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. |
Is Rob Van Dam a former WWE European Champion?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Having an issue with another user about this. The title was indeed retired after Van Dam (Intercontinental Champion) defeated Jeff Hardy (European Champion) to unify the belts, but Van Dam is absolutely not recorded in formal WWE listings of European titleholders, either on WWE.com[1] or in the WWE Encyclopedia (2009, p. 94). This archived WWE piece could possibly be interpreted as describing Van Dam as a former European Champion, but official listings trounce a now-deleted article in which a web scribe may or may not be saying something. Where do you stand? Sharonaj (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- RVD's profile. Highlights, "WWE Champion; Intercontinental Champion; World Tag Team Champion; WWE Tag Team Champion; European Champion; Hardcore Champion; 2006 Money in the Bank Ladder Match winner; ECW Champion; ECW Television Champion; ECW Tag Team Champion". Well, maybe it's a mistake, but he the title is listed in his highlights. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- WWE's current listings trump nothing, that has been the consensus over and over. WWE rewrites history all the time. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- Source that he is not? MPJ-DK (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- As an aside, when answer this question that he is not, I suggest you first read WP:PRIMARY to see why WWE is not the ideal source. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 00:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- I thought cagematch was a WP:RS. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- As an aside, from a logical point of view, it doesn't excatly make sense that he wasn't champion. I mean, if you unify a championship, you do hold both championships. Could someone point me in the direction of the sources that say he wasn't champion? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Makes no sense to not recognize him as a champion for the reasons you pointed out. It needs to be reinstated into his C&A section. I wouldn't even include a footnote to reference the disparity between WWE's own sources, enough of them confirm it. I don't know why he got cut off on some of their other sources but their title histories are frequently baffling and a reoccurring topic of discussion here. I may still include a footnote disclaimer on the List of WWE European Champions page though.LM2000 (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- As an aside, when answer this question that he is not, I suggest you first read WP:PRIMARY to see why WWE is not the ideal source. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 00:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Source that he is not? MPJ-DK (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- WWE's current listings trump nothing, that has been the consensus over and over. WWE rewrites history all the time. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- Firstly, yes Cagematch is a RS. Secondly I just went back and watched the match [2] it was awesome. Third, I was curious how they worded it during the broadcast, JR said the match was the unify the European and IC championships. At the end RVD was announced at the unified IC champion. The point being however, as stated above, he could not have unified it without holding both. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
So it's Van Dam's WWE.com profile (so far the only credible WWE item naming him as a former European Champion) vs WWE's official listings of Euro champs, both on their website and in their encyclopedia. Even if we go with the profile being correct, there's no official documentation to support where and when he won the title. People are pointing to third party sources, but I'm afraid it's WWE that dictates who held the titles they own and book (would Keller naming Hornswoggle a 20-time WWE Champion make it so?). There's clearly some internal confusion, but whenever WWE has unequivocally listed everyone who held the European title, Van Dam ain't there. Sharonaj (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Sharonaj Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. It may be counter-intuitive to you, but Wikipedia is written on the back of what WP:SECONDARY sources say, and WP:PRIMARY sources (such as the WWE), is considered to be much less relevant. We have a list of Reliable sources which we pay attention to, which have a history of editorial staff, who are reliable for fact checking. Your argument is completely against how Wikipedia works.
- on another note, welcome to Wikipedia. Not everything here is how you might think it works, but everything is written acording to guidelines that work, and we also work with consensus. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- WWE determines the holders of titles that they create, book and own. Per WP:COMMON, even reliable journalists cannot make up the title history themselves, in the same way that top film critics don't get to re-write movie storylines. Where Cagematch and other outlets do come in handy is their recording of titleholders that WWE did recognise in the past, but who have since been withdrawn from the books. Van Dam, however, doesn't appear to ever have been included in the official WWE list of European Champions (no mention of him in the WWE.com recounting as of June 2005[3]), and he damn sure wasn't announced as a European Champion on the night the belt was retired (Raw, 22 July, 2002).
- By the way, it turns out that Van Dam's WWE.com bio is actually a dubious source, despite my initially giving some credence to it. As of November 2004, he wasn't described as a former European Champion.[4] The Euro win appears to have been added years later, with Van Dam's inaccurate Wikipedia article likely poisoning the mind of some WWE web scribe. It's not like Wiki hasn't infected WWE before: Lawler's speech on Bret Hart Appreciation Night was largely lifted from Hart's lede section, and JBL used Sting's lede in his weekly run-downs of the Icon's accomplishments (amusingly including an NWA title reign that occurred in TNA). Sharonaj (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Footnote, the Euro Title was also in his 2005 profile. [5] "Career Highlights: 5-time Intercontinental Champion; 2-time World Tag Team Champions; WWE Tag Team Champion; European Champion; 4-time Hardcore Champion; unified the Intercontinental Championship with the Hardcore & European Championships; ECW Television Champion; 2-time ECW Tag Team Champion" "As Intercontinental Champion, RVD has the honor of being the final European and Hardcore champion as well. " HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- That's a 2006 version, just to be clear. So yeah, "European Champion" was added to his bio long after the fact, as I suspected. You seem to have presented this as a rebuttal, but it serves only to bolster my point. Sharonaj (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- That's right, 2005 version didn't load. However, he is recognized by WWE as Euro champion and says "the final European Champion". Sometimes WWE messes their titles histories. Like the US title, "WWE.com has published contradictory information on Flair's reigns – recognizing five reigns in one article, but describing him as a six-time champion in another article." --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- The final snapshot of 2005, taken on 17 December, does not describe Van Dam as a European titleholder.[6] This accolade was introduced to his bio in early 2006, almost four years after the European title was merged into the IC title. Wikipedia has erroneously described Van Dam as a former Euro champ since February 2005, so yeah... I see what you did there, WWE.com. Sharonaj (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- That's right, 2005 version didn't load. However, he is recognized by WWE as Euro champion and says "the final European Champion". Sometimes WWE messes their titles histories. Like the US title, "WWE.com has published contradictory information on Flair's reigns – recognizing five reigns in one article, but describing him as a six-time champion in another article." --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- That's a 2006 version, just to be clear. So yeah, "European Champion" was added to his bio long after the fact, as I suspected. You seem to have presented this as a rebuttal, but it serves only to bolster my point. Sharonaj (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- Footnote, the Euro Title was also in his 2005 profile. [5] "Career Highlights: 5-time Intercontinental Champion; 2-time World Tag Team Champions; WWE Tag Team Champion; European Champion; 4-time Hardcore Champion; unified the Intercontinental Championship with the Hardcore & European Championships; ECW Television Champion; 2-time ECW Tag Team Champion" "As Intercontinental Champion, RVD has the honor of being the final European and Hardcore champion as well. " HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- By the way, it turns out that Van Dam's WWE.com bio is actually a dubious source, despite my initially giving some credence to it. As of November 2004, he wasn't described as a former European Champion.[4] The Euro win appears to have been added years later, with Van Dam's inaccurate Wikipedia article likely poisoning the mind of some WWE web scribe. It's not like Wiki hasn't infected WWE before: Lawler's speech on Bret Hart Appreciation Night was largely lifted from Hart's lede section, and JBL used Sting's lede in his weekly run-downs of the Icon's accomplishments (amusingly including an NWA title reign that occurred in TNA). Sharonaj (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Sharonaj - I'm confused by your use of WP:COMMONSENSE. Common sense would suggest that a title being defended, and won in a match, would mean it was won. There are reliable sources that point to this as well, and a WP:CONSENSUS. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- No you're not. I made my point perfectly clear: wrestling journalists don't get to decide who won titles, in the same way film critics don't get to decide what happened in films. So, there is a WWE.com bio published after the fact – likely influenced by bogus Wikipedia content – that describes Van Dam as a former European Champion, with no information on where and when the title was won. I guess we're going with that, even though he was absolutely not a European Champion from 2002 until WWE history became muddied in 2006. Sharonaj (talk) 10:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how you can suggest that any article posted by a reliable source is somehow less reliable than another posted by the same source... Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Per Wayback Machine, Van Dam's bio was modified: the title history never was. Sharonaj (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand. We take sources at face value. How is the original edit of the bio more reliable than a later edit? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think RVd should be pointed as Euro champion. The title is in his WWE profile and also, his 2005 bio says cleary "last European Champion". Sometimes WWE mess with the titles, ask @WrestlingLegendAS: --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- And, more importantly, if one actually clicks on Jeff Harry's reign, the last one listed on the WWE website's history, it clearly says that RVD defeated Jeff Hardy to unify the titles. Can't unify a title you don't hold. No one invented a reign.
- That said, WWE is inconsistent. Which should surprise no one. They don't list RVD as the last European Champion, but do list him as the last Hardcore Champion, despite the similarity of winning the title in a unification match while RVD was IC champ. Indeed, both unifications happened during the same IC title reign for RVD only a month apart from each other. Frustrating, but what can you do? oknazevad (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think RVd should be pointed as Euro champion. The title is in his WWE profile and also, his 2005 bio says cleary "last European Champion". Sometimes WWE mess with the titles, ask @WrestlingLegendAS: --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand. We take sources at face value. How is the original edit of the bio more reliable than a later edit? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Per Wayback Machine, Van Dam's bio was modified: the title history never was. Sharonaj (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how you can suggest that any article posted by a reliable source is somehow less reliable than another posted by the same source... Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion's over. We'll move forward with RVD as a former European Champion per consensus, and I will try to seek out further WWE.com pieces that support this. Sharonaj (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- But the problem is you are focusing on WWE.com sources. Did you read WP:PRIMARY, you need to focus on non-WWE.com sources. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- I dont know which version of WWE Encyclopedia I have, but in it, under Jeff Hardy's reign it says pg 95 "Rob Van Dam defeated Jeff Hardy on July 22, 2002 to unify the European and Intercontinental Championships." He couldnt have defeated him and then unified it unless he held it. The line right above it says "Jeff Hardy defeats William Regal". Neither one specifically says they won the title, it just who they defeated. So I am not seeing why you say these are any different. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- "He couldn't have defeated him and then unified it unless he held it" - WP:OR. Actually, RVD never even physically held the European title. I've conceded that RVD was a European Champion per consensus, but you're now trying to block me from placing a note in the relevant articles explaining the situation (RVD not appearing in any official list of European Champions is a rather major deal). Please stop the WP:OWN tactics and allow for collaboration, as Wikipolicy demands. Sharonaj (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- You need to learn more about Wikipedia policy's before you start making some pretty retarded allegations like that. Per WP:BRD once you are reverted you are supposed to discuss it, not just make statements and put it back. There is a template with a standard way this stuff is treated, it is not up to you to make that unilateral decision. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- So now you're violating WP:CIVIL as well as WP:OWN. Nothing to discuss. Rob Van Dam unequivocally does not appear in any official WWE listing of former European Champions, therefore notes are absolutely needed to explain why he's being described by Wikipedia as a former European Champion. Sharonaj (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- I support the note. As Sharonaj said, he doesn't appear in some places, so a note is needed. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but it should be done in the proper way. Sharonaj is creating his own method, we have a template that treats this is a standard way for a reason. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- You agree that the notes should be there - good. Why then are you removing them, instead of changing them to the "proper way"? Sharonaj (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Nothing is mine - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Okay. You stick to the cryptic stuff: I'll stick to resolving this RVD-as-European-Champion mess. Sharonaj (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Nothing is cryptic. You state its MY way. Yet I have told you multiple times the template has a specific way this stuff is handled yet have you even bothered to read the template guide? Have you asked how it should be handled? Did you look at any other championship to see how they are handled? No of course you didnt. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Okay. You stick to the cryptic stuff: I'll stick to resolving this RVD-as-European-Champion mess. Sharonaj (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Nothing is mine - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- You agree that the notes should be there - good. Why then are you removing them, instead of changing them to the "proper way"? Sharonaj (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but it should be done in the proper way. Sharonaj is creating his own method, we have a template that treats this is a standard way for a reason. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- I support the note. As Sharonaj said, he doesn't appear in some places, so a note is needed. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- So now you're violating WP:CIVIL as well as WP:OWN. Nothing to discuss. Rob Van Dam unequivocally does not appear in any official WWE listing of former European Champions, therefore notes are absolutely needed to explain why he's being described by Wikipedia as a former European Champion. Sharonaj (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- You need to learn more about Wikipedia policy's before you start making some pretty retarded allegations like that. Per WP:BRD once you are reverted you are supposed to discuss it, not just make statements and put it back. There is a template with a standard way this stuff is treated, it is not up to you to make that unilateral decision. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- "He couldn't have defeated him and then unified it unless he held it" - WP:OR. Actually, RVD never even physically held the European title. I've conceded that RVD was a European Champion per consensus, but you're now trying to block me from placing a note in the relevant articles explaining the situation (RVD not appearing in any official list of European Champions is a rather major deal). Please stop the WP:OWN tactics and allow for collaboration, as Wikipolicy demands. Sharonaj (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- I dont know which version of WWE Encyclopedia I have, but in it, under Jeff Hardy's reign it says pg 95 "Rob Van Dam defeated Jeff Hardy on July 22, 2002 to unify the European and Intercontinental Championships." He couldnt have defeated him and then unified it unless he held it. The line right above it says "Jeff Hardy defeats William Regal". Neither one specifically says they won the title, it just who they defeated. So I am not seeing why you say these are any different. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Can't ask for something I don't know exists. Anyway, looks like we're getting somewhere at last. Sharonaj (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Which is why I kept telling you to take it to the talk page but you were too stubborn to. Read my edit summaries, I told you multiple times. Additionally just scroll up, I told you it above as well. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- I have fixed the list page to be consistent with every other unrecognized reigns. But I suggest you self revert [7] as you will see its inconsistent with every other page that has one. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- The list page has a "notes" box within the chart. Euro title page doesn't have that. We need to give a clear picture of what's going on. Sharonaj (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Why should this page be different than every other title page? For example, between 8 and 9 on List of WWE Champions there is unrecognized, yet WWE Championship does not make mention of that. The difference is, whether or not the WWE recognizes it, it happened. Your compilation of information is WP:SYNTH. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- That's the problem: RVD's European Championship reign never happened. Never physically held the title, was never announced as European Champion, was never recognized by WWE as European Champion until the company partially retconned him as one years later (still no appearance in official listings). SYNTH is not summary. Sharonaj (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia goes based on WP:SECONDARY sources, all of which state he was a European champion. Therefore, per WWE.com he wasn't, but Wikipedia should state he was. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- If Roger Ebert decides that Kyle Reese survived, does it override what Jim Cameron put on the big screen? Secondary sources do not decide storylines: WWE determines the lineage of titles they create, book, and own. WWE absolutely did not crown, announce or recognize RVD as a European titleholder, but now they're publishing retrospective pieces that say he is a former champion. That's what I'm rolling with. Where's the problem? Sharonaj (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is you have ignored everything that multiple people have explained to you multiple times. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 21:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Things people have explained, like secondary sources deciding WWE storylines and RVD actually winning the title in 2002? Absolute garbage. Jeff Hardy was the final champion until WWE.com pieces started retconning RVD as a former champ from 2006 onward, most likely due to the influence of RVD's erroneous Wikipedia article. Sharonaj (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Except that is not how things work on Wikipedia. You are welcome to go to dispute resolution but everyone else here seems to disagree with you. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 21:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Things people have explained, like secondary sources deciding WWE storylines and RVD actually winning the title in 2002? Absolute garbage. Jeff Hardy was the final champion until WWE.com pieces started retconning RVD as a former champ from 2006 onward, most likely due to the influence of RVD's erroneous Wikipedia article. Sharonaj (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is you have ignored everything that multiple people have explained to you multiple times. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 21:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- If Roger Ebert decides that Kyle Reese survived, does it override what Jim Cameron put on the big screen? Secondary sources do not decide storylines: WWE determines the lineage of titles they create, book, and own. WWE absolutely did not crown, announce or recognize RVD as a European titleholder, but now they're publishing retrospective pieces that say he is a former champion. That's what I'm rolling with. Where's the problem? Sharonaj (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia goes based on WP:SECONDARY sources, all of which state he was a European champion. Therefore, per WWE.com he wasn't, but Wikipedia should state he was. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- That's the problem: RVD's European Championship reign never happened. Never physically held the title, was never announced as European Champion, was never recognized by WWE as European Champion until the company partially retconned him as one years later (still no appearance in official listings). SYNTH is not summary. Sharonaj (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Why should this page be different than every other title page? For example, between 8 and 9 on List of WWE Champions there is unrecognized, yet WWE Championship does not make mention of that. The difference is, whether or not the WWE recognizes it, it happened. Your compilation of information is WP:SYNTH. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- The list page has a "notes" box within the chart. Euro title page doesn't have that. We need to give a clear picture of what's going on. Sharonaj (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- I have fixed the list page to be consistent with every other unrecognized reigns. But I suggest you self revert [7] as you will see its inconsistent with every other page that has one. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Which is why I kept telling you to take it to the talk page but you were too stubborn to. Read my edit summaries, I told you multiple times. Additionally just scroll up, I told you it above as well. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Can't ask for something I don't know exists. Anyway, looks like we're getting somewhere at last. Sharonaj (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- RVD didn't "have both". He never laid his hands on the European title. Jericho and Orton held both physical belts at the end of their respective unification matches. Sharonaj (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- He had it in the sense that he won it, not the physical holding it. Holding the actual belt is meaningless. Otherwise you should be arguing that Shawn Michaels vs Razor Ramon at WM10 was a unification match too - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 22:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- What a silly argument. Shawn wasn't champion, and a title can hardly be unified with itself. Are you allergic to collaboration or something? WP:DROPTHESTICK. Sharonaj (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- You are focused only on holding the belt, so its not a silly argument. Your argument is based on the one fact dealing with the physical item. I am showing you why your argument makes no sense, but you only want things your way. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm pretty sure Sharonaj is not using "holding the belt" in a literal sense. That said, has anyone here bothered to use the network to actually watch the episode of Raw? I mean, it's not like there's no way to verify the actual match. oknazevad (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- He definitely means it in the literal sense, only way
Jericho and Orton held both physical belts
could be read. - As I said above, I did go back and watch it. This is what I said after watching it
JR said the match was the unify the European and IC championships. At the end RVD was announced at the unified IC champion. The point being however, as stated above, he could not have unified it without holding both.
- I also pointed out how the WWE Encyclopedia, which they are using as the basis of their argument treats this match no different than Jeff Hardy's win
pg 95 "Rob Van Dam defeated Jeff Hardy on July 22, 2002 to unify the European and Intercontinental Championships." He couldnt have defeated him and then unified it unless he held it. The line right above it says "Jeff Hardy defeats William Regal". Neither one specifically says they won the title, it just who they defeated. So I am not seeing why you say these are any different.
a point they failed to address. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)- The European title was not at ringside for the unification match, because it was not on the line. The WWE Encyclopedia does not have Van Dam in the list of champions, regardless of the surrounding prose you're trying to bend to cover RVD as a former champ. Yet again: he was never European champ until WWE.com pieces started retconning him as one in 2006. An encyclopedia should reflect actual history, not pretend he was a champion all along. Sharonaj (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- What are you basing your statement that the encyclopedia does not? I just gave you word for word what the encyclopedia has in the chart, and its no different than Jeff Hardy. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- The European title was not at ringside for the unification match, because it was not on the line. The WWE Encyclopedia does not have Van Dam in the list of champions, regardless of the surrounding prose you're trying to bend to cover RVD as a former champ. Yet again: he was never European champ until WWE.com pieces started retconning him as one in 2006. An encyclopedia should reflect actual history, not pretend he was a champion all along. Sharonaj (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- He definitely means it in the literal sense, only way
- Ok, I'm pretty sure Sharonaj is not using "holding the belt" in a literal sense. That said, has anyone here bothered to use the network to actually watch the episode of Raw? I mean, it's not like there's no way to verify the actual match. oknazevad (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- You are focused only on holding the belt, so its not a silly argument. Your argument is based on the one fact dealing with the physical item. I am showing you why your argument makes no sense, but you only want things your way. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- What a silly argument. Shawn wasn't champion, and a title can hardly be unified with itself. Are you allergic to collaboration or something? WP:DROPTHESTICK. Sharonaj (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- He had it in the sense that he won it, not the physical holding it. Holding the actual belt is meaningless. Otherwise you should be arguing that Shawn Michaels vs Razor Ramon at WM10 was a unification match too - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 22:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Galatz and Sharonaj - This conversation will have no end. I'm going to close it. It should be noted that when dealing with someone clearly new to wikipedia policy, it might be better to link to how WP:PW works, especially as the title history template is relatively new. Sharonaj, this argument does seem like one for arguments sake. WP:PW is quite specific about how it deals with championship histories, considering the WWE doesn't list it's championship lineage at all right. This was a good question, as it is ambiguous enough to warrant conversation, however, when we receive a consensus that he in fact did win the championship, until damning counter sources arrive; that should be enough. At this point anything other than an official rebuttle by WWE defining that he was 100% not champion is not going to be enough. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Template:Infobox professional wrestling event merge discussion
There is a discussion proposing that Template:Infobox professional wrestling event be merged with another template. See the discussion here. Prefall 18:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Move discussion notice - Talk:NWA_National_Heavyweight_Championship#Request_to_rename_the_article_to_NWA_National_Championship.
Hey there! I'm Flooded with them hundreds. There is a move discussion at Talk:NWA_National_Heavyweight_Championship#Request_to_rename_the_article_to_NWA_National_Championship. requiring more participation, please consider commenting/voting in it along with the other discussions in the backlog (Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings). Flooded with them hundreds 05:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
List of WWE personnel
The page has List of WWE personnel has many issues. One of the biggest issues to me is everyone wants to constantly use their WWE.com profile as a reference, however it is a terrible reference to use. Chris Jericho according to his WWE.com profile [8] is on the SmackDown roster, however he made it very clear he has no WWE contract. WWE has made it clear Hulk Hogan is not under contract but he has a profile [9]. I think its safe to assume Randy Savage is not under WWE contact, but he has a profile [10]. My suggestion is to add a column that is for their WWE profile, and link it there, but not use it as a reference. I suggested this on the talk page but the only response I got was "Don't bother...that's just making a section for the sake of making a section"
which does not make any sense, because I am trying to fix an issue in incorrect references. Does anyone have any other thoughts on this? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- We shouldn't be sourcing back to WWE.com regardless. Fails WP:PRIMARY. I don't really see why we should increase the table. We aren't WWE's official website adapter, there's no need to post to their site when the information can be found elsewhere. (Might be a good use for cagematch.) Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- I agree, but unless the profiles are there in some way it will be a never ending battle to remove them again. If they are included in the table it will hopefully stop people from including it. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- We shouldn't be putting things in simply because "editors will put it back". That should never be the policy. 16:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- I agree, but unless the profiles are there in some way it will be a never ending battle to remove them again. If they are included in the table it will hopefully stop people from including it. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
An editor is trying to remove cause of Death from Wrestler pages
I have already had a discussion with this user on thier talk page because they removed the cause of death from Hawks page, yes I put it back after they continued to keep changing their reason why they removed it. They have singled out 1 page of the 1000's that the death doesn't matter. They have now started an RFC and did not link anything to the wrestling project to get comments. They have also stated that "Most articles using infobox professional wrestler do not appear to use this parameter." Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 06:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- As is the case with most RFCs these days, this is one big red herring, intended to waste a lot of peoples' time and distract them from the root problem. The other editor in this case has shown a repeated, sustained pattern of purging biographical information from biographical articles, justifying it with whatever piece of policy shopping they happen to pull out of their ass this time. Here's my take on the real issue: 1) Does the infobox need to be edited to remove the parameter, and if so, what is the benefit? 2) Does the existence of List of premature professional wrestling deaths effectively ghettoize our coverage of a well-reported phenomenon in the business, allowing others to justify whitewashing elsewhere on the encyclopedia? As an aside, are the WP:CANVASS allegations raised in response to this thread an attempt to game the results of the RFC? Everyone should be aware that certain people habitually show up at discussions of that sort and don't necessarily have anything to bring to the table. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't feel as I canvassed anything, I even removed my crassness from the post, The Project was not linked to the RFC as it should have been. I did not and am not asking anyone to comment one way or another. I stated the facts of the RFC, By not linking the project I felt it was one sided. No matter what the outcome or opinion of everyone, everyone in the Project should have a chance to voice their comments on this RFC. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 23:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm assuming good faith on your part, Chris, and notifying a relevant wiki project is not really canvassing per se, but just as advice for the future, when posting a notice on a project page (which indeed should have been done by the RFC starter), it's best not to describe the issue at hand, just state that there's a discussion in progress. Something like "There's a discussion here that might interest members of the project." That say there's no chance that bias could creep into the notification. oknazevad (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I have always respected you sir and thank you for that advise I will keep it in mind.Today was the first time anyone had accused me of canvassing.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 02:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm assuming good faith on your part, Chris, and notifying a relevant wiki project is not really canvassing per se, but just as advice for the future, when posting a notice on a project page (which indeed should have been done by the RFC starter), it's best not to describe the issue at hand, just state that there's a discussion in progress. Something like "There's a discussion here that might interest members of the project." That say there's no chance that bias could creep into the notification. oknazevad (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't feel as I canvassed anything, I even removed my crassness from the post, The Project was not linked to the RFC as it should have been. I did not and am not asking anyone to comment one way or another. I stated the facts of the RFC, By not linking the project I felt it was one sided. No matter what the outcome or opinion of everyone, everyone in the Project should have a chance to voice their comments on this RFC. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 23:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
If anyone paid close enough attention, you'll know that I skipped the big RFC this summer. It's becoming more and more obvious that a small group of 24/7 Wikipedians are content to bury the rest of us in ceaseless policy and process in order to bully the larger group into editing Wikipedia the way they see fit and only the way they see fit. That RFC and related discussion were dominated by two admins constantly presuming to speak on behalf of the community at large. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY should explain why this is folly. In terms of common sense, these folks are only painting the encyclopedia into a corner, as people will respond by finding some other website to spend their time on. The objective appears to be to push Wikipedia further in the direction of content building via one-way judgement pipelines and a one size fits all approach, also folly when we still have discerning human beings out there reading the end result and doubtless saying "what is this shit?".
WikiProjects are increasingly being treated as irrelevant by those desiring to impose their personal will under cover of policy and guidelines. It's because 24/7 Wikipedian types want to turn this place into a landfill of sources with no regard for context, and editors with special expertise in a topic area and access to specialized (read: often higher quality) sources have no place in that scheme. I was one of the editors involved in starting WikiProject Frank Zappa five years ago or so. You can go take a look and see fewer signs of a pulse than you would find in the studio audience of any given episode of AWA All-Star Wrestling. Anyway, due to the role I took in helping that WP get started, I wound up with a bunch of Zappa-related content on my watchlist. What my watchlist reveals in recent years is one editor with an obsessive WP:OWN complex over certain key articles in lieu of any activity benefiting the topic in general or the WikiProject, because hats were collected in the process. At Talk:Frank Zappa, you can see a recent RFC over some particular finer point or another which ran its course with no notice whatsoever to the WikiProject, despite the article being that project's main article. Imagine if someone had the notion to do the same with Professional wrestling and felt that only regular RFC commenters and no one here on this page needed to know of its existence. I expect to see more of that in the future. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand the above point. That RFC has nothing at all to do with this conversation. Creating an RFC without including a primary WikiProject is wrong. I should also mention to the OP, that it's also wrong to canvas with the OP for something like this; although it's clearly WP:GOOD FAITH. The idea this would pass is ridiculous, as it's connotations are that CoD's are inheritibly non-notable.
- As for the other RFC, it clearly wasn't only two admins commenting on the RFC; as their WP:WEIGHT is the same as everyone elses. It seems like it's forgotten that the General Sanctions that were placed on WP:PW was the catalyst for this all. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Is this notable? Feels like a bit of a stretch for PROGRESS wrestling Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)