Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 112

Just a question: is there a reason why there seems to be some inconsistencies when it comes to how we describe common stipulations in match result tables? Most of the time, we go with whatever name the promotion uses for a stipulation (e.g. Double or Nothing (2023) had a "four-way match" but Royal Rumble (2024) will have a "Fatal 4-Way") as long as it's within reason, but there are two examples I've noticed where we don't:

• We call three-man matches in WCW "triple threats" – which is mostly a WWE-specific term – instead of "Triangle matches"; see Uncensored (1998). Contrast with Guilty as Charged (2001), where we use ECW's appellation of the "three-way dance".
• AEW typically uses the term "trios" for AEW-branded six-man tag matches, and they have a
  AEW Trios Championship
  (someone check me on this, but compare with ROH, where they just say "six-man", mostly).

Ideally, I believe we should be consistent and use the promotion-preferred term as long as it's not unreasonable; after all, "trios match" really isn't as bad as SummerSlam (2023)'s "Slim Jim SummerSlam Battle Royale" (which I personally think is on the right line of acceptable), but I don't think we should go quite as silly as Ultimate Party 2023's "Dream Round "Let's Have Fun!!" What Will Happen!? Fun Death Match".

Thoughts? Sceptre (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I think I agree in principle that we should use the promotion's preferred term when reasonable; Referring to "Triple Threats" in WCW seems/feel anachronistic.

^{Just a minor note; an ECW Three-way Dance and a WWE Triple Threat are not the same thing; a three-way dance is an elimination match (all opponents must be pinned or submitted) whereas a WWE Triple Threat is one fall to a finish.} CeltBrowne (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe that professional wrestling infoboxes are excessive. Professional wrestlers are analogous to actors rather than sportspeople, since they portray characters and perform predeterminedly. Things like billed height/weight/from and several ring names are more appropriate jargons in the fandom wiki, since they are legitimized mostly by the promotions, not necessarily outside sources. A general infobox, like the one used in Brad Pitt seems ideal.

For similar reasons, I think the "Championships and accomplishments" section should be sorted. Firstly, it should be made clear that the championships are performance (kayfabe) tokens, as opposed to real achievements in combat sports. Secondly, if the section is really required, it would be better to format it as paragraph over list.

In my opinion, David Arquette in World Championship Wrestling should be the gold standard. Please do check, Adam Page and Kenny Omega, an article I created based on tag team notability. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Binary. About the weight/height, the issue ahs been discussed previously. About the C&A section, I don't see the need to be shorted. It includes their titles as a performer (I think our limit is backyard wrestling, since these are not "professional" promotions). Also, no need to clarify that pro wrestling titles are not real combat titles. About the Page and Omega article, I like it. My approach to the articles is we have to write about the performer, not about the character. Articles like The Bloodline or Judgment Day are written from a storyline perspective. It's painful to read thing like Rey Mysterio lost an eye during the eye for an eye match, but the doctors could save it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Adam Page and Kenny Omega is notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Is

WP:PWTAG not valid? BinaryBrainBug (talk

) 00:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

They'd still need to meet

WP:GNG. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs}

) 10:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the infobox, I can understand height/weight/billed from being seen as excessive character details. I wouldn't really miss them, however, I think ring names are important. They are not just a character detail, but an identifier of a person due to the nature of professional wrestling. Some wrestlers even have multiple ring names they are widely known for throughout their career (e.g. Mick Foley, Cactus Jack, Dude Love, Mankind). The main issue I see with ring names is that it's generally used as a laundry list of every name a wrestler has used, even the small variations, rather than just the names they are commonly known for.

Championships and accomplishments is the equivalent of the "Awards and nominations" section that you regularly see around Wikipedia. We've just tailored it for professional wrestling, which includes a list format rather than the table format that is generally used (see List of awards and nominations received by Leonardo DiCaprio). The only time these sections are written in prose is when they're summarized to only a few of the most notable organizations and accompanied by a link to a full article (and table) of all of their awards (see Margot Robbie § Filmography and awards). Regardless, just from a practical standpoint, I'm not sure how you could re-format CM Punk § Championships and accomplishments into prose and have it be legible. I wouldn't mind seeing an attempt for the sake of argument, though.

I don't know how to approach your suggestion about making it clear that championships are kayfabe awards. That seems like an issue with how professional wrestling biographies are written in general, rather than that section in particular. And this project has always struggled with how to introduce wrestling as a performance and scripted event without repeatedly "talking down" to the reader. Prefall 21:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

PW Championships and accomplishments does not need more clarification because

Mann Mann (talk

) 07:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I do not support any of the changes for the same reasons stated by others who have posted before me. Although kayfabe, C&A are important to a wrestler's career, as important as championships are for competitive athletes or awards are for actors, and these are not sorted into a paragraph in those articles. Ideally, wrestling's scripted nature is clear to the reader before they get to the C&A section, which is always towards the bottom of the page. As Prefall points out, this is a longstanding issue with how these articles are written generally. Inserting a "WRESTLING IS STILL FAKE" disclaimer in every section is an example of "talking down" to the reader. Articles should be written so that it is always clear that the events being described are predetermined. However, I do think lengthy C&A sections should be split off into separate articles more often when length becomes an issue. To my knowledge, Mitsuharu Misawa's championships and accomplishments is the only case of this happening.LM2000 (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The billed height/weight thing is almost always impossible to source, so should be removed IMO, but we've discussed this previously. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The most recent discussion I’m aware of is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive328#Template:Infobox professional wrestler.--67.70.103.36 (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. To add to the discussion, I don't see how "billed" stuff is significant enough to be in infobox. They are obviously fictional and only time they are relevant is during ring announcement. I would argue stuff like finishing/signature moves are more important facts in comparison. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

We can incredibly rarely source signature/finishing moves. And even if we do, it's fluff

WP:FANCRUFT. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs}

) 12:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I just created Draft:Alex Greenfield (writer). Any help would be appreciated! Thriley (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

What makes this writer notable? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

According to IMDB, he has made many other things. [4] --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

All of which were B movies either direct-to-video or tv movies. None of which are themselves notable enough for articles from what I can see. Plus IMDB doesn't establish notability per

WP:IMDB. I just don't think he's notable enough for an article. oknazevad (talk

) 13:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Royal Rumble (2024) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Discussion thread

There is a discussion about how

Editors are invited to join an RFC on this topic at Talk:Royal Rumble (2024)#RFC — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Had a thought just now looking at

I've had the same thought about The Undertaker, personally I have mixed feelings on it.★Trekker (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Mann Mann (talk

) 05:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

MOS:THEBAND (if I'm reading it right) only talks about capitaling works, not names. This wouldn't apply to ring names anyway. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs}

) 07:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

If ring name = nick name, then MOS:THENICKNAME applies (my above comment). --

Mann Mann (talk

) 07:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

It's primarily focused on bands which I don't believe constitute a "work" by Wikipedia's standard definition, and it does also have one example of an individual with a nickname in the Edge. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

When they say "work", they mean say an album or a song, not an act. There is an argument for a work being a show, such as

The Greatest Royal Rumble, but that article isn't known with "the", so we dodge that question. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs}

) 09:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Stephanie McMahon 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Generally, the lead can be written in an in-universe perspective since many of the statements are explained in an out-of-universe perspective in the main body prose.
[emphasis added]
— User:Truco 17:44, February 3, 2009

I feel this sentence needs to removed from

Unless anyone objects, I plan on removing it shortly. If there are objections, let's discuss and perhaps resolve via RFC. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Bill, you seem like a good faith editor and I very much respect that you base your additions on high-level academic sources. Your additions to the specific Professional wrestling article are well-meaning and helpful, as much of that article is in terrible condition and was in need of serious attention.

However, for other aspects relating to professional wrestling, I would encourage you to slow down a bit before making radical changes, particularly as Talk:Royal Rumble (2024)#RFC: "Scripted performance" in the lead demonstrated that your views on how leads for professional wrestling based articles are written are highly opposed.

That said, I am encouraged by the fact you opted to discuss this first with the Wikiproject before altering it.

I am concerned that if you remove that particular sentence from the Style guide, we end up having to re-litigate what was discussed in Talk:Royal Rumble (2024)#RFC: "Scripted performance" in the lead. I think you should look at the commentary there, absorb the consensus and apply what was said to any further alterations you make to professional wrestling article leads.

Please do continue to make improvements to professional wrestling content on Wikipedia, and I hope we can continue to collaborate on PW articles going forward. Regards, CeltBrowne (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

CeltBrowne, thanks for the kind words. I also look forwards to continuing to collaborate with you.

I didn't expect the above proposal to be an easy consensus, but I hate wikilawyering, so I figured I should at least take a local straw poll before involving the broader community. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Ric Flair has one unrecognized US title reign. We made that reign grey and don't count it towards his total number of reigns, even though everybody but WWE recognizes that reign (it got left out for reason at all other than WWE forgetting to add it).

Then we have Kevin Nash awarding himself the WCW title. WCW did not recognize this, WWE does not recognize this. Yet the reign is not grey. It looks like a normal, recognized reign. Only the note says that nobody recognizes it.

I propose making Nash's reign grey, just like Flair's reign, which is way more recognized than Nash's. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Assuming no one recognizes it have you tried changing it yourself, including a source to show that it is unrecognized because unless someone objects and reverts the change I don’t see a discussion here as necessary yet.--67.70.103.36 (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I would do that but it would take me a full workday to figure out how to do it properly so I am relying on someone who already knows how to do such a thing. Sorry. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The note is sufficient. oknazevad (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Why? There is no consistency if we just add a note and have one reign be grey and the other not, even though both aren't recognized. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. If you don't know how, look at the wiki code of the greyed out line and copy and paste the part about the formatting to the line that should be greyed out. Double check your work with the preview before saving. That's how you learn. oknazevad (talk

) 22:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought you were saying I shouldn't fix it, as the note that is already there is enough. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Category:Fifita professional wrestling family is about a family from Tonga that emigrated to the United States. However, one of the in-laws, Steve Fifita, is an Australian rugby union player.

Category:Fifita family is about a family of Australian rugby union players of Tongan descent.

My query is, are these two separate families that just happen to share a surname, or are they branches of the same family?

Any input welcome.

Firstly, for American wrestlers, should "United States" be abbreviated in the "Billed" field? E.g. should John Cena's infobox read "Born West Newbury, Massachusetts, U.S." or "Born West Newbury, Massachusetts, United States"? I have no strong view either way.

Secondly, should "Billed from" include the country? E.g. should Bret Hart's infobox read "Billed from Calgary, Alberta, Canada" or simply "Billed from Calgary, Alberta"? I would suggest the former, for consistency with the "Born" field.

This might fall under

MOS:INFONAT CeltBrowne (talk

) 00:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

In prior discussions we decided to include it if and only if the promotion itself tracked the stat. Whether or not it's a useful stat I can't really say. oknazevad (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak to the Fancruft aspect, but as far as verifying title defences, Cagematch.net would/could be an independent source of information for title defences. For example, this tab on the AEW Continental Championship shows what Cagematch.net records as official title defences.

Cagematch.net is currently listed as a limited reliable source in PW's list of sources, although it might go up a tier again if we had more discussion on this thread in Wikipedia:PW/RS CeltBrowne (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@

Mann Mann (talk

) 19:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, Japan has the tradition to keep track of defenses. For example, NJPW has a section for the champion and every defense he had [5]. Non Japanese promotion don't keep track of the defenses. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Impact One Night Only#Requested move 17 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Bensci54 (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

At the moment all In Your House pay-per-views are listed as ‘In Your House’ without reference to which one is which. While I am aware at the time they aired they were simply ‘In Your House’, doesn’t it seem logical to categorise them into ‘In Your House (2), In Your House (3)’ etc?.

Bearing in mind this is a chronological page. For viewers it’d make it a lot easier to read, especially as events took place in the same year. Same with No Mercy ‘99 (UK). I think it’s best to have the category in brackets though to indicate it isn’t the name of the PPV’s themselves but as a sequential list. Note this would only apply to PPV’s up to Ground Zero when ‘In Your House’ became a subtitle.

I also think it’d be best to move In Your House pages to ‘In Your House (3)’ for example rather than ‘In Your House 3’, akin to other PPV’s but in regard to years. Xc4TNS (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Xc4TNS first point, I agree with and I actually tried making that change but was reverted due to what you had stated in which they were simply titled "In Your House" for those first few. The second point I don't agree with. I'd lean more to putting the month and year as the disambiguation in parenthesis than the event number, but I think the current titles are fine due to the retroactive renaming. JDC808 ♫ 05:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I think it needs to be changed. As for the "In Your House" pages it's fine as it is, as long as it mentions the retroactive naming in the page summary. Xc4TNS (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Reposting what I wrote on the talk page of WWE PPV/Livestreaming events…

I disagree with this. Every PPV listed on the page bears the exact specific title name of the PPV on the day that it aired.

No Mercy (UK) was not the name of the PPV. It was simply No Mercy. And writing (UK) is redundant when right next to the PPV name it lists the city it was in. There was only one No Mercy event in the UK, so it’s not hard at all to decipher which one it is.

As for the In Your House events. Those events never have been numbered. Ever. It was only in the UK, on the Silver Vision home video releases, that they received numbers. During the build up to those shows, on TV, in WWF Magazine or online, numbers were not used. On the actual PPVs themselves, numbers are not shown anywhere. Nor as an onscreen graphic or spoken by any announcers or wrestlers. Adding numbers next to them, on this specific page in the listing, will make zero difference especially when the dates are right next to the events. This isn’t like WrestleMania or WCW’s Clash Of The Champions (at least during the early years anyway) which actually used numbers for those events. The first 6 In Your House events are also the only ones to simply use the In Your House name. Beginning with the April ‘96 event is when they started adding sub-names to the titles. Those events, even more-so, do not need numbers because they all have different sub-names. With the exception of In Your House: Beware of Dog 2, which used the number 2 on the on-screen graphics during that show and Jim Ross on commentary also spoke it. And besides all that, the individual In Your House event pages on WP have the numbers noted on them, so it’s not like you’re gonna click on an IYH event on this page and it’s gonna take you to a random IYH PPV. OldSkool01 (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand that No Mercy 99 was not literally called No Mercy UK, the point I am making though is the PPV/Livestreaming page is a large page and when events with the same name happen in the same year it's more logical to decipher one from the other. It's more logical to categorise events based on number than just date. Even if IYH 2 for example is a retroactive name it still somewhat makes sense to use numbers on a list. Hell you could even add taglines of events in small font below the main header.

I understand that the naming is based on name at the time of broadcasting but putting numbers in parenthesis doesn't affect that, it just makes it easier to navigate whilst also paying homage to retroactive naming. Especially helpful when different events have the same name in the same year. Deciphering one from the other and adding more info on the page is not false information, it's just adding more detail. Why is it a problem if there is more detail on a page? Xc4TNS (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Xc4TNS could even add a footnote to the first few that clarifies they were just "In Your House" with no number or subtitle JDC808 ♫ 22:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Or just don’t put a number or subtitle. I don’t think that would require a note. OldSkool01 (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a wise idea, it distincts one event from another whilst noting that they have been named retroactively. Once again, more info on a page is not a bad thing. I can understand undoing an edit if it isn’t factually correct but just being petty over making a page easier to navigate seems illogical. Xc4TNS (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

If there were no dates and locations on the table then I’d say yes, you make a great point. But there are dates and locations literally right next to the titles of each PPV. That’s what distincts one from the other. How does adding a superfluous number to the title make it any easier to distinct? When you mention WrestleMania 3 to wrestling fans, they all know which event you’re talking about. They remember Hogan-Andre and Savage-Steamboat. You think anybody knows what happened at In Your House 3? They’re gonna say “Which one was that?”. And they’d ask the exact the same question if you say In Your House (September 1995). Point is, adding a number, that was never in the title to begin with, makes zero difference in distinguishing one from the other. OldSkool01 (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding In Your House 4 is still way more distinguishable than it being In Your House Oct (1995). If the names were used retroactively, as they are on the WWE network, it still makes more sense to use numbers and subtitles as on the Cagematch website. I do agree it should be clear it's a retroactive name. As long as it notes that numbers and subtitles were retroactive then why is it so bad to add? More info isn't a bad thing.

I think simplicity is better at times on wikipedia, but if info technically isn't wrong then why is it bad to add?. 3 people on this page already believe that adding numbers and even subtitles isn't a bad thing, as long as it's noted to be retroactive. The page is already bloated, simply listing numbers is hardly going to make the page worse.

I feel like adding the number and subtitle in small font below the header is a reasonable solution, or even the number with a note. Xc4TNS (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The subtitles are already there for the In Your House PPVs that actually had subtitles (from April 1996 forward). No need to add subtitles to events that never had them. It wasn’t until many years later, I believe with the creation of the 24/7 on demand service in 2004, that WWE decided to retroactively give those early IYH shows a subtitle for some reason. I look at it like this, if Wikipedia was around in the 1990s and we were updating this page monthly as those events were happening, how would we handle it? We certainly wouldn’t add non-existent subtitles that are retroactively coming many years in the future. And there would be no need to number them either because numbers were not part of the advertising at all for those shows. The only people who are familiar with those IYH ppvs having numbers, are fans in the UK who group up watching the Silver Vision VHS tapes that numbered the events after the fact. That still doesn’t make it the accurate title. The same reason we don’t go back and rename the first WrestleMania on this list as “WrestleMania 1” because that wasn’t the name of the event. It wasn’t until a year later that it retroactively became known as WrestleMania 1. Again, the individual WP pages for those first 6 IYH events have it all explained and are also numbered. So I don’t see an issue where people will get confused about which one is which. OldSkool01 (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, if we make it clear that the events were retroactively named then what is the problem? Adding more detail to an article shouldn't be an issue. I would understand if I'm straight out adding something that is false but on a chronological page I don't see why adding numbers is necessarily a problem. Likewise with adding a distinct colour to network exclusive events.

Removing edits because ‘it’s unnecessary’ doesn’t seem reasonable. Xc4TNS (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

But you ARE adding something that is false. I feel like I’m going in circles here. Adding numbers to events that never had numbers is ridiculous. This list shows the actual title of the events as they were named on the day the events aired. Adding numbers to events adds absolutely nothing to this article, especially when the dates and locations of the events are right next to the titles. Also, as I’ve already mentioned, adding color distinction to non-branded network exclusive events is redudant and unnecessary because there is already a notes section that tells us which events are network exclusives. OldSkool01 (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

And yet

natural disambiguation purposes. While we're talking about a list, not the individual articles, the principle carries over. oknazevad (talk

) 14:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@OldSkool01 With all due respect, the only person who is arguing the point is you. Other commenters on here are not disagreeing with what I'm saying. I'm not making any random edits with no respect to your standpoint, hence why I took it to the talk page.

It doesn't even matter if events are retroactively named, the WWE still recognizes those events by their retroactive names. As long as the article mentions that the naming is retroactive there is literally no problem. It feels redundant even making this point because if I make the edit you'll just undo it and complain. Xc4TNS (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Xc4TNS The individual pages for each of those PPVs mentions the retroactive name changes in their respective articles. There is zero need to add all of that to the PPV list. It’s superfluous information that is not needed on this page. You can read all of that on their respective pages. And again, the names on this list are what they were called on the day that they aired. Retroactive name changes are for the individual articles. I can’t see anybody being confused as to which In Your House events they are when the date, location and main event are all listed right next to eachother on the same line. Adding a number will not only be an inaccurate title, but it will not make a single bit of difference to the person reading it. For example, I highly doubt someone will see “In Your House - Nashville, TN - July 23, 1995 - Diesel vs. Sid for the WWF Title in a Lumberjack match” and be like “Yeah, I’m still confused as to which once this is. If only there was a number next to it, then I’d know exactly which one it is.” That would be ridiculous. And as for me being the only one arguing this, you are the only one making these edits. Nobody else is making these edits. They’ve been listed this way for years and only you for some reason feel the need to change it. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@OldSkool01 I mean, if I had just skimmed the list and saw that entry, I wouldn't know if that was the 2nd or 4th In Your House without clicking on it. I'd only see that it was an In Your House that happened in July 1995. I would have to scroll back or click on the link to find out which it was. It's not like the annual events that happen only once a year. There were several In Your Houses per year. Later In Your Houses have a number and/or subtitle so we can distinguish them easily without clicking on them. The earlier ones don't. And the claim of him being the only one making the edits is kinda false. I tried to make these same edits in the past but you strongly objected and I didn't press the issue any further. JDC808 ♫ 01:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@JDC808 “I wouldn’t know if that was the 2nd or 4th In Your House without clicking on it”. I’m still waiting for an answer as to why it is important that someone knows which number it is. If you can’t figure out which event it is by the date, location and main event, how is a number going to make any difference? I’m not being sarcastic, I’m asking a legit question. Also none of the later In Your Houses have a number, only subtitles which started with Good Friends, Better Enemies in April ‘96. Maybe I’m missing an aspect of this. Is it because fans in the UK only know them by their Silver Vision VHS release numbers? If so, that’s fine, but that still doesn’t make them accurate titles. Coliseum Video in the US didn’t use any numbers on their IYH VHS releases, so the numbers thing was never an issue here. OldSkool01 (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@OldSkool01 (my app didn't ping me that you tagged me): Not gonna repeat what others have said in response to you here, but just to say, I'm not from the UK, I'm from the US, and ever since I started working on wrestling articles, etc., I've only known them by numbers, not dates (or even years, but years don't work for these since there were multiple per year). JDC808 ♫ 07:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I’ve already made adjustments on the page a few days ago. Added a note next to In Your House 2-6. Read further down this page for my reasoning. OldSkool01 (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

He feels the need to change it because it aids readers. And I agree. Especially since it also brings the list in line with how the events are titled on the WWE Network/Peacock (where the dates are omitted, but the numbers included) making it easier for a reader to find and view the event for themselves. Frankly, the "must be exactly as it was the day it was broadcast" mentality is not in line with any Wikipedia policy or guideline. While [[WP:COMMONNAME]] is an article titling guideline, the underlying principle of "make it as recognizable and easy to find for readers as possible" still holds for a list. And these events are best known now, in 2024, with numbers. oknazevad (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Peacock is very inconsistent though. If the Peacock listings are what we’re going by, then the list needs to remove all the roman numerals from the WrestleManias, because Peacock only uses standard numbers. Peacock also includes Royal Rumble ‘88 and The Big Event in the PPV section. Which is probably why we get people on here every year adding them to the PPV list on WP because they see it that way on the Network and Peacock. Also Peacock only lists the 1995-1997 events under the In Your House section. The 1998-1999 In Your House events aren’t listed there. So Peacock/the Network shouldn’t be the standard we go by. OldSkool01 (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources that list the numbers as part of the title such as Cagematch, SmackDown Hotel, TRJWrestling, IMDb. In fact most sources list numbers in the In Your House title. It's not like it's purely being made up for the sake of it. Yes, I am aware the name is retroactive but in all honesty I think it doesn't matter. I think most people are more likely to remember 'In Your House 4' rather than 'In Your House (Oct 1995)'. I get that's my opinion but others on here are backing up what I'm saying. It makes logical sense to use the numbers especially on a chronological page. Is there much need to debate this more?. Xc4TNS (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I’m willing to compromise. Take a look at the edit I just made. I made a note where it says “Sequentially known as In Your House 2” and 3, 4, 5 and 6. The first IYH doesn’t need that note, the same way the first WrestleMania doesn’t need that note. It’s pretty self explanatory. As for the IYH events starting with Good Friends, Better Enemies, those don’t need notes either because they already have the subtitles to distinguish them. And if you wanna use the WWE Network/Peacock as an example, they don’t use numbers on any of the IYH events after 6. I think this is a fair compromise. OldSkool01 (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay fair, however I do think naming IYH 2-6 as the main title with the notes mentioning it's been retroactively named would make more sense. Falls in line with making the article easier to read. Xc4TNS (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Easier to read? So now people are gonna have trouble moving their eyes slightly to the right of the screen? Come on now. The notes make it even more clear which events they are. I feel like this is a very fair compromise. OldSkool01 (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I respect the compromise, but it technically would take up less space to just put it in parentheses. If it's in parentheses it's technically not referring to the actual events name it's just chronologically listing them whilst paying homage to the fact they were just aired as In Your House. It's up to you. To add, I do also think noting IYH 7-16 is fair as most sources online list as such as well as the names of the pages. From Ground Zero on it doesn't matter as In Your House becomes a subtitle. Xc4TNS (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I didn’t reply earlier. No problem with addiing the notes to IYH 7-16. That’s fine. But I still think the notes are better than the parentheses. OldSkool01 (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

If we’re being consistent, we’ll have to remove all of the WrestleMania numbers between 31 and 39 too, which have also been marketed without numbers, I believe. As far as the In Your House PPVs go… well, we utilise

Incorrect. Every WrestleMania has used a number, with the exception of Manias 1 and 16. Every year WWE sells WrestleMania merchandise with that year’s number on it, whether the PPV graphic uses it or not. So they do advertise them with numbers. The In Your House events on the other hand, were never advertised and promoted with numbers. Ever, not once. As for “Season’s Beatings”, that wasn’t the name of the PPV. That was a name that was added retroactively years later for some reason. OldSkool01 (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Input from experienced project members would be welcome in the discussion at Talk:Jason Knight (wrestler) § Birth date, birth name. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Your edit summary for adding this thread to this Project talk page stated "this is of interest to the outlaw garbage-wrestling indy mudshow fans".

If you're trying to genuinely encourage interest in this topic, that language isn't helpful or productive. I would hope you were saying it in jest, but we have no way of actually knowing that, particularly as there are many people online who use that negative language with complete sincerity. CeltBrowne (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

As a member of the cult of Cornette, I think my depiction is accurate to the state of the wrestling involved. Perhaps you are one of those fans of that sort of wrestling. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

you commented there, so what I posted was sucessful

It worked in spite of what you said, not because of it. This is Wikipedia,

WP:NOTAFORUM, and posting things just to antagonise people is admonishable. CeltBrowne (talk

) 06:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I genuinely mixed up the two. I saw "wrestler", thought "wasn't there a discussion at ... WT:MMA some time ago ...[2021] looks good, let's ask here." I'm thankful for Chris troutman copying my request to the right location, and now that I had a look at the difference between MMA and professional wrestling, I also understand why mixing these up is upsetting especially to MMA fans. I guess it's a common mistake and that makes it more annoying. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree, what's common about it? It says "professional wrestler." If the subject was a mixed martial artist, it would say that. Saying it's common is an excuse. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)