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 than30 days may be auto-archived byLowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 1.

Hi all, a few thoughts spurred on by recent edit back-and-forths on Seth Rollins’ page, though this is predominately based on observations I’ve had for a while and a few topics I’ve seen raised in the archives previously. I wanted to raise some thoughts and suggested improvements I had to handling introductions for a wrestler’s page.

I appreciate this is provocative, but I believe many of the opening summaries for articles on wrestlers on this website are far too long and aren’t particularly useful for readers who aren’t familiar with the person already. Very often they go over the 400-500 suggested word length, list the belts/accomplishments have, and ultimately don't give the reader much insight to the person or their career outside of the scripted victories they've had. This can be enough in some cases, but I think there is more than be done here. Some of the below has been discussed previously, likewise the Style guide, but others I don't think have been. The below is also not aimed at one page or other in particular, with some pages having some of this issues while others not, just general trends I've observed.

* X (born ZZZZ), commonly known as Y, is a [nationality] professional wrestler currently signed to A. They are the current B champion in their nth reign.

Standardised across most wrestler pages, and is good! Quickly introduces the reader to the person, lets them know where they work, and if they’re a title holder.

* They also known by the nicknames A, B and C.

This can be more mixed. Nicknames are a different beast to stage names. I’ve found a few times on pages where these have been included but are relatively out of date - A was used under a previous gimmick but isn’t referenced anymore. Especially in WWE’s case, these are sometimes listed because they were used on TV but are very rarely used by anyone outside of the show. You’d never want to include “also known as The Icon” on Sting’s page for example. Unless you can prove a wrestler was widely called by this nickname at a given time, I don’t think they should be included.

* Is widely regarded as the greatest of their generation/all time

This gets added (or attempted to based on some pages’ edit history) to nearly any wrestler who's been a main eventer for 5+ years, especially in WWE. As was brought up on this talk page in summer, this often gets linked to a dodgy source like a Top 10 list, whereWP:OR orWP:SYNTH applies (also it's just aWP:NPOV violation usually). For example, Asuka’s page right now. I would absolutely agree she’s one of the greatest wrestlers around, but is the best proof for this really a link to a list WWE made and a top ten list of WWE women wrestlers? I’ve also seen a few instances where PWI’s 500 list gets used as the justification, which is arguably worse; those lists are grounded heavily on kayfabe performance in the year, so all this says is that in the promotion’s stories X wrestler was very/not very important. Unless we want to state Tyrus was a top 60 wrestler in the world in 2023, this doesn’t say anything.

To be honest, I don't think the majority of wrestler pages can make an assessment of a wrestlers reception, since they're usually just a long recap of the events in their career and rarely go into detail of how they were received at the time or after. Someone like Roman Reigns, with his whole article dedicated to his reception, would be fair to include a few lines in their opening. So would Hulk Hogan, whose bio discusses both Hulkamania and his several scandals. Wrestlers like Rollins and Moxley, who have detailed pages but touch very little on how they’ve been received by the public, shouldn’t. I imagine most sources on this topic would involve interviews with other wrestlers close to the wrestler, so ideally for such a claim you could only include this line if it comes from a series of sources not affiliated with the current wrestler’s promotion.

(MOS:CITELEAD also says you shouldn’t have any cites in your lead because everything there should be justified by the main body of text, but that’s a lost battle until there’s a serious effort to add reception and/or legacy sections to more wrestler bios)

* Wrestler is also a X champion, Y champion, Z champion, A champion, totalling N championships.

This is probably the biggest lead bloater I’ve noticed, though I suspect this might be my most controversial point I raise here. If the reader isn’t aware of the status of the belts listed, a giant list of belts is meaningless to them. If the reader is aware, then there’s nothing stopping them from going to the “Championship” section where all of this is listed. I’d argue as well that this goes double when we mention the wrestler is a Triple Crown/Grand Slam champion (which is an accomplishment I think should be mentioned due to relative rarity) - if they’re accomplished this, it’s repeated words to say they’ve won each belt that makes up the components of it.

If the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents, for a good chunk of wrestlers I’d say “has held multiple/X number of titles in their promotion [including X belt]” is enough; it gets the point across the wrestler is accomplished a lot (or not so much) in their time with the promotion without the reader having to read “championship” multiple times. For more prominent wrestlers, I would contend we really should be listing the ‘top’ tier of belts the wrestler has won in their biggest promotion(s - Moxley should absolutely have references to his world titles in WWE and AEW), with exceptions for notable achievements with lower belts. E.g Gunther being the longest reigning intercontinental champion, Miz and Jerico having a very high number of IC reigns). If the promotion has several belts at the wrestler’s top tier (eg, WWE’s many versions of a world championship) just summarise it as something like “has won multiple [tier] championships, most recently the X belt in 20XX”

* Sentences in the summary like: X is the only wrestler to hold the A, B, C, D championships. X is the only wrestler to win X and Y world titles in Z and A promotions. X holds the record for longest match. At Y days, X has the third-longest reign in the belt’s history

9 times out of 10 this is some random trivia and should be removed immediately. Only exceptions would be a record the promotion itself has frequently made a big deal out of, like most Royal Rumble eliminations or total time in the Rumble.

* Lack of anything that's not belt related

Professional wrestling is ultimately, a story based show written by a creative team. The wrestlers are there to put on a show for us all. If we look at the vast majority of wrestler articles, they are 80-90% just a recap of the wrestler's time in said shows. Surely it makes sense to include at least one of their most notable storylines? It literally has to be a sentence or so, but it seems a bit odd to list a wrestler's belt collection in a vacuum and nothing else; especially since wrestlers oftendon't feud with a belt on the line. This sort of quick 'heads-up' for the reader could be in a few ways, and depends on the wrestler. Maybe they're best known for their time in a stable, maybe some sort of blood-fued, maybe they were just consistently good at making the audience laugh. But if in each article we think it's important enough to list the majority of their career's work on a page, the very least we can do is point out where the more interesting parts are.

* Lack of anything out of wrestling

The opposite issue to much of the above! A relatively minor thing, but often a wrestler has done something outside the wrestling ring, and a summary should reference that if what they’ve done is important enough to mention elsewhere on the page. For most it would only be a line and nothing more, but I think it’s typically fine to include a line like “Outside of wrestling, X has also acted in a few shows/movies, most notably Y”. I would not bother including “appearing as themself” roles or anything related to wrestling video games - it’s a given that wrestlers will appear in a promotion’s game.

I think those are all my main thoughts at this time, and would be happy to discuss further to see if some sort of consensus could be built. Below I'd written up a quick example of how I see the summary for someone should ideally read.

John Smith, known professionally asSam Jones, is an American wrestler currently signed to TXT. He is the current TXT US Champion, in his second reign.

Prior to signing with TXT in 20XX, Smith wrestled in several independent promotions under the name John Adams, winning multiple championships, mostly notably the XYC world championship. After joining TXT, Jones has won their premier belt, the TXT World Championship, 2 times, amongst other titles. He is a 3-time TXT Grand Slam champion, as well as a TXT Rumble winner, and has headlined multiple TXT pay per view events, including TXT's annual premier event, TXT Ultra, four times. Known for his aggressive, submission-based workstyle, his most notable feuds were with Tim Daveson and Dave Timson, with both storylines revolving fighting for the TXT World Championship.

[Only if there was a ‘Reception’ section expanding this] During his career, Jones has been regularly praised for his technical in-ring ability. However, his professional conduct since 20XY has been routinely criticized, resulting in a negative reception from audiences and critics.

Outside of wrestling, Jones has also acted in several films, such asDawn of the Wrestler andOverdrive, the later of which he won the 20XZ Golden Tyre for his portrayal of Cage Williams.

RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk)23:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a huge statment. I agree on your points. The article is, according to our MoS, the key points of the career. So, the Lead is the summarie of the key points. Several times, we focus too much on promotions and titles, maybe it's not essential to include, IDK, Undertaker's Hardcore title reign or several Trios championships. Also, I feel several articles focus too much on matches and don't talk about context. What the wrestler meant at that time. Of course, this a case-by-case scenario, Hulk Hogan is not Akira Tozawa. Also, I don't like "X is the only wrestler to hold the A, B, C, D championships.", since most of the times are trivia. Include only if it's heavyly sources, enough WP:Weigh, like Ron Simmons being the first African American World Champion or Kenny Omega being the first gaijin to win the G1 Climax. --HHH Pedrigree (talk)19:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I love this idea. Ditch the trivia, summarize their importance to the industry. Holding lots of mid-card belts is not really about importance (unless it's some sort of record, and even then it should be an all-time one). Headlining the biggest shows of the year is. There may be something to be said for being the only person to win the top titles across all the major promotions in operation during their career—it speaks to the person being seen as a top draw across the industry and to the breadth of the wrestler's career—but it's not a substitute for an actual overview, and should only be mentioned if it's named as significant in a third-party source.oknazevad (talk)20:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Steve Austin. The lead mentions the million dollar title, world tag team and IC titles. Maybe, its better to talk about the World Championships, his feud with McMahon, the trilogy with The Rock... --HHH Pedrigree (talk)21:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly.oknazevad (talk)22:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to flag we should not be saying "current".McPhail (talk)21:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) Using terms like "current" and "currently" is MOS violation perWP:MOS,MOS:CURRENT, andMOS:REALTIME. We have already removed "currently" from many articles. 2) I'm against the addition of nicknames. Sorry, but they are all ridiculous; e.g. Goddess and Five Feet of Fury forAlexa Bliss, Piggy James forMickie James, The Spanish God forSammy Guevara, The Golden Draw forJake Crist, and many other nicknames. Mentioning them in the lead section is justWP:FANCRUFT, and they could lead to future problematic edits. --Mann Mann (talk)19:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2 Maybe we can include nicknames if there are highly notable. Now, it's a new nickname for every new character, but we had Hitman Bret Hart, Jake Snake Roberts, Rowdy Roddy Piper or Greg The Hammer Valentine. --HHH Pedrigree (talk)19:28, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about stuff likeThe Prodigy? Notable? --Mann Mann (talk)19:44, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick responses all! I wasn't aware ofMOS:CURRENT but I'm certainly not against leaving 'current' out of articles.

For nicknames I'm broadly agree with @Mann Mann in terms of gut feeling. Particularly in WWE every new wrestler gets given a new nickname as part of their brand (or even just when they get a new gimmick), and I'm not convinced the majority of fans use most of them causally (though as always, the use of a good source might argue the case for a given wrestler). I would er on the side of caution when including them in the lede unless they've stood the test of time (like the three examples @HHH Pedrigree gave), though we should include them when they become relevant in their career sections. So for Roxanne Perez I definitely wouldn't include 'The Prodigy' in her lede, but something like "Perez made her WWE debut on the April 15 episode of NXT Level Up where she defeated Sloane Jacobs. Commentators began referring to her as 'the Prodigy' in reference to her strong wrestling skills despite her young age." in her "Professional wrestling career" section would work to me.

I think outside of the nicknames, it appears we're in relative agreement for the rest of what I wrote. I'll leave this open until next weekend to allow more discussion, but perhaps if there's still general approval then I can add some of this to thestyle guide? There's already a good chunk written there, but that way it's a bit more of a formalized idea and we reference it when making summary changes.RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk)20:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look there's any more movement on this - I'll start typing a draft style guide addition later this week and share when completedRandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk)19:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomEditsForWhenIRemember a bit late but to note on not using "current", it was also decided that we should be usingTemplate:As of to notate how long a wrestler has been signed to a company. For example, "As of August 2024, Smith is signed to TXT", or conversely, "Smith has been signed to TXT since August 2024". I, as well as some other editors, have tried adding it to various articles and some are still there but some have been removed by random IPs or other editors who just don't know and we've had to add hidden notes to some so that editors stop removing it.JDC808♫09:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @JDC808, would definitely agree that's the way to go. I think unfortunately "currently" is just a very easy word to use when trying to keep info up to date, so it'll be hard to keep on top of that!

As an aside, a good example of the issues I'm hoping to tackle when I get to finish writing the style guide has reared itself on Cena's page, with a minor edit war going on over how to phrase the bit about him being "widely regarded as the greatest of all time". I've put a note on the talk page to discuss if anyone here is interested in discussing thathere. (Courtesy ping to @HHH Pedrigree and @oknazevad)RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk)22:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Rodman has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)00:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

not sure you'll get a great deal of interest from this side, he's not really a professional wrestler, just done a few high profile celebrity style appearances.Lee Vilenski^{(talk •contribs)}10:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This would be better suited forWP:BBALL.Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!}Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!}02:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring vandalism on the pagesSlammiversary (2025) andBound for Glory (2025), as can be verified by the history of both. Please provide some kind of protection, so that the vandal does not continue with his actions.~2025-32651-59 (talk)22:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussionhere regarding missing Women's Championships on the recognized World Championships list. There are a lot of Women's Championship missing that are recognized.Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!}02:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im having a debate on how long someone's reign was, one of the key elements is when do we start counting the length of their reign, when the match occurs or when the episode airs, assuming it's a recorded and broadcasted performance? Also this would apply to the end of their reign as well. If they lose the match tonight but it airs a week later when do we stop the reign?Sephiroth storm (talk)19:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was decided years ago that we go with real days. --HHH Pedrigree (talk)13:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sephiroth storm both. We notate both the date the match actually happened and what a company officially recognizes. Not counting non-televised indie shows, the majority of title changes today occur on live televised broadcasts, but on a rare occasion, some are prerecorded and air later and the company officially recognizes the date it airs (on rare occasions do they recognize the tape date).JDC808♫09:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, JDC explained better than me. I was saying we give preference to the real world number, not the kayfabe one. But we include both of them. --HHH Pedrigree (talk)10:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dolph Ziggler has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)22:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]