Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

Archived discussions:

/Archive 1 (archived May 2005)
/Archive 2 (archived June 2005)
/Archive 3 (archived August 2005)

New archive done (I hope)

I went ahead and archived the most recent discussions... it *was* getting to be a little too much. So, there we are! ekedolphin 03:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidate?

I know, I know, good luck getting a pro wrestling-related article to become a featured article. But I just read through the Stone Cold Steve Austin article and I think it's one of the finest pro wrestling articles we've got. Anyone think we should nominate it? ekedolphin 03:37, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think getting one of these articles into the "Featured Article" level is a worthy cause. Steve Austin, Chris Benoit, or Hulk Hogan all seem like perfect candidates to me. I performed some recent touch-ups on the Austin article, which in my opinion still may have a few too many run-on sentences. The main thing that seems to be getting in the way of a featured article nomination is that the grammar really isn't up to snuff in a lot of cases; people need to know how to construct a sentence so that it reads well. Most of my work here in the wrestling project has been grammar-related (which in my opinion is just as important as the details of the article), and there seems to be an abundance of it left to do.

I am going to do a little work on Chris Benoit now, as the underdog is always in need of some love. . . --Pathogen 17:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestler Names on Articles

Hello everybody! I have been finding that we cannot agree on what names to use on wrestler articles. Some users feel that we should use the best known name for them (Brutus Beefcake, Tony Atlas) and some feel that all but the mega-stars (The Rock, Ric Flair, Sting, Hulk Hogan, etc.) should be under their real names. I think we need to come up with a consensus and stick with it or our articles are not consistent. I think all of the users on here should say their piece on this and we should come up with a consensus from that. I vote that we go by the best known name. For example, I would never look up The Great Kabuki in a google search as Akihisa Mera. Therefore, I created the article as The Great Kabuki. If we don't, I see article names being changed constantly by users because there are no set guidelines...and somebody usually gets angry when that happens repeatedly (I personally don't care as long as we have consistency). Anyway, I think the best known name should be used for them. Other fields of entertainment have their articles under their best known name (which is usually their stage name), so why can't we do it for wrestling too? Thanks! Please add comments! --phatcat68 11:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand using real names for current wrestlers like Mark Copani or John Hennigan but for retired and deceased wrestlers like Ron Garvin, Fred Blassie and Bobo Brazil, using their real name serves no logical purpose whatsoever.--Darren Jowalsen 18:12, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

There's a rather extensive discussion of this in the archives. I don't think we ever reached a consensus on it. The copyright status of most wrestlers' stage names in the modern era does complicate things. --HBK 04:19, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Chris Jericho

I'm surprised at the lack of information in the career section for the article for Chris Jericho. This is especially true in the WWF/E section, where there is a total bias towards listing events in his career over the past couple of months. Someone who has an extensive knowledge of his career should fix this. ErikNY 04:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bias toward current events is a common occurrence in the articles of current wrestlers. This is also something we have discussed before. --Chrysaor 02:04, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Now it is almost getting ridiculous. Rey Mysterio's entire career in Mexico is summed up in two sentences while his feud with Guerrero gets 8 paragraphs. As soon as that program is over, I'm going try and trim it down since it is almost a week by week breakdown of a long program.--Darren Jowalsen 00:31, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I say that the sooner we start cracking down on this behavior, the better. Just delete it and write in to-the-point summaries. I get really pissed off when I see stuff on the Chris Benoit profile like "Benoit and Angle faced off for the WWE Title at Royal Rumble 2003 in what many called the match of the year;however, the remainder of 2003 was fairly uneventful."

Translation: I haven't done my homework on what Benoit was doing for the greater part of an entire year, so I'll just gloss it over with a sentence. As it stands, he was actually feuding with Guerrero, Rhyno, and A-Train for the U.S. Title, and to my knowledge had at least one excellent match with Guerrero in Colorado for it. Not to mention he challenged Brock Lesnar for the championship. Fairly uneventful, right. Luckily, I fixed it to actually respect the fact that Benoit was actually wrestling in 2003. --Pathogen 23:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Vicious

The article on Sid Vicious, listed under his real name of Sid Eudy, doesn't mention anything from the time he left the WWF until the time he broke his leg at WCW Sin 2001. No mention of his time in ECW, or the events of his second run in WCW, including as its world champion. Would someone with a more extensive knowledge of Sid than I have be willing to fill in the gaps? ekedolphin 23:18, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

King of Wrestling?

I'd like to start an article on the "King of Wrestling" "title" whose lineage ran: Harley Race-->Haku-->"Hacksaw" Jim Duggan-->Randy Savage. I believe it started when Harley Race won the King of the Ring tournament. However, it took on a separate lineage of its own, separate from the actual KOTR tourney. I want to start it mainly because I noticed that Randy Poffo's article mentioned that he became known as the "Macho King" after he won the KOTR tournament. He did win the tourney in 1987, but he only took the "Macho King" nickname after feuding with Duggan over the title. Anyway, can someone suggest a good name for the article? Was it actually known as the "King of Wrestling" crown, or what?

SHODAN 19:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was simply known as the "King's Crown"; it didn't really have an official name, as it was not an official championship. Anyway, fantastic idea! --HBK 13:46, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Deceased professional wrestlers

I created a new sub-category under the category of Professional wrestlers called the Deceased professional wrestlers. I found, hopefully, all the deceased wrestlers and put them under that sub-category to thin the big list out a little. It currently has 104 wrestlers, so that should help. PS: Also, I spotted still a bunch of wrestlers that could be put under sub-categories like American professional wrestlers. SWD316 04:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big Guido

I just saw a website that said there is a wrestler named Big Guido contracted to WWE. Who I thought Big Guido was , Val Puccio, is in fact wrong. There are 2 wrestlers that go by Big Guido, the other is Michael Fury. Michael Fury is actually the one who is contracted to WWE, not Val Puccio. Sorry for the mix-up. SWD316 17:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ring of Honor

I just looked at the Ring of Honor page and there really isn't much information there, considering that it's arguably the #3 promotion in the U.S. Would someone with knowledge of ROH care to add to the article? ekedolphin 05:15, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I gave it a little clean up and added the "code of honor" and about #1 Contendership, but i dont know a great deal about ROH, all i know is from watching ROH shows (The Wrestling Channel is only up to January 2005) --- Paulley 15:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice wikipedia is mentioned in the ROH forums so if someone would like to join it and ask the fans to help that might be a good idea --- Paulley

Not bad for someone who doesn't know much about ROH. I think the article was significantly improved by your contributions, so good job! ekedolphin 00:40, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

That's ok, it's what im here for --- Paulley 11:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmick professional wrestlers

I agree with SWD316 that this category is needed, but the name doesn't quite work right for me. I'm thinking it needs to be changed to Professional wrestling gimmicks. --HBK 14:47, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

In the same vein, Tonga professional wrestlers should probably be Tongan professional wrestlers. McPhail 18:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and changed it liked you wanted it. I put Tonga professional wrestlers because some of them, for example, New Zealand professional wrestlers, was named by the country. I didn't known they were called "Tongan", if we want them all by what there called example, american, canadian; then what are people from New Zealand called. That needs to be fixed. SWD316 (talk to me)

I don't think there is an adjective form of "New Zealand". McPhail 14:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"New Zealander". -HX 22:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three-quarter facelock bulldog

Three-quarter facelock bulldog is a really ankward name. I suggest we replace it as a general name we use for the move. To me there are two choices. Ace crusher or Cutter. Ace crusher seems to be the name for the move used by many people, most notably commentators. Cutter seems to be a commonly known name, especially considering that many wrestlers use the Cutter name in their variants, for example Bubba Ray Dudley (Buh-buh Cutter) and Gran Hamada (Hama-chan Cutter). I feel that Cutter has become as generally known as bulldog, DDT, etc. More people will most likely know Cutter than Ace crusher.

The item in the Throws page would be renamed Cutter or Ace crusher, and the first line would start with "Also known as Three-quarter facelock bulldog", etc.

With this we could shorten crucifix rotated into three-quarter facelock bulldog to crucifix rotated into cutter or crucifix rotated into ace crusher, making it a much better read. (Chris Lindsey for this example)

↪Lakes 20:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well personally i would go with Cutter its suits the move more but the "name" Three-quarter facelock bulldog isnt a name what-so-ever it is a description, the move is in essence a running headlock takedown (bulldog) using a Three-quarter facelock... thus we get Three-quarter facelock bulldog. So the opening line should read "The Cutter is a Three-quarter facelock bulldog" (with bulldog linking to bulldog description) --- Paulley 17:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with Ace Crusher or Diamond Cutter because every wrestling fan knows what those are, allowing for easy comprehension. I doubt most wrestlers would even know what you were talking about if you referred to a "three-quarter facelock bulldog." The point of any encyclopedia is to inform, not to dazzle the reader with "scientific" terminology. I feel you defeat that purpose by referring to the move, and editing articles to make them less helpful and informative.Liamharvester 06:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems we've reached a consensus, and no one else has commented in the past days, we'll go with "Cutter". I'll make the changes.

↪Lakes 06:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changes done. If you notice something I missed please fix it.

↪Lakes 06:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cno Evil

This user has put about 40-55 new pro-wrestling related images on Wikipedia that I belive are in copyright violation according to Wikipedia standards. Am I right about his images? If so, will you all help by putting his images under Images for deletion for me, there is a lot of them. SWD316 (talk to me)

i think if we can get him to correctly cite the image sources and and put correct tags on them maybe we can save a couple of images but you are right some do need deleating and the edits where he replaces good pictures with fuzzy ones is just silly... also if someone does talk to him can we get him not to just replace images but move the older image somewhere down the article. Paulley 08:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for Notability?

Is there a criteria for notability amongst wrestlers? I put up some suggestions here. Comments? Thoughts? Suggestions? -HX 23:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed a similar topic on this page before when I made a post labeled "Too Much?" (see the archives). There's no criteria, but there should be. A look at Wikipedia:Criteria for Inclusion of Biographies would be a good idea, particularly the criterion "Athletes who are widely known, widely acclaimed, or highly successful in their sport" . Wikipedia:Importance seems to help. There's way too many wrestlers listed as it is and it seems that articles seem to be added just because wrestlers are in or have been in WWE, ECW, WCW or one of the other major wrestling promotions which isn't at all in line with the above criterion for inclusion. If you look at how many Professional Wrestling stubs there are, there's just way too many and a lot of these articles aren't even necessary - some of these articles don't have enough information behind them to expand them further. I wouldn't say I'm deletionist, but I don't think a wrestler or group of wrestlers should have their own article just because they appeared in WWE. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, to an extent, but I would suggest that having appeared in WWE or a similarly large fed is a good starting point. Perhaps having appeared in a PPV for a major federation? -HX 12:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but I think that title reigns and popularity are more important in coming up with criteria. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, any wrestler who ever held a major title in a major fed is automatically notable, that includes most of the most "popular" wrestlers in one fell swoop, at least during the 80's, 90's, and the current decade. Offhand, I can't think of any super-popular wrestlers that never held a major title. (Magnum T.A., maybe?) -HX 00:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]