Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

WikiProject Professional Wrestling
Welcome to the WikiProject Professional wrestling discussion page. Please use this page to discuss issues regarding professional wrestling related articles, project guidelines, ideas, suggestions and questions. Thank you for visiting!

Requests for comment

The following disclaimer appears on professional wrestling event articles: The event consisted of professional wrestling matches that involved wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feuds or storylines that played out on WWE television. Wrestlers portrayed heroes or villains as they followed a series of events that built tension and culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches. Is this (or any) disclaimer necessary for people with little knowledge of the subject? Would linking to Professional wrestling and scripted be a suitable alternative?LM2000 (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'll put forward the same idea that was almost universally ignored last time: at the end of the lead paragraph, I add: "The card featured ten matches, which resulted from scripted storylines and had results predetermined by the WWF". It's succinct, fits with the flow of the prose, and doesn't distract from the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• I like Gary's idea, aside from using "result" for the beginnings and ends. Maybe "revolved around", "based on", "made from" or something for the first part. Faces and heels can be Wikilinked the first time we mention who was who in a match. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, July 13, 2016 (UTC)
• I've notified other wikiprojects of this discussion and the RfC bot sent out its notifications, hopefully we'll get more input than the usual suspects. If not, I'd support Gary's idea, it's the most succinct proposal and doesn't hurt the flow of the article as much as some other options.LM2000 (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Responding to RfC - As an outsider's opinion, I have to say that SOME disclaimer is absolutely necessary in an encyclopedic article. Doing some reading on it, it appears that the scripted nature of professional wrestling used to be a guarded trade secret and not widely known or acknowledged... now it is acknowledged, and most fans are pretty much aware that everything is scripted... but the shows themselves do not disclose this within the show, whether in the credits or otherwise, and it is still presented as if real. Given this, it is still possible for someone watching pro wrestling to be confused about the actual reality of events, and we need to make it clear from the getgo.

As far as wording goes, the RfC's specific proposal (the current wording) is... a bit unwieldy. Gary's proposal looks clear, simple, and well written. It's just better prose. I have no objections to it. Fieari (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Again I propose the more in-your-face Professional wrestlers perform as characters, wrestling in choreographed matches as part of scripted storylines. Pinging Fieari (thank you very much for weighing in) - would this be better or worse than Gary's proposed text? starship.paint ~ KO 10:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

You didn't ping me, but I think it's worse. Gary's includes the number of matches on the particular card, which flows naturally in the lead and solves the "same old thing popping up everywhere" annoyance. Serves the same purpose without suddenly interrupting readers with an explicit spiel. It's why people don't ignore embedded marketing like they do with regular ad breaks. We're not selling the impressive roominess of the 2016 Dodge Durango, but we are selling an idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:25, July 16, 2016 (UTC)

I also agree that Gary's is the best proposal for the same reasons.LM2000 (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Gonna have to say I don't care for it being there period but if it must be done then I'm going with Gary's Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, Gary's is much smoother and more easily integrated. Would just tweak it to avoid the repetition, like Hulk says. So, say "The event featured X matches revolving around scripted storylines and had results predetermined by [such-and-such promotion]. oknazevad (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• I would propose: "The card featured ten matches, with predetermined-results from scripted storylines and had results predetermined by the WWF". Very similar to Gary's with a few small changes. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC) The below proposal is better. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

A bit redundant. Any problems with "The card featured ten matches with results predetermined by WWF-scripted storylines"? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:07, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah fair enough InedibleHulk; I think your wording is better. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Still packed with just as much of the flavour of Gary's original grape goodness, but packaged in a recyclable, easy-to-store container, for today's busy reader. 0% fat aside, I think your username is better than mine. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:44, July 18, 2016 (UTC)

• As a non-editor of wrestling articles, I've always found these kinds of statements humorously overkill. We don't precede the plot of Guys & Dolls with a description of the fictional nature of musicals. If you're writing is adequate, it will be clear from the content that professional wrestling is scripted. I'm also of the belief that anyone looking up something like Unforgiven (2006) won't be someone who could be misled into thinking a violent gang known as DX actually committed criminal damage against their boss's limousine SFB 18:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• I've been trying to get rid of this for years because I find it extremely annoying, redundant, and unnecessary. "See also: Professional wrestling" at the beginning of the background section as a hatnote works fine for me. However, if we must have something to acknowledge the nature of pro wrestling, Gary's proposal seems best and should go as the last sentence in the lead. Leave the background section for actual background of the event. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 23:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Responding to RfC Gary's sentence seems fitting based on my review of everything. Concurring with what's stated above, I also think Gary's sentence would fit in well at the end of the lead. While I agree with SFB that the disclaimer is humors twosome degree, I would not necessarily deem them as overkill.I think it is important to remember your audience for an article such as this one. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro
• Comment - Came here to ask a question and saw this. I'd have to agree with the sentiment that Sillyfolkboy presented. We seem to have no problem presenting any other type of fictional entertainment without a massive disclaimer. What's next? "Pinocchio is not real. Please do not attempt to get swallowed by a whale. The flow of the story was due to a predetermined plot of the author"? I think the audience is pretty well aware that the whole thing is entertainment, and frankly, this is patronizing to the audience we should be considering. It's going to lead to a lot of people going "well, duh" and removing the disclaimer. MSJapan (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

List of current WWE tag teams and stables - Introductory

The introductory paragraph on this page is misleading as it is simply a copy-and-paste of the introductory to List of WWE Personnel. I tried to edit the title before getting consensus. I apologize for it, but I would like to offer now, that this introduction is used:

In professional wrestling, a tag team is a team of wrestlers who fight as a team, fighting alternatively and a stable is a group of three or more wrestlers who regularly fight together. In the latter's case, usually two members of the stable fight in a tag team match. This is a list of all tag teams and stables who regularly fight as a team and are apart of the roster of American professional wrestling promotion, WWE.

The list is sorted into teams from WWE's main roster television shows, Raw and SmackDown and the promotion's developmental territory, WWE NXT. The list of NXT tag teams and stables will also be sorted into those that can appear on its television events, and those that only appear at non-televised events.

Each table also includes the managers, valets and former members if such members existed. The list also includes current WWE and NXT Tag Team Champions, The New Day and The Revival, respectively.

I also think that this page should be deleted altogether, because no other promotion as an article like this. 0737290632t2x273n (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Breezango?? Golden Truth? Really??.... Really??  MPJ-DK  02:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• Let's delete that article. It's totally extraneous to List of wrestling tag teams and stables. starship.paint ~ KO 07:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• A redirect to List of wrestling tag teams and stables would be fine, seems like a useless WP:CFORK to me.LM2000 (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Redirect sounds like the way to go. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• An unnecessary WP:CFORK. Agreeing to redirect. Sekyaw (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@0737290632t2x273n and MPJ-DK: page redirected per suggestions of the other editors. starship.paint ~ KO 00:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Good call.  MPJ-DK  00:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Just had to redirect again, Someone moved it back. May have to get a protect on it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

So, List of WWE tag teams and stables now redirects to List of wrestling tag teams and stables#Active under the active section. Shouldn't it be under the WWE Section? 0737290632t2x273n (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Brand Split roster listing

As you all know, the brand split is coming back so the roster listing on List of WWE personnel is going to need to divided, one of the subjectings was making 4 separate list, another was highlight the columns of the superstars and divas on Raw and Smackdown in Red and Blue respectively (similar to WWE brand extension#Superstar selections this article).

What do you all think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:5644:600:1109:F2F6:680B:25A0 (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Not my opinion but This was how it is in 2011 when the old brand split existed. starship.paint ~ KO 12:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • In the article talk page, people are talking about it. I prefer the old ways. It's visualy easier. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

So, the Draft was yesterday. Any idea for the roster article? To me, the current format is a complete mess. It's easier to split the main roster into two subsections. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Question about redirects

Earlier today, I tried submitting List of Continental Wrestling Federation alumni and List of Gulf Coast Championship Wrestling alumni to WP:AFC as redirects to List of Continental Championship Wrestling alumni. I provided a source for each but they were both were rejected. The editor basically said no one would ever type in those exact titles but it also doesn't make since to have separate lists since both CWF and GCCW wrestlers are already listed at the CCW. There's plenty of similar redirects (e.g. List of World Wide Wrestling Federation alumni to List of WWE alumni) and these are hardly obscure promotions. 72.74.207.230 (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a case of too much bureaucracy. The fact that they were requested indicated that they are plausible redirects, so I created them. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate the assistance. List of Mid-South Wrestling alumni could also be redirected to List of Universal Wrestling Federation alumni (Bill Watts) since it covers both the Mid-South and UWF years. 72.74.204.52 (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

WWE Draft articles' capitalizations

Is there any particular reason that draft is spelled with a lowercase "D"? WWE Draft appears to be the proper name of the event. Shouldn't the "D" be capitalized? WWE capitalizes it. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 08:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

So do the NBA, NFL and other sports leagues. But all out articles have lowercase titles because a couple of MOS-jockeys who think they know everything have a real hard time distinguishing between use of words as common and proper nouns. Frankly, it's not worth the fight. oknazevad (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the draft-related articles I could to their grammatically correct locations. The only one I couldn't was the main one, WWE draft, due to a redirect already existing at WWE Draft. I requested that redirect's deletion with {{db-move}} and will move it when it's done. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 20:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

That's WWE that does that and this is Wikipedia if you haven't noticed that yet. Borikén (talk · ctb) 00:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do realize this is Wikipedia. And as it is Wikipedia, we rely heavily on proper grammar and listening to the sources. The fact of the matter is, the event is named WWE Draft. It is a proper name the same as if it was the Super Bowl. Or if you were talking to someone named John Smith. It's a proper name. And the sources support this stance. We follow them. Sources also support the D's in MLB Draft and NBA Draft being capitalized as well. But that is a matter for their WikiProjects. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 00:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not a proper noun. As the typical lead indicates, it's a "process". If the WWE also names a TV show or an event after their draft, that's really not what the article is about. It's about the draft, lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The Draft is an event. It may not be the name of the show the event takes place at, but it's the proper name of the event. CBS Sports, Fox Sports, Rolling Stone, PWTorch, ProWrestling.net. They all support it's treatment as a proper name of an event. Just like the WWE Slammy Awards usually are an event on an episode of WWE Raw. But it's the proper name of the event, so it's capitalized. So too should WWE Draft be capitalized. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 04:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

CBS only caps it in their headline; ProWrestling's "The WWE Draft edition of Smackdown Live" is a production; and PW Torch with "eligible Draft picks" and Fox with "their Draft selection" are indications of sources that just like caps; and the Rolling Stone says "the NFL draft", so hardly on your side there. You'd need to do a lot better than that to make any kind of case for caps. Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dicklyon. And even discounting the use of title case in titles and subtitles, a proportion capped is no reason to go along with the lowest standards of English. You'd need a really substantial majority of usage out there in main text, not titular, to push the case for capping. Chicago Manual of Style and the Oxford NHR both say to minimise unnecessary capitalisation. Tony (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is 9 more for you: WWE.com, Wrestle Zone, USA Today, NESN, IGN, Wrestling Inc., ESPN, Mirror, philly.com. All of these sources used the capitalized version when using the WWE Draft name. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 05:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Sites with nothing but headlines, forum sites, and sites that say things like "the Draft" don't really help your case. Edited books that use it in a sentence, like this one, and this one, and this one, often use lowercase, as in other sports. Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You can't keep moving the goal posts. I've provided you with 14 sources that in some way or another support my position, and you keep dismissing them. Granted, some are better than others, but it almost seems to be that your counter argument boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 06:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

What is "idon'tlikeit" about facts? Tony (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

True, nobody disputes that some sources capitalize Draft. But the goal posts are set per MOS:CAPS. If usage is mixed, caps are not necessary, so we don't. Many of your sources really do not even support your contention that they would treat WWE draft as a proper noun, since they have it only in headlines, or they capitalize lots more than proper nouns, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Use lower-case. Actually reliable sources do not consistently capitalize this, in running prose.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

And the lede treats it as generic already, in "The WWE draft is a process". Not "it's a show" or something that might be interpretable as a composition title. Dicklyon (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It's an event that includes a process, just like many recurring sports events. oknazevad (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Use lower-case. What the user Dicklyon is trying to tell to TrueCRaysball is the same thing that I was trying to tell him but he kept reverting my edits, also he moved the page 2016 WWE Draft before discussing it first. Borikén (talk · ctb) 18:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I only reverted you twice and asked you to come discus it, which we did. As for moving the article without discussing it, that's well within the rules if I feel the move is uncontroversial, which I did. And once I was proved wrong, it was rightly moved back for discussion, which we're doing now. Please quit trying to make it sound like I somehow violated procedure. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 02:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You never asked me to discuss it the only thing you did was put a warning on my talk page and "I did discuss it, you should check talk pages before you revert." and I never accused you of violating anything. Seriesphile (talk · ctb) 08:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Bob Holly/IC reign

An IP has been edit warring on the list of IC champions over a content dispute that has been going on for years regarding Bob Holly's status as unrecognized IC Champion. Please chime in at Talk:List of WWE Intercontinental Champions#Requests for comment.LM2000 (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I've started a sockpuppet investigation regarding the IPs, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ECW500. ECW500 was before my time but judging from his long-term abuse page, I'm assuming many of you remember him. Please help yourself if you have anything to add.LM2000 (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Wrestling articles needing copyedit

I was just looking at the Guild of Copy Editors' July backlog elimination drive and noticed that three wrestling articles are tagged as needing copy editing. If anyone is feeling inspired, they are Kayfabe, The Authority (professional wrestling), and Desperado (professional wrestling). No pressure--just if anyone is looking for something to do or is particularly interested in any of those articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding brands on wrestling articles

So since all of this brand split happen and multiple editors began adding the brand where they were drafted to on the wrestlers pages, is it really necessary to add this because you know they already work for WWE but adding the brands on the top of its page is certainly not necessary about since it would be also on her full wrestling history also because this kind of editors just add the things they saw on the programs from WWE so I don't really think this is necessary some help to close this case ? Thanks.TheBellaTwins1445^(talk) 03:56, July 21, 2016 (UTC)

As user:LM2000 said before It was already discussed with the last brand split to add them, You are the only editor who keeps removing it from the 50+ articles today because you think it isn't important but it is to the less informed fan or a new fan who is using Wikipedia for information. When something like this has been added by an X amount of editors to different articles there is a pretty good bet it should be there. Do you also understand that every revert you preformed today on these 50+ articles will now have to be fixed again if this consensus is to add the info?Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course is necessary. It's like Samoa Joe working in NXT. They are signed with WWE and assigned to one brand. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

We listed the brands in the lede during the last brand split and we should do it for this one. It's sort of like which teams athletes play on... you not only have to mention that Kevin Durant plays in the NBA, you have to also say that he plays for a specific team in the league. There are different brands now and most wrestlers will only appear on one of them, we have to note that.LM2000 (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

What LM2000 said. I couldn't put it any better. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 00:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I third what LM2000 said. CrashUnderride 14:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to go out on a limb and oppose the inclusions of the brands in the lead. They're purely WP:INUNIVERSE and far too easily changed, despite all the hype about guys meeting "for the last time". Nonsense. We all know, based on history from the prior split, that brand assignments are hardly permanent and entirely too temporary. So, count me as against. oknazevad (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

So are which team a player belongs to. I don't see how they in-universe. Sure, it's storyline. But so is the fact they're champions. Or their ring names. It's no different. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 02:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll drink to that. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:13, July 27, 2016 (UTC)

Quick question though. The Raw television show is italicized but is the Raw brand? I don't remember us using italics for brands in the past but I'm seeing them used in some articles this time.LM2000 (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

That's just because we live in troubled times. As nature has always intended, italics are for shows, albums, paintings and occasionally stressing things. The Raw and SmackDown brands are just like the Eastern and Western Conferences in the NHL. Nice and straight. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, July 28, 2016 (UTC)

External Links discussion at Template talk:WWE superstar

User:Reidgreg has started a discussion about the External Links templates, at Template talk:WWE superstar. Feel free to comment there. Silverfish (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Sin Cara

The Sin Cara article, in my opinion, is really, really redundant. The character has only been portrayed by two wrestlers and the sections that divide the two people that portrayed Sin Cara are almost exactly the same compared to their respective main articles. Take La Parka for example. There is no La Parka article that shows the info between the two "portrayers", but there is La Parka and La Parka II. Is it really necessary to have an article for a character that has only been portrayed by two people and has the exact same info on their main respective articles in their respective sections like Sin Cara? In my opinion, Sin Cara should be redirected to Hunico, with a hatnote on top that distinguishes the two, directing it to Místico. Thoughts? Sekyaw (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

After looking it over as well Gonna have to agree that Sin Cara should be directed at Hunico with a hatnote for Mistico. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

There's enough to warrant a separate article. Maybe Doink the Clown would be a good parallel. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I would take note how the two La Parka articles are, La Parka and La Parka II. Why not redirect Sin Cara to Mistico and move Hunico to Sin Cara II? CrashUnderride 06:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I remember having this discussion a few years ago. We decided on a separate article because Kendo Nagasaki and (at the time) Suicide (wrestling) are wrestling characters portrayed by two different wrestlers and they have separate articles.LM2000 (talk) 06:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The Suicide character had similar move-sets at the time, with both wrestlers using the Suicide Solution finisher, as well as other similar moves if I'm not mistaken. The two Sin Cara wrestlers have somewhat different move-sets, making it two very different wrestlers just using the Sin Cara name (same goes with La Parka). Sekyaw (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Moves sets are rather trivial reasons to split them. if anything, I would expect two wrestlers playing the same character to use a similar move set. oknazevad (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it's trivial. I even questioned myself right after made this. Sekyaw (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, I see no relevance in keeping the Sin Cara article mainly as the character itself has no relevance and only has so much volume just because of a copy/paste from its respective wrestlers' portrayal, which should mainly be on the wrestler's main article anyway. Sekyaw (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

There's good reasons to keep a separate article on the Sin Cara identity. The main one being the two Sin Caras storyline, which was specifically about the identity, not specific to either wrestler. Also, if we were to redirect to Hunico, then we'd probably have to move Hunico to Sin Cara as the most common name, which then just confuses the issue further. No, the real solution is to trim the week-by-week recaps from the article so it's not redundant and make it Solely focused on the identity. And such trimming is something we need to do in wrestling articles a lot more anyway. oknazevad (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Much of the character's history is specific to one wrestler, with the only thing being the two Sin Cara storyline, which isn't enough to warrant a separate article and can be easily seen on either article without it being an issue. A short feud shouldn't have a separate article (whereas this is the main thing about the Sin Cara character), but should be shown on their respective articles. Also, moving or redirecting Sin Cara to either wrestler shouldn't be an issue if it's handled like La Parka. Where Sin Cara redirects/moves to can be discussed. Sekyaw (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Are there any other thoughts on the Sin Cara article? Again, I see no relevance in the character other than the two respective wrestlers portraying it and the short feud between two Sin Cara's, which I believe isn't enough to warrant a separate article. Sekyaw (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I think there's enough precedent for this sort of thing. I'll throw Black Tiger and Tiger Mask onto the existing pile of clowns, skeletons, samurai and nutjobs. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:23, July 27, 2016 (UTC)

List of early World Heavyweight Champions in professional wrestling - World Heavyweight Wrestling Championship (Original Version)

These two pages are very similar and anyone reading one can get the same information from the other. I suggest the List of early world heavyweight champions in professional wrestling be merged into the World Heavyweight Wrestling Championship (Original version). Any one searching for the former will be redirected to the "Reigns" section under the latter. Currently, that section only explains how it was inaugurated and when it was retired, so the table present in the former can be moved to this "Reigns" section. 0737290632t2x273n (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. But what do I know? lol CrashUnderride 22:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Merge, there is not enough information in the list article to warrant it being split out. Togerher there is the basis for a really interesting GA or even FA on the subject.  MPJ-DK  22:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Ha! Dave Levin. Seriously though, sure. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:53, July 26, 2016 (UTC)

Also, "Live event" is a WWEism. Should say "house show". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:55, July 26, 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I am about to publish a new edit for World Heavyweight Wrestling Championship (Original Version) that includes all the same information of List of early World Heavyweight Champions in professional wrestling, but could someone delete the list article? I'm not sure how. 0737290632t2x273n (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

One doesn't delete pages that get merged (can't, actually, as the edit history needs to be preserved for licensing reasons), but instead turn it into a redirect to the other article. When saving the edit for the expande article, make sure to mention the list article in the edit summary. At the list article, replace the entire article text with this #REDIRECT [[World Heavyweight Wrestling Championship (Original version)]] and mention that it is being merged in the edit summary. That way everything is covered regarding the attributions in the merge. oknazevad (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

WWE World Championship title

The "WWE Championship" has been renamed "WWE World Championship" on the WWE website. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Story checks out. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:56, July 26, 2016 (UTC)

What Culture Pro Wrestling

The article was re-created....again. Yes, the "article" was created for a third time in a month. But this time it was on the old article's talk page. I've nominated it for deletion. So, should I really quote "Broken" Matt Hardy here? Sure, "Delete! Delete! Delete! Delete!" CrashUnderride 02:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I saw that in Cody Rhodes yesterday. It made me so angry, I couldn't even delete it, though it was sourced to a tweet and YouTube video (without titles!). I'm afraid the rage has me paralyzed on this, too. Good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:46, July 28, 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I'm fine with the mention in the Rhodes' article. But the WCPW article has been deleted three times in less than one month. The repeated recreation of and thrice deleted article is my problem. CrashUnderride 21:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I say this is probably notable. I'm a fan of what culture and I've been following their creation of this promotion and looking at the range of exposure, this may actually be notable. It is different than most indy feds. It may be too soon for creation though, but in time it may justify an article.--WillC 08:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

In time maybe, but not now. It's been deleted multiple times in the last month. I have a copy of a good quality version of the original article. Feel free to work on it until WCPW is notable enough. Like you, I love What Culture Wrestling and WCPW. CrashUnderride 16:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Whatculture / What Culture don't even have their own pages... starship.paint ~ KO 09:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Which is crazy when you consider that the site is used as a reference hundreds of times around Wikipedia alone. It's a reliable source, apparently, but not notable enough for an article?!? oknazevad (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Oknazevad: - Bleacher Report and Wrestlezone have also been used hundreds of times around Wikipedia. I wouldn't say that's a good measure for reliability. Bleacher does have an article too. Plus, there was an incident with What Culture parroting an invented claim from Reddit, that shows its quality. starship.paint ~ KO 01:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Eh, no one's perfect. Remember, What Culture is more than just a wrestling site/webseries, though that does seem to be its most popular area, but a general pop culture news and opinion site, not unlike Nerdist. I'm honestly somewhat amazed that it isn't covered at all. oknazevad (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• So is the Inquistr, which had two cases of citing Reddit for information. It's just low quality reporting. What Culture: 10 Ruthless Aggression Era WWE Superstars You Totally Don't Remember from a "Contributor" - is that what we are really looking for here in terms of sources? starship.paint ~ KO 02:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: that "contributor" happens to work for What Culture. He's also the guy whose voice you hear in the video. He's also done commentary for WCPW. So, yeah, there's that. He's not some "contributor" like some websites like, is it, Buzzfeed or Fox News that lets people post articles but marks them as "not vetted" or some such. It's actually an employee of the company. CrashUnderride 04:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Crash Underride: - which video? Now that you mention Buzzfeed, WC certainly seems as clickbaity. starship.paint ~ KO 05:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

WC's videos aren't that clickbaity honestly. At least the wrestling ones, I'm subscribed and watch a lot. But the video I'm talking about is the one you linked: 10 Ruthless Aggression Era WWE Superstars You Totally Don't Remember. CrashUnderride 05:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oops. My bad. So that's linked to their YouTube channel. The thing is, why should we take these guys as a reliable source instead of the hundreds or thousands of YouTube commentators out there? It's like, I would consider Max Landis' YouTube videos on wrestling a good source for opinion since he's worked with films and television, and WWE is something akin to theatre. But guys on What Culture? starship.paint ~ KO 05:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about that. I was just clarifying that that "contributor" actually worked for them. lol. CrashUnderride 15:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Okay! :) starship.paint ~ KO 13:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The question isn't whether What Culture is reliable (we're not talking about whether is should continue to be used as a source), but whether it is notable, and should have an article. The former has no bearing on the latter; Page Six, the gossip column, is notoriously full of pot-stirring BS, but it is notable because others have written about it. Even if What Culture gets stuff wrong sometimes (and even the New York Times does that), the fact that other reliable sources have written about What Culture's influence makes it notable. That said, discussions about whether the site as a whole is notable are outside the scope of the project. We're really only concerned with their startup wrestling promotion. Which, despite being like a month and a half old, may be the most widely known British promotion in the world. oknazevad (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• It's British? I didn't know. I know of Revolution Pro Wrestling though, half due to their stuff being shown in WWE video packages and half due to them putting Shinsuke Nakamura vs Zack Sabre Jr. on on their YouTube channel. starship.paint ~ KO 13:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't doubt them being British due to Adam clearly being from London, though with RPW, ICW and Progress existing, there is no way on earth WCPW is the most widely known yet. 15:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:NWA Wrestling Legends Hall of Heroes has been nominated for discussion

Category:NWA Wrestling Legends Hall of Heroes, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

New articles bot

The New articles bot has been updated to scan for Professional wrestling related articles. The list is at User:AlexNewArtBot/ProWrestlingSearchResult. The list can be added to a project page using one the methods listed here. --Bamyers99 (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Glaring weakness

The WWC Universal Heavyweight Championship (only one of the most important world titles in wrestling) has never had an image of the belt in its infobox. Here it is: [1]. Could someone please add this to the article under fair use, akin to the AWA World, WWA World, WWE Intercontinental and WWE Tag Team Championships? Thanks. 2A02:C7D:6A44:4600:C591:A99E:42DA:B980 (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Not too well versed in Fair Use, i was surprised to see Fair Use claims for currently active championships. Is that actually okay to do?  MPJ-DK  17:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Free is preferred, but in its absence fair use is employed. 2A02:C7D:6A44:4600:C591:A99E:42DA:B980 (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Any and all images of title belts are technically non-free, as they're derivative 2-D works of a copyrighted 3-D object. So with no free alternative possible, might as well use ones from the copyright holder in the first place. oknazevad (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Not so sure about that. There are two copyrights in such photos, the photographer's one and the object's one. Under WP:FREER, photos where at least the photo aspect is free are preferred to photos where both object and photo are non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)