Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources

WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the page attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling articles

History of this page prior to its export from Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide on 29 December 2014

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 10 sections are present.

Reliability of Cagematch.net for recording show cards, matches, wins/loses, and WON ratings

Cagematch.net is currently listed as an "unproven source". While I won't comment on other sections of the website, I feel that Cagematch.net should be listed at least as a Limited reliable source that is considered reliable when discussing the following elements:

Show cards (ie which wrestlers were on a show, the date of show, the venue)
Matches (ie Cagematch.net should be considered a reliable source for stating a match occurred)
Wins/Losses (ie Cagematch.net should be considered a reliable source for who won and/or lost a match)
WON Ratings (ie Cagematch.net should be considered another source, besides that of WON itself, for WON ratings, as it's database lists them and how many stars the match received).

Arguably, it could also be a limited reliable source for the following elements

Nicknames/Monikers
Alter-egos
Signature moves
Wrestling styles

I'm not all that familiar for the process by which the reliability of specific wrestling sources is determined; Can a source be upgraded to a new category by simple consensus here, or does it require other things as well? CeltBrowne (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who runs the site? Who writes for the site? Are they experts in professional wrestling? What qualifies them as experts? GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who runs the site?

Per the "about us" page, It is currently operated by Florian Schreiber (also known by the username "CM Flosch")

Who writes for the site?

30 volunteer participants, who are listed on the "Cagematch team" section.

Are they experts in professional wrestling?

I would not describe them as "experts" per say, but the function of the website is not primarily to be a news source or source of expertise, but as a database of basic information about professional wrestling.

To make a comparison, I looked to a comparable Wikiproject and looked at Wikiproject Football. They have a collection of sources considerable reliable too. For historical/database-like information about Irish football, in their Ireland section they list http://soccerscene.ie/sssenior/index.php as a suitable source.

I would favourably compare http://soccerscene.ie and [www.cagematch.net] as sources for basic, non-controversial information such as wins and losses. In the same way http://soccerscene.ie might be a useful source for stating who played for Ireland in 1969, www.cagematch.net seems to be a useful source for stating "Wrestler X was working for promotion Y in 1989". CeltBrowne (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The football wikiproject you linked specifically says that not all of the sites would qualify as reliable sources. Do we have any reason to believe that Florian Schreiber has any expertise in professional wrestling? Do any of the volunteer writers have credentials that would make them reliable experts? I think the wrestling wikiproject has things wrong at a basic level--sources are either reliable, or they aren't. Unproven sources aren't reliable. "Limited reliability" sources aren't reliable. It's unfortunate that there aren't more sources that would meet the criteria for WP:RS, but we can't water down the standards just because of convenience. As much as it would help the project to have more reliable sources, sites that are merely useful don't make the cut. With that said, a solid case has been made for https://thehistoryofwwe.com as a reliable source. Would that provide much of the same information? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link to the discussion about https://thehistoryofwwe.com ? I don't see it here on this page CeltBrowne (talk) 06:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: Could you link to the discussion of https://thehistoryofwwe.com 's reliability? I'd like to learn what criteria was applied to that site and how it was deemed credible CeltBrowne (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this works. [1] here is an interview where the owner talks about the check process. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of Cagematch.net being cited by other reliable sources:

Also, here is an important interview by Wrestlenomics with Philip Kreikenbohm, head of Cagematch.net, in which he discusses how the website verifies information. (A lot of the interview focuses on match rates because that's what's popular/controversial, but how Cagematch.net verifies match results is discussed as well). During the interview, Kreikenbohm discusses how sometimes the website has been feed intentionally false information to test them, and speaks about how the website responded appropriately and weeded out that false information. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Meltzer thinks Cagematch is reliable for results, then that's definitely something that should be taken into consideration. I would agree that the database aspects of Cagematch are reliable given the sources provided above. That said, I would caution that like all databases, there may be a completeness problem; I know this is a silly example, but they don't include the famous -459.67 star rating that Dave gave to The Bushwhackers vs. Iron Sheik and Volkoff at Heroes of Wrestling ([2]). Sceptre (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying, although I actually think that might be a good example of Cagematch.net practising some good editorial oversight; per your link they included the WON ratings for all the other matches, but (correctly in my view) choose to exclude the "-459.67 stars" rating on the basis that it's a joke rating/not meant to be taken as a "genuine" rating. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, having seen the match, it might not be that much of a joke rating. Even 20 years ago, "worst match I've ever seen" for Dave is a really high bar even if you just consider that one card. Sceptre (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a good collection of evidence. I’m impressed. I’ve never really been sure about Superluchas and how/when/why it was deemed reliable (not that it isn’t, necessarily). But those uses by reliable sources are definitely a good part of building a case. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't want to act "unilaterally" as such, given the positives responses to my most recent reply in this thread highlighting that other reliable wrestling sources as comfortable citing Cagematch, I'd like to move forward this month with adding Cagematch.net onto the list of reliable sources unless there are any further objections. CeltBrowne (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CeltBrowne: - Whoa hang on just a second. Your original statement was that Cagematch should move from unproven source to limited reliable source - not fully reliable. Now I agree with the former, but not the latter given that some things you put there (like signature moves) are against the MOS. I can appreciate you being bold, but everything said here from what I can tell only supports the limited reliability to the very uses the reliable sources used it for - the original list you gave in other words. I would recommend a change, although I won't do it until we have a consensus on where it should be moved to- We don't have that. We do have a consensus that it shouldn't be in the unproven sources section. Addicted4517 (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved Cagematch.net into the Limited section per your comment. However, I do believe that this interview conducted by Wrestlenomics does help demonstrate that Cagematch.net does provide a good level of editorial oversight over its roster of staff. I think, in my opinon, the only difference between Cagematch.net and a small newspaper/news website is that they're volunteers rather than paid staff. I'm not sure where Wikipedia:Reliable sources stands on that sort of thing. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that down in the current discussion about the Wrestling Observer that it's been noted by the likes of @Czello that if a source is widely cited by other reliable sources, that speaks greatly to it's own reliability. I've noted in this thread that Cagematch.net is widely cited by sources already deemed reliable by WP:PW. I think that points towards Cagematch.net deserving to be marked as a "Reliable source", not just a "Limited reliable source". CeltBrowne (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Respectfully - the sources that use Cage Match use it for one purpose only - match results. In that regard - yes, reliable. In all other respects (which said source have NOT used it - the reliability is still unproven. Addicted4517 (talk) 11:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestlenomics as a source.

I was asked to move the discussion here; I think Wrestlenomics should be used as a reliable source. It is run by Brandon Thurston, and it's very good at reporting TV ratings, attendance numbers, and most of the quantifiable business metrics in pro wrestling, though it's not a good source for interpersonal news or event recapping. For example, Thurston's reporting on the WrestleMania 32 and All In London attendances shaped the consensus on those numbers, and he's the routine source for wrestling TV ratings. Semicorrect (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://old.reddit.com/r/SquaredCircle/comments/16uew10/brandon_thurston_on_x_an_all_in_attendance/ hes using a random guy on facebook as a source for aew all in numbers being 85,000 https://www.ringsidenews.com/2023/09/28/fake-insider-email-exposed-for-spreading-misinformation-about-aew-all-in-london-attendance/ proof its fake and theyre using a fake source as a real source, this shreads all his credibility Muur (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment is neither for or against Thurston (whom I not overly familiar with) but it's a bit ironic to accuse Thurston of basing his information on random social media posts (Facebook) based off of...random social media posts (Reddit). Also one of the replies to the Reddit comment you've linked has itself replies disputing this and linking back to Thurston saying he's seen primary information to support his claims.

This thread on Twitter seems to show Thurston engaging/communicating with primary sources to base his information on: https://twitter.com/BrandonThurston/status/1707341179753250829

Whether or not the information Thurston is gathering is truly accurate seems to be debated (as, of course, absolutely everything in wrestling is), but as Wikipedians rather than wrestling fans, let's acknowledge that Thurston appears to be doing higher level research than simply trusting screenshots of facebook posts. CeltBrowne (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to move this to limited reliability. It shouldn't be in the reliable source list because as indicated above it should not be used for interpersonal news or event recaps. Restrictions like this mean it can't be added to the main list of "across the board" reliable sources. Addicted4517 (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bodyslam

https://www.bodyslam.net/2023/09/27/local-london-council-says-aew-all-in-attendance-was-85528/ theyre using a random guy on facebook as a source https://www.ringsidenews.com/2023/09/28/fake-insider-email-exposed-for-spreading-misinformation-about-aew-all-in-london-attendance/ proof its fake and theyre using a fake source as a real source, this shreads all their credibility Muur (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to move them to unreliable, they are a garbage source. Read the thread up above from years ago where they reported rumors started by a random guy on Twitter, then abandoned the story days later.LM2000 (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status of Wrestlezone in 2023? WZ now a part of Yahoo.com

Yahoo.com rehosting WrestleZone content

So I see now that Yahoo.com now actively rehosts Wrestlezone content and promotes it. Does anyone know if this mean that Wrestlezone has more editorial/journalistic oversight going on than previously?

Wikipedia:PW/RS currents lists Wrestlezone as "Unreliable". However, the two notes supporting Wrestlezone's unreliability go back to 2016, so the status may have changed in the 7 years since. Also, one of the "demerits" attributed to Wrestlezone is reposting a frivolous piece of Wrestling trivia from Reddit rather than a serious news story. That's a bit feckless, but minor in the scale of things.

Please note, I do not regularly use Wrestlezone nor am I suddenly pushing for it to be listed as a reliable source, I'm genuinely just asking if other users have more information about the website in it's current state. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! News is an aggregator which hosts content from both reliable and unreliable sources. I have not looked that closely into WZ for awhile, so I can't say which category they belong in, but we have noted before that many of the footnotes used for unreliable sources are flawed.LM2000 (talk) 03:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling-World.com

How do you guys feel about Wrestling-world.com? They have an about page here and a staff page which lists several editors. ★Trekker (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the pages of each member of staff individually. Rasool is a fan only and that's it. None of the others have any wrestling experience of any description at all. Some of the individual pages have no content - notably the CEO included. I would argue "unreliable". Addicted4517 (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care if they have any wrestling experience (and I don't think it should be a demand), it's more interesting if they're experienced reporters, if there is a lack of information about them then that can be indicative that they are as you say only fans.★Trekker (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it should be a demand, but it does go to the knowledge base as such. The lower the knowledge base, the more unreliable it can be. It's positive to be a good writer, but even good writers can get it wrong when they don't really understand the content they are writing about. That's all. Addicted4517 (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, expertise in the subject matter should be required. That's what makes a source reliable. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are too few WP:PW/RS, I think we should look into and give some others a chance. Dilbaggg (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. You have to stop pushing that line. "Too few sources" isn't a reason to just start declaring other sources reliable. If you are unwilling or unable to understand WP:RS, perhaps it's time for a topic ban? GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last Word on Sports

Thoughts on lastwordonsports.com/prowrestling/? BinaryBrainBug (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already noted as not reliable. Addicted4517 (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Wrestling Observer

What's the consensus on citing the Wrestling Observer, despite it being behind a paywall? I've been adding Meltzer's ratings to certain pages (such as the WM XL or Crown Jewel 2023 pages) and it's hard to find a decent site that sources them beside the Observer itself. AdmantCrow (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PAYWALL, it's just fine. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, when you cite it I think there's a setting to indicate that it is behind a paywall. I'm not sure how you do that - maybe someone else knows? Addicted4517 (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the confirmation. Though, to go a little further - say I wanted to add the scores for, an example, the 2010 Royal Rumble, but I can only find other sites citing the star ratings, with no archive or link to the issue the star ratings were given; do I just use one of the trusted sources, or just avoid adding the ratings at all? Thanks in advance, still getting to grips with the etiquette around here. AdmantCrow (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance Source

What's a good source to use for attendance and ratings? I see a lot of them use Cagematch as a source, but I'm not 100% sure that's the one I should be using. I'm digging through the stubs and start-class articles for specific shows to fill them out, and having a source for these would help a ton. AdmantCrow (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about being wary of using Cage Match. It's only reliable for match results. Ratings there are user generated and are inherently unreliable. If you do see a rating from Cage Match it needs to be removed. There is no one source otherwise - only the major promotions report attendances and even then there is controversy due to the differing ways attendances are recorded. Ratings should really come from those who have a notable reputation for them (eg Dave Meltzer). Addicted4517 (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling attendance numbers and wrestling ratings will always be contentious because wrestling promotions will typically inflate their own numbers while trying to detract from their enemies. WWE regularly puts out attendance numbers that are highly disputed by other reliable industry sources, and have also been accused by reliable industry sources of feeding false information on ratings for themselves and others.

That said, some sources are better than others and do attempt to do in-depth research into these matters, such as Wrestlenomics. Wrestlenomics also has a sub-brand called "Wrestletix" which examines wrestling attendance numbers. If I was researching and/or citing numbers for a major wrestling event, I'd start by citing both Wrestling Observer Newsletter and Wrestlenomics/Wrestletix.

I wouldn't be prone to using Cagematch.net for attendance as I assume they would go by the "official" number, ie the number touted by the promotion itself. CeltBrowne (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources to review

The first is Wrestling-news.net. There is no indication to who owns and runs it and it does have a note that anyone can contribute. I suggest this be added to the unreliable sources list.

The second is PWDownunder.com. This does have a staff list that appears okay, but it's hard to tell if it's enough. I'm on the fence on this one and would like to get a consensus. On this. I do know one of the staff listed and he lied somewhat in his bio (Andrew Stewart). He was never part of a show to my knowledge. He was always on the fan side of the barriers. However he is only one of several others. Addicted4517 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the second site, only Andrew Stewart and perhaps David Harding seem to give an indication of expertise. The others may, but I don't see a clear indication on the page. As for the claim about Stewart, it's admittedly inconclusive ("to my knowledge") and is WP:OR unless proven otherwise. As for deeming the site reliable or unreliable, I recommend more voices than just my own, though--any attempt to delete or call into question the reliability or notability of Australian professional wrestling topics or sites is far too close to the User:Justa Punk saga for my liking. Not an accusation, but too much of a reminder. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we need more voices. If this Justa Punk is anything like Damolisher/Skyler Lovefist I feel your "pain" and sympathise. Sorry for the reminder. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been more than a month since I started this section and only one response limited to the second site. I'll give it more time, but if no one else contributes their view in the next four weeks to a month I am going to be bold and add the first link to the unreliable source list and the second to the unproven list. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with that.★Trekker (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Salcedo

Denise Salcedo is a professional wrestling journalist and broadcaster. Salcedo currently works for Wrestling Observer Newsletter, which is a generally reliable source, as well as Fightful, which is also considered a generally reliable source.

Salcedo has a BA in Broadcast Journalism, and has worked directly in professional wrestling as ring announcer and backstage interviewer for several independent wrestling promotions in America, but has also appeared for much larger ones including WWE, Ring of Honor and Game Changer Wrestling. In addition, she is a member of "Busted Open Radio" alongside industry veterans Tommy Dreamer, Mark Henry and Bully Ray.

Salcedo hosts/produces content under her own branding: A youtube channel [3] and a podcast called "Instinct Culture".

Because she has an education in Journalism, has direct experience working in professional wrestling and with professional wrestlers, and works for reliable sources, I move that we list Salcedo as a generally reliable source, regardless of platform. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She is fine as a reliable source but "regardless of platform" could cause serious issues. Some fellow editors and most IP-users already ignore WP and WP:PW guidelines. They never bother to read our discussions, consensus, and notes. So if Denise Salcedo publishes her work on a unreliable platform and we cite it, then those people consider that unreliable platform as reliable. --Mann Mann (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the topic of pro wrestling attracts a lot of overly enthusiastic IP editors who ignore almost every WP rule, but I think regardless of whether we use certain sources or not there's still going to be a lot of stuff sourced to www.dirtsheet.newz/insiderz. That's not something we can do much about. Those kind of editors are not following on lead on anything. That's a blade that cuts both ways. It doesn't matter to them whether or not responsible editors don't use unreliable sites.

In my view, we shouldn't be cutting off the use of reliable sources because of users who don't follow our direction regardless of what we do anyway. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also take issue with the "regardless of platform" bit. We don't even consider everything from the Observer reliable; the stuff on their message board, as well as Dave's Twitter feed, obviously have a less strenuous fact checking process than the articles posted on their main site.LM2000 (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would agree there; I didn't even consider social media a "platform" when I used the term earlier. What I had in mind when I wrote it was podcasts/websites/articles when using the term "platform". CeltBrowne (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CeltBrowne: She does have a verified YouTube channel.[4] So if a questionable source uses her work (e.g. a transcript for one of her interviews), just cite the original video/interview from her YT channel. --Mann Mann (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Reliable source, regardless of platform. Criteria for expertise the subject area is met. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smackdown Hotel

Have you guys heard of The Smackdown Hotel website? Is it reliable? You don't have it on your lists anywhere. 2001:8003:5130:2601:38B7:2CB9:55EF:9219 (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it mentioned, and I have just looked. Their list of WWE personnel includes the Lucha Brothers and we know that's wrong. I think we may need more views but I think it should be listed as unreliable. Addicted4517 (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]