Professional wrestling is within the scope ofWikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related toprofessional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit theproject to-do page, or visit theproject page, where you can join the project and contribute todiscussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling
Can we drop the "athletic" in "athletic theater"? It's unnecessary, it's not a category that art critics and academics normally use. Yeah it's physical, that's obvious enough. I think we should just say "theater".Kurzon (talk)16:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more unusual to call it "theater" than to call it "athletic". Although it has major theatrical elements, it's a unique synthesis of athletics and showmanship that has no direct analogue in the classical performing arts. It has more in common with a circus act than with a dramaturgical production.98.243.254.38 (talk)20:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are. Ballet, acrobat acts, and clown acts also features lots of physical activity. Have you ever been to a circus? Athletics specifically pertains to competitive sports, not performance arts.Kurzon (talk)07:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We discussed this previously; it is sourced and, as another user pointed out, theatre is not normally athletic so it is an appropriate qualifier.
It requires physical fitness, but it's not athletic in the way pro wrestling is. Regardless this is whataboutism - the label is sourced. —Czello(music)08:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We went through this in the original discussion – for some reason you have conflated 'athletic' and 'competitive'. It clearly is athletic. (One could argue it is also competitive, just not in the traditional sense.) —Czello(music)08:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not exactly a Shakespare play, the athleticism is certainley a notable factor in professional wrestling, and as it's already been pointed out, it's a sourced claim.Lemonademan22 (talk)08:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion. It’s not a contest but it is physically competitive, but like Czello said you’ve mixed up athletic and competitive, non-traditionally it is physically competitive as it’s still a worked contest that is physically demanding. Source backs it up.Lemonademan22 (talk)10:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mazer refers to professional wrestling as anathletic performance practice that is constructed around the display of the male body and a tradition of cooperative rather than competitive exchanges of apparent power between men.[emphasis added].[1] Almost every scholarly analysis adopts similar verbiage. —BillHPike(talk,contribs)01:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Mazer, Sharon (2020).Professional wrestling: sport and spectacle (Second ed.). Jackson: University Press of Mississippi. p. 5.ISBN978-1-4968-2662-6.
I get that an encyclopedia should not be too colloquial in its language, but the important thing is clarity and accuracy. There is a danger that people from other cultures or who speak English as a second language might not understand certain English expressions, and as long as we take that into account then we shouldn't be too uptight about "encyclopedic language".Kurzon (talk)17:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If people do not have English as a first language I would ask why they're on the English Wikipedia. Regardless, there is a certain standard of formal, neutral, and precise language that's expected here. Much of the language you've used is, in fact, not clear or accurate and instead too informal (and, in some instance, clearly POV). —Czello(music)11:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Czello here, "But wrestlers struggled to break into this new trend because spectators found wrestling boring to watch" isn't encyclopedic. English Wikipedia isn't Simple Wikipedia, the language structure isn't bound by having to make it simple or easy to read, rather the opposite, of course we shouldn't be making it hard to read, but if a reader speaks a second language and can't understand what has been edited, that is not on us the editors and it should never be.Lemonademan22 (talk)13:07, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, as you've been warned by people in the past, you do not need to compusively make sureyour writing is what's live. Stubbornly reinstating your own writing isn't constructive to the project. SeeWP:OWN. —Czello(music)11:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been reading some editions. For now, I agree Kurzon's editions are too focused on disparage pro wrestling, like " the public became aware of thefakery, but chose to play along because it was more entertaining than thereal thing."/ "real wrestling was boring to watch." Also, Czello, maybe "wrestling prohibitive to enjoyment" it's very very intellectual. --HHH Pedrigree (talk)18:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Emphasis on the "lengthy, slow nature" part being prohibitive to enjoyment. But if there's a better way of wording the "prohibitive to enjoyment" part I'm open to it if that's what we think we should alter. —Czello(music)07:20, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with that style of wording, yep! I'd probably say they "often didn't enjoy it" just so it's less definitive (I'm sure some people did enjoy it). I'll adjust the wordly shortly, though I'm at work at the moment so am limited. —Czello(music)09:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"But spectators found wrestling boring to watch and so wrestlers struggled to draw sizeable audiences."
What's wrong with this line? It's not vulgar or slang. Seriously. Thank God I'm allowed to quote what old writers said. If I need a loophole to your encyclopedic language standards, I can just quote someone's book. You can't alter a quote, that would be dishonest.Kurzon (talk)13:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As Lemonademan22 said above, this isn't the Simple English Wiki. "Boring" is too informal wording.
You have a weird standard because this kind of language appears in the books I've read, some of which were written by college professors. If it's good enough for a college professor's book, it's good enough for Wikipedia.Kurzon (talk)16:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is clearly against you here. Again, you haven't answered the question about what's the issue with the wording that myself and others have agreed on above? Is the issue simply that you didn't write it? —Czello(music)17:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Professional wrestling, often referred to as pro wrestling, or simply, wrestling"
This is completely unnecessary. We don't need to list all the short forms. It's obvious to anyone who spea,s English.Kurzon (talk)19:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.