Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide/Archive 1

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

Capitalization

If you look on the TNA site [1], you will see that impact is spelt with a lowercase I with the rest of the letters capitalized with an exclamation point. It should like this TNA iMPACT!. Mr. C.C. (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


SmackDown!

I was kinda confused to what the formatting and writing part were trying to say. Is there suppose to be a exclamation on all Smackdown references that occur after January 2008? Thanks--KingRatedRIV (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Two Suggestions

(1) Wikipedia stresses the importance of notability, yet many biographies list several ring names that are not notable (e.g., Paul London, Edge). Does anyone else think these trivial names should be removed?

(2) I know that at one point, editors were concerned that the use of lists for finishing and signature moves was detrimental to the quality of the article. Would it be an improvement to convert the section completely to prose to describe the wrestler's fighting style (e.g., brawling, technical) and how the signature and favorite moves suit this style?

-WikiFew (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We should list the moves, because they are noted to do them; the idea of describing the fighting style would be a good idea if it weren't so subjective; one man's brawler could be another's powerhouse. To do away with the lists eventually, I would write out full paragraphs for finishing and signature moves to explain them a bit, the origins of said moves and any other pertinent information. Crippler4 14:48, 17 August 2009 (EST)
I tried to make a model of that summary idea, and this what I think it should look like:

Bryan Danielson has used a variety of finishing manuevers throughout his career. One of his earliest moves was a bridging version of the dragon suplex. As a tribute to his trainer, William Regal, Danielson began using another suplex variation, the bridging leg hook belly-to-back suplex, which is generally nicknamed the Regal-Plex. To add a submission hold hold to his repertoire, Danielson also uses a crossface chickenwing, sometimes applying a body scissors. As his career progressed, Danielson began developing his own moves; the most well-known was another submission hold- a bridging grounded double chickenwing called the Cattle Mutilation. It was also around this time that Danielson was also starting to use a small package-style pin, which could quickly get a victory. In an attempt to develop his own style, Danielson also added a some strikes to score knockout victories. The most well-known is trapping his opponent in a grounded crucifix position before repeatedly striking his opponent in the side of the head with elbows. The elbows reoccur when Danielson is applying a triangle choke, which leads to Danielson striking his opponent in the head; it also occurs in his version of the Roaring Elbow. He also stomps on his opponent's head whilst holding them in place with a double wristlock.

Some of the other signature maneuvers Danielson has been known to implore include a variety of suplexes, which include: belly-to-back (sometimes from the [[Professional wrestling aerial techniques#Super|top rope), cravate, German, northern lights, tiger, single underhook, and a version of the double underhook suplex, which he floats over into a cross armbar he calls the Danielson Special. Amongst some of the submissions he applies, complicated armbars that strech the opponent remain popular (including a Fujiwara armbar, from tornado DDT as well as the single leg crab from a roll-through counter, the Indian deathlock, and a version of the surfboard, which has him rock back-and forth with his opponent before lifting them up overhead. Danielson also uses the traditional wrestling technique known as the airplane spin, sometimes following up with a rolling fireman's carry takeover. Another strike Danielson has applied is the running version of the big boot. Amongst his top rope arsenal, he uses a diving headbutt and a version of the European uppercut from the second rope. When his opponent is on the floor of the arena or in the crowd, Danielson will springboard off the top rope, and dive onto his opponent with a suicide senton bomb.

In universe

I was reading about S&M, kinky sex and all that on wikipedia, and it struck me how i did not understand any of the terms that were used in the articles, usually without explanation, and sometimes with a link to an article about some obscure term that only a small percentage of people are ever going to know about. Of course, asking for a manual of style in writing about kinky sex in terms that every reader can understand would be "sexual discrimination" or something. But if the S&M subculture can use all of their weird internal lingo and terms, and make articles for all of them no matter how stupid they are, then WHYWHYWHY is every article about wrestling written for a three year old? Wrestling fans are a subculture like anyone else, with internal language that should be allowed to be used, it just strikes me as extremely annoying that it has to be stated in every article about a PPV that blah blah wrestlers acting in personas playing out storylines, whatever, saying villain and good guy instead of heel and face. It's insulting to the readers. Can articles on science be understood right away by everyone, and should they not use scientific terms, becuase "not everyone can understand?", of course not, that would be an outrage! But if we just said, hey, these are the terms we use, it's a topic like any other, read up on how it works and you can understand the terms. I'm just tired of reading the stupid wording of the articles about anything to do with wrestling. Is there even a debate here of writing the articles in a slightly more advanced manner? 94.191.173.67 (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved per comment made by SteelersFan UK 06

Hello WP: Professional Wrestling gang! I've been away from the project and Wikipedia as a whole for quite some time and have just recently returned and started to contribute again. I have some questions and comments for you guys and I hope you will be patient with me and consider what I have said and comment/answer my questions accordingly (citing policy if relevant). Thanks!

  • There seemed to be some kind of (unwritten to my knowledge) general consensus at one point to italicize the names of televised wrestling shows and pay-per-views. I know we do this with RAW and SmackDown! and believe this to be correct. But what about things like SummerSlam 2002 or WrestleMania 23? Is it still correct to italicize things like this? Please include reasoning in your answer as to why or why not they should be italicized.
  • I don't know if there is a general rule to follow on abbreviations, but it makes sense to me that for every article, the first mention of something like "World Wrestling Entertainment" should always have the common abbreviation (if there is one) afterwards (e.g. World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), and THEN and ONLY then (now that it has been established what "WWE" means), can the abbreviation "WWE" be used by itself. This happens A LOT; an abbreviation crops up out of nowhere when it has not been introduced previously in the article. And yes, you, me and Joe Blow know what WWE, WWF, WCW, TNA etc. stand for but many people in the world do not. Thoughts on this (please provide reasoning)?

Comments (personal feelings - feel free to cite official Wiki policy to me etc. if it exists):

  • Over linking - I feel that there is a general over linking problem specifically in (but not limited to) professional wrestling related articles. It is my understanding that, in general (but not a hard in fast rule), something only needs to be wiki-linked the first time it appears in an article (with some exceptions):
    • Example article: Triple H (NOTE: This is just an EXAMPLE, I am NOT saying the instances I have listed below necessarily appear in the article I am talking about - but we try to format all the wrestler articles the same way, promotion articles the same way etc.)
      • Link in question World Wrestling Entertainment
        • It obviously makes sense to link this in the first paragraph of the article because it is the first time it appears in the article.
        • "Championships and accomplishments" section - again, I can see here how the link to WWE makes sense again. This is a section of wrestler articles that is possibly often viewed independently of the entire article (someone looks only at this section because they are only interested in stats).
        • In captions on pictures (I could go either way on this - its not really what I'm concerned with).
        • Randomly linked again here and there in the body of the article - Not Needed - the link has already been introduced.
        • In sections like "Outside of Wrestling" - Not Needed.
      • Link in question: Shawn Michaels
        • The first time his name appears in Triple H's article it should be linked.
        • If he was a Manager of Triple H then I suppose it may be linked again in the Manager section (I don't think this is necessary if its already in the body of the article but I wont fight it or remove these links).
        • I don't feel, however, that Shawn Michaels (or whatever wrestler) needs to be linked every time his name appears in the "Championships and accomplishments" section of Triple H's (or whoever's) article. If it has to be linked again here at all (given that it already appears in the body of the article), the first mention of the name in that section should be linked and subsequent mentions of the name in that section should not be linked. This would go for any other similar sections of articles.
      • Link in question: WWE Home Video
        • On Triple H's page this link appears 3 times in the "Media" section of the article back to back. Is this necessary? Can only the first mention be linked? (Again if this is how to do it according to some official Wiki policy, please feel free to point this out to me). I just bring it up because I think its redundant.
      • Link(s) in question: Dates in general

(The following text has been copied and pasted directly from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) (autoformatting and linking) section:

Autoformatting and linking

  • Full dates, and days and months, are normally autoformatted, by inserting double square-brackets, as for linking. This instructs the WikiMedia software to format the item according to the date preferences chosen by registered users. It works only for users who are registered, and for all others will be displayed as entered.

Do not autoformat dates that are:

    • in article and section headings,
    • on disambiguation pages,
    • within quotations (unless the original text was wikilinked).

The autoformatting mechanism will not accept date ranges (December 13–17, 1951) or slashes (the night of 30/31 May), which must be input without using the function. Thus:

    • either [[January 15]] (US editors) or [[15 January]] (others) will be rendered as either January 15 or 15 January, according to a registered user's set preferences; and
    • [[January 15]], [[2001]] (US editors), [[15 January]] [[2001]] (others), [[2001-01-15]] (ISO), or [[2001 January 15]] will be rendered as January 15, 2001, 15 January 2001, 2001-01-15, or 2001 January 15, according to a registered user's set preferences.
  • Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic. Piped links to pages that are more focused on a topic are possible ([[1997 in South African sport|1997]]), but cannot be used in full dates, where they break the date-linking function.

Please note the line I have bolded above. I believe the over linking and misuse of date linking is probably an issue for many of our wrestling articles. Ask yourself, does linking every date that something happened (Wrestling event, title change etc.) in every article REALLY and ACTUALLY "deepen reader's understanding of a topic"? I'm not so sure it does. Please comment on this issue with your own thoughts and interpretations of the date linking policy.

And its not just over linking - its the fact that linking seems to be done haphazardly. Sometimes dates are linked, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes its the full date, sometimes its just the day/month. Sometimes a year is linked and sometimes not. And its not always just a "only link it the first time it appears in an article" issue ....its just all over the place, I don't know how to explain it better. There needs to be some kind of policy to follow.

These are just a few things that I think we might need to work on with this project regarding style and formatting. These are my ideas and opinions and I'm not trying to step on any toes. I just want to know how things should be done properly and whether or not we need to come to a general consensus on some of these and other issues (if there isn't one already). Some of the things I have talked about here continuely get changed or formatted differently depending on the article (by both experienced and non experienced users) - So I think the Project needs to represent a united front on as many issues as possible regarding style and formatting so that everyone is correcting things the same way (whatever way that may be).

I also feel that some of this information (mainly the parts specific to wrestling articles) belongs in this project's style guide section for reference for all users.

Another reason I bring these things up is that I seem to come across comments here and there on various pages throughout Wikipedia that people seem to think this project and its contents are a joke or waste of time. People don't use those words specifically, but after reading enough comments over the months/years in different places, that is what I have inferred. It probably has to do with how many people view professional wrestling in the first place ("fake", "rigged", "blue collar", "stupid" whatever) which is unfortunate. I just happen to really enjoy it for its entertainment value! ..ok I'm getting off topic ..but anyway the more things we can do to streamline and clean up this project, the less certain people might stop looking down on it (or whatever you want to call it) and start helping with it. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it currently, but like many aspects of Wikipeida (and life in general) there is room for improvement and I would like to help with these type of administrative issues because I really enjoying organizing things.

Ok I think I've used up enough space here - please let the comments flow! :)

--Naha|(talk) 20:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the writing formats and rules you have put forth. However, I disagree strongly with you on the issue of cleaning up the wrestling wikiproject. Notably, just about everything is wrong with the wikiproject; it is not researched through good sources, only from simpletons using the WWE.com page to find week-by-week events. Not once have I seen fan reaction to, or analysis of a wrestler's career history. I only see, with as you stated, dates, details, and names of arcane pay-per-views, wrestling events etc, when different events took place. Even as a wrestling fan, a term I use loosely, I must say, just about all of the articles are rather boring and written in an unencyclopedic tone.

I think the wikiproject has changed for the worst. The Montreal Screwjob, for example, was written with such interest, passion, and intense cooperation, it reached the status of "Today's FA" on the main page. Instead, now, CM Punk, and an array of no-name wrestlers are being promoted to Good-Article class because of nice referencing, but a lack of knowledge. Let me show you an example from CM Punk, an article even wrestling fanatics couldn't stand to read:

Punk's home promotion for his early career is usually considered to be Independent Wrestling Association: Mid-South (IWA:Mid-South).[3] What does that mean? That meanst that nobody knows, but it is considered to be that promotion? That means he was on the indy circuit, moving, travelling, wrestling in various promotions, but some nerd decided to look for the oldest history of him wrestling, and found documented evidence that he was first there.

During Punk's time in IWA:Mid-South he had high profile feuds with Colt Cabana and Chris Hero while also rising to the top of the roster winning the IWA Mid-South Light-Heavyweight Championship twice and the IWA Mid-South Heavyweight Championship on five separate occasions. He became a popular draw at the promotion, rising through the ranks for his noted extreme stunts and high-risk manuevers. Feuding with such high-profiles as Colt Cabana and Chris Hero, he soon bested them in clean wrestling ability to become champion, achieving the Light Heavyweight and Heavyweight titles in multiple title reigns (I don't think the exact # will matter, especially in the article. The bottom has Championships and Achievements).

Notably his feud with Hero included a 55-minute TLC match,[3] a 93-minute two out of three falls match[6] and several 60-minute draws.[8] Punk's matches with Cabana led him to being hired by Ring of Honor promotion.[6] Only a dipshit couldn't put two and two together here. What it should read is that During his high-intensity feud with Hero, Punk received great popularity for exciting, high-endurance matches, including a dangerous TLC match. His performances, notably under a hardcore, high-endurance setting gained him the interest of the Ring of Honor promotion, which offered him a contract.

During his time in IWA:Mid-South he would also meet, wrestle against and become a friend of Eddie Guerrero.[3][6] who really cares? talk about how that may have affected his wrestling training or backstage politics, or something. Or else it's dull trivia.

From February 2003 until May 2004 Punk refused to wrestle for IWA:Mid-South. Punk claims that this was in protest to Ian Rotten's treatment of Chris Hero;[3] however Hero himself has stated he believes there were other reasons and Rotten's treatment of him was just an excuse by Punk to stop working for the company.[9] This sounds somewhat interesting, but it really has no meat to it. For whatever reason, Punk refused to wrestle for Mid South for roughly a year (2003-4); likely reasons include a lower pay, rough travelling schedule, backstage issues, or even laziness, considering that he had joined the more professional, more renowned ROH promotion. Punk claimed that it was in protest of unfair treatment of fellow wrestler Chris Hero by the company, but many, including Hero himself, dismiss this as an alibi to distance himself from the promotion after being accepted by the ROH company.

Eventually Punk returned to IWA:Mid-South and continued to perform as a wrestler and commentator for them until 2005 when he was signed to World Wrestling Entertainment. His last appearance in IWA:Mid-South was on 2 July 2005 in which he competed in a sixty-minute time limit draw against Delirious. Completely unimportant. All trivia. Ok, he came back, but that is not important. A trivia could say "Did you Know?" that he was under contract to the Mid South promotion before being accepted to WWE, wrestling his last match on 2 July 2005 with Delirious, a 60 min time limit draw? I mean, who gives a shit? I can't believe someone would bother to write the day, the outcome, his opponent, and a whole bunch of details about CM Punk's uneventful return to the company.

I did this to show how out of reality the wrestling fans who edit the wikiproject are. The research is mind-boggling, because it is from the wrestling sites alone, and is not interpretated with any thought. If it were, it might read as a story, like what I was able to put together.--Screwball23 talk 22:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok ok, I admit it I agree with you completely. I just find it so easy to accidently hurt people's feelings or get on people's bad sides etc around here (Wikipedia in general) that I was trying to very carefully choose my words. Normally I have zero tact and get in lots of trouble for it (a large part of my several month absence from WP) ...but I'm trying (very hard) to do better in an effort to actually have people work with me instead of against me. I'm glad to know there is at least one other out there who feels the same way! (That the project needs help, that is). Please please ..other people voice your opinions because this Project does need help. Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 01:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm certainly glad that all wrestling fans are lumped into one great big category if slack-jawed bumpkins who're lucky enough to even use this here "Kumputer" and get on that "Interweb". Insulting the people on this project isn't exactly the best way to go around getting them to actually listen to you - and hey let's just ignore WP:Civil while we're at it too - it's not for those that write wrestling articles. isn't it funny that you don't mind complaining about the CM Punk article, how about improving it instead? or is complaining just easier? (not directed at the original author who has a ton of good points about writing style etc but then gets his message corrupted by negativity) MPJ-DK 05:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Huh? :P --Naha|(talk) 12:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah btw when I have a bit of time I'll give you my take on the original suggestion, it has a lot of good stuff in it. MPJ-DK 05:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright a helpful responce to a very well thought out post by Naha. (In bullet list below)
  • I didn’t know about the italics for shows, my view is that it shouldn’t actually be used – italics are generally for stressing a point and that type of thing, not to illustrate a show name. My view? Get rid of it.
  • It’s a common rule of writing, don’t use an abbreviation before you explain it – unfortunately that’s a rule a lot of wrestling articles violate (repeatedly)
  • Linking My take on the linking? Acceptable linkage in my view extends to the following and nothing more.
  • First time the name or term is used in the general text – the only exception I’ve used is if I refer to old names of the WWE like Capitol Sports or WWWF I sometimes link the name there too.
  • First time it’s used in the “In Wrestling” section (optional)
  • First time it’s used in the “Championships and Accomplishments”
  • Date linking
  • the MoS quoted generally means that when full dates & year are listed they should be linked but not when it’s just a date with no year, a year with no specific date, a month or a day of the week (Monday) – then they should only be linked if helps the reader’s understanding. So January 21, 1999 - yes. January 21 – no. 1999 – no. January – no. Monday – no. The linking of full date isn’t just to link the date but to use the automatic format of dates according to your preference (so that it can be shown in the local format).
Further comments – I’m totally with you, the Styleguide needs to be maintained and actually referenced to when changes are made, case in point – the “In wrestling” section, is that the right place for nicknames? The right place for quotes? The more lists we put in that section the more crufty it seems. The fact that the styleguide doesn’t refer to the info boxes is criminal and something I’ve pointed out ages ago. And yes the project does get the “wrestling is just fake and as such fairgame” – just look at the articles that have been allowed to be gutted completely, never happened to say Tom Hanks there’d be an uproar and a banning or 4. MPJ-DK 10:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Excellent points and suggestions MPJ. This is just what I was looking for. I hope other people keep them coming, in a week or so after many have voiced their opinions I plan to start trying to re-write/organize the Style Guide portion of this project to keep it in-line with Wikipedia policy and guidelines (if applicable) and then take a look at re-organizing the entire project so that we may get it on the track it needs to be on. --Naha|(talk) 12:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
As for Screwball’s comments – please note the appropriate sections on “No Original Research” and the removal of “Peacock” and “weasel” words since your suggestions are littered with examples of all three. Interpretations quickly lead to “Original Research” which is a big, bad buzzword at Wikipedia, we’re not writing wrestling columns here it’s an encyclopedia that should generally contain verifiable facts not rumors, speculations or interpretations. MPJ-DK 10:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with MPJ-DK's take on the style points, except about the italics. It is common usage on Wikipedia to use italics for the name of a work of art, such as a television show, or movie, but not for the name of a sports event (see Manual of Style (Titles)). (We had an inconclusive discussion about this last November). The problem with the names of wrestling shows is that they are part theatrical presentation, and part sports event. My take is that the names of TV shows should always be italicized, and the names of Pay Per Views should only be italicized when referring to a specific show, eg. Wrestlemania 23, but not when talking about the annual phenomenon of Wrestlemania. - Geoffg 02:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments; I was actually just wondering about the WrestleMania 23 vs. WrestleMania issue earlier today as far as itallics go! --Naha|(talk) 02:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My beefs: Mentioning the year and company initials too many times. When you're talking about a wrestler's career in a promotion, you don't have to keep mentioning said promotion's name for every championship, PPV, or TV show. And for dates, when it's established that you're discussion events of 2007, you don't have to mention 2007 everytime a date is listed! Mshake3 03:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

so you're saying that instead of using it's full name we have to pipe link (using the "|") it as "The Intercontinental title"?? I think most of them mention the promotion name for the title because that's the name of the article - or that's how it's referred to in general. And I don't think anyone said you HAD to write 2007 every time, just that if you do - make sure it's fully linked. MPJ-DK 04:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The full name should be mentioned one time, when it's first mentioned. And from there, you don't mention have to say the promotion's name again. For example, "In his WWE Intercontiental Championship match, Orton won by hitting Edge with the WWE Intercontiental Championship belt." See the problem with that? AND OF COURSE NO ONE HAD TO WRITE 2007 EVERY TIME! But that's what people do on here. And it's lame. Mshake3 12:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, alright calm down ;) - I agree that when referring to a title for the second (or third etc.) there is no need to call it the "WWE Intercontinental title", that's just poor English and well I didn't really imagine that a lot of articles were that bad (you may be able to tell that I tend to stay away from the articles on the top names today). and well if you want to do the date link to help with local format you kinda do have to write 2007, which was my point - nothing more, nothing less it was actually that simple in it's beauty. Peace, love and hairgrease :) MPJ-DK 14:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The italics issue is nothing to do with Wikipedia. It's basic English "law" to italicise names of TV shows, books, films, etc. Koberulz 04:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Piling on a little late here but yes, in formal writing (which an encyclopedia certainly qualifies as), italics should not be used for emphasis (nor should any other typographical effects such as boldface). They are the proper style for titles of longer works such as books, TV series, magazines, etc. They're interchangeable with underlines for this purpose, but on Wikipedia underlines are discouraged because they are easily mistaken for hyperlinks. Titles of shorter works such as short stories, TV episodes, and magazine articles are put in quotation marks. Titles of movies used to be put in quotation marks (even movie posters followed this convention), but now seem to usually be italicized. — Gwalla | Talk 19:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Move the Above

I suggest that the above discussion be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide (Where all their is is a redirect to here). Its getting a bit out of hand here and it would be more appropriate there, i think. Just a suggestion...--SteelersFan UK06 15:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In-universe and Kayfabe

Hi, I am a wrestling fan, but more importantly, I am a frequent wikipedia user, for everything from wrestling to European history to physics. I feel the need to voice my extreme displeasure at the way the professional wrestling articles on wikipedia are written. First, and most importantly, they are extremely condescending. Readers do not need to be reminded that wrestling is scripted every six words. For terms that might be considered "in-universe" such as "face" or "heel," a link to the article for a face or a heel will suffice. I know this because that is how I learned many of these terms, and how I have learned many other terms on a wide range of subjects. Even worse, is that this ridiculous standard is only applied to pro-wrestling. As JohnDoe0007 posted:

"How else does one describe such events of a fictional world without having to say "Mark Hamill, the actor portraying the character of Luke Skywalker then pretended to fly a starship (which was actually a combination of camera techniques and production props in addition to post-production work including special effects and editing that made it look as though he was flying through space) to the fabled Dagobah system, where he made his way through a set that was designed to look like a swamp and met up with an animatronic device that filled in for a character (of a fictional species) named Yoda." Such language is just asinine and completely unecessary to fulfill WP:WAF requirements."

I'm sure we can all agree that such language is not only condescending, but makes the article much harder to read.

Secondly, I have read the talk archive, and believe that I have a feel for most of the arguments that support this sort of "out of universe" writing. They seem to be that: 1) People unfamiliar with pro-wrestling will not understand the article. To this, I would say (as many others have) that someone who is curious enough to be reading an article on wikipedia will surely click on the links for terms that they don't know, and read up on those terms before reading on.

2) WE NEED TO HAVE FEATURED ARTICLES - I cannot stand this argument. The goal of wikipedia is NOT to try and get as many featured articles as possible! The goal of wikipedia is to be a free, easily accessible website that people can go to for unbiased information about things. If certain qualifications for being a featured article get in the way of being able to provide information in a non-condescending manner, then we should say "screw featured articles!" The pro-wrestling articles written before this change were no less informative to anyone who wanted to learn about pro-wrestling. Now, they are just more wordy and harder to read, due to the awkward phrasing and extremely long sentences that result from this change. So what if it isn't a "featured article?" It still does its job just as well. For the record, I am only talking about this "out of universe" style of writing and eliminating wrestling "jargon" in the desire to be a featured article. Obviously, things like citation, accuracy, and objectivity are vital to fulfilling wikipedia's goal.

As an aside, I would also like to say that the header "various feuds" is used in WAY too many articles. Surely this sections can be broken up into smaller sections.

Thank you for your time, and I hope that this opens uo some debate on this topic. Knower of the Episodes (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Move Descriptions.

I had a question reguarding these move descriptions i see in alot of wrestling articles. I feel they add clutter to a description of a payperview considering there is a EXTENSIVE article on wrestling moves and most people who read articles and dont know a move will either click the name of the move (as it has often already been hyperlinked) or they know the move it makes all the wrestling articles look like they are written by someone who does not like wrestling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.87.235 (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I was away for a while and I note several new additions to the Reliable sources list.

I have removed prowrestling.net from the deinitely reliable listing - as per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_82#PWInsider and PW Dot net added as sources. How about CageMatch?, where the only person who responded to the question of whether or not they would be reliable (ie GaryColemanFan) said no.

I also moved PWInsider to the "Other sources" list. There didn't seem to be a definitive yay or nay that I could see (3 to 1 is hardly overwhelming, and one of those 3 seemed unsure). I think at this point it's best to err on the side of caution with it. We have plenty of sites proven reliable that we can use for TV/PPV results, which have been confirmed reliable by FAC reviewers. In my opinion, if someone wants to add it back to the definitively reliable list, they should take GaryColemanFan's advice and have an FAC source reviewer check it out. If I recall correctly, that's how most of the other sites got added to the list in the first place, so we might as well follow precedent. NiciVampireHeart 03:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

So where can we find an FAC source reviewer? Starship.paint (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't have any of the WP:PW pages watchlisted - haven't had for years. I checked a few times after I posted the message and there was no response, so I honestly just forgot about it. As to where you'll find an FAC source reviewer, I'd check WP:FAC - common sensical I know. Alternatively, find someone who's nominated an article for FAC from WP:PW and ask them who reviewed their sources. Simplest solutions/ideas are the best y'know. NiciVampireHeart 07:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, and kindly excuse my ignorance about FAC or other Wikipedia admin stuff, I mainly edit articles so I don't really know a lot about anything else going on behind Wikipedia. Starship.paint (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I talked to FAC reviewer Wizardman, he said that PWInsider is a reliable source. He also said that ProFightDB is okay as long as its use is "just limited to results of matches". Therefore I will be adding these two sources. Starship.paint (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ringside Xcess

Would you count Ringside Xcess as a reliable site, because my opinion it is like Wrestleview, which is listed as reliable? 75.176.3.213 (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

This seems like one of those blogs that just re-reports things it finds elsewhere on the net. In that respect, it's like WrestleView (which is listed as marginally reliable). But, unlike WrestleView, it looks like an amateur blog. I think if it has something worth adding to Wikipedia, we could just use the source it used, instead of citing the middle-man. You know? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on this site as a source?

(copied from main Wikiproject Talk Page, after realizing this Talk Page exists)

I ran across WrestlingData the other day, and was blown away. Not just by the ridiculous size of it and the many useful ways to view the data, but by how I haven't noticed it in the twelve years it's apparently been around. But then I noticed an Edit button, and my bullshit alarm buzzed a bit. I've done some minor digging, but can't establish just how much of this is user-submitted and/or fact-checked, or what those processes involve. I've spent a few hours browsing, and haven't seen any obvious factual errors, based on what I know (quite a bit). But there's a LOT more here I'm totally unfamiliar with (most of the 1860s results, for example. RadioKAOS?) and it could be nothing but lies, for all I know. I say it leans toward legit, all things considered, and its scope makes the Internet Wrestling Database look like WWE.com.

What do you folks think or know about its Reliable Sourciness? Should we list it in the MoS? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Not knocking the Internet Wrestling Database, by the way. It's a fine site, and still growing. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I've put it in the "not yet proven" list for now. Its info matches the proven reliable sources' info (as far as I've seen, so far), so I think it should be OK to cite, unless it's contradicted by any of those. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Pre existing feuds, plots, and storylines

I'm sure this has come up several times in the past, but it needs to stop. There is no need for every single page related to a Pro Wrestling show to explain that the is based on predetermined outcomes and pre existing feuds, plots, and storylines. It is condescending and inappropriate. We might as well include the same paragraph on every page for a fictional work. How else would I know that Star Trek isn't a historical document?Spman (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. This has been re-re-revisited on the main Wikiproject talk page, if you'd like. More eyes there. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Rules of presentation

As an outsider to professional wrestling who has taken a look in (due to AfD discussions) I was wondering about a possible application of rules in presentation for articles on: organisations, personalities and other topics relating to professional wrestling.

For starters I was wondering if it could be agreed that an appropriate navbox template be placed at the bottom of all relevant articles. 

{{Professional wrestling in Canada}}
{{Professional wrestling in Korea}}
{{Professional wrestling in Japan}}
{{Professional wrestling in Mexico}}
{{Professional wrestling in South Africa}}
{{Professional wrestling in New Zealand}}
{{Professional wrestling in the United States}}
{{Professional wrestling in the United Kingdom}}

The image of wrestling is of competitive competition and (in my conjecture) that attitude of competition may easily spread into biased presentation of personal favourites.

Other issues may include:

  • acceptable uses of Wikipedia:Piped links
  • the use of subjectively applied descriptions like "top" - especially when applied way in advance or disclosure of the thing being topped or that is doing the placing to the top. possible example

Gregkaye (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye, even I am not aware of wrestling companies in South Korea or New Zealand. I've heard of North Korea though. However, based on what you're proposing... I think it's fine to have these navboxes (for the correct country) in the organization's article. But I don't think there's a need to include them in the individual wrestlers' articles or articles for championship. As for your concern about the top CMLL championship... it was only referring to top within the "two women's championships currently recognized by CMLL", though I do acknowledge it is subjective. starship.paint ~ regal 02:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Nickname usage

Can someone please clarify when referencing a wrestlers name in an article, that it is appropriate to label the wrestler as his stage name but not to include his nickname? As an example, when referring to Randy Savage in an article that is not about Randy Savage, you would link to Randy Savage not Randy "Macho Man" Savage There is significant inconsistency among wrestling articles regarding nickname usage.

Expandinglight5 (talk) 07:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

This one section

Can we get rid of these finishing moves, please? First of all they're a bit silly (let's be real--they can't be finishing anything since the thing is scripted, so it's simple "last" move), and second, it's really just a listing of every single "move" ever applied by Wrestler X at the end of the game. These things aren't usually discussed in the sources, and so you can't even use reliable secondary sourcing to verity that someone's move is meaningful enough to talk about. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Everything you said is completely wrong. Finishers are not irrelevant (in fact they are often assosiated with a wrestler in general or a certain part of their career) or silly (that kinda POV is not welcome anyway, and your reasoning doesn't even make sense, a wrestler doesn't finish a match with a movie becuse it was decided upon before the match, what?) and they are often discussed in sources.★Trekker (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, if a match is scripted, and thus the finish established, the finish isn't really a finish, is it. "Everything you say is completely wrong""--fo shizzle. I'm looking at The Miz, supposedly a GA. Look at the "finishing moves". Two are uncited, one has a dead link, which leaves a grand total of two sources: the WWE bio (not a secondary source, not reliable since this is the company that owns/owned the man's contract) and this here: "The bout, as you’d expect, is strong between the two younger stars before it ends suddenly with a Full Nelson Facebuster, which apparently is called the Skull Crushing Finale. Shrink that down to SCF and you’ve got a decent name." This kind of sourcing is typical for these moves. This is not secondary sourcing, this is merely repeating what some fan page has to say. So, "discussed in sources"? No. Perhaps you'd like to argue that this is somehow a reliable source, good enough for a GA (it seems to have no editorial standards), and where it discusses the clothesline (it does not mention it). Drmies (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Saying that a finisher is not a finisher because the match is scripted in nonsensical, "finisher" is the word that is used and will continue to be used, sports don't have a monopoly on the use of words. If you find issues in articles fix them yourself then. I don't care about the Miz's articles specific problems, look harder or remove them if you feel like it. I have no oppinion on Online World of Wrestling, and I don't see what that has to do with removing all finishers from all wrestling articles.★Trekker (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Style guide changes to italicization section

Currently the italicization section reads as follows:

Per MOS:TITLE, WP:ITALICS, and MOS:MUSIC

  • Italics are only to be used when referencing a show such as in these scenarios:
  • Taglines are to be written with italics and in quotation marks.
  • Album titles are to be written with italics and song titles with quotation marks.
  • Pay-per-view events are to be written with no italics.

As I have been going through an updated pages based on the new brand pages, I have noticed there is a lot of inconsistency with the first bullet point. Many mentions of the show are not in italics and often the brand is in italics. Due to this I think after that first point we should add the following:

* Do not use italics when referencing a brand, such as in this scenario:

As a side note I also have noticed inconsistency as to referring to the Commissioner or General Manager. Being as they hold authority over the brand's matches regardless of what program its on (i.e. the Raw GM can dictate what happens on not just Raw but also PPVs and other shows Raw wrestlers appear on), I believe all instances of referencing these authority figures should link to the brand page and not be written in italics. Any thoughts on this? It should probably be worked into the guidelines somehow as well to ensure consistency. - GalatzTalk 19:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it. I had already added it to an expanded version of this Style guide that I've been (slowly) working on for about a month now. The example itself could probably be written to sound more genuine though. Something such as, "He was traded from Raw to SmackDown." or simply, "He was traded to the SmackDown brand."
As for authority figures, yes, those should also link to the brand. A second example can be added showing this, "She was named the General Manager of Raw." or the like. Prefall 20:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

In Wresting Section

@Galatz: Why was this section renamed to a longer name "Professional wrestling highlights". In Wresting was short and simple???

The "Championships and accomplishment" should not be a sub section. What happen if the person is a MMA Fighter? Colton Meltzer (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Colton Meltzer: This is being discussed at WT:PW#In wrestling. Also, in the case of MMA or amateur wrestling accomplishments, C&A should be its own section, with each sport given a subsection. See Kurt Angle or Brock Lesnar. Prefall 01:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Colton Meltzer - the section is actually being considered for deletion with the above link (Outside of the C&A section), as cruft. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

PPV guidelines

I have been working my way through the WWE and WCW PPVs and have been trying to make them as consistent as possible. A couple of thoughts on the PPV guidelines that would potentionally make things a little cleaner.

First, we give guidelines for when the individual PPV has its own page. We should probably have something about when they don't as well, which doesn't need to be much. For example, if you look at Halloween Havoc you will see inconsistencies within the same page. I plan on fixing them but have not yet. For example. the guidelines say the results table should be last, but in 1998 there is a ton of content following it. The other issue is inconsistencies between those type of pages, for example unlike Halloween Havoc, King of the Ring has a section called results that show the pages which don't have their own already. Additionally King of the Ring does not show the infobox while most others like Halloween Havoc do. We could add a sentence that simply states "summary pages which contain PPV details not broken out onto individual pages should follow the same guidelines within respective main sections, including the infobox."

My second thought has to do with the lead. The leads were all over the place, so any articles didn't follow any sort of format. Although we say what the lead should have, its best to have them consistent. I have now used the following format across all WCW and WWE PPVs, and it would probably be beneficial to be included here as a suggestion as well.

'''{{article name}}''' was the {{XXX annual (if applicable}} [[{{article on series}}]] [[professional wrestling]] [[pay-per-view]] (PPV) [[List of {{federation name}} pay-per-view events|event]] and <!--if applicable[[WWE Network]] [[List of WWE Network events|event]]-->> produced by [[{{federation name}}]]. It took place on {{event date}} at [[{{hall/arena/stadium}}]] in [[{{city}}]], [[{{state}}]].

My final thought goes back to the summary pages like King of the Ring or Halloween Havoc. The reason for these pages is not that the PPV itself isn't notable for its own page, it just isn't built enough to be broken out into its own page yet. Therefore it should probably also follow the guidelines on leads. This kind of combines both of my thoughts so perhaps it cant be worked into my first. It should be set up in a way so the it is split ready. The lead should mimic a stand alone article, even if there is some formatting duplication between it and the other sections above.

Any thoughts? - GalatzTalk 12:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the complete C&P ledes/sections to articles for the sake of the reader. If you were reading a series of articles, do you really want the exact same wording for them? However, it should be noted what information should be present (IE, all the information should be there, but we shouldn't stifle people about the correct wording).
As for the PPVs, we can simply set guidelines. It doesn't mean editors would follow them. For instance, the Halloween Havoc (1998) should have "Reception", rather than "Reaction to Hogan vs. Warrior II", and moved above the table, but likely editors either didn't read the MOS, or thought this was better. We could either tag it, or change it ourselves (Which I understand you are doing). As above, I know we have a list of articles that don't fit with our guidelines, but I would like a category of specific issues; which might help us all attempt to fix articles like this
I'd be willing to create a PW Non-Style Guide template, or similar Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Persona and Style

I think a section called wrestling persona and style should be made the consensus and that will be where we talk about the wrestlers gimmicks and signature/finisher moves. These don't need to be in the old format but instead worked into the text itself. See Andrade Cien Almas for an example of what I mean. Young Babymeat (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC on the "In wrestling" section

 – pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see WP:VPP#Should the "In wrestling" section be removed from professional wrestling articles?. Prefall 14:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Finishers and wrestling personas

Why was Professional wrestling highlights removed? It takes a large chunk of information about wrestlers gimmicks/personas and in which style they wrestle. I feel that there is a lot of issues in removing this section. HC7 (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

It's fancruft. --Tarage (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit miffed it was removed, I always used to use it to find out what entrance themes people used. Can anyone give a link of the discussion and reasoning for its deletion? --Solitude6nv5 (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm disappointed at its removal. Although it's true that some of the information in that section could have been easily fabricated, there was factual (as in it could be cited) information in there most of the time, particularly regarding each wrestler's personal history of entrance themes. I believe it should have been reformed and trimmed down instead of removed entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.63.254.110 (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. It was also always handy for checking what moves someone's finishers actually were/are. There was absolutely no need for its removal, which was a big mistake. Saving space is not worth reducing the amount of information available and thus lessening the quality of the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.105.45.215 (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Split the articles in 2

How about we have 2 separate articles for each wrestler, one article for the wrestler's real life story and another for the wrestler's character. For example, we can have one article for Mark Callaway and another article for his character 'The Undertaker'. This way you can please both sides and make everyone happy. We already have articles for fictional characters already, so why not do so for wrestlers's fictional characters?? JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

That seems very contrived and bring into question a lot of Wikipedias standards about notability.★Trekker (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry if my idea seemed too extreme. Just thought it was a solution. Since the community is so split on this, I hope they come to a conclusion. Thank you for your feedback. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I understand your points, but it just doesn't seem feasible.★Trekker (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

"X was booked to defeat Y for the title"

User Grapple X has changed phrasing of references to title changing hands on such articles as WCW International World Heavyweight Championship, WCW Light Heavyweight Championship and possibly others, from along the lines of "X won the title from Y" to "X was booked to defeat Y for the championship". When I removed such terms from the former article, he/she reinstated them.

As far as I can see, there is no MOS requirement for title changes to be written as "...was booked to defeat ..." and furthermore sources such as Wrestling-Titles.com do not support that X was ever "booked to defeat" Y for a title, only that X (kayfabe) "won the title from" Y. I would like to know if other editors agree with me or not that this whole "Was booked to win" business in an unnecessary and unsupportable embelishment from which Grapple X and any like-minded editors should refrain.

(The obvious exceptions would be in the actual case of referring to booking plans which did not go ahead - eg "Owen Hart was booked to win the Intercontinental title from The Godfather at Over the Edge (1999)" - or were made long in advance of the actual match - eg "Bob Backlund was booked to defeat Superstar Billy Graham for the title at MSG in February 1978 by Vince Sr in spring 1977" or where Booking Plan A went ahead despite various hitches - eg "Flair was booked by WCW to lose the championship to Rick Rude in the 1993 Fall Brawl event. After the NWA objected to this, WCW withdrew from the NWA and the title change went ahead, but with no mention of the NWA."2.28.124.67 (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

We do not knowing the booking decisions of matches. Its always possible things were changed on the fly and not booked that way. For example, when Jeff Hardy came out drunk to wrestle Sting, the match ended in 2 seconds, it was not booked that way. To use the phrase booking is WP:OR. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you - my point entirely. Wrestling-Titles.com and other such sources do not distinguish between actual booked results and non-booked results such as for example Dick Shikat beating Danno O'Mahonney for the World Heavyweight title in 1936 (a notorious double cross and therefore most definitely NOT booked!). Therefore, User Grapple X should quit this whole "Was booked to defeat" business.2.28.124.67 (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
This came up during the featured list process for this article, and it was requested to present the title changes as explicitly scripted--so as to avoid presenting a "win" on the same level as a genuine sporting contest. Subverting this now after the article has passed review seems disingenuous; I feel it should still be presented in a wording other than simply "X won" (this is, of course, to say nothing of the blocks of uncited material I've been trying to remove from the article, including a source which cites the article itself). GRAPPLE X 14:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I do not believe its disingenuous. Just because a reviewer mentions something it does not mean their view has to be taken a specific way. You chose this approach, however others disagree. We honestly have no idea if it was booked that way or not. Perhaps these sort of articles should have a disclaimer similar to events, but thats a different story. We definitely should not say they were booked a certain way because we have no idea. Its possible someone got injured during the match and they split second called an audible with no planning or forethought to the switch. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I understand that concerns similar to those that Grapple X mentions have been raised in the past and that these are generally dealt with by putting a disclaimer into the introduction of articles - for example with AWA World Heavyweight Championship - "The championship was generally contested in professional wrestling matches, in which participants execute worked finishes rather than contend in direct competition." Similar disclaimers exist on some pages for pay per view events. In so far as there is a standard way of reempahsising kayfabe on individual professional wrestling articles on Wikipedia, that is it. The "Was booked to defeat" formulation is quite egrarious. 2.28.124.67 (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
In one instance which I just removed it from it was very misleading. It stated first that Flair was booked to lose but the NWA said he couldn't. That way of using it implies there was some level of change in plans needed. It was then later used to say Flair was booked to defeat Sting, which did happen without any issues. We cannot use the same wording to depict two different things, especially one after another. To say it was kayfabe or typically predetermined is one thing, but to say without a shadow of a doubt something was is WP:OR. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, actually I think I missed that one while originally cleaning out the "was booked to defeat"-s about a month ago. The 1993 Flair/Rude match was one of the examples I used above where "was booked to" would be acceptable - where it is necessary to explicitly refer to the planning stages of a match independently of the match itself.2.28.124.67 (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Show Names

As per WP:PW/SHOW, the full name is mentioned first, and there after, the shorthand name. This was actually something agreed upon between Str1977 and I before this was made as a guideline, but it was for the prose beginning after the lead. I have no problem with this, however, I do not believe this should apply to tables. Tables in general are different from prose (i.e., overlinking) and that rule should apply similarly here to show names, especially when differentiating a regular episode from a special (like Raw 25 Years for example). It also dictates the time in which the episode aired. Thoughts? --JDC808 ♫ 21:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why the table should be any different. The date more than takes care of the fact that it "dictates the time in which the episode aired" - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 21:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Going by that assertion, in a history section, we don't need to refer to the WWE as WWF or WWWF because the date "takes care of that". --JDC808 ♫ 22:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
To prevent muddying the waters: "The date takes care of that" actually referred to "it dictates (sic!) the time in which the episode aired" and nothing more. There is no reason to drag the WWF/WWE name change debacle into this. Str1977 (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Wasn't attempting to drag the name change "debacle" into this. It was merely an example of historical context where there have been different names for something. --JDC808 ♫ 08:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
That comparison makes no sense. What would you say it should be called instead? This is replacing the show's full name with the abbreviated name. Your argument only backs up my point, we aren't writing World Wrestling Federation every time, we only write WWF. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 22:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
It actually does make sense. When writing a history section of the WWE, when talking about them in the 90s, for example, we use WWF, not WWE because they were the WWF then because that dictates that point in history. The date is one thing, but it doesn't cover the fact that there was a different name for the product/show. "What would you say it should be called instead?" What I said in my original post, use full names in tables. --JDC808 ♫ 22:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
"use full names in tables" - only you never do this to MONDAY NIGHT RAW. Str1977 (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
If you're talking bout me specifically, that's false. --JDC808 ♫ 05:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm talking to everybody. And if you ever bothered to argue to call the show "Monday Night Raw", I must have missed it. Str1977 (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
You must have, because I actually have. --JDC808 ♫ 08:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
History of the WWE is very different that a championship page or a wrestler's page - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Regardless, same logic applies. --JDC808 ♫ 08:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Official show logo calls it just Raw, and same goes with WWE's site. Same with Smackdown - "Live" is the part of official show's name, because WWE presents their product to be different than previously, when it was pre-taped few days before airing. Using full name gives people more information, it shows how exactly the show was called during exact time and not just shortened name which is being used to just make it more simple. Calling it just Raw (in terms of the time, where is was called "Raw is War") or SmackDown makes no real sense. - AlbertTheSmart (talk) 08:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Of course it does. Do we refer to John Cena as John Cena every time he is mentioned or after the first mention is he referred to as just Cena? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
The show is called Monday Night Raw and - with the intermission during which MNR was part of "Raw Is War" - that has always been the name. SmackDown however has changed its name numerous times, first including the day of the week it ran and lately (and stupidly) "live". Somehow, it is only ever that "live" part that people argue for because WWE thinks it profitable to push that epithet.
It makes no sense to use the short forms because the shows are essentially the same. Str1977 (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Its a table, not a some article or conversation, where this example with Cena actually works. - AlbertTheSmart (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Ditto to this, which was in response to Galatz. Was essentially gonna say the same thing. --JDC808 ♫ 08:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's a table and hence the "mention the full name in the first instance" is moot (excepting the text above the table). However, that is no reason to mention the (sometimes ever-changing) full name of a show at all. We do not include fully spelled out information about the location of the title change either. No, we keep it as short as possible while still keeping it readable. Str1977 (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the location of title wins are spelled out (not sure where you missed that or where exactly you are referring to), and it's a table. Tables in general don't abide by all of the same rules as prose (for example, overlinking). Tables are not read the same way as prose. Tables are there to give us the detailed information in an organized way that would otherwise be too much for prose. To explain something, overlinking is not enforced on tables so that a reader does not have to scroll back through a table (especially if it's a long table) and some readers may only be looking for something specific in a table. The argument for using the full names in tables is basically along those lines. --JDC808 ♫ 08:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I’m just coming across this thread now. Seeing as how no consensus has been met on this topic, I’m voting to include the full name of TV shows in Tables. When it comes to article prose and later paragraphs, I’m fine with shortening the name after initial mentions. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's get this clarified

Let's get this clarified since Galatz has taken issue with this (yet still doesn't change other things to reflect his own preaching). I don't remember exactly where the discussion was, but in regards to show names, it should be full name in lead, then full name on its first mention after the lead, and then shorthand thereafter. This is how other things are treated across Wikipedia (e.g., linking). This should be the case here too. --JDC808 ♫ 21:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

MOS:MISCSHORT mentions only linking on the first mentioning of a less common abbreviation on a page. Not mention of lead vs not. That sounds like a good comparison to this. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 21:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Style_guide/Archive_1&oldid=1159408779"