Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling
WP:PW | Talk • Article alerts • Assessment • Members list • New articles • Notability • Recognized content • Sanctions • Sources • Style guide • Templates • Top priority articles |
---|
WikiProject Professional Wrestling | |
---|---|
Professional wrestling as a whole is under general sanctions | |
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!
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
FLRC -St. Louis Wrestling Hall of Fame
[edit]I have nominated St. Louis Wrestling Hall of Fame for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. meamemg (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Looking for a moderator
[edit]Hi, I have made a a profile about a New Zealand Pro Wrestler. This is the first of many profiles I wish to make so that there are more New Zealand Pro Wrestlers on Wikipedia. I have received advice on previous submissions, which I have actioned by making improvements. However my most recent draft has been sitting there for over 2 months with no review. If there is a moderator who can approve my article I would appreciate it if you can have a look. If this is the wrong location to be posting this message then please remove it. my article is... Draft:Tommy Combat Harbin Kiwi (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Harbin Kiwi: Please read WP:PW/Notability and Wikipedia:Notability. To have an article on WP, a wrestler needs to pass minimum notability criteria. --Mann Mann (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hello. i have seen the article. The problem is Notability. He worked on the independent level, so there are no sources talking about him. First, we need third party sources focusing on him (not about events where he participated). Most of the article is Cagematch. Sorry, I don't see Mr Combat as notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Infobox professional wrestler: birth_name should be changed to real_name
[edit]Please participate in this discussion: birth_name should be changed to real_name --Mann Mann (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Intro for wrestlers: Better known vs. Best known vs. Known professionally vs. Performs
[edit]Consider The Undertaker as an example:
- Mark William Calaway (born March 24, 1965), better known by his ring name The Undertaker...
- Mark William Calaway (born March 24, 1965), best known by his ring name The Undertaker...
- Mark William Calaway (born March 24, 1965), known professionally by his ring name The Undertaker...
- Mark William Calaway (born March 24, 1965), known professionally as The Undertaker...
- Mark William Calaway (born March 24, 1965), is an American professional wrestler who performs under the ring name The Undertaker... (I know he is retired, just an example)
Which option is the best? We don't use "known professionally" in our articles, but I have seen it on the articles about actors; e.g. Nicolas Cage. Another point is we better avoid using "his/her/their" ring name. In many cases, those ring names or gimmicks belong to the wrestling companies. Using "the" ring name sounds better even if a wrestler owns his/her ring name; e.g. Kenny Omega is a good example: "Tyson Smith (born October 16, 1983), better known by the ring name Kenny Omega..." --Mann Mann (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think you can choose a catch-all option, as it really depends on context. Three and four don't really work for wrestlers who are best known by a ring name but don't actively use said name anymore, usually due to the rights belonging to their former promotion (AJ Lee, for example).
- In a general sense though, four is my favorite. Straight and to the point. The mention of ring name isn't always necessary, especially since their profession as a wrestler is mentioned immediately after. I also agree that "the" ring name sounds better. Prefall 12:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oops... According to WP:PW/BIO: The lead should typically open with the wrestler's real name that is supported by a reliable source, and if they are known by a ring name, it should be noted in one of the proceeding sentences. So this discussion needs community consensus. --Mann Mann (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
I want to bring some eyes to this article. A lot of it seems trivial, contains original research and unsourced material. Also, there is the question wether it's even notable enough to be considered to have it's own article. I also think having an entire article dedicated to numerous untelevised wrestling matches is absurd as they are not even shown on tape delay or even recorded for that matter, the most you see from these matches is from fan recordings. On top of this it seems only IPs are editing this article. Lemonademan22 (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- At first glance, I will say: 1 the guest list feels WP:FANCRUFT. 2 even if the event isn't televised, stills notable. 3, maybe, we should try to write about the event beyond the results. The article is just the matches, but there are no reception or history sections. Maybe you don't know, but AJPW's biggest tournament, Champion Carnival, was deleted in 2016 because the article was just a collection of results. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Should Cody be considered a 2 time World Champ?
[edit]The Universal title hasn't been defended in 3 years. Is it time to stop calling it a world title? WWE said the titles were unified. Everybody on reddit calls me stupid for thinking Cena would be an 18 time World Champ if he wins it from Cody. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- No, see WP:NOR. --Mann Mann (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- What if WWE starts calling Cena a 17 time Champ in every article if he were to win Cody's title? Would that overwrite the Universal title history still existing? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 10:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- Holding two titles that have been won and defended together doesn't count as multiple world title reigns. It's all one reign. oknazevad (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- What if WWE starts calling Cena a 17 time Champ in every article if he were to win Cody's title? Would that overwrite the Universal title history still existing? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 10:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Christian Cage
[edit]Christian Cage has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Main Event of Elimination Chamber
[edit]Why does the Chamber match count? Wasn't the Soul segment the main event? There were Divas matches that were the last match on Raw, but didn't count as the main event because they were a filler before the talking segment came on WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- The Chamber match was the last match. The talking segment after was part of the immediate fallout from the match, but the match was the main event. oknazevad (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
PPV Results table placement
[edit]Why is the table of results all the way at the bottom of PPV articles and not immediately after (or even a subsection of) the event summary section. Makes a lot more sense for it to be there being it's a table of the events of the show itself, and shouldn't be after the reception and aftermath sections. (Oh, and these aftermath sections are getting out of hand; events six months and three feuds later don't belong in them, as there's multiple other PPVs in between. Seriously, cut them down to just the immediate aftermath of what happened next, not what happened a year later!) oknazevad (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's so low because the prose section already explained the results. I think it's a good idea to get the results just after the prose section. Also, good idea for the "Aftermantch". Some times, the project wants to include every ounce of information, even if it's not related to the subject. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- All because of WP:PW/PPVG. If the current format/style is not good, then we need to revise it. --Mann Mann (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- That's my point. I know what the guideline says. I'm questioning why was that made part of the guideline. It's illogical. oknazevad (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. Results section should be mentioned after Event section. In my opinion, Results as a sub-section of Event is better. As for Aftermath section, you have a good point. For some PPVs like Money in the Bank, the aftermath could take 1 year to be concluded. But adding new storylines to old/finished PPVs is unacceptable. --Mann Mann (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- That's my point. I know what the guideline says. I'm questioning why was that made part of the guideline. It's illogical. oknazevad (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- Just after the summary seems like the sweet spot to me Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- Do you think it should be after or a subsection at the end of the summary? oknazevad (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- After. I think there's plenty of people who would come straight for the results, and that makes navigation on mobile better. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- Do you think it should be after or a subsection at the end of the summary? oknazevad (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)