| Revision as of 20:25, 14 January 2022 editDilbaggg (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,643 edits →Cagematch for titles← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:33, 23 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,312,152 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 112) (bot | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| ! colspan="2" style="font-size: 11pt; color:white; background:#9a9a9a; text-align:center;" | Professional wrestling as a whole is under ] | ! colspan="2" style="font-size: 11pt; color:white; background:#9a9a9a; text-align:center;" | Professional wrestling as a whole is under ] | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | colspan="2" | {{Shortcut|WT:PW}} Welcome to the '''WikiProject Professional wrestling''' discussion page. Please use this page to discuss issues regarding ] related articles, project guidelines, ideas, suggestions and questions. Thank you for visiting! | | colspan="2" | {{Shortcut|WT:PW}} <span class="skin-invert">Welcome to the '''WikiProject Professional wrestling''' discussion page. Please use this page to discuss issues regarding ] related articles, project guidelines, ideas, suggestions and questions. Thank you for visiting!</span> | ||
| |}<!-- BEGIN MISZABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II--> | |}<!-- BEGIN MISZABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II--> | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 112 | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 1 | |minthreadsleft = 1 | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| {{archives|style=background-color:#F9F9F9; border-color:#AAAAAA;|auto=short|search=yes|search-width=28|age=30}} | {{archives|style=background-color:#F9F9F9; border-color:#AAAAAA;|auto=short|search=yes|search-width=28|age=30}} | ||
| == Naomi and WWE Women's Tag Team Championship == | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hello, WikiProject, | |||
| I watched January 3, 2025 episode of ''SmackDown'' and during Naomi's entrance, she was introduced as WWE Women's Tag Team Champion. However, the official title history still lists Jade Cargill as the champion. Did WWE clarify the situation? Because A few days ago, several users tried to add Naomi as the champion, but there was no official confirmation/recognition by WWE. I saw a report by ''Fightful'' () and the situation has become confusing for me. I did not watch November and December 2024 episodes, so I don't know how Naomi is a champion on TV but not on the WWE website. --] (]) 16:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This is a brand new article about professional wrestling by a fairly new editor and I'm hoping some here who are experienced content creators can give it a look. Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :If that is official the main WWE webiste should be updated soon so I would wait until it is mentioned there, assuming it hasn’t been updated already.--] (]) 00:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for bringing this up. I'm not sure how "experienced" I am, but having a glance it appears to have been supported with a primary source and a bunch of sources to past results (which make the article look very listy). I can't find much else on google, so it sounds like an AfD case to me. ] (]) 14:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, they updated . Cargill is not champion anymore. --] (]) 15:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} See ]. I've never heard of this company. ''']] (])''' 13:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Kevin Nash's unrecognized WCW title reign == | |||
| == Requested moves for discussion == | |||
| He awarded himself the title in 2000 and WWE does not recognize it. I've been editing this for years, but I can't keep up. Whenever I check, someone made the reign official again. This time there isn't even a note anymore that WWE doesn't recognize it. There was consensus in this WP to make the reign grey. Can someone please help? I can't keep doing this editing war for another 5 years with a person that just immediately undoes my changes. Can some moderator do something? ] (]) 22:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * ] | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| * ] | |||
| ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and ] == | |||
| * ] | |||
| Not sure these are a good idea. ] (]) 23:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) |
:I'm surprised they haven't been done before. What's the issue with them? ] (]) 18:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thanks for your thoughts. Why stop at those two events though? I know those are the two biggest PPVs but people will start creating them for everything. Should there be Starrcade and Bound for Glory cats too? What's the criteria for inclusion in these? Technically ] should be in the Wrestlemania category since he was a manager. ] (]) 19:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was thinking participants were strictly wrestlers. As for the Royal Rumble we already have ] so why not the participants? Again, never been done before and these two PPVs are paticularly notable and the Rumble is all about the wrestlers in it, right? That's just my opinion though. ] (]) 20:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In my opinion, the categories are too broad to be defining.] (]) 20:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think it's pretty simple, also we could always rename them, Wrestlers who have competed in the Royal Rumble and wrestlers who have competed at Wrestlemania. ] (]) 23:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I understand the purpose of the categories. My argument is that having competed at these shows does not define the wrestlers involved (the whole point of ]). Nearly every non-developmental wrestler employed for the past few decades has appeared at one or both of these shows, making these categories ''not'' defining in nature. Simply renaming them won't fix that.] (]) 18:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Agreed. Having a match at Wrestlemania might be a career highlight, but it's not personally defining as Misplaced Pages categorization uses the term. An argument could possibly be made for Mania main eventers, but I still don't think that's enough. Even less so for the Royal Rumble as pretty much every body gets in that sooner or later, even if just as a filler body. Winning it is different, and we already have that category. But just planing a participant is truly and utterly non-defining. ] (]) 20:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Imho these categories are like cast categories, not advicable.] (]) 00:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Honestly such categories are ], ], and vague in my book. While they sound interesting/helpful in theory, they could cause some serious issues when we start using them; e.g. edit warring over the definition of ''participant'', creating category for every event, ppv, or special episode, bloated/cluttered category section, and etc. --] (]) 16:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ** Also, ]. ] (]) 20:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::I understand what you mean now. In all fairness, they certainley seemed like a good idea at first. But I get where you're coming from. ] (]) 23:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==January 4== | |||
| :::And why Royal Rumble does have a category while ] and ] don't? How is RR more important/notable than SS's? Just because of ]? --] (]) 11:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, I thought it would be of use but you've made your point now. ] (]) 16:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] Let's be ] about this, nominate them for speedy deletion, or ask someone who can and we can get it over with. ] (]) 22:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :Non-defining characteristics. MfD them. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 21:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| == Part-time members == | |||
| == Requested move for discussion == | |||
| I'm not exactly sure so I'm going to ask the question. Do we do part-time members on faction articles? I always assumed not as we stopped doing affiliates. But is that the same? Shoudl we or do we do part-time members on faction articles? ] (]) 18:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *] ] (]) 21:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Such stuff are excessive details and they should be avoided. You can mention them in the History section if their appearance is notable or worth mentioning. --] (]) 16:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **Also, ]. ] (]) 21:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == Requested move at ] == | ||
| == Title changes when a taped show has yet to broadcast == | |||
| ⚫ | ] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] 19:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| I've recently reverted an edit which listed a title change that hadn't yet aired. My reasoning is that if the show hasn't aired, the title change is not yet official (the promotion's website, for example, still shows the previous champion). What is this wikiproject's rule on this sort of thing? When do we alter articles to reflect the current champion, if this is technically something in the "future"? — ''']''' 13:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :Have reliable wrestling sources covered this if so it should be covered. An example would be at ] where there was a consensus to cover his 2010 MITB contact cash in against Chris Jericho before SmackDown aired on TV.--] (]) 16:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Long-standing consensus is that as long as it's reliably sourced we list title changes and edit title histories to reflect when the match actually took place, not when it aired on TV via tape delay. That's because the announcement of the winning of the title occurs for the people in attendance, who are no less valid than the people watching at home. Now, an argument could be made that since pro wrestling is not an actual sport, but a form of performing art, and it's very much made-for-tv these days that the air date is more important, but that would require a major overhaul of practice as a result of an RFC or some such. But for now, someone editing in good faith to update for events that took place as part of a TV taping, so long as it's reliably sourced, should not be reverted. ] (]) 17:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **Per ] " the results of reality television programs, and live radio and television events broadcast on a delay in certain areas of the world such as the Eurovision Song Contest and the Olympics." As Oknazevad said, it's a consensus and there are reliable sources and the title change already happened. --] (]) 17:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I'm clearly in the minority here! Well, that settles that. — ''']''' 22:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == Requested move at ] == | ||
| ⚫ | ] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. |
||
| == I found this interesting.... (potential UPE) == | |||
| The Wrestling Observer/F4WOnline website's Daily Update from yesterday has a job listing for a "Misplaced Pages guru". Did Dave and Bryan already have a "Misplaced Pages guru"? I hope there isn't any UPE going on here. <span style="background: #e2f8ff;">-] ''of'' ]</span> 16:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :It says: ''"JOB LISTING: Misplaced Pages guru... Do you have experience writing Misplaced Pages pages? Please contact..."'' It could be a sign of paid editing or they just want to improve WON-related content on WP. Maybe it's better to contact them and ask them clarifying their concerns. ] (]) 05:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ==Unidsputed Era== | |||
| Happy New Year to everyone. With this new year 2022, I have some question that I want to ask. Feel free to give me your toughts. | |||
| First, is about the Undisputed Era article. As you known, Fish, Cole and KO joind AEW and began to work together. However, the article UE say they still active. While it's true to some point (Strong stills with WWE), it's weird to say that UE, a WWE stable, still active as a sub-group of The Elite because they're the same members. What do you think? --] (]) 16:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :Agree. The Undisputed Era is a WWE faction -- it shouldn't be listed as "active" because, quite simply, it's ''not'' active. There is no faction called Undisputed Era anymore. When AJ Styles and the Good Brothers were in WWE, we didn't call them Bullet Club, because they became something new. I've noticed the odd IP trying to add "Undisputed Era" to the sub-groups section of the Elite article, and I (and others) have been removing it; I'd extend this to the UE article too. — ''']''' 17:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::Are Kyle O'Reilly and Bobby Fish official members? Or are they just associates? O'Reilly brought up the past problems with Cole in which there were many in ROH and NXT. Just because O'Reilly teamed with Cole one time in AEW doesn't mean he is a member. So there needs to be some clarification. But as for the Undisputed Era specifically, I'm all for listing it as 2021 when they disbanded. Cole, O'Reilly, and Fish being official members or associates of The Elite have nothing to do with The Undisputed Era which is a WWE faction. Therefore, The Elite should not be listed in the infobox. <span style="background:red"><span style="color:white">Mr. C.C.</span><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 04:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ==Evolution rename== | |||
| This one, I asked McPhail. iI want to open a rename request for ]. The AJPW disambiguation doesn't work, since no wrestling readers don't known the topic of the article. Also, the disambiguation doesn't explain what it is (a title, a wrestler, an event??). So, I want to change the name, but there is also ], which is the primary topic. So, do you have any sugestion for the Japanese article? My ideas: Evolution (AJPW stable) or (Japanese stable) or (Japanese professional wrestling stable) --] (]) 16:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tq|(Japanese professional wrestling stable)}} is probably the most consistent with Misplaced Pages guidelines -- passing editors won't know what a "stable" means in that context, so the additional descriptor is probably required (though it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue). — ''']''' 17:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested move for discussion == | |||
| ] ] (]) 16:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ==Cagematch for titles== | |||
| I know I forget something. Cagematch is one of the most used sources in the project. However, the project says "Marginally reliable. Strictly used for match results and not other information". There is any reason why isn't reliable for title history? Match results are tied with the title history. --] (]) 19:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :I use Wrestling Titles. Sure you can use Cagematch, but you should always cross reference. <span style="background:red"><span style="color:white">Mr. C.C.</span><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 04:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :I tend to agree that if Cagematch is deemed reliable for match results it should also be an accepted source for title histories. Though as noted having two sources is ideal. ] (]) 09:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| :::{{Ping|Lee Vilenski}} Cagematch allows people to submit things. That should be taken into consideration. But, Wrestling Titles has had contributions from people as well. Solie.org on the other hand can be spotty with some title histories. For example, Nikki Bella is a two time Diva's Champion, but Solie.org has one reign listed. You can use Solie.org. But again, cross reference. <span style="background:red"><span style="color:white">Mr. C.C.</span><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 16:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So, there is no opposition to change the RS list and include Cagematch for matches and title history? --] (]) 11:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| The WP:PW Sources page says they do fact checking on user-submitted results (although I can't find this on the site itself). My question is who is doing this fact checking, and what makes them qualified to do so? What makes BarKing81, Franjise, RutlandInsurance, etc., experts in the subject matter? I don't see any assertion of specialized knowledge or experience in the "About Us" or "Cagematch Team" pages. Is the site listed as reliable because it meets the criteria of WP:RS or because it's convenient? ] (]) 14:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Ping|GaryColemanFan}} It's like Online World of Wrestling. It's user submitted, but it's listed as unreliable unlike Cagematch which is listed under "industry specific." Even Internet Wrestling Database is listed as "limited reliability. In the note regarding Cagematch it says "Marginally reliable. Strictly used for match results and not other information. Takes user submissions but is reviewed by regional editors that verify all submissions before they are added to the database." As you mentioned, there is nothing stating their fact checking process. The about us is just the site history. I doubt there will be a site with title histories that will be 100 percent reliable or accurate. I would be all for making them limited reliability if nothing else. <span style="background:red"><span style="color:white">Mr. C.C.</span><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 07:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::It looks like they would fit in the "Unproven sources" category, as there doesn't seem to be any assertion or evidence of meeting WP:RS. It's true that there might not be an up-to-date site with comprehensive lineages for all titles--I don't think Solie's Title Histories, Wrestling Titles/Puroresu Dojo, or Cagematch would hold up to WP:RS scrutiny--but that would mean that we would need to gather our information from what does exist (the Duncan/Will book, match results and biographies from reliable sources, promotion websites) rather than going with the site that falls the least short of WP:RS. I would suggest that the WP:PW/RS page needs some WP:TNT and a fresh start altogether. ] (]) 14:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::There are too few ], also i see nothing Cagematch has done to be considered unreliable. Its not overly used anywhere. It fits ] and ] guidlines. If things goes on at this rate, evrything will be considered unreliable and there will be no sourceleft to use and all wrestling articles might end up having blank pages. I don't see Cagematch causeing any big issues, it is no less teliable than ]'s dirtsheet WON and his numerous faulty reports (like Punk coming back to WWE in 2014 which did not happen). Cagematch has never made any unproven faulty report like that. Lets just leave the articles that already uses it as a source alone and its OK if we don't use it in future but there is no need to remove any existing contents that uses it as a source, and as a matter of fact it has been used in very few places. Thats all I have to say on this matter. ] (]) 19:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Standards for reliable sources can't be lowered because of a low number of sources. They're either reliable, or they aren't. A site doesn't need to "do something" to be considered unreliable. They need to "do something" to be considered reliable (i.e. establish their qualifications and expertise in a specific field). In other words, every site would be considered unreliable unless it can be proven otherwise. There are many reliable sources, and slippery slope, "what about x?"-style arguments have no place on Misplaced Pages or anywhere else. Cagematch doesn't have to cause big issues to not be used. It just shouldn't be used unless it can be established that it meets WP:RS. Dave Meltzer is a recognized journalist, and a single error (or even series of errors) doesn't make a source unreliable. He is considered reliable because he has specific qualifications and expertise, which can be demonstrated in numerous ways (not the least of which are his recognition by the Cauliflower Alley Club and the George Tragos/Lou Thesz Hall of Fame, honors which I don't believe DanTalksRasslin, RKO1982, or The Sick Lebowski of Cagematch have yet attained). A source that doesn't meet WP:RS shouldn't be left in articles, even if it's only a small number of articles. The big question is that, if you claim that Cagematch meets WP:RS and WP:V, can you offer policy-based arguments to prove this? ] (]) 07:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::While cagematch journalists don't have as much recognition as Dave Meltzer, that doesn't mean that tehy are not accurate and reliable. Byb this logic cbs sports, 411 mania, and all otehr accpted ] can be dismissed just because their writers do not have enough recognition according to ] members. Anyway do whateve you want but I fail to see any reason that can cause Cagematch to be considered unreliable, they have not reported anything inaccurate and also have their own valid reputation among the wrestling world... ] (]) 20:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:33, 23 January 2025
| 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 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 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Naomi and WWE Women's Tag Team Championship
I watched January 3, 2025 episode of SmackDown and during Naomi's entrance, she was introduced as WWE Women's Tag Team Champion. However, the official title history still lists Jade Cargill as the champion. Did WWE clarify the situation? Because A few days ago, several users tried to add Naomi as the champion, but there was no official confirmation/recognition by WWE. I saw a report by Fightful (Naomi Officially Recognized As One-Half Of WWE Women's Tag Team Champions) and the situation has become confusing for me. I did not watch November and December 2024 episodes, so I don't know how Naomi is a champion on TV but not on the WWE website. --Mann Mann (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- If that is official the main WWE webiste should be updated soon so I would wait until it is mentioned there, assuming it hasn’t been updated already.--67.70.103.133 (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, they updated it. Cargill is not champion anymore. --Mann Mann (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Kevin Nash's unrecognized WCW title reign
He awarded himself the title in 2000 and WWE does not recognize it. I've been editing this for years, but I can't keep up. Whenever I check, someone made the reign official again. This time there isn't even a note anymore that WWE doesn't recognize it. There was consensus in this WP to make the reign grey. Can someone please help? I can't keep doing this editing war for another 5 years with a person that just immediately undoes my changes. Can some moderator do something? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for SummerSlam (1988)
SummerSlam (1988) 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) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:Royal Rumble participants and Category:Wrestlemania participants
Not sure these are a good idea. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm surprised they haven't been done before. What's the issue with them? Lemonademan22 (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughts. Why stop at those two events though? I know those are the two biggest PPVs but people will start creating them for everything. Should there be Starrcade and Bound for Glory cats too? What's the criteria for inclusion in these? Technically Donald Trump should be in the Wrestlemania category since he was a manager. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was thinking participants were strictly wrestlers. As for the Royal Rumble we already have Category:Royal Rumble match winners so why not the participants? Again, never been done before and these two PPVs are paticularly notable and the Rumble is all about the wrestlers in it, right? That's just my opinion though. Lemonademan22 (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the categories are too broad to be defining.LM2000 (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's pretty simple, also we could always rename them, Wrestlers who have competed in the Royal Rumble and wrestlers who have competed at Wrestlemania. Lemonademan22 (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand the purpose of the categories. My argument is that having competed at these shows does not define the wrestlers involved (the whole point of WP:CAT). Nearly every non-developmental wrestler employed for the past few decades has appeared at one or both of these shows, making these categories not defining in nature. Simply renaming them won't fix that.LM2000 (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. Having a match at Wrestlemania might be a career highlight, but it's not personally defining as Misplaced Pages categorization uses the term. An argument could possibly be made for Mania main eventers, but I still don't think that's enough. Even less so for the Royal Rumble as pretty much every body gets in that sooner or later, even if just as a filler body. Winning it is different, and we already have that category. But just planing a participant is truly and utterly non-defining. oknazevad (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand the purpose of the categories. My argument is that having competed at these shows does not define the wrestlers involved (the whole point of WP:CAT). Nearly every non-developmental wrestler employed for the past few decades has appeared at one or both of these shows, making these categories not defining in nature. Simply renaming them won't fix that.LM2000 (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's pretty simple, also we could always rename them, Wrestlers who have competed in the Royal Rumble and wrestlers who have competed at Wrestlemania. Lemonademan22 (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the categories are too broad to be defining.LM2000 (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was thinking participants were strictly wrestlers. As for the Royal Rumble we already have Category:Royal Rumble match winners so why not the participants? Again, never been done before and these two PPVs are paticularly notable and the Rumble is all about the wrestlers in it, right? That's just my opinion though. Lemonademan22 (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughts. Why stop at those two events though? I know those are the two biggest PPVs but people will start creating them for everything. Should there be Starrcade and Bound for Glory cats too? What's the criteria for inclusion in these? Technically Donald Trump should be in the Wrestlemania category since he was a manager. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Imho these categories are like cast categories, not advicable.★Trekker (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Honestly such categories are fancruft, out of scope, and vague in my book. While they sound interesting/helpful in theory, they could cause some serious issues when we start using them; e.g. edit warring over the definition of participant, creating category for every event, ppv, or special episode, bloated/cluttered category section, and etc. --Mann Mann (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand what you mean now. In all fairness, they certainley seemed like a good idea at first. But I get where you're coming from. Lemonademan22 (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- And why Royal Rumble does have a category while Survivor Series and SummerSlam don't? How is RR more important/notable than SS's? Just because of Royal Rumble match? --Mann Mann (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I thought it would be of use but you've made your point now. Lemonademan22 (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- And why Royal Rumble does have a category while Survivor Series and SummerSlam don't? How is RR more important/notable than SS's? Just because of Royal Rumble match? --Mann Mann (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Mann Mann Let's be civil about this, nominate them for speedy deletion, or ask someone who can and we can get it over with. Lemonademan22 (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand what you mean now. In all fairness, they certainley seemed like a good idea at first. But I get where you're coming from. Lemonademan22 (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Non-defining characteristics. MfD them. Lee Vilenski 21:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Part-time members
I'm not exactly sure so I'm going to ask the question. Do we do part-time members on faction articles? I always assumed not as we stopped doing affiliates. But is that the same? Shoudl we or do we do part-time members on faction articles? Lemonademan22 (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Such stuff are excessive details and they should be avoided. You can mention them in the History section if their appearance is notable or worth mentioning. --Mann Mann (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Turning Point (2004 wrestling)#Requested move 15 January 2025
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Turning Point (2004 wrestling)#Requested move 15 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 19:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)