WP:PW | Talk • Article alerts • Assessment • Members list • New articles • Notability • Recognized content • Sanctions • Sources • Style guide • Templates • Top priority articles |
---|
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 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Opinion: WWE is NOT the authoritative source on anything but WWE title reigns
I see a lot of NON WWE title histories referring to "WWE doesn't recognize so-and-so reign" and it's listed as "unrecognized". To me this is not encyclopedic at all - the authoritative source on the WCW World Heavyweight Championship was WCW, not what WWE does not because they own it. I see it all over that because of WWE mistakes or whatever, NWA/WCW/ETC. championships have this reference. I'm sorry but the WWE cannot rewrite the "kayfabe" storyline of other companies, they are not the end-all sanctioning body of pro wrestling. Thoughts? MPJ-DK 18:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well. Tecnically, WWE owns the rights of WCW and ECW, so maybe they have power over the histories. However, I also feel this is too much WWE-centric, a lot of articles with "WWE this, WWE that"...--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure if we have anything right now that says what WCW's stance was, but who is considered the recognize is a different story. Either way its not official so its really for informational purposes, it does not affect much. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Well, actually they have re-written the kayfabe of others content loads of times. Actually, they've re-written thier own as well... If say the Football association was bought out, and they gave the 2014 premier league to Tottenham Hotspur, we'd write that up in a similar way, I fail to see how this is different. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree...it should be treated the same way as the Penn State stuff was. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- They have definitely tried to rewrite history, but unless it's for a WWE championship reign I don't see how they are the source for anything. This is an encyclopedia, do we really need to list the mistakes that the WWE makes? They were not WCW, they cannot say what WCW did or did not recognize - they are the WWE and they CAN say what the WWE does or does not recognize for anything they had ownership of from the moment they gained ownership and forward. I cannot buy a used car and then claim there was no previous owners. MPJ-DK 20:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Like Galatz said, it's for informational purposes that doesn't affect much. If anything, those titles that became WWE property in the buyout can be done like how the List of WWE United States Champions does it. The notes of what WWE recognizes can still be there, and as in the case of the U.S. title, it is their championship, regardless if they technically didn't own it from 1975-2001. --JDC808 ♫ 21:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- So in other words "there is not good argument" on your part. MPJ-DK 22:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- The argument is simply that WCW does not exist anymore, and cannot have an official version. WWE owns those titles. They are WWE titles now, even if retired. It's theirs to do with as they please. oknazevad (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- And this is Wikipedia, where we should deal in facts. This insistence on treating WWE like they are the end-all and be-all of professional wrestling is misguided. They can totally have an official version, how this was covered on WCW television etc. plenty of ways to demonstrate how it originally was - instead of using a primary source like the WWE to source championship articles and thus having the need to "explain" every single mistake made in those articles by showing clunky tables with various columns of "facts vs. WWE's version of facts". Unencylopedic. MPJ-DK 00:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- The argument is simply that WCW does not exist anymore, and cannot have an official version. WWE owns those titles. They are WWE titles now, even if retired. It's theirs to do with as they please. oknazevad (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- So in other words "there is not good argument" on your part. MPJ-DK 22:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Like Galatz said, it's for informational purposes that doesn't affect much. If anything, those titles that became WWE property in the buyout can be done like how the List of WWE United States Champions does it. The notes of what WWE recognizes can still be there, and as in the case of the U.S. title, it is their championship, regardless if they technically didn't own it from 1975-2001. --JDC808 ♫ 21:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Small quibble, but WWE controls the championships, owns the belts and administers the prizes, but the current titleholders are the only ones with legitimate claim to the titles. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, August 19, 2018 (UTC)
- We should add the 4 US title reigns (remove the grey background colour and give them a title reign number instead of a hyphen) that WWE forgot to add to their title history, but put a note that says WWE does not recognize / list these reigns. Imagine Dana White buying WWE and making Hornswoggle the only WWE Champion, reigning from 1963-2018. Would we really accept that or keep it as it is now with a note that Dana White only recognizes Hornswoggle?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Making up absurd scenarios does nothing to support your point. Remember that posting here indicates that you are indicating interest in building an encyclopedia. If you continue to use Wikipedia to constantly criticize wwe.com's title histories, you are risking an indefinite block. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia should keep to what actually happened, his point about using a note to say that WWE doesn't recognize it is the right way to go, any other thing would be ridiculous. We shouldn't use "in-universe" stuff that WWE says happened.★Trekker (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Except that all pro wrestling is fiction and no one actually wins anything. It's all in-universe stuff. Let's try to remember that. oknazevad (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- I know that better than most people on this project. That's why it's important to not treat WWE's retcons as the historical thing that actually happened, when someone is booked to win a title and holds it they did that. It would be like if we let movie directors go back and claim that they didn't have the actors play out a scene in a film because they decided they didn't like the scene anymore. No dude, that still happened. That took place.★Trekker (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Except that all pro wrestling is fiction and no one actually wins anything. It's all in-universe stuff. Let's try to remember that. oknazevad (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia should keep to what actually happened, his point about using a note to say that WWE doesn't recognize it is the right way to go, any other thing would be ridiculous. We shouldn't use "in-universe" stuff that WWE says happened.★Trekker (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Making up absurd scenarios does nothing to support your point. Remember that posting here indicates that you are indicating interest in building an encyclopedia. If you continue to use Wikipedia to constantly criticize wwe.com's title histories, you are risking an indefinite block. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- We should add the 4 US title reigns (remove the grey background colour and give them a title reign number instead of a hyphen) that WWE forgot to add to their title history, but put a note that says WWE does not recognize / list these reigns. Imagine Dana White buying WWE and making Hornswoggle the only WWE Champion, reigning from 1963-2018. Would we really accept that or keep it as it is now with a note that Dana White only recognizes Hornswoggle?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oh well "what is the harm", "it's all fake anyway" and "whatever the WWE says" - back to gnoming for me. MPJ-DK 23:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Its that annoying grey line between fiction and reality. It did actually happen. Roman did actually pin Brock last night, no matter how many times I tell myself I was dreaming. But the WWE could at any time pretend like it didnt happen because it works for the story line. But that doesn't change the fact that it unfortunately did happen. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 01:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. It's a grey zone. Not the Hornswoggle example but imagine other promotion buys WWE (like Disney) and suddenly, they decide to recognize Ted DiBiase as Champion after the Andre incident. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- You guys are making rather absurd hypothetical situations. WWE may not recognize some former champions, but they don't just recognize someone who was never champion. There are concerns about WWE's retcons or whatever. If some of you haven't noticed, people who WWE do not recognize as champions ARE included on our lists here (since they happened in reality), but with the notation that WWE does not recognize them (since it's their titles). --JDC808 ♫ 17:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- In fact, I remember a discussion about WWE recognazing X-Pac as WCW World Tag Team Champion even if WCW didn't. [1] --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine, but for title changes that happened under the banner of NWA or WCW, we should not make these reigns grey. A note saying that WWE does not recognize these reigns would suffice.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- What's up with all these discussions just ending without a conclusion? Should I bring this up again in a month!?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- This is pretty much how half the conversations here go unfortunately.★Trekker (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Would it be okay to bring this up again next month?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- This is pretty much how half the conversations here go unfortunately.★Trekker (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- You guys are making rather absurd hypothetical situations. WWE may not recognize some former champions, but they don't just recognize someone who was never champion. There are concerns about WWE's retcons or whatever. If some of you haven't noticed, people who WWE do not recognize as champions ARE included on our lists here (since they happened in reality), but with the notation that WWE does not recognize them (since it's their titles). --JDC808 ♫ 17:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. It's a grey zone. Not the Hornswoggle example but imagine other promotion buys WWE (like Disney) and suddenly, they decide to recognize Ted DiBiase as Champion after the Andre incident. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- Its that annoying grey line between fiction and reality. It did actually happen. Roman did actually pin Brock last night, no matter how many times I tell myself I was dreaming. But the WWE could at any time pretend like it didnt happen because it works for the story line. But that doesn't change the fact that it unfortunately did happen. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 01:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Alright maybe it's time to turn words into action. Below I have outlined the five different ways I can think of for handling "WWE's recognition of now WWE Championships". Please read, comment below and hopefully we won't have to have this discussion again in a month? Wouldn't that be lovely? MPJ-DK 00:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
1) Status Quo
We give weight and attention to what the WWE says about title history that pre-dates their ownership including different recognition of reign lengths.
- Title history
No. | Overall reign number |
---|---|
Reign | Reign number for the specific champion |
Days | Number of days held |
Days recog. | Number of days held recognized by the promotion |
† | Championship change is unrecognized by the promotion |
No. | Champion | Championship change | Reign statistics | Notes | Ref. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Date | Event | Location | Reign | Days | Days recog. | ||||
1 | John Johnson | August 16, 1986 | Showdown at the Swamp | Shreveport, Louisiana | 1 | 197 | 197 | Johnson won the "Doing it for Dewey" tournament to become the first SRW Champion by eliminating "Impressive" Pelvis Wesley. | |
† | Big Bartholomew | February 29, 1987 | Lethal Leap Year | Alabama | 1 | 1 | 0 | Regional Wrestling Empire does not recognize Big Bartholomew's championship reign after Mr. Mackelroy bought SRW | |
2 | The Sea Creature | March 1, 1987 | N/A | N/A | 1 | 20 | 21 | Mr Macklelroy bought SRW and gave the championship to the Sea Creature. |
- Combined reign
Rank | Wrestler | No. of reigns |
Combined days | Combined days recognized by RWE |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | John Johnson | 1 | 197 | |
2 | The Sea Creature | 1 | 20 | 21 |
3 | Big Bartholomew | 1 | 1 | 0 |
2) Mentioned
We mention it in the table, but is not listed as "unrecognized" nor does it show in the "length" entry.
- Title history
No. | Overall reign number |
---|---|
Reign | Reign number for the specific champion |
Days | Number of days held |
No. | Champion | Championship change | Reign statistics | Notes | Ref. | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Date | Event | Location | Reign | Days | ||||
1 | John Johnson | August 16, 1986 | Showdown at the Swamp | Shreveport, Louisiana | 1 | 197 | Johnson won the "Doing it for Dewey" tournament to become the first SRW Champion by eliminating "Impressive" Pelvis Wesley. | |
2 | Big Bartholomew | February 29, 1987 | Lethal Leap Year | Alabama | 1 | 1 | Regional Wrestling Empire does not recognize Big Bartholomew's championship reign after Mr. Mackelroy bought SRW | |
3 | The Sea Creature | March 1, 1987 | N/A | N/A | 1 | 20 | Mr Macklelroy bought SRW and gave the championship to the Sea Creature. |
- Combined reign
Rank | Wrestler | No. of reigns |
Combined days |
---|---|---|---|
1 | John Johnson | 1 | 197 |
2 | The Sea Creature | 1 | 20 |
3 | Big Bartholomew | 1 | 1 |
3) Noted
It is mentioned, but de-emphazies as a "footnote" nor does it show in the "length" entry.
No. | Overall reign number |
---|---|
Reign | Reign number for the specific champion |
Days | Number of days held |
No. | Champion | Championship change | Reign statistics | Notes | Ref. | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Date | Event | Location | Reign | Days | ||||
1 | John Johnson | August 16, 1986 | Showdown at the Swamp | Shreveport, Louisiana | 1 | 197 | Johnson won the "Doing it for Dewey" tournament to become the first SRW Champion by eliminating "Impressive" Pelvis Wesley. | |
2 | Big Bartholomew | February 29, 1987 | Lethal Leap Year | Alabama | 1 | 1 | [Notearino 1] | |
3 | The Sea Creature | March 1, 1987 | N/A | N/A | 1 | 20 | Mr Macklelroy bought SRW and gave the championship to the Sea Creature. |
- Footnotes
- ^ Regional Wrestling Empire does not recognize Big Bartholomew's championship reign after Mr. Mackelroy bought SRW.
4) Not in table
It is not in the table, but a prose section could outline it
5) Ignored
As the title states, totally removed from the article as 'trivia" and not mentioned anywhere
Discussion
Thoughts? other suggestions?? MPJ-DK 00:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- First off, LOL for using Southpaw Regional Wrestling names, events, etc. (but Lethal Leap Year never happened!) Secondly, I am for what you labeled as the status quo, as it is something that I had pushed for and gained a consensus to change the SG. The "status quo" accounts for everything (reality and what WWE recognizes for their titles, regardless if it predates their ownership). --JDC808 ♫ 03:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- If SRW Said it happened, then it happened ;-) MPJ-DK 06:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- Either option 2 or 3 for title reigns that happened outside of WWE, but aren't recognized by WWE. Option 1 for reigns that happened in WWE (Inoki), were at some point recognized by WWE, but aren't anymore.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- So... how many people have to vote on such a thing to make a decision official?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well probably more than two, especially since they don't agree with each other. MPJ-DK 00:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't like it because leap years cannot happen on odd years, so 1987 could not have been a leap year. Clearly that means its a terrible idea :-).
- In all actuality we just added the days recognized because it does have some value. For example, looking at List of WWE Women's Champions it shows the complete picture and helps the user better understand. The actual days and days recognized makes a big difference when understanding the subject matter. In addition all the title changes having different days recognized on something like NXT just fills up the notes section and makes it harder to follow. I think having them side by side helps the user understand that there are dates that have it aired and the date they actually won it. Both are important factors.
- The rare instance such as the WCW championship recognition changing post WWE purchase should be matters discussed on the article talk page and decided as a one off. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- But why does it say in the IC title history table: Austin 36 days and 36 days recognized, but the note says 64 days? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrestlingLegendAS (talk • contribs) 20:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- @WrestlingLegendAS: This format is new, it was probably an error in transposing the table. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Swing and a miss, or TL;DR? This is not about what WWE recognizes for WWE championships. Why discuss the others in "one off" discussions so we have the risk of them being inconsistent? MPJ-DK
- Ah very clever, by using an example of a WWE branded title that was not originally a WWE title, but an NWA title you are stating that this is an example of where a "one off" discussion is needed, i appreciate the use of reverse psychology to make your point, kudos and I look forward to you leading that one off discussion. MPJ-DK 19:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I am not really sure the point you are making here. I chose that example because it was the first one I could think of with a not recognized change. Same would apply for the WWE Championship, and them not recognizing the change in Japan. It adds to the history and understanding, and I think helps the user understand and provide them with a complete image. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Point is - the example you provided would fall in thr "needs a one off discussion/decision" since it is about WWE not recognising reigns from before they controlled the championship. You do see that right? It is either a poor example of your point, or a great suggestion for the first discussion. MPJ-DK 19:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- It was a bad example, but not at the same time, since the two different series of reigns have different pages. The WWE created a false history of a belt they created in this instance, based around some actual facts. The List of WWE Champions example is better. Bob Backlund based on actual facts did not hold the championship for 2,135 days even though he is well known for having done so. WWE also says that when AJ Styles won the championship that it was the first time not in North America. By showing the information the way it is currently displayed helps the reader better understand what happened. The WWE owned the titled throughout and chose to rewrite history as it happened. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Point is - the example you provided would fall in thr "needs a one off discussion/decision" since it is about WWE not recognising reigns from before they controlled the championship. You do see that right? It is either a poor example of your point, or a great suggestion for the first discussion. MPJ-DK 19:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I am not really sure the point you are making here. I chose that example because it was the first one I could think of with a not recognized change. Same would apply for the WWE Championship, and them not recognizing the change in Japan. It adds to the history and understanding, and I think helps the user understand and provide them with a complete image. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ah very clever, by using an example of a WWE branded title that was not originally a WWE title, but an NWA title you are stating that this is an example of where a "one off" discussion is needed, i appreciate the use of reverse psychology to make your point, kudos and I look forward to you leading that one off discussion. MPJ-DK 19:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- But why does it say in the IC title history table: Austin 36 days and 36 days recognized, but the note says 64 days? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrestlingLegendAS (talk • contribs) 20:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well probably more than two, especially since they don't agree with each other. MPJ-DK 00:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- If SRW Said it happened, then it happened ;-) MPJ-DK 06:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Sadly I am now forced to resint my praise of your brilliance (sadly) and reinstate my "swing and a miss" comment. I guess I assumed more Good Faith in your thought process than you actually had. So to be clear since it's apparently not that it was listed in the title of this thread - this section is NOT, I repeat *NOT* about championships that have always been WWE, that's theirs to do with as they want - but recognition of reigns that did not happen while under WWE ownership. In essence we are giving credence to some mistakes taht WWE.com has made, them rewriting history intentionally or unintentionally etc. In other words all those instances where you advocate a "case-by-case" debate. Clear? MPJ-DK 22:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- So this discussion ends in a no contest and everything stays the same?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- Don't jump to conclusions. The discussion hasn't ended. At the current moment though, 2 are for Option 1, and 2 are for something other than Option 1. --JDC808 ♫ 18:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- Who are the 2 for option 1? I am ONLY for option 1 when it comes to title changes that happened in WWE, NOT for WCW / ECW / NWA titles changes!WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- Myself, and I'm fully for Option 1, not with exceptions like how you are. Galatz's posts seem to also be in favor of Option 1. --JDC808 ♫ 00:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- Why let WWE decide what happened in NWA? And Galatz was talking about something else the entire time.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- We're not. It shows both what the NWA (or whichever promotion) recognized when they owned the titles AND what WWE recognizes for those titles that were previously owned by NWA, etc., but are now owned by WWE. And no he wasn't. Go back and reread his very first post for this discussion. --JDC808 ♫ 00:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- It shows both, but it gives the preference to what WWE says. Why not give preference to what the company, in which it actually happened, says?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- The company for which it actually happened is first, then WWE, who now OWNS the belts. --JDC808 ♫ 17:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- No, WWE is first as we currently have it. Otherwise the 4 US title reigns that WWE forgot to add wouldn't be in grey.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- No it's not. And whether they "forgot" or purposefully decided not to recognize them, we can't say for sure. --JDC808 ♫ 01:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. Look at List of US Champs and there you can see that these 4 title reigns are in grey and have † instead of a number.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- You're ignoring what's been said. --JDC808 ♫ 02:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- Okay. Then tell me how WWE's opinion is not first in List of US Champs?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- If WWE's opinion was first or whatever, then the unrecognized champions wouldn't be listed here at all. --JDC808 ♫ 21:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- And I say if NWA was first, the reigns wouldn't be grey; they are only grey because of WWE. So we will never agree on who is first. NWA first would mean a note saying WWE does not recognize them anymore; the reigns would not be in grey in that case.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- If WWE's opinion was first or whatever, then the unrecognized champions wouldn't be listed here at all. --JDC808 ♫ 21:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- Okay. Then tell me how WWE's opinion is not first in List of US Champs?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- You're ignoring what's been said. --JDC808 ♫ 02:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. Look at List of US Champs and there you can see that these 4 title reigns are in grey and have † instead of a number.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- No it's not. And whether they "forgot" or purposefully decided not to recognize them, we can't say for sure. --JDC808 ♫ 01:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- No, WWE is first as we currently have it. Otherwise the 4 US title reigns that WWE forgot to add wouldn't be in grey.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- The company for which it actually happened is first, then WWE, who now OWNS the belts. --JDC808 ♫ 17:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- It shows both, but it gives the preference to what WWE says. Why not give preference to what the company, in which it actually happened, says?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- We're not. It shows both what the NWA (or whichever promotion) recognized when they owned the titles AND what WWE recognizes for those titles that were previously owned by NWA, etc., but are now owned by WWE. And no he wasn't. Go back and reread his very first post for this discussion. --JDC808 ♫ 00:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Why let WWE decide what happened in NWA? And Galatz was talking about something else the entire time.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- Myself, and I'm fully for Option 1, not with exceptions like how you are. Galatz's posts seem to also be in favor of Option 1. --JDC808 ♫ 00:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- Who are the 2 for option 1? I am ONLY for option 1 when it comes to title changes that happened in WWE, NOT for WCW / ECW / NWA titles changes!WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- Don't jump to conclusions. The discussion hasn't ended. At the current moment though, 2 are for Option 1, and 2 are for something other than Option 1. --JDC808 ♫ 18:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- So this discussion ends in a no contest and everything stays the same?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
JDC808 what you are describing is if WWE was the only source that is used - that is not the case, WWE is first, WCW/NWA is secondadary as WrestlingLegendAS said. MPJ-DK 22:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Now that that is settled: do we have a majority decision so we can change it to have the company in which it actually happened first?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Dude, stop jumping to conclusions. Nothing has been settled yet. And no, MPJ, that was not what I was describing. --JDC808 ♫ 22:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- So... obviously you were not very clear, saying "that is not what I was describing" hardly helps. You said if WWE's opion was first we would not even list the unrecognized reigns - Which would mean that the table ONLY reflected the WWE opinion since WCW's opinion is eliminated. Care to explain how it would look then if WWE was first because I am not clear on what you mean then. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- I literally described it in a previous comment, but I'll elaborate some more. WWE is not first here for the simple fact that we include what happened in reality, such as including reigns that WWE does not recognize, putting the actual reign length first in the table, and then the reign length that WWE recognizes, that way the actual reign length takes precedence over what WWE recognizes (which is also true in the combined reigns table; reality first, then WWE), etc. --JDC808 ♫ 01:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- If the WWE was not first then there would be no "unrecognized" reins and the WWE recognition is either a note in the table or a foot note. The fact that they are labelled as such means we give weight to the WWE claims over WCW. Only Way we could be more-WWE centric would be to delete the unrecognized Lines completely. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC) .
- And I wasn't talking about the different reign lengths, I was talking about reigns only unrecognized by WWE being grey, which clearly makes WWE first and the company in which it happened second.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- There's only three of us still actively participating in this discussion, so I'm not sure how much of a consensus we can really get to, but in thinking about it, here's a somewhat alternative idea to the above options; a combination of Option 1 and Option 2. Currently, on List of WWE United States Champions, there's a big green line in the table indicating who owned the championship at the time (so it starts out in NWA, then before Luger's reign in 89, it switches to WCW, then after Booker T in 2001, it switches to WWF/WWE). In combining Option 1 and Option 2, we keep the reign statistics as they are, but we remove the grey from reigns that WWE does not recognize prior to their acquisition (if they were actually recognized by the promotion at the time) and as suggested, put a note if WWE does not recognize that reign. Does that make sense? --JDC808 ♫ 02:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. Let's do that.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- There's only three of us still actively participating in this discussion, so I'm not sure how much of a consensus we can really get to, but in thinking about it, here's a somewhat alternative idea to the above options; a combination of Option 1 and Option 2. Currently, on List of WWE United States Champions, there's a big green line in the table indicating who owned the championship at the time (so it starts out in NWA, then before Luger's reign in 89, it switches to WCW, then after Booker T in 2001, it switches to WWF/WWE). In combining Option 1 and Option 2, we keep the reign statistics as they are, but we remove the grey from reigns that WWE does not recognize prior to their acquisition (if they were actually recognized by the promotion at the time) and as suggested, put a note if WWE does not recognize that reign. Does that make sense? --JDC808 ♫ 02:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- And I wasn't talking about the different reign lengths, I was talking about reigns only unrecognized by WWE being grey, which clearly makes WWE first and the company in which it happened second.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- If the WWE was not first then there would be no "unrecognized" reins and the WWE recognition is either a note in the table or a foot note. The fact that they are labelled as such means we give weight to the WWE claims over WCW. Only Way we could be more-WWE centric would be to delete the unrecognized Lines completely. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC) .
- I literally described it in a previous comment, but I'll elaborate some more. WWE is not first here for the simple fact that we include what happened in reality, such as including reigns that WWE does not recognize, putting the actual reign length first in the table, and then the reign length that WWE recognizes, that way the actual reign length takes precedence over what WWE recognizes (which is also true in the combined reigns table; reality first, then WWE), etc. --JDC808 ♫ 01:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- So... obviously you were not very clear, saying "that is not what I was describing" hardly helps. You said if WWE's opion was first we would not even list the unrecognized reigns - Which would mean that the table ONLY reflected the WWE opinion since WCW's opinion is eliminated. Care to explain how it would look then if WWE was first because I am not clear on what you mean then. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Dude, stop jumping to conclusions. Nothing has been settled yet. And no, MPJ, that was not what I was describing. --JDC808 ♫ 22:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Now that that is settled: do we have a majority decision so we can change it to have the company in which it actually happened first?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Is 205 Live a brand?
They have their own titles and own show, does it count as a brand? A lot of places seem to refer to it as such, but they havn't been part of any draft that I remember.★Trekker (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- This point has been discussed at WWE Roster and List of current WWE champions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll check those.★Trekker (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- I don't watch enough WWE at this point to know if they're a separate brand but this needs to be sorted out. We've had slow burning edit wars over this since 205 Live debuted and two ANI threads last month.LM2000 (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- To Trekker's credit (and btw, there's only one title), the 205 Live roster has not been featured on Raw since around WrestleMania 34, and actually, I think before WrestleMania. The last time I remember them on Raw was during the Cruiserweight Championship tournament in the lead up to WrestleMania (no tournament matches, but some tag team stuff). They often refer to 205 Live as the "Purple Brand" on TV and on WWE.com. 205 Live also has its own roster list on WWE.com. Also, since all PPVs became dual-branded post-WrestleMania, the only PPVs they have been on was Greatest Royal Rumble and SummerSlam. --JDC808 ♫ 01:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- However.... PWInsider said Triple H wants to keep the CW out of raw so they don't get overexposure. Some WWE profiles includes "Raw's cruiserweight division". WWE uses the term "brand" a lot, including the womens brand. The Cruiserweight champion works in RAW house shows. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- This is a tricky situation, as there isn't an exact definition of a brand. It wouldn't really be part of a draft, as you wouldn't be able to draft in anyone who wasn't under the weight limit, and anyone under the limit is technically applicable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- The cruiseweight championship page still says it was for the Raw Cruiserweight Division and never mentioned a brand change. HHH saying they are off of Raw is just a TV show not a brand meaning. The most recent WWE official annual report refers to NXT, Raw and SmackDown as their 3 brands (this is from April so before UK). The profiles saying 205 Live doesn't really change anything since they all said that even when appearing on Raw every week. There really has not been anything that changed about how they are utilized or displayed other than not wrestling on Raw in a long time. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- This is a tricky situation, as there isn't an exact definition of a brand. It wouldn't really be part of a draft, as you wouldn't be able to draft in anyone who wasn't under the weight limit, and anyone under the limit is technically applicable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- However.... PWInsider said Triple H wants to keep the CW out of raw so they don't get overexposure. Some WWE profiles includes "Raw's cruiserweight division". WWE uses the term "brand" a lot, including the womens brand. The Cruiserweight champion works in RAW house shows. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- To Trekker's credit (and btw, there's only one title), the 205 Live roster has not been featured on Raw since around WrestleMania 34, and actually, I think before WrestleMania. The last time I remember them on Raw was during the Cruiserweight Championship tournament in the lead up to WrestleMania (no tournament matches, but some tag team stuff). They often refer to 205 Live as the "Purple Brand" on TV and on WWE.com. 205 Live also has its own roster list on WWE.com. Also, since all PPVs became dual-branded post-WrestleMania, the only PPVs they have been on was Greatest Royal Rumble and SummerSlam. --JDC808 ♫ 01:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- I don't watch enough WWE at this point to know if they're a separate brand but this needs to be sorted out. We've had slow burning edit wars over this since 205 Live debuted and two ANI threads last month.LM2000 (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll check those.★Trekker (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
After seeing the events of last night (Drake Maverick becoming manager of AOP, Drew Gulak being part of the Shield beatdown), it led me to this conclusion...If Raw is a party, then 205 Live is at the kids table. Yes, the CWs pretty much keep to themselves at their own little table, but they are still in the room where the party is, so 205 Live is an offshoot of Raw, and still part of the overall Raw family. I am man enough to give credit where credit is due, Galatz stuck to his guns, and was proven right, and I can see where he was coming from. I admit, I was wrong. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
To add to this, Michael Cole at Hell in a Cell tonight said if Dean Ambrose and Seth Rollins win the Raw Tag Team Championship, The Shield will hold all of the men's titles of the Raw brand. --JDC808 ♫ 00:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Meltzer star ratings really shouldn't be listed under "accomplishments"
Getting two thumbs up from Roger Ebert isn't listed under "accolades" for films, I think we should think of it the same here. It's not like the Observer awards or HoF, it's just Dave's feelings.★Trekker (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think this issue was discussed long time ago. I will take a look into the archives when I come --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, but either way I think they should be removed.★Trekker (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- What exactly are we referring too? Is it the Wrestling Observer Newsletter? I don't see how those awards are any different from say, an IGN review of a game. Those are also just the feelings of the author. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- But for games there are tons of reviews from different people in a shart most of the time, with this it's listed like an award like the Observer ones, which they are not. Even Dave has said he doesn't take them seriously. Honestly it almost seems like a hard Meltzer bias that shows up all the time in wrestling fan circles.★Trekker (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Also, why list only the ones above 5 stars? It's because we thought before that that was his limit, but clearly that isn't the case, so now the distinction of 5 stars is arbitrary.★Trekker (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'd !vote to move them to the prose, as long as there's a good source to support it. These weren't WON awards but sometimes get enough coverage to be worth mentioning. Meltzer's current infatuation with Kenny Omega is in his lede and actually may belong there.LM2000 (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- I feel they really only belong in the reception section of an event, we dont need to much detail about matches on individual pages. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with this, I don't see any reason why it would be in the lead section of a wrestlers article really.★Trekker (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Not a fan of including Meltzer's ratings in C&A either. I'm fine with them in reception to an event or briefly covered in the "Style and persona" section of bios if appropriate (such as in Kenny Omega's case).
- Without getting too much off-topic; when this was brought up last time I also mentioned my dislike of PWI rankings being listed in literally every wrestler's C&A section, even if they're ranked in the hundreds. Ideally it would be limited to #1 rankings, but I don't think there's much support for that. Prefall 14:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- I suport the use of rankings such as PWIs, I think it's a good indication of notability.★Trekker (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Totally agree. PWI 500 and similar are the closest thing to independent awards we have. It would be a problem if we listed every occurance of being in the list,but not as it is now. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- I suport the use of rankings such as PWIs, I think it's a good indication of notability.★Trekker (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with this, I don't see any reason why it would be in the lead section of a wrestlers article really.★Trekker (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- I feel they really only belong in the reception section of an event, we dont need to much detail about matches on individual pages. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'd !vote to move them to the prose, as long as there's a good source to support it. These weren't WON awards but sometimes get enough coverage to be worth mentioning. Meltzer's current infatuation with Kenny Omega is in his lede and actually may belong there.LM2000 (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- What exactly are we referring too? Is it the Wrestling Observer Newsletter? I don't see how those awards are any different from say, an IGN review of a game. Those are also just the feelings of the author. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, but either way I think they should be removed.★Trekker (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
PWI is a kayfabe ranking and is often considered a step below the Wrestling Observer by the wrestling community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.52.198 (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- [2] [3] well, it's like a deja vu, since source 18 is the exact same conversation. I think the project agreed to remove the star ratings, but some well-intentioned users and IPs put them again and we forget the decission. Maybe, we should include in a different article? Even if it's Meltzer pure subjetive opinion, wrestling world (wrestlers, fans, journalist) take him too serious. Or maybe a list of best macthes ever, like the list of best/worst films ever made? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- The problem with such a list would once again be that we need the input from many more reliable sources which agree that the matches are considered such. Either way it's nice to see that it was agreed to removed the ratings, I'll go ahead an do so if I see any.★Trekker (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm looking at the Bonnie and Clyde page and it certainly lists Ebert giving the film 4/4 stars as part of its critical reception. Just saying, the Observer is pretty much the paper of record on the wrestling industry. It seems silly to me to remove the ratings. General Ridley —Preceding undated comment added 18:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- If wrestling articles had "reception" sections like I want them to have we could list them. But again "accomplishments" aren't the same as "reception". This has been discussed below. I don't have a problem with Meltzers rating I have a problem with them being in the wrong section.★Trekker (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Made an account to try to offer some insight. While no one is arguing that these are the end all be all, they are widely considered the single most reliable source of ratings for the sport. Wikipedia has acted as the defacto source for this information in a central area essentially since other reputable sites quite honestly aren't as well fleshed out. It would be a shame and a tremendous loss of information to enact a change to remove the stars for no other reason than to simply just remove something. While they may not be defacto awards, they absolutely are accomplishments in their own right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChelsInMotion (talk • contribs) 20:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I think articles should have more "Reception" sections
Right now it's mostly event articles that have them, I think stuff like Meltzers ratings and similar could be included in such a section instead for wrestlers and teams.★Trekker (talk) 12:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- I tried to do it in the wrestling style and persona, for example I included criticism in Brock Lesnar. Some wrestlers like Ric Flair or Taker have a Legacy section. I think is a good idea. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think guys like Bret Hart and Ric Flair who have major legacies should keep their legacy section as well, but some of the stuff in the sections make more sense in another section. I think the "style and persona" section is great for those purposes but I'm not sure how big they'll end up if we'll try to put too much stuff in them.★Trekker (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)This would be a great idea, but having one persons opinion is a bit of a stretch for a reception. If we had more places that did reviews, that we could percieve as reliable for this purpose. (Somewhere like WhatCulture, TJR or 411mania). If there were more that we could use, this would be great way to add to bios. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- PWInsider and PWTorch have done reviews I'm pretty sure.★Trekker (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Sometimes they do editorials and reviews. Also, we have big media like NY Times and that kind of media and interviews with wrestlers (yesterday I readed Ric Flair saying Ricky Steamboat is the best babyface ever.) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- There are a ton of places to pick from really, esspecially my favorite: SLAM! Wrestling.★Trekker (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Also, is Cultaholic and WhatCulture the same thing or separate?★Trekker (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think are separate thing. the wc staff left the website and opened Cultaholic --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info.★Trekker (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed. There was quite the fall out, regarding management and similar from sources. I certainly don't think they are particularly notable, but they clearly have some editorial process. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info.★Trekker (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think are separate thing. the wc staff left the website and opened Cultaholic --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Sometimes they do editorials and reviews. Also, we have big media like NY Times and that kind of media and interviews with wrestlers (yesterday I readed Ric Flair saying Ricky Steamboat is the best babyface ever.) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- PWInsider and PWTorch have done reviews I'm pretty sure.★Trekker (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- So are you guys suggesting a section ala "Persona and reception"? Include notes on the character they play, select moves, PWI/Observer ratings and perhaps select review comments? MPJ-DK (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Removal of content discussion
Can the WWE marks please stop ruining wrestlers wikipedia pages? You already ruined it by getting rid of movesets. Don't make it worse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:FE05:301:A882:A795:B5C7:2977 (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- I don't watch much WWE, I mostly watch Canadian indies.★Trekker (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
It'd be much easier if the people editing Wikipedia just was willing to say "you know, we just don't like that fake 'rasslin shit and any wrestling fans are braindead hillbilly retards who think it's real. Which it's not, because it's fake. Fake and gay. Losers." All these changes to wrestling wikis are taking from the site as a whole.
- I and everyone else here is a huge wreslting fan. We wouldn't be editing here if we were not wrestling fans. This is the worst argument I've ever seen from someone being angry at this place.★Trekker (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I disagree with the fact that this small section of Wikipedia is detracting from the overall site. In fact, the removal of the in wrestling section was discussed in a rather mainstream manner. The major discussion was discussed at the site's main place for policy debates and was written about in the Signpost, and neither (to me, at least) seem to emphasize that this issue make Wikipedia, a site with nearly 6,000,000 articles, worse. So please, before you make assumptions and insult the entire project in the same statement, do some research. JTP (talk • contribs) 22:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
That's fine, just realize that you are eliminating a whole bunch of info that wrestling fans come here to see as it's the only place it's been aggregated somewhat well. They see your inability to re-arrange information into a more pleasing and suitable format as malice, when it's just incompetence. 2620:15C:20:11:3C7A:435C:4711:2028 (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Please explain how any of the changes made over the last four months are "incompetent." JTP (talk • contribs) 22:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- So... hate to say this but another example of just complaining that others have or have not done something, while not doing anything themselves about it. There was a suggestion given that those who wanted to could write a section about their moves, personalities etc. - It was not a trade, it was an option given to those who wanted to do the work, which seems to not include most of the people complaining. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Why bother, when you will just find another reason to remove it? You could have shown good faith by reworking the info you were removing yourself (yknow, the same thing you’re casting stones about) and adhereing to the compromise proposed, but instead you chose to outright delete information (From an encyclopedia. Brilliant.) which is essentially vandalism, but since your small group has agreed on the subject, it isn’t treated that way.
- Maybe you do love wrestlinFMPJg, but you certainly love it less than you love ruling over this Wikipedia portal. 2601:18D:8900:97AA:15FF:375D:9605:39C4 (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- So in other words "All complaints, no action". There was no "compromise" - the RFT was "should the In Wrestling section be removed" - that was the outcome. That some people offered an option to retain some, non-trival information is not in fact a "compromise", perhaps you are not quite clear on what the word "compromise" means? Oh, oh, oh also - if I have actually written a couple of those sections can I throw stones? MPJ-DK (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
The Wiki editors for pro wrestling really need to cut this out. Blatantly removing sections from pages just because it doesn't fit their view of the industry is stupid and pathetic. Do better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.52.198 (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Do something yourself will you. All complaints no action.★Trekker (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- How about you guys reinstate the moves list and stop arguing over nonsensical academic theories on why certain sectiosn should be removed? It's obvious from your own talk page that you have "lashing out" issues. I don't trust you with editorialship over this Wikia. 98.127.52.198 (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- You don't. Its against Wikipedia policy to include. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Or you could learn how Wikipedia works and stop talking about conspiracy theories. My issues are exactly why I avoid social media and forums. I have never used 4Chan, Tumblr or anyhing like that because my OCD and medication isn't compatibale with it. It's more likely that someone like the Abominable Wiki Troll would stir shit up on a forum and pretend to be someone here that anyone here would care enough about some place with a few 100 posters enough to argue with you over somewhere else when you still feel the need to come to us. Wikipedia won't ever give in to some mob, so just spend your energy on something else. Why do you even care, there are tons of other places to find their finishing moves, all everyone here is trying to do it make wrestling fit into an encyclopedia.★Trekker (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- How about you guys reinstate the moves list and stop arguing over nonsensical academic theories on why certain sectiosn should be removed? It's obvious from your own talk page that you have "lashing out" issues. I don't trust you with editorialship over this Wikia. 98.127.52.198 (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Oh dear "Internet entity consisting of numbers"you seem to have a made a couple of factual mistakes in your belligerent comments before losing us all by making demands in the end. There seems to be a major typo where "doesn't fit their view of the industry" should have been "it was the general consensus of a broad audience that this section was not within the guidelines of Wikipedia" - hell of a typo, did you sneeze perhaps? Following that up with personal insults against several people is a brilliant move, only eclipsed by giving people a goal but no guidance of how to achieve this "better" state. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Why is it that Wikia editors always argue from authority or academic elitism? I assure you I made no "typos"....in fact, if you guys stepped outside your digital ivory tower, you would find a lot of wrestling internet personalities, including MrLariato and the Voices of Wrestling Twitter account, were very displeased with your decision to remove move/theme lists and found it baffling, not to mention insulting. You guys really ruffled some feathers. But then again, I doubt you guys would care since Wikia editors often hold their community in disdain. 98.127.52.198 (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure you know what a “broad audience” is, I recall more people against it than for it. Unless by “general consensus” you mean “agreement among editors (some of which actively and openly despise wrestling to the point of insulting it in the RFT) despite the actual readers loudly voicing their protest”, in which case yes it was a general consensus for sure. 2601:18D:8900:97AA:D821:CD07:4AEE:DC7E (talk) 05:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Can We Remove this author from the pages at least https://www.reddit.com/r/SquaredCircle/comments/9gpbed/meta_one_of_the_wikipedia_editors_responsible_for/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownAuthor2019 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure what you are asking for? If you Think an editor should be banned from Wikipedia this is not the place for that. We are not Admins. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- No, but you can remove a certain person....it's obvious its Trek, and if you want to leave his opinion there you can but you can be also to blame for every fan not using wikipedia anymore — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownAuthor2019 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- No, on two accounts. One, "it's obvious" you have no evidence. Two, that's still not how it works. WP:ANI is the place, but without evidence, you have no case. JTP (talk • contribs) 03:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Wha wha wha. All wrestlig pages are destryed because I can't read what some guys third finsiher whas. Wha Wha.
- No, on two accounts. One, "it's obvious" you have no evidence. Two, that's still not how it works. WP:ANI is the place, but without evidence, you have no case. JTP (talk • contribs) 03:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Fuck off. Neither you nor anyone else here have enough will power to fucking boycott the website anyway. You'll just read it and never donate. Just like you did before this while thing happned.
- Nice Wikipedia Editors you got there, Can't even spell words correctly. Guess Wikipedia don't need my money after all — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownAuthor2019 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- https://imgur.com/a/Dr1oyQt Also look at his posts; all backing Trek's Viewpoint of removing all WON awards due to him not feeling there good enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownAuthor2019 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Excuse me where exactly I have I or anyone here said anything about removing all WON awards? It's obvious none of you are even reading the discussion that's going on here.★Trekker (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- This matters why? You all attacked him back and are essentially trying to dox him. The hypocrisy is palpable. JTP (talk • contribs) 03:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Really and the fact that he comes out and trashes everyone on that sides opinions as the simple fact is that you guys have been having such a egotistical outlook that no one wants to post any opinions, but I never attacked him back; clearly though if you don't feel like you shouldn't be critiqued for your actions then maybe you should leave wikipedia. Like Trek did when he deleted his Reddit account after insulting everyone on there about how great it is to be a BIG SHOT WIKIPEDIA EDITOR GANGSTA... UnknownAuthor2019 (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- I don't go to Reddit because I can't use social media due to my ODC. Someone on some random forum being an asshole in none of my concern and I would aprecitate if you weren't so quick to jump to conclusions about things. I wasn't even involved with the decition to remove the "In wrestling" section nor would I feel strongly enough about it to argue with someone about it outside of Wikipedia, as a matter of fact I think I might feel it's been a bad decition in the end.★Trekker (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hypocrisy at its finest. First, prove the egotism side of things. Every attack from Reddit called us "self-centered" or "controlling" or "wrestling nerds with no life" (pot calling the kettle black, perhaps?), but I saw no proof. Our goal is not to make the smarks at r/sc happy. If they don't like it, so be it. Either engage in WP:CIVIL conversation, or let it be. But if they want to hurl insults our way, they have to be prepared to take them as well. It's a rule that everyone learned in grade school, so I don't see why grown men can't adhere to it. The editor displayed his side of the argument and was beaten to hell and back for it. The only name-calling I'm seeing here is yours. I enjoy reading the sub from time to time, but civil discussions clearly don't exist over there. JTP (talk • contribs) 04:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe you should look in to that to; your comment about keeping your comments to your self; isn't exactly following your own advice UnknownAuthor2019 (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Really and the fact that he comes out and trashes everyone on that sides opinions as the simple fact is that you guys have been having such a egotistical outlook that no one wants to post any opinions, but I never attacked him back; clearly though if you don't feel like you shouldn't be critiqued for your actions then maybe you should leave wikipedia. Like Trek did when he deleted his Reddit account after insulting everyone on there about how great it is to be a BIG SHOT WIKIPEDIA EDITOR GANGSTA... UnknownAuthor2019 (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I forgot to link this r/squaredcircle thread from a few hours ago of "angry" Redditors about the accomplishments section. I'll keep my comments to myself, unlike them. JTP (talk • contribs) 03:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Just wanted to say that as a wiki editor myself, I get where you guys are coming from. You saw something that looked unnecessary and so you removed it. But don't you think that if enough of your readers are getting all up in arms about all the content you're removing - which they say is helpful to them - you should maybe reconsider? It's easy for you to get caught up in what you think is best for the site as editors, since you're contributing to and maintaining it, but you should also think about the people that actually use the information you put out there. As for me, I found the signatures/finishers helpful when it was time to create a wrestler in a game, but now where will I go for that information? I guess not here. That's just my two cents anyway. -71.125.63.220 (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think wrestling fans have been spoiled by how lenient Wikipedia's standards and policies were enforced on these articles in the past—and to a degree, still are. A lot of them view Wikipedia through the scope of a hardcore fan who wants to know every minuscule detail or the latest news, rather than an uninformed reader looking to understand a subject. An extensive list of every finisher, signature move, entrance theme, etc. may be useful to some, not but to the degree that Wikipedia seeks to be (see WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and WP:ITSUSEFUL). You go to articles about other fictional characters and you won't see a giant, seemingly never-ending plot summary (like our "Career" sections, which are also written WP:INUNIVERSE) or a neat list of traits (like the "In wrestling" section); you go to other athletes articles and you won't find a huge list of every video game that uses their likeness (like ours do). This running theme of the fanbase getting outraged about certain content getting removed, trimmed or reworked will likely continue into the next few years, as these standards finally catch up to wrestling articles. And to be clear, I'm not trying to be a douche—if I was in your position, I would likely feel the same way. This is just how Wikipedia operates, and I'm sure some other fan sites will emerge and cover the in-depth information that fans are seeking far better than we ever could. Prefall 10:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- This issue has been discussed the last 2 months. The fans don't understand Wikipedia has several rules and styleguides to follow. After 10 years, the In wrestling section is like a war zone. Every few days a IP with good intentions put every single move or nickname he saw during a match. I used the section a lot, but as editor I saw a lot of problems. I tried to interview Sonny Kiss so I readed his Wikia profile but... no sources, I don't know if the moveset is right. Same, when I watch One Piece or Bleach, I read Wikipedia to undertsand the process and the reception. For the list of attacks, I read Wikia. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think wrestling fans have been spoiled by how lenient Wikipedia's standards and policies were enforced on these articles in the past—and to a degree, still are. A lot of them view Wikipedia through the scope of a hardcore fan who wants to know every minuscule detail or the latest news, rather than an uninformed reader looking to understand a subject. An extensive list of every finisher, signature move, entrance theme, etc. may be useful to some, not but to the degree that Wikipedia seeks to be (see WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and WP:ITSUSEFUL). You go to articles about other fictional characters and you won't see a giant, seemingly never-ending plot summary (like our "Career" sections, which are also written WP:INUNIVERSE) or a neat list of traits (like the "In wrestling" section); you go to other athletes articles and you won't find a huge list of every video game that uses their likeness (like ours do). This running theme of the fanbase getting outraged about certain content getting removed, trimmed or reworked will likely continue into the next few years, as these standards finally catch up to wrestling articles. And to be clear, I'm not trying to be a douche—if I was in your position, I would likely feel the same way. This is just how Wikipedia operates, and I'm sure some other fan sites will emerge and cover the in-depth information that fans are seeking far better than we ever could. Prefall 10:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Is there any actual point to this latest round of complaints or are you content to just beating s dead horse while showing that some Reddit user have no clye about what actually happened? The Pro Wrestling project did not sanction the approval, getting it back cannot happen through complaints here on this board. So what exactly is the purpose of this? Beyond venting and personal attacks. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Why did the entrance themes get deleted?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- WrestlingLegendAS - Did you miss the literal months of conversation regarding this? See "In_wrestling"_section_be_removed_from_professional_wrestling_articles Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- I am glad all the Jewish holidays are keeping me so busy I missed this for days. I don't get why everyone complaining is still hanging around here and not just moving to the professional wrestling Wikia. Looking at [4] I see the in wrestling stuff is all still there. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- I used to edit on the Wikia a while back (Same username), the wikia is good, and doesn't have the same definitions as wikipedia. Why not just update these things there? And stop complaining? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- I am glad all the Jewish holidays are keeping me so busy I missed this for days. I don't get why everyone complaining is still hanging around here and not just moving to the professional wrestling Wikia. Looking at [4] I see the in wrestling stuff is all still there. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- WrestlingLegendAS - Did you miss the literal months of conversation regarding this? See "In_wrestling"_section_be_removed_from_professional_wrestling_articles Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Why did the entrance themes get deleted?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Just going to put this out there - I've been out of activity for two weeks - Glad I missed this conversation. Every time an IP or new user comes to complain, anyone actually trying to promote wikipedia, is a sadist or fanboy.
- I may write an essay on this at some point, but new editors need to realise that Wikipedia has guidelines that are meant for ALL articles, not just ones in your domain. Anything these articles can do to remove fancruft, and create quality articles is great news. Wikipedia is NOT a non-descipt resource for all information, articles on people should give an overview of who they are, and what they do.
- It should be noted as above, that the Pro Wrestling WikiProject did not on it's own remove this content, and it had a wide array of support from across wikipedia. If anyone has a complaint, at least read the closing comments regarding the discussion, by someone who is in no way connected to the project. All arguements for retaining this information was not baised on wikipedia's goals. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
WWE.com has changed their calculation method for reign days
Unfortunately, their method is still broken. Previously it would inflate numbers by 1 on certain occasions (CM Punk's 434-day reign listed as 435; AJ Lee's 295-day reign listed as 296), but now it lessens them by 1 (Lex Luger's 523-day reign listed as 522; Honky Tonk Man's 454-day reign listed as 453; Nikki Bella's 301-day reign listed as 300). Sidenote, they have also started listing "<1 day" for reigns less than one day, instead of the specific amount of time (e.g. 2 minutes).
We have to go back through all of the WWE reigns and update them based on new figures. Personally, their calculations are clearly errors that we should ignore. The dates listed do not align with their calculation method at all, nor with the figures they have actually promoted on television and in articles. Prefall 17:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Once again a reason to not care about what WWE thinks when it goes against reality.★Trekker (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- The whole "goes against reality" argument I find silly when we're dealing with something that's fiction (and something they own), but regardless, that's annoying that they did that. Perhaps when they made the change, it inadvertently changed those numbers and they will perhaps be fixed soon. Maybe wait a couple of days to see if they fix it before we make any changes? If they don't fix it in a couple of days, then we can go through our article and put the correct numbers (with the exception of the tape delays that are purposefully a different number) and have a note tagged by those one-off days that have no reason to be one-off. --JDC808 ♫ 19:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- A director can't go back and claim that he didn't film a scene he filmed. At most it can be declared "not canon" or the like. But WWE tries to rewrite history and claim it's what really happened half the time.★Trekker (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, I agree with what you're saying I'm just really tired of WWE's revisionist history nonsense.★Trekker (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Their calculations have been broken since the website redesign in July 2016 (See Punk's reign listed as 435). This is just broken in the opposite direction of what it was before (numbers inflated vs. lessened). I don't see it being fixed any time soon. Prefall 19:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Do we even know if this stuff from the website is what the company actually thinks?★Trekker (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Did this affect any reigns not being on the site anymore? Maybe this new update broke much more than? I also think that we should not mention their flawed numbers at all (only when it is about tape date / air date). How about a note at the top or bottom of each article saying that WWE.com's counting system is flawed and therefore their number vary by +/- 1?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- Do we even know if this stuff from the website is what the company actually thinks?★Trekker (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- The whole "goes against reality" argument I find silly when we're dealing with something that's fiction (and something they own), but regardless, that's annoying that they did that. Perhaps when they made the change, it inadvertently changed those numbers and they will perhaps be fixed soon. Maybe wait a couple of days to see if they fix it before we make any changes? If they don't fix it in a couple of days, then we can go through our article and put the correct numbers (with the exception of the tape delays that are purposefully a different number) and have a note tagged by those one-off days that have no reason to be one-off. --JDC808 ♫ 19:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Using your own calculations to "disprove" the number given by the official source is original research. Calling the official record "flawed" is original research. How do you intend to get around this core policy? Note: I'm not asking you if you're confident that you're correct. I'm asking which Wikipedia policy you are citing to justify using original research in place of verifiable information. Note about the note: Verifiability means that it can be cited to a reliable source, not that it can be proven true. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- How about not calling their calculations flawed then, but instead just put a note above or below the lists that WWE has the same start and end dates, just calculates the lengths differently? Calling it different instead of flawed isn't original research anymore, is it?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- WP:CALC applies here, no? Verifying the start and end dates (that they also provide) with {{Age in days}} tells us that the days number is incorrect. Prefall 18:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- If wrestling articles had "reception" sections like I want them to have we could list them. But again "accomplishments" aren't the same as "reception". This has been discussed above. I don't have a problem with Meltzers rating I have a problem with them being in the wrong section.★Trekker (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Treker, i think you re the one in the wrong section hehe--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- If wrestling articles had "reception" sections like I want them to have we could list them. But again "accomplishments" aren't the same as "reception". This has been discussed above. I don't have a problem with Meltzers rating I have a problem with them being in the wrong section.★Trekker (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Template: pro wrestling promotions in USA ¿National promotions?
Hi. I have several questions. In the template about the pro wrestling promotions in USA, there is a list of national promotions (TNA, WWE and ROH, the big ones) Now, since MLW and Ring Warriors have TV Deals, some users have upgrade them. But... I think this section is old-school minded. This is before the internet, when every promotion has global range. Several promotions have their spot in highspots. Other promotions are in Twitch, like House of Hardcore or AAA (even Impact) So... do you think we should reconsider the national aspect of the template? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- I thought that "national" related to where they hold shows,not TV, MPJ-DK (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- really? if you see the view history, the idea was national tv deal.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry but based on that logic we'd list AAA, as a US National promotion? Whu? MPJ-DK (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- I actually thought it would be "national scope". Simply having a nationwide media coverage doesn't mean that it is a national promotion. I think you'd have to have scope across the country, as something like OVW only held shows around one area, but did at one stage, have a platform to show their TV across most of the world. Doesn't make it anything more than developmental/territory. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. Just because MLW suddenly got a TV deal with an obscure cable channel he's known for broadcasting Serie A soccer matches doesn't mean they're suddenly a national promotion. They have never held a show outside their studio. And we're completely shut down for years. They're more akin to Lucha Underground, which, one notes, is listed as a TV series only. oknazevad (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- Please do some research on them and then come back and comment again with knowledge. The have previously also done other locations in Florida, they were in NYC a couple months ago and will be back in a couple weeks, they have Chicago coming up soon too. They were in the same location in Orlando from October-July, however they havent been back since [5], with no scheduled tapings there either. In addition would you have not considered TNA a national promotion when they only filmed in Orlando? What about WCW when they were always in Disney? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 11:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- As I said, the 90's had a different set of rules. WCW was a national promotion, no doubt, one of the two majors. But now, the TV offer and internet have change the game. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- Please do some research on them and then come back and comment again with knowledge. The have previously also done other locations in Florida, they were in NYC a couple months ago and will be back in a couple weeks, they have Chicago coming up soon too. They were in the same location in Orlando from October-July, however they havent been back since [5], with no scheduled tapings there either. In addition would you have not considered TNA a national promotion when they only filmed in Orlando? What about WCW when they were always in Disney? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 11:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. Just because MLW suddenly got a TV deal with an obscure cable channel he's known for broadcasting Serie A soccer matches doesn't mean they're suddenly a national promotion. They have never held a show outside their studio. And we're completely shut down for years. They're more akin to Lucha Underground, which, one notes, is listed as a TV series only. oknazevad (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- I actually thought it would be "national scope". Simply having a nationwide media coverage doesn't mean that it is a national promotion. I think you'd have to have scope across the country, as something like OVW only held shows around one area, but did at one stage, have a platform to show their TV across most of the world. Doesn't make it anything more than developmental/territory. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry but based on that logic we'd list AAA, as a US National promotion? Whu? MPJ-DK (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- really? if you see the view history, the idea was national tv deal.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
"Always at Disney", My lord Guerrero weeps at that statement. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)