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.

Comments about Achievements table

Recently, i have noticed some articles include a table with the achievements. Note, Im not talking about the Championships and accomplishments section. There are some NJPW wrestlers that include title reigns or tournaments, like Matt Bloom. Other, like Jon Moxley has 16 cells with his WWE, NJPW, AEW and GCW accomplishments. What do you think about this table. I see two problems. First, it's criteria for inclusion. I have seen NJPW tournaments/titles, Mox has WWE, AEW, GCW and NJPW tournament/titles. Why not his FIP, HWA, CZW, WXW titles? Or the awards given by PWI, SI and WON? Second and most important, it's very redundant. You already have the information in the Lead, the History, the C&A SECTION, there are also categories and navboxes. I don't see the point to include again the same information. Third, since pro wrestling is scripted, several wrestlers would have huge tables. Like Chris Jericho, who has 36 title reigns (not including tournaments nor awards) or R-Truth's 52 reigns as 24/7 champion. Or any DDT Ironheavymetalweight Champion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it seems like it's duplicating information found in the "Championships and accomplishments" sections. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's some kind of unacceptable content forking. Remove such stuff when you see them. --Mann Mann (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with HHH that it's a duplication of material that tends to already exist in a navbox only a couple of inches further down the page. If people want to see what order wrestlers held a title, they can go to the "List of X Champions" article. — Czello ^(music) 18:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea. It's more informative than a simple list. But it's also harder to read in some ways. And I don't know how it could be done in a reasonable manner when we get to something like Jerry Lawler's USWA championships or Raven's WWE Hardcore titles. Or just the sheer mass of titles for some veteran wrestlers like Jack Brisco, for example with 61 professional championships, not to mention other awards and inductions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are succession boxes, not a table. They're supposed to be aids to navigation. But they suck and have been increasingly abandoned across Wikipedia because they're a maintenance headache and of limited use as a navigation tool, as they're too limited. Clearly they were introduced by someone with fond memories of Webrings and other early internet styles. They can be removed with no loss of information or navigability (because of the more useful navboxes). Nuke em. And let's add to the project style guide a statement that they are not to be used anymore. oknazevad (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion: All Elite Wrestling personnel

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 12#Category:All Elite Wrestling personnel for the details. --Mann Mann (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Biographies in the controversy categories

Please chime in at Category talk:Professional wrestling controversies to discuss whether individual biographies should be categorized there.LM2000 (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article nominated to be split: Maple Leaf Pro Wrestling

Maple Leaf Pro Wrestling has been nominated to be split. The talkpage has already featured a number of opinions and it appears to me that it would be good for project members to also weigh in so that a proper consensus is found. CeltBrowne (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLP: Julia Hart or Julia Rose Hart

Some IP-user changed Julia Hart's birth date[2] and birth place plus adding "Rose" as her middle name[3] in July 2021. While Hart's birth date is confirmed by herself[4], I couldn't find anything about her middle name and birth place. Can someone verify them? --Mann Mann (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]