Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WP:PW TalkArticle alertsAssessmentMembers listNew articlesNotabilityRecognized contentSanctionsSourcesStyle guideTemplatesTop priority articles
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!

"Associates" in stable/faction articles

[edit]

I'd like to propose that we do away with "associate" fields in stable and faction articles. This would include tables under members, fields in timelines, or describing people as associates. Here is my reasoning:

  • First and most importantly, it is usually WP:OR and is rarely adequately sourced. Most of the time it depends on personal opinion or interpretation. If one person is seen hanging around with another faction more than once then people try to add them as an "associate".
  • On that note, sourcing is near impossible because "associate" appears to be a term that only really exists on Wikipedia. The vast majority of sources don't describe allies of a faction as "associates", but might use some other vague descriptor, which is what leads to the OR mentioned above.
  • Next, it isn't encyclopedic. Either they are a member or they are not. If they are not, why are we including them? Any storyline 'association' can be mentioned in the article body. Friends of friends shouldn't be listed under 'members', because they ultimately are not. It's WP:FANCRUFT.
  • It leads to edit wars. The endless arguments about who is or isn't an associate of a faction, which seems to be getting worse as the wrestling industry is more faction heavy than it's perhaps ever been, is ultimately disruptive to the project.

For these reasons I think we should prohibit this being a standard part of stable articles. If agreed, I'm happy to do the legwork myself in cleaning up existing articles. — Czello (music) 20:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Czello. The associates section it's hard to source and I don't see any kind of enciclopedic value. That's how pro wrestling works, wrestlers work with wrestlers. Also, most Ips include every wrestler who, at some point, appears with the stable. (do you remember Drew McIntyre as Judgment Day's associate or Nikki Cross as DMG Control's associate? I remember back in my day, Great Khali and Boogeyman were DX's associates because they did the Suck it gesture.) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking to get more input here, @Mann Mann: @RadioKAOS: @CeltBrowne:Czello (music) 07:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, remove them. While it's not a 1:1 situation, an "associated acts" parameter was removed from Template:Infobox musical artist a couple years ago for similar reasons (see that discussion here). These "associate" listings are simply not worth the trouble they cause, nor do they add much to begin with. If an association is truly notable, then it will more appropriately be contextualized in the body of the article. Prefall 08:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Czello makes good points, however, to play Devil's advocate, sometimes there very clearly is some kind of "Second tier" level of membership in a wrestling faction. To pick a current example, I would in fact say that Pac and Marina Shafir are "associates" of the Blackpool Combat Club, to the point where I would deem them "de facto" members. AEW has not "officially" placed them in the stable, but for plot purposes, they're quite clearly in at this point. I don't think it's "wrong" of users to highlight that these people are associated with the faction and are interwoven into the plot.
I think to say sourcing is "impossible" is probably overstating it. While wrestling sources are unlikely to use the exact term "associate", I'm sure there are sources who use language indicating that a wrestler is attached to a faction without being declared a member. To use a historic example; I'm sure we can get sources discussing how Disco Inferno was "kinda" a member of the nWo Wolfpac, but not "offically".
I know making these points makes coming to a consensus more difficult, but I feel they do have to be pointed out. CeltBrowne (talk) 08:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there will always be special cases where someone deserves a mention (perhaps like Sami in the Bloodline), but I think there would have to be good justification for inclusion rather than it being the default.
I'm sure there are sources who use language indicating that a wrestler is attached to a faction without being declared a member This is where we get into the WP:OR argument, however, as users are going to need to make interpretations of what language actually means what we call an 'associate'. I think if they're in this grey area then they're not ultimately not a member, but would still get mentioned in the article body. — Czello (music) 13:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know about the music argument. Good call. The main issue are IPs and good faith editors who include every wrestler who, at some point, has some connection, storyline or match with the stable. Associates, Honorary, part time, unoficial... BTW, I don't understand the "honorary Uso" thing. For me, Zayn it's clearly a member of the Bloodline, the honorary title it's kayfabe since he isn't part of the Anoa'i family.
Same as Prefall. I add this: Sub-groups need similar concerns. For example, take a look at Damage CTRL#Sub-groups. The Sky Pirates was used in NXT. Sane and Shirai (Sky) used that name until 2019. And they became Sky Pirates again just because they are in a same stable/group?! It is just WP:OR/SYNTH material. --Mann Mann (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.We can start another discussion. I think things like [1] and other Japanese factions are a field for WP:FANCRUFT. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our continued detachment from reality in by-year articles

[edit]

Found in 1952 in professional wrestling:

==List of notable promotions==
Only one promotion held notable shows in 1952.

Promotion Name Abbreviation
Empresa Mexicana de Lucha Libre EMLL

Found in the very first hit of a perfunctory Google search:

On May 21, 1952 Baron Michele Leone made wrestling history, when he lost the Olympic version of the world title to Lou Thesz at Gilmore Field in Los Angeles, unifying it with the NWA world title. The event drew 25,256 fans, which is still to this date the second largest crowd to watch a wrestling event in Southern California history, and took $103,277.75 at the gate, pro-wrestling’s first gate of over $100,000.00.

So tell me, how are we defining "notable", and how is doing so helping with readers' understanding of the topic? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term "notable" was probably introduced to the format of these pages so that for more recent pages, random IP editors would be discouraged from adding every single event of the year to the article. I'm sure in the case of much older articles, the term "notable" is not there to gatekeep events like the LA one you referenced. I'm sure no one would object to the inclusion of the LA show as a notable 1952 event. CeltBrowne (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish background of Madusa and Victoria

[edit]

Are Madusa and Victoria Jew? I don't see anything about that claim on their articles, but Jeiwsh-related categories are linked. We better review and verify List of Jewish professional wrestlers. There could be BLP violation and unsourced claims. --Mann Mann (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike greatly on any BLP page when someone is categorised into an ethnicity/nationality, but there's no mention of their membership in that ethnicity/nationality in the article. American BLP pages are rife with claims of being "Irish-American" or various other European descendent without any evidence. For example I just recently had to reduce 8 claimed ethnicities for David Arquette down to 3 in this edit upon actually looking up the evidence/sources.
That said, a quick google search for Lisa Marie Varon shows that she is Jewish:
I'm having a harder time sourcing anything for Madusa CeltBrowne (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two issues: Many wrestlers or wrestling personalities do not correct/confirm such info about their identity and real life stuff, and it is not limited to their ethnicity or religion. Age (exact birth date) and legal/real name (especially for married women) could suffer from the very same OR/unsourced problems. Another issue is that such content could be legit but they were added by IP-users or inexperienced users who forgot to add sources. And the scenario becomes worse when the missing sources are non-English. I will remove Jewish from Madusa article. Feel free to re-add them if you find a source. --Mann Mann (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Commons DR

[edit]

Editors who work on lucha-related content may wish to take note of Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Estrellato, where it's being argued that masks are copyrightable, and photos of masked wrestlers uploaded to Commons are derivative works and therefore copyright violations RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Achievements table

[edit]

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

I agree, it seems like it's duplicating information found in the "Championships and accomplishments" sections. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's some kind of unacceptable content forking. Remove such stuff when you see them. --Mann Mann (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with HHH that it's a duplication of material that tends to already exist in a navbox only a couple of inches further down the page. If people want to see what order wrestlers held a title, they can go to the "List of X Champions" article. — Czello (music) 18:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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