Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

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!

AEW and ROH rosters

I am conscious that our articles and templates imply a division between the AEW roster and ROH roster which doesn't seem to strictly exist in reality. Is there a case for merging these? McPhail (talk) 09:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Some wrestlers are under contract with ROH (some sources state that they signed with ROH or AEW/ROH). I agree to merge, since most of the roster is just AEW wrestlers. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

ROH is the sister promotion of AEW. It's not a division/brand of AEW. The case of ROH and AEW is similar to World Wonder Ring Stardom and New Japan Pro-Wrestling. Another point is while Tony Khan's ROH is similar to AEW Dark/Elevation, it's not something like NXT and WWE. --Mann Mann (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

But is there anyone on the AEW roster that we can definitively say is not on the ROH roster, or vice versa? McPhail (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree, both promotions are independent, but owned by the same man, Tony Khan. ROH Roster includes many AEW wrestlers. I would agree with something like AEW wrestler usually appears on Tony Khan's owned promotion Ring of Honor". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Two promotions = Two rosters. So each one of them needs its own list and template. I agree ROH roster feels like a derivation of AEW roster but it is what it is. --Mann Mann (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• I think we should treat them as separate promotions with rosters that overlap. It seems to be an intentional choice by Tony Khan to have an overlap, and trying eliminate the overlap by designating wrestlers as primarily AEW/ROH would involve too much original research. Pinguinn 🐧 06:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it's right to have two separate rosters, as they are ultimately two separate promotions – they just have a lot of overlap. Perhaps a notice at the top of each roster saying there is flux would be good. For example at the top of the ROH roster, something like "ROH personnel often make appearances for All Elite Wrestling, as both companies are owned by Tony Khan." — Czello ^(music) 11:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shazza McKenzie (3rd nomination)

Shazza McKenzie's article has been nominated for deletion. The input of members of WikiProject Professional wrestling is appreciated in the discussion of whether or not it should be deleted. CeltBrowne (talk) 10:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

What is the justification for the article's deletion? WaimiriMaina (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Solely based on the discussion I read, it was a problem all too common with this project's articles: piling on citations to match results and calling the article "well-sourced". I also saw participants repeatedly deferring to the project's list of reliable sources. The community at large expressed concern years ago that those sources were never vetted by the community at large. Additionally, many AFD discussions of late have taken specialized notability claims to task. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

WrestleMania streak as accomplishment

4 0 Wrestlemania winstreak was added to Bianca Belair in these[1][2] revisions. Does it pass as accomplishment/achievement? Or if it is something notable, can we mention it in the body of article (a related section other than Championships and accomplishments)? --Mann Mann (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Definitely not and should only be considered years form now if her streak begins to be compared with a far more famous WrestleMania streak.--67.70.101.200 (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Why should it not? A win streak of that much surely should count as an acomplishment? It does not have to be compared with Taker to be impressive GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

We don't even list it for the Undertaker, who owns the only notable winning streak in WrestleMania history. It's not an "accomplishment" in the traditional sense of these sections, more just a character trait. — Czello ^(music) 16:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

We should only add accomplishments that credible sources list as accomplishments - editors shouldn't be coming up with their own accomplishments (WP:OR). McPhail (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Forbes was talking about it as an acomplishment GothicGolem29 (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Forbes is an unreliable source per WP:PW/RS so it does not count as credible. --Mann Mann (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

"Best known for his time..."

Hello. Since we talked about Currently in the LEAD of the articles, I wanna talk about the following sentence. "He/She is best known for his/her time..." That sentence is in every article, but maybe is a little subjective. Some users removed because we need a reliable source for that. For example, Drew Gulak "He is best known for his tenure in WWE, where he... / Gulak was previously best known for his work in Combat Zone Wrestling (CZW), where he... " Whate makes Gulak best know for his work 10 years ago with an independent promotion? Why CZW and not PWG or CHIKARA? Maybe, we should change the Lead, instead "he is best known", we can write "He worked from X to Y for WWE". HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I have two thoughts on this:

1: The phrase "best known for..." seems to be used across Wikipedia/become Wikipedia lingo. For example, Colm Meaney's lead opens with:

Colm J. Meaney (/ˈkɒləm/; Irish: Colm Ó Maonaigh; born 30 May 1953) is an Irish actor best known for playing Miles O'Brien in Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987–1994) and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993–1999).

while George Cole (actor) leads with

George Edward Cole, OBE (22 April 1925 – 5 August 2015) was an English actor whose career spanned 75 years. He was best known for playing Arthur Daley in the long-running ITV comedy-drama show Minder and Flash Harry in the early St Trinian's films.

so even if we could cut all the "best known for their time in..." phases from Pro Wrestling articles, they might just creep back in from other biographical articles.

2: Although of course what someone is best known for is (partially) subjective, is it something we necessarily need to take mass action on? For example, in the case of Drew Gulak, it generally is accurate to say he's primarily known for his WWE run and secondly his CZW run. If that was inaccurate, another editor can either alter the statement or contest it on the talk page. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Using "best known" is fine. Actually it shows why a pro wrestler is notable or well-known. As for Gulak, you can rewrite the second paragraph and reword it in a better way. AJ Styles is another good example except that "currently" thing. --Mann Mann (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)