Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

WP:PW	Talk • Article alerts • Assessment • Members list • New articles • Notability • Recognized content • Sanctions • Sources • Style guide • Templates • Top priority articles

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

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

FLRC -St. Louis Wrestling Hall of Fame

I have nominated St. Louis Wrestling Hall of Fame for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. meamemg (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a moderator

Hi, I have made a a profile about a New Zealand Pro Wrestler. This is the first of many profiles I wish to make so that there are more New Zealand Pro Wrestlers on Wikipedia. I have received advice on previous submissions, which I have actioned by making improvements. However my most recent draft has been sitting there for over 2 months with no review. If there is a moderator who can approve my article I would appreciate it if you can have a look. If this is the wrong location to be posting this message then please remove it. my article is... Draft:Tommy Combat Harbin Kiwi (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Harbin Kiwi: Please read WP:PW/Notability and Wikipedia:Notability. To have an article on WP, a wrestler needs to pass minimum notability criteria. --Mann Mann (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. i have seen the article. The problem is Notability. He worked on the independent level, so there are no sources talking about him. First, we need third party sources focusing on him (not about events where he participated). Most of the article is Cagematch. Sorry, I don't see Mr Combat as notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox professional wrestler: birth_name should be changed to real_name

Please participate in this discussion: birth_name should be changed to real_name --Mann Mann (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intro for wrestlers: Better known vs. Best known vs. Known professionally vs. Performs

Consider The Undertaker as an example:

Mark William Calaway (born March 24, 1965), better known by his ring name The Undertaker...
Mark William Calaway (born March 24, 1965), best known by his ring name The Undertaker...
Mark William Calaway (born March 24, 1965), known professionally by his ring name The Undertaker...
Mark William Calaway (born March 24, 1965), known professionally as The Undertaker...
Mark William Calaway (born March 24, 1965), is an American professional wrestler who performs under the ring name The Undertaker... (I know he is retired, just an example)

Which option is the best? We don't use "known professionally" in our articles, but I have seen it on the articles about actors; e.g. Nicolas Cage. Another point is we better avoid using "his/her/their" ring name. In many cases, those ring names or gimmicks belong to the wrestling companies. Using "the" ring name sounds better even if a wrestler owns his/her ring name; e.g. Kenny Omega is a good example: "Tyson Smith (born October 16, 1983), better known by the ring name Kenny Omega..." --Mann Mann (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can choose a catch-all option, as it really depends on context. Three and four don't really work for wrestlers who are best known by a ring name but don't actively use said name anymore, usually due to the rights belonging to their former promotion (AJ Lee, for example).

In a general sense though, four is my favorite. Straight and to the point. The mention of ring name isn't always necessary, especially since their profession as a wrestler is mentioned immediately after. I also agree that "the" ring name sounds better. Prefall 12:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... According to WP:PW/BIO: The lead should typically open with the wrestler's real name that is supported by a reliable source, and if they are known by a ring name, it should be noted in one of the proceeding sentences. So this discussion needs community consensus. --Mann Mann (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Jericho's Rock 'N' Wrestling Rager at Sea

I want to bring some eyes to this article. A lot of it seems trivial, contains original research and unsourced material. Also, there is the question wether it's even notable enough to be considered to have it's own article. I also think having an entire article dedicated to numerous untelevised wrestling matches is absurd as they are not even shown on tape delay or even recorded for that matter, the most you see from these matches is from fan recordings. On top of this it seems only IPs are editing this article. Lemonademan22 (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, I will say: 1 the guest list feels WP:FANCRUFT. 2 even if the event isn't televised, stills notable. 3, maybe, we should try to write about the event beyond the results. The article is just the matches, but there are no reception or history sections. Maybe you don't know, but AJPW's biggest tournament, Champion Carnival, was deleted in 2016 because the article was just a collection of results. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should Cody be considered a 2 time World Champ?

The Universal title hasn't been defended in 3 years. Is it time to stop calling it a world title? WWE said the titles were unified. Everybody on reddit calls me stupid for thinking Cena would be an 18 time World Champ if he wins it from Cody. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, see WP:NOR. --Mann Mann (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What if WWE starts calling Cena a 17 time Champ in every article if he were to win Cody's title? Would that overwrite the Universal title history still existing? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 10:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holding two titles that have been won and defended together doesn't count as multiple world title reigns. It's all one reign. oknazevad (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But WWE clearly recognizes him as WWE and Universal Champ. So why should we go against WWE? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he (officially) holds two titles at the same time. But that last part is the key. They're both held as the same reign.

Anyway, Cody's not a one-time time champ anyway. He's held the ROH and NWA titles previously. oknazevad (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We count Cody & Jey as 2 time tag champs together even though that was the same reign. So by your logic we shouldnt? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Christian Cage

Christian Cage has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Main Event of Elimination Chamber

Why does the Chamber match count? Wasn't the Soul segment the main event? There were Divas matches that were the last match on Raw, but didn't count as the main event because they were a filler before the talking segment came on WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Chamber match was the last match. The talking segment after was part of the immediate fallout from the match, but the match was the main event. oknazevad (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would we do if a long talking segment that has nothing to do with the previous match ends a show? What would we call the main event? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last match. "Main event" really means "the match that's the main selling point and focus". oknazevad (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PPV Results table placement

Why is the table of results all the way at the bottom of PPV articles and not immediately after (or even a subsection of) the event summary section. Makes a lot more sense for it to be there being it's a table of the events of the show itself, and shouldn't be after the reception and aftermath sections. (Oh, and these aftermath sections are getting out of hand; events six months and three feuds later don't belong in them, as there's multiple other PPVs in between. Seriously, cut them down to just the immediate aftermath of what happened next, not what happened a year later!) oknazevad (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's so low because the prose section already explained the results. I think it's a good idea to get the results just after the prose section. Also, good idea for the "Aftermantch". Some times, the project wants to include every ounce of information, even if it's not related to the subject. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All because of WP:PW/PPVG. If the current format/style is not good, then we need to revise it. --Mann Mann (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point. I know what the guideline says. I'm questioning why was that made part of the guideline. It's illogical. oknazevad (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Results section should be mentioned after Event section. In my opinion, Results as a sub-section of Event is better. As for Aftermath section, you have a good point. For some PPVs like Money in the Bank, the aftermath could take 1 year to be concluded. But adding new storylines to old/finished PPVs is unacceptable. --Mann Mann (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just after the summary seems like the sweet spot to me Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it should be after or a subsection at the end of the summary? oknazevad (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After. I think there's plenty of people who would come straight for the results, and that makes navigation on mobile better. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. oknazevad (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Public image of Roman Reigns

Public image of Roman Reigns is an article, that in my opinion, is not needed. It has lost it's purpose and is now just a summary of Reigns' career which is already on his own article. I say extract the needed information, create it as it's own section on his article, as we do with others, and delete this article. Lemonademan22 (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On top of that, the information that is actually useful is in the opening three paragraphs, everything else is just a summary of Reigns's career. Lemonademan22 (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article survived a merge request and several sources talk about the work behind the character and the reception. Years ago, it was huge. now, the hate/love has cold down to normal levels. ( also, the article in ludes something about contact lenses, weird).--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest 1, remove some quotes. every few lines its a quote. 2, remove some PPV. no need to include every reaction of every --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a summary of Reigns' career would be a start and then some of the quotes. I also would like to suggest merging it with Reigns' own page and making it it's own section. Lemonademan22 (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There's no independent notability requiring a separate article. Reaction to Roman's career belongs on the page about Roman. The split was ridiculous WP:RECENTISM. oknazevad (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The article serves no purpose. Apart from a few paragraphs it's just a copy and paste of Reigns' own article. No reason it should be it's own article, it's not even that notable. Lemonademan22 (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said, his public reception has been covered, usually as the Vinc McMahon fail. If you want, you can create a merge proposal. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've never done that before. How do I do that? Lemonademan22 (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MERGEINIT Here. You start a discussion, other users give our opinion and an admin closes the request. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]