ 08:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Will decades start at 0 or 1? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Neither. I think we should do a sortable table with everybody by "debut date" and "final appearance". Then split off everybody into an equal amount. If there are a total of 1000 alumni and we are going to make 5 articles, then each article should have 200 alumni. So if the first 200 alumni span 30 years, and the next 200 span 10 years, that's how we divide the articles. Do you agree? Feedback ☎ 15:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems a bit convoluted. Readers (especially casual or non-fans) would seem more likely to use the calendar as a frame of reference than the histories of contemporary wrestlers. But if we go this route, do we split articles on the debut dates or the final dates? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Debut date makes the most sense. Ordering it by release date would be convoluted, because (1) some guys have been released long after their careers were over, (2) others haven't been properly released by the company, (3) some guys have been signed and released various times. Feedback ☎ 19:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
There are this many alumni. Jesus. Thankfully, they don't all have Wiki articles. Some don't even have WrestlingData profiles. Is there a way to count how many alumni aren't on our lists, but do have an article? Automatically, I mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
People who are looking for information about a wrestler shouldn't need to know the year of debut or retirement in order to find that information. They would be looking based on the wrestler's name. It should stay the way it is. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Just this weekend, a drinking buddy was reminded of "that garbageman wrestler...what was his name?" Another guy confidently replied "The Trashmaster" and Buddy #1 said "Oh yeah!", before I set it straight. These are the people the lists should suit. Those who mostly tune out between booms, but still remain fans at heart, or are forced to watch it with someone. They remember the general timeframe (they wouldn't need the exact year to find the article) and remember the gimmick/face, but that's it.
People who already know the name can use the search box. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
^Agreed. The current format lists everyone by their real name which is obviously the LAST piece of information anyone would know. Readers who want to look up a particular wrestler in a haystack will most likely know the timeframe the wrestler was active before their real name or stagename. If I know Gunner Scott's WWE name, I'll just go directly to Gunner Scott. If I don't know his name and want to find out, I'll go to the 2000's alumni page because that's where I remember him from. Feedback ☎ 19:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Music in professional wrestling

This article has multiple issues with it, and with it being such an important part of modern professional wrestling, it's such a shame. I would like someone to please take this article up as a project and fix it up. I would do it, but I seriously don't even know where to start. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 17:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I've started by nuking the lists. Too arbitrary and/or WWE-centric. You (or someone) could start by asking "Why is it a such an important part of modern professional wrestling?" If you answer that, try to find sources supporting your answer. Avoid things that don't answer that question, and you'll have the meat of an educational article. After that, just a matter of arranging it by subtopic and replacing the old article entirely. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It also read too much like a commercial for Jim Johnston and Dale Oliver. Not only did Jimmy Hart contribute to the development of music within the business, his credentials within the music industry far outpace those two. There's also Sgt. Slaughter's self-promoting claim. I don't remember seeing Slaughter using entrance music until his second WWF stint in 1983. I was recently reminded of watching GCW on WTBS in late 1980, when Michael Hayes and Terry Gordy were in a screaming-white-hot feud with Ted DiBiase and Robert Fuller. Hayes and Gordy did promos with Gordon Solie while "Free Bird" played in the background the entire time. Call it a wrestling music video, I suppose. From what I've read/seen/otherwise come across, by that particular point, both major Japanese promotions were making extensive use of music, but it was otherwise rare in the business outside of incidental/bumper music on television programs. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Hayes was on the Steve Austin Show a couple of weeks ago. Mentioned one other (newer) guy beside Gorgeous George who used music first. I forget who, but don't think I heard Slaughter. I'll take a scan through it. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It was Lawler, periodically. Hayes insists he was still the first to make a thing of it. Jerry Jarrett was the first to allow him, against Lawler and Dundee. After that (house show) match, Lawler turned on Dundee, sabotaging the feud and sending the Freebirds to Bill Watts, who came up with the idea of using music on TV. About an hour and ten minutes into the interview. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems that first Freebird entrance was August 3, 1979 in Tupelo. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of Steve Austin, he also has a pretty deep interview with Jim Johnston, mainly about wrestling music. Any fan of the topic would probably benefit.
And any fan of comedy should hear today's episode. Starting at 5:40, he's analyzing 20 Things You Didn't Know About Rats, preparing to wrestle one (or more) for control of the Broken Skull Ranch. The match (probably) won't happen, but the way he's been building it (for weeks now) is brilliant. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I was gonna mention Lawler. He used songs like "Gonna Fly Now" and "Eye of the Tiger" on special occasion, never regularly (plus other gimmicks like riding to the ring on a white horse) going back to his "first ascent to power" in the 1970s. Speaking of Watts: last I checked, someone felt it was "trivia" to mention in There and Back (Jeff Beck album) that "Star Cycle" was the theme of Mid-South Wrestling. That song was also used by NJPW at around the same time, accompanying the announcements of the gaijin appearing on the upcoming tour. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, it was in a trivia section. UWF used "Play the Bass" from Time Exposure, which Beck played on. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Lance Storm

Just for laughs. Start reading from In April 2004, Storm chose to retire from in-ring action ... count how many times he came out of retirement. starship.paint "YES!" 03:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Including against the retirement king. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

"Mike Polchlopek" to "Bart Gunn". McPhail (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Again? Alright. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's another one, Valerie French (wrestling) to Sunshine (wrestling).LM2000 (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Much simpler. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Two things. Aren't requested moves. 1, do you think this template is pointless? 2, Do somebody want to improve the article about Chris Candido? I mean... it's Candido. I want to improve it, but I feel I'll need some help. Thanks --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I did a bit for Candido. What exactly would you like improved? I forgot to look at the template. Probably pointles. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Yep. It sure is. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, his career is too small. Isn't separated by promotion, doesn't mention his feud with Lance Storm... looks like a quick view to his career. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Good points. I like how it isn't as huge and blocky as more recent midcarder articles, but it could use some expansion. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Good work, McPhail. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Another RM: "WWE Cruiserweight Championship" to "WCW Cruiserweight Championship". McPhail (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

A few more to consider (I'll leave any actual RMs for later):

  • "Mike Miller (wrestler)" to "Mean Mike Miller" (or alternately, there's an existing redir at "Mean" Mike Miller). In the spirit of natural disambiguation; I'm neutral on its actual usefulness.
  • "Yasuhiro Kojima" to "Hiro Matsuda" (existing redir). I wasn't 100 percent sure on this. My opinion may depend upon whether he made later appearances in Japan (later as in after he adopted the Matsuda name and more-or-less established permanent residence in the United States) as Kojima or as Matsuda, something I'm not all that familiar with.
  • "Hisao Tanaka" to "Duke Keomuka" (existing redir). The only context in which most fans would even know him as Tanaka would be the more recent (read: post-retirement) context of his being Pat Tanaka's father. Otherwise, pretty much overwhelmingly known as Keomuka during his wrestling career, where he was a big star in a number of territories (particularly the McLemore-era Dallas circuit). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Never heard of Miller, but the other moves seem right. Matsuda doesn't seem to have used his birthname professionally since 1960. Keomuka's article could really use some expansion, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think abour nicknames in the article'es name. Only a few cases (two wrestlers called Danny Davis, Stone Cold and Billy Graham) but I think (wrestler) is more appropiate. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Hiro Matsuda should at least be moved. He used that name also in New Japan and since his ja.wiki article is also at "Hiro Matsuda" it's safe to assume he's better known under that name also in his native country. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding "stables" to "In wrestling" sections of wrestler bios

An IP is adding a list of stables to several wrestler bios, like Nexus and the Wyatt Family to Husky Harris/Bray Wyatt. So... agree or disagree? Should we include this, or revert? starship.paint "YES!" 05:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Revert. It's fancruft. Whatever info on stables is already shown in context.Feedback ☎ 18:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see much a difference from listing tag teams. Just a bigger team, isn't it? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it should be added. It's pertinent information, not fancruft as Feedback suggests. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 17:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think so. Which stables/tag teams? Every alliance the wrestler had? For example, Billy Gunn:smocking gunns, New Age Outlaws, DX, Billy & Chuck, Beautifull People, 3LK... and the smoking show (with big show?) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, all of them. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 18:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
No, the ones with sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Wrestlers like Austin Aries participated in near 10 tag teams/stables http://www.cagematch.net/?id=2&nr=666&page=8 I don't see the point to include the information (information in the article). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
It's just as important to the Wrestler's career as say a Manager, and we list those in that section. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 18:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

- CR90 raises a good point. Why are we including managers then? What's the difference from including stables, if both are to be mentioned in the career section? starship.paint "YES!" 06:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You're basically arguing to content fork inside the same article. This is really a silly suggestion. Feedback ☎ 11:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
That pretty much makes no sense; if it's the same article, it's by definition not a content fork. And it's far from a silly suggestion when, as pointed out, we list every tag team and manager in a wrestler's career. Stables are no different, and should be included. oknazevad (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
You know what I'm saying. There is no Wikipedian colloquialism for unnecessarily repeating content inside the same article because anyone with common sense would obviously avoid it. All stables are already listed in the article prose. Adding it again in a different section just adds unnecessary size to the article. Feedback ☎ 19:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The same could be said for tag teams and managers, though. So unless we remove those from the "In wrestling" sections, it makes no consistent sense to leave out stables. And, remember, per the five pillars, Wikipedia does act, at least in part, as an almanac, so I would oppose removing those from the "In wrestling" section, as that's the almanac-like portion of wrestler bios. oknazevad (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

So now what? The hypocrisy is evident when we list managers and not stables. Managers should be listed in the article prose as well. They're not signature moves or entrance music which won't turn up in the article prose. In terms of actual enforcement of this rule, it will be quite simple to insert managers and stables into each article. The enforcement problem comes when we take it a step further and list tag teams. Where should we draw the line on tag teams being listed so that every random tag partner isn't mentioned? Tag teams which have Wikipedia articles? How about the deleted Curt Hawkins and Tyler Reks? What about one-night teams who held tag gold like John Cena and the Miz? starship.paint "YES!" 08:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

WWE Brand Extension

Could someone take a look at recent edits to WWE Brand Extension? An IP has made a few changes to the listings there that seem major but possibly accurate, but another IP in the same range recently made a lot of changes that removed content and made little sense, which I reverted. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Professional Wrestling At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Main PPV article infobox

It's always bugged me how the main PPV articles, like WWE Royal Rumble, lack an infobox. So, I have made one up in my sandbox and propose it for use in mainspace. (BTW, feel free to adjust it.) CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 21:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but gimmick? I mean, Royal Rumble, War Games, All matches in a cage?... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. TLC match at TLC, Hell in a Cell match at Hell in a Cell, Royal Rumble match at Royal Rumble, etc. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 21:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good to me. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Were there any with brief enough runs to have a "brand" throughout? Even Bad Blood was In Your House once, according to Wikipedia lore. Or do you intend to list dates in parentheses? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of gimmicks, we have no Star Wars at all (not that one, the World Class ones). Not PPVs, but pretty major. Food for thought. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Gimmick is kinda jargon-y. See Merriam-Webster on gimmick. I've replaced with "special matches", more easily understood IMO. starship.paint "YES!" 08:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
See the problem I have with the label "special matches" is that it infers that the match can only or only takes place at that event. And that's not true, outside of the Royal Rumble. We have a TLC later today at Extreme Rules on the pre-show. And while gimmick is jargon-y, unless you can come up with a less jargon-y way of saying "the event is built around this match or event-within-an-event" then, I don't see another way than to use the jargon and maybe hotlink it. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 09:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't see it like you do, I can see "gimmick" also implying that "this match only happens here". Would "featured matches" be better? starship.paint "YES!" 09:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Featured matches does sound better to me. I have updated it.CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 18:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I also don't get that vibe from it. But I don't have a wording preference. Thanks for reminding me about the PPV tonight! I only know the main event, this time around, so the whole card will have an "anything can happen" feel. More pumped than usual. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as we have apparently general consensus to use it here. What should the template's name be? Template:Infobox Wrestling PPV series? CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 18:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

What is the point of this really? We are listing in the info box a special match that may occur at any other show? Why is that important? Doesn't the lead say that right off the bat? This is really pointless and doesn't add much. Infact it will become more of a headache. Every single ip will add it to all articles. Eventually, it will list 3 way dances and random stupid matches in the featured section because they were gimmick matches.--WillC 09:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see it a problem if it's added to all articles - isn't that the point? I can't see it devolving into triple threats (which PPVs have that consistently?) - I have confidence in humanity today. starship.paint "YES!" 12:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't belong in all articles. No Mercy, Heatwave and SuperBrawl didn't really have much of a "thing". They just happened at about the same time each year. Others are obviously selling a Fatal 4-Way. IPs do all sorts of stupid shit. If not here, wherever. And we revert it. Circle of Wikilife. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is we won't revert it. There is not enough of us to keep the status quo. This will end up in all articles. The little templates at the bottom of pages was only supposed to have been a good or feature topic thing. They now exist for every single page with more than one correlating article. These things happen and there is no way to stop it. The best move is to practice pragmatism in this situation.--WillC 20:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That's quite the Chicken Little attitude. Most of us revert crap each day. Not all of it, but all part of Wikipedia as a continual work in progress. The status quo depends on the many, not the few. If we can't keep things the way we think they should be, they may not be as they should. Though, of course, if the many are dangerously retarded, there's always page protection. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad you said chicken little because I study economics and in the realm of social behavior, if one person believes something then others begin to believe it. It is a domino effect, if one person believes prices will rise then others will start to think the same and thus prices will actually rise due to the increase in demand now. So I'm gonna adapt that to this. I believe ips will add it, the purpose is to add it to pages. Someone not familiar with this agreement will think to add it to another page, then another person will see that and have a similar idea, thus the situation will continue. Editors notice the main pages, WWE and TNA pages. They get in indy articles and aren't changed. How many of you look at articles like Maryland Championship Wrestling, Frontier Wrestling Alliance, etc? This is inevitable. Pragmatism was the best course of action here.--WillC 23:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Wait, I don't understand, WillC, what are you objecting against exactly? Could you give me an example "where things go wrong" for the Frontier Wrestling Alliance page, for example. This is a PPV series infobox, does it apply to them? 13:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Carol Anne thought the same in Poltergeist III. Maybe, to avoid all that, we should just stop talking about it. No suggestion, no reaction. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Those are just examples of indy pages. I'm objecting to whether this really adds anything. It will do more harm than good.--WillC 08:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Some people like reading infoboxes, I guess. I'm just not seeing any potential harm yet. The name is clearly "wrestling PPV series". starship.paint "YES!" 08:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Indy promotions have nothing to do with major promotions PPVs. Every article should have an infobox, they do nothing but improve the look of the article and provide important information quickly. If we were not going to improve things just to avoid possible disputes, then might as well just shut down the site now. STATic message me! 13:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Straw poll

Ok, I believe we have a consensus here to use it. However I don't want to jump to conclusions, so a straw poll to see where we stand is in order. Please indicate whether you support or oppose the infobox. If you support, please include a suggestion for the name of the template in your comment. (i.e.: Template:Infobox Wrestling PPV series) CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 18:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Done

I let the discussion run for a week and only saw one person oppose to one parameter, but not the template. As such, I have gone ahead and moved it from my sandbox to Template:Infobox wrestling PPV series and already added it to Royal Rumble, WWE Elimination Chamber and WrestleMania. I'm gonna go spend the rest of my evening with my mom for Mother's Day. Feel free to start adding it to the rest. I'll do some more late this evening. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 22:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

"Unofficial" reigns?

What is the official posture regarding these? Because at the moment, a couple of sourced ones are being removed from the List of NWA World Heavyweight Champions, while several others remain untouched. I know that List of WWE Champions lists Inoki and support keeping them in the lists with a note (just like its being done right now). By keeping them, we help to illustrate the actual history of these titles. Can something prove just how hot Ric Flair was in the 1980s better than the Veneno incident? Hell, the Carlos Colón reign was notable enough to make the WWE Encyclopedia and his HOF t-shirt. El Alternativo (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

We generally review unofficial reigns on a case-by-case basis, which can be a pain in the ass. Colón's reign was unofficial, but is notable, and is even recognized by WWE, so we should leave that one. The IPs suggestion to remove all unofficial reigns if Hogan's cannot be listed is ridiculous. Some title matches have dusty finishes and nobody ends up recognizing the reign. You guys have to discuss, at this point, (you've warred enough) to figure out where Hogan's reign goes.LM2000 (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, one of them -the Ray González one- was witnessed by me in person. And, as I explained in HHH Pedrigree's talk page, IWA took several steps to make it known that the win stood and that despite the belt being stripped afterwards, they still recognized the change. It was not a "dusty finish". Since that booking was made with Jeff Jarrett's (who was involved in the NWA-TNA licensing deal) full consent, I think that it should remain. BTW, I am not the IP, my edit only restored the one that was actually witnessed. I can't vouch for the Hogan reign, but just removing it without discussion is probably not a good idea. El Alternativo (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Using the definitions below, I think Gonzalez would count as an unofficial reign as IWA seemed to have recognized it.LM2000 (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
According Wrestlinglover, a unofficial reign and a no-reign are different thing. 1, unofficial reign: the match ended with a victory. It's a fact and we talk about facts. After, one company doesn't recognized the new champion, the other does. 2, no reign. The match ends with a dusty finish or the referee decision was reversed. In that case, the reign doesn't exist because the winner didn't won. For example. Jericho won the WWF Title. However, the victory was reversed, so Jericho didn't won the match, so he never won the WWF Title. (later, he won the Undisputed title). I think the expert is Wrestlinglover --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Wrestlinglover's definitions seem pretty solid to me as well.LM2000 (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
About Hogan, I don't think so. The descrpition is a mess "Terry "The Hulk" Boulder pinned NWA World Champion Harley Race to win the NWA World Championship, but the decision was voided when Terry was discovered to have thrown Race over the top rope during the match. Normally this would simply be looked at as a "Dusty finish" and ignored but video footage from the following night has surfaced in which Boulder's win is recognized - albeit briefly. This title change is not currently recognized by the NWA." Description says it was a dusty finish. Sources? http://hulkhoganhistory.weebly.com/title-history.html Hulk Hogan website/fanpage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgMdEbATOyQ Youtube clip when Hogan was presented as champion (Also, Ted DiBiase was presented three times as wwf champion). http://wrestlingclassics.com/.ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=114197 a forum. Clearly, it was a dusty finish and maybe, an error from the announcer. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Announcers misspeak all the time. None of the sources seem adequate enough for me. Saying Hogan won the NWA title for 36 seconds is like saying The Rockers beat The Hart Foundation for the tag titles at SNME in 1990. We do make note of their "victory" as a note next to Hart Foundation's reign, but it's clearly a "no-reign" instead of an "unofficial reign".LM2000 (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that if a decision was voided (meaning that there is "no winner") listing that as a "reign" is probably a stretch. However, when one of the sides lays claim to the win (and a pinfall did occur), we should include it. In González's case, the reign was recognized both live and in a show that was taped a few days afterwards. I wish that we had a reference with a more detailed summary, but the one there at least confirms the result and notes the "brief" reign. El Alternativo (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Most of these issues again are a case by case basis. Some that seem official may not actually be official reigns. The one thing I want to point out is any recognized reign needs to be counted towards the official total, even if it was for a brief second and then noted that it is no longer recognized. Seem the list of TNA champions as an example.--WillC 04:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

While we're on the topic... I see that Jack Veneno's reign is listed at 0 days. This doesn't seem right, as what I've read is that Veneno defeated Flair under dubious circumstances, but Flair let Veneno keep the belt expecting to regain it at another time. In Veneno's title defense he ended up retaining against Flair due to fear of riots, and Veneno just gave the belt back because he didn't want to defend outside of the Dominican Republic, because of this it was never recognized by the wider NWA. How much time passed between Veneno's initial win and his handing the title back to Flair?LM2000 (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

What I have read is that Flair was offered the belt back, but preferred to wrap the storyline up by allowing Veneno to keep it and carry it to the ring for their "rematch". Like the original, the rematch was supposed to end with Flair on top, this time with the help of Roddy Piper, but apparently a pair of guards legitimately threatened Piper at ringside. And Flair decided to hightail it... Again. Flair did leave the DR with the belt, which points to the whole "not wanting to defend outside the DR" part being a work. Anyways, the reign lasted a day. El Alternativo (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Guess my hunch wasn't right.LM2000 (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Lilian Garcia's birthplace?

We have a reference in the article saying that she was born in Puerto Rico and moved to Spain. The birthplace is still listed as "Madrid Spain". And on the talk page there is discussion about her being born in South Carolina. Which one is it? 24.42.55.61 (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, the reference being used to source her birthplace as Madrid doesn't say anything about her being born there, just that she was raised in Spain due to her parents' work. 24.42.55.61 (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a big difference brtween being born somewhere and raised somewhere. Being raised in Madrid in no way proves that she was born there.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I mention elsewhere my complaints that Wikipedians take "from" to mean "born and raised" and little else. Combine this with an attitude that every biographical article should have the subject's birthplace mentioned, even if it's just totally made up out of thin air due to a lack of reliable sources. I've been kept pretty busy having to correct countless instances of this over the years. I referred to Mean Mike Miller in a previous thread. Miller has himself stated that he's from Tennessee, he was billed from Tennessee during his early career as a jobber, and he speaks with a Southern accent. More importantly, the source doesn't state that he was born in Portland, only that Portland is his "hometown". Many of Don Owen's wrestlers settled in Oregon, because that's where they had their greatest success in the business, and/or because Oregon is simply a great place to live, its political climate notwithstanding. I wouldn't be in Alaska if it weren't such a great place to live. My birthplace is the place where I was born and lived up through the first few years of elementary school. My hometown (the same place I live today) is where I've spent the majority of my life since moving away from my birthplace, which includes the majority of my schooling and the majority of my accomplishments as an adult. See the difference? I only mention this because of constantly finding myself in conversations with people who don't. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I found myself in that elsewhere conversation (one of them, anyway), and have agreed twice now. I sort of live on that page lately, but this Wikiproject will always be my homepage. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Here's a take on this subject that's a little more relevant. It's well known that Terry Funk was born in Indiana. However, it's ludicrous to assert that he's "known for being from Indiana", considering his decades-long, strong public persona (and to a certain extent, real-life background) as this crazy, pissed-off cowboy from West Texas. Likewise, Kevin Von Erich isn't known for being from Illinois, Kerry isn't known for being from New York and Chris Benoit isn't known for being from Quebec (though that fact may go far in explaining his surname). In diffusing Category:Professional wrestlers from_, an inordinate amount of weight was given towards categorization according to the subject's birthplace, even in cases of wrestlers "known for" (and not in the kayfabe sense, either) residence in another place. Sounds like a perverse interpretation of WP:OC to me, as in any other case, we would be using said WP:OC to remove categories deemed undefining of or unimportant to the subject. To elaborate on "undefining of", how many second and third generation wrestlers were born on the road in some faraway wrestling territory? Anyway, this has been a problem which transcends this one little topic. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Those are useful categories, though. People researching famous people from a particular state can use those categories to identify subjects. You might not feel that Terry Funk is "known for" being from Indiana, but that's not what the category is about. He was born in Indiana, so he is a professional wrestler from Indiana. Keep in mind that it's quite likely that people looking through that category might not just be looking to learn about Terry Funk, for example, but also to learn about Indiana and famous Hoosiers (even those who are not "known for" being Hoosiers). Yes, Terry Funk makes me think of Texas first. However, that's irrelevant, if we are lookign to provide useful information to a wide audience. Therefore, he is a professional wrestler from Indiana, and he is a professional wrestler from Texas. This si standard with categorization in other sports on Wikipedia. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Another requested move

"Eddie Gilbert (wrestler)" to "Hot Stuff Eddie Gilbert". McPhail (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Would Alfred Hayes (wrestler) to Lord Alfred Hayes be a good move?LM2000 (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion it would be, it does appear to be his common name. That is if he was known as throughout his time in WWE as Lord Alfred Hayes, I am not as familiar with that period as I would like to be. STATic message me! 06:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Alfred Hayes (wrestler) to Lord Alfred Hayes.LM2000 (talk) 05:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

NXT event comparison

I am having trouble understanding notability criteria. How do we determine that NXT Arrival gets a page while NXT Takeover does not?

How do we compare the notability of these pair of NXT events to Clash of the Champions?

I think we need to look at things besides whether or not something is a pay-per-view. It is possible for these events to possibly do more for a company than a pay-per-view could. Ranze (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe that there is a consensus here, that generally, special TV episodes or WWE Network specials do not deserve individual articles. If the only factor in favour is that it's being "built like a PPV" or that it has many title matches, then it is not enough. Otherwise, every Clash of the Champions episode or special TV episodes of Impact Wrestling called No Surrender (2013) would require individual articles. For NXT Arrival, the crucial additional factor was that it was the first live in-ring event on the Network. If there is no additional factor, then I believe it doesn't deserve an individual article. Instead it should be collected as a list like List of WWE NXT special episodes provides for. starship.paint "YES!" 03:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
With very rare exceptions, special episodes do not get separate articles. Arrival is one of those exceptions because of its importance to the WWE Network. Although I don't agree with it, Raw 1000 is the only Raw special episode to get a separate article, because of its wider importance as being a landmark in television. I don't see anything exceptional about Takeover that would warrant an article separate from List of WWE NXT special episodes.LM2000 (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Arrival has some historical significance due to being the first live broadcast on WWE Network. Takeover has no such extra history to it. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Takeover is the first special where a new NXT Woman's Champion was crowned, that should be worth something. Ranze (talk) 02:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
That's splitting hairs. Even if the inaugural champion was crowned there I wouldn't think that would be enough to warrant a separate page.LM2000 (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to expand on that... The episode of WWF The Main Event where Hulk Hogan dropped the world championship to Andre the Giant doesn't have its own article. That holds quite a bit more significance than Charlotte's win.LM2000 (talk) 02:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Ranze by that logic any special show with a new champion would qualify for an article. Let's look at it from another direction. Our WP:PW project is too small, we have too few members. If there are too many articles, who is going to write them up to an acceptable standard? TNA has only 4 PPVs per year now, but look at the state of Sacrifice (2014), one reference, no Event section, no Aftermath section and a negligible Reception section. How about WWE's Money in the Bank (2013)? No Event or Reception section, entirely unsourced Background and Aftermath section. If we can't maintain the definite PPV articles, how are we going to maintain the "special" TV or Network articles? It's going to be mostly IPs who are editing, and they can't do it too well. We must be pragmatic here. (LOL LM2000 you spoiled Charlotte's win... never mind, I saw it coming anyway)
  • Also, Ranze, if you really want to improve and expand an article, there are many to choose from. I'd recommend SummerSlam (2013) as a great show. Or, you could improve Raw 1000. starship.paint "YES!" 04:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Quality articles or featured content in WP:PW

Hey! I know that this Wikiproject has Featured content or "Article examples" that displays in the main page. The problem here is that I'm concern of its completion especially the DYKs, says the last time a pro wrestling article appeared was in June 2012. So over a year there have been no articles in DYK? I'm in doubt. I believe the solution for that is to screw the manual editing and a bot like JL-Bot to do the hard work. I'm also proposing to split the section to have its own page (something we could be proud of), since bots will discover every featured content there is. (Recognized content) Let me know what you all think so that we could discuss this further. Thanks! FairyTailRocks 06:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Meh, a bot would work. Not that much of an issue. We don't get many GAs, etc anymore around here. Probably easy to update the lists. I know of a couple that aren't on there. I tend to include all of the materials I get promoted other than DYKs. Last one I'd be aware of would be by me. Victory Road (2008) just went GA and prior to that DYK. Probably it.--WillC 08:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
FairyTailRocks if you can get the bot up running, that would be great. Don't be so surprised at the lack of DYKs - between my join date of May 2011 and your GA of Cody Rhodes and Goldust, almost all the GAs were passed by WillC or myself, and I did not go for any DYKs, until NXT Arrival, whose DYK ran on the main page yesterday. starship.paint "YES!" 05:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I will try my best to find one. FairyTailRocks 05:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Did you know Capital Combat "also featured" the former Johnny Ace getting buried by the future Undertaker? Did you know he's apparently still "WWE Executive Vice President of Talent Relations and General Manager of Raw and SmackDown"? Did you know the article's been tagged for six and a half years? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Age in infoboxes

Hi. Ribbon and me have a little discussion. At You Only Live Twice, Icarus (31 years old) won the Grand Championship. The previous champion, Eddie Kingston, was 29 when he won the title. However, he holded the title for two years, so he was 32 when he lost the title. That mean's Kingston is the Youngest (29) and oldest (32) years old. However, infobox instructions say "oldest The oldest person to win the title followed by their age at the time of the title win." That makes no sense. Kingston is the oldest champion because he had the title when he was 32, but instructions say the oldest champion is Icarus. I think we should change it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I think age matters more at the time of the win. The (sort of) impressive bit lies in the fact that a booker decided an older man should become champ, rather than decide an older man should lose the belt. The "big moment" for any-aged champion is the win.
That said, if we're using the term "Oldest champion", then a 32-year-old champion on the way out is clearly older and just as much a champ as the 31-year-old new champ. Something should be changed. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
When I said "something", I mean the intructions XD --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Aye, got that. When I said it, I meant either the instructions or the term. Change it to "Oldest man to win the championship", maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Proposing "Oldest wrestler at time of championship win" starship.paint "YES!" 04:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
"Oldest championship winner" says as much in fewer words. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The age thing is annoying. We need sources for most of it which is hard. Usually it is just original research.--WillC 05:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. I'll change it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
As long as the birth date of the wrestlers are sourced, it should be fine? starship.paint "YES!" 09:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
And the switch date, of course. Simple subtractions are not synthesis. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to make it clear. In the example case, which of the guys would belong in the infobox as the oldest champ; Kingston who won it at 29 and lost it at 32 or Icarus who won it at 31? HHH seems to think you're agreeing with his view, but "oldest wrestler at time of championship win" doesn't sound like it to me. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The fact is Kingston is the oldest championship holder. It doesn't matter when he won the title (for youngest champion). He became the oldest champion at the age of 32. We can't say Icarus is the oldest champion when he is 31. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
No one's denying that Kingston held it at an older age. The idea was to change the "oldest champion" to "oldest championship winner", in which case Icarus would be the "oldest championship winner". リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Again, not sense. I think when the project made the list, didn't think about a champion become the oldest champion durning his reign. We should talk about Oldest CHAMPION, not winner. It's the whole information, not only part of the information. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Anoother answere? Oldest winner or oldest holder? That's the question. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

WWE Money in the Bank

"As of TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs (2013), WWE's two world titles are unified into one. Therefore, unless events unfold otherwise, there will only one Money in the Bank match at the 2014 event with the winner getting a shot at the WWE World Heavyweight Championship."


^ What's with that terrible terrible wording? Feedback ☎ 00:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Surely a blue user would not have written that. It's WP:CRYSTAL anyway so I am removing. starship.paint "YES!" 05:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think it's notable to mention that one of the prizes has been discontinued (a shot at the retired WHC). But it's definitely speculation to say there will only be 1 MitB match. They could just come up with another prize if they wanted to. Feedback ☎ 15:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
That's a good point, it could very well be for the US or IC championship, we simply don't know what they will do yet.--70.49.80.26 (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
We can just wait a while. The PPV is a month or so away, right? All will be clear soon. starship.paint "YES!" 04:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Seth Rollins stable status

You are cordially invited to participate in this discussion about the apparent defection of Rollins to Evolution. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 08:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Well, tag team infoboxes. As you know, the infoboxes include the "promotion" section, where we listed all the promotions where the tag team worked. However, I think it's useless. Tag Teams like Jerishow only includes one promotion, others like Young Bucks or Irish Airbourne include more than 10 promotions (most of them, letters without meaning like SCW, ATW, PPW...) I think we should delete it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

HE LIVES

Brimstone (wrestler) has been recreated and PROD-ed (proposed for deletion). The creator of the article somehow knows Prior to beginning his career in professional wrestling, Brimstone had a career in music performing as the drummer in bands such as Image, Who’s Laughing Now, and Bugsy. or While Critical Mass was still building, Brimstone came up with and printed out mini flyers in order to start gaining some interest in the school. He personally went to malls, WWF and WCW events at the Nassau Coliseum, Gyms, etc. to hand out these flyers and paper them on cars. I am not ssure whether the PROD is even valid for an recreated article previously deleted by AfD, so I tried to contact the PROD-er, no response yet. If the PROD is invalid, I'm willing to write up an AfD. starship.paint "YES!" 04:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

In a related matter, are we ever going to do anything about Ric Drasin? Trim or delete for this other obvious conflict of interest case? starship.paint "YES!" 04:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I discovered his claim to notability. The infobox says that he was born in 1874. The photo in the infobox shows him to be awfully young for someone born in 1874. Obviously, he was the inspiration for that ICP song, "I Want My Shit". Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go and laugh at my own joke.
Seriously, since you also mention Ric Drasin, I keep thinking of how Johnny Powers comes across as a little too autobiographical/hagiographic. There is a major difference of note, namely that Powers has actual accomplishments in the business to speak of. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
You just reminded me I told The Stro I'd help his page. Soon. Maybe.
As for Drasin, can't someone else do it? Trim, I mean. He's definitely notable. Just...you know. Not a legend. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I added a source to Brimstone, but the prod's still good, because it isn't a reliable one. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
How similar is this to the deleted version, if it is a G4 deletion could ge attempted unless it has alreay been declined.--70.49.80.26 (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, has anyone considered looking into the creator since it seems odd that someone would create this article on their first edit?--70.49.80.26 (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
How similar? It's even more detailed with inane details nobody other than Brimstone would likely know. But I'm not sure what exactly can we do to the creator. starship.paint "YES!" 02:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

AfD

If you're interested... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current professional wrestling champions --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

More comments definitely needed here. starship.paint "YES!" 10:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

New user Ana Xsosta

Can someone help me out with this new user? Per the contributions page it seems that Ana Xsosta doesn't really know how to edit Wikipedia very well, especially regarding how Wiki-links [[AA#BB|CC]] work and uploading copyrighted files. Adding moves like Proxanui that I've never heard of (and Google can't find it either). Or check Dean Ambrose's edit history? No response to three talk page messages I sent. starship.paint "YES!" 09:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Block. Ask for a ban. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Update: Ana Xsosta turned out to be a sockpuppet of User:7alawa el3antbly, as did Flikerst. All accounts blocked indefinitely. starship.paint "YES!" 13:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Professional Wrestling at Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Archive 88 has over 230 threads

Does anyone know why that happened? Feedback ☎ 00:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

<ambrose> Nope. </ambrose> Manually updated to 92. starship.paint "YES!" 01:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
No clue. Can't help but notice everything else has disappeared, except the spam. As a (Maple Leaf) wrestling fan, I prefer the Klik. Should we delete that or what? I feel like I'm in some sort of tightly packed container here. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I found a clue. It's in the Miszabot II banner. That's all I can say. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay I fixed it in the archive code, but Miszabot is supposed to update it on its own. Feedback ☎ 22:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
And Skynet was supposed to defend humanity. Plans change. I'd try not to worry about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

In the immortal words of the legendary philosopher Theodore R. Long: "Hold up, playa." This has been going on for quite some time. Since I first started paying any attention, it was archiving to Archive 82, then Archive 85, then Archive 88. It did appear as if the interim archives were properly created in the process, however. Hopefully, this is what was fixed. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Wildcatbelts.com

Hi all. A few weeks ago I made a request at WP:IFU to upload this Wildcatbelts.com photo for T. Rantula. As I understood from this thread last year the owner of Wildcatbelts.com granted permission for Wikipedia to use its photos. The article is currently on WP:DYK and I thought the photo would make a great addition to the hook. The request was rejected earlier this week and I don't understand what the problem is. Would someone from this project have to e-mail the owner again to get permission? 72.74.196.155 (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd gotten Lazarchuk's informal permission to use them on Wikipedia, but there was a brouhaha about needing them completely freely licensed. I sent him the license agreement, and he said he'd fill it out. Reminded him a while later, said he'd get on it. End of story. I make it a point to only remind people once.
But if you'd like to give it a go, here's the contact info. Sorry I can't help more, but the Wikimedia image police give me a headache. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "only allows Wikipedia to use the image" is not enough. A free use license is required where anyone's commercial use or modifications are permitted. starship.paint "YES!" 14:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Damien Sandow

As most of you know, Damien Sandow has been wrestling as various characters, such as tonight at MitB, he was Paul Revere and was billed as such on screen. Do we list these changing characters or do we list that it's him? CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 00:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Still Sandow. Those are not ring names. WWE.com says ... Damien Sandow dressed as Lance Stephenson or refers to him as "Lance Stephenson", with the inverted commas. starship.paint "YES!" 01:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Every 5 years, we found a multiple gimmick wrestler.Showkishi, the glamahaas and now, multi-sandow. However, he stills sandow under a multi-gimmick- gimmick. http://www.wwe.com/shows/moneyinthebank/2014/adam-rose-vs-damien-sandow-photos WWE says Rose vs Sandow. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, that's fair. But do we note it in the prose or in parenthesis in the result table? Seems a pretty important thing, to me, that he wrestled as Paul Revere, he even delivered a promo under the character. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 18:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • PPVs should have a section called "Event", where we talk about the event. We can put in the section "Damien Sandow, dressed as Paul Revere, cut a promo comparing the rosebunds with the British Army". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It should be in the prose of the Event section, which is non-existent at the moment. If nobody bothers to create one, and someone put (dressed as Paul Revere) in the results table, I'm not reverting that. starship.paint "YES!" 14:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Images of event sets

I was looking through the copyright rules at the commons, and I noticed the copyright rules for concert events say that it is not okay to photograph the stage design of concerts, because they infringe on the copyright of the set designers. Would this apply to the stage sets (titantrons) of WWE and TNA events? --wL<speak·check> 11:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a lawyer, but I'd imagine a company running a televised show (especially this size) has all the paperwork to ensure they aren't routinely violating the designer's copyright. Something like how everything a wrestler is filmed doing belongs to WWE, along with any trademarkable names and likenesses, so for the set, costume and graphic designers.
We still can't use much for the simpler reason that WWE owns it, but I wouldn't worry about the architects and window dressers. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Last names

Hi. My question today: last names. In Spain, when a man meets a woman, they usually get married. However, the woman doesn't change the last name (ex. Mr Lopez meets Mrs Rodriguez, but Mrs Rodriguez stills Mrs Rodriguez, not Mrs Lopez). Now, last names in USA. AJ Lee married with Punk and Brie Bella with Bryan Danielson. I don't know about American law. Did Aj and Brie change their last names to Brooks and Danielson (for example, Vickie Guerrero changed his last name to Guerrero). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no law requiring it, but it's customary for the woman to take the man's name. If she does that, she's legally required to use it in official forms, instead of her maiden name. It's becoming less common for feminist reasons (they aren't property), but still very common. Sometimes they use hyphenated names. Brooks-Lee sounds like Bruce Lee (whose wife is still Linda Lee), so that's cool, but no clue what these two couples chose. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Nice. in that case, looks like they didn't changed their last names. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Brie Danielson's Facebook page seems legit. April Brooks' Twitter sure doesn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Lou Marconi and T. Rantula - Recent creations which made it to Main Page Do You Know?

In July itself, two recently created articles made it to the Main Page via Do You Know? Lou Marconi by IP 72.74.209.57 - first edit created the article at 58,000+ bytes. T. Rantula by 72.74.207.122 - first edit created the article at 54,000+ bytes. Right now on the main page's DYK it says that "T. Rantula was considered one of the biggest professional wrestlers on the independent circuit during the 1990s". I was fooled by the word "biggest", the source in the article meant "largest" but I thought it meant "popular", I requested for a change already. Anyway, I'd like to invite everyone to read the articles and see if they are deserving of such long articles. RadioKAOS and InedibleHulk, I know you've been watching for a while. starship.paint ~ regal 07:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Those are surprisingly meaty and well-sourced. I'm impressed.
They could both to stand to lose a fair bit of wordiness and gain some paragraph breaks, to make them feel lighter and flow better. I can do that, sometime.
Could use some pictures, too, especially so readers can grasp T. Rantula's size. Espectrito II was called Tarantula in the WWF around 1997. Wouldn't want to confuse anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Regarding well-sourced... there's a large number of offline citations in both articles to Pro Wrestling Illustrated, which is unverifiable by anyone who doesn't own the magazines. There's other offline references as well. So you do know of these two guys? starship.paint ~ regal 08:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Not very well, but aware of them for years. Famous as far as indy wrestlers go. Online sources are cool, but sometimes they just don't exist. Paper is fine for Wikipedia, even if it's harder to verify. Anything in particular seem incorrect to you? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/CRRaysHead90

CRRaysHead90 has asked for Wikipedians to give him feedback at an editor review. You may wish to comment on his edits there. starship.paint ~ regal 09:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The Quebecers

As I was doing our own assessments for WP:QC, I noticed that this article had previously been downgraded by your project from "C" to "start." Since this change was made, quite a bit of content has apparently been added, so I've placed it at a "C" on our scale and believe it could use a reassessment under WP:PW. - Sweet Nightmares 15:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@SweetNightmares: - approved, changed. starship.paint ~ regal 06:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Kal Rudman

I see that this was recently recreated after being PRODed and subsequently deleted 3 years ago. Rudman announced WW(W)F matches from the Philadelphia Spectrum during the late 1970s and early 1980s, which is mentioned as little more than a footnote in the article. As wrestling announcers rarely get their due in this day and age (something even acknowledged by Good Ol' J.R. once upon a time in his blog), I dunno if there's an opportunity to expand upon that. I've long had the impression that PRISM maintained some local control over the broadcasts, which no doubt irritated the McMahons, and that at some point after Junior took over, he was able to renegotiate their deal, which led to Rudman's departure. Bobby Heenan, in his autobiography, mentions that he did voiceovers on Spectrum matches "because Vince wanted an announcer's voice off the tape", but he doesn't mention Rudman by name. Hulk Hogan's Unreleased Collector's Series features a match vs. Bob Backlund from early 1980 at the Spectrum. J.R. does voiceover commentary, repeatedly saying that the match was never televised, despite obvious evidence to the contrary. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Never heard of (or heard) the guy, and I've watched a fair bit of PRISM WWF. So I give the devil his due for rewriting history. Unfortunately, there's no erasing Rob Bartlett. Cool story, but I don't like the sourcing chances. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Still a fair bit of him left of YouTube, interviewing. ("I'm always high!") InedibleHulk (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Heh. If I remember, J.R. responded to a question about whether there would ever be an DVD on announcers. Ever see those 30 minute AWA videos from the mid 1980s, highlighting their post-Hogan era stars (Martel, the Road Glorias, etc.)? Given how people talk today about Verne Gon-YAY, the mighty marketing genius, he clearly messed up. If he had put together a video consisting of 30 minutes of Marty O'Neill, Rodger Kent, Rod Trongard and Larry Nelson and marketed it as an alternative to Sominex, he could have avoided bankruptcy.
I'm guessing that the Hogan interview occurred just prior to his program with Andre. The aforementioned Hogan DVD contains an interview from roughly the same time frame, which can only be described as one of the more bizarre and awkward promos this side of Jumpin' Jeff Farmer or Scott Irwin inadvertently waylaying Reisor Bowden. Hogan demolishes two jobbers in a handicap match on All-Star Wrestling, then joins Freddie Blassie at ringside to be interviewed by Vince McMahon. Blassie launches into a well-rehearsed but nonetheless rambling spiel about the centerfold Hogan references in the Spectrum promo. McMahon interrupts him multiple times, making cracks about Mad and National Lampoon. Each time, Blassie gives him a funny look for a second, then continues with his spiel unabated, as if he had no real idea what McMahon was talking about. When it's Hogan's turn, his opening remarks to McMahon are to the effect of "You're lucky I don't just knock you the fuck out". You get the feeling that he really meant it, too, as he certainly knew that Blassie was being made fun of. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Sounds great. You've convinced me to watch the whole Hogan DVD, just for that. That Super Destroyer thing was funny, too. So was Farmer, but I'd seen that. Haven't seen the AWA compilations, and not that familiar with their crew, but yeah, I'd pass. "Gon-YUH" still sounds weird to me.
I listened to everything you had to say. Did everything necessary. But with that "Road Glorias" comment, you turned the tables in a wrong way! You got me mad...now. Tell 'em, Hawk! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Back to this for a brief sec...while bored last week, I glanced through André the Giant: A Legendary Life. Most of the book consists of sidebars rehashing matches and storylines from the first Hogan feud onward. The first of these discusses one of his matches against Hogan at the Spectrum. It states that Rudman mentioned during his commentary that André ate sixteen eggs for breakfast that morning. Overall, I found it a decent enough read. There were issues as well: the aforementioned Hogan match was refereed by Dick WORLEY, Ernie Ladd cut a promo on André with REESER Bowden, no mention of André's WWF swan song where he lost to Bundy in five seconds night after night. I was at one such event, witnessing the crowd erupting in "Bullshit" chants and Jack Lanza pacing nervously about the rest of the evening. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I saw an Andre vs Bundy match on View-Master. Not the most fluid action, but it blew my mind at the time. I thought they were evil friends! Andre won, though. My first glimpse back into wrestling history. Had a few kick-ass colouring books, too. I figured it was spelled "Worley" for years. Didn't have to spell it often, though, so wasn't a huge problem.
Spellamania is running wild, brother! PWI, in reporting on the death of Billy Robinson, mentioned that he trained at Wiggin. Uh, Wiggin is right next door to Norwegia, correct? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 16:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Meh. You've seen one Europan town, you've seen them all. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, I finished the first disc of that Hogan thing. Didn't get the same vibe you did from him on the centerfold thing. But Blassie was funny. National Lampoon? Of course it'll be national! The commentary breaks in some are just where they removed the house show ads. Didn't see George Cannon anywhere yet, can't speak on that. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Two articles

What do you think about these two articles? ROW Summer of Champions 2014 UWF Live? The first is a PPV produced by a indy promotion. Second one, a promotion 2005-2008 without sources (the only source, the website, is down) and since 2008 doesn't held an event (looks like a inactive promotion). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

That first one is an Internet pay-per-view (fixed now). Not so much accomplishment or impact. Amateur porn "stars" do it all the time. No seondary sources, no suggestion of importance. Delete.
Hermie Sadler's UWF could use more sources, but they certainly exist. TNA seemed fairly well behind them, at least for a while. Defunct, but notable. Don't delete. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks like Hermie is working for Jarrett again. Nothing to do with the UWF article, just a fun fact. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
However, Looks like UWF is defunct. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah. But so is Babylon. And WCW. That's not something to consider for notability. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course. But the article says is an active promotion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

CM Punk retiment

I think we should talk about it. Months later, we still arguing about Punk retiments. I think sources are claer. PWInsider says Punk is retired because he said so in a interview. It's complicated, but we shoulnd't interpretate sources. "Retired" has some meanings, but PWInsider is pretty clear and If we interpretate the sources, It's our subjetive conclussion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

PWInsider "CM PUNK SAYS HE IS RETIRED" It's not me or any interpretation. Punk was asked and he answered. I don't know why this is the only case where we talk about what retirment means. Right now, sources say Punk is retired. The only way to include him as active, find a source about he isn't retired. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
If you read beyond the headline just a little bit, it says "the article stated that Punk was retired from WWE at the age of 35." Looking at that article shows Punk said nothing of the sort. He simply didn't challenge the idea that he was retired, possibly because it's entirely true, in other sense of the word.
Every single recycler on the Internet that says Punk is retired bases that idea on how they interpreted Punk's answer.
Meanwhile, Vincent Fucking K. McMahon made an official statement, during an official conference call, for actual WWE investors, straight up saying Punk is on a sabbatical. There's no interpretation needed.
Punk has not announced his retirement from wrestling in the ring, on Twitter, through the news, in skywriting or any way at all. Nobody in any authoritative position has, either. Googling "supposedly retired" or "apparently retired" brings up shitloads, but we don't deal in suppositions or apparencies. Just the stated facts, from people who'd know. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
He has since referred to himself as retired. Right now, he is legitimately retired The guy is retired, by his own words. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
That seems to be PWInsider's interpretation, and it's not a very accurate one. They are referring to that Red Eye interview where they framed the question by asking Punk how it felt to be retired. While he did answer the question, he never said he was retired as PWI infers. It unnecessarily convoluted either way.LM2000 (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
However, RedEye asked him "How does it feel to be retired at 35?" (retired, plain and simple, not retired from WWE.) He answered "it feels good". He didn't deny it. Maybe, it's ambigous, but it's closer to a retirement than a no-retirement. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, just plain and simple "retired". Not "retired from" anything. WWE, wrestling, public life, chair-painting. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Just in case others don't know what "retired" can mean in English:

  • secluded "a retired village"
  • withdrawn from one's position or occupation : having concluded one's working or professional career
  • received by or due to one in retirement

Punk may have been saying it feels good to be secluded and withdrawn, which seems likely for a guy who was burnt out and unhappy on the road. The noun "sabbatical", on the other hand, means just one thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

However, reported asked him How does it feel to be retired at 35?, not How does it feel to be in sabbatical year? McMahon said Punk was sabbatical in Jan/Feb, the interview was made in May. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, so given what I just copied from Merriam-Webster, that could have meant "How does it feel to be secluded and withdrawn from your position or occupation at 35?" And Punk says (essentially), "It feels great. My position didn't allow me to bowl and paint chairs and play whiffle ball with Bill Murray. Now that I have withdrawn from it into seclusion, I can."
There is no way in English that Vince's public statement could literally mean anything else.
Until July 17, it's technically WWE's decision to make, if something like 1.1(a) in this sample contract from 2000 exists in Punk's. Seems it should, but not sure. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hulk, I'm afraid agree with HHH Pedrigree on this issue. Punk was asked "How does it feel to be retired at 35?" and replied with "It feels good." The answer was an affirmative as to whether he was retired at 35, otherwise he couldn't say how it felt like. While as you've pointed out, retired has more than one meaning, but the presence of the words at 35, mentioning the age, leads me to conclude that it means retired from work. Seclusion has nothing to do with age, but retirement (from work) is much more commonly associated with age (see retirement age) We all know that Punk's job was professional wrestling. Therefore, if he retired from work, he retired from professional wrestling. Simple as that. starship.paint ~ regal 04:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

  • On the other hand, if the rumours are through, we could wait less than a week until July 17. starship.paint ~ regal 04:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
You've got a point. "at 35" suggests the reporter intended it your way. But Punk's answer would still make perfect sense if he heard it my way. There's no way to tell from the answer how Punk understood. It's ambiguous. You, I and the entire Internet can debate what it might mean, but winning or losing that debate will have no bearing on the fact that we still have no claim. Only inferrences.
I know Punk hosted Grammar Slam, but would he really stop the interview to ask for clarification on a point like this? A thousand people have probably asked him, and called it everything. Quitting, retiring, running away, (taking his ball and) going home, turning his back on the fans, getting some rest, escaping, yadda yadda. When he hears anything to that effect, he knows what they're referring to. Whatever he calls it, we don't know. But we do know people who respond to "Did you have fun on the boat?" with "It's not a boat, it's a yacht!" are pedantic dicks. They're no fun, and Punk wants to have fun. He's at a ball game.
InedibleDick, on the other hand, is at work helping to maintain the literal integrity of an English encyclopedia. And in Plain English, the source (the root source, not the recyclers) doesn't contain a claim. The recyclers make the claim, but base their conclusion on the claimless source. If you cite those, you're knowingly adding dubious material, regardless of whether it's technically a "reliable source".
Can you think of any other wrestler of Punk's starpower who retired without saying something to that effect? How many retired wrestlers are currently under top-money wrestler contracts? If PWInsider said Punk cheers for the Cubs from the day he was born till the day he dies, wouldn't you think they're reading "lifelong fan" wrong?
If you answered yes to the last one, no to the first and zero to the second, you're absolutely right. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Forgot to mention, answering yes to a question is an affirmative answer. Answering no is a negative. Either answer requires a yes–no question. Punk's question was open-ended, so his answer was neither. If the guy asked "Are you retired at age 35?", I'd have bought him a beer, regardless of the answer. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I disagree with this "forgot to mention" part. Punk is either retired or not retired. If he is not retired, he can't answer "How does it feel to be retired at 35?". The only logical answer then is "I'm not retired so I don't know". But if he can tell you how it feels to be retired, then he should be retired.
  • Still, I concede that Punk did not explicitly say or announce "I am retired". Hulk's scenario of Punk answering a different question to what he was intended to answer is very implausible, but not impossible.
  • Regarding the CM Punk article, I think the body section (abrupt departure) is fine. We have quoted the interview question and the answer. We can let readers decide for themselves. If someone has a problem with the lead saying CM Punk, is a retired American professional wrestler - you can remove "retired", I don't mind. You can replace it with "In May 2014, Punk seemed to indicate that he had retired". starship.paint ~ regal 12:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
That's my point. McMahon said Punk was sabbatical in Jan/Feb and the interview was made in May, so the journalist knew Punk was sabbatical. Any case, if Punk is no retired, he would answer "I'm not retired, I'm taking time off". Also, Punk didn't announce his retirment, but it happens sometimes. For example, Mike DiBiase II. He stop wrestling in 2009, but when he was arrested, newspapers refered him as retired wrestler. Brett DiBiase, he never said he was retired, his father announced his son's retirment. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, Punk has heard his break/retirement/hiatus called many things. And "retired" is ambiguous. If he wanted to be totally logical about it, the proper dick response would have been "It is unclear whether you mean "retired from my career" or "retired from the spotlight", so I am unsure how to respond. Please try again." He'd also answer the "lifelong fan" one with "Actually, I started watching as a five-year-old..." And then the reporter would say "Fuck this guy, fuck this interview."
I don't mind mentioning the interview in the article, just relaying what was said and not what anybody thinks it suggests. Readers can fill that part in. But when "retired" is use in the same sentence as "currently under contract", it very strongly implies we're talking business-wise. And then that's just confusing. Like saying The Undertaker is a dead man who lives in Texas. Figuratively, that's true.
Comparing either DiBiase to Punk is like comparing Milburn (band) to Aerosmith. That aside, the news report doesn't say anything about retired. That's something the WrestleView recycler added, vaguely, without saying where he'd heard it. And Ted doesn't seem to say Brett is retired, just "come home" and has "closure", to which to the Torch added "...to his wrestling career."
In any Wiki article, if you're using a source which uses another source, just go with the root source. It's almost always highlighted and clickable, right at the beginning. And there's less room for bullshit. It's like the telephone game out there. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Does somebody else have another opinion? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is another source, better than the original. It's clear that Punk is having fun with those of us who speculate over this kind of thing.LM2000 (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Outdented for you. This is a new interview recently released ... we should quote him though. starship.paint ~ regal 12:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:User WP PW

Our userbox's picture was deleted. What should we do :( starship.paint ~ regal 08:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I replaced it with another image. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 10:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much CRRays! starship.paint ~ regal 01:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding a spouse field to wrestler infobox.

Triple H
Birth namePaul Michael Levesque
Born (1969-07-27) July 27, 1969 (age 54)
Nashua, New Hampshire
ResidesGreenwich, Connecticut
Spouse(s)
​
(m. 2003)​
Children3
FamilyMcMahon family
Professional wrestling career
Ring name(s)Hunter Hearst Helmsley
Terra Ryzing
Triple H
Billed height6 ft 4 in (1.93 m)
Billed weight255 lb (116 kg)
Billed fromGreenwich, Connecticut
Trained byKiller Kowalski
DebutMarch 24, 1992
Official website
wwe.com

Someone asked about this on CM Punk's talk page, in an edit request. Someone else suggested they ask here. I tried to do it myself, and failed. Editing templates is confusing.

Is this a good idea, and can someone do it properly? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That second someone else has done it properly, but if anyone thinks it's a bad idea, feel free to say so. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Does Spouse work for female wrestlers too? Also, I think we should use the real names. Brooks is married with April Mendez, not AJ Lee. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, if the consensus is to keep it, this will be present on all professional wrestling BLPs.
Myself, I think it is a worthy change. The order of everything is a bit wacky in its current state, though. I drew up a little proposition to the right, with personal life and career separate (some factual details omitted for presentation). The header is not overly necessary, but just something to ponder.
Are there any other fields that should be considered? I included children in my example. Prefall 15:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
In a business with as many family connections as pro wrestling has, this might not be a bad idea. As with any other entertainer infobox WP:BLPNAME would exclude, in most cases, those who are not notable from being named. Besides that I'm down for all of this.LM2000 (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
That is a good one. Added it to the example too. Prefall 21:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we should keep it. Although I vote on keeping the most common names in the infobox. Replacing AJ Lee with April Mendez is just silly. Use her most common name. If it works for article titles, it works for the infobox. Feedback ☎ 20:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I also support this change.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 03:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
We shoulnd't use the common name, we should use the correct name. We are talking about real life, not kayfabe. AJ Lee is a character copyrighted by WWE --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
In real life, she's more commonly known as AJ. I don't have a strong preference either way. Do we know whether April is a Mendez, Brooks or Mendez-Brooks yet? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Still not sure yet. Prefall 21:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Daniel Bryan
Birth nameBryan Lloyd Danielson
Born (1981-05-22) May 22, 1981 (age 42)
Aberdeen, Washington
Daniel Bryan
Born
Bryan Lloyd Danielson

(1981-05-22) May 22, 1981 (age 42)
Aberdeen, Washington

That argument seems rather silly in general. There are plenty of instances where WWE held contractual rights to a performer's real name and held them hostage on that issue during contract negotiations, though that's mostly a historical rather than current practice on their part. Anyway, I like the proposal above. One thing which should be fixed, though. To the right, the first example shows how one's |birth_name=, |birth_date= and |birth_place= render in {{Infobox professional wrestler}}. Below that is how they render in most other biography infoboxes. I'm not that good with template programming, either, but I thought I would bring it up in case we have the attention right now of someone who is. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

RadioKAOS, I actually think the first one is better. I assume that most of the other biographies don't have a "stage name", and if there is more than one name, it's an official name change (Kim Schmitz to Kim Dotcom) which is still the real name. But for wrestling I think it's important to distinguish the real name from the stage name. starship.paint ~ regal 03:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. I added links to "professional wrestling" and "ring name" as well, let me know if they should be kept or not. Also, added an example of how websites would display.
Any other adjustments? Prefall 20:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikilinks never hurt. Can't think of anything else off the top of my head. Pets seem a bit too transient to keep the verification up-to-date. In most cases, anyway. Steve Austin regularly updates listeners on his dogs. Just a thought, not a suggestion. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Template:Infobox person has quite the variety, but sadly no pets. Prefall 21:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
That might be something I bring up one day, but not today. Already had one battle to acknowledge them as murder victims, and another possible one brewing about acknowledging them as redlinked recent deaths (only potentially notable humans get to stay for a month). Verifiability challenges aside, there seems a sense that even mentioning animals alongside humans is somehow offensive. One of the last politically correct types of prejudicial segregation left, along with rich/poor. But history suggests it won't be long for either, at least in "the West". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Good changes guys, I agree with the additions. The spouse should be known by their WP:COMMONNAME though (most likely their ring name). starship.paint ~ regal 03:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I completed the template and documentation containing everything we have discussed thus far. If no one opposes the changes, I will submit it soon. Any last minute feedback is welcome.

Also, I reverted the birth name change, per Starship.paint's point. I agree that we should stress that fact due to ring names. However, if the majority disagree, it can be changed (again). Prefall 20:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

And... it's up! Prefall 12:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Good work, Prefall and all! starship.paint ~ regal 13:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Peer review and requested move

Do comment on Wikipedia:Peer review/Money in the Bank (2011)/archive2 and a requested move, "Mike Jones (wrestler)" to "Virgil (wrestler)". Thank you! starship.paint ~ regal 12:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox pro wrestling championship

Since we are on the subject of infoboxes, I spent a couple hours tidying up the one for championships. You can see the progress/compare in my sandbox. The examples on the left is what I am working on, and the right is the current one used across all championship articles.

The current one is much too cramped. I am not a fan of statistics being collapsed by default, either. I expanded and reordered it, plus added a new parameter (Final champion, for retired titles).

Any thoughts on it? Adjustments? Scrap it and keep the current design? Prefall 01:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

On your sandbox change, why is there no picture of the Hardcore championship?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 03:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I just copy and pasted from its article, as I was looking for an example with no image. Quickly looked around, there does not seem to be an available image of the title. Prefall 03:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, would it be preferred to keep images of past title designs in the infobox, or move them into the articles themselves? (Using galleries when necessary) Prefall 03:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the statistics should stay collapsable. When visible, it crowds up the page with trivia. If we're going to have them at all, it's better to let the reader have the option of hiding them. Feedback ☎ 04:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

As the original creator of the template, I want to give you some insight on why the template is the way it is and you can go from there. The past images was moved to the infobox to make the article flow better, but with format changing, I think it might be time to move back to the main space, I'll leave that up to the project. It doesn't doesn't really matter to me. I agree with Feedback with the stats having the ability to be collapsed, though I'm torn on what it's default state should be. Other than those two, I love your redesign. (BTW, I'm really not trying to act like I own anything, just pointing out my reasonings for why I had it the way I did.) CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 10:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you guys for your comments. I went ahead and submitted it, sans the changes to statistics, as the others don't seem as controversial. Looking at the old statistics table, it had partially broken syntax for an upwards of 5 years. That has been fixed.
I personally prefer statistics to be visible, but I can completely understand why others may feel differently. It really isn't a huge deal though, so everyone can weigh in on that subject before any possible changes are made to it.

I've always thought we should get rid of them entirely, but any time I mentioned it, the trivia-junkies run wild on me. So whatever, I just settled for them being collapsable. I still don't think they should be a part of the box at all, but I know that's a battle I won't win. It's the same type of trivia as Triple Crown Championship, and time and time again, the project keeps voting to keep that crap around. This year, that piece of trivia & OR has spent more time on the article space than Bruno Sammartino spent with the world title. Now there's a statistic for ya. Feedback ☎ 00:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

As for past images, I don't have strong feelings about it either way, but it tends to look out of place. A good portion of the articles that include them have sections dedicated to belt designs, so it shouldn't be too much of a hassle moving them there. Prefall 12:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Wondering about the heaviest and lightest champions. Are/should those be based on the billed weight at the time of the title match, or the weight in the wrestler's infobox? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The former makes more sense to me. starship.paint ~ regal 13:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Feedback: That's because it's not trivia, it's statistics. Just like runs batted in (RBIs), or who the youngest person is to win the Cy Young Award in baseball. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 22:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

RBI is a notable statistic. What's notable about the heaviest, youngest, tallest, shortest and ugliest baseball player to win a World Series??? You don't see that in any other infoboxes, but you do in ours. Feedback ☎ 01:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
There's not really much other information, Feedback. Unless you want to start tracking Suplexes per Match (SPM)? Weight is more notable in wrestling because of the pseudo use of weight classes (cruiserweight, heavyweight, light heavyweight). Though I will concede age, though its used quite frequently for a storyline perspective (see Randy Orton and his World Heavyweight Championship win back in 2004.) CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 03:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The only consistently important statistics in mainstream pro wrestling have been (1) Number of reigns held & (2) Length of each reign. That's it. None of the descriptive info about how many Canadians have held a title, or who is the lightest champion, or who is the blackest, none of that has ever been mentioned outside of online trivia. Age has been mentioned in the specific circumstance when Randy Orton became World Champion. It has never been mentioned AT ALL in any other context. Vince and Taker became the oldest ECW and World Champions a few years ago and no one cared. It was never mentioned. Same goes for Rey becoming the lightest WWE Champion. And Big Show's weight has always been important to his specific character, it was never mentioned in the context of championship statistics. It's always "Big Show, the 500-pound giant", not "Big Show, the heaviest WCW and ECW champion". We only know those statistics because we're hardcore wrestling fans who count that type of stuff and post them on free online encyclopedias. But they're not notable in the least. You can't compare that to actual notable information like RBIs which are important in the context of their sport. Feedback ☎ 06:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

More eyes on Paige (wrestler) due to upcoming DYK

I'm glad to announce that through the efforts of FairyTailRocks and myself, another professional wrestling article is going to be linked on the Main Page through "Do You Know?". However, 66.191.227.70 is seeking to overturn previous consensus established here (read the Compromise section) and mention "turn heel" for the first time without saying "a villainous character". Could WP:PW members help to ensure that the article is of to standard especially when it runs on the main page. starship.paint ~ regal 02:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm standing by my original heelish opinion that if we have to mention heels are villains, we should also elaborate upon the specifics of the ring. Yes, tell them all about the sisal! Or, maybe I'll just go back to not caring so much.
About "villains", I mean. Good job getting that recognition! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Forgive me if I misunderstood your post, Starship, but I'm confused. Why was consensus established to inline explain what a heel or face is the first time it's used in an article? It's that what wikilinks are for? Borealis basin isn't explained inline the first time it's used in the planet Mars' article. Wikilink and let people click through just like other articles. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 22:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
CRRaysHead90, well, there was a time when we had a large pursuit of Good Article and Featured Article status for wrestling articles. During the reviews, non-wrestling fans could not understand what the jargony terms were and they asked for an in-article explanation. Recently, I submitted MITB 2011 for FA. As you can see from here -> Eric Corbett, who has contributed to a significant amount of GAs/FAs, asked for an explanation for ladder matches despite an entire article devoted to that. As for the Mars article, Borealis is the name, if you understand basin, then it should be fine, but I'm not sure if they consider basin "jargon"-y enough. starship.paint ~ regal 02:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I seriously don.t get the difference between us and movies, Starship.paint. Their jargon isnt explain, it's linked. I don't see key grip or dolly shot explained inline. Or sports terms, touchdown isn't explained inline. What makes pro wrestling articles the target for needed explanations inline, with various MOS guidelines as the excuse, when other similar phenomena doesn't? CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 03:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
CRRaysHead90, I'm afraid I can't answer that. I also want a common standard throughout Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the correct standard seems to be that your sport and film articles are wrong: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Technical language. Some topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them understandable to as many readers as possible. Minimize jargon, or at least explain it ... Avoid excessive wikilinking (linking within Wikipedia) as a substitute for parenthetic explanations such as the one in this sentence. In addition, there's this guideline: Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable#Avoid overly technical language: Explain technical terms and expand acronyms when they are first used. Some of us are pursuing Featured Articles and Good Articles. There, we can't escape the Wikipedia Manual of Style. We have to apply these standards. For non-GA and non-FA articles, the pressure is not so much. But Paige (wrestler) is a Good Article. I'm afraid that I must insist on applying these standards, regardless of whether other Good or Featured Articles are flouting this rule. starship.paint ~ regal 12:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Alleged upcoming baby of Mickie James and Magnus (wrestler)

I've been reverting additions of this claim as unsourced, several times from her page and once from his. Nobody has offered any cite for this for anything I've reverted. I try to search for one & find a few from earlier this year which look awfully bloggy (unreliable) to me. Even looked for something primary per WP:SELFSOURCE but couldn't find anything solid. Anybody here want to look into this? Roberticus talk 13:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Found this, which is a radio interview that Mickie did, starting about the 65:45 mark. Also found this, and this photo.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 16:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

WWE Music Group disocgraphy

Wanted to get this group's input on this. In recent days, a fairly contentious issue has arisen where an editor feels that the singles chart in the article shouldn't there, where a couple of other editors disagree. I proposed on the first editor's talk page to move the ENTIRE discography to it's own article (sandbox version is here, to which he doesn't have a problem with. But since the single chart had been there without issue for at least a couple of years, what do y'all think about it?

I don't have a preference for where it goes, but wherever it does, it still shouldn't be Wikilinked to the "In Wrestling" tunes. It's gotten a lot better, but I still see quite a few in "What Links Here", including ones I'd already fixed (and will again).
The problem, in case it's not apparent, is the lack of further info. Someone reading Daniel Bryan already knows he uses a version of "Ride of the Valkyries" called "Flight of the Valkyries", by Jim Johnston. Clicking the link used to tell them the exact same thing they just read, and now it doesn't even do that. It's a waste of their time, serving only to draw traffic. Compare that to the "Ride" link, where they learn something relevant.
So if the single list is moved, don't correct the pipelinks to point to it. Correct them to point to nothing, if you find them pointing anywhere pointless. Not just a WWE Music problem, a general redundancy thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
In that case, since the chart is linked from/to other articles, it should be put back in.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 21:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
No, no. I'm in the process of removing the stragglers. Regardless of where or whether it exists, it doesn't say anything the article itself doesn't. Except track time, I suppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
And you're in the process of reverting my fixes. Slow down a second! I'll change my copy/paste edit summary so it doesn't say the list doesn't exist anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Would you rather have the links point to the singles themselves (as they used to do), or have a "blanket" link to the WWE Music Group article? Third option, have the single links in the wrestler articles point to a stand-alone chart?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 21:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
A song should only be Wikilinked to an article about the song, so people can learn more about it. There's very little to be learned by reading which order the song was in on a album, and even less by reading a list of various other single releases. I'd rather readers just learn the track name and artist in the article, and not click on a pipe, expecting to learn more about the song. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
InedibleHulk - thanks for taking the initiative to do this. I agree - if the song is a single - there's nothing to be gained from reading about other singles. But, if the song is from an album, readers might be interested in purchasing the entire album. Just saying. starship.paint ~ regal 02:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but that seems more like a job for Amazon or iTunes. We already use them as sources for the proper titles, and even that makes the non-commercial part of my stomach turn (just a bit). If Wikipedia was about selling, we'd list MSRPs in our product articles. Nothing wrong with telling about a product, then letting readers decide whether they want to buy/copy it.
If the album article has a bit of further info on a song, that'd be educational. Reading which order they were imprinted on a CD...not so much. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

So Hulk, you don't see any issue with the singles list as its own article, then?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 03:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No, that's fine by me. It just reminded me of this linking issue. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I've gone ahead and moved the page here. Feel free to add whatever it needs, I am sure it could used a bit of work :-)   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 21:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_92&oldid=1190145446"