Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Reliable vs Unreliable

How did we decide which site went into which category?

Is there a mechanism to appeal a site in the future? Like for example if a formerly reliable site became unreliable, could we demote it? If a formerly unreliable site became reliable, could we promote it?

Was there a vote or something? Ranze (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

  • The Industry specific websites are the product of discussions at WT:PW, WP:RS/N, or at WP:FAC. That's also where new proposals should be discussed. starship.paint ~ KO 05:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Unlisted sources

What do we do if we find a source that is not yet listed here? Does that go under 'other websites (not yet proven)' as an automatic starting place? How does it get bumped up to 'proven reliable' or down to 'unreliable' from there? Like say Inquisitr.com or whatev. Is there a more general list of sites we could link to from here for ones which are not wrestling-focused? Ranze (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Mainstream news websites that report on wrestling, such as newspapers or sports websites by notable organizations like Sky Sports, can be taken to be reliable. However, any wrestling-specific website (usually lacks credibility and) should be assumed unreliable unless approved. starship.paint ~ KO 05:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Examiner

www.examiner.com/article/wwe-tlc-crowns-edge-a-ten-time-wwe-world-heavyweight-champion
"WWE TLC crowns Edge a ten time WWE World Heavyweight Champion" 19 December 2010

Should this be grounds to call it an unreliable source? I'm not exactly sure. Even though the title was just "World Heavyweight Championship" at the time, this name is also used for titles outside WWE so perhaps Examiner meant it in the sense of "WHWC in the WWE" rather than "WWEWHWC" as being the actual name. Although they repeat it in full throughout and never use WHWC on its own so I'm not sure. Ranze (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

  • If the article on Examiner.com is true ... We can't rely on a website which relies on "pro–am contributors"' blogs and citizen journalism, instead of experts and fully professional writers. starship.paint ~ KO 07:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Misquoting F4W's Bryan Alvarez for rumours

As per Alvarez [1] [2]. Another incident of false rumours attributed to F4Wonline's paid content. Essentially what they did is they copied a made up rumour on Reddit. The following sites are guilty: Inquisitr, WhatCulture, Daily DDT, WrestleZone, GiveMeSport and more. Poor fact-checking, unreliable. List was updated. starship.paint ~ KO 00:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Marc Middleton

Regarding Special:Diff/689272355 even though they took down the 'gay hair stylist' article, since it was only report of an idea being toyed with, it's hard to prove as a blatent falsehood. Has Middleton made any stronger claims about something he claimed happened or will happen and did not? Merely saying someone is considered for a gimmick may not have a listed source (but then, a lot of reporters keep those confidental) but it's hard to falsify. Ranze (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I think it's more of because Middleton cited a user on the Reddit 'forums' as a qualified source for this particular story. I'm sure Wikipedia would also prefer to deal less with these rumours. The less of the rumour-posting websites, the better. starship.paint ~ KO 09:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    • @Starship.paint: There's no reference linked next to Middleton's name though, if this is mentioned under criticism of whatever cite he published under could we alias the reference so it appears clickable next to his name too? Ranze (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Uncited alleged unreliables

@HHH Pedrigree: regarding your recent removal of the fact-tags, doesn't this help us recognize which allegedly unreliable sources still lack explanations/examples of their unreliability? Ranze (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The sources were already accepted or rejected by the project. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to understand this better since I am not familiar with the project's history. I just noticed that when @Starship.paint: made this page the summary "Creating separate article for sources from style guide." so clearly there's additional history I'm not aware of. Do you think we could make a note either on the page or its talk directing people on where to read the history prior to 29 December 2014 so people can consult that discussion?

Based on "style guide" I managed to locate the export at special:diff/640048988 so checking the history prior to then would be useful. I can also see the associated talk has Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Style_guide#Sources so I'll read that too.

I think it would still be good, if we can locate them, to list examples next to each, so post-2014 members/visitors can understand why a source is classified a certain way.

Presently as a start, it looks like source 5 could be merged into the first source since it all pertains to the Becky Lynch vacation claim.

Do you know if any archive.is alternatives to some of these exist? Been having trouble getting archive.org loading lately, I dunno if maybe it's locking me out due to overuse. I'd like to (if not for the page then for the talk) go through a proper template:cite web (including author name, archive dates) for each, and possibly a quote= so it's clear for those having trouble viewing archives like I presently am how each author/website conveyed false information.

I'm just going to try and dig these up by searching the archives for examples. I'm having trouble finding one for Ryan Clark, and he seems like a priority since due to BLP concerns, backing criticism of a person is more important than backing criticism of a website... although we should probably list every author who participated in an article for which a website was blacklisted, if we haven't.

A list of what I had fact-tagged so I know what to look for examples on:

  1. Bleacher Report
    I see this first mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_76#Checking source reliability but while @Oakster: rejects it, an example isn't given. Given that "not yet proven" for 'other' implies that we have "proven" a site reliable or unreliable, I'll keep checking the archives to see if someone provides an example later. If not, we really should find evidence of them messing something up or else put them into 'other' until we do.
  2. ewrestlingnews
  3. Lords of Pain
  4. PWMania
  5. prowrestling.com
  6. Pro Wrestling Scoops
  7. tnawrestlingnews.com
  8. TPWW (The People's Wrestling Website)
  9. The Wrestling Answer
  10. Wrestling Attitude
  11. Wrestling Inc
  12. WZR Online
  13. Yard Barker

It's funny we list Reddit at all, that would seem to go without saying for any open-publish sites except in rare exceptions where you can actually verify a posting account. Like in the example of https://www.reddit.com/user/PlanetPeacockROH and the questions answered at https://www.reddit.com/r/SquaredCircle/comments/3ow4lo/dalton_castle_ama_live_now/ since http://rohwrestling.com/news/dalton-castle-address-planet-peacock-reddit-ama verifies it. Any case of places like Reddit being considered reliable would essentially require off-site verification from a reliable source. Ranze (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Steve Carrier, Wrestling Newz

Steve Carrier writes for All Wrestling News, Ringside News, and Wrestling Newz. He has written for NoDQ.com in the past. I will put him and Wrestling Newz under unreliable. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Referencing

@Starship.paint: I noticed at special:diff/691468072 you explain with some hyperlinks why PXpix.net is not reliable. I was wondering, to avoid the hassle of people having to digg through the history for stuff like this to understand the classification of a site, do you think it would be okay to use reference tags to includes links such as the ones you included in the edit summary next to the site? This would give a basis for which to argue for something's continued inclusion. It also might help set apart sites which don't have references for their unreliability. Or let's say if someone claimed a story was or wasn't reliable and others wanted to analyze that on the talk or something, just helps to group the information accordingly. This isn't about the example in question (I know nothing of this MJH situation) it just stood out as the most recent one. Ranze (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Reference if you want, but naturally false stories, once disproved, get taken down. Then you'll be left with dead links. Note that our policy for random pro-wrestling websites is assume unreliable first. starship.paint ~ KO 05:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    • @Starship.paint: even if they take it down I could link to a wayback archive of the false story, the idea being we document evidence in references as to why we ought to consider it asserted as unreliable. Even with 'assume unreliable first' policy, the layout of the page doesn't reflect that since we have 'proven reliable' and 'not yet proven' and 'unreliable'. Even if we only rely on the 'proven' ones, we could reference the ones demoted from 'not yet' to 'un'. I'll do that where I can find notes in the history. I wonder if -have no reliable sourcing (where they get their information from).- ought to be rephrased though, like 'they often do not have' since even one of the unreliable sites might 1/100 times actually provide a source. Just as occasionally I'd bet one of the 'proven reliable' sites has probably not sourced an occasional article. Ranze (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I think this should be standard procedure. We should Wayback Machine as much as possible I say.★Trekker (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Sportskeeda

I don't see any mention of Sportskeeda anywhere. I am wondering if the consensus is they are unreliable or am I the only one? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I think so. Not sure though.★Trekker (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, Sportskeeda is listed as no reliable website. Also, I don't like it, they lied a lot in the past. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah we keep it on the "no" list.★Trekker (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I totally missed it. I only raised the question, because I missed it, as I saw they were used as a source on the Chris Jericho article. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I've never read Sportskeeda but I know their lack of honesty and credibility is a running joke on Wreddit. Doesn't sound hopeful ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 17:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It was my mistake as it was Sportster. Either way, both are a joke. I removed the Sportster reference on the Chris Jericho article already. Oh and @Suriel1981:, the fact it gets trashed on an equally unreliable forum says something. All Reddit is good for is discussions. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 23:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Kayfabe Commentaries

Considering this is an interview series I assume it would be ok site in most cases?★Trekker (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

It's shoot interviews which is YouShoot, history of ECW series, history of WCW series, a booking series, and other stuff they've done. I don't know if shoots should be taken a reliable (not saying they aren't in some cases) because some people talk absolute shit about people and whatnot in their stories. I would err on the side of caution when using a shoot interview. Plus it's all video. Even though you can find clips on YouTube, you should use caution when using YouTube and other user-submitted video sites. Read WP:VIDEOREF for more information. YouShoot has things like "ho bag," "dick bag," "who is the biggest slut," and whatnot. You can't source with stuff like that. How can you use Tammy "Sunny" Sytch naming all the people in wrestling she slept with as a source? Or how can you use Maria Kanellis listing who is a slut or listing women in wrestling based on their breasts being fake or real. If you've never seen YouShoot, that's pretty standard stuff. Even if you find something that could be useful as a source, you need to be very cautious. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but I think interviews count as WP:PRIMARY sources. It would be okay to use for comments about themselves but nothing otherwise controversial (ho bag included).LM2000 (talk) 07:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh I definitely understand that you should never use shoots for controversial information, BLP regulations and all.★Trekker (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
That's why I said you have use extreme caution. It's good you are asking the wider community and not just went and started sourcing things with them. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 02:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Placements

There are several sources listed under unreliable without having a source/explanation/motivation for them, shouldn't there always be that?★Trekker (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@*Treker:, I just seen this. At one point there was some notes as to why the the site or writer were deemed unreliable. Now they've been removed from the looks of things. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Gerweck.net

Site has been around for awhile now. Anyone have any feelings about its reliability?★Trekker (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Just saw this, but just because it has been around for a long time doesn't make it reliable. If that were the case, than a lot of sites on the unreliable list would be reliable. Lords of Pain and NoDQ has been around for years and years and they are not reliable. How long a site has been around is irrelevant. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Definitely not reliable. I just added it, after I saw the site rely on a Facebook photo alone for news of a "new Bullet Club member". I'm calling BS on it. 2001:44B8:802:1100:F0A1:9139:B258:515A (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Never meant to imply that it meant it was reliable, just that it seemed like a good idea to decide already since it would have gathered a reputation by now.★Trekker (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Never said you did. Just answering your query about feelings towards it's reliability, and based on what I found - it's reputation is negative. 2001:44B8:802:1100:F0A1:9139:B258:515A (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't replying to you.★Trekker (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@*Treker:, chill. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't unchill, just stating a fact. Sorry, didn't mean to come of rude.★Trekker (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

WWE Network News

Should http://www.wwenetworknews.com be added as a reliable source? They cover when things are added or taken down from the network. In addition they cover changes to the network. For example, on the 205 Live page, can we use them as a reference for the change in time to the show? Or can the addition of old NXT shows use [3] as a ref on the NXT page (as it is now) to say that all old episodes are available on the network? - GalatzTalk 16:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's worth to consider at least. If it's not used for anything else but network news I don't see the harm.★Trekker (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Galatz: They also have reviews and WWE Network rumors on the site. The heading for the rumors section of the site literally says "WWE Network Rumors: Any news bits that aren't confirmed by the WWE or have solid evidence." Take that for what you will, nobody is going to take you seriously with a heading like that. I wouldn't use their reviews to source anything either. They are just fans reviewing WWE and NXT shows. I would put them as unreliable nothing about the writers or the site shows them as reliable. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Thats true, I didnt even think about the rumors section. As you can tell that isn't updated often, nothing since September and all rumors start with that in the heading. If you look in the news section, every item gives a source of their data, be it the content link or the person who stated it. For example, the upcoming table for 3 they give the source of information [4]. They give disclaimers like on this page [5] that a lot of their information comes from WWE's Network's coding. Could we consider it an RS for news but not rumors? - GalatzTalk 14:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
@Galatz:, so they used Instagram as a source. Instagram is not a reliable source. That's why we don't use it on Wikipedia. Social media is never a reliable source. Even though it came straight from Kurt Angle, it doesn't negate the fact that social media is not reliable. If we don't have accurate information from the WWE itself and people are reporting inaccurate information, even though dates might seem minor, dates need to be right and they should put the work into getting correct dates. If they are reporting inaccurate dates, I would say don't use it because we need to be sure it's correct. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 21:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I've always fundamentally disagree with the idea that you can't source something about someone form their social media. It seems a bit ridiculous. How would it be diferent than an interview in most cases? If someone posts/says something about themsleves that isn't controversial why should it not be included, just on principle? That seems overblown to me.★Trekker (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
@*Treker:, read WP:EL/P, it tells you what you need to know about social networking/social media sites. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
This makes me laugh, it says that social media can be used for information on someone sometimes, but I've seen people rage against including Bret Hart's middle name and American nationality based on the fact that the info came from his twitter. Goes to show that sometimes people know way less than they think.★Trekker (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
If the New York Times covered an article on Bret Hart, you know the first thing they would do is look at his official social media accounts. They would absolutely use his middle name based off of his twitter account. - GalatzTalk 14:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Thankfully I ended up finding both those infos on Hart in books so they were accepted then.★Trekker (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Rajah.com

I don't see Rajah.com on either list. It's basic looking site with news, results (TV, pay-per-views, and house shows), previews, etc.. I don't see any sources even if it is PWInsider, PW Torch, etc.. They only have two writers, but nobody of note. Thoughts? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

They claim to be affiliates of eWrestling.com and Hockeyinformer.com, not sure what that implies.★Trekker (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
eWrestling.com is not a reliable source. I don't know about their fact checking methods if they have any at all. I would put Rajah.com as not reliable. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 07:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I haven't thought about this site in years! It was my go to site for rumors back in the day. The layout hasn't changed, not that that's a bad thing, I quite enjoy it! I remember back in the day they would copy and paste whatever they Observer was reporting, much like Lords of Pain or NoDq.com do. I don't see any links for contributors and you can't even click on the authors of the published submissions. Probably best to slot in the unreliable category.LM2000 (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Off to the garbage bin it goes then!★Trekker (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Done and done. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Diva Dirt - Is It Reliable?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Not reliable. Can be used for interviews. Nikki♥311 01:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Should Diva-Dirt.com be considered a reliable source for professional wrestling articles. Nikki♥311 03:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose, no evidence of fact checking. Not experts in the field. Definitely shouldn't be used for WP:BLPs. Nikki♥311 03:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment, In general I always think you can cite an interview form pretty much any site but otherwise, I don't think this one should be used for BLP's.★Trekker (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't know enough about their contributors and their fact checking process. There's no problem using them for interviews (I've used generally unreliable sources like bleacher report and wrestlezone for interviews on rare occasions), but they shouldn't be considered a reliable source.LM2000 (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose (Summoned by bot), Not an 'expert' publication, no information on their writes, little information on their editors and little to no idea how well they fact check. Good for interviews, mind. -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 14:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

This discussion is being started to form a consensus on Diva Dirt's reliability as it still has yet to be proven. Sure they do a great job on writing about women's wrestling and are the leading website for women's wrestling. But other than that, are they reliable? Dan Murphy, a writer with Pro Wrestling Illustrated since 1997 took over as editor-in-chief of Diva Dirt and Online World of Wrestling. Someone established taking a big role helps. Thoughts? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Unsure, I can't remember ever reading the site. Do they have a staff?★Trekker (talk) 08:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
For a source to be proven reliable, they have to have a proven reputation for fact checking. An established staff certainly doesn't hurt either. Nikki♥311 21:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes having paid contributors/employees tend to imply at least some form of professionalism.★Trekker (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
When they get writers/contributors, they don't just accept anybody. They go the the professional route and ask to see previous work. They don't just want anybody. Whether they are paid or not, I'm not sure. They've been around since 2011 and they looked to be a respected source for wrestling. They've used other women's wrestling sites as sources such as Squared Circle Sirens. Not sure if that site is reliable. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • We need evidence. Their "About" page is...well, typical for an internet site in the entertainment section and it says nothing at all about reliability, professionalism, or editorial oversight. It's all about popularity--note that "We’ve developed a recognition with our fans, as well as those within the industry, to provide accurate information..." provides no evidence (and the construction is semantically and grammatically questionable--it's vaguespeak: "recognition" doesn't go with "with" and "to") for accuracy, and it's followed immediately by yet another popularity claim, "...as well as lots of fun exclusives including tons of audio content and highly popular interviews with big names, including the legendary Trish Stratus". It's like hearing someone talk about the size of the audience at the inauguration. There is a "Team" page--no names, no faces, no credentials. And the site itself, what does it do besides give gossip reported by these nameless and faceless people, and some rehashed press releases? It is reminiscent of K-pop fan portals: it shouldn't be accepted as a reliable source, but more importantly there is no reason to believe that something is worth mentioning on Wikipedia because it was reported on this site. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I see what you mean, considering this I would vote for it to be considered unreliable as of now.★Trekker (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:BLOGS - "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" - is there evidence that Dan Murphy meets this criteria? Pro Wrestling Illustrated has long been considered a joke by wrestling fans due to their fabricated interviews and hilariously arbitrary annual rankings. In fact, one of Chris Jericho's autobiographies specifically mentions PWI's lack of credibility being being a factor in Larry Zbyzsko's lawsuit against him being dismissed (IIRC, Zbyszko attempted to use PWI as evidence of his ownership of the "Living Legend" moniker). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 17:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Isn't PWI also in kayfabe?★Trekker (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I believe it is still partly in kayfabe, yes. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 17:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

After being informed of this discussion and looking at the site, I've honestly never read it before or heard of it that I remember, I see nothing that shows them as reliable, now with that said said If we were voting, which we don't really do, I'd have to vote it's unreliable until something is shown otherwise. As for PWI, yes it's a joke, yes it's still partly in kayfabe, and I personally wouldn't use that as proof anything is reliable. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 21:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Scrolling through their news scroll, it seems to be stuff gathered from the rest of the Internet (with analysis), like much of the rest of the Internet. Is there anything original in particular we would (or do) cite them for? I think I remember seeing interviews there a while back, but I don't see a section like that today. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I honestly don't know about reliability, however, I do know they've had female wrestlers appear on the site, be it Knockouts or Divas Superstars. So, if that helps.....lol. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 23:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I've never been one to trust an apparition at face value, especially online. Do you mean in videos, interviews, JPEGs or what? Do they actually wrestle, like that WhatCulture madness? What's the skinny, the scoop, the dish, the dope? If they're promotional interviews, like in the radio days, I'd sooner believe Jake's playing this snake so fast you can't even see his fingers moving. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I've seen a few video interviews I believe, a podcast as well. Also written interviews. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 17:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Just quickly searched Wikipedia, and see we already use this site a lot. Pages and pages of a lot. Unless we catch it lying about something, I say it's better to leave it alone, overall. Save the headaches for individual conflicts with other sources on certain claims (if they even exist). Also noticed Steve Gerweck wrote stuff there that's here. It was only a nearby reference, and only from WrestleView. That takes me back to the good old days of high school dial-up, so maybe I'm just going easy on Diva-Dirt for sentimental reasons. Or maybe I'm just comparing it to the dirtier kind of dirt the kids click nowadays. Either way, it has my (provisional) blessing. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I never thought to look, but you're right, there are lots of articles using Diva Dirt as a source. In some ways it is better. But they do give analysis of stuff rather than just post news that everyone else has posted. I'm okay with it going either way. But would be more than okay with giving it the nod a reliability even if provisionally. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You can get some outside editor opinions. Nikki♥311 00:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

That's actually a good idea. I'll get some outside perspective. Edit: I've now posted about Dirt Dirt on the noticeboard which you can see here. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Update: Haven't gotten a response on the noticeboard as of yet. Hopefully we will. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Update #2: There still has been no response as of yet it has been two days. I am feeling like it's a lost cause there. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Update #3: @Nikki311:, We got one response on the noticeboard. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
It's essentially saying that the website should be able to be used as long as it isn't overly controversial.★Trekker (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's my thoughts...upon first glance, the site "looks" unreliable. The name "Diva-Dirt" makes it sound like it reports rumors and speculation. The "staff" is only known by first names, and their profiles look like fan Q&A's (Example). With that said, looks aren't everything. What matters is whether they have a reputation for fact checking. I see nothing on the site that indicates they have a fact-checking process. It looks like anyone can submit a "news scoop" ([6]). The biggest question, though, is why would we use this site if it mostly just posts stuff from other sites with added analysis? These people are not experts in the field, so why do we care about their analysis? Seems unreliable to me. Nikki♥311 23:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

By your assertion, nobody, including Dave Meltzer is an expert. But we consider him reliable. Why should we care about what he says? It is because he writing about wrestling for over 30 years? Wade Keller gives his analysis. Why should we care about his analysis? Than again, if we didn't have someone or some site to draw from, we wouldn't have any sources at all. Are we any closer to moving it to the unreliable list? We are not getting any responses at the noticeboard. Is there a site dedicated to women's wrestling that is more reliable than Diva Dirt? I don't know. A consensus needs to be reached soon. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Um, no...I didn't say that. A lot of people can be considered experts in the field. Especially those who have published books or magazines regarded by others as authoritative. From WP:RS: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." I'm saying that the contributors at Diva-Dirt are not considered experts in the field, so there analysis means no more than a random fan's. Nikki♥311 02:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I would only use them for women's wrestling, which doesn't receive as much coverage otherwise. starship.paint ~ KO 03:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Since we haven't gotten any input from the Reliable Source noticeboard, I've added a request for comment to hopefully attract some more people to this discussion. I've also set up a survey section to make it easier to tell where editors stand on the issue. Nikki♥311 03:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm leaning towards oppose but I have some questions before I chime in. Have they broken any stories that turned out to be true? Likewise, have they reported rumors that turned out to be false?LM2000 (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I think they mostly just repost news from other sources. Scrolling through their Rumors Page, I see stories taken from CageSide Seats, WrestleZone, and Wrestling Inc, all of which are currently listed as unreliable sources by the project. Nikki♥311 05:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Now that you mention Cageside Seats, that site is lacking a citation for why it's considered unreliable, do we have a specific reason for why?★Trekker (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
They're a blog operated by SB Nation.LM2000 (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense.★Trekker (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@LM2000: I don't know if they have or not. I don't go on the site all that much to really know. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Currently, there are three opposed to Diva Dirt being a reliable source. I see that discussion is no longer taking place. I think it is safe to close discussion. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Super Luchas

I am looking at this edit here [7] which relies solely on superluchas.com which does not appear to qualify as a RS to me. I already reverted the post the first time it was added as I don't find it value added and the first time it was titled controversy. I am not interested in an edit war over it, but others might agree. I also wanted to check the reliability of the source, which is not on the list and I do not believe is. Any other thoughts? - GalatzTalk 14:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

No real idea about Super Luchas (or any other Spanish language sources) but I do feel like the stuff it mentions has been noted by other publications.★Trekker (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
MPJ-DK might be interested to chime in here, plenty of articles that use this source have been promoted to FA status and I don't think anyone has ever raised an issue about it.LM2000 (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • SuperLuchas used to be a print magazine, now exclusively web articles only. They have an established, documented editorial process (fact checking) and in all FA, GA and FL reviews I have been part of SuperLuchas has actually been accepted as a reliable source.  MPJ-DK  03:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
That seems very good. Would be nice to be able to have a source that covers a lot of lucha libre.★Trekker (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
May I also point to Mediotiempo, a Spanish language sports news site operated by MSN that also has a section on lucha libre, a news site with an editorial process in place. I believe that qualifies as well, bonus it also covers non-mexican wrestling so it could be a good reliable source for other articles.  MPJ-DK  14:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

New Redirect

I have redirected WP:PW/Sources to the source page of the Wikiproject. It makes it easier when linking editors to the sources page. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 02:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

That's very smart, thanks.★Trekker (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Finding Results

Finding older results can be hard. I was editing Danny Duggan and he made some appearances in ROH. I only found results for two of the shows he worked. I can't use the DVD reviews since they don't include the dark matches. Where is the best place to look for results from past show results for any wrestler? Some of the smaller promotions are harder to find. Thanks for any and all help. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 15:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fishhead2100: Have you checked Cagematch? JTP (talk • contribs) 15:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
That was going to be my comment as well. I typically just Google "ROH XXXXXX 2004 Cagematch" and whatever i am looking for comes up. - GalatzTalk 15:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@NotTheFakeJTP: I am avoiding using Cagematch or Internet Wrestling Database. We use them way too much. I am trying find to sources outside of them. I would have used them already if I really wanted a source.
WrestlingData might have something.★Trekker (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
@*Treker: Again, I'm trying to look outside of those sites. Did you ignore my reply above yours? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: No, you didn't mention WrestlingData.★Trekker (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@*Treker: Did I really have to? Does one have to state every website like Cagematch, Internet Wrestling Database, or WrestlingData? They serve a similar purpose and listing every site like those three is not necessary. But I digress, I'll only use those sites if I absolutely have to. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 23:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: Sorry I guess. Why are you even purposely trying to ignore all the well known sites for match results anyway? Who cares if they're used often, they work fine. If you really don't want to use those sites to confirm a match then just google the match and find a source that mentions it, if you can't find any then maybe the match just isn't very notable or worth mentioning.★Trekker (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@*Treker: I started looking again since I posted this topic and I found another source not on one of those sites. So it might be possible. I'll just keep digging. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 23:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Kayfabe memories

Thoughts [8]? - GalatzTalk 13:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I find it to be a very good place to find information, but not sure if it could be considered a reliable source.★Trekker (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Looks like the site is never updated. Some areas of the site haven't been updated since 2005. It looks like they don't make an effort to add new content. I took a look at the Rick Rude biography and you can find that information elsewhere online. Some of the links to other history of wrestling/territorial wrestling websites are dead or no longer updated. I wouldn't necessarily consider this website reliable. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
To be fair a website being dead doesn't mean it's inaccurate. It's more important to know if their writers are credible than if they have a continuous output.★Trekker (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Looking at 1WrestlingLegends.com and the "columns" are penned by non-notable authors. Did you even look at some of those sites? There are some interviews on Kayfabe Menories. That's about the only thing you could potentially source on that site. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 23:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Would you consider possibly stop being so dismissive of me all the time? Not everyone has an idea of what you consider to be a notable wrestling author.★Trekker (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore the "notability" of individual authors on a site does not make one bit of difference when it comes to being a Reliable Source. It is not an argument for or against RS.  MPJ-DK  02:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I have no idea what this guy is talking about sometimes. The main way to find reliable sources is to check if they have an editorial staff. Not if the writers are "famous" or whatever.★Trekker (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The site is reliable. There have never been any notes to show that anything on there is inaccurate. The site was created in 2000 and has writers that have never been questioned. There isn't an argument here that definitetively proves it to be unreliable at all. It does a great job covering events that other sites don't (like AWA Super Sunday). 101.189.113.1 (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

If we can't come to a definitive consensus here I think it should be moved back to "not yet proven".★Trekker (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
No it stays as reliable until you or anyone else can prove it's not. 101.189.113.1 (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Nope, that's not how we do it on Wikipedia, learn the rules and stop edit warring or you will get blocked.★Trekker (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes it is and you need to stop reverting a perfectly good addition. Prove what is said there is wrong. Onus is on you. Point me to the rule that says otherwise. 101.189.113.1 (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
You seem to really care so prove you point yourself, I can judge this site if it doesn't have an editorial staff, does this have that? If the answer is "no" or "I don't know" then it will be moved back to unreliable or not yet proven.★Trekker (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Reliability has to be demonstrated, it is not assumed. It is on you to lay out what makes it reliable, 99% of web sites are not reliable by the Wikipedia definition.  MPJ-DK  01:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Reliability was demonstrated in the notes on the source page. Prove it wrong. 101.189.113.1 (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I'm tired of you, I have already pointed out why there is a reason to think it may not be reliable, prove me wrong on that point or screw off.★Trekker (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I already have. Read the source page again, and prove it wrong. Don't just think it's wrong, prove it's wrong. 101.189.113.1 (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
That page does not refute my point at all, it says nothing about having an editorial staff.★Trekker (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Excuse me?? Read it again! It has writers - writers = editorial staff! Sheesh!! 101.189.113.1 (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
That is not correct. In fact having now read the source, I have to say it looks like a fan site. Writers for a fan site means contributors only and not editorial staff, and therefore has no oversight. I am calling it unreliable. Is that enough proof for you? Now the onus is on you to provide the names of the editorial staff to prove oversight exists (there are no names listed) and a source for the owner whose name is not there either. Addicted4517 (talk) 10:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
This is really unfortunate, would have been great to have another reliable source to cite.★Trekker (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

IP user is now blocked. - GalatzTalk 15:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.★Trekker (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

David Starr

There are two references that are unreliable, but I can't find any reliable sources to replace those two. If anybody can find them to replace those other references, that would be appreciated. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 23:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place to as for sources to specific articles. If you're aware of reliable sources then use google with the site: + "search term" function. For example
site:pwinsider.com "brian pillman"
You should find something like that.★Trekker (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@*Treker: So I tried that and it didn't work. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 07:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Did you try it with several websites?★Trekker (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
@*Treker: I didn't find exactly what I needed for, but I found other stuff to do with David Starr. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling Sheet

Has been around for a while now, has broken a couple of stories, seem to have an editorial staff, headed by former TMZ guy (might be a sign against it depending on how you feel about it), has been cited by many other publications both wrestling specific and mainstream. Opinions on it?★Trekker (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, when they have an exclusive new, its a legit new.
@HHH Pedrigree:, would you endorse it as reliable based on what you've seen?★Trekker (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@*Treker: From my personal POV, yes. I had no problems with Sheet exclusive news when I worked on a pro wrestling website. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your input.★Trekker (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I discussed this with Starship.paint the night Nicole Bass died. After every other site had declared her dead, Sheet was putting out stories that she was still alive and on life support. I listened to a podcast where one of the hosts, who was friends was Bass, accused them of pushing fake news. I'm not sure which side was right but that was my first introduction to PWS.
Anyway, since then their reports have ended up in the Observer[9][10][11], TMZ[12] and prowrestling.net.[13] It looks like they've broken some stories since and are generally reliable. I'd side with the Torch or the Observer if their stories ever conflicted with PWS though.LM2000 (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Their About Us page indicates that there is editorial oversight, and the fact that they have been sited by Meltzer [14] would lead me to consider them to be a reliable source. Nikki♥311 03:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if this affects anyone's decision or not but the whole Nicholas thing from last night, they are reporting about it here. If this is ever confirmed one way or another could help with this determination. - GalatzTalk 15:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
They've broken another story this morning about a possible Vince/Lesnar argument after the show.[15] We'll have to keep an eye on it.LM2000 (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
PWTorch confirmed it. Major outlets have also taken Sheet's word about Nicholas without independently verifying it. Given that they have editorial oversight and that Ryan Satin has a background in news, I'm okay with moving them to the reliable column.LM2000 (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I feel like we have enough consensus by now. I'll go ahead and move it.★Trekker (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment: The two reasons I would be against calling this site reliable is because Ryan Satin worked for TMZ and they are trash. He is like Dave Meltzer and has reported incorrect things. But because the project deems Meltzer reliable, Satin would be deemed reliable. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 09:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
You thinking TMZ is trash is completely irrelevant since that's a ethics matter, and if reporting incorrect news one time or another makes you unreliable then there is not a single reliable source exists. Also, most of the time people claim Meltzer has reported incorrect things it's because people misquote him, take things out of context, or ignore that he's pointed out that it's just a rumor or speculation.★Trekker (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Meltzer is also only listed as reliable for historical information and results. He reports things that don't happen all the time, which is why he isn't reliable for speculation or rumors. - GalatzTalk 13:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
No source should be used for speculation or rumors, that should be a given.★Trekker (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Online World of Wrestling

Online World of Wrestling is considered "unreliable," is it still being heavily used. In fact, I've used it as a source myself many times. It's going to be hard get people to stop using. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 10:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

A source being unreliable doesn't mean it's full on banned. I'm not going to put in effort into making people stop citing any specific place unless it's a BLP matter or rumor. It's just not that big a deal if a guys moveset it cited to OWoW.★Trekker (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Here is the original short and sweet discussion. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 88#Online World of Wrestling - GalatzTalk 14:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah is says hard no, but who's going to go and remove them all from all the articles? Seems like a largely effort taking job that won't improve much. Having reliable sources established here is more important in the way of deciding if it could help prove notability of something.★Trekker (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
The problem is its used for real name and birth date all over the place, it is definitely used on a large percentage of wrestler's pages. - GalatzTalk 14:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
That's true, but if there are no other places for those things to be cited from what should we do?★Trekker (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@Galatz: I seen that and it's not much of a discussion. We need more than one person making their thoughts and opinions known. Sometimes it's good re-visit things and see we can get the consensus of the community. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 20:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree there needs to be consensus and nothing wrong with revisiting. This is what their researcher FAQ says [16] The Online World of Wrestling website is happy (and proud) to be a website for wrestling fans and by wrestling fans. Sure we get input from the workers themselves but really everything on the site is for you. As you have likely discovered by now, OWW cannot be undertaken by a single person. That is why OWW enlists fans to help track down information to make the site more complete. With over 5000 profiles, there are plenty of blanks that need to be filled and everyone should be encouraged to contribute a little bit to help the cause. Even the tiniest piece of information, such as a hometown, or a real name, makes a big difference. Send the information to OWW and we will add the information to the website. Their criteria for inclusion is to send it in and they will update it. To me this shows no review or over sight. - GalatzTalk 22:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@Galatz: I've seen their statement, but Cagematch also allows people to send in things in if there is something missing or needs to be updated. Cagematch needs requires some sort of proof. They would like a link, but that's not always possible. But the difference is they have people to verify before making the changes or updates. Again, fans still send in information to Cagematch. I've done it lots of times. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I could've sworn there was a WT:PW discussion that ruled OWOW was unreliable but I couldn't find it in the archives. The archives find several mentions of OWOW scattered in various threads over the years though and none of them are good. Apparently they were taking information from wikipedia at some point. Just because they have someone fact checking doesn't necessarily mean they're doing a good job of it.LM2000 (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree, they're not reliable, they can be used as external links I think but not much more most of the time.★Trekker (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Postwrestling.com

Learned about this site today, it seems to have several former Live Audio Wrestling alumni working for it. Thoughts?★Trekker (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Looking at their news articles, they appear to be reporting press releases and show recaps mostly. If they are notable, we should clarify that forums cannot be used. - GalatzTalk 14:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Of course, to be sure. Forums should never be cited at all. Since most of these guys have a background in radio and such I assume that most of their content will be in audio form. Two of the men have also produced documenarires for the Fight Network in the past. It's a very new site but it looks like they're trying to take it seriously.★Trekker (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I have been keeping on eye on this site and they really seem to be sticking to the facts. They only seem to be posting recaps and items which WWE confirms. As an aside thanks for turning me on to it, I have been listening to their podcasts and really enjoying it. - GalatzTalk 16:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
That's great to hear, their show on LAW used to be fun as well.★Trekker (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment: The only two notable people that work for the site are the owners John Pollock and Wai Ting. They both worked for the Fight Network. But they are not with the Fight Network anymore obviously. So with their experience in broadcasting and journalism both TV, radio, and podcasts; they could be given a pass. But some articles are posted under "POST Wrestling Staff." It should be posted under an actual name. Not posting under an actual name isn't good for the sake of reliability. I could be wrong mind you. But who is posting under "POST Wrestling Staff?" Would we cite "POST Wrestling Staff" as the author? I've done it before for other sites like whatever site staff in the source. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 09:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Please stop using "notable" as a description or argument about whether a writer can be considered reliable, me and another editor have already pointed out that that doesn't make sense. Also, tons of reliable publications credit just "staff" in some article, even the Observer, so yes, just credit "staff".★Trekker (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@*Treker: Who used the term/word "notability?" I didn't. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: You use the word "notable" all the time. I have no conceivable idea how you can denny that when it's in the comment you made above and several ties in on this page.★Trekker (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
For god's sake, you did it right after this in another section again.★Trekker (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@*Treker: Why are you becoming disrespectful and uncivil? So I used a certain word. I guess it's a no-no according to you. I'll make sure to run my comments by you first to see if it's up to your standards and to make sure certain words aren't being used. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
This is like the third time I've had to point out to your that your argument is not making sense and I'm not the only one who's done so. This discussion is to try to decide what the project should rely on, and you're making nonsense points that don't cary any weight but just takes up time. As for being disrespuctful, you've had a really poor tone towards me this entire page. You were even ungrateful and rude when I tried to help you out when finding match results for example, and it's not the only time you've been really rude towards me on Wikipeida when I've done nothing but tried to help. Maybe you should look over what tone you use yourself and see that there's a reason why someone could be annoyed with you? I don't want to be unfriendly but why keep using "notable" when we've already explained that it dosn't make sense and then deny that you've done so?★Trekker (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

SoloWrestling.com (Spanish-language site)

Anyone who knows Spanish have an idea of this place?★Trekker (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I certainly don't know Spanish but I know how to use google translate on this page [17]. Based on that I notice a few interesting things. The owner occasionally does commentary for the WWE, doesnt mean its notable, but adds some validity. They have promoted their own events at which ROH participated. They also have been hired as consultants. Leads me to believe its reliable. Looking through their news section it doesn't appear to be speculation or rumor based either. - GalatzTalk 18:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I have a hard time understanding google translate personally. The things you mention are interesting, would be great if we had more non-English sources here to be able to use.★Trekker (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I have spoken to HHHPedigree and I feel confident in saying that the site is reliable.★Trekker (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I came here wondering the same about this site. I know a fair amount of Spanish and there a lot of editors on Wikipedia you can find who speak it, so this will probably come in hand if it's determined to be reliable. It doesn't appear to be a normal dirtsheet as it frequently cites Meltzer and other things we consider reliable. Might be very good for results and other things we need better citations for. — Moe Epsilon 22:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Agree, it seems great so far. I see no problems with it.★Trekker (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I talked with Treker, so I give my thumbs up to Solowrestling as a reliable source. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Wrestling Perspective

This used to be a printed newsletter, anyone know anything about it?★Trekker (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Looking over the site and you can't use it to source anything even if it was declared reliable. You can't even order back issues and I don't know if new issues are being published. It says all the writers are professionals, but none of them seem notable. The way their site is, it is useless for sourcing. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
That's ridiculous, if you have a physical copy of course you can source it if it's deemed reliable. Also why couldn't you cite the stuff that's in the site already like interviews or other content? Also again, stop saying "the writers aren't notable" like it meant anything. Do you have any clue whatsover what you're talking about on this page at all? I'm starting to doubt it.★Trekker (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@*Treker: You asked and I am the only one who took the time to look at the website. The interviews are only excerpts. They do that by design because they want you to buy the issue the interview is in. Since you can't, it's pointless. Judging by the Missy Hyatt excerpts, once again, it's like her book which is full of trash and mud slinging. You wanted people's thoughts and I gave you that. Your tone is starting to become disrespectful. Chill yourself. The last while I have been civil. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Your tone has been insanely disrespectful for a while now and your points are mostly irrelevant.★Trekker (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Your point is essentially "this person was shitty in an interview and somehow that has an effect on if the publication is reliable in my head", which doesn't make sense, an interview is an interview. Also, do you know that all the published issues have all gone into nonexistence? Again if someone does have some of his stuff and decides they want to cite it would that be ok based on if this publication had an editorial process? That is my question, I don't care your or anyone elses personal opinion on if you feel the need to cite it or if you think it's useful.★Trekker (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I think most of these printed newsletters can be okay to use. Some should be used with caution because they were written in a kayfabe style. I know Pro Wrestling Illustrated is one of these and they're still around. They're listed in the reliable column.13:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Fightful

Just wondering about people's thoughts on Fightful Wrestling. I have listened to their podcast for a bit and at the end of the most recent episode they were talking about how they take provide in verifying all information they put on their website before posting it. Looking through it, they report certain speculation, such as [18] but are giving the source its based on, and not making claims that it is true, no different than the NYT will do. It appears to be mostly confirmed news rather than speculation. Any thoughts? - GalatzTalk 14:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Their "about" page claims that they have editors and such, but the top writer seems to have worked at a lot of wrestling publications which we don't count as relibale. I could endorse the site but then we would need to know for sure that they have true fact checking.★Trekker (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes they seem to just want to put out as much content as possible and their standards are not always high.TrinitySkyBoat (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
@*Treker: That's the problem with a lot of writers on wrestling websites, some people bounce from site to site and go to a site that will have them apart of them their writing staff. Why are they not sticking to this site or that site? When I was writing for wrestling websites, I wrote for a few of them. But I wasn't prominent nor was I one any notable websites. I don't know why they jump from site to site. Bill Middleton is one of them. He has written on a lot of websites. I don't know if he is in demand or what, but such as it is. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

WrestlingNews.co

I don't see this site listed anywhere. I've checked out the site and it looks like they have one person writing articles while two, with one person regularly, writing columns/editorials. The site looks good and all, but they don't list their writers in the about section. I see they use Dave Meltzer and Wrestling Observer as sources. As well, they used BBC in a recent article as well. Thoughts? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 20:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Their about me page [19] doesn't really say much. They mostly seem to be reporting things WWE announces, regular news agencies announce, or that Dave Meltzer or PW Insider announces. - GalatzTalk 01:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
@Galatz: You can see what WWE announces and what Dave Meltzer/PW Insider reports anywhere online. Lots of sites don't post anything original no matter if they word it differently from each other. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 02:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll put it in the unreliable. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 20:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Ovwmania.blogspot.com

Should ovwmania.blogspot.com be considered a reliable source? I removed a number of links to this blog from OVW Southern Tag Team Championship‎, OVW Television Championship‎ and OVW Heavyweight Championship but it's been reverted by Browndog91 twice who claim that It has been endorsed by OVW in the past and it is the only site that gives OVW results. but I'm unable to see anything about this blog on their official website or on Google. Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 10:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It is on Browndog91 to prove it is the official results archive. He needs to read Wikipedia:Blogs as sources and be careful when privately published blogs are used as sources. Until such time he can prove it is the official results archive, they are going to be removed. If he reverts, disciplinary action could be taken. Don't get into a revert war. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: Thank you for your response. This looks like a case of original research and WP:BURDEN since Browndog91 has already admitted that there is no alternative for results so it will be great if we can remove all those links and information per WP:BURDEN unless he can prove the reliability of that blog which looks imposible to me. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@GSS: Look through all the OVW related articles and see if it has been used. If so, remove it. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@Fishhead2100: all done. Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 06:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

411Mania

They claim to have editors, but also that their writers are independent and not staff. Thoughts/opinions?★Trekker (talk) 11:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

We already list it as being ok for anything that is non-controversial. Are you suggesting a change? Its great for citing results of PPVs and similar - GalatzTalk 14:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Isn't that WrestleView that's described as "barely ok"? 411Mania seems to be with the other "undecided" or "not yet proven" ones.★Trekker (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
It says at the top of that section Use with caution, mainly for uncontroversial claims such as the attendance of the event, as these sites do not have proven fact checking. So to me that applies to every item in that entire category. - GalatzTalk 14:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
That seems rather risky, any source that's not been decided about yet would technically be added there. I think we should have a list of sites that need to be estimated and another one for sites we deem "semi-reliable" or "for results" or the like.★Trekker (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, perhaps we need a results only section. Something like the observer would fit better there, than with the ones that are across the board reliable. We also have PWMania in the avoid section, but it should be fine and is used often for results. - GalatzTalk 14:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Can't really agree with that fully, the Observer has tons of great historical stuff and reviews, and PWMania is ok, but they also use some writers that are beyond iffy. Not sure how to feel about that one.★Trekker (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Those are the heads of those respective areas. Larry Csonka is the main guy who writes on wrestling. They have others who review shows and DVDs, write columns, etc.. I have used others the odd time when I have sourced 411Mania, but most times it's Csonka who gets referenced. It says 411Mania is good for results and not much else. That's who I try to stick with when using 411Mania. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 20:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Does anyone have anything to add here? I feel like this discussion never really went anywhere in the end.★Trekker (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

NZPWI

http://www.nzpwi.co.nz/ is a source I came across as part of some recent AfD. I never heard of it before. The appear to have news, opinions and interviews. I cannot find about an editorial staff on their site, but their news appears to not be reporting of rumors. Anyone have thoughts? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 01:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Claims to have an editor here.★Trekker (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

SoCal Uncensored

They are currently listed in the not yet proven section but I think as far as news related to Southern California wrestling they've been proven more than reliable. They've been around since 2001 and have a staff. They are constantly cited by both Dave Meltzer and Mike Johnson at PWInsider who are on the reliable list. They break quite a bit of news, especially in regards to PWG and Lucha Underground. I can't think of an example of them being wrong. I bring this up because of sourcing on Lucha Underground updates I have to use Dave Meltzer as a source even though his report credits SoCal Uncensored. TrinitySkyBoat (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Re Do they have editors?★Trekker (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
★Trekker Per their staff page yes.TrinitySkyBoat (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Re Well that's a good start, could you link to the page?★Trekker (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
★Trekker Here you go. http://socaluncensored.com/about/staff/ TrinitySkyBoat (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Re Thank you, looks pretty good, I'd say yes, but more people need to weight in.★Trekker (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
★Trekker Hopefully we get a few more responses.TrinitySkyBoat (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone else have anything to add?★Trekker (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
They are super reliable and a lot of info on other reliable sites such as Meltzer and Cagematch comes directly from there. I know Steve Bryant on there has baseball research published in peer reviewed books through Society for American Baseball Research as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:8:11:0:0:0:64 (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
After having checked them out for a while I would be very tempted to support a yes for them. They seem to have an editorial process and don't report on rumors.★Trekker (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Box y Lucha

This used to be a print magazine the same as Super Luchas back in the day, according to the books I researched it seems it's been around at least as long as Super Luchas and one book said that it was known for having more text than Super Luchas. Thoughts?★Trekker (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes on print and even longer than SuperLuchas, i have a couple of print issues thar listed both reporters and editors. So Independent, third-party and has an established editorial process.  MPJ-DK  09:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Wonderful! I'll wait and see if anyone else has anything to add before I put it in but this seems to bode very well.★Trekker (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Unless anyone has objection I'll go ahead and add it tomorrow.★Trekker (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Well it's morning now, and no objections.★Trekker (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

"Dead" sources

Websites that may be reliable but only exist in archive form now. Thoughts?★Trekker (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think the archived version is enough. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree, but should we list them apart from the other ones?★Trekker (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
We can put a note, saying it's dead but archived --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah that could work.★Trekker (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Should we maybe have a section for "Well know interview shows/channels"

Some podcasts and other series are well known and might be good to include on a list of shows that have a history of having real interviews and not copying others stuff.★Trekker (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

  • as long as everyone realizes that interviews are usually primary sources and only has limited, specific uses.  MPJ-DK  19:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Oh I agree with that for sure, I just think it's important that people cite the original source, not some YouTube copy or similar.★Trekker (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
      • What do you mean by not copying? It would be obvious as to whether or not its an original interview. Did I miss something? Unless you mean using something https://www.pwpodcasts.com/ to source an interview - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
        • I mean we shouldn't allow people to cite random YT uploads of podcasts/interviews but instead use the correct template to cite from the original video/audio sources.★Trekker (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
          • A good point of using YT, we can hear the podcast. But of course, the original source is the podcast, no YT (EX, WrestlingInc writes a interview with Edge. WrestlingInc isn't reliable, but the podcast it is). It's like reddit, I can read Meltzer WON, so I can use the newsletter as source, but no Reddit. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
            • Yeah pretty much, and there are tons of reuploads/transcripts of podcasts and interviews with notable reliable people so we should cite the place it came from not the transcript/copy.★Trekker (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Wrestling-Titles.com, Obsessed with Wrestling.

I don't see Wrestling-Titles.com listed anywhere. It is a great resource for wrestling title histories. I've used it as a source multiple times. Even though Obsessed Wrestling used to be popular before Online World of Wrestling was around, I don't see it listed anywhere either. I would say to use them cautiously. But what's the consensus of others? Discuss. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 02:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I think Wrestling-Titles.com is pretty good, and honestly, kind of necessary. I'm not super familiar with Obsessed with Wrestling.★Trekker (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Obsessed with Wrestling was around long before Online World of Wrestling was. I'm going off memory here, but there was some problems which caused the split and Online World of Wrestling was formed. But being as I haven't been on it in a long time, I don't know if it is still around. As far as Wrestling-Titles.com goes, I put it under other (not yet proven). Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I've looked up Wrestling-Titles and it seems that they have gotten permission from Garry Will, the author of the book Wrestling Title Histories to copy from his book. I would assume based on that that it's reliable.★Trekker (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@*Treker: Solie.org has title histories and they have given Royal Duncan and Gary Will credit. Wrestling-Titles.com gave both of them credit. There is nothing saying they got permission. They credited them because they probably used their book. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually I read an article that they did get permission, stop questioning everything I say. If you don't take my word for it I'll find it when I feel like it.★Trekker (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh what do you know, it does say he got premission on Wrestling-Titles.★Trekker (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@*Treker: So he got permission, but you can see how I would come to that conclusion based on others sites. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I can understand.★Trekker (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Are we sure Bryan Alvarez is reliable?

How is Bryan Alvarez a reliable source if he's as inaccurate as Dave Meltzer? The Staples Center themselves have not mentioned anything about Enzo Amore, yet I'm supposed to believe Bryan Alvarez? Please explain. --Evil Yugi (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

This is not a forum.★Trekker (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Cagematch.net

Can cagematch.net be used as a reliable source for stats like height and weight of the Pro Wrestlers? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

WrestleTalk

I added WrestleTalk to the unreliable sources section. They have a reputation online (Reddit etc.) for making up false news stories for clicks, like Ringsidenews and others do. StaticVapor message me! 19:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I had also doubts in them. Probably Cultaholic too? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Cultaholic is just the WhatCulture guys new website, so probably. They don't get trashed online as much as WrestleTalk though. StaticVapor message me! 20:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Cultaholic doesn't report anything original or exclusive to my knowledge. Everything I've read from them says "According to the Wrestling Observer Newsletter" or "per Mike Johnson of PWInsider" or something along those lines. JTP (talk • contribs) 20:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
As mentioned, Cultaholic is basically WhatCulture v2 and their authors have very bad reputation. They also collaborated with Wrestletalk at occasions. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
What Reddit says about a site doesnt really make it reliable or not. We need to focus on the aspects of the site itself. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 21:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I was using the Reddit example as how I know it's unreliable. Their fake news articles get posted there all the time. StaticVapor message me! 21:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Reddit and Wikipedia are similar: you use them as a source for knowing other sources. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Limited reliable

In the Unproven section we had several items which were considered reliable only for specific things. Since thats not really unproven I gave it its own section for limited reliable. I think we should review whats left in Unproven and see if we can upgrade anything else, and if so, what - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 21:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

So that everyone is clear with this: I quote the following from WP:RS:
  • The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
  • The piece of work itself (the article, book)
  • The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
  • The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
Any of the three can affect reliability.
&
  • Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I think there is a fundamental fraud in our system of labelling reliable sources. For quite a few occasions, we are disregarding sources just because Reddit users investigated that they got one or two facts wrong. In the overview section, the image perfectly demonstrates this trait and stated "to draw the line between usable and unreliable sources". Usable is the key word here. From now onwards, we need to assess unreliable sources much carefully and make use of the context of the sources. Thanks. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 01:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

comicbook.com

At https://comicbook.com/wwe/ they have a ton of hits come up. Is anyone familiar with the site? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say they are pretty reliable with WWE content, although they are focus isn't explicitly into wrestling. Could be considered as a mainstream and popular news outlet. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I do not have much to add at this time. I have always seen them as unproven. They were discussed somewhat here. StaticVapor message me! 23:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

411Mania 2

Following up on this discussion, I feel like this site could be promoted to our reliable sources. They have editors: [20]. The wrestling editor Larry Csonka is somewhat well known. StaticVapor message me! 20:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking at their news section, they definitely report on rumors [21] and [22], are both posted in the past day. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, they say that the story is a rumor and they credit who reported it. The second link credits The Wrestling Observer for example. The difference being they are not reporting it as fact. StaticVapor message me! 21:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
411Mania seems reliable to me with most of their reports. However, they posted this news from an unrecognized author, which claims "Asuka Defends Title Against Charlotte After Smackdown", which I couldn't verify. Pro-wrestling.com also copy pasted the same news here. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I found plenty of sources discussing the dark match including a a mainstream one. StaticVapor message me! 22:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I would also generally say 411Mania is reliable. They've been around for ages and have editors. With that being said, I do know thay have had their blunders.★Trekker (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
We have to keep in mind the difference in reporting speculation and crediting the source, and directly reporting fake news as fact. I have no problem with labeling it with something like, "do not use rumors credited to sites we consider unreliable". StaticVapor message me! 22:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
It appears the 411mania considers Rajah to be reliable, wikipedia does not. See [23] - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree, that is not good. However, they do credit them as "a report originated from Rajah". So that kinda says, "hey if you think they are reliable, here's the information they reported". StaticVapor message me! 20:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
A good website doesn't report this thay may be reliable. I mean, PWInsider doesn't include news without confirmation. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I have seen a lot of our "Reliable sources" quote WrestlingInc's "reports" from their supposed "inside sources". StaticVapor message me! 01:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

WrestleCrap

Is 'WrestleCrap' reliable? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I just went there, and this is the headline article [24] so I am going to go with no. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
WrestleCrap is a comedy site, funny place, but reliable? Hell no.★Trekker (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I found this where people are calling it a reliable source because it is run by RD Reynolds. Since I was not convinced, I thought it would be better to ask here. Thanks Galatz and *Treker. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Tagging GaryColemanFan since he is the one who posted it. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
It's a comedy site, they mostly crack jokes and make fun of things. While they have published books which might be reliabel I don't see what we could cite from them here from the site itself.★Trekker (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, R.D. Reynolds is a wrestling historian with multiple books published by ECW Press. One of these books won the Wrestling Observer Newsletter Best Pro Wrestling Book twice. Wrestlecrap, therefore, fits the definition of a self-published site run by a reliable source. Of course, people should be smart about how they use it. The inductions give good (and sometimes excellent) explanations of feuds, angles, and gimmicks. However, taking a few seconds to understand what you're seeing before rushing to a judgment is absolutely necessary. Hovering the cursor over the Kofi Kingston story shows a url that includes "headlies". Actually clicking on it takes you to the story, which includes the title "Headlies". People who have taken the time to develop a bit of familiarity with the site, or who are reading closely, will notice that there is no "n" in "headlies". Obviously, anything in this series is a parody article and cannot be used for research. Likewise, anything from the "Rewriting the Book" series is alternative history. With that said, there is a ton of great and reliable information on the site. R.D. Reynolds is the writer or primary editor of the content, so people can use the inductions (including those behind the paywall in the archives) and the Jobber of the Week articles as sources. I have the archive access, but I really stick to those two sections, so I wouldn't be able to speak to much more than that. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Uproxx

Is it a RS? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 01:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is their about page. JTP (talk • contribs) 02:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I am guessing your feelings are that it is? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I've steered away from it out of uncertainty, but I'd need to look into it more to make a decision. I just linked to their about page because I know the biggest deciding factor is editorial staff. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
It does have editors, so it has that going for it. We should have someone do a further dig before we promote it though. If they post speculation or rumors that are not picked up by our reliable sources, that would make them unreliable. StaticVapor message me! 19:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
So far, I haven't found any rumors speculated by them. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Any additional comments here? StaticVapor message me! 22:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No clear cut consensus here so it is currently listed as unproven. This thread at WP:RSN [25], makes me questionable to even have it at the limited reliable section. Consider this thread still open for additional comments. StaticVapor message me! 21:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

ITNWWE

ITNWWE listed as unreliable. StaticVapor message me! 21:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Is ITNWWE.com reliable? I stumbled upon this here. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 11:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to say no; the "About" sections states "My goal is to give all news about WWE, Rumours, videos, results. I want to entertain all WWE fan with the help of my WWE knowledge" JTP (talk • contribs) 21:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@NotTheFakeJTP: the author has no credibility, so it's safe to say it isn't reliable? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
A notice to everyone that an account was blocked for spamming this website into articles. We should assume that this might continue for awhile. StaticVapor message me! 19:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Since the both the creator and the publishing site have little to no credibility, I am going to mark this unreliable. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I would say not reliable, they are reporting rumors, like Shield reunion at Fastlane [26] - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 21:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fightful 2

Fightful was listed as a reliable source. StaticVapor message me! 06:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

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

I would like to see us discuss adding a few sites to our Reliable sources section. The first one I am throwing out there is Fightful. There has been previous discussion at, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources#Fightful that seemed pretty positive about them. StaticVapor message me! 00:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think Fighful should be included. The reason "Has editors, however editors have worked for non-notable websites previously" is pretty weak. The website has editors and Sean Ross is used as source for other reliable websites. He reported Ali's injury and other news. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree, being notable is not really an indicator if it's reliable. Obscure websites/papers can be trustworthy and super well known ones can be awful.★Trekker (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I haven't seen them post anything that turns out not to be true. They have editors. That sounds reliable to me. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

skysohigh.net

Anyone familiar with this website? I cannot find an about page but the main text says "THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE FOR TNA KNOCKOUTS VELVET SKY. WITH OVER 40000 WWE VIDEOS AND THE LATEST NEWS ON FASTLANE 2019". It seems to more or less just be a video compiler. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Personal websites aren't of much use beyond citing a few things about the person themselves.★Trekker (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Wrestling News World

This site claims to have been around since 1999 and seems to be a registered company with several employees. Thoughts?★Trekker (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Sources/Archive_1&oldid=1185206261"