Archive 105

←

Archive 109

Archive 110

Archive 111

Archive 112

Am I imagining things after my 15+ years (wow) on this wiki, or did the PPV event infobox have the theme song parameter removed at some point? And if I am, I feel like this should be in the infobox. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 03:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Galatz removed a bunch of parameters in February 2019, claiming consensus from a discussion in this talk page. I faintly recall seeing such a discussion, but can't confirm as my available time for this project continues to diminish. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I found the discussion, and the "consensus" was that of like 4 or 5 members. I don't agree with any of the three parameters being removed. The Infobox is meant to be a quick reference to the article. Details like this really should be in it. I move they be re-added. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 05:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Bump? TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 17:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Support theme songs being re-added. I don't believe taglines were removed, but if they were then I support those being re-added as well. --  THE $R$. _Habla!  ^Hancock!  23:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, any other input? I don't want to act on a flimsy consensus. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 04:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

How is it not WP:TRIVIA? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Because the link you provided refers to lists of miscellaneous information, whereas this would be a single sourced piece of information. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, it's no different than listing the theme song of any other program. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 06:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Sponsor is a no-go to retain. We don't overemphasize sponsorship deals. I don't have... Too much of an issue with "theme song", so long as it's well sourced. It does feel like a reasonably engrained piece of information, especially when the music is either created for the event, or increases its visibility. It'd need to be an event long and specific piece of work though.

"Tag lines" are pure TRIVIA. It has about as much encyclopedic justification as to name the first thing the commentary team say in the infobox.

Infoboxes aren't supposed to be a long list of things about the event, it's supposed to contain items that are elsewhere in the article, but given prominence to be quick reference. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

So can we say this is a consensus to re-add the theme song parameter? TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 01:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is tangential, or if it's what you mean, but PW articles sometimes use the "future" class. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

If somebody wants to give their 2 cents, there is a discussion for a name change in Aiden English. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I have nominated CMLL World Heavyweight Championship for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 20:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

An example: Mayu Iwatani
As you see the sub-sections of Mayu Iwatani's Stardom career are just pure years. It seems this format has been used for some other articles about Japanese female wrestlers; e.g. take a look at Hazuki, Koguma, and Nanae Takahashi. Those sub-sections look lazy in my opinion. --Mann Mann (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think using chronological subsections is problematic, particularly for wrestling promotions which are less "storyline" driven. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem. Better than the usual "various storylines". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Used to be way more active. Now I can create threads where nobody responds. Where did all the contributors go? Is there a new pro wrestling WP? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• I got a promotion in my job, so I can't spend too much time here. However, I'm always open for colaborations. My main focus is to avoid IN-UNIVERSE and week-per-week prose. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but a number of regular editors (myself included) lost interest after the blanket removal of the 'In Wrestling' sections a few years back. Duffs101 (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  Where can I look that removal up? And what was the In Wrestling section? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  It was a section on each wrestler's article dedicated to miscellaneous information such as finishing moves/signature moves, nicknames, entrance themes, etc. However it was deemed too difficult to provide reliable sources and became overrun with OR so was scrapped in mid 2018.

  I can't find the full discussion that was had at the time but it was around Archive 102 if you want to look back. Duffs101 (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

You can see the RfC on its removal here and our past style guidelines on it here. Ridding ourselves of that editorial mess is one of the best things this project has accomplished. Hopefully the people who enjoy that database type of content successfully moved it to a fan wiki as we recommended at the time. It certainly has its value, just wasn't appropriate—or easy to maintain—on Wikipedia. Prefall 00:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The in wrestling section was a real nightmare. I didn't participated in the discussion, but I don't miss the section. Also, as mentioned, anyone can include the style and persona, where you can include sourced information about moves. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The "In Wrestling" discussion was a misguided decision to burn down the entire house because a few rooms were messy. It was overly wide in its focus. For examples, editors were concerned about whether a list of theme songs was appropriate for Wikipedia or whether something should be classified as a "signature" move because a wrestler used it regularly but no reliable sources had used the term "signature" in describing it. This was used as justification to delete unrelated content, such a list of wrestlers managed from manager articles. Project members who voted for deletion were adamant that the content would be restored in well-sourced prose, but few, if any, had any intention of doing so. It was a knee-jerk reaction, akin to de facto vandalism, that led to deletion of sourced information from well-maintained articles. It was also used to stir up a hierarchy in which long-time editors bullied newer editors, discounting their contributions in order to protect their position as Wikipedia's gatekeepers. It was ill-informed that made the encyclopedia worse. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• Sorry, but what does week per week prose and In Universe mean? Do you have an example for that? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  • In Universe means that the fictional events are presented as reality. Per Wikipedia rules, we can't write storylines as real events, since it makes very difficult to read. For example, you can read thing like "John Cena was stabbed by Carlito", which is fiction, but also "Bruiser Brody was stabbed in Puerto Rico", which is real. Or, recently, "Minoru Suzuki attacked Okada after the title match" and "The Elite attacked CM Punk after the title match". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

• Cena was stabbed by Jesús, Carlito knew nothing! In all seriousness now, besides the ill fated "In Wrestling" discussion mentioned above and the biting of newbies (I agree on both accounts), in its attempt to be perceived as "serious" (after a PW article was slighted as "unworthy" of being featured in the Main Page, IIRC) this WP tied itself up in knots and -in the process- killed its drive. Sure, WWE-related content can be widely sourced from mainstream media given the change of posture by ESPN, SI and the like. However, this dynamic is ineffective when it comes to the independent circuit. And never mind any place where English is not the main language, except Japan and Mexico. Have you seen how pitiful the Titanes en el ring page is despite being considered the lucha show for decades in South America (and parts of Central America, with presence in the Caribbean as well)?

I am talking by experience as well, a while ago I tried to have Puerto Rico's oldest PW website included as a "limited reliable source" for use in articles discussing the results of events that took place during the late 1990s-mid 2010s. I distinctly remember that conversation flopping and going nowhere. The ultimate issue back then was, and still is, that since mainstream media in PR shunned PW for decades (only very recently luke warming to it again), the only plausible third party source for this time period is this kind of website. If we don't allow it to be included as a RS, albeit in "limited" fashion, the possibility of improving these articles to GA (never mind FA or FL) is zilch.

To put it in perspective, that means that a place that was once a Top-5 territory in terms of ticket sales, is doomed to linger with mediocre pieces, obscuring the exposure of wrestlers that were notable during the NWA era and, ironically, pigeonholing PR as only the place where "Bruiser Brody was stabbed". If that is the case for a place where PW has been active and relatively healthy for decades, what exactly can we expect with markets that ran notable events and were hot tickets during the 70s, 80s, 90s? Think about the Dominican Republic, where Dominicana de Espectáculos ran and prospered. Can anyone here really say anything about that promotion beyond the Ric Flair incident? No? Well, that will remain as so because not only does it not have a piece despite being one of the wealthiest companies in the DR during the territory yeas, and the few sources that can be used to elaborate such a piece are Spanish blogs and sites that would likely fall outside the rigid standard being used.

Another issue is a lack of adaptation. In recent years, former professional wrestlers have been hosting podcasts which include interviews with some of those older veterans, but these are hosted in YouTube (despite having production teams and QC) and AFAIK we don't have a stance on how to deal with that kind of reference. There was a time where Podcasts were largely shunned throughout Wikipedia and virtually all links to YouTube were removed on sight with a shallow edit summary just saying "copyvio" and a link to some user-written essay about YT being inherently unreliable even when quoting content... Even when that content was generated by and curated by third parties and was not just some random kid uploading a clip. Times have changes, and now the reliability of such content is weighted on its source. Accordingly, we should adapt our stance on using Podcasts as RS for PW articles.

TL/DR: Now that most legacy articles for the current "main" promotions in the globe are in fighting shape, the odds of growing for this WP are slim due to a failure to understand the reality of the industry in jurisdictions where there is little to no mainstream coverage. That is, the world beyond WWE/AEW/Mexico/Japan/Europe. (Sorry for the text wall). - Old School WWC Fan (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

• My absence is a combination of being busy in real life, not having watched wrestling in many years and not being terribly happy about the political bullshit going on within Wikipedia. I'll check my watchlist periodically but can't imagine ever being as active as I once was.LM2000 (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@WrestlingLegendAS late to the party on the discussion but I am very much still active in editing just not really on this talk page because I almost 99% edit from mobile now and navigating the mobile app can be a bit annoying. JDC808 ♫ 09:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:PRECISELANG, we should "avoid using statements that will date quickly." I noticed this edit to Omos today and it got me thinking: Should we be using the opening paragraph of an article to state that a wrestler is a "free agent" in WWE's storylines? I have not followed the current draft at all (or wrestling in general much at all lately outside of the major WrestleMania storylines going into it and the Brawl Out hilarity) so I don't know if anyone is meant to be a "free agent" (outside of special attractions ie John Cena) or if it's just a holding title until they are drafted in-story.

Regardless, I'm not sure we should be PROMOting which TV show each wrestler performs on in the opening sentences to begin with. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

In-kayfabe terms like "Free agent" should absolutely not be used to performers who are, in reality, completely under contract to their respective promotions. CeltBrowne (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree the term shouldn’t be used unless it plays a significant role in the storyline. For example it makes sense to use the term in Montel Vontavious Porter#Feuding with Kane (2006–2007).--65.93.193.94 (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Lead. No, since it's fiction. Prose. only if we mention that's storyline.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Better argument. WP:INUNIVERSE: "An in-universe perspective can be misleading to the reader, who may have trouble differentiating between fact and fiction within the article." If we write "Omos is a free agent", readers will think he is a free agent. The lead part isn't necessary. The body part, only if it's notable (like Heath Slater, since he had an entire storyline around it) and mentioning that it's part of the character. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Count me in on "free agent" being a no-go in the lead. It's fine to mention that in the article body if it is of storyline significance, though. Prefall 17:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

If a wrestler is under exclusive contract to a promotion they're absolutely not a "free agent" no matter what short-term, transitory, in-universe storyline they've got going on. And no matter what sort of spin they do to get out of treating wrestlers as employees, WWE contracts are exclusive. oknazevad (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

There's probably never any reason to use this term in the lede of a WWE wrestler's article, and it should be worded carefully in the body to avoid in-universe problems.LM2000 (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Support removing "free agent" from the lead section. --Mann Mann (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@GhostOfDanGurney I see no issue with it as long as it's understood what's being said (as in, it's understood it's within WWE, and not a true "free agent"). As to "promoting" which TV show they're on, that's no different than saying what show an actor stars on. JDC808 ♫ 09:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The term it's not understood. The problem with these edits it's we are assuming the readers knows the difference between reality and fiction. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree That's making an assumption that they wouldn't know the difference. It's all in the wording. JDC808 ♫ 12:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Since we are talking about free agent. What do you think about articles like 2023 WWE Draft? The article includes a section called "free agents". As you know, per MOS:INUNIVERSE we should avoid "Describing aspects of the work as if they were real." Lesnar, Corbin, Ziggler and the rest aren't free agents, since they are under contract with WWE, so we shouldn't label them as free agent, it's just fictional terminology from WWE storylines. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I would be okay with renaming the section to "unassigned wrestlers" or something similar with (if possible) a note in the prose that WWE refers to these wrestlers in their kayfabe as "free agents" using appropriate wiki-voice. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, recently myself and JDC808 were discussing what the correct naming for the All In (2023) article should be, as they were of the view it should be "AEW All In (2023)". Normally we don't include the company name in a PPV (so, SummerSlam (2022) rather than WWE SummerSlam (2022)), and I believe that, as it's fundamentally the same series of shows, it's enough for the lead of the article to specify that it's produced by a new company, rather than breaking with naming convention. JDC808 pointed out, however, that when NXT have reused Halloween Havoc the new shows specifically had "NXT" in their title (e.g., NXT Halloween Havoc (2022)). I think part of the reason for this is that almost all NXT shows have "NXT" in the title, regardless of whether those shows have appeared in a different company (e.g., NXT TakeOver 36, rather than simply TakeOver 36).

I suppose what we've discovered is that there is an inconsistency in naming PPV articles, especially when a show is produced by a new company. Here's what I'd like to discuss:

• Should a show produced by different companies break with our naming conventions? If so, what should be the naming for All In (2018) vs All In (2023)? WP:NC should be kept in mind here.
• Do we need to look at the naming convention for NXT, given that they break with the consistency of other PPVs by including the company name?
• Are there other examples of a single company/brand having their name in the article title for a PPV? Is there a justification for this?

— Czello ^(music) 12:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm bussy, but I want to give my 2 cents. What about War Games? we have NXT WarGames (2021), but also MLW WarGames (2003). Also, we have December to Dismember (2006), not ECW December to Dismember (2006). Also, Shouled Out. We don't include nWo or WCW/nWo in the events. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

BTW, there is another PPV named after the brand. NXT UK TakeOver. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The WarGames example is interesting. I think in this instance we have an added way of looking at it: the rights to the "WarGames" name. Did MLW own the rights to it at the time? Or rather, are the rights that WWE currently own derived via MLW? Perhaps it doesn't matter and we should always just default to the year as the thing that specifies the event (in the rare instance that there are two shows with the same name taking place in the same year, but have no legal link to one another, we could separate them by name then?)

Perhaps I'm over-thinking it, though, and they should all just be "WarGames (20XX)". — Czello ^(music) 17:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

MLW owned the WarGames trademark. Then, WWE purchased the rights. [1] --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

In which case they're part of the same series of shows, and so I think the naming convention should be consistent into the NXT era. Though, on that point, I'd propose changing all NXT show titles to remove "NXT". Same goes for any other company name being in the article title. — Czello ^(music) 20:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Czello I'd say the only exception to this would be if two companies have a show with the same name. Right off the top of my head, I know that Impact and AEW both have a series of TV specials titled Homecoming, so those would need the promotion's name. Another I can think of on the spot are AEW's Grand Slam specials since Grand Slam isn't specific to professional wrestling (but I guess a hatnote could be provided at the top of the article for those individual Grand Slam specials). JDC808 ♫ 22:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Re MLW and NXT's War Games being part of the same series of shows, I disagree. There was no continuity of the events other than the fact that MLW registered the trademark of the name after it had lapsed and then WWE wound up having to pay MLW off when they wanted to use the name/concept. There really is no connection other than essentially trademark squatting there.

As for the general question, I actually go completely the other way and think we should almost always include the promotion name. The full name of the events include the promotion. Leaving it off in passing references is no different than calling a Ford Mustang just a Mustang. We should use the full name-and-model convention more frequently on Wikipedia for natural disambiguation when the name is a generic term (like Backlash) anyway, and this is one place we can do that.

Probably should also note, since All In is what is prompting this discussion that the only reason AEW hasn't been using is for years prior to this (instead going with All Out) is because of some ambiguity of trademark ownership of the name. Despite the "independently produced" promotion of the original, and the inter-promotional card lineup with Impact and NJPW people all throughout, it turns out it really was an ROH show all along, at least in terms of copyright and other IP ownership. So now that Tony Khan owns ROH (and is using it as AEW's NXT) that issue is resolved, so AEW is free to use the All In name. In fact, I'd argue that, unlike the above-mentioned War Games, All In/All Out is meant to be considered the same annual event. The first All In was held on September 1. All Out has been held right around that same time annually, and has used the same venue multiple times. Now All In is slated for the last Sunday in August, roughly the same tike. And there's been no peep of anything under the All Out name this year, because this year's version is back to being All In. oknazevad (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Oknazevad I agree that MLW WarGames and WWE NXT WarGames are separate series of events. That was just a trademark thing that has no correlation to the chronology of their respective events.

I've always gone by the convention that the main overview article for an event series, like WWE Backlash, includes the promotion's name (or abbreviation of their name) while the individual events, like Backlash (2023), don't unless further disambiguation is needed. This just made me think of something that I've questioned for a while. Should the year in the article title actually be as a disambiguation or should we make it as part of the article's actual title? On Peacock or the WWE Network for example, it's not "Backlash (2023)", it's "Backlash 2023". Granted, that could just be their way of disambiguation, but at the same time, if you look at other events that have a year in the title, the year is usually part of the actual title (e.g., 2024 Summer Olympics, not Summer Olympics (2024)). I'm not saying we have to go and change this. The current way works, but curious what others think.

In response to All Out just being All In for this year, there's word that they're doing both. All In and then All Out the next week. A bit odd but we'll see if that officially happens. Also, before All In 2023 was announced, there were reports that AEW may hold All Out at the United Center this year. JDC808 ♫ 06:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough point on MLW vs NXT. Perhaps, if we choose to alter the NXT naming convention in the way I suggest above, I propose WarGames (2003) should be renamed MLW WarGames (2003).

I agree with JDC808 that keeping the name in the overview article makes sense, though it should be kept from individual articles.

The Olympics example is interesting, though I believe that the year being part of the title probably is the WP:COMMONNAME in that example in a way that it isn't with pro-wrestling shows. — Czello ^(music) 07:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

WWE recognizes their reign starting April 2 (Sunday). We add least need to add a note, because we recognize it as starting April 1. Or was it really Sunday? Mania ended a few minutes after midnight eastcoast time. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The event took place in California, and it ended at around 9PM Saturday for them, so the reign began on April 1 Drummoe (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

But we should add a note saying WWE recognizes it as beginning on April 2? We always do it like that. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I added notes and fixed the amount of days for both Raw and SD tag titles. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Have WWE acknowledged the date, or days held, outside of their title history page? I ask because those pages are notoriously inconsistent in many ways. What they recognize on their television programs, and in actual articles on the website, should take priority over the title history page (or, at least, the inconsistency should be noted). Prefall 01:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

But how should they recognize it on TV? They don't mention the exact start dates. The only official WWE source we have says the reign started April 2. Wikipedia now states the real date and the wrong WWE date. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

We had a consensus on one of Nash's WCW reigns being unrecognized. Changes were made accordingly. Then, against consensus, someone undid those changes. That's still the way it is. What now? Just undo the changes the person undid to go back to consensus? And then what? The person undoes it again? I am not interested in an editing war. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@WrestlingLegendAS Revert to consensus. Leave a post on the editor's talk page explaining why they were reverted and if they disagree, they should start a discussion on the article's talk page to try and gain a new consensus. If they ignore you and change it back, revert and leave a warning on their talk page and if they still continue to change it, report them. JDC808 ♫ 23:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. But the changes were made a long time ago. I am no Wikipedia expert. Can I revert an old change without messing up any of the correct changes that were made after that? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Just do it manually. It can be done sometimes, but it depends on the nature of intermediate edits. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I've always been intrigued by Andre the Giant and our photos of him. A couple of years again I managed to track down all the important info about the image Commons:File:Andre the Giant.jpg. Recently I made a similar breakthrough with his article's lede photo. It turns out that that photo is part of a large set of photos, all taken on a single night, that make up a large portion of the photos on Wikipedia covering the WWF's 80's superstars. You've surely seen these photos while browsing. On Commons I created a new category to group these photos all together. This "John McKeon Flickr photos" Commons category description contains a link to a very interesting news article about this set of photos that you'll surely enjoy reading about. Plus if you wish to help organize the photos on Commons that will be welcomed too. Jason Quinn (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

i dont see why people are trying to pretend like the title havent switched shows. wwe will probably fix it soon enough, maybe at night of champions, but they titles as of right now are on the opposite shows.Muur (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

this is still an issue, its also an anon user doing itMuur (talk) 05:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Muur may have to request page protection or possibly a block on the IP if they continue to make the incorrect changes JDC808 ♫ 06:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

idk how to do so.Muur (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to chime in regarding Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#RD: Superstar Billy Graham. LM2000 (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Why do we have them listed as vacant? Until wwe.com lists it that way, Raquel and Liv are still Champs. Maybe WWE is waiting for mew Champs to be crowned before officially ending the reign. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@WrestlingLegendAS WWE has been slow with updating their title histories recently. Like they still have the NXT Heritage Cup titled as NXT UK Heritage Cup. But also, WWE explicitly announced that they vacated the titles JDC808 ♫ 22:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

They update title changes an hour after they take place. Not this time. But we can still update the title history according to whatever the title history on wwe.com looks like in 7 days. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

They updated it and went with May 19. Should we change the date? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@WrestlingLegendAS there's nothing to update. We already had that date because that's when WWE announced it as linked in my last post. JDC808 ♫ 23:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Funny thing, just saw the Heritage Cup was also finally updated to "NXT Heritage Cup" on WWE's website today. Either a coincidence or someone at WWE is reading our stuff here lol if they truly are reading our stuff here, the championships need re-ordered on WWE's website. Some retired championships are still listed along with active titles, including the Heritage Cup, which is currently grouped with all the retired NXT UK titles. JDC808 ♫ 00:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I just posted a new topic regarding the infobox for championships. Please see Template talk:Infobox professional wrestling championship#Addressing title vacancies. JDC808 ♫ 01:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Join the discussion at Template talk:Professional wrestling results table. Prefall 13:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't watch WWE weekly shows, so I'm relying on other editors here to fill in the gaps for me. Last night Trips introduced a new World Heavyweight Championship. There are a few questions I have that will influence our current articles. I'm unsure if these were addressed on Raw (if they weren't, we might be in for some editing disputes).

1. Should the new WHC revive the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) article, or should there be a new article (perhaps WWE World Heavyweight Championship (2023 version))?
2. Are the WWE Championship and Universal Championships still separate titles, or have they been officially unified?
   1. If the answer to this question is yes, what is its new name? Is it still "Undisputed"?
   2. Additionally, we will require edits to the following articles to reflect this: WWE Championship, WWE Universal Championship, Undisputed WWE Universal Championship. The latter I would propose should simply redirect to whatever the "unified" championship article is.

— Czello ^(music) 08:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is Triple H speech. [2] Reigns is gonna be drafted and he will stay in that brand as Universal Undisputed champion. The other brand would crown a new World Heavyweight Champion. [3] [4] Neither PWInsider or Fightful mention anything about an unification between wwe and universal championships. They didn't confirmed that the title is a new title or the old title reactivated. Neither WWE. The old WHC is listed as retired [5]. Also, WWE includes Reigns as WWE Universal and WWE Champion. So, I think this is a wait until it happens scenario. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

As I feared - I suppose we're going to have to deal with a degree of editing disputes and WP:OR (especially by passing IPs) as people try to speculate on how we should represent these championships. — Czello ^(music) 08:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Protect articles from IPs and WP:OR... It sounds like a regular day for us XD --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Worth pointing out that Undisputed WWE Universal Championship has just been turned into a redirect to Undisputed championship (professional wrestling).[6] I think this might require further discussion from the WikiProject. — Czello ^(music) 09:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I watched Raw. Could be something new or just the revival of the old one. We should wait for Darft and Night of Champions. --Mann Mann (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Czello late to reply here, but at present, the Undisputed WWE Universal Championship is technically still two separate titles, the WWE Championship and WWE Universal Championship; both title histories are still active on WWE's website and on their superstars page, Roman is listed twice, once for each title (this is also the same case with the tag belts). I imagine this will be the case until Roman finally loses (as Roman's long reign is with the Universal Championship and I doubt they'd wanna retire the WWE Championship; they'll probably retire the Universal once Roman loses). And as a general note, the Undisputed WWE Universal Championship now redirects to an appropriate section at World championships in WWE; similar case with Undisputed WWE Tag Team Championship.

On the topic of the new World Heavyweight Championship, which is why I mainly commented as I was going to start a new section but this one was already here, how should we title it, assuming it's a new championship? And how should we retitle the previous version? Oh, and there's already a draft written up for the new title so it's ready to go once we figure out an article name and get 100% confirmation it is in fact a new title. JDC808 ♫ 21:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@JDC808: Provided we're treating them as two separate titles, I think it's worth pointing out that when we created the article for NXT Cruiserweight Championship (before it was NXT), we simply named it the WWE Cruiserweight Championship, and renamed the older title WWE Cruiserweight Championship (1996–2007).

I propose we do a similar thing here: retitle World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) to WWE World Heavyweight Championship (2002-2013) and name the new title WWE World Heavyweight Championship. There is a question about that redirect, though, as that points towards the WWE Championship, which I feel is a mistake given that it's the literal name of the new title. — Czello ^(music) 06:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe World Heavyweight Championship (WWE, 2002-2013)? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  07:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Perfectly honest, we should await to see how other sources treat it - if it has a new lineage or not. If it does, have a new article, if not, no need. If we have prose before it's won, put it in the old article and move out if it turns out it's deemed a new belt. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski yes, but what I'm asking is how should we approach titling the articles IF it is indeed a new championship? I'm just trying to get this settled and agreed upon now to prepare ourselves for if it comes to that. JDC808 ♫ 13:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

That would imply there was another World Heavyweight Championship between those dates, however. I've never really been a fan of how we disambiguated the old WHC, so we should really just go with what WWE's labelling is. But yes, I agree with Lee when he says we need to see if it's treated as a new title or a reactivation, the way the ECW title was. — Czello ^(music) 08:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

My line of thinking was that it's how WP:FOOTY does it for players sharing a name. But if that was your initial thought, then yeah, let's not. I also agree with Lee. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  08:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Czello WWE World Heavyweight Championship redirects to WWE Championship because it is also a former name of the WWE Championship (it was its name from December 2013 to June 2016). It's also technically the name that still appears on the WWE Championship belt. Based on social media posts and how it's mostly been treated by WWE, the new championship (if it is indeed a new one) will also be "World Heavyweight Championship" (unbranded, like the version from 2002 to 2013). Although I guess in theory we could title the new and old as "WWE World Heavyweight Championship" with appropriate disambiguation and hatnotes for further clarification. JDC808 ♫ 13:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I realise why the redirect exists, but "WWE World Heavyweight Championship" is closer to the WP:COMMONNAME for the big gold belt/new championship than it is the WWE title. I suspect WWE are likely to call it as such when the title is inaugurated, too. — Czello ^(music) 20:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Czello not to deter a decision but just a heads up if we go this route. If this new title is in fact a new championship and we decide to use WWE World Heavyweight Championship as the new article's title, we're going to have to go back through every article from late 2013 until mid-2016 to fix those links that currently use that redirect and make sure they're correctly pipelinked to WWE Championship. We could probably just go ahead and do that now just to have it done even if we don't use that title for the new one. JDC808 ♫ 01:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I think it'd be worth it to make the naming a bit more consistent, but I agree it'd be a bit of an endeavour. — Czello ^(music) 07:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

For me. If the new title it's the old title reactivated, World Heavyweight Championsip (WWE). If it's the new title, World Heavyweight Championsip (WWE, 2002-2013) and World Heavyweight Championsip (WWE, 2023-present). New it's not a good word (7 years later it's hard to call it the new title). Also, WWE.com points Rollins or Styles would be the first champion, so I think WWE is gonna include a new title, just with the same name. [7] --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

If WWE claims its lineage to the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) that Eric Bischoff gave to Triple H in 2002, then of course we should. If by some misfortune midget AJ styles wins, it would be a disgrace to call him the first holder of a new World "Heavyweight" Champion, personally I feel it should have been Bobby Lashley vs Seth Rollins in the finals. I like AJ Styles one of the most talented ever, been following him since 2006 in his TNA days where he did win their World Heavyweight Championship, but this is WWE the place for the likes of Andre The Giant and all and Lashley after all his contribution deserved it, I personally enjoyed his run as ECW and WWE Champion (i stopped follwing TNA in 2013 so i don't know if he won there), and he is so underrated, he has the physicality + athleticism while Styles only has the latter.... Anyway my personal opinion aside if WWE claims lineage to World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) and reactivates it I am all for it and I hope that is the case, if not we have no choice but to write an article on a new World Heavyweight Championship! Dilbaggg (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dilbaggg if it is in fact a new championship, the article is already written (as much as it can be right now), but if it turns out to be a revival of the 2002–2013 version, then we'll just merge the info (and trim it down). And yes, by the way, Lashley did win the TNA World Heavyweight Championship. JDC808 ♫ 08:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Good to know there is a draft if its a new one and it will be liked to the 2002 title if its the old one JDC808, also glad to hear Lashley did it in TNA, best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Dilbaggg, you've been doing this long enough to know that this isn't a forum and you can't call someone a "midget", even if they're a public figure.

In any case, I'll note that some unreliable sources are reporting that this belt has the 2002 lineage. Keep in mind that these sources are unreliable; their source is some random guy on Twitter.[8][9]LM2000 (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Guess its a new one, so the draft on it should be posted as a full fledged article. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

This affects multiple articles. The 3 main titles in the male WWE roster are the WWE Championship WWE Universal Championship World Heavyweight Championship (WWE, 2023–present). Roman Reigns only holds 2 out of the 3 titles, so post Night of Champions 2023 is he still Undisputed WWE Universal Champion? Would it be more accurate to describe him as Unified WWE Universal Champion? (Fran Bosh (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC))

It depends how WWE calls him. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, while WWE have now condensed their superstars list to show just "Undisputed WWE Universal Champion",[10] Reigns' own page still lists both titles separately.[11] — Czello ^(music) 07:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Fran Bosh why would we change it? WWE still promotes him as Undisputed WWE Universal Champion. It is odd as he's technically not "undisputed" anymore (since there's now also the World Heavyweight Championship), but it wouldn't make sense to go and make up a name that hasn't been used. JDC808 ♫ 00:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Could you help to disambiguate links to WWE World Heavyweight Championship. There are over 100 links shown on the list at https://dplbot.toolforge.org/dab_fix_list.php?title=WWE_World_Heavyweight_Championship, but many seem to be before 2002 which is he earliest shown on the dab list.— Rod ^talk 21:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Matt Hardy 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello. A few weeks ago, we talked about the name of the PPV and other PLE, iPPV, supercard events. I was thinking about this issue for a long time. I propose to include the name of the company in the article. Let me explain. If an article shares a name with other article, then a disambiguation is needed. For example, Mercury (element), Mercury (planet) and Mercury (mythology). If the article has the same name and the same category, we include the year. For example, Frozen (1997 film), Frozen (2005 film), Frozen (2010 American film), Frozen (2010 Hong Kong film), Frozen (2013 film). While there are unique names, like WrestleMania, WrestleKingdom or SummerSlam, there are other events with common names. Since we include only the year, the disambiguation is useless, since the reader doesn't know the subject. For example, Departure (2004), Destiny (2005), Resurgence (2023) or No Way Out (2006). Other articles include something to explain the article besides the year, like No Way Out (1987 film), No Way Out (1950 film), Destiny (2018 film), Destiny (2006 film), Departure (1938 film), Departure (1931 film). So, I propose to include the name. Something like WWE No Way Out (2006), since the year alone doesn't work as disambiguation. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree I brought up a similar concern in the previous discussion. Basically yes, include the promotion's name for the individual events if further disambiguation is needed. But are you suggesting to include it on every individual event, or only those that need further disambiguation? P.S. This should have been posted in the previous discussion to keep it all in one place. JDC808 ♫ 21:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I suggest to include the name in every PPV, to keep consistency between the articles. WWE No Way Out 2006, ROH Final Battle (2009), WWE WrestleMania XIX... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, as JDC808 said, this should have been posted in Czello's thread (it is archived now). @Czello: I think you better open a sub-section here with several options so we can reach a consensus; e.g. A) promotion name + ppv/event name for all articles B) promotion name + ppv/event name for articles with similar names C) Other solutions. --Mann Mann (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at WikiProject: Professional wrestling/Sources: Cagematch.net to discuss the reliability of Cagematch.net as a source. There is a proposal that Cagematch.net be moved to at least the Limited reliable sources section when making claims about specific elements such as match results. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

An IP user has suggested this. Does IP user's request look acceptable? What do you suggest for the related sections (e.g. lead + Championships and accomplishments)? --Mann Mann (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Paul Heyman has always lugged around Roman Reigns' belts for him going down to the ring, be it 1, 2, or now 3.

Heyman is a toady, that's what toadies do, because lugging around your own title belts is too menial a task for a "tribal chief".

All 3 belts are in play (as WWE.com still individually lists the lineages of the WWE and Universal titles under the standard belts), so who actually physically carries them to the ring really doesn't matter. They all collectively represent the Undisputed WWE Universal Championship, so once Roman loses them, then we can see what comes of it/them. But until then, it's 3 belts representing 2 titles under 1 banner. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds per my edit summary, Reigns himself only carries the one belt (proof enough by his recent defense at a live event where he only carried and raised up the one belt instead of all three). Previously, Heyman only carried the other belts when Roman was not holding them for his entrances or while in the ring. JDC808 ♫ 22:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Reading WAAAAAAAY too much into this. All 3 belts are Roman's property until someone beats him for them. WWE still recognizes the regular WWE and Universal title belts as the official belts for those titles. Reigns' custom title is essentially a 1,000 day gold watch. Who physically carries the belts to the ring does not matter. Heyman is Reigns' toady, thus he hauls around his toys for him. It's that simple. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds here's a thing, they modeled the women's championship off of Roman's new belt (it even says "undisputed" despite not being undisputed), which makes me think this isn't necessarily a custom belt like originally thought. JDC808 ♫ 22:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That's all well and good...however while WWE.com did update the women's titles, they still recognize the WWE and Universal titles separately and under their standard belts. As it stands right now Reigns has 3 belts in his possession (who physically carries them to the ring doesn't matter - it's nice to have a lackey to do such things for you). We're not really gonna know how things will shake out until Reigns loses the title(s). So as long as Roman (and entourage) still lug around the 3 belts, things are what they are. Anything else is would be/could be/maybe speculation and rumor. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds I know that WWE.com does that, which is addressed in the articles. And it kind of does matter who carries them. Like any match graphic you see now, it's going to have Roman and his one new belt, not all three. JDC808 ♫ 23:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Because that is his personal 1,000 day belt - his "precious" if you will. It really isn't that hard. Roman carries his custom belt, as that marked his 1,000 day reign...that's HIS BABY. The other belts are still the official belts and he makes Heyman schlep them around, because that's what toadies/lackeys are for. It really is a 3-2-1 setup...3 belts representing 2 titles under 1 banner, and until the other belts disappear, it is what it is. I'm not trying to beat you up or anything, but you really are over thinking this. Heyman is hardly the first manager to lug around a belt for a client. Heck, you ever see a boxing match, where a champion boxer and his entourage come to the ring single file, and the manager/hype man is physically carrying the belt over his head, showing it off. That's pretty much what Heyman does for Reigns, and other managers have done for their guys. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's where we are - what say y'all? Vjmlhds (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Motor City Machine Guns#Requested move 19 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I was looking at the Bloodline and noticed the timeline coding is all messed up. I noticed in the history that @Czello, HHH Pedrigree, and Dahumorist: have recently made edits to that section. I'm not going to point the finger at any of you. But whatever was done, it needs to be fixed. I don't know how, or I would myself. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 21:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

A cursory glance at the edit history will show it was an IP. I've reverted it. — Czello ^(music) 21:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Czello, interesting that you were editing the section and never noticed it until I mentioned it. Thanks for fixing it though. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're implying here but that IP edited it 5 hours after I was editing it (and my edit was only a revert anyway). I'm not on Wikipedia 24/7. — Czello ^(music) 08:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

For a while I've been uncomfortable with the "associates" section of faction articles, as it strikes me as a breeding ground for WP:OR. To summarise the issues with it:

1. What an "associate" is tends to be vague. While there may be more clear-cut examples, sometimes it's someone who's just been seen backstage with a faction a couple of times.
2. It's always going to be difficult/impossible to source, as sources are rarely going to directly use the term "associate". Indeed, I've taken a look at the Elite article, as I'd say Cutler and Nakazawa are the most "obvious" cases of associates, and I can't see any sources that call them as such. Therefore, it's always going to require WP:OR to interpret vague descriptions in sources as them being an "associate".
3. Is this even encyclopedic in the first place? Either you're a member of the stable or you're not. What value is there in listing "friends of the faction"? If it's worth mentioning, it can be mentioned in the body of the article.

I am therefore proposing that we remove the "associate" section of articles, and instead only mention anyone worth mentioning in the body of the article itself. If there are compelling cases for exceptions to be made in unique circumstances (perhaps Zayn's "Honorary" status in the Bloodline - though even that I'm sceptical of) they could be made on the talk pages of the respective articles. — Czello ^(music) 07:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: I've noticed you've been deleting unsourced associates from articles, would be interested in your thoughts on going further. — Czello ^(music) 07:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

After 10 years in Wikipedia, here are my thoughs. Associates are usually WP:OR. IPs usually includes people just because the wrestler worked with the member of the stable. The door is open for WP:OR. There is any source stating that Callis and Takeshita are associates of BCC? As Czello said, it's too vague. Nikki Cross was associate of Damage Control. Jericho and Saraya worked together, maybe Saraya is associate of JAS, or Jericho is Associate of The Outcast. When is was a kid, I remember reading Boogeyman and Khali were DX members or associates just because they made the chop during a segment. Jeff Cobb was an associate of Inner Circle just because Jericho "hired him". Maybe, since MJF talked with RUSH once, he is an associate of La Facción Ingobernable. Or Bandido, Kommander, Hijo del Vikingo working with The Lucha Bros... I say, associates only if reliable sources confirm they are associates, no to include people who worked with a stable, because that's WP:OR and anyone can include any wrestler as associate. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree, you can't make assume an IP added them because you don't know who did. Unless you have proof via article history that was an IP, don't pin it on unregistered editors. That's an ignorant thing to do. Read? Where did you read Great Khali and Boogeyman were associates. You didn't even point to where you read that. The rest is incorect.

-Nikki Cross was never an associate of Damage Control.

-Talking to someone who is in a stable doesn't make them an associate. MJF wanted Rush to do something for him not the other way around. That's like when MJF got the Firm to help him.

-The Outcasts could be considered one time associates of the JAS since they were feuding with Britt Baker and attacked her with members of JAS. That in turn led to a short feud between Chris Jericho and Adam Cole. So yes, the Outcasts would be considered associates.

-Don Callis and Takeshita have been working side-by-side with the Black Pool Combat Club in their feud with the Elite after Callis turned on Omega. Callis and Takeshita helped the BCC beat The Elite. They're not members, but associates.

Do you even know what associate means? If not, you should look up the definition before assuming they're not associates or someone is an associate. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

This again seems to largely be WP:OR. It seems to be entirely down to personal interpretation if someone is an "associate". — Czello ^(music) 21:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

That's the point. We discussing who is associate and who isn't it's purely WP:OR. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it needs removed but rather tightened up on who qualifies as an "associate". What is the definition of an associate? I don't think we need sources to explicitly use the word "associate" if they use terminology that would align with the definition of associate. And I would disagree that it's OR if sources are using terminology that would indicate they are associates (i.e., "worked with", "teamed up", "partnership", "alliance", etc.). --JDC808 ♫ 12:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that using phrases like "teamed up" or "worked with" could easily lead to cases where anyone could be added to an "associates" section. HHH above gives some good examples. Are the Outcasts associates of the JAS because they worked together twice? How many team ups until they are considered associates? I think, most importantly, I have to ask also what the encyclopedic value of this is - if they have teamed up, it can be mentioned in the body of the article. I don't see why we'd list everyone that's teamed up with a faction separately. — Czello ^(music) 14:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Czello That's why I say we "tighten up who qualifies", as in we decide how many times they've "teamed up", etc. before we consider them an associate. JDC808 ♫ 20:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

So how many times must they team up before they're considered an associate? If we're deciding that ourselves it sounds like WP:OR again. — Czello ^(music) 07:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

That's the point. Sorry for the late answer, the job is taking a lot of my time... Every example I gave is a real example. IPs or new users add material with good intentions, but unsourced material. As Czello pointed, I don't see enciclopedic value about Saraya worked a few days with Jericho. Choosing a number of times to be considered Associate it's WP:OR. We are not the one who decide which wrestler is an associate based on our personal criteria. If reliable sources gave weight to the fact somebody is associate with a stable, no problem. But using number of times or working together, we open the door for interpretation. I can say that, since they worked together in Survivor Series 2006, The Hardys and CM Punk are DX associates (and HHH and HBK, associates with The Hardys). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I've updated The Crash Tag Team Championship. The Lucha Bros. vacated titles due to an apparent injury to Fenix. No sources were provided for said injury. But they were billed as champions on the date stated when they returned. Would we continue on with the previous reign in terms of days reigned? That makes the reign length 202 days. Others wise, they held the titles a combined 44 days. I've tried looking up other sources, but unfortunately, Cagematch is the only one I can find that lists it as a continuous reign. I was thinking to changed the combined days to 202, but left it as is for now as to see what the general consensus is. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:Professional_wrestling_profiles is extremely useful for automatically adding links to three databases to articles on individual wrestlers. Given the websites in question have pages for tag teams and stables as well, could a new template be developed to allow links to the databases to automatically be added for articles on tag teams and stables? McPhail (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@McPhail: I just updated the template and module to support teams and stables, along with a few other technical changes. |type= has been added to the template to differentiate these formats. For example, I added the template to Hardy Boyz using {{Professional wrestling profiles|wrestlingdata=1871|type=team}}. Cagematch team and stable IDs will be automatically fetched from Wikidata, but Wrestlingdata does not currently have team or stable properties supported on Wikidata, so you'll have to enter those manually. Let me know if you encounter any bugs. Prefall 07:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Prefall: - wow, that was fast! Thank you, that will be extremely valuable. McPhail (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think is pure WP:OR to call the Raw Women's Championship now called WWE Women's Championship a world championship when WWE or no WP:RS like say PWI and WON or anything says its a world champion, some editors can't simply call it a world championship based on personal views, it is NXT Women's Championship level, possibly a women's Intercontinental Championship. Unless WWE or any established mainstream WP:RS says its a world championship we should refrain from calling it a world title. The SmackDown Women's Championship now known as the Women's World Championship (WWE) is recognized and named a Women's WORLD Championship and it is the sole WOMEN's world championship in the WWE as per WWE themselves and all WP:RS that i am aware of and starting with Becky Lynch as the first Champion at Backlash (2016). So please stop from calling the Raw Women's title a world championship based on personal views, as per WP:RS only the SmackDown Women's title is a world championship. Anyway this is just my take on this, hope a consensus can decide and I will respect all your decisions but I just ask for a proper consensus and not to refer to the Raw title as a world title without official sources. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really sure there is a distinction to be had here. There's no hard and fast rules around what a world championship is, and any promotion can name their belt the world championship. Whilst we should look to third parties to suggest something is a "world championship", I'm not sure that term is a good one to explain what the belt is for, regardless. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I would say if "world" is in the name it's a world title, regardless of whether it is defended internationally etc. Agree if "world" is *not* in the title then a source would be needed. McPhail (talk) 08:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Is that feasible though? My local indy fed has a world heavyweight championship and it's defended bimonthly in a social club. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

It's really a difficult one. What the company calls it should, in theory, be irrelevant as that's a WP:PRIMARY source. Lee's local fed is a perfect example. There have been examples in the past of titles called "world" but the wider community haven't seen it as such (WWE's incarnation of the ECW title, for example). Similarly, there are titles that are considered "world" championships that don't have the word in it at all (AAA Mega, for example).

At the same time, a brief google search shows it's difficult to source in the first place. I couldn't see any sources that call the Raw Women's championship a world title - but similarly I couldn't see any that describe the Women's World Championship as one (despite its name - again, WP:PRIMARY). Realistically I'm sure WWE did intend for both to be world titles, but sourcing it is a challenge. — Czello ^(music) 10:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I would say if "world" is in the name it's a world title

That's really not a good metric; for example in Extreme Championship Wrestling, they went through period of calling ALL their titles "World titles; the ECW "World" Television Championship and the ECW "World" Tag-team Championship(s). However, in "practical terms", these were not "world" titles and the likes of Bubba-Ray Dudley did not become a "world champion" by becoming an ECW "World" tag-team champion.

Per what Czello said, in this instance we would need to avoid primary sources and refer instead to reliable secondary sources where possible, such as WON or PWI.

Generally, I would say a "World" title is a wrestling promotion's highest tier title, and traditionally in western "mixed" promotions, only the top men's title is acknowledged as a "world" title. Of course women's exclusive promotions refer to their top tier title as "world" titles and other promotions are happy to acknowledge this. In recent decades, some "mixed" promotions are happy to say they have a "world" title for both men and women, but typical there is one top tier title for the men and one top tier title for the women.

I don't want to get into specifics with WWE because they have so many championships at this point, even previously venerated terms like "world" have become blurred there. CeltBrowne (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@CeltBrowne While "world championship" is often considered to only mean the top men's title, each division does in fact have their own world championship, which simply means it's the top title for that division. Now men's is usually "world heavyweight championship" but that's often truncated to just "world championship" (which is AEW's case because they don't have weight divisions), but the other divisions will say it's the "world tag team championship" or the "women's world championship". You may not always see the word "world" attached to a title's name but they are world championships for that division and this women's championship case here is a prime example. Every active major promotion that I can think of off the top of my head has a world championship for their men's, women's, and tag team divisions. Now granted, I do think it's silly that indie promotions call their titles world championships, but it is what it is, especially without some kind of governing body like back in the territory days with the NWA, but I digress.

In regards to WWE, since they do the brand split for the main roster, each brand has a men's world championship, a women's world championship, a world tag team championship, and a secondary men's championship, and then there's one women's tag team championship shared between them (since each brand doesn't have enough women's tag teams to have their own set). JDC808 ♫ 00:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think "world" is always synonymous with "top title in division", it's normally a category in its own. Divisions can have top titles without them being considered "world". As CeltBrown says, Bubba-Ray didn't become a world champion by holding tag titles. Similarly we don't consider the top titles in cruiserweight or hardcore divisions to be world, either. NXT could be considered its own division but its title isn't considered a world title. — Czello ^(music) 07:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dilbaggg WWE have literally called both titles world championships multiple times. Just look at the Royal Rumble for example, the winner earns a world championship match and they say this every year. Additionally, why would one of their top two main roster women's championships not be considered a women's world championship? Charlotte Flair is also touted as being a 14-time women's world champion. They can't say that if the WWE Women's Championship (formerly Raw Women's Championship) was not a world championship. And speaking of primary and secondary sources, a secondary source can't go and dictate what is and is not a title's designation for a promotion. The promotion dictates that so this is a case where we use the primary as the definitive source and the secondary simply backs it up.

Also, calling it a world championship is not based on personal views, it's based on WWE's recognition, which secondary sources have backed up. However, to say it's not a world championship is your personal view simply because the word "world" is not part of its name, and therefore you think it's not a world championship. That would be like saying the WWE Championship is not a world championship because it doesn't have "world" in the title's name. JDC808 ♫ 23:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, here is a secondary source that does in fact call the Raw Women's Championship (now WWE Women's Championship) a "world championship". JDC808 ♫ 23:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, that settles that. — Czello ^(music) 07:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Why do we even make this distinction? As said above, there is no governing body to award a championship as a "world championship". Surely we are better off just listing what people have won Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski if the promotions make the distinction, why would we not also make the distinction? JDC808 ♫ 00:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Because there is no official distinction between titles. This is where a lot of our issues come about from organisations making designations for things that either contradict other sourcing (such as title reigns) or are the sole source of information.

Even third party sources just echo what promotions say in the most part. We don't make the same distinction for midcard belts, it's just ones that are "world championships", but in every other sport out there, there is a governing body that awards that status out to events (or at least backs up the info). There's also an argument that if there is more than one world championship for a single division, it's not a world championship at all. I get that this is also a thing in boxing and MMA, but you don't see this in more traditional sports - there's no J-League soccer world championship for example.

Whilst it may be worth on an article about a championship to say whether third parties consider something a world championship, the rabbit hole our articles fall down is listing a person as a "7-time world champion", which outside of where this specifically interacts with their character (see Flair, Cena and Charlotte) it's not all that helpful to the reader at all. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski What do you mean by there is no distinction between titles? We do make distinction for mid-card belts. We typically call them "secondary titles", but if that doesn't quite fit the bill, then either tertiary or even specialty championships (it really just depends on what the gimmick is for the others). We also have to remember that professional wrestling is scripted, so whether or not a title is considered a world championship, it's all fictional anyways, which is why third party sources in this case shouldn't exactly be the gospel when it comes to saying whether or not a title is considered a world championship, although that could be mentioned in Reception if there is a third party that has a differing opinion on a title's designation (e.g., WWE's new World Heavyweight Championship). JDC808 ♫ 10:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Huh? Why on earth are we making that distinction on Wikipedia? This seems very Wikipedia:INUNIVERSE. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@JDC808 the secondary source you used to desribe the Raw women's championship as a world title is before the 2023 remaining, after the 2023 remaining there are many secondary sources that calls the SmackDown's woman's championship a world championship but non cites the Raw women's championship as a world championship. PWI stopped recognizing the TNA world title as a world title from 2015-2022 when it was again recognized as a world title, so as of 2023 the Raw women's championship is not a world title until further notice, please use Wp:PW/RS to claim it is. But there aren't any. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dilbaggg It's literally the same title. There was no demotion of its status, it was just renamed to get rid of the brand name, which was the same reason the SmackDown title was renamed, and of course you're going to see secondary sources say "world" for it because that's now in its name and they need to say that so we know which title they're talking about, but conversely, it wasn't promoted to a world championship, it was always a world championship too. As for the WWE Women's Championship, they even stupidly put the word "undisputed" on the physical belt so that it's on an equal level as Roman's title (which is a world title, actually two, they just present it as one currently).

A third party source was provided but you're still denying it simply because it was renamed and doesn't have the word "world" in its name. You have to get over the fact that some world titles don't always have the word "world" in their name. Again, the WWE Championship does not have the word "world" in its name but it's a world title (or was it demoted too because it was renamed?). Same thing for the Universal Championship (which has never had the word "world" in its name). But since you're so adamant that the WWE Women's Championship is not a world championship (or not anymore), you need to provide an RS that proves that. JDC808 ♫ 10:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

And in regards to PWI and it not recognizing the TNA title during those years, that doesn't really matter. That was just their opinion. They have no actual say on if a title is or isn't a world title. JDC808 ♫ 10:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Seen that someone started discussion, five days ago, on moving Jungle Boy to Jack Perry. I'm the only to have responded. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 08:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

This isn't AIV but no one has warned this person and various Wikipedia:PW articles replacing sourced contents (and even erasing sources) with his own personal narratives. I am gonna take a hike from Wikipedia and won't be around to see all this. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/179.6.14.219&target=179.6.14.219&offset=&limit=500] @Czello already dealt with a few of his edits but he has messed up a lot more articles since July 23, 2023 and all are exclusively wrestling articles. Please see to it. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

This could also potentially be dealt with by leaving a message on the user's talk page. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

GaryColemanFan i am more consenered by the unsourced mess being left behind, who will clean all that up? Dilbaggg (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

you . --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Jamie Hayter identifies as a British professional wrestler on her Twitter account (bio). Her WP article says an English professional wrestler. So which term is accurate? British = English = interchangeable terms? Asking this because I saw Dynamite Kid articles says he was a British professional wrestler. But almost all other articles use "an English professional wrestler". --Mann Mann (talk) 07:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Refer to Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom.

Basically, it seems that view of Wikipedia as expressed above is that is that the terms are interchangeable, and one is not superior to the other. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

However, I think the preference of the subject of the article can/may also be taken into account. For example, the article of comedian Frankie Boyle reflects his preference to be known as Scottish rather than British. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

A subject's preference is a factor per MOS:IDENTITY. I find it common to include the description that most reliable sources use. A lot of times, the common description is compatible with the preference. From my observation, in cases where the two aren't compatible, a discussion is had, and in cases where there's not a clear common description, the preferred is used. KyleJoan^talk 01:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@CeltBrowne and KyleJoan: So is it OK to change English to British ( for Jamie Hayter)? BBC also uses British: "When Paige Wooding, better known by her ring name Jamie Hayter, became the first British woman to be crowned All Elite Wrestling (AEW) women's champion..."[12] --Mann Mann (talk) 05:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Since the BBC, The Independent (a reliable source for news),[13] and Fightful[14] say "British", it's fair and appropriate to use that term. Inside the Ropes,[15] which looks unproven at worst, also says "British". KyleJoan^talk 08:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:TWITTER supports the change from English to British, as it is not an extraordinary or self-serving claim. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Well we don't call Drew McIntyre British despite Scotland being a part of Britain, so why should English wrestlers like3 Wade Barret be called British? Both England and Scotland are part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Dilbaggg (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

So generally the default for bios is British, unless there is a reason not to. If you aren't a Brit, it might be difficult to realise that some people are nationalist towards their region (it's a very common thing in Scotland). If she comments she is English, she's English.

{{U|Dilbaggg}} - sure, but England is also part of the British Isles and the Commonwealth. That doesn't mean we use those terms. We also use sovereign states for a lot of sportspeople where they represent those specific countries, which is a little abstract in this sense, but no reason not to go with what they say about themselves. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: So British is preferred to English as a means of self-identification. Right? Asking because of edits like this. --Mann Mann (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Not particularly "preferred", rather that we would use British ahead of another term unless there is a reason to use the other term. In sportspeople, for example, they represent specific countries - see Judd Trump as an English snooker player, whereas Olympic Athletes would be representing Britain. If a majority of sources talk about the subject as being English, we should follow suit. FWIW from what I know from when I worked with her she'd probably not care either way. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Is this ESPN list notable to be added to the Championships and accomplishments of those wrestlers? --Mann Mann (talk) 04:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see being in the top 30 as enough of an accomplishment to mention. For example, I doubt many would care thwt Tyler Bate was 28th out of 30.--65.93.193.235 (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Some IP user request to add it. --Mann Mann (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mann Mann I don't see why not since we add the PWI list of best wrestlers each year. At the very least, a mention somewhere in the article. JDC808 ♫ 08:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

maybe in a reception section. MJF has a section talking about his talent and age.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Something that's been on my mind for a year or so now. WWE notoriously inflate their attendance figures "for entertainment purposes" (sometimes beyond the actual seating capacity), even by their own admission.^[1][2] Most fans know this, and while we do report this in PPV articles, the infobox still displays the kayfabe figure (albeit, often with a "disputed" tag). For examples of this, take WrestleMania 39, WrestleMania 38, WrestleMania III, and several others.

Given that these are effectively figures done for marketing and do not reflect reality, it seems to be a big violation of WP:NPOV and WP:INDY, not to mention WP:PROMO and WP:INUNIVERSE. What's the justification for this?

My proposal:

• Where an independent source that this WikiProject has deemed is reliable disputes WWE's figure and states a legitimate number in return, the infobox should display the real number
• WWE's claimed figure still remains in the article, but only in the "Reception" section (could also be in the lead).
• Where there is no independent source that disputes WWE's figure, we include the announced attendance number as normal.

How does this sound to everyone? — Czello ^(music) 16:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I've said "WWE", as they're the most notorious at this, but I mean it to apply to any and every promotion. — Czello ^(music) 16:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:LAME#WrestleMania III and WP:LAME#WrestleMania 23 tells me that this has been disputed for a long time on Wikipedia. The timing of this discussion seems curious to me, seeing as how AEW partisans have flooded social media with claims of the Wembley Stadium show selling more tickets than various major WWE events.

BTW, the length of this subject header may be an issue for people using less capable or powerful devices. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Not surprised this made WP:LAME, but I don't think we should avoid the debate because of it. I have no ulterior motive with this suggestion - I actually attempted to change WrestleMania 28 to prioritise the actual numbers a year ago but was reverted. I've been dissatisfied with the status quo since, which is why I'm raising it. — Czello ^(music) 18:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

agree with Czello. independent source has priority over public relations. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Why do we even make such a large weight on attendance if it's in dispute? On really large shows where someone makes a claim that it's the largest attendance at a venue/situation, we can write in prose what the stated amounts are per different sources. I don't think it's a suitable infobox item or just to mention on every show (unless it's commented on as being large/small by sources) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I am in favor of this proposal and specifically keeping the marketed number for any event in the Reception rather than in the lead. As @Czellohas stated, this would apply to all promotions, not just WWE.

I'm of the mind that it's in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia that we only included reliable numbers rather than marketed numbers (to me, focusing on marketed numbers is the equivalent of treating a worked storyline as a shoot). However, since the marketed numbers are commonly cited, I'm ok with a compromise were they are still acknowledged somewhere in the article. Drickfire (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Piniging a few other users to try to keep this discussion going: Mann Mann Drickfire JDC808 Sekyaw WaimiriMaina Addicted4517 — Czello ^(music) 08:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Czello I've admittedly always gone with the status quo on this, probably just due to the fact that we do acknowledge that there typically is a dispute and make note of what that dispute is. I agree with your proposal though and I think that would probably work better. JDC808 ♫ 08:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Czello: I also agree with your proposal: Prioritize the number from the independent source and include WWE’s number in the Reception section. Sekyaw (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I hold two views. The more relevant one is that the official attendance should be there somewhere because it is reported in independent secondary reliable sources that don't question it in normal circumstances. The ones that do question it need to be regarded consistent with our reliable source list. If it came from an unreliable source - it doesn't get added.

My second view can be disregarded because it's OR but I strongly feel that Dave Meltzer (as an individual and not as part of Wrestling Observer) should be regarded as unreliable on this subject simply because he got the attendance at the MCG for Super Showdown in 2018 totally wrong. I know this (OR remember) because I was there, I know the MCG like the back of my hand and there was definitely 70,000 in attendance. It just does my heart god to say that - nothing more. As I said it's OR. Take my first view officially. 08:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

On the first point: we'd always retain WWE's numbers, I'm just proposing it'd be in the body of the article but not the infobox (only if it's disputed. If it's not disputed it stays in the infobox as normal). On the second point - I think the reliability of the independent sources can come afterward. If we decide not to go with Meltzer, then fine - there're usually others who report more accurate figures. — Czello ^(music) 08:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Czello that WWE's (and any other organization's) gimmicked number should be in the body not the infobox. Wikipedia is a bastion of truth not the pavilion of Kayfabe.

I think we should go with Meltzer for historical events. He's been able to get actual numbers from local promoters, the police and WWE investor relations. For more recent events WrestleTix has proved to be a very reliable source. WaimiriMaina (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Worth noting that we don't actually require "truth" - see WP:TRUTH, rather verifiability. In this case, we are simply looking for the third party source, rather than the primary one. It doesn't make the WWE's number "wrong" per se, but it makes it a less reliable figure in Wikipedia's stakes. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

WaimiriMaina it is ridiculous to say a twitter account that has less than 30K followers that he even corrects his mistakes after every event and gets it wrong should be used as a reliable source

a person that has no idenity as well Bigboss9893 (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Who the independent source we deem reliable is is something we can discuss separately. It doesn't have to be Meltzer (although WP:PW/RS deems him reliable). — Czello ^(music) 15:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I was talking about Wrestletix which is a twitter account that has less than 30K followers that was created recently by a person with no identity,he just follows the ticket maps and anyone can do that and he corrects his mistakes after every event,that’s not a reliable source and I don’t think you disagree with that

by the way wrestletix is the one source you are using for those WM 38,39 attendance figures

meltzer just quoted him

it shouldn’t be treated as a gospel

he admitted that he even doesn’t know the suite box attendance numbers which can increase the attendance from 10-15K depending on the stadiums

that’s what i’m trying to say Bigboss9893 (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

If Meltzer is treated as a reliable source then who he treats as reliable sources is accepted by proxy. The number of followers they have is irrelevant. — Czello ^(music) 22:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm now seeing six people in favour including myself and no real opposition. I'm going to consider this consensus and will make the changes shortly. — Czello ^(music) 08:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

What are you doing? We already talked about this,this is a mess and we already agreed that attendance inside the pages will be reported and put disputed note after it with the source,it has been like that for years and nobody gave permission to do this Bigboss9893 (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

and yes,you have real opposition to this including me and Mr Fiji and all wwe users,your timing doing all of this is so suspicious,and we are gonna say it 100 times,those twitter accounts like wrestletix are using the paid tickets not including the comp tickets and suite boxes,even the sources admitted to that on Twitter Bigboss9893 (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

How do you say there is no real opposition when there was literally edit war from many users back and forth that is still goinf on having different views that have been going on inclduing me and Mt.FijiBoiz User talk:Mt.FijiBoiz and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Homerisfat&redlink=1 and many others Bigboss9893 (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

And this is for the mods that i have a ton of respect forcthis is so obviously suspicious and happening at a suspicious time because of the aew fans,everyone who suggesting this is because the aew show going on in wembley,please don’t turn wikipedia like social media platforms,this is common sense and you are going back to shows that happened 40 years ago and attendances that haven’t been touched for years except the last couple of weeks,if you search the attendance figures for all those events,99.99% of the mainstream websites (we are talking about thousands of websites) have reported those wrestlemania events to those numbers,but when you go to wikipedia and then see someone have Wrestlemania 3 ar number 78K instead 93K (the source for this is someone saying he talked to s guy who used to work for WWF and have agenda which is so laughable,the stadium was stacked with fans and the capacity of the stadium for football which is less,capacity for the stadium is over 82K) than every single website you can think of,it makes you scratch your head

you want to put the reported number and then leave a note that it has been disputed like it has been for a long time,that’s the only thing that makes sense

and like i said almost 99,99% of the mainstream websites of any websites have those numbers

you should leave a note that it is disputed and put why,that’s it

and we said a million times,those numbers that you want to put are paid tickets is way different than total attendance Bigboss9893 (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The Detroit Free Press had used that same 88,000 as the expected turnout for most of the run-up to WrestleMania III, even as late as the day before. The Associated Press and Lansing State Journal had as well. The day of the show, a Gannett News Service blurb (no byline, but embedded in a larger Gannett WrestleMania III piece by the same author as the Lansing article) cited WWE’s Basil DeVito as the source of the 88,000 figure. It added, though, that DeVito had changed his to 90,000-plus. Meanwhile, the previous Tuesday, a Reno Gazette-Journal blurb appeared to attribute the 88,000 figure to Silverdome executive director Mike Abingdon. There were more, but you get the idea: It looks like the Silverdome and WWE were both claiming 88,000 in the weeks before the show.

And how are we gonna igonre more more legitimate sources that reported different numbers for a show like Wrestlemania 3 in Detroit from journalists who were live there,attended the event or covered it on site,if you wanna use Meltzer who wasn’t even there

we are talking about the Detroit News,Associated Press,Lansing State Journal,a Reno Gazette-Journal blurb,Gannett News Service,local news and Dave Meltzer himself who said 90K before he changed his mind 10 times ( but he wasn’t actually there)

we are talking about legit soucres like Detroit News and Associated Press that they reported numbers ( which was different than WWE by the way) like 88,000 days before the event

you see why this gets into trouble? Bigboss9893 (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Any other users who want to express their opposition are free to do so - until they do you saying they're against it doesn't make it so. Also please do not insinuate that I'm am pushing for this change out of some fanboyism of AEW at Wembley. We're an encyclopedia and so it doesn't make sense that we report fictional numbers. Some sources have previously taken WWE's claims at face value and recycled them, which is why when reliable sources state otherwise we're obligated to incorporate them. — Czello ^(music) 15:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

You said there was no opposition and i’m one of them

and people who edit those pages share the same sentiment and Mr Lee Vilenski didn’t give you permission

the fact that you won’t even put the reported numbers at all like 93K attendance is insane

not even putting a disputed note

nobody gave you blessing to do what you did

and i put other sources that has it at 88K in attendance and 85k in attendancde from the detroit news and associated press who are legit 68.199.25.221 (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Czello

i have sources from the associated press and detroit news who are legit websites,a million times more than meltzer

and their reported figures in the 85-88K in attendance,different than wwe

now we need to ask Mr Lee and the mods to end this or should we leave the numbers like they are because it will be a mess Bigboss9893 (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, discussing the validity of the sources themselves comes after discussing which figures to show. And "mods" don't get involved in individual content discussions like this especially where there is a consensus. — Czello ^(music) 17:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I’m talking about the higher ups in this discussion who decides what to do about attendance because you didn’t real get permission to completely dismantle the reported attendance from reported,MR Lee didn’t ask you to do that

here are different sources

https://www.newspapers.com/article/18111087/90000_to_attend_wrestlemania_gannett/

https://www.newspapers.com/article/18110973/pro_wrestling_cashing_in_with/

https://www.newspapers.com/article/18110397/column_mentions_88000/ Bigboss9893 (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

By the way how do you say there was no opposition when the first reply from the user User:RadioKAOS,Me and Mr Fiji opposed this?

You shouldn’t take advantage that not everyone was following this 24/7 Bigboss9893 (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The thing is that using WWE's figures (or any promotion – but WWE are the biggest offender) without question is one of the biggest breaches of WP:ABOUTSELF going. They had to announce 100k for Mania 32 to beat Mania III, and they announced 93k for Mania III because they wanted to beat the Pope. Indeed, in the case of Mania 32 even McMahon admitted the number was vastly inflated. And in some cases, the figures announced on the night don't match up to common sense; there's no way WrestleMania 39 could've outsold the Super Bowl by 10,000 with one of the end zones blocked off for the stage. I just find it a little perplexing that some people are arguing WWE's numbers aren't a work even when accepting that everything else is. And yes, this does apply to All In as well; let's wait for Meltzer et al to give the real numbers. Sceptre (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I've requested protection of multiple biographies that have long been disrupted by South Korean IPs [16]. If you encounter more of the same at other articles, check the IPs and know that sanctions are available through ANI and at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Just looking for a consensus on prowresltingstories.com [17], and whether it should be used as a source on Wikipedia. It isn't listed on the recognised content page as either reliable or not. Seems to be a lot of retelling of established stories, without a lot of attribution. Daff22 (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The "Meet the Team" page author biographies are all over the place. Some show a good connection with the industry, and I would trust them as reliable sources--Evan Ginzburg, Ethan Absler, Lanny Poffo, Dr. Mike Lano, for example. Many of the others don't have much more to say than that they're wrestling fans. Kind of hit or miss. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

i agree, some of the writers has good --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey folks, this is an old User:Bellhalla article that is up for GAR. There's been a degradation in the reading quality since it was written in 2008, but it also needs some help with what might now be unreliable sources. Is anyone up for the challenge? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Can we get more eyes on CM Punk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to help maintain its FA status? At this time, I think it needs substantial improvements (in adhering to core content policies and some guidelines) to pass any potential FA review. Since that article is this WikiProject's only BLP to achieve FA level, it's in the project's best interest to ensure it still meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. KyleJoan^talk 03:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

So right now i am currently working on my draft, SmackDown 1000. I have submitted it for review and i wanted to see your thoughts on it so i can improve it more so it can be ready for article mainplace. My article is linked here. Thanks for reading. Summerslam2022 (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I liked it WaimiriMaina (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

after a quick read. Fine article. Some parts are unsourced. Reading on the phone, the pictures are WP:SANDWICH. I would avoid nicknames like The Animal; these are cool for better reading, but readers maybe dont know who The Animal is. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I've fixed the nickname problem, but what sections need to be sourced? Summerslam2022 (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Both Cageside Seats and Sportskeeda are unreliable sources. Read WP:PW/RS and WP:PW/MOS to help improving your draft. --Mann Mann (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd appreciate views from the project on some points of contention in the article CM Punk. I have set out my own views but am happy to take the steer of project members.

• Should Punk's "Real World Championship" be referred to in the lede?
  • My view: yes, as he is billed as defending it by AEW (link), and his holding the belt is a key part of his current persona and storylines.

• Should the most recent section be titled "Real world champion" or "Real World Champion"?
  • My view: "Real World Champion" is appropriate, as the AEW website capitalises the phrase (link).

• Should this image be included in the article?
  • My view: yes, as the article has very few images post-2014, and there are very few such images available, so more recent images should be included where available. Naturally these can be replaced as and when better quality images become available.

• Should the text "An internal investigation into the incident concluded that Punk "would likely be exiting the company entirely"." be included?
  • My view: no, per WP:CRYSTAL, and as Punk did not exit the company entirely, so in any case this has been superseded.

• Should the article state Intercontinental Champion or WWE Intercontinental Champion?
  • My view: per WP:NOPIPE, we should use WWE Intercontinental Champion.

Any thoughts from the project would be welcomed. McPhail (talk) 11:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

So rather than respond to a discussion that had already existed on Talk:CM Punk#Recent changes, you thought it would be more helpful to open another one? Do specify how many discussions we need because I think Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia talk:Featured articles should hear about this dispute as well.

Aside from my points about superseded claims in the existing discussion, CRYSTAL says we do not include "unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions". Not only is the referenced claim verifiable, but it is none of those three in nature. The source makes it very clear that that claim documents what was supposed to happen at one point in time but did not end up happening. CRYSTAL is wholly irrelevant. KyleJoan^talk 12:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Should Punk's "Real World Championship" be referred to in the lede? I don't have strong opinions on this as it's more of a storyline thing than an actual recognised title (the AEW roster site doesn't even call him such). However if we do include it we should make clear it's unrecognised. Amending this per GhostOfDanGurney below. It's not a recognised title, not listed separately on their website, not even mentioned on Punk's profile on the site, and is entirely a storyline prop. Consequently I'm against including it.

Should the most recent section be titled "Real world champion" or "Real World Champion"? If AEW capitalises it, we should too.

Should this image be included in the article? I don't see an issue with it - that part of the article is mostly text and no images. Is there an argument against the image (other than its quality)? I suppose we could always replace it with a better quality one later should one become available.

Should the text "An internal investigation into the incident concluded that Punk "would likely be exiting the company entirely"." be included? I'm inclined to say no as it's hearsay. That said, we currently don't include anything about the backstage altercation. There should be some mention of it as well as his suspension.

Should the article state Intercontinental Champion or WWE Intercontinental Champion? WWE, as there are multiple Intercontinental championships. — Czello ^(music) 12:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The internal investigation was related to the 2022 suspension, not this recent rumored one. KyleJoan^talk 12:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Apologies. What's the source on him rumoured to be leaving the company entirely? — Czello ^(music) 12:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Vulture–a mainstream, non-wrestling-centric source, generally reliable per WP:RSP–included the factoid in their coverage of Punk's return. PWInsider and Sports Illustrated also published the claim way earlier. KyleJoan^talk 13:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

>Should Punk's "Real World Championship" be referred to in the lead? (bolding mine, see NOTLEDE): No. This is a storyline device given the greenlight by Tony Khan, who has previously expressed desires to keep his championships lineal (see: his reluctance to strip Thunder Rosa, creating "interim" championships). The "championship" is otherwise completely unrecognized by AEW, with the pre-match graphic for matches using scarequotes to refer to it. It can be explained in prose, but doesn't carry enough WP:WEIGHT for the lead.

>Should the most recent section be titled "Real world champion" or "Real World Champion"?: ""Real World Champion"", with the scarequotes. The primary source linked to here also uses them.

>Should this image be included in the article?: Yes, in a relevant section in prose. Great shot!

>Should the text "An internal investigation into the incident concluded that Punk "would likely be exiting the company entirely"." be included?: No. BLP policy states that we must be certain that everything we write about living persons is accurate. Clearly the conclusion wasn't accurate if it was relating to Brawl Out.

>Should the article state Intercontinental Champion or WWE Intercontinental Champion?: WWE per Czello. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

How is this claim not accurate? It clearly says an investigation was held and the conclusion was what it was. Whether it happened or not is irrelevant. The same can be said about Punk's claims that he would leave WWE at the expiration of his contract in 2011. Since Punk's own words were not accurate, these claims should be removed as well, then, no? KyleJoan^talk 13:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I said that the conclusion referred to in the claim was inaccurate. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

A claim followed by a future event that establishes the opposite does not make the initial point inaccurate. Punk said he would never return to WWE (claim). He later appeared on WWE Backstage (future event that establishes the opposite). Should we remove Punk's initial statement? KyleJoan^talk 13:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

You're talking about WP:OTHERSTUFF, and specifically this OTHERSTUFF you're mentioning deals with things that the subject said himself that may or may not have been part of that storyline in 2011, so I don't see how this is a relevant argument. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Punk said he would never return to WWE after he was fired, so it was not part of any storyline. If everything we write about living persons must be accurate, then the subject's own words should warrant as much scrutiny as secondary sources do, correct? KyleJoan^talk 14:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Add: Punk's 2011 claims about a departure are stated neutrally and not specified as being in-universe in the article. Any subjective interpretation of their relation to a storyline does not help the article's neutrality or the argument that a subject's own statements warrant inclusion even when they're inaccurate as long as they're in-universe. KyleJoan^talk 14:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Good point re: the "real" title being mentioned in the lead. I've amended my comment accordingly. — Czello ^(music) 14:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Update: I've made this edit, which should simplify this discussion. The existing 2023 photo was tagged as a copyvio, so my concern about there being too many photos from the same event is no longer pertinent. Since McPhail is so passionate about illustrating Punk's career post-2014, I look forward to their next uploads to help rectify that. KyleJoan^talk 13:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

just saying, Aew terminated his contract https://www.pwinsider.com/article/174964/cm-punk-terminated-from-aew.html?p=1 --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I guess all the questions around the "real" world championship are now irrelevant. — Czello ^(music) 23:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Brodie Lee#Requested move 27 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• NWL Heavyweight Championship
• NWL Tag Team Championship

McPhail (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

"The Inner Circle (professional wrestling)" > "Inner Circle (professional wrestling)". McPhail (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pat Patterson (wrestler)#Requested move 1 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I think Wrestlenomics should be listed as a reliable source for wrestling business news. It focuses on economics (TV ratings, attendances, quarterly profits) and has been the go-to for wrestling TV ratings for several years. Semicorrect (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I endorse adding this to WP:PW/RS. Not only has Wrestlenomics been consistently reliable in its reporting for a few years now, but even other sources we deem reliable have cited and depended on it. It's effectively treated as a reliable source by proxy of it being used by other sources. — Czello ^(music) 16:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

i love their work. I thibk that Brandon is a reliable source and several media used wrestlenomics as spurce, so i thibk its --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I welcome it too, there are too few accepted WP:PW/RS and we need to add more and Wrestlenomics looks reliable. We should add back PWMania too they have improved a lot since they were declassified and are now very reliable. Dave Meltzer made an error in 2014 claiming Punk was returning which was debunked, but h he was forgiven, we should give PWMania seecond chance too, post 2017 they have always been accurate and reliable. https://www.pwmania.com/ Dilbaggg (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Dilbaggg, quickly looking through articles, one credits PW Insider while another credits Fightful for the transcript of a quote and credits them for who produced what matches on Raw. They use podcasts, YouTube videos, and tweets as their sources as well. That's something anyone can do and does. If that's all it takes to be reliable, then most sources would be considered reliable. That's not enough to warrant changing them to reliable. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Semicorrect, there is a talk page in the references section of this project. This should be there. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

E.g. "The Rock's signature moves include the Samoan drop, the spinebuster, and the Rock Bottom (a side slam)." The manual of style does not specify whether non-generic move names should be italicised. McPhail (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Does MOS:ITALIC allow it? --Mann Mann (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - my reading would be that it does not. McPhail (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello. A few weeks ago, I had a small discussion with another user, but since I was traveling... Looking the PPv/PLE, we include the same lead "this was the main event". Then, we include a list of "prominent mayches". I think we should avoid the "prominent matches". Everything in the LEAD has to be sourced in the body of the article. Most times, I can't find a source for "prominent matches", looks more like our personal suggestions rather than sourced material. Payback, for example, included Rollins-Nakamura, JD-Owens & Sami, Lynch-Stratus and Kinght-Miz. What makes these matches more prominent than Rey's or Ripley's? [18] Looks like our personal sugestion. Same for Great American Bash [19] A card with 6 matches, 1 main event (Hayes- Ilja) and 4 prominent matches (NA title, Womens title, Tag title, Stevenson debut). Why are these matches prominent but the Davenport-Perez isnt? My suggestion, include only the main event, avoiding WP:OR. If reliable sources state a match is prominent, include it, like WM X8 with Rock-Hogan or WM3 with Savage-Steamboat. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. The idea of inserting other matches in the belief they're "prominent" is inherently going to lead to WP:OR and sheer opinion. The only change to the above I'd make is that if a show is billed with having multiple main events then they should all be included (for example, WrestleMania VIII having Flair vs Savage and Hogan vs Sid). — Czello ^(music) 12:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Cited sources should mention those matches are prominent, otherwise only main event can have its own sub-section. Sometimes non-title matches are more important than title matches and they may need extra details on the related articles. Sources determine notability and prominence of each match. Any WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, or personal analysis-based content should be removed. --Mann Mann (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a good point. The HIAC match at KOTR 98, or the Hogan-Rock match at X8, are good examples. — Czello ^(music) 20:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

True --Mann Mann (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree. I would say too that "prominent matches" aren't mandatory. there will be PPVs with no prominent matches. sometimes I feel like people just include these kind of things because other articles are written like this. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree here's the issue. Listing only one match (the main event) is not an adequate summary of the event (and the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article). We have to come to some agreement on what to include. We almost exclusively use Pro Wrestling Dot Net for the results table due to their reliability but also because they include the match times that some other sources don't. At the Payback article, to try and find a middle ground, I only included the main event and the matches that were listed in the headline of the Pro Wrestling Dot Net source. I think this could be a way on how we settle what matches to include in the lead. And ditto to what Czello said about those matches that are promoted as "main event matches" for those events that have multiple. JDC808 ♫ 03:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

And then of course, if there are matches that get heavily covered outside the norm, then those could be included too. JDC808 ♫ 03:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion here. McPhail (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Timelines are often being included for stables and there have been some inconsistencies. In a few timelines, there are inclusions of title reigns (ex: The Judgment Day). There are also a variety of colors used in different articles (ex: The Judgment Day, The Bloodline, and Chaos all use different colors for roles in their timelines). I feel like there needs to be some consistency for every timeline. Was there ever a consensus on how they should be used and what should/shouldn’t be included? Sekyaw (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of them because we can very rarely cite when someone actually is in a stable. It can be difficult to even get a start and end date of when the whole thing exists let alone individual members. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: I personally don’t mind them and I think they could be helpful for stables that have several lineup changes. Otherwise, I don’t think they’re necessary. I especially just feel like there should be a consistent way of how they’re used. Some timelines include title reigns; the problem about that is that if we include them in some, we should include them for all timelines and I feel like that’s just excessive for some groups. Sekyaw (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

We can't just have a table without it being cited to something. We have specific times that a performer works for an organisation (although even this can be gray), but an example would be CM Punk - when did he leave the Nexus? He's credited at still being so months after having been with the group at Money in the Bank. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

sorry for the delay. summer time. several years ago, an admin deleted some time tables, i dont remember the reason, maybe something with accesibility. I think are fine for large groups like Bullet Club. for small, linear stables like JAS, Inner Circle or Bloodline, not that much. I would include only members and leader, no tag team or title reigns.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: I agree. In a similar case with musical groups, timelines are mainly used for larger groups with several lineup changes and only include official members; I think it should be the same for wrestling stables. The inclusion of title reigns can complicate and crowd timelines too. Maybe a consensus should be reached about this and added to the style guide. Sekyaw (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

i would include table members if there are too many for the infobox, maybe more than 6 (no need for Damage Control, for example). Timelines, I dont know... bloodline or judgment day, hurt business are very simple. I would delete the colours, except leader, as I said.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Where colour is concerned I think we should go with whatever is currently the most common across all articles. The Judgement Day one will have to change - clearly whoever put it in tried to theme it to the group's colour scheme, but that's not how Wikipedia operates and it might affect readers who are colour blind.

I'm against including title reigns in them. Leader should also be a thin bar going through the middle (rather than the whole bar being a different colour) to make it consistent with factions whose leader might change often (e.g. Bullet Club). — Czello ^(music) 16:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm 100% against that kind of timelines; e.g. random colors, colors based on stable members' gears or some user's taste, title reigns, and other unnecessary/excessive stuff. A timeline should be something meaningful and informative like the one used on Demolition article. And why The Judgment Day does not have the years? Or why some stables like Damage CTRL and The Undisputed Era do not have that section at all? We need to reach a consensus for a standard. --Mann Mann (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd argue Damage CTRL and the Undisputed Era don't need them as there's nothing really to display. They never had any changes in membership (UE just had the late addition of Strong). It's the same reason a band like Rammstein doesn't do timelines, compared to say Metallica. — Czello ^(music) 08:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with points made by HHH Pedrigree, Czello, Mann Mann. Here’s my proposal for timelines:

• Only used for factions that have had 3 or more lineup variations.
• Omit title reigns from timelines. Only lines included should be for Members and a thin additional line for Leaders and Managers. Not sure about “Associates”.
• Colors need consistency. I don’t even know what the most common colors are in articles right now because it’s all inconsistent. I suggest black for members, yellow for leaders, and blue for managers (all to avoid problems for colorblindness)

Would love to hear any more suggestions to reach a consensus about these timelines. Sekyaw (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sekyaw, why does three does have to be the minimum? Why should two be exempt? As it's been stated, Undisputed Era doesn't need it since Roderick Strong is the only one to have joined after their formation. Two should be the minimum. As far as colours go, you want to be consistent. But Diamond Mine doesn't follow consistencies you want. Ivy Nile was the second leader, but there is no yellow within the line of her entry. As far as Bullet Club goes, Karl Anderson was briefly leader yet there is no yellow within the line of his entry. You want consistency, those things need to be fixed.

If you want consistences, that means going through nWo, Bullet Club, Degeneration-X, Diamond Mine, the Four Horsemen, Chaos, etc. to make them all the same colours. But for some like Bullet Club, you can't do that since there are so many different offshoots of such as Bullet Club OG, Bullet Club USA, Bullet Club Gold, Elite alignment, Rogue Army, House of Torture, etc.. You'll never truly have the same colours for all timelines. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 06:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

of course, if we want consistency, we will change articles to meet the consistency. stating that there are articles that don't have it its not a reason or excuse.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Mr. C.C.: Exactly. There are many articles that don’t follow this. These are my suggestions for timelines in order to have consistency in every timeline. As HHH Pedrigree said, the changes will be implemented on all of those articles you mentioned once we reach consensus on something. Sekyaw (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Been a couple weeks. Pinging some users to see if we can get a consensus on how timelines should be treated and presented consistently. HHH Pedrigree Czello Mann Mann Lee Vilenski Mr. C.C. McPhail JDC808 Sekyaw (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sekyaw, if you haven't bothered to keep the discussion going in that frame, you're probably not going to get a consensus. People have probably moved on. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Which is why a ping to give the discussion a jolt is appropriate.

@Sekyaw: I've given my views, but what are the issues where there's still disagreement? Let's lay out the things that are yet to be resolved and we can get this done. — Czello ^(music) 19:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Czello: It seems that there’s agreement that timelines should be used for larger groups only, colors should be consistent, exclude lines that represent title reigns, and roles that should be presented are Members and Leaders. The questions remaining are:

• What constitutes as a “larger group”?
• How many variations in membership until a timeline is necessary?
• What about Manager and Associate roles?
• What specific colors should be used throughout all timelines? Sekyaw (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

First two questions will probably always have arbitrary answers. Managers I think should be included, associate I'm less inclined to include as it tends to rely on WP:OR. Specific colours I have no strong opinion on so long as that it's standardised. I think The Bloodline (professional wrestling) is a good rule of thumb to go with. — Czello ^(music) 19:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with including Managers and not Associates. To avoid problems with red-green color blindness, I’d propose a black bar for all members, thin yellow line for leaders, and a thin blue line for managers. Sekyaw (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems like there’s an agreement that timelines should only be for larger groups (or whenever it seems necessary), omit title reigns from timelines, and having a thin line for both leaders and managers. I proposed a black bar for all members, thin yellow line for leaders, and a thin blue line for managers. I’ll begin implementing these if there are no objections. Sekyaw (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Fine by me. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

As part of the recent controversy around wrestling attendance figures, I would like to present the following from Dave Meltzer on the Wrestling Observer Radio on how WWE counts attendance. This was initially posted on Reddit by u/ABCDEXYZWV12345

Pinging users to get this topic going: Mann Mann Drickfire JDC808 Sekyaw @Addicted4517 @Czello

TLDR Summary:

When WWE announces their attendance records for shows, they add:

1. All distributed tickets (paid and free tickets that were given out regardless if people with those tickets come to the show)
2. Everyone in the building without a ticket (No one counts them)
3. Any empty suite/luxury box seats
4. Any workers outside the building premise

No one in the venue is actually counting non-ticket holders, so WWE makes an inflated number in agreement with the venue through back-and-forth emails prior to the show.

Full Transcript: (8:14 - 12:10)

Garrett: Who audited the WrestleMania 32 number (101,763)? Didn’t Vince say something like, “Oh yeah maybe there was like 20,000 ticket takers and people in the back.” (Referring to Vince’s quote in the 2017 Q1 Investors Earnings Call)

Meltzer: It’s not even that. Like, when they do a number like that; at the Royal Rumble (2023), we saw exactly what they do, because Brandon Thurston (from WrestleNomics) actually got the public record (from San Antonio Officials) because it was a city promotion of them (WWE) explaining what they want as attendance. The number that they released for San Antonio for Royal Rumble, it’s a complete fake number (51,338), but they tried to justify it. It’s the number of tickets out including people who weren’t in the building but might have gotten free tickets, so that total number (tickets distributed), plus everyone working in the building which nobody counts, there’s nobody who counts that. Plus if every press box seat was filled, nobody counts press, even if nowhere near full, they’re all counted. If every luxury box was full which also wasn’t full, they’re all counted, including luxury boxes that were tarped off, they were quoted in the capacity. Everyone working in the building was counted, and everyone working in the parking lot, they’re counted too. So that’s how they got the number (Royal Rumble 2023), it’s a completely fake number.

The Dallas number (WM32 - 101,763), that’s like WM3 (93,173) where it’s just “We’re making up a number” and they (WWE) had to announce over 100,000 because they had promoted it in that direction (From WM32 press conference announcement in 2015), but it’s totally made up. Even if you included everyone working in the building, there were 80,709 in the building that went through the turnstiles that were actual fans with paid and/or free tickets, but it does not include people who had tickets that didn’t come (84,000 tickets distributed), so that’s where the 80,709 number comes from (Reported by Arlington Police Department), the 101,763 is just a made up number. There’s probably 93,000 (Meltzer reported 97,000 the day after WM32) if you include everything (ticket takers, etc) and all that. With WWE, you count everyone backstage. You count all the performers, all the performers friends, their relatives, the agents, the cameramen etc.

Garrett: Whose job is that to start pointing and counting and make sure they get that number?

Meltzer: I don’t know, but when they went for the Royal Rumble (2023), they got a number, and then they went right back to the building and said, “This number isn’t high enough.” There’s a message, there’s an actual email message from WWE saying, “This isn’t high enough, can you figure out a way to get us a bigger number?” “Okay we’ll count the tarped up luxury boxes that nobody is in or opened, we’ll count the people who are directing traffic into the parking lot.” Those numbers are ludicrous because nobody counts them. If we’re going to do a real record, that show (WM32) was 79,800. (Reported on WWE Key Indicator Performance)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example: WrestleMania 32

• 101,763: Inflated number, not real
• 97,769: Real number of all people in the building with or without a ticket + empty or full suite/luxury boxes + workers outside the building
• 84,000: Tickets Distributed (Paid and Free)
• 80,709: Tickets (Paid and Free) that went through the turnstiles gates into the building
• 79,800: Paid tickets (Based on WWE’s 2017 Q1 Investor Earnings Report)

The actual number of fans in the building with a ticket was 80,709. This was provided by the Arlington Police Department to Brandon Thurston in 2017. WaimiriMaina (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for transcribing this. This is a great explanation of why we should not take the marketing, "for entertainment" attendance numbers of any company seriously. I am in favor of keeping them out of Wikipedia entirely, unless they are on a page that specifically deals with "worked attendance storylines" or a similar topic. If, as a compromise, they are going to appear on official event pages, they should always be secondary to actual attendance reports from reliable sources.

We would never say it's good practice to post storylines on a wrestler’s Wikipedia page and treat them like shoots. We should not do this for wrestling event pages, either. Drickfire (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Very useful information, thank you. All the more reason to prioritise independent reporting of the numbers and not go with WWE's purported figures.

On a similar note, do we have any definitive conclusions on WrestleMania III's numbers? The user who wanted to prioritise WWE's numbers is edit warring there (through a block, I might add) to include the inflated figure. — Czello ^(music) 20:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

WM3 is very complex. Meltzer goes with the 78.5k number, but some time ago David Bixenspan did some researching regarding the attendance and got his 88k attendance, 85k paid conclusion.

https://babyfacevheel.substack.com/p/wrestlemania-iii-attendance-redux

Bix talked about the attendance more in a recent podcast with Pollock and Thurston. Thurston next week behind the Wrestlenomics paywall supposedly went through the numbers again, but I don’t have access to that.

https://www.youtube.com/live/xkjM70n01uw

Now could 85k paid 88k total be true and Bix be correct? Definitely! Issue just is that it is hard to actually give proof that he is right, especially when the 78.5k is from papers sent to Meltzer by Bresloff and confirmed straight from internal WWE records. Could it be that number is missing the club and suite levels, maybe but it is nigh impossible to confirm it unless someone gets access to WWE records again.

So the answer is no definitive, but we have a hard confirmed minimum and maybe a plausible maximum. 2001:14BB:C9:4358:0:0:E4B:A701 (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Why single out WWE? What about other promotions like TNA, ROH, AEW that all inflate attendence. TNA Lockdown (2013) claimed an attendance of 10,000 a decade ago which is purely dubious but neither Meltzer nor any of you complained just because it was not WWE. It appears to be an attempt to promote AEW following AEW All In 2023's success, people always root for David against Goliath, thats why people want to bring WWE down. Disputinbg attendences of events such as WrestleMania 3 based solely on Dave Meltzer whome people in this p[roject literally seem to worship sorta here is non WP:neutral. The guy never even attends events and writes based on speculations, and ranks non WWE matches higher and it was supposed to be a part of his criticism section, you guys dismissed. Love your work over the years you made WP:PW beautiful but don't let your personal grduge against WWE get in the way. There is already a dispute tag under attendence figures in info box of WrestleMania 3 and WrestleMania 32, what more is needed? Many crucially accepted Wp:PW/RS accept WWE's claimed attendence, just because a few like Meltzer disagrees does not dicredit them. Let them stay as they are and if you disagree leave the dispute tag but it will be pure WP:NOR and non WP:Neutral if you go on decreasing them based on personal grudge against WWE and Meltzer's views! The mahority WP:PW/RS agrees with WWE's figure and thats how it should go, and if there is dispute just add dispute tag on the info box but we should never decrease the figure based on Meltzer's views! Dilbaggg (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The reason we focus on WWE so much is because they are the most notorious at inflating numbers. However, the neutral solution (to use independent sources rather than WP:PRIMARY sources) applies to all companies, not just WWE. It just affects WWE the most because they're the ones who use fabricated numbers the most. — Czello ^(music) 07:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Dilbaggg, I hope you're well. I will take some time to respond to all the points you raised:

>Why single out WWE? What about other promotions like TNA, ROH, AEW that all inflate attendence. TNA Lockdown (2013) claimed an attendance of 10,000 a decade ago which is purely dubious but neither Meltzer nor any of you complained just because it was not WWE.

WWE is the most egregious when it comes to lying about their attendance. It is so egregious that when you compare their actual numbers (reported in their investor relations which I would be happy to teach you how to look up) to the numbers they announce, it looks like a joke. We do not have any evidence that AEW, at any point in their five year history, has inflated their attendance.

>It appears to be an attempt to promote AEW following AEW All In 2023's success, people always root for David against Goliath, thats why people want to bring WWE down.

No one wants to bring WWE down. This is an encyclopedia, and our goal is to have the most accurate information possible to as wide an audience as possible. To that end, we often have to disagree with the narrative presented by companies such as WWE which have their own vested interests.

You complain of sources like Meltzer having an anti-WWE bias, and I'd like to point out that he is a reporter first and foremost. He has a responsibility to report the truth regardless of who it favors. His match ratings are irrelevant to this discussion.

I would also like to refer you to the following article from Wrestlenomics which includes information obtained through a FOIA request to the City of San Antonio: Exclusive: WWE Royal Rumble 2023’s record-setting ticket sales and inflated attendance - Wrestlenomics

This article provides conclusive proof through emails that WWE works actively to misrepresent their attendance figures.

>Disputinbg attendences of events such as WrestleMania 3 based solely on Dave Meltzer

We do not dispute WM3 solely because of Dave's reporting, we do it because people like local promoter Zane Bresloff disputed the number. Additionally, because of TV blackout rules, the legit fixed seat capacity of the Silverdome at the time was well known to be 80,638.

I understand that you are a fan of WWE, however, we should leave our personal biases aside and work together to provide as clear information as possible. WaimiriMaina (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Just a coment. Wrestlenomincs also disputed claims from other promotions. a few months ago, WB spokeperson said AEW Dynamite has 4 million viewers [20] --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Czello Primary sources can be used to report accurate statistical figures, they may not be in part of the body but info box stats can use primary sources, and whats more better priomary source than personal views of Anti WWE and Pro AEW,TNA fans (not claiming anyone here is that way but there are some people who do hold grudges here). Also there are numerous secondary WP:RS that supports claims of 100,000+ attendence figures at WrestleMania 32: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] and the list goes on and on. Please do not selectively chose anti WWE sources. best to leave the attendance as they are and leave a disputed tag as some disputes exists but non are verified and Meltzer's words can't be taken as gospel, no wiki policy states dirt sheet writer Dave Meltzer is some divine entity here. Mpost WP:PW/RS agrees with WWE's attendance records. Anyway lets please go along with the attendance figure as they are while leaving dispute tag lines and its all fine. Best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

just for clarification. if we say WWE we mean every wrestling promotion. if we say Meltzer, we mean independent source. As we have discussed, independent sources are used in wikipedia to avoid the promotion interest. you are talking about including fake numbers even when other sources debunked them. i just want to mention that wiki admins even complained with wrestlers with fake heighs, i dont want to know what the think for fake --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that they're not accurate statistical figures, even by WWE's own admission - that's the whole issue here. The sources you link are citing WWE directly - yes, WON takes priority over those. — Czello ^(music) 09:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree No source debunked them,, they alleged it, there is a huge difference between DEBUNKING using scientific methods and making ALLEGATIONS based on personal views as what Dave Meltzer in his dirt sheet does. He hasn't proven anything or used any proper investiagtion method and just made a claim based on his opinion. And I have provided five of MANY WP:RS which supports WWE's claimed attendance. By WWe you can never claim all promotions, similarly Dave Meltzer doesn't represent all independent Wp:RS, he himself doesn't have many reliabl=ility in 2014 he made a false debunked claim that Punk was returning to WWE that year. Anyway while some disputes, vast majority "independent" Wp:RS (and please never claim Dave Meltzer represents WP:RS alone, there is a good reason for WP:GS) vast majority "independent" WP:RS accepts that WWE's claimed attendance and it is good the way it is stating the claimed attendance figure and just adding the dispute tagline indicating some people sources may disagree. Also WWE's claim as well as many independent well established WP:RS are far more reliable than selective figures that a few WWE hating Dave Meltzer fans wants to add up. Anyway I understand and respect you guys have worked hard all these years to keep good articles like these but please be WP:Neutral and there are many independent WP:RS that agreed with WWE's claim, and there are already dispute tags indicating some might disagree but majority agrees, and so they are good enough as they are at the moment. Good day. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Please remember nothing was debunked by the disagreers they just alleged they didn't have any valid scientific research method, and vast majority of independent sources supports WWE's claims, Here again are few of the many WP:PW/RS that agrees with WWE's figures: WrestleMania 32: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. I think the figures are fine the way they are at the moment and as soime disagrees there is even disputed tags, that is sufficient. Please do not comment on my two consequtive comments addressing @HHH Pedrigree comment without fully reading these two comments as I have addressed every one of your concerns. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe this is actually a better reason to not comment on attendances at all, unless they are particularly notable. It's not that WWE's numbers shouldn't be mentioned if they are particuarly notable, nor should we discount independent numbers, but both sides are unlikely to be reliable figures, considering these third party sources are either being told a number by one of their sources inside the arena, or (more likely), guestimating from photos/attendance, which is rarely super reliable. They aren't counting tickets sold either. How many articles (outside of the largest selling events) actually matter what the "official attendance" is? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski attendence figures are crucial to any sports and are reflected everywhere, there is no need to erase them for some dirt sheets disputing them, we can even add the word "claimed attendance" but we must add attendance figures and many indpendent WP:RS as mentioned above supported WWE's clailmed attendance, and regarding other sporting events, almost all have registered attendance, lucky them their project pages dont't have to worship a dirt sheet author called Dave Meltzer (whose criticism section has been erased by his fans here), these are just some examples: [[31]], UFC 200, 1996 Cricket World Cup final, and so many more. 20 years no objection, but suddenly seeing All In (2023)'s success and Meltzer always hating WWE not challenging that one everyone wants to discredit WWE's attendance records, Meltzer himself said WM 32 had 90,000+ still better than your All In. And Meltzer made false claims in the past, there should be a broader Wikipedia discussion regarding his credibility. In 2018 All In main event he gave it 4 star plus ratings despite it being cut shoirt when there have been much better WWE matches that year he rated low. And don't forget his 2014 false claim Punk was coming back to WWE that year. @Czello despite some of WWE's unofficial statements , they officially maintain the 100,000 + figures and its supported by numerous independent WP:PW/RS and I gave some of many examples above. So its best to keep the attendance figures for WWE event articles as they are, if needed add the word "claimed attendance", we should make articles as attractive as possible for readers, also whats the harm when the dispute tags exists for the figures that have been challenged, those that have not been challenged such as SummerSlam (2005) and WrestleMania 22 vast majority of the events (mostly that had less than 50k people attending) have not been challenged, don't need the disputed tag but those that have been challenged, (only few events have actually been challenged so no need to remove attendance for just a few challenges,) such as WrestleMania 3 and WrestleMania 32, there was no proper scientific method used, Dave Meltzer is unreliable, pleantly of independent Wp:RS supports the WWe's claimed attendance so its best to leave them as they are with the disputed tag attached. in this way we can reflect the claimed attendance backed by numerous independent Wp:RS as well as show the dispute tags that few people challenge their attendance and this is how they are currently, and this maintains WP:Neutral showing both Pro WWE and Pro Me3ltzer sides maintaining WP:NPOV balance. The current way is the best way, so lets please focus on other areas and this is all I have to say about it now best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

many sources just include the number given by WWE. to be honest, I just feel a ant-Meltzer feeling. Also, many of the spurces you gave are just repeating what WWE said, which is WP:PRIMARY.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree on the anti-Meltzer comment. I'm noticing all the arguments around attendance boil down to an WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude to the fact Meltzer has revealed WWE's fabricated numbers. — Czello ^(music) 14:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Crucial? What nonsense. At this point it's pretty much WP:CRUFT. Other than particularly highly attended, or poorly attended events, the attendance figure is negligible. Most sports don't even comment on it unless it's particularly high. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Its not Meltzer hate, I just want neutrality, much better sources than him like NYT reports WM 3 had 93000+ attendance: [32]. Meltzer hates WWE, everyone knows that, and he always downplays historic events. Many modern WP:RS also agrees WrestleMania 3 had 93000+ attendance, Meltzer is no scientist or respected researcher, he is no one to judge anything! He didn't experiment, he never even went to Silverdome. Anyway the numebr of WP:RS that says 93,000+ for historic WM 3 is way higher than a few that stands by Meltzer's 78,000 which is far more disputed than the previous 93,000+ yet 78,000 doesn't have a disputed tag. 93,000+ had far more and better and accepted WP:RS. Anyway best thing to do is to provide range lower estimate to higher estimate that is 78,000-93,173, many sporting events have that. that way both WWE loyalists and Meltzer loyalists would be happy and both sides better off and WP:Neutral will be maintained and provide our reader the most neutral perspective. Thats the last thing I say about this and it will just improve the article and maintain WP:Neutral! End. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I've already addressed your NYT source. Again, if you're going to make ludicrous claims like "Meltzer hates WWE" then this isn't a serious discussion. — Czello ^(music) 17:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I've stayed away from this discussion thus far, but it's gotten ridiculous. The WWE numbers are probably incorrect. Other sources (Meltzer included) are unlikely to have definitive evidence for a specific number. I recommend that we change the infobox to read "Reported Attendance" and list the promotion's official number. Then, in the Event section (not aftermath, reception, or whatever else I saw suggested)--at the beginning of the section--we give information in the prose about the official number and mention other notable figures (e.g. Meltzer's estimates/calculations). I don't see any other way to have consistency between articles (why portray WWE's numbers on other articles as definitive and true just because nobody has published a different number?) and to present the information in a way that doesn't rely on extensive footnotes. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why we'd give such prominence to a kayfabe number. In answer to why portray WWE's numbers on other articles as definitive and true just because nobody has published a different number? - because WWE's inflated numbers tend to be on bigger shows. If they're not corrected by independent sources (normally for regular PPVs) then the assumption is that it's an accurate number. — Czello ^(music) 21:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

what Gary said, but I don't really see why we should include it in the infobox at all if it isn't to be trusted. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

It makes no sense to have such inconsistent sources--we assume they lie about their numbers except when we just assume they don't? The only consistent method is to use the same source for all. As for why we include it, the answer is because it's a notable part of the show. This is evident from the fact that we're still discussing the WrestleMania III attendance figure 36 years later. In fact, looking at the WrestleMania III article right now, almost the entire lead is about the attendance, with only a passing mention of the fact that Hulk Hogan wrestled Andre the Giant. While it's obviously a poorly written lead, a strong argument could be made that the WWF's attendance figure for the event actually has more lasting notability than any of the wrestling that happened that day. And we can absolutely trust that it's true, because my proposal is to identify it as "Reported Attendance" (not necessarily factual). It is 100% true that the WWF said that the attendance was 93,173. We can absolutely provide more information and context in the prose. Another benefit of my proposal is reducing edit warring (because people will definitely change the number back to the famous number of 93,173 rather than going along with a Meltzer column published 29 years later). GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

It's only notable because it's a lie. Nobody is still discussing the attendance of WrestleMania 2, or 4, or 8, or 21. Or almost any other PPV ever. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

No. It's notable because it's a big number. The average person doesn't know and doesn't care about Meltzer's numbers. But they would recognize that 93,000+ is a big number. Nobody discusses the 19,199 number for WrestleMania IV because it's much smaller. Little reason to believe that it's a wholly accurate count either, but it doesn't get the same scrutiny because 93,173 > 19,199. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

And 78000 < 93000. I'm learnding. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Having only reported attendance is a straight-up violation of WP:INUNIVERSE — Czello ^(music) 22:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Did someone else suggest that? I know I sure didn't. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Dave Meltzer definately has AEW bias, he ridiculously claimed All in 2023 had 85,000+ atetndance when AEW themselves reported around 81,000 List of professional wrestling attendance records. Either ways the new attendance figure on WrestleMania 32 is just based on a tweet by Meltzer, which is unacceptable as a Wp:PW/RS, but as per major independent WP:PW/RS including Meltzer's own publication in 2016 it was 93000+ And this has been discussed on Talk:WrestleMania 32 where there is a 5 to 1 consensus to accept the 93,000+ figure. Meltzer was so desperate to make AEW event bigger that he cut down his own post in WON [33] " The actual number in the building was 97,769. ... the company had pushed the idea from the start of drawing 100,000 people (pretty much insuring they would have to announce a number over that or it would be a disappointment to the fans) ". So just based on a Wp:Recentism TWEET by Meltzer who has always been anti WWE and wants to promote AEW we can't accept a simple TWEET as an evidence and we should take WP:RS upto June 2023 only nbot beyond it top avoid Wp:Recentism. Based on various independent sources and the new consensus on WrestleMania 32 talk page I am reverting it to 93,000+. If you want to revert it seek proper consensus on article talk page, where there is a 5 to 1 vote for 93000+! Dilbaggg (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

PWInsider also confirmed All In number. Since you called Melzter 'a cancer' its just a personal beef with him. everything you said its just your animosity against him --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually its Baron Corbin who said Dave Meltzer was cancer [34] but anyway even taking into accounts Meltzer's original 2016 analysis the real attendance of WrestleMania 32 was 93,000-97000+ [35] and as per Cezalo's claim wrestling jornalism would not exist without Meltzer its, false, Pro Wrestling Illustrated 1979 existed long before Wrestling Observer Newsletter 1982. Anyway new consensus on WM 32 talk page is what we go with. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

this is your pure hate against meltzer, you just want to delete any informstion he gave. consensus was searched weeks ago to include real numbers, no wwe --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree with Dilbaggg here, whose anti-Meltzer bias is clearly showing. starship.paint (RUN) 07:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

As usual I'm late in here and this accusation of anti-Meltzer sentiment is a case of reverse bias and it makes those who claim that no better than those they are accusing. The point here is thus - we have no way of telling what figure is really right no matter what. The thing is, Meltzer is expressing an opinion. He may believe it but it's an opinion. I mean I've gone anti Meltzer previously but by my own admission that particular note I made was OR - so I'm not repeating it. I don't think we should use F4W's general good sourcing record as an excuse to believe Meltzer as an individual. This is very different to reporting facts, which F4W does very well.

So we go back to the balance of independent reliable sources outside of this. Now here we are trapped by WP rules as reliable sources (as previously mentioned) agree with WWE. Sure, we can turn and question it and ask for more sources and be right to do so. It's controversial. I have done that in the past (and been jumped on for it). It's in the WP spirit to question for accuracy, particularly for promotional purposes which inflated attendance figures goes to. It's a tough one because it's right to put attendance figures in the box - in fact I would call that required.

With that in mind I think GaryColemanFan has the best solution - the reported figure (even if it's wrong) and a sourced correction in the box. Then the details in the article itself. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to make prominent information which is demonstrably wrong. There is no rationale whatsoever to do that. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:RS is the rationale. The idea that it is demonstrably wrong has no back up. Who has corrected their information as a result of Meltzer's claim, and who has promoted it independent of F4W? We have multiple sources saying the attendance is this. We have one source saying it's not. The insertion of controversy requires back up, and it is not there so until the majority of reliable sources say it's wrong, it's right even if it's wrong. We are not a judge and jury of what's right or wrong. We are bound by reliable sources. Are we now going outside of that boundary because of one person's opinion? I mean Meltzer by the way. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how including fictional numbers are helpful. Several sources just parrot WWE numbers. I remember an Admin complaining about the height of the wrestlers, since it's billed and not real. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Who says they "parrot" the numbers? That's OR and that's something we need to be avoiding here. And did you really use an admin here as an example? The point is that multiple reliable sources have reported the WWE numbers as correct - like it or not. We are held by the rules as I said. Only one source has said otherwise. There needs to be multiple independent reliable sources that confirm this to eliminate the WWE number. We can not make a judgement on it outside of this or be outside our own rules. Meltzer's claim here qualifies as a red flag - not because he isn't reliable, but because no one is backing him up to the required level under that rule. Addicted4517 (talk) 09:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Multiples sources parroting the number given by a promotion with his own interest. Even Vince McMahon said during a reunion that the number of WM was inflated. As I said, indepentend, theriary sources has more weigh than WP:PRIMARY sources from a company with their own priority. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: - Correction. Multiple sources providing the number. There has been no parroting. That accusation is OR and therefore needs back up. Your note about Vince also needs to be backed up. Independent tertiary sources have agreed with WWE, hence the weight against your argument and not for it. Putting personal opinion here is not going to solve the issue at hand.

The exact same numebr given by a promotion with their own interest. Including these numbers is against WP:IN-UNIVERSE, using promotional numbers following a narrative. For example, WM32, according to WWE it was 101.000 people. According to Fightful [36], less people were in the building. Then, should we give more weight to a number given by a company or independent sources? I say, independent sources, non violaiting WP:IN-UNIVERSE. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

HHH is correct. Ultimately WWE's number is WP:INUNIVERSE, and independent sources (that this Wikiproject deems reliable) say otherwise. It's pretty clear-cut. — Czello ^(music) 17:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: @Czello: - Sorry, but sources outside of pro wrestling have reported WWE's figures for Mania 32 as an example; Miami Herald, ESPN, Dallas Cowboys, ABC and CBS. And that might not be all of them either as others outside of wrestling I'm not sure about their status in reliability. Outside of F4W and Fightful, all the others querying it that I saw are not reliable (eg Wrestling Inc, What Culture etc). The point here is that sources outside of wrestling are sources that are not kayfabe. So we come back to the issue os weight. Now I'm not saying ignore Meltzer, and I never did. I'm saying both numbers need to be put there and in the box per GaryColemanFan's suggestion. Both of you beyond this are pushing your own views which is OR. Addicted4517 (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't Meltzer's claim, it was Brandon Thurston for Fightful, now of Wrestlenomics. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@ItsKesha: - If you read the article you linked it shows that Meltzer was actually in before him. Anyway - two sources about one event doesn't make weight, and this is about more than just Wrestlemania 32. Addicted4517 (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I have read the article, in which the WON are mentioned first for a "people in the building" statistic (which is not attendance), and their reporting prior to the event of "tickets for the event... (distributed but not necessarily sold)". Neither are bodies through the turnstile, which is what we are discussing. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@ItsKesha: - You said "which is not attendance". Sorry - but it is according to all the sources outside of wrestling I linked above. Your assertion that it's not is OR. Addicted4517 (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Vince McMahon himself said the higher figure included ushers and ticket-takers. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 06:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

That is original research right there. Addicted4517 (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

By who? By Vince McMahon? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

No - by you, assuming Vince's comments are the definition of attendance. Addicted4517 (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

No I'm not. I'm correctly identifying a reliable source quoting Vince McMahon confirming the figure of 101k included ushers and ticket takers, and therefore can be disregarded. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

ItsKesha is correct on this point. starship.paint (RUN) 14:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing in-universe about stating the billed number (including in the infobox, specifically including the word "billed") and then explaining the multiple claims in the prose. That's the very definition of out-of-universe. My solution remains the only one that is factual and presents all of the information in a manner that is simultaneously consistent, verifiable, and neutral.GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Bolding for emphasis. Thank you. Addicted4517 (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay since I don't want to be accused of edit warring I'll do this instead;

QFT - There's nothing in-universe about stating the billed number (including in the infobox, specifically including the word "billed") and then explaining the multiple claims in the prose. That's the very definition of out-of-universe. My solution remains the only one that is factual and presents all of the information in a manner that is simultaneously consistent, verifiable, and neutral. (Happy now, Czello?!) Addicted4517 (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Since we are running in circles, what about asking people outside the project? Maybe request for comments. I would say ANI or something like that, but we are not very popular. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Definitely agree on avoiding AN anything let alone ANI for that reason. I don't think they like content disputes anyway no matter what (I could be wrong about that but anyway). An RFC would be a good idea. We need outside eyes on this because I don't think we're going to get a consensus here. Addicted4517 (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

WWE's number is "for entertainment purposes", which in the context of this company is in universe. — Czello ^(music) 10:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

And taken out of universe by the sources I gave, destroying your argument in the process. And leave the bolding alone because it means my comment after it makes no sense. I did not edit a word. Formatting another's comments is allowed (eg indenting is another example). Addicted4517 (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The sources citing WWE, you mean? And no, you don't get to bold other people's comments. Indenting is one thing, but bold adds emphasis or meaning. It's not for you to do that; if Gary wants it bold, he'll make it bold. — Czello ^(music) 07:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

You are wrong but I have fixed it now. And yes, the sources citing WWE and we have no right to question them because that is not our job. To do so is OR. They would have checked (that's what makes them reliable sources) and found nothing wrong. If they found something wrong they wouldn't have printed it. If you have a problem with that maybe you should alert them and ask for a correction to their stories. Until then - they hold. And that's the rules of reliable tertiary sources speaking there. I'm simply the messenger. Addicted4517 (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not what those words mean. Stating that they billed the attendance as X but that other sources have claimed Y is absolutely not in-universe. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Why not use the out-universe number and then explain why WWE have different numbers? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Because it is WWE's numbers that are being reported by truly independent reliable sources as I have explained already. Addicted4517 (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Your "independent sources" are: Miami Herald, who quote the Dallas Cowboys Brand Officer (DCBO) and WWE's Stephanie McMahon; ESPN, who quote Stephanie McMahon and the DCBO; the Dallas Cowboys, who quote the DCBO and Stephanie McMahon...; ABC, who quote Stephanie McMahon and the DCBO; CBS, who provide a four sentence report which included a sentence also claiming WrestleMania 3 had 93k, another disputed number promoted by WWE. Hardly cutting edge, in-depth journalism. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

All of the above done with due diligence for accuracy. That is what reliable tertiary sources do. Cutting edge under WP rules of reliability. You are pressing your view that proven reliable sources (ABC, ESPN etc) are lying. That requires out of universe verification which takes out F4W and Fightful because they are inside pro wrestling, and there is none. The weight of sources therefore goes to WWE's number. We, as WP users, have no right to judge what is right or wrong. We can only go on what the sources say. We can and should use the sources that object, but NOT at the expense of the WWE numbers because they - unlike the dispute - have tertiary reliable diligent sources to back them up. Like I said to Czello - if you have a problem with that maybe you should alert them (ESPN, ABC etc) and ask for a correction to their stories. Addicted4517 (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

What due diligence could possibly have been done within less than 48 hours of WrestleMania by any of those sources blindly reporting PR comments? I've not said any source is lying, but I'll call you a liar for suggesting I have. Sources which use the aforementioned DCBO and Stephanie McMahon are not tertiary per WP:PRSOURCE. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Due diligence can be done in 24 hours easily by strong reliable sources. It's what makes them reliable, and "blindly reporting PR comments" is OR again because that is your opinion. I never called you a liar and I think you should take that back honestly. You believe what you believe. But your belief is still OR no matter what. You need to show with proof that they relied totally on Stephanie etc. Until then, they hold as a tertiary sources. Addicted4517 (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Four of the five sources are clearly just based on quotes by the DCBO and Stephanie McMahon. That's my proof right there Sherlock. That is not due diligence, that's simply reposting a press release and therefore the sources shouldn't be used per WP:PRSOURCE. I never said you called me a liar, can you actually bother to read things properly please or just don't bother at all, thanks. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

"Four of the five sources are clearly just based on quotes by the DCBO and Stephanie McMahon." In your opinion. So it is not proof. It is assumption on your part. Do not accuse me of not reading what you say when you are ignoring my points and not addressing them. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

That's what those four articles consist of, quotes from the DCBO and Stephanie McMahon. I'm not arguing this if you insist on ignoring reality. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The one who is ignoring reality isn't me. You are in effect pushing established tertiary (in this case) independent reliable sources as unreliable based on - read this carefully - your opinion. Your refusal to see that you are being judge and jury on this is proof of this. We as WP users are 100 percent reliant on sources and what they say. Making interpretations beyond that is OR. Like it or not. So please stop pressed your own view as right, and this argument can cease for both of us. Addicted4517 (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

They aren't tertiary sources in this instance per WP:PRSOURCE. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

They are tertiary sources because they are not press releases. They are articles using their own words. To claim they are press releases is blatant original research. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Fun fact #1: the Miami Herald and Dallas Cowboys sources are, word-for-word, exactly the same. Fun fact #2, the ESPN and ABC sources are, word-for-word, exactly the same. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Actual fun fact: Each article uses their own words, except for ABC. Said for other readers benefit only. The only duplicates otherwise are the quotes. None of the words otherwise came from WWE. We are done here. I can not argue with someone with such a high level of a lack of neutrality. Prove they were all written by WWE in their entirety or it would be better if you drop it. If you don't prove it and just throw more random claims out, you've lost the debate IMHO. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

So I guess I must have read the wrong articles or not have access to them, can you do me a favour and copy the first paragraph or two of the four articles so I can read how different they are, I must be mistaken? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Because, as stated earlier in this thread, WWE's billed attendance figures are available for every event. That's what makes my solution, as stated above, "the only consistent, verifiable, and neutral" solution. If we gave only non-WWE numbers, many events wouldn't have attendance figures at all. So we state that X is the billed number, and then we give additional information in the prose when available. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@GaryColemanFan: Totally agree with the one note that the "corrected" figure should also be included in the info box (if there is one) with the reliable source it came from. If you agree with that I think we should put it to a vote to see if we can finally get a consensus on this once and for all. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

According to the reliable sources page of this project, the Internet Wrestling Database is a source which can be used for attendances, so why not go with that? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Because it's not a tertiary source, and tertiary sources exist to maybe contradict it (I don't know, I haven't looked at it to be honest). Addicted4517 (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Very valuable input, definitely not a load of dribble. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Sarcasm is noted, and not helpful. The site I had not looked at is the Internet Wrestling Database for the record. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes I can fully comprehend other people's comments and don't need them explaining to me, hence my apt description of your comment. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The second LWO timeline is messed up. Not sure how to fix or I would have done it myself. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 23:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Editors have been in the habit of copying and pasting the same text explaining the concept of professional wrestling into the Storyline section of every wrestling event, citing entertainment.howstuffworks.com: "The event comprised X matches that resulted from scripted storylines, where wrestlers portrayed heroes, villains, or less distinguishable characters in scripted events that built tension and culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches.".

I've started removing this text when I see it, as it's unnecessary and inappropriate to explain the concept of professional wrestling in every wrestling event article when there is a professional wrestling article for that purpose. The Super Bowl XLIV article doesn't explain what American football is, it just links to the American football article. The Matrix doesn't explain what an action film is, it just links to the action film article. However, this has become standard practice in professional wrestling articles for some reason, and I'd like to discuss this to gain consensus against including this content in every single wrestling event article. Cjhard (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cjhard I don't disagree, as I've always felt like it was an insult to our intelligence, but a good while ago, the project agreed that it was necessary to include. Until a new consensus is met, it should maintain the current consensus. I went ahead and reverted your edits. JDC808 ♫ 06:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks JDC808. To clarify, you support this text not being a mandatory element of every article about a professional wrestling event? Cjhard (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cjhard pretty much JDC808 ♫ 21:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, consensus on Wikiprojects is weird and messy: [37] [38] [39] The 2013 thread seemed to establish a small consensus to remove this as a requirement, and my reading of the 2018 thread is that it shouldn't be on articles without other content in the storyline sections. Cjhard (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The wording is pretty overboard, but the issue we have is items commenting about kayfabe items. We can't say "X attacked Y" in a summary without stating earlier that this isn't actually asault. When you see something like this in another type of article, it would be in a "plot" section, which shows it's a piece of fiction. PW mixes reality and fiction much more than most other genres. I think a quick summary stating that wrestling is a scripted piece of fiction is where our priority should be. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski we have a "Storylines" section, which is essentially the same as "Plot". JDC808 ♫ 21:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that really makes sense if you don't explain what wrestling is. There's clearly a historic tie to these matches being portrayed as actual competition. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps historically, but when the first line of the professional wrestling article is "Professional wrestling is an athletic form of theater that revolves around mock combat performed in a squared ring", the most well-known wrestling company describes itself as "sports entertainment" and one of the most well-known wrestlers of the past 3 decades is an undead wizard mortician that shoots lightning from his fingertips, I think "people might think it's real" is labouring under a very false pretence. Cjhard (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• I support removal. As JDC notes, the fact that the header says "storyline" establishes that it's a summary of a fictional event, so the idea that we need to explain the nature of pro wrestling on every page or else the reader is mislead is both a red herring and frankly insulting. We can assume some level of competency and foreknowledge by the readers. They're not idiots. In fact, I dare say the assumption that it needs to be explained every time is just another example of the smug "you know it's fake" nonsense that is used to mock fans. oknazevad (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  Per WP:AUDIENCE; "Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so the article needs to explain the subject fully". All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  I totally agree that we shouldn't guess how much a reader knows about the subject. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's worth noting that in the articles we're discussing, the subject is the event itself, not professional wrestling. We can assume that someone reading Starrcade (1998) or WrestleMania 32 knows nothing about those events without assuming that they know nothing about professional wrestling. This is how all of Wikipedia works, I'm not sure how it got so confused here. Yesterday I read Uranus and nowhere did it explain what a gas giant was, because it linked to the article in the first sentence. Cjhard (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

There was an RfC (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 98#Requests for comment) in 2016 about this issue; it included members from inside and outside of the wikiproject. Consensus was that a short disclaimer was needed (something like: "The card featured ten matches, which resulted from scripted storylines and had results predetermined by WWE") but there was clear consensus against long disclaimers like the one discussed in this thread. How the fuck this got weaseled back in and pasted into most event articles in the years since is beyond me. It should be removed and replaced immediately everywhere where it appears.LM2000 (talk) 10:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh wow, you actually set up an RfC on the topic that reached a consensus, that was then promptly forgotten about. I can only imagine your frustration. (Also this is why I don't love Wikiprojects in general. The amount of 'oh we reached a consensus on this topic, but I can't find the link to it, so you'll just have to trust me and my interpretation of it' that arises from Wikiprojects is way too much.) Cjhard (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@LM2000: I agree dude. We don’t need to explain this on every PLE/PPV article. I wish that consensus was adhered to then. Linking to professional wrestling explains this thoroughly enough. DrewieStewie (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The Style's Guide (Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Production should be amended to make the RfC consensus more clear.LM2000 (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@LM2000: I’ll second this. Perhaps we have sufficient consensus here and in the previous post from 2016 to do so now. DrewieStewie (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I've been monitoring this since my last post. To try and reach a more solid consensus, as noted by LM2000, the previous consensus (which had editors in and outside of the project involved) decided that a small disclaimer was needed.

With that in mind, I propose that the disclaimer be as follows:

The card featured [#] matches, which resulted from scripted storylines and had results predetermined by [promotion(s)]. Storylines were produced on the promotion's weekly television shows, [name of show(s)].

So as example with a past WWE event,

The card featured eight matches, which resulted from scripted storylines and had results predetermined by WWE. Storylines were produced on the promotion's weekly television shows, Monday Night Raw and Friday Night SmackDown.

And if a promotion also has a streaming show, that can be added (e.g., Storylines were produced on the promotion's weekly television show, NXT, and the supplementary streaming program, Level Up).

And to answer you LM2000 on who or how the long disclaimer got added back, in late 2018, Galatz added it to a number of articles. In this discussion from October 2018, he asserted that it should be on every event article based on the Style Guide (you can read his whole reason there for more details). It seems it wasn't challenged enough to have it back to the shorter disclaimer and de facto became the status quo. --JDC808 ♫ 03:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Your disclaimer is in line with the consensus formed by the RfC. Obviously, the opinions of one editor five years ago cannot override an RfC, although someone can feel free to start another one if they think they can get a different result. For the record, linking to professional wrestling isn't enough (some in the 2016 discussion noted this). Each event article should succinctly describe what professional wrestling is, what promotion is responsible for the event, and how many matches were on the show. The proposed version, and the one that was agreed upon in 2016, does that.LM2000 (talk) 08:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I dont comment much here anymore since my work has editing blocked, therefore responding from my phone since I was pinged. I did add back based on the styleguide, but I believe its stupid to include. The consensus needs to be reached to change the SG. We do not include on every movie a description as to how movies are not real and have actors playing roles, so why include it here. I support removing it from the SG. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

There's an issue with the disclaimer you suggest: what are the suggested changes to the Style Guide? When should the disclaimer be included? In some ways your disclaimer goes further than what is currently in the Style Guide, in that it provides standard text to include in the lede of an article, as opposed to a general guideline on a sub-section. It seems to me that the disclaimer we have now has become disconnected from its supposed source in the Style Guide. Interestingly, the Style Guide wasn't mentioned once in the 2016 RfC. Cjhard (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I was bold and removed it myself.[40] I really don't see the need for another RfC to get the SG changed since it is in violation of consensus already. Regarding application of this "disclaimer", I think every event article needs to explain that the promotion involved in producing the event was responsible for the storylines. That's what the RfC concluded. You don't need to copy and paste the same explanation into every article, you can summarize that however it works best for the article. The "scripted storylines, where wrestlers portrayed heroes, villains, or less distinguishable characters in scripted events that built tension and culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches" has always been bullshit and needs to go.

Thank you for the explanation Galatz. 2018 was a wild year for this project. This discussion comes up a few times a year and everyone has always found the "heroes, villains, or less distinguishable characters" to be stupid.LM2000 (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I will ping GodofDemonwars, Raghavan2010, Orlandus 426, and King RB, who have pasted the disclaimer to event articles in the past so that they are familiar with this discussion and the established consensus.LM2000 (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Check JDC808's reverts at SummerSlam (2012) and Royal Rumble (1992). GodofDemonwars (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@GodofDemonwars huh? Check for what? Those reverts were in response to the very start of this discussion, which was explained in my first response here. JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Even I realized that and removed that from Fastlane (2023). GodofDemonwars (talk) 11:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@GodofDemonwars still confused as to why you said to check my reverts.. JDC808 ♫ 11:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I know, just subject to change. If LM2000 says one thing, we should all agree on what is the best first paragraph for the "storylines" section... GodofDemonwars (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

"we should all agree on what is the best first paragraph for the "storylines" section..." My understanding of the discussion above is that the consensus is that there should not be standard text copied and pasted into the start of every "storylines" section. Cjhard (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Right, that's my understanding too. There are things that have to be addressed in an event article but there is flexibility regarding how to do this depending on what is best for the individual article. There is strong consensus against pasting the same thing on every article.LM2000 (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

A discussion you may be interested in as started on Talk:The Radicalz#Merger discussion, proposing that two articles be merged into you. Your input would be appreciated. CeltBrowne (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I have nominated Shelton Benjamin for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 03:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm working on an article for this tag-team, there is some decent coverage but I still feel its WP:TOOSOON. What do you think? ★Trekker (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 111#Wrestlenomics as a reliable source and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources#Wrestlenomics as a reliable source, there seemed to be a general consensus that Wrestlenomics was a reliable industry specific source. I've now added it to the list of sources on Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources.

I hope that's alright; I'm taking the initiative here because no action seemed to be happening even though a general agreement seemed to be met. Given how difficult it is to get reliable sources for the topic of professional wrestling, discussing and listing acceptable sources is something WikiProject Professional wrestling needs to do well and not let fall to the wayside.

I'd like to see more discussion on other possible reliable sources such as Cagematch.net if possible. CeltBrowne (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anything was provided in either discussion to show how it meets WP:RS. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Seeing Brandon's knowledge and work, WrestleNomics being cited by many other media I agree, it's relibale --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that it's cited by known reliable sources means it itself is reliable. oknazevad (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to explain a little bit. Reading his LinkedIn bio and About Us, he has worked for many years. He is a former wrestler and wrestling trainer and was involved with the creation of AEW. Many of his search has been accurate and verified by his sources "Reports, analyzes, and collects data on a variety of aspects of pro wrestling business including media strategy, key metrics (Nielsen ratings, YouTube, Google Trends, ticket sales, etc.), SEC filings, legal filings, talent development / Codes and maintains original programs (Python) to collect data hourly or daily to support deeper analysis / Produces and edits content for weekly podcast / Publishes original reports on developing news stories / Develops financial estimates often with greater accuracy than ranked stock analysts / Creates insightful data visualizations / Coordinates with co-hosts and contributors / Manages underlying business". Also, he has been cited by "The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, CNN, Variety, Barron’s, Bloomberg, The New York Post, MarketWatch, Business Insider, CNBC, The Associated Press, Vice, The Hollywood Reporter, and on a nearly daily basis, various wrestling news outlets." --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I was sceptical at first but I'm also inclined to consider him a reliable source.★Trekker (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Between this and the previous discussion I think there's no dispute about Wrestlenomics being reliable. I think GaryColemanFan was questioning if cagematch.net is reliable. — Czello ^(music) 16:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

GCF should have been clearer there about which website they were referring to there. On the topic of GCF's issue with Cagematch.net, they mentioned previously on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources that "a solid case has been made for https://thehistoryofwwe.com" reliability. I asked them twice if they could link back to the discussion around the reliability of thehistoryofwwe.com because I couldn't find them, but they've never responded.

Does anyone else know where thehistoryofwwe.com's reliability was discussed? CeltBrowne (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Graham Cawthon/The History of WWE has been discussed in multiple locations. One of these is found at [[41]]. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for linking that, it helps me get a better understanding of what the criteria for listing something as a reliable source is. I see that if source is cited by other reliable sources, this is one metric that can be considered amongst others towards it's reliability. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I can't see any evidence presented in either discussion to assert reliability for Wrestlenomics. What makes the author an expert in the subject matter? Please cite any training, background, education, accolades, etc. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Per the Wrestlenomics about page, Thurston was a professional wrestler between 2003 to 2021. His Linkedin page indicates he also became a journalist in 2015, and has written as a freelancer for publications such as The Daily Beast and Motherboard outside of his professional wrestling coverage.

Wrestlenomics has been cited by reliable secondary sources such as The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, CNN, Variety, Barron’s, Bloomberg, The New York Post, MarketWatch, Business Insider, CNBC, The Associated Press, Vice, The Hollywood Reporter as well as several sources listed as industry specific on Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources such as Wrestling Observer Newsletter and POST Wrestling. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

As Celt pointed, his background as wrestler, writer in several media, helping to create AEW and the website is used by ma y other reliable sources.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies. They address the WP:RS criteria well. I'm impressed and convinced. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

This (which does seem to usually be spelled "US" not "U.S.") seems to be the only major American wrestling event/title for which we don't have an article. It's redlinked or unlinked in a whole lot of bios, and was recently removed from U.S. Open (disambiguation).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi SMcCandlish,

This is WikiProject Professional Wrestling; I think you may have us confused with Amateur wrestling. The two disciplines are very different and members of this project are unlikely to be able to help with that article. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: This project only covers professional wrestling and its topics. Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports is what you need. --Mann Mann (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, and said as much when I posted the same thing over at WT:SPORTS, but I figure there's a reasonable possibility some editors partcipating in this wikiproject are also interesting in working on am wrestling material. There is no wikiproject devoted to that, so this is the closest one there is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It's still not worth the post. They are not the same thing at all and only have a passing relationship. Might as well have posted at WT:TV, WT:FILM, or WT:THEATRE, as that's what pro wrestling actually is. oknazevad (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

When do you think Brian Pillman Jr. ought to be moved to Lexis King? ★Trekker (talk) 06:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

In my view it's too soon yet. CeltBrowne (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Too soon. Remember Taya Valkyrie's career in WWE. It started promising and then WWE released her after just 6 televised matches. --Mann Mann (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Good point.★Trekker (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Professional wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article has been in poor shape for some time, and I think some of the reason is that overhauling a 15,000 word article is probably too much for one person to handle by themselves. I'd like to scope out if there's any enthusiasm for a small bunch of us (about half a dozen?) to adopt a section of the article each to clean up? Sceptre (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Consejo_Mundial_de_Lucha_Libre#Proposed_merge 2A00:23C6:761C:AF01:C88C:7DB0:5190:17BA (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Bound for Glory (wrestling pay-per-view) 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. Hog Farm _Talk 21:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Per the Manual of Style, "Terms such as "current", "now", and "recent" should be avoided". Any thoughts on how this is dealt with in terms of wrestlers who hold titles? McPhail (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think we should follow how its used in sports and other awards.★Trekker (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I think it's a lost battle. We have tried to remove currently from articles like "he is currently signed by WWE", but good faith IPs and users include it back. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Using Template:As of or other similar templates is the best solution. An example:

• XYZ is the current world champion...
• As of January 2024, XYZ is the world champion...

As of does have various syntax so we can choose the best available format to match with the tone of PW articles. However, dealing with all of those IPs and editors who do not pay attention to edit summaries and messages, is a challenge itself. I already deal with that "currently" thing and people refuse to read the related guideline MOS:CURRENT just because many of our articles have that "currently". So If we reach a consensus, then I think someone better update WP:PW/MOS. --Mann Mann (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

As of is the correct usage, you can simply say "As of 2024, X works for Y promotion", "as of June 2024, he is the Z champion". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

"XYZ is signed to promotion ABC." without As of. I think it sounds fine. Actually it is the most used text in the articles about wrestlers (just without using "currently"). --Mann Mann (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Impact! (TV series)#Requested move 4 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)