Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

WP:PW	Talk • Article alerts • Assessment • Members list • New articles • Notability • Recognized content • Sanctions • Sources • Style guide • Templates • Top priority articles

WikiProject Professional Wrestling
Professional wrestling as a whole is under general sanctions
Shortcut WT:PW Welcome to the WikiProject Professional wrestling discussion page. Please use this page to discuss issues regarding professional wrestling related articles, project guidelines, ideas, suggestions and questions. Thank you for visiting!

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 when more than 1 section is present.

Style guide change: first and last champions

Hello. The Style Guide, Championships and accomplishments (WP:PW/CHAMPION) states that "Other notes (such as oldest, youngest, first, last, only, etc.) are only covered in the relevant prose section and are not listed in this section". However, despite I have tried to delete the first or last champions, IPs and users keep including over and over, most recently [1]. I propose to change the style guide, so we can include inaugural and final champions to the C&A. I mean, it's like a lost battle, fighting against the elements. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So we change our guidelines just because some users don't read them?! Why you don't message them? You can request page protection or report them to related boards. If those users want to change MOS, then they should participate in the related discussion. And forget IP-users. Many of them are wrestling fans who view WP as a blog/database for submitting fancruft materials. --Mann Mann (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the change as a harmful. It's a small change. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a big deal for me. In the end, we follow general WP guidelines and WP:PW consensus. So if being the first/last champion is notable or something special and we get a consensus for it, then I'm OK with it. My point is we should not feed IP-users and registered users who always violate basic MOS guidelines. --Mann Mann (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a problem with the proposal, as long as first and last champions are the only ones noted in the C&A (not youngest, oldest, heaviest, etc.). Being the first/last champion is somewhat noteworthy, but the others border on trivia.

Does anybody know if it was ever customary to note inaugural/final? I can always remember seeing them as long as I have been reading Wikipedia, but it has been against the styles guide as long as I have been editing (nearly 15 years). It seems like one of those things that used to be permissible and users refused to give it up after it fell out of favor.LM2000 (talk) 08:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I feel like the five monkeys experiment. Some users included it into the style guide long time ago and we follow it without asking. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HHH Pedrigree I honestly never really understood why it was against the SG to notate the first and last champion in the C&A section, which is why I never removed it if I saw it on an article. It's a pretty notable thing. JDC808 ♫ 01:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe explicitly allow inaugural and final champions in championship sections in the MOS? I personally think its notable information; if the project isn't opposed and in favor, let's do it. DrewieStewie (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: Inclusion of inaugural/final champion in Championships and accomplishments

OK, let's reach a consensus before 2025. Vote: Support, Oppose, or Neutral.

Neutral As I said in my above comment, I'm fine with community consensus. --Mann Mann (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as well.★Trekker (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's important to note a inaugral/final champion but I wouldn't see the point in anything beyond that. Lemonademan22 (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JDC808 ♫ 13:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Being the first and last holder of a championship is noteworthy. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support inaugural champion. That's undoubtedly noteworthy. Neutral on final. Sometimes being a final champion is a noted and touted event. Sometimes the person just happens to hold a title when a foundering promotion finally closes. The latter isn't really notable, so I can take or leave it. But inaugural is absolutely deserving of mention. oknazevad (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it can be mentioned in the prose. It's not an achievement. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seems slightly noteworthy. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support DrewieStewie (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guarded support - This may be abused by users seeking to apply it to a non notable title, of which there are a number in the list of notable wrestlers. Using this to keep a title on a list could be problematic. I don't have an issue with it with notable titles (eg Pat Patterson IC Title, Seth Rollins NXT title etc) but we need to be very careful. The same applies to the last champion. Addicted4517 (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A mention in prose is enough and I also think this might overload the C&A section a little bit. For example, when it comes to tag team titles, should you also indicate with which partner(s) the champion was inaugural/final champ? MordecaiXLII (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I was leaning towards support, but you make a very valid point that I had not considered. This could get messy.LM2000 (talk) 09:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Don't know if my opinion will matter here, but i really think that the inaugural champ should always be mentioned, but i'm not sure about the final, anyway, i will be okay with what the community decides, but the inaugural it's a yes for me. StrangerMan123 (Talk)

Fatal Influence

Does Fallon Henley's championship make her stable Fatal Influence notable to have its own article? --Mann Mann (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability depends on having reliable, secondary sources covering the subject rather than accomplishments. CeltBrowne (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CeltBrowne: Regarding media coverage, is that stable notable? Asking it because they have few televised matches but they appear on every episode of NXT and they are involved in storylines of women's division. Also, I see some IPs are involved, not Fatal Influence but The Fatal Influence. --Mann Mann (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of caps does not make for notability (eg number of matches or titles). More is needed if required. An article that relies on matches and titles only is ripe for deletion. In this case though, if one uses the coverage of NXT from any reliable source (Wrestling Observer for example) then there shouldn't be a problem. Addicted4517 (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JCW Heavyweight Championship

I think this article, JCW Heavyweight Championship, is in need of big improvements. The table is wrong, the wording and everything. I don't know how to fix this the table however. Is there anybody who could fix that? Lemonademan22 (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemonademan22: Use your sandbox. Create a table there, then copy-paste your table to the main article. Read Help:Table If you don't know how to create/edit tables. --Mann Mann (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Lemonademan22 (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Hackenschmidt footage

This old footage of George Hackenschmidt has turned up - https://www.ngataonga.org.nz/search-use-collection/search/F18094/. Does anyone know the copyright status - is it public domain? If so can we get it on Commons? McPhail (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@McPhail: Visit WP:CQ and open a discussion. --Mann Mann (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I learned long ago that they're as useless as tits on a boar hog. I read whatever third-party sources I could find earlier today. So far, we don't precisely know the country of origin. We know the film was shot in the UK, but we don't know if it was produced there. That might be pivotal in determining authorship. It was acknowledged that little is known about the outfit who produced the film. If it was publicly exhibited prior to entering an archive holding, that would be considered publication for the purposes of determining its copyright status. Given its age and evidence of prior publication, it's certainly PD in the U.S. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks! McPhail (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"As of"

I might be a little late to the party, but is the consensus to put "As of" in wrestler's bios or not? If not, what is the consensus? Lemonademan22 (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary to put "as of" on something like Jey Uso. That's not the type of obscure article that will get outdated. If it's a relatively unknown person, you could write "as of" in order to future-proof the article but it's not necessary for popular aritcles. And at the very least, it should say "as of 2024", not "as of 2010". ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I think it still could be necessary, it's not exactly wrong, I don't really see the difference between putting "As of 2024" and "As of 2010" or something like that. Lemonademan22 (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be using "currently", so it's a case of what the best alternative is. McPhail (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I've removed some of them, so is "As of" the best option or should it just be left to "He/She is signed to"? Lemonademan22 (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using terms like "current" and "currently" is the violation of MOS per WP:MOS, MOS:CURRENT, and MOS:REALTIME. Using "As of" is the best option. If "As of" does not sound suitable in a specific case, you can use some parameters to change "As of" to "has been". --Mann Mann (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemonademan22 there was a discussion some months ago and consensus was to use "as of" or "since". JDC808 ♫ 13:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Lemonademan22 (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linda McMahon and Vince McMahon Marriage

Hello people! I just wanna ask if Vince McMahon and Linda McMahon are still married? Because in their infobox they stated that they are separated on september 2024. But in Hollywood Life article, they said that they are still married. So can someone to break this speculation wether it is a true or just a hoax? Royiswariii Talk! 03:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Separation is different from divorce. You’re technically still married while separated; they are confirmed to be separated, according to article sources. While they are separated, they have not initiated divorce proceedings. DrewieStewie (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksgiving Eve Dynamite (2022) results table

Hey everybody. Can somebody please fix the results table in the article Thanksgiving Eve Dynamite (2022)? I have no idea what is the issue with it, the formatting is seemingly correct yet it is not showing and is just showing text. Can somebody fix it for me? That would be a big help, thank you. Lemonademan22 (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. There was a missing bracket. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it. Lemonademan22 (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must have been staring at it for 20+ minutes trying to figure out what was wrong and couldn't see the missing bracket.

On the other hand, I did notice one particular link that wasn't quite right... :D — Czello ^(music) 15:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was a "live sex celebration", lol. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my goodness, I can't believe that I thought it was a redirect. Got a really good laugh out of me though. Lemonademan22 (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

😂 — Czello ^(music) 20:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list of Ironman Heavymetalweight champions needs to be split

The article List of Ironman Heavymetalweight Champions has exceeded the expansion depth. Also, it has become very slow and awkward to edit in source mode unless the syntax highlighting is deactivated. The article should be split, but I'm not sure how to proceed. Should it be split by "blocks of n champions", by decades,...? Also, since I am in the process of adding sources for all those old unsourced title changes, I'm worried the issue might repeat itself when the article is split. What would be a smart way to handle this? MordecaiXLII (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the article is huge and looks like every week will become larger. Maybe, by number of champions, like 1 to 1000, 1001 to 2000... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split it by Number; e.g. 1-1000, 1001-2000, 2001-3000. To avoid cluttering and bloating, I suggest using WP:LDR. Actually, LDR is one of the best available options for PW articles due to the amount of content and number of citations. --Mann Mann (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we are reaching WP:TRIVIA and WP:INDISCRIMINATE levels here. I get that the title itself is notable, and for most titles, a separate list of who held it make sense, but three separate articles for a joke title seems crazy. I don't see how keeping a chronological list is very encyclopedic. What is wrong with a list of people who have held the belt (and how many times). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It also looks like a dumping ground for dubious sources. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Event Chronology"

On special episodes for bother AEW and WWE weekly programmes such as AEW Dynamite and WWE RAW, for example Thanksgiving Eve Dynamite (2022), do we put "Event chronology" or, in this case, "AEW Thanksgiving Eve chronology" in the infobox? Lemonademan22 (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemonademan22 If there's a main article to link to, then put the event's name for the event chronology, but you can still put the event name there regardless. On that particular article though, the event chronology should go before "Dynamite special episodes" chronology. JDC808 ♫ 13:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final Battle (2024)

Can someone look at this revision by this IP [2] this is so wrong, I mean "possible" and "confirmed matches"? the sources, formatting and everything. Reported this user twice now and asked for page protection. Can someone please give this IP a warning and report them so something actually gets done? Thank you. Lemonademan22 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early world heavyweight title question/possible misidentification

A new editor brought up an interesting conflict on the article for the World Heavyweight Wrestling Championship (original version) article about Johan Olin and John Olin. See here for the discussion, including the sourcing that shows that not only might the John Olin article incorrectly identify him as a former champion, but that he might not even have existed! oknazevad (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]