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.

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)[reply]

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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Can I please have someone's input on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thanksgiving Eve Dynamite (2023)? Thanks. Lemonademan22 (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, they updated it. Cargill is not champion anymore. --Mann Mann (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Category:Royal Rumble participants and Category:Wrestlemania participants

Not sure these are a good idea. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised they haven't been done before. What's the issue with them? Lemonademan22 (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In my opinion, the categories are too broad to be defining.LM2000 (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Imho these categories are like cast categories, not advicable.★Trekker (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]