| Revision as of 22:42, 14 January 2022 editDilbaggg (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,617 edits →Cagematch for titles← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:06, 7 January 2025 edit undoMann Mann (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,263 edits →Naomi and WWE Women's Tag Team Championship: Reply | ||
| 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}} | ||
| ==Style guide change: first and last champions== | |||
| ==]== | |||
| {{atop | |||
| Hello, WikiProject, | |||
| | result = Consensus to include inaugural and final champions in C&A. The consensus for including final champions was weaker, however, so there is scope for the conversation to continue around that specifically. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 09:20, 22 December 2024 (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) | |||
| Hello. The Style Guide, Championships and accomplishments (]) states that "Other notes (such as oldest, youngest, first, last, only, etc.) are only covered in the relevant prose section and are not listed in this section". However, despite I have tried to delete the first or last champions, IPs and users keep including over and over, most recently . I propose to change the style guide, so we can include inaugural and final champions to the C&A. I mean, it's like a lost battle, fighting against the elements. --] (]) 17:17, 17 October 2024 (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) | |||
| {{od}} See ]. I've never heard of this company. ''']] (])''' 13:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested moves for discussion == | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ] (]) 19:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ** Also, ]. ] (]) 20:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ==January 4== | |||
| There is a discussion in the talk page of the ]. The issue, if the article should include the WrestleKingdom events that takes place on Jan 5 (and Jan 8). If you want, you can give your opinion. --] (]) 13:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested move for discussion == | |||
| *] ] (]) 21:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **Also, ]. ] (]) 21:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Title changes when a taped show has yet to broadcast == | |||
| 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. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 17:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == I found this interesting.... (potential UPE) == | |||
| :So we change our guidelines just because some users don't read them?! Why you don't message them? You can request page protection or report them to related boards. If those users want to change MOS, then they should participate in the related discussion. And forget IP-users. Many of them are wrestling fans who view WP as a blog/database for submitting fancruft materials. --] (]) 20:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::I don't see the change as a harmful. It's a small change. --] (]) 12:01, 18 October 2024 (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) | |||
| :::It is not a big deal for me. In the end, we follow general WP guidelines and WP:PW consensus. So if being the first/last champion is notable or something special and we get a consensus for it, then I'm OK with it. My point is we should not feed IP-users and registered users who always violate basic MOS guidelines. --] (]) 16:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I do not have a problem with the proposal, as long as first and last champions are the only ones noted in the C&A (not youngest, oldest, heaviest, etc.). Being the first/last champion is somewhat noteworthy, but the others border on trivia. | |||
| ::::Does anybody know if it was ever customary to note inaugural/final? I can always remember seeing them as long as I have been reading Misplaced Pages, but it has been against the styles guide as long as I have been editing (nearly 15 years). It seems like one of those things that used to be permissible and users refused to give it up after it fell out of favor.] (]) 08:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::To be honest, I feel like the ]. Some users included it into the style guide long time ago and we follow it without asking. --] (]) 08:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::@] I honestly never really understood why it was against the SG to notate the first and last champion in the C&A section, which is why I never removed it if I saw it on an article. It's a pretty notable thing. ] ] 01:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Maybe explicitly allow inaugural and final champions in championship sections in the MOS? I personally think its notable information; if the project isn't opposed and in favor, let's do it. ] (]) 23:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Vote: Inclusion of inaugural/final champion in Championships and accomplishments === | |||
| ==Unidsputed Era== | |||
| OK, let's reach a consensus before 2025. Vote: Support, Oppose, or Neutral. | |||
| 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. | |||
| *'''Neutral''' As I said in my above comment, I'm fine with community consensus. --] (]) 02:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| *'''Support''' Per above. --] (]) 21:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Neutral''' as well.] (]) 10:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I think it's important to note a inaugral/final champion but I wouldn't see the point in anything beyond that. ] (]) 13:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' --] ] 13:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - Being the first and last holder of a championship is noteworthy. ] (]) 15:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' inaugural champion. That's undoubtedly noteworthy. Neutral on final. Sometimes being a final champion is a noted and touted event. Sometimes the person just happens to hold a title when a foundering promotion finally closes. The latter isn't really notable, so I can take or leave it. But inaugural is absolutely deserving of mention. ] (]) 16:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - it can be mentioned in the prose. It's not an achievement. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 17:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - Seems slightly noteworthy. ] (]) 17:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' ] (]) 19:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Guarded support''' - This may be abused by users seeking to apply it to a non notable title, of which there are a number in the list of notable wrestlers. Using this to keep a title on a list could be problematic. I don't have an issue with it with notable titles (eg Pat Patterson IC Title, Seth Rollins NXT title etc) but we need to be very careful. The same applies to the last champion. ] (]) 19:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - A mention in prose is enough and I also think this might overload the C&A section a little bit. For example, when it comes to tag team titles, should you also indicate with which partner(s) the champion was inaugural/final champ? ''''']''''' (]) 20:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ** I was leaning towards '''support''', but you make a very valid point that I had not considered. This could get messy.] (]) 09:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - Don't know if my opinion will matter here, but i really think that the inaugural champ should always be mentioned, but i'm not sure about the final, anyway, i will be okay with what the community decides, but the inaugural it's a yes for me. ] (]) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Questionable deletion == | |||
| :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) | |||
| I seem to recall a discussion some years ago about giving extra weight to a biography if it's of a defining figure of professional wrestling in a particular country. If that's still the case, I question the recent deletion of ]. It appears to have been done unilaterally, without benefit of a discussion or even the courtesy of a notice to this project or other relevant projects. ]/]/] 15:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :That is how CSD works, I'm afraid. I'm not sure the article was just advertising, but it was definitely quite promotional in tone. You can contact the deleting admin for a ] if you want a copy to make a good version of the article (most of it was unsourced). '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 16:18, 23 December 2024 (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) | |||
| == Request for comment == | |||
| :{{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) | |||
| Can I please have someone's input on ]? Thanks. ] (]) 23:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested move for discussion == | |||
| == Naomi and WWE Women's Tag Team Championship == | |||
| ] ] (]) 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 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::I've always found cagematch to be a superior source to Wrestling Titles Best Wishes, '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 09:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, they updated . Cargill is not champion anymore. --] (]) 15:06, 7 January 2025 (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) | |||
| ::::::Just so people know what Dilbaggg deems to be a reliable source on information, have a guess what his source is for Dave Meltzer being wrong about Punk's return in 2014. When you're ready to find the answer, go . All my warmest wishes, ] (]) 21:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Says ItsKesha the one who blindly edit wars articles, does not request for consennsus when making contradictory changes because he knows votes goes against his favor and have been warned by numerous users on his talk page for numerous Misplaced Pages policy violations but has to remove and hide them all the time. Anyway I only brought that up for his ] violation ] attack on me, I should keep in mind that just because someoe does that to you you dont do it to them, so I won't do that again, anyway what he said has nothing to do with this, I already mentioned my reasons before his off topic comment, do whatever majority editors want, best wishes. ] (]) 22:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:06, 7 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. |
Style guide change: first and last champions
Consensus to include inaugural and final champions in C&A. The consensus for including final champions was weaker, however, so there is scope for the conversation to continue around that specifically. — Czello 09:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)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.
Hello. The Style Guide, Championships and accomplishments (WP:PW/CHAMPION) states that "Other notes (such as oldest, youngest, first, last, only, etc.) are only covered in the relevant prose section and are not listed in this section". However, despite I have tried to delete the first or last champions, IPs and users keep including over and over, most recently . I propose to change the style guide, so we can include inaugural and final champions to the C&A. I mean, it's like a lost battle, fighting against the elements. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- So we change our guidelines just because some users don't read them?! Why you don't message them? You can request page protection or report them to related boards. If those users want to change MOS, then they should participate in the related discussion. And forget IP-users. Many of them are wrestling fans who view WP as a blog/database for submitting fancruft materials. --Mann Mann (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see the change as a harmful. It's a small change. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- It is not a big deal for me. In the end, we follow general WP guidelines and WP:PW consensus. So if being the first/last champion is notable or something special and we get a consensus for it, then I'm OK with it. My point is we should not feed IP-users and registered users who always violate basic MOS guidelines. --Mann Mann (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- I do not have a problem with the proposal, as long as first and last champions are the only ones noted in the C&A (not youngest, oldest, heaviest, etc.). Being the first/last champion is somewhat noteworthy, but the others border on trivia.
- Does anybody know if it was ever customary to note inaugural/final? I can always remember seeing them as long as I have been reading Misplaced Pages, but it has been against the styles guide as long as I have been editing (nearly 15 years). It seems like one of those things that used to be permissible and users refused to give it up after it fell out of favor.LM2000 (talk) 08:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- To be honest, I feel like the five monkeys experiment. Some users included it into the style guide long time ago and we follow it without asking. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- @HHH Pedrigree I honestly never really understood why it was against the SG to notate the first and last champion in the C&A section, which is why I never removed it if I saw it on an article. It's a pretty notable thing. JDC808 ♫ 01:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- To be honest, I feel like the five monkeys experiment. Some users included it into the style guide long time ago and we follow it without asking. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- It is not a big deal for me. In the end, we follow general WP guidelines and WP:PW consensus. So if being the first/last champion is notable or something special and we get a consensus for it, then I'm OK with it. My point is we should not feed IP-users and registered users who always violate basic MOS guidelines. --Mann Mann (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see the change as a harmful. It's a small change. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Maybe explicitly allow inaugural and final champions in championship sections in the MOS? I personally think its notable information; if the project isn't opposed and in favor, let's do it. DrewieStewie (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Vote: Inclusion of inaugural/final champion in Championships and accomplishments
OK, let's reach a consensus before 2025. Vote: Support, Oppose, or Neutral.
- Neutral As I said in my above comment, I'm fine with community consensus. --Mann Mann (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Per above. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral as well.★Trekker (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support I think it's important to note a inaugral/final champion but I wouldn't see the point in anything beyond that. Lemonademan22 (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support --JDC808 ♫ 13:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Being the first and last holder of a championship is noteworthy. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support inaugural champion. That's undoubtedly noteworthy. Neutral on final. Sometimes being a final champion is a noted and touted event. Sometimes the person just happens to hold a title when a foundering promotion finally closes. The latter isn't really notable, so I can take or leave it. But inaugural is absolutely deserving of mention. oknazevad (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - it can be mentioned in the prose. It's not an achievement. Lee Vilenski 17:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Seems slightly noteworthy. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support DrewieStewie (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Guarded support - This may be abused by users seeking to apply it to a non notable title, of which there are a number in the list of notable wrestlers. Using this to keep a title on a list could be problematic. I don't have an issue with it with notable titles (eg Pat Patterson IC Title, Seth Rollins NXT title etc) but we need to be very careful. The same applies to the last champion. Addicted4517 (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - A mention in prose is enough and I also think this might overload the C&A section a little bit. For example, when it comes to tag team titles, should you also indicate with which partner(s) the champion was inaugural/final champ? MordecaiXLII (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- I was leaning towards support, but you make a very valid point that I had not considered. This could get messy.LM2000 (talk) 09:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Don't know if my opinion will matter here, but i really think that the inaugural champ should always be mentioned, but i'm not sure about the final, anyway, i will be okay with what the community decides, but the inaugural it's a yes for me. StrangerMan123 (Talk)
Questionable deletion
I seem to recall a discussion some years ago about giving extra weight to a biography if it's of a defining figure of professional wrestling in a particular country. If that's still the case, I question the recent deletion of Michael Okpala. It appears to have been done unilaterally, without benefit of a discussion or even the courtesy of a notice to this project or other relevant projects. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- That is how CSD works, I'm afraid. I'm not sure the article was just advertising, but it was definitely quite promotional in tone. You can contact the deleting admin for a WP:REFUND if you want a copy to make a good version of the article (most of it was unsourced). Lee Vilenski 16:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Request for comment
Can I please have someone's input on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Thanksgiving Eve Dynamite (2023)? Thanks. Lemonademan22 (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
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)