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.

The split of The Bloodline articles

There is a debate about splitting The Bloodline (professional wrestling) article into MFT (professional wrestling) led by Solo Sikoa but neither of them is original research but coming from the official WWE backstage notes. 184.146.187.43 (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PLE main event

Why is Rhea vs Iyo the Evolution main event? Naomi cashed in and made it a Triple Threat. She even won, but wasn't part of the match according to our list of WWE PLEs? We count Rollins' WM31 cash in too. We have to be consistent. Remove Rollins / add Naomi?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reevaluating good articles

I'm sure this isn't the only one that needs to either be refined or reevaluted - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mega_Bucks Spagooder (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:The World (WWE)#Requested move 18 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The World (WWE)#Requested move 18 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments

Hello. A few days ago, a discussion started around the names of stables in tag team articles. [1] There is like a dead end since there are only an IP and Myself. So a new POV is apreciated HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try again

I am once again propose the removal of this sentence and ones like it from our PPV/PLE articles:

"The event will include matches that result from scripted storylines. Results are predetermined by WWE's writers on the Raw and SmackDown brands, while storylines are produced on WWE's weekly television shows, Monday Night Raw and Friday Night SmackDown."

As I've said before, it is extremely redundant and unnecessary. It is insulting to the reader's intelligence. And not directly relevant to each event. We don't explain the scripted nature of other scripted events. We don't explain the basic rules of sports in championship games/series articles. If you must explain it, it belongs as "for more information on the scripted nature of professional wresting, see 'professional wrestling' and 'kayfabe'" at the top of the section. And finally it has nothing to do with the event itself.

I once again propose the removal of these types of intros to the background section from our style guide. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 19:11, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should not even have to ask to remove this, we have achieved consensus multiple times to remove it. Who is putting this back? At this point they should be sanctioned. See old discussions:[2][3] The related RfC is linked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Production as a footnote to guide users on how to write these properly.LM2000 (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'll walk my above comment back. The current "disclaimer" isn't as bad as the pre-2016 RfC one. You do need to explain how many matches the event had and what weekly shows built up to it, and consensus has shown repeatedly that we need to describe wrestling as "scripted" somewhere in the beginning of the article (styles guide recommends to do all of this in the Storyline section). It doesn't necessarily need to be phrased the same way in every article, but it does need to cover these things effectively. The one here is definitely more in line with the RfC consensus and styles guide than the old "wrestlers portrayed heroes, villains, or less distinguishable characters" that people kept adding back - that should be removed and sanctioned on sight. So, I would not remove this one unless you can convey the same information in a more effective manner.LM2000 (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need to explained though? Why can't the history itself do the walking so to say? TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 03:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rhea Ripley and WWE: Unreal

Rhea Ripley's real name was changed in this revision. To verify it, I watched the first episode of WWE: Unreal, and the claim was legit. Your thoughts on citing/using WWE: Unreal as a source? --Mann Mann (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As much as some stuff in Unreal is very obviously worked, the biographical stuff is only worked as much as a normal documentary is. I don't think it would be particularly harmful to source her speaking, in a shoot manner, regarding her shoot name. "Demi" is short for "Demiti" anyway. Sceptre (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NJPW timekeeping

Bit of a minor conflict at G1 Climax 35: when the match times come in, an otherwise helpful anon uses pro-wrestling.net's timings, whereas when I go over the article, I check against NJPW1972.com. Often, they conflict only by a matter of seconds, but sometimes, it can be up to a minute. Just to double check: as NJPW1972 is the official website of NJPW, and especially given the manner of presentation of wrestling in Japan, we should ideally default to their timings, right? Sceptre (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using top 10 lists to state someone is considered "one of the greatest professional wrestlers", or words to that effect.

Over the years I've seen a few instances of this - that is, making a statement about a wrestler being considered one of the greatest of all time (or other similar claims), but the source being a "top 10 wrestlers ever" list. Ignoring the fact that the sources aren't reliable, it doesn't seem right to derive this conclusion from a top 10 list of wrestlers – it seems like WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, as it's deriving a conclusion from something that's, frankly, a bit frivolous to begin with.

However, I wanted to consult the rest of the Wikiproject to make sure we're on the same page here - I can imagine there will be arguments that topping a "greatest wrestlers of all time" list counts as an affirmation of that statement. Therefore I'd like a consensus I could point back to in the future. — Czello ^(music) 20:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should fall under SYNTH.★Trekker (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About the sources, 2 of them state WWE wrestlers, with no mention of Japan, Mexico or UK.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]