Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling
| WP:PW | Talk • Article alerts • Assessment • Members list • New articles • Notability • Recognized content • Sanctions • Sources • Style guide • Templates • Top priority articles |
|---|
| WikiProject Professional Wrestling | |
|---|---|
| Professional wrestling as a whole is under general sanctions | |
Welcome to the WikiProject Professional wrestling discussion page. Please use this page to discuss issues regarding professional wrestling related articles, project guidelines, ideas, suggestions and questions. Thank you for visiting!
|
| 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 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 auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 1. |
Let's try again
editI am once again propose the removal of this sentence and ones like it from our PPV/PLE articles:
"The event will include matches that result from scripted storylines. Results are predetermined by WWE's writers on the Raw and SmackDown brands, while storylines are produced on WWE's weekly television shows, Monday Night Raw and Friday Night SmackDown."
As I've said before, it is extremely redundant and unnecessary. It is insulting to the reader's intelligence. And not directly relevant to each event. We don't explain the scripted nature of other scripted events. We don't explain the basic rules of sports in championship games/series articles. If you must explain it, it belongs as "for more information on the scripted nature of professional wresting, see 'professional wrestling' and 'kayfabe'" at the top of the section. And finally it has nothing to do with the event itself.
I once again propose the removal of these types of intros to the background section from our style guide. TrueCRaysball 💬|✏️ 19:11, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
- You should not even have to ask to remove this, we have achieved consensus multiple times to remove it. Who is putting this back? At this point they should be sanctioned. See old discussions:[1][2] The related RfC is linked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Production as a footnote to guide users on how to write these properly.LM2000 (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, I'll walk my above comment back. The current "disclaimer" isn't as bad as the pre-2016 RfC one. You do need to explain how many matches the event had and what weekly shows built up to it, and consensus has shown repeatedly that we need to describe wrestling as "scripted" somewhere in the beginning of the article (styles guide recommends to do all of this in the Storyline section). It doesn't necessarily need to be phrased the same way in every article, but it does need to cover these things effectively. The one here is definitely more in line with the RfC consensus and styles guide than the old "wrestlers portrayed heroes, villains, or less distinguishable characters" that people kept adding back - that should be removed and sanctioned on sight. So, I would not remove this one unless you can convey the same information in a more effective manner.LM2000 (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- Why does it need to explained though? Why can't the history itself do the walking so to say? TrueCRaysball 💬|✏️ 03:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- @TrueCRaysball because it's part of the production of the show. JDC808 ♫ 23:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Why does it need to explained though? Why can't the history itself do the walking so to say? TrueCRaysball 💬|✏️ 03:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Rhea Ripley and WWE: Unreal
editRhea Ripley's real name was changed in this revision. To verify it, I watched the first episode of WWE: Unreal, and the claim was legit. Your thoughts on citing/using WWE: Unreal as a source? --Mann Mann (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- As much as some stuff in Unreal is very obviously worked, the biographical stuff is only worked as much as a normal documentary is. I don't think it would be particularly harmful to source her speaking, in a shoot manner, regarding her shoot name. "Demi" is short for "Demiti" anyway. Sceptre (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Sceptre: Well, according to comments by another user in the related discussion on Talk:Rhea Ripley, citing WWE: Unreal = Original research. --Mann Mann (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Personally if she herself is saying it in Unreal then it's a WP:PRIMARY source, which I think should be okay for her stating her name, as it's uncontroversial. It should be adequately sourced with a timestamp, however.
- However we appear to have split the conversation now, so linking to the original thread if anyone wants to contribute there.
- @Addicted4517: Pinging you so you can contribute here, too. — Czello (music) 06:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Czello and HHH Pedrigree: See this screenshot and watch this short clip (timetamp 0:25) from the documentary. Just wanted to notify editors about it if they are interested in taking it to WP:RSN or WT:BLP. --Mann Mann (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- The invitation to engage in original research is declined by me even if I wasn't targeted. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Czello and HHH Pedrigree: See this screenshot and watch this short clip (timetamp 0:25) from the documentary. Just wanted to notify editors about it if they are interested in taking it to WP:RSN or WT:BLP. --Mann Mann (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
NJPW timekeeping
editBit of a minor conflict at G1 Climax 35: when the match times come in, an otherwise helpful anon uses pro-wrestling.net's timings, whereas when I go over the article, I check against NJPW1972.com. Often, they conflict only by a matter of seconds, but sometimes, it can be up to a minute. Just to double check: as NJPW1972 is the official website of NJPW, and especially given the manner of presentation of wrestling in Japan, we should ideally default to their timings, right? Sceptre (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Using top 10 lists to state someone is considered "one of the greatest professional wrestlers", or words to that effect.
editOver the years I've seen a few instances of this - that is, making a statement about a wrestler being considered one of the greatest of all time (or other similar claims), but the source being a "top 10 wrestlers ever" list. Ignoring the fact that the sources aren't reliable, it doesn't seem right to derive this conclusion from a top 10 list of wrestlers – it seems like WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, as it's deriving a conclusion from something that's, frankly, a bit frivolous to begin with.
However, I wanted to consult the rest of the Wikiproject to make sure we're on the same page here - I can imagine there will be arguments that topping a "greatest wrestlers of all time" list counts as an affirmation of that statement. Therefore I'd like a consensus I could point back to in the future. — Czello (music) 20:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- I agree it should fall under SYNTH.★Trekker (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- About the sources, 2 of them state WWE wrestlers, with no mention of Japan, Mexico or UK. The list of 101 best wrestlers, Edge is n24. not even a top 5. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- It needs to be sources considered reliable by Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources or mainstream reliable sources. And it should be stated directly in a serious analysis rather than by throwaway top 10 lists. CeltBrowne (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, disregarding the quality of the sources themselves. Assuming the sources are all approved on WP:PW/RS, I agree with your second sentence. — Czello (music) 06:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- WP:SYNTH and he is not even in the top 10 of those cited articles. It should be reworded and moved to another section; e.g. Professional wrestling style and persona, Legacy, or Reception. As CeltBrowne said, many of these GOAT lists feel very random/personal without any deep analysis or unbiased journalism. --Mann Mann (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Even if it specifically stated that the claim was suitable, i dont think the lede sentence is the right place, and we should quantify such a statement[according to whom?] Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- I would be in favour of removing all "widely considered one of the greatest" style claims other than in exceptional circumstances. The Ric Flair article has very robust sourcing with quotes from wrestlers and journalists - this should be the standard. McPhail (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. There should be a lengthy "Legacy" section (like Flair's), with multiple high-quality sources, before we whip out the "widely considered one of the greatest." LM2000 (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'd third this idea - you do this see this a lot over different wrestling pages, particularly if the wrestler was a WWE main-eventer for more than a few years. For example, until I removed it recently, Seth Rollins had this claim on his page but the only reference given was just a top 10 list of "WWE wrestlers of the year" from 10 years ago, where he was ninth on the list. The Evolution page had a similar claim and didn't even have a reference!
- Such a claim for any wrestler needs at least a couple of high-quality references before it gets added, as it stands the current barrier to having this on a wrestler's page is far too low. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. There should be a lengthy "Legacy" section (like Flair's), with multiple high-quality sources, before we whip out the "widely considered one of the greatest." LM2000 (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
RfC
editRequesting comments at Talk:List of WWE pay-per-view and livestreaming supercards#Saturday Night's Main Event on whether or not the recent SNMEs should be included on the page. JDC808 ♫ 02:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Walter Hahn#Requested move 12 August 2025
edit
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Walter Hahn#Requested move 12 August 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TiggerJay (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm not really sure where to start with this article, it sems to have been involved a little of bickring the last week. YellowStahh (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- The bickering has landed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit War and excessive deletions from user, if you're interested.LM2000 (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- I guess I'm like the 25th person to notice, so at least I'm not alone in it. This seems to have been going on for quite a while though, so I'm not sure what edits to make, it seems a lot abuse for a featured list. YellowStahh (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2025 (UTC)