Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

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

MITB

seems like trolls have deleted most of the page, can we get it back? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Money_in_the_Bank_ladder_match&action=history Muur (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Not a troll. Look at the revision history, edit summaries, and the user who removed the content (Drmies is an admin). Discuss it here: Talk:Money in the Bank ladder match#Removals --Mann Mann (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The edit summaries show a decided anti-wrestling bias. He deleted dozens of references, so claiming that he's dealing with unsourced material is disingenuous on his part. Frankly, I'm incredibly disappointed that an admin would act in such a fashion. If he cannot edit article on the subject area without bias, he needs to stay away room them. oknazevad (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, same thing[1] has happened to Royal Rumble match, and some anonymous user opened this: Talk:Royal Rumble match#Removed Data --Mann Mann (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about WWE Evolve

There seems to be a big mess going on with WWE Evolve's brand here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolve_(WWE_brand)&action=history. It appears that someone keeps trying to merge it with the WWE brand extension page and has redirected the original page for it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolve_(WWE_brand)&oldid=1278996593). I don't agree with this merge. The brand is a bit new, but it has its own show, its own roster and soon its own titles. I don't really see how it differs from NXT UK or WWE NXT other than being new. This needs to be fixed. KatoKungLee (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

There has been no announcement of Evolve-specific championships. The only recent announcements of new titles are the WWE ID titles, and those are not Evolve-brand championships, though the champions are supposed to appear on Evolve at times. In fact, I've seen little to indicate that Evolve is a separate brand, not just the name of the show, which is a replacement for WWE NXT Level Up, and features mostly the same sort of less-experienced PC trainees. This is a case where we have to make sure we're not assuming something promotional (like talking up a show) is more than it actually is. oknazevad (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Kali Armstrong just said she was going for the Women's Evolve title last night. There were also reports that Evolve will be getting their own titles and that they have been made. What other things are you looking for to determine whether this is a TV show ala WWE Main Event or an actual brand like NXT/NXT UK?KatoKungLee (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure. To be honest, I think we put far too much importance on the brands, which are in-universe distinctions mostly. Yeah, NXT definitely is distinct from the main roster, almost as though it were a subsidiary company, but Raw and Smackdown are still just WWE. Some different graphics and lights don't make a separate company, no matter how much they wanted to promote it that way back in 2002. oknazevad (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

A brand will have their own titles, wrestlers or events and show first run matches while a tv show will not do those things. Evolve has their own wrestlers as many have not appeared on NXT (Trill Williams, Cappucino Jones, Haze Jameson, Chantel Monroe and Jack Cartwheel) and/or may not be appearing on NXT again (Gallus and Wendy Choo). Evolve has their own events as no other shows are taped with it. Evolve is still new but we know titles are being made for it and wrestlers have alluded to it. Evolve also only shows first run matches, not matches aired on other shows. WWE Main Event is a TV show. It does not have its own exclusive or mostly exclusive wrestlers. Main Event does not have its own titles. It does not have its own events either as it is taped before Raw or SD. Main Event also shows multiple replays from Raw/SD on their show and only offers 2 new matches per week. The only thing Evolve hasn't really done yet that NXT has are hold PLE's or run their own house shows. I do believe they will eventually hold their own PLE event though I don't know if they will run house shows since there's NXT and many of the wrestlers are indy wrestlers anyway. Unless there's some major objection or group consensus disagreeing otherwise, I believe it is worthy of it's own brand page. KatoKungLee (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Cutting down length

Hi, I tried to reduce the length of wrestling articles such as Adam Page, Brock Lesnar and Bill Goldberg but WikiOriginal-9 seems to remove my edits. Is there a policy against large edits? A lot of wrestling biographies are too long according to Wikipedia standards with excessive weekly content and I am trying to fix them. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

What did you cut/trim? Were your removals based on WP:PW/BIO and WP:PW/CAREER? As I know there is no policy against large edits, overhauls or major rewrite/revision, but since another editor is against your edits (content dispute), then you need to discuss and clarify your edits on talk pages. --Mann Mann (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

No, you can totally make a lot of massive changes in one go. The issue will be that it's very easy to rollback one edit, and generally if you disagree with one bit of the change, you might change back to the previous version not knowing why the changes were made. I tend to make a lot more smaller edits, which are easier to justify, and that way if one bit is potentially problematic, it's only a small fraction of the total being moved. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@BinaryBrainBug: You left an edit summary of "trim pre aew career", seemingly thinking the other stuff isn't important? He was in ROH for seven years. The ROH section wasn't even long before. You merged everything from 2008 to 2019 into one small section. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I have seen his editions. To be honest, I agree. The problem many articles have it's the excesive details of feuds and every TV Special/PPV match. Bug's editions follow BIO and CAREER.

Brock Lesnar has 11.414 workd, per WP:PAGESIZE "Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material". Bug removed parts like "After Lesnar and Reigns traded a few false finishes" (descrption of a TV Plot) or "Lesnar dominated Rollins, delivering thirteen suplexes, but mid-pinfall, after performing an F-5, he was attacked by The Undertaker (who incapacitated Lesnar with a chokeslam and two Tombstone Piledrivers), " (again, descrption of a TV Plot).

Adam Page has 4120 words ("Length alone does not justify division or trimming."), but be careful, he is 33, he has a lot of years in the horizon. Bug removed parts like "Page made his pay-per-view debut at ROH's 11th Anniversary Show where he participated in a Six Man Mayhem Match won by ACH.[21] At Manhattan Mayhem, Page was defeated by Young in a singles match.[22] At Death Before Dishonor XI, Page defeated RD Evans.[23] At Glory by Honor XII, Page was defeated by Jimmy Jacobs.[24] At Golden Dream, Page had his first title match, yet he was defeated by the ROH World Television Champion Matt Taven.[25] At Final Battle 2013, Page was defeated by Matt Hardy.[26]", which I don't get why these matches are (per BIO and CAREER) "the major events and key points of the wrestler's career." --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, outside of his PPV debut and first title match, none of those are particularly important, falling under the sort of week-to-week (or event-to-event to make it more general) coverage we can trim without much issue, and really should. oknazevad (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Article for deletion discussion

Bone Street Krew. McPhail (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:WWE video games reorganization proposal

Discussion is here. Let's keep the discussion in one place. oknazevad (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Source discussion needed

Could all members pop along and comment on the reliability of the Smackdown Hotel website on the Sources talk page? Someone has used it to add a lot of material to the List of WWE personnel. We need a consensus on it ASAP before other users start using it willy nilly. Addicted4517 (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources#Smackdown Hotel is the link for anyone trying to find the discussion CeltBrowne (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Clarification on Days Elapsed Methodology

I observed that many championship articles prefer to use age in days and years template, rather than the time ago template. The time ago template tracks hours, days, months and years, providing a more precise overview, while days and years is limited in its precision.

Is there a valid reason why we are using age in days and years over a more preciser option? WorldClassChampion (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Um, really? You're saying we know the exact time of every title change? I doubt that sort of statistic has been lovingly maintained much of anywhere. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

WWE themselves maintain it in a S:M:H:D:M:Y: format. This format is echoed by reliable sources and can be cited with an archived timestamp pointing to the approximated time of tracking if needed. Showing <1 day is imprecise and limits the level of detail, when you have short reigns like Bryan Danielson, Yokozuna, which cannot be fully captured in a ‘<1 day’ attribute, especially when the actual timestamp is notable in reliable sources. WorldClassChampion (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Days format works fine for the tables; e.g. readability, consistency, sorting and comparison. "Days < 1" is not a big deal to sacrifice the current format. --Mann Mann (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

18 or 17? John Cena

He was at 16 and now he won the WWE and Universal titles. If we continue to go by 17, wouldn't we have to stop counting the Universal title after Reigns "unified" it at WM38? Because if we don't, Cena is an 18-time champ according to the official title histories on wwe.com, who have always been used as our main source for title histories. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Winning both in the same match makes it one title reign, even if it is technically two titles held in conjunction. Same with Cody having one reign over the past year, and Roman prior to that being one reign even though he added the WWE Championship while already being the Universal Champion—in that case it was one reign that began when he won said Universal title and ended when he dropped the unified title to Cody. oknazevad (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

That's never how we counted things. Look at Jey & Cody as Tag Champs in 2023 for a recent example. One reign with 2 titles. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

This is how it's been done outside Wikipedia for decades across boxing and wrestling. In fact, Cody's tag titles are a good example, because while he's held 8 tag team championships in WWE, he's a seven-time champion as two of those titles were held together at the same time. Emphasis added for effect. oknazevad (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you can just claim things like that on Wikipedia. What supports your claim that how we've been doing it forever is wrong and not based on facts? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't say how we were doing things, I'm saying how it's done in the real world. Go look up off-Wikipedia how many times George Foreman was world heavyweight champion in boxing. Then look up how many of the individual governing bodies' titles he's held.

More importantly, if WWE says 17 times, we are not "correcting" them on Wikipedia by counting ourselves. That's pure WP:OR and is not allowed.

I've told you why they say 17. You can either accept the explanation or you can drop it. Please don't drag this into another month-long discussion driven by your personal hang up. oknazevad (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

And of course now the Universal title has been quietly retired according to the official title histories.

even funnier is it was retroactively retired, its lineage ending with Roman. Cody has been removed from the title history, meaning he didn't actually hold the title. Must be why they dropped the "Univeraal" from "Undispited WWE Universal Championship" after Cody won at Mania 40. oknazevad (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

FYI, there's a related discussion at Talk: WWE Universal Championship worth everyone's input. I haven't been around for a while but was around when the WikiProject first started and we dealt with similar situations. There's a decent argument that warrants a note about Rhodes' reign being amended and likely should be listed as "unrecognized" for encyclopedic and accurate listing purposes as other similar cases have been in the past. UnqstnableTruth (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

yes, cody rhodes should be considered an official champion as wwe said he was for a year. them retconning it just means he should be listed as an unrecognised one now, like antoni inoki with the wwe title or the nonsense with fabulous moolah for 30 years where wwe pretended she never lost it. cena shouldnt count though. the title was *not* retired in 2024. Muur (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

17x per WWE. It was even mentioned during the main event and when Cena won the title. --Mann Mann (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)