Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

PWI has added 2024 winners to its official website. Update articles of winners if they need citation: Cody Rhodes, Toni Storm, Bianca Belair & Jade Cargill (already updated), The Bloodline, Mariah May, Dominik Mysterio, Liv Morgan, Mustafa Ali, Kelani Jordan, and etc. --Mann Mann (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm asking for a help for this article Mr. McMahon (miniseries), that i am currently working to passed on GA. I'm struggling to rewrite the review of BBC on Reception section. The GA Reviewer suggests: The summary of the BBC review also has this issue - please try to focus on the reviewer's opinion on the work, rather than rehashing material that can be found in the episode summary. You can see the discussion here. Hope you can help me, thanks! ROY is WAR Talk! 05:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated St. Louis Wrestling Hall of Fame for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. meamemg (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have made a a profile about a New Zealand Pro Wrestler. This is the first of many profiles I wish to make so that there are more New Zealand Pro Wrestlers on Wikipedia. I have received advice on previous submissions, which I have actioned by making improvements. However my most recent draft has been sitting there for over 2 months with no review. If there is a moderator who can approve my article I would appreciate it if you can have a look. If this is the wrong location to be posting this message then please remove it. my article is... Draft:Tommy Combat Harbin Kiwi (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Harbin Kiwi: Please read WP:PW/Notability and Wikipedia:Notability. To have an article on WP, a wrestler needs to pass minimum notability criteria. --Mann Mann (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. i have seen the article. The problem is Notability. He worked on the independent level, so there are no sources talking about him. First, we need third party sources focusing on him (not about events where he participated). Most of the article is Cagematch. Sorry, I don't see Mr Combat as notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate in this discussion: birth_name should be changed to real_name --Mann Mann (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consider The Undertaker as an example:

1. Mark William Calaway (born March 24, 1965), better known by his ring name The Undertaker...
2. Mark William Calaway (born March 24, 1965), best known by his ring name The Undertaker...
3. Mark William Calaway (born March 24, 1965), known professionally by his ring name The Undertaker...
4. Mark William Calaway (born March 24, 1965), known professionally as The Undertaker...
5. Mark William Calaway (born March 24, 1965), is an American professional wrestler who performs under the ring name The Undertaker... (I know he is retired, just an example)

Which option is the best? We don't use "known professionally" in our articles, but I have seen it on the articles about actors; e.g. Nicolas Cage. Another point is we better avoid using "his/her/their" ring name. In many cases, those ring names or gimmicks belong to the wrestling companies. Using "the" ring name sounds better even if a wrestler owns his/her ring name; e.g. Kenny Omega is a good example: "Tyson Smith (born October 16, 1983), better known by the ring name Kenny Omega..." --Mann Mann (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can choose a catch-all option, as it really depends on context. Three and four don't really work for wrestlers who are best known by a ring name but don't actively use said name anymore, usually due to the rights belonging to their former promotion (AJ Lee, for example).

In a general sense though, four is my favorite. Straight and to the point. The mention of ring name isn't always necessary, especially since their profession as a wrestler is mentioned immediately after. I also agree that "the" ring name sounds better. Prefall 12:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... According to WP:PW/BIO: The lead should typically open with the wrestler's real name that is supported by a reliable source, and if they are known by a ring name, it should be noted in one of the proceeding sentences. So this discussion needs community consensus. --Mann Mann (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to bring some eyes to this article. A lot of it seems trivial, contains original research and unsourced material. Also, there is the question wether it's even notable enough to be considered to have it's own article. I also think having an entire article dedicated to numerous untelevised wrestling matches is absurd as they are not even shown on tape delay or even recorded for that matter, the most you see from these matches is from fan recordings. On top of this it seems only IPs are editing this article. Lemonademan22 (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, I will say: 1 the guest list feels WP:FANCRUFT. 2 even if the event isn't televised, stills notable. 3, maybe, we should try to write about the event beyond the results. The article is just the matches, but there are no reception or history sections. Maybe you don't know, but AJPW's biggest tournament, Champion Carnival, was deleted in 2016 because the article was just a collection of results. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]